Part 1 Adopted Domestic Wastewater Management Plan

Transcription

MANSFIELD SHIRE
DOMESTIC WASTEWATER MANAGMENT PLAN
PILOT PROJECT
Part 1
BACKGROUND REPORT
Prepared by
Mansfield Shire Council
and adopted 19 August 2014
Table of Contents
Part 1 Mansfield Shire
Domestic Wastewater Management Plan
Pilot Project Background Report
GLOSSARY
LIST OF FIGURES, TABLES, MAPS AND APPENDICES
(i)
1.0
(v)
(v)
(x)
(xiv)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY & ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
1.1
1.2
1.3
2.0
OVERVIEW OF THE PROJECT
2.1
2.2
2.3
3.0
4.0
Summary
Key Findings
Acknowledgements
Why the Need for a Domestic Wastewater Management
Plan Pilot Project (DWMPPP)?
Purpose and Aims of the Mansfield Shire Domestic Wastewater
Management Plan Pilot Project
Our Pilot Project Partners
(ii)
1
1
4
6
BACKGROUND
7
3.1
3.2
3.3
7
8
9
The State Context
The Regional Context
The Local Context
KEY STAKEHOLDERS, THEIR ROLES & RESPONSIBILITIES
4.1
Ministers and Departments
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.1.1 Minister for Water
4.1.2 Minister for Environment and Climate Change
4.1.3 Minister for Health
4.1.4 Minister for Planning
Water Corporations and Authorities
4.2.1 Goulburn Murray Water (GMW)
4.2.2 Goulburn Valley Water (GVW)
4.2.3 Goulburn Broken Catchment Management Authority
(GBCMA)
Other Councils in our Region
Land Owners, Land Managers, Residents and Visitors
Peak Bodies
Mansfield Shire Council DWMPPP Background Report
11
11
11
11
12
12
13
13
13
14
14
15
15
16
5.0
CATCHMENT PROFILES & WATER QUALITY
17
5.1
5.2
17
5.3
5.4
5.5
5.6
5.7
5.8
6.0
7.0
Overview of the Goulburn Broken Basin
Potable Water and Sewage Services within the
Goulburn Broken Basin
5.2.1 Potable Water
5.2.2 Wastewater
5.2.3 New Connections
The Goulburn River Basin
5.3.1 Overview of the Upper Goulburn
5.3.2 Overview of the Lake Eildon Environs
5.3.3 Overview of the Upper Goulburn (Upper Delatite)
The Broken River Basin
5.4.1 Lake Nillahcootie
Other Catchments within Our Shire
Groundwater
Water Quality
5.7.1 Raw Water Quality
5.7.2 Raw Water Quality at Bonnie Doon (Lake Eildon)
5.7.3 Treated Water Quality Indicators
5.7.4 Discharge of Wastewater from GVW treatment plants
Key Findings
19
19
20
21
21
24
24
26
27
29
29
30
31
31
34
34
35
35
A PROFILE OF MANSFIELD SHIRE
37
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
6.5
37
39
41
46
50
Shire-wide Population, Dwelling and Household Data and Trends
Township Population, Dwelling, Household Data and Trends
Land Use and Zoning
Development Trends
Key Findings
AN OVERVIEW OF WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT
51
7.1
7.2
52
54
54
54
55
59
7.3
Number, distribution and type of systems
Sewered Areas
7.2.1 Mansfield township
7.2.2 Bonnie Doon
7.2.3 Merrijig to Sawmill Settlement Valley (Upper Delatite)
7.2.4 Capacity in the Sewer Network for Future Growth
7.2.5 Parameters for Providing Centralised Wastewater
Treatment Facilities in Unsewered Townships
Unsewered Townships and Development
7.3.1 Barjarg
7.3.2 James Street, Bonnie Doon
7.3.3 Goughs Bay
7.3.4 Howqua and Macs Cove
7.3.5 Jamieson
7.3.6 MacMillan Point/Howes Creek Road
7.3.7 Maindample
62
63
63
63
63
64
64
64
70
7.4
7.5
8.0
70
70
74
74
74
78
78
81
86
95
AN OVERVIEW OF OUR DWMPPP METHODOLOGY
97
8.1
8.2
8.3
99
99
8.4
8.5
8.6
8.7
9.0
7.3.8 Merton
7.3.9 Tolmie
7.3.10 Kevington
7.3.11 Gaffneys Creek
7.3.12 Woods Point
Research into the Installation, Management and Maintenance
of On-site Wastewater Management Systems in Mansfield Shire
7.4.1 Resident and Land Owner Survey Results
7.4.2 On-Site Domestic Wastewater System Installer and
Service Technician Survey Results
7.4.3 Land Capability Assessment Experts Survey Results
Key Findings
Project Governance
Preparation of the Background Report
Developing a New Approach to Risk Analysis in a Declared
Open, Potable Supply Catchment Area
Mansfield Shire Risk Analysis
8.4.1 Shire-wide and ‘Minor Catchment’ Risk Analysis
8.4.2 From ‘Minor Catchments’ to ‘Sub Catchments”
8.4.3 From ‘Sub Catchments’ to a Detailed Land Unit Analysis
Online Surveys of Residents/Land Owners, Land
Capability Consultants and Wastewater System
Installers/Service Technicians
Development of the DWMP and the Action & Resource Plan
Key Findings
100
106
106
107
107
107
108
109
CONSULTATION
110
9.1
9.2
9.3
9.4
9.5
110
111
111
112
9.6
9.7
The Steering Committee
The Technical Reference Group
Mansfield Shire Council Environment Advisory Committee
Minister for Water and Local Member for Benalla,
Dr Bill Sykes MP
Our Community, Land Capability Consultants and
Installation/Service Technicians
Briefing of Other Councils, Water Corporations and
Peak Bodies
10.0 LITERATURE REVIEW
10.1
Federal documents
10.1.1 Australian Standards for Domestic Wastewater
Treatment Units
10.1.2 Domestic Greywater Treatment Systems Accreditation
Guidelines 2005 (NSW Department of Health)
10.1.3 Australian Drinking Water Guidelines 2011
112
113
113
114
114
114
115
115
10.2
10.3
10.1.4 National and New Zealand Water Quality Management
Strategy and Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water
Quality
115
State documents
117
10.2.1 Legislation
117
10.2.1.1 Environment Protection Act 1970
117
10.2.1.2 Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008
118
10.2.1.3 Water Act 1989
119
10.2.1.4 Catchment and Land Protection Act 1994
119
10.2.1.5 Safe Drinking Water Act 2003 and
Regulations 2005
120
10.2.1.6 Planning and Environment Act 1987
(Amended 2013)
121
10.2.1.7 Subdivisions Act 1988
122
10.2.1.8 Local Government Act 1989
123
10.2.2 Strategies and Guidelines
123
10.2.2.1 State Environmental Protection Policy (Waters
of Victoria) 1988
123
10.2.2.2 State Environmental Protection Policy
(Groundwaters of Victoria) 1997
126
10.2.2.3 Victorian Waterway Management Strategy 2103
127
10.2.2.4 Our Water Our Future – Securing Our Water
Future Together (2007)
130
10.2.2.5 Ministerial Guidelines for Planning Permit
Applications in Open, Potable Water Supply
Catchment Areas (2012)
131
10.2.2.6 Code of Practice – Onsite Wastewater Management
(2013)
133
10.2.2.7 Information Bulletin on Land Capability
Assessments for Onsite Domestic Wastewater
Management(Publication 746.1 2003)
136
10.2.2.8 Victorian Land Capability Assessment Framework
(2012)
139
10.2.2.9 Water Cycle Planning Business Strategy (2102)
139
10.2.2.10 Water Industry Statement of Obligations (2012)
140
10.2.2.11 Victoria Planning Provisions (VPP’s)
142
10.2.2.12 Key Victorian and Civil Administrative Tribunal
Decisions Relating to both the Former and Current
Ministerial Guidelines for Planning Permit
Applications in Open, Potable Water Supply
Catchment Areas
145
Regional documents
148
10.3.1 Northern Region Sustainable Water Strategy (2009)
148
10.3.2 Goulburn Broken Regional Catchment Strategy 2013 – 19 (2013) 151
10.3.3 Draft Goulburn Broken Regional Waterway Strategy 2013-21
(2013)
154
10.3.4 Goulburn Broken Regional River Health Strategy 2005-15 (2005) 158
10.3.5 Goulburn Broken Water Quality Strategy (1996/7)
159
10.3.6 Guidelines for the Protection of Water Quality (2001)
160
10.4
10.3.7 Lake Eildon Land and On-Water Management Plan (2012)
10.3.8 Lake Nillahcootie Land and On-Water Management Plan (2011)
10.3.9 Hume Region Strategy 2010-2030 and the Central Hume
Regional Sub Plan 92013)
10.3.10 Draft Hume Region Growth Plan (2013)
Local documents
10.4.1 Council Plan 2013-17
10.4.2 Strategic Resource Plan 2013-17
10.4.3 2013/14 Annual Budget
10.4.4 2012/13 Annual Report
10.4.5 Mansfield Shire Draft Domestic Wastewater Management
Plan (2006)
10.4.6 Mansfield Shire Council Environment Priority Action Plan
2013-17
10.4.7 Report for Mansfield Basin Groundwater Resource Appraisal
(Catchment Conceptualisation) (2011)
10.4.8 Mansfield Shire Council Stormwater Management Priorities
and Projects
10.4.9 Municipal Strategic Statement (Mansfield Planning Scheme)
10.4.10 Local Planning Policy Framework (Mansfield Planning Scheme)
10.4.11 Zoning (Mansfield Planning Scheme)
10.4.12 Overlays (Mansfield Planning Scheme)
10.4.13 Murrindindi Shire Council Environment Strategy 2011-15
10.4.14 Murrindindi Planning Scheme
166
169
170
174
178
178
179
180
181
183
186
187
195
195
198
200
201
204
207
APPENDICES
Appendix 1
Appendix 2
Appendix 3
Appendix 4
Appendix 5
Appendix 6
Appendix 7
Appendix 8
Mansfield Shire DWMPPP Governance Charter
Ministerial Guidelines for Permit Applications in Open, Potable Water Supply
Catchments (November 2012)
Memorandum of Understanding between Goulburn Murray Water and
Mansfield Shire Council regarding the application of Guideline 1 of The
Ministerial Guidelines (December 2013)
2011 Census Data Statistical District Boundaries
Approaches for Risk Analysis of Development with On-site Wastewater
Disposal in Open Potable Water Catchments (April 2014) Dr Rob Edis
A Discussion Paper for the Initial Work Associated with the Preparation of a
Shire Domestic Wastewater Management Plan (April 2014) Larry White
Approaches for Risk Analysis of Development with On-site Wastewater
Disposal in Open Potable Water Catchments – A Review (March 2014) Dr
Robert H.M. van de Graaff, PhD, Van de Graaff and Associates Pty Ltd
Assessing the Efficacy of the Edis-White Risk Assessment Algorithm Using
Data from Howes Creek Road and Goughs Bay Sub Catchments (May 2014)
Paul Williams, Paul Williams and Associates Pty Ltd
REFERENCES
GLOSSARY
1:40 HA GUIDELINE
BGA
Guideline 1 of the Ministerial Guidelines for Permit Applications
in Open, Potable Water Supply Catchments (November 2012)
Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation
Council
Blue green algae
BLACKWATER
Toilet waste
CALP ACT
Catchment and Land Protection Act 1994
CODE OF PRACTICE
Code of Practice – Onsite Wastewater Management
(Environment Protection Authority February 2013)
DEPI
Department of Environment and Primary Industries
DTPLI
DWSC
Department of Transport, Planning and Local Infrastructure
DWMP
EPA
Domestic Wastewater Management Plan
Environment Protection Authority (Victoria)
EPHEMERAL WATERWAY
Waterways that are only present after heavy rainfall
GMW
Goulburn Murray Water
GREYWATER
GVW
LPPF
Water sourced from a shower, bath, hand basins, clothes
washing machine, laundry troughs or kitchen
Goulburn Valley Water
Local Planning Policy Framework (found in Planning Schemes)
MAV
Municipal Association of Victoria
MINISTERIAL GUIDELINES
Ministerial Guidelines for Planning Permit Applications in
Open, Potable Water Supply Catchments (November 2012)
Mansfield Shire Domestic Wastewater Management Plan Pilot
Project
Office of Living Victoria
ANZECC
MSDWMPPP
OLV
Declared Potable Water Supply Catchment under
the
OVERLAND FLOW
Path of the surface movement of runoff that is not a defined
channel or waterway
ROZEN DECISION
SES
Victorian and Civil Administrative Tribunal Decision in the Case
of Rozen vs Macedon Ranges (VCAT reference No.P86/2006)
State Environmental Protection Policy (Waters of Victoria)
1988
Social Economic System
SEWAGE
Combined grey and blackwater
SPPF
State Planning Policy Framework (found in Planning Schemes)
STEERING COMMITTEE
Project Steering Committee
Project Technical Reference Group
SEPP (W OF V)
TRG
VPPS
Victorian Planning Provisions
VCAT
Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal
(i)
LIST OF MAPS, FIGURES AND TABLES
MAPS
Map 1
Map 2
Map 3
Map 4
Map 5
Map 6
Map 7
Map 8
Map 9
Map 10
Map 11
Map 12
Map 13
Map 14
Map 15
Map 16
Map 17
Map 18
Map 19
Map 20
Map 21
Map 22
Map 23
Map 24
Map 25
Map 26
Map 27
Map 28
Map 29
Map 30
Map 31
Map 32
Map 33
Map 34
Map 35
Map 36
Map 37
Map 38
Map of Declared Special Water Catchments Across Victoria
Declared Catchments within Mansfield Shire
Land Use Within the Goulburn Broken Catchment
Goulburn Valley Water’s Network of Regulated and Unregulated Water
Supplies in Mansfield and Murrindindi Shires
Boundaries of the Goulburn Broken Basin & Monitoring Points
Stream Condition Index Overview for Rivers Within Mansfield Shire –
Goulburn Basin
Land Use Categories – Lake Eildon Environs Declaration 1977
Boundaries of the Broken Basin and Monitoring Points
Stream Condition Index Overview for Rivers within Mansfield Shire – Broken
Basin
Upper Goulburn Groundwater Management Area
Mansfield Shire
Small Lakeside Pockets of Residential 1 Zoned Land Outside Bonnie Doon
Township
Mansfield Planning Scheme Zoning Map
Special Use Zone, Mountain Bay
Existing Dwellings and Sewered Areas
Mansfield Township Reticulated Sewerage Network and Surrounding
Unsewered Dwellings
Bonnie Doon Township Reticulated Sewerage Network and Surrounding
Unsewered Dwellings
Merrijig to Sawmill Settlement (Upper Delatite) Reticulated Sewerage
Network and Surrounding Unsewered Dwellings
Location of Considered Development Areas
Barjarg – Unsewered Development and Zoning
Goughs Bay – Unsewered Development and Zoning
Howqua/Macs Cove – Unsewered Development and Zoning
Jamieson – Unsewered Development and Zoning
MacMillan Point, Mansfield – Unsewered Development and Zoning
Maindample – Unsewered Development and Zoning
Merton – Unsewered Development and Zoning
Tolmie – Unsewered Development and Zoning
Kevington – Unsewered Development and Zoning
Gaffney’s Creek – Unsewered Development and Zoning
Woods Point – Unsewered Development and Zoning
Sugarloaf Interconnector Pipeline
The Northern Region Sustainable Water Strategy Map
Existing Settlements in Mansfield and Murrindindi Shires
Future Urban Growth – Central Hume Region
Future Urban Growth – Lower Hume Region
Topography of Mansfield Shire
Rainfall
Average Bore Yield
(ii)
Map 39
Map 40
Map 41
Groundwater and Surface Water
Surface and Groundwater Licences
Environmental Significance Overlays (ESO’s 1 and2)
FIGURES
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7
Figure 8
Figure 9
Figure 10
Figure 11
Figure 12
Figure 13
Figure 14
Figure 15
Figure 16
Figure 17
Figure 18
Figure 19
Figure 20
Figure 21
Figure 22
Stakeholders in an Open Potable Water Supply Catchment Area
Reporting Arrangements to various Ministers
Index of Stream Condition – Goulburn Basin
Index of Stream Condition – Broken Basin
Planning Permit Application Numbers 2005-10
Planning Permit Activity 2009/10 – 2013/14
Certifications Lodged 2005 - 10
Certifications Lodged 2008 – June 2013
Monthly Comparison of Building Permits Issued for Dwellings 2005 to 2009
Monthly Comparison of Building Permits Issued for Dwellings 2009 – October
2013
On-site Wastewater System Applications Lodged 2005 - 09
On-site Wastewater System Applications Lodged 2009-13
Overview of the DWMPPP Methodology
Framework for Applying the ANZ Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water
Quality
Process for Identifying Regional Priorities for Waterways
Goulburn Broken Regional Catchment Strategy Objectives Hierarchy
Upland Slopes and Southern Forests Social-Economic Systems (SES’s)
Strategic Priorities – Goulburn Broken Water Quality Cooperation Group
Budget Allocation Across Major Program Areas
Stormwater Drainage Investment 2103/14
Environment and Planning Highlights 2012/13
Human Resource Allocations for Planning, Environment and Environmental
Health
TABLES
Table 1
Table 2
Table 3
Table 4
Table 5
Table 6
Table 7
Table 8
Table 9
Table 10
Table 11
Table 12
Declared Special Water Catchments in the Goulburn Broken Catchment Area
Water Treatment Processes Applied by GVW in Mansfield & Murrindindi
Shires
Annual Connections to Reticulated Sewer & Water
Summary of Index of Stream Condition Ratings for the Goulburn Basin
Extract from the Government Gazette’s Lake Eildon Environs Declaration
Summary of Index of Stream Condition Ratings for the Broken Basin
Compliance of Water Quality at the Lake Eildon Outlet in Comparison to
SEPP (2003) and ANZECC (2000) Water Quality Guidelines
Incidents Potentially Affecting Water Quality in Lake Eildon 2012/13
Summary of Compliance with Treated Water Quality Standards 2010/11 –
2012/13
Key Population and Dwelling Data for Mansfield and Murrindindi Shires 2011
- 2031
Dwelling Structure – Occupied Private Dwellings 2011 Census
Household Composition – Occupied Private Dwellings 2011 Census
(iii)
Table 13
Table 14
Table 15
Table 16
Table 17
Table 18
Table 19
Table 20
Table 21
Table 22
Table 23
Table 24
Table 25
Table 26
Table 27
Table 28
Table 29
Table 30
Table 31
Table 32
Table 33
Table 34
Table 35
Table 36
Table 37
Table 38
Table 39
Table 40
Table 41
Table 42
2011 Census Statistical Division Data – Household Size and Composition,
Dwelling Type and Number of Bedrooms
Planning Permit Application Totals for Dwellings, Dwelling Extensions and
Subdivisions 2009/10 and 2012/13
On-site Wastewater Management System Applications, Permits to Install and
Certificates to Use Issued 2009 – October 2013
Details of the Identified Residential Development Areas
Details of the Identified Non-Residential Development Areas
Sewer Servicing Strategies
Breakdown of Types of LCA’s Prepared by Survey Respondents
Time Taken to Prepare Different Types of LCA’s
Work Undertaken to Prepare a LCA for a Single Dwelling on a Lot
Work Undertaken to prepare a LCA for a Subdivision
Work Undertaken to Prepare a LCA for the Rezoning of Land
Code of Practice Setback Distances for Primary and Secondary Treatment
Plants and Disposal/Irrigation Areas
Suggested Risk Rating Matrix
Key Waterways in the Goulburn Broken Catchment by Management Unit
Actions Relating to the Prevention of Damage from Inappropriate
Development and Other Activities
Action Plan for Sewerage Treatment Plants
Guidelines for Septic Tanks and Package Treatment Pants (<5000l/day)
Guidelines for Urban Development and the Protection of Water Quality
Minimum Setbacks from Waterways and Storages
Land and On-Water Management Plan Objectives and Actions Relating to
Domestic Wastewater Management – Lake Eildon
Land and On-Water Management Plan Objectives and Actions Relating to
Domestic Wastewater Management – Lake Nillahcootie
Hume Strategy Themes, Directions and Actions Relating to Domestic
Wastewater Management and Water Quality
Estimated Resident Population 2011-31
Future Work to Deliver Key Regional Actions Relevant to the DWMP
Council Plan Indicators Relevant to the DWMP
Cost of Program Areas Related to the DWMP
High Priority Towns ads Assessed Under the Country Towns Water and
Sewerage Supply Program
Preliminary Assessment of Potential Wastewater Management Threats in
High Risk Townships
Annual Water Balances for Mansfield Sub Catchments
Murrindindi Shire Environment Strategy Actions Relating to Wastewater
Management
(iv)
1) Executive Summary &
Acknowledgements
1.1
Summary
The Mansfield Shire Domestic Wastewater Management Plan Pilot Project has been a
collaboration between Council, Goulburn Murray Water, Goulburn Valley Water, Murrindindi
Shire Council, the Environment Protection Authority and the Department of Environment and
Primary Industries/Office of Living Victoria.
Input and assistance has also been received from other municipalities undertaking their own
DWMP such as Towong, Mitchell, Pyrenees, Wangaratta and Benalla. Indeed, information
has been openly shared between councils and water corporations across the State as a
means of working through how to best respond to the new policy environment in which
wastewater management and planning policy operates within declared potable water
catchments.
Background
This Background Document provides the basis for the development of the Domestic
Wastewater Management Plan by identifying the wastewater management issues at play
within Mansfield Shire, along with catchment management/water quality considerations for
our declared potable water catchments (some of which extend beyond our municipal
boundaries).
The preparation of a DWMP by Councils is a requirement of SEPP Waters of Victoria to
ensure that the waterways and groundwater are not contaminated by discharges of domestic
wastewater. This project aims to deliver on Mansfield Shire Council’s obligations under
SEPP WoV, as well as to develop a risk based methodology to the assessment of future
development applications within open, potable catchments. This DWMP has also been
created with the provisions of Guideline 1 of the Ministerial Guidelines for Planning Permit
Applications in Open, Potable Water Supply Catchments November 2012 in mind. With this
in mind, the purpose of this project is threefold;
• firstly, to prepare a domestic wastewater management plan for the Shire in partnership
with local water corporations and the EPA that identifies how Council and other key
stakeholders will manage on-site domestic wastewater to better mitigate any potential
impacts on public health, the environment, amenity and potable water supplies;
• secondly, to provide strategic justification for the preparation of amendments to the
Mansfield (and possibly the Murrindindi) Planning Scheme to ensure wastewater
management and catchment management/potable water quality issues are reflected in
local planning policies and overlay controls; and
• thirdly, to provide an example for other councils and water corporations as to how
wastewater management and potable water quality/catchment issues can be married
into the one plan in response to the new Ministerial Guidelines.
To assist with the last objective Mansfield Shire received a $50,000 grant from Water
Minister, the Hon Peter Walsh, who in turn charged Council with the responsibility of
providing an example as to how council could work with local water corporations to tackle
domestic wastewater and potable water quality issues.
(v)
Stakeholder Roles and Responsibilities
At the commencement of the project, through the literature review and development of a
profile of our catchments, it became clear that there is a wealth of information available at
State and regional level in regards to legislation, guidelines, strategies and water quality.
It was also apparent that there is a clear expectation from Government that councils, water
corporations, catchment management authorities and land owners/managers must form
stronger partnerships to tackle catchment management and water quality issues in a
cooperative and coordinated way. This DWMP supports, and implements, this shift in
approach.
Many of the state and regional level documents relating to catchment management and
water quality identify the potential impacts unsewered development can have on water
quality, and other beneficial uses, if not actively managed by all stakeholders.
It is clear that councils have a legal and moral responsibility to develop, and implement, a
DWMP. The SEPP (Waters of Victoria) states that councils need to prepare such a plan in
consultation with water authorities and its community. It also reinforces the need for councils
to consider the objectives of the SEPP when making decisions under the Planning and
Environment Act. A key aim of the SEPP is the prevention of discharge of domestic
wastewater beyond property boundaries. In doing so the expectation is that councils and
water corporations will put strategies in place, through a DWMP, to actively manage
wastewater including monitoring land owner compliance with permits and legislation.
State legislation, the SEPP and the EPA Code of Practice for Onsite Wastewater
Management identify the roles of other key stakeholders; water corporations play a role in
the provision of reticulated infrastructure, water quality monitoring, wastewater/potable water
treatment and programs to mitigate the impact of wastewater on water quality and other
beneficial uses. Land owners and occupiers must implement responsible land management
practices that will not impact on public health, the environment or broader amenity while
ensuring that their wastewater systems are legal, compliant with permits and maintained so
that they operate effectively. The EPA are a watchdog to ensure the provisions of SEPPs,
the Environment Protection Act and the Code of Practice – Onsite Wastewater Management
(2013) are adhered to.
Importantly, state and regional documents highlight that a DWMP is the key risk
management tool to address water quality issues within a municipality, particularly in areas
where unsewered development is located within a declared special water catchment; it is the
means through which stakeholders can prioritise, resource and implement the required
monitoring and management improvements to reduce the human and environmental risks.
A DWMP is also seen to be critical in identifying future development potential and avoiding
future land uses which can be proven to pose a significant risk to public health and beneficial
uses.
Catchment Profiles and Water Quality
Turning to catchment management and water quality issues the available data indicates that,
due to its location at the headwaters of the Goulburn and Broken Catchments, water quality
across Mansfield and Murrindindi Shire is relatively good (particularly when compared to
downstream communities). Having said that, waterways such as Fords Creek and the
Broken River near Lake Nillahcootie are rated as being in a very poor/poor condition
respectively according to the latest Stream Condition Index. It is noted that other rivers,
such as the Delatite, are close to having their condition rating being downgraded.
(vi)
Issues of raw water quality have arisen on occasions during the past decade in relation to
Lake Eildon and levels of nitrogen, turbidity, ammonia and algal blooms. How much these
non compliances are directly attributable to the escape of domestic wastewater beyond
property boundaries is undefined. At the same time it must be noted that many of the
indicators for both raw and treated water quality are the best throughout the Broken and
Goulburn catchments.
A Profile of Our Shire
The issue of the level of impact domestic wastewater has on raw water quality within our
potable catchments is one that must be addressed by all stakeholders, particularly because
the growth experienced across Mansfield and Murrindindi Shires over the past decade are
set to continue; Mansfield alone is set to see a population increase of a further 27% by 2031
and a 38% increase in the number of dwellings.
In recent years our population has grown slightly faster than this predicted rate, with growth
of between 1.5 – 2% per annum. Population growth has translated to an average of 80
applications per annum for the installation and use of on-site domestic wastewater systems
being lodged with Council; this figure provides some quantification of the level of unsewered
development that may be expected in the future.
An Overview of Domestic Wastewater Management
While the bulk of Mansfield’s population is located within sewered areas, predominantly the
Mansfield township, demand for rural living and lakeside township development is expected
to remain high. Furthermore, the majority of areas where there is vacant land zoned for
residential development are unsewered.
One example of this is the township of Goughs Bay, where there is theoretical potential for
several hundred more dwellings constructed on or near the banks of Lake Eildon. Creative
solutions are required, therefore, to facilitate future development as the likelihood of
reticulated sewer being connected to this town have been, even in recent times, said to be
incredibly remote. The need to address this issue was one of the primary reasons as to why
Goughs Bay will be a key focus in the DWMP document.
Census data from 2011 also reinforces another phenomenon which is particular to Mansfield
Shire – the very high percentage of holiday homes. Around 50% of our housing stock is not
permanently occupied; an extreme example is Bonnie Doon where around 68% of housing
stock is dedicated to holiday homes/temporary accommodation.
When asked in an online survey about how to best manage wastewater effluent for holiday
homes, our local land capability experts and wastewater system installers/technicians
indicated that actions specifically targeting holiday homes are required, such as education
programs for visitors and land owners about maintaining their system. The main problem is
that often these systems will sit dormant for many weeks and then face short periods of
significant increases in effluent loads. Aerated treatment plants pose a particular problem
for such dwellings as there is no constant movement of effluent through the system.
Property owners may also be more prone to not maintaining their system given they are
absent for most of the year and they often have little knowledge of what their system
requires to operate effectively.
Of course, the surge in occupation of holiday homes is often accompanied by high level use
of lakeside camp sites and caravan parks, of which there are a number of scattered across
the Shire but particularly around Lake Eildon. The Summer holidays can, at its peak, see
the Shire’s population triple for a short period of time. This poses another challenge in
(vii)
relation to the management of wastewater; although ablution blocks for campsites on Crown
Land are outside the realm of this DWMP, those on caravan parks are not and must also be
considered as part of this project.
The other key issue raised by settlements such as Goughs Bay, Bonnie Doon, Howqua and
Macs Cove in particular are the number of ‘old style’ septic systems that merely treat black
water, as well as other systems over 15 years old that are designed to treat grey and black
water but would not meet today’s EPA standards. These systems, unfortunately, are in the
majority within these settlements. The challenge for this DWMP is to identify how Council,
and our Project Partners, can effectively address this issue in the absence of any sound
legislative tool to do so. Current wastewater related legislation is relatively silent on how to
deal with these systems and at present our Environmental Health Team have to rely on
public nuisance clauses of the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008 should wastewater be
escaping property boundaries.
Overview of our DWMP Pilot Project Methodology
As a means of addressing the domestic wastewater management issues raised by the
unsewered settlements, which lie in a declared special water supply catchment, it was
important to prepare a risk analysis tool that scientifically measured possible impacts of onsite systems on water quality, public health, amenity and the environment (including
waterway health).
The grant from the Government was used to acquire the services of Dr Rob Edis and Larry
White to undertake this task (see Appendices 5 and 6). This led to the development of a risk
analysis tool which stepped through from a Shire-wide analysis to a sub catchment analysis
and then an individual site analysis. These risk analysis tools are largely based around the
development of geographical information systems data layers (such as soil type, slope,
proximity to potable water assets) to determine whether an area is high, medium or low risk.
It was imperative that these tools be independently reviewed prior to their application. To
this end Council commissioned Dr Robert van de Graff (see Appendix 7) to undertake a peer
review of the Edis Discussion Paper.
The White sub catchment risk analysis tool and Edis individual site analysis tool and
algorithm were also tested in the field by Mr Paul Williams as a means of measuring their
efficacy (see Appendix 8).
Dr van de Graaff found the models and supporting science to be sound. He did, however
suggest minor changes which, in addition to the findings of the Williams field work, resulted
in the splitting of the original Edis-White joint Discussion Paper.
Paul Williams also found that three factors within the White sub catchment model should be
modified or deleted. He also provided a methodology for the development of land unit risk
maps for each sub catchment based on soil type, soil thickness and slope.
The Edis algorithm was also tested against forty land capability assessments and scientific
data prepared by Paul Williams for properties within Mansfield Shire and was found to be
sound and accurate in all cases.
The above work has, therefore, resulted in the development of a four staged risk analysis
model which enables Council to analyse risk from a shire-wide perspective to that of an
individual site.
(viii)
Consultation
The results of the residents/land owner, land capability consultant and local installers/service
technician online surveys reinforced the perceptions of the Steering Committee and
Technical Reference Group of the key issues and challenges to be addressed by this
DWMP. The surveys proffered some useful suggestions as to how Council could support
these stakeholders in improving system management, levels of knowledge about
maintaining a system and streamlining/simplifying the land capability assessment process.
One of the key findings, however, was the need to increase the monitoring of system
maintenance and to ensure compliance with permit conditions and EPA standards. The
challenge for Council and our Project Partners is how we can seek improvements for older
systems which are not bound by a permit or EPA standards. Despite this issue, all three
stakeholder groups agreed that increased enforcement of legislative requirements would
result in benefits to local amenity, the environment, public health and water quality.
It is also clear that there is a very strong and productive relationship between Council’s
Environmental Health Unit, land capability consultants and local technicians which will be of
great assistance in the implementation of the DWMP Action Plan. Indeed the knowledge
and day to day activities of these professionals is a great vehicle through which to improve
land owner knowledge about wastewater system operation and maintenance.
As mentioned in the introduction, this DWMP Background Report will form the strategic
justification for amendments to the Mansfield Planning Scheme to improve local planning
controls and policy around the management of wastewater and impacts on water quality.
Literature Review
State, regional and local planning documents highlight the need for a coordinated approach
to planning controls to better manage development and to mitigate potential adverse impacts
on waterways and water quality. Although Mansfield and Murrindindi’s Municipal Strategic
Statements have a strong water quality focus, neither Planning Scheme provides for a water
quality/catchment protection local planning policy.
Opportunities exist to review planning controls, particularly around Lake Eildon, to ensure
consistency between the two Shires as part of an inter-agency approach to broader
catchment and development management issues. To this end, actions will be included in
the DWMP to identify the types of improvements that can be made to the Planning Scheme
and what further work should be undertaken to ensure planning schemes reinforce the
DWMP.
Overall this DWMP Pilot Project represents a real opportunity to bring together state,
regional and local initiatives and responsibilities to provide a comprehensive but well
balanced Action Plan that will enable progressive improvements to the management of
domestic wastewater to be made across Mansfield Shire over the next 5 years. It is also a
means through which the Planning and Environmental Health professions can be better
integrated as a means of streamlining approvals systems and achieving better planning
outcomes.
(ix)
1.2
Key Findings
The following is a list of all of the key findings contained within this Background Report.
Section 5 – Catchment Profiles & Water Quality
 A very high proportion of testing samples collected by both GMW (for raw water) and
GVW (for treated water) show compliance with all water quality standards, including
‘aesthetic’ parameters, within both Mansfield and Murrindindi Shires;
 Many indicators for both raw water and water in the piped water reticulation network are
the best in the region for towns within Mansfield and Murrindindi Shires, particularly in
the upper catchment around the Upper Delatite;
 Raw water quality at the Bonnie Doon offtake point is lower than that at Lake Eildon,
although still highly compliant with raw water quality standards;
 A consistent non compliance over the past decade for Lake Eildon has been the level of
nitrogen, although it is not clear how much this is due to ineffective on-site domestic
wastewater management or the agricultural use of land that predominates in the
catchment;
 Other non compliances were turbidity exceeding SEPP WoV guidelines in 2004,
ammonia exceeding ANZECC guidelines in 2010 and total nitrogen exceeding SEPP
guidelines in 2004, 07, 08 and 11;
 Warnings for potentially harmful algal blooms were issued by GMW for Lake Eildon in
2004/05, 2010/11 and 2011/12; and
 As part of approved operations on various occasions in times of excessive rainfall
treated wastewater has been discharged by GVW (subject to strict conditions) into
waterways within Mansfield and Murrindindi Shires.
Section 6 – A Profile of Our Shire
•
•
•
•
•
The significant increase in population (27%) and dwellings (38%) by 2031 means
that the development pressures experienced across our townships and rural living
areas in the past decade will continue. The need to ensure such growth is mindful of
impacts on the environment and potable water catchments is, therefore, imperative;
While the bulk of our population resides within sewered areas there is a need to ensure
the use of this infrastructure is maximised when accommodating future growth and to
work with water corporations as to how to best service our future population in relation to
wastewater management;
The high percentage of holiday homes in lakeside settlements requires careful
consideration and potential targeted action when developing the DWMP Action Plan;
Unsewered areas with a significant amount of vacant land zoned for residential
development should be carefully reviewed as a means of identifying development
parameters and possible wastewater solutions, with a particular focus on Goughs Bay as
this is the area subject to high levels of development pressure; and
Council and Project Partners need to consider management strategies for unsewered
camping grounds and tourism facilities located on the shores of Lakes Eildon and
Nillahcootie separately to the preparation of the DWMP.
(x)
Section 7 – Domestic Wastewater Management Profile
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Around 80 wastewater system permit applications are lodged per annum;
There are extensive reticulated sewer networks in Mansfield, Bonnie Doon and along the
Merrijig to Sawmill Settlement valley that need to be taken advantage of through
strategic planning policy to ensure as many dwellings as possible are connected to
reticulated sewerage (including existing dwellings with on-site systems);
Townships/settlements such as Jamieson, McMillan Point, Kevington, Gaffneys Creek,
Woods Point and Howqua have limited opportunities for future development due to a
lack of vacant land and constraints including zoning, lot size, bushfire risk and proximity
to waterways;
Goughs Bay, Bonnie Doon, Merrijig, Sawmill Settlement, Mansfield and Merton have
relatively significant areas of residentially zoned vacant land. Development pressures
are expected to remain highest in lakeside townships and rural living areas such
as Goughs Bay and Bonnie Doon, as well as central Mansfield, which is a key
consideration for the DWMP;
There was a basic level of understanding about on-site systems and their
management within the small resident/land owner survey population, however
there are significant opportunities for education campaigns to raise levels of
awareness and compliance with EPA requirements and maintenance schedules;
Respondents to the Resident and Land Owner Survey reported a high proportion of
systems were serviced only after signs of system failure were evident to users;
Installers and servicers of on-site domestic wastewater systems indicate that between 60
to 70% of land owners do not comply with Council requirements for the management of
their systems;
There is a strong and productive relationship between Council’s Environmental Health
Unit and local installers/service technicians and LCA experts;
There are a sizeable number of pre 1990 septic systems across the Shire that do
not benefit from modern management plans or robust enforcement opportunities
under current legislation. The DWMP must deal with how to best address these
ageing systems, particularly those which only deal with black water, with the grey
water being directly dispersed onto the site;
Local on-site wastewater system installers and service technicians play an important role
in educating land owners and residents about how to best maintain their system. There
are opportunities for Council and our Project Partners to utilise this professional group’s
expertise and activity within the Shire to implement key components of the DWMP,
particularly around compliance with maintenance schedules and encouraging people to
enter into service contracts;
LCA experts support the notion of templates for different types of applications in
areas of different risk levels and standard information on system design and local
attributes as a means of standardising LCA’s and streamlining the approvals
process;
While land owners/residents are wary of paying additional contributions for Council to
enforce wastewater management permit requirements there is an acknowledgement
across all three survey populations that increased permit compliance and monitoring
of system maintenance by Council would be beneficial to public health, the
environment, beneficial waterway uses and potable water quality;
Our local experts provided some useful suggestions as to possible actions to improve
compliance with legislation and permit requirements, including the provision of reminders
to residents/land owners when maintenance reports and/or desludging is due;
(xi)
Section 7 – Domestic Wastewater Management Profile (cont’d)
•
•
Relatively simple actions relating to education campaigns and provision of LCA
templates can be included in the DWMP Action and Resource Plan for to quickly achieve
what could be significant gains in raising awareness about effective wastewater
management practices and quality, targeted LCA’s; and
GVW advise that the costs of introducing reticulated wastewater infrastructure, including
cluster systems, within currently unsewered townships is incredibly costly at around $25
– 30,000 per lot. They advise that all costs must be recovered from benefitting land
owners and there are no longer any State Government subsidised programs to sewer
townships.
Section 8 – Our DWMP Pilot Project Methodology
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
It was important to establish a robust governance structure for this project, with clearly
defined communication channels, roles and responsibilities with our five project partners
via a Governance Charter, Steering Committee and Technical Reference Group;
The use of the OLV Grant to commission expert input from Dr Robert Edis and Mr Larry
White into the development of our risk analysis methodology has resulted in a
comprehensive, multi levelled risk analysis tool that focuses on the cumulative
and individual impacts of on-site systems on potable water quality and other
beneficial uses;
The White sub catchment risk matrix contains a broad range of risk factors,
attributes and ratings that may impact on water quality, waterway health, amenity,
and pubic health;
A key risk factor is the consideration of the properties of soil orders and their
likely ability to attenuating risk associated with on-site wastewater disposal;
Soil orders potentially suitable for high dwelling densities are Vertosols, Chromosols,
Ferrosols, Dermosols and many Kandosols;
The scientific analyses undertaken by our four experts support the notion that lots
between 0.2 and 2 hectares are at the highest risk of not being able to attenuate
wastewater within property boundaries unless measures are taken to ensure < 5%
failure rates for on-site systems;
Dr Edis supports the development of an education program to assist holiday home
owners to appropriately manage their septic system and that intensive monitoring of
septic systems during peak holiday periods should be undertaken;
Dr van de Graaff’s peer review found the Edis discussion paper to be scientifically
sound;
The peer review also made recommendations for a small amount of additional work,
which led to the de-amalgamation of Edis and Whites’ work into two discussion papers,
the latter of which contains a number of amendments;
The in-field testing of the White sub catchment model, the Edis individual site risk
analysis tool and algorithm by Paul Williams in the Goughs Bay and Howes Creek Road
sub catchments led to recommendations for minor changes to the White sub
catchment risk analysis tool;
Williams also tested the Edis algorithm for an individual additional on-site domestic
wastewater system against 40 land capability assessments and found the algorithm to
be sound in all instances; and
Overall the scientific work undertaken by our experts will enable Council to develop a
comprehensive risk analysis methodology to scientifically measure risk and, in turn,
guide good decision making into the future.
(xii)
Section 9 – Consultation
•
•
While being labour intensive for Council and our Project Partners, the circulation of
individual sections of the Background Report meant that our Partners had a real
opportunity to shape the document. This has led to the creation of a well rounded
document that covers all viewpoints. Council has also had confidence that the project
was tracking in the right direction all throughout the eight month project timeline; and
Given the nature of this Pilot Project measures have been taken throughout the project
to keep Council, the Shire’s Environment Advisory Committee, other councils and water
corporations informed of the project’s progress and to also share our expert advice with
others.
Section 10 – Literature Review
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
There is significant breadth and depth in documents at all levels in relation to wastewater
management, water quality, catchment management and development control;
There has been a clear shift in focus at State and Regional level to a multi agency
approach based on cooperation and coordination of effort in relation to water
quality related issues. Most documents underline the need to protect and enhance
water quality and better manage water as a natural resource;
Regional level documents, particularly those produced by the GBCMA, focus on all
agencies and stakeholders taking responsibility for actively implementing programs and
works to address water quality issues using their legislated powers but doing so in a
coordinated and cooperative manner;
While water quality within Mansfield and Murrindindi Shires is relatively good compared
to downstream municipalities, there are rivers at risk of having their overall heath rating
being downgraded if coordinated action is not taken in the short and medium term (Fords
Creek in particular);
Improved wastewater management is only one of a number of strategies which should
be employed across our Shires to improve water quality;
The potential impact of unsewered development on water quality and beneficial uses is
identified in several documents as a significant risk if not actively managed by all
stakeholders. Overall, there is currently a lack of comprehensive, coordinated systems
and management practices to effectively manage wastewater issues;
A DWMP is highlighted as a key risk management tool to address water quality
issues within a municipality, particularly in areas where unsewered development
is located within a declared special water supply catchment; it allows stakeholders
to prioritise, resource and implement the required monitoring/improvements to reduce
the human and environmental risks from existing on-site wastewater management.
A DWMP is also seen to be critical in identifying future development potential and
avoiding land use activity which can be proven to pose a significant risk to public
health and beneficial uses;
Domestic wastewater management in Mansfield Shire is complicated by the large
percentage of holiday homes (50% of properties are temporary residences only)
and the significant increases in population over long weekends and during school
holidays, particularly the Christmas/New Year break where the population of the
Shire can almost triple;
State, regional and local planning documents highlight the need for a coordinated
approach to planning controls to better manage development and to mitigate potential
adverse impacts on waterways and water quality. Although Mansfield and Murrindindis’
Municipal Strategic Statements have a strong water quality focus neither Planning
Scheme provides for a water quality/catchment protection local planning policy.
(xiii)
Section 10 – Literature Review (cont’d)
•
•
Opportunities exist to review planning controls, particularly around Lake Eildon, to
ensure consistency between the two Shires as part of an inter-agency approach to
broader catchment and development management issues; and
There is increased information sharing and cooperation within MSC’s internal
departments,
between
councils,
government
departments
and
water
agencies/corporations but there is great scope to improve relationships and implement
jointly funded projects to address water quality and catchment management issues. This
DWMP provides one such opportunity.
1.2
Acknowledgements
The role of our Project Partners has already been mentioned in Section 1.1. The
professionalism, knowledge and often patience of our Steering Committee and Technical
Reference Group members has ensured that this project has continued to progress in a
positive way. While it must be said that there have been times where differences in opinion,
and the potentially competing objectives of stakeholders, have been at play in the end a
compromise has always been agreed to. Furthermore, the feedback received on every
section of this Report from our Project Partners has produced what we believe is a well
rounded, impartial document.
Council wishes to also thank the Managing Directors of our water corporations, Mr Gavin
Hanlon (GMW) and Peter Quinn (GVW) for supporting this project through the allocation of
their officer’s time and through providing their own approval for each section of this Report.
The efforts of Mr Neil Repacholi, GMW’s Planning Team Leader, in overseeing the TRG and
sourcing options for suitably qualified independent consultants to work on the risk analysis
model must also be acknowledged.
The support of State agencies has helped guide this document and enabled us to work
through potentially conflicting stakeholder objectives through the provision of a broader,
state-wide perspective. DEPI/OLV have been the overseer of the entire process through the
provision of the grant funding. The EPA’s North East office has also provided input at vital
moments, particularly around the development of the risk analysis methodology.
Our aim of developing a new risk analysis tool which marries traditional DWMP approaches
with that of potable water quality considerations has been realised through the involvement
of our well respected experts Dr Robert Edis, Mr Larry White, Dr Robert van de Graaff and
Mr Paul Williams. All have recognised the importance of developing this new tool and have
worked in a collaborative fashion to produce a sound, scientific basis upon which we can
build our DWMP. Their prioritisation of this work above other projects and dedication to
providing cost effective advice has been greatly appreciated.
The dedication of Council’s Geographical Information System (GIS) expert, Mr Robert
Graves, must also be acknowledged. The risk analysis tool is almost completely reliant on
GIS technology; the work undertaken by our experts has been underpinned by Robert’s
mapping. The DWMP’s Action and Resource Plan will also rely on his expertise and ability
to solve intricate mapping/data issues.
The input of other councils has also enriched this project. The strong ties between councils
in the North East have been underlined with the participation of Murrindindi as a Project
Partner, as well as Towong and Benalla council officers. On a broader scale the Moorabool
Council’s compliance and education program and DWMP experiences of Mitchell Council
have helped inform MSC on how to progress with its own plan. Importantly both
(xiv)
Environmental Health and Planning professionals from these councils have been involved in
meetings and discussions about our Plan, which is indicative of a strong desire to better
integrate the work undertaken by both groups to produce better environmental and
development outcomes.
Thanks must also go to those residents, land capability experts and wastewater system
installers/service technicians who took the time to respond to our online surveys. Their input
provides a good insight into the issues to be addressed by this DWMP but more importantly,
what potential solutions should be considered for inclusion in the Action Plan. The need to
further develop relationships with these stakeholders will be underlined in the DWMP.
Lastly, Council wishes to acknowledge the ongoing support of Water Minister, the Hon Peter
Walsh, and his office, along with the local member for Benalla, Dr Bill Sykes MP. The
Minister, and his respective Water Advisors Monica Morona and Melanie Brown have been
given regular updates as to the progress of this project. Their interest has been greatly
appreciated. Dr Bill Sykes has also worked tirelessly over the past four years in partnership
with MSC to achieve a sensible balance between future development and the protection of
potable water quality and the securing of funding to support this DWMP Pilot Project can be
largely attributed to himself.
(xv)
2) Overview of the Pilot Project
2.1
Why the Need for the Mansfield Shire Domestic Wastewater
Management Plan Pilot Project?
Domestic wastewater is produced by all households through a variety of means including
toilets, bathrooms, washing machines and the kitchen sink. It can contain high levels of
nutrients, micro-organisms and other contaminants that can be harmful to human health and
the environment if not appropriately managed.
Initial legislative controls for wastewater management focussed on black water (or the toilet)
only. Grey water (from kitchens, showers and laundries) was usually disposed of via a
‘grease trap’ directly onto the land, eventually running into the stormwater system (or just the
road if there was no such infrastructure).
Septic systems treating both black and grey water became a requirement in the 1980’s; at
the same time significant extensions to reticulated sewerage systems occurred across
regional and metropolitan areas. This trend also coincided with the growing size of dwellings
and the desire to add en suites or multiple bathrooms.
Legislation and other controls have, since this time, focussed on new installations and
proving evidence, through tools such as land capability assessments, that a system is
capable of containing all wastewater (ie black and grey water) on-site and not posing a risk
to the environment.
The relatively more recent introduction of on-site sewerage treatment plants and other
treatment systems capable of treating to a secondary standard (subject to maintenance)
means there is an ability to produce a higher quality of output and alternative ways of
distributing this back into the sub soil.
Despite these innovations, the advent of larger dwellings and the requirement for systems
that treat all the grey and black wastewater means that the minimum area of land (ie size of
the residential lot) necessary to contain all of the wastewater on site has increased. The
difficulty in developing some traditional residential lots also arises from the consideration of
the cumulative impact, as required by the State Environment Protection Policy (Waters of
Victoria), that may result from multiple systems being concentrated in a relatively small
geographic area.
A significant proportion of existing dwellings and land zoned for residential or rural residential
development within Mansfield Shire are not connected to reticulated sewerage infrastructure.
Hundreds of these are located within a kilometre of Lake Eildon and its main feeders.
Indeed, only properties in the townships of Mansfield, Merrijig, Sawmill Settlement, Pinnacle
Valley and Bonnie Doon are connected to reticulated sewer; even so, not all residential
properties within these townships are connected to the reticulated system. This means that
a large number of our households use septic tanks or other on-site treatment plants to
manage and treat all household wastewater.
The potential risk to humans and the environment increases where there is a concentration
of wastewater systems, particularly ageing traditional septic systems that only treat
blackwater, close to waterways that then feed into our rivers and lakes. Furthermore, there
are a number of potable water offtake points and storage reservoirs located to
concentrations of unsewered development. Although there have been no public health
Mansfield Shire DWMPPP Background Report
Page 1
incidents arising from this proximity, it is important that all stakeholders be more proactive to
ensure the risk of any incident is reduced as much as possible.
This is why it is essential that land owners/occupiers, Council and local water corporations
work in partnership to ensure that impacts of wastewater on public health and our waterways
is properly managed.
It is also fair to say that there is room for improvement in terms of integrating strategic
planning policy and planning permit application decisions performed by Council’s Planning
Unit with the management of wastewater undertaken by our Environmental Health Unit.
Whilst there is good integration at an operational level, (for instance land capability
assessments are reviewed by our Environmental Health team during the processing of a
planning permit application) there is less integration at the strategic planning level (ie policy
development and when processing applications to amend the Mansfield Planning Scheme).
There are clear opportunities to improve the integration of wastewater management issues
into the planning system, particularly because a review of the Mansfield Planning Scheme is
due to take place in the near future. This DWMP will be a crucial resource for this review.
Being proactive in mitigating any adverse impacts domestic wastewater may have on public
health and water quality is particularly important in Mansfield Shire as:
 Mansfield Shire is located at the ‘top’ of both the Goulburn and the Broken Basins,
which provide source water for a vast part of the north east of Victoria;
 around 95 percent of our Shire lies within a declared potable water supply catchment, as
is shown by Map 1; with a large portion of both the Goulburn and Broken Basins’
declared water catchments covering our municipality;
 a significant proportion of systems are older style septic systems only designed to treat
blackwater; and
 there are ageing systems servicing informal temporary accommodation facilities (eg
camping) close to Lake Eildon and its tributaries.
This is why a key driver for the development of a domestic wastewater management plan
(DWMP) is found in the form of the State Environmental Protection Policy (Waters of
Victoria) (the SEPP) released by the Environment Protection Authority in 2003. The SEPP
stresses the need for councils to prepare and implement a DWMP as a means to protect
beneficial uses including through protecting potable water quality, the health of waterways
and groundwater and the avoidance of serious public health issues.
This Mansfield Shire Pilot Project DWMP, therefore, must have a broader focus than past
DWMP documents given that the bulk of our townships lie in Declared Water Supply
Catchments (DWSC) within the Goulburn Broken Catchment Management Region, as
declared under the Catchment and Land Protection Act 1994. Table 1 identifies all of the
declared catchments in this region.
Page 2
Map 1
Source:
Table 1
Map of Declared Special Water Catchments Across Victoria
Extract from the Department of Environment and Primary Industries’ website
Declared Special Water Catchments in the Goulburn Broken
Catchment Area
Source: Extract from the Department of Environment and Primary Industries’ website
Page 3
The DWSC’s within Mansfield Shire are:
 Lake Nillahcootie (although this is not a POTABLE water supply catchment)
 Upper Goulburn DWSC
 Lake Eildon Environs DWSC
 Upper Goulburn (Upper Delatite Special Area Plan).
The Upper Goulburn DWSC is supported by the Upper Goulburn (Upper Delatite) Special
Area Plan, aimed at reducing the adverse impacts erosion can have on water quality and
effects of land uses on water related values. It is also important to note at this stage that
although Lake Nillahcootie is a declared water supply catchment, it is not considered to be a
potable water supply catchment.
Given many of our townships and land zoned for residential development are contained
within these DWSC’s a tension exists between the development or redevelopment of land
and the protection of water quality and public health/amenity issues.
This potential conflict is reflected in the Minister for Water’s Guidelines for Permit
Applications in Open, Potable Water Supply Catchment Areas, released by Minister Peter
Walsh at Mansfield Shire Council’s Offices in November 2012. These Guidelines prescribe
a dwelling density of 1:40 hectares where a planning permit is required to either use land for
the purpose of a dwelling or to subdivide land.
Critically water authorities can authorise a relaxation of this dwelling density where a DWMP
has been prepared and implemented by Council in consultation with themselves, other local
governments where catchments are shared and the Environment Protection Authority (EPA)
in accordance with the Guidelines.
When launching these new Guidelines in 2012 Minister Walsh announced that Mansfield
Shire Council was to be the recipient of a $50,000 grant to help produce a model DWMP that
complied with the new Guidelines. This project has been named the Mansfield Shire
Domestic Wastewater Management Plan Pilot Project.
2.2
Purpose and aims of the Mansfield Shire Domestic Wastewater
Management Plan Pilot Project
In many ways this Pilot Project does not differ from the objectives of any DWMP, which are
to:
 Provide strategic direction for the development of management practices, tools and
strategies for wastewater management across Mansfield Shire;
 Identify, clarify and detail the roles and responsibilities of all stakeholders including
Council, abutting municipalities, water corporations, government departments and
authorities and land owners;
 Specify what actions are to be implemented by stakeholders over the next 5 years to
mitigate any adverse impacts of wastewater on the environment and public health;
 Identify where settlements / townships require larger scale public and private
infrastructure investment to ensure domestic wastewater is treated to an acceptable
level;
 Provide guidance to, and minimum standards for, those preparing land capability
statements;
 Develop a decision making framework for the assessment of applications to install a new
wastewater management system;
Page 4
 Develop a comprehensive compliance and enforcement regime as a quality assurance
tool for existing wastewater management systems; and
 Specify action plans to achieve these objectives, including the identification of resources
that Council and other stakeholders need to allocate to ensure the DWMP delivers
tangible results.
Given the introduction of the new Ministerial Guidelines the purpose of this Pilot Project is
also to:
 Demonstrate that councils and water authorities can work together to achieve balance
between protecting the quality of water in declared catchments with that of
residential/population growth;
 Provide a ‘one stop’ reference document that explains the intricate relationships between
all stakeholders, the myriad of legislation, policies and strategies which impact on
wastewater management in a potable water catchment to allow decision makers and
professionals to make more informed decisions in the future;
 Achieve better integration between strategic and statutory planning decisions with
wastewater and water quality management objectives to achieve better long term public
health outcomes;
 Devise a methodology for applying a rigorous scientific approach to the assessment of
the cumulative risk of domestic wastewater management systems in any DWSC so that
all stakeholders can focus resources on high risk areas where maximum public health
and environmental benefits can be gained; and
 Develop a model DWMP that other municipalities and water corporations across the
State can refer to and utilise if they so wish.
As per the Ministerial Guidelines this DWMP must also:
 Put in place systems to deliver effective monitoring of wastewater management systems
including compliance with permit conditions and the Code of Practice;
 Identify the enforcement framework to be implemented to address non compliance;
 Outline how stakeholders are provided with the results of the monitoring and
enforcement program;
 Provide for the appointment of an independent auditor to review the implementation of
the DWMP in three year’s time, with details as to how the results of the audit will be
shared with stakeholders;
 Demonstrate that Council has allocated the required resources to implement the
DWMP’s action plan and other recommendations; and
 Include a process of review and updating (if necessary) of the DWMP every 5 years.
The need to better align planning policy with wastewater and catchment management
objectives has been mentioned above. To this end, this Background Report and the DWMP
will provide the strategic justification necessary to support amendments to the Mansfield
Planning Scheme. In this way Council aims to ensure a comprehensive set of tools are in
place to make informed decisions, as well as providing certainty for the community about
how we will play our part in mitigating potential risks to our catchments and water quality.
Page 5
2.3
Our Pilot Project Partners
Mansfield Shire wishes to acknowledge at the outset of this document that the partnerships
developed between Council and our project partners has been a constructive and productive
one.
In recognition of the role played by councils, water corporations and other public bodies in
the realm of wastewater management and in response to the requirements of the new
Guidelines in terms of councils working closely with water corporations, our project partners
are:
 Goulburn Murray Water (the rural water supply corporation);
 Goulburn Valley Water (the corporation providing potable reticulated water and
reticulated sewerage);
 Murrindindi Shire Council (whose municipality lies on the western side of Lake Eildon
and within the Upper Goulburn DWSC);
 Environment Protection Authority (responsible for certifying wastewater systems for use
in Victoria, Codes of Practice for Wastewater Management); and
 Department of Environment and Primary Industries/Office of Living Victoria (the provider
of the $50,000 grant through their Water and Governance Division).
The Governance Charter for the Pilot Project (see Attachment 1) also identifies a range of
external experts and other relevant government agencies that have contributed to this Pilot
Project, including the Environment Protection Authority and the Goulburn Broken Catchment
Management Authority.
Page 6
3) Background
3.1
The State Context
It is fair to say that protecting water quality and improving the health of waterways has been
a particular State Government focus over the past few years with the release of various
guidelines and strategies. This arises from a desire to apply a multi pronged approach to
address the risk of contamination of waters intended for human consumption.
Accordingly there is a wide variety of legislation, guidelines and strategies produced by the
Government that impact on this Pilot Project.
VicWater, the peak body for water corporations, has been at the forefront of driving change
to redress what they see as inappropriate development in declared catchment areas that
provide them with potable water for their customers.
Suffice to say this has led to a certain amount of tension between some water corporations
and local councils, but on a positive note it has also led to increased dialogue and the
strengthening of relationships between the two sectors.
Indeed, it is by working through our differences of opinion that the Shire’s relationships with
the Office of Living Victoria, Goulburn Murray Water and Goulburn Valley Water have turned
into productive partnerships.
While a comprehensive summary of the governing documents relating to potable water
catchments, addressing water quality issues and managing domestic wastewater is provided
in Section 10, the documents of note are:
 Water Act (1989);
 Safe Water Drinking Act (2003);
 Safe Water Drinking Regulations (2005);
 State Environment Protection Policies (Waters of Victoria) and Groundwaters of Victoria;
 Victorian Waterway Management Strategy (2013);
 Environment Protection Act (1970);
 Code of Practice – Onsite Wastewater Management (EPA February 2013);
 Information Bulletin on Land Capability Assessment for Onsite Domestic Wastewater
Management (2003);
 MAV/DEPI Victorian Land Capability Assessment Framework (2014);
 Planning and Environment Act (1987);
 Ministerial Guidelines for Planning Permit Applications in Open, Potable Water Supply
Catchment Areas (2012); and
 Victoria Planning Provisions, including the State Planning Policy Framework (which
forms part of the Mansfield Shire’s Planning Scheme).
The first six documents highlight the objectives, roles, responsibilities and regulations that
govern water quality, the protection of waterways and wastewater management across
Victoria. They provide a level of direction for strategy and policy development at regional
and local levels.
Page 7
The Environment Protection Act, Code of Practice 2013 and Land Capability Assessment
Information Bulletin are the key reference documents for the design, installation and
management of on-site wastewater treatment systems. The adoption of a new Code of
Practice is the culmination of many years’ work on behalf of the Environment Protection
Authority (EPA), and other key stakeholders including local government and water
authorities. It reinforces the need to improve wastewater management outcomes to address
potential threats to potable water quality and broader public health by refining design
standards and requirements.
The latter two documents are primarily used by planning authorities (usually the council)
when assessing applications for the rezoning of land and individual development,
subdivision and land use planning permit applications. Water corporations also use the
latter documents in preparing their responses to council when they are acting as a referral
authority responding to a rezoning or planning permit application.
3.2
The Regional Context
The release of the Victorian Waterway Strategy by the Minister for Water, the Honourable
Peter Walsh, in 2013 underlines the need for a regional approach to catchment and water
quality/waterway health issues.
The Minister has reinforced the message that partnerships within the region between
councils, land managers and water corporations must strengthen through the requirements
of Guideline 1 in the Ministerial Guidelines outlined above.
In relation to our water authorities, the shire is located within the Goulburn Broken
Catchment Authority’s area, it is in the South East area of Goulburn Valley Water’s district
and Goulburn Murray Water is our rural water authority. For town planning and
infrastructure purposes Mansfield Shire is located within the Department of Planning and
Local Infrastructure’s Hume Region (Central).
Mansfield Shire firmly believes that the effective management of domestic wastewater is a
key issue where a regional approach must be developed as it is clearly not just the
responsibility of local councils to address land and wastewater management issues in
unsewered areas.
The extension of catchment boundaries beyond Mansfield Shire underlines the importance
of partnerships with our neighbouring municipalities. Over the past four years these
relationships have strengthened, mainly due to shared concerns over the imbalance caused
by the application of the 1 dwelling per 40 hectare guideline by water authorities and the
Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal.
There are already strong ties between Mansfield and Murrindindi Council primarily because
both Shires border Lake Eildon, the second largest permanent waterbody in Australia. It is
imperative, therefore, that our two councils continue to work together to protect beneficial
uses (as per the SEPP W of V) such as water supplies for irrigators, potable water and the
ongoing recreational use of the Lake.
Lake Nillahcootie is another key water body within our shire, located on the boundary
between Mansfield and Benalla Councils. This lake is a key source of irrigation water
downstream and it is also an important recreation resource. There is a close relationship
between officers of both Councils, particularly our respective Environmental Health Units.
Page 8
A small portion of the Shire also falls within the Lake William Hovell catchment that is
contained within the Rural City of Wangaratta’s jurisdiction, however our share of this
catchment is Crown Land and therefore not developable.
Mansfield Shire has provided updates and information to all our neighbouring councils, and
those within the North East region and beyond as a means of engaging them in our project
and possibly assisting them with their own DWMP’s or planning policies. The Municipal
Association of Victoria (MAV) has also been kept informed so that other councils across
Victoria can utilise this DWMP should they wish to do so.
Focusing back on our region, the relationship with local water corporations is sound at an
operational level given our shared responsibilities for infrastructure provision and
development approvals. It is fair to say, however, that this relationship been strained at
times over recent years at a higher, more strategic level. This is primarily due to differences
in opinion as to whether or not our catchment areas should be defined as being primarily for
potable water or for non potable purposes and consequently what constitutes appropriate
development in our potable water catchments.
One key indicator of the positive strengthening of partnerships between the Shire and water
corporations was the entering into a Memorandum of Understanding with Goulburn Murray
Water around the application of the new 2012 Ministerial Guidelines whilst this DWMP was
prepared (see Attachment 2).
This MOU provided certainty and clarity as to how Guideline 1 (the 1 dwelling per 40 hectare
dwelling density guideline) would be applied by identifying what constituted a high, medium
and low risk area in relation to additional unsewered development and potential impacts on
potable water quality and public health. More recently a subsequent MOU has been signed
by both parties, which will cease to exist once this DWMPPP has been adopted by Council
(see Attachment 3).
Another important sign of the developing relationships at a higher level is the partnership
between the Shire, GMW and GVW in the development of this DWMP. Whilst it is fair to say
there are still differences in opinion in relation to what is appropriate development, there is a
far better understanding of each other’s perspectives and goals. There are also good
communication channels as a means of working issues through and finding common ground
through compromise.
Key documents for our region include the:
 Northern Region Sustainable Water Strategy (2009);
 Goulburn Broken Regional Catchment Strategy (2012 – 19);
 Goulburn Broken Regional Waterway Strategy (2013 – 21);
 Goulburn Broken Regional River Health Strategy (2005);
 Guidelines for the Protection of Water Quality (2000);
 Lake Eildon Land and On-Water Management Plan (2012); and
 Hume Regional Strategy and Hume Regional Growth Plan (2010 – 20).
3.3
The Local Context
It is widely known that Mansfield Shire has been at the forefront in challenging the
application of the generic 1 dwelling per 40 hectare density under Guideline 1 of the
Ministerial Guidelines over the past four years since the Rozen decision was handed down
by VCAT in late 2009.
Page 9
Lobbying of our local member the Honourable Bill Sykes, State Planning and Water
Ministers, water corporations, policy makers and taking joint action at VCAT with Murrindindi
Shire, Towong Shire and with GMW against the 1:40 hectare rule was our attempt to
demonstrate the potential disastrous impact of this generic rule on regional growth, small
communities and individual land owners.
Thankfully this work, along with that from other parties across the State, resulted in the
Minister Walsh launching new Ministerial Guidelines at Mansfield Shire in November 2012.
These new Guidelines provided guidance to councils wishing to achieve a balance between
growth and protecting potable water catchments through the preparation of a DWMP.
Mansfield Shire Council is firmly committed to addressing the issues raised by both the
Minister and local water corporations in relation to better managing wastewater from existing
systems and ensuring that any new development in declared potable water catchment areas
is appropriate.
We acknowledge that decisions made in the distant past may not have resulted in the best
environmental outcomes for our catchments, however in all fairness there have been no
reportable public health incidents arising from the dispersal of domestic wastewater within
these areas. There have, however, been three widespread blue-green algae blooms in Lake
Eildon in the past decade, one of which resulted in the Department of Health issuing a fact
sheet for health care professionals.
This is not to say that we do not acknowledge that more can be done to improve public
health and environmental outcomes in relation to improved wastewater management, rather
it is trying to put a realistic perspective around the application of the 1:40 hectare rule which
has impeded growth in Mansfield Shire in recent years. .
Indeed, our commitment to this Pilot Project is a clear demonstration of the importance of
improving our performance in relation to both wastewater management and planning
decisions (both strategic planning and development approvals).
Given that there are over 4000 domestic wastewater systems across the shire it is essential
that the relatively scarce resources available to the Shire, local water corporations and State
agencies are targeted to achieving maximum benefit. This is why the identification of the
highest risk areas in relation to the impact of wastewater on potable water quality is essential
via a robust, scientific approach.
There are a number of key documents that underline Council’s commitment to achieving a
balance between unsewered development and protecting the health of waterways, the
quality of potable water and mitigating public health risks from failing wastewater systems,
including the:
 2013 - 17 Council Plan and Strategic Resource Plan;
 2012 - 13 Annual Report;
 Municipal Strategic Statement and Local Planning Policy Framework (contained within
the Mansfield Planning Scheme);
 Environmental Significance Overlays 1 and 2;
 Draft Domestic Wastewater Management Plan (2006);
 Environment Priority Action Plan 2013 – 17; and
 Mansfield Basin Groundwater Resource Appraisal (2011).
Page 10
4) Key Stakeholders, their Roles and
Responsibilities
Section 10 of this document outlines the vast array of legislation, policies, strategies and
regulations that relate to wastewater management and the protection of water quality. This
is an indication of the broad range of government departments, agencies, water
corporations, peak bodies and local councils that share responsibility for wastewater
management and have an interest in the development of any DWMP.
Land owners, land managers and residents are also key stakeholders that are affected by
our collective policies and decisions. The figure below attempts to summarise the
stakeholders in wastewater management in an open, potable water supply catchment.
Figure 1
Stakeholders in an Open Potable Water Supply Catchment Area
Minsters
Department of Environment &
Primary Industries
Department of Transport
Planning & Local Infrastructure
Department of Health
Environment Protection Authority
Murrindindi Shire Council
Other councils downstream
Municipal Association of Victoria
(peak body)
Wastewater and water quality management in an open, potable water
supply catchment
Goulburn Murray Water
Goulburn Valley Water
Goulburn Broken Catchment
Management Autholirty
VicWater (peak body)
4.1
Land onwers
Residents
Land Managers
Visitors
Ministers and Departments
4.1.1 Minister for Water
The Office of Water, contained within the Department of Environment and Primary Industry
(DEPI) reports this Minister, currently the Hon Peter Walsh MLA. DEPI oversees the
administration of, and compliance with, water related legislation, strategies and policies.
DEPI is defined as a referral authority under the Catchment and Land Protection Act, Water
Act and Planning and Environment Act.
4.1.2 Minister for Environment and Climate Change
The Environment Protection Authority reports to this Minister, who is currently the Hon Ryan
Smith MLA. In turn, DEPI provides an overall administrative and management framework for
the EPA who oversee the administration of, and compliance with, the State Environment
Protection Policy (Waters of Victoria), the Environment Protection Act, Onsite Wastewater
Page 11
Management Code of Practice and provide guidance for the preparation of land capability
assessments.
The EPA must also issue a Certificate of Approval for a wastewater management system
before it is classed as being suitable for installation and use across Victoria and is
responsible for collating annual reports from local councils relating wastewater management
approvals, trends and issues. The Planning and Environment Act identifies the EPA as a
referral authority for certain types of planning permit applications and planning scheme
amendments.
4.1.3 Minister for Health
The Department of Health (DH) reports to this Minister, who is currently the Hon David Davis
MLC. This department oversees the administration of, and compliance with, the Safe
Drinking Water Act and its Regulations. It prepares an annual report for the Minister on the
quality of drinking water across the State, as well as the performance of water corporations
in both implementing the Act and their risk management strategies to protect the quality of
potable water supplies.
4.1.4 Minister for Planning
The Department of Transport, Planning and Local Infrastructure (DTPLI), formerly known as
the Department of Planning and Community Development (DPCD) reports to this Minister,
who is currently the Hon Matthew Guy MLC. The Department oversees the administration
of, and compliance with, the Planning and Environment Act, the Subdivisions Act and the
Victorian Planning Provisions.
The Department dictates the content of any local planning scheme through the Victorian
Planning Provisions and sets high level policy objectives and strategies via the State
Planning Policy Framework.
This Minister must approve any amendments to a local planning scheme (including the
rezoning of land, introduction of an overlay or changes to the Local Planning Policy
Framework) proposed by a local council.
Figure 2
Reporting Arrangements to Ministers
Minister for
Water
Minister for
Environment
and Climate
Change
DEPI (Office
of Water)
DEPI
GMW
EPA
GVW
GBCMA
Minster for
Planning
Minister for
Health
DTPLI
DoH
MSC as a
planning
authority
GVW &
GMW (water
quality
reports)
Page 12
4.2
Water Corporations and Authorities
4.2.1 Goulburn Murray Water (GMW)
GMW is a rural water authority constituted under the Water Act and reports to the Minster for
Water. It is responsible for the harvesting, storage and delivery of water, particularly
irrigation water. It not only builds major infrastructure such as water storages, irrigation
networks and drainage networks, but it also issues surface water and ground water licenses.
On a more strategic level it can establish water supply protection areas, stream flow
management plans and groundwater management plans.
It is a determining referral authority under both the Water Act and the Planning and
Environment Act. In accordance with the Mansfield Planning Scheme GMW must receive a
referral for most planning permit applications for development and subdivision in an area
covered by either Environmental Significance Overlays 1 or 2. There are further referral
requirements to GMW under Clause 66.01 Subdivision referrals and 66.02-5 Special Water
Supply Catchments. A referral response from GMW objecting to a planning permit
application means that the application must be refused by Council as it is defined as being a
determining referral authority for these types of applications.
GMW covers a vast part of the northern and north eastern part of the State with a service
area of around 68,000km2, managing around 70% of Victoria’s stored water. It receives
around 1500 planning permit referrals per annum and planning scheme amendment referrals
from the 26 the councils which lie in their jurisdiction.
There are 43 declared special water supply catchments within GMW’s service area. The
Safe Drinking Water Act requires a catchment to tap multi-barrier approach to managing
risks to water quality. This includes risks from land development and use, including on-site
wastewater management. Management of blue green algae (BGA) and factors that can
influence blooms (e.g. high nutrient levels) also falls within GMW’s jurisdiction as a local
water manager and regional coordinator. Activities that could impact water quality,
particularly increases in BGA, are also of concern where there is a high level of recreation on
GMW storages.
4.2.2 Goulburn Valley Water (GVW)
GVW is a water corporation constituted under the Water Act and reports to the Minister for
Water. It is responsible for the provision of urban potable water and wastewater
infrastructure (usually via a reticulated sewerage system). It constructs and manages water
storages where water is treated to become potable water as well as managing municipal
sewerage treatment plants where wastewater from towns is collected, treated and then
reused. It must provide annual information to the Department of Health relating to water
quality.
GVW is also a determining referral authority under the Water Act and the Planning and
Environment Act. In accordance with the Mansfield Planning Scheme it must receive a
referral for most planning permit applications for development and subdivision under Clause
66.01 Subdivision referrals and 66.02-5 Special Water Supply Catchments. A referral
response from GVW objecting to a planning permit application means that the application
must be refused by Council.
In practice GVW responds to planning permit referrals when there is an impact on an
established sewerage network or where a new development or subdivision can reasonably
be connected to the sewerage system within serviced townships.
Page 13
GVW also covers a vast part of North and North East Victoria (around 20,000 km2); it
supplies 54 towns with reticulated water, manages 39 supply systems and operates
sewerage systems in 30 regional towns from 26 wastewater treatment plants (source:
Goulburn Valley Water website – About Us 25/1/2014).
GVW must also comply with the Safe Drinking Water Act, which requires a catchment to tap
multi-barrier approach to managing risks to water quality. This includes risks from land
development and use including on-site wastewater management.
4.2.3 Goulburn Broken Catchment Management Authority (GBCMA)
This Authority was created under the Catchment and Land Protection Act (CALP Act) and
reports to the Environment and Climate Change Minister, who is currently the Hon Ryan
Smith MP. The CMA manages natural resources across the Goulburn and Broken Basins
(and part of the Murray River valley). A key responsibility is the provision of a strategic
framework for the management, protection and enhancement of land, water and biodiversity.
It does this through a Regional Catchment Strategy, as required under the CALP Act.
In the field the CMA manages and develops strategies for floodplains, stormwater
runoff/pollution, water quality and nutrient monitoring/management, catchment protection
and the restoration of degraded waterways and wetlands (Source: GBCMA website
25/01/2014 and the GBCMA Regional Catchment Strategy 2009 – 13 Summary for the
Community brochure).
The GBCMA also covers a vast area, from the northern edge of Melbourne to the Murray
River.
4.3
Mansfield Shire Council is constituted under the Local Government Act. It has a myriad of
statutory and strategic responsibilities, including the requirement to develop, adopt and
implement a wastewater management plan for the municipality under SEPP WoV.
It is also responsible for ensuring new subdivisions and development in unsewered areas
are capable of treating and containing domestic wastewater on-site in accordance with EPA
regulations (by assessing the land capability assessment). It issues permits to install and
use wastewater management systems but must refuse an application that does not meet
EPA standards.
Council, under the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008, must take action against any
nuisance that could cause a threat to public health and is responsible under the Environment
Protection Act for ensuring:
 that all installed systems comply with the EPA’s Code of Practice and a permit is issued
prior to the commencement of works;
 that a system is only used after the issue of a permit for its use; and that
 conditions on these permits are complied with (such as maintenance reporting
requirements).
Under the Planning and Environment Act Council is a responsible authority for deciding on
development, land use and subdivision applications; it manages and processes planning
permit applications, including issuing referrals to the water authorities and other relevant
departments as outlined above.
It is also a planning authority when exercising its responsibilities for strategic planning and
planning policy development, including the development and processing of amendments to
Page 14
the Mansfield Planning Scheme to either introduce new local planning policies or to rezone
land/apply new overlays from the Victorian Planning Provisions.
Under the Subdivision Act and also the Mansfield Planning Scheme Council must ensure
that where the infrastructure is available, developments and subdivisions are connected to
the reticulated sewerage system.
Mansfield Shire Council is also responsible for the creation of environment related policies
and strategies, along with the delivery of environmental programs on the ground; often these
programs are undertaken in partnership with the CMA, Landcare groups, DEPI and local
water authorities.
Council also manages urban stormwater infrastructure and ensures that new development is
adequately drained through the permit approvals process, whilst also investing in capital
expenditure to improve stormwater drainage in existing developed areas.
4.4
Other Councils in the Hume Region
We already have strong relationships with other councils in our region at an operational
level. Our Environmental Health Unit is active in regional forums and it is not unusual for
officers from other councils to work through an issue together or share information on how
they tackle wastewater management. Relationships between Environmental Officers are
also strong across the region with the development of regional approaches to issues such as
vegetation removal and revegetation and rehabilitation of river banks.
These partnerships have only been strengthened through the work undertaken in the North
East Region relating to the 1 dwelling per 40 hectare Guideline culminating in Towong,
Hepburn and Murrindindi Shires joining Mansfield in participating in a key case at the
Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal regarding the application and interpretation of the
former Ministerial Guidelines for Planning Applications in Open, Potable Water Catchments
2009.
It has become clear through this issue, and through reviewing the State Government
strategies and policies around waterway management and the new Ministerial Guidelines,
that local government needs to further develop strategic policy across municipal boundaries
in relation to catchment management.
This already exists to an extent between Mansfield and Murrindindi Shires in relation to the
Lake Eildon On Water Management Plan, however we agree that things such as the
consistent application of an Environmental Significance Overlay in our planning schemes for
declared catchments and input into each other’s DWMP’s are an essential part of moving
forward in meeting State Government expectations.
Towong, Moorabool, Pyrenees, Hepburn, Murrindindi and Benalla Councils have also
provided input into the creation of this document through a number of means, which is a
demonstration that regional partnerships at a strategic level are indeed strengthening.
4.5
Land Owners, Land Managers, Residents and Visitors
All property owners, land managers and occupiers have a responsibility to ensure they apply
for, and receive, permits to both install and use a wastewater system. Where required by
GVW, the property must also connect to the reticulated sewerage system.
Once permits have been issued the owner/resident must then ensure the wastewater system
is installed in compliance with the permit, that it is appropriately maintained to operate
effectively and that any permit conditions and / or management plan are implemented (this
Page 15
may include providing proof that maintenance has been undertaken to Council’s
Environmental Health Unit).
Since the mid 1990’s the EPA has required land owners to provide periodic servicing and
maintenance reports to Council to demonstrate that their system is still working effectively;
these requirements were not retrospective and therefore those with older systems do not
have to abide by this requirement.
Those owning or living in properties with older wastewater systems are equally responsible
for maintaining their systems to ensure they operate effectively and that any conditions
imposed by approval and use permits are still adhered to.
All land owners, managers and residents should take the time to understand how their
wastewater management system works and what types of daily activities can stop their
system from operating at optimum levels (eg use of inappropriate cleaning agents).
In a far broader sense they need to understand, and apply, sound land management
practices, the need for which is heightened because they live in a declared water supply
catchment.
This includes the retention of vegetation near waterways, stormwater
management, farming practices, erosion management and how the use of chemicals and
products such as soil improvers can affect water quality and waterway health.
Residents and land owners are also an important source of information for Council, the
Goulburn Broken Catchment Management Authority and the EPA in relation to the reporting
of pollution or nuisance issues and hence play an important role in ongoing compliance and
enforcement programs.
Visitors to our shire also need to be mindful of how their activities (whether camping, house
boating or using our lakes and rivers) can impact on the health of our waterways and also on
the operation of wastewater systems (if staying in a holiday rental with a septic system).
4.6
Peak bodies
The Municipal Association of Victoria (MAV) is the peak body/lobby group for local councils,
disseminating information between councils on key issues and arranging discussion forums.
Over recent years they have been active in assisting the preparation of model DWMP’s as a
means of improving the performance of local government in managing wastewater. In
January 2014 they updated their template for preparing a Land Capability Assessment.
The MAV have also been involved in the 1:40 hectare dwelling density debate; when this
issue first emerged organised forums between local council planners, environmental health
officers, the DH, DEPI (Office of Water) and water corporations. They have continued to
lobby on behalf of local councils to achieve a better balance between future development
and the protection of water quality.
VicWater has been a key lobby group for water corporations, “influencing government policy,
providing forums for industry discussions on priority issues, disseminating news and
information on current issues to stakeholders, identifying training needs, and the production
of performance reports and industry guides.” (Source: VicWater website accessed
26/01/2014). It has been at the forefront of lobbying for stricter development controls in
declared potable water catchments and has been particularly active in supporting VCAT
action to reinforce the 1:40 hectare dwelling density guideline.
Page 16
5) Catchment Profiles & Water Quality
This section aims to provide an overview of the Goulburn Broken Basin and each respective
catchment that lies within the boundaries of Mansfield Shire, including details of any relevant
Special Area Plans, and water quality data sourced from the Department of Environment and
Primary Industry’s Victorian Catchment Indicators Online website, GMW and GVW.
5.1
Overview of the Goulburn Broken Basin
Our catchments form part of the Goulburn Broken Basin, which covers an area of 2,431,654
hectares or 10.5% of Victoria. Our municipality, along with that of Moira, Campaspe,
Mitchell, Murrindindi and Strathbogie Shires, Benalla Rural City and the City of Greater
Shepparton all lie within its boundaries.
Feeding this basin is around 9,849 kilometres of streams; around 8,200 kilometres within the
Goulburn Basin and approximately 1,500 kilometres in the Broken Basin. Declared Special
Areas 4, 4A, 4B and 33 depicted in Map 2 are all contained, or partially contained, within the
boundaries of our Shire and Murrindindi to the south west.
Map 2
Declared Catchments within Mansfield Shire
Source: Victorian Water Resources Online, DEPI website
http://vro.depi.vic.gov.au/dpi/vro/gbbregn.nsf/pages/gb_DWSC
There are three declared heritage rivers within the Basin including the Howqua River, which
is located wholly within Mansfield Shire. It is seen as being significant as it contains:
•
Habitat for the spotted tree frog;
•
Devonian fish fossil beds;
Page 17
•
•
•
Fishing opportunities, especially for trout;
Cultural heritage sites at Frys Bridge, with other early settlement and mining features;
and
The canoe resource from Eight Mile Creek to Frys Hut, along with the Sheepyard Flat
slalom course.
It is also noted that the Goulburn River downstream of Lake Eildon and the Big River, which
is a tributary of Lake Eildon that runs along part of our far south western municipal boundary,
are also classed as heritage rivers (Source: Goulburn Broken Regional River Health
Strategy 2005 – 15).
As demonstrated by Map 3 a large proportion of the Goulburn Broken Basin within Mansfield
Shire is undeveloped Crown Land. The remainder is dry land pasture and small urban areas
dotted around Lake Eildon and along main roads. Mansfield township is the largest urban
area.
Map 3
Land Use Within the Goulburn Broken Catchment
Source: Department of Environment and Primary Industry’s website
http://vro.depi.vic.gov.au/dpi/vro/gbbregn.nsf/pages/gbb_landuse
In relation to the health of the rivers within the Goulburn Broken Catchment, The Third
Benchmark of Condition Report - Goulburn Broken prepared by DEPI shows that overall the
index for rivers has not improved since the last Benchmark Report was prepared in 2004,
with only 11 – 30% of reaches being rated either excellent or good. This will be discussed
further in the individual analysis of the Goulburn and the Broken Basins.
Page 18
5.2
Potable Water and Sewage Services Within the Goulburn Broken
Basin
5.2.1 Potable Water
As explained in Section 4.2.1, GMW is responsible for the management of raw water
storages within the Goulburn Broken Basin; the storages within Mansfield Shire are Lake
Eildon and Lake Nillahcootie. There are, of course, other raw water storages throughout the
Basin operated by both GMW and GVW.
GVW also extracts raw water from these storages, rivers and streams, treats it and then
supplies townships through a reticulated water supply system. In Mansfield Shire water is
treated at plants located in Sawmill Settlement (which also supplies water for Merrijig
downstream), Mansfield and Bonnie Doon. Two raw water storage reservoirs are located at
Piries to service the Mansfield township, with a further storage reservoir and treatment plant
located on the southern fringes of town.
GV’s Annual Report on Water Quality 2012 - 13 identified that the Bonnie Doon Water
Treatment Plan serviced a population of around 590 customers, the Mansfield Treatment
Plant around 4060 and the Upper Delatite around 1210 people. Around 190 people living in
or near Woods Point are also provided with water by GVW but it is classified as non potable
water given only basic disinfection processes are undertaken. As this water may not meet
Australian Drinking Water Guidelines it is not intended for human consumption.
Taking a broader view, Lake Eildon directly services part of the Murrindindi Shire (as well as
towns further downstream towards the Murray River). The Goulburn River downstream of
Lake Eildon supplies the townships of Alexandra (2810 people), Eildon (1390 people) and
Thornton (240 people). The water treatment plant servicing these townships is located in
Alexandra.
Map 4
GVW’s Network of Regulated and Unregulated Water Supplies in
Mansfield and Murrindindi Shires
Source: Goulburn Valley Water Annual Report 2012/13
Page 19
GVW’s water storages act as a ‘buffer’ against low summer waterway flows. Sometimes the
raw water is pre-treated at these facilities, including algae control and the removal of metals.
The following table summarises the types of water treatments applied to raw water supplies
by GVW.
Table 2
Water Treatment Processes Applied by GVW in Mansfield and
Murrindindi Shires
Water
Treatment
Plant
Raw
Water
Detention
Coagulation
&
Flocculation
Dissolved
Air
Flotation
Rapid
Granular
Media
Filtration
Alexandra





Bonnie
Doon





Mansfield





At times
throughout the
year
Upper
Delatite
Chlorination

Adsorption
Clarification
Membrane
Filtration


GVW’s Annual Report Water on Quality 2012 - 13 identifies a number of projects they are
committed to completing in the near future. Two recently completed projects within
Mansfield and Murrindindi Shires are:

A new pipeline to deliver treated water from the Alexandra water treatment plant to
Thornton and Eildon townships; and

A new DAFF (dissolved air floatation and filtration) water treatment plant at Bonnie
Doon.
5.2.2 Wastewater
GVW’s wastewater treatment facilities are located at Sawmill Settlement, Mansfield and
Bonnie Doon; in Murrindindi Shire facilities are located in Alexandra and Eildon.
These facilities treat wastewater largely by allowing natural processes, with waste being
broken down by bacteria and other micro organisms. These facilities have various treatment
lagoons to allow this to occur, however wastewater is firstly screened for solids prior to being
treated. This is known as primary treatment. Wastewater then undergoes a secondary
treatment, which again allows micro organisms to break it down into gases and water.
Post primary and secondary lagoon treatment the wastewater is then recycled, primarily for
agricultural irrigation, with some natural evaporation also occurring. In Mansfield township,
the Mansfield Golf Course also uses treated wastewater for irrigation. Biosolids are also
produced in the treatment process and this by-product is used for things such as soil
conditioners.
There are, however, times when land irrigation of recycled water is not possible, (usually in
times of high rainfall). EPA standards for the design of municipal wastewater treatment
plants state that the plant must be able to cope with 90th percentile rainfall levels. When
rainfall exceeds this, surplus wastewater is permitted to be discharged offsite. In the case of
facilities in the Mansfield Shire, this is typically into a nearby waterway within the Lake Eildon
catchment.
Page 20
The recycled water that is discharged in these events is treated through the usual lagoon
process and is of Class C standard. The EPA must issue a ‘discharge approval’ prior to this
action being taken and such licences have extensive conditions regarding water quality and
monitoring downstream. It should be noted that in times of high rainfall it is typical that
stormwater infiltrates the sewer system, notably increasing water volumes and diluting the
wastewater to a ratio that is typically 6 stormwater to 1 wastewater.
Due to above average rainfalls in 2011/12 several EPA discharge approvals were sought by
GVW to discharge water across their service area (Source GVW Website – Wastewater
Treatment page accessed 4/02/2014). These incidents will be discussed further in Section
5.7.4.
5.2.3 New Connections
GVW’s annual report 2012/13 lists Mansfield and Merrijig as being in their top ten major
growth areas for connections to reticulated sewer and water.
Table 3
Annual Connections to Reticulated Sewer and Water
Town
2007/08
2008/09
2009/10
2010/11
2011/12
2012/13
Mansfield
43
55
32
96
39
33
Merrijig
2
0
0
9
0
16
5.3
The Goulburn River Basin
The Goulburn River basin has its origins to the far south east of Mansfield Shire, near
Woods Point and extends over 550 kilometres to the Murray River near Echuca, covering
around 1,619,158 hectares. It represents just over 7% of Victoria’s land mass and according
to the Victorian Catchment Indicators Online has a mean annual discharge of around 3.04
mega litres representing a shade under 14% of the State’s total discharge.
Lake Eildon is an important storage for waters emanating from the Great Dividing Range and
Eildon Weir regulates the flow of water, the vast majority of which is used for irrigation
purposes and environmental flow releases. Outflows are at their lowest in Winter/Spring and
their highest during the Summer irrigation season.
As can be seen from Map 5 there are several water monitoring stations within the Mansfield
Shire’s section of this Basin. Figure 3 summarises water quality in the Goulburn Basin
according to the most current information from DEPI water quality.
Page 21
Map 5
Boundaries of the Goulburn Basin and Monitoring Points
http://data.water.vic.gov.au/monitoring.htm
Figure 3
Index of Stream Condition – Goulburn Basin
Source: DEPI website Index of Stream Condition http://www.nre.vic.gov.au/ins-clpr/vcio/
Although the chart above depicts a less than positive picture of river condition within the
Basin the streams within our shire are rated between excellent to poor as demonstrated by
Map 6.
Page 22
Map 6
Stream Condition Index Overview for Rivers within Mansfield
Shire – Goulburn Basin
Source: Index of Stream Condition Report – The Third Benchmark of Condition Report Goulburn
Broken 2012
As can be expected the headwaters of the Goulburn River around Woods Point and the
Howqua River at the base of Mt Buller, which are located in relatively remote, densely
wooded areas, are rated as excellent. Their condition reduces to good further downstream
as they move into areas where more land is cleared scattered settlements are present.
The Delatite River, which also commences at the base of Mount Buller, is rated as good
which is most likely due to the monitoring station being located downstream of cleared land
and residential development along the Mount Buller Tourist Road. Its condition becomes
poor as it flows through more cleared land, much of which is grazing land or lifestyle
properties.
Brankeet Creek, which is located in the north western part of our shire is rated as being
moderate; again these rivers run through cleared grazing land with some settlements
scattered along its reaches.
Fords Creek is the only river within our Shire that receives a very poor rating. This creek
runs through cleared land which again is largely used for grazing and other agricultural uses.
Importantly it flows through areas where there are smaller lifestyle properties (ie hobby farms
of up to 15 acres) and the relatively densely settled township of Mansfield, which may
explain its poorer rating.
The poor ratings for lower reaches of the Delatite River and Fords Creek is also linked to a
low hydrology rating (of 1 and 3 respectively) caused by low summer flows, extraction of raw
water for town water supplies for over 5000 people and the relatively small catchment area
for Fords Creek.
It is noted that the Big River, in the south of the shire, is rated as being in excellent condition
at two monitoring stations. Other monitoring stations within Murrindindi Shire along the
Goulburn River have a moderate rating, while the Rubicon, Archeron and Taggerty Rivers
have good to excellent ratings.
Page 23
Table 4
Summary of Index of Stream Condition Rating for the Goulburn
Basin
River
Monitoring
site
reference
Hydrology
rating
Physical
form
rating
Streamside
zone rating
Water
quality
rating
Aquatic
life rating
Overall
condition
rating
Goulburn*
14
7
5
6
9
8
Moderate
Goulburn
15
9
6
9
6
8
Good
Goulburn
16
9
7
9
-
9
Excellent
Big River*
67
10
7
10
10
Excellent
Big River*
68
10
7
10
9
10
Excellent
Howqua
69
9
5
8
-
8
Good
Howqua
70
9
7
9
10
9
Excellent
Delatite
71
1
5
6
9
7
Poor
Delatite
72
6
7
9
-
9
Good
Fords
Creek
73
3
5
4
2
4
Very Poor
*
Rivers on Mansfield Shire municipal boundaries
Broken 2012
5.3.1 Overview of the Upper Goulburn (Catchment 4, Map 2)
The Upper Goulburn Declared Special Area (Water Supply Catchment) was first declared on
19 January 1957 under the Soil Conservation and Land Utilisation Act 1958. It covers an
area of around 279,088 hectares.
5.3.2 Overview of the Lake Eildon Environs (Catchment 4A, Map 2)
The Lake Eildon Environs was first declared in June 1976 under the Soil Conservation and
Land Utilisation Act 1958. It covers an area of around 8700 hectares.
Its declaration was supported by a range of documents including:

Upper Goulburn (Lake Eildon Environs) Water Supply Catchment Land Use
Determination - Policy Statement (June 1976);

Background Report on a Proposed Land Use Determination for part of the Upper
Goulburn (Lake Eildon) Water Supply Catchment - prepared for consideration by the
Soil Conservation Authority and the Land Conservation Council; and the

Report on a Proposed Land Use Determination for part of the Upper Goulburn (Lake
Eildon Environs) Water Supply Catchment – amendments.
These documents, along with the eventual Gazetted declaration, focus on a number of
issues that pose a potential threat to water quality including erosion, land clearing and the
ability for rural and urban subdivisions to effectively treat effluent on site.
Page 24
Table 5
Category
Number
Extract from the Government Gazette’s Lake Eildon Environs
Declaration
Land Category
Land to be used for the protection of streams,
water courses and Lake Eildon -
1
 within 200 metres of full supply level
of Lake Eildon, or a lesser distance
where defined;
 within 40 metres of the banks of streams
shown by heavy line on Plan No. S. 478;
 within 20 metres of other streams and
watercourses within the Determined
area.
Provisions of Category
Disturbance of soils and vegetation should be
minimal on land in this category. Consultation with
the SCA is required before the commencement of
clearing or cultivation operations, earthworks
associated with construction of buildings or stream
crossings, or other earthworks.
All sewage and sullage waters shall be treated in
accordance with the requirements of the
Environment Protection Act 1970, the Health Act
1958 and the local municipality.
2
Land to be retained as forest.
Grazing of land in this category should be limited to
that required to reduce fire hazard, and where
necessary to grazing management or other
conservation measures.
3
Steep land of a high erosion hazard best
suited for protection forest but which may
be used for grazing.
Grazing of land in this category should remain
uncleared. The Authority may specify conditions
relating to grazing management or other conservation
measures.
4
Land suitable for grazing, parts of which
may also be cultivated for cropping
purposes.
The Authority will, where necessary specify conditions
relating to conservation measures or cultivation. Prior
consultation with the SCA is required before land is
used for commercial horticulture.
5
Land at present subdivided for residential
development.
The Authority may advise on the use and
management of this land to prevent or correct
erosion and to protect water supply interest.
Source: Upper Goulburn (Lake Eildon) Water Supply Catchment - Extract from the Victoria
Government Gazette (1977)
Map 7 highlights the existing settlements within the catchment, including Jamieson, Macs
Cove, Howqua, Goughs Bay, Bonnie Doon and a range of other unnamed settlements
(which appear as black ‘blocks’ on the map).
Large scale water storage and harvesting has been undertaken in the area in an attempt to
provide a safety net for local farmers from drought since the turn of the last century.
Sugarloaf Reservoir, as it was first known, was completed in 1929 and was increased to a
capacity of around 377,000 mega litres in 1935. Drought mitigation objectives failed and
hence a decision was made to increase its capacity to 3,334,158 mega litres (its current
capacity), with works on the enlarged dam completed in 1955.
Around 91% of water released from the Lake is used for irrigation purposes throughout the
Goulburn Murray Irrigation District controlled by GMW. (Source http://www.gmwater.com.au/water-resources/storages/goulburn/lakeeildon)
Page 25
Map 7
Land Use Categories – Lake Eildon Environs Declaration 1977
Source: Upper Goulburn (Lake Eildon) Water Supply Catchment - Extract from the Victoria
Government Gazette (1977)
In 2012 the Lake Eildon Land and On-Water Management Plan was completed by GMW in
partnership with Murrindindi and Mansfield Shires (as well as other stakeholders). This Plan
will be discussed in more detail in Section 10 of this document but suffice to say it sets out a
number of objectives, strategies and actions to protect and enhance its beneficial uses
(under SEPP W of V). This is, therefore, now the key document for land and water use
within a large part of this catchment.
5.3.3 Overview of the Upper Goulburn (Upper Delatite) (Catchment 4B, Map 2)
This Special Area Plan (SAP) was created on 1 March 1985 and deals specifically with the
north eastern section of the Upper Goulburn Catchment around the towns of Sawmill
Settlement, Pinnacle Valley and Merrijig. It covers an area of around 23,092 hectares.
The declaration is supported by a detailed plan that covers issues such as land use and
management within 200 metres of water off-take points at Merrijig (which provides water for
the Mansfield township) and Sawmill Settlement, areas suitable for residential and rural
subdivision (which covers an extensive part of the catchment) and management suggestions
for land uses such as grazing and timber production. It is noted that this SAP was written
prior to sewer being installed for settlements within this catchment.
Page 26
5.4
The Broken River Basin
A relatively small area of the Broken Basin lies within our municipal boundaries. The Broken
River originates in the highlands around Tolmie in the north east corner of our shire. This
basin covers around 770,000 hectares, or just over 3% of Victoria. Its mean annual flow is
around 325,000 mega litres, representing only 1.5% of the State’s total discharge. The
Broken River flows into Lake Nillahcootie, which lies on the boundary between Mansfield
and Benalla Shires and serves as a key storage for the Basin.
Map 8
Boundaries of the Broken Basin and Monitoring Points
http://data.water.vic.gov.au/monitoring.htm
As can be seen from Map 8 there is only one monitoring station for the Basin within the
Mansfield Shire, located at the head of Lake Nillahcootie. Figure 4 summarises water quality
in the Broken Basin according to the most current information from DEPI water quality.
Figure 4
Index of Stream Condition – Broken Basin
Source: DEPI website Index of Stream Condition http://www.nre.vic.gov.au/ins-clpr/vcio/
The Broken is, overall, in poorer condition than the Goulburn. The Third Benchmark of
Condition Report for the Goulburn Broken provides water quality information from more
monitoring sources, and therefore provides a better picture of water quality within our Shire.
Page 27
Map 9
Stream Condition Index Overview for Rivers within Mansfield
Shire – Broken Basin
Lake
Nillahcootie
Broken 2012
The Broken River has its headwaters near Tolmie and in moderate condition, which may be
due to the monitoring point being located downstream of some relatively cleared land. When
it flows into Lake Nillahcootie its condition reduces to poor, again perhaps due to the cleared
nature of land which is used for grazing purposes.
Some farming land is also used for relatively intense agriculture, which may result in
elevated levels of nutrients from soil improvers and low hydrology ratings due to the amount
of water being extracted from rivers and streams. Erosion is likely to be another factor
reducing water quality at this point of the Broken River.
Two monitoring points along Sawpit Creek and Holland Creek respectively depict stream
condition as being moderate. This area of our shire is relatively sparsely populated but part
of its catchment is cleared agricultural land.
Lima East Creek has its headwaters in our shire and is identified as being in good condition.
Further downstream, in the Rural City of Benalla, stream conditions remain moderate for the
Broken River. The improvement in river quality downstream of Nillahcootie is most likely
derived from natural processes at play (such as the settling of sedimentation) when water is
retained within the Lake for a period of time.
Page 28
Table 6
Summary of Index of Stream Condition Rating for the Broken
Basin
River
Monitoring
site
reference
Hydrology
rating
Physical
form
rating
Streamside
zone rating
Water
quality
rating
Aquatic
life rating
Overall
condition
rating
Broken
5
7
4
4
3
8
Poor
Broken
6
7
5
6
7
8
Moderate
Lima East
Creek
10
6
8
9
-
8
Good
Sawpit
Creek
11
5
5
7
-
5
Moderate
Holland
Creek
15
4
6
9
-
8
Moderate
Broken 2012
5.4.1 Lake Nillahcootie (Catchment 33, Map 2)
The Lake Nillahcootie declared special area water supply catchment was declared on 27
September 1967 under the Soil Conservation and Land Utilisation Act 1958. It covers an
area of around 42,209 hectares and straddles the northern border of our Shire and that of
the Rural City of Benalla.
A Preliminary Report was prepared by the Soil Conservation Authority in December 1966,
which again focussed on concerns about erosion within this catchment, mainly caused by
steeply sloping land at the top of the catchment. Erosion of the Broken River itself was a
primary concern. It is interesting to note that this report identifies that along with the benefits
from formally declaring this catchment:
“Pasture improvement, improved management practices (mainly subdivision and
rabbit control) fire control and control of stream bank erosion are the suggested
remedial measures.”
The Lake was constructed in 1967 by the Rural Water Commission to help mitigate against
the impacts of drought in northern Victoria and as part of a program to secure water supply
in northern Victoria. It also provides a means of regulating floodwater flowing into the
Broken River. Most of Nillahcootie’s water is used for irrigation and stock; a small
percentage is used for urban water outside of Mansfield Shire.
In 2011 GMW completed a Land and On-Water Management Plan for the Lake which,
similar to that for Lake Eildon, sets out a 5 year program of strategies and actions to manage
the increasing, and sometimes competing, values of the Lake and its foreshore.
5.5
Other Catchments Within Our Shire
There are small areas of other declared catchments that fall marginally into the Shire to the
far north east and south east (such as the King River - Lake William Hovell), however the
land affected by these catchments is Crown land and hence they do not face development
pressure.
Page 29
5.6
Groundwater
Groundwater lies beneath the ground, collecting in the pores and crevices of sand and
rocks. This ‘pooling’ of water is known as an aquifer, which can be pumped to the surface.
Catchments for groundwater are defined as Groundwater Management Units, and there are
a number of tools provided by the Water Act 1989 that can be used by the Minister for Water
and authorities managing groundwater resources; the Minister can declare a Water Supply
Protection Area (WSPA) where intensive management and monitoring of potential risks to
ground water is required, or a Groundwater Management Area (GMA) whereby the local
authority develops a Local Management plan to define management objectives and water
sharing arrangements for all users (including environmental flows).
Unincorporated Areas are those that lie outside a groundwater management unit. Should
demand for groundwater resources increase or potential resource issues arise it can be
declared a groundwater management unit.
Groundwater in the Goulburn Broken Region is managed by GMW. A significant number of
agricultural and commercial land uses within the Goulburn Broken region use groundwater
for a water source. It is also an important source of potable water within our region.
There are no Groundwater Management Areas within Mansfield Shire, however the Upper
Goulburn GMA covers the Upper Goulburn River Catchments including the Rubicon,
Acheron, Yea Rivers and King Parrot Creek, as demonstrated by Map 10. The township of
Eildon, which lies on the south western side of Lake Eildon, is included in this GMA. In
August 2013 a Local Management Plan for this GMA was approved, outlining how
groundwater resources will be managed to balance the needs of all users.
Map 10
Upper Goulburn Groundwater Management Area
Source: GMW Website http://www.g-mwater.com.au/water-resources/groundwater/groundwater_management/uppergoulburngma accessed 8 February 2014
Page 30
5.7
Water Quality
Both GMW and GVW monitor water quality throughout the year. Water quality information
has already been provided in a general sense in the discussion of the Goulburn and Broken
Basins in relation to overall waterway health and the Index of Stream Condition Report 2012.
This section will discuss the water quality testing undertaken by the two water corporations
for water at offtake points and within storages; GMW test raw water quality whilst GVW test
treated water quality.
It is important to note that there is limited raw water data in relation to pathogens (eg E coli)
in Mansfield and Murrindindi Shires. As discussed in Section 1, untreated wastewater from
domestic premises can contain high levels of pathogens, which in turn can pose risks to the
health of humans (if consumed via potable water, ingestion of aquatic animals or through
recreational use of waterways), livestock and local flora/fauna.
5.7.1 Raw Water Quality at the Lake Eildon Outlet
GMW’s Major Storages 2012 Water Quality Report shows that since 2003 the raw water in
Lake Eildon has met the majority of guidelines set down by SEPP (W of V) and the
Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality 2000 (known in
the industry as ANZECC).
Table 7 is an extract from the Report which highlights the only non compliances over this 10
year period in blue.
For indicators such as pH, electrical conductivity (EC), filterable reactive phosphate (FRP),
total phosphorus (TP) and chlorophyll Lake Eildon’s water has consistently been below the
limits set by these two documents. Turbidity has been relatively consistent, with the 2012
measurement being the lowest over the past decade, and an overall trend of decline has
occurred in recent years.
It is noted that GMW state that the oxidised nitrogen levels are following normal seasonal
patterns, with levels rising to their maximum in winter and then reducing to their lowest levels
in summer.
Elevated levels of nitrogen are caused through agricultural and domestic use of fertilisers
and pesticides. Nitrogen is also found in domestic wastewater, with the decomposition
process creating ammonia and nitrate as by products.
High levels of nitrogen and phosphorus, along with other factors such as hot weather, light
winds and low inflows provide good conditions for the excessive growth of blue green algae.
GMW introduced a blue green algae monitoring program several years ago. Since then
warnings for potentially harmful algal blooms were issued by GMW for Lake Eildon in
2004/05, 2010/11 and 2011/12 following the introduction of a testing program.
Algal blooms can make water taste unpleasant and some species produce toxins that are
harmful to humans and other animals (including livestock) if consumed. Aeration of the
water (through inflows and turbulence caused by wind) often results in the blooms
dissipating.
Page 31
Table 7
Compliance of Raw Water Quality at the Lake Eildon Outlet in Comparison to SEPP (2003) and ANZECC (2000) Water
Quality Guidelines
SEPP River &
Stream Guidelines
pH
Electrical
Conductivity
(µS/cm)
Turbidity
(NTU)
6.4 – 7.7
≤ 100
≤5
ANZECC Guidelines
Ammonia
(mg/L)
Oxidised
Nitrogen
(mg/L)
Total
Nitrogen
(mg/L)
Filterable
Reactive
Phosphate
(mg/L)
≤ 0.35
≤ 0.01
≤ 0.01
Total
Phosphorus
(mg/L)
Chlorophyll
(µg/L)
≤ 0.025
≤ 0.005
≤5
2003
7.0
7.4
56
4
0.004
0.07
0.29
<0.003
0.013
3
2004
7.3
7.4
53
6
0.005
0.03
0.48
<0.003
0.020
5
2005
7.3
7.4
55
3
0.007
0.03
0.30
<0.003
0.012
3
2006
7.3
7.5
57
3
0.007
0.02
0.26
<0.003
0.022
2
2007
7.3
7.5
65
5
0.006
0.29
0.68
<0.003
0.022
3
2008
7.4
7.5
57
3
0.005
0.21
0.44
<0.003
0.011
5
2009
7.4
7.5
56
3
0.006
0.03
0.26
<0.003
0.015
3
2010
7.2
7.3
51
3
0.011
0.04
0.28
<0.003
0.017
3
2011
7.2
7.4
52
3
0.009
0.06
0.353
<0.003
0.013
4
2012
7.3
7.5
55
2
0.006
0.041
0.30
<0.003
0.010
2
Source: Goulburn Murray Water Major Storages 2012 Water Quality Report
Note: The compliance used by the SEPP are the 75th percentile, whilst the ANZECC guidelines use a median, or the 50th percentile, as the standard
measure.
Page 32
In summary the non compliances were:

Turbidity exceeded SEPP guidelines in 2004

Total nitrogen exceeded SEPP guidelines for four years


Ammonia exceeded ANZECC guidelines in 2010
Oxidised Nitrogen exceeded ANZECC guidelines in all years.
GMW must, under the Safe Drinking Water Act, prepare an annual provide a water quality report. This Report also lists incidents where remedial action
has been taken during the year to respond to issues that may compromise water quality. Four incidents were reported for Lake Eildon as outlined in
Table 8.
Table 8
Date
Incidents Potentially Affecting Raw Water Quality in Lake Eildon 2012/13
Indecent &
Risk Level
Description
Location
Action Taken
21/03/13
1
7 year old reported with severe illness after swimming
in the Lake
Lake Eildon near Paps Lane
Carer advised to seek medical attention
immediately. Department of Health advised by
GMW.
24/03/13
1
Minor sewer spill (clear liquid and no solids)
Marina at Eildon (outside
Mansfield Shire)
Breach Notice served to Lessee under Clause
4.6 of Environmental Protection Act. GMW
provided with detailed program as to how to
prevent this from occurring again.
4/04/13
1
Furniture, plastic waste and timbers dumped on
foreshore.
Marina at Eildon (outside
Mansfield Shire)
Leaseholder cleaned up area.
Source: Safe Drinking Water Act 2003 Water Storage Manager 2012-13 Annual Report (GMW)
Page 33
5.7.2 Raw Water Quality at Bonnie Doon (Lake Eildon)
Information provided by GMW regarding water quality at Bonnie Doon suggests that water
quality at this point is generally of a poorer quality than that at the Lake Eildon Outake. In
comparison to the outtake point, GMW advise that for most indicators, levels were higher at
Bonnie Doon, but mostly still within specified guideline ranges.
In 2012, however, oxidised nitrogen and total nitrogen exceeded both SEPP WoV and
ANZECC standards; this also occurred in 2011. Despite the SEPP guideline for total
phosphorus being exceeded in 2011, it was within suggested levels in 2012. The ANZECC
guideline for chlorophyll was exceeded in both 2011 and 2012.
5.7.3 Treated Water Quality Indicators
Both the GVW Annual Report 2012/13 and the Annual Report Water Quality 2012 - 13
demonstrate that 100% of the weekly measurements taken for treated water within the piped
water reticulation network in towns in the Mansfield and Murrindindi Shires were below the
required levels for the guideline ranges set by the Safe Drinking Water Act and Safe Drinking
Water Regulations for potable water.
Extensive data is provided by GVW in the Water Quality Report. It is interesting to note that
for most guideline measures the treated water quality in the piped water reticulation network
in Mansfield and Murrindindi Shires is better than municipalities further downstream. Often
the readings taken in our shires found lower levels of various contaminants and elements,
particularly at the top of the catchment at the Upper Delatite testing site. This is most likely a
function of the treatment processes used by GVW and the raw water quality.
There were no reportable emergency events requiring GVW to implement their emergency
management plan within Mansfield or Murrindindi Shires during the reporting period.
During 2012/13 there were isolated incidents of minor levels of contamination (e.g. E- coli)
found in water samples in other parts of GVW’s service area that had to be reported to the
Department of Health under Section 22 of the Safe Drinking Water Act. GVW reports that Ecoli contamination is rare. It is important to note that none of these were in the Mansfield or
Murrindindi Shires.
There were, however, two readings that did not meet the ‘aesthetic’ measures for pH (please
note this measure is not prescribed by the Act as a requirement for drinking water quality);
pH levels do affect the efficacy of disinfection as the higher the pH the less effective this
process becomes.
One of the monthly samples taken at Bonnie Doon exceeded the desired pH parameter
(which is 6.5 – 8.5 pH units), with a reading of 8.8. Eildon also had one reading of 9.2. This
was the only measure where any of the samples was non compliant.
Some historical information is provided in the Annual Report which shows that there have
been isolated issues at Bonnie Doon in relation to aluminium levels in 2010/11 and 2011/12,
as can be seen in Table 9. GVW advise that this was due to a new water treatment plant
being constructed and commissioned around this time and resulted in some ‘bedding down
issues’ at the plant.
Page 34
Table 9
Summary of Compliance with Treated Water Quality Standards
2010/11 - 13
Source: Goulburn Valley Water Annual Report Water Quality 2012 - 13
The issue required GVW to make an ‘undertaking’ to the Department of Health as per
Section 30 of Safe Drinking Water Act. Such an undertaking is made where there is a risk of
ongoing non-compliance with the Act’s water quality standards. GVW advise that this
undertaking was successfully completed in 2012.
5.7.4 Discharge of Wastewater from GVW Treatment Plants
Further to Section 5.2.2 GVW’s Annual Reports note that permitted offsite discharges of
treated wastewater occurred in the following times of high rainfall at:



5.8
Mansfield during early June to mid of September 2011 and then from mid July to
October 2012;
Sawmill settlement for a 10 day period in June 2011; and
Yea (in Murrindindi Shire) for 12 days in September 2012.
Key Findings
 A very high proportion of testing samples collected by both GMW (for raw water)
and GVW (for treated water) show compliance with all water quality standards,
including ‘aesthetic’ parameters, within both Mansfield and Murrindindi Shires;
 Many indicators for both raw water and water in the piped water reticulation
network are the best in the region for towns within Mansfield and Murrindindi Shires,
particularly in the upper catchment around the Upper Delatite;
 Raw water quality at the Bonnie Doon off take point is lower than that at Lake
Eildon, although still highly compliant with raw water quality standards;
 A consistent non compliance over the past decade for Lake Eildon has been the
level of nitrogen, although it is not clear how much this is due to ineffective onsite
domestic wastewater management or the agricultural use of land that predominates in
the catchment;
Page 35
 Other non compliances were turbidity exceeding SEPP guidelines in 2004, ammonia
exceeding ANZECC guidelines in 2010 and total nitrogen exceeding SEPP guidelines in
2004, 07, 08 and 11;
 Warnings for potentially harmful algal blooms were issued by GMW for Lake Eildon
in 2004/05, 2010/11 and 2011/12; and
 As part of approved operations on various occasions in times of excessive rainfall
treated wastewater has been discharged by GVW (subject to strict conditions) into
waterways within Mansfield and Murrindindi Shires.
Page 36
6) A Profile of Our Shire
6.1
Shire-wide Population, Dwelling and Household Data and
Trends
Mansfield Shire has an area of around 3840 km2 and is located in North Eastern Victoria,
around two hours from Melbourne’s CBD. It is dominated by the dramatic landscapes of the
Great Dividing Range along our eastern and southern borders, Lake Eildon along our
western border and Lake Nillahcootie on our northern border.
Map 11
Mansfield Shire
Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics 2011 Census QuickStats
http://www.censusdata.abs.gov.au/census_services/getproduct/census/2011/quickstat/LGA24250
Mansfield township is the major service centre for the shire. Most of our townships are
scattered along major arterial roads including Maroondah Highway, the Midland Link, Mount
Buller Road and Mansfield – Woods Point Road. There are also a number of townships on
the banks of Lake Eildon such as Bonnie Doon, Goughs Bay, Macs Cove and Howqua.
Over the past decade Mansfield’s population has been growing between 1.5 to 2 percent
per annum, which is amongst the highest rate in the Hume Region, and currently sits
at 7,893 (2011 Census Data).
A key factor in this growth rate is the growing number of people wanting a ‘tree change’ and
moving to the Shire for its lifestyle and proximity to Melbourne. Many of our new permanent
residents initially purchase a holiday home and then choose to either retire here or they live
part time, sharing time between the Shire and Melbourne.
Victoria in Future 2011 – 2031 aims to predict future growth in all municipalities. A snapshot
of key population data, dwelling numbers and occupancy rates for 2011 and 2031 are
provided in Table 10.
Mansfield’s population is estimated to grow by almost 27 percent over this timeframe,
whilst Murrindindi Shire’s growth will be around 31%. An increase in the number of
dwellings of around 38% is expected for both Mansfield and Murrindindi Shires,
accompanied by a decline in household size.
Page 37
Table 10
Key Population and Dwelling Data for Mansfield and Murrindindi
Shires 2011 - 2031
As at June 30th 2011
SLA Name
Estimated
Resident
Population (ERP)
Occupied Private
Dwellings (OPD)*
Average
Household
Size**
Structural
Private
Dwellings
(SPD)
Occupancy
Rate
Mansfield (S)
7,998
3,371
2.25
5,592
60%
Murrindindi (S) East
6,292
2,611
2.32
3,681
71%
Murrindindi (S) West
7,349
2,918
2.51
3,479
84%
As at June 30th 2031
Mansfield (S)
10,153
4,497
2.10
7,694
58%
Murrindindi (S) East
7,650
3,247
2.24
4,722
69%
Murrindindi (S) West
10,259
4,184
2.44
5,146
81%
Source: Victoria in Future 2011 – 2031 data tables
Census data from 2011 shows that 91% of occupied dwellings were single, detached
dwellings. The majority of these were 3 bedrooms (47%), with just over a quarter of
occupied private dwellings having four or more bedrooms.
Table 11
Dwelling Structure – Occupied Private Dwellings 2011 Census
Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics 2011 Census QuickStats Dwelling Structure Charts
Around 30% of occupied private dwellings were lone person households.
Page 38
Table 12
Household Composition – Occupied Private Dwellings 2011
Census
Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics 2011 Census QuickStats Household Composition Charts
6.2
Township Population, Dwelling, Household Data and Trends
Given the extent of future growth predicted by Victoria in Future it is clear that existing
unsewered townships and rural living areas will face sustained development pressure.
Unfortunately it is not possible to provide direct comparisons between historical Census data
and the 2011 results as statistical areas have changed significantly since 2006. A
comparison to 2001 data is even more difficult as the shire had been amalgamated with
Benalla Shire Council to form the Delatite Shire.
Having said that, an overall picture can be gained by total population and private dwelling
figures from the 2006 and 2011 data; the shire’s population in 2011 was 7893, an
increase of 9.7% on the 2006 population of 7191. The total number of private
dwellings increased by around 7% over the same period.
Data from the 2011 Census is provided in Table 13. Information about a township’s total
population, average household size, dwelling type and the number of bedrooms is relevant
to this DWMP in terms of providing a picture of the quantum wastewater generated within
these settlements.
The percentage of unoccupied dwellings is also a key characteristic of our towns given that
we know around 50% of private dwellings are holiday homes. This, in turn, impacts on the
wastewater management challenges and possible solutions that will form the basis of the
DWMP’s Action and Resource Plan.
It should be noted that parts of the Mansfield, Bonnie Doon and Merrijig to Sawmill
Settlement Statistical Subdivisions include both sewered and unsewered areas.
Unfortunately it is not possible to drill down to separate lots that are sewered from those that
are not in these areas. Appendix 4 provides a map of each 2011 Census Statistical Division
referred to in the following table.
Page 39
Table 13
2011 Census Statistical Division Data - Household Size and Composition, Dwelling Type and Number of
Bedrooms
Maindample
Mansfield***
(most of the
urban area
sewered)
Merrijig to
Sawmill Settlement
(most of the urban
area sewered)
Merton
Tolmie
515
696
3664
705
302
547
510
411
472
1719
463
266
389
2.2
1.8
2.1
2.5
2.3
2.3
2.1
2.3
68%
64%
65%
58%
44%
16%
61%
54%
44%
36
73
51
58
462
63
35
57
84
75
114
525
63
60
105
9
20
26
186
18
8
21
14
25
59
282
34
21
32
Barjarg
and
Surrounds
Bonnie Doon
(most of the
urban area
sewered)
Goughs
Bay
Jamieson to
Woods Point
Howqua and
Macs Cove
Population
189
521
382
384
Total Private Dwellings
109
604
371
Average household size
2.1
2.4
Unoccupied dwellings (%
of total private dwellings)
24%
Data set
Household
composition
(no of
households)
1 person
22
49
2 persons
44
84
3 persons
10
21
>3 persons
3
42
Type of
occupied
private
dwelling
Detached
dwelling
82
446
130
310
169
253
1281
173
270
218
Flat or unit
-
8
-
-
3
11
169
3
-
-
Other (eg
caravan)
-
4
5
9
3
-
17
12
-
-
1
3
6
10
18
8
7
21
5
-
14
2
13
35
27
54
44
38
146
35
22
48
3
38
90
64
79
70
120
625
84
70
104
>3
bedrooms
30
60
35
24
47
87
367
51
30
47
Number of
bedrooms *
102**
Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics 2011 Census Community Profiles
*
Significantly fewer responses were provided for the number of bedrooms, hence the lower dwelling totals.
**
Detailed household composition data for Goughs Bay was unavailable – the data is from its Quick Stats Profile
***
Maindample totals have been subtracted from the Mansfield township totals to avoid double counting
Page 40
Some points of note from the 2011 Census data are:

the bulk of the population is located in the sewered townships of Mansfield,
Bonnie Doon and the Merrijig – Sawmill Settlement valley;

average household size ranges from 1.8 persons in Jamieson to 2.5 in
Maindample;

Excluding the Mansfield township, Barjarg has the highest percentage of
permanently occupied dwellings at 76%, while Bonnie Doon has the lowest at
32%;

Maindample has proportionally more larger households than other townships; and

the Jamieson to Woods Point valley has the smallest dwelling size, with the
majority of dwellings having only 2 – 3 bedrooms compared to all other townships
being dominated by dwellings with 3 or more bedrooms.
6.3
Land Use and Zoning
A general land use map was included in Section 5 (Map 3) as part of the description of
catchments within the shire and provided a snapshot of overall land use. As shown in (Map
13) below, our Shire contains a significant proportion of Crown Land. As a consequence
settlement is confined to narrow valleys towards Woods Point to the south and Sawmill
Settlement to the east, townships around Lake Eildon and on the Mansfield plain along
Maroondah Highway and the Midland Link to the north.
Much of the privately owned land within Mansfield Shire, and outside our townships, lies
within a Farming Zone (FZ) which theoretically requires a minimum lot size of 40 hectares.
The scattering of farm houses across the municipality can also be seen in Map 15; each
black dot representing a dwelling.
In terms of land size, many of our Farming Zone lots are either at or below this minimum lot
size, which is due to two main factors; small lot subdivisions created in the distant past and
the decline in the profitability of farming in recent decades which has turned the Shire more
into a ‘lifestyle’ community rather than one driven by the farming sector (although it is noted
that farming related work is the third largest employer in the shire behind the retail/tourism
sector and education). It is also noted that despite the relatively small farming lot sizes
many farms are comprised of several smaller lots in the one ownership.
Farming activity in Mansfield Shire is predominantly focussed on sheep and cattle grazing,
although there is a strong seed growing sector on some of our larger farming properties,
particularly around Mansfield, Barjarg and Barwite. Wineries and orchards are fewer in
number compared to some of our neighbouring shires; these types of farms are located in
areas around Tolmie, Merrijig, Piries, Mansfield and Jamieson.
Map 13 also depicts the extensive network of Rural Living areas (RL1 and RL2) scattered
around the shire which provide for rural lifestyle properties and hobby farms of between 2 to
10 hectares. Again, some of the more developed rural living areas are clearly defined on
Map 15 by black shading. Most of the more intensely developed rural living areas are
located in and around Lake Eildon, Mansfield township, Tolmie and along valleys such as
Glen Creek Road, Bonnie Doon.
While there is a significant vacant rural living bank notionally providing for future growth for
many decades to come, the capacity of a given site to contain generated wastewater is a
constraint that must be considered through the planning permit application process. Given
this, there is no need to rezone more land for residential purposes in the foreseeable future
but there is need to ensure that Council has a domestic wastewater management plan in
place that does not unnecessarily constrain future development.
Page 41
Such a plan would need to ensure that septic systems in unsewered areas are effectively
managed and that Council works with GVW to ensure that planning for the servicing of these
areas keeps pace with rates of development.
Turning to our townships Merrijig, Woods Point and Merton’s urban areas lie within a
Township Zone (TZ), which allows the creation of small lots (down to 300m2) as well as
other commercial uses; for example Merrijig provides for a range of tourism related land
uses such as a hotel and motel within its urban boundaries.
The townships of Bonnie Doon, Goughs Bay, Macs Cove, Howqua, Jamieson, Sawmill
Settlement/Alpine Ridge and Mansfield are all zoned Residential 1 (R1Z), which again
allows the creation of small lots. A thin band of Residential 1 zoned land also extends
between Merrijig township to Mirimbah along Mount Buller Road, which includes
Sawmill Settlement and the Alpine Ridge estates which sit at the foot of Mount Buller; this
area is sewered, although not all dwellings are connected.
There are other small subdivisions zoned Residential 1 zoned around Lake Eildon
outside of the main townships; for example in Dawn Crescent and Hutchinsons Road,
Bonnie Doon as can be seen in the Map 12.
Map 12
Small Lakeside Pockets of Residential 1 Zoned Land Outside
Bonnie Doon Township (coloured pink with R1Z symbol)
Source: Planning Maps Online http://services.land.vic.gov.au/maps/pmo.jsp
Please note that detailed zoning maps for each township are provided under Sections 7.2
and 7.3.
Page 42
Map 13
Mansfield Planning Scheme Zoning Map
Source: Mansfield Shire Geographical Information System
Page 43
The Goulburn Basin, there are also pockets of Rural Conservation Zone land along the
Jamieson – Woods Point Valley in locations such as Kevington. The prescribed minimum 40
hectare lot size is deceiving as there are quite a number of small lots with dwellings along
this valley. This is a reflection of the settlements that developed to support the former gold
mining and logging industries which dominated these areas in the past (although two gold
mines are still operational in and around Woods Point).
Lastly, there is a Special Use Zone 1 (SUZ1), shown as the light green area in Map 14,
which applies to land at Mountain Bay (adjacent to Goughs Bay) on the eastern bank of
Lake Eildon. It provides for the creation of potentially several hundred lots of varying sizes,
along with a range of commercial and recreational facilities and land uses. Only a relatively
small portion of this land has been developed for rural living style lots. An overview of these
controls is provided below given the significant potential for future development near
Lake Eildon.
Clause 2 – Schedule 1 to the Special Use Zone incorporates a Concept Plan for the area,
along with a schedule of exemptions, procedures and approved plans. The concept
provides for:

the possibility of a central village with lots as small as 350m2, in addition to a range of
commercial, retail, service and utility facilities, hotel/motel accommodation and
associated car parking;

a resort development including a resort hotel comprising accommodation, conference
and related facilities, residential, restaurant and recreation facilities;

a golf course and associated club rooms, commercial facilities and residential
development;

rural living style residential development (a development plan approved in 2000
facilitates this component of the concept plan); and

rural bushland and farming type properties supported by walking tracks, recreation
facilities, Lake access and utility services.
Instead the schedule provides for the following in relation to effluent disposal, erosion and
other potential water contaminants under Clause 6 Environmental and Management
Requirements:
“Effluent absorption
Reticulated sewerage must be provided to service any Village and Resort
components of a Development Plan. Where reticulated sewerage is not
provided, the responsible authority, in consultation with the Department of
Sustainability and Environment and the Goulburn-Murray Rural Water
Authority, must be satisfied that the lots to be created are of a sufficient
size, and of suitable soil type, to enable all effluent and waste water to be
contained on-site in accordance with State Environment Protection Policy
(Waters of Victoria). All soil tests carried out in this connection must be in
accordance with the Septic Tanks Code of Practice.
Erosion, sediment and nutrient controls
Building sites and access roads must be restricted to slopes of generally
1:5 or less, unless construction and management techniques satisfactory
to the Department of Sustainability and Environment and the GoulburnMurray Rural Water Authority are approved by the responsible authority.
Drainage lines nominated by the Department of Sustainability and
Environment and the Goulburn-Murray Rural Water Authority must be
subject to a management plan approved by the Department of
Sustainability and Environment and the Goulburn-Murray Rural Water
Page 44
Authority. Such plan may include works of fencing, retention dams, tree
planting and other matters.
Subdivisional roads and associated drainage, access roads and
earthworks associated with building construction must be designed and
constructed to the responsible authority’s specification for such works. All
design and construction must be directed to minimise soil erosion and
sediment movement.
Any development must comply with any regulations and/or standards
adopted by the Goulburn - Murray Rural Water Authority with regard to the
monitoring, controlling and management of water quality in Lake Eildon.”
Clause 11 refers to Specific Sites and Exclusions which overrides any local planning policy
or overlay provision, which means that no Section 55 referrals for development, land use or
subdivision can be sent to either GMW nor GVW, even though the area is covered by the
Environmental Significance Overlay. It states:
‘The Schedule to Clause 52.03, Specific Sites and Exclusions, provides for
exemption from the provisions and controls of relevant local planning
policies and the requirements of any relevant overlay, through
reference to the incorporated document “Mountain Bay – Exemptions,
Procedures, Approved Plans and Agreements”.
Map 14
Special Use Zone, Mountain Bay (light green shading)
Source: Planning Maps Online http://services.land.vic.gov.au/maps/pmo.jsp
In contrast to the Goulburn Basin, most of the land in the Broken Catchment serving Lake
Nillahcootie lies within a Farming Zone. Developed areas around Tolmie are within a
Rural Living Zone, with a small section of land zoned Rural Conservation Zone which has a
minimum lot size of 40 hectares. There are no Township or Residential 1 Zones within the
catchment; Map 15 depicts this through the lack of concentration of black shading, aside
from Tolmie.
As can be expected there are a number of tourism and recreation based land uses
around Lakes Eildon and Nillahcootie. Privately owned caravan parks are located at
Bonnie Doon (of which there are three), Jamieson (with two), Goughs Bay and Howqua. A
caravan park is also located on the northern edge of Lake Nillahcootie just outside Mansfield
Page 45
Shire’s border, with another caravan park under construction just inside the Mansfield Shire
border. Further removed from the Lake are three caravan parks situated either within, or
close to, the Mansfield township.
There are also school camps and picnic grounds on the banks of the Lakes, providing a
base for recreational activity such as boat ramps; only two ablution blocks provided at these
facilities are connected to sewer (at Maintongoon Road and Hutchinsons Road, Bonnie
Doon).
A number of camping grounds are located on Crown Land around Lake Eildon. Many of
these are provided with formal ablution and camping infrastructure; the larger sites, such as
The Pines near Goughs Bay, can cater for several thousand people.
It is through these camping grounds, and the occupation of holiday homes, that Mansfield’s
population can more than double in peak holiday times, particularly over the Christmas/New
Year break.
6.4
Development Trends
As mentioned above, Census data shows that there as an increase in the total number of
private dwellings between 2006 and 2011 of around 7%.
More specific development trend data can be found in Council’s Development and Approvals
Committee Agendas and Minutes, which until 2014, provided a monthly overview of planning
permit, subdivision, building and septic tank applications and approvals. Comparative
graphs of data from 2005 to November 2013 (the last time such graphs were published) are
provided in Figures 5 - 10. Please note some graphs are based on a financial year, not a
calendar year, as a means of aligning with the Council Plan and Annual Report cycles.
Given the planning permit triggers that exist in the Mansfield Planning Scheme and the
zoning of land (as outlined above), the majority of the planning permit applications will be for
dwellings, dwelling extensions and subdivisions rather than for commercial or industrial
development.
Furthermore, it should be noted that planning permit applications for dwelling
extensions and the construction of a dwelling will be outside of an area with
reticulated sewerage given that the Environmental Significance Overlay, Bushfire
Management Overlay or a Farming zoned lot less than 40 hectares are the triggers for
planning permits for a single dwelling. Please note that the construction of a dwelling does
not require a planning permit in either a Residential 1 or Township Zone unless there is an
overlay to trigger a permit; for example the Environmental Significance Overlay 1 – Lake
Eildon Environs is the planning permit trigger for the construction of a dwelling in townships
such as Goughs Bay and Macs Cove.
Page 46
Figure 5
Planning Permit Application Numbers 2005 - 2010
Source: Development Approvals Committee Meeting Minutes January 20, 2011
Figure 6
*
Planning Permit Activity 2009/10 – November 2013/14*
Unfortunately the accompanying tabulated data was not included in the DAC minutes post June
2013
Source: Development Approvals Committee Meeting Minutes 19 November 2013
Clearly planning permit activity peaked in 2005, with a total of 385 planning permit
applications being lodged. Applications have decreased in recent years, primarily due to
the flow on impacts of the Global Financial Crisis in relation to investment in holiday homes
and subdivisions.
Turning to the subdivision of land, certification applications (ie the first step to creating a
Certificate of Title for a new lot) peaked in 2005, with a steady decrease in recent years.
On average, around 58 certification applications were lodged per annum between 2005 and
2012. We know from anecdotal evidence from land owners, planning consultants and land
surveyors that the uncertainty around the application of the 1:40ha dwelling density has
Page 47
resulted into some land owners delaying the submission of certification applications until
there is more certainty about future development in open potable water supply catchments.
Having said that, in November 2012 Council and Goulburn Murray Water signed a
Memorandum of Understanding which applied a risk based approach to the application of
the 1:40ha dwelling density (applying the density in high risk areas without exception) so that
development and subdivision in medium to low risk areas (determined by proximity to
waterways and potable water storages) could be considered provided a thorough land
capability assessment was provided with the application. This has resulted in the
submission of a handful of larger subdivision applications in recent times (for example
an 18 lot rural living subdivision in Rifle Butts Road, Mansfield).
Figure 7
Certifications Lodged 2005 - 2010
Source: Development Approvals Committee Meeting Minutes January 20, 2011
Figure 8
Certifications Lodged 2008 – June 2013
Source: Development Approvals Committee Meeting Minutes 16 July, 2013
To drill further down into the Planning Permit Application data for the 2009/19 – 12/13 period
the total numbers of applications for dwellings, extensions to dwellings and subdivisions
(which will include a limited number of non residential land subdivisions) are provided in
Page 48
Table 14. All applications were approved (although a handful were withdrawn for various
reasons, such as the sale of land not proceeding).
Table 14
Planning Permit Application Totals for Dwellings, Dwelling
Extensions and Subdivisions 2009/10 – 2012/13
2010
2011
2012
2013*
75
Inc 4 multi unit
applications
62
Inc 2 multi unit
applications
67
Inc 2 multi unit
applications
62
Inc 2 multi unit
applications
Dwelling Extensions
7
12
8
6
Subdivision
51
44
37
45
Total
133
118
112
113
Dwellings
* Only data to October 2013 is available
Source: Development Approvals Committee Meeting Minutes January 2010 to November 2013
Data relating to the issue of building permits is also a useful measure for building activity and
given that this type of permit is required for every structure. This information captures the
construction of all new dwellings, including those within sewered areas and others which are
exempt from planning permit requirements.
Figure 9
Monthly Comparison of Building Permits Issued for Dwellings
2005 - 2009
Source: Development Approvals Committee Agenda 19 January 2010
Page 49
Figure 10
Monthly Comparison of Building Permits Issued for Dwellings
2009 – October 2013
Source: Development Approval Committee Minutes 19 November 2013
Figures 9 and 10 show that residential development peaked within the Shire in 2011 (120
dwellings) and 2005 (118). Over the past eight years the average number of dwelling
permits issued across the entire shire was 91 per annum, which as stated above,
includes dwellings in sewered and unsewered areas. More data as to the breakdown
between unsewered and sewered development is provided in the next section and the
DWMP itself.
6.5
•
•
•
•
•
Key Findings
The significant increase in population (27%) and dwellings (38%) by 2031 means
that the development pressures experienced across our townships and rural living
areas in the past decade will continue. The need to ensure such growth is mindful of
impacts on the environment and potable water catchments is, therefore, imperative;
While the bulk of our population resides within sewered areas there is a need to
ensure the use of this infrastructure is maximised when accommodating future
growth and to work with water corporations as to how to best service our future
population in relation to wastewater management;
The high percentage of holiday homes in lakeside settlements requires careful
consideration and potential targeted action when developing the DWMP Action Plan;
Unsewered areas with a significant amount of vacant land zoned for residential
development should be carefully reviewed as a means of identifying development
parameters and possible wastewater solutions, with a particular focus on Goughs
Bay as this is the area subject to high levels of development pressure; and
Council and its Project Partners need to consider management strategies for unsewered
camping grounds and tourism facilities located on the shores of Lakes Eildon and
Nillahcootie separately to the preparation of the DWMP.
Page 50
7) Domestic Wastewater Management
Profile
Map 15 identifies existing dwellings with on-site systems and sewered townships (the latter
of which is highlighted green). Although it is difficult to provide an exact number of on-site
domestic wastewater systems due to incomplete records (mainly due to the amalgamation
and de-amalgamation of Mansfield and Benalla in 1994 and 2002), there are over 4300
systems spread across the Shire.
Map 15
Existing Dwellings and Sewered Areas (green highlight)
Source: Mansfield Geographical Information System
Page 51
7.1
On-site Wastewater Systems Applications and Approvals
Information about to the number of applications processed by the Shire’s Environmental
Health Unit for new or upgraded wastewater systems and certificates for their use provides a
useful measure of the growth in on-site systems across the Shire and has, until recently,
been provided to the public via the Development Approvals Committee. This data provides
useful information to gauge the magnitude of monitoring and compliance efforts around new
systems and management plans for this DWMP’s Action Plan.
Figure 11
On-site Wastewater System Applications Lodged 2005 – 09 (all onsite wastewater management applications)
Source: Development Approvals Committee Minutes 19 January 2010
Figure 12
On-site Wastewater System Applications Lodged 2009 – 13
Source: Development Approvals Committee Minutes 13 November 2013
Page 52
Similar to trends in planning and building permit data, it can be seen that wastewater
management systems approvals peaked in 2005 (120) and 2006 (116). Overall an
average of 80 wastewater system permits were lodged per annum between 2009 and
2012 across the entire Shire.
A summary of permit applications, permits issued and certificates to install issued by the
Environmental Health Unit over the past few years is provided in Table 15. It is noted that
only a handful of wastewater systems applications and approvals would relate to non
residential development (eg caravan parks or cafes) given the limited commercial
development in unsewered areas.
Table 15
On-site Wastewater Management System Applications, Permits to
Install and Certificates to Use Issued 2009 – October 2013
Year
Total Applications
Permits Issued for
Installation
Certificates Issued
for Use
2009
89
72
68
2010
96
70
85
2011
59
61
69
2012
74
75
70
Oct 2013
46
43
80
Total
364
321
372
Annual Average
73
64
74
Source: Development Approvals Committee Minutes January 2010 – October 2013
When comparing annual building approvals for dwelling over the past few years to the
number of permits issued for installation and certificate for use it is clear that the majority of
new development within the shire is in unsewered areas. An average of 91 building
permits were issued for dwellings per annum over the past 5 years, while an average
of 64 applications to install and 74 certificates for use were approved per annum.
It should be noted that the increase in Certificates for Use are greater than applications to
install in 2013 due to a proactive compliance effort by Council’s Environmental Health Unit to
conclude the approvals process where a permit had been issued to install but there had
been no notification from the land owner/installer that the system was installed and ready to
use.
The distribution of these systems across the shire, particularly in townships around Lake
Eildon and on our major rivers such as the Goulburn and the Delatite will be explored further
in Section 7.3.
Page 53
7.2
Sewered Areas
As mentioned previously the townships of Mansfield, Bonnie Doon and the valley between
Merrijig and Sawmill Settlement benefit from reticulated sewerage infrastructure. Maps 16 to
18 show the location of the sewerage network, as well as surrounding unsewered dwellings.
Key wastewater and potable water infrastructure is also identified on these maps, including
municipal township treatment plants and offtake points for potable water supplies.
7.2.1 Mansfield Township (Map 16)
Average Household Size: 2.3
Predominant No. of Bedrooms: 3 +
Predominant Household Types: 1 or 2 people
Unoccupied Private Dwellings: 16%
Reticulated sewer services within Mansfield township is essentially confined to the
central township (Residential 1 zoned) areas, as can be seen in Map 16. Recent
extensions to sewer have been constructed to service the Kareen Hills Estate along the
Mansfield Whitfield Road in the town’s north east corner, and along Malcolm Street to the
western end of town.
GVW’s township treatment plant can be seen to the north west of the town, as well as the
potable water treatment plant to the south east corner of the township.
The rural living development surrounding the town is clearly depicted in the map below, all of
which is unsewered. It is also interesting to note that some dwellings within the Residential
1 zone, particularly to the south eastern corner of the township, are not connected to
reticulated sewer as yet, however the Draft Highton Lane Outline Development Plan (which
has been subject to public exhibition) seeks to ensure any future development in this area is
connected to sewer.
Development pressure in Mansfield is expected to remain high well into the future.
7.2.2 Bonnie Doon (Map 17)
Reticulated sewer in Bonnie Doon is primarily located in the central township area on the
western side of Lake Eildon, with an extension towards Dawn Crescent to the south and
across to the eastern side of the Lake. The offtake point for potable water is located under
the Bonnie Doon Bridge, with the GVW potable water treatment plant located further to the
west. The GVW township wastewater treatment plant is located further to the west of the
Bonnie Doon township, on the Brankeet Arm of the Lake.
An unsewered Residential 1 area is located on the eastern banks of the Lake around James
Street. In the recent past Council has worked with GVW to investigate the extension of
reticulated to this area, however it was found to be unviable given the small number of
properties benefitting from the investment.
Overall development pressure in Bonnie Doon has been moderate to high, which is
expected to continue into the future.
Page 54
7.2.3 Merrijig to Sawmill Settlement Valley (Upper Delatite) (Map 18)
The reticulated sewerage network in the Upper Delatite Valley services dwellings located in
a Residential 1 Zone in Sawmill Settlement, the Alpine Ridge Estate, Pinnacle Valley Resort,
the ribbon of dwellings between the Delatite River and Mount Buller Road through to Merrijig
township in the west (although not all of these dwellings are connected to the sewer as the
dwellings were constructed pre-sewer and they still rely on older style septic systems).
There are a handful of vacant lots within the ribbon of Residential 1 land along the Delatite
River and vacant lots within the Alpine Ridge subdivision. Sawmill Settlement also has
some vacant lots, however the high fire danger and Bushfire Management Overlay
provisions may mean that some will need to build to an incredibly high standard in order to
receive a permit for a dwelling.
The potable water offtake point and potable water treatment plant are located to the east of
Sawmill Settlement, whereas the township wastewater treatment plant is located to the south
of Merrijig township and upstream of the Mansfield township offtake point.
There is a relatively consistent scattering of unsewered dwellings scattered around this area,
primarily located on undersized Farming Zone lots (ie under 40 hectares).
Development pressure in this area has been moderate to high, which is expected to continue
into the foreseeable future.
Page 55
Map 16
Mansfield Township Reticulated
Surrounding Unsewered Dwellings
Sewerage
Network
and
Source: Mansfield Shire Council Geographical Information System
Page 56
Map 17
Bonnie Doon Township Reticulated Sewerage Network and
Surrounding Unsewered Dwellings
Page 57
Map 18
Merrijig to Sawmill Settlement (Upper Delatite) Reticulated
Sewerage Network and Surrounding Unsewered Dwellings
Page 58
7.2.4 Capacity in the Sewer Network for Future Growth
GVW has kindly provided information to Council on their sewer servicing strategy for
Mansfield township over the next 20 years.
The strategy is based on the Victoria in Future population growth projections outlined earlier
in this Report, along with data on historic growth rates and connections. It should be also
noted that GVW and Council regularly exchange information about potential future growth
areas within sewered townships through Officer meetings and the planning permit referral
process for subdivisions.
GVW note that “based on the current growth forecast, there could be 535 new residential
sewer connections over a 20 year planning horizon. However, the Corporation is currently
aware that sufficient land is available for development that would result in considerably more
than 535 new sewer connections over a longer term planning horizon. From our reckoning
there is currently potential for up to 1,473 new residential and 62 non-residential sewer
connections in the future”.
Map 19
Location of Considered Development Areas
Source: Goulburn Valley Water Mansfield Township Servicing Strategy
GVW has kindly provided their breakdown of the potential number of lots and additional
connections for the areas identified in Map 19.
Page 59
Table 16 – Details of the Identified Residential Development Areas
Council considers this to be an accurate representation of future development potential.
There is, however, the potential for site A6 to double in lot numbers following the State
Government’s recent reduction of the minimum lot size for Low Density Residential land from
0.4 to 0.2 hectares. There is also a large area of land to the east of A17 and 12 along the
eastern side of Highton Lane zoned Residential 1 that is affected by a Development Plan
Overlay. Council has been developing an Outline Development Plan for this area to ensure
a strategy is in place to coordinate the provision of infrastructure prior to planning permit
applications for subdivisions being considered. It is possible that up to 300 dwellings could
be developed in this area over the next few decades. Presently none of the larger lots are
sewered. This represents an additional demand for sewerage services over time.
Page 60
Table 17 – Details of the Identified Non-Residential Development Areas
GVW have grouped the above development sites into five regions; Mansfield North, South,
West, East and Central. Table 18 outlines the strategies in place to service growth within
each.
Table 18 – Sewer Servicing Strategies
Region
Strategy
Trigger Point
Mansfield North
• Construction a new sewer PS for A18
Commencement of A18
or I2
• Construction a rising main from the new PS to MH11400
Commencement of A18
or I2
• Construction of a new 150mm diameter gravity sewer
main from MH54102 to 54106
Completion of 230 lots
in A5
• Upgrade of Mansfield PS02
Completion of 110 lots
in A5
Mansfield South
• Development areas in Mansfield South can potentially be N/A
fully serviced from existing gravity sewers, however if
significant development occurs to the east of A17 and
A12, the servicing strategy may need to be revisited to
ensure increased wastewater flows and demand for water
can be met;
• Note that some low lying areas located next to a waterway
may have difficulty in connecting to the existing gravity
sewer network;
• Pressure sewer may need to be considered for properties
where gravity connection is not feasible;
Page 61
Region
Strategy
Trigger Point
Mansfield West
• Construction of a dedicated gravity sewer main
from A6 to the 375mm diameter gravity sewer
outfall
Commencement of A2 or A6
• Diversion of Mansfield PS03 flow to the dedicated
gravity sewer
Completion of the dedicated
gravity sewer
• Decommission of Mansfield PS03
Completion of the diversion of
Mansfield PS03
• If A2 is likely to occur a significant number of
years before A6, upgrade of Mansfield PS03 or a
private PS to service A2 in a short term
If A2 occurs a significant
number of years before A6
Mansfield East
Mansfield Central
• Construction of a new PS to service A19. The new Commencement of A19
PS will discharge to MH49667 in High Street
• Connection of A14 to MH46842 or Mansfield
PS01
Commencement of A14
• Developments areas in Mansfield Central can be
connected to the existing gravity sewer network
without the need for any network augmentations
N/A
GVW advise that upgrades to the network or sewer extensions will be funded by the
developer (which has been standard practice for many years). Where large mains are
required GVW undertakes and funds these works but recoups their costs through standard
developer charges.
Lastly, GVW’s Infrastructure Program has planned wastewater treatment plan upgrades for
Mansfield costing around $9 million to cater for increased demand over the next two
decades.
7.2.5 Parameters for Providing Centralised Wastewater Treatment Facilities in
Unsewered Townships
One of the issues that must to be considered when implementing the DWMP will be that of
providing centralised wastewater treatment facilities in currently unsewered towns.
GVW advise that the following parameters apply to any form of reticulated wastewater
infrastructure in a currently unsewered township:
• installing a centralised reticulated wastewater system typically costs between $25,000 to
$30,000 per lot;
• in the past there have been State Government subsidised programs to sewer smaller
townships, however there are no funding programs in place for these types of schemes;
• GVW does not have the resources to sewer townships without an existing reticulated
network; and
• the full cost of any centralised wastewater treatment infrastructure must be recovered
from property owners and other agencies that benefit from it.
Page 62
7.3
Unsewered Townships and Development
Previous maps clearly show the scattering of unsewered development across Mansfield
Shire and the concentration of unsewered dwellings in outlying townships. The scattering of
unsewered lakeside townships can be largely attributed to the significant expansion of the
former Sugarloaf Reservoir to form Lake Eildon in 1956, which introduced demand for
lakeside holiday homes and hobby farms particularly around Bonnie Doon, Goughs Bay and
Macs Cove/Howqua. This section provides a snapshot of these townships, with detailed
township showing the location of dwellings and zoning of land under the Mansfield Planning
Scheme.
7.3.1 Barjarg (Map 20)
Barjarg lacks a central township area and as a consequence dwellings are scattered
throughout the district. Land is zoned Farming and lots are generally well in excess of 15
hectares (there are some undersized lots that do not meet the minimum 40ha land size
prescribed by the Farming Zone). There has been limited development activity within
the locality in recent years and it is considered that pressure for additional
development will remain relatively constant.
In terms of topography, land is undulating throughout the district, with some flatter areas
along the Broken River plain.
7.3.2 James Street, Bonnie Doon (Map 17 above)
There are several areas of concentrated unsewered residential development scattered
around Lake Eildon in the vicinity of the Bonnie Doon township. As can be seen in Map 17
the area around James Street to the south east of the township is an area of Residential 1
zoned land with lots of around 800m2.
There are over 50 dwellings in this location but few vacant lots. In the past Council
decade has approached GVW to investigate the extension of the reticulated sewer network
to this location, however the cost benefit analysis was unfavourable.
7.3.3 Goughs Bay (Map 21)
Predominant Household Types: > 1 person
Goughs Bay is located on the shores of Lake Eildon and contains around 300 dwellings with
a variety of lot sizes and zonings, ranging from Residential 1 properties less than 1000m2,
Low Density Residential Land with a minimum lot size of 4000m2, Rural Living land with a
minimum lot size of 2 hectares to the north of the town and to the Special Use Zone 1 to the
east. Commercial uses, in the form of a general store, caravan park and restaurant, also lie
within the township area. In terms of topography, the settlement is characterised by some
relatively steep blocks and streets, with the slope becoming more temperate in the Rural
Living Areas.
There is significant potential for additional development in this township with over
100 vacant lots within a residential zoning; it is one of our fastest growing townships
and is subject to relatively strong development pressure.
Page 63
7.3.4 Howqua and Macs Cove (Map 22)
Howqua is another Residential 1 zoned township with lots between 600 – 900 m2 on the
banks of Lake Eildon. It is almost fully developed, with around 100 dwellings and less
than 5 vacant residential lots remaining. The land in this settlement is relatively flat, with
some dwellings being well within 100 metres of the high water mark of the Lake.
Macs Cove is located on the opposite side of the Lake to Howqua. It is around two thirds
developed, with over 100 dwellings. Development pressure has been relatively low in
this township. Some of the lots will have great difficulty being developed under the
current Code of Practice due to small lot size and an extensive network of overland
flows across the township. The topography of this settlement is similar to that of Goughs
Bay in that there are steeply sloping lots and streets, with more moderate slopes to the
eastern side of the village.
7.3.5 Jamieson (Map 23)
Predominant No. of Bedrooms: 2 - 3
Jamieson township is located at the junction of the Jamieson and Goulburn Rivers. The
township is zoned Residential 1 with lots averaging around 800m2. There are only a
handful of vacant residential lots left within the township itself, with around 100
existing dwellings in the central township. Low levels of development have been
experienced in Jamieson over the past decade. Some of the lower lying lots close to the
river are relatively flat and partially subject to flooding. There is also a small collection of
commercial uses within a Business 1 zone, along with a range of community uses (eg police
station, primary school) within the township.
The broader Jamieson area provides for a relatively complex and haphazard
settlement and zoning pattern; there are areas of small Residential 1 zoned blocks spread
across the locality, some of which are on the banks of Lake Eildon. There are also a
significant number of Rural Living properties to the north of the township, while undersized
Rural Conservation lots (ie under the 40 hectare minimum lot size) are located to the north
and south of the settlement.
In terms of terrain, Jamieson township has a relatively gentle slope while other parts of the
broader area have moderate to steep slopes.
7.3.6 MacMillan Point/Howes Creek Road, Mansfield (Map 24)
MacMillan Point is essentially a small subdivision of around 40 dwellings located on the bank
of Lake Eildon just a few kilometres to the south west of Mansfield township. It is an almost
fully developed Residential 1 zoned area where the lots are generally under 1000m2.
Development pressure is low.
This location is surrounded by a significant area of Rural Living Zone 1 land (the Howes
Creek Road area), where a significant amount of development has occurred in the past five
years, primarily due to the lifestyle provided by being located on the Lake and being within
ten kilometres of Mansfield township. This area has significant potential for future rural
living development and its terrain is generally characterised by gently undulating land.
Page 64
Map 20
Barjarg - Unsewered Development and Zoning
Page 65
Map 21
Goughs Bay - Unsewered Development and Zoning
Page 66
Map 22
Howqua / Macs Cove - Unsewered Development and Zoning
Page 67
Map 23
Jamieson - Unsewered Development and Zoning
Page 68
Map 24
MacMillan Point, Mansfield - Unsewered Development and Zoning
Page 69
7.3.7 Maindample (Map 25)
Predominant Household Types: 2 & >3 people
Maindample is located around 12 kilometres to the west of Mansfield township and lies on
flat land on the southern bank of Doolam Creek, which is an intermittent tributary of Lake
Eildon. Some lots are partially affected by flooding. Land within this settlement is zoned
Township, with small lots of around 1000m2 or less. There are just over 40 existing
dwellings in the Township Zoned area and there is some capacity for additional
development on a handful of vacant lots. Development pressure is relatively low.
7.3.8 Merton (Map 26)
Merton is a relatively small community and our western-most township. Land within the
central area is zoned Township and there is a concentration of small lots, of less than
1000m2, within this area. There are many vacant lots which have been subdivided a number
of years ago which lie on both sides of Maroondah Highway. There are also relatively
extensive areas outside of the township zoned Rural Living Zone 2, which must have a
minimum lot size of 8ha. Development pressure has, however, been very low in this
area and essentially limited to rural residential style development rather than
township development.
In terms of topography the township itself is flat, with the rural living and outlying areas
becoming more undulated, particularly as one moves north to the Strathbogie Shire
boundary.
7.3.9 Tolmie (Map 27)
Tolmie has experienced significant growth over the past decade; it is fair to say it has
been our highest growth area in recent years due to its proximity to the services and
facilities provided in Mansfield township, its rural lifestyle and its magnificent views over the
Mansfield plain and High Country. There is also a very strong sense of community in Tolmie
which makes it incredibly attractive to ‘tree changers’ in particular.
Land is mostly zoned Rural Living 1, where the minimum lot size is 2 ha but overall the
average size of lots is at least 4ha. There are still development opportunities in the
locality, however not on the scale experienced in recent times. Some lots are also
located in a Bushfire Management Overlay area which may result in larger lot sizes being
required to meet bushfire protection zone requirements. Rural Conservation zoned land lies
to the west of the main settlement, where the minimum lot size is 40 hectares. This land lies
at the top of the Broken River catchment.
Tolmie’s topography is relatively steep in some areas, whilst on the ridge top slopes become
more gentle. The area is surrounded by relatively dense State Forest and actively managed
pine plantations.
Page 70
Map 25
Maindample - Unsewered Development and Zoning
Page 71
Map 26
Merton - Unsewered Development and Zoning
Page 72
Map 27
Tolmie - Unsewered Development and Zoning
Page 73
7.3.10 Kevington (Map 28)
Kevington lies south of Jamieson and is essentially comprised of a ribbon of lots along the
Woods Point Road. The relatively small lots were created in the distant past, mainly as a
means of providing accommodation for timber and gold mine workers.
There are around 70 existing dwellings mainly located on gently undulating or flat land along
the banks of the Goulburn River. The land is located within a Rural Conservation Zone,
however all lots are well under the minimum lot size of 40 hectares.
While there are a number of vacant lots, demand for development is low and future
development will be compromised by the zoning provisions, small lot size, proximity
to the river and high bushfire risk.
7.3.11 Gaffneys Creek (Map 29)
Gaffneys Creek is essentially a settlement created by the Gold Rush. There are around 20
dwellings located within the ribbon of Township Zoned land along the Woods Point Road.
Many of these lots are small (less than 800m2) and there are several old miners cottages
and small holiday homes.
While there are vacant lots in this township the demand for additional development
has been minimal over the past decade. Proximity to waterways and high bushfire risk
are factors which may limit future development unless dwellings and wastewater systems
are designed to a very high standard.
7.3.12 Woods Point (Map 30)
Woods Point is another former Gold Rush town. Over 65 dwellings are located on small lots
which lie within a Township Zone. There are also other dwellings in the locality that appear
to be on Crown Land.
Similar to Gaffneys Creek the demand for new development in this township has been
relatively low over the past decade, however between 2009 – 12 two local goldmines
recommenced mining which led to the growth in temporary accommodation and the
redevelopment of the hotel to provide short term accommodation for miners.
While there are a handful of vacant lots the new Code of Practice standards, small lot size,
proximity to the Goulburn River and bushfire risk may make some lots difficult to develop
unless built to a very high standard. Woods Point is provided with a non potable water
supply by GVW.
Page 74
Map 28
Kevington - Unsewered Development and Zoning
Page 75
Map 29
Gaffney’s Creek - Unsewered Development and Zoning
Page 76
Map 30
Woods Point - Unsewered Development and Zoning
Page 77
7.4
Research into the Installation, Management and Maintenance of
On-site Wastewater Management Systems in Mansfield Shire
Three online surveys have been undertaken by MSC in recent months as a means of
engaging local consultants, wastewater system installers/service technicians, residents and
land owners in the DWMP’s development. The intent was to gain an important insight into
their perspective on local wastewater issues and management practices. SurveyMonkey
software was used to conduct and analyse the surveys during February 2014.
This information will be important in the development of the DWMP’s Action Plan, particularly
around public education and provision of additional support to local professionals, residents
and ratepayers in the management of wastewater systems. The survey relating to land
capability assessments will also inform the tailoring of land capability templates for high,
medium and low risk areas identified by the DWMP as a means of ensuring resources are
dedicated to analysing and mitigating any potential adverse impacts of additional domestic
wastewater generation in high and medium risk areas.
The three surveys were tailored to individual target groups:
• residents and land owners;
• consultants who submit Land Capability Assessments to Council; and
• local professionals who install, service and maintain on-site domestic wastewater
management systems.
7.4.1 Resident and Land Owner Survey Results
A total of 46 residents and land owners across Mansfield Shire participated in the on line
survey; of these 76% (or 35 respondents) were permanent residents, 20% (or 9
respondents) were part time residents and 2 respondents lived at their property for less than
4 weeks in a year (ie the primary purpose of the property was a holiday let).
The majority of respondents (56%) had lived, or owned property in, the Shire for
greater than 10 years. A further 21% had lived in or owned their property for between 5 –
10 years, with only three respondents residing or owning property for less than 2 years.
Property Type
Just over 40% of respondents owned or lived in a rural living type property of between 5
– 15 acres situated away from Lake Eildon or a major river such as the Delatite or
Goulburn. Around 25% of respondents either lived in rural living type properties
located next to Lake Eildon or a major river with a further 15% living on a small
residential block in a lakeside town such as Goughs Bay or Bonnie Doon. The remaining
eight respondents either lived on a property within Mansfield township not connected to
reticulated sewer or a farming property greater than 15 acres.
Respondents were asked about the age of their dwelling; 39% lived in a house more than
25 years old, 21% lived in a dwelling between 15 – 25 years old and 21% in a dwelling
10 – 15 years old. Four respondents lived or owned a property less between 5 – 10 or less
than 5 years old.
Knowledge of their Wastewater System
Questions around the respondents’ level of knowledge about their wastewater management
system were seen to be important given that other councils had provided anecdotal evidence
that their land owners and residents often have a limited understanding of what type of
Page 78
system they have, where it is located and how to maintain it. Accordingly we wanted to test
the level of knowledge within our own community.
Ninety one percent (91%) of respondents stated they knew what type of on-site wastewater
management system they owned, while four respondents were either unsure or did not know
what type of system they had.
Respondents were then asked to specify what type of system they had, with the results
being:
• 68% owned a standard septic system;
• 14% had an older style septic system which treated black water only whilst
greywater was discharged onto the land;
• 4% of respondents either had a reedbed system, aerated wastewater treatment system
or wet composting system; and
• one respondent owned a sand based filter system while another had a dry composting
toilet.
When asked if they knew the exact location of their wastewater system 85% stated they did,
while 13 % believed they knew roughly where it was. The remainder did not know of its
location.
The age of an on-site system is often important in determining its efficacy and whether or not
it would meet today’s EPA licensing standards. Just under a quarter of respondents
stated their system was over 25 years old, with a further 25% indicating that their
system was between 15 – 25 years old. A further 20% owned a system installed 10 – 15
years ago. Of the remaining respondents six owned a system between 2 – 5 years old while
only one owned a system less than 2 years old.
In another question 36% of respondents stated that they had installed a new system since
they took ownership of the property. These respondents were then asked about their
general level of knowledge about maintenance and inspection regimes required to meet
Certificate of Use Permit Conditions. Only 2 respondents said they had a copy of the
Land Capability Assessment which was undertaken when the system was installed.
Just over half knew how often to get their system desludged while a further 37% knew
how often to get their system serviced.
Overall the above results indicate that:
• there is at least a basic level of knowledge about wastewater management across the
survey population, which provides a good starting point for an education program;
• that the majority of our population may not have much regard to their on-site system
(hence the low survey response rate); and
• that many of the systems owned by the survey population are unlikely to meet today’s
standards.
Servicing and System Management
Around half of respondents had employed someone to inspect their system to ensure
it was working property within the past two years, with eleven respondents having an
inspection undertaken less than 12 months ago.
It had been 3 – 5 years since seven of the respondents had their system inspected, with a
further eight respondents indicating it had been between 5 – 8 years since anyone had
reviewed the efficacy of their system. Five respondents could not remember the last time an
inspection had been undertaken.
Page 79
Respondents were then asked what issues they had had with their system within the past
five years, with the findings being:
• 40% of respondents had a foul smell emanating from the area where the system was
located
• 30% of respondents had a toiled that had ‘backed up’;
• 25% had a horrible smell emanating from drains and toilets;
• four respondents systems’ alarms had sounded; and
• two respondents had pools of foul smelling liquid pooling near where their system was
located.
When asked how they remedied the situation:
• 10 respondents said they had called a local plumber;
• 10 called a local business to desludge their system;
• one called the manufacturer of the system; and
• one called their contractor to fix the problem under the current service agreement for the
new system.
Pleasingly all respondents stated that they took action to fix the problem. None had
contacted Council, either via the Environmental Health Unit or the website, to seek advice.
Residents and land owners were then asked what could be done in the future to help them
address a future problem with their on-site wastewater system in an attempt to understand
how to best support residents and ratepayers in managing their systems. The results were:
• 36% of respondents believed that learning more about their system would help;
• 32% stated they would seek advice from their plumber/technician about how to
maintain their system;
• 32% stated they would ensure they got their system maintained more regularly;
• five respondents wanted access to more information about servicing and
maintenance on the Shire’s website; and
• two respondents indicated their desire to attend an annual information session about
how to maintain their system.
A more specific question was then asked about how Council could support them in
managing their on-site system:
• 62% (or 20 respondents) stated that being given a copy of the permits/certificates they
needed to comply with would be beneficial;
• 59% wanted a reminder of when their next system maintenance was due;
• 47% (or 15 respondents) wanted a copy of the land capability assessment lodged for
their system;
• 41% wanted information on the types of cleaning products they should be using to
maintain a health septic system;
• 41% would be supportive of an annual information session on how to manage and
maintain their system to ensure it operates effectively; and
• eleven respondents wanted a copy of a plan of their property indicating the exact
location of their wastewater system.
Broader Awareness of Wastewater Management Issues
Turning to a broader question about their general knowledge of system maintenance and
management 65% knew they should get their septic tank desludged at least every 3
years, 63% knew they can only use certain types of cleaning agents to maintain the
Page 80
health of their septic system, 18% knew they should get their system serviced regularly
and 16% knew they should provide a copy of the system inspection and/or servicing
to Council’s Environmental Health Unit.
Respondents were also asked about their general awareness of the Certificate to Use their
system (if one had been issued). Just over half of the respondents knew that they were
responsible for ensuring conditions forming part of any Certificate to Use their wastewater
system were complied with. Of these 70% (or 17 respondents) stated they actively ensured
they complied with the conditions. Only 65% of respondents understood that Council is
obliged to ensure they meet the Certificate’s conditions.
The survey then turned to the issue of Council’s responsibilities to ensure all domestic onsite wastewater management systems met certain public health and EPA standards. Three
quarters of respondents were aware of this legislative requirement.
This question then led into one around what respondents would think about Council taking a
more proactive stance on ensuring compliance with Installation Permits, Certificates of Use
and general public health standards. In reply 38% stated it wouldn’t bother them, 25% said
they would be supportive if it meant they gained a better understanding as to how to
maintain their system, 13% felt it action would better protect public health and the
environment and 5% felt that it may help save them money on maintaining/servicing their
system over time if Council were more proactive. Eighteen percent (or seven respondents)
stated they would not like Council telling them how to manage their wastewater system.
Annual Wastewater Management Charge
The final question of the survey asked respondents if they believe people would be
prepared to pay a small annual charge similar to that paid by those to the water
corporation for being connected to a reticulated sewerage system. Eighty five
percent (85%) replied ‘No’, while 7% considered people would and the remainder felt that it
would depend on how much the charge was.
The above results indicate that there is a basic level of general knowledge in relation to
residents/land owners’ on-site wastewater management systems, system maintenance and
the need to meet permit conditions.
There is also a level of support for Council being more proactive in terms of ensuring
compliance with permits and maintenance/inspection requirements but provided that this
does not impose an additional cost on them by way of an annual fee.
Overall, it is considered the survey indicates the usefulness of the instigation of a formal
education campaign around maintaining and managing on-site domestic wastewater
systems. Council issuing land owners with maintenance and inspection reminders may also
be a useful initiative to be considered in the DWMP’s Action Plan.
7.4.2 On-site Domestic Wastewater System Installer and Service Technician
Survey Results
This online survey was sent to a handful of local companies that frequently submit Permits to
Install a Domestic Wastewater Management System, Certificates for Use and related
inspection reports to our Environmental Health Unit.
Although the survey sample is small, with only four respondents, the ability for a municipality
with the size of Mansfield Shire to sustain a large number of businesses in this field is
Page 81
incredibly limited. The views of the respondents, therefore, must be considered and
analysed given they reflect local knowledge and experience.
Background Information about Experience and Types of Systems Installed
The first set of questions sought general information about the background of the
respondent, their qualifications and level of activity within Mansfield and Murrindindi Shires.
In relation to the years of experience in the installation of on-site domestic wastewater
management systems there was a clean split of one respondent for less than 2 years, 2 – 5
years, 5 – 10 years and greater than 10 years. Experience in servicing packaged treatment
plants ranges from 4 – 10 years.
In relation to qualifications and experience three of the four respondents were licensed
plumbers and drainers. One identified that they were an accredited installer and service
agent for different manufacturers while another stated that for the past 7 years their business
has almost solely focused on the installation of on-site systems, with around 50% of
business generated by repairing failed systems.
In relation to the type of properties they were installing on-site systems for, the answers
were:
• one respondent solely fits systems for holiday homes on rural living type lots;
• around 60% of one installer’s custom is for a permanent resident on a rural living style
lot;
• 40% of one installer’s business is installing systems on small residential lots within
Lakeside townships; and
• Around 30% of all business relates to installing systems for holiday homes on small lots
within Lakeside villages.
When asked what types of systems they most regularly installed, the majority for two
respondents were standard septic systems whilst another respondent only installs
aerated treatment systems. A very small portion (of between 10 – 30%) of one
respondent’s business related to installing advanced secondary greywater systems or
sand/other media trickling systems.
When asked which type of system they believed was the most efficient and cost effective,
two respondents responded a standard septic tank while another respondent indicated that a
sand/other media trickling system was generally superior to all others. The following
detailed response was provided by one respondent:
“I believe the best system is a 3200 litre septic with baffle and a sand filter
as a secondary treatment, then into aggi lines 600 x 450 x 120meters –
150 meters with a weir set up in the middle of each line so equal
distribution can be achieved with the runs no longer than 20meters each
side of the pit. I think a relm drain works the best for clay ground but also
needs to be dug 700mm trench to stop drain silting up. Also for very dense
heavy clay ground should be back filled with sandy loam so drain can
breath and achieve transformation bed.”
Installation issues
The survey sought to identify what the most common problems are when installing a new
system. Three out of four respondents stated that the biggest problem was that the land
owner did not understand how the installed system will work and how much land it will
require to operate properly.
Page 82
Half of the respondents identified that:
• Approved plans not being clear enough in terms of the location of the system;
• The approved location will not work on the ground; and
• The land owner asking them to deviate from the Permit to Install
were issues that they often faced.
As an aside, one respondent noted that another council will provide a GPS coordinate on the
approved plan to ensure that the wastewater components are readily located in the future
when maintenance/servicing is required.
When asked how they resolve the above issues all said that they discussed the matter with
Council’s Environmental Health Unit. Three out of four also said they educated the land
owner about the system and how it operates. One respondent stated they discussed the
matter with the EPA whilst another said that sometimes they asked the land owner to sort
the issue out with Council.
The question of what more Council could do to help them address installation issues was
then posed to the respondents. Two respondents supported the idea of Council Officers
meeting with installers and land capability experts to work through common issues and
identify solutions. One replied that better online information, particularly the guidelines
that had to be followed, would be useful. Another stated that approvals processes should
be simplified.
A comment was made that land capability assessments are often a waste of time and money
and that an experienced installer, coupled with an experienced Environmental Health Officer,
is often all that is needed to assess land capability and design an effective wastewater
system.
It is clear from the above comments that there is a need to provide more information to
educate land owners and residents about their wastewater management systems. There is
a fantastic opportunity to do so in partnership with our local experts.
Permits to Install and Certificates to Use a Domestic Wastewater Management System
Three of the four respondents stated that they performed tasks related to the implementation
of either the land capability assessment, Permit to Install or Certificate to Use an on-site
wastewater system issued by Council.
The following tasks were undertaken by our local experts:
• quarterly servicing of systems;
• education of the land owner about the operation of their system;
• provision of information to the land owner about the required maintenance schedule;
and
• preparation of maintenance reports to enable the land owner to meet Council
reporting requirements.
Land Owner/Resident Knowledge
Our experts were asked to outline their perceptions of land owner/resident knowledge and
expertise relating to their on-site wastewater system. When asked whether or not they
believed land owners complied with conditions regarding their system’s installation and use
the responses were:
• “no, not all the time;
• no, land owners only think about their system when something goes wrong; and
Page 83
•
only around a third do, while others are ignorant of how their system works or they
bypass their system or only partially repair it.”
Overall it was considered only between 30 – 40% of land owners actually comply with
Council requirements.
To try and assist land owners to better manage their on-site system, three of the
respondents said they provided them with maintenance schedules and explained how to
manage their system to ensure optimal performance and minimum expense in terms of
repairs and maintenance.
When asked if non resident land owners were any better or worse than permanent
residents in maintaining their on-site system, two said the level of attention paid to
wastewater systems was the same while another thought it was worse. The following
observation was made:
“Systems that aren't being used need as much if not more maintenance as
they are sitting unused, and then get a large influx of use. A lot of holiday
locals believe the opposite, that they don't get used enough. Also they
seem to put jobs off "till next time" and by then it is often dried up, and
becomes worse once used again.”
As to whether or not management plans needed to be different for holiday homes compared
to permanent dwellings two respondents stated that they felt they should be the same.
Another respondent believed they should be different, with 6 – 12 monthly inspections being
required given the spasmodic use of systems.
Our experts were then asked what could be done to improve the implementation of
management plan requirements and the comments from the three respondents were:
• “making sure all households are kept to the servicing schedule;
• the council needs to take charge over the management plans and ongoing
maintenance this can be achieved by an annual fee that would still be cheaper for the
land owner than being connected to a reticulated system;
• implementation would be improved if it became part of the council rates and then
was rebated once inspections are passed. This would make 12 monthly servicing
and maintenance mandatory and harder to be overlooked; and
• more information on different styles of units/systems and how they work, and also
what maintenance needs to be done.”
The above indicates that consideration should be given as to how to best manage
wastewater systems for holiday homes and also tailoring education for part time locals as a
means of ensuring their systems are adequately maintained when spasmodically used.
Provision of proactive reminders to land owners regarding their obligations around
maintenance and servicing, particularly in relation to approved management plans for new
systems, needs to be a focus when developing the DWMP’s Action Plan.
Packaged Treatment Plants
Our experts were asked to identify if they were an agent for any plants and if so, which ones;
one expert said they were agents for a number of different EPA approved systems.
When asked what types of system servicing and maintenance they undertake the responses
were:
• reviewing the sludge depth and need to desludge;
Page 84
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
measuring, recording and reporting on water quality;
adjusting aeration plant controls;
verifying the alarm controls are functioning;
flushing and checking in line filters;
flushing out the dispersal lines;
reporting to the owner any recommendations; and
quarterly reporting to Council the results.
All responded that they review the permit conditions and management plan requirements
when servicing the treatment plant.
Upon servicing the plant our experts observe that although a handful of plants are operating
effectively most require some form of servicing or adjustment.
Only one respondent felt that land owners were receptive to entering into a service
agreement to ensure their systems were regularly maintained. When asked if they believe
land owners are interested in extending the service contract beyond the initial 12 month or
system warranty period, two respondents replied ‘No’ and one said ‘Yes’.
The question was then posed as to whether they believed some treatment plants worked
more effectively than others, with the responses being:
• “no;
• the Aqua Nova system is my preference due to its simplistic yet effective treatment
process; and
• Fujiclean systems are a simpler and tougher system requiring less frequent and
expensive maintenance.”
These responses indicate that it may be worthwhile talking to experts who are regularly
servicing systems within the Shire about minimum standards for servicing and also
ensuring all necessary paperwork is submitted to Council.
There also appears to be an opportunity to work with local experts to highlight the
benefits of entering into service agreements for system maintenance with
landowners. Such agreements will assist land owners in ensuring their systems are
serviced regularly, that they minimise service costs, that they meet their legal obligations
around maintaining their system and that they provide evidence of system maintenance to
Council.
Council Management of Domestic Wastewater Systems
The final set of questions related to the possible future actions Council could undertake to
support local experts and land owners to better manage and monitor wastewater systems.
When asked whether Council could be more proactive in ensuring management plans were
followed by land owners and how it could best do so, the following responses were made:
• “yes, I do believe the council could do it, it will just mean a lot more work inspecting
existing units and being allowed to make a decision on what system to install on a
property without all the red tape from above.
• by charging a fee the council can over a period document all system location and system
type and continue to maintain and service each system to maximise the system integrity.
I have provided council with a proposal and approximate costing to implement such a
program. The cost to the land owner would be approximately $300 per annum.
Page 85
•
maybe send out letters to owners telling them about their system and what they require
as a lot of people don't know anything about them and how they work.”
Overall our experts felt that if a management plan was put in place for systems and that
servicing and maintenance was monitored that potentially adverse impacts from
domestic wastewater on public health, waterway health and local amenity would be
effectively managed.
7.4.3 Land Capability Assessment Consultants Survey Results
A key component of the DWMP will be around the preparation of land capability
assessments (LCA’s) and ensuring that they adequately address broader water quality
issues, as well as those required by EPA legislation.
As a means of providing insight in to the experiences and thoughts of consultants who
regularly prepare LCA’s an online survey was distributed to several people who submit the
bulk of these types of assessments to Council on behalf of land owners.
Five responses were received. Again it is acknowledged this is a small sample size,
however it must be noted that these five respondents prepare the bulk of LCA’s submitted to
MSC; most also prepare LCA’s for land within Murrindindi Shire as well.
Background Information about Experience and Types of LCA’s Prepared
Three of the five respondents had been preparing LCA’s for more than 10 years while two
had been working in this field for between 2 – 5 years. In terms of qualifications:
• two had university qualifications in either soil science or environmental science;
• one respondent was currently undertaking post graduate studies in Engineering (water
management);
• three had completed a certified 3 day training course;
• two had also completed a certified EPA training course;
• one had completed two separate courses at the Centre for Environment Training;
• one had over 40 year’s engineering experience;
• two were members of a soil science based association; and
• one was a member of the Australian Water Association and co-authored the Building
Excellence Guide of Victoria.
Four respondents prepared 5 – 10 LCA’s within Mansfield Shire per annum; another
consultant prepared more than 15 per annum. Three consultants prepared 2 – 5 LCA’s for
land in Murrindindi Shire per annum; another prepared around 10 per year.
In relation to the breakdown of the type of properties LCA’s were being prepared for, four
respondents provided the following breakdown:
Page 86
Table 19
Breakdown of Types of LCA’s Prepared by Survey Respondents
Consultant 1
% of LCA’s
Rezoning of land to allow residential
development
Applications to
residential lots
subdivide
land
into
Consultant 2
Consultant 3
Consultant 4
10%
25%
20%
30%
Single dwellings on rural living lots
25%
25%
30%
50%
Single dwellings on township lots (eg
Goughs Bay, Bonnie Doon)
25%
40%
30%
40%
Small scale commercial developments
10%
5%
10%
10%
Other
15%
In relation to the time spent on preparing an LCA for different types of applications, the
following responses were provided:
Table 20
Time Taken to Prepare Different Types of LCA’s
Consultant 1
Consultant 2
Consultant 3
Consultant 4
A dwelling on a single lot
5 days
2 days
2 days
3 days
A subdivision
7 days
5 days
3 days
N/R
Type of LCA
A planning scheme amendment to rezone
land
4 days
As is to be expected the survey results show that the bulk of LCA work is for single dwellings
on either rural living lots or within township lots. It is noted that there is a significant
difference in the time taken to prepare an LCA for the same type of application. Overall our
local consultants have a broad range of experience and qualifications, with a sound level of
local knowledge gained through the number of LCA’s they prepare each year.
The New EPA Code of Practice – On-site Wastewater Management 2013
Our consultants had prepared a number of LCA’s under the new Code of Practice
varying between 5 to around 60 since its release in 2013.
The question was then asked what the new Code had achieved, with the responses being it
has:
• raised wastewater management standards (2 respondents);
• improved the efficiency of preparing an LCA (1 respondent);
• improved the standard of an LCA (1 respondent);
• clarified what level of LCA is required for differing types of applications and
circumstances (1 respondent); and
• improved the LCA process overall (1 respondent).
The following comments were also made:
• “I don't think much has changed in the level of work or quality of LCA report I have
produced. The new code is more foot note based than clear policy and relies less on
AS/NZS 1547:2012 than it should, and only picks and chooses the elements from the
national standard it wants to follow, and limits disposal options without good reason. It
relies on parts of the SCA for evidence based policy but ignores other elements. The
new code has useful information and good links to information, but is designed to make
approval for difficult sites harder rather than improve environmental outcomes.
Page 87
•
It has not improved anything as GMW are running a different agenda.”
Work Undertaken to Prepare an LCA
It was considered important to understand what work was involved in preparing an LCA for
different types of applications as a means of identifying areas for streamlining the process
and also possibly identifying a minimum standard to ensure LCA’s were cost effective and
provided Council and water corporations with the required information. Tables 21 to 23
outline the work undertaken to prepare an LCA for a single dwelling, subdivision and land
rezoning by our respondents.
Table 21
Work Undertaken to Prepare a LCA for a Single Dwelling on a Lot
Consultant
1
Always a site meeting with the owner
to discuss the proposal and review
broad options
Consultant 2
Consultant 3
Consultant
4



Sometimes a site meeting with the
owner to discuss the proposal and
review broad options

Collation of data/desktop analysis (eg
rainfall in area, surrounding land uses
etc)




Detailed site inspection and reporting
of findings in LCA




Soil testing




Soil Sampling for analysis




Meeting with Council’s Environmental
Health Unit


Meeting with Council’s Town Planning
Unit
Meeting or phone conversation with
GMW

Analysis of dwelling density in the
location



Analysis of water quality in the location



Identification of and classification of
waterways



Identification as to whether or not
nearby waterways contribute to a
potable water supply






Discussion with other LCA experts or
wastewater system installers about the
area and/or possible issues and
solutions

In terms of other work undertaken as part of an LCA one consultant undertook a “field survey
to determine levels and location of pertinent features” whilst another stated that “I am
prepared to meet with GMW or the EHO on any site if required. If the site has significant
limitations I will discuss with EHO via phone or email in advance. On occasion I will speak
with GMW before during or after the assessment to get the most agreeable outcome.”
Page 88
When preparing an LCA for a subdivision the following work is undertaken:
Table 22
Work Undertaken to Prepare a LCA for a Subdivision
Consultant 1
Consultant 2


Collation of data/desktop analysis (eg rainfall in
area, surrounding land uses etc)



Detailed site inspection and reporting of findings in
LCA



Soil testing






Meeting with Council’s Environmental Health Unit


Consultant 1
Consultant 2
Meeting with Council’s Town Planning Unit


Meeting or phone conversation with GMW



Analysis of dwelling density in the location





Identification of and classification of waterways



Identification as to whether or not nearby
waterways contribute to a potable water supply



Discussion with other LCA experts or wastewater
system installers about the area and/or possible
issues and solutions



Field survey
Depending on the level
of sub division. If there
is one lot divided into
two or three, on rating
one sites, not unless
asked to by the
developer or his
advocate. For site over
4 lots I would expect
some interaction with
the EHO unless they
have communicated
they don't think it
necessary.
Always a site meeting with the owner to discuss
the proposal and review broad options
Consultant 3
Sometimes a site meeting with the owner to
discuss the proposal and review broad options
Other
Consultant 3
Page 89
Lastly, when preparing an LCA for a proposal to rezone land for residential development the
following work is undertaken:
Table 23
Work Undertaken to Prepare a LCA for the Rezoning of Land
Consultant 1
Consultant 2
Consultant 3



Collation of data/desktop analysis (eg rainfall in
area, surrounding land uses etc)



Detailed site inspection and reporting of findings in
LCA



Soil testing






Meeting with Council’s Environmental Health Unit


Meeting with Council’s Town Planning Unit


Meeting or phone conversation with GMW

Analysis of dwelling density in the location



Consultant 1
Consultant 2
Consultant 3
Always a site meeting with the owner to discuss
the proposal and review broad options
Sometimes a site meeting with the owner to
discuss the proposal and review broad options



Identification of and classification of waterways



Identification as to whether or not nearby
waterways contribute to a potable water supply



Discussion with other LCA experts or wastewater
system installers about the area and/or possible
issues and solutions

Other


Field survey
Other work undertaken by one consultant included a “field survey”, while another stated “I
haven't done much of this type of work but depending on the level of interaction required I
would expect to meet with the EHO for a project like this unless the size of the blocks is very
large and the developer and advocate has an ongoing relationship eg a surveying company
that subdivides all the time.”
When asked how difficult it was to identify and rate the various risk factors which would
apply to a site or a locality, the following comments were made:
• “very easy;
• it is straightforward if you apply logic and commonsense, and do not go off on a tangent
with irrelevant risk possibilities;
• having completed a number of LCA report within a number of rural municipalities it is not
too difficult to identify and rate the risk factors; and
• I find it very easy.”
Page 90
Four of the LCA experts use the Municipal Association of Victoria’s LCA Template,
which is aimed at standardising LCA’s across Victoria and simplifying its creation. The
following comments were made:
• “I do use the model report and I am waiting for the new one to be sent to me. If there is
a specific template have not yet seen it. I don’t like the new suggested Risk Matrix.
Please note it is a limited document and not typically well understood; and
• we use the MAV model as the template basis but is expanded to incorporate more
information within the body of the report.”
Overall there is a fair level of consistency in the preparation of different types of
LCA’s across our consultants, although it is noted that one consultant always conducts a
field survey, whilst not all consultants conduct water quality sampling. There is relatively
good liaison with Council, particularly the Environmental Health Unit. The MAV’s LCA
template appears to be a useful starting point for our consultants.
Ways in which the LCA Process Could Be Improved
Consultants were asked how Council could assist them with the LCA process. Their
responses were:
• provide a venue for formal training to occur locally (4 responses);
• detail agreed positions with other Authorities regarding LCA requirements (4
responses);
• clarify what level of LCA is required for what type of application (3 responses);
• provide a wastewater volume for the EPA Code formula (3 responses);
• provision of rainfall and evaporation rates for localities (3 responses);
• provision of more online information (2 responses);
• organise forums to share information or ideas with other LCA experts (2 responses);
and
• simplify the LCA process (2 responses).
Some additional comments were made:
• “there are real limits on what can be provided by Council and planning authorities. For
example in different parts of the municipality the climate is different, soil is different, risk
profile is different. Known LCA assessors should be issued annually with revised
recommendations agreed to by GMW and the particular council eg daily loading rates,
reserve area conditions, setbacks for Lake Eildon, waterway characteristics, evaporation
rates, rainfall rates and percentiles wanted in water balance etc;
• identify treatment approaches for different areas, i.e. specify particular wastewater
treatment systems for areas with smaller blocks, and slope constraints, as opposed to
larger flatter areas with no real constraints; and
• get rid of GMW as a referral authority - Councils do the septic permits it must become a
Council only function to minimise delays, cost blow outs and unnecessary red tape.”
In response to the question as to whether or not Council should include the creation of
standard templates for different types of LCA’s for high, medium and low risk areas as part
of the DWMP’s Action Plan, three consultants agreed, with another stating “Maybe”. The
following statements were made in support of these answers:
• “it will set a standard for the minimum level of work required on-site and in the report and
on the soil samples test. a very good idea;
• yes, so that we're all working off the same drawing board;
Page 91
•
•
it would be beneficial if a template is developed with LCA consultants to ensure everyone
is on the same page; and
yes, if GMW stuck to it.”
Respondents were also asked if it would be beneficial for a simplified LCA process to
be devised for a low, and perhaps medium, risk site where a single dwelling was
proposed. One consultant responded ‘Yes’, one indicated ‘No’ and two said ‘Maybe’.
The following comments were made:
• “not in all circumstances. On larger lots 2 ha+, with no waterways or drainage lines and
no known constraints that would be fine. Typically the EHO or Planning should be able to
decide if an LCA is required and how comprehensive it should be;
• yes, so that there is no unnecessary cost incurred by the owner;
• maybe, as long as it is consistent with EPA 891.3 and AS 1547:2000; and
• no, the risk levels are dealt with by the LCA.”
The proposal waiving the need for a full LCA for low risk sites and areas was floated in the
survey, with the question being how the consultants would inform their clients about
wastewater system design and ongoing management. The following comments were
received:
• “if Council don't require a full LCA I offer a desktop LCA. The client or surveyor sends
me soil samples collected in a 1m profile and sends to me for analysis. I produce a
report covering the important factors - about a 10 page report.
• by quoting Council's adopted policy for the number of bedrooms and land characteristics
that would be then available;
• a basic LCA at a lower cost for the client may suffice which contains estimated
wastewater flows and soil type - perhaps a simple template; and
• I would not inform my clients - if Council waives the LCA then it is up to Council to give
out information.”
It is clear that there are opportunities for Council to undertake some relatively simple
tasks that would be of benefit to our local LCA consultants, such as the provision of
local training (or even a room a training provider could have free of charge) and clear LCA
requirements that will satisfy our water authorities. The development of standardised LCA
templates for different types of development and differing risk levels is something
that should be considered when developing the DWMP Action Plan; it may well lead to
a more efficient LCA process, with benefits for the consultant, possible lower LCA costs for
land owners and reduced workloads for Council Officers.
Management Plans and Their Implementation
The survey queried whether their LCA’s included system management recommendations as
a matter of course. Three of the respondents responded in the affirmative, one in the
negative. The following comment was made by one respondent:
• “I recommend type of effluent treatment and disposal field sizing and location additional
information in included in the LCA on how the system looks and works. An ongoing
management plan should be provided by the installer with recommendations by Council.”
When asked if they felt if management plan recommendations would add value to an LCA
the consultants all answered in the affirmative but made the following comments:
• “yes, but It would add value but also a cost to the client. and
• yes, because they clarify just what the owner is expected to think about and to make
happen. Gone are the days of ‘out of sight, out of mind’.”
Page 92
As to the types of management recommendations they make in an LCA the following
answers were provided:
• information to the land owner on reporting requirements to council (3 respondents);
• information to educate the land owner about the operation of the unit (2 respondent);
• information to the land owner about maintenance schedules (1 respondent); and
• installation requirements (1 respondent).
The following additional comment was made:
“These items and issues are typically handled with the septic tank
application, and installation and then installation approval. The installer
needs to cover the installation requirements and educate the landowner
on the operation of the unit and the maintenance schedule and the
requirements to report to Council.”
The four respondents also indicated that the management recommendations vary with
each LCA, supporting this with the following statements:
• “depending on type of treatment, type of disposal, brand of unit, municipal waste water
strategy, environmental elements, level of risk on-site, type of risks on-site, number of
occupants, peak use, occupancy for holiday homes. What additional waste is discharged
from property as effluent. Grey water separation. Council would be best to develop a
comprehensive policy and supply with septic tank approval, or ask in addition to an LCA
report and management plan is also required;
• [they vary due to] site specific requirements, manufacturer's requirements, type of
treatment system, etc; and
• depends on the system type.”
There was a significant divergence in opinion as to what percentage of land owners
read their management plan recommendations, which ranged from 0%, 35%, 80% and
the statement that it “depends on a lot of variables”.
As to whether or not land owners follow their wastewater management plan two
consultants felt they did not, whilst one thought they did. The following suggestions as
to why this was so were offered:
• “depends how well it is followed up by Council. If Council require service reports for all
secondary treatment systems and proof of septic tank inspection from occupants every
so many years then very high. If nothing is required by Council probably a lot lower;
• most people want the cheapest system that can be installed and. a system that requires
no maintenance. About 35% of people follow the management plan recommendations;
• 80% [follow the management plan]”.
The consultants were then asked if they changed their system management
recommendations if they knew the dwelling was to be used as a holiday home, which
prompted two to answer ‘Yes’ and two to say ‘No’. The following comments were made:
• I recommend on holidays homes with secondary treatment systems that can cope with
peak sporadic use. 90% of holiday homes are not new homes being constructed but are
already built in the areas of no sewerage. Council should refer occupants with on-site
waste water disposal to their municipal waste strategy or requirements in an annual
report or to a targeted database with on-site waste water facilities on their properties;
• yes, because the requirements of a normal package treatment plant are different from
that of a septic tank, in that they need constant inflow to work effectively, and with a
holiday home, that doesn't happen; and
• no, because Council does not carry out any checking of system performance.”
Page 93
The survey then turned to the question as to how the consultants assisted land owners to
learn about their future wastewater management system:
• I provide them with a clear plan of where their system is to be located (3 respondents);
• I explain how the system works (3 respondents);
• I tell them what signs to look for if the system fails in some way (3 respondents);
• I tell them what to do if they think the system is not working properly (3 respondents);
• I explain what cleaning agents/chemicals they can use so as not to affect the balance in
the system (2 respondents); and
• they are given a checklist of routine maintenance to follow (1 respondent).
As to what Council can do to improve the level of implementation of management
plans, the consultants suggested the following:
• provision of a checklist for owners and occupiers by Council for you to include in
your LCA (3 respondents);
• more publicity by Council to remind land owners to check the health of their system (3
respondents);
• provision of information by Council on how to manage a wastewater system in new
resident's kits (3 respondents); and
• annual education seminars for residents and landowners on how to maintain their
systems(3 respondents).
Other suggestions included:
• “the LCA assessor should be happy to provide any additional information that is originally
supplied to them from Council. It is probably easier to supply directly to the client on
septic tank approval by Council;
• more resources applied to this part of our building facilitation. In other words , more
importance placed by Council on this part of the development of the Mansfield Shire; and
• the EHO should carry out a number of checks each year - say 50 - and then enforce
maintenance requirements.”
The above answers reinforce the need to boost public awareness of domestic wastewater
management, to develop standard templates and information which can be appended to
permits and for Council to implement a proactive inspection program to support this
education campaign.
Compliance
In relation to whether or not Council could do more in relation to overall compliance with
Permit to Install and Certificate to Use requirements the consultants had the following to say:
• “a comprehensive database with annual letters and updates sent to occupants of the
ongoing municipal waste water plan and occupant requirements for reporting and
maintenance;
• more resources and more importance placed on the treatment of wastewater. It starts at
the top; and
• be consistent Check 50 installations each. Enforce compliance.”
As to whether the consultants would support Council being more proactive in terms of
enforcing management plans and ensuring land owners met reporting requirements,
the following observations were made:
• “it would need careful planning and consultation. Council could provide an online
questionnaire that has generated outcomes for particular waste water management
plans.
Page 94
•
•
yes, to make people more aware of what the consequences will be if this aspect of
the building process is ignored; and
yes, it would be a great idea if Council is willing to provide resources.”
The consultants believed the benefits of increased proactive compliance would include:
• “typically a new house and new septic won't fail or discharge to the environment. Older
properties with poorly maintained septics or treatment plants are the worst offenders. An
inspection even every three year in the wetter months will tell all. Larger premises
holiday parks and caravan parks need to be brought up to speed as a priority;
• increased awareness; and
• it would ease the situations where older systems do not perform as well as newer
systems.”
Other possible initiatives that could be undertaken to support land owners in managing their
wastewater system included:
• “desludging and trench inspection is very important and diverting heavy rainfall
away for the disposal area is very important;
• research into what systems do actually work, and what systems don't. Provision of
a Council endorsed list of products that will be accepted by Council's EHO, as well as a
list of endorsed installers; and
• we should be exploring the methods of provision of collective wastewater
treatment systems for the smaller satellite communities throughout our Shire.”
The final question asked how to best manage wastewater to avoid adverse impacts on
public health, the environment, water quality and the amenity of our townships. Two
suggestions were offered:
• regular inspection and testing of high risk areas; and
• provide sewerage.
The above suggestions should be considered when developing the DWMP’s Action Plan.
7.5
•
•
•
•
•
Key Findings
Around 80 wastewater system permit applications are lodged per annum;
There are extensive reticulated sewerage networks in Mansfield, Bonnie Doon and along
the Merrijig to Sawmill Settlement valley that need to be taken advantage of and
consideration given in the DWMP as to how to ensure as many dwellings as possible are
connected to them (including existing dwellings with on-site systems);
Townships/settlements such as Jamieson, McMillan Point, Kevington, Gaffneys
Creek, Woods Point and Howqua have limited opportunities for future
development due to a lack of vacant land and constraints including zoning, lot size,
bushfire risk and proximity to waterways;
Goughs Bay, Bonnie Doon, Merrijig, Sawmill Settlement, Mansfield and Merton have
relatively significant areas of residentially zoned vacant land. Development pressures
are expected to remain highest in lakeside townships and rural living areas such
as Goughs Bay and Bonnie Doon, as well as central Mansfield, which is a key
consideration for the DWMP;
There was a basic level of understanding about on-site systems and their management
within the small resident/land owner survey population, however there are significant
opportunities for education campaigns to raise levels of awareness and
compliance with EPA requirements and maintenance schedules;
Page 95
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Respondents to the Resident and Land Owner Survey reported a high proportion of
systems were serviced only after signs of system failure were evident to users;
Installers and servicers of on-site domestic wastewater systems indicate that between 60
to 70% of land owners do not comply with Council requirements for the management of
their systems;
There is a strong and productive relationship between Council’s Environmental Health
Unit and local installers/service technicians and LCA experts;
There are a sizeable number of older septic systems across the Shire that do not
benefit from modern management plans or enforcement opportunities under
current legislation. The DWMP must deal with how to best address these ageing
systems, particularly those which only deal with black water, with the grey water
being directly dispersed onto the site;
Local on-site wastewater system installers and service technicians play an important role
in educating land owners and residents about how to best maintain their system. There
are opportunities for Council and our Project Partners to utilise this professional
group’s expertise and activity within the Shire to implement key components of
the DWMP, particularly around compliance with maintenance schedules and
encouraging people to enter into service contracts;
LCA experts support the notion of templates for different types of applications in
areas of different risk levels and standard information on system design and local
attributes (such as rainfall) a means of standardising LCA’s and streamlining the
approvals process;
While land owners/residents are wary of paying additional contributions for Council to
enforce wastewater management permit requirements there is an acknowledgement
across all three survey populations that increased permit compliance and
monitoring of system maintenance by Council would be beneficial to public health,
the environment, beneficial waterway uses and potable water quality;
Our local experts provided some useful suggestions as to possible actions to
improve compliance with legislation and permit requirements, including the provision of
reminders to residents/land owners when maintenance reports and/or desludging is due;
Relatively simple actions relating to education campaigns and provision of LCA
templates can be included in the DWMP Action Plan for to quickly achieve what
could be significant gains in raising awareness about effective wastewater
management practices and quality, targeted LCA’s; and
GVW advise that the costs of introducing reticulated wastewater infrastructure within
currently unsewered townships is incredibly costly at around $25,000 – 30,000 per lot.
They advise that all costs must be recovered from benefitting land owners and agencies.
There are no longer any State Government subsidised programs to sewer townships.
Page 96
8) An Overview of Our DWMPPP
Methodology
As mentioned in Section 1 this DWMP Pilot Project has been prepared using a new mindset
for what a municipal wastewater management plan should be. The new Ministerial
Guidelines for planning permit applications in potable water supply catchments specify that
to avoid the blanket application of a one dwelling per 40 hectares dwelling density in
declared catchments a DWMP must consider broader water quality and catchment issues,
as well as being developed in close consultation with local water authorities and the EPA.
As a result our DWMP is a hybrid between being a traditional wastewater management plan
and a town planning document in that it marries a traditional environmental health approach
to wastewater management with town planning policies and controls as a means of better
managing domestic wastewater in our declared potable water catchments.
The plan is also different to any of its predecessors in that it considers, and contains
information relevant to, areas outside of the Shire. The fact that Lake Eildon provides a
border between Mansfield and Murrindindi Shires meant that it was imperative that issues on
the western side of the lake were considered as well as those on the Mansfield side.
Mansfield and Murrindindi already have strong operational ties and these have been
strengthened by the presence of Murrindindi on our Steering Committee. It has already
been noted that there will be recommendations in the DWMP’s Action Plan which are
relevant to both Shires, not just Mansfield.
A second function of the DWMP, and this Background Report, is to provide strategic
justification for the amendment of planning policies and controls contained within the
Mansfield Planning Scheme (and perhaps the Murrindindi Planning Scheme). This will
ensure local planning controls support State and Regional policy initiatives around achieving
an appropriate balance between development and the protection of water quality.
We are also mindful that other councils and water corporations are looking to this document
to provide a possible way forward for their own DWMP’s where land is included in a potable
water catchment.
Page 97
This section provides a brief overview as to how the MSDWMPPP project has progressed. A detailed discussion of the risk analysis
methodology will be provided in the DWMP document itself, rather than this Background Report. The figure below summarises the key aspects
of our methodology for this DWMP Pilot Project.
Figure 13
Overview of the DWMPPP Methodology
Background
Report
Stakeholders &
responsibliites
Catchment profiles
water quality data
Shire profile &
development trends
Wastewater
management profile
Literature review
Online survey results
Consultation
A New Risk Analysis
Approach to Include
Potable Water
Quality Impacts
Edis & White Discussion
Papers outlining a risk
methodology for
unsewered development
in potable water
catchments
Dr Robert van de Graaf's
Peer Review of Edis
The sub catchment risk
analysis approach
DWMP
Minor catchment risk
analysis
DWMP Action &
Resource Plan
Sub catchment risk
analysis
Monitoring &
compliance programs
Williams land unit
analysis of the Goughs
Bay sub catchment
Education programs
LCA requirements
based on risk ratings
Auditing of the
DWMP's
implementation
Further work including
Planning Scheme
amendments
Human and financial
resources required to
implement the DWMP
Page 98
8.1
Project Governance
This project is being managed by an MSC Project Manager reporting directly to the Chief
Executive Officer, David Roff. The Officer was responsible for writing the Background
Report, the DWMP and all project related information.
The first task upon commencement of this project was the creation of a Project Steering
Committee and a Technical Reference Group (TRG) to provide a means of formally
engaging our local water authorities and the EPA, as required by the new Ministerial
Guidelines. The former is comprised of senior officers nominated by each Project Partner
to provide input at a strategic level, while the latter is comprised of professionals and
technical experts who are able to provide in depth input on technical matters and day to day
wastewater management and water quality issues. The Governance Charter for these
bodies can be found in Appendix 1.
An initial joint meeting of the Steering Committee and Technical Reference Group, also
attended by Mr Paul Williams and Mr Larry White (geologists and land capability
assessment experts) was held in February 2013. The outcome was the identification of the
broad parameters for the project and a discussion about expectations around the desired
outputs and outcomes of the project.
Section 9 will outline the series of meetings held with the Steering Committee and TRG but
suffice to say there has been almost weekly contact with one or more of our Project
Partners over the duration of the project, so it can be safely said that the project has truly
been a collaborative effort.
One key task of the Steering Committee in recent months has been the review and
approval of each section of this Background Report as it has been written. Whilst it is
unusual for project partners to be asked to sign off each section of the document as it was
written this approach was seen to be advantageous given:
• the size of the project;
• the fact that this is a pilot project designed to provide a potential model for other
councils and water corporations;
• MSC’s desire to work in true partnership with other agencies, particularly our local
water authorities;
• the need to further develop our working relationships with our project partners as a
means of providing a sound basis for the implementation of the DWMP Action Plan;
and
• the need for surety that MSC was undertaking each component of the project with the
full support of our Project Partners.
It is considered that this approach has been successful in achieving all of the above goals.
8.2
Preparation of the Background Report
As stated in the introduction to this Section, this Pilot Project and supporting documents are
designed not only to satisfy the requirements of a DWMP but also to provide the necessary
strategic justification for changes to the provisions of the Mansfield Planning Scheme to
better reflect domestic wastewater and potable water quality management issues in our
declared catchment areas.
As such it was necessary to prepare this comprehensive Background Report. The
development of a background document containing a profile of the municipality, literature
Page 99
review and other general information has been a standard approach for a DWMP. Our
approach, however, has been extended to ensure that justice is given to the characteristics
of our catchments, local waterway health and water quality issues.
Indeed this broader ranging approach, which also leads the focus of this DWMP to move
beyond municipal borders, is consistent with the recommendations of recent State and
Regional water resource and water quality documents produced by the Government, water
corporations and the GBCMA.
The consequence of taking this broader catchment based approach, and incorporating
catchment management and water quality issues into account, means that the Background
Report is now a very sizeable document. Indeed there are so many State and Regional
reports relevant to potable water quality and catchment management that the Literature
Review section is around 100 pages long.
Having said that, it is considered that upon the five yearly review of the DWMP, the next
Background Report will not need to be as comprehensive as that there should be a higher
level of knowledge around domestic wastewater management, public health and water
quality issues following the implementation of the original DWMP.
It is also hoped that by providing such a comprehensive overview on the state of play of our
catchments, water quality issues, development trends and current wastewater management
practices that all stakeholders and decision makers will be far more aware of the context
within which they operate than ever before.
8.3
Developing a New Approach to Risk Analysis in a Declared
Open, Potable Water Supply Catchment Area
Most councils across Victoria have prepared a DWMP, all of which contain some form of
risk analysis to identify and manage the potential adverse impacts domestic wastewater
can have on public health, amenity, the environment and other beneficial uses identified by
the SEPP (W of V).
The State and Regional Literature Review outlined in Section 10 clearly demonstrates that
a new approach must be taken to analysing risks from domestic wastewater in a declared,
open potable water catchment area. Given that declared catchments consume 95% of
Mansfield Shire Council’s jurisdiction it was important that we commission experts to
explore how MSC could appropriately to enter this new policy ‘space’ and successfully
marry traditional DWMP risk assessments with potable water supply factors and
implications.
To this end Council commissioned Dr Robert Edis and Mr Larry White to prepare
independent discussion papers as to what a new, scientifically based risk analysis tool
might look like by drawing together and analysing the most recent science and information
relating to the topic.
Both are members of the Australian Society of Soil Science Inc; Dr Edis is an Honorary
Associate Professor at the University of Melbourne with over 25 years experience in soil
science specialising in nutrient and water dynamics. Mr White has over 35 years of
experience and consults in the field of land capability and land/soil resource management;
he has assisted the EPA with the development of State-wide domestic wastewater
management policy and guidelines.
Page 100
It should be noted that the discussion papers deal with the management of domestic
wastewater via traditional septic systems and secondary treatment systems only (ie not
worm farms or composting toilets).
Edis and White initially prepared the Discussion Paper, entitled Approaches for Risk
Analysis of development with On-Site Wastewater Disposal in Open Potable Water
Catchments in November 2013 and a slightly amended version in January 2014 following
stakeholder feedback.
In response to a peer review by Dr Robert van de Graaff, the original discussion paper was
split into two separate discussion papers, with amendments made in response to van de
Graaff and the field work undertaken by Paul Williams, (refer to Appendices 5 for Edis and
6 for White) which contained the following key observations and recommendations:
• the key risks posed to humans from unmanaged domestic wastewater are bacteria,
parasites, viruses and toxins from nitrate. It is noted, however, that there have been no
deaths in Australia related to poor wastewater treatment and disposal;
• the key risks to waterway health from wastewater are nitrogen and phosphorus,
which have the ability to shift the balance in an ecosystem and in extreme cases lead to
algal blooms (which can be toxic to humans and livestock);
• secondary treatment systems, while technologically advanced, need a constant flow of
effluent and higher levels of management and maintenance in order to continue to
operate effectively in comparison to a septic tank system;
• land capability assessments are a useful tool for analysing how domestic
wastewater can be effectively managed for an individual development if properly
researched and written, however there are inconsistent standards and information
present in LCA’s across Victoria and a greater emphasis on water budgets/balances is
required to correctly assess the capability of a site to effectively treat wastewater
generated by on-site development;
• a methodology for assessing risk at a ‘sub catchment’ level is provided by White
as a means for assessing risk in the context of protecting potable water supplies from
adverse impacts that would cause detriment to human health or the environment. This
approach relies heavily on the manipulation of data via a Geographical
Information System (GIS) and the layering of such information to identify high,
medium and low risk areas on a broad scale;
• a key risk factor is the consideration of the properties of soil orders, which can be
used to estimate their likely suitability for attenuating risk associated with on-site
wastewater disposal. The Edis Discussion Paper rates the various soil orders from
1 – 3, with a rating of 1 being a low risk soil in terms of pathogen/nutrient/bacterial
conductivity while a rating of 3 indicates high levels of conductivity and therefore a high
risk of transferral of undesirable materials into groundwater and adjacent waterways;
• high level mapping of risk factors such as declared water supply catchment boundaries,
water courses (the DEPI 3 tier watercourse database), soil type and other features such
as townships, unsewered development, planning zones, reservoirs, potable water take
off points should be undertaken to identify areas of high, medium and low risk across a
municipality;
• once this mapping has been undertaken White states that Environmental Health
Officers, Planners and Water Corporations can then identify ‘sub catchments’, or
areas of around 10 – 20km2, and their overall risk in terms of land capability;
• a possible sub catchment risk matrix, containing a number of risk factors,
attributes and ratings is provided by White, although it is noted that the listed factors
are not exhaustive and that they have been developed with Mansfield Shire in mind, so
conditions in other municipalities may require other factors to be utilised;
Page 101
•
•
•
•
•
it is then suggested that this sub catchment risk matrix then be applied to a small
geographical area to identify ‘land units’ based upon geographic characteristics such as
rainfall, topography, soil type, movement of nitrogen/phosphorous/pathogens through
the soil profile and vegetation;
each land unit should then be provided with a risk rating of either high, medium or low (it
is noted that an individual land capability assessment will still be needed for individual
sites due to potential variability within a land unit) and recommendations made in
regards to wastewater management for each unit (ie whether conventional systems
are appropriate or other alternatives such as secondary or contained systems);
o Low Risk Areas (Green areas): are defined as being appropriate for
experienced Council Environmental Health Officers to carry out the approval
process for these situations. This may allow for some reduction in setbacks
presently highlighted in the Code. For instance some waterways may be so
minor they would have very little potential impact on water quality in the subcatchment and some set back reduction or increase in housing density could
be appropriate;
o Medium Risk Areas: (Orange areas): are areas where experienced
Council Environmental Health Officers to make the decision regarding
approval following a clear Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) or similar
document being developed by the Water Authority. This MOU will be
specific to the particular land unit and/or sub-catchment and will include
relevant conditions for unsewered residential use (such as setbacks and
residential density). LCA’s (or some form of extra assessment) may need to
be carried out on identified pockets (eg steeper slopes, rocky, near drainage
features) within the medium risk land units;
o High Risk Areas: (Purple areas): are areas that require careful scrutiny.
LCA’s may well be universally required, and carried out by experienced
professionals in close liaison with the regulators. No development or only
very limited development may be possible on some properties. High level
management including treatment and dispersal regimes is likely to be
necessary. These land units or sub-catchments may be highlighted for
reticulated sewerage. Routine analysis of water quality at the ‘exit’ point
from a high risk sub-catchment could be undertaken. Present Code setback
recommendations and/or low density residential development may be
appropriate (or may even need tightening);
the Edis Discussion Paper then proposes a possible risk analysis tool for an
individual site, with a focus on assessing the impact of domestic wastewater on
potable water quality. A methodology for identifying appropriate setbacks of on-site
systems to waterways is explored, with the setback being a function of soil type, slope,
depth of the groundwater table, effluent absorption rates, the quality of effluent and the
rate of system failure;
data tables calculating the conductivity of effluent based on slope are provided, with the
conclusion being that setback distances from water resources of greater than 40 m of
unsealed land would be adequate to ensure no consequential pollution associated with
wastewater from a single dwelling. Additional load and potential for accumulation of risk
associated with >5% failures from several smaller lots may require larger setbacks;
the impact of lot size on mitigating adverse impacts from domestic wastewater in
a potable water supply catchment is then analysed, with the recommendation made
that:
o a lot size of 0.2 - 2 ha represents a size at which a system failure is
likely to result in significant quantities of effluent accessing a
Page 102
•
•
•
•
•
•
stormwater system, and consequently failure rates should be
minimised (<5%).
o for lot sizes above 2 - 10 ha, significant infiltration of effluent will occur
on-site in the event of effluent expression at the ground surface, with
some effluent potentially accessing drainage storm water systems. Some
failure is tolerable, and though not estimable categorically, a system failure
rate of 10% is unlikely to lead to significant degradation of water
resources.
o for lot sizes > 10 ha, given the consequent low density and potential for
attenuation on-site of surface expressed effluent, failure rates in excess of
50% are unlikely to lead to significant degradation of water resources,
except for soils with poor ratings for attenuating risk and or
developments with very close effluent-drain connectivity.
the interaction of effluent with bores is also explored with the conclusion made that a lot
size of greater the 4 ha should pose no consequential risk elevation associated
with wastewater management, provided other site factors to not indicate potential
problems. Between 2 - 4 ha this risk is manageable through careful consideration of
siting bores relative effluent sources and that for lot sizes between 0.2 - 2 ha the
potential to intersect effluent water is high, and borewater should not be used for
drinking unless treated;
impacts of dwelling density are then assessed, with the focus being on conditions within
Mansfield Shire. The conclusion is that overall:
o a density of the equivalent of 20 dwellings per km2 or less will not
significantly impact on water quality;
o a density of between 20 and 40 dwellings per km2 may result in a
detectable elevation of nitrogen in waterways, though not of ecological
impact except in highly nitrogen sensitive regions such as those not receiving
drainage from agricultural lands or urban areas. Some monitoring of water
quality is advisable;
o at more than 40 dwellings per km2 the additional nitrogen is likely to be
detectable and potentially of ecological significance, as well as elevation of
potentially pathogenic organisms in groundwater. Monitoring of water quality
at these higher densities is advised.
it was also concluded that soil orders potentially suitable for high density are Vertosols,
Chromosols, Ferrosols, Dermosols and many Kandosols;
overall Dr Edis concluded that “Provided the average density in the catchment, and
monitoring and maintenance are rigorously applied, and set back distances are
observed, no consequential impact on water resources would be observed that is
due to septic tanks”;
MSC also asked Dr Edis to consider whether a different approach to wastewater
management should be applied to holiday homes within the Shire, given they represent
around 50% of our housing stock. The recommendation was to “develop a resource
that empowers part-time occupants of unsewered homes to nurture their primary
sewage treatment facility, and ensure its health during periods of absence and
revitalisation as required on return”;
furthermore in response to the significant influx of population during holiday times, Dr
Edis recommended that Council “develop resources to assist owners inform their
visitors about caring for their septic system, in terms of both volume of water and
friendly substances and that intensive monitoring of septic systems during peak holiday
periods should be undertaken”;
Page 103
•
•
Dr Edis then proposes a risk matrix for an individual site once the risk analysis at
sub-catchment level has been undertaken; and
the key to the success of this individual site risk analysis tool is the algorithm used to
calculate its overall risk rating, which is defined as being:
Calculated combined risk number (Rn) using individual risk ratings = (R Distance to
reservoir + Soil type rating x (R Distance to river + R Distance to stream + R Distance to drain +
R Lot size) + (2 x RLCA) + (3 x R System fail rate x R Density)) / 10
Such that: Low Risk: Rn < 2.5
Moderate Risk: Rn 2.5 – 5
High Risk: Rn > 5
Given that the Edis-White Discussion Papers represented a new approach to assessing risk
in potable catchment areas it was considered essential that a peer review be undertaken by
a suitably qualified and eminent peer, who also had the respect of professionals across the
environmental health, soil science and water industry sectors.
Accordingly, Dr Robert van de Graaff was appointed by MSC to perform this task (see
Appendix 7). Dr van de Graaff has over 40 years experience in the fields of agricultural and
soil science with an emphasis on wastewater disposal and associated environmental risks.
He is a member of the Australian Soil Science Society Inc and has been awarded the
highest level of accreditation by this organisation. Dr van de Graaff is also a member of the
Australian Water Association.
Some key findings lifted from the Executive Summary are:
“The White and Edis Discussion Paper is commendable for its logical
and science-driven effort to assist Water Authorities, Local
Government and land capability assessors to reach common ground
with respect to where there are acceptable and unacceptable risks
arising from new unsewered developments in open potable water
catchments or in any other catchment...
The Shire of Mansfield’s purpose for the Discussion paper is to marshal
the most recent science, studies and information available to develop a
more sophisticated and scientifically based approach to analysing the risk
of domestic wastewater treatment within a given area. White and Edis
have extended this purpose to reconciling the essential need to protect
water quality in open potable water catchments with the social and
economic needs of the people living and working in these catchments by
means of improving and facilitating the assessment of the natural
environment with regard to its ability for absorbing and purifying domestic
wastewater disposed of in the soil....
White and Edis make a good case for defining and delineating those areas
within the Shire of Mansfield that will have low risk of contaminating water
resources from unsewered residential development....
White and Edis have carried out an extensive literature survey relating to
unfavourable environmental and health problems associated with on-site
systems, most of which covers experiences in the United States, mainly
the northern States, but also including Ireland. This has the effect of
colouring the overall scene and can create an impression that significant
Page 104
health impacts will be a necessary corollary of on-site systems anywhere
in the world. That picture is wrong. Climate, geology and soils can vary
dramatically depending on where in the world one is, and therefore from
where people derive their drinking water and the environment into which
they dispose of their wastes is equally different. We need to base
ourselves on our own environmental conditions....
Water Authorities have on occasion misused the overseas data to create a
fear of on-site systems and the associated health risks to the public and
used that fear to prevent any development on any parcels of land smaller
than 40 ha within a potable water catchment. To the credit of White and
Edis they have signalled the lack of scientific backing for the 40-hectare
rule. Simple logic demonstrates that the 40 ha rule cannot be true
because if it were true the geology and the aquifer properties,
geomorphology, soils and climate of the entire State of Victoria (where that
rule seems to hold sway)...must be uniform throughout this State, but,
miraculously, at the State boundaries with adjacent States, the natural
environment changes to the usual variability one expects.....
Ergo, to say that only a minimum 40 ha lot size can protect water quality is
a nonsense. Each case must be decided on its own merits and these
must include local experience. There exists no scientific method that
can quantify risk to the level of “vanishingly small” because by definition no
one can know where that point can be....
The method whereby White and Edis have proposed to assess risk is
basically sound but can be much improved as well as much facilitated, in
my opinion, by replacing the Soil Order in the risk rating scheme with a
first step delineation of the main geological / geomorphological land
elements that can be obtained very easily from the Geological maps at
scale 1:50,000. For each of these land elements or land units, which
should be relatively homogeneous internally, the main or typical soil profile
should be established, along with all of its properties that are relevant to
on-site systems performance....
A risk matrix could then be applied to the sub-catchments that have
particularly important water resources. From this one can develop
guidelines for any new proposed residential development....
White and Edis have made a quantitative approach to estimating the
distance of travel of contaminants in runoff, over the land surface
depending on slope gradient and soil permeability, and as seepage
travelling through the soil. This is very helpful in developing general
rules for setbacks scientifically....
It is evident from the Discussion Paper that the ground breaking work by
Brouwer in Victoria on the behaviour, water balance and nutrient removal
of septic tank effluent absorption trenches and, equally, the work by
Gerritse, a series of papers on the travel of nutrients from a wastewater
application area, was unknown to them. The bulk of Brouwer’s work is
available in his PhD thesis of 1982 (La Trobe University) and the
Australian Water Resources Council Tech. Paper No. 80 (1983)3. Gerritse
produced a special report in 2002 for Western Australia’s Department of
Health and several other governmental bodies entitled “Movement of
nutrients from on-site wastewater systems in soils”. To that effect White
Page 105
and Edis have missed some highly important and relevant information that
would have helped them in the Discussion paper....
As is proper, White and Edis have used data on the rate and speed of
travel of contaminants away from an effluent application area to a receptor
such as a drinking water well using international research papers to
highlight what can happen under certain soil and aquifer conditions.
However, using the numbers that flow from these examples to model
possible outcomes and desirable setbacks or maximum housing densities
etc., in Mansfield Shire should be accompanied by a cautionary note.
Wisconsin is not Mansfield Shire. Highly permeable glacial debris soils are
not the same as Duplex soils in Victoria....
The Discussion Paper will need some additional work to incorporate the
information from Brouwer and Gerritse and test the use of geological
mapping instead of the reliance on ASRIS soil information.”
The final recommendations made by Dr van de Graaff were:
• “Including geological mapping at scale 1:50,000 and topo maps at scale 1:25,000
for a ‘first cut’ delineation of land units that will have significance in terms of kind of soil,
depth of soil and general slope gradient range;
• Establishing the typical soil profile(s) on these land units through profile description
and (ideally) sampling and lab analysis of important soil properties;
• Considering especially the research findings from Brouwer and Gerritse and
including those into the risk analyses with regard to setbacks, and housing density;
• Modelling various scenarios of effluent and nutrient loading, system failure and off
site impacts;
• Summarising the successes and failures of on-site systems and the history of river
and stream water quality in catchments having unsewered developments in the context
of the land, soils and climate of Victoria.”
Dr van de Graaff’s peer review has been released to several local councils and water
corporations through Council and our Project Partners. In response to the peer review,
Edis and White decided to split the initial joint discussion paper and amend the White
component of the text to address the issues raised by Dr van de Graaff and findings of Paul
William’s field tests in relation to the sub-catchment risk methodology (Appendices 5 and 6).
8.4
Mansfield Shire Risk Analysis
8.4.1
Shire-wide & ‘Minor Catchment’ Risk Analysis
The Edis-White Discussion Papers were used to form the basis of a high level, Shire-wide
risk assessment. The TRG reviewed the suggested high level risk factors and tailored the
suggested methodology to suit local factors and knowledge. The detail as to how this was
done is contained in the DWMP.
Suffice to say that the Shire-wide risk analysis was undertaken using layers of slope,
soil type and proximity to potable water take off points and reservoirs. Layers relating
to proximity to waterways and the boundaries of declared potable water supply catchments
were underlying layers in this risk analysis.
As a means of dividing the Shire up into manageable and meaningful land units catchment
boundaries, topography and watersheds were used to divide the Shire into twenty
Page 106
‘Minor Catchments’. After applying a formulae to calculate risk each was given an overall
risk rating of either low, medium or high.
8.4.2
From ‘Minor Catchments’ to ‘Sub Catchments’
The TRG reviewed the Minor Catchment risk analysis on 29 November 2013 and devised
the next layer of risk analysis at sub catchment based on the consideration of the Edis and
White sub catchment model.
Consequently the factors used to rate risk at this sub catchment level were soil type,
slope, proximity to reservoir/potable water take off point, distance to waterway,
existing dwelling density and the zoning of land under the Mansfield Planning
Scheme (ie future development potential).
Once again these layers were used to identify high, medium and low risk sub catchments.
8.4.3
From ‘Sub Catchment’ to a Detailed Land Unit Analysis
The suggestion of undertaking a detailed analysis of a sub catchment to identify land units
proffered by the Edis and White November 2013 report was supported by the TRG. At its
meeting of 29 November 2013 the Group identified the sub catchments of Goughs Bay and
Howes Creek Road/McMillan’s Point as the two sub catchments where a detailed analysis
would be undertaken to test the Edis-White sub catchment model.
This work was undertaken by Mr Paul Williams (see Appendix 8), a land capability
assessment specialist who has over three decade’s experience in undertaking such
assessments and a member of the Australian Soil Science Society Inc. Mr Williams
prepares the bulk of land capability assessments within Mansfield Shire and has done so
for several years now. The wealth of data he has gathered in the field in relation to soil type
and conductivity properties within these two sub catchments was an important factor in
appointing him to undertake this work.
It must be noted that the field work was undertaken in tandem with the peer review by Dr
van de Graaff in order to ensure that the detailed sub catchment analyses reflected the
suggested modifications to the Risk Analysis Tool.
The end product is a detailed sub catchment analysis, based on the Edis-White
methodology, which has been produced through extensive field work and analysis of local
conditions (as recommended by Dr van de Graaff and Williams). These analyses will, in
turn, provide the basis for future sub catchment analyses of the remaining high risk sub
catchments identified in the DWMP.
The Williams report also provides the methodology for a detailed sub catchment land unit
analysis map based on soil origin, slope and thickness. This enables a cadastre layer to be
overlayed to produce a risk map down to individual lot level.
8.5
Online Surveys of Residents/Land Owners, Land Capability
Consultants and Wastewater System Installers/Service
Technicians
It was considered important to gain an understanding of land owner/resident knowledge of
their wastewater system as well as the issues, suggested improvements and possible
actions that land capability experts and installers/service technicians believe should be
considered by the Steering Committee and Council in developing the DWMP Action Plan.
Page 107
To this end three online surveys were undertaken; one for each stakeholder group.
Although the sample size was relatively small (55 responses in total) the results, comments
and suggested actions are an important reinforcement to the local knowledge and
experience of the Steering Committee and TRG and will better inform the development of
the Action Plan.
The results of the surveys will be a useful reference when developing the DWMP Action
Plan, particularly in relation to education programs, compliance and monitoring and LCA’s.
8.6
Development of the DWMP and the Action & Resource Plan
The DWMP will be informed by this Background Document, the development of the new
risk analysis tool, the online surveys and also the detailed sub catchment analyses
prepared for Goughs Bay and Howes Creek Road.
The Plan will detail the TRG approved methodology and results of the Shire-wide, minor
catchment and sub catchment risk analyses. These analyses will then provide the basis for
the recommendations in relation to how to best manage existing (and often ageing) on-site
wastewater management systems and the requirements for future land capability
assessments in high, medium and low risk areas as a means of identifying requirements
and standards for new on-site systems.
The Goughs Bay sub catchment analysis and land unit map will enable specific
recommendations to be made for this two settlement. Furthermore the sub catchment
analysis process will form the basis of future assessments for other high risk sub
catchments so that over the life of the DWMP all high risk sub catchments will benefit from
detailed land unit mapping and recommendations for the management of wastewater
/future development.
Lastly the DWMP will ensure compliance with the Ministerial Guidelines by outlining the
process by which the Plan will be independently audited, as agreed by the DWMP Steering
Committee and Council, and how the results of the audit will be shared with our Project
Partners and community.
The DWMP Action & Resource Plan will be a 5 year plan, in accordance with the Ministerial
Guidelines, outlining the range of actions and initiatives to be implemented by Council and
its Project Partners over its lifespan. Likely themes include completion of sub catchment
analyses for all identified high risk sub catchments, education programs, compliance and
enforcement programs, planning scheme improvements and further work.
Critically the resource component of this Plan will ensure that Council and its Project
Partners allocate sufficient resources to implement the Action Plan. Estimates of the time
frames for each action and the human and financial resources required to implement them
will be provided to assist with budgeting processes and work programs.
Page 108
8.7
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Key Findings
It was important to establish a robust governance structure for this project, with clearly
defined communication channels, roles and responsibilities with our five project partners
via a Governance Charter, Steering Committee and Technical Reference Group;
The use of the OLV Grant to commission expert input from Dr Robert Edis and Mr Larry
White into the development of our risk analysis methodology has resulted in a
comprehensive, multi levelled risk analysis tool that focuses on the cumulative
and individual impacts of on-site systems on potable water quality and other
beneficial uses;
The White sub catchment risk matrix contains a broad range of risk factors,
attributes and ratings that may impact on water quality, waterway health, amenity,
and pubic health;
A key risk factor is the consideration of the properties of soil orders and their
likely ability to attenuating risk associated with on-site wastewater disposal;
Soil orders potentially suitable for high dwelling densities are Vertosols, Chromosols,
Ferrosols, Dermosols and many Kandosols;
The scientific analyses undertaken by our four experts support the notion that lots
between 0.2 and 2 hectares are at the highest risk of not being able to attenuate
wastewater within property boundaries unless measures are taken to ensure <
5% failure rates for on-site systems;
Dr Edis supports the development of an education program to assist holiday
home owners to appropriately manage their septic system and that intensive
monitoring of septic systems during peak holiday periods should be undertaken;
Dr van de Graaff’s peer review found the Edis discussion paper to be scientifically
sound;
The peer review made recommendations for a small amount of additional work, which
led to the de-amalgamation of Edis and Whites’ work into two discussion papers, the
latter of which contains a number of amendments;
The in-field testing of the White sub catchment model, the Edis individual site risk
analysis tool and algorithm by Paul Williams in the Goughs Bay and Howes Creek Road
sub catchments led to recommendations for minor changes to the White sub catchment
risk analysis tool;
Williams also tested the Edis algorithm for an individual additional on-site domestic
wastewater system against 40 land capability assessments and found the algorithm to
be sound in all instances; and
Overall the scientific work undertaken by our experts will enable Council to develop a
comprehensive risk analysis methodology to scientifically measure risk and, in turn,
guide good decision making into the future.
Page 109
9) Consultation
As per the Ministerial Guidelines the MSDWMPPP has been a true joint effort between
Council and its Project Partners. This section provides a brief outline of the consultative
processes undertaken by Council in preparing the DWMP Background Document and the
DWMP itself.
9.1
The Steering Committee
The Project Steering Committee consists of the following members:
Cr Paul Sladdin (MSC and Chair)
Dawn Bray (MSC MSDWMPPP Project Manager)
Alan Tyson (GVW)
Greg Smith (GMW)
Neil Repacholi (GMW)
Matt Parsons (Murrindindi Shire Council)
Michael Wheelahan (OLV)
David Sheehan (OLV)
Elita Briggs (EPA).
Paul Williams also provided technical input at several Steering Committee meetings.
As per the Governance Charter (refer to Appendix 1), the Steering Committee members
were responsible for:
• ensuring their organisation consistently engages with the Project and a suitably
qualified representative attends all Project Steering Committee or Technical Reference
Group meetings;
• coordinating responses to questions or requests for information by the Project Manager
from their organisation;
• communicating the progress of the Project to their organisation;
• approving any media releases, information sheets and other publically circulated
material developed by the Project Manager and, once approved, distributing such
information to other associations and peak bodies;
• responding to requests to various enquiries about the Project referred to them by the
Project Manager from other interested parties; and
• ensuring that the Project Manager is aware of any concerns or issues that may affect
the Project in a timely manner.
Several Steering Committee meetings have been held over the life of this project as a
means of providing strategic direction into the DWMP.
The process of requesting the Committee to review, and comment upon, each section of
this document has resulted in what we consider to be a comprehensive and well rounded
Background Report which reflects the perspectives of all our Partners.
Upon the redrafting of each section in response to the comments received MSC has
requested final sign off by the Managing Directors of both water corporations, Peter Quinn
of GVW and Gavin Hanlon of GMW. This approach was taken to not only ensure that the
corporations were satisfied with the progress of the project but to also provide Council with
confidence that the project will receive their affirmation and support once completed.
Page 110
9.2
The Technical Reference Group
The Governance Charter states the role of the TRG is to:
• provide the highest possible standard of scientific expertise and data to help shape the
DWMP;
• develop the risk assessment tool to be used to estimate the cumulative impact of
development within potable water catchments and identify high, medium and low risk
areas across Mansfield Shire; and
• make recommendations as to what actions and mitigation measures can be applied by
Council, our Project Partners, other authorities and private land owners could be
included in the DWMP.
The TRG’s membership changed from meeting to meeting depending on the issues
considered and the expertise required to provide appropriate input and direction into the
project at the time, but consisted of the following core members:
Dawn Bray (MSDWMPPP Project Manager)
Annita Ware (MSC Senior Planning Officer)
Kevin Murphy (MSC Senior Environmental Health Officer)
Alan Tyson (GVW Manager Planning Strategy and Environment)
Tara Callingham (GVW Senior Treatment Strategist)
Greg Smith (GMW Manager Water Quality)
Lydia Drake (GMW Catchment Health Coordinator)
Neil Repacholi (GMW)
Elita Briggs (North East Environment Protection Authority).
Other guest attendees included:
Dr Rob Edis, Soil Scientist, University of Melbourne and Soil Science Australia
Larry White, Accredited Soil Science Specialist
Paul Williams, Earth Science Consultant
Simon Hollis, Manager Planning, Towong Shire Council
Elizabeth Tuson, Senior Regional Planner, Hume Region Department Transport, Planning
and Local Infrastructure
Various Environmental Health Officers from Councils throughout the North East, Central
and Northern Regions.
9.3
Council is an important stakeholder in the DWMP process given the plan must be adopted
by Council and the necessary resources for its implementation provided through the Annual
Budget.
Cr Paul Sladdin, as Planning and Environment Portfolio holder, has chaired several
Steering Committee meetings. Furthermore regular briefings and written updates have
been provided to Councillors throughout the course of the project to seek their input and
strategic direction.
Once complete, this Background Report and the draft DWMP/Action and Resource Plan will
be submitted to a formal Council meeting for review and to seek approval to place both on
public exhibition. Once this process has been undertaken the finalised documents will be
submitted once again to Council for a formal resolution adopting the DWMP and its
supporting documents.
Page 111
9.4
Mansfield Shire Council Environment Advisory Committee
This Advisory Committee was appointed by Council in January 2012. In accordance with
its charter (endorsed by Council in October 2013), primary function of the Committee is to
advise Council on matters pertaining to:
• the Mansfield Shire Environment Priority Action Plan implementation and annual review;
• planning initiatives;
• environmental program and policy priorities;
• opportunities to participate in State or Federal Government environment initiatives,
programs and grants;
• the development of mechanisms to advertise and promote Council's environmental
management and sustainable development policies, strategies and projects;
• the development of educational mediums to raise the awareness of environmental
issues and management;
• support and mentor Council’s environment staff, and
• providing a conduit between Council and Community in environmental matters.
The Committee is comprised of the following members:
• Mansfield Shire Councillor (Chair);
• Up2Us Landcare Alliance;
• a representative of the Gadhaba Local Indigenous Network;
• Victorian Farmers Federation;
• Mt Buller & Mt Stirling Alpine Resort Managements Environment Officer;
• three Community representatives;
• a member of Council’s Executive; and the
• MSC’s Environment Officer.
As mentioned in the Literature Review the DWMP is one of three key projects which form
the basis of the 2013 – 17 Environment Action Plan, hence its relevance to this Committee.
A briefing on the progress of this project has been provided at each bi-monthly Committee
over the life of this project. It is expected that this Committee will continue to have an
ongoing interest and role in the implementation of the DWMP.
9.5
Minister for Water and Local Member for Benalla, Dr Bill Sykes
MP
MSC’s relationship with Minister Walsh, members of his office, and local member for
Benalla Dr Bill Sykes, strengthened during 2012 during lobbying to changes to the former
Ministerial Guidelines around the 1:40 hectare rule.
This relationship resulted in the receipt of a $50,000 grant to support the development of
this Pilot Project as a means of providing a model for other councils and water authorities in
meeting the new requirements for the preparation of a DWMP.
Regular updates as to the progress of this project and key findings have provided to the
Minister’s office and Dr Sykes.
Page 112
9.6
Our Community,
Technicians
Consultants
and
Installation/Service
This DWMP will not be a success unless our community, local consultants and wastewater
system installers/technicians are aware of, and engaged in, its development and
implementation over the next five years and beyond.
A series of public information sheets have been produced in the lead up to, and during the
preparation of, this DWMP as a means of providing a meaningful update on the purpose of
this project and key findings. Media releases have led to articles in the local paper and
online information about this project has been provided via Council’s web site.
Direct involvement in the development of this Background Report has been through the
community representatives on the Environment Advisory Committee and through the
participation of 46 residents/land owners in the online questionnaire (outlined in Section 7 of
this report).
Once finalised, this Report and DWMP will be placed on public exhibition for 28 days, which
will represent a further opportunity for interested community members to have input into this
document.
Community involvement in this Plan will also increase significantly through the
implementation of DWMP related community education and compliance programs.
It is hoped that in five year’s time our community will be far more cognisant of their
responsibilities in mitigating any adverse impacts their on-site system may have on public
health, local amenity, the environment and potable water quality and that they will actively
participate in the development of the next iteration of this DWMP.
9.7
Briefing of Other Councils, Water Corporations and Peak Bodies
As this Project is aimed at assisting other councils and water corporations in the
preparation of a DWMP that meets the requirements of Guideline 1 of the new Ministerial
Guidelines, it has been essential that our council counterparts, other water corporations and
peak bodies be kept informed of the project’s progress and key findings.
MSC and its Project Partners have actively distributed information relating to our risk
management tool and project methodology over several months. Public Information
Sheets, copies of the Edis-White Discussion Papers, Dr van de Graaff’s Peer Review and a
document relating to our minor catchment and sub catchment risk analysis methodology
have all distributed to a long list of councils and water corporations.
Numerous meetings have also been held with local government Environmental Health
Officers and Planners as a means of sharing DWMP experiences and information. Water
corporations have been actively considering the work prepared as part of this project via
DEPI/OLV convened meetings. Our respective peak bodies have also been kept in the
loop with the project’s progress by Council and Project Partners.
The sharing of information and experiences, particularly around action plans and
enforcement initiatives have been particularly useful in stimulating thoughts about what our
own Action Plan may recommend.
Page 113
10) Literature Review
This section provides an outline of the key reference documents which are relevant to this
Domestic Wastewater Management Plan.
As previously mentioned there are a wide range of guidelines, strategies and legislation that
influence domestic wastewater management, water quality and the management of potable
water catchments. Focus has been placed on elements of these documents that have
strong links to, and influences on, the preparation and implementation of a DWMP in a
declared potable water catchment area.
It is noted that this literature review is somewhat more lengthy than those traditionally
contained in domestic wastewater management plans. This is intentional given the intent
that this Pilot Project becomes a reference point for others in potable catchment areas such
when preparing their own DWMP. It adopts a new approach to wastewater management in
that it considers broader catchment management and water quality issues which extend
beyond the boundaries of Mansfield Shire itself.
The literature review has also been written as a means of providing a comprehensive
overview for a broad range of readers, particularly those professionals and decision makers
involved in the development approvals process including Planners, Engineers and
Councillors. Similarly, the discussion on planning provisions is targeted towards other
professionals such as Environmental Health Officers.
In this way it is hoped that this may become a reference for professionals involved in
decision making processes who want to gain a better understanding of the broader issues
that need to underpin any future strategic planning in an open, potable catchment.
One of the criticisms levelled at councils by water authorities and State Government
departments is that there is a lack of general knowledge of water quality and domestic
wastewater management issues within the Planning profession. Mansfield Shire recognises
that the level of knowledge of Officers involved in the development approvals process of
these issues can be improved and hence, the information provided in this section can be
used as one means of addressing this gap.
10.1
Federal documents
10.1.1
Australian Standards for Domestic Wastewater Treatment Units
There are a number of Australian Standards that relate to domestic wastewater units
including:







Australian Standard AS/NZS 1546.1: On-site domestic wastewater treatment units —
Part 1: Septic Tanks
Part 2: Waterless composting toilets
Part 3: Aerated wastewater treatment systems
Australian Standard AS/NZS 4130: Polyethylene (PE) pipes for pressure applications
Australian Standard AS/NZS 1319: Safety signs for the occupational environment
Australian Standard AS/NZS 3500: Plumbing and Drainage
Australian Standard AS/NZS 1547: On-site domestic-wastewater management.
Page 114
It is important to note that whilst these standards apply in Victoria, the EPA Code of Practice
for Domestic Wastewater Management 2013 takes precedence. Furthermore if the Code of
Practice is silent on an issue covered by an Australian Standard, the latter applies.
10.1.2
Domestic Greywater Treatment Systems Accreditation Guidelines
(2005)
The EPA Code of Practice mentions the fact that there is no Australian Standard for
greywater treatment systems (ie water emanating from showers/baths/basins, the laundry
and kitchen) and therefore the Domestic Greywater Treatment Systems Accreditation
Guidelines 2005 released by the New South Wales Department of Health must be met if a
Certificate of Approval is to be granted in Victoria.
The Guidelines outline the minimum standards that must be met for a system to receive
accreditation from the NSW Department of Health. A municipal council cannot approve the
installation or use of a system that has not received this accreditation.
10.1.3
Australian Drinking Water Guidelines 2011 (Version 2.0)
This document was written by the National Health and Medical Research Council in
partnership with the National Resource Management Ministerial Council. It aims to provide
comprehensive advice to the water supply industry, and the community, as to what
constitutes safe drinking water and what measures water corporations should take to
consistently produce good quality potable water.
The Guidelines take a holistic approach; guidance and standards are provided for water from
it first entering the catchment through to when it reaches the customer’s tap and includes:

a framework of strategies for the management of drinking water quality which
highlights the need for a catchment-wide, multi barrier risk management approach
and productive partnerships with other agencies;

the characteristics that determine water quality in terms of aspects that relate to public
health (eg physical and chemical attributes, acceptable levels of microbial organisms)
and ‘amenity’ (eg clarity of water, taste and smell);

chemicals commonly used in treatment of drinking water and how they affect water
quality; and

recommended monitoring systems and procedures.
Information sheets explaining the Guidelines’ principles and strategies are also provided.
It is noted that both GMW and GVW have adopted the Guideline’s principles relating to risk
management, water treatment and monitoring of water quality, hence its relevance to this
DWMP.
10.1.4
National and New Zealand Water Quality Management Strategy and
Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water
Quality (2000)
This Strategy sets broad objectives for the improvement of water quality and provides an
overarching framework focusing on sustainable water use that is mindful of economic and
social development needs. Its aim is to provide all water corporations and associated
authorities and stakeholders with a consistent set of principles and targets.
The Guidelines were written by the Australian and New Zealand Environment and
Conservation Council and the Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia
and New Zealand as a means of implementing the aforementioned Strategy.
Page 115
Their stated aim is to:
“achieve the sustainable use of Australia’s and New Zealand’s water
resources by protecting and enhancing their quality while maintaining
economic and social development”. (Preamble, page xii)
The following elements are contained within this extensive document:

principles, objectives and philosophical basis underpinning the development and
application of the Guidelines;

a management framework recommended for applying the water quality guidelines to
the natural and semi-natural marine and fresh water resources;

proposed water quality guidelines to protect and manage the environmental values
supported by the water resources, including the recommended limits to acceptable
change in water quality that will not undermine environmental values; and

advice on designing and implementing water quality monitoring and assessment
regimes.
The authors stress that the Guidelines are not to be used as mandatory standards given
that a ‘one size fits all’ approach cannot account for local conditions or impacts on local flora
and fauna.
These Guidelines stress the need for a risk based approach to protecting the
environmental values of water resources, which in turn forces regional and local authorities
to consider the attributes of a particular catchment or waterway. They also espouse an
integrated approach to water quality management, including community involvement in water
resource management. Figure 14 below summarises how the Guidelines can be applied to
protect water quality for a range of different environmental values including:

aquatic ecosystems

primary industries

recreational use of waterways

drinking water.
Figure 14
Framework for Applying the ANZ Guidelines for Fresh and Marine
Water Quality
Source: Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality (Version
October 2000)
Page 116
10.2
State Documents
10.2.1
Legislation
10.2.1.1
Environment Protection Act 1970
This Act is the key reference legislation for all domestic wastewater guidelines, codes of
practice and other such regulations. It sets environmental priorities and principles for
Victoria to guide not only the management of wastewater but also noise, litter, landfills and
hard waste.
One of the principles often referred to in relation to the potential conflict between increased
density of septic tanks and the protection of water quality within declared potable water
catchments is the precautionary principle. The Act defines it as being:
“1C. The precautionary principle
(1) If there are threats of serious or irreversible environmental damage, lack of full
scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to
prevent environmental degradation.
(2) Decision making should be guided by(a)
a careful evaluation to avoid serious or irreversible damage to the
environment wherever practicable; and
(b)
an assessment of the risk-weighted consequences of various options.”
It is this assessment of risk-weighted consequences and careful evaluation of the
impact of an additional septic tank on water quality which is a key driver for this
wastewater management plan.
The Act also makes clear statements about water quality objectives and the compliance of
any discharges with prescribed water policies and standards.
Part IXB relates to Septic Tanks a definition of which is provided in Section 53J:
“septic tank system means a system for the bacterial, biological, chemical or physical
treatment of sewage, and includes all tanks, beds, sewers, drains, pipes, fittings,
appliances and land used in connection with the system;”
Section 53L states that a permit is required to install a septic tank system and provides for a
fine of 300 penalty units for a person who has constructed, installed or altered a system
without a permit.
The Act also outlines the responsibilities of councils in managing domestic wastewater
approvals for systems processing up to 5000 litres of waste a day under Section 53M.
In relation to landowner responsibilities the Act states that:

the land owner must comply with any permit requirement;

a system must not be used to treat domestic wastewater until it has been approved by
council; and

the land owner must maintain the system in accordance with the permit.
The fine under the Act for failing to comply with permit conditions is 120 penalty units. Using
a system without a Certificate to Use the system under Section 53MB is also 120 penalty
Page 117
units. A 10 penalty unit fine is prescribed should a land owner not be maintaining a septic
tank to the standards specified in a permit.
It should be noted that wastewater systems dealing with the processing of more than 5000
litres a day are the responsibility of the EPA.
Councils must also lodge an annual return to the EPA with the following information:

the number of permits issued for septic tank systems;

the number of septic tank systems disconnected;

the number of septic tank systems inspected; and

the number of septic tank systems which have been in use within the municipality
during the financial year.
The Act provides the legal framework for the creation of State Environment Protection
Policies (SEPP’s); the SEPP for Waters of Victoria is a key driver of the Ministerial
Guidelines for Planning Applications in Open, Potable Water Catchment Areas (November
2012), which in turn provides the framework for the development of this DWMP.
10.2.1.2
Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008
This Act identifies the roles and responsibilities of various parties, including councils, in the
prevention of disease, in prolonging life and in the promotion of public health through various
forms of licenses, approvals and enforcement.
Under this Act all councils are given the duty to do whatever it can to mitigate health
threats and other nuisances via coordinated programs and initiatives.
It also provides the enforcement framework to assist Council Officers in addressing health
risks and nuisances.
Sections 5 – 11 identify the set of principles that underpin the Act, which are:

Evidence based decision making;

The precautionary principle (“If a public health risk poses a serious threat, lack of full
scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent
or control the public health risk”);

Proportionality (ie action should be proportionate to the public health risk); and

Collaboration (between all levels of government, industry, business communities and
individuals).
Critically the nuisance provisions of the Act have often been relied upon by councils to
address public health issues arising from the mismanagement of domestic waste water for
older systems where neither a Permit to Install or Certificate to Use the system exist. The
aspects of Part 6, Division 1, Section 58 of the Act which enable council officers to address
issues arising from on-site wastewater issues are:
(1)
“This Division applies to nuisances which are, or are liable to be,
dangerous to health or offensive.
(2)
Without limiting the generality of subsection (1), this Division applies
in particular to nuisances arising from or constituted by any—
(a) premises; or
(b) water; or....
(e) noise or emission; or
(f) state, condition or activity; or
Page 118
(g) other matter or thing—
which is, or is liable to be, dangerous to health or offensive.”
The term ‘offensive’ is defined as being means noxious or injurious to personal comfort.
Further to this, Section 60 states that:
“A Council has a duty to remedy as far as is reasonably possible all
nuisances existing in its municipal district.”
Section 61 provides for a fine of 120 penalty units for an offence under the nuisance
provisions. Section 62 states that a council must investigate all complaints of nuisance
within a reasonable amount of time otherwise the complainant has an ability to lodge a
complaint to the Magistrate’s Court regarding the nuisance issue.
10.2.1.3
Water Act 1989
This Act is the key piece of legislation that guides water corporations and authorities (ie
water storage managers and water retailers). The stated aims are to provide for the
orderly and efficient use of water resources and to ensure consistency in the
management and treatment of water supplies across Victoria. The Act also sets the
framework for the protection and enhancement of waterways, catchment and groundwater.
Section 173 of the Act outlines the responsibilities of corporations in terms of providing
sewerage infrastructure, which includes the identification of community needs to assist with
future infrastructure provision.
Section 180 requires referral of all septic tank installation applications to the corporation
responsible for sewerage provision if the latter has lodged a standing request with Council or
the EPA to do so.
Section 183 provides powers to:

inspect septic tanks within its sewerage district; and

serve a notice on the land owner to take remedial action to address
maintenance/performance issues.
Section 184 allows the water corporation to create by-laws requiring regular maintenance of
septic tank systems, including the payment of a fee for any works carried out on a system
by, or on behalf of, the sewerage authority. This section provides for relatively significant
penalties should a by-law be breached.
10.2.1.4
The CALP Act sets the framework for the management and protection of catchments to
maintain their productivity in the long term, enhance land and water resources and to
establish the processes by which the State’s land and water resources are assessed.
It has a strong focus on community involvement in achieving these aims, targeting land
owners and managers by identifying their duties in relation to land and water management.
Regulations for the establishment of catchment management authorities are prescribed by
the Act. The Goulburn Broken Catchment Management Authority, who is responsible for the
management of the catchments within which Mansfield and Murrindindi Shires lie, is thus
created under this Act.
Page 119
Part 4 of the Act provides the legislative framework for the development of regional
catchment strategies (Division 1), special area plans (Division 2) and land use conditions
(Division 3). It is noted that the Upper Goulburn (Upper Delatite) Special Area Plan and
associated land use conditions aimed at mitigating erosion and impacts of land use and
development on water quality was created under this Act.
The purpose of regional catchment strategies is to identify areas where land degradation is
an issue and put mitigation measures in place, identifying what authority or stakeholder is
responsible for each action. There is also a strong focus on managing and eliminating pest
plants and animals to enhance water quality.
10.2.1.5
Safe Drinking Water Act 2003 and Regulations 2005
The Act provides for three main things; a ‘source to tap’ risk management framework,
drinking water quality standards and the information water businesses must provide
to the Minister and the public in relation to their performance in applying the Act.
It applies to both water suppliers (in our case GVW) and water storage managers (ie GMW)
and states that they must:

ensure that drinking water meets the quality standards specified by the Safe Drinking
Water Regulations;

prepare and implement risk management plans in relation to drinking water and some
types of non-potable water;

provide independent audits of their performance in implementing these plans;

disclose various types of information relating to the quality of drinking water they
supply; and

report any known or suspected contamination of drinking water to the Secretary of the
Department of Health (as do members of the community).
Other key aspects of this legislation include the ability for the Health Minister to authorise a
variation in the water quality standards for aesthetic values (ie those standards that are not
essential for public health such as turbidity or pH), and the provision of enforcement powers
to the Secretary of Health to enforce the Act.
The Secretary of Health is also provided with the following functions and powers under Part
4, Division 1 General Functions and Powers under Section 27 to:
(a) protect public health in relation to the supply of drinking water; and
(b) monitor and enforce compliance with this Act and the regulations; and
(c) report on the performance of water suppliers and water storage managers in
relation to the requirements imposed on them under this Act; and
(d) investigate and report on any aspect of drinking water quality in Victoria; and
(e) make recommendations to the Minister for Health on any matter relating to
drinking water or regulated water; and
(f)
promote industry and public awareness and understanding of drinking water
quality issues.
Division 2, Incident Management, details what actions must be taken by the Secretary of
Health if it is considered water quality poses a risk to public health. Section 34 details what
information and actions the Minister will require of both the water storage manager and/or
the water supplier.
The supporting Regulations provide the detail to enable the Act to be implemented on the
ground by retail water suppliers such as GVW. Schedule 2 identifies the frequency of
Page 120
mandatory drinking water testing and sets safe drinking water limits for various elements,
chemicals and pathogens. For example, weekly testing of water for Escherichia choli (E coli)
is required and 98% of samples taken over a year are required to show a reading of zero for
this pathogen in order to meet the water quality standards.
Under both the Act and Regulations a water corporation’s risk management plan must be
audited in accordance with timeframes set by the Department of Health to assess
compliance with the Act by an authorised auditor and a certificate of approval granted.
10.2.1.6
Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Amended 2013)
This is the principal act which governs planning policy and decision making. It identifies the
objectives which must guide all planning decisions in Victoria, while identifying the roles and
responsibilities of various authorities and stakeholders.
Under the Act councils are charged with the responsibility of being both a planning
authority (when rezoning land, amending the LPPF or local provisions) and a
responsible authority (when assessing planning applications to use and develop
land).
The role of referral authorities is also prescribed by the Act, with amendments being made to
the Act in December 2013 further clarifying the role of referral authorities. These changes
introduced the notion of a:

‘determining referral authority’, which is defined as a body, authority or person
identified by a planning scheme whose comments on planning permit applications and
amendments to existing permits must be adhered to. That is, should a determining
authority object to the granting of a permit a council must issue a Refusal to Grant a
Permit. Similarly conditions of permit requested by a determining referral authority
must be included on the planning permit. Determining referral authorities also have
appeal rights should an application be referred to VCAT; and a

‘recommending referral authority’, whose comments and proposed conditions of
permit must be considered by council. An objection to an application from a
recommending referral authority does not mean automatic refusal and council does not
need to include their suggested permit conditions if it feels they are inappropriate.
These new provisions are relevant to this wastewater management plan as GMW and GVW
are defined as being determining referral authorities under Clause 66 of the Mansfield
Planning Scheme for:

the subdivision of land (with a few exceptions); and

applications to use, subdivide or consolidate land, to construct or carry out works or to
demolish a building or works that are within a Special Water Supply Catchment Area
listed in Schedule 5 of the Catchment and Land Protection Act 1994 and which
provides water to a domestic supply.
Under Clause 66.03 the GBCMA is identified as a recommending referral authority for
applications relating to land within a Flood Overlay or Land Subject to Inundation Overlay.
As either type of referral authority, these organisations all have a key role to play in terms of
providing council with expert advice and permit conditions to support the assessment
process.
The objectives of the Act relate to ensuring there is orderly and fair planning across the
State, that natural and manmade resources are protected and that public utilities and other
assets are protected and coordinated to benefit the community. There is also a strong focus
on protecting and enhancing amenity and meeting a broad range of community needs via
sound planning decisions and policies.
Page 121
Specifically the objectives of the planning framework established by the Act, specified by
Section 4(2) include:
“(a)
to ensure sound, strategic planning and co-ordinated action at State, regional
and municipal levels;
(b)
to establish a system of planning schemes based on municipal districts to be the
principal way of setting out objectives, policies and controls for the use,
development and protection of land;
(c)
to enable land use and development planning and policy to be easily integrated
with environmental, social, economic, conservation and resource management
policies at State, regional and municipal levels;
(d)
to ensure that the effects on the environment are considered and provide for
explicit consideration of social and economic effects when decisions are made
about the use and development of land.”
The Act is relevant to this DWMP in that it governs the zoning, development and use of land
within Mansfield Shire. In turn, the DWMP risk analysis and sub catchment plans help to
inform future planning scheme controls and development potential.
The Act is clear that council and water authorities share the responsibility of making good
decisions and balancing environmental, economic and social objectives through its
prescribed planning scheme amendment and planning permit application processes.
Importantly the Act establishes an enforcement framework which allows council to ensure
that planning permit conditions are followed and that land is used and developed in
accordance with the Act and with the planning scheme.
Section 173 of the Act also provides a mechanism for restrictions and conditions to be
placed in a legal agreement between the land owner and a council in respect to the future
development and management of uses on a property. The presence of an agreement is
noted on the Certificate of Title.
GMW has used a Section 173 Agreement between a council, GMW and the property
owner to ensure that on-site systems are adequately managed and maintained over
time, particularly in areas where there is a high risk of effluent adversely affecting water
quality. This mechanism has been seen to strengthen the message of obligation to ensure
septic systems function properly over time, as well as providing both a council and GMW
with an additional enforcement tool.
10.2.1.7
Subdivisions Act 1988
This Act is a key piece of planning legislation that supports the Planning and Environment
Act. It outlines the requirements and procedures of the subdivision and consolidation of
land, as well as the creation, variation or removal of easements and other types of
restrictions on a land Title.
Furthermore the Act specifies the rights and responsibilities of referral authorities, including
their ability to require easements to be registered on Title or for the transfer of land to them
in order provide services to support the new subdivided land (eg GVW would usually require
a sewerage easement within which reticulated sewerage infrastructure is placed to
guarantee unencumbered access to their infrastructure).
Council must not certify a subdivision plan, nor issue a Statement of Compliance (which is
the last procedure undertaken prior to a request being made to the Land Titles Office for the
Page 122
issue of individual titles for newly created lots) until referral authorities, such as GMW and
GVW are satisfied that their requirements and planning permit conditions are all met.
10.2.1.8
Local Government Act 1989
This Act has only a small influence on this Plan but does provide councils with the ability to
develop and adopt local laws and to put a special charge scheme or environmental levy in
place to provide necessary infrastructure to meet community needs.
In relation to a local law a council can develop laws that relate to any act, function or power
which is provided to it under this Act, or any other Act. The law cannot, however, override
the planning scheme and must comply with all other Acts and Regulations. There are
examples in Victoria where a council has adopted a local law relating to the management of
domestic wastewater and septic tank systems have been put into place, along with penalties
where the provisions of the local law are not met by land owners.
Sections 155 to 163 outline the rates and charges a council is able to apply as a means of
funding specific services or functions. Section 162(c) enables council to declare a
service rate or annual service charge for the provision of sewage services. More
generally, such charges can be applied to a specific service or infrastructure project provided
that the requirements of the act and provision of public notice in relation to the charge are
met. There is a formula for the amount of cost recovery council can derive from a special
charge and only those that benefit directly from the project can be subject to a special rate.
10.2.2
Strategies and Guidelines
10.2.2.1
State Environmental Protection Policy (Waters of Victoria) (1988)
This SEPP is created under the auspices of the Environment Protection Act 1970 and aims
to achieve integrated catchment management by providing a statutory framework for the
protection of the uses and values of Victoria’s marine and fresh water assets and
environments.
It applies to all natural water environments (including seasonal waterways), their catchments
and activities undertaken within catchments that impact on surface waters. It excludes
artificial water holding and treatment systems, off stream private dams and artificial
wetlands.
It is a key document for the development of this DWMP given it binds councils, water
authorities, catchment management authorities and government agencies to ensuring
day to day decisions do not adversely impact on the water environment. A key focus
is the management of domestic wastewater; the role of councils is central to this.
The following is a summation of the Policy Impact Assessment (PIA) for the SEPP prepared
by the EPA which explains in great detail the issues and objectives relating to water
environment quality, along with roles and responsibilities in addressing the adverse impacts
human activity can have on water quality.
The SEPP identifies:

the uses and values relating to water that the community and government want to
protect – the SEPP calls them beneficial uses;

the objectives and indicators which measure whether or not the environmental targets
required to protect beneficial uses are being met; and
Page 123

how all key stakeholders including catchment management authorities, councils, land
owners, water authorities, are to contribute to the achievement and enhancement of
the environmental conditions identified in the SEPP, which is named the attainment
program.
The beneficial uses relating to this DWMP, and also Mansfield Shire in general (given our
potable water resources), include:

water suitable for human consumption;

water based recreation;

water suitable for agriculture;

aquatic ecosystems; and

water suitable for the consumption of fish, crustaceans and molluscs.
Importantly when setting targets to measure the environmental quality of waterways the
SEPP aims to drive continuous improvement. This is further underlined on page 10 by the
statement that:
“The goals provide some specific areas of focus for the next 10 years to ensure that
actions important to protect beneficial uses are implemented. This does not mean
however that all environmental quality objectives need to be attained or actions
fully implemented within that timeframe, but that progressive improvement is
made towards their attainment.”
Part 1.3 (pg 2) of the PIA identifies the following key risks to the water environment:

excess nutrients leading to issues such as excessive plant growth and algal blooms
(which can result in water becoming toxic); a range of contributors are identified
including septic tanks, agricultural land use, animal wastes and urban stormwater;

suspended solids due to erosion which may cause reduced light levels and aquatic
plant growth, sediment deposits in waterways and adverse impacts on the quality of
drinking water for humans;

salinity;

reduced environmental flows and altered flows due to diversion for commercial,
industrial and agricultural uses which in turn reduces the water available for
ecosystems and also recreational and tourism uses;

heavy metals and oils;

aquatic pests; and

other threats that reduce oxygen levels and change the pH of water.
The key policy principles outlined in Part 6.5 (pg 10) include:

the promotion of the ‘triple bottom line’ approach of integrating social, economic and
environmental considerations in planning and decision making;

the adoption of risk based approaches to assessing and addressing environmental
risk;

adoption of cost effective environment protection and rehabilitation measures that are
proportionate to the environmental issues being addressed;

promotion of ecologically sustainable practices for the production, use and disposal of
goods to ensure the sustainable use and protection of the environment; and

the promotion of accountability of all stakeholders in contributing to water quality
improvements and the use of enforcement tools when necessary.
The core indicators to assess and measure water quality outlined in Part 9 are divided into
several types of water environment. The ones pertinent to Mansfield Shire are:

rivers and streams – nutrient levels (phosphorus and nitrogen), turbidity, salinity, pH,
dissolved oxygen, toxicants (in water and sediment) and other biological indicators;
Page 124

wetlands and lakes – the SEPP states these need to be developed on a regional basis
due to the lack of data and that this is a priority action arising from the Policy; and

primary contact recreation (eg swimming) are noted to have specific measures
including the levels of E. Coli and Enterococci, which indicate the level of faecal
contamination.
As stated previously the SEPP outlines the roles and responsibilities of all stakeholders who
have a responsibility to protect and enhance the water environment including the EPA,
catchment management authorities, water corporations and DEPI.
With regards to the role of local councils, Clause 17 of the PIA makes the following points:

councils have a number of responsibilities through the decisions it makes on
land use planning, domestic wastewater management (on-site system
approvals), stormwater and drainage, local road management and vegetation
management;

the strategic and statutory planning functions of councils are key to water quality and
the SEPP highlights that the Victorian Planning Provision’s require councils, whether
exercising their power as either a responsible authority (ie planning permits) or
planning authority (making changes to the planning scheme provisions) to ensure all
decisions are consistent with the SEPP;

adopting a collaborative approach with the EPA, catchment management
authorities and other such bodies is an important way of ensuring decisions on
changes to zoning, local policy, planning controls and on issuing planning permits help
protect beneficial uses;

councils are required to improve the management of stormwater, domestic wastewater
and run off from unsealed roads as it is stated they are key contributors to the poor
health of many urban and rural waterways;

councils must consider land capability when making land use planning decisions as
this is key to ensuring new development is able to process and contain wastewater
within the site’s boundaries, that the land use does not have an adverse impact on
beneficial uses and that poor land management is avoided; and

it sees sound strategic planning as the key to good environmental management
and sees the regular reviews of municipal planning schemes required by the Planning
and Environment Act as being a crucial step to ensure alignment between a
planning scheme and this SEPP.
The PIA also states that both individuals and the broader community also play an important
role in the achievement of the SEPP’s objectives in avoiding pollution, reducing resource
consumption and contributing to environmental management initiatives. It sees the
cumulative effect of an individual’s contribution to litter, animal waste and stormwater
pollution as having a significant impact on surface water quality.
An important component of this document is Part 10.3 (pg 47) which relates to Waste and
Wastewater Management; it aims to ensure effective wastewater management practices are
implemented by all stakeholders. It highlights the need to re-use and recycle wastewater
rather than discharging off site as this minimises adverse impacts on beneficial uses.
Clause 32 of the SEPP relates to On-Site Domestic Wastewater. It highlights the
importance of a system’s ability to retain wastewater within property boundaries over
the long term. The need for proper assessment, installation and maintenance are
seen as being essential to minimising the transferral of nutrients, pathogens and
other pollutants into surface or ground waters.
The importance of complying with the EPA’s Code of Practice is underlined, as is the key
role councils play in assessing land capability and wastewater treatment options prior to
approving new development. This part of the SEPP mentions the need for councils to
Page 125
develop a DWMP, in partnership with the EPA, to identify areas where wastewater is not
being retained within property boundaries.
Specifically Clause 32 (2)(e) of SEPP states:
“Municipal councils need to....
(e)
where relevant, develop and implement a domestic wastewater
management plan, in conjunction with water authorities and
communities, that:
(i)
reviews land capability assessments and available domestic wastewater
management options to prevent the discharge of wastewater beyond
allotment boundaries and prevent impacts on groundwater beneficial
uses;
(ii) identifies the preferred options, together with costs, funding needs,
timelines and priorities; and
(iii) provides for the assessment of compliance of on-site domestic
wastewater systems with permit conditions.”
The Policy Impact Analysis further explains that:
“if wastewater is not being retained within allotment boundaries, sewerage
or other methods of wastewater management need to be provided. This
does not necessarily mean reticulated sewerage must be provided, but
could mean that improved on-site management of wastewater is
needed......these plans should identify issues, prioritise actions that lead
to improved wastewater management and include implementation
timelines...plans [must] provide for regular assessment of compliance of
septic tank performance against conditions in permits issued by councils.”
Overall, the key risk of ineffectual wastewater management is the related to levels of E
coli and nutrients in surface water and their ability to adversely impact beneficial uses
such as swimming and human consumption of water.
It is stated that councils can improve their awareness of areas where there are issues with
retention of wastewater on site by ensuring all septic tanks have a valid permit and are
assessed regularly against permit conditions.
The PIA recognises there will be costs imposed on councils as a result of the preparation
and implementation of a DWMP.
It also goes on to say that if a DWMP recommends that reticulated sewer is the preferred
option for improved environmental conditions that the water company needs to develop a
sewerage management plan (Clause 33). This type of plan identifies and prioritises options
for sewerage services, costs and funding options. Where the provision of reticulated sewer
is programmed to be some time in the medium to long term the SEPP states the EPA will
work with the council to develop an interim strategy to reduce adverse impacts.
10.2.2.2
State Environmental Protection Policy (Groundwaters of Victoria)
(1997)
The goal of this SEPP is to maintain and improve groundwater to protect existing and
potential beneficial uses of these water resources, including potable water supply. It
is relevant to our DWMP as there is a potential that the reuse of treated wastewater from onsite detention systems to impact on the quality of groundwater if systems are not designed to
Page 126
ensure such impacts are avoided. This is why a land capability assessment must assess
what impacts, if any, a wastewater management system will have on groundwater.
The SEPP’s guiding principles include:

groundwater is an undervalued resource for which all Victorians have a responsibility
to protect;

protection of groundwater is fundamental to the quality of surface waters;

groundwater should be protected to the greatest extent possible from human activity;
and

the precautionary principle is to be applied to ensure that where there are threats of
serious or irreversible environmental damage the lack of scientific certainty should not
be used as a reason for not taking action to avoid environmental damage.
The use of groundwater for potable water supply is identified as a beneficial use which is to
be protected under this Policy.
The SEPP also identifies groundwater quality indicators and objectives for each beneficial
use. In relation to potable water the quality of groundwater is to meet the raw water quality
indicators specified in the Australian Water Quality Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Waters.
The monitoring, assessment and reporting section of the SEPP outlines how the quality of
groundwater will be assessed to ensure compliance with the policy.
It is also noted that planning authorities must, when preparing amendments to local
planning schemes or assessing planning permits, ensure consistency with the
provisions of this SEPP.
In relation to this DWMP, Goulburn Murray Water is the agency with the responsibility for the
management of groundwater in Mansfield and Murrindindi Shires.
10.2.2.3
Victorian Waterway Management Strategy (2013)
The aim of this Strategy, written by DEPI, is to provide a framework to maintain or improve
the condition of rivers, estuaries and wetlands so that the beneficial uses and values
identified by the SEPP Waters of Victoria are protected and enhanced.
The document seeks to support regional planning processes and catchment management
and is aimed at identifying the roles and responsibilities of land owners, government, local
councils, land managers, water corporations and catchment management authorities and
other groups involved in the management or use of waterways.
In summary the Strategy sets out:

a vision, guiding principles and management approaches;

a regional water management framework that supports local decision making that
considers the broader catchment;

a management framework that suggests responses to natural events such as fire,
flood and drought and longer term changes in weather patterns;

aspirational targets for the next 8 years to maintain and improve the condition of
waterways; and

actions to improve the efficacy and efficiency of waterway management.
Page 127
Analysis of DEPI’s indices for stream, wetland and estuary conditions between 2004 – 2010
contained in the Strategy indicates that the ratings for the two basins contained within
Mansfield and Murrindindi Shires are:
Goulburn Basin: Poor condition with 11 – 30% of rivers with a good or excellent
condition rating; and the
Broken Basin: Very poor condition with <10% of rivers with a good or excellent
condition rating.
Improving the condition of priority waterways is seen to be a critical task. Land use,
development, climate change and natural events are seen as key factors impacting on the
environmental, social, cultural and economic values of waterways.
The management approach, which will be applied over an 8 year period, focuses on three
themes;

Strategy and Planning: State-wide waterway strategy management policy and targets,
regional waterway management planning, priority setting and targets;

Implementation and Monitoring: investment, regional implementation, intervention
monitoring and resource condition assessment; and

Evaluation and Reporting: management reporting, resource condition reporting and
program evaluation.
Regional waterway strategies are seen to be a lynchpin in waterway management and the
implementation of this State-wide strategy as they will identify high value waterways and set
priorities for the next eight years. The aim is to ensure all investment by stakeholders
delivers maximum benefit. Regional strategies are seen to be a means to build on former
River Health Strategies and are to include wetlands and estuaries. Developing such a
strategy in consultation with local stakeholders and the community is seen to be imperative
and final approval must be given by the Minister for Water and Minister for Environment and
Climate Change.
The principles for identifying high value waterways are:

those which are already formally recognised as being significant;

highly threatened or rare species/ecological communities are present;

those with a high environmental value; and

those with high social, cultural or economic values associated with the waterway
(including they are an urban or rural water source).
Figure 15 outlines the process to be followed across the State to identify regional priorities:
Page 128
Figure 15
Process for Identifying Regional Priorities for Waterways
•
Develop regional goals for waterway management
•
Identify high value waterways (ie environmental, social, cultural
and economic)
•
Select the high value waterways that align with regional goals
•
Identify threats to the identified values and assess level of risk
•
Determine priority waterways for the next
•
Identify high level management activities, assessing feasibility
and cost effectiveness
•
Select priority management activities to form the regional work
program for the next years
8 years
8
Source: An Overview of the Victorian Waterway Management Strategy (DEPI) (pg 10)
The Strategy is an extensive, lengthy document. Chapters 7 to 16 identify a broad range of
management issues, along with objectives and actions to address them.
In relating this State-wide strategy to our DWMP, the more pertinent issues are the policies
and actions around:

updating regional planning arrangements for water quality management;

setting objectives for water quality monitoring;

identifying roles and responsibilities for water quality management;

achieving regional coordination in the response to water quality incidents (such as blue
green algae outbreaks); and

improving partnerships between land and water managers, local government and the
community to better manage river channels.
Chapter 10 relates to Water Quality; section 10.4 identifies roles and responsibilities of all
stakeholders. Wastewater management responsibilities are outlined as follows:
Water Corporations:
Local Government:
Develop and implement water quality incident management
plans that include provisions for water quality issues resulting
from water releases from water treatment plants.
Assess planning permit applications to ensure that the use and
development of land does not pose s significant risk to water
quality.
Support and facilitate the implementation of regional land use
planning measures to improve water quality.
Consider waterway management objectives in the statutory
planning processes and maintenance of stormwater drainage
systems.
Develop municipal stormwater management plans that
consider land use change and land management practices
under local Planning Schemes.
Page 129
Manage
septic
tanks
(including
preparation
and
implementation of Domestic Wastewater Management Plans)
and stormwater drainage services for water quality benefits.
Facilitate the implementation of regional land use planning
measures to improve water quality.
Chapters 17 and 18 of the Strategy identify management frameworks, funding models and
monitoring arrangements to ensure the delivery of its actions across Victoria. The need for
long term strategies and monitoring is highlighted, with a range of strategies outlined to
ensure this occurs.
10.2.2.4
Our Water Our Future – Securing Our Water Future Together (2007)
This Department of Sustainability and Environment document outlines a broad strategy
which primarily focuses on securing Melbourne’s future water supply. It impacts on the
North East region in terms of broad statements about:

protecting and enhancing waterway and floodplain health to improve water quality and
provide for environmental/habitat gains;

the ‘stressed’ nature of the Goulburn and Broken rivers, which are waterways of high
community value that are also integral to Victoria’s water supply;

the need for the Sugarloaf Interconnector Pipeline (which is currently dormant), and
the integral role the former Government placed on it providing potable water from Lake
Eildon (via the Goulburn River take off at Yea) to Melbourne;

that, on average, 75 GL of water would be taken out of the Goulburn Basin per year to
boost Melbourne’s water storages; and

the need for ‘sustainable water management’ through initiatives such as healthy rivers,
floodplains and catchments.
Map 31
Surgarloaf Interconnector Pipeline
Source: Our Water Our Future – Securing Our Water Future Together 2007
Page 130
10.2.2.5
Ministerial Guidelines for Planning Applications in Open, Potable
Water Supply Catchment Areas (2012)
This document was produced by DEPI, and is owned by the Minister for Water, but was
adopted for the purposes of Section 160(1A)(g) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987
which states:
“(1A) Before deciding on an application, the responsible authority, if the
circumstances appear to so require, may consider—
(g)
any other strategic plan, policy statement, code or guideline
which has been adopted by a Minister, government
department, public authority or municipal council.”
They Guidelines apply to all declared special water supply catchment areas under
Division 2 of Part 4 of the Catchment and Land Protection Act 1994.
Their purpose is simple; to protect the quality of potable water supplies using a risk
based approach that facilitates appropriate development within catchments.
The Guidelines state they provide advice to water corporations, responsible authorities (eg a
municipal council) and referral authorities (in Mansfield’s case GMW and GVW) when
making decisions on, or providing advice about, a planning permit application for land use,
subdivision and development to ensure compliance with Section 53M of the
Environment Protection Act 1970 and the SEPP (Waters of Victoria).
In particular the Guidelines seek to reinforce the application of the precautionary principle
and states:
“The proper application of the precautionary principle requires
consideration of the cumulative risk of the adverse impact of on-site waste
water/septic tank systems on water quality in open potable water supply
catchments resulting from increased dwelling density.”
It goes on to outline five guidelines as a means of achieving this:

Guideline 1:
Density of Dwellings

Guideline 2:
Effluent disposal and septic tank system maintenance

Guideline 3:
Vegetated corridors and buffer zones along waterways

Guideline 4:
Buildings and works

Guideline 5:
Agricultural activities.
Guideline 1 is of particular relevance to this DWMP; this is because Guideline 1 states
that dwelling densities should be no greater than 1 dwelling per 40 hectares (ie the 1:40ha
rule) where a planning permit application proposes subdivision of land, the use of land for a
dwelling or where an Environmental Significance Overlay applies to the land which contains
an objective relating to catchment or water quality protection.
However, the key to this part of the Guideline document is under Category 4, which states:
“The water corporation will consider allowing a higher density of
development than would otherwise be permitted by Guideline 1
where......
 The minimum lot size area specified in the zone for subdivision is met in
respect of each lot;
 The water corporation is satisfied that the relevant council has
prepared, adopted and implemented a DWMP in accordance with
the DWMP requirements; and
Page 131
 The proposal does not present an unacceptable risk to the catchment
having regard to:
o the proximity and connectivity of the proposal site to a waterway or
potable water supply source (including a reservoir)
o the existing condition of the catchment and evidence of
unacceptable water quality impacts
o the quality of the soil
o the slope of the land
o the link between the proposal and the use of the land for productive
agricultural purpose
o the existing lot and dwelling pattern in the vicinity of the site
o any site remediation and/or improvement works that form part of the
application
o the intensity or size of the development or use proposed and the
amount of run off that is likely to be generated.”
Guideline 2 notes that this analysis is undertaken via a land capability assessment.
The stated requirements for a DWMP, in addition to the requirements set out in Clause
32(2)(e) of the SEPP (W of V), are that it:

must be prepared or reviewed in consultation with other relevant stakeholders
including other local governments with which catchment(s) are shared, the EPA and
local water corporations; and

must provide for a strategy (with timelines and priorities) to prevent discharge of
water beyond property boundaries and prevent individual and cumulative effects on
groundwater and surface water beneficial uses.
Other requirements under the Guidelines are that a DWMP must provide for:

effective monitoring of treatment systems, with a focus on compliance with permit
conditions and the EPA’s Code of Practice for Septic Tanks;

provision of the results of this monitoring to stakeholders to their satisfaction;

enforcement of any non compliance;

a process to review and update the Plan every 5 years;

independent auditing by a water corporation approved auditor to track the
implementation of the Plan every 3 years;

audit results to be circulated to all stakeholders as soon as possible after the audit;
and

a resource plan for the implementation of the Plan, including monitoring,
enforcement, reviews and audits.
Guideline 3 relates to effluent disposal via septic tanks and other on site wastewater
treatment systems, reinforcing the need to comply with state legislation, the SEPP WoV,
Australian Standards and the EPA’s Code of Practice. Every planning permit must
demonstrate that the use, development or subdivision of land applies to all of these
regulations and that a permit is issued by Council for an on-site wastewater treatment
facility.
Page 132
10.2.2.6
Code of Practice – Onsite Wastewater Management (2013)
This Code of Practice, developed by the EPA, has recently been updated and provides a
range of standards and guidelines for wastewater and sewage generated by a single
domestic household or by multi-dwelling residential, commercial, industrial or institutional
facilities, where the volume of wastewater generated is less than 5000 litres per day.
Guidance is provided on:

wastewater treatment systems that may be permitted for new subdivisions and on
single allotments or for upgrading or retrofitting existing premises;

effluent recycling/disposal system options that may be permitted for new subdivisions
and on single allotments or for upgrading or retrofitting existing on-site systems,
including design requirements for land application systems;

land capability assessment procedures and wastewater flow calculations for designing
effluent recycling and disposal systems;

calculating the appropriate size of on-site systems;

approval processes for installation permits and certificates of approval; and

standards for the effective management and maintenance of the systems.
The Code reinforces the notion of cumulative impact and states (in Section 1.6):
“While this Code primarily refers to single allotments the cumulative impact
of all wastewaters within a subdivision, a commercial precinct or a
township should be taken into account when assessing the capability of a
lot to absorb treated effluent without negatively impacting its surroundings.
This is particularly important in areas scheduled as open potable water supply
catchments (DSE 2012).
To minimise the cumulative impact of wastewater, effluent must be contained onsite within the boundaries of the allotment. This aims to prevent the transport
of nutrients, pathogens and other pollutants to surface waters and to
prevent any negative impacts on ‘groundwater beneficial uses’ within the
catchment (Clause 32, SEPP WoV 2003; SEPP GoV 1997).
For existing premises with an offsite discharge or a failing system on a
small block the wastewater management system should be upgraded to
contain as much of the effluent as possible on the allotment (see Section
2.3.6).
However, where an existing building on a small block is intermittently used, such
as community centre, a pump-out tank may be installed. Transporting the pumpout wastewater to a centralised sewerage plant will prevent further impact to the
local environment as well as protect public health (see Section 2.3.7).
Note: a pump-out tank must not be permitted for a new development, allotment or
building.”
The note above is an important consideration for this DWMP given that in the past pump-out
systems were a valid alternative for problematic sites.
In terms of the role of a municipal council, the Code states that it:

can only permit the installation/alteration of a wastewater system that is approved by
the EPA for a new development, upgrading a failing on-site system, converting an
offsite discharge to an on-site treatment system or for an upgraded/larger system
where the premises is being extended to accommodate more people;

must ensure that the system is assessed against, and complies with, the Code;
Page 133





must ensure all land capability assessments are satisfactory;
must refuse to issue a permit if it considers that the site is unsuitable or the area
available for the system is not sufficient;
must refuse to issue a permit if a treatment system (or systems) that does not treat all
the sewage from the premises;
must take enforcement action where an on-site wastewater system has caused
pollution, in line with their powers and responsibilities under the Act; and
assesses the service reports for installed systems to ensure that all permit conditions
are being met.
The Code states that landowners and occupiers must:

not construct, install or alter an on-site wastewater system unless they have a permit
from council to carry out the works;

not use an on-site wastewater system until council has inspected the system and
issued a Certificate to Use (penalties apply); and

maintain the approved system in accordance with the conditions in the council permit
(penalties apply).
The role of water corporations is seen to be as follows:

they have a major interest in the correct functioning of on-site systems under the
Water Act 1989, the Water Industry Act 1994 (for Melbourne metropolitan water
retailers), the Planning and Environment Act 1987,the Catchment and Land Protection
Act 1994 and Safe Drinking Water Act 2003;

their key concern is failing on-site systems which may impact on water quality in
waterways, storages and groundwater, particularly in declared Special Water Supply
Catchments, which may result in increased health risks to customers and increased
operational costs to treatment of water); and

they are providers of reticulated sewerage and have the ability to enforce connection
to sewer and it is noted that this can involve significant capital cost for water
corporations but that this cost is passed onto those who benefit from the newly created
infrastructure.
In relation to DWMP’s, the Code reinforces the obligation for councils to ensure that such a
document is in place to protect public health, the environment and local amenity.
It states:
“The DWMP should articulate Council’s policy on and commitment to
sustainable ongoing wastewater management and their programs for
compliance and enforcement. It should be developed in conjunction with Water
Corporations and the local community. A DWMP should establish processes to
ensure early and comprehensive consideration of wastewater management in the
planning cycle and Council’s responsibility for the monitoring and compliance of the
systems...” (Section 1.8.2.1)
Another fundamental component of the Code of Practice is the provision of standards for
the preparation of Land Capability Assessment (LCA’s). Section 1.8.3 outlines the
requirements to be a land capability assessor, while Section 3.6 provides extensive
commentary on the EPA’s expectations for these assessments by setting out a ‘best
practice’, twelve stage process.
Page 134
The Code also outlines wastewater standards and treatment options in unsewered areas.
Some of the key points include:

it is recommended that wastewater management systems are upgraded and the
effluent utilised in a land application system on-site where there is currently existing
offsite discharge;

where a land capability assessment indicates that a property with an existing
offsite discharge is too small to contain all the effluent on-site a practical
solution should be found (eg discharge a smaller quantity of higher quality
effluent to the stormwater drain in wet weather, install a pump-out tank); and

reducing water usage and adopting sustainable water practices on small lots is
essential in reducing the volumes of wastewater being discharged beyond
property boundaries.
A key standard in the Code of Practice is that for setback distances for primary and
secondary treatment plants and disposal/irrigation areas. The most pertinent setbacks
prescribed by Code of Practice for settlements across Mansfield Shire are those under
Surface Waters (upslope of) a dam, lake, reservoir or waterway in a potable water supply
catchment.
Table 24
Code of Practice Setback Distances for Primary and Secondary
Treatment Plants and Disposal/Irrigation Areas
Page 135
The Code does, however, state in Section 3.9 that setback distances can be decreased
by Council if their local knowledge and a “comprehensive LCA” that complies with
the Code where it considers “that the risk to public health and the environment is
negligible”. It warns, however, that as system failure often occurs when it is wet, any
reduction in setbacks should consider the cumulative impacts of a number of systems failing
in an area during wet weather.
Conversely the setbacks can be increased by Council if it believes there is scientific
evidence to suggest greater separation is required to protect both public and environmental
health.
10.2.2.7
Information Bulletin on Land Capability Assessment for Onsite
Domestic Wastewater Management (Publication 746.1, 2003)
This document, prepared by the EPA, is to be read in conjunction with the Code of Practice
and further details requirements for the preparation of an LCA by an expert and its
subsequent assessment by Council.
It states the two primary objectives of any LCA are to:

assess the capability of the site to sustainably manage wastewater within allotment
boundaries; and

outline a management program to minimise the health and environmental impacts of
on-site wastewater management.
Page 136
The importance of undertaking an LCA before unsewered land is rezoned is underlined to
ensure there is no potential contamination of ground or surface waters as a result of more
intense development or land use.
The document then outlines considerations and processes for the preparation of an LCA at
subdivision stage. It highlights the use of building envelopes, effluent disposal envelopes
and maintenance conditions on subdivision permits as being highly desirable to ensure
ongoing compliance with the LCA and, in turn, the Code of Practice.
A risk rating matrix is provided in Table 1 (pg 7) to provide a consistent mechanism across
all LCA’s. It provides for a 1 – 5 rating scale where 1 has a ‘very good’ rating and 5 is a ‘very
poor’ rating. In terms of environmental risk a 1 rating is ‘very low’ whilst a 5 rating is ‘very
high’ as demonstrated below:
Table 25
Suggested Risk Rating Matrix
Land Feature
A
Rating
1
Very Good
2
Good
Feature Range
→
B
Increasing
C
3
Fair
Environmental
Very Low
Low
5
Very Poor
→
D
Environmental
Risk
4
Poor
Moderate
→
Risk
→
High
Very High
Source: Information Bulletin on Land Capability Assessment for Onsite Domestic Wastewater
Management
Essentially a rating value of 4 requires considerable ongoing management by the land
owner, whilst a rating of 5 indicates that the constraint is too high to be feasibly manageable.
The risk factors that should be considered are not prescribed by the document as it is left to
the discretion of the expert preparing the LCA, however risk factors such as slope, flood
potential, landslip potential, rainfall, soil profile, infrastructure availability, land zoning,
proximity of surface waters are possible factors listed on page 10 of the document.
Again the document makes it clear that it is up to council to decide whether or not the
risk analysis and rating is sufficiently comprehensive and accurate in assessing
whether or not a permit for the installation of a wastewater management system should be
issued.
In preparing the above risk analysis the LCA author is expected to collate data and
information from a variety of sources including a desk top review and site inspection. The
need for on site and laboratory/scientific assessment of risk factors is highlighted, although it
is noted that councils may accept the recommendations of professionals that they believe
are well versed with LCA’s and the locality.
The Information Bulletin underlines the need for councils to be clear about the level of
detail required for an LCA for different types of proposals so that the assessor has a
Page 137
good understanding, up front, of what level of information and analysis is required. The
fundamental principle, however, is that the more intense the development the greater level of
data, information and analysis required.
Some guidance is provided for LCA’s prepared for varying types of proposals; the scale of
data for rezoning proposals is seen to be on a broader scale when compared to the
appraisal of development on a single lot.
Tables 3 and 4 of the document identify issues that may be considered when assessing land
capability, which can be summarised as being:

groundwater protection

surface waters protection

property confirmation and service availability

climate

topography

buffer distances to water bodies, neighbouring land, buildings and groundwater

soil features

council requirements (land zoning, overlays etc)

requirements of other agencies (water authorities, catchment management authorities,
EPA, DEPI).
The product of the risk analysis is a rating for each individual factor as well as an overall risk
rating. The final land capability rating relates to the most constraining features.
Section 3.4 highlights the need for the LCA to be augmented with a plan that identifies
whether or not the identified constraints and risks are able to be successfully
managed and how this can be practically achieved. It states that councils will need to
assess whether or not the management plan is able to be realistically implemented in
deciding whether or not to issue a permit to install a system.
Councils also need to be mindful that the higher the LCA rating, the greater the intervention
and monitoring required on its behalf to ensure that the management plan is implemented on
an ongoing basis. This obviously requires councils to establish reporting and monitoring
mechanisms to ensure the land owner/resident is honouring the approved management
regime.
The Information Bulletin concludes with a final example of an overall 1 – 5 LCA rating and
suitable management arrangements for each rating level, which can be summarised as
being:
Rating 1: the effluent envelope is suitable for on-site septic tank discharge and the
environmental hazards are very slight. Standard requirements for design, installation and
ongoing management should prove sufficient to manage risk.
Rating 2: the site is generally suitable for effluent disposal but there may be slight
environmental hazards. One or more land limitations are present and thus the ongoing
management of wastewater on site will require attention to planning, adherence to design
and installation specifications and maintenance.
Rating 3: the site has a fair capacity to manage on site effluent disposal and there is a
moderate environmental risk always present. Careful siting, preparation and specialised
design will be required to respond to site constraints. Buffers to environmental features and
abutting dwellings may be required. An ongoing management plan should be submitted to
council with the development application and prior to works commencing. A conventional
trench system may well not be appropriate and hence a higher level of treatment and
ongoing monitoring may be required.
Page 138
Rating 4: parts of the site have poor capability and there is a high environmental risk.
Significant difficulties are expected in siting, installation and daily operation. A very high
level of engineering and design is essential and close supervision is required to avoid
environmental impacts. Treatment systems suitable for this rating are those which produce
high quality secondary effluent (eg an aerated wastewater system). A comprehensive
ongoing management and monitoring program is essential.
Rating 5: areas have very poor capability and environmental risks are expected to be
severe. Conventional trench systems are generally not suitable. Very high levels of
engineering and management at all stages of installation and ongoing use are required.
Reticulated sewer may well be the only viable option to enable development (which may
mean that development cannot occur as there is often no sewer connection in the locality).
Overall a rating of between 3 – 5 means there is limited capacity for effective on site
effluent disposal that meets EPA requirements and it is incumbent on the applicant to
demonstrate to the council that there is a practical and sustainable engineering solution
available. The Information Bulletin concludes by saying that if the applicant fails to do so the
development should not proceed and no permit to install should be issued.
10.2.2.8
Victorian Land Capability Assessment Framework (2014)
This document was a joint venture by the MAV, DEPI and the EPA and is an update of a
model framework that has been in existence for a number of years. Its aim is to assist land
capability assessment professionals when preparing an LCA. It not only provides guidance
as to how to meet various regulations and legislations but is also a means of gaining some
consistency in the quality of LCA’s across Victoria.
It provides a step by step approach to when an LCA is required, what level of detail is
suitable for different types of applications (eg a subdivision of land or dwelling extension)
and how to ensure a thorough analysis of risk factors is undertaken. An example of an LCA
is provided as a way of demonstrating the quality of information required by Councils in order
to assess whether or not domestic wastewater can be contained within site boundaries.
Recent feedback from LCA experts operating in Mansfield and Murrindindi Shires
demonstrate that this template is widely used in the industry.
10.2.2.9
Water Cycle Planning Business Strategy (2012)
This strategy was developed by OLV, who are currently preparing new strategies and
guidelines for water cycle planning as a means of responding to changes in the long term
availability of water caused by climate variations and increased demand from new
development. This concept is essentially being tested and developed in Melbourne and
larger regional urban centres where there is significant capacity for new suburbs to develop.
Water cycle planning is essentially being mindful of how water is sourced and how it is
reused. It is a holistic approach which considers impacts on potable water supply,
drainage and wastewater management, as well as waterway health.
The Water Industry Statement of Obligations discussed below clearly state that metropolitan
and regional urban water corporations must prepare an integrated water cycle strategy,
however such requirements are not applicable to rural water corporations.
The DTPLI, OLV, water authorities, the building industry and other key stakeholders are to
commence work on regulations to improve water efficiency of new suburbs, dwellings and
Page 139
refurbished buildings as a means of making water cycle planning an inherent requirement of
any development approvals system.
Planning scheme provisions related to water cycle planning are also currently being drafted to
provide a template for development across Melbourne and its growth areas. These guidelines
are to provide a template for similar planning tools for regional and local water cycle planning.
It is not clear how these broader scale water cycle issues will impact on small townships such as
those in Mansfield and Murrindindi Shire where the bulk of development is either infill
development or small scale rural living subdivisions.
What is clear is that water cycle planning is another way in which the State is trying to apply a
broad, catchment based approach to design and development across Victoria. The re-use of
treated wastewater is obviously one component of this water cycle, so in the future it will be
relevant to reviews of this DWMP once regulations and policy has been finalised and tested.
10.2.2.10 Water Industry Statement of Obligations (2012)
The Water Act 1994 requires the Minister for Water to prescribe a statement of obligations
which must be met by all Victorian water corporations. This statement is essentially
providing a governance framework to ensure water corporations achieve the fundamental
requirements and objectives of the Act.
The range of issues covered by this document include the requirement to prepare a water
plan for the corporation’s district, the role of a board and measuring its performance,
customer/community engagement, risk management, planning, the provision of water
services and compliance activities.
The Statement specifies that all water corporations must have regard to a set of principles.
Those most relevant of these to the DWMP are:
(a) the need to undertake continuous review and improvement;
(b) the need to find innovative ways to:
(i)
optimise the operation of water and wastewater systems;
(ii)
deliver water services that enhance environmental outcomes and amenity in
urban and rural landscapes; and
(c) the need to:
(i)
engage with public authorities and government agencies to develop and
implement integrated water cycle management;
(ii)
engage with other Corporations to drive business efficiencies, develop shared
services and sustain and improve industry knowledge through targeted
research programs;.....
(iv)
engage with its customers and the community to ensure that the services it
provides reflects their needs; and
(d) the need to reduce, where the benefits to the community exceed the costs, the
detrimental impacts of its activities on the environment, having regard to best industry
standards in this respect.
In following the principles outlined above, corporations such as GMW and GVW need to
manage their business operations to ensure that they continue to:

provide for and maintain the financial viability of the Corporation;

minimise the overall whole of life costs of assets; and

provide its services in an efficient and affordable manner.
Page 140
A Water Plan must outline the services to be provided to the corporation, standards of
service, how the Plan will be delivered and how the revenue required to deliver the Plan will
be raised.
Engagement with the community is a key requirement for water corporations, particularly
around how the needs and expectations of the community, both now and into the future, are
met.
Clause 5-1 outlines fundamental risk management requirements. The objective is to:
“to ensure that risks associated with functions performed and services
provided by the Corporation are identified, assessed, prioritised and
managed.”
Clause 5-4 specifies a corporation’s obligations in the event of a BGA bloom, including
notification of the Department of Health and DEPI. Corporations such as GMW must also
have contingency plans in place should a bloom occur.
GVW (as the water retailer) is also required, under Clause 6-4, an Integrated Water
Cycle Strategy by 31 March 2017 which identifies how it will:

maintain a balance between the demand for water and the supply of water in cities and
towns;

facilitate efficient investment in all water sources, including recycling sewage or trade
waste, stormwater capture and re-use, and demand management; and

improve the resilience of water supply systems (including fit-for purpose) through
scenario based planning and adaptive management having regard to risk and
uncertainty.
GVW must consult with OLV, councils, DPTLI and the local development industry when
drafting this Strategy.
Clause 7 of this document relates to the provision of water, management of assets and
controlling bulk entitlements by corporations such as GMW. In managing water allocations
GMW must take into account ecological impacts and the management of potential
environmental risks. Consultation with the GBCMA is also required.
Expectations around the provision of sewerage services to unsewered urban areas are
discussed in Clause 7-5, which states that corporations such as GVW must:

participate in a council’s preparation of a DWMP;

when considering the types of sewerage services to be provided the solution
o must be fit for purpose
o identify costs and benefits to its customers and the community
o identify risks to the corporation.
Turning to larger scale new development when considering appropriate sewerage services
for new urban areas, GVW must ensure that there is not inappropriate cost shifting from the
developer to its broader customer base.
Connections of individual properties to new sewerage infrastructure can be required where
the corporation has prepared a sewerage management plan for the locality in consultation
with the EPA and local council.
In terms of sharing the cost of infrastructure works, Clause 7.9 states that in relation to
customer contributions for capital works, the corporation must provide a payment option of
paying instalments over a 20 year timeframe.
Page 141
The final section of the Statement relates to monitoring a corporation’s compliance with its
provisions. To this end regular audits are to be undertaken by independent auditors, which
in turn are provided to the Minister for Water and the Essential Services Commission.
10.2.2.11 Victoria Planning Provisions (VPP’s)
The Victoria Planning Provisions are owned and administered by the Minister for Planning
via the DTPLI and prescribe the format and content of all local planning schemes across
Victoria. Whilst a local council does have an ability to tailor the local planning scheme to
reflect local issues and aspirations it can only choose content from the suite of overlays and
controls provided by the VPP’s.
The State Planning Policy Framework implements the Planning and Environment Act by
establishing the objectives, strategies for achieving the objectives and relevant policy
documents and acts that are to guide planning decisions across the State.
In relation to this DWMP and water quality, the SPPF provides the following direction:
“Planning authorities and responsible authorities should endeavour to
integrate the range of policies relevant to the issues to be determined and
balance conflicting objectives in favour of net community benefit and
sustainable development for the benefit of present and future generations.
Consistent with the objectives of local government under the Local
Government Act 1989, municipal planning authorities are required to identify
the potential for regional impacts in their decision-making and coordinate strategic planning with their neighbours and other public
bodies to achieve sustainable development and effective and efficient
use of resources.” (Section 10.4 Integrated Decision Making)
A range of policy themes are contained in the SPPF. A summary of those relevant to this
DWMP is provided below.
Settlement: Planning is to contribute to health and wellbeing objectives, prevent pollution of
land and water and protect environmentally sensitive areas and/or natural resources.
The Regional Victoria Settlement Framework map identifies Mansfield, Yea, Alexandra and
a range of smaller settlements across Mansfield and Murrindindi Shires as being areas
where population growth is to be encouraged to support regional development. Most of
these identified settlements lie within declared catchment areas.
The relevant objectives for regional settlement to this DWMP are:

balancing strategic objectives to achieve improved land-use and development
outcomes at a regional, catchment and local level;

preserving and protecting features of rural land and natural resources and features to
enhance their contribution to settlements and landscapes;

encouraging an integrated planning response between settlements within regions and
in adjoining regions and states;

managing the impacts of settlement growth and development to deliver positive land
use and natural resource management outcomes; and

avoiding development impacts on land that contains........water conservation values.....
and recreation values.
Page 142
Environmental Risks: Clause 13 states that decisions must implement a best practice
approach to environmental and risk management to minimise or avoid environmental
degradation and hazards. Planning schemes need to identify and manage environmental
change and its impact upon the economic, environmental or social well-being of society.
This includes floodplain and erosion management by ensuring new development is
appropriately located and sited so as to not exacerbate existing or possible environmental
hazards.
Natural Resource Management: Clause 14.02 relates to Water; the objective is to:
“assist the protection and, where possible, restoration of catchments,
waterways, water bodies, groundwater, and the marine environment”.
The strategies to achieve this objective (that are relevant to this DWMP) include:

protection of water catchments and water supply facilities to ensure the continued
availability of clean, high-quality drinking water;

consideration of the impacts of catchment management on downstream water quality
and freshwater, coastal and marine environments;

retention of natural drainage corridors with vegetated buffer zones at least 30 metres
wide along each side of a waterway to maintain the natural drainage function, stream
habitat and wildlife corridors and landscape values, to minimise erosion of stream
banks and verges and to reduce polluted surface runoff from adjacent land uses; and

ensuring land use and development proposals minimise nutrient contributions to
waterways and water bodies and the potential for the development of algal blooms.
Clause 14.02-2 is entitled Water Quality and the strategies to achieve this are:

protection of reservoirs, water mains and local storage facilities from potential
contamination;

ensuring that land use activities potentially discharging contaminated runoff or wastes
to waterways are sited and managed to minimise such discharges and to protect the
quality of surface water and groundwater resources, rivers, streams, wetlands,
estuaries and marine environments;

discouraging incompatible land use activities in areas subject to flooding, severe soil
degradation, groundwater salinity or geotechnical hazards where the land cannot be
sustainably managed to ensure minimum impact on downstream water quality or flow
volumes;

prevention of the establishment of incompatible land uses in aquifer recharge or saline
discharge areas and in potable water catchments; and

encouraging the siting, design, operation and rehabilitation of landfills to reduce impact
on groundwater and surface water.
Clause 15 relates to the Built Environment and Heritage; and seeks encourage
‘environmentally friendly’ subdivision of land that provides for “local management of
stormwater and wastewater treatment” (Clause 15.01-3).
Strategies for Housing are contained in Clause 16. Rural residential development should
implement the following strategies that relate to water and wastewater:

encouraging the consolidation of new housing in existing settlements where
investment in physical and community infrastructure and services has already been
made; and

ensuring planning for rural living avoids or significantly reduces adverse economic,
social and environmental impacts by:
Page 143
o
o
o
o
maintaining the long-term sustainable use and management of existing natural
resource attributes in activities including agricultural production, water, mineral
and energy resources;
minimising or avoiding property servicing costs carried by local and State
governments;
discouraging development of isolated small lots in rural zones from use for rural
living or other incompatible uses; and
ensuring land is not zoned for rural living or rural residential development if it will
encroach on high quality productive agricultural land or adversely impact on
waterways or other natural resources.
Objective and strategies for Infrastructure are outlined in Clause 19. Objectives include:

growth and redevelopment of settlements should be planned in a manner that allows
for the logical and efficient provision and maintenance of infrastructure;

strategic planning should facilitate efficient use of existing infrastructure and human
services. Providers of infrastructure, whether public or private bodies, are to be guided
by planning policies and should assist strategic land use planning; and

planning authorities are to consider the use of development contributions (levies) in the
funding of infrastructure.
Clause 19.03-2 relates to Water Supply, Sewerage and Drainage, where the objective is to:
“To plan for the provision of water supply, sewerage and drainage
services that efficiently and effectively meet State and community needs
and protect the environment.”
Strategies to achieve this include:

ensuring water quality in water supply catchments is protected from possible
contamination by urban, industrial and agricultural land uses;

provision for sewerage at the time of subdivision, or ensure lots created by the
subdivision are capable of adequately treating and retaining all domestic wastewater
within the boundaries of each lot;

planning of urban stormwater drainage systems to:
o coordinate with adjacent municipalities and take into account the catchment
context;
o include measures to reduce peak flows and assist screening, filtering and
treatment of stormwater, to enhance flood protection and minimise impacts on
water quality in receiving waters;
o prevent, where practicable, the intrusion of litter; and

encouraging the re-use of wastewater including urban run-off, treated sewage effluent
and run-off from irrigated farmland where appropriate.
The VPP’s provide for a number of overlays to address particular issues within a
municipality. While these will be discussed in further detail under the local section of the
literature review the following overlays seek to manage land use and development to
enhance and protect catchments and water quality:
Environmental Significance Overlay: its aim is to identify areas where the development of
land may be affected by environmental constraints and ensure development is compatible
with identified environmental values. The local provisions attached to the overlay must state
why the area is significant and the environmental objectives to be achieved. Most buildings
and works require a planning permit, even if the zoning of the land provides an exemption.
Page 144
In this way the Overlay seeks to place a more rigorous review of all land use and
development.
Floodway Overlay: this overlay seeks to identify waterways and major flood paths which
have the greatest risk and frequency of flooding. Extensive planning permit triggers are
applied through this overlay to ensure the free passage and temporary storage of floodwater,
which is designed to minimise flood damage. The protection of water quality is an important
aim of the overlay; applicants must demonstrate how the development maintains or
improves waterway and floodplain health through the submission of a flood risk report with
any application (if a local floodplain development plan is not in place).
Land Subject to Inundation Overlay: this overlay applies to land which is subject to
flooding in a 1 in 100 year rain event. The permit triggers and objectives are the same as
those for the Floodway Overlay.
It is noted that the Special Building Overlay also relates to water quality, however this
overlay applies to urban areas liable to inundation by overland flows from the urban drainage
system as determined by, or in consultation with, the floodplain management authority, and
is therefore not relevant to Mansfield or Murrindindi Shires.
10.2.2.12 Key Victorian and Civil Administrative Tribunal Decisions Relating to
both the Former and Current Ministerial Guidelines for Planning
Permit Applications in Open, Potable Water Supply Catchments
As stated in Section 1, the application of the 1 dwelling per 40 hectare density guideline
across declared water supply catchments from early 2010 onwards has placed increased
focus on the need for improved wastewater management.
The focus on this dwelling density guideline arose from a key VCAT decision known as the
Rozen decision. This decision was based on a very different interpretation of the Ministerial
Guidelines when compared to previous decisions and led to numerous objections to the
issue of planning permits from water corporations across Victoria based on proposals not
meeting the 1:40ha guideline.
Since that time the interpretation of this guideline and the calculation of the 1:40ha dwelling
density has been challenged by land owners, councils and even some water corporations. A
quick overview of two key VCAT decisions in relation to the application of the former
Guidelines (2009), the current 2012 Guidelines and the interpretation of the precautionary
principle by VCAT is provided below.
It is noted that there is only one key decision made by VCAT which relates to the
current version of the Guidelines, however important reference is made to the need for a
DWMP.
E & M Rozen vs Macedon Ranges Shire Council (VCAT reference No.P86/2006)
This appeal related to a case where VCAT originally supported the grant of a planning
permit, only for this decision to be appealed by the water corporation (Western Water) in the
Supreme Court. The Court overturned VCAT’s determination and consequently referred the
matter back to VCAT. This second VCAT appeal saw a three member panel determine that
only one dwelling should be approved to meet the 1 dwelling per 40ha guideline.
The proposal was the use and development of land for four dwellings, each on a separate
allotment ranging in size from 15 – 24 hectares. The land was zoned Rural Conservation
Zone with Environmental Significance and Vegetation Significance Overlays.
Page 145
In the summary of the decision, the Members stated the matter was about:
“This case is about the application of the precautionary principle when
considering a proposal to construct dwellings in an open potable
water catchment.” (pg 5)
Western Water originally appealed VCAT’s decision as they believed the precautionary
principle of the SEPP (W of V) had been misstated and misapplied and that the cumulative
risk created by otherwise individually appropriate septic tank systems must be considered
when deciding on an application to construct any dwelling in a declared water supply
catchment.
In this decision VCAT stated that it was clear that:
“the precautionary principle is applicable not only in cases where
there is a risk of irreversible damage to the environment, but also
whenever there is a risk of serious, although not necessarily
irreversible, damage to the environment” (paragraph 14, pg 7)
The Tribunal made a series of observations about development in an open, potable water
supply catchment in its interpretation of the previous Ministerial Guidelines:

the risks to human health of additional development is a highly relevant consideration;

the Guidelines are part of the multi barrier approach adopted by SEPP (WoV);

in contrast to previous VCAT decisions, land capability assessments for an individual
development were not sufficient in themselves to consider cumulative impacts;

the key risks in terms of cumulative impact was the potential for wastewater systems to
fail and the increased presence of people in the catchment, although it was noted in
paragraph 81 that most treatment systems operate efficiently and effectively;

in their view, ideally all potable water catchments would be closed to protect drinking
water and so open catchments must be managed; and

it noted expert witnesses’ criticism of the arbitrary nature of the 1:40ha dwelling density
guideline and that it should be overridden by site specific scientific data provided in a
land capability assessment.
Mr I McDonald versus Hepburn Shire Council (VCAT reference No P3244/2012)
The proposal was to construct a single dwelling on a 35 hectare lot. The land was located in
the Farming Zone with and Environmental Significance Overlay. An appeal against
Council’s decision to grant a planning permit was lodged by abutting neighbours. It is noted
that both water corporations supported the issue of a permit and did not object to the
development, even though the 1:40ha guideline was not met by the proposal.
The Tribunal summarised its decision as follows:
“In summary, my decision is based on the following findings:
o The Guidelines must be considered when assessing this application;
o Determinative weight is to be given to the Guidelines in this
assessment;
o The precautionary principle is as relevant to the 2012 Guidelines as it
was to previous versions;
o The exceptions in Guideline 1 provide direction on ‘risk based
approaches’ that satisfy the precautionary principle; and
Page 146
o
The relevant water corporations’ support for this application is not
based on the ‘risk based approaches’ of the Guidelines and does not
otherwise satisfactorily address the cumulative risk of an increase in
the number of dwellings in the area containing the review site.”
(paragraph 4, pg 6)
The following provides a clear explanation as to why the Tribunal felt the 1:40ha dwelling
density was still relevant in this case:
“Category 4 of Guideline 1 is particularly relevant in this matter. It outlines
that a water corporation may consider allowing a higher density of
development than 1 dwelling per 40 hectares where all conditions listed in
this Category are met. These conditions include the preparation,
adoption and implementation of a Domestic Waste Water Management
Plan in the terms outlined in the Guidelines. The purpose of such a
plan is to identify areas where the management of existing waste
water systems requires additional focus to ensure they are not
cumulatively generating an unacceptable risk to water quality.
No Domestic Waste Water Management Plan exists for the area containing
the review site. The Tribunal found the absence of such Plan was critical,
as Category 4 of Guideline 1 only applies where such a Plan is in place.”
(pg 2)
And furthermore, in relation to the precautionary principle, that:
“Category 4 allows a water corporation to consider a dwelling density
greater than 1:40 hectares if the specified conditions are met. If all the
conditions are met, it can be assumed that the precautionary principle
is satisfied....“(paragraph 62)
Lastly in relation to this DWMP and the issue of cumulative risk, the Tribunal commented
that:
“In essence, the ‘risk based approach’ of the 2012 Guidelines changes the
parameters of the debate over development in open potable water
catchments.
It changes the parameters by allowing a properly
informed technical approach to managing risks to water quality,
whereas previous versions of the Guidelines appear to have
precluded this approach.” (paragraph 82)
Page 147
10.3
Regional Documents
The key regional documents relating to wastewater management, water quality and planning
for future growth are outlined below.
Please note that the annual reports and annual water quality reports produced by GMW and
GVW have been discussed extensively under Section 5 Catchment Profiles & Water Quality.
10.3.1
Northern Region Sustainable Water Strategy (2009)
This Strategy has been developed as a means of implementing the requirements of the
Water Act by DEPI, in partnership with local councils, water corporations, farmers, industry
groups and the community to identify strategies to address water issues over the next 50
years. It is a holistic document that considers the needs of towns, industry, agriculture and
environmental flows.
A key theme throughout the document is the integration of water planning and asset
management across councils, water corporations and catchment management authorities.
The Northern Region is identified as Victoria’s ‘food bowl’ and an important contributor to the
Murray Darling Basin, hence the need to provide long term certainty regarding water supply
and management.
As a result, water supply is seen to be one of the key foundations for ongoing social and
economic development within the region. Improvements in the efficiency of its use and
management are heightened because of changes in weather patterns including as increases
in the frequency and severity of both drought and flood.
Its stated goals are to:
1. Identify and understand threats to water availability and quality, including the
implications of climate change and variability;
2. Help regional communities to adjust to reduced water availability;
3. Ensure secure water entitlements for towns, industry and the environment;
4. Encourage economically viable and sustainable agriculture;
5. Improve choice and flexibility for entitlement holders to manage the risks of climate
change and variability;
6. Protect, and where possible, improve the health of rivers, wetlands and aquifers
from the impacts of drought, climate change and variability and other risks; and
7. Recognise and respond to Indigenous and other cultural and heritage values associated
with the region’s rivers and catchment areas.
Page 148
Map 32
The Northern Region
Source: Northern Region Sustainable Water Strategy pg 10
As can be seen from Map 32 there are no declared Water Supply Protection or Groundwater
Management Areas in Mansfield Shire. It is noted that there are GMW managed
Groundwater Management Areas in Murrindindi Shire around the settlements of Alexandra
and Kinglake.
The guiding principles that drive the strategy framework are:

shared responsibility and shared benefit

recognising existing rights and entitlements

allowing individuals to manage their own risk and exercise choices

being prepared but not acting prematurely

maximising efficiency and seeking multiple benefits

maximising environmental outcomes

socially responsible decision-making.
Page 149
Section 2 of the document relates to threats to water supply and quality. It notes that
surface water is the source of 91% of the water used throughout the region and that
irrigation represents 89% of total water use. Urban use represents only 4%.
The low stream flows and inflows experienced over the past 15 or so years is seen to be a
key issue which may indicate a long term trend in a decline in water availability. Hence, it is
felt that a change in approach to water management and allocations is required. It is also
noted that environmental flows have suffered from the reduction in water availability, which
in turn leads to a decline in waterway health.
A range of climate change and water supply scenarios are presented by the Strategy to
highlight the range of possibilities in terms of future supply and quality issues. The Strategy,
however, focuses on management tools to address issues created by ‘medium climate
change’ by 2055.
Key water supply and quality issues facing the Northern Region that are relevant to this
DWMP include:

changes in long term weather patterns may adversely affect the recharge of
aquifers, thereby affecting the supply and quality of groundwater (ie increased
salinity). This may increase the cost of groundwater related infrastructure over time;

in some areas, including Mansfield township, urban water supply extraction
rates are close to their current maximum. Population growth and reduced rainfall
over time means that water corporations such as GVW are developing strategies to
address long term water supply deficits. Urban water restrictions may need to be
imposed on a more regular basis as a result;

low rainfall and environmental flows can have a severe impact on water quality
through increased salinity, sediment, nutrient loads, pH and temperatures. Such
conditions, when added to low dissolved oxygen levels, can increase the
occurrence of BGA blooms, which in turn affects water supplies and the
recreational use of affected waterways. Indeed, there have been a number of BGA
outbreaks in recent years at both low and high storage levels, during drought and
following floods. Bushfires in the region have also compounded water quality issues
within the region over the past ten years; and

in times of average rain, water quality issues are normally caused by run off
from farmland and high levels of salinity in groundwater.
Long term
improvement in the management of both requires long term proactive management.
Much of the management plan and implementation framework revolves around the Murray
Darling Basin Plan and associated Federal legislation; it discusses the need to identify
sustainable allocations of both surface and groundwater, along with the management of
environmental flows. There is also a focus on gaining a better understanding of groundwater
and surface water ‘accounting’ and sustainable allocations to support all beneficial uses.
The need to clarify roles and responsibilities in implementing the Murray Darling Basin Plan,
and other broader Northern Region water objectives, is also underlined. Overall, it is fair to
say that the management of wastewater and discharge from septic tanks is not seen to be a
high level, key issue in the Strategy given it focussed primarily on water quantity, not quality.
Page 150
10.3.2
Goulburn Broken Regional Catchment Strategy 2013 – 19 (2013)
This document was written by the GBCMA as a means of discharging their responsibilities
under the Catchment and Land Protection Act. It is an update of the pre-existing Catchment
Strategy and provides for a greater focus on resilience given the increasing occurrence of
natural disasters and pressures from population growth and economic development.
It is a comprehensive document which has a number of layers, outlining a 50 year vision,
below which sits 20 – 30 year whole of catchment objectives relating to the themes of
biodiversity, land, water and people. The final layers are short to medium term goals for the
next six years. Figure 16 provides an overview of this framework.
The overarching aim of this Strategy is to provide an integrated planning framework for
the management of land, water and biodiversity resources. A key part of this is
ensuring that every catchment has capacity (ie resilience) to absorb both sudden and
prolonged change and to recover from events (eg natural disasters, prolonged drought,
flood).
The importance of developing regional partnerships with other levels of government and
the community are highlighted. As a demonstration of this, the Strategy has been developed
in partnership (and is indeed signed and endorsed) by all councils, water
corporations/authorities and key environmental groups including Mansfield and Murrindindi
Shire Councils.
The guiding principles for the RCS are:
1.
Adopting a systems approach;
2.
Decisions will be made using systems with common characteristics rather than
traditional boundaries;
3.
Systems and their assets will determine priorities;
4.
A system’s resilience will drive decisions;
5.
Science and data will define resilience and data gaps will be addressed;
6.
System resilience should guide land-use planning decisions;
7.
Cost/benefit ratios will be considered when developing strategies; and
8.
Stakeholders, investors and government will be informed and engaged.
The 20 – 30 year objectives for relevant to this DWMP include:

maintain the 350 kilometres of river maintained in excellent or good condition;

meet high ecological flow objectives for high value reaches;

reduce or improve nutrient loads;

reduce phosphorus loads by 65 per cent by 2016 by reducing loads from a variety of
sources such as irrigation drains, urban stormwater and intensive agricultural
industry;

reduce phosphorus from wastewater management discharges by 80%;

reduction of the impact of flooding on the built environment;

protect foothills and river valleys in highland areas from salinisation; and

the adoption of best management practices by land managers to support the
achievement of long-term Catchment objectives.
Page 151
Figure 16
Goulburn Broken
Hierarchy
Regional
Catchment
Strategy
Objectives
Source: Goulburn Broken Regional Catchment Strategy 2012 – 19 (pg 15)
Page 152
The six year whole of catchment priorities are outlined under Levels 3 and 4 in Figure 17.
Chapter 3 of the document then turns to sub catchment issues by setting objectives and
priorities for identified social-ecological systems (SES’s). The key aim is to ensure that
indicators for water quality, water supply, biodiversity and the like are kept within the safe (or
desired) levels set by various guidelines.
Mansfield and Murrindindi Shires contain two of these SES’s; Upland Slopes and Southern
Forests. The bulk of settlement for our two shires lies in the former SES. The Strategy’s
overview of these systems is as follows:
Figure 17
Upland Slopes and Southern Forests Social-Ecological Systems
(SES’s)
Source: Goulburn Broken Regional Catchment Strategy 2012 – 19 (pg 31)
Upland Slopes SES
The key issues in Upland Slopes areas that relate to this DWMP include:

there is a risk that water yield and water quality guideline thresholds will not be met;

climate variability led to significant bushfire activity in 2006 and 2009, resulting in
increased risk of erosion;

lifestyle development and changes in agricultural practices are increasing nutrient
laden run off;

climate variability and increased demand is threatening groundwater yield and
quality in upper reaches; and

absentee owners of up to 50% threaten connections with catchment managers and
partner agencies.
Page 153
Possible actions to address these issues include:

partner agencies to be involved in land management decisions;

identification of opportunities where partner agencies can work with land managers to
adapt to climate variability risks;

promotion and acceptance of practices to improve and protect the condition of
natural assets;

promote LCA’s that include the management of water; and

work with local council Planners to develop planning overlays that consider land
capability.
Southern Forests SES
The key issues in Southern Forest areas include:

loss of biodiversity and native vegetation due to land use changes;

increased frequency of bushfires and drought due to climate variability threatens
water quality; and

bushfires and extreme drought is having sustained and long term impacts on these
areas.
There are no specific actions in this document that directly relate to this DWMP as the Action
Plan revolves around maintaining native vegetation, protecting biodiversity and mitigating the
risks from fire, flood and drought.
The final chapters of the Strategy relate to Implementation and Evaluation. Measures and
those involved in implementing them are outlined for each SES. Progress in the
implementation of the six year objectives and actions will be monitored on an annual basis,
with longer term objectives assessed over broader timeframes (for instance a mid strategy
review will be undertaken in 2015).
10.3.3
Draft Goulburn Broken Regional Waterway Strategy 2013 - 21 (2013)
The Waterway Strategy was developed by the GBCMA and is a sub strategy that sits under
RCS; it is still in draft form as consultation with stakeholders is continuing. Its aim is to
identify the detailed actions and initiatives to be implemented as a means of achieving the
RCS’s objectives.
It identifies priority waterways and wetlands based on environmental, social and economic
values. Each priority waterway is supported by a set of objectives, actions and targets to
measure performance in their management over time.
This Strategy is a lengthy document containing information that has already been covered in
this Literature Review such as an overview of State and Regional documents, catchment
overviews and water quality issues/threats.
The overall vision for the Strategy is:
“The Goulburn Broken region’s waterways and wetland systems are
vibrant and resilient so that communities can enjoy the range of values
and benefits that they provide and contribute to their maintenance and
improvement.” (pg 76)
Page 154
Regional Goals include:

maintaining or improving waterways of high community value;

maintaining or improving water quality in priority water supply catchments;

the values associated with Heritage Rivers be maintained or improved; and

Management of urban waterways to improve amenity, water security and
environmental conditions.
Chapter 4 of this Strategy relates to Challenges and Opportunities. Section 4.2.5 lists the
Strategic Priorities identified by the Goulburn Broken Water Quality Cooperation Group, one
of the committees responsible for overseeing the success of joint efforts in addressing water
quality issues across the region.
The importance of using domestic wastewater
management plans as a tool to address water quality issues is again underlined.
Section 4.2.6 subsequently states that the development of DWMP’s is a key task for OLV,
DEPI and local councils in 2015, while the monitoring and implementation of these plans is
seen to be an ongoing task between 2015 – 21.
Figure 18
Strategic Priorities – Goulburn Broken Water Quality Cooperation
Group
Source: Goulburn Broken Regional Waterway Strategy 2013 – 21 (pg 40)
An explanation of the social, environmental and economic ratings of a river’s values is also
provided. The Big River is used as an example of a river near its natural state and thus
having high environmental value but moderate to low socio economic value as it is not a
popular recreational and tourism destination. The Index of Stream Condition ratings since
1999 have all been in the excellent range.
The Howqua River is also used as an example; it is ecologically healthy due to its high
degree of naturalness but it is also of high tourism and recreational value. It is noted as
Page 155
being an important water supply. It’s Index of Stream Condition ratings have been in the
good – excellent range since 1999.
Rivers and waterways downstream, particularly around the heavily modified land and
waterways around Shepparton, decline significantly.
The Strategy identifies waterways close to a ‘tipping point’ of being downgraded in
their overall health. The Goulburn River (reach 15 – Map 6), Howqua River (reach 69)
and Delatite River (reach 72) within Mansfield Shire and the Acheron and Rubicon Rivers in
Murrindindi Shire are noted as being ‘Ecologically Healthy’ now, but are close to being down
graded to ‘Sustainable Working’. Delatite Reach 71 is defined as being at a ‘tipping point’ of
being downgraded from ‘Sustainable Working’ to ‘Highly Modified’. Recent fires, drought
and flooding are seen to be the major contributors to this downward trend.
The ranking of priority waterways outlined in this Strategy is relatively complex and was the
result of the application of the Aquatic Value Identification and Risk Assessment (AVARIA)
tool. Its methodology builds upon the objectives of the RCS and can be explained by the
following example, the key RCS economic goal is to ‘maintain and improve water quality in
priority water supply catchments’. The Waterway Strategy identifies the maintenance or
improvement of waterways within Special Water Supply Catchments as a key means of
achieving this goal. Including waterways within SWSC’s under the CALP Act is identified as
the ‘Rule’ applied under the AVARIA methodology to reflect the importance of this issue in
identifying priority waterways.
This complex rating system is the means by which the CMA ensures relatively limited
resources are targeted to areas where most benefit will be derived and where risks are high
in terms of adversely impacting on key values and beneficial uses.
The key waterways in the Goulburn Broken Catchment are set out in below.
Table 26
Key Waterways in
Management Unit
the
Goulburn
Upland Slopes
Southern Forests
Rivers within Mansfield Shire:
Rivers within Mansfield Shire:
Holland Creek (reach 14)
Howqua River (reaches 69 and 70)
Broken River (reach 5)
Delatite River (reaches 71 and 72)
Brankeet Creek (reach74)
Goulburn River (reaches 15 and 16)
Broken
Catchment
by
Merton Creek (reach 75)
Broken River (reach 6)
Sawpit Gully Creek (reach 11)
Rivers within Murrindindi Shire
Rivers within Murrindindi Shire
Acheron River (reach 62)
Rubicon River (reach 65)
Goulburn River (reach 13)
Big River (reaches 67 and 68 on the border with Mansfield Shire)
Taggerty River (reach 64)
Rubicon River (reach 66)
Acheron River (reach 63)
Source: Goulburn Broken Regional Waterway Strategy 2013 - 21 (pg 86)
Page 156
Chapter 7 of this Strategy takes the intricate risk ratings for each priority waterway and sets
out an Action Plan for the next 8 years, relate to the following themes:

controlling stock access to waterways

minimise bank erosion of banks thereby reducing silt and debris

regeneration of vegetation

control / eradication of pest plants and animals

increased environmental flows

increased habitat for aquatic life.
Estimated costs for implementing these programs is provided, with costs for achieving the
set goals for a single reach ranging from $70,000 to over $640,000. There are no actions
that relate to wastewater management.
The Strategy notes lower order initiatives that can be separately instigated by partner
agencies (which are not included as specific, measurable actions in this Strategy), including
local government, include the preparation of local stormwater plans and urban stormwater
plans. In relation to DWMP’s the Waterway Strategy has the following to say on page
139:
“This Strategy does not help to improve the management of domestic onsite waste systems, which largely rests on the shoulders of local
government.
Domestic wastewater management has been a
significant issue for councils recently and the role of councils in on-site
domestic wastewater management in open potable water supply
catchments in particular. The obligations of local government in
domestic wastewater management are likely to intensify, with new potable
guidelines expected to be released shortly by the Victorian Government.
These guidelines will increase the requirements of councils in domestic
wastewater management planning and this should be reflected in the
Strategy.
The MAV strongly believes that Strategy is an opportunity to improve
the integration of agencies involved in domestic wastewater
management for improved water quality outcomes....”
The Strategy subsequently identifies actions for implementation between 2013 – 21 relating
to:

encouraging and supporting local government in the development and
implementation of urban waterway plans; and

providing protection for urban waterways in planning schemes.
In relation to implementation, Section 7.9 lists the Outcomes and Measures that will be used
to track the success of the Strategy’s implementation. Targets are set for each SES.
Chapter 8 provides more detail about existing programs being implemented by other
stakeholders and provides a further range of actions to be undertaken over the life of the
Strategy.
The themes for these actions are maintenance, enforcement,
monitoring/evaluation/reporting and improvement, community engagement, information
sharing and roles/responsibilities.
Page 157
10.3.4
Goulburn Broken Regional River Health Strategy 2005 – 15 (2005)
To a great extent this Strategy has been subsumed by the Waterway Strategy and was the
GBCMA’s first attempt to combine all the elements of river management into a single,
overarching document. It was developed after the former State Government’s release of
“Our Water, Our Future” (2004), and was one of a series of similar strategies developed
across the State in response to this high level document.
This Strategy identified high priority waterways in the Region based on the waterways of
highest community value and those that are ecologically healthy. Once again a risk analysis
tool was used to rate the treats to high priority reaches. This document is supported by data
on river health contained in Our Catchment – Status of the Riverine System by the GBCMA
dated 2005.
Chapter 7 of this document identifies actions to improve the health of high priority reaches
and to prevent future damage from occurring. The waterways within Mansfield Shire
identified at the time as being high priority were the Upper Broken River (reaches 5,6 and
11), reach 15 of Holland Creek and the rivers in the Upper Goulburn Catchment (reaches 15,
16 and 67 – 72).
The Strategy’s Action Plan is divided into eight themes; Protection of High Priority Rivers,
Protection of Ecologically Healthy Rivers, Creating More Ecologically Healthy Rivers,
Improvements to other Reaches, Preventing Damage from Inappropriate Development and
Other
Activities,
Community
Engagement
and
Building
Capacity
and
Monitoring/Evaluating/Reporting. Each theme is supported by a table of detailed actions,
targets, and measures are outlined in detailed tables in Chapter 9.
Given this document has been superseded in many ways this literature review will confine
itself to the one element of the River Health Strategy which has a slightly different focus to
other Regional strategy actions, namely the theme of Preventing Damage from
Inappropriate Development and Other Activities. The Actions identified are outlined
below, all of which have a strong inter-agency regional planning focus.
Table 27
Actions Relating to the Prevention of Damage from Inappropriate
Development and Other Activities
Action
Review connections between agencies with regard to co-ordinating
river health regulation and management.
Agencies
5 year cost
CMA
$100,000
Develop and implement an agency education and awareness
campaign to ensure agency understanding and knowledge about river
health issues.
CMA
$500,000
Review agency activities with regard to river health implications.
CMA
$20,000
Initiate agency activities with regard to river health implications.
All Agencies
Not costed
Develop appropriate arrangements between the Authority and each
agency to facilitate the effective management of river health.
Source: Goulburn Broken Regional River Health Strategy 2005 – 15 (pg 83)
Chapter 16 provides an extensive list of Management Action Targets, Resource Condition
Targets and Indicative Costs as a means of enabling adequate resources to be allocated for
the Strategy’s implementation.
Page 158
Knowledge Gaps are identified in Chapter 17. One of the key gaps is water quality data,
which is identified as being ‘scarce throughout the catchment’ as many Management Units
only having a single testing point. The implementation of a Waterwatch program is identified
as a potential means of improving the quantum of data available.
The Strategy concludes by highlighting the need for cost sharing between all
stakeholders in the implementation of initiatives aimed at maintaining or enhancing
river health; this is seen to be a fair and equitable approach to funding somewhat significant
program costs. The cost sharing principles are:
1.
All resource users and land/water/catchment managers have a duty of care to
ensure they do not damage natural resources and that they remedy any damage
arising from their activities;
2.
Primary, and where appropriate secondary, beneficiaries of the resource use
should pay for activities which result in private advantage or gain;
3.
Governments contribute to activities that produce public benefits and at times also
provide funding for initiatives that provide for private benefits where, in a broader
scale, cumulative public benefit is gained;
4.
Any initiative must be technically sound and relate to a priority action before
the Government will consider making a contribution; and
5.
The State Government will financially support State-wide planning, resource
monitoring and research where they are crucial to sustainable land and water
management.
The above principles should be kept in mind for this DWMP given that there are a number of
agencies, levels of Government and public/private beneficiaries who should contribute to the
implementation of its recommendations.
10.3.5
Goulburn Broken Water Quality Strategy (1996/7)
This Strategy by the GBCMA also sits under the RCS and is comprised of two documents;
the draft circulated to the community and agencies for comment in 1996 and an Addendum
in response to the submissions received (released in 1997). An updated document was also
released in 2002.
As with the previous strategy, this document has largely been superseded by the current
RCS and other strategies discussed earlier in this section. It does, however, outline
objectives and actions around the management of sewage treatment plants which provide a
broader context of wastewater management in the Goulburn Broken region.
Section 4.5.7 is dedicated to Program 6: Sewage Treatment Plants. The stated objectives
are to:

minimise discharges from sewage treatment plants into waterways; and

minimise waste and nutrient loads at source.
The Strategy notes that urban water authorities such as GVW have strategies and works
programs to assist in the achievement of these objectives. Indeed, it is noted that:
“GVW are continuing to work towards full reuse to land at all STPs except
Shepparton and Mooroopna, where investigations to determine the most suitable,
and sustainable, outcome are underway.” (pg 52, Draft Plan 1996)
Page 159
Table 28
Action Plan for Sewage Treatment Plants
Action
Outcome
Timeframe
Responsibility
All sewage treatment plants with the
equivalent of zero summer discharge.
Priorities – Shepparton, Mooroopna,
Seymour and Benalla **
Reduction in nutrient loads
by 4.5 tonnes
5 years
Urban Water Authorities
supported by the
EPA and
DEPI (then named
Department of
Conservation and Natural
Resources)
Full wastewater reuse on land or
equivalent
Reduction in nutrient loads
by 44 tonnes from 1993/4
figures
20 years
supported by the
EPA and
DEPI (then named
Department of
Resources)
Implementation of waste minimisation
schemes by industry
Reduced input of nutrients
into sewage treatment
plants, reducing the need
for discharges
Industry supported by
and the EPA
Continue to develop waste management
plans in line with Government Policy,
particularly SEPP and strategy
requirements.
for discharges
supported by the
EPA,
DEPI (then named
Department of
Resources) and the River
Environment and Water
Quality Committee
Further develop recommendations of
Water for Industry and Wastewater for
Industry reports for possible
implementation
for discharges
Industry supported by
**
GVW wishes to note that the works at Mooroopna and Shepparton have been undertaken
and that any discharge is passed through a tertiary discharge treatment plant and is often of
higher quality water than that naturally occurring in waterways.
Source: Draft Goulburn Broken Water Quality Strategy (pg 53)
10.3.6
Guidelines for the Protection of Water Quality (2001)
These Guidelines, written by the North East Planning Referrals Committee (ie water
authorities, corporations, EPA, DEPI and the GBCMA), are critical to shaping future
development in the Region given they define clear parameters and standards for referral
authority responses to development approval applications referred to them under Sections
52 and 55 of the Planning and Environment Act.
This document is classified as Reference Document under the Mansfield Planning Scheme
and, as outlined in Section 10.4.12, must be considered when Council is assessing an
application for land subject to Environmental Significance Overlays 1 or 2.
Their primary aim is to provide an integrated and consistent response between agencies
across the North East Region to address water quality protection issues through referral
responses.
Page 160
The document contains a number of tables setting out minimum standards for different
types of development approvals such as dwellings in floodplains, subdivisions in areas
subject to flooding/inundation, industrial and intensive farming developments/land use,
infrastructure development and septic tank systems/package treatment plants.
The document is a succinct guide for Planners, Environmental Health Officers and other
decision makers in the development approvals process regarding:

land use and development activities that have the potential to adversely affect water
quality;

planning processes;

planning tools; and

fundamental policies and standard planning permit conditions to be applied by
referral authorities and councils to address water quality issues.
Tables 29 to 31 outline the Guidelines’ requirements for septic tanks and package treatment
plants processing less than 5000 litres per day, development in urban areas and minimum
setbacks from waterways and storages.
It must be noted at this point that these Guidelines were developed well prior to the release
of the new Code of Practice (2013) and therefore the current COP’s setbacks and standards
will take precedence over those outlined in this regional document.
It is noted that Table 11 (page 30) of the Guidelines relates to wastewater treatment
approvals for systems dealing with greater than 5000 litres per day (the approvals for which
are issued and monitored by the EPA) but as these types of systems are outside the realm
of this DWMP, it has not been included in this overview.
The key provisions from the tables below relate to the setback of septic tanks in relation to
day to day decisions on development applications for infill development, which represent the
majority of planning permit applications within Mansfield Shire, are:

the minimum 100 metre setback for a septic tank to Lake Eildon; and

the minimum 100 metre setback for a septic tank from a waterway in a Special
water supply catchment area given that around 95% of the Shire lies in such a
catchment.
These standards are used by GMW in the development of their responses under their
Section 55 referral responses for land use applications, subdivisions and the construction of
new dwellings (infill development) or significant extensions for existing dwellings (ie > 100%
increase in floor area).
Page 161
Table 29
Guidelines for Septic Tanks and Package Treatment Plants (< 5000 L/day)
Page 162
Source: Guidelines for the Protection of Water Quality (2001) (pg 27)
Page 163
Table 30
Guidelines for Urban Development and the Protection of Water Quality
Page 164
Table 31
Minimum Setbacks from Waterways and Storages
Page 165
10.3.7
Lake Eildon Land and On-Water Management Plan (2012)
GMW was the principle agency responsible for this Management Plan, however it was
developed in close consultation with a wide range of agencies including Mansfield and
Murrindindi Shire Councils, GVW, the GBCMA, DEPI and the EPA. It has no legal status;
rather it is an operational plan that seeks to ensure coordinated management and decision
making by all agencies and stakeholders with an interest in the Lake.
The Plan has been the subject of successful resolutions by both Mansfield and Murrindindi
Councils that the Plan be endorsed and its five year action plan implemented.
Page 3 sets out the agreed Vision for the Lake, which is:
“Lake Eildon is valued as Victoria’s premier inland water storage. By providing
essential water resources to downstream communities it enables widespread
economic benefit, while its outstanding natural features, through a coordinated
management approach, provide world class recreation, tourism and lifestyle
opportunities.”
The Plan’s sees increased communication, consistency, coordination and cooperation
between all agencies, stakeholders and the broader community as the key to delivering this
Vision.
It’s objectives are to:
1.
Identify and enhance the Lake’s environmental, social and economic values through
a five year Action Plan.
2.
Ensure that recreational users have access to the Lake while at the same time
protecting its value as a water resource (including long term water quality) for
local and downstream communities.
3.
Improve the management of development pressures through formal and informal
processes and planning scheme instruments.
4.
Gain agreement between agencies on the principles for sustainable use and
development of the Lake and its foreshore.
An ongoing Implementation Group comprised of representatives from GMW, a Councillor (or
other nominee) from both Shires, a community representative from both Shires, a business
representative from each Shire and other agencies (including GVW, DEPI and Parks
Victoria). This group is charged with the responsibility of guiding and monitoring the
implementation of the Plan.
A number of key themes are outlined in the Plan. Objectives and actions are provided for
each. The themes, objectives and actions relevant to this DWMP are outlined in the
following table.
Page 166
Table 32
Land and On-Water Management Plan Objectives and Actions
Relating to Domestic Wastewater Management – Lake Eildon
Theme
Objectives
Actions
Education & Awareness
Increased awareness and
understanding of the need to
minimise impacts on the
environment.
Develop of a Code of Conduct for
the lake that sets out user and
agency responsibilities for issues
such as wastewater management.
Develop a coordinated blue-green
algae communication strategy
around how the community can
respond to blooms.
Water Quality
Improved understanding of water
quality issues, including
biophysical and chemical
parameters through targeted and
effective monitoring, modelling and
reporting.
Review existing water quality
monitoring programs to ensure they
identify risks prescribed by the Safe
Drinking Water Act Risk
Management Plan.
Implement strategies and
frameworks to address water
quality decline.
Support partner agencies in the
protection and enhancement of
water quality within the upper
catchment.
Management of wastewater
systems to protect water quality in
the Lake.
Investigate the opportunity for
reticulated sewerage and
community wastewater
management facilities in
townships and residential areas
around the Lake.
Investigate alternative technologies
for wastewater treatment.
Adequately size and locate
onsite all wastewater
management facilities to minimise
off site discharges impacting on
water quality.
Develop a priority list for
inspection and monitoring of
wastewater systems.
Inform users of the Lake about the
risks of blue-green algae with
accurate and timely information.
Investigate drivers of recent
blue-green algae blooms in Lake
Eildon.
Page 167
Theme
Objectives
Actions
Planning and Development
Coordinate land use and
development planning around the
Lake that protects waster quality
and environmental values.
Encourage agencies and
authorities to adopt agreed and
consistent principles and
processes to manage the impacts
of planning and development
around the Lake.
Establish a Lake Eildon Planners’
forum to meet regularly to discuss
and resolve planning issues
specific to the Lake to ensure the
consistent application and
interpretation of planning scheme
provisions.
Improve planning tools,
guidelines and strategies to guide
development and ensure the
protection of water quality and
environmental values.
Review the Environmental
Significance Overlay (ESO) and
Significant Landscape Overlay in
the next planning scheme review
with the view to developing an
ESO that recognises the entire
Lake Eildon Environs.
Explore the opportunity to develop
a Special Area Plan (SAP) for Lake
Eildon and its immediate
surrounds.
Encourage agencies to support the
review of the North East
Planning Referrals Committee
Guidelines for the Protection of
Water Quality 2001.
Source: Lake Eildon Land and On-Water Management Plan (2012)
Issues around blue-green algae incidents are discussed in section 5.7.1. It is noted that blue
green algae is caused by a range of factors including high concentrations of phosphorus and
nitrogen, which enter waterways mainly through soil particles, sediment, sewage and other
industrial/commercial waste.
Although outside the realm of this DWMP, the Plan highlights the need for better
management of wastewater, particularly grey water, generated by houseboats and also the
management of wastewater generated by camping facilities near the Lake’s foreshore
(which can cumulatively cater for several thousand guests at any one time) given their
potential to adversely affect water quality.
Similarly, Section 3.4.3 discusses the impact of stormwater (ie run off from roads and paved
surfaces that may contain oil, greases, nutrients, pathogens and organic matter) on the
Lake’s water quality. Such run off is also a key contributor to erosion into waterways. One
key issue is stormwater management for Fords Creek, into which much of the stormwater
from the Mansfield township flows. Other localities with highlighted stormwater issues are
Bonnie Doon, Jamieson, Goughs Bay, Macs Cove and Howqua, all of which are in Mansfield
Shire. The need for better stormwater infrastructure design and management is highlighted
as the key means of addressing this issue.
Page 168
10.3.8
Lake Nillahcootie Land and On-Water Management Plan (2011)
As per the Lake Eildon Management Plan, GMW is the principle agency for this
Management Plan but again a wide range of agencies including Mansfield SC and the Rural
City of Benalla Council, were involved in its development. It is an operational plan that has
no legal status.
Both Mansfield and Benalla Councils have passed resolutions that the Plan be endorsed
and its five year action plan implemented.
The Vision for the Lake is:
“Lake Nillahcootie is a beautiful, well managed public asset that provides a high
quality visitor experience and is an ongoing source of pride to the local community,
while also fulfilling its role as an important water supply storage.” (pg 2)
The key outcomes for the Lake over the next five years are:

better communication, consistency and a coordinated approach to the
management of Lake Nillahcootie;

sustainable water quality and ecological health of the lake;

safe use and improved access for recreational users, and an improved standard of
public infrastructure; and

a community commitment to sustainable use of the lake.
The Plan notes that the Lake provides water primarily for irrigation and recreational activities
but that downstream communities are reliant upon water released into the Broken River for
potable water.
It is noted that the overall water quality in the lake is poor but that the exact cause of this is
unknown; long term up stream agricultural land use is seen as one possible cause. Better
management of erosion and nutrient laden run off are seen to be two possible solutions to
address this issue.
An ongoing Steering Committee and Community Reference Group guides the
implementation of the Plan, comprised of representatives from the two Councils, local
business groups, community representatives and other government agencies.
The themes, objectives and actions relevant to this DWMP, and to be implemented by
Mansfield Council and its Project Partners, are outlined in Table 33.
Page 169
Table 33
Land and On-Water Management Plan Objectives and Actions
Relating to Domestic Wastewater Management – Lake Nillahcootie
Theme
Objectives
Actions
Education & Awareness
An informed and involved community
working co-operatively with agencies to
find shared solutions to the land
and water management challenges
faced at Lake Nillahcootie.
Environment and Cultural Heritage
Better monitoring and understanding of
water quality and processes that can
affect water quality; and ultimately,
improved water quality in Lake
Nillahcootie.
Actions
Develop improved public information
on recreation, water quality issues
and other land and water
management issues, dam operations
and water levels.
Consistent and informative signage at
all access points.
Encourage and support programs that
involve the community in the
management of Lake Nillahcootie.
Develop a community
education/awareness program for
water quality issues.
Support priority stream
rehabilitation projects and other
programs in the catchment and
surrounding lands that can help to
improve water quality.
Coordinate an integrated water
quality monitoring review for Lake
Nillahcootie, including a detailed
investigation into lake behaviour and
the drivers of water quality issues in
Lake Nillahcootie.
Identify and implement programs to
manage risks to water quality, in
accordance with Safe Drinking Water
Act (2003) obligations.
Proactive management of priority
erosion threats around Lake
Nillahcootie.
Develop and implement an
Erosion Action Plan for the lake.
Source: Lake Nillahcootie Land and On-Water Management Plan 2011 (pg 17)
10.3.9
Hume Region Strategy 2010 – 2020 & the Central Hume Regional
Sub Plan (2013)
The development of the Hume Region Strategy was the responsibility of the DTPLI in
consultation with councils, agencies and the community.
The Strategy sets out a vision for the Region’s future and proceeds to provide a strategic
framework to aid its achievement by the year 2020. It divides the somewhat diverse Hume
Region into sub regions, of which Mansfield is located in the Central Hume region.
Murrindindi Shire is located in the Lower Hume Region.
The Vision for the Hume Region is:
“The Hume Region will be resilient, diverse and thriving. It will
capitalise on the strengths and competitive advantages of the four sub
regions, to harness growth for the benefit of the region and to develop
liveable and sustainable communities.” (pg 5 Central Hume Regional
Sub Plan)
Page 170
The Strategy then sets out a strategic framework to achieve this vision based on five key
themes; Environment, Communities, Economy, Transport and Land Use.
Key ‘concepts’ that drive the Strategy include:

building upon the existing pattern of dispersed settlements, adopting a ‘multi
centred region’ approach to growth and settlement;

improving mobility through road, rail and other transport links and also the concept of
providing dispersed services rather than relying on facilities being based in central
location; and

promoting regional, sub regional and local competitive advantages including
the natural and built environment.
In providing a Strategic Context for the Central Hume Region mention is made of the
important service role played by Mansfield township within the southern part of the sub
region. The location of headwaters for the Goulburn, Broken and Delatite Rivers is
also noted, along with the role of Lake Eildon and Lake Nillahcootie in the regulation
of water supply to downstream irrigation areas. Their recreational, economic and
environmental values are also recognised, with a statement made on page 12 that they are
“environmental assets of state and national importance”.
Water security is seen to be a crucial issue, with the need for careful management of
catchments and groundwater.
The themes, key directions, strategies and sub regional actions contained within the Central
Hume Strategy relating to domestic wastewater management and water quality are outlined
in Table 34.
Page 171
Table 34
Hume Strategy Themes, Directions and Actions Relating to Domestic Wastewater Management and Water
Quality
Theme
Key Direction
Priority Strategies
Regional and Central Hume Sub Regional Actions
Environment – natural
resources protected and
enhanced for current and future
generations
Managing our water
resources sustainably
A water view for the region
Promote the development of innovative solutions to improve water supply, sewage
and wastewater management in settlements throughout Central Hume.
Water management through
innovation
Water guiding planning
outcomes
Valuing ecosystem services of
rivers, streams and wetlands
Ensure planning and development in the Upper Broken River catchment is
consistent with Goulburn Broken regional river health objectives to substantially
improve overall stream conditions.
Develop an environmental constraints assessment tool for use in pre-planning stages to
highlight environmental limitations and constraints of proposed new developments.
Promote business opportunities relating to wastewater treatment, including bio-solids
processing and water recycling.
Strengthen links between local government and catchment planning with respect
to water usage, quality and quantity through reviews of regional catchment
strategies.
Ensure new developments consider impacts on surface and groundwater
resources and have a neutral or beneficial effect on waterways.
Improve the management of septic tanks through coordinated programs that
include monitoring, education and training to overcome detrimental health and
environmental outcomes.
Encourage and support improving Index of Stream Conditions to higher levels.
Pursue funding opportunities and increase community support for the design,
planning and construction of reticulated sewer systems or alternative technology
sewerage solutions in small settlements across the region.
Healthy, Vibrant and
Resilient Communities –
providing appropriate and
accessible social services and
infrastructure
Ensure settlement plans investigate services and infrastructure requirements to
keep pace with population growth, changing demography and emerging needs. These
plans must consider water and wastewater requirements.
Page 172
Theme
Key Direction
Priority Strategies
Regional and Sub Regional Actions
Land Use – an efficient and
sustainable pattern of urban
and rural land use and
development
Manage growth in small
settlements
Implement a program of developing sub regional settlement plans.
Investigate the role and function of smaller settlements within the overall network
of settlements in the Central Hume sub region.
A regional / sub regional
approach to strategic land
use planning
Provide a consistent approach for planning policy for land use and development
along major rivers and within water supply catchments.
Source: Central Hume Regional Plan (2013)
Page 173
10.3.10
Draft Hume Region Growth Plan (2013)
The DTPLI led the development of this document in partnership with local government, state
agencies and other regional authorities. This Plan supports the implementation of the Hume
Strategy and sub regional plans by identifying:

locations where future development will be supported;

environmental, economic, community and heritage assets that should be conserved,
maintained or sensitively developed; and

key regional priorities for future infrastructure planning to support growth.
The intention is for a regional growth plan to feed into each Council’s Municipal Strategic
Statement, thereby guiding day to day decision making by councils as both a responsible
authority and planning authority.
The Plan identifies the following projected populations for Mansfield and Murrindindi Shires:
Table 35
Estimated Resident Population 2011 - 31
2011
2021
2031
Mansfield
8000
9000
10,200
Murrindindi
13,600
16,500
17,900
Source: Draft Hume Region Growth Plan (2013) (pg 9)
It is noted that a network of different types of settlements typifies the Hume Region, with
each settlement having its own distinct characteristics providing attractive places in which to
live and work. Access to reliable, high quality water resources is seen to be a
competitive advantage in times of climate change and the long term impacts of changes in
the management of the Murray Darling Basin.
Section 7 identifies the drivers of change operating in the Region, which include:

preparing for the impact of climate change impacts and opportunities;

impacts of long term droughts, widespread floods and increased bushfire risk; and

environmental and heritage assets acting as a drawcard for new visitors and
residents.
The challenges caused by growth pressures include:

how to support communities to meet changing needs;

ensuring residential growth maximises the use of infrastructure and avoids
hazardous areas; and

how to reduce the potential impacts of climate change on the natural environment
and manage exposure to natural hazards.
Section 12.1 of the document identifies how the Region’s environmental assets should be
managed to accommodate appropriate growth; the Plan recognises that these environmental
assets are often the key to economic and population growth in many areas. Accordingly,
Part C of this section details how water is to be managed as a key environmental, social and
economic asset.
It is noted that many urban settlements are located adjacent to rivers and lakes, which on
the one hand enhances liveability and connection to the environmental asset, but on the
other requires careful planning to reduce the impact of such development on water
Page 174
quality and flows. The need to balance the desire for additional growth around lakes with
environmental objectives and the natural hazards which exist in these areas is also
highlighted.
Sensitive land use planning is seen to be the key to managing impacts of additional
growth on groundwater supplies, which in some areas is already unsuitable for potable
use. Groundwater is seen to be a key driver for agricultural and industrial land use.
Section 13 focuses on future residential growth across the Hume Region. The importance of
the myriad of small towns spread across the Region in supporting future growth is
underlined, with the aim to focus on the strengths of each settlement.
Map 33 highlights the settlement pattern across Mansfield and Murrindindi Shires where infill
development will be encouraged (subject to the management of environmental hazards such
as fire, flood and impact on water resources) as a means of maximising the use of existing
services and infrastructure. Rural residential growth, which represents a high proportion of
new development in Mansfield Shire, is to be directed into selected locations close to urban
centres to maximise use of infrastructure and minimise travel times.
Map 33
Existing Settlements in Mansfield and Murrindindi Shires
Source: Draft Hume Region Growth Plan (pg 34)
Mansfield, Alexandra and Yea are identified as key sub regional settlements that can
accommodate moderate growth over the next two decades, as highlighted by the following
maps.
Page 175
Map 34
Future Urban Growth – Central Hume Region
Map 35
Future Urban Growth – Lower Hume Region
Page 176
Section 14 of the Plan focuses on regional infrastructure, with the aim to ensure
infrastructure is provided to growth areas in a timely and sustainable manner. The need for
water corporations to strategically manage water supply, through the development of
integrated water cycle strategies, is highlighted on page 64, with a focus on links between
urban and rural needs and the implications of potential reduced water availability.
Section 15 of the Draft Growth Plan summarises all of the goals, strategies and actions that
will drive its implementation (actions relevant to this DWMP are outlined in Table 36). Lastly,
Section 16 provides an outline as to how these initiatives will be implemented through future
work including:

amendments to planning schemes to incorporate key strategic directions;

development of a detailed infrastructure plan to guide the future timing and planning
of key regional infrastructure priorities; and

DTPLI facilitating further detailed work in response to key actions.
Table 36
Future Work to Deliver Key Regional Actions Relevant to the
DWMP
Theme
Action
Environment & Heritage
Consistently apply appropriate planning tools to recognise and protect environmental
and heritage assets across the Hume Region, in particular:
• Waterways, wetlands and water quality (including threats to these assets such as
soil erosion)
• Soil health and degradation processes.
Align information (mapping of assets) between Regional Catchment Strategies and
local government planning processes and strategies.
Establish minimum setbacks to guide the use and development of land along major
waterways and around key water bodies to protect buildings and works, to make
allowance for natural variance in beds and banks and to protect important regional natural
features.
Councils, water authorities and catchment management authorities develop and
implement management plans for Declared Water Supply Catchments to inform
planning strategies and decisions. This could include review of domestic wastewater
management plans to enable effective planning of the type of settlement and
economic activity that can occur in declared water supply catchments whilst
protecting catchment health.
Exchange mapped and modelled data of environmental assets and natural hazards to
provide for accurate interpretation of the best available data in planning decisions.
Living in the Region
*
Develop and implement a consistent set of regional criteria to be used when undertaking
local planning for rural residential uses, building on the state-wide guidance. This works
should include considerations such as:
• Consolidation of existing rural settlement patterns
• Visual and physical linkages to areas with high amenity such as lakes, rivers, national
and state parks avoiding areas of strategic agricultural importance
• Avoiding areas of environmental significance and declared water supply catchments
• Access to infrastructure such as power and sustainable water supply. *
Note, the considerations have been limited to factors relevant to the DWMP and settlements
in Mansfield and Murrindindi Shires
Source: Draft Hume Region Growth Plan (pg 76-78)
Page 177
10.4
Local Documents
10.4.1
Council Plan 2013 - 17
The Council Plan identifies the key challenges facing Council and its community, along with
goals and actions to address them over the next four years.
The identified challenges relevant to this DWMP include:

managing population growth and ensuring infrastructure, facilities and services
meet changing needs;

establishing effective responses to extreme weather events including increases in the
severity of rainfall episodes, hotter summer temperatures and longer dry seasons, all
of which mean greater impacts of flood, erosion and fire; and

improving part time locals’ skills in relation to land management to minimise
any adverse environmental impacts.
Council Plan actions are based on five themes. Those most relevant to this Plan are
‘Improving our Built and Natural Environment’ and ‘Empowered and Self Sufficient
Communities’.
The goals, or strategic objectives, listed under these themes (and that are relevant to this
DWMP), which will drive day to day Council activities are:
4.
Improving our Built and Natural Environment:
4.1
Our businesses, residents, ratepayers and visitors act responsibly and
proactively to protect and enhance the environmental features we value.
4.2
Our Planning Scheme encourages land use and development that supports
economic growth whilst maintaining characteristics of our Shire valued by our
community.
4.3
Mansfield has the infrastructure required to support economic and population
growth.
4.4
Council has strong partnerships with land and water management
agencies.
5.
Empowered and Self Sufficient Communities
5.3
Our community is able to prepare for and effectively manage natural
disasters.
The Actions to be implemented by Council to achieve these goals are:
4.1.1 Implement the key actions of Council’s Environment Strategy – the Domestic
Wastewater Management Plan Pilot Project.
4.1.5 Support community education programs for new residents in relation to responsible
and effective land management practices.
4.2.1 Complete, fund and implement the Mansfield Shire Council Domestic Wastewater
Management Plan Pilot Project in partnership with local water corporations and DEPI.
4.2.4 Review the Mansfield Planning Scheme to identify what improvements can be made
to ensure it reflects community priorities, and commence implementation of the
Review.
4.3.1 Review the fixed infrastructure managed by Council to identify service gaps that need
to be addressed to meet current and future needs.
4.3.2 Prepare a Shire-wide drainage strategy, and progressively implement Mansfield
township’s Drainage Strategy.
Page 178
4.4.1 Work in partnership with Goulburn Murray Water and other lead agencies to deliver
the key priorities of the Lake Eildon On-Water Management Plan through
participation in the Implementation Committee.
5.3.1 Prepare and exhibit a planning scheme amendment on behalf of the Goulburn
Broken Catchment Management Authority that introduces an updated Flood Zone
and Land Subject to Inundation Overlay based on current flooding models.
The Council Plan also sets out performance measures to track its implementation; the
relevant Indicators to this DWMP are:
Table 37
Council Plan Indicators Relevant to the DWMP
Goal
Indicator
Target
2014/15
2015/16
2016/17
85%
87%
90%
92%
75%
78%
80%
85%
250
250
250
250
2013/14
4.3 Mansfield has the
infrastructure
required to support
economic and
population growth.
YTD expenditure of
renewal works compared
to budget
% of capital works
completed at year end
4.4
Council has strong
partnerships with
land and water
management
agencies.
Number of proactive
inspections of septic
systems
Source: Mansfield Shire Council Plan 2013 – 17 (pg 25 – 27)
10.4.2
Strategic Resource Plan 2013 - 17
The Strategic Resource Plan (SRP) forms part of the Council Plan and sets out the financial
and non financial resources required to achieve Council’s strategic objectives and implement
its actions.
Some of the challenges in resourcing the Council Plan include:

aged drainage infrastructure;

limited financial resources exacerbated by government funding not keeping pace with
cost increases;

increasing demands for services and new facilities;

inadequate capital renewal expenditure in the past;

population growth; and

increasing requirements of other levels of government.
The SRP aims to address these issues by:

maximising asset renewal and maintenance spending;

adopting a new financial plan for the next 4 years; and

conducting service reviews to improve efficiencies and reduce costs.
While not strictly relevant to this DWMP, stormwater management is one of the key
contributors to waterway quality issues. In settlements such as Goughs Bay pre 1990 septic
systems discharge greywater directly onto the land and hence into stormwater drains.
Page 179
Accordingly, information on Council’s stormwater program are included in this literature
review as it is seen by the water authorities as another key management issue that must be
addressed by Council.
The Budgeted Capital Works Statement for the four years ending 30 June 2017 relating to
urban stormwater renewals, upgrades and new assets is as follows:
Forecast 2012/13
$271,000
2013/4
$375,000
2014/15
$450,000
2015/16
$550,000
2016/17
$800,000
Source: Mansfield Shire Council Strategic Resource Plan 2013 – 17 (pg 41)
10.4.3
2013/14 Annual Budget
The Annual Budget is a detailed outline of the allocation of financial resources across
Council in support of achieving the Council Plan’s strategic objectives. The figure below
summarises the allocation of resources across different program areas:
Figure 19
Budget Allocation Across Major Program Areas
Source: Mansfield Shire Council Budget – 2013/14 (pg 19)
Page 180
The following is an extract from the Budget document regarding the resourcing of Council
Plan theme Improving our Built and Natural Environment.
Table 38
Cost of Program Areas Related to the DWMP
Service Category
Description
Development Services
Planning, Building, Environmental
Health
Infrastructure and Works
Infrastructure design, maintenance,
plant operation and works
Net Cost (Revenue) $
790,209
2,422,566
Page 32 of the Budget identifies that during 2013/14 around $375,000 will be expended on
drainage projects throughout the Shire. The following extract relates to investment in
stormwater infrastructure during the forthcoming year:
Figure 20
Stormwater Drainage Investment 2013/14
10.4.4 2012/13 Annual Report
This report documents Council’s performance during 2012/13 against the Mansfield Shire
2009-13 Council Plan and the 2012/13 Budget, along with key achievements and
challenges. This Annual Report relates to the former Council Plan.
Figure 21
Environment and Planning Highlights 2012/13
Source: Mansfield Shire Council Annual Report 2012/13 (pg 6)
Page 181
The Report notes the following highlights in relation to wastewater management and
planning issues within declared catchments:



Council representatives meet with the Water Minister, the Hon. Peter Walsh, to
discuss new draft Ministerial Guidelines for potable water catchments;
continued advocacy over several years resulted in the State Water Minister launching
revised Guidelines for Development in Potable Water catchments in Mansfield. The
Government also provided $50,000 for Council to develop a pilot Domestic Waste
Water Management Plan; and
Council adopted an Environment Strategy which is supported by a detailed Action
Plan to deliver 3 key projects in relation to Pest Plants and Animals, Roadside
Conservation and Management and Domestic Wastewater Management.
In relation to the budget, the Financial Report contains a summary of human resources
within the Environmental Health and Planning teams; the increase in resources indicates
Council’s desire to ensure adequate resources are in place to improve planning and
environmental outcomes across the Shire.
Figure 22
Human Resource Allocations for Planning, Environment and
Environmental Health
Source: Mansfield Shire Council Annual Report 2012/13 (pg 53))
In relation to the year ahead the Annual Report notes the following initiatives:

the Environmental Health Unit is working toward a formal review of septic permit
consents where the Permit To Use has not been issued;

integration of compliance activities between the Building, Environmental Health and
Planning Units to ensure that all possible breaches of legislation are highlighted. This
will also provide a way to ensure landowners meet all requirements; and
Page 182

drafting and adoption of the Domestic Wastewater Management Plan Pilot Project is
the key task for the Strategic Planning team given it directly impacts on future
development across the Shire.
10.4.5 Mansfield Shire Draft Domestic Wastewater Management Plan (2006)
This document was prepared by Infocus Management Group on behalf of MSC and formed
part of a wider regional DWMP program facilitated by the Australian Institute of
Environmental Health North East Regional Group.
This regional project saw a standardised DWMP rolled out over participating councils
(eleven Councils in total participated in the project); the template provided for a plan divided
into two parts; firstly an overview of regional authorities and organisations involved in
wastewater management across the North East and their key strategies/policies, and
secondly the local component which forms the DWMP.
It should be noted that although the draft DWMP was exhibited for public comment (and
relatively little comment was received), it was never adopted by Council. Regardless, it
provides useful historic information for this new DWMP.
The Plan cites the following towns as having been identified as Priority Towns under an
assessment made as part of the Country Towns Water and Sewerage Supply Program for
the provision of reticulated sewer:
Table 39
Town
Goughs Bay
High Priority Towns as Assessed Under the Country Towns Water
and Sewerage Supply Program
Number of Septics
(2006)
Comments
263
Growth in the town is modest (around 2% per annum) but it is
noted that there are significant seasonal increases in population (of
up to 80%).
Priority 1
There is no reticulated sewer.
The majority of allotments are <1000m2, which means
redevelopment and new development is restricted.
There is evidence of offsite discharge via the stormwater system
from older dwellings.
Bonnie Doon
Priority 2
54
Growth in the town is categorised as being static to low but it is
noted that there are significant seasonal increases in population (ie
a high proportion of dwellings are holiday homes).
Approximately 75% of Bonnie Doon is connected to reticulated
sewer.
The extension of this service to James Street is a priority given that
50% of these properties have septic systems, 90% of which are
more than 25 years old. These properties have limited setbacks to
the full supply level of the Lake.
Page 183
Town
Jamieson
Number of Septics
(2006)
Comments
145
Growth in the town is modest (2 – 3%) and again seasonal influxes
can see the population grow significantly.
Around 75% of septic systems are over 25 – 30 years old and offsite discharge is evident.
The topography of the town is relatively flat and the settlement is
surrounded by the Goulburn and Jamieson Rivers.
Howqua
104
Growth in the town is modest (around 2% per annum) but it is
noted that there are significant seasonal increases in population (of
up to 80%).
Most allotments are <1000m2.
Over 75% of septic tanks were installed 25 or more years ago.
Maindample
32
The town has experienced high levels of growth (15 – 25%).
There is no reticulated sewer.
Around a quarter of lots are <1000m2.
Over 75% of septic tanks were installed 25 or more years ago.
The topography is relatively flat.
Source: Mansfield Shire Draft Domestic Wastewater Management Plan (2006) (pg 14)
Other key findings of research undertaken to support the preparation of the DWMP include:

around 20% of septic tanks are assumed to be in the ‘high risk’ category due to
density and the general proximity to waterways;

a random survey undertaken by Council confirmed that there are a significant
number of lots where wastewater is discharged onto the ground surface or
stormwater drains;

rural and rural residential properties are assumed to be in the medium to low risk
category and these types of properties represent around 59% of all wastewater
systems;

Bonnie Doon, Goughs Bay, Jamieson, Howqua and Maindample are all identified as
having high environmental and public health values. There are threats to amenity
values through odour and poor visual amenity due to off site greywater discharges
via stormwater drainage systems; and

overflows into contributing waterways to Lake Eildon and contributing
waterways is seen to be a significant threat. Many of the dwellings are of an age
where redevelopment is likely in the short to medium term. A high percentage of lots
are located within 100m of the full supply level of Lake Eildon.
Section 6.2 of the Draft DWMP provides for a preliminary assessment of the potential
domestic wastewater management threats in the high risk townships, which are summarised
in the following table.
Page 184
Table 40
Preliminary Assessment of Potential Wastewater Management
Threats in High Risk Townships
Town
Threats
Threat priority
Bonnie Doon
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Number of systems & density
Proximity to watercourses
Located in water catchment
Allotment size
Type of wastewater systems
Age of systems
Slope
High rainfall
Poor wastewater system management
Seasonal habitation of a high percentage of dwellings.
High
Goughs Bay
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Allotment size
Age of systems
Slope
Soil characteristics
High rainfall
Very High
Jamieson
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Proximity to water courses
Allotment size
Age of systems
Flood prone
High rainfall
High
Howqua
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Proximity to water courses
Allotment size
Age of systems
High rainfall
High
Page 185
Town
Maindample
Threats
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Water quality
Soil characteristics
High rainfall
Threat priority
Moderate
Source: Mansfield Shire Draft Domestic Wastewater Management Plan (2006) (pg 22 - 24)
The key findings of the Draft Plan included:

Shire data on septic tank numbers, location and types is incomplete;

the performance of systems against permit conditions by owners is unknown;

Council has no organised compliance system to ensure permit conditions around
servicing and reporting are routinely met by owners;

the preliminary risk assessment indicates that receiving waterways are likely to be
negatively impacted upon through systems not being properly maintained and the
dispersal of greywater directly into stormwater systems in some towns;

despite continued residential growth in unsewered towns there are no formal policies
for the management of sites where wastewater is not retained within site boundaries;

the change in status of a growing proportion of dwellings from a ‘holiday’ home to
permanent residence will exacerbate the above issues; and

there is no system in place to inform new property owners of their system’s
requirements and potential issues with system performance.
The Draft Plan then details strategies and actions via a three year Action Plan to address the
above issues, which focussed on the themes of:

planning for increased populations and the provision of appropriate infrastructure;

development of information for government funding applications for reticulated
sewerage systems in high priority townships;

community education;

development and implementation of a monitoring and compliance system;

review of operational procedures and policies; and

monitoring the implementation of the DWMP.
10.4.6
Mansfield Shire Council Environment Priority Action Plan 2013 - 17
In 2012 the former Council adopted an Environment Strategy, which was a lengthy
document outlining actions and strategies to address environmental issues across the Shire
over a ten year period.
In May 2013 Council adopted the Environmental Priority Action Plan as a means of
focussing on a three key actions over the next four years, one of which is wastewater
management, with a particular emphasis on the completion of this DWMP.
The delivery of the Priority Action Plan is overseen by an Environmental Advisory
Committee, as well as by Council itself. The progress of this DWMP is monitored by
frequent updates to Council and bi-monthly to the Advisory Committee.
Page 186
In resolving to adopt the Priority Action Plan Mansfield Shire Council made the following
commitments:
“In addressing these three priorities the Council’s strategy will be to work
closely with the responsible State and Federal Government Departments
to:
a. Ensure maximum alignment and minimal overlap of plans
and programs to address these areas;
b. Seek adequate funding of Shire programs; and
c. In addition to the above, the Council will continue to identify
and work with its community organisations to develop and
assist with ongoing community based programs that address
the above priority areas.”
10.4.7
Report for Mansfield Basin Groundwater Resource Appraisal
(Catchment Conceptualisation) (2011)
This document was commissioned by MSC and undertaken by GHD Pty Ltd during 2011; it
was partially funded by the Australian Government’s then Department of Sustainability,
Environment, Water, Population and Communities.
Its aim was to improve the understanding of groundwater resources within the municipality,
mainly because the use of groundwater had been increasing due to restrictions on the issue
of new surface water licences and increased subdivision activity across the Shire has placed
additional strain on water resources across the Shire.
A significant amount of technical and mapping data is contained within the report. Maps
pertinent to informing the DWMP are provided in the following pages.
Page 187
Map 36
Topography of Mansfield Shire
Source: Mansfield Basin Groundwater Resource Appraisal (GHD) 2011 (pg 12)
Page 188
Map 37
Rainfall
Page 189
The report provides for a conceptual hydrogeological model of the Shire focussing on the
population within the Mansfield Basin; that is areas around Fords Creek, the Delatite River,
Doolam Creek, Merton Creek and Brankeet Creek. It includes water balance assessments
of both groundwater and surface water resources. The purpose of the model is to allow the
Shire and GMW to better manage groundwater in the future by subdividing the Basin into
conceptual groundwater flow systems.
The key findings of the study included:

there are two broad groundwater zones within the Shire; the bedrock systems and
‘simple valley’ alluvial deposits within the rivers and valleys of the Mansfield Basin
that have some connection to watercourses (ie Fords Creek, the Upper Broken River,
the Delatite River between Sawmill Settlement and Piries and Doolam Creek);

the alluvial aquifers are relatively thin, have limited reaches and the soils have low
permeability, whist siltstone around Mansfield is tens to hundreds of metres deep and
generally low yielding;

the salinity of the alluvium soils along Fords Creek and the Broken river is high whilst
still in the bedrock but acceptable for most uses other than potable water. Salinity is
less of an issue in the Upper Delatite due to high rainfall;

groudwater interacts with surface water at greater rates where groundwater systems
are short in reach in the upland areas such as Jamieson or Howqua, although
baseflow volumes are still considered to be moderate when compared to other
aquifers across the State;

there are low contributions from groundwater to watercourses in the Mansfield Basin,
which is demonstrated by unreliable flows in waterways such as Fords Creek in times
of low rainfall;

farm dams have a significant impact on the river systems, particularly in the Fords
Creek area;

the highest levels of surface water diversion occurs in the Upper Delatite and Upper
Broken reaches;

the limited records that are available show that groundwater extraction levels are
likely to be below the estimated State average of 2 megalitres per day per bore and
relatively little groundwater is used for domestic purposes;

the highest levels of groundwater extraction are around the townships of Mansfield
and Maindample;

overall extraction rates are < 1% of the annual groundwater recharge in the ‘alpine’
river catchments but higher in the Mansfield Basin, particularly around Fords Creek
(up to 12% of ‘dry year’ recharge); and

there are significant data gaps throughout the catchment such as groundwater and
surface water data, as well as groundwater usage data.
Page 190
Map 38
Average Bore Yield
Page 191
Map 39
Groundwater and Surface Water
Page 192
Map 40
Surface and Groundwater Licences
Page 193
Table 41
Annual Water Balances for Mansfield Sub Catchments
Page 194
In relation to ongoing management of groundwater the following recommendations are made
in Section 9 of the Report:

exploring the types of rules for management and licensing, particularly for the
higher extraction areas around Fords Creek;

broader monitoring of groundwater levels should be undertaken in the Mansfield
Basin (there are three bores at present);

farm dams are likely to have a greater impact on overall water resources than
groundwater extraction; and

consideration needs to be given to resource sustainability and reliability of
water supply issues when assessing new development not connected to mains
water due to:
o low groundwater bore yields from aquifers across the Shire
o the impact on recharge and run off volumes in small groundwater flow systems
(such as in the Upper Delatite) as impacts of reduced water availability can have
significant impacts on overall groundwater availability;
o low bore yields, the high salinity levels of some water and unreliable supplies
means that water sources need to be diversified.
10.4.8
Mansfield Shire Council Stormwater Management Priorities and
Projects
Commentary on stormwater management programs and expenditure is provided earlier in
this Section under the Annual Budget and Council Plan.
Current projects relating to stormwater infrastructure are:

new stormwater infrastructure is currently under construction in the section of Ultimo
Street, Mansfield, between Malcolm Street and the Mansfield Caravan Park;

design is commencing for further stages of this drainage scheme:
o an upstream detention system north of Malcolm Street
o the widening of the channel through the caravan park
o conversion of the open drain on Maroondah Highway to an underground box
culvert;

the development of a stormwater management plan for the eastern side of Highton
Lane, Mansfield; and

the development of a stormwater management plan for the township of Maindample
to address drainage and flooding issues.
10.4.9
Municipal Strategic Statement (Mansfield Planning Scheme)
The Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS) forms a key part of the Mansfield Planning
Scheme. It provides an overview of the trends and issues that are shaping our Shire and
more importantly what strategies and actions will be implemented by Council (acting as both
a planning authority and responsible authority), to address them.
Clause 22.01-2, the Municipal Profile, highlights the following attributes of our Shire and, in
particular, underlines the importance of our waterways and declared catchments:

the Upper Goulburn and Lake Nillahcootie areas are Declared Special Water
Supply Catchment Areas and are important catchments within the Shire which
service irrigation throughout Victoria;
Page 195






the major water features within the Shire include Lakes Eildon and Nillahcootie. Main
waterways include the Delatite, Howqua, Jamieson, Goulburn and Big Rivers (which
runs along the Murrindindi/Mansfield border) and the Brankeet and Ford Creeks,
which all contribute to the catchment of Lake Eildon. The Broken River which flows
into Lake Nillahcootie;
many areas within the Shire are of significant visual, cultural and environmental value
and are under high demand and mounting pressure for recreation, lifestyle and
development activity;
protecting these various unique areas and maintain water quality and quantity in
the region is vital;
the Shire is experiencing a period of diversified growth and a change of profile
as it becomes a popular ‘lifestyle’ municipality. The recent growth can best be
described as a combination of ‘rural lifestyle’ and ‘urban consolidation’ development
patterns;
recent growth patterns within the Shire show that people are wanting to move from
metropolitan areas to the country in order to experience a healthy, environmentally
focused lifestyle on acreage or larger lots of land, but still be close to the modern
facilities and infrastructure offered in urban environments; and
when planning for future infrastructure requirements the Shire must consider
the fact that these population figures swell to in excess of double the official
numbers during peak holiday periods and the snow ski season. In 2004 up to 50%
of the rate base of the Shire were non-resident rate payers and a large percentage of
these non-residents are likely to become local residents upon retirement. This will
see the local population swell without any direct relationship to the number of new
dwellings approved.
Clause 21.01-5 identifies the major factors influencing future planning decisions in relation to
the Environment. Water quality issues dominate, with the need to.

augment infrastructure in all urban areas, in particular the provision and
adequate storage of secure high quality water supplies, adequate sewerage
and retarding and treatment of stormwater. Infrastructure design must reduce
environmental impacts and avoid environmental degradation;

encourage population growth to take place in the towns serviced by reticulated
infrastructure thus maximising the return on investment in this infrastructure;

protect the high quality natural resource base and reliance on the natural
environment for economic sustainability;

protect and, where possible, improve water quality.

ensure development does not detrimentally impact water availability to existing water
users and sustainable catchment water yields; and

encourage land uses which are environmentally and ecologically sustainable.
The 30 year vision for the Shire, outlined in Clause 21.05-6, highlights the following
objectives:

the maintenance of a high quality natural resource base and amenity, is critical to the
long term sustainability of the economy and the environment; and

all towns within the Shire should be able to share the projected population increase
over the next 30 years depending on infrastructure augmentation.
Some of the strategies in place to achieve these goals include:

quality land close to reticulated services and infrastructure will be considered for
higher density residential and rural living lot yields in preference to similarly zoned
land in remote areas of the Shire;
Page 196



maintaining a high quality natural resource base and amenity will continue to ensure
long term sustainability of the economy and the environment;
improve the service roles of smaller towns within the Shire for the growing local
population as well as the increasing tourism in outlying areas; and
further develop smaller towns, particularly those in environmentally sensitive areas,
but not until the adequate water, stormwater and sewer infrastructure is available.
The MSS then discusses six themes (Clauses 21.02 – 07):
1.
Environment (which includes a section on Water catchments, lakes and rivers)
2.
Settlement
3.
Development of Rural Land
4.
Rural Living
5.
Tourism
6.
Economic Development.
The relevant objectives under these themes to the DWMP are:

protect the natural values of the Shire’s rivers.

protect and manage catchments in conjunction with the relevant Catchment
Management Authorities and other relevant organisations;

protect land and waterways from further degradation;

recognise and protect the environmental significance of the proclaimed catchments
for Lake Eildon and Nillahcootie;

prevent development in the catchment that is detrimental to water quality;

improve the quality of urban stormwater entering the catchment;

ensure sustainable, high quality, water supplies to promote development and healthy
ecosystems;

facilitate, in conjunction with relevant authorities and the State Government, the
installation of reticulated sewerage systems for townships situated
immediately adjacent to Lake Eildon, such as Goughs Bay and Mountain Bay, and
other priority areas and acknowledge the inability of many existing small town
residents to contribute to these costs;

encourage development in Merrijig, which is a preferred small town growth
area, subject to the preparation of a structure plan for the Upper Delatite and
investigate the current reticulated water and sewerage provisions to ensure any
required upgrades are facilitated prior to any large scale residential development
occurring;

reinforce the Council strategy of consolidating residential uses in the
townships and designated rural living areas within the Shire and that the an
application for a dwelling in a Farming Zone is generally required to enable daily
management and operation of the rural use of the land; and

ensure that tourist based development and land use is serviced by infrastructure that
treats and contains all wastes and provides potable water.
The actions to be taken to achieve these objectives include:

liaise with the relevant Water Authorities regarding the management and allocation of
urban and rural water resources;

promote community education in responsible land management practices in the
catchment, in conjunction with the DEPI and the GBCMA;

identify land uses and areas that are major contributors to the decline of water
quality;
Page 197









review urban stormwater systems in Mansfield with a view to improving stormwater
quality and develop Local Planning Policy to guide development;
apply the flood overlay to areas identified by flood hazard mapping prepared by the
GMCA;
work with relevant water authorities to ensure reticulated water and sewer
infrastructure is provided to Goughs Bay and Mountain Bay as a matter of urgent
priority;
working with service authorities to encourage integrated development in the
waterside precincts of Macs Cove, Howqua, Bonnie Doon, Jamieson and Woods
Point that can be readily supplied with infrastructure;
encourage residential development within the existing urban areas of Bonnie Doon,
Macs Cove, Howqua, Jamieson and Woods Point while focusing on the
improvement and enhancement of existing dwellings with the primary focus
being improving existing effluent disposal systems in lieu of reticulated systems
for the immediate future;
develop a structure plan for the Jamieson Valley and establish environmental,
aesthetic and cultural considerations and development requirements to prevent
inappropriate development from encroaching into surrounding farm land, sensitive
waterside areas and ridgelines;
create structure plans our outline development plans for all towns to guide future
development and ensure objectives around the protection and enhancement of
environmental values, water quality and productive farmland are achieved;
tourism development should be avoided in areas prone to high fire risk, flooding and
erosion; and
no additional large parcels of land will be made available for new residential
development in the Upper Delatite (Sawmill Settlement, Pinnacle Valley, Alpine
Ridge and Merrijig) without strict development requirements, strict environmental
design criteria, infrastructure requirements and the need to supply Council and the
relevant servicing authorities with detailed strategic justification for the proposed
development.
Section 21.8, Future Work, identifies the following will be undertaken and integrated into the
Planning Scheme via an amendment:

preparation and implementation of a Municipal Domestic Wastewater
Management Plan;

preparation and implementation of the Mansfield Shire Urban Stormwater
Management Strategy;

preparation and implementation of Lake Eildon Strategic Development Plan (in
conjunction with relevant Authorities); and

introduce the Flood Zone and Land Subject to Inundation Overlay in Jamieson
township in accordance with GBCMA modelling.
10.4.10
Local Planning Policy Framework (Mansfield Planning Scheme)
The LPPF is the second component of the local section of the Mansfield Planning Scheme.
It aims to provide detailed policies and decision making criteria on nine key planning issues
across the Shire as a means of guiding the assessment of planning permit applications.
Page 198
The pertinent sections of policies relevant to this DWMP are:
Dwellings on Small Allotments in the Farming Zone performance measures: (Clause 22.01)

development of the land for the purposes of a dwelling should be compatible with the
environmental characteristics of the surrounding area and should not adversely
impact on natural systems, water quality or water quantity in the locality;

an application for a dwelling must be supported by an environmental assessment
outlining specifications for the proposed means of potable water supply, domestic
and stock water supply, effluent disposal and stormwater drainage;

there must be evidence that the proposed means of water supply will have no net
detrimental impact on the sustainable catchment yields; and

there must be evidence that the proposed means of effluent disposal will have no
net detrimental impact on the environment and provides the highest possible
environmental performance.
Subdivision to Create a lot for an Existing Dwelling in the Farming Zone application
requirements (Clause 22.02):

an application to subdivide land to create a lot for an existing dwelling must include a
report providing evidence that the land is capable of containing an appropriate
waste water treatment system in accordance with relevant legislation, policies and
codes of practice and full specifications of the proposed means of potable water
supply for the dwelling.
Design and Siting Guidelines in Rural areas and upon Significant Ridgelines (Clause 22.04)

buildings can only be located less than 30 metres from streams or rivers, or less than
100 metres from state water storages, with the approval of the relevant authorities;

building and wastewater disposal field setbacks from waterways and other
significant environmental features should be determined with reference to the North
East Planning Referrals Committee’s Guidelines for the Protection of Water
Quality 2000;

site suitability for onsite wastewater management should be proven via a land
capability assessment prior to development; wastewater treatment systems that
deliver superior environmental performance to septic tanks should be utilised in
accordance with Best Management Practice; and

site disturbances, including earthworks, should be minimised, managed and
revegetated to reduce erosion and sedimentation run off in accordance with current
Best Management Practice.
Tourism Development (Clause 22.05)

infrastructure must be supplied to treat and contain all wastes on site, provide
potable water and have access to appropriate on site fire fighting facilities; and

ribbon tourism development along the foreshore of Lakes Eildon and Nillahcootie is
to be avoided, rather it will be encouraged to concentrate on existing settlements.
Lake Eildon and Lake Nillahcootie (Clause 22.06)

it is noted that these lakes have been constructed for storage of water for
downstream irrigation. It is important that development is commensurate with the
principles of environmentally sustainable development;

Lake Eildon is to be promoted as a visitor destination and the landscape vista is of
prime importance and all development within the vicinity of the lake must be in
accordance with Schedule 1 to the Environmental Significance Overlay - Lake Eildon
Catchment; and
Page 199

Lake Nillahcootie is promoted as a visitor destination and all development within the
vicinity of Lake Nillahcootie is to accord with Schedule 2 to the Environmental
Significance Overlay - Lake Nillahcootie Catchment.
10.4.11
Zoning (Mansfield Planning Scheme)
Zoning provisions for settlements within each Declared Special Water Supply Catchment
have been explained in Section 6. The following is an explanation of the mechanics of each
land use zone, each of which having its own set of objectives, application requirements and
decision making criteria to manage land use and development across the shire.
All zones include the purpose of implementing the SPPF and the LPPF, including the
Municipal Strategic Statement and local planning policies. When a decision is due to be
made, this requirement, along with the decision guidelines outlined by in the zone and those
contained in Clause 65 (Decision Guidelines), must considered by the decision maker.
Decision guidelines relating to wastewater and water quality must always be considered but,
of course, their respective weighting will be dependent on the location of the site and the
nature of what is proposed.
The wastewater and water quality related considerations in our Planning Scheme include
whether or not a proposal:

is connected to a reticulated sewerage system or if not available, the waste water
must be treated and retained on-site in accordance with the State Environment
Protection Policy (Waters of Victoria) under the Environment Protection Act 1970;

is connected to a reticulated potable water supply or provided with an alternative
potable water supply with adequate storage for domestic use as well as for fire
fighting purposes;

is in keeping with any Regional Catchment Strategy and associated plan applying to
the land;

is situated on land with the capability of the land to accommodate the proposed use
or development;

has suitably located on-site effluent disposal areas to minimise the impact of nutrient
loads on waterways and native vegetation;

will cause, or contribute to, land degradation, salinity or reduce water quality; and

whether the proposed development is designed to maintain or improve the quality of
stormwater within and exiting the site.
Decisions on subdivision applications must assess:

the availability and provision of utility services, including water, sewerage, drainage,
electricity and gas;

that if the land is not sewered and no provision has been made for the land to be
sewered, the land has the capacity to treat and retain all sewage and sullage within
the boundaries of each proposed lot; and

the extent to which the proposal meets water sensitive urban stormwater and
drainage design and treatment, energy efficiency, landscaping, and protection and
incorporation of natural features in accordance with the Best Practice Environmental
Management Guidelines for Urban Stormwater; (CSIRO), 1999.
Page 200
10.4.12
Overlays (Mansfield Planning Scheme)
Overlays have been used in the Mansfield Planning Scheme to protect crucial areas of our
declared catchments from future inappropriate development.
They override permit
exemptions under the zone to add an additional layer of scrutiny for applications, along with
requiring with mandatory referrals of applications to water authorities for their review.
Schedule 1 Environmental Significance Overlay – Lake Eildon Catchment (ESO 1)
ESO 1 covers an extensive area around Lake Eildon within Mansfield Shire.
The statement of environmental significance for this overlay reads as follows:
“The environment of the catchment for Lake Eildon is significant to
ensure the quality of water delivered downstream. The lake itself is a
popular recreational destination and many of the Shire’s smaller
communities in the vicinity of the lake depend heavily on visitors to the
area. The protection of the catchment to ensure this location remains
attractive to visitors is essential.
Land use and development in the catchment also contributes to a decline
in water quality. It is therefore important that these activities are
controlled in a manner that ensures any new activities are not detrimental
to the catchment.”
The objectives of this overlay relevant to this DWMP are to:

improve water quality in the watercourses contributing to Lake Eildon, and the lake
itself;

discourage land uses in the catchment that contribute to the degradation of
downstream water quality in the Goulburn River;

encourage land management practices that minimise impacts on water quality;

ensure water is provided to waterways in volume, quality and seasonal patterns that
protect and enhance natural biological processes; and

encourage the retention or re-establishment of native vegetation in rural areas.
Under Clause 3 of this Schedule applications for subdivision creating lots less than 40
hectares, development associated with intensive animal husbandry and all applications for
development of land within 100 metres of the full supply level of the Lake or from any
watercourse within the catchment area must be referred to GMW (it is noted that due to the
Rozen decision handed down by VCAT in late 2009 applications are also referred to the
water retailer, GVW).
Consideration must be given to the following water quality issues when assessing
whether or not a planning permit should be issued:
1.
The recommendations of the North East Referrals Committee’s Guidelines for the
Protection of Water Quality 2000’ in relation to any proposed use or development,
particularly recommended setback distances;
2.
The potential for the proposed development to degrade water quality or quantity;
3.
The intensity of the development;
4.
Appropriate measures to prevent erosion of banks, streambeds and adjoining land
and the siltation of watercourses, drains and other features;
5.
Appropriate measures to prevent pollution, increased nutrient loads and increased
turbidity of water in watercourses, drains and other features;
Page 201
6.
Appropriate measures to prevent increased surface water run-off or concentration of
surface water run-off leading to erosion, siltation, pollution of watercourses, drains
and other features;
7.
Any management plan prepared by the relevant water board or water supply
authority; and
8.
The comments of Goulburn Murray Water and, where appropriate, the Goulburn
Broken Catchment Management Authority.
While this overlay triggers a planning permit for most buildings and works there are
exemptions for some types of applications, including but not limited to:

land which is connected to reticulated sewerage;

alterations or additions to an existing dwelling that is no greater than 100 % of
the existing floor area, and where the cut and fill of land does not exceed a
maximum height of 0.5m; and

any outbuilding or extension to an outbuilding associated with an existing dwelling on
the land or for the use of agriculture, provided the proposed floor area does not
exceed 200m2 and the cut and fill of land does not exceed a maximum height and
depth of 0.5m.
Schedule 2 Environmental Significance Overlay – Lake Nillahcootie Catchment (ESO
2)
ESO2 covers a large area around Lake Nillahcootie.
significance for this overlay reads as follows:
The statement of environmental
“Lake Nillahcootie is situated on the Broken River and supplies domestic,
stock and irrigation water for the Broken Valley. As well as for water
supply, Lake Nillahcootie is important for the provision of aquatic habitat
and for recreational purposes.
The water quality of Lake Nillahcootie is threatened by increasing nutrient
levels and turbidity. To prevent further decline of the water quality in Lake
Nillahcootie, land use and development within the catchment of the lake
needs to be regulated.”
The planning permit triggers are the same as that for ESO1, as outlined above, as are the
permit exemptions and decision guidelines. The key water quality objective is to ensure the
protection and maintenance of water quality and water yield within the Lake Nillahcootie
Proclaimed Catchment Area.
Page 202
Map 41
Environmental Significance Overlays (ESO’s 1 and 2)
Source: Mansfield Shire Geographical Mapping System
Page 203
10.4.13
Murrindindi Shire Council Environment Strategy 2011 - 15
This document is based around six key themes, one of which is Waterway and Catchment
Protection. It provides an overview of current environmental issues and trends and contains
a detailed Action Plan to address key issues. The Action Plan ranks each action as being of
high, medium or low priority and which year the action will commence.
The four principles that form the basis of the Strategy are:
1.
Protect what we have: protect and enhance the natural environment;
2.
Reduce what we take: reduce the consumption of natural resources;
3.
Minimise what we leave: minimise the adverse impacts of the Council’s and the
community’s activities on the environment; and
4.
Share what we learn: encourage the adoption of sound environmental practices
within Council and the broader community.
In relation to Waterway and Catchment Protection, the Strategy identifies recent work
undertaken by the Shire:

establishing water conservation measures for Council operations (underway);

establishing a Stormwater Management Plan in 2005; and

development of a domestic wastewater management plan (underway).
The stated goal for this theme is:
“Protect and enhance our catchments and waterways from discharges
and sediment.”
The stated strategy objectives to support this goal are:
1.
Promote practices that improve the quality of water within aquatic and riparian
habitats and to protect and enhance these habitats
2.
Incorporate the principles of water-sensitive urban design in new developments in
urban and rural settlements.
Table 42 summarises the Actions most relevant to wastewater management.
Page 204
Table 42
Murrindindi Shire Environment Strategy Actions Relating to Wastewater Management
Action
Adopt and implement a Domestic Waste Water
Management Plan, including:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Council Department
Performance Indictor(s)
Completed domestic waste
water management plan
Map domestic waste water treatment systems
(septic tanks by type of discharge, type of zone,
proximity to waterways etc.)
Completed maps of septic
tanks,
grey-water recycling systems
Adapt Environmental Local Law to reflect EPA
requirements and standards for new and existing
septic tanks and grey-water recycling systems
Environmental Health, IT
Monitor compliance with permit conditions of
new domestic waste water management
systems (septic tanks and grey-water recycling
systems)
Amended Local Environmental
Law
Number of septic tanks and
greywater systems assessed
Timeframe
Priority
Resources
1
High
Officer Time
1
Ongoing
High
Officer Time
1
High
Officer Time
1
Ongoing
High
Officer Time
Assess impacts of existing domestic waste water
systems and stormwater drainage on waterways
Number and location of water
tests taken
1
Medium
$ 5 – 10,00,
Officer Time
External Funding
Provide information and advice to landholders
about the EPA codes of practice (Appendix1)
and compliance with Local Environmental Laws
about domestic waste water
Environmental Health,
Local Laws
Completed fact sheet on
domestic waste water
management and Local Law
requirements
1
Ongoing
Medium
< $1000
Officer Time
Environmental Health,
Communications
Completed fact sheet on
alternative domestic waste
water systems and water
quality;
numbers of residents receiving
each fact sheet
1
Ongoing
Medium
<$1000
Officer Time
Provide information and advice to landholders
about alternative effluent treatment systems
(composting toilets, transpiration beds, etc.) as
part of the planning permit process
Page 205
Action
Link Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS) with
GBCMA Regional Catchment Strategy and Regional
River Health Strategy and highlight common
elements in the next revision of the Environment
Strategy.
Cooperate with GBCMA to integrate priorities and
actions for river restoration and catchment
management into the statutory planning process
Council Department
Environment,
Planning
Performance Indictor(s)
Completed MSS update
with
GBCMA input and
endorsement
Environment,
Planning
Develop local planning policy to increase protection of
riparian zones and wetlands, including areas zoned
for farming
Environment,
Planning
Support GBCMA, DSE and water authorities, where
consistent with Council policy, to implement water
related plans and strategies (e.g. GBCMA’s Regional
River Health Strategy)
Environment,
Infrastructure &
Assets,
Outdoor Crews
Number of coordination
meetings
per year; number of joint
projects
between Council and GBCMA
Area of riparian zone, length of
rivers protected by
Environmental Significance
Overlay
Number of projects managed
with either input or
endorsement
from GBCMA and DSE
Timeframe
Priority
Resources
4
Medium
Officer Time
2
Ongoing
Medium
External Funding
3
High
$ 5 – 10,000
Officer Time
Ongoing
Medium
Officer Time
4
Medium
$ 5 – 10,000
External Funding
Officer Time
Use planning instruments to achieve sustainable
urban neighbourhood planning through
•
•
Incorporating sustainable development principles
(e.g. promotion of walking and cycling networks,
environmentally sensitive landscaping,
environmentally friendly stormwater
management) into new urban development
proposals
Planning,
Infrastructure &
Assets
Amendment of existing urban
design frameworks (UDFs) and
creation of new UDFs with
sustainability features
Consolidating urban development within existing
townships to prevent urban sprawl while
protecting neighbourhood character
Planning
Zoning with clear township
boundaries established
Source: Murrindindi Shire Council Environment Strategy 2011 – 15
Page 206
10.4.14
Murrindindi Planning Scheme
It is important that reference be made to the Murrindindi Planning Scheme, particularly the
relevant overlays and planning provisions for settlements located on the shore of Lake
Eildon and along the Goulburn River Valley.
Local Planning Policy Framework
Murrindindi’s MSS makes the following comments regarding domestic wastewater
management and water quality under Clause 21.01-5 Infrastructure:
“Goulburn Valley Region Water Authority is responsible for the provision
of water and sewerage services throughout the majority of the Shire. The
townships of Alexandra, Yea, Eildon and Marysville are serviced by
reticulated water and sewerage systems, with Buxton, Molesworth and
Thornton being supplied with reticulated water only.
The Kinglake settlements, Narbethong, Buxton, Taggerty, Thornton,
Flowerdale, Yarck and Molesworth and are all unsewered and contribute,
directly or indirectly, to the water quality issues of the Goulburn-Broken
Catchment. These settlements also contribute to a lesser extent to the
Melbourne catchment.”
It’s Municipal Vision (Clause 21.02) states that water quality is not to be compromised by
impacts arising from urban and rural development. Clause 21.03, Issues Affecting the
Shire, highlights the need for careful natural resource management to ensure the
sustainability of the Goulburn-Broken Catchment and protection/enhancement of water
quality. The MSS also clearly states that future residential growth should be directed to
townships provided with reticulated sewer and water infrastructure such as Yea and
Alexandra.
Clause 21.09 highlights the fact that townships such as Thornton, Taylor Bay, Molesworth
and the like do not benefit from reticulated services (although some towns such as
Molesworth do have reticulated water) but have been, in the distant past, subdivided into
small residential lots.
Development of these lots over time has created a potential problem in terms of effluent
from septic tanks adversely affecting ground and surface water quality in the
headwaters of the Goulburn Catchment. Strategies to address these issue include:

increase the level of external development contributions for township, low density
residential and rural living subdivision and development through the use of
development contributions plans;

in partnership with Goulburn Valley Water, developing a strategy to bring reticulated
sewerage and water services to the unsewered settlements based on priority;

developing a septic tank inspection program to bring sub-standard systems into
conformity with current SEPP standards; and

investigating buying allotments for consolidation to existing lots or crown land areas.
Natural resource management is also a priority for Murrindindi Shire given that water quality,
productive agricultural land and extensive forests are intrinsically related to the success the
cornerstones of its economy; namely agriculture, timber and tourism. It is noted that the
Goulburn River is designated as a heritage river under the Heritage Rivers Act 1992. Flood
mitigation is seen as the key policy area relating to resource management under Clause
21.10.
Page 207
Murrindindi’s Local Planning Policy Framework contains the following statements and
strategies that relate to wastewater management and water quality:

development that cannot be serviced by a reticulated sewerage system should be
designed, sited and developed to prevent pollution of land and water resources by
preventing the discharge of effluent off site and providing for alternative effluent
disposal systems, such as package treatment plants;

all effluent disposal systems, effluent and irrigation fields should be located at least
100 metres from any designated watercourse. This setback can be reduced when
topographic constraints would prevent the discharge of waste water to a
watercourse;

soil tests for each allotment under 4000 square metres in area should be provided
with a report certifying that the proposed density of septic tanks within the area
should not overload the natural environment with effluent and lead to pollution of
watercourses or other properties;

the objectives of any relevant regional catchment strategy must be met by any new
land use or development;

the design, siting and location of all development must be in accordance with
Landcare principles and not affect water quality or habitat; and

the treatment and retention of all waste water emanating from development must,
under the Environment Protection Act 1970, be in accordance with the State
Environment Protection Policy (Waters of Victoria).
Zones and Overlays
Murrindindi’s planning controls differ from Mansfield’s in their approach to Lake Eildon. The
settlements of Talyor Bay and Eildon are located on the Lake; the former being zoned Rural
Conservation (where minimum lot sizes are 40ha minimum), while Eildon township is zoned
Residential 1.
A Flood Overlay has been applied to the shoreline of the Lake and also along the Goulburn
River’s floodplain as it traverses the Shire to mitigate pollution, allow floodwater to move
unimpeded and minimise potential property damage.
Environmental Significance Overlay 1 (High Quality Agricultural Land) extends from just west
of Eildon township to the western boundary of Murrindindi Shire along the Goulburn River,
but it’s objectives relate more to agricultural land use rather than water protection; indeed its
statement of environmental significance reads as follows:
“Murrindindi Shire has extensive high quality agricultural areas
located along the Great Dividing Range at Toolangi and Kinglake and
along the Goulburn River floodplain. The attributes of these areas
consist of a combination of well-drained red soils, high rainfall and
access to water.”
Significant Landscape Overlay 2 (Lake Eildon and Surrounds) that recognises the Lake
as a significant water storage.
It’s stated landscape objectives are to:

protect the visual quality and significance of the prominent hills, slopes and extensive
open landscapes including those classified by the National Trust;

protect the nature of the rural areas surrounding Lake Eildon and its tributaries;

protect the rural landscape from insensitivity designed development;
Page 208






maintain and protect the diversity of landscapes, native fauna, remnant vegetation
and sites of historical, botanical and zoological significance;
provide for the development of tourism oriented activities complementing the special
nature of Lake Eildon;
recognise and protect the landscape conservation and scientific importance of the
Lake Eildon;
protect the lake and the surrounding landscapes from visual intrusion and
inappropriate development;
maintain passive recreational development of the land for the enjoyment of all
visitors; and
encourage development that is consistent with sustainable rural land management.
Triggers for planning permits are different to those of Mansfield Shire’s ESO1 covering the
Lake Eildon’s surrounds in the following respects:

alterations or additions increasing floor area by greater than 50% requires a permit
(in Mansfield it is a 100% increase); and

outbuildings or extensions to outbuildings which increase floor area by 100m 2
requires a permit (it is 200m2 in Mansfield Shire)
When assessing a planning permit application the following must be considered:

how the development protects the environment and its impact on visual and aesthetic
qualities of the locality;

any relevant adopted policy;

the design, height, mass and scale of the proposed development and buildings;

the location of all buildings and including the exterior colour/ finish of buildings;

effluent disposal systems and measures to improve water quality;

impacts on special landscape features or classified landscapes, contours, views
within and outside of the site, vegetation, sites of value for flora and fauna, sites of
geological significance and sites of archaeological or historical significance; and

the need to forward the application for comment to the National Trust of Australia
(Victoria) when land is a classified National Trust Landscape and it is considered that
the proposal may adversely affect this landscape.
10.5 Key Findings
The key points arising out of this State, Regional and Local Literature Review are:
 There is significant breadth and depth in documents at all levels in relation to
wastewater management, water quality, catchment management and development
control;
 There has been a clear shift in focus at State and Regional level to a multi agency
approach based on cooperation and coordination of effort in relation to water
quality related issues. Most documents underline the need to protect and enhance
water quality and better manage water as a natural resource;
 Regional level documents, particularly those produced by the GBCMA, focus on all
agencies and stakeholders taking responsibility for actively implementing
programs and works to address water quality issues using their legislated powers
but doing so in a coordinated and cooperative manner;
Page 209
 While water quality within Mansfield and Murrindindi Shires is relatively good
compared to downstream municipalities, there are rivers at risk of having their overall
heath rating being downgraded if coordinated action is not taken in the short and
medium term (Fords Creek in particular);
 Improved wastewater management is only one of a number of strategies which should
be employed across our Shires to improve water quality;
 The potential impact of unsewered development on water quality and beneficial
uses is identified in several documents as a significant risk if not actively
managed by all stakeholders. Overall, there is currently a lack of comprehensive,
coordinated systems and management practices to effectively manage wastewater
issues;
 A DWMP is highlighted as a key risk management tool to address water quality
issues within a municipality, particularly in areas where unsewered development
is located within a declared special water catchment; it allows stakeholders to
prioritise, resource and implement the required monitoring/improvements to reduce the
human and environmental risks from existing on-site wastewater management. A
DWMP is also seen to be critical in identifying future development potential and avoiding
land use activity which can be proven to pose a significant risk to public health and
beneficial uses;
 Domestic wastewater management in Mansfield Shire is complicated by the large
percentage of holiday homes (50% of privately owned properties) and the significant
increases in population over long weekends and during school holidays, particularly the
Christmas/New Year break where the population of the Shire can almost triple;
 State, regional and local planning documents highlight the need for a coordinated
approach to planning controls to better manage development and to mitigate
potential adverse impacts on waterways and water quality. Although Mansfield and
Murrindindis’ Municipal Strategic Statements have a strong water quality focus neither
Planning Scheme provides for a water quality/catchment protection local planning policy.
 Opportunities exist to review planning controls, particularly around Lake Eildon, to
ensure consistency between the two Shires as part of an inter-agency approach to
broader catchment and development management issues; and
 There is increased information sharing and cooperation within MSC’s internal
departments,
between
councils,
government
departments
and
water
agencies/corporations but there is great scope to improve relationships and
implement jointly funded projects to address water quality and catchment
management issues. This DWMP provides one such opportunity.
Page 210

Part 1 Adopted Domestic Wastewater Management Plan

Transcription

Similar documents

FUMC Mansfield Flyer 2015

introducing… - crugnale properties

Ayder Hospital at Mekelle University, Ethiopia

America at its Best! - Mansfield / Richland County Convention and

Mansfield IT Company gets its name in lights

2013 - Merrijig, Victorian High Country.

`VOICES`

Newsletter-02-2016

cuby news february 2015

Municipality of L`Orignal, ON, Canada