Mt Elephant Quarrying
VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT LIST
VCAT reference No. P2520/2009
Permit Application no. P2009/026
Application under section 82 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987; Corangamite Planning Scheme; Farming Zone; Proposal for extractive industry (quarrying of scoria) at base of Mount Elephant; Mount Elephant of geological and cultural significance; Policy support for ecotourism at Mount Elephant; Visual impact of quarry upon Mount Elephant unacceptable.
APPLICANT Ms L Sarto and Others
RESPONSIBLE AUTHORITY Corangamite Shire Council
RESPONDENT PERMIT APPPLICANT J G and R M Maconochie
SUBJECT LAND 1275 Hamilton Highway, Derrinallum
WHERE HELD Warrnambool Magistrate’s Court
BEFORE Rachel Naylor, Presiding Member
Ian Potts, Member
HEARING TYPE Hearing
DATE OF HEARING 3 March 2010
DATE OF ORDER 8 April 2010
1 The decision of the Responsible Authority is set aside.
2 In permit application P2009/026, no permit is granted.
Rachel Naylor Presiding Member
Ian Potts Member
For Applicant Ms L Sarto
For Responsible Authority Ms M Grainger, Manager Statutory Planning and Building Services
For Department of Primary Industries Ms S Hill, Town Planner and
Mr G McLaughlan, Manager Minerals and Extractive Operations (Southwest District)
For Respondent Permit Applicant Mr C Fadgyas, Planning Consultant of Fadgyas Planning Associates P/L
The site forms part of a farm that borders the north and west slopes of Mount Elephant, approximately 2kms west of Derrinallum township. It is largely cleared grazing land that slopes towards the Hamilton Highway to the north.
The site of the proposed quarry is on the western foot slope of Mount Elephant and comprises approximately 6 of the 130 hectares associated with the farm.
Description of Proposal
To quarry scoria in an area of 6 hectares, in two stages to a depth of approximately 15 metres.
The target scoria is the red and black types that are used for road base construction, light concrete, rural roads and laneways, decorative purposes and garden materials.
The resource estimate for the quarry is 562,500 cubic metres with an estimated lifespan of 25 years based on a projected annual production rate of 22,500 cubic metres.
Nature of Application
Section 82 Planning and Environment Act 1987.
Zone and Overlays
Farming Zone Schedule 1 (FZ1).
No overlay controls affect the site.
Reasons Permit Required
Clause 35.07-1 To use land for the purpose of mineral, stone or soil extraction (which includes extractive industry) in FZ1
Clause 52.29 To create access to a road in a Road Zone Category 1 (Hamilton Highway)
There was no objection to Ms Sarto’s request to amend her grounds of review, so we granted leave.
During the hearing, Mr Fadgyas sought leave to amend the application to include the creation of a new access point onto Hamilton Highway, rather than using Mount Elephant Road to access the proposed quarry. There was no objection by Council or the Department of Primary Industries to this change. Ms Sarto questioned the impact of the access road visually to the neighbours and to Mount Elephant but had no objection to the amendment from a procedural basis. We were provided with correspondence from VicRoads agreeing to the access point subject to appropriate permit conditions. Accordingly, we granted leave for this amendment to the application.
Cases referred to
Clay v Corangamite SC  VCAT 799 (‘the Clay case’).
Nature of Application
1 This is an application by Ms Sarto and others to review the decision of Corangamite Shire Council ('the Council') to grant a permit for the quarrying of scoria (extractive industry) on the west side of Mount Elephant, on land that forms part of an existing farm at 1275 Hamilton Highway, Derrinallum.
2 The planning application was advertised by the Council and eight objections were received. The objections generally expressed concern about the impact on Mount Elephant, which is affected by a Significant Landscape Overlay (Schedule 1) and is part of the recently declared Kanawinka Global Geopark (UNESCO 2008). A consultative meeting was held where the issues of concern were discussed, including the use of Mount Elephant Road for access. As a result, the applicant submitted an amended site plan showing a new access point directly off the Hamilton Highway.
3 The Council considered the application at a meeting in August 2009 and resolved to issue a Notice of Decision to Grant a Permit subject to conditions, including access being via Hamilton Highway rather than Mount Elephant Road.
4 Ms Sarto and the other objectors do not believe that a new quarry on Mount Elephant should be allowed given Mount Elephant’s national and international geological significance. Ms Sarto explained their three key concerns with the proposal at be:
i The overstated economic benefit of the proposed quarry;
ii The need to maintain the geological integrity of Mount Elephant, which would be significantly impacted upon through the removal of the apron of the Mount; and
iii The significant negative impact on the visual experience for visitors to the Mount now and for future generations.
Reasons for Our Decision
The Significance of Mount Elephant
5 Mount Elephant is a site of national significance and is listed on the Register of the National Estate. It is part of the Kanawinka Global Geopark, which in turn is part of the Global Network of National Geoparks  which UNESCO  is assisting in establishing around the world.
6 Ms Sarto submitted there are 57 parks worldwide and only one in Australia, the Kanawinka Global Geopark . This park spans across south-east South Australia and south-west Victoria, over an area of lava plains, volcanic hills and lakes known as the Newer Volcanics Provence.
7 Mount Elephant is one of many volcanoes across Victoria’s southwest. It is distinguished by its height, central location and the characteristic shape after which it is named. It is a steep, isolated, conical scoria cone rising almost 200 metres above the flat surface of the surrounding lava plain. Its rim has been breached on the northeast side creating an opening to the crater. It is described in a reference document to the Significant Landscape Overlay that affects Mount Elephant as:
The upper slopes, rim and crater and the southern flanks of the volcano are intact but huge, crudely cut quarries scar the entire western perimeter of the volcano. This rivals the worst examples of disfigurement of a major and significant volcanic structure of the Newer Volcanics Provence. Coupled with the crude use of part of the site as a rubbish tip it provides a challenging maintenance and management issue.
A combination of slope grading, backfilling and appropriate plantings are required. Further scoria extraction from the steeper slopes will continue to degrade this site. The summit provides an excellent panorama of the basalt plains and other eruption points as well as a rare view of a crater not associated with a phreatomagmatic eruption.
Mount Elephant is one of the most obvious volcanoes in Australia. It has conical form, steep sides, a crater and clear examples of volcanic ejector are displayed in the quarries. It is the best example of a breached scoria cone in Victoria and possibly in Australia. This is also a major megacryst/zenolith site.
Increasingly, the eruption points and associated volcanic features are being degraded by human activity. In many cases quarrying, agricultural activities and urbanisation have significantly altered or even obliterated features .
8 Given the above, we accept that Mt Elephant is a significant geological feature as well as a significant landscape feature not only for this locality but for the State of Victoria. It has value in supporting tourism. We note the purpose of the Geopark includes supporting geotourism, like other notable geological features such as glaciers, waterfalls or coastlines. It also has value as an educational and scientific feature that is of national and international significance.
9 Mr Fadgyas’ submission responded directly to each of the grounds for review lodged by Ms Sarto and the other objectors. Some of these grounds related to the consultation and mediation that occurred during the application process; the technical merits; as well as claims about inconsistencies with the proposed work plan and misleading or inaccurate photomontages provided by the applicant.
10 We are satisfied that the processing of the application took place in accordance with the Planning and Environment Act 1987. The level of consultation and mediation is a matter to be determined on a case by case basis by the Council and is not sufficient reason to refuse this proposal. The Department of Primary Industries has explained its views on the proposed work plan, which it is acknowledged will need to be updated if a permit is granted given there have been some changes (such as the change to the access point so it is off Hamilton Highway).
11 In our view, the more substantial merits issues that require our consideration are:
· The planning policy support, or lack thereof, for extractive industry/quarrying of scoria on this site;
The economic benefit to the community; and
· The visual impact of the proposed quarry to the landscape, most particularly to Mt Elephant.
The Planning Policy Framework
12 Mr Fadgyas submitted that the relevant planning policies in the Planning Scheme include the Introduction, Noise Abatement, Agriculture and Extractive Industry in the State planning policies, together with the Vision, Strategic Framework Plan and local planning policy relating to Derrinallum in the Municipal Strategic Statement (‘the MSS’).
13 We note the Extractive Industry State planning policy seeks to protect stone resources accessible to major markets and to provide a consistent planning approval process for extraction in accordance with acceptable environment standards.
14 We agree with the Council’s submission that there are additional State planning policies of relevance to the consideration of the merits of this case, being:
· To contribute to the conservation of resources and cultural heritage, including preventing environmental problems created by siting incompatible land uses close together;
· To protect areas and sites with significant historic, aesthetic, scientific and cultural values ;
· To assist in the conservation and wise use of natural resources to support both environmental quality and sustainable development over the long term through judicious decisions on the location, pattern and timing of development ;
· To contribute to the economic well being of communities and the State as a whole by supporting and fostering economic growth and development by providing land, facilitating decisions, and resolving land use conflicts so that each district may build on its strengths and achieve its economic potential ;
· To assist the conservation of places that have natural, environmental, aesthetic, historic, cultural, scientific or social significance or other special value important for scientific and research purposes, as a means of understanding our past as well as maintaining and enhancing Victoria’s image and making a contribution to the economic and cultural growth of the State ;
15 Whilst the State Planning Policy Framework provides a specific objective to identify and protect stone resources (extractive industry), we find it also has significant policy support for the protection and conservation of cultural heritage, which includes areas and sites of historic, aesthetic, scientific and cultural values or significance. In our view, this includes Mount Elephant. Thus while the quarry lies outside the Significant Landscape Overlay, this does not negate the need for a proper and balanced evaluation of the impact that the quarry might have on the values that are clearly applicable to this geological feature.
16 Mr Fadgyas highlighted the vision in the MSS includes sustainable development based on, amongst other factors, productive agricultural, forestry and mining activities and protection of rural resources. He pointed out the Strategic Framework Plan (associated with the vision) makes reference to the municipality’s “rich natural resource profile”. It appears to us that this is the only specific reference in the MSS to mining activities.
17 For reasons we set out below, we find the MSS has a much more significant focus upon protecting and enhancing areas of natural and cultural heritage and encouraging quality tourism development based on the environmental and cultural qualities of the Shire . In the Municipal Profile at the start of the MSS recognition is given to the rich cultural heritage of the Shire that comprises both natural and built items and places. Mount Elephant Reserve is identified as a significant cultural heritage place and that it, amongst other places and sites, is a significant part of the attraction of the area as a place in which to live, visit, do business and invest. Indeed, tourism is identified as forming a significant and growing part of the Shire’s economic base .
18 One of the key issues for future development within the municipality that has been identified in the MSS is “environmental issues”, including protecting sensitive, volcanic landscapes. Another key issue is tourism, which is encouraged whilst at the same time protecting the resources upon which it is based. The Strategic Framework Plan, in addition to referencing the municipality’s rich natural resource profile, identifies one major strategic issue as the need to protect volcanic landscapes and lake areas in the central and northern areas of the Shire.
19 Mount Elephant is recognised as forming an impressive backdrop to Derrinallum and the MSS contains an objective to increase employment opportunities through the development of ecotourism based around Mount Elephant and surrounding wetlands and lakes. We note there is an implementation strategy to apply a heritage overlay to areas listed in the National Trust Register and the National Estate Register .
20 We find the importance of Mount Elephant is further strengthened in Clause 21.04-2 of the MSS concerning the environment, and specifically the landscape. The overview states in part:
The Shire contains areas of the highest visual quality – a factor which will ultimately favour its promotion for tourism and recreational use. Variation in topography and vegetation, multiple visual foci such as lake areas, volcanic cones, strongly defined plantings and walls along cleared pasture increase the visual quality of the area. An implication of the visual quality of rural and natural areas will be ongoing pressure for the construction of dwellings and other developments to take advantage of exceptional views.
One of the principal activities of tourists visiting the Shire is scenic drives between town centres and along the Great Ocean Road. The scenic qualities of these routes will need to be maintained if commercial tourism benefits are to be obtained. Interpretation of the visual quality of the landscape will increasingly become a feature of the Shire’s tourism industry.
21 The distinctive volcanic cultural landscapes located throughout the Shire are recognised as contributing to the richness of the built heritage and cultural landscapes. It is an objective to protect places of cultural significance and support the conservation of those localities threatened by development or neglect .
22 The Environment local planning policy contains a section on natural and cultural heritage that applies to areas affected by a Heritage Overlay, which we note is not the case here as yet. However, Ms Grainger highlighted that this policy again recognises the importance of significant landscape protection, as such attributes are highly valued by the community.
23 We agree with Mr Fadgyas that Clause 11.01 of the State Planning Policy Framework requires a balancing when there are conflicting objectives in favour of net community benefit and sustainable development having regard to the full range of relevant policies in the Planning Scheme. Our assessment of the relevant State and local planning policies leads us to the conclusion that there is significant planning policy support. There is specific local policy for the protection of Mount Elephant as a culturally significant landscape. It is clearly intended to form the basis of increased eco-tourism opportunities for the Shire and specifically for the township of Derrinallum in the future. Broader policy at the State and local levels seeks to conserve and promote significant cultural and natural features within Victoria. These broader policies, when combined with the values of Mt Elephants we have set out earlier, serve to strengthen and supports the specific local policies. In light of this, we are not persuaded that approving land uses or development, such as quarrying, that would adversely affect the integrity of Mt Elephant’s various values is supported by planning policy. This includes quarrying at the base and foreground apron areas of Mount Elephant that currently lie outside the SLO but clearly contribute to its values.
The Economic Benefit to the Community
24 Mr Fadgyas submitted whether or not the quarry creates one additional full or part time position as opposed to three or four positions is neither here nor there as any additional employment in the Derrinallum area will provide an economic benefit. He submitted there will be employment for truck drivers and the usual downstream multiplier effects for the local economy. Mr Fadgyas also submits that the supply of scoria from this locality will address a gap in the supply for the local area and to the southern region.
25 Ms Sarto submitted scoria is a readily available material within the Shire and relied upon the finding of the Tribunal in the Clay case:
On balance we consider the benefits of removing this scoria – such as employment, increased supply, and increased competition – are outweighed by the disadvantages caused by allowing further extraction within the Mt Leura maar, which we find to be a significant landscape with an underlying geological importance. In our view the integrity of the maar should not be further eroded .
26 Mr McLaughlan explained the Department of Primary Industry (‘DPI’) does not consider the need for the material (scoria) in determining whether to support a proposed work plan for extractive industry. Hence, the need and the economic imperative for the material is a matter that is not considered by DPI, but must be considered as part of this planning application.
27 Mr McLaughlan acknowledged that there are some other quarries in the broader area that already provide scoria including Skipton, Mount Shadwell, Mortlake, Clifford Exa in Terang, and Mount Leura in Camperdown. Mr Fadgyas submitted the other quarries are at least 60 kilometres away and every kilometre adds to the cost of the material, hence this proposal “will create a hole to fill a market”.
28 The submissions of the parties demonstrate that there are other resources of scoria available in the broader area. Whilst we acknowledge that distance does add to the cost of the material, we are not persuaded that the economic benefits associated with the quarry outweigh the benefits to be achieved in the future through the creation of further eco-tourism opportunities utilising Mount Elephant. Nor are we persuaded that the economic benefits outlined by Mr Fadgyas overcome the clear scientific, educational and cultural values that are recognised for this volcano.
The Visual Impact upon Mount Elephant
29 We have inspected the site of the proposed quarry, viewed the adjacent Council quarry and rubbish tip, and have climbed Mount Elephant to the trig point and experienced the view of the existing landscape incorporating the Council quarry and rubbish tip from this point. We find the Council’s conduct as a land owner to be disturbingly at odds with the strength of its planning policies in the Planning Scheme that recognise the value of this site. It appears to us little has been done to rehabilitate the Council quarry; and the continued use of part of the land as a refuse transfer/rubbish tip is at odds with the policy objectives to protect and enhance Mount Elephant as a culturally significant landscape.
30 The Council and the applicant were both quick to point out that the Significant Landscape Overlay that affects Mount Elephant does not affect the apron and surrounding rural land (including the site of this proposed quarry). The Significant Landscape Overlay currently applies only to that area of the steeper slopes of the cone and vent, which Mr Fagyas and the Council submit are the significant features of Mount Elephant.
31 Ms Sarto advised us, and Ms Grainger acknowledged subsequently, that the Council is intending to review the extent of the Significant Landscape Overlays over features such as Mount Elephant and we endorse this action. If the policy intent is to protect and enhance such features within the landscape, our view is that the extent of protection needs to extend beyond the feature itself.
32 The Council submitted the proposal does not create a new hole or remove a significant landscape feature, but rather seeks to extend an existing quarry pit onto the adjoining freehold farming land. The Council stated the quarry is of a relatively small size at 6 hectares and views of the quarry operation will be distant views where the impact of the existing scarring from the Council’s former quarry will be more significant than any new activity on the adjoining freehold farming land. The Council also submitted that permit conditions requiring topsoil bund walls and screening vegetation will further reduce and screen the visual impacts of any day to day activity on the site.
33 Ms Sarto acknowledged the long distance views from the Hamilton Highway may be able to be addressed but stated the same could not be said of the view from the trig point. Mr Fadgyas suggested this could be addressed by planting a hedge on Mount Elephant, below the trig, to prevent views down to the quarrying area.
34 We find the proposed quarry will create a new and significant pit at a depth in the order of 15 metres. It will significantly change the landscape, including the lower slopes (apron) surrounding the northwest side of Mount Elephant in a number of ways. It will be visible from the trig point and the planting of vegetation on Mount Elephant would diminish, in our opinion, the significance of the Mount’s form and height, and historic and geological value. Put simply, a line of screening vegetation would not enhance the values of Mount Elephant and look at odds with the surrounding landscape. Further, given the condition of the steeper slopes, we are not convinced of the feasibility of planting or maintaining such vegetation.
35 We find that the proposed landscaping on the lower slopes to screen the pit from Hamilton Highway views would also seem at odds with the more open landscape surrounding the site.
36 The Council and the applicant emphasised the benefits to be gained through the rehabilitation program, pointing out the requirement in the work plan for indigenous species to be used in the rehabilitation is appropriate to the site’s ecological vegetation class (‘EVC’).
37 Ms Grainger advised us at the end of the hearing that the area surrounding Mount Elephant is either EVC894 scoria cone woodland or EVC203 stony rises woodland. We have reviewed the description of both of these EVCs and note that neither contains much canopy vegetation.
38 Given the current landscape context and our findings about the EVCs, we conclude that the incorporation of screening trees during the life of the quarry, and the intention to plant out parts of the rehabilitated topography is not appropriate to the site.
39 Mr McLaughlan advised DPI has considered the feasibility of the proposed rehabilitation in terms of the outcome of returning the land to a level that will enable its use for farming, and the availability of material necessary to backfill the quarrying as parts of it are finished. He could not say that there was sufficient material available on site to achieve the rehabilitation necessary, and stated if there was insufficient material, more material would need to be brought into the site. It appears to us that any backfilling rehabilitation could be a very long and expensive process.
40 For the reasons we have already explained, we find that the proposed quarry will have an impact upon the visual significance of the Mount, both from the surrounding area and from the trig point. Mr Fadgyas submitted, and we agree, that there are other views to and from Mount Elephant than the ones we have already mentioned. However, in our opinion, the viewing points we have mentioned are significant. The impact of the proposed quarrying activities will have a detrimental visual impact upon these viewing points.
The Impact to the Interpretive Integrity of Mount Elephant
41 From the trig point, the undulating topography of the land sloping down from the apron of Mount Elephant is clearly evident. There are essentially long ridge lines, sometimes described as stony rises, that indicate the movement of lava flows through the area when Mount Elephant was active. Part of this fabric will be lost through the proposed quarrying, and it will not be regained through the proposed rehabilitation. We agree with Ms Sarto that the geological integrity of the Mount will be further compromised by any additional quarrying on the apron of Mount Elephant and altering the topology forever.
42 Mr Fadgyas submitted Mount Elephant is restricted to visitors with, at present, opportunities to climb Mount Elephant limited to one Sunday afternoon per month. Such submission suggests that the interpretive value of the site is limited.
43 We do not accept such a submission.
44 It was clear to us during our inspection that significant improvement works have been undertaken by the community group involved in the maintenance and management of Mount Elephant, and we can appreciate why access at this time is restricted to appropriate times when there can be supervision in place.
45 Such a submission also fails to recognise the wider scientific and educational interpretive values of the Mount that we have set out earlier. Further, we have found the Local Planning Policy Framework to be quite clear about the intention of the Council and the community to enhance Mount Elephant as a tourist destination. This is not going to happen overnight, but with increased protection through the policies and controls of the Planning Scheme in combination with the increasing recognition both at State, National and international level, we find it is appropriate to give proper opportunity for tourism activities to evolve along with the ongoing rehabilitation of the site. We agree with Ms Sarto that what is important to achieve these opportunities is to ensure that the integrity of Mount Elephant is protected both now and for future generations.
46 It follows that we find the proposed quarry is not an appropriate land use on the apron of Mount Elephant.
Cultural Heritage Matters
47 Whilst we could conclude our decision at this point, there is one final matter that we wish to comment on. These comments do not form part of the reasons for our refusal of the proposal, but we feel compelled to provide these comments in an effort to assist the parties and Aboriginal Affairs Victoria in the Department of Planning and Community Development in the future consideration of aboriginal heritage issues associated with volcanic cones such as Mount Elephant.
48 Division 2 of Part 4 of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 sets out when a Cultural Heritage Management Plan (CHMP) is required. This includes circumstances set out under the associated regulations. Regulation 6 requires a CHMP when an activity occurs partly or wholly within a culturally sensitive area, and that activity is a high impact activity. Proposed quarrying is a high impact activity.
49 At the commencement of the hearing, we questioned the Council as to their satisfaction that a Cultural Heritage Management Plan was not required for the site given the nature of this quarrying, being one that would qualify as a high impact activity . The Council’s response was that the proposed quarry site was located outside the area of cultural heritage sensitivity and therefore a CHMP was not required.
50 Mr Fadgyas drew our attention to the applicant’s assessment for a CHMP via the Aboriginal Affairs Victoria website. This assessment essentially reflects the same position as the Council, noting that while the activity is high impact and will involve significant ground disturbance (as defined under the regulations), the activity will not occur in areas of cultural sensitivity that have not been previously subject to significant ground disturbance.
51 We accept that this self evaluation process has indicated that a CHMP is not required. However we are disturbed by this outcome for the following reasons.
52 Regulation 34 sets out that volcanic cones of western Victoria are areas of cultural heritage sensitivity. The regulations define such areas as being those identified as “Qvs” on a series of 1:250,000 scale geological map series across Victoria. “Qvs” on those maps indicates areas of Newer Volcanic scoria deposits, i.e. the scoria associated with volcanic cones in western Victoria.
53 Mr Fadgyas provided plans from the Department of Primary Industry and Aboriginal Affairs Victoria which outlined the area of aboriginal cultural sensitivity coinciding with the area of “Qvs” as marked on the Ballarat 1:250,000 geological map referenced in the regulations.
54 What we find disquieting is that this application we have been called to decide on demonstrates that the area of scoria, i.e. ‘Qvs” as relied on to define the extent of the cone, actually extends beyond that shown on the relevant Ballarat 1:250,000 map. Further, Ms Sarto has furnished a 1905 geological map wish indicates that the scoria deposit extends much further west (beyond Mt Elephant Road) than that shown on the 1:250,000 map.
55 It is clear to us that the extent of scoria, used to define the extent of a cone and hence the area of aboriginal cultural sensitivity, extends beyond that currently indicated on the Ballarat 1:250,000 map. Potentially this presents an outcome which, while compliant with the regulations, ultimately may not be achieving the purposes of the Aboriginal Heritage Act.
56 While we do not rely on these observations in arriving at our decision, we nevertheless wish to draw attention to this problem, as it could arise in similar circumstances in south-west Victoria.
57 Mount Elephant is a significant cultural landscape with important scientific values, which the Planning Scheme is seeking to protect and enhance. We find a proposed quarry on the apron of Mount Elephant is not an appropriate land use. The economic benefits to be gained from the quarrying are not sufficient to warrant the grant of a permit when balanced against the imperatives for the long term protection and enhancement of this particular landscape feature with underlying geological significance that is recognised both nationally and internationally. For these reasons, no permit should be granted for the proposed quarry. Accordingly we will set aside the Responsible Authority’s decision and direct that no permit be granted.
Rachel Naylor Presiding Member
Ian Potts Member
 A Geopark is a nationally protected area containing a number of geological heritage sites of particular importance, rarity or aesthetic appeal. These Earth heritage sites are part of an integrated concept of protection, education and sustainable development. A Geopark achieves its goals through a three-pronged approach: conservation, education and geotourism. Source: UNESCO Website accessed 6 April 2010.
 United Nations Education Scientific and Cultural Organisation.
 Strictly, the Kanawinka Geopark was the 57th to be registered with UNESCO. As at August 2009 64 Geopoarks were registered as members of the Geopark network. Source:UNESCO Website accessed 6 April 2010.
 Rosengren, N.J., 1994. Eruption points of the newer volcanics province of Victoria: an inventory and evaluation scientific significance. A report commissioned by National Trust Victoria and Geological Society of Australia, Victorian Division.
 Clause 11.03-2 Environment
 Clause 11.03-3 Management of Resources
 Clause 11.03-5 Economic Well Being
 Clause 15.11 Heritage
 To other factors mentioned in the vision at cl 21.03 of the MSS
 Refer to cl 21.01 Municipal Profile
 Refer to page 9 of cl 21.04
 Refer to pages 34-35 of cl 21.04
 Paragraph 36 in the conclusion of the Clay case
 Under regulation 48 of the Aboriginal Heritage Regulations 2007.