Author: Clarke Towson, CEO INTJ Billing / Spotswood Trailers
Date: 28 July 2025
Imagine if, instead of lawfully activating the site on 18 April 2025 under Section 6(3) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, I had taken the “safe", traditional route of applying to Council for a permit.
Let’s say I walked into Hobsons Bay Council and submitted a planning application for:
The likely outcome? Rejection.
The planning officer opens VicPlan, sees TRZ2, and pauses:
“This is Transport Zone 2 — you’ll need VicRoads approval.”
“Your land appears to be part of the Principal Road Network.”
“We’ll need to refer this to the Department of Transport.”
Suddenly:
Even though the land transferred into private hands in 1978 via Instrument H323270, the associated gazette notice would likely have been overlooked.
This isn’t a criticism of Council. The TRZ2 zoning situation on privately owned land is extremely unusual — it would have taken a very rare flash of deep insight for the council officer to check the 1978 Executive Council record, understand how the land left Crown ownership, and fully grasp the implications of that.
I’m a Computer Scientist who spent over 21 years at DST Group, working alongside some of Australia’s best and brightest scientists, engineers, mathematicians, and managers. I think deeply and laterally and when I really thought about it and then applied my scientific training I looked into the matter very closely and I found the 1978 gazette notice.
Even if a Council officer had uncovered the 1978 gazette notice, I strongly suspect they still would’ve deferred to the zoning — treating TRZ2 as gospel. Which due to my work we all know now it's not gospel.
Zoning does not override land title, but planners rarely audit titles as rigorously as I did because in my case it's personal - it's my elderly mothers land. Land purchased by my very hard working late father who before his death asked me to look after my mother. The promise I made to him means more to me than any bureaucratic process ever could. The bottom line is I would’ve been punished for trusting the process.
| Step | Outcome |
|---|---|
| Planning application submitted | Flagged as “TRZ2” use |
| Referral to Department of Transport | Delay, confusion, no recognition of title anomaly |
| Title proof submitted | Ignored or misunderstood |
| Refusal issued | “Inconsistent with zone purpose” or refusal due to lack of jurisdiction |
| VCAT appeal required | 6–9 months wait |
| In the meantime | No activation, no community-minded business, no lawful use rights |
All the while... the clock ticks.
Had I waited, I would have lost the window to trigger Section 6(3) existing use rights. I'd be stuck in a legal maze — seeking permission from authorities who never had jurisdiction in the first place due to the zoning being ultra vires. Any permit refusal issued under such a zoning would itself be legally void.
Everything on-site aligns with a transport purpose: stainless steel retractable bollards, chains, locks, trailers, cameras — even the Gorilla garden carts full of native flowers are on wheels.
Only then did I go public — with proof, not promises.
Some planning officers may wrongly see me as a permit dodger. But that couldn’t be further from the truth.
While my activation of the TRZ2-zoned site at 7 Cullen Court lawfully proceeded under Section 6(3) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, the boundary of the property transitions directly into land zoned NRZ5 — the Neighbourhood Residential Zone.
Unlike TRZ2, which I have proved without a shred of doubt is ultra vires - see here and here in this context and did not trigger any permit requirement, the NRZ5 zoned main house block carries different statutory obligations. I will be formally applying for a planning permit to install a continuation of the stainless steel bollard infrastructure on the NRZ5-zoned portion of the land.
This decision is made:
The proposed works are minor, in keeping with existing use, and visually consistent with the already installed TRZ2 infrastructure. Applying for this permit will also make clear the planning contrast between:
Some of you may think of me as "the weird bollard guy at 7 Cullen Court". I get it. I understand. A lot of people do think i'm weird and i'm the last person who would have believed five years ago that I would be running a trailer yard today. But this move is not just about bollards — it’s about drawing a clear legal and procedural line between two fundamentally different zones, and continuing to document this case study for planners, lawyers, and future landowners.
If you rely on bureaucracy to validate your rights, you might wait forever.
If you rely on the law — and document every step — you might just find, as I did, that you don’t need permission.
That’s what they didn’t expect. And it’s why Spotswood Trailers is open.
This situation at 7 Cullen Court was never meant to be adversarial. It became significant because an unusual zoning designation collided with a privately owned parcel of land — and no one caught it until I did. That’s not a scandal. It’s a system-level oversight. And systems can be improved.
Planning officers must be empowered and encouraged to audit land title instruments and historical gazette notices before relying solely on zoning overlays. Zoning is a policy tool — title is a legal fact. The 1978 Executive Council transfer moved my mother's land out of Crown hands and that must take precedence.
Not all TRZ2 land is equal. Most is owned by VicRoads or the Crown. Some, like my mothers, is freehold private land with no legal basis for reservation. Future zoning amendments — or internal systems like VicPlan — should include visual or metadata markers distinguishing public versus private TRZ2 parcels.
Existing use rights under Section 6(3) are lawful, deliberate, and designed to protect property owners from zoning errors or inertia. When properly documented — as I have done — such activation is not gaming the system. It's operating within it.
I’m not a developer(at least not yet). I’m not backed by legal firms or corporations (not yet). I’m a son looking after his mother and fulfilling a promise to my late father. Processes that can crush someone like me — even when they are right — are processes in need of reform. Every Council officer benefits from working in a system that earns trust, not suspicion.
If I had submitted a permit application and been met with curiosity rather than rigidity, this would have been a quiet collaboration. Instead, the only path left open to me was the lawful (but likely annoying to Council) one that the system almost forgot: activation first, paperwork later.
None of this has to be a fight. I’m not looking for conflict. I’m looking for clarity, respect for title, and a better process for everyone who comes after me. If my story helps catalyse that inside Council — then I’d consider it one of the most meaningful projects I’ve ever undertaken.