Why Councils Default to TRZ2 – A Hidden Planning System Contradiction

In Victoria’s complex planning system, dual-zoned parcels of land occasionally exist where a major zone (such as TRZ2 – Transport Zone 2) overlaps with a minor zone (such as NRZ5 – Neighbourhood Residential Zone). This is the case with my mothers property at 7 Cullen Court Spotswood. While often treated as a “minor” designation on paper, NRZ5 plays a vital legal and planning role in safeguarding the quiet residential character of neighbourhoods — and its disregard in favour of TRZ2 logic creates a predictable but deeply flawed outcome:

“Councils default to TRZ2 logic — even when the land is privately owned and clearly residential in nature.”

This article explores why I think that happens, what it reveals about planning scheme design, and how it creates a dangerous regulatory vacuum for landowners stuck under misapplied public-purpose zones.

1. The TRZ2 Mental Shortcut

TRZ2 is designed for government-owned transport corridors. It conjures assumptions of arterial roads, freeway interfaces, or VicTrack logistics areas. So when planners or compliance officers see TRZ2 on a parcel, their brain reflexively says:

“This land belongs to the Department of Transport — we can’t touch it.”

Even when NRZ5 or another residential zoning applies in part, TRZ2 dominates the cognitive and procedural mindset because of its “public use” aura. The default assumption becomes: government land, Department of Transport rules, Department of Transport's problem.

2. Planning Software Reinforces the Bias

Council use systems like SPEAR, VicPlan, and internal GIS dashboards are configured to prioritise zones hierarchically. They often treat the “stricter” or “more specialised” zone as determinative. This means:

Permit triggers are derived from TRZ2, not NRZ5.
Delegation pathways are blocked because TRZ2 isn’t a delegated zone.
The parcel is viewed as off-limits — even when privately owned and rate-paying like my mothers TRZ2 zoned property.

This creates a situation where councils defer responsibility rather than risk breaching perceived Department of Transport jurisdiction.

3. No Policy Guidance on Dual-Zone Reconciliation

Crucially, the Victorian Planning Provisions (VPP) and Ministerial Directions contain no clear rules for how councils should interpret dual-zone parcels where one is a public-purpose zone and the other is residential.

In the absence of statutory guidance, councils fall back on risk-aversion. This means:

They refuse to accept planning applications, citing TRZ2 conflict.
They decline compliance oversight, saying it's not their remit.
They treat private landowners as “outside” the system, even if the zoning was applied in error.

4. The TRZ2 Vacuum Becomes a Compliance Null Zone

The result? A landowner finds themselves in a surreal position - the position I am in:

They own the land freehold.
They pay rates to council.
They operate within the transport-related purpose of the TRZ2 zone.
Yet no authority claims responsibility for oversight, assistance, or regulation. See here

This null zone creates a structural fault in governance — one that is not just bureaucratically awkward, but legally and ethically indefensible.

5. Why the Default to TRZ2 Thinking is Dangerous

Here’s what makes the default to TRZ2 thinking such a governance risk:

Consequence	Description
Regulatory Vacuum	No agency takes responsibility for compliance oversight.
Denied Services	Planning permits, inspections, or drainage fixes may be refused due to zoning confusion.
Land Use Paralysis	Landowners are discouraged from activating or improving land for fear of triggering enforcement from agencies that deny jurisdiction.
Public Risk	Blocked drains, overhanging trees, or unsafe roadside interfaces go unresolved because nobody is “officially” accountable. In the case of 7 Cullen Court Spotswood I have had to step in to implement governance myself. Without me stepping in and taking ownership, responsibility and accountability the land would be completely ungoverned. Imagine how bad the situation could be if I was irresponsible, reckless and unaccountable.

6. A Call for Zoning Hierarchy Reform

If TRZ2 zoning is applied to private land — especially where another zone like NRZ5 also exists — the planning system must implement a formal override protocol:

Require councils to treat private land with mixed zones as governed by the non-public zone unless the Department of Transport proves ownership, active use or interest.
Mandate a responsible authority declaration on all dual-zoned properties, so that compliance and support are guaranteed.
Audit all privately owned TRZ2 land statewide to identify ultra vires overlays resulting from past planning errors.

Planning logic must follow title logic. The land is either public — or it isn’t. And if it isn’t, TRZ2 must never supersede residential or mixed-use logic by default.

Conclusion

The default to TRZ2 thinking isn’t just a clerical quirk — it’s a symptom of systemic inertia. It punishes landowners. It creates grey zones where safety, use, and investment fall between the cracks.

If Victoria’s planning system wants to maintain integrity, it must acknowledge the zoning contradictions it created — and the everyday damage those defaults cause.

“Fix the zone — or fix the system that treats a private landowner like a trespasser on their own land.”