Something is Terribly Wrong

Most zoning anomalies in Victoria are small quirks — an outdated overlay here, a mapping error there. But what’s happened at 7 Cullen Court, Spotswood is not a small quirk. It’s a planning contradiction so stark that it shakes confidence in the integrity of the zoning framework itself.

A Residential Zone with a Transport Zoning Core

The surrounding area is zoned NRZ5 – Neighbourhood Residential Zone, a policy environment designed to protect low-density, community-focused housing. It sets strict limits on what can be built and what activities can occur.

Yet right at the end of this calm, residential zoning lies a single parcel — my mother’s property — marked not as residential as the overarching zone, but as TRZ2 – Transport Zone 2.

TRZ2 is intended for land actively facilitating Victoria’s transport network: road reserves, depots, transport yards, arterial corridors. It is not meant for private residential allotments. And yet here it sits — fully privately owned, unencumbered, and surrounded on all sides by a neighbourhood residential zone.

This is not just strange — it is fundamentally at odds with the stated purpose of TRZ2 under the Victorian Planning Provisions.

The Implications Which We Need To Talk About (I don't like getting involved in politics I might add but here I am)

This clash between NRZ5 surrounds and TRZ2 core has a list of troubling consequences:

• Planning Scheme Inconsistency – Planning schemes are supposed to work holistically. When a TRZ2 parcel sits inside an NRZ5 area, the intent of both zones is compromised.
• Enforcement Contradictions – Council compliance officers face an impossible task: enforce TRZ2 rules in a neighbourhood context without undermining NRZ5 protections or enforce NRZ5 rules whilst not having the power to do so because TRZ2 is a Department of Transport applied zoning and TRZ2 is the dominant zoning of the land.
• Loss of Strategic Control – TRZ2 governance means Council has fewer levers to govern the land use. A lawful transport use can proceed even if locals object and even if Council doesn't like it.
• Zoning Governance Questions – The 1978 Executive Council discontinued the street and transferred it to private ownership. No public transport purpose has applied since, yet the land was at some point zoned TRZ2 — without lawful authority as no consent document exists from the Head Transport Victoria which is required under ministerial directive The Form and Content of Planning Schemes.

The Real-World Consequence: A Legal Fortress

Because the land is TRZ2, and my use is clearly a transport purpose, I have existing use rights under Section 6(3) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Vic). This means:

• No planning permit required.
• No Council veto.
• Full legal defensibility against overreach.

This isn’t an exploit — it’s simply the lawful result of the planning scheme’s own wording. But it highlights just how mismatched the zoning is with its surroundings, and how weak the “relevant transport manager” consent gateway becomes when no permit is being sought.

A System Error Hiding in Plain Sight

If TRZ2 can be applied like this — deep inside a residential zone, on privately owned land, without any active state-managed transport purpose — then the system is vulnerable to the exact kind of activation I’ve undertaken. This is my test case. It's important and it has state wide ramifications. I care about the integrity of the planning scheme. By activating the site I have forced the issue into the public eye, into Council and The Department of Transports visibility.

And here’s the uncomfortable truth: if I can do it, others can too. Obviously we cannot have a situation like this persist as it undermines the integrity of the planning scheme. The rules need to be updated and improved so we never have another 7 Cullen Court situation ever again. I will work with authorities for as long as it takes to fix the underlying issues.

The Call for Accountability

The fix is not about “getting rid of” lawful uses like mine — it’s about aligning zoning with reality. That means:

• Investigating why this land was zoned TRZ2 in the first place. I have submitted an FOI request to the Department of Transport to find out exactly that.
• Correcting the ultra vires zoning application of TRZ2 to the property.
• Reviewing all privately owned TRZ2 parcels in Victoria for similar anomalies and making sure that where TRZ2 is applied to private property that the required consent document from the Head Transport Victoria is present to ensure the zoning is legal.
• Creating clear policy protections so councils have a clear and legal enforcement pathway when TRZ2 zoning has been applied to a property and where the owner has activated the property under existing use rights even if the required consent document from the Head Transport Victoria for the zoning is missing.

Until then, 7 Cullen Court remains living proof that something is terribly wrong in Victoria’s zoning governance.