Planning and Environment Act 1987
ALPINE RESORTS PLANNING SCHEME
AMENDMENT C17
PLANNING PERMIT APPLICATION: 2005/0337
MT HOTHAM VILLAGE
Report of a Panel
Pursuant to Sections 97E, 153 and 155 of the Act
Panel:
Kathryn Mitchell, Chair
Des Grogan
Chris Harty
September 2006
Alpine Resorts Planning Scheme: Amendment C17 Planning Permit Application No. 2005/0337 Report of the Panel: September 2006
ALPINE RESORTS PLANNING SCHEME
AMENDMENT C17
PLANNING PERMIT APPLICATION: 2005/0337
MOUNT HOTHAM VILLAGE
Report of a Panel
Pursuant to Sections 97E, 153 and 155 of the Act
Kathryn Mitchell, Chair
Des Grogan, Member
Chris Harty, Member
September 2006
Page 2 Alpine Resorts Planning Scheme: Amendment C17 Planning Permit Application No. 2005/0337 Report of the Panel: September 2006
TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE NO.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...... 5
1. BACKGROUND ...... 8 1.1 INTRODUCTION ...... 8 1.2 WHAT IS PROPOSED?...... 8 1.3 EXHIBITION AND SUBMISSIONS ...... 13 1.4 PANEL APPROACH ...... 14 1.5 SUMMARY OF KEY ISSUES...... 16
2. BACKGROUND TO THE AMENDMENT ...... 17 2.1 SITE CONTEXT ...... 17 2.2 HISTORY OF THE AMENDMENT...... 19
3. PLANNING FRAMEWORK...... 20 3.1 STATE PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK ...... 20 3.2 LOCAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK ...... 23 3.3 ZONES AND OVERLAYS ...... 26 3.4 ALPINE RESORTS 2020 STRATEGY...... 27
4. STRATEGIC ASSESSMENT OF THE AMENDMENT ...... 28 4.1 STRATEGIC ASSESSMENT ...... 28 4.2 FORM OF PLANNING CONTROL ...... 31 4.3 OTHER ISSUES...... 35 4.4 PANEL FINDINGS...... 37
5. ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES ...... 39 5.1 FLORA AND FAUNA IMPACTS ...... 39 5.2 VISUAL AND SCENIC IMPACTS ...... 49 5.3 PANEL FINDINGS...... 54
6. TRAFFIC AND CAR PARKING ISSUES ...... 56 6.1 THE PROPOSAL...... 57 6.2 RELEVANT REPORTS...... 58 6.3 PANEL FINDINGS...... 61
7. PLANNING PERMIT APPLICATION CONSIDERATIONS ...... 63 7.1 DESCRIPTION ...... 63 7.2 ASSESSMENT ...... 64 7.3 PANEL FINDINGS...... 68
Page 3 Alpine Resorts Planning Scheme: Amendment C17 Planning Permit Application No. 2005/0337 Report of the Panel: September 2006
8. PANEL CONCLUSIONS...... 70
9. PANEL RECOMMENDATIONS...... 73
APPENDICES
1. Directions Hearing Letter and Timetable 2. Amendment C17– Explanatory Report and Plans 3. List of Submittors 4. Revised Comprehensive Development Plan – Hotham Village 5. Amended Plans to Planning Permit Application 2005/0337 6. Draft Planning Permit Conditions ‐ 2005/0337
Page 4 Alpine Resorts Planning Scheme: Amendment C17 Planning Permit Application No. 2005/0337 Report of the Panel: September 2006
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1. A Panel to consider Amendment C17 to the Alpine Resorts Planning Scheme and Planning Permit Application 2005/0337 was appointed under delegation from the Minister for Planning on 14 July 2006 and comprised Ms Kathryn Mitchell (Chair), Mr Des Grogan and Mr Chris Harty.
2. Amendment C17 proposes to facilitate the development of a revised Master Plan for the Mt Hotham Village and the realignment of the Great Alpine Road, as proposed by the Ray Group and MFS. Specifically, the amendment:
a. Rezones land generally south of the Hull Skier Bridge and extends the area affected by the Schedule 1 – Alpine Village to the Comprehensive Development Zone to include additional areas to the north and north east, and to the west to accommodate the realignment of the Great Alpine Road; b. Removes the section of the Road Zone covering the Great Alpine Road that currently runs through the middle of the village by rezoning part of the Great Alpine Road; c. Amends the existing Schedule 1 – Alpine Village to the Comprehensive Development Zone; and d. Amends Clause 81 to incorporate a revised Mt Hotham Comprehensive Development Plan 1 – Hotham Village (2006). The new Mt Hotham CDP seeks to introduce a new Plan for Hotham Village, the inclusion of revised design guidelines for the new and revised development areas including reference to site coverage and building heights and to provide site specific car parking requirements for the Hotham Village Redevelopment.
3. Planning Permit Application No. 2005/0337 relates to the Mt Hotham ski area adjacent to the top station of the Heavenly Valley chairlift and an area within and adjacent to the Loch car park between the Great Alpine Road and the Loch reservoir. The application seeks to undertake buildings and works and utility connections required to construct a gateway entrance to the Loch car park, a ski operations facility including three underground fuel systems, retaining wall, hardstand area and car parking, and a skier facility incorporating ski patrol, snowmaking operations, public toilets and convenience restaurant.
4. In relation to Amendment C17, 34 submissions were received of which one was withdrawn prior to the Panel Hearing. In relation to the Planning Permit Application 2005/0337 13 submissions were received of which one was withdrawn
Page 5 Alpine Resorts Planning Scheme: Amendment C17 Planning Permit Application No. 2005/0337 Report of the Panel: September 2006
prior to the Panel Hearing. Key issues raised through submissions and the Panel Hearing include:
• Level of compliance of Amendment C17 with Strategic Planning directions within the Alpine Resorts Planning Scheme; • The form of the amendment in terms of design and decision guidelines provided under Amendment C17 in relation to built form outcomes; • Environmental impacts associated with flora and fauna most notably the Mountain Pygmy‐possum (Burramys parvus); • Visual amenity impacts; • Adequacy of car parking associated with both the loss of car parking and its replacement and use; and • Impacts on skier amenity.
5. In reaching its conclusions and recommendations, the Panel had regard to the State Planning Policy Framework, the Alpine Resorts Planning Scheme, the Alpine Resorts 2020 Strategy and submissions and evidence of various parties.
6. In response to the strategic assessment of the proposal, it is the Panel’s view that Amendment C17 is supported and will implement strategic planning policy established for the central village area of Mt Hotham. The Panel supports the conclusions of the Proponent that the proposed amendment is required, it is consistent with planning policy, it addresses social, environmental and economic effects and that the resultant planning policy and control framework will provide an appropriate basis for the assessment of detail proposals.
7. In response to environmental issues, the Panel considers that the overall offset required for the Amendment and the Heavenly Valley development, combined with the objectives and actions outlined in the draft Environmental Management Plan, are appropriate and achievable. The Panel believes that the environmental impacts on flora and fauna will not be significant, and considers that the three step approach to vegetation management has been satisfied through rezoning or selecting development sites that are already significantly disturbed or contain only small areas of remnant vegetation. The Panel considers that the visual impacts of Amendment C17 are not significantly greater than what would be possible under the existing provisions of the Alpine Resorts Planning Scheme. The Panel supports the changes proposed by the Mt Hotham Resort Management Board in relation to amending the maximum building heights for Development Site 1 to 5 storeys measured from the Great Alpine Road to better clarify building height measurements, and for Development Site 14b to two storeys plus attics to ensure the protection of viewlines from Development Site 14c. The Panel supports changes to the plans for the development which provide for a lower
Page 6 Alpine Resorts Planning Scheme: Amendment C17 Planning Permit Application No. 2005/0337 Report of the Panel: September 2006
building height and sloping roof for the ski operations centre, which better integrates the building into the landscape.
8. In response to traffic and access issues, the Panel accepts that the modified subdivision layout for Hotham Village will facilitate the proposed realignment of the Great Alpine Road. However, the Panel is not convinced that the sufficient consideration has been given to servicing both the existing buildings and future buildings constructed on the new allotments created between the realigned road and Zirky’s/White Crystal/Hotham Central sites. Plans showing access routes with appropriate turning circles should be prepared and presented to the Responsible Authority for approval prior to the rezoning being approved. The Panel considers additional work needs to be carried out in relation to an accessibility plan, on‐site car parking and a parking management plan.
9. In response to planning permit considerations, the Panel considers that the proposed use and development of a new entry gateway, ski operations centre and skier facility at Heavenly Valley satisfies the policy provisions of the Alpine Resorts Planning Scheme. The new facilities will lead to sustainable development at the Resort and accordingly, the Panel considers that the grant of a planning permit is appropriate.
10. For the reasons outlined above, the Panel recommends that Amendment C17 be adopted subject to the modifications to the Hotham Village – Mt Hotham – Comprehensive Development Plan 1 set out in Appendix 4. The Panel further recommends that a permit issue subject to the conditions outlined in the draft Planning Permit 2005/0337 set out in Appendix 6.
Page 7 Alpine Resorts Planning Scheme: Amendment C17 Planning Permit Application No. 2005/0337 Report of the Panel: September 2006
1. BACKGROUND
1.1 Introduction A Panel to consider Amendment C17 to the Alpine Resorts Planning Scheme was appointed under delegation from the Minister for Planning on 14 July 2006 and comprised Ms Kathryn Mitchell (Chair), Mr Des Grogan and Mr Chris Harty. The same Panel was appointed concurrently to hear Planning Permit Application 2005/0337 (the proposal).
The Proponent for this proposal is MFS Living and Leisure Ltd and the Ray Group, and the Planning Authority is the Minister for Planning. It is understood the Applicant for the planning permit application is Australian Alpine Enterprises Pty Ltd. There was no distinction made between the Proponent and the Applicant, and for ease of reference, the Panel identifies and refers to both as the Proponent throughout this report.
The Panel met in Bright, Mt Hotham and Melbourne for five days (21, 22, 23, 29, and 31 August 2006) to hear submissions in respect of this proposal. In reaching its conclusions and recommendations, the Panel has read and considered all submissions and a range of other material referred to it, including written submissions and verbal presentations.
A Directions Hearing in relation to this matter was held on 27 July 2006. A number of directions were made about matters relating to the hearing and a copy of the letter that outlined those directions and the hearing timetable is attached as Appendix 1.
On Day 2 of the hearings, the Panel undertook a full day site visit of the subject land and its general locality at Mt Hotham. During these inspections, the Panel was accompanied by representatives of the Minister for Planning, the Mt Hotham Resort Management Board, the Proponent, and local submittors.
1.2 What is Proposed? Amendment C17 to the Alpine Resorts Planning Scheme proposes to facilitate the development of a revised Master Plan for the Mt Hotham Village and realign the Great Alpine Road, as proposed by the Ray Group and MFS. Specifically, the amendment proposes to:
Page 8 Alpine Resorts Planning Scheme: Amendment C17 Planning Permit Application No. 2005/0337 Report of the Panel: September 2006
• Rezone land generally south of the Hull Skier Bridge and east of site development area ‐ number 4 “White Crystal” and an elongated land parcel to the north of site development area ‐ number 26 “Snowbird” from Comprehensive Development Zone 2 to Comprehensive Development Zone 1. The effect of this change is to extend the area affected by the Schedule 1 – Alpine Village to the Comprehensive Development Zone to include additional areas to the north (current workshop area) and to the north east (expansion north and south of Site 4 on the current Comprehensive Development Plan) and to the west to accommodate the realignment of the Great Alpine Road; • Remove the section of the Road Zone covering the Great Alpine Road that currently runs through the middle of the village by rezoning part of the Great Alpine Road between the Hull Skier Bridge and site development area ‐ number 12 “Ultima” from Road Zone 1 to Comprehensive Development Zone 1 and include this area within a Road Closure Overlay. It is intended that this overlay will be introduced, and the above rezoning to Comprehensive Development Zone I will be undertaken, once the new alignment of the Great Alpine Road has been constructed and declared as an arterial road and rezoned from Comprehensive Development Zone 1 to Road Zone 1; • Amend the existing Schedule 1 – Alpine Village to the Comprehensive Development Zone. The changes included amending the use condition under Clause 1.0 “Table of Uses” for “Road” to require any realignment or under grounding of the Great Alpine Road being generally in accordance with the Local Planning Policy Framework or any incorporated document. The Schedule adds a new Clause 9.0 “Car Parking”, which introduces site specific car parking exemption from Clause 52.06 of the Alpine Resorts Planning Scheme based upon car parking being in accordance with the requirements of a Comprehensive Development Plan; and • Amend Clause 81 to incorporate a revised Mt Hotham Comprehensive Development Plan 1 – Hotham Village (2006). The new Mt Hotham Comprehensive Development Plan seeks to introduce a new plan for Hotham Village, the inclusion of revised design guidelines for the new and revised development areas including reference to site coverage and building heights, and to provide site specific car parking requirements for the Hotham Village Redevelopment.
The amendment applies to land within the area known as Mt Hotham Village – Mt Hotham. The extended area of Comprehensive Development Zone 1 is to provide a footprint for a key building that will create a gateway entrance to the village. A concept building, Bale`, has been proposed as a landmark building located on the site
Page 9 Alpine Resorts Planning Scheme: Amendment C17 Planning Permit Application No. 2005/0337 Report of the Panel: September 2006
of the current workshop and is intended to be constructed as part of the initial first stage of the redevelopment of Hotham Village along with the realignment of the Great Alpine Road. It will act as a catalyst development that will create a vibrant village centre, implemented through the strategic planning directions for Hotham Village under the existing Clause 21.06 policy framework.
The changes to the Mt Hotham Comprehensive Development Plan, which will become the new incorporated document, provides the parameters for the establishment of new buildings (in terms of scale, form and location) that are proposed to complement the existing village, while facilitating the creation of a new pedestrian and skier friendly village centre. The Comprehensive Development Plan includes the creation of a ski bridge from Higgi Drive to the centre of Hotham Village, which is intended to create easy and safe skier and pedestrian access between Davenport and the Hotham Village over the realigned Great Alpine Road.
The realignment of the Great Alpine Road will remove the conflict experienced by skiers and pedestrians wishing to access developments and ski trails on both sides of the road and vehicular traffic travelling through the Village. The road realignment also frees up land between Zirkys, White Crystal, Hotham Central and Snowbird, Resort Management Board offices, Medical Centre, on the alignment of the existing road reservation and the Ford car park, for development.
The new subdivision layout proposed incorporates two new easements, one running from the top of the Village quad chair to Zirkys, i.e. to the west of the White Crystal building and the other running immediately to the east of the Snowbird and Resort Management buildings. The former easement is proposed to have a minimum width of 12 metres and the latter a minimum width of 8 metres. South of the Hotham Central building and west of the ʺlanding areaʺ of the Village quad chair, the easement flares to approximately 28 metres wide. Buildings constructed on the eight new sites resulting from the road realignment are intended to complement the existing buildings and create a village centre.
The vertical alignment of the realigned road will be elevated above the level of the existing road and surrounding area to enable skier and emergency vehicle access under the road between the existing Ski School building and the workshop site. Elevation of the roadway, combined with the topography of land, provides an opportunity to utilize the area under the road surface for a multi‐level car park containing 501 spaces.
The new Comprehensive Development Plan specifies that for the Hotham Village redevelopment, at least 370 car spaces are to be provided under the Great Alpine
Page 10 Alpine Resorts Planning Scheme: Amendment C17 Planning Permit Application No. 2005/0337 Report of the Panel: September 2006
Road realignment and that at least one car space is allocated per apartment, or 0.5 car spaces per hotel room in the development of Sites 1, 4, 14b, 14c, 21, 22, 23, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33 and 34. The realignment of the Great Alpine Road is proposed to commence south of the Hull Skier Bridge, and travel south west of the Snowbird Hotel and Resort Management Board site, continuing on a curved alignment to the south east to rejoin the existing road alignment approximately south east of the intersection with Higgi Drive (somewhere near the Absollut Apartments and Chalet 1750). A new bus interchange is proposed to the east of the realigned road within sites 32, 33 and 34.
A copy of the Explanatory Report and associated plans for Amendment C17 is attached as Appendix 2.
Planning Permit Application No. 2005/0337 relates to the area adjacent to the top station of the Heavenly Valley chairlift and an area within and adjacent to the Loch car park between the Great Alpine Road and the Loch reservoir. This site is approximately 900 metres north of the Mt Hotham Village. The application seeks to undertake buildings and works (including earthworks and removal of native vegetation) and utility connections required to construct and operate:
• A gateway entrance to the Loch car park. The entrance gateway is located at the entry into the Loch carpark off the Great Alpine Road and marks the commencement of the Three Huts Walk. It is proposed to have an angled structure 4.2 x 13.3 metres with a roof 8 metres high at its highest point with a minimum 4.5 metre clearance for vehicles including emergency vehicles. The materials are proposed to comprise a stone faced triangular shaped abutment using local mudstone or slate with a metal roof and hardwood timber columns with a charcoal coloured steel and champagne silver powdercoated fascia; • A ski operations facility including three underground fuel systems (tanks), retaining wall, hardstand area and car parking. The proposed facility will be located adjacent to the western side of the newly constructed Loch reservoir within a predominantly disturbed area and comprise a building footprint of 1,164 square metres and a hardstand area of approximately 1,380 square metres. The western length of the building is 50 metres, the eastern length is 44 metres, the northern and the southern ends 24 metres. Associated with the facility is a retaining wall that then creates a shielded hardstand area for parking vehicles, such as skidoos and kassbohrers. The proposed materials are stained exterior plywood feature walls with expressed battens, panel lift garage doors, local mudstone or slate cladding, laminated performance glass and metal roof. The facility will have a sloping profile that rises to 10.412
Page 11 Alpine Resorts Planning Scheme: Amendment C17 Planning Permit Application No. 2005/0337 Report of the Panel: September 2006
metres above ground level (western end) and to 6.067 metres above ground level (eastern end). The facility will support maintenance of ski lift infrastructure, snow grooming machinery and fuel storage. It will contain staff amenities, office space for operations personnel and equipment for vehicle servicing functions. The facility will include three underground fuel storage tanks containing 40,000 litres of diesel, 20,000 litres of unleaded petrol and 5,000 litres waste oil; and • A skier facility incorporating ski patrol, snowmaking operations, public toilets and convenience restaurant. The facility has a footprint of approximately 900 square metres, which includes a ski patrol base of 120 square metres, public toilet facilities of 50.8 square metres, snow making operations centre of 216.2 square metres, restaurant of 225.2 square metres and a verandah area of 270.06 square metres. The base and lower components of the building will have local mudstone or slate cladding. Parts of the elevation will include metal equipment access doors, timber screen covers, timber cladding and glass. The location of the building on the eastern end of the newly constructed Loch reservoir incorporates the existing pump house building, within a predominantly disturbed area. The building will have a sloped skillion roof and offers toilet facilities within an exposed location in the resort.
During the Directions Hearing, the Proponent submitted amended plans for Planning Permit Application 2005/0337 associated with the Heavenly Valley/Loch car park development. As a result of discussions at the Directions Hearing, the Panel accepted the amended plans:
• Site Plan – drawing No. A‐DA‐01‐04 rev B • Workshop – drawing No. 4267‐17‐B‐DA‐10‐01 rev D.
The amended plans showed changes to the siting of development proposed at Heavenly Valley that reduced the area of impact on native vegetation. The Panel was also provided with copies of correspondence from the Department of Sustainability and Environment dated 25 July 2006 withdrawing their submission to Amendment C17 and dated 26 July 2006 withdrawing their objection to Planning Permit Application 2005/0337.
Page 12 Alpine Resorts Planning Scheme: Amendment C17 Planning Permit Application No. 2005/0337 Report of the Panel: September 2006
1.3 Exhibition and Submissions In relation to Amendment C17, 34 submissions were received, of which one was withdrawn prior to the Panel Hearing. In relation to Planning Permit Application 2005/0337, 13 submissions were received of which one was withdrawn prior to the Panel Hearing.
A Hearing in relation to the amendment was held over 5 days (from Monday 21 to 31 August 2006) at the Best Western High Country Motor Inn in Bright, the Mt Hotham Resort Management Board Room at Mt Hotham, and the offices of Planning Panels Victoria in Melbourne. During this time the following parties were represented and/or heard:
Submittor Represented By
Minister for Planning, Planning and Mr Chris Wren SC, instructed by Ms Kirsty Douglas, Responsible Authority DSE with Oliver Moles, Manager Alpine Planning., and Mr Paul Flint, Senior Regional Planner
MFS Living & Leisure Ltd/The Ray Mr Chris Canavan QC and Mr Chris Townshend, Group (the Proponent) instructed by Mr Scott Stewart (Rigby Cooke), who called the following witnesses: • Mr Brendan Rogers, Town Planner, UrbisJHD. • Mr Len Dobell, General Manager of Operations, Mt Hotham Skiing Company Pty Ltd. • Mr Michael Durkin, Traffic Engineer, GTA Consultants Pty Ltd. • Mr Natali Bonacci, Civil Engineer, Bonacci Group. Witness Statements were received (but they were not called to provide evidence) from: • Mr Dennis Williamson, Landscape Architect, Scenic Spectrums Pty Ltd. • Mr Andrew McMahon, Ecologist, Ecology Australia Pty Ltd. Mt Hotham Resort Management Mr Jim Atteridge, CEO and Ms Julie Katz, The Board Planning Group, who called the following witnesses: • Mr Aaron Harvey, Ecologist, Biosis Research Pty Ltd. • Mr Peter Nichols, Environmental Planner
Page 13 Alpine Resorts Planning Scheme: Amendment C17 Planning Permit Application No. 2005/0337 Report of the Panel: September 2006
Submittor Represented By
Mount Hotham Chamber of Mr Graeme Blair, President Commerce
Hotham Ski Association Inc Mr Peter Sandow, President and Mr Rob Anderson.
Victorian National Parks Association Ms Jenny Barnett (VNPA)
Federation of Victorian Walking Mr Steven Robertson Clubs
Submittors Mrs Jane Burke Ms Tracey Squire Mr Trevor Chick Ms Leanne Guy Ms Leona Edwards Mr Keith Boxer Mr Michael Shaw
1.4 Panel Approach The exhibition of Amendment C17 included a great deal of detailed information regarding a proposed resort building (Bale` building) identified for Development Site 1 within Hotham Village located on the site of the current workshop building as well as for the realignment of the Great Alpine Road to the west of the existing village (west of the Snowbird building). The level of information created some confusion regarding what the Panel should consider under the amendment. The Panel was advised that the level of information associated with the amendment was due to the need for the Minister for Planning to initially determine whether any environmental effects statement was required.
The Panel considers it unfortunate that the volume of information provided resulted in some submissions being directed towards issues that could not be considered by the Panel. Some who presented to the Panel did not seem to be aware of what the amendment was seeking to achieve, rather there was a focus on the design of the Bale` resort building, the detail of the proposed road re‐alignment, and perceived impacts on the Mountain Pygmy‐possum. The Panel reiterated to submittors that its focus was much narrower than what was being presented by way of submission, but some submittors did not seem to want to acknowledge that.
Page 14 Alpine Resorts Planning Scheme: Amendment C17 Planning Permit Application No. 2005/0337 Report of the Panel: September 2006
The Panel would have been better assisted if submittors made positive contributions about how the amendment could be enhanced – to take into account concerns raised. But this did not happen because the plethora of concerns had little to do with the amendment. Therefore, many of the issues raised by way of submission are not able to be addressed by the Panel.
The Panel did wonder how this situation came about. Could more have been done to inform, advise or consult with the local community? Upon reflection, the Panel thinks so. There is no doubt that this amendment process was time efficient, and perhaps more time spent in consultation, prior to exhibition, might have allayed some of the fears of the community.
What the Panel is considering are the changes proposed to the Alpine Resorts Planning Scheme under Amendment C17 that relate to the zone provisions and a new Comprehensive Development Plan for Hotham Village. Because Amendment C17 is not proposing to alter existing policy relating to Mt Hotham contained under Clause 21.06 of the Municipal Strategic Statement, one of the key matters for the consideration of the Panel will be how well the changes that are proposed satisfactorily support and implement the policy directions for Mt Hotham. The Panel is not assessing the detailed design of the structure of the proposed realigned Great Alpine Road nor the details of any building development. Accordingly, the Panel will assess the amendment against the Strategic Assessment Guidelines, and will consider those matters raised in submissions relevant to the amendment.
The planning permit application will be assessed against the provisions of the Alpine Resorts Planning Scheme, including the application of the tests of whether the development achieves net community benefit, provides for sustainable development and produces an acceptable outcome.
Page 15 Alpine Resorts Planning Scheme: Amendment C17 Planning Permit Application No. 2005/0337 Report of the Panel: September 2006
1.5 Summary of Key Issues The Panel has considered relevant submissions, both in the written form as well as submissions and supporting evidence presented to it during the Hearing. In addressing the issues raised in those submissions, the Panel has been assisted by the information provided to it as well as its own observations from inspections of Mt Hotham and its surrounds. Appendix 3 contains a list of all submittors.
The Panel has identified a number of key issues that need to be addressed, which can be summarised as follows:
• Level of compliance of Amendment C17 with Strategic Planning directions within the Alpine Resorts Planning Scheme; • The form of the amendment in terms of design and decision guidelines provided under Amendment C17 in relation to built form outcomes; • Environmental impacts associated with flora and fauna most notably the Mountain Pygmy‐possum (Burramys parvus); • Visual amenity impacts; • Traffic, access and adequacy of car parking associated with both the loss of car parking and its replacement and use; and • Impacts on skier amenity.
Page 16 Alpine Resorts Planning Scheme: Amendment C17 Planning Permit Application No. 2005/0337 Report of the Panel: September 2006
2. BACKGROUND TO THE AMENDMENT
2.1 Site Context Mt Hotham Alpine Resort (the Resort) is located approximately 365 kilometres north‐east of Melbourne. It is the highest alpine village in Australia and has a summit elevation of 1861 metres. The resort covers an area of approximately 3,450 hectares, the majority of which is Crown Land, and is bounded on all sides by the Alpine National Park. The snowline for Mt Hotham is approximately 1400 metres. Snowfalls occur on an average of 75.4 days annually. The average maximum snow depth is 1500 mm at an elevation of 1845 metres. Snowfalls that create and maintain a persistent snow cover usually begin in mid June and continue intermittently until early September. South facing slopes are capable of retaining snow for an extended period. The prevailing wind across the Bogong High Plains and Mt Hotham is from the north‐west. South‐easterly winds, often associated with fog and mist, are quite common.
The Resort is an integral part of a unique environment that contains a variety of rare fauna, flora and alpine communities. The sedimentary rock and shallow organic loams that generally comprise the rock and soil types at Mt Hotham are susceptible to erosion if vegetation is removed. The exceptions are the small mounds of basalt and areas of basalt boulder scree scattered throughout the Resort area. This scree forms an important foundation of the Mountain Pygmy‐possum habitat. Snow Gum woodlands, found sometimes in association with small areas of sub‐alpine heathlands, mosslands and grasslands, are widely distributed throughout the Resort at elevations of between 1400 and 1700 metres. Herbfields, heathlands and grasslands are generally found on the most exposed areas of the Resort (peaks and ridge lines), with wet heathlands, mosslands (bogs) and sedgelands being usually located in drainage lines or wet depressions. Areas of snowpatch communities are present where snow remains the longest. Communities of Podocarpus heathland, located near the summit of Mt Higginbotham, Mt Loch and Spargos Spur, form a significant element of the Mountain Pygmy‐possum habitat.
From Melbourne, access to the resort is generally by the Great Alpine Road, either from the west via Wangaratta and Harrietville or from the east via Bairnsdale and Omeo. The Mt Hotham Airport is 20 kilometres south‐east of Mt Hotham and provides an alternative to road transport.
The Resort has experienced consistent growth in winter visitation. The Resort has developed historically as a resort for “serious” skiers. The steep topography means
Page 17 Alpine Resorts Planning Scheme: Amendment C17 Planning Permit Application No. 2005/0337 Report of the Panel: September 2006
that the majority of downhill runs cater for intermediate to advanced skiers and snowboarders. In addition to downhill skiing facilities, the Resort provides approximately 35 kilometres of marked and groomed cross‐country ski trails. Cross‐ country skiers can access additional marked and maintained trails outside of the Resort boundaries. These trails connect with Dinner Plain and the surrounding Alpine National Park. The Resort contains a number of walking tracks that are used by hikers during the summer months. These walking tracks extend beyond the Resort boundaries into the adjoining Alpine National Park.
Access trails and cross county tracks double as walking and mountain bike tracks during summer months. Some of these tracks form part of essential access routes for fire management and ski infrastructure maintenance.
Accommodation includes lodges, serviced apartments and ski clubs, and is currently provided in two distinct and physically separate areas: Hotham Village and Davenport. Private accommodation, particularly club based, is generally concentrated in the Davenport area, whilst commercial accommodation is concentrated at Hotham Village. Hotham Village comprises primarily commercial style accommodation that has developed at higher densities (up to 6 stories). The majority of development in the resort is adjacent to the Great Alpine Road, an all weather access road, managed by VicRoads.
Development within the Davenport area is less intensive than Hotham Village. Buildings are generally between 2 and 3 storeys in height. They are generously spaced and are well articulated in both plan and elevation. This gives the area an “informal” character, where the landscape, trees and views dominate over the built form.
A range of visitor services are provided on the mountain, including a Resort Management administration centre, restaurants and cafes, supermarkets and service facilities such as a medical centre, police station and fire station. Hotham Village is the centre for retail and entertainment activities, with the exception of some secondary service and retail facilities, which are located at Davenport. The facilities at Davenport primarily serve the local needs of the precinct, rather than the wider Hotham community.
Page 18 Alpine Resorts Planning Scheme: Amendment C17 Planning Permit Application No. 2005/0337 Report of the Panel: September 2006
2.2 History of the Amendment Amendment C17 is the culmination of a range of strategic planning exercises that have occurred for Mt Hotham and the alpine resorts generally since the 1970s. Relevant studies (as advised) include:
• The Mt Hotham Alpine Resort Development Plan (Interplan 1976); • The Mt Hotham Alpine Resort Development Strategy (Kinhill – Sno‐ engineering 1989); • Hotham 1995 (Alpine Resorts Commission 1995); • Hotham Village Centre Development Plan (MHSC August 1997); • Draft Mt Hotham Alpine Resort Local Planning Policy Framework (Alpine resorts Commission, Mt Hotham Village Management Committee and Department of Infrastructure September 1997); • Amendment C6 (DSE/MHRMB 2000); and • Draft Strategic Management Plan (MHRMB October 2005).
For over 30 years, as reflected in these planning reviews, there has been almost universal support for the redevelopment of the Hotham Village to create a village centre. It is clear that the common means to achieve the village centre is to realign the Great Alpine Road and construct new buildings with visitor related accommodation, and provide public facilities focussed on a central area for pedestrians and skiers to congregate.
Amendment C6 introduced into the Alpine Resorts Planning Scheme in 2002 a suite of planning provisions, which were more resort specific to Mt Hotham and introduced comprehensive development plans for specific areas within the Resort. The amendment introduced the provisions of Clause 21.06 and establishes the planning framework within which Amendment C17 is now being considered.
The Panel notes that there has been a large amount of effort put into attempting to achieve a strategic objective of removing pedestrian/skier and vehicle conflict and creation of a pedestrian/skier friendly central area within Hotham Village. Many parties agreed with this aim. It appears the key dispute revolves around the method being proposed under Amendment C17 to achieve these objectives, and how effective the controls proposed under the amendment will be in ensuring that appropriate built form outcomes are achieved which enhances Mt Hotham as a year round resort and does not diminish its attractiveness or environmental significance. The Panel believes this is the essence of its considerations.
Page 19 Alpine Resorts Planning Scheme: Amendment C17 Planning Permit Application No. 2005/0337 Report of the Panel: September 2006
3. PLANNING FRAMEWORK
This section of the report considers the existing planning context for the amendment and focuses on the strategic and policy issues. It assesses how the amendment meets the objectives of the Alpine Resorts Planning Scheme. The following sections of this report include a brief appraisal of the State Planning Policy Framework (SPPF), and Local Planning Policy Framework (LPPF), the relevant zone and overlay controls.
In considering the planning framework and the strategic assessment of the amendment, (Section 4), the Panel was assisted by the evidence of Mr Rogers of UrbisJHD for the Proponent, and the submissions of Mr Wren (Minister for Planning), Mr Canavan (Proponent) and Ms Katz (MHRMB).
3.1 State Planning Policy Framework The purpose of the SPPF in planning schemes is to inform planning authorities and others of those aspects of State level planning policy which need to be taken into account and given effect in determining planning and development proposals. Planning policies are directed to land use and development through the Planning and Environment Act 1987, a primary objective of which is to provide for the fair, orderly, economic and sustainable use and development of land.
In assessing this amendment, consideration has been given to the Goal of the SPPF, which states at Clause 11.01:
It is the State Government’s expectation that planning and responsible authorities will endeavour to integrate the range of policies relevant to the issues to be determined and balance conflicting objectives in favour of net community benefit and sustainable development.
Further, Clause 11.02 states:
The State Planning Policy Framework seeks to ensure that the objectives of planning in Victoria (as set out in Section 4 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987) are fostered through appropriate land use and development planning policies and practices which integrate relevant environmental, social and economic factors in the interests of net community benefit and sustainable development.
Clause 11.03 – ‘Principles of Land Use and Development Planning’ contains general principles that elaborate on the objectives of planning in Victoria covering
Page 20 Alpine Resorts Planning Scheme: Amendment C17 Planning Permit Application No. 2005/0337 Report of the Panel: September 2006
settlement, environment, management of resources, infrastructure, economic well‐ being, social needs, and regional co‐operation.
The SPPF identifies principles of land use and development planning that must be supported and implemented by this amendment. These include:
Clause 15.09 – ‘Conservation of Native Flora and Fauna’ seeks “to assist the protection and conservation of biodiversity, including native vegetation retention and provision of habitats for native plants and animals and control of pest plants and animals”. Under Clause 15.09‐2 – ‘General Implementation’ decision‐making by planning and responsible authorities should:
• Assist the protection of conservation values of national parks and conservation reserves. • Assist the conservation of the habitats of threatened and endangered species and communities as identified under the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988, including communities under‐represented in conservation reserves such as native grasslands, grassy woodlands and wetlands. • Address potentially threatening processes identified under the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988. • Assist re‐establishment of links between isolated habitat remnants.
Planning and responsible authorities are required to have regard to Victoria’s Native Vegetation Management – A Framework for Action (Department of Natural Resources and Environment 2002). If a permit is required to remove native vegetation, or an amendment to this scheme could result in the removal of native vegetation, planning and responsible authorities should follow the three‐step approach as defined in the Framework. This is achieved firstly, as a priority, by avoiding the removal of native vegetation; secondly, if the removal of native vegetation cannot be avoided, by minimising the loss of native vegetation through appropriate consideration in planning processes and expert input into project design or management; and thirdly, by identifying appropriate offset actions. Responsible authorities should ensure that the siting of new buildings and works minimises the removal or fragmentation of native vegetation.
Clause 15.13 – ‘Alpine Areas’ seeks “to protect and manage significant environmental features and ecosystems and facilitate sustainable use and development of Alpine Resorts for year round use and activity, and to provide a framework for the planning of the alpine areas”. Under Clause 15.13‐2 – ‘General Implementation’ planning and responsible authorities should have regard to the strategic directions contained within the Alpine Resorts 2020 Strategy. Planning and responsible authorities, in conjunction
Page 21 Alpine Resorts Planning Scheme: Amendment C17 Planning Permit Application No. 2005/0337 Report of the Panel: September 2006 with the Resort Management Boards, should develop, monitor and regularly review Alpine Resort Environmental Management Plans and Comprehensive Development Plans for each alpine resort, recognising their unique characteristics, constraints and opportunities. In doing so, the distinct environments, infrastructure needs and capabilities to support different activities of the alpine resorts of Falls Creek, Lake Mountain, Mt Baw Baw, Mt Buller, Mt. Hotham and Mt Stirling and other alpine areas should be considered.
Planning authorities and responsible authorities should:
• Take into account the sensitive and fragile nature of the alpine environment. • Ensure that there is a mixture of uses and developments to cater for users of the alpine areas in all seasons. • Provide for the development of consolidated alpine villages, including a diverse range of employment, social and economic opportunities. • Ensure that proposals for use and development are generally in accordance with any approved Comprehensive Development Plan and comply with any approved Alpine Resort Environmental Management Plan. • Encourage best practice for low impact and environmentally sensitive management that minimise disturbance of indigenous flora and fauna and sensitive landscape in both construction and operation of all developments. • Encourage best practice in urban design that responds to the alpine character and histories from Aboriginal culture, mining, logging, grazing and recreation.
Further, they should ensure that increases in skier, pedestrian and vehicular activity in the resorts do not compromise public safety or the accessibility and capacity of skifields, services, commercial activity and development of trailheads.
Planning and responsible authorities should have regard to the Alpine Development Code 1997 and to any relevant approved Land Conservation Council or Environment Conservation Council recommendations. Decision making should be consistent with any relevant State environment protection policy as varied form time to time.
Clause 15‐13‐3 – ‘Geographic Strategies’ outlines that in planning in Alpine areas, planning authorities and responsible authorities should promote intensive residential and commercial development at Mt Hotham.
Clause 17.04 ‐ ‘Tourism’ has the objective of encouraging tourism development to maximise the employment and long term economic, social and cultural benefits of developing the State as a competitive domestic and international tourist destination.
Page 22 Alpine Resorts Planning Scheme: Amendment C17 Planning Permit Application No. 2005/0337 Report of the Panel: September 2006
3.2 Local Planning Policy Framework Land use and development within the Mt Hotham Alpine Resort is subject to the provisions of the Alpine Resorts Planning Scheme. The Alpine Resorts Planning Scheme includes a Strategic Statement, two Strategic Land Use Framework Plans, Local Planning Policies and land use zones and provisions.
Clause 21.01 ‘Alpine Resorts Strategic Statement’ requires that all planning applications should attempt to satisfy the following objectives:
• To provide for the proper establishment, development and use of the resort for intensive, year‐round recreation including the development of alpine and nordic skifields, having regard to environmental, ecological, economic, aesthetic and safety considerations. • To reinforce the alpine resorts as a destination by providing a range of recreation and tourist facilities, residential accommodation, commercial activities and support services. • To ensure that use and development within the alpine resorts is carried out to benefit the present and future resort users whilst maintaining a high quality environment. • To conserve and protect the natural environmental systems within and adjacent to the alpine resort areas so as to minimise disturbance to flora and fauna communities and to areas of high scenic quality or visual sensitivity. • Encourage best practice, low impact and environmentally‐sensitive management practices for the resorts. • Encourage best practice in urban design that reflects the alpine character of the resorts. • To provide for the necessary management of snow deposition, in particular related to public safety and snow removal requirements. • Enhance skier, pedestrian and vehicle activity at desirable levels related to the accessibility and capacity of skifields, services, commercial activity and development of trailheads and appropriate transportation for nordic skiing. • To minimise conflicts arising from development on sites near and adjacent to habitat or communities of flora and fauna which may be adversely affected by development. • To take account of the requirements of the Victorian Archaeological and Aboriginal Relics Preservation Act 1972, the Commonwealth Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984 and the views of local Aboriginal communities in providing for the conservation and enhancement of places, sites and objects of Aboriginal cultural heritage value. • To ensure that development is supported by appropriate investigation, documentation and resolution of geotechnical hazards.
Page 23 Alpine Resorts Planning Scheme: Amendment C17 Planning Permit Application No. 2005/0337 Report of the Panel: September 2006
Clause 21.06‐2 ‘Key Influences’ recognises that the Resort is part of a delicate and rare environmental system that requires protection. The habitat of the Mountain Pygmy‐possum and other listed species are key influences for the siting and construction of development within the Resort. Geotechnical hazard needs to be carefully managed. Mt Hotham’s location in the alpine region places it in a better position regarding climate change impacts due to the majority of its ski areas being located above 1600 metres in height. A key constraint is also recognised in that:
Pedestrian and skier access within the Resort is currently constrained due to a number of factors. These include the bi‐nodal nature of the Resort, the location of the Great Alpine Road through the centre of the village and the separation of the main snowfield from the beginners slopes at Davenport. The shared use of the Great Alpine Road by skiers, pedestrians and vehicles creates conflict and reduces the efficiency and safety of traffic flow. This potential for conflict is exacerbated by the lack of skier bridges/underpasses at well used crossing points along the Road. Minimising conflict and improving links, particularly during the winter season, are essential considerations for future operations and development within the Resort. The design and location of access roads and car parking areas within the Resort must consider safety, environmental systems and scenic qualities.
Clause 21.06‐3 ‘Vision ‐ Strategic Framework’ identifies the following relevant key strategic directions for Mt Hotham outlined within the Land Use Framework Plans:
• Identification of sections of the Great Alpine Road that should be re‐aligned to improve vehicle, pedestrian and skier safety; and • Identification of a village centre within Hotham Central, to accommodate the ski school, proposed ice skating rinks and an informal snow play area.
Clause 21.06‐4 Objectives – Strategies contains the following statements relevant to the redevelopment of the Hotham Village:
• Provide a clear, identifiable and integrated village centre at Hotham Village as the major focus for commercial activity, community facilities, skier congregation and transport hub; • Reinforce Hotham Village (west and south of Hotham Central/White Crystal) as the primary focus for commercial activity, community facilities, ski lesson congregation and transport hub in the resort. Investigate the potential realignment of the Great Alpine Road (behind the Snowbird Inn and the Resort Management Board building) to provide for a vehicle free village centre;
Page 24 Alpine Resorts Planning Scheme: Amendment C17 Planning Permit Application No. 2005/0337 Report of the Panel: September 2006
• Develop a Comprehensive Development Plan for sites within Hotham Village demonstrating the proposed realignment, identifying new development, uses and development parameters to be encouraged subject to environmental assessment; • Promote Hotham Village as the commercial heart of the Resort and the location for higher density development with significant site coverage and height potential; • Encourage the redevelopment of existing under‐utilised sites within Hotham Village and Davenport to optimise the existing development potential within the accommodation areas; • Assess the realignment of the Great Alpine Road at Hotham Village (behind the Snowbird Inn and the Resort Management Board building) and Davenport (adjacent to the Davenport subdivision) to facilitate safe pedestrian and skier movement within the Village Centre and Davenport mixed‐use precincts; • Create a skier and pedestrian spine along the existing alignment of the Great Alpine Road at Hotham Village and Davenport and ensure adequate lift infrastructure to facilitate skier movement within the Resort; and • Assess the need for additional visitor parking in undercover, multi‐level parking facilities at the Corral (Ford) car park within the Hotham Village, at Whiteys car park and Lawlers car park. Any proposal must be assessed taking into account environmental, ecological, economic, aesthetic, servicing and safety considerations.
Clause 22.01‐2 ‘Management of Geotechnical Hazard Local Planning Policy’ provides guidance in determining applications made under Clause 44.01 Erosion Management Overlay and seeks:
• To ensure that applications for development are supported by adequate investigation and documentation of geotechnical hazards and related structural matters; • To ensure that development is appropriate to be carried out either conditionally or unconditionally, having regard to the results of those geotechnical and related structural investigations; and • To ensure that development is only carried out if identified geotechnical and related structural engineering risks are effectively addressed.
Page 25 Alpine Resorts Planning Scheme: Amendment C17 Planning Permit Application No. 2005/0337 Report of the Panel: September 2006
3.3 Zones and Overlays Land use and development within the Mt Hotham Alpine Resort is subject to the Comprehensive Development Zone, which has two schedules; Schedule 1 (Alpine Village) and Schedule 2 (Alpine Recreation). The latter applies predominantly to the ski areas.
Hotham Village is located in Schedule 1 to the Comprehensive Development Zone, the purposes of which include:
• To encourage development and the year round use of the land for a commercial oriented alpine resort; • To provide for residential development in a variety of forms in an alpine environment; • To encourage development and the use of the land which is in accordance with sound environmental management and land capability practices, and which takes into account the significance of the environmental resources; and • To provide for the integrated development of land in accordance with a comprehensive development plan incorporated in this scheme.
Clause 42.01 Environmental Significance Overlay Schedule 1 ‐ Burramys parvus (Mountain Pygmy‐possum) covers part of the existing village, which generally corresponds with the Mountain Pygmy‐possum Management Area. None of the land included in the amendment area or Comprehensive Development Plan is within or directly abutting the Environmental Significance Overlay 1.
Clause 44.01 Erosion Management Overlay Schedule 1 – Management of Geotechnical Hazard covers the whole of the area of the Hotham Village affected by the amendment. The overlay seeks:
• To ensure that applications for development are supported by adequate investigation and documentation of geotechnical and related structural matters; • To ensure that development is appropriate to be carried out either conditionally or unconditionally, having regard to the results of those geotechnical and related structural investigations; and • To ensure that development is only carried out if identified geotechnical and related structural engineering risks are effectively addressed.
The overlay requires Site Development Plans to include a Preliminary Geotechnical Assessment and possible Quantitative Risk Assessment (if risk of geotechnical hazard is rated greater than low) to be prepared by a qualified geotechnical practitioner.
Page 26 Alpine Resorts Planning Scheme: Amendment C17 Planning Permit Application No. 2005/0337 Report of the Panel: September 2006
3.4 Alpine Resorts 2020 Strategy The Alpine Resorts 2020 Strategy provides a blueprint for the long term sustainable planning and management of the Alpine Resorts, including Mt Hotham. Its main actions include:
• Remain committed to snow tourism and manage the impacts of climate change through further investment in snow making for higher altitude alpine resorts, and move towards four season use; • Stimulate the winter market, acknowledging leisure trends and a maturing population and stimulate … high quality experiences and safe access; • Develop the visitor experience by providing attractive mountain villages with local character, and … promote individual resort character; • Encourage a diverse range of quality accommodation in a variety of styles; • Ensure the resorts will be vibrant economic entities; and • Develop an investment strategy for each resort to attract further private sector interest.
The Strategy is required to be considered under the provisions of the Alpine Resorts Planning Scheme and outlines that key relevant opportunities for Mt Hotham include amongst others to:
• Expand snow play areas; • Increased snow making capacity including associated water storage and water recycling systems; • Redevelopment of accommodation within the village limits to offer a greater variety of accommodation types and quality with improved energy efficiency; and • Enhancement of the village character with particular emphasis on the attractiveness of the village in the non winter season.
Page 27 Alpine Resorts Planning Scheme: Amendment C17 Planning Permit Application No. 2005/0337 Report of the Panel: September 2006
4. STRATEGIC ASSESSMENT OF THE AMENDMENT
Amendment C17 seeks to facilitate a new development scheme for Hotham Village. In this section of the report the amendment is assessed against the strategic planning directions that relate to Mt Hotham and which are already in place within the Alpine Resorts Planning Scheme. The Panel will consider the amendment against the provisions of the Strategic Assessment Guidelines for assessing planning scheme amendments to ensure that the amendment and the proposals they facilitate are soundly based in the strategic context and that relevant environmental, social and economic effects are taken into account.
4.1 Strategic Assessment The specific details of the amendment were outlined in full in Section 1.2 of this report. The changes proposed by the amendment are largely encapsulated in the new Comprehensive Development Plan for Hotham Village. These include the separation of vehicles from pedestrians and skiers, the creation of a new north‐south pedestrian spine between White Crystal/Hotham Central and new Development Sites 27 to 31, leading to an open area adjoining Sites 32, 33 and 34, which are nominated in the development concept as the location for the village plaza. The amendment establishes the statutory mechanisms to implement the long held strategy for Mt Hotham to create a village centre.
The amendment introduces a number of initiatives identified in policy that were not previously translated through to the planning controls, including a potential skier bridge alignment at the southern end of the village, the bus interchange and a location for a consolidated deck car park located centrally to the village.
The amendment does not introduce any change to policy, and apart from a site specific provision for car parking, does not alter the existing approval process required for development proposals, which is different to planning permit approval processes which involve third parties under other planning schemes.
In providing his planning evidence, Mr Rogers advised that the key strategic planning directions relevant to the consideration of the amendment are:
• To encourage the use of Mt Hotham as a year round destination. • To provide a clear, identifiable and integrated Village Centre at Hotham Village as the major focus for commercial activity, community facilities, skier congregation and transport hub.
Page 28 Alpine Resorts Planning Scheme: Amendment C17 Planning Permit Application No. 2005/0337 Report of the Panel: September 2006
• Hotham village to be the location for higher density development with significant site coverage and height potential. • Identify suitable locations within the Resort to provide for commercial, residential, tourism development and support infrastructure, having regard to environmental constraints such as flora and fauna and slope. • To assess the realignment of the Great Alpine Road at Hotham Village (behind the Snowbird Inn and the Resort Management Board building). • To ensure that parking provision and public transport to and within the Resort meets visitor needs. • To ensure vehicles, pedestrians and skiers can safely and efficiently move within and throughout the Resort. • To protect and manage significant environmental features and ecosystems. • To ensure vehicles, pedestrians and skiers can safely and efficiently move within and throughout the Resort. • Promote design that reflects elements of the landscape rather than intruding upon it.
With regards to the above, the Panel considers that the conclusion of Mr Rogers that the above planning policies guide the future development intent for Hotham Village, is reasonable and appropriate. The Panel’s considerations are supported by the style of development that currently exists within the Hotham Village, its location at the northern gateway to the Resort and the intent to create a central hub for the Resort, which is currently spread in a lineal fashion along the spine of the Great Alpine Road.
The amendment has been assessed against the policies contained within the State Planning Policy Framework and Local Planning Policy Framework of the Alpine Resorts Planning Scheme (Section 3 of this report). The Panel considers that the planning policy framework is focused on enhancing Mt Hotham as a tourism destination developed and operated in an environmentally sustainable manner cognisant of the setting of the Resort within a scenic and fragile alpine environment.
Concurring with Mr Rogers, the Panel considers that the policy framework revolves around a number of common themes including:
• Creating a four season resort; • Environmental management; • Creation of a village/vibrant resort; and • Realignment of the Great Alpine Road, car parking and traffic management.
Amendment C17 facilitates the diversion of the Great Alpine Road out of the centre of the existing Hotham Village and allows for the former roadway to be used and
Page 29 Alpine Resorts Planning Scheme: Amendment C17 Planning Permit Application No. 2005/0337 Report of the Panel: September 2006
developed in a manner which creates a pedestrian friendly spine protected by new development offering a range of residential and commercial facilities directed towards a new village centre focused on the Village Quad Chairlift area. Importantly, the amendment creates a site for a high quality resort complex to be proposed which will together create an improved opportunity for the Resort to offer all year round tourism appeal. The Panel considers that this opportunity will continue to support the economic base for Mt Hotham in the light of issues revolving around climate change.
The Panel notes that under the Alpine 2020 Strategy, Mt Hotham is recognised as the Resort with the greatest capacity to withstand impacts from climate change due to its higher location above the snowline compared to Victoria’s other alpine resorts. Accordingly, the Panel agrees with the comment of Mr Rogers that:
This approach of establishing a true village node with focal elements is consistent with the policy context of both Alpine 2020 and the Mount Hotham Strategic Statement as it provides a continued commitment to the snow industry, whilst also proactively planning for the impacts of climate change in broadening the investment at the resort and creating four season recreational opportunities.
In terms of the key policy objectives of Clause 21.06‐4 of the scheme, the Panel concurs with the submission of Ms Katz that the amendment meets the policy framework because it:
• Provides for the development and use of the resort for intensive, year‐round recreation whilst observing the environmental, economic, aesthetic and safety considerations of Mt Hotham; • Strengthens Mt Hotham as a destination as it will provide a range of recreation and tourist facilities, residential accommodation, commercial activities and support services; • Ensures that use and development within Mt Hotham are carried out to benefit the present and future resort users whilst maintaining a high quality environment; • Conserves and protects the natural environmental systems within and adjacent to Mt Hotham so as to minimise disturbance to flora and fauna communities and to areas of high scenic quality or visual sensitivity; • Encourages best practice, low impact and environmentally sensitive management; • Encourages a high quality urban design that reflects the alpine character of the resort; • Enhances skier, pedestrian and vehicle activity at desirable levels related to the accessibility and capacity of ski fields, services and commercial activity; • Minimises conflicts arising from development on sites near and adjacent to habitat or communities of flora and fauna that may be adversely affected by development;
Page 30 Alpine Resorts Planning Scheme: Amendment C17 Planning Permit Application No. 2005/0337 Report of the Panel: September 2006
• Respects the requirements of the Victorian Archaeological and Aboriginal Relics Preservation Act 1972, the Commonwealth Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984 and the views of local Aboriginal communities in providing for the conservation and enhancement of places, sites and objects of Aboriginal cultural heritage value; and • Provides appropriate investigation, documentation and resolution of geotechnical hazards.
The Panel notes that the diversion of the Great Alpine Road follows the realignment indicated in Sheet 2 of the Strategic Land Use Framework Plan under Clause 21.06‐3 of the planning scheme. The realignment of the Great Alpine Road provides the opportunity to create new development sites, a multi level undercover car park (501 spaces), a bus interchange and public transport service to the village centre all located adjacent to Hotham Village. The Panel considers that this provides the opportunity to encapsulate a number of strategic policy directions to provide car parking and a new village centre in an area centred on Hotham Village as the activity hub of the Resort. The close location of this car parking facility to Hotham Village allows it to be managed so that it can be used as a shared facility by multiple parties. In managing the car park, the Panel understands that when a car park is not required by an owner of an apartment, it can be made available for use by others.
4.2 Form of Planning Control Amendment C17 comprises changes to the boundary of the Comprehensive Development Zone 1, a change to the Schedule relating to a car parking exemption and a new Comprehensive Development Plan to be incorporated into the Alpine Resorts Planning Scheme to replace the existing incorporated plan. The most significant changes proposed under the amendment relate to the Comprehensive Development Plan.
Although, the Purpose statements remain unchanged as exhibited, it is proposed to change the Development Guidelines involving:
• Introducing an exception for the multi deck car park under the realigned Great Alpine road from having to use Mt Hotham stone. This is understood to relate to ventilation issues. • Revising the table for maximum site coverage and building heights for the Development Sites. The new Development Sites facilitated by the amendment would have a maximum site of 100%. Development Site 1 (the Bale` resort) would have a maximum building height of 9 storeys while many of the new Development sites would have maximum building heights of around 4
Page 31 Alpine Resorts Planning Scheme: Amendment C17 Planning Permit Application No. 2005/0337 Report of the Panel: September 2006
storeys. Building heights would be measured from natural ground level at the front façade while Sites 14, 14b, and 14c would be measured from the Great Alpine Road. • Two new notes are added to the table. Note 2 clarifies that the deck car park referred to as Site 35 involves up to three levels of car parking below the Great Alpine Road and includes associated access structures. Note 3 refers to Sites 25 to 32 inclusive, identifying the need for a minimum clearance between these, and Sites 25 and 26 to provide for both snow clearing operations between these groups of buildings, and to provide for an alternative access route through the village area. • In the design criteria text, two new dot points are proposed, one of which deals with the need for a trafficable route for snow clearing and alternate access on the west side of the new buildings proposed along the current alignment of the Great Alpine Road, and the second identifies the requirement to make provision for a public bus interchange facility in association with development of Sites 32, 33 and 34. • In the first dot point of the design criteria text, acknowledgement is included that Site 1 may not have a fragmented roof or include roof windows. • A typographical error is dealt with in the fifth dot point changing the word “impeded” to “unimpeded”. • An additional clause is included at the end of the text specifying a particular car parking provision arrangement that will provide for the majority of the sites included in the amendment. • A new Comprehensive Development Plan, which reflects the new development and diversion of the Great Alpine Road, the location of the bus interchange and a skier bridge from Higgi Drive to the new village centre.
During the course of the hearing, the Mt Hotham Resort Management Board and the Proponent sought a number of changes to the Comprehensive Development Plan. The changes generally sought included:
• Altering the maximum building height for Development Site 1 from 9 storeys to 5 storeys (or 25 metres) measured from the Great Alpine Road rather than from the front façade. • Reducing the maximum site coverage for Development site 1 from 75% to 45% to better reflect the footprint of the proposed Bale` resort building shown in the Plan. • Adding a notation to Site 27 to ensure that there needs to be a 16 metre gap
Page 32 Alpine Resorts Planning Scheme: Amendment C17 Planning Permit Application No. 2005/0337 Report of the Panel: September 2006
between the Bale` building and the off ramp along the northern side of Site 27. The Board suggested a further note 4 be added to read – “Notwithstanding the maximum site coverage for this site a minimum of 16 metre clearance is required at ground level on the northern part of this site to allow for an accessway and snow clearing. This needs to have a minimum height of 6 metres from ground level.” • In the car parking provision, Sites 22 and 23 need to be removed from the parking requirement of 370 spaces under this exemption. These sites will need to comply with the current parking provisions of the planning scheme. • The Board has a concern about the height limit for Site 14b. This issue is addressed under Section 5.2 of this report. • There is an error with the building height for Site 21 which should be the same as the current height limit of 3A not 3 – three storey plus attics. • Changes with respect to addressing wind effects. • The inclusion of a notation on the Comprehensive Development Plan which identifies the potential for loading access from the car park beneath the Great Alpine Road to the ski school/race club building at the top of the summit quad chair. • A minor adjustment to the notation relating to the “future skier bridge alignment” to reflect that it is only intended to identify an alignment so that it extends just to the south of Higgi Drive.
Minor changes to wording to improve the readability and interpretation of the provisions were also presented to the Panel. All of the proposed changes, except that suggested for the height limit for Site 14b, were agreed to between the Planning Authority, the Board and the Proponent, and are noted by the Panel. The inclusion of the notation relating to loading access is made by the Panel in response to issues raised by Mr Rogers in his evidence.
The Panel observes that in seeking to create a vibrant village centre, the issue of wind effects or micro‐climate considerations and its effect on achieving an enjoyable village centre environment was raised by some submittors in relation to the village centre. In this regard the Panel notes and agrees with the comment from Mr Rogers that:
On the issue of wind effects it will be important to ensure that the detailed design takes this into account to provide for a quality pedestrian and skier environment, particularly given the location of the village on the ridgeline …. It may be worthwhile, however, to avoid any potential concern, to consider identifying locations at the end of each of the new village street corridors created to include a note in the CDP Plan that wind
Page 33 Alpine Resorts Planning Scheme: Amendment C17 Planning Permit Application No. 2005/0337 Report of the Panel: September 2006
amelioration measures may need to be constructed to avoid wind tunnelling effects through these areas, or to add a specific design guideline along these lines.
The Panel considers that such a notation on the Comprehensive Development Plan would assist in highlighting the need for detailed built form designs to take into regard micro‐climate matters and supports its inclusion.
In general, the Panel considers that the form and content of the amendment is appropriate to achieve the objective of facilitating the redevelopment of Hotham Village. The Panel was concerned about the potential for excessive building heights and confusion over how heights would be measured, particularly in relation to the Great Alpine Road in terms of whether measurement is taken from the current alignment or realignment of the road. The Panel also wondered whether the use of height datum measurements would not be a better alternative to ensure clarity of what could be expected in relation to maximum building heights and built form amenity within the village. The Panel was unable to obtain a clear response from parties in relation to this issue. It notes the response from Mr Rogers to questions on this matter where he indicated the difficulty of firstly nominating what the appropriate datum points should be to measure building height envelopes, and secondly where datum points should be established that are clear and appropriate.
The method of measuring building height using storeys above natural ground level taken at the front facades of buildings or from the level of the Great Alpine Road already exists under the Alpine Resorts Planning Scheme. The Panel has seriously considered recommending changing the methodology of measuring building heights using “storeys” because of the lack of definition as to what constitutes the height of a “storey” (i.e. what is the distance between a floor level and a ceiling or roof level). The lack of definition increases the level of interpretation, which accordingly increases the level of risk that built form outcomes may occur which may not meet community expectations.
However, because the methodology of measuring building height already exists within the planning scheme, the Panel considers that only changing it for Amendment C17 and for Mt Hotham would result in a lack of consistency of policy control under the Alpine Resorts Planning Scheme. Given the lack of evidence to clarify this issue, the Panel considers that the current method of measuring building height should remain in place. The Panel strongly encourages the planning authority to review this aspect of the planning controls as part of any future review of the planning scheme to ensure that greater clarity is achieved and that built form outcomes better match community and policy expectations.
Page 34 Alpine Resorts Planning Scheme: Amendment C17 Planning Permit Application No. 2005/0337 Report of the Panel: September 2006
Given the level of support for the suggested changes to the content of the controls proposed under Amendment C17, the Panel considers them acceptable and appropriate.
4.3 Other Issues A number of other issues were raised by submittors, which although are not considered directly relevant to the consideration of the amendment warrant a response from the Panel. These issues are:
• Confusion over bed numbers for the Resort; • Potential loss of ski area, particularly flat areas available for beginner skiers; and • Additional changes suggested by the Mt Hotham Resort Management Board to planning policy contained in the Local Planning Policy Framework.
(i) Number of Beds
With respect to the number of beds, some submittors expressed concerns over the accommodation capacity of the Resort. Mr Keith Boxer argued that the potential bed capacity of Mt Hotham could be higher than 15,500 while the current Alpine Resorts Planning Scheme under Clause 21.06‐4 refers to an optimal bed capacity of 7,000 to 2012. The Mt Hotham Resort Management Board advised the Panel that the bed capacity of 7,000 was constrained due to water limitations from Swindlers Creek. The Board advised however, that these water constraints have been eased and that a revised optimal bed capacity of 8,256 by 2020 was considered optimal. Mr Boxer expressed concern over the apparent confusion in bed numbers, particularly from the perspective of the potential for inappropriate and excessive development to occur. He considered that given the previous constraint on bed capacity within the Resort was driven by water supply, the potential effects of reduced rainfall due to climate change should trigger a review and scaling down of bed capacity.
The issue of bed capacity is one, which relates to the current planning controls rather than directly with Amendment C17. Amendment C17 seeks to provide for an additional 1,414 (1,884 with Zacamoco 470 beds from Development Site 14 included) beds to supplement the current 4,813 at Mt Hotham (the Panel was advised that bed numbers are categorised by reference to pillows so that a double bed counts as two beds). From the Panel’s perspective, the outcome of Amendment C17 will be to increase the bed capacity of Mt Hotham to 6,227 (6,697 with Development Site 14 included) beds. The additional beds from the amendment remains under the 7,000
Page 35 Alpine Resorts Planning Scheme: Amendment C17 Planning Permit Application No. 2005/0337 Report of the Panel: September 2006
bed capacity currently referred to under the planning scheme. Accordingly, the Panel considers the amendment satisfies the planning scheme in relation to bed capacity. Given the revised assessment of bed numbers by the Board, the issue of bed capacity should be re‐considered under any future planning scheme review.
(ii) Loss of Land Available for Skiing
With respect to the loss of flat ground available for skiers, concerns were expressed about the loss of beginner skiing area, particularly around the existing workshop and the ski race hut areas. The combination of area required for diverting the Great Alpine Road between the existing ski race hut and the Snowbird Inn and the footprint of the Bale` resort building on the site of the existing workshop raised fears that good flat ground available for skiing, and particularly for beginner skiers, would be substantially lost, creating a significant impact on the skier experience.
Ms Katz informed the Panel that although a large area is rezoned for Development Site 1, the lease arrangements do not allow for the prevention of skier access to areas surrounding buildings. Given the Board’s request for reducing the site coverage for Development Site 1 (45% from 75%), it is considered that the degree of impact on skier access may not be significant. The Panel requested a plan showing any net loss or gain in skier area, and while requested at the hearing, the plan was provided several days after. The plan “Skifield Area Impacts from C17” showed a “net skiable terrain gain total” of 0.13%. The Panel is somewhat sceptical about this marginal increase, and it places no weight on it. Some of the areas shown as being “Proposed addition to Ski Area” appear to be available now.
The Panel recognises that Hotham Village is the focal point for accommodation and commercial activity, and while there may be some loss of area available for skiing in the immediate vicinity of the village, this is marginal.
(iii) Policy Changes
Ms Katz requested two consequential policy changes, which sit outside the exhibited amendment. The changes include:
• Changing the first strategy dot point under “Infrastructure” in Clause 21.06‐4 to enable the workshop to be located within the ski area rather than with the main accommodation and resort services that are separated from the ski lease area. In other words, the change seeks to reinforce the ability to relocate the workshop from the Hotham Village hub to an area more closely associated with alpine recreation and management of ski areas rather than being solely
Page 36 Alpine Resorts Planning Scheme: Amendment C17 Planning Permit Application No. 2005/0337 Report of the Panel: September 2006
associated with residential and commercial elements of the Resort. • Changing dot point 10 under Policy in clause 22.06‐1 relating to the Loch car park to alter the intent of the use of the car park from that of providing day parking and general overflow day parking to being retained principally for summer visitor parking with limited day parking in the winter, and that long term and day parking is to be encouraged in the managed parking facility provided under the realignment of the Great Alpine Road.
The Panel considers that while these changes are outside the ambit of Amendment C17, they were raised and discussed during the hearing process and they serve only to strengthen policy in the light of the current amendment. No submittor at the hearing objected to these changes being introduced in principle. Their inclusion also overcomes a strategic issue identified in Section 7 of this report in relation to the planning permit application. The Panel therefore supports these changes.
4.4 Panel Findings The Panel considers that Hotham Village currently consists of a ribbon form of development bisected by a major road surrounded by an area of environmental sensitivity. Amendment C17 seeks to build on the planning framework established under Amendment C6 by implementing a form of development that achieves the policy intent to divert the Great Alpine Road out of the village centre, create a pedestrian and skier friendly village centre, provide new car parking and protect the environment.
The Panel supports Amendment C17 as it will implement strategic planning policy established for the central village of Mt Hotham. The Panel agrees with the conclusion of Mr Rogers that:
• The proposed Amendment is required to facilitate the realignment of the Great Alpine Road and the reconfiguration of development parcels, which will accommodate the development concept proposed by MFS Living and the Ray Group. • Whilst facilitating a particular development concept, the Amendment is also consistent with planning policy. It will assist in the delivery of a number of strategies, in particular those set out in Alpine 2020 and the Mount Hotham Strategic Statement. • Social, environmental and economic effects can be appropriately addressed. • The package of existing and proposed planning controls will provide for the appropriate consideration of detail use and development proposals for the Mount Hotham Village. The proposed controls provide at least equivalent guidance to what is currently in place, and in a number of circumstances provides additional detail (eg.
Page 37 Alpine Resorts Planning Scheme: Amendment C17 Planning Permit Application No. 2005/0337 Report of the Panel: September 2006
Public bus interchange location, potential skier access bridge alignment). • The resultant planning policy and control framework will provide an appropriate basis for the assessment of detail proposals.
The changes presented to the Panel on the final day of the hearing are considered appropriate and should be adopted. Appendix 4 contains a copy of the amended Comprehensive Development Plan for Hotham Village.
Specifically, the Panel recommends:
1. The amended version of the Comprehensive Development Plan, as provided on 31 August 2006 be adopted, subject to the following:
• Include a new dot point under “Any development proposal must also demonstrate consideration of the following design criteria” to read as follows: “Provision of an appropriate loading access from the car park beneath the Great Alpine Road to the ski school/race club building at the top of the summit quad chair”.
2. The provisions of Clause 21 and 22 of the Alpine Resorts Planning Scheme be amended as follows:
(i) Change the first strategy dot point under “Infrastructure” in Clause 21.06‐4 to read “Design and locate physical infrastructure and services to minimise their environmental and visual impact through consolidation of service facilities within the existing Resort management workshop area, or in the vicinity of the Loch Reservoir”. (ii) Delete dot point 10 under Policy in clause 22.06‐1 relating to the Loch car park.
Page 38 Alpine Resorts Planning Scheme: Amendment C17 Planning Permit Application No. 2005/0337 Report of the Panel: September 2006
5. ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Environmental issues revolve around impacts on flora and fauna and visual and scenic qualities. Key impacts on flora and fauna relate to direct and indirect impacts, such as removal of native vegetation and associated fauna habitat. Indirect impacts are associated with reduced water quality and sedimentation arising from soil disturbance and erosion and stormwater management.
Assessment of visual issues of Amendment C17 is limited to how the planning design guidelines and zone changes will adequately control and manage built form outcomes, with respect to the scenic environment of Mt Hotham and the surrounding Alpine National Park. The amendment does not propose any buildings or structures and accordingly, the Panel is not considering design features associated with the realignment of the Great Alpine Road and its proposed undercover car park or the Bale` resort building proposed for Site 1 at Mt Hotham. Conversely, the Panel is considering design and siting issues relating to the ski field operation centre and skier facility located at Heavenly Valley/Loch car park for which Planning Permit Application 2005/0337 has been lodged. Accordingly, visual impact issues will be assessed by the Panel for recommendation to the responsible authority.
The Panel was assisted in considering environmental impacts by the evidence of Mr Harvey of Biosis Research, the written evidence statements of Mr Williamson of Scenic Spectrums, and Mr McMahon of Ecology Australia, as well as the submissions from various parties.
5.1 Flora and Fauna Impacts (i) Amendment C17
Consideration of flora and fauna impacts associated with the amendment relate to the area of land rezoned from Comprehensive Development Zone 2 and Road Zone 1 to Comprehensive Development Zone 1. Ecology Australia investigated the amendment sites covering both the existing and proposed alignments of the Great Alpine Road, the new development sites located on the west side of the existing Great Alpine Road alignment, the area to the east (behind) both Zirky’s and White Crystal Apartments and the area around the current workshop including the proposed extension of the CDZ1 to create the new Development Site 1 at Mt Hotham.
The Ecology Australia investigation recorded a total of 111 plant species, which contained a notable weed component (approximately 28%) considered to be
Page 39 Alpine Resorts Planning Scheme: Amendment C17 Planning Permit Application No. 2005/0337 Report of the Panel: September 2006
representative of an already disturbed area. Their report stated that:
The results indicate that all sites have been significantly disturbed as part of the existing village and skifield infrastructure. This has substantially degraded the values through changes to landform, the replacement of indigenous with exotic vegetation, habitat loss, and further reduction in fauna values due to fragmented and otherwise degraded habitat.
The following Ecological Vegetation Classes (EVCs) were identified at the amendment sites: • Sub‐alpine Woodland, which largely occupies the western aspects but occurs as bands on the eastern slopes. This EVC has a conservation status of Least Concern. • Alpine Grassy Heathland, which occurs on the eastern and north‐eastern aspects and is frequently associated with a snowgum canopy. This canopy has in part been removed by skifield development. The conservation status is Vulnerable. • Alpine Rocky Outcrop Heathland, which occurs in a mosaic with Alpine Grassy Heathland but is prominent on the north facing aspects of the eastern spur lines. Similarly, the extant distribution of snowgums suggests a former sparse to moderate canopy. The conservation status is Vulnerable.
The loss of native vegetation that would be expected to occur resulting from the changes proposed under the amendment was assessed by Ecology Australia and is shown in Table 1.
Table 1: Extent of Native Vegetation loss proposed under the extension of the Comprehensive Development Zone 1
Alpine Alpine Sub‐alpine Rocky Total Disturbed Grassy Zone Description Woodland Outcrop Area Area m2 Heathland Area m2 Heathland m2 Area m2 Area m2 White Substantially 2,187 164 1,166 86 3,603 Crystal/Hotham modified Central Zirky’s Partially 230 ‐ ‐ 213 433 modified Bale`/Great Substantially 10,232 ‐ 96 969 11,297 Alpine Road modified Totals 12,649 164 1,262 1,268 15,333
Note: These figures do not include the extent of native vegetation impacted by the proposed realignment of the Great Alpine Road). Source: Ecology Australia 2006.
Page 40 Alpine Resorts Planning Scheme: Amendment C17 Planning Permit Application No. 2005/0337 Report of the Panel: September 2006
Removal of native vegetation associated with the realignment of the Great Alpine Road involves approximately 3,957 square metres, of which 3,118 square metres comprises Least Concern classified Sub‐alpine Woodland. The conservation significance rating provided by Ecology Australia range from Medium to Very High based on an assessment of individual development sites within Hotham Village. The total area of impact from the amendment including a 20% allowance for construction impacts was estimated to be approximately 0.38 habitat hectares and the estimated net gain target required to offset the loss of native vegetation arising from the amendment would be approximately 0.5 habitat hectares or 5,000 square metres of like for like habitat created and protected. The area of estimated vegetation loss is based upon the various Development Sites and site coverage provisions included within the amendment. Many sites have site coverage provisions of 75% and 100%. However, the Panel notes that these are maximum site coverage provisions and it is expected that not all sites may be developed up to the maximum extent allowable under the provisions of the amendment. Accordingly, the habitat hectare losses may well be an over estimation of those identified by Ecology Australia and what actually could result from future development.
The Panel considers that under the process of developing site management plans for approval under the Comprehensive Development Zone 1 provisions, a net gain assessment will be required for each development site demonstrating compliance with the three step approach to vegetation management involving avoid, minimise and offset. The compliance with net gain, the provisions of Clause 15.09 of the SPPF and Victoria’s Native Vegetation Management – A Framework for Action should provide an appropriate framework that safeguards the environmental values found within Hotham Village.
The Panel notes that within the amendment site area no plant species were recorded during survey work by Ecology Australia that were listed under either the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC) or Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1987 (FFG). However, Ecology Australia stated that:
A number of populations of rare or threatened plant species which are not listed under either the EPBC or FFG Acts occur at the sites. These include 14 rare, one vulnerable and one endangered species.
The Panel notes the comment from Mr Harvey who advised that the conservation status of the single endangered species identified by Ecology Australia within the amendment site, namely High‐plain Podolepis (Podolepis sp. aff. robusta) has now been reconsidered by DSE and this species is now classified as rare. Accordingly,
Page 41 Alpine Resorts Planning Scheme: Amendment C17 Planning Permit Application No. 2005/0337 Report of the Panel: September 2006
the Panel notes that no endangered flora species have been recorded within the amendment sites and accepts the conclusion of Ecology Australia that:
While there has been incremental losses in populations at Hotham over the years, all species classified as rare have large relatively secure populations within the resort.
The provision of appropriate net gain sites for offsetting the expected loss of native vegetation following approval of Amendment C17 is proposed using a combination of identified like for like sites comprising similar EVCs with similar conservation significance ratings. The Proponent and the Mt Hotham Resort Management Board have both identified a number of potential offset sites within the Resort area. The Panel understands these sites can be supported by the preparation of a Net Gain Strategy currently being undertaken by the Board. As part of considering Amendment C17, the Panel is not assessing details of net gain offset sites because the Panel is not assessing any specific developments. However, the Panel does need to be aware that opportunities for achieving appropriate net gain are available. In this regard, the Panel believes that the extent of native vegetation loss is acceptable from an environmental perspective and that appropriate sites are available within the Resort area at Mt Hotham for net gain offsets to be established.
A concern expressed by submittors however, was that the ability to effectively offset vegetation loss would be difficult if not impossible due to the challenges involved in establishing vegetation above the snow line. The Panel questioned Mr Harvey on this issue who advised that the Mt Hotham Resort Management Board are aware of the challenges involved in successfully establishing the growth and survival of native vegetation within the alpine environment. The Board operates an alpine nursery and would employ both a revegetation strategy and weed management strategy to facilitate successful offsets. Mr Harvey recognised that offsets need to be necessarily larger in alpine environments compared to locations below the snow line.
The challenges involved in providing offsets in the alpine environment are recognised by Ecology Australia who propose an offset strategy that focuses on revegetation as an offset for EVCs of High or Very High Conservation Significance rather than employing management which is the usual requirement under Victoria’s Native Vegetation – A Framework for Action. Ecology Australia state that:
In general, there are not the opportunities to improve broad acreages of extant alpine vegetation through management, and to ultimately demonstrate and sustain a gain in condition as required under Net Gain ….
By comparison, there is a real opportunity to improve degraded sites. In the Alps, this
Page 42 Alpine Resorts Planning Scheme: Amendment C17 Planning Permit Application No. 2005/0337 Report of the Panel: September 2006
requires a great deal of resources and a long term commitment.
The Panel considers that the alpine region demands a concerted effort to firstly ensure that all possible attempts are employed to avoid the need to remove native vegetation. The three step approach to managing native vegetation involving avoiding, minimising and offsetting native vegetation loss is considered by the Panel to be an even more critical strategy for development in this sensitive alpine environment. To this extent, the Panel is satisfied that avoidance has been applied on the basis that the amendment has proposed to rezone land which is already significantly disturbed and contains relatively small areas of otherwise fragmented native vegetation rated as having a Very High Conservation Significance.
The Panel supports the intent of the Proponent, the Board and DSE to further develop a strategy on appropriate net gain outcomes. The Panel supports the proposal to develop a Vegetation Management Plan to ensure that as development flowing from the approval of Amendment C17 occurs, appropriate offsets are identified, made available, and methodologies agreed to and long term commitments are all in place to achieve appropriate net gain in native vegetation.
With regards to fauna, the Panel notes that no fauna species of state significance were recorded by Ecology Australia for the amendment sites. Two nationally listed fauna species were however considered; the Alpine Tree Frog (Litoria verreauxi alpina) and Mountain Pygmy‐possum (Burramys parvus). In relation to the Alpine Tree Frog, the Panel understands that the nearest record of this species is approximately 600 metres away from the amendment site. Accordingly, the Panel considers that impacts on the Alpine Tree Frog will most likely not occur or not be significant. The Panel agrees with the conclusion of Ecology Australia that any impacts that may occur may well be beneficial to the species as a result of the proposal to construct sedimentation ponds and associated stormwater detention and treatment infrastructure as part of future development that may occur following approval of the amendment.
In relation to the Mountain Pygmy‐possum, the Panel understands that the area affected by Amendment C17 is clear of known habitat areas. However, the Panel acknowledges that substantial concerns have been expressed over the potential impacts on the Mountain Pygmy‐possum by submittors, which is highlighted by its very limited habitat range within the alpine region. As discussed in Section 3, the habitat area of the Mountain Pygmy‐possum at Mt Hotham is delineated by an Environmental Significance Overlay, which relates in part to a broader Management Area identifying important breeding and non‐breeding areas of the possum. The habitat area supports more than 50% of the known adult population, however with
Page 43 Alpine Resorts Planning Scheme: Amendment C17 Planning Permit Application No. 2005/0337 Report of the Panel: September 2006
the initial construction of the Great Alpine Road and pre 1989 development of the Resort, approximately 20% of prime habitat for the possum was removed. The construction of the Great Alpine Road also restricted the breeding movement of males from lower quality habitat downslope of the road to higher quality habitat occupied by females upslope. Accordingly, in 1986 a wildlife tunnel, referred to as “the tunnel of love” was constructed under the road to re‐connect the species social structure.
The Panel notes the statement from Ecology Australia that:
The Mountain Pygmy‐possum Management Area is represented by the Environmental Significance Overlay which covers substantial areas of the eastern and western aspects of Mt Higginbotham. The only item of the Master Plan which is near the Management Area boundary is the skier bridge. This is to extend from below Higgi Drive (the Panel understands from the southern edge of Higgi Drive) to the Village Quad Chair and would not impact on the Management Area. All other sites are well removed, and there appear to be no significant issues for the Mountain Pygmy‐possum arising from the proposal.
Mr Harvey confirms the above view, where he states that the amendment site lies entirely outside the Environment Significance Overlay and that at its closest point development proposed under the amendment is 60 metres downslope from known habitat of the Mountain Pygmy‐possum.
Concerns were expressed by submittors in relation to the effects that future development associated with the amendment would have on the Bogong Moth (Agrotis infusa), which is a major food source for the Mountain Pygmy‐possum. Impacts suggested related to lighting of the future resort development and its effect on distracting the migratory and general movements of the moth, and accordingly impacting on the food source for the possum. The Panel understands that the Bogong Moth is migratory and leaves the alpine region in March/April to travel to breeding grounds in Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria and return in September/October to survive the hot dry summer period. The migratory path taken by the moth involves a number of hazards none the least of which are predators as well as artificial lights of which the city of Canberra itself presents as a significant impact. Given the migration process described, the Panel does not consider that lighting within the resort at Mt Hotham, particularly during the non‐winter season, will lead to a significant impact on the moth, which would present as a threat to the survival of the Mountain Pygmy‐possum. On the contrary, the Panel considers that the creation of focal points for the moth may be beneficial for the possum in terms of food supply.
Page 44 Alpine Resorts Planning Scheme: Amendment C17 Planning Permit Application No. 2005/0337 Report of the Panel: September 2006
Concerns were raised in relation to impacts associated with infrastructure development to support the amendment such as water, sewerage, gas supply and stormwater management. It is understood that service infrastructure will need to be upgraded, however it is acknowledged that the Proponent and the Mt Hotham Resort Management Board have considered potential impacts and appropriate mitigation strategies which include the following:
• Avoid impacts associated with augmentation of the rising water main to the storage tanks on the top of Mt Higginbotham by installing a break tank and lift pump at Razorback Lodge which is located just above Higgi Drive on the north‐east side of Mt Higginbotham. Ecology Australia indicates that this would avoid impacting on the habitat area of the Mountain Pygmy‐possum because the infrastructure would be located outside of the Environment Significance Overlay. Long‐term mitigation may also involve micro tunnelling under the habitat. A new storage tank on Mt Higginbotham would be located within an existing disturbed area associated with existing tanks and the duplication of the rising main from Swindlers Creek would be located within an existing disturbed area located within an existing skifield. • Any new LPG Gas main could be installed in the shoulder of the existing Great Alpine Road. The area is already disturbed and there would be no habitat loss. Micro tunnelling would be undertaken underneath the “tunnel of love”. • Any new sewer main lines or upgrades would be undertaken on existing disturbed areas outside of the Environment Significance Overlay and thus avoiding habitat disturbance and loss.
Impacts from stormwater are considered to be capable of appropriate management through application of best practice stormwater retention and treatment systems. The Panel is confident that the integrated form of development facilitated under Amendment C17 will ensure that an effective stormwater management system will be developed for Hotham Village. Environmentally sensitive management of stormwater at Mt Hotham is critically important because the Resort sits on a ridgeline with current drainage falling into two catchments; the Dargo River and Swindlers Creek. It is considered that a stormwater management system that seeks to provide peak flow storage, a lowering of peak flow discharge to pre‐development levels and avoidance of concentrated flow discharge through dissipation structures, swales and retention basins, with controlled outflows to well vegetated areas will, together, prevent impacts on the environment from poor stormwater quality and increased stormwater quantity.
Page 45 Alpine Resorts Planning Scheme: Amendment C17 Planning Permit Application No. 2005/0337 Report of the Panel: September 2006
The draft Environmental Management Plan for Stage One establishes the following objectives:
• To manage all village construction and maintenance activities to conserve and enhance catchment values and water resources of the resort. • To enhance the ecological integrity of all natural waterways downstream of the village. • To protect and enhance habitat values in the drainage lines and creeks downstream of the village.
The Panel considers that the above objectives provide the foundation for an effective stormwater management system to be implemented for development facilitated by the amendment.
The provision of structural snow holders to retain snow on roofs together with drip line drainage around building perimeters will seek to reduce the concentration of run‐off. The collection and treatment system for stormwater should protect and improve water quality and possibly assist in providing opportunistic habitat for species such as the Alpine Tree Frog (Litoria verreauxi alpina) and the Broad‐toothed Rat (Mastacomys fuscus). The development of such infrastructure will be required under the current provisions of the planning scheme and supported by the integrated development of both the former route and proposed diversion of the Great Alpine Road. The developments facilitated by the amendment will demand integrated innovative best practice stormwater management, which would be unlikely to occur under site specific fragmented forms of development.
(ii) Planning Permit Application 2005/0337 – Heavenly Valley
Ecology Australia recorded 41 vascular plant species within the site of the ski field operations facility, of which 38 were indigenous and three introduced. In the Heavenly Valley skier facility site area, 27 vascular plant species were recorded of which 24 were indigenous and three are introduced. EVCs found within the Heavenly Valley development sites were Alpine Grassy Heathland and Alpine Rocky Outcrop Heathland. The conservation significance rating for the native vegetation found on the development sites is Very High.
Modified plans submitted have reduced the level of impact on native vegetation from a total of loss of 2,760 square metres to 730 square metres through the following changes:
Page 46 Alpine Resorts Planning Scheme: Amendment C17 Planning Permit Application No. 2005/0337 Report of the Panel: September 2006
• Realignment of the workshop to reduce the required apron area; and • Redesign of the restaurant and snowmaking facility, and relocation to disturbed areas between the snowmaking dam and Schuchard Hut.
These changes can best be summarised in Table 2.
Table 2: Heavenly Valley Development Sites revised calculation of vegetation loss (m2).
Alpine Rocky Outcrop Facility Alpine Grassy Heathland Heathland Planning Revised Planning Revised Application Application Workshop 860 300 ‐ ‐ Restaurant/Snowmaking 1,900 (includes a 430 (includes a 5 metre 5 metre construction construction zone) zone)
Source: McMahon Witness Statement ‐ 2006
Accordingly, the required net gain target has reduced from 0.53 habitat hectares to 0.14 habitat hectares or 1,400 square metres of like for like habitat created and protected.
The Panel considers that the modified plans for the Heavenly Valley development are a significant improvement as they reduce the extent of impact on native vegetation. In this regard the Panel agrees with the conclusion of Ecology Australia that:
The proposal is now considered to reasonably comply with the 3 staged process of Net Gain – namely:
• Avoidance – while some vegetation will be lost it is relatively minor; • Minimisation – the proposal makes good use of disturbed areas; • Offsets – the offset targets have been substantially reduced and are considered achievable in the context of the strategies proposed.
The provision of required offsets for vegetation losses at Heavenly Valley are similar to that proposed for Amendment C17. A number of offset options are proposed including revegetation and management of remnant vegetation. Ecology Australia has favoured a revegetation program, however specific offset sites have not been finally selected. It is noted by the Panel that a number of potential offset sites within
Page 47 Alpine Resorts Planning Scheme: Amendment C17 Planning Permit Application No. 2005/0337 Report of the Panel: September 2006
the Resort area have been identified by both Ecology Australia and Biosis Research. The Panel understands that these offset sites have similar conservation significance ratings and would cover the need for ‘like for like’ offsetting that would satisfy the achievement of net gain. Accordingly, the Panel is confident that suitable offset sites are available and can be determined and implemented through a landscape and revegetation planning process that could be required under appropriate planning permit conditions.
Ecology Australia identified that the Alpine Grassy Heathland found at the ski field operations facility may provide habitat value for the Alpine She‐oak Skink, while the predominant Alpine Rocky Outcrop Heathland EVC found at the skier facility may not provide as favourable habitat due to the vegetation being prostrate, more open and without dense grassy swards, and stony terraces which reduce its habitat potential. They conclude that the reduction in the loss of Alpine Grassy Heathland EVC from 860 to 300 square metres is considered sufficient that impacts on the local population of the Alpine She‐oak Skink would be unlikely.
The Panel agrees with the conclusions of Ecology Australia and supports a mitigation strategy to move any individuals from the construction zone that may be found during construction activity. It supports the conclusion stated by Mr Harvey that:
It is my opinion that given the reduced impact on Alpine Grassy Heathland and Alpine Rocky Outcrop Heathland the proposed Heavenly Valley Development Plan will not have a significant impact on either EVC within the Resort or in the Victorian Alps bioregion.
Given the above conclusions, the lack of any evidence to the contrary and the support shown from DSE following the withdrawal of their initial objection to Planning Permit Application 2005/0337, the Panel considers that the impacts on flora and fauna from the development proposed at Heavenly Valley are considered minor and will not create any noticeable or significant impacts on the alpine environment.
Page 48 Alpine Resorts Planning Scheme: Amendment C17 Planning Permit Application No. 2005/0337 Report of the Panel: September 2006
5.2 Visual and Scenic Impacts (i) Amendment C17
The scenic character of the area surrounding Mt Hotham comprises high alpine peaks, ridges and plateaus with well defined v‐shaped river and stream valleys. The Mt Hotham Alpine Resort is an island of development surrounded by wilderness mountain scenery. The Resort contains a range of buildings from 2 to 3 storey development in Davenport closely associated with the existing snow gum treeline, while at Hotham Village the form of development is more urban with residential and commercial development up to 4 to 6 storeys.
Some submittors raised concerns about impacts on the visual amenity and loss of views around Mt Hotham and surrounds from buildings that would be permissible under the amendment. With respect to these concerns, it is worth noting some of the key findings of a visual assessment undertaken by Mr Williamson. In particular, the Panel notes that Hotham Village is located on a visually exposed ridgetop saddle between Mt Hotham and Mt Higginbotham. Such a visually exposed location would mean that any development would be visible and present a new element within the alpine landscape. The visual exposure and the quality of the amenity of Hotham Village means that viewlines towards the village are already somewhat impacted by the current Resort, contributed to by existing urban development having large expanses of mostly unvegetated car parks, service areas, high degree of barren areas and a mix of building designs strung out along the Great Alpine Road in a linear urban form.
Under the amendment, no buildings are directly proposed and accordingly, are not assessed by the Panel. However, the Proponent has indicated that on Development Site 1 located on the north gateway of Hotham Village, it is proposed to develop on this site the Bale` resort building which will be an icon building meant to provide a gateway entry to the Mt Hotham Alpine Resort and Hotham Village, with a height of around 9 storeys. The Panel notes the discussion from both the Proponent and the Mt Hotham Resort Management Board regarding the proposed building height controls under the exhibited Comprehensive Development Plan and in particular the maximum height proposed for Development Site 1.
Under the exhibited amendment the maximum building height for Development Site 1 (Bale’ resort building site) is 9 storeys, to be measured from natural ground level at the building’s front façade to the top of the vertical plane. The Mt Hotham Resort Management Board submitted that the maximum building height for Site 1 should be amended to read 5 storeys (or 25 metres) from the Great Alpine Road to avoid
Page 49 Alpine Resorts Planning Scheme: Amendment C17 Planning Permit Application No. 2005/0337 Report of the Panel: September 2006
confusion with the terminology of front façade. It is noted that the Board have sought to reduce the site coverage provision from 75% (as exhibited) to 45% to better match the building footprint to that shown on the Comprehensive Development Plan and to retain a planning permit trigger for a larger building footprint if proposed.
Together these changes offered by the Board have a relationship with visual issues because of the intent, and agreed by Mr Canavan, who said:
The Board argues for the height limit for site 1 to be specified as five storeys above “GAR”. It is submitted that, subject to a clearly worded Schedule, this adequately addresses the key principle which is that the overall height of the development on site 1 will approximate the height of buildings as perceived within the village.
On this basis and acknowledging that building height controls for new development sites created under Amendment C17 are to reflect building heights of existing buildings, the changes suggested are supported by the Panel.
With regard to the issue of visual impact associated with building heights more generally, the Panel considers that irrespective of what buildings may be proposed, its considerations primarily relate to what is promoted under strategic planning policy for the Mt Hotham Alpine Resort, which in this case is for Hotham Village (the central hub of the Resort) to be developed with higher density residential and commercial development linked with the realignment of the Great Alpine Road to create a new village centre.
The current planning scheme already allows for such higher density development to occur. Amendment C17 seeks to extend the development opportunity to the north towards the Hull Skier Bridge over the current workshop site to allow for development to occur. The amendment brings with it a more integrated development plan allowed under the proposal to realign the Great Alpine Road, which creates a new spine of development on flat land within the Hotham Village.
In this regard, the Panel agrees with the finding of Mr Williamson where he states that:
The proposed CDZ1 Amendment would potentially result in higher, denser development slightly further north than the existing CDZ1. The proposed building heights for Site Development Area No. 1 and the proposed Great Alpine Road diversion and associated three‐level car park facility could lead to visually substantial structures with associated visual effects. The application of appropriate building details and colours (including
Page 50 Alpine Resorts Planning Scheme: Amendment C17 Planning Permit Application No. 2005/0337 Report of the Panel: September 2006
darker greens and greys that blend with the alpine vegetation), the use of non‐reflective glass and surfaces, the establishment of architectural and landscape planting screens and other design methods will help to ameliorate visual effects. However, given the height and mass of these potential structures, they cannot be fully screened or blended into the landscape. The visual acceptability of the proposed developments will rely largely on the specifics of their architectural and engineering design.
Accordingly, the Panel considers that the visual effects of Amendment C17 would be no greater than that which is possible under the current planning scheme provisions. New higher density buildings are possible under the current Alpine Resorts Planning Scheme including the promotion of the realignment of the Great Alpine Road and the development of an urban village centre at Mt Hotham, which are all supported by the Alpine Resorts Planning Scheme. The specifics of visual impacts created from development proposals would be assessed on their merits at a future point in time in accordance with the provisions of the planning scheme including those proposed as part of Amendment C17 and which have been discussed earlier in this report.
With regards to loss of views, the Panel is aware of the potential for viewlines from the existing alignment of the Great Alpine Road, and from existing development being lost by potential development, resulting from the extension of the CDZ1 proposed under the amendment. As with many forms of new development located within highly scenic locations, there is always the potential for views to be lost or diminished as a place grows and develops. The Panel notes that the existing planning scheme contains policies requiring consideration of views and the relationship between buildings regarding views. This issue was specifically questioned by the Panel and responded to by Mr Canavan, who drew attention to relevant provisions relating to ensuring that new development has consideration to respecting existing view lines under Clause 21.06‐4. The Panel considers that the planning scheme controls provide an adequate planning framework for issues of management and protection of viewlines to be considered and provided for within future development proposals.
The Panel believes that loss of views east of White Crystal can be adequately considered through future development making proper use of the sloping land to allow for view sharing. It considers a range of new viewlines could be created particularly from the realignment of the Great Alpine Road towards the west from the Resort. A range of new opportunities for viewlines to be created from future development of Hotham Village may well compensate for those that may be lost or diminished.
Page 51 Alpine Resorts Planning Scheme: Amendment C17 Planning Permit Application No. 2005/0337 Report of the Panel: September 2006
The Panel notes the request from the Mt Hotham Resort Management Board to amend the maximum height control for Development Site 14b from 4 storeys to 2A (two storeys plus attic). The Board requested the reduced height in an attempt to preserve viewlines from Development Site 14c, which is located to the south across the alignment of the Great Alpine Road. In this regard, Mr Canavan provided an alternative opinion:
It is submitted that the Board is being unnecessarily cautious. It submits that the limitation on height is necessary to protect views from site 14c. However, there is as yet no development on site 14c. The purpose of any new view protection objectives in the scheme is to reasonably protect existing viewlines, not to provide views for every development site. If, in the event, site 14c has been developed and enjoys views, this will be a matter to be considered in design detail for site 14b. It is submitted that it is not a reason to prematurely curtail height opportunities at site 14b.
The Panel was advised that Development Sites 14b and 14c would most likely be developed as stage 9 (last stage) in the New Hotham Redevelopment. Given that these two sites could be developed together in the last stage, viewline protection and capitalisation in relation to building height could be considered concurrently. However, the Panel considers that it would be more appropriate to amend the maximum height control for Development Site 14b on the basis that one of the purposes of the new Comprehensive Development Plan is:
To protect and enhance view lines from the Village Centre by providing appropriate height and setback controls for all buildings.
Reducing the maximum building height for Development Site 14b would satisfy this purpose and also bring the maximum height in line with the two storeys plus attics building height currently proposed for Development Site 14c. The Panel therefore recommends that the height control be amended accordingly.
The Panel recommends that the height for Development Site 14b be noted as 2A in the Comprehensive Development Plan 1, Development Guidelines.
(ii) Planning Permit Application 2005/0337 – Heavenly Valley
Visual impacts associated with the Heavenly Valley development were assessed by Mr Williamson including a re‐assessment of the proposed changes to the Heavenly Valley developments following modified plans presented to the Panel at the Directions Hearing. Mr Williamson found that the development proposed at Heavenly Valley would be visible from the Great Alpine Road and the Australian
Page 52 Alpine Resorts Planning Scheme: Amendment C17 Planning Permit Application No. 2005/0337 Report of the Panel: September 2006
Alps Walking Track (west and east of Mt Hotham), both of which are classified as High Viewer Sensitivity travel routes.
Submittors expressed concerns over visual impacts of the proposed development at Heavenly Valley on the adjoining Alpine National Park. The Panel notes that the Heavenly Valley/Loch car park area is an area that, although located on a ridge, has been developed and used for a range of infrastructure and ski field developments including car parking, and most recently for a reservoir and pump house. In terms of visual impacts on the National Park, the Panel notes the comment from Mr Williamson in his witness statement that:
As described in my previous report on the Heavenly Valley Developments, any possible silhouetting of the proposed restaurant building would be seen from viewpoints 6km or greater distance to the northwest and north along the Razorback Track and Mt Feathertop vicinity. However, given its position and the terrain in the backdrop, the building is unlikely to be silhouetted at all. In views from Mt Loch and further north in the Bogong High Plains, not only would the distances diminish the visual magnitude, but the site would be backed by the larger mass of Mt Hotham, meaning it would not be silhouetted against the skyline.
My main concerns about these buildings on Loch Spur are the potential for the creation of reflected sunlight or glare off reflective glass or other materials and the possible projection of night time light into the National Park and bushwalking/camping areas. Measures to minimise such effects have been recommended and should be a condition of permit.
In relation to the above comment from Mr Williamson, the Panel notes that the draft planning permit contains a condition addressing his concern (Condition No. 20), which is supported.
The Panel considers that the visual impacts from the developments proposed at Heavenly Valley will not be significant and have been considerably improved as a result of the changes proposed in the modified plans. The redesign has lowered the proposed ski field operations centre below the floor and roof levels contained in the original exhibited plans, and the integration of the skier facilities centre with the pump house building and its re‐location adjacent to the dam has reduced the combined visual impact on the location and the surrounding area.
Page 53 Alpine Resorts Planning Scheme: Amendment C17 Planning Permit Application No. 2005/0337 Report of the Panel: September 2006
5.3 Panel Findings The Panel concludes that the overall offset required for the amendment and the Heavenly Valley development, estimated at 0.64 habitat hectares combined with the objectives and actions outlined in the draft Hotham Village Environmental Management Plan Stage One prepared as part of the amendment, are appropriate and achievable. The environmental impacts on flora and fauna within the alpine environment will not be significant. The three step approach to vegetation management has been satisfied through rezoning or selecting development sites that are already significantly disturbed or contain only small areas of remnant vegetation.
Both Amendment C17 and the Heavenly Valley developments are located outside the identified habitat areas of the Mountain Pygmy‐possum. Some habitat value occurs at the Heavenly Valley site for the Alpine She‐oak Skink. However, it is considered that the extent of habitat impact has now been reduced as a result of modified plans, which limits the degree of impact to the Skink to manageable levels to the extent that if individuals are located during construction, they can be relocated.
The Panel concludes that significant impacts on flora and fauna and the alpine environment of Mt Hotham from both Amendment C17 for the redevelopment of Hotham Village and Planning Permit Application 2005/0337 for the ski field operations centre and skier facility at Heavenly Valley will be unlikely. From an environmental viewpoint, both the amendment and planning permit application are considered satisfactory.
The Panel considers that the visual impacts of Amendment C17 are not significantly greater than what would be possible under the existing provisions of the Alpine Resorts Planning Scheme. New opportunities for viewlines to be created may well occur, particularly with respect to the realignment of the Great Alpine Road. Impacts on the surrounding area need to be considered in the context that Hotham Village is a residential and commercial island associated with a ski resort located within a significant wilderness mountain environment.
The Panel supports the changes proposed by the Mt Hotham Resort Management Board in relation to amending the maximum building heights for Development Site 1 to 5 storeys measured from the Great Alpine Road to better clarify building height measurements and for Development Site 14b to two storeys plus attics to ensure the protection of viewlines from Development Site 14c.
Impacts associated with the developments proposed for Heavenly Valley/Loch car
Page 54 Alpine Resorts Planning Scheme: Amendment C17 Planning Permit Application No. 2005/0337 Report of the Panel: September 2006
park associated with Planning Permit Application 2005/0337 are not considered significant. The Panel’s conclusion in relation to this is supported by the changes to the plans for the development which provide for a lower building height and sloping roof for the ski field operations centre, which better integrates the building into the landscape and the co‐location of the skier facilities centre close to the existing dam and its integration with the existing pump house and its building structure.
Page 55 Alpine Resorts Planning Scheme: Amendment C17 Planning Permit Application No. 2005/0337 Report of the Panel: September 2006
6. TRAFFIC AND CAR PARKING ISSUES
Vehicular access to the Mt Hotham Alpine Resort is obtained via the Great Alpine Road which links Harrietville with Omeo, a distance of approximately 94 kilometres.
Residential and commercial development in the ski resort is primarily located adjacent to the Great Alpine Road and in the Davenport subdivision. Ski lifts and ski trails are generally located in the “Village area”, at the Harrietville or northern end of the resort and Davenport, which is situated to the south of the ʺinter urban break.ʺ
The ʺRoad Runner,ʺ ʺHeavenly Valleyʺ and ʺThe Driftʺ chair lifts are located between the ʺVillageʺ and the Mt Loch car park east and west of the Great Alpine Road.
Car parking for day visitors to the resort is provided at Mt Loch car park and the Ford car park in the Village. Once these areas are full, day visitors are directed either to the Wire Plain car park or along the shoulders of the Great Alpine Road at designated locations. Overnight visitor cars are accommodated on–site (very limited), along the Great Alpine Road or at designated off–road locations.
Dinner Plain, which is a residential subdivision located approximately 12 kilometres from the Village on the Omeo approach, generates the majority of day visitors to the resort. These visitors arrive by bus or private vehicle.
A free shuttle bus service provided by the Resort Management runs between the Village and Wire Plain, a distance of approximately 4 kilometres. This service, which operates from 7:00am to 3:00am during the declared snow season, transports skiers from the residential areas to the ski trails and return, as well as visitors from car parking areas to their accommodation, between restaurants, night clubs and accommodation.
Hotham Airport was opened in 1999 at Horsehair Plain, approximately 20 kilometres from the Village on the Omeo approach. This facility provides another mode of travel to the Alpine area, which the Panel was advised was in the order of 2% of all visits.
Page 56 Alpine Resorts Planning Scheme: Amendment C17 Planning Permit Application No. 2005/0337 Report of the Panel: September 2006
6.1 The Proposal Amendment C17 will facilitate the development of a revised Comprehensive Development Plan for Mt Hotham incorporating realignment of the Great Alpine Road. As a consequence of the road realignment a number of additional parcels of land will be created by subdivision of the former road reservation and adjacent surface car park, known as the Ford or Corral car park.
The vertical alignment of the new Great Alpine Road has been designed to facilitate a skier underpass and one to three levels of car parking under the road.
The Development Guidelines accompanying the Mt Hotham Comprehensive Development Plan contains a Table indicating the site number and building name (where appropriate), the maximum site coverage and building height, primarily by reference to the Great Alpine Road.
Although the realigned Great Alpine Road defines the boundary of a number of the sites in the ʺnew Village,ʺ engineering plans showing the new road alignment did not accompany the documentation provided with the rezoning application. However, at the request of the Panel, the Mt Hotham Resort Management Board provided a set of drawings and Mr Natali Bonacci, Civil Engineer of the Bonacci Group, who prepared the design, explained the concept to the Panel.
At the point where the new Great Alpine Road alignment deviates from the old alignment the road RL appears to be approximately 1768 and at the exit ramp to the upper level of the car park the new Great Alpine Road appears to have an RL of 1760. Beyond the Mt Hotham Resort Management Board office the new road RL is approximately 1751. At this point there is an off ramp serving a future bus road. In the vicinity of the Medical Centre there is a 4 way intersection on the Great Alpine Road. This intersection provides access to Higgi Drive, the Medical Centre and the multi–level car park ramps, all located to the west. In addition, on the east side of the Great Alpine Road, the intersection provides access to Hotplate Drive and the future bus road.
It is unclear how service vehicle access will be provided to Zirkyʹs, White Crystal, Hotham Central, Snowbird and the Mt Hotham Resort Management Board offices, off the new Great Alpine Road. While the Panel has raised these issues, it recognises that final road plans are not part of the Panel’s considerations, but these matters should be resolved at the appropriate time. In this regard, the Panel was advised that several iterations of the road plans have been prepared and fully discussed with VicRoads (who did not appear at the hearing).
Page 57 Alpine Resorts Planning Scheme: Amendment C17 Planning Permit Application No. 2005/0337 Report of the Panel: September 2006
Reference has been made to the future levels on the Great Alpine Road to highlight the difficulty of fixing building heights in relation to floor levels or “storeys” above the Great Alpine Road. This has been discussed earlier in Section 4.
6.2 Relevant Reports Reports relating to traffic and car parking issues that were submitted with the rezoning documentation or provided as witness statements were as follows:
• Hotham Village Redevelopment Plan, Parking and Access Report by Nigel Ashton, Traffic Engineer of Ashton Traffic Services Pty Ltd. • Amendment C17 to the Alpine Planning Scheme, Traffic Commentary Overview by Michael Durkin, Traffic Engineer of GTA Consultants. • Witness Statement, about parking aspects of the Amendments C17 to the Alpine Resorts Planning Scheme by Peter Nichols, Environmental Planner.
Messrs. Durkin and Nichols presented their reports to the Panel. VicRoads made a submission that generally supported the amendment, but it provided little in the way of information to assist the Panel. For example, it lacked detail in relation to access between the road and the adjacent developments, which given that this amendment provides the strategic basis for the proposed road realignment, would have been helpful.
The Ashton Traffic Services Report highlighted that the Great Alpine Road caters for three types of traffic in the ski season, viz; overnight visitors, day visitors and through traffic. While this is correct it omits delivery vehicles and buses.
No current data regarding Great Alpine Road usage was provided in this Report, with 1988 data used to “calibrate an arrival/departure spreadsheet model”. The subsequent “future Sunday traffic volume estimates” were unable to be validated.
Intersection analysis was undertaken for the Higgi Drive intersection using aaSidra and as anticipated good operating conditions were derived.
Details of the multi–level car park were discussed, presumably based upon earlier plans than those tabled at the hearing as the car park capacity was quoted as 480 not 501 car spaces. At the hearing, the number of spaces was confirmed as 501.
Parking bay dimensions were related to AS2890.1 (which is only a guide) not the dimensions quoted in the Planning Scheme. In this location the preferred parking
Page 58 Alpine Resorts Planning Scheme: Amendment C17 Planning Permit Application No. 2005/0337 Report of the Panel: September 2006
bay dimensions would be a combination of the AS2890.1 and Planning Scheme i.e. 2.6 metre wide bays, 5.4 metre long with a 6.4 metre aisle.
It appears as though GTA was retained to provide traffic advice after the Directions Hearing in July 2006. This report indicates that an additional 1414 beds are to be developed at Mt Hotham, of which only 1164 beds relate to the 501 space multi–level car park. Mr Durkin referred to AS2890.1 and suggested in his report that 2.4 metre wide bays were adequate. In his verbal presentation he revised this to 2.5 metre width.
VicRoads traffic volumes for July 1998 for the Great Alpine Road at Harrietville were quoted in the GTA Report. These volumes were factored at 2.5% compound growth to derive current (i.e. 2006) winter week day and weekend volumes.
Based upon August 2006 traffic counts and comparison of snow depths over a number of years, Mr Durkin revised his anticipated daily weekend traffic volume from 2500 to 3300 vehicles on completion of development proposed in the Master Plan.
Based upon his investigations, Mr Durkin concluded that:
The Great Alpine Road can adequately accommodate the proposed redevelopment of Mt Hotham Village and that proposed car park access intersections are expected to operate satisfactorily with minimal queues and delays.
Mr Nichols’ report primarily quotes policies related to the strategic planning framework for the Resort. Reference is made to Clause 22.06 in the Alpine Resorts Planning Scheme and to Clause 52.06, which applies to other Planning Schemes throughout Victoria. Clause 52.06 states that its requirement for parking spaces can be reduced or waived if the reduced provision is justified due to a number of considerations including:
• Any relevant parking precinct plan. • The availability of car parking in the locality. • The availability of public transport in the locality. • Any reduction in car parking demand due to the sharing of car spaces by multiple uses, either because of variation of car parking demand over time or because of efficiencies gained from the consolidation of shared car parking spaces. • Any car parking deficiency or surplus associated with the existing use of the land.
Page 59 Alpine Resorts Planning Scheme: Amendment C17 Planning Permit Application No. 2005/0337 Report of the Panel: September 2006
• Any credit which should be allowed for a car parking demand deemed to have been provided in association with a use which existed before the change of parking requirement. • Local traffic management. • Local amenity including pedestrian amenity. • An empirical assessment of car parking demand. • Any other relevant consideration.
Mr Nichols submitted to the Panel that the nature of visitation to Mt Hotham was such that visitors travelled to enjoy multiple benefits primarily associated with recreational skiing or bushwalking and that trips to Mt Hotham were not generated primarily by a desire to shop or use commercial facilities. The Panel therefore agrees with Mr Nichols that “Clause 52.06 rates for non‐accommodation parking should therefore be considered in this context in addition to the Clause 22.06 accommodation ‐ based parking provision”.
Mr Nichols advised the Panel that the car parking exemption included in the amendment and the criteria for seeking a car reduction under Clause 52.06 could be supported because:
• Parking demand in the peak winter periods is not generated by commercial uses; • An innovative managed car parking scheme can be provided in association with the car park under the realigned Great Alpine Road; • The staged nature of development proposed for the redevelopment of Hotham Village, which would see the staggered introduction of additional parking demand which in time may be overtaken by other developments put in place by the Mt Hotham Resort Management Board in relation to parking provision; • Increased use of air transport by visitors; and • Other developments providing their own on‐site car parking.
The Nichols report refers to the need to replace the 150 existing spaces in the Ford car park as well as providing spaces for the new beds. If 1164 beds are to be provided in the “non exempt” sites, (388 plus 150) that is, 538 spaces are required. This is 37 more spaces than the 501 spaces proposed in the multi–level car park. With regards to this shortfall however, the Panel notes and agrees with the submission from Mr Nichols that:
Given all the provisions of the Scheme in relation to parking and the situation at Mt Hotham as described including the above efficiency and other dividends, I am of the view
Page 60 Alpine Resorts Planning Scheme: Amendment C17 Planning Permit Application No. 2005/0337 Report of the Panel: September 2006
that the 501 car spaces proposed in NHVRP (Hotham Village redevelopment) will be adequate for that development and for the loss of existing car spaces; and will permanently improve the quantity, location, safety, environmental and sustainability aspects of parking at the Resort. I do not consider that there is a shortfall that should be met by a contribution in lieu.
The Panel agrees that parking demand should be monitored as development proceeds, particularly in the multi–level car park, which will attract additional charges to the gate entry fee. If 501 spaces are provided in Stage One there will be an oversupply and high vacancy rates should not be assumed to reflect limited demand. It may purely relate to price resistance by visitors using the older residential accommodation.
The Panel is of the opinion that a workable parking management plan will need to be developed to ensure that maximum car park utilisation is achieved.
6.3 Panel Findings The Panel accepts that the modified subdivision layout for Hotham Village will facilitate the proposed realignment of the Great Alpine Road. However, the Panel is not convinced that sufficient consideration has been given to servicing both the existing buildings and future buildings constructed on the new allotments created between the realigned road and Zirkyʹs/White Crystal/Hotham Central sites. All parties would need to be satisfied that the final road plans enable access routes for service vehicles to an appropriate standard.
The Panel does not have any specific recommendations to make in relation to traffic and access. However a number of issues emerged during the course of the hearing that warrant further consideration as part of an ongoing strategic planning process. These are included for future consideration by DSE, the MHRMB and the Proponent:
• Preparation of an accessibility plan for the new Village centre that clearly highlights pedestrian, skier, snow clearing and service vehicle routes. If necessary, consider time restricted access for specific vehicles within the Village area. • Consideration of on site car parking where achievable for new developments and redevelopment of old sites at a rate of 1 space per 3 beds or in accordance with the Parking Precinct Plan when adopted. • Preparation of a parking management plan and accurately monitor car parking demand within the resort for at least 4 days throughout the snow
Page 61 Alpine Resorts Planning Scheme: Amendment C17 Planning Permit Application No. 2005/0337 Report of the Panel: September 2006
season. Correlate parking demand with snow depth, bed numbers and traffic activity at the entry points to the resort.
The Panel recognises these suggestions primarily relate to development that will occur as a result of the amendment, and are not directly tied to this amendment process. However, given the level of discussion undertaken on some of these key matters at the hearing, it is pertinent that the Panel raises these matters in this form.
Page 62 Alpine Resorts Planning Scheme: Amendment C17 Planning Permit Application No. 2005/0337 Report of the Panel: September 2006
7. PLANNING PERMIT APPLICATION CONSIDERATIONS
This section of the report considers an assessment of the proposal under Planning Permit Application 2005/0337 to use and develop land located at Heavenly Valley/Loch car park, situated approximately 900 metres north of Hotham Village for an entrance gateway, ski field operations facility (workshop) and skier facility (restaurant/toilet and snowmaking operations centre). In assessing the planning permit application the Panel has considered the following plans:
• Site Plan – drawing No. A‐DA‐01‐04 rev B; and • Workshop – drawing No. 4267‐17‐B‐DA‐10‐01 rev D.
Appendix 5 contains a copy of these plans as submitted to the Panel.
7.1 Description A full description of what is proposed under Planning Permit Application 2005/0337 is described in Section 1.2 of this report. In accordance with the provisions of the Alpine Resorts Planning Scheme, Planning Permit Application 2005/0337 seeks approval for the following use and development:
• The construction of buildings and works (ski operations facility and skier facilities centre/toilet facility) pursuant to Clause 37.02 Schedule 2 (Clause 3.1) and Clause 44.01‐1; • The use of land for food and drink premises (restaurant and take away food premises) pursuant to Clause 37.02, Schedule 2; • To alter access to a road Zone Category 1 pursuant to Clause 52.29; • The sale and consumption of liquor pursuant to Clause 52.27; • The removal of native vegetation pursuant to Clause 52.17; • Waiver of car parking requirements of planning scheme pursuant to Clause 52.06; and • The display of advertising signage (Entrance Gateway) pursuant to Clause 52.05.
The subject land is included within the Comprehensive Development Zone Schedule 2 – Alpine Recreation. The purposes of Schedule 2 to Clause 37.02 Comprehensive Development Zone include:
• To identify areas associated with the development and use of an alpine resort on which passive and active recreation occur.
Page 63 Alpine Resorts Planning Scheme: Amendment C17 Planning Permit Application No. 2005/0337 Report of the Panel: September 2006
• To enable the development and the use of the land which is in accordance with sound environmental management and land capability practices, and which takes into account the significance of the environmental resources. • To minimise impacts on significant landscapes. • To minimise impacts on areas of significant vegetation. • To minimise impacts on habitat and habitat corridors for indigenous fauna.
As mentioned previously, the subject land is included within an Erosion Management Overlay Schedule 1 – Management of Geotechnical Hazard.
Eleven submissions were received in relation to the application following its public exhibition concurrently with Amendment C17. Seven submissions were received from public agencies and utility providers who either offered no objections or requested conditions being placed on any permit issued. Five submissions objected to the application or raised concerns. The key issues raised in these submissions included:
• Risk from fuel storage tanks. • The Schuchard Hut should not be demolished but relocated for use as a shelter. • Visual impacts. • The development will funnel cross country skiers into downhill areas. • Lack of parking. • The workshop should be located with the Board’s workshop. • An amendment is needed not a planning permit.
7.2 Assessment The development sought by the application seeks in part to relocate the workshop from its current site located at the northern entrance to Hotham Village to a site adjacent to the Loch dam. The Panel understands that the Proponent and the Mt Hotham Resort Management Board both consider the current location of the facility is in conflict with the objectives for future development of Hotham Village.
Under the Strategic Land Use Framework Plans, the Heavenly Valley/Loch car park area is:
• Designated as a potential recreation services node and the location of proposed road improvements; • Designated as a potential cross country trailhead facility which would provide shelter, hire facilities and a café and conveniences and the location for
Page 64 Alpine Resorts Planning Scheme: Amendment C17 Planning Permit Application No. 2005/0337 Report of the Panel: September 2006
a proposed skier bridge; and • Identified as providing short‐term parking at Loch car park.
The strategic framework plans identify a resort services area to the east of Davenport, where resort services and infrastructure will be encouraged to co‐locate. This is the current location of the Resort’s sewage treatment plant and the Mt Hotham Resort Management Board workshop. Accordingly, it is apparent to the Panel that the proposal to locate the workshop from Hotham Village to the Heavenly Valley/Loch car park area does not accord with the strategic framework plans for Mt Hotham. Conversely, the proposal to construct an entry gateway and skier facility is supported by the strategic framework plans for Mt Hotham.
With respect to the above non‐compliance, it was submitted to the Panel by Mr Rogers that:
Although resort services are identified to be located to the east of Davenport, that site along with various others was tested, as documented, and found unsuitable for the proposal. It is evident for the assessment undertaken that the proposed location meets the strategic objectives of this policy framework.
The workshop aspect of the proposal is appropriate as it moves the current workshop from the village assisting redevelopment of the village as an integrated centre. It will allow for a development that will act as a catalyst for the redevelopment of the Mt Hotham village.
The Panel was advised that assessment of eight alternative locations in and around Mt Hotham for relocation of the workshop was undertaken, which concluded that Heavenly Valley/Loch car park was the appropriate site. The Panel heard from Mr Len Dobell, General Manager – Operations for Mount Hotham Skiing Company Ltd who advised that:
The Heavenly Valley precinct is proposed by MHSC as the most suitable location for an Operations Facility due to such a facility needing to meet the following criteria:
• Direct access to the ski field by over snow and snow grooming vehicles. • Direct access to the Great Alpine Road to allow for deliveries of supplies. • Central to the ski field to support ski lifting, snow grooming and snow making operations and maintenance. • Separated from accommodation areas due to 24 hour operation.
Mr Dobell also advised that an identified site east of Davenport was assessed but considered impractical because its location was:
Page 65 Alpine Resorts Planning Scheme: Amendment C17 Planning Permit Application No. 2005/0337 Report of the Panel: September 2006
• Not central to the ski field. • No access to the ski field on man made snow. • Limited access to the ski field on natural snow. • Long travel times through residential and commercial zones at all hours. • Delayed response times to lift break downs exposing passengers to risk. • Travel times for grooming machinery increased and will be more frequent for refuelling. • Other criteria including avoidance or minimising disturbance to native vegetation and fauna management zones was also applied during site selection or rejection processes.
Mr Dobell advised that the Heavenly Valley/Loch car park was the only site to clearly satisfy selection criteria and minimise conflict with environmental impacts. The Panel has previously considered environmental issues associated with Planning Permit Application 2005/0337 in Section 5 and has concluded that the proposed development at Heavenly Valley will not create significant impacts on the environment.
The Panel considers that the non‐compliance with the strategic framework plans for Mt Hotham with respect to the workshop are not necessarily fatal to the consideration of the proposal. The effort to investigate and assess a number of alternative locations has provided a sound strategic justification for selecting the Heavenly Valley site for re‐locating the workshop from Hotham Village. The relocation creates the opportunity to upgrade and modernise the ski operations centre. The relocation of the workshop from Hotham Village to Heavenly Valley provides for the continuation of a service function, which is important to support the amenity and recreational experience of skiers. The Panel considers that the fact that the ski operations centre can be relocated and improved whilst avoiding impacts on the amenity of the Resort and minimising environmental impacts, warrants favourable consideration.
With regards to the other concerns raised by submittors, the Panel now understands that the Schuchard Hut is not proposed to be demolished and will be relocated. The installation of fuel tanks are proposed to be designed to mitigate risk and contain product to avoid pollution events. The Panel is satisfied that what is proposed will be in accordance with relevant Environment Protection Authority requirements. An amendment is not required for the use and development proposed under the Comprehensive Development Zone 2. Cross country ski access to and around the Heavenly Valley development site is not considered to be impacted due to the small area of the site involved in the development and the remaining area of land available
Page 66 Alpine Resorts Planning Scheme: Amendment C17 Planning Permit Application No. 2005/0337 Report of the Panel: September 2006
for ski access.
With regards to car parking, the Panel is aware that recent developments have reduced the car parking capacity of the Loch car park from approximately 150 spaces to 24 car spaces. The Panel heard evidence from Mr Nichols that the parking demand at Heavenly Valley would not exceed the 24 car space parking capacity of the Loch car park. Mr Nichols supplied photographs of the car park during summer periods virtually empty including Australia Day in 2005. Conversely, Ms Jenny Barnett from the Victorian National Parks Association submitted photographs from summer showing the Loch car park overflowing with vehicles parked along the Great Alpine Road verge.
The current application indicates that the proposed restaurant will only be open during the snow season and that the use of the Loch car park during winter is not proposed to be significantly promoted given the ability to access the area by over snow transport. Therefore no parking spaces will be required for the restaurant component of the development. If during summer, parking demand generated by walkers and other visitors to the area exceeds the 24 space car park, sufficient area is available to accommodate parking along the shoulders of the Great Alpine Road.
The Site Plan submitted with the planning application shows a car park layout but does not specify car park dimensions. The car park slopes from the entry road down to the workshop and a grade of 5% is noted on the plan. Although this grade is flatter than the maximum cross fall recommended for 90 degree angle parking in AS2890.1, the Australian Standard makes no specific reference to parking on icy or snow covered surfaces. The Panel considers that the parking bays should be a minimum width of 2.5 metres and that ideally, in an area as exposed as Mt Loch, the car park cross fall should be no steeper than 3%.
VicRoads specified the location of the Mt Loch car park access road intersection with the Great Alpine Road and the planning permit contains a number of conditions required by VicRoads, which the Panel supports.
Page 67 Alpine Resorts Planning Scheme: Amendment C17 Planning Permit Application No. 2005/0337 Report of the Panel: September 2006
7.3 Panel Findings The Panel considers that the proposed use and development of a new entry gateway, ski operations centre and skier facility at Heavenly Valley satisfies the policy provisions of the Alpine Resorts Planning Scheme. Planning Permit Application 2005/0337 is considered satisfactory and the development proposed under the permit would contribute to an acceptable outcome under the planning scheme by providing for a net community benefit for all visitors and users of the Mt Hotham alpine region through these facilities supporting the safe and enjoyable use of the area.
Although there may be some impacts in relation to some loss of native vegetation, visual intrusion into the alpine landscape and a reduction in service function due to a reduced car parking capacity, these are not considered by the Panel to outweigh the benefits to the community of Mt Hotham that can be gained from these facilities at Heavenly Valley. The location of ski operations servicing and snow making facilities closely linked with the new reservoir will improve the robustness of the Resort to continue artificial snow making and buffer the impacts of climate change. These facilities will lead to sustainable development at the Resort and accordingly, the Panel considers that the grant of a planning permit is appropriate.
In relation to strategic planning issues, the Panel notes and agrees with the comments of Mr Rogers that:
The application is consistent with the principal objectives of the policy framework as it will: • Provide recreation and tourist facilities, commercial activities and support services to contribute towards the role of the Resort being a year round destination. • Appropriately locate services within the resort in a manner that will minimise disturbance to rare and endangered flora and fauna. • Remove the current workshop from the village allowing for a more appropriate use in its place. • Enhance services and development at a trailhead. • Appropriately locates car parking facilities.
The submission of amended plans showing the changes to the location, size and design of the proposed buildings reducing the environmental and visual impact is considered by the Panel to significantly improve the level of support for the application.
In addition, the Panel’s support for the application is reinforced by the submission from Mr Canavan that:
Page 68 Alpine Resorts Planning Scheme: Amendment C17 Planning Permit Application No. 2005/0337 Report of the Panel: September 2006
• The proposed development relates to the alpine land use and is, in fact essential to the efficient and sustainable use of the area for snow skiing. The development directly relates to this use by being located adjacent to a water resource and in a convenient location to access the ski fields. The proposed development is located such that it will not have undesirable amenity impacts on accommodation uses within the village. • The design, colours and materials proposed are consistent with policy, as demonstrable on the plans. The roofline of the main building follows the slope of the land. • The building is located such as to have no major impact on vistas from roads. • Many design and siting considerations do not apply to the proposed development as it is not an accommodation use and the skier facilities are limited to use for skiers at the Heavenly Valley development lift. • Disturbance of native vegetation is largely avoided and the evidence supports the conclusion that offsets can be achieved within the resort.
The Panel notes the general agreement between the responsible authority, the Mt Hotham Resort Management Board and the Proponent in relation to the conditions contained in the draft Planning Permit 2005/0337. The Panel considers that a slight amendment to Condition No. 7 is required to include reference to waste bins being designed to prevent wind blown litter in response to a concern raised by Ms Barnett from the Victorian National Parks Association.
Accordingly, the Panel recommends that a permit should be issued based on the draft Planning Permit 2005/0337 contained in Appendix 6.
Page 69 Alpine Resorts Planning Scheme: Amendment C17 Planning Permit Application No. 2005/0337 Report of the Panel: September 2006
8. PANEL CONCLUSIONS
Mt Hotham is Australia’s highest urban village. It sits atop the highest ridge in the Alpine National Park, and it is a popular resort in winter. It has less appeal in summer, and anecdotally, the Panel was advised few services and facilities operate. A clear objective of the Alpine Resorts Planning Scheme is to enhance the year round appeal of Mt Hotham so that it attracts increasing numbers of visitors over a 12 month period. However, the peak times are based around the snow season, and enhancing the appeal, safety and functionality of the resort is of prime consideration.
It is in this context that Amendment C17 has been proposed. A common theme in any urban setting is to separate vehicular and pedestrian traffic. It is a simple objective and one which is actively promoted. It should be no different at Mt Hotham, but it is difficult to achieve because of topographical and environmental issues. However, it can be achieved at the Harrietville entrance of the Mt Hotham Village, and the proposed road re‐alignment at this location will enable an increase in development sites and opportunities and provides the opportunity to complement the existing uses with a village centre.
Essentially, this is what this amendment is about. It will result in positive urban design outcomes, improved vehicular and pedestrian safety, enhanced development opportunities, and an improved functional layout of the village. It will have no impact on important environmental issues, such as protection of the Mountain Pygmy‐possum, whose habitat will not be impacted upon.
To facilitate the creation of a new central village hub at Mt Hotham, the Great Alpine Road is required to be diverted. Amendment C17 to the Alpine Resorts Planning Scheme is required to replace the existing Comprehensive Development Plan for Hotham Village because the realignment of the Great Alpine Road is not shown on the existing Plan. The extension of the Comprehensive Development Zone 1 to the north towards the Hull Skier Bridge to create a new Development Site 1 as well as the extension of the zone behind White Crystal and Zirky’s Apartments will assist to realise important development goals. These changes are related to the need to enhance the capacity of the Hotham Village to develop higher density residential and commercial development of a quality, which can act to establish Hotham Village as the central activity hub for the Mt Hotham Alpine Resort.
The amendment gives effect to the objectives of planning in Victoria in Section 4(1) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, including:
Page 70 Alpine Resorts Planning Scheme: Amendment C17 Planning Permit Application No. 2005/0337 Report of the Panel: September 2006
• Providing for the fair, orderly, economic and sustainable use and development of land; • Securing a pleasant, efficient and safe working, living and recreational environment for all Victorians and visitors to Victoria; • Facilitating development in accordance with the above objectives; and • Balancing the present and future interests of all Victorians.
The amendment provides for these objectives by promoting further economic growth within the Hotham Village footprint area of the Mt Hotham Alpine Resort. The amendment seeks relatively minor extensions to the Comprehensive Development Zone 1 to provide additional development opportunities within sites that are already disturbed. The amendment will facilitate significant improvements to the recreational experience offered within the alpine environment for all Victorians by diverting the Great Alpine Road away from the central area of Hotham Village and in a manner that has minimal environmental impacts. Importantly, the amendment minimises environmental impacts by avoiding significant habitat areas of the Mountain‐Pygmy possum and minimising impacts on the Alpine Tree Frog.
The Panel considers that environmental effects should be minimal, and that appropriate environmental management of impacts can be further supported by the preparation of the draft Environmental Management Plan Stage One for the Hotham Village Redevelopment Plan. This Plan should support the preparation of a hierarchy of environmental management plans that would accompany the submission of Site Development Plans for approval of various components of any future development at Hotham Village.
Social effects are considered to be beneficial flowing from the increased opportunities for recreational enjoyment of the Mt Hotham Alpine Resort not only in winter, but also during the summer season. The increased range of facilities facilitated by the amendment would increase capacity for visitor numbers and employment opportunities as well as create a definable centre for Hotham Village.
With respect to economic effects, the Panel concurs with the comments from Ms Tracey Squire who indicated that:
Given the economic constraints of the shire (Alpine Shire) and its supporting industry sectors it is imperative that Mt Hotham be enabled to reach its full potential by creating a tourism product that meets the needs and expectations of visitors – interstate, intrastate and international. It is the one resort with the opportunity to really break into international markets and while this is not currently a focus it may be in the future given
Page 71 Alpine Resorts Planning Scheme: Amendment C17 Planning Permit Application No. 2005/0337 Report of the Panel: September 2006
the changing nature of the global economy. With a sound product offer and the strategic position of the Mt Hotham airport the resort will be well placed to capitalize on those opportunities that might otherwise be lost to competing international ski resort destinations.
The redevelopment of Mt Hotham will contribute to its long term success and sustainability, and enable it to make a greater economic and social contribution to the State of Victoria generally and more specifically to its surrounding regional communities of interest, through improved recreational opportunities, capital investment in infrastructure development and increased domestic and potentially international visitation.
The Panel considers that the economic benefits for Mt Hotham and the surrounding region are significant in terms of employment and income generation and the ability to increase and improve visitor numbers and experience of the alpine environment and high country appeal of Mt Hotham.
For these reasons, the Panel supports Amendment C17 to the Alpine Resorts Planning Scheme, subject to further modification.
The planning permit application to provide for a new workshop/restaurant/toilet facility at the Loch car park site is supported. Relocation of the existing workshop will free up land that would be more suited to resort development, and the proposed site adjacent to the Loch reservoir is sustainable and sensible. Environmental constraints can be managed with minimum detriment. Subject to conditions, the Panel supports Planning Permit Application No. 2005/0337.
Page 72 Alpine Resorts Planning Scheme: Amendment C17 Planning Permit Application No. 2005/0337 Report of the Panel: September 2006
9. PANEL RECOMMENDATIONS
1. For the reasons set out in this report, the Panel appointed to consider Amendment C17 to the Alpine Resorts Planning Scheme recommends that it BE ADOPTED, subject to the following modifications:
(a) The amended version of the Comprehensive Development Plan, as provided on 31 August 2006 be adopted, subject to the following:
(i) Include a new dot point under “Any development proposal must also demonstrate consideration of the following design criteria” to read as follows: “Provision of an appropriate loading access from the car park beneath the Great Alpine Road to the ski school/race club building at the top of the summit quad chair”.
(ii) The height for Development Site 14b be noted as 2A in the Development Guidelines.
(b) The provisions of Clause 21 and 22 of the Alpine Resorts Planning Scheme be amended as follows:
(i) Change the first strategy dot point under “Infrastructure” in Clause 21.06‐4 to read “Design and locate physical infrastructure and services to minimise their environmental and visual impact through consolidation of service facilities within the existing Resort Management workshop area, or in the vicinity of the Loch Reservoir”. (ii) Delete dot point 10 under Policy in Clause 22.06‐1 relating to the Loch car park.
2. For the reasons set out in this report, the Panel appointed to consider Planning Permit Application 2005/0337 recommends that a permit ISSUE subject to the conditions outlined in the draft Planning Permit 2005/0337 set out in Appendix 6.
Kathryn Mitchell Des Grogan Chris Harty September 2006
Page 73 Alpine Resorts Planning Scheme: Amendment C17 Planning Permit Application No. 2005/0337 Report of the Panel: September 2006
APPENDIX 1: DIRECTIONS LETTER AND TIMETABLE
Page 74
Enquiries: 9637 9694 Ref: PPVkmhb06.056
31 July 2006
Dear As Addressed
RE: ALPINE RESORTS PLANNING SCHEME: AMENDMENT C17 PLANNING PERMIT APPLICATION NO. 2005/0337
Ms Kathryn Mitchell (Chair), Mr Des Grogan and Mr Chris Harty were appointed under the provisions of Sections 97E, 153 and 155 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, under delegation from the Minister for Planning, to consider the above amendment and planning permit application.
The Panel Hearings will be held on 21, 22 and 23 August in Bright, and on 28, 29, 30 and 31 August in Melbourne in accordance with the attached timetable. If any submittors wish to be heard in Mt Hotham, please advise the office of Planning Panels Victoria as soon as possible, so that arrangements can be made.
As a person who indicated that you wished to be heard by the Panel, and as a result of matters raised at the Directions Hearing held on Thursday, 27 July 2006 in Bright, the Panel has directed the following.
Direction No. 1: Submission of Expert Evidence
Any party wishing to submit expert evidence must provide all reports in full to the following, by 4.00pm on Monday, 14 August 2006:
Office of Planning Panels Victoria 4 copies Minister for Planning/DSE 4 copies Mt Hotham Resort Management Board 2 copies MFS Living & Leisure Ltd/The Ray Group – Proponent 3 copies Mt Hotham Chamber of Commerce 1 copy Mr Keith Boxer 1 copy Mr Michael Shaw 1 copy Victorian National Parks Association 1 copy
Alpine Resorts Planning Scheme Amendment C17 and Planning Permit Application No.2005/0337 Directions Letter and Hearing Timetable
The addresses for each of these can be obtained from Ms Hyacinth Bentley, office of Planning Panels Victoria (03) 9637 9694.
The office of DSE and the Mt Hotham Resort Management Board must ensure that copies of all reports are available for public viewing in an accessible location.
Direction No. 2: Site Inspections
The Panel will undertake an accompanied site inspection on Day 2 of the Hearing. To ensure that appropriate vehicles are available, please advise Mr Paul Flint of DSE on (03) 5761 1549 or email [email protected] by Thursday, 17 August of your intention to attend. The Panel is advised that full snow gear is to be worn for this visit.
If you do not advise Mr Flint of your intention to attend, you will not be able to join the Panel on the day, because of the time required to ensure that appropriate arrangements can be made.
The meeting point will be the Best Western High Country Motor Inn, Bright, and the Panel will be leaving at 9.00am sharp. If you prefer to meet the Panel on the mountain, the meeting point will be the offices of the Mt Hotham Resort Management Board at 10:30am. Failure to notify of your intention to attend will mean that you will be excluded from the inspections.
Direction No. 3: Right of Reply
The Panel will provide a right of reply in the form of a closing submission to the Minister for Planning/DSE, the Mt Hotham Resort Management Board (if required) and the Proponent.
Direction No. 4: Modified Plans
As a result of discussions at the Directions Hearing, the Panel accepts the modified plans: • Site Plan – drawing numbered A‐DA‐01‐04 rev B • Workshop – drawing numbered 4267‐17‐B‐DA‐10‐01 rev D as the basis of the Proponent’s submissions. The Proponent is directed to send a copy of these plans and the accompanying letter from ML Designs (26 July 2006) to all submittors by 4 August 2006.
Alpine Resorts Planning Scheme Amendment C17 and Planning Permit Application No.2005/0337 Directions Letter and Hearing Timetable
Direction No. 5: Withdrawal of Objection
The Panel accepts two letters dated 25 and 26 July to the Minister for Planning, from DSE, withdrawing their objections to their submission (dated 10 July 2006).
Direction No. 6: Additional Information
The Panel would like any party who wishes to rely on any strategic document to forward four copies of such documents to the office of Planning Panels Victoria, at the same time as submission of expert evidence, including the Alpine 2020 Strategy, the Management Strategy and Guidelines for the Mountain Pygmy‐possum in Victoria, the Action Statement No 2 Mountain Pygmy‐possum, and the Alpine Resorts Planning Scheme.
Direction No. 7: Issues to be Addressed at Hearing
The Proponent/Mt Hotham Resort Management Board are to provide information on the following, as appropriate:
• clarification of daily traffic volumes, from Harrietville, on an hourly basis; • clarification of parking bay dimensions (particularly for four‐wheel drives and other large vehicles); • confirmation of existing and anticipated bed numbers; • design capacity of Great Alpine Road; • car parking arrangements under the proposed re‐alignment of the Great Alpine Road; • justification for determination of building heights, and relevant siting issues; • information about wind tunnel and micro‐climate effects; • re‐vegetation strategies and percentage of land to be cleared.
Please note that these directions must be complied with under the provisions of Section 159(1) and (2) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.
Should you have any further queries about any of these matters, please do not hesitate to contact the Office of Planning Panels Victoria on (03) 9637 9694.
Yours sincerely
KATHRYN MITCHELL Panel Chair
Alpine Resorts Planning Scheme Amendment C17 and Planning Permit Application No.2005/0337 Directions Letter and Hearing Timetable
TIMETABLE FOR PUBLIC HEARING: VERSION 1
ALPINE RESORTS PLANNING SCHEME: AMENDMENT C17 PLANNING PERMIT APPLICATION NO. 2005/0337
PANEL: Ms Kathryn Mitchell Chair Mr Des Grogan Member Mr Chris Harty Member
DAY DATE VENUE 1 Monday, 21 August 2006 Bright 2 Tuesday, 22 August 2006 Bright and Mt Hotham 3 Wednesday, 23 August 2006 Bright 4 Monday, 28 August 2006 Melbourne 5 Tuesday, 29 August 2006 Melbourne 6 Wednesday, 30 August 2006 Melbourne 7 Thursday, 31 August 2006 Melbourne
DETAILS OF VENUES:
BRIGHT: BEST WESTERN HIGH COUNTRY MOTOR INN 13 – 17 GREAT ALPINE ROAD BRIGHT
MT HOTHAM MT HOTHAM RESORT MANAGEMENT BOARD BOARD ROOM, MT HOTHAM
MELBOURNE: PLANNING PANELS VICTORIA HEARING ROOM 1 LEVEL 1, 8 NICHOLSON STREET EAST MELBOURNE
ANY QUERIES REGARDING THIS TIMETABLE SHOULD BE MADE TO: HYACINTH BENTLEY PHONE: 03 9637 9694 FAX: 03 9637 9700.
PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS TIMETABLE MAY BE AMENDED WITHOUT NOTICE.
Alpine Resorts Planning Scheme Amendment C17 and Planning Permit Application No.2005/0337 Directions Letter and Hearing Timetable
ALPINE RESORTS PLANNING SCHEME: AMENDMENT C17 PLANNING PERMIT APPLICATION NO. 2005/0337 TIMETABLE FOR PUBLIC HEARING: VERSION 3
DAY 1 DATE: MONDAY, 21 AUGUST 2006 VENUE: BEST WESTERN HIGH COUNTRY MOTOR INN, BRIGHT Time Name Time Requested 9:30am – 10:00am Panel Opening Comments 30 mins 10:00am – 1:00pm Minister for Planning, represented by 3 hours Mr Chris Wren SC, instructed by Ms Kirsty Douglas, DSE, with Mr Oliver Moles, Manager Alpine Planning 1:00pm – 2:00pm LUNCH 2:00pm – 4:00pm Mt Hotham Resort Management Board, 2 of 4 hours represented by Mr Jim Atteridge CEO, and Ms Julie Katz, The Planning Group, Opening Submission 4:15pm – 5:30pm MFS Living & Leisure Ltd/The Ray 1.25 hours Group (Proponent) represented by Mr Chris Canavan QC and Mr Chris Townshend, instructed by Mr Scott Stewart (Rigby Cooke) and calling Planning, Traffic, Engineering evidence. Opening Submission, and order of evidence
DAY 2 DATE: TUESDAY, 22 AUGUST 2006 VENUE: BRIGHT AND MT HOTHAM Time Name Time Requested 8:45am – 6:00pm Site Visit – Meet at Best Western High 7 – 9 hours (approximate time) Country Motor Inn, Bright – departing 9:00AM SHARP, or at the office of Mt Hotham Resort Management Board at 10:30am ‐ prior notification required ‐ see Direction 2 of attached letter 2:00pm – 2:15pm Mt Hotham Chamber of Commerce, 15 mins represented by Mr Graeme Blair
Alpine Resorts Planning Scheme Amendment C17 and Planning Permit Application No.2005/0337 Directions Letter and Hearing Timetable
DAY 3 DATE: WEDNESDAY, 23 AUGUST 2006 VENUE: BEST WESTERN HIGH COUNTRY MOTOR INN, BRIGHT Time Name Time Requested 9:30am – 11:30am Mt Hotham Resort Management Board, 2 hours represented by Mr Jim Atteridge CEO, and Ms Julie Katz, The Planning Group, completion of submissions 11:45am – 12:15pm Mrs Jane Burke 30 mins 12:15pm – 12:35pm Ms Tracey Squire 20 mins 12:35pm – 12:50pm Mr Trevor Chick 15 mins
FORMER DAY 4 (MONDAY 28 AUGUST 2006) NOT REQUIRED
DAY 4 DATE: TUESDAY, 29 AUGUST 2006 VENUE: PLANNING PANELS VICTORIA, EAST MELBOURNE Time Name Time Requested 10:00am – 1:00pm MFS Living & Leisure Ltd/The Ray Day 1 of 2 Group (Proponent) represented by Mr Chris Canavan QC and Mr Chris Townshend, instructed by Mr Scott Stewart (Rigby Cooke), and calling planning, traffic and ski resort evidence. 1:00pm – 2:00pm LUNCH 2:00pm – 4:30pm Hotham Ski Association Inc, 1 hour represented by Mr Peter Sandow, Mr Rob Anderson and Mr Peter Doyle 3:00pm – 4:30pm Proponent ‐ continued
FORMER DAY 5 (WEDNESDAY 30 AUGUST 2006) NOT REQUIRED
Alpine Resorts Planning Scheme Amendment C17 and Planning Permit Application No.2005/0337 Directions Letter and Hearing Timetable
DAY 5 DATE: THURSDAY, 31 AUGUST 2006 VENUE: PLANNING PANELS VICTORIA, EAST MELBOURNE Time Name Time Requested 9:30am – 10:00am Ms Leanne Guy 30 mins 10:00am – 10:45am Victorian National Parks Association, 45 mins represented by Ms Jenny Barnett 10:45am – 11:15am Taki Ski Club, represented by Mr Matt withdrawn Connock & Mr Scott Langford 11:30am – 11:50am Federation of Victorian Walking Clubs, 20 mins represented by Mr Steven Robertson 11:50am – 12:05pm Ms Leona Edwards 15 mins 12:05pm – 1:05pm Mr Keith Boxer 60 mins 1:05pm – 2:15pm LUNCH 2:15pm – 3:15pm Mr Michael Shaw 60 mins 3:15pm – 4:15pm Closing Submissions, Minister for 30 mins Planning 3:45pm – 4:15pm Closing Submissions, Mt Hotham Resort 30 mins Management Board 4:15pm – 5:00pm Closing Submissions, Proponent 30 – 45 mins
Alpine Resorts Planning Scheme Amendment C17 and Planning Permit Application No.2005/0337 Directions Letter and Hearing Timetable Alpine Resorts Planning Scheme: Amendment C17 Planning Permit Application No. 2005/0337 Report of the Panel: September 2006
APPENDIX 2: AMENDMENT C17 – EXPLANATORY REPORT AND PLANS
Page 82 Alpine Resorts Planning Scheme: Amendment C17 Planning Permit Application No. 2005/0337 Report of the Panel: September 2006
Page 83 Alpine Resorts Planning Scheme: Amendment C17 Planning Permit Application No. 2005/0337 Report of the Panel: September 2006
Page 84 Alpine Resorts Planning Scheme: Amendment C17 Planning Permit Application No. 2005/0337 Report of the Panel: September 2006
Page 85 Alpine Resorts Planning Scheme: Amendment C17 Planning Permit Application No. 2005/0337 Report of the Panel: September 2006
Page 86 Alpine Resorts Planning Scheme: Amendment C17 Planning Permit Application No. 2005/0337 Report of the Panel: September 2006
Page 87 Alpine Resorts Planning Scheme: Amendment C17 Planning Permit Application No. 2005/0337 Report of the Panel: September 2006
Page 88 Alpine Resorts Planning Scheme: Amendment C17 Planning Permit Application No. 2005/0337 Report of the Panel: September 2006
Page 89 Alpine Resorts Planning Scheme: Amendment C17 Planning Permit Application No. 2005/0337 Report of the Panel: September 2006
Page 90 Alpine Resorts Planning Scheme: Amendment C17 Planning Permit Application No. 2005/0337 Report of the Panel: September 2006
APPENDIX 3: LIST OF SUBMITTORS
Page 91 Alpine Resorts Planning Scheme: Amendment C17 Planning Permit Application No. 2005/0337 Report of the Panel: September 2006
Submissions to Amendment C17 Name Organisation Adam Wilson Ron Bassett Keith Boxer Paula Tomsett Mount Hotham Chamber of Commerce A & R Leibetseder Peter Martin Zirky’s Apartments Pty Ltd Alida Jane Burke Tracey Squire Sarah Nicholas Peter Mack Lindsay Perry Tallawarra Ski Club Jess Abrahams Leanne Guy Trevor Chick Peter & Heather Zirknitzer Andrew Mander‐Jones IHP Alpine Club Andrew Williams VicRoads Georgi Abrahams Mike Shaw Jim Atteridge Mt Hotham Resort Management Board Peter Sandow Hotham Ski Association Inc. Nick Fletcher Graeme & Leona Edwards Kevin Ritchie Department of Sustainability and Environment Scott Langford Taki Ski Club Jenny Barnett Victorian National Parks Association Julian Feller Greg Bourne WWF‐Australia Durelle Esnouf Hangman’s Drop Ski Club Hotplate Drive Apartments Pty Ltd Fergal Grahame Environment Protection Authority Geoff Pollard Austen Alpine Club Inc. Mt Hotham
Submissions to Planning Permit Application 2005/0337 Name Organisation David Mozuras SPI Electricity Pty Ltd Kathryn Shields Telstra Mark Williams Country Fire Authority Graeme Taylor North East Catchment Management Authority Bruce Sweet VicRoads Fergal Grahame Environment Protection Authority Jessica Rose Mt Hotham Resort Management Board Kevin Ritchie & Andrew Morphett Department of Sustainability and Environment
Page 92 Alpine Resorts Planning Scheme: Amendment C17 Planning Permit Application No. 2005/0337 Report of the Panel: September 2006
(later withdrawn) Sam Porter Alpine Shire Jenny Barnett Victorian National Parks Association Bill Metzenthen & Steven Robertson Federation of Victorian Walking Clubs Keith Boxer Leanne Guy
Page 93 Alpine Resorts Planning Scheme: Amendment C17 Planning Permit Application No. 2005/0337 Report of the Panel: September 2006
APPENDIX 4: REVISED COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT PLAN – HOTHAM VILLAGE
Page 94 Alpine Resorts Planning Scheme: Amendment C17 Planning Permit Application No. 2005/0337 Report of the Panel: September 2006
HOTHAM VILLAGE – MT HOTHAM ‐ COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT PLAN 1
The Hotham Village Comprehensive Development Plan is an incorporated document to the Alpine Resorts Planning Scheme and comprises both this text and an approved plan. This Comprehensive Development Plan applies to the area nominated as Hotham Village on the Strategic Land Use Framework Plans.
Purpose
To provide a visible and identifiable focal point for visitors through the creation of a “Village Centre” or “Central Square”. To consolidate the precinct as the primary focus for entertainment facilities, community facilities, restaurants, shops and commercial accommodation. To provide safe skier and pedestrian linkages within the precinct through the provision of tunnels, skiways and pedestrian walkways. To protect and enhance view lines from the Village Centre by providing appropriate height and setback controls for all buildings. To ensure development is not visually intrusive when viewed from key vantage points within the Village and the adjoining ski fields. To ensure that the scale, height and setbacks of development reinforce the Village Centre as the focal point of Mt Hotham. To ensure buildings are well articulated and fragmented in form. To ensure building design provides a visually attractive interface with the public domain and the new Village Centre. To ensure that new buildings and extensions to existing buildings are appropriately sited to facilitate the proposed realignment of the Great Alpine Road. To provide the majority of sites with all‐weather road access and on‐site car parking.
Development Guidelines
The development of land must meet the following parameters:
Parameter Condition
Minimum Setback All buildings must be constructed within the site development boundaries designated on the approved plan. Maximum Site Refer to site coverage/height table for individual sites. Coverage
Maximum Height Refer to site coverage/height table for individual sites.
Page 95 Alpine Resorts Planning Scheme: Amendment C17 Planning Permit Application No. 2005/0337 Report of the Panel: September 2006
Wall Materials Corrugated iron, profiled metal (zinc/copper/colour coated steel), timber, stone, plastered masonry (plastered masonry should be painted in neutral or “earthy” tones) or other approved alternatives.
All buildings except for roads, ramps and deck car park structures, must incorporate a significant area of Mt Hotham Stone or similar stone approved by MHRMB at the base of the building, representing not less than 25% of the ground floor wall area.
Roof materials Profiled metal (zinc/copper/colour coated steel), corrugated iron (non‐reflective and muted tones) or other approved alternatives.
Site Existing Building Maximum Site Height Number Name Coverage (see notes below) 1 Bale 45% 5 2 Zirkys 75% 3A 3 White Crystal 75% 3A & Hotham Central 4 White Crystal 75% 4 Extension 5 Basin Development 50% 3A 6 CSIR 50% 2A 7 60% 3A 8 Snowtel 60% 3A 9 Alpine Haven 60% 3A 10 Fountains 60% 3A 11 Arlberg 75% 3A 12 Ultima 50% of the total site, 3A with individual buildings to have a maximum ground floor area of 90 square metres (similar built form to the Basin Development). 13 Chalet 1750 75% 3A 14 75% 5 14b 75% 2A 14c 75% 2A 15 Razorback 60% 2A 16 75% 3A 17 Hotham Chalet 60% 2A 18* 60% 3A
Page 96 Alpine Resorts Planning Scheme: Amendment C17 Planning Permit Application No. 2005/0337 Report of the Panel: September 2006
19 Alpine Heights 60% 3A Apartments 20 Lawlers 60% 3A Apartments 21 90% 3A 22 75% 3A 23 75% 3A
25 Resort 90% 3A Management, Ski Patrol, Police 26 Snowbird 90% 4 27 100% 4 28 100% 4 29 100% 4 30 100% 4 31 100% 4 32 100% 5 33 100% 5 34 100% 5 35 Deck car park 100% 3B
Note 1: A (as in 2A or 3A) refers to 2 storey plus attic or 3 storeys plus attic. The height of a building is measured from natural ground level at the building’s front façade to the top of the vertical plane. It excludes building services, architectural features and unoccupied roof spaces. Note 2: 3B refers to 3 levels of parking below the alignment of Great Alpine Road (GAR), and associated access structures. Note 3: The front facades of sites 1, 14, 14b, and 14c will be the façade to the Great Alpine Road.
Any development proposal must also demonstrate consideration of the following design criteria: Roofs should be fragmented and, where possible, include roof windows, except for Sites 1, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33 to 34 shown on the Hotham Village 2006 Comprehensive Development Plan. Built form should be broken down in scale to increase articulation. The construction of buildings should minimise the loss of mature trees. The siting of buildings should demonstrate safe handling of snow shed to enable safe access and movement within the site and containment within site boundaries. The layout should ensure that pedestrian and skier access to the Village Centre and
Page 97 Alpine Resorts Planning Scheme: Amendment C17 Planning Permit Application No. 2005/0337 Report of the Panel: September 2006
ski ways is not impeded and, where possible, enhanced. The provision of an appropriate public bus interchange facility as shown on the Hotham Village 2006 Comprehensive Development Plan dated 28/2/2006 in association with the development of Sites 32, 33 & 34. The management of snow and ability for snowclearing vehicles to manoeuvre along village streets. The recommended minimum clearance between buildings at ground level on the east and west sides of village streets between Site 3 and Sites 27 to 31 is 12m, and between Sites 25 – 26 and Sites 27 to 31 is 8m. The recommended minimum clearance between buildings on Site 27 and the vehicle access ramp to Site 1 is 16m. The need for wind and micro‐climate management within village streets. Provision of an appropriate loading access from the car park beneath the Great Alpine Road to the ski school/race club building at the top of the summit quad chair. All new building developments should include: − dual energy sources for heating and power − water saving appliances − high levels of thermal insulation − energy efficient lighting − energy efficient heating/cooling
Decision Guidelines Before approving a site development plan the responsible authority must consider the decision guidelines of Sub‐section 5 of the Comprehensive Development Zone and Clause 65, as appropriate. Car Parking (Hotham Village Redevelopment) Provided that 370 car spaces are constructed beneath the Great Alpine Road alignment (Site 35) in accordance with the Hotham Village 2006 Comprehensive Development Plan, which are managed in accordance with a Parking Management Plan to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and that at least one car space is provided per apartment, or 0.5 of a car space per hotel room, in the development of Sites 1, 4, 14 (b), 14 (c), 21, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33 and 34, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, then the provisions of Clause 52.06‐1 do not apply to the redevelopment of those listed sites within Hotham Village.
Page 98 Alpine Resorts Planning Scheme: Amendment C17 Planning Permit Application No. 2005/0337 Report of the Panel: September 2006
Page 99 Alpine Resorts Planning Scheme: Amendment C17 Planning Permit Application No. 2005/0337 Report of the Panel: September 2006
APPENDIX 5: AMENDED PLANS TO PLANNING PERMIT APPLICATION 2005/0337
Page 100 Alpine Resorts Planning Scheme: Amendment C17 Planning Permit Application No. 2005/0337 Report of the Panel: September 2006
Page 101 Alpine Resorts Planning Scheme: Amendment C17 Planning Permit Application No. 2005/0337 Report of the Panel: September 2006
Page 102 Alpine Resorts Planning Scheme: Amendment C17 Planning Permit Application No. 2005/0337 Report of the Panel: September 2006
Page 103 Alpine Resorts Planning Scheme: Amendment C17 Planning Permit Application No. 2005/0337 Report of the Panel: September 2006
APPENDIX 6: DRAFT PLANNING PERMIT CONDITIONS ‐ 2005/0337
Page 104 Alpine Resorts Planning Scheme: Amendment C17 Planning Permit Application No. 2005/0337 Report of the Panel: September 2006
What this Permit Allows • Construction of buildings and works. • Use of land for food and drink premises (restaurant and take away food premises). • Alter access to Road Zone Category 1. • Removal of native vegetation. • Sale and consumption of liquor. • Waiver of car parking requirements of scheme. • Display of advertising signs in accordance with endorsed plans.
CONDITIONS OF THE RESPONSIBLE AUTHORITY
1. Before the commencement of the development, amended plans to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, in consultation with the Mount Hotham Resort Management Board, must be submitted to and be approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved the plans will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The plans must be drawn to scale, with dimensions, and six (6) copies must be provided. The plans must be generally in accordance with the plans marked Site Plan A‐DA‐01‐04 rev B, Workshop 4267‐17‐B_DA‐10‐ 01 rev D and Heavenly Valley Building 4267‐17‐B DA‐10‐02 rev F, but modified to show:
a) full details of the external materials, decoration, colours and finishes of each building, including the use of, stonework. The aesthetics and appearance of the subject building, works or materials must not, in the opinion of the Responsible Authority, adversely affect the amenity of the locality; b) details of roof and hard surface drainage and snowshed treatment; c) details of internal and external lighting of buildings, and public access areas d) details of surface treatments of public access areas and work areas throughout the site, including roads, paths, and deck areas e) details of all works within the adjacent land including the road reserve and public areas to be undertaken including the timing and provision of these works to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority in consultation with the Mount Hotham Resort Management Board and VicRoads; and, f) the Three Huts Gateway entry feature the design of which is to be endorsed in writing by the Mount Hotham Resort Management Board. 2. The layout of the land, the size and type of the buildings and works approved by this permit, including the exterior finishes and materials of construction as shown on the endorsed plans must be maintained to the satisfaction of the responsible Authority and must not be altered or modified without the written consent of the Responsible Authority. 3. Prior to the commencement of development, six copies of a Site Environmental Management Plan (SEMP) generally in accordance with the SEMP – Heavenly Valley Development Plan, Mount Hotham, dated June 2006, and prepared by Arup Environmental & Planning, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, the Department of Sustainability and Environment and the Mount Hotham Resort Management Board must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the SEMP will be endorsed and will form part of the permit. The SEMP must include and/or indicate details about the following:
Page 105 Alpine Resorts Planning Scheme: Amendment C17 Planning Permit Application No. 2005/0337 Report of the Panel: September 2006
a) Monitoring To include frequency of inspections, in particular • bi‐weekly inspections during construction period for the following: ‐ areas of native vegetation to be retained; ‐ all protective fences are in place; ‐ sediment and run off control measures are in place; • fortnightly inspections during the post construction period for the following: ‐ areas of rehabilitation and revegetation ‐ all protective measures are in place. b) Soil and Sediment Control Prior to commencement of the snow fall period all areas of disturbance are to be stabilised using certified weed free straw or approved methods. c) Surface Treatment Prior to commencement of the snow fall period, drip line treatment is to be implemented where snow shed is considered to have a potential for adversely impacting on the site values contributed to by construction activity. d) Stormwater Management Prior to commencement of the snow fall period an interim stormwater system is to be implemented to ensure that site values on and off site are not adversely impacted upon through sediment transport or erosion contributed to by construction activity. e) Management of construction materials, equipment and machinery No material, plant or machinery is to be stored outside during the snowfall period. f) Waste Management All waste and waste storage facilities are to be removed from the site prior to the commencement of the snow fall period. g) All construction activities must be undertaken in accordance with the Site Environment Management Plan (SEMP) to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. All contractors working on the site must be provided with a copy of the endorsed SEMP and must retain a copy of the SEMP on‐site at all times during the construction season. 4. Prior to the commencement of the development, a detailed geotechnical assessment, generally in accordance with the recommendations of the Geotechnical assessment and landslip risk assessment report, dated 4 January 2006, prepared by Coffey Geosciences Pty Ltd), but modified as may be required by changes made by the plans referred to in condition 1 and satisfying the requirements of the Erosion Management Overlay Schedule 1, must be submitted to the satisfaction and approved by the Responsible Authority in consultation with the Mount Hotham Resort Management Board. When approved, this document will be endorsed to form part of the planning permit. The development must be undertaken in accordance with the endorsed geo‐technical assessment report to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
Page 106 Alpine Resorts Planning Scheme: Amendment C17 Planning Permit Application No. 2005/0337 Report of the Panel: September 2006
5. Prior to the occupation of each stage of the development, the works within adjacent land including road reserves and public areas endorsed under condition 1(e) must be provided to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority in consultation with the Mount Hotham Resort Management Board. 6. No plant, equipment, services or architectural features other than those shown on the endorsed plans are permitted above the roof level of the building(s) without the written consent of the Responsible Authority. 7. No receptacles for any form of rubbish or refuse (other than public waste bins designed to prevent wind blown litter) may be placed or allowed to remain in view from a public road or thoroughfare (or walking track) and odour must not be emitted from any such receptacle(s) so as to cause offence to any person(s) outside the subject land. 8. The exterior treatment of the buildings permitted by this permit including all exterior decoration, materials, finishes and colours must be to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The exterior treatment of the buildings must be maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. 9. The MHSC ski field operations facility and the Heavenly Valley Skier facility building and restaurant and public toilets, and ski patrol base and snow‐making operations centre use and development must be managed so that the amenity of the area is not detrimentally affected, through the:
a) transport of materials, goods or commodities (including snow) to or from the land; b) appearance of any building, works or materials; c) emission of noise, artificial light, vibration, smell, fumes, smoke, vapour, steam, soot, ash, dust, wastewater, waste products, grit or oil; or d) presence of vermin. 10. Prior to commencing the use, all signage including directional, tourist, traffic control, commercial signage is to be approved in writing by the Responsible Authority. Details must include dimensions, type and location of all signs to be placed on the site illumination wording and colour scheme. 11. Goods, equipment or machinery must not be permanently stored or left exposed outside a building so as to be visible from any public road or thoroughfare (or walking track), except as permitted by the approved Site Environment Management Plan. 12. All activities associated with the construction of the development permitted by this permit must be carried out to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and all care must be taken to minimise the effect of such activities on the amenity of the locality. 13. All external construction activity must cease during the declared snow season, Christmas/New Year and Easter periods unless the Responsible Authority consents in writing to another date after consultation with the Mount Hotham Resort Management Board. 14. Prior to the declared snow season, the site must be left in a tidy condition, free of rubbish and building materials to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. No material, plant or machinery is to be stored outside on site during the declared snow season except with the written consent of the Responsible Authority.
Page 107 Alpine Resorts Planning Scheme: Amendment C17 Planning Permit Application No. 2005/0337 Report of the Panel: September 2006
15. Snow shed from the development must be confined within the site at all times to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. 16. The permit holder must install advisory signs warning of any snow dump zones within the site and located appropriately to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. 17. The permit holder must enter into an agreement with the relevant authorities for the provision of water supply, drainage, sewerage facilities and other essential services in accordance with the relevant authority’s requirements. 18. Once the development has started it must be continued and completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. 19. This permit will expire if one of the following circumstances applies: a) The development is not started within two years of the date of this permit. b) The development is not completed within five years of the date of this permit. The Responsible Authority may extend the periods referred to if a request is made in writing before the permit expires or within three months afterwards. 20. Prior to commencement of the development a revised visual effects assessment plan to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority having regard to comments from Parks Victoria must be submitted having regard to the following; a) Minimising reflectivity and sun glare by treating all windows on the north, east and west sides of all buildings and structures with low – reflective glass. Other treatments will be considered however, they must be to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. b) Minimising night time light emissions by reducing light emissions from artificial sources especially on the north and east sides of the buildings. Spot lights and floodlights must be used only where required and shielded where necessary. Feature lighting of the buildings on the north and east sides must be avoided. The use of coloured, neon and flashing lights on the north and east sides of the building exteriors or windows is not to occur. c) Minimise the apparent size and mass by testing the aesthetics of the combination of not less than 25% of local stone‐cladding and timber panels and the colour of the non‐reflective roofing material prior to construction. d) Minimise adverse visual effects through landscape planting and rehabilitation. e) Minimise the contrasts in the colour and texture of exterior materials by providing a detailed building colour scheme prior to commencement to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
Department of Sustainability and Environment Requirements
21. Prior to the commencement of the development, a landscape and revegetation plan to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the plan will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The plan must be drawn to scale with dimensions and six copies must be provided. The landscape and revegetation plan must show:
a) a survey (including botanical names) of all existing vegetation to be retained and/or removed;
Page 108 Alpine Resorts Planning Scheme: Amendment C17 Planning Permit Application No. 2005/0337 Report of the Panel: September 2006
b) a planting schedule of all proposed trees, shrubs and ground covers, including botanical names, common names, pot sizes, sizes at maturity, and quantities of each plant; and c) the off set planting to satisfy the requirements of achieving ‘net gain’ in accordance with Victoria ’s Native Vegetation Management – a Framework for Action, and as identified in the Revegetation Management Plan.
22. All existing vegetation shown on the endorsed plans to be retained must be suitably marked before any development starts on the site to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and that vegetation must not be removed, destroyed or lopped without the written consent of the Responsible Authority. 23. Prior to the occupation of the buildings approved by this permit or by such later date as approved by the Responsible Authority in writing, the landscaping works as shown on the endorsed plans must be carried out and completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Any dead, diseased or damaged plants must be replaced without delay and must be maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. 24. The clearing of native vegetation hereby approved shall only occur on that area, as shown on the endorsed plan/s and no extension to the area to be cleared shall occur (whether or not to comply with any statute, statutory rule or regulations or for any other reason), without formal written consent of the Responsible Authority. 25. The trees and/or shrubs are to be planted within 12 months from the date of the issue of the permit and maintained by the owners of the land to ensure a survival rate of not less than 80 per cent at two years of age to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Environmental Protection Authority Requirements 26. To minimise the environmental impacts associated with stormwater run‐off, all stormwater management during construction should be carried out in accordance with EPA publications: a) Construction Techniques for Sedimentation Pollution Control, publication 275; and b) Environmental guidelines for major construction sites, publication 480. 27. All underground petroleum storage tanks must be managed and decommissioned in accordance with EPA publication 888, Guidelines on the Design, Installation and Management Requirements for Underground Petroleum Storage Systems, February 2003.
VicRoads Requirements
28. Only one access from the Great Alpine Road to the Loch car park development will be permitted. The access shall be located at the apex of the curve in the Great Alpine Road adjacent to the Loch car park unless otherwise agreed by VicRoads’ Regional Manager North Eastern Region. 29. Prior to the development coming into use the applicant shall:
a. Construct and seal the access to the Great Alpine Road to a standard satisfactory to VicRoads Regional Manager North Eastern Region including any works recommended as part of a road safety audit of the access.
Page 109 Alpine Resorts Planning Scheme: Amendment C17 Planning Permit Application No. 2005/0337 Report of the Panel: September 2006
b. Reconstruct the southern road shoulder of the Great Alpine Road opposite the proposed access to provide a sealed shoulder with width in accordance with Austroads Guide to Traffic Engineering Practice Part 5 Intersection at Grade, Figure 6.37 – Type BAR Right Turn Treatment, refer attached. The road shoulder shall be constructed to VicRoads satisfaction. 30. Pavement constructed as part of the shoulder widening for the BAR right turn treatment and access bellmouth shall be designed in accordance with VicRoads’ Code of Practice for “Selection and Design of Pavements and Surfacings (RC 500.22). A copy of the Code of Practice RC 500.22 is attached. Pavement thickness and class of materials are required to be shown on the access design drawing. A ‘frost free’ pavement with design matching the pavement thickness and materials of the through lanes of the Great Alpine Road at this location is required, as a minimum. 31. In relation to any business signs and lighting:
a. Any sign, including appurtenances such as lighting must be erected within the property line and must not obstruct a driver’s line of sight at any point of egress b. All signs must meet the VicRoads’ ten point safety checklist for advertisements and hoardings to ensure that it does not constitute a road safety hazard. 32. The proposed access to the Loch car park shall be audited by a qualified road safety auditor at each stage of the design and construction in accordance with AustRoads Road Safety Audit Manual (2nd Edition). The applicant or their nominated representative shall provide comments to VicRoads as to how the Road Safety Audit (RSA) recommendations have been addressed at each stage of the design and construction of the access works. The audit must include a review of vehicle turning movement diagrams for all vehicles that could reasonably be expected to access the Loch car park (including fuel and other commercial delivery vehicles) to ensure that they can access the car park safely. The audit must consider any lighting requirements at the intersection of the Loch car park access and the Great Alpine Road. 33. Prior to commencing work within the arterial road reserve the developer must:
a) Submit detail design plans for the proposed access works, to obtain the written acceptance of the plans from the VicRoads’ Regional Manager, North Eastern Region. A Stage 3 Detailed Design RSA shall be completed by a qualified road safety auditor in accordance with the AustRoads Road Safety Audit Manual (2nd Edition). The applicant or their nominated representative shall provide comments to VicRoads as to how the RSA recommendations have been addressed in the design. b) Submit an application for consent, including prescribed fee, in accordance with the Road Management Act (Works and Infrastructure) Regulations 2004. For further information refer www.vicroads.vic.gov.au or telephone 5761 1888. c) A bond or bank guarantee of $10,000 or 10% of the value of works, whichever is greater, shall be lodged with VicRoads as security against the performance of the works prior to commencement of construction. The bond will be released by VicRoads 12‐months after the completion of the shoulder widening works, provided the works are in good condition, as determined by the Regional Manager North Eastern Region, and provided any necessary remedial works are completed to VicRoads’ satisfaction.
Page 110 Alpine Resorts Planning Scheme: Amendment C17 Planning Permit Application No. 2005/0337 Report of the Panel: September 2006
d) Provide evidence that the applicant/applicant’s contractor has public liability insurance for at least $10 million for the duration of any proposed work.
34. Buildings or structures shall not be constructed on or over the Great Alpine road reserve. 35. Construction activities within the Arterial Road reserve shall be performed in accordance with the VicRoads’ Standard Specifications for Roadwork. Traffic Management shall be conducted in accordance with a traffic management plan prepared in accordance with the Road Safety Act and Road Management Act Code of Practice for Worksite Safety‐Traffic Management. 36. All works associated with the above requirements are to be completed at no cost to VicRoads and the road reserve must be left in a neat and tidy condition. SPI Electricity Requirements 37. The applicant must enter into an agreement with SPI Electricity Pty Ltd for supply of electricity to the proposal. Mt Hotham Resort Management Board 38. Prior to the commencement of the use the applicant must provide facilities that accommodate safe and efficient collection of solid waste and recycling material from the proposed development to the satisfaction of the Resort Management Board in consultation with the Responsible Authority. 39. Prior to the commencement of the development the applicant must provide a stormwater management plan, based on the principles of Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD) to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority in consultation with the Resort Management Board. The stormwater drainage design must be developed having regard to the recommendations contained in the letter dated 19 May 2006 from Esler & Associates, entitled Loch Workshop Proposal, Drainage Strategy and the draft report prepared by Neil Craigie, Mt Hotham Village Redevelopment, Surface Water Management, 7 June 2006. 40. The Site Environmental Management Plan (SEMP) required by Condition 3 shall include the requirements: a) that the development must not discharge contaminated runoff from the site at any stage of the construction or during the life of the development. The applicant must implement measures to dissipate energy and reduce velocity of stormwater runoff from the development. Runoff from the car park and general drainage should be via an approved infiltration and flow dispersal system. The applicant should consider recycling water collected from the roof of the development by directing this water into the Loch reservoir. b) that water discharging from the workshop floor is separated from general stormwater discharge and that any contaminated water is treated to remove oil and pollutants prior to discharge. c) that the storm water management plan should provide detail for the site indicating drip line treatment, contour drains, retention basins, sediment trap sizes and locations, dispersion unit locations, subsurface drains and techniques for managing overland flows. d) the proposed drainage system needs to be designed with a peak capacity to carry peak discharge of the 10 year Average Recurrence Interval (ARI) storm event. For this event the designed system should direct all stormwater to the discharge points without creating flooding downstream of the subject land.
Page 111 Alpine Resorts Planning Scheme: Amendment C17 Planning Permit Application No. 2005/0337 Report of the Panel: September 2006
e) for events greater than 10 year ARI, concentrated overland flows resulting from the development must be contained within drainage lines relying on native vegetation or appropriate structures to minimise erosion and potential off site impacts. 41. The applicant shall notify to the Resort Management Board of all new installations, alterations and additions to the gas system within a building downstream of the regulator‐ meter. 42. The developer is to meet the costs of new gas installations and the upgrade of existing systems including service mains and is to provide to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority in consultation with the Resort Management Board prior to the commencement of the development and prior to commencement of the use: a) plans of building(s) showing gas lines and appliance locations. b) proposed siting of gas valve for mains delivery, locations of individual apartment valves and meter regulator placement. c) plans of the location of all valves and meter/regulators sited in a snow free area which is accessible at all times and suitable protection from weather and roof run off. d) gas appliance energy figures to size meters and regulators. e) details of the installer of gas appliance / pipe work such as the name of the Licensed Person, including details of their. license number and qualifications. f) all completed documentation for the site and installation in relation to both Standard and Complex installations g) all documentation and tests carried out at least 14 days prior to gas being provided. 43. The developer is to implement 5 Star Plumbing standards as developed by the Plumbing Industry Commission. The Resort Management Board will provide a water main tapping for the development including the supply of a certified gate valve assembly. 44. It is the responsibility of the developer to reticulate water to meet the needs of the development in compliance with AS 3500 – Water services. 45. Prior to the commencement of the development the developer must provide an estimate of daily water consumption and peak demand to ensure that appropriate size main tapping is provided. 46. The developer must provide a water conservation strategy that demonstrates efficient use of water throughout the development. This strategy should identify water saving initiatives and should be based on the 5 Star Plumbing guidelines developed by the Plumbing Industry Commission. 47. The installation of dual flush toilets is mandatory. 48. The water supply must be fitted with an approved backflow prevention device, in accordance with AS 2845.1:1998. 49. The provision of a separate fire service and water supply if required, is the responsibility of the Developer. 50. Prior to the commencement of the use the developer shall provide plans showing the final location of the appropriate grease traps and the Legal Point of Discharge (LPD) within or near the lease boundary in compliance with AS 3500.2:2003. All costs associated with this sewer extension will be born by the developer.
Page 112 Alpine Resorts Planning Scheme: Amendment C17 Planning Permit Application No. 2005/0337 Report of the Panel: September 2006
51. The developer is to install sufficient additional storage capacity at the Heavenly Valley ski field operation facility to allow for the operation of the Heavenly Valley lift from the new tank installation. The developer must ensure that any underground petroleum storage tanks comply with condition 27. Planning Notes: Building Approval Required This permit does not authorise the commencement of any building construction works. Before any such development may commence, the applicant must apply for and obtain appropriate building approval. Health Requirements The premises shall comply with all State Legislation, in particular the Health (Eating House and Food Premises) Regulations 1984. Trading must not commence without the approval of the Chief Environmental Health Officer, and until registration with the Responsible Authority under the Food Act 1984 has been completed. Fire services The Resort Management Board encourages the developer to investigate fire service requirements at the earliest possible time. All fire service requirements are the responsibility of the developer and should be accessed in accordance with Building Code Australia (BCA) in consultation with relevant Building Surveyor and the CFA Access for People with Disabilities The facilities approved by this permit shall be constructed and maintained to accord with all relevant legislation (Federal or State), Australian Standards, or any other design requirements relating to access or other issues affecting people with disabilities to the satisfaction to the Responsible Authority. Industry Requirements The use and development hereby permitted shall at all times be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the relevant dangerous goods legislation and health legislation.
Page 113