In what is shaping up as a major green battle, property owners determined to stop the new restrictions – such as requiring a permit to clear native vegetation and fencing off some waterways – have taken on Nillumbik Council.

On Monday, Kangaroo Grounds resident Max Parsons lodged a challenge in the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal demanding a decision by Nillumbik be reversed.

The council had voted against introducing the laws requiring some property owners to get planning permits or complete ecological studies if they wanted to make changes to their properties.

But the council overturned its original rejection of the rules, and now wants Planning Minister Richard Wynne to sign them into law.

Hundreds of residents were expected at a council meeting on Tuesday to debate a second tranche of environmental laws Nillumbik plans to bring in.

The proposed changes, Mr Parsons said on Tuesday, were being rammed through by a handful of "deep green" true believers.

"It's a small minority of rabid greenies that believe in this green faith of what they are doing, not the facts," Mr Parsons said. "They put their faith in this utopia that they believe nature can thrive in. But it's thriving right now."

Mr Parsons said it was inevitable that, as a result of the laws being passed, the council would "start imposing conditions and require permits we didn't need before" and that farming land in the area would be devalued.

But the council argues it has had environmental overlays in place over much of Nillumbik's rural areas for 16 years, and that the new laws affect only about 1500 extra properties.

A spokeswoman for the council said the changes would better manage any potential impact on the area's landscape by getting property owners to obtain a planning permit where there was a possibility for environmental damage. And she said the rules would apply only to new buildings and works of a larger scale that may have a serious impact on the environment.

The council says that more than 5000 properties in Nillumbik already have an environmental overlay and it had not harmed land values. Under the laws, around 6600 homes in the area would need to comply.

Among those supporting the laws is David Nicholls, who is part of a Hurstbridge Landcare group.

He said people opposed to the laws just wanted to be able to do whatever they wanted to the land regardless of how it affected others.

"Properties out here sell on the basis of the landscape, so what we are doing is trying to protect the landscape – so it's a bit of a contradiction to say that the land values will fall," Mr Nicholls said.

He said many people in the area had previously felt they could clear bush blocks without getting permission, graze horses in bushland with high habitat value or build their house on top of the highest hill.

"People want to site houses on top of hills to get the best views but then they destroy the views for others," he said.