By Clarke Towson – CEO, INTJ Billing / Spotswood Trailers
Date: July 29, 2025
The TRZ2 zoning of 7 Cullen Court, Spotswood, was never meant to be a planning battleground. Yet in 2025, that small, overlooked parcel of land became the test site for what I would argue might be one of the most educational planning exercises in modern Victorian history.
This wasn’t about protest, defiance, or obstruction. It was about legal precision, policy literacy, and a rare opportunity to explore the boundary conditions of Victoria’s zoning framework.
The result? A fully lawful, transport-specific, transparent site activation — published publicly, documented extensively, and built to withstand scrutiny from every legal, regulatory, and planning authority.
“A map is only as legal as the authority behind it.”
The TRZ2 zoning on 7 Cullen Court lacked Clause 23 consent from the Minister, as required under the planning scheme. The site had been transferred out of Crown ownership in 1978 via Instrument H323270, following a formal Executive Council order revoking its public purpose.
And yet, it was zoned Transport Zone 2 in Amendment VC205 (2022) and RDZ1 in the previous amendment (and almost certainly zoned road going back to 1978 and likely even earlier than that).
Lesson: Zoning instruments must not override land title, ownership history, or statutory revocations. Zoning must be rooted in legal authority — not just GIS overlays.
Section 6(3) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Vic) allows landowners to use land as of right if the use aligns with the zone and has not changed. This clause is often overlooked — but it is critical.
Lesson: Section 6(3) is not a loophole — it is a protection. Authorities must better understand how landowners can rely on it, especially when the zone itself is applied improperly.
The “Snap-Back Activation” model I developed does the following:
Lesson: When enforcement relies on static evidence, agile land use outpaces regulation. Planning schemes must evolve to handle lawful, temporary, mobile, non-building-based uses.
Most people avoid regulatory attention. I published:
Lesson: Transparency is no longer a weakness — it’s a form of regulatory pre-emption. Expect a future where intelligent landowners publish everything before authorities even act.
7 Cullen Court was never meant to be an active site. But the law allowed it — and I followed that law better than the system that imposed it.
The current TRZ2 policy document (see here and here) assumes that land zoned for transport use is public or Crown-owned. But no clause prohibits TRZ2 from being applied to freehold land. And therein lies the flaw.
Lesson: Zoning provisions need internal logic checks. Policy must be written not just for the common case — but for the edge case.
Since activating the site, I’ve had:
All from a 112m² site with three trailers and some bollards and curb ramps.
Lesson: The system is now more accountable — not because of protest or litigation, but because of lawful activation, done visibly and methodically.
I didn’t break the law. I broke a set of assumptions the law was built on — and I did it lawfully, transparently, and respectfully.
This case should not provoke fear — it should provoke reform. It proves the need for clearer zoning logic, better alignment between title and zone, and enforcement systems that can accommodate agile, reversible, lawful use.
I hope 7 Cullen Court becomes a case study not just in what went wrong — but in how legal literacy and strategic thinking can contribute to a better planning system for everyone.
Clarke Towson
CEO – INTJ Billing Pty Ltd
Founder – Spotswood Trailers