7 Cullen Court – TRZ2 Zoning Meets Private Ownership
A Future-Proofing Blueprint for Sensible Zoning
Author: Clarke Towson CEO INTJ Billing / Spotswood Trailers
Date: 28th July 2025The current TRZ2 zoning provisions, as shown in the Victoria Planning Provisions (Clause 36.04), fail spectacularly to distinguish between Crown/public land and privately held freehold land. This oversight created a bureaucratic absurdity at 7 Cullen Court, Spotswood, where a small privately owned front block was zoned as part of the Principal Road Network — despite having no road, no public use, and no legal basis for transport reservation since 1978.
This situation should never be allowed to happen again.
Below is a model policy update — a clause-by-clause improvement — that modern planning authorities should seriously consider adopting to prevent another clash between freehold land rights and outdated transport overlays.
New Clause:
▪ Prior to applying or retaining TRZ1 or TRZ2 zoning, responsible authorities must verify that:
• The land has not been formally discontinued from transport/public use under Section 528(2) of the Local Government Act 1958 (Vic), or equivalent legal instruments.
• The land is not subject to Executive Council orders that permanently removed it from public transport designation.
• The land was not transferred into private freehold through legal instruments (e.g. H323270) or government gazette actions.
New Clause:
▪ Where a conflict exists between the current zoning and a legally binding notice published in the Victorian Government Gazette, the Gazette prevails unless superseded by:
• A subsequent gazetted acquisition, or
• Ministerial consent under Clause 23 confirming the continued public purpose of the land.
New Clause:
▪ All planning scheme amendments applying TRZ2 must publish:
• A copy of the written consent from the Head of Transport for Victoria (as required under Clause 23).
• A statement of public purpose and intended use.
• Confirmation of Crown land or public authority ownership.
• A disclaimer if applied in error, to trigger a formal review.
New Clause:
▪ Where TRZ2 zoning has been applied to land:
• Without public ownership, or
• Without Clause 23 consent, or
• In contradiction to formal road discontinuance orders,
A mandatory review must occur within 12 months of this clause’s gazettal. If not resolved, zoning shall lapse and revert to the underlying or surrounding zone most consistent with lawful private use.
New Clause:
▪ Where TRZ2 zoning is proposed or retained on private land, a Community Impact Declaration must be:
• Issued to the landholder;
• Published online by the responsible authority;
• Include a rationale for applying a public-purpose zoning to non-public land.
New Clause:
▪ Before approving a TRZ2 zoning amendment, the Minister or responsible authority must certify that:
• The land is not already protected by Section 6(3) use rights;
• The application does not conflict with the historical intent of Executive Council or Local Government orders;
• The zoning aligns with actual Crown use and public function.
The existing TRZ2 zoning use tables — "Permit Not Required", "Permit Required", and "Permit Prohibited" — become dangerously incoherent when applied to privately owned freehold land. These tables are written for publicly held infrastructure corridors, but when misapplied to sites like 7 Cullen Court, Spotswood, they effectively create a zoning purgatory where lawful private use is questionable, and public use is legally prohibited.
The following tables only apply where TRZ2 zoning is applied to land that is:
• Vested in a public authority;
• Under acquisition for transport use; or
• Reserved or declared for public transport in the Victorian Government Gazette.
Where land is privately owned and none of the above criteria are met, the use tables must not restrict or prohibit
private-sector activities consistent with surrounding zoning, existing use rights under Section 6(3), or established planning scheme overlays.
Amendment:
Permit exemptions for transport infrastructure apply only to land held or operated by a transport agency or government body under valid legal authority.
Amendment:
Permit requirements must not impose restrictions on freehold land that:
Amendment:
A land use must not be classified as "prohibited" on freehold land unless:
The TRZ2 use tables are a technocratic hallucination when applied to private land. You can't build on it. The government can't build on it. And yet a private citizens rights are limited as if you don't own it. This section fix restores logic, legality, and landholder dignity.
The failure to incorporate these basic protections has already resulted in:
• Ultra vires zoning of 7 Cullen Court;
• Disruption of legitimate private enterprise;
• Legal risk to the Department of Transport and Council;
• Public loss of confidence in planning instruments and zoning logic.
This is no longer about just one case — it’s about planning integrity across the state.
The proposed additions above are simple, precise, and necessary. They would immediately prevent another 7 Cullen Court situation and preserve the delicate balance between public planning powers and private landholder rights.
If the State Government is serious about planning reform, the first test is correcting TRZ2.
