31 December 2020

NOTICE OF PROPOSAL TO AMEND AN

AGREEMENT

Responsible Authority MORNINGTON PENINSULA SHIRE COUNCIL

3108, 3106, 3110, 3118 & 3120 POINT NEPEAN ROAD SORRENTO Lot 1 on Plan of Subdivision 540310W Volume 11017 Folio 777 Description of the land Lot 2 on Plan of Subdivision 540310W Volume 11017 Folio 778 affected by the agreement: Lot 3 on Plan of Subdivision 540310W Volume 11017 Folio 779 Lot 4 on Plan of Subdivision 540310W Volume 11017 Folio 780 Lot 5 on Plan of Subdivision 540310W Volume 11017 Folio 781

TO AMEND SECTION 173 AGREEMENT AE638010 THAT IS REGISTERED ON Description of the Proposal: CERTIFICATE OF TITLES TO LOTS 1, 2, 3, 4 AND 5 ON PS540310, KNOWN AS LAND SITUATED AT 3106, 3108, 3110, 3118 AND 3120 POINT NEPEAN ROAD, SORRENTO

THE PROPOSAL WAS INITIATED BY BIOSIS PTY LTD, WHO APPLIED TO THE RESPONSIBLE AUTHORITY FOR AGREEMENT TO THE PROPOSAL UNDER SECTION 178A OF THE PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT ACT 1987. Who Initiated the Proposal: IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 178A(3) OF THE PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT ACT 1987, THE RESPONSIBLE AUTHORITY HAS NOTIFIED THE APPLICANT THAT IT AGREES IN PRINCIPLE TO THE PROPOSAL.

Application number and GE20/1722 officer is: VERONICA LYNGCOLN

You may view the plans and documents that support the application free of charge at the office/s of the Responsible Authority below or online at: www.mornpen.vic.gov.au > Building & Planning > Planning > Advertised Planning Applications

Mornington Office – Queen Street, Mornington Rosebud Office – Besgrove Street, Rosebud Hastings Office – Marine Parade, Hastings Somerville Library – 1085 Frankston-Flinders Road, Somerville Office hours 8.30am to 5pm Any person who is given notice of the proposal, or who ought to have been given notice of the proposal under section 178C of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, may object to, or make any other submission in relation to, the proposal.

Your objection must: • Include the objector’s full name, relevant postal address, phone number & email address • Specify the application number • Include the reasons for the objection and state how the objector would be affected

Lodge online at www.mornpen.vic.gov.au; Or mail to: Planning Services Team, Mornington Peninsula Shire, Private Bag 1000, Rosebud 3939

Under Section 178E of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, the Responsible Authority will not make a decision before: 31 DECEMBER 2020

Privacy Notification: The personal information provided in an objection is collected for planning purposes in accordance with the Planning & Environment Act 1987 (the Act). The public may view an objection in accordance with Section 57 of the Act whilst the planning application is current.

If the responsible authority decides to end the agreement, or refuses to end the agreement, the responsible authority will give notice of its decision to any person who made an objection.

In most cases, the responsible authority will give notice of its decision to any person who made a submission.

If the responsible authority proposes to amend or end the agreement in a manner that is substantively different from the proposal, the responsible authority will give notice of the new proposal to all parties to the agreement and any other persons to whom the responsible authority considers the decision to amend or end the agreement may cause material detriment.

19 November 2020

Mornington Peninsula City Council

Email: [email protected]

Cc: [email protected]

Amendment to Section 173 Agreement – 3110 Point Nepean Road, Sorrento Our ref: Matter 29532

Dear Veronica

Biosis Pty Ltd (Biosis) is submitting this application to amend an existing Section 173 Agreement registered on title to the land at 3110 Point Nepean Road, Sorrento (Land) on behalf of Appletree Sorrento Pty Ltd and Trevor and Suzanne Gorman.

Background

On 27 November 2019 Biosis submitted an updated Property Management Plan (PMP) for the same Land, seeking Council’s consent to the updates. Following discussions with Council as part of that process, Council advised at meeting on 27 August 2020 that it could not endorse the updated PMP under the terms of the existing Section 173 Agreement. Council advised that the Section 173 Agreement should be updated concurrently with the request for endorsement of the PMP. Council also indicated at the same time that a mechanism for third party native vegetation offsets should be considered.

Biosis provided Council with an advance draft of the amendment Section 173 Agreement and updated PMP on 2 November 2020. It is understood that Council broadly supports the revisions in principle.

Request to amend Section 173 Agreement

We formally request an amendment to the existing Section 173 Agreement (dealing number AE638010J registered on 2 October 2006) pursuant to section 178A of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (PE Act). The owners of all properties affected by the Section 173 Agreement agree to the content of the revised Section 173 Agreement presented and the updated Property Management Plan.

The purpose of the request is:

 To introduce a power to review and updated the Property Management Plan for this Land.

 To secure native vegetation offsets within 3 months of settling the amended Section 173 Agreement.

The application fee of $659.10 has been paid and the receipt is attached.

Biosis Pty Ltd Melbourne Resource Group

38 Bertie Street Phone: 03 9646 9499 ACN 006 175 097 Port Melbourne VIC 3207 Fax: 03 9646 9242 ABN 65 006 175 097 Email: [email protected] biosis.com.au

Property Management Plan

As outlined above, we have previously sought Council’s support for the updated PMP. In response to the most recent comments from Council on the substance of the PMP, we have updated the PMP further. We trust these revisions address Council’s comments.

We ask that Council consider the updated PMP concurrently with the application to amend the Section 173 Agreement under s178A of the PE Act.

Documentation

In support of this request we enclose the following attachments have been included:

 Attachment 1: Existing Agreement under Section 173 Agreement of the PE Act subject land: Nee Morna, 3110 Point Nepean Road, Sorrento.

 Attachment 2: Revised Agreement under Section 173 Agreement of the P & E Act subject land: Nee Morna, 3106-3120 Point Nepean Road, Sorrento.

 Attachment 3: Revised Property Management Plan: Nee Morna, Sorrento

 Attachment 4: Certificate of Titles (3106-3120 Point Nepean Road, Sorrento)

 Attachment 5: Receipt of payment for Application

Please contact me if you have any enquiries.

Yours sincerely,

Hannah Harbourd Project Environmental Planner

0427 505 324

Attachment 1 Existing Agreement under Section 173 Agreement

Attachment 2 Revised Agreement under Section 173 Agreement

Agreement under Section 173 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987

Subject Land: Nee-Morna -, 3106, 3108, 3110, 3118 and 3120 Point Nepean Road, Sorrento

Mornington Peninsula Shire Council and

Appletree Sorrento Pty Ltd and

Trevor Ronald Gorman and

Suzanne Eleanor Gorman

Table of contents

1. DEFINITIONS ...... 4 2. INTERPRETATION ...... 5 3. SPECIFIC OBLIGATIONS OF THE OWNER ...... 5 3.1 Property Management Plan and native vegetation offset obligations ...... 5 3.2 1803 Collins Settlement Site Interpretation Future Directions Management Plan...... 6 3.3 Removal of a Building ...... 6 3.4 Lot 4 ...... 7 4. FURTHER OBLIGATIONS OF THE OWNER ...... 7 4.1 Notice and Registration ...... 7 4.2 Further actions ...... 7 4.3 Council's Costs to be Paid ...... 7 5. AGREEMENT UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE ACT ...... 7 6. OWNER’S WARRANTIES ...... 8 7. SUCCESSORS IN TITLE ...... 8 8. GENERAL MATTERS ...... 8 8.1 Notices ...... 8 8.2 Service of Notice...... 8 8.3 No Waiver ...... 8 8.4 Severability ...... 8 8.5 No Fettering of Council's Powers ...... 9 9. COMMENCEMENT OF AGREEMENT ...... 9

Agreement under Section 173 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987

DATE:

BETWEEN

MORNINGTON PENINSULA SHIRE COUNCIL of Besgrove Street, Rosebud (Council)

AND

THE OWNERS LISTED IN SCHEDULE 1

(Owner)

RECITALS

A. Council is the Responsible Authority pursuant to the Act for the Planning Scheme.

B. The Owner is or is entitled to be the registered proprietor of the Subject Land.

C. On 15 December 2005 Council issued Planning Permit No. P04/1887 (Planning Permit) allowing the Subject Land to be subdivided in to five (5) lots, vegetation removal and associated Works in accordance with a plan to be endorsed under condition 1 of the Planning Permit. Condition 3 of the Planning Permit requires the Owner to enter into this Agreement to provide for the matters set out in that condition. A copy of the Planning Permit is available for inspection at Council offices during normal business hours upon giving the Council reasonable notice.

D. Condition 3 of the Planning Permit provides that:

“Prior to the issue of the Statement of Compliance, the subdivider must enter into an Agreement with the Responsible Authority, pursuant to Section 173 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. This agreement must be registered by the subdivider pursuant to Section 181 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 of titles to the land resulting from approval of this subdivision and wilI become operative on the approval by the Land Titles Office. The agreement must provide for:

3.1 A Property Management Plan to be developed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority in consultation with the Department of Sustainability and Environment. This Plan must provide specific details for revegetation including species type, quantities, proposed location, time schedule and maintenance regime.

3.2 All development on the lots taking into consideration that the sight lines are maintained in context with the Collins Settlement Site Interpretation.

3.3 Within 12 months of the date of registration of this subdivision, or as otherwise approved in writing by the Responsible Authority, the existing buildings on Lot 1 and Lot 2 must be removed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority unless the construction of a dwelling is commenced on that lot within that time.

3.4 Prior to the construction of any building on proposed Lot 5, a road with a minimum width of 4 metres wide must be constructed to a standard so that the building is accessible in all weather conditions and capable of accommodating a vehicle of 15 tonnes for the trafficable road width.

NOTE: the costs in preparation of such agreement are to be met by the subdivider.”

E. Condition 1 of the Planning Permit requires that amended plans be submitted for approval which show (inter alia) the deletion of lot 3 on the plans submitted with the permit application and the creation of a five lot plan of subdivision. This Agreement proposes to make allowance for the intention behind condition 1. To this the agreement recognises that it is necessary to renumber the lots as they are referred to in condition 3 to reflect the true intention of the Planning Permit. Formatted: Justified, Indent: Left: 1.27 cm, No bullets or numbering E. F. Council endorsed a Property Management Plan prepared by Ecology Australia in 2006. That Property Management Plan foreshadowed a review at the end of a 10 year period. That review was Formatted: Normal, Justified, Indent: Left: 0.63 cm, commenced in 2019. This Agreement was amended in 2020 to implement the outcomes of that review and No bullets or numbering any future reviews of Property Management Plan.

F. G. The parties enter into this Agreement: Formatted: Normal, Justified, Indent: Left: 0.63 cm, GF.I to give effect to the requirements of the Planning Permit; and No bullets or numbering

GF.2 to achieve and advance the Objectives of planning in Victoria and the objectives of Formatted: Justified, Indent: Left: 0 cm, First line: 1.27 cm the Planning Scheme in respect of the Subject Land. Formatted: Justified, Indent: Left: 0 cm, First line: THE PARTIES AGREE 1.27 cm

1. DEFINITIONS

------

In this Agreement the words and expressions set out in this clause have the following meanings unless the context admits otherwise:

Act means the Planning and Environment Act 1987.

Agreement means this agreement and any agreement executed by the parties expressed to be supplemental to this agreement.

Building has the same meaning as in the Act and includes dwellings, garages, swimming pools, tennis courts and out-buildings.

1803 Collins Settlement Site Interpretation Future Directions Management Plan Future Directions Management Plan means the plan dated December 2M2, entitled 1803 Collins Settlement Site Interpretation Future Directions Management Plan, a copy of which is available for inspection at Council offices during normal business hours.

Endorsed Plan means the plan endorsed with the stamp of Council from time to time as the plan which forms part of the Planning Permit and which provides for the creation of a 5 lot subdivision. A copy of the Endorsed Plan is available for inspection at Council offices during normal business hours upon giving the Council reasonable notice.

Existing Buildings means the Buildings which exist on lots 1 and 2. as at the date of this Agreement.

lot means a lot on the Endorsed Plan, except where otherwise specified in this Agreement.

Lot 4 means lot 4 on the Endorsed Plan (representing Lot 5 on the plans submitted with the permit application and as referred to in condition 3 of the Planning Permit. The change in numbering is due to the requirements of condition 1 of the Planning Permit to reduce the subdivision to five lots).

Mortgagee means the person or persons registered or entitled from time to time to be registered by the Registrar of Titles as Mortgagee of the Subject Land or any part of it.

Owner means the person or persons registered or entitled from time to time to be registered by the Registrar of Titles as proprietor or proprietors of an estate in fee simple of the Subject Land Or any part of it and includes a Mortgagee-in-possession.

party or parties means the Owner and Council under this Agreement as appropriate.

Planning Scheme means the Mornington Peninsula Planning Scheme and any other planning scheme that applies to the Subject Land:

Property Management Plan means the management plan prepared under this Agreement, as amended or updated from time to time.

Road means a road with a minimum width of 4 metres and capable of accommodating a vehicle of 15 tonnes.

Subject Land means the land situated at Nee-Morna, 3110 Point Nepean Road, Sorrento being the land referred to in Certificate of Title Volume 10379 Folio 726. Volume 9653 Folio 069 and Volume 10951 Folio 808 and any reference to the Subject Land in this Agreement includes any lot created by the subdivision of the Subject Land or any part of it.

Works has the same meaning as in the Act and includes excavation, trenching, filling, paving and installation of underground services.

2. INTERPRETATION

------In this Agreement unless the context admits otherwise: 2.1. The singular includes the plural and vice versa. 2.2. A reference to a gender includes a reference to each other gender. 2.3. A reference to a person includes a reference to a firm, corporation or other corporate body and that person's successors in law. 2.4. If a party consists of more than one person this Agreement binds them jointly and each of them severally. 2.5. A term used in this Agreement has its ordinary meaning unless that term is defined in this Agreement. If a term is not defined in this Agreement and it is defined in the Act it has the meaning as defined in the Act. 2.6. A reference to an Act, Regulation or the Planning Scheme includes any Acts, Regulations or amendments amending, consolidating or replacing the Act, Regulation or Planning Scheme. 2.7. The introductory clauses to this Agreement are and will be deemed to form part of this Agreement. 2.8. The obligations of the Owner under this Agreement, will take effect as separate and several covenants which are annexed to and run at law and equity with the Subject Land provided that if the Subject Land is subdivided, this Agreement must be read and applied so that each subsequent owner of a lot is only responsible for those covenants and obligations which relate to that owner’s lot.

3. SPECIFIC OBLIGATIONS OF THE OWNER

The Owner covenants and agrees that

3.1 Property Management Plan and native vegetation offset obligations

3.1.1 prior to the commencement. of the development authorised by the Planning Permit, a Property Management Plan (PMP) must be submitted to and approved by Council. for the purpose of providing an offset that is sufficient to compensate for the loss of native vegetation which may be carried out as Commented [GM1]: Given an off-site offset is being a consequence of the issue of the Planning Permit (PMP). The PMP must provided (which fully compensates for the losses) I have address the following details to the satisfaction of the Secretary of the suggested the preamble should be more general (but Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE):Environment, Land, still cover same scope as approved agreement and requirements in the permit condition) Water and Planning (DELWP):

3.1.1.1 a fully dimensioned plan showing existing native vegetation on the Subject Land;

3.1.1.2 a fully dimensioned plan showing existing native vegetation On any other land upon which it is proposed that part of the offset will be provided;

3.1.1.3 means of calculating the offset to be provided;

3.1.1.4 definition of areas of the Subject Land, or any other land which are to be set aside for. protection, rehabilitation, or revegetation; Formatted: Justified, Indent: Left: 2.54 cm 3.1.1.5 for any revegetation approved as part of the PMP. details of

3.1.1.5.1 number and percentage of trees, shrubs and other plants. species mix; 3.1.1.5.2 location and density of planting; 3.1.1.5.3 species type; 3.1.1.5.4 timing of planting; 3.1.1.5.5 the means to manage and ensure the long term survival of the newly planted vegetation; 3.1.1.5.6 measures for annual replanting of any vegetation that fails within 10 years of being planted;

3.1.1.6 long-term maintenance requirements for vegetation and areas of land set aside under the PMP for protection, rehabilitation or revegetation including details as to the proposed management of weeds and animals;

3.1.1.7 the timing for any review of the PMP, if applicable;

3.1.1.87 methods of permanent protection for all vegetation to be protected. rehabilitated or planted under the PMP; and

3.1.1.98 details of any earthworks, drainage and other works.

3.1.2 Once approved the Owner: must:

3.1.2.1 must implement the PMP; Formatted: List Paragraph, Justified, Indent: Left: 1.9 3.1.2.2 must not develop or use any part of the Subject Land, unless in cm accordance with the PMP; and 3.1.2.3 must maintain and protect all vegetation in accordance with the objectives and requirements of the PMP,

all to the satisfaction of Council; and

3.1.2.4 may initiate a review of the PMP from time to time, to monitor and review the effectiveness of the PMP. Any updates or revisions to the PMP resulting from such a review, must be to the satisfaction of the Secretary of the Department of Environment Land Water and Planning and be submitted to and approved by the Council.

3.1.3 The Owner must purchase native vegetation credits to offsets the loss of native vegetation authorised under the Planning Permit. The offsets must be secured within 3 months of the date of this Agreement.

3.2 1803 Collins Settlement Site Interpretation Future Directions Management Plan.

the development of the Subject Land must ensure that all sight lines are maintained in accordance with the 1803 Collins Settlement Site Interpretation Future Directions Management Plan to the satisfaction of Council;

3.3 Removal of a Building

within 12 months from the date of registration of the subdivision allowed by the Planning Permit or such other time as Council agrees in writing, the Existing Buildings on Lot I and Lot 2 must be demolished and removed from the Subject Land, all to the satisfaction of Council. This requirement does not apply to a particular lot where the construction of a dwelling has commenced on that lot; and

3.4 Lot 4

prior to the commencement of any Buildings or Works on Lot 4, a Road must be constructed which is:

3.4.1 at least four metres wide; and 3.4.2 to a standard which ensures that Buildings are accessible by vehicles in all weather conditions; and 3.4.3 is capable of accommodating a vehicle with a total weight of 15 tonnes along the trafficable road width,

all to the satisfaction of Council.

4. FURTHER OBLIGATIONS OF THE OWNER

------

4.1 Notice and Registration

The Owner further covenants and agrees that the Owner will bring this Agreement to the attention of all prospective purchasers, lessees, mortgagees, chargees, transferees and assigns.

4.2 Further actions

The Owner further covenants and agrees that:

4.2.1 the Owner will do all things necessary to give effect to this Agreement; 4.2.2 the Owner will consent to Council making application to the Registrar of Titles to make a recording of this Agreement in the Register on the Certificate of Title of the Subject Land in accordance with Section 181 of the Act and do all things necessary to enable Council to do so including signing any further agreement, acknowledgment or document or procuring the consent to this Agreement of any mortgagee or caveat or to enable the recording to be made in the Register under that section.

4.3 Council's Costs to be Paid

The Owner further covenants and agrees that the Owner will immediately pay to Council, Council's reasonable costs and expenses (including legal expenses) of and incidental to the preparation, drafting, formalisation, engrossment, execution, registration' and enforcement of this Agreement which are and until paid will remain a debt due to Council by the Owner.

5. AGREEMENT UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE ACT

------

Council and the Owner agree that without limiting or restricting the respective powers to enter into this Agreement and, insofar as it can be so treated, this Agreement is made as a Deed pursuant to Section 173 of the Act, and the obligations of the Owner under this Agreement are obligations to be performed by the Owner as conditions subject to which the Subject Land may be used and developed pursuant to the Planning Permit.

6. OWNER’S WARRANTIES

------

Without limiting the operation or effect which this Agreement has, the Owner warrants that apart from the Owner and any other person who has consented in writing to this Agreement, no other person has any interest, either legal or equitable, in the Subject Land which may be affected by this Agreement.

7. SUCCESSORS IN TITLE

------

Without limiting the operation or effect that this Agreement has, the Owner must ensure that, until such time as a memorandum of this Agreement is registered on the title to the Subject. Land, successors in title shall be required to:

7.1 give effect to and do all acts and sign all documents which will require those successors to give effect to this Agreement; and 7.2 execute a deed agreeing to be bound by the terms of this Agreement.

8. GENERAL MATTERS

------

8.1 Notices

A notice or other communication required or permitted to be served by a party on another party must be in writing and may be served:

8.1.1 by delivering it personally to that party; 8.1.2 by sending it by prepaid post addressed to that party at the address set out in this Agreement or subsequently notified to each party from time to time; or 8.1.3 by sending, it by facsimile provided that a communication sent by facsimile shall be confirmed immediately in writing by the sending party by hand delivery or prepaid post.

8.2 Service of Notice

A notice or other communication is deemed served: 8.2.1 if delivered, on the next following business day; 8.2.2 if posted, on the expiration of 7 business days after the date of posting; or 8.2.3 if sent by facsimile, on the next following business day, unless the receiving party has requested retransmission before the end of that business day.

8.3 No Waiver

Any time or other indulgence granted by Council to the Owner or any variation of the terms and conditions of this Agreement or any judgment or order obtained by Council against the Owner will not in any way amount to a waiver of any of the rights or remedies of CounciI in relation to the terms of this Agreement.

8.4 Severability

If a court, arbitrator, tribunal or other competent authority determines that a word, phrase, sentence, paragraph or clause of this Agreement is unenforceable, illegal or void then it must be severed and the other provisions of this Agreement will remain operative.

8.5 No Fettering of Council's Powers

It is acknowledged and agreed that this Agreement does not fetter or restrict the power or discretion of Council to make any decision or impose any requirements Or conditions in connection with the granting of any planning approval or certification of any plans of subdivision applicable to the Subject Land or relating to any use or development of the Subject Land.

9. COMMENCEMENT OF AGREEMENT

------

Unless otherwise provided in this Agreement, this Agreement commences from the date of this Agreement.

SIGNED, SEALED AND DELIVERED as a Deed by the parties on the date set out at the Commencement of this Agreement

SCHEDULE 1

Owners name: APPLETREE SORRENTO PTY LTD Owners address: LEVEL 21 333 COLLINS STREET MELBOURNE VIC 3000 Owners land: Certificate of Title VOLUME 11017 FOLIO 780, and VOLUME 11017 FOLIO 781, and VOLUME 11017 FOLIO 778

Owners name: TREVOR RONALD GORMAN and SUZANNE ELEANOR GORMAN Owners address: 90 ILLAWARRA ROAD HAWTHORN VIC 3122 Owners land: Certificate of Title VOLUME 11017 FOLIO 777

Commented [GM2]: Use Council’s standard execution clause.

SIGNED SEALED AND DELIVERED by…………………………..on behalf of MORNINGTON PENINSULA SHIRE ) COUNCIL pursuant to an Instrument of ) Delegation authorised by Resolution of ) Council in the presence of: ) ) )

…………………………………………………. Witness

EXECUTED BY APPLETREE SORRENTO PTY LTD ACN 618 764 079 in accordance ) with s 127(12) of the Corporations Act ) 2001 (Cth) in the presence of: )………………………………………………

…………………………………………………. Signature of director

…………………………………………………. Name of director (print)

) SIGNED SEALED AND DELIVERED by ) TREVOR RONALD GORMAN in the )……………………………………………… presence of:

…………………………………………………. Witness

) SIGNED SEALED AND DELIVERED by ) SUZANNE ELEANOR GORMAN in the )……………………………………………… presence of:

…………………………………………………. Witness

Attachment 3 Revised Property Management Plan: Nee Morna, Sorrento

Property Management Plan: Nee Morna, Sorrento

FINAL REPORT

Prepared for Appletree Sorrento Pty Ltd

31 October 2020

Biosis offices Document information

NEW SOUTH WALES Report to: Appletree Sorrento Pty Ltd

Albury Prepared by: Michael Goddard Phone: (02) 6069 9200 Email: [email protected] Biosis project no.: 29532 File name: 29532.Nee.Morna.PMP.FIN03.20201031.docx Newcastle Phone: (02) 4911 4040 Citation: Biosis 2020. Property Management Plan: Nee Morna, Email: [email protected] Sorrento. Report for Appletree Sorrento. Author: Goddard M, Biosis Pty Ltd, Melbourne. Project no. Sydney 29532. Phone: (02) 9101 8700 Email: [email protected]

Wollongong Document control Phone: (02) 4201 1090 Email: [email protected] Version Reviewer Date issued

Draft version 01 AJH 13/11/19

Final version 01 GM 14/11/19 VICTORIA Final version 02 AJH 26/11/19 Ballarat Phone: (03) 5304 4250 Final version 03 MG 30/10/20 Email: [email protected]

Melbourne (Head Office) Acknowledgements Phone: (03) 8686 4800 Email: [email protected] Biosis acknowledges the contribution of the following people and Wangaratta Phone: (03) 5718 6900 organisations in undertaking this study: Email: [email protected]  Appletree Sorrento Pty Ltd: Andrew Buxton

Biosis staff involved in this project were:

 Aaron Harvey (site inspections and quality assurance)

 Michael Goddard (site inspections and reporting)

 Jack Tate (site inspection and reporting)

 Lucy Wilson and Sonika Kumar (mapping)

 Steve Mueck (site inspection)

 Biosis Pty Ltd This document is and shall remain the property of Biosis Pty Ltd. The document may only be used for the purposes for which it was commissioned and in accordance with the Terms of the Engagement for the commission. Unauthorised use of this document in any form whatsoever is prohibited. Disclaimer:

Biosis Pty Ltd has completed this assessment in accordance with the relevant federal, state and local legislation and current industry best practice. The company accepts no liability for any damages or loss incurred as a result of reliance placed upon the report content or for any purpose other than that for which it was intended.

Contents

Summary ...... 1

1. Introduction ...... 2

1.1 Project background ...... 2 1.2 Scope and objectives of this PMP ...... 3 1.3 Study area ...... 4

2. Review of original PMP ...... 5

2.1 Native vegetation offsets ...... 5 2.1.1 Objectives...... 5 2.1.2 Outcomes...... 6 2.2 Native vegetation management ...... 11 2.2.1 Objectives...... 11 2.2.2 Outcomes...... 11 2.3 Shortcomings of the original PMP ...... 13

3. Offset strategy ...... 15

3.1 Offsets under the Native Vegetation Framework (2002) ...... 15 3.2 Offsets under the Native Vegetation Guidelines (2017) ...... 15

4. Native vegetation management ...... 18

4.1 Objectives of Conservation Zones ...... 18 4.2 Objectives of the General Use Zone ...... 20 4.3 Management actions ...... 21

5. Monitoring and review ...... 24

5.1 Native vegetation offsets ...... 24 5.2 Native vegetation management ...... 24

References ...... 25

Figures ...... 26

Photos ...... 31

Appendices ...... 35

Appendix 1 Original Section 173 agreement ...... 36

Appendix 2 Vegetation quality assessments...... 49

Appendix 3 Native Vegetation Removal (NVR) Report ...... 58

Appendix 4 Weeds and pest animals ...... 68

Appendix 5 Revegetation list...... 70

Tables

Table 1 Offset outcomes at Nee Morna from 2006 to 2016 ...... 6 Table 2 Comparison of vegetation quality within the offset area in 2003, 2005 and 2019 ...... 8 Table 3 Comparison of vegetation quality across the study area in 2005 and 2019 ...... 10 Table 4 Native vegetation management outcomes at Nee Morna from 2006 to 2016 ...... 12 Table 5 Summary of native vegetation offsets that will be secured under this PMP ...... 17 Table 6 Management actions to achieve the conservation objectives of this PMP ...... 21

Figures

Figure 1 Location of the study area ...... 27 Figure 2 Ecological features of the study area ...... 28 Figure 3 Native vegetation within the study area assumed lost under current policy ...... 29 Figure 4 Property management zones within the study area...... 30

Summary

Biosis Pty Ltd was commissioned by Appletree Sorrento Pty Ltd to review and update a Property Management Plan (PMP) for the Nee Morna estate, 3106-3120 Point Nepean Road, Sorrento (the ‘study area’).

Review of original PMP The original PMP was in operation from 2006, when the Nee Morna estate was subdivided into five lots, until 2017, when Appletree Sorrento acquired Lots 2-5. During this time, the original PMP failed to achieve its offsetting and management objectives because:

 With respect to offsets, the original PMP did not provide any of the following: – Offset calculations. – Realistic offset objectives in accordance with offset policy. – Baseline condition data against which offset performance could be assessed. – Adequate protection for any offset (the original PMP relied on offset protections being provided by the s 173 agreement, which itself relied on the PMP to provide offset protections).

 With respect to management of native vegetation across the broader study area, the original PMP did not provide any of the following: – Simple, realistic or achievable objectives or actions for management and monitoring. The original PMP was overly complicated and unrealistic, making it difficult for landowners to carry out without significant supervision. – Baseline data against which management performance could be assessed. – Scope for adaptive management if/when conditions or circumstances change.

New offset strategy This updated PMP provides a realistic and achievable offset strategy to compensate for the loss of native vegetation arising from subdivision of the Nee Morna estate in 2006. This PMP requires that the Nee Morna landowner(s) secure 0.245 general habitat units, with a minimum strategic biodiversity value score of 0.209 within the Mornington Peninsula Shire, from a third party offset credit provider. This offset (equivalent to 0.388 habitat hectares) takes into account assumed and consequential loss and is therefore ten times the offset quantum that should have been required under the Native Vegetation Framework.

Native vegetation management This updated PMP establishes seven Conservation Zones (CZs) across the Nee Morna estate. The conservation objectives for the CZs are:

 Moonah protection – At least 307 Moonah will be retained and maintained within the CZs.

 Maintenance of indigenous understorey – Recruitment of indigenous understorey flora species will be encouraged within high priority zones and supplementary planting within any CZs must be with locally indigenous plant species only.

 Elimination of high threats – High threat weeds and pest animals will be eliminated from the CZs and other introduced species will be controlled.

The CZs allow for conservation of key ecological values across the Nee Morna estate and for improvements to local habitat connectivity while not impeding the use of existing and potential future dwellings across the estate.

1. Introduction

1.1 Project background

Biosis Pty Ltd (Biosis) was commissioned by Appletree Sorrento Pty Ltd (Appletree Sorrento) to review and update a Property Management Plan (PMP) for the Nee Morna Estate at 3106-3120 Point Nepean Road, Sorrento (the ‘study area’; Figure 1).

The study area is subject to an agreement made under section 173 of the Victorian Planning and Environment Act 1987 (‘s 173 agreement’ hereafter), pursuant to Condition 3 of Planning Permit P04/1887, issued by Mornington Peninsula Shire Council on 15 December 2005 for subdivision of the study area. The s 173 agreement came into effect on 28 September 2006 and is registered on the land titles of the study area. It is anticipated that the s 173 agreement will be updated to reflect this reviewed and updated PMP. However, within this document, references to the s 173 agreement are references to the original 2006 agreement (Appendix 1), unless otherwise stated.

The s 173 agreement imposes a number of obligations on landowners within the study area, including an obligation to develop a PMP to the satisfaction of Council and the Victorian Government Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE, now the Victorian Government Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning or DELWP). The overarching purpose of the PMP is to provide ‘an offset that is sufficient to compensate for the loss of native vegetation which may be carried out as a consequence of the issue of the Planning Permit’ (Clause 3.1.1 of the s 173 agreement; Appendix 1).

In accordance with the s 173 agreement, a PMP (the ‘original PMP’) was prepared in 2006 (Ecology Australia 2006) and was based on information gathered during a Flora and Fauna Assessment in 2003 (Ecology Australia 2003) and a Net Gain Assessment in 2005 (Ecology Australia 2005). Following Victoria’s Native Vegetation Framework (DNRE 2002) and the concept of ‘net gain’, the original PMP set aside approximately 0.242 hectares of the 2.055-hectare Nee Morna Estate as a first-party offset site and specified management actions to enhance ecological values within the offset area over the subsequent 10 years (Ecology Australia 2006). The original PMP also proposed management actions to maintain and/or augment ecological values across the remainder of the study area (outside the offset area). It was a recommendation of the original PMP that it be reviewed and updated at the end of its 10-year timeframe i.e. in 2016.

Since 2006, Victoria’s Native Vegetation Framework and ‘net gain’ approach has been replaced by the Guidelines for the Removal, Destruction or Lopping of Native Vegetation (the ‘Guidelines’; DELWP 2017a), the Native Vegetation Gain Scoring Manual (DELWP 2017b) and a ‘no net loss’ approach. Appletree Sorrento took possession of the study area (all except Lot 1) in late 2017 and commissioned Biosis to:

 Conduct site inspections to assess the ecological values of the study area.

 Review and update the PMP to provide for ongoing management of ecological values at the site for the next 10 years.

Biosis inspected the study area in July 2017, June 2018, March 2019 and April 2019. While these were not seasonally optimal times to assess ecological values, the site inspections nevertheless revealed that the objectives of the original PMP had not been met by the previous owners. It is doubtful that the ecological values of the study area have been improved sufficiently to compensate for the loss of native vegetation brought about by subdivision of the Nee Morna Estate in 2006. In hindsight, the management objectives and actions of the original PMP were impractical and unrealistic, which led to inadequate resourcing and implementation of management actions under the previous owners.

1.2 Scope and objectives of this PMP

This updated PMP updates and replaces the original 2006 PMP. The purpose of this updated PMP is to:

 Review the original PMP in order to inform updates to management actions and objectives.

 Outline a new offset strategy to compensate for the loss of native vegetation resulting from the 2006 subdivision of the Nee Morna Estate.

 Outline realistic and achievable actions and objectives for managing ecological values within the study area over the next 10 years, with the aim of ensuring that there is no further depreciation of ecological value.

This updated PMP aims to meet the requirements of Clause 3.1 of the s 173 agreement that is in place over the study area. These requirements include:

 Provision of an offset that is sufficient to compensate for the loss of native vegetation resulting from the 2006 subdivision (Section 3 of this PMP).

 A fully dimensioned plan showing existing native vegetation in the study area (Figures 2, 3 and 4).

 A fully dimensioned plan showing existing native vegetation on any other land upon which it is proposed that part of the offset will be provided (not applicable – see Section 3 of this PMP).

 Means of calculating the offset to be provided (Section 3 of this PMP).

 Definition of areas of the study area or any other land which are to be set aside for protection, rehabilitation or revegetation (Sections 3 and 4 of this PMP; Figure 4).

 For any revegetation approved as part of the PMP (mostly not applicable – see Section 4 of this PMP), details of:

– Number and percentage of trees, shrubs and other plants, species mix

– Location and density of planting

– Species type (Section 4 and Appendix 5 of this PMP)

– Timing of planting

– The means to manage and ensure the long term survival of planted vegetation

– Measures for annual replanting of any vegetation that fails within 10 years of being planted.

 Long-term maintenance requirements for vegetation and areas of land set aside under the PMP for protection, rehabilitation or revegetation including details as to the proposed management of weeds and animals (Sections 4 and 5 of this PMP).

 Methods of permanent protection for all vegetation to be protected, rehabilitated or planted under the PMP (Sections 4 and 5 of this PMP).

 Details of any earthworks, drainage and other works (Sections 4 of this PMP).

Once approved by Council and DELWP, this updated PMP will form the basis for use and management of land within the study area. In accordance with Clause 3.1 of the s 173 agreement, landowners within the study area must:

 Implement the PMP.

 Not develop or use any part of the study area, unless in accordance with the PMP.

 Maintain and protect all vegetation in accordance with the objectives and requirements of the PMP.

1.3 Study area

The study area is located at 3110-3120 Point Nepean Road, Sorrento, approximately 60 kilometres south of Melbourne, Victoria (Figure 1). It encompasses 2.055 hectares of private land and comprises a five lot subdivision with associated amenities, such as a shared driveway. The study area is bordered by Point Nepean Road to the south-west, private land to the north-west and south-east and the Sorrento Foreshore Reserve to the north-east.

The study area supports 9 scattered trees and 1.077 hectares of native vegetation patches (including 528 mature trees in patches), much of which is contiguous with native vegetation in the Foreshore Reserve and in adjacent private properties (Figure 2). The scattered trees are all Moonah Melaleuca lanceolata subsp. lanceolata and the native vegetation patches are dominated by Moonah. The native vegetation belongs to the Ecological Vegetation Class (EVC) known as Coastal Alkaline Scrub (EVC 858, historically referred to as Calcarenite Dune Woodland), which is strongly associated with alkaline (limestone) soils. This EVC is synonymous with Coastal Moonah Woodland (CMW), which is listed as a threatened community under the Victorian Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1997 (FFG Act). The FFG Act, however, has limited application on private land, such as Nee Morna.

The study area is within the Gippsland Plain bioregion, the Port Phillip and Westernport Catchment Management Authority (CMA) area and Mornington Peninsula Shire. The study area is located within the General Residential Zone – Schedule 1 (GRZ1) and is covered by several overlays including Environmental Significance Overlay – Schedule 25 (ESO25) and Vegetation Protection Overlay – Schedule 1 (VPO1) under the Mornington Peninsula Planning Scheme. This PMP has been prepared with the requirements of these overlays and this zoning in mind.

2. Review of original PMP

2.1 Native vegetation offsets

2.1.1 Objectives The primary purpose of the original PMP was to provide an offset to compensate for the loss of native vegetation arising from subdivision of the study area. Planning Permit P04/1887 did not specify an offset amount. Rather, one of the objectives and requirements of the original PMP was to outline means of calculating offsets to be provided (Clause 3.1.1 of the s 173 agreement; Appendix 1).

In 2005, a Net Gain Assessment was undertaken to determine the loss of native vegetation that would result from the subdivision and to calculate the offsets that would be required to compensate for this loss (Ecology Australia 2005). The aim of the offset was to achieve a ‘net gain’ in ecological value in accordance with the Native Vegetation Framework in operation at the time (DNRE 2002).

The Net Gain Assessment determined the following (Ecology Australia 2005):

 The subdivision would create new building envelopes and driveways, which would result in the loss of 0.093 hectares of native vegetation, including 37 large and 6 medium Moonah trees.

 Habitat scores for the native vegetation ranged from 24 to 39 out of 100, meaning that the loss of 0.093 hectares of native vegetation equated to the loss of 0.027 habitat hectares.

 Offsets for this loss of native vegetation required all of the following:

– Gain of 0.040 habitat hectares of native vegetation.

– Protection of 160 old (i.e. large) Moonah trees.

– Recruitment of 800 trees and shrubs.

The results of the Net Gain Assessment formed the basis of the first-party offset site that was proposed by the original PMP. The Net Gain Assessment and PMP specified that offsets would be achieved through a combination of:

 Active management and enhancement of the ecological values of an on-site offset area, consisting of 0.242 hectares of mostly Coastal Alkaline Scrub along the north-east boundary of the study area (designated as Management Zones 1, 2, 3 and 4 in the original PMP). It was estimated that a gain of more than 0.040 habitat hectares could be achieved from this area (Ecology Australia 2005; Ecology Australia 2006).

 Protection of all Moonah across the entire study area to ensure that the Moonah tree protection target was met. It was estimated that the Nee Morna estate supported a total of 307 individual Moonah (Ecology Australia 2005).

 Supplementary planting of understorey shrubs within the offset area to ensure that tree and shrub recruitment targets were met.

2.1.2 Outcomes The original PMP was premised on the results of the Net Gain Assessment, which calculated that the necessary offset required a gain of 0.040 habitat hectares and recruitment of 800 trees and shrubs within the offset area, in addition to protection of 160 large Moonah trees across the broader Nee Morna estate (Ecology Australia 2005). The outcome of each of these offset targets is assessed in the following paragraphs and summarised in Table 1.

Table 1 Offset outcomes at Nee Morna from 2006 to 2016

Offset objective (2006) Performance measure (2016) Outcome (assessed 2017-2019)

Gain of 0.040 habitat hectares. Gain of 0.040 habitat hectares at the Unlikely to have been achieved. There 0.242-ha offset site after 10 years of appears to have been a gain of active management. between 0.015 and 0.056 habitat hectares from 2005 to 2019. The average of these gains is 0.035 habitat hectares, making it doubtful that a gain of 0.040 habitat hectares has been achieved.

Protection of 160 large Moonah At least 160 of the Moonah existing in Probably achieved. As at 2019, 528 trees. 2005 are protected. mature Moonah trees have been retained within the study area, but it is not known how many of these would be considered ‘large’ by Ecology Australia’s (2005) assumed benchmarks.

Recruitment of 800 trees and Recruitment and/or planting of at Not achieved. While a comparison of shrubs. least 800 understorey shrubs within 2005 and 2019 habitat hectare scores the offset area. (understorey and recruitment scores) suggests that some recruitment has occurred, the general openness of the understorey makes it doubtful that 800 trees/shrubs have recruited.

Habitat hectares gain The original PMP required reporting of habitat hectare improvements to Council in Years 3, 6 and 10. It is unclear how often (if ever) this reporting took place. Even if the reporting did take place, the original PMP did not provide baseline habitat hectares data for the offset area, making it difficult to assess whether a gain of 0.040 habitat hectares has been achieved in the offset area since 2006.

In 2003, as part of a Flora and Fauna Assessment (FFA) of the study area, native vegetation patches at the southern and northern ends of the study area (and extending into the offset area) were assessed and assigned habitat scores of 24 and 34 out of 100 respectively (Ecology Australia 2003). In 2005, the Net Gain Assessment assigned one overall habitat score of 30 out of 100 to all Coastal Alkaline Scrub within the broader study area, which includes the vegetation within the offset area (Ecology Australia 2005).

Unfortunately, the 2003 and 2005 habitat scores were not calculated according to the accepted Vegetation Quality Assessment (VQA) methodology (DSE 2004), perhaps because the methodology had not been finalised (in the case of 2003 scores) or was in its infancy at the time (in the case of 2005 scores). The 2003 and 2005 habitat scores contain the following deficiencies:

 Ecology Australia (2003; 2005) assigned a large tree score to the vegetation, even though there is not (and never was) a defined benchmark for large trees in Coastal Alkaline Scrub. Ecology Australia’s (2005, p.13) justification was as follows:

‘A benchmark diameter at breast height (DBH) is not given for large old trees within the Calcarenite Dune Woodland [Coastal Alkaline Scrub] EVC. However, given the relatively intact structure of the Moonah canopy cover it is believed a long undisturbed Moonah woodland would have trees of similar diameter. A total of 43 trees are proposed for removal from the Nee Morna property. It is considered that 37 are large trees and 6 are medium trees.’

In reality, no large tree score should have been assigned to the vegetation and the final habitat score should have been standardised accordingly (with a standardiser of 1.15).

 Understorey scores were consistently underestimated. For example, the understorey scores assigned to the south of the offset area, north of the offset area and whole Nee Morna estate were 0, 5 and 5 out of 25 respectively (Ecology Australia 2005; Table 2). An understorey score of 0 is only assigned when all strata and lifeforms are effectively absent (DSE 2004), but raw data for the south of the offset area show that at least 30% of lifeforms were present (Ecology Australia 2005). An understorey score of at least 5 should have been assigned. An understorey score of 5 is assigned when up to 50% of lifeforms are present (DSE 2004). Raw data for the north of the offset area and whole Nee Morna estate show that more than 50% of lifeforms were present (Ecology Australia 2005). Understorey scores of at least 10 or 15, rather than 5, should have been assigned to these areas.

 At 0 out of 10, the recruitment score for the whole Nee Morna estate was also underestimated. The recruitment score for the whole Nee Morna estate cannot have been 0 out of 10 if one of the sample sites was 6 out of 10 (Ecology Australia 2005). Given the raw data from the sample sites, a more appropriate recruitment score for the whole Nee Morna estate would have been 6 out of 10.

For the purposes of this review, Ecology Australia’s (2003; 2005) habitat scores have been corrected by adjusting underestimated recruitment and understorey scores, removing large trees scores and standardising the remaining site condition score in accordance with the accepted VQA methodology (DSE 2004). The corrected scores for the southern study area, northern study area and whole Nee Morna Estate are 25.31, 42.62 and 36 out of 100 respectively (Table 2). It is therefore reasonable to assume that the baseline habitat score for the offset area in 2006 was between 25.31 and 42.62 out of 100.

When Biosis assessed the offset area in 2019, the Coastal Alkaline Scrub was assigned a score of 48.69 out of 100 (Table 2). The gain from 2003 or 2005 (depending on which of Ecology Australia’s scores is used) to 2019 is therefore likely to be between 0.015 and 0.056 habitat hectares, with an average gain of 0.035 habitat hectares. Based on the average gain, it is doubtful that the offset objective of a gain of 0.040 habitat hectares has been achieved.

Table 2 Comparison of vegetation quality within the offset area in 2003, 2005 and 2019

Site Name Nee Morna South Offset North Offset Whole Nee Whole Offset Location Area Area Morna Estate Area Ecological Vegetation Class Coastal Alkaline Scrub (EVC 858) Date May 2003* May 2003* March 2005* March 2019 Assessor Ecology Australia Biosis

Max Score Score Score Score Score

Large Trees N/A N/A* N/A* N/A* N/A Canopy Cover 5 2 3 5 5 Lack of Weeds 15 2 6 0 6

Understorey 25 5* 15* 10* 15 Recruitment 10 0 3 6* 3

Site Site 3 3

Condition Organic Litter 5 2 5 Logs 5 3 0 3 3 Standardiser N/A 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 Total Site Score 75 17.31 34.62 30 42.69 Patch Size 10 2 2 2 4

Neighbourhood 10 3 3 1 1

Value Distance to Core 5 3 3 3 1

Landscape Landscape Total Landscape Score 25 8 8 6 6 Habitat Score 100 25.31 42.62 36 48.69 Offset Area (ha) 0.242 Habitat Hectares 0.061 0.102 0.086 0.117 Habitat Hectares Gain from 2003/2005 to 2019 +0.056 +0.015 +0.031 N/A *Note: Ecology Australia’s scores were corrected for obvious errors (underestimated understorey scores and inclusion of large trees scores in 2003 and 2005 and underestimated recruitment scores in 2005) and final site condition scores were standardised to account for the removal of large tree scores. South Offset Area and North Offset Area refer to Quadrats 2 and 3, as reported in Appendix 2 of the Net Gain Assessment (Ecology Australia 2005). Whole Nee Morna Estate refers to the score assigned to all Coastal Alkaline Scrub within the study area, as reported in Table 3 of the Net Gain Assessment (Ecology Australia 2005).

Protection of Moonah The Net Gain Assessment calculated that the subdivision’s new building envelopes and driveways would result in the removal of 37 large and 6 medium Moonah trees. The Net Gain Assessment concluded that this impact could be partly offset by protection of 160 large Moonah trees and that this could be achieved across the entire Nee Morna Estate, where it was estimated that 307 Moonah were present (Ecology Australia 2005).

As noted above, Coastal Alkaline Scrub has no large tree benchmark diameter at breast height (DBH). Moreover, Ecology Australia (2005; 2006) did not specify the DBH that they applied for a large Moonah tree. Ecology Australia’s (2003) Flora and Fauna Assessment suggests that the assumed benchmark DBH for a large Moonah is 50 centimetres, although this is not explicitly stated. With no large tree benchmark and no

confirmation of Ecology Australia’s assumed DBH for a large Moonah tree, it is difficult to determine how many of the Moonah within the study area in 2019 would be considered ‘large’ and therefore it is difficult to assess whether this offset objective has been achieved.

In 2019, Biosis counted 528 mature Moonah trees and 18 Moonah recruits across the study area. In completing these counts, a ‘mature’ Moonah tree was taken to be a Moonah tree greater than 3 metres in height, while a Moonah recruit was taken to be 3 metres tall or less (DELWP 2017a). In addition, a Moonah specimen with multiple trunks either emanating from the same base or emanating from the ground in close proximity to each other (i.e. within 10 centimetres of each other) were counted as one tree.

In 2005, Ecology Australia estimated the number of Moonah across the study area, but this estimate is imperfect and likely to be an underestimate (Ecology Australia 2005). Using the total area of mapped vegetation (1.18 hectares) and an assumed average Moonah canopy area of approximately 38.5 square metres (based on an assumed average canopy diameter of 7 metres), Ecology Australia (2005) estimated that the study area supported approximately 307 Moonah. Given that the total area of Coastal Alkaline Scrub across the study area has remained relatively constant from 2005 to 2019 (1.18 hectares in 2005 compared with 1.08 hectares and 9 scattered trees in 2019), despite the construction of one dwelling within one of the approved building envelopes (Lot 1), it is likely that 307 Moonah was an underestimate of the actual number of Moonah within the study area.

Of the 43 Moonah trees that were to be removed by the 2006 subdivision, Ecology Australia considered 37 (86%) of them to be ‘large’. Applying this ratio would mean that approximately 454 of the 528 mature Moonah trees across the study area in 2019 would be considered ‘large’. Indeed, only 30% of the 528 mature Moonah trees would need to be considered ‘large’ for the offset target of 160 ‘large’ Moonah trees to be met. Given that the area of Coastal Alkaline Scrub has remained relatively constant since 2005, it is highly likely that the offset objective of protecting 160 ‘large’ Moonah trees has been achieved with retention of 528 mature Moonah across the study area. Retention of half the number of mature Moonah would still likely have achieved this offset objective. Ultimately, with no large tree benchmark for Moonah, it is difficult to conclusively assess the outcome of this offset objective.

Tree and shrub recruitment The Net Gain Assessment concluded that the remainder of the offset requirement for the removal of 37 large and 6 medium Moonah trees would be recruitment of 800 trees and shrubs across the study area (Ecology Australia 2005). It was recommended that the recruitment target be met mainly by planting appropriate woody understorey species due to a lack of space across the study area for new canopy trees (Ecology Australia 2005).

The original PMP outlined a revegetation strategy but the strategy was limited to the offset area and only provided for the planting of 90 trees and 450-650 shrubs i.e. 540-740 trees and shrubs in total. The original PMP did not outline how the remaining 60-260 trees and shrubs would be recruited or where this would occur. Indeed, the original PMP made no reference to the recruitment (revegetation) target of 800 trees and shrubs and did not present any baseline recruitment data, making it difficult to track the achievement of the recruitment target (Ecology Australia 2006).

It appears that approximately five Moonah may have been planted or recruited in the southern corner of Lot 1, amongst predominantly introduced landscape plantings. When Appletree Sorrento took possession of Lots 2, 3, 4 and 5 in 2017, there appeared to be little evidence of any successful revegetation of the study area since 2006. Certain areas seem to have been planted with introduced garden plants (Photo 1) but there does not appear to have been any successful revegetation using locally indigenous plants (Photo 2). A comparison of habitat scores from 2005 and 2019 suggests that the understorey has improved across 56% of the Coastal Alkaline Scrub within the study area (across 0.60 hectares of 1.08 hectares of Coastal Alkaline Scrub; Table 3).

However, closer examination of the VQA data (Appendix 2) shows that improvement to the understorey has occurred as a result of the introduction of herbaceous lifeforms (herbs and graminoids), rather than due to the recruitment of woody lifeforms (small and medium shrubs).

Small and/or medium shrubs are still lacking from most of the Coastal Alkaline Scrub within the study area, including the entire offset area. In addition, net tree recruitment seems to have been negligible since commencement of the original PMP, given that the total extent of Coastal Alkaline Scrub has remained relatively constant across the study area from 2005 to 2019 and only 18 Moonah recruits were counted in 2019. Ultimately, the weight of available evidence suggests that the recruitment target has not been met.

Table 3 Comparison of vegetation quality across the study area in 2005 and 2019

Site Name Nee Morna Whole Nee West Study South Study East Study North Study Location Morna Site Area (LQ*) Area (MQ*) Area (MQ*) Area (HQ*) (Offset Site) Ecological Vegetation Class Coastal Alkaline Scrub (EVC 858) Date March 2005 March 2019 Assessor EA* Biosis Max Score Score Score Score Score Score Large Trees N/A N/A* N/A N/A N/A N/A Canopy Cover 5 5 3 5 5 5 Lack of Weeds 15 0 6 9 6 11

Understorey 25 5 5 15 15 15 Recruitment 10 1 0 3 3 6

Site Site Organic Matter 5 2 5 5 5 3 Condition Logs 5 3 0 0 3 5 Standardiser N/A 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 Total Site Score 75 18.46 21.92 42.69 42.69 51.92 Patch Size 10 2 4 4 4 4

Neighbourhood 10 1 1 1 1 1

Value Distance to Core 5 3 1 1 1 1

Landscape Landscape Total Landscape Score 25 6 6 6 6 6 Habitat Score 100 24.46 27.92 48.69 48.69 57.92 Area (ha) 1.18 0.47 0.26 0.24 0.10 Total Area (ha) 1.18 1.08 Habitat Hectares 0.29 0.13 0.13 0.12 0.06 Total Habitat Hectares 0.29 0.44 *Note: Ecology Australia’s (EA’s) scores corrected by removing large tree score and standardising final site condition score. LQ, MQ and HQ refer to low, moderate and high quality respectively (refer to Figure 2).

2.2 Native vegetation management

2.2.1 Objectives Although the purpose of the original PMP was to provide an offset to compensate for the loss of native vegetation arising from subdivision of the study area, the original PMP also included a work plan for maintenance and/or enhancement of ecological values across the study area. The work plan included the following:

 Weed management across the entire study area. Priority weed species were:

– Coast Wattle Acacia longifolia subsp. sophorae

– Agapanthus Agapanthus praecox subsp. orientalis

– Bridal Creeper Asparagus asparagoides

– Asparagus Fern Asparagus scandens

– Large-leaf Cotoneaster Cotoneaster glaucophyllus

– Common Dipogon Dipogon lignosus (note that the original PMP erroneously referred to this species as a Dipodium, which is the genus of native Hyacinth Orchids and not a weed)

– Sweet Pittosporum Pittosporum undulatum

– Myrtle-leaf Milkwort Polygala myrtifolia

– Bluebell Creeper Sollya heterophylla

– Blue Periwinkle Vinca major.

 Management of significant flora species, meaning those flora listed as rare or threatened under the State Advisory List (DEPI 2014), including Coast Wirilda Acacia uncifolia, Coast Bitter-bush Adriana quadripartita and Bassian Pomaderris Pomaderris oraria subsp. oraria.

 Maintenance of orchid populations outside the offset area through buffer planting (mentioned above) and mowing of areas outside of orchid flowering and seeding times.

This work plan involved minor revegetation works outside the offset area. These revegetation works were not part of the overall ‘revegetation strategy’, which was only concerned with the offset area (Management Zones 1-4). Minor revegetation outside of the offset area included:

 Augmentation of Moonah recruitment, although without clear indication of where this should occur.

 Buffer plantings around orchid populations outside of the offset area (discussed in the context of orchid management).

 Removal of weedy ornamentals (e.g. Agapanthus along driveways) and replacement with architectural indigenous species (discussed in the context of weed management).

2.2.2 Outcomes The original PMP’s work plan included propagation of indigenous plants from the study area, revegetation using indigenous species of local provenance, plant maintenance/replacement as required, regular weed control and monitoring and auditing of results. When Appletree Sorrento took possession of Lots 2, 3, 4 and 5 in 2017, it appeared that little of the work plan had been undertaken (Table 4).

Table 4 Native vegetation management outcomes at Nee Morna from 2006 to 2016

Offset objective (2006) Performance measure (2016) Outcome (assessed 2017-2019)

Weed management Elimination of: Not achieved. While there is evidence  Coast Wattle that Bridal Creeper has been  Agapanthus controlled, several priority weeds have  Asparagus Fern not been eliminated from the site,  Large-leaf Cotoneaster including Coast Wattle, Agapanthus,  Common Dipogon Large-leaf Cotoneaster, Common  Apple Dipogon, Myrtle-leaf Milkwort and  Sweet Pittosporum Blue Periwinkle.  Myrtle-leaf Milkwort  Bluebell Creeper  Blue Periwinkle Control of:  Bridal Creeper  Buffalo Grass

Management of significant flora Existing species persist and species Achieved. Coast Wirilda and Bassian used in vegetation survive. Pomaderris persist in the study area.

Orchid management Appropriately timed mowing regimes Not achieved. Evidence that mowing and buffer plantings, resulting in had been occurring during or maintenance (or, ideally, expansion) of immediately preceding the flowering orchid populations. period for the orchid population. No buffer plantings have been established. Orchid habitat now appears to be poor.

Weed management It appears that weed control has been carried out regularly across the study area but has not been successful at eliminating several high priority weed species, including the following:

 Coast Wattle, of which there are at least two mature specimens present (as at March 2019), one in the centre of Lot 5 and one in the southern corner of Lot 4.

 Agapanthus, particularly in the southern extent of Lot 2 and in the northern extent of Lot 5. Most mature plants appear to have been removed but their progeny persist (Photo 3).

 Large-leaf Cotoneaster, near the southern boundary of Lot 4.

 Common Dipogon, covering part of a fence and smothering a scattered Moonah at the boundary of Lots 1 and 2 (Photo 4).

 Myrtle-leaf Milkwort, which has seedlings scattered throughout the study area, particularly in the northern extent of Lots 2 and 5 and along the southern boundaries of Lots 3 and 4.

 Blue Periwinkle, particularly along the fence separating Lots 1 and 2.

Bridal Creeper, which was a target for control rather than elimination, is scattered throughout the study area, typically at the base of Moonah, where seeds have been deposited by birds (Photo 5). Other weeds, such as

Italian Buckthorn Rhamnus alaternus and African Box-thorn Lycium ferocissimum, were not contemplated by the original PMP but are present within the study area and should be eliminated as a high priority. Italian Buckthorn is scattered throughout the study area and there is one large and mature individual (greater than 3 metres tall) on the boundary fence between Lots 1 and 2. African box-thorn is present at the eastern corner of Lot 5.

Management of significant flora Coast Wirilda and Bassian Pomaderris are still present throughout the study area. However, in the absence of any baseline data, it is unclear whether or not the populations of these species are stable within the study area. Coast Bitter-bush was not recorded within the study area in 2005 and does not appear to have been planted or established at any point since.

Maintenance of orchid populations The quality of the orchid habitat mapped in the original PMP has declined to the point that these areas are dominated by introduced grasses such as Veldt Grass Ehrharta spp., Kikuyu Cenchrus clandestinus, Couch Cynodon dactylon var. dactylon and Buffalo Grass Stenotaphrum secundatum. These species (particularly Kikuyu, Couch and Buffalo Grass) form impenetrable mats, which are not conducive to orchid growth and flowering. It appears that these areas have been regularly mowed during winter and spring i.e. during or immediately preceding the main flowering periods for orchids that have previously been recorded within the study area. No buffer plantings have been established.

2.3 Shortcomings of the original PMP

The failure of the original PMP to achieve its offsetting and management objectives can be attributed to its shortcomings, including the following:

 With respect to offsets, the original PMP does not provide any of the following:

– Offset calculations.

– Realistic offset objectives in accordance with offset policy.

– Baseline condition data against which offset performance could be assessed.

– Adequate protection for any offset (the original PMP relies on offset protections being provided by the s 173 agreement, which itself relies on the PMP to provide offset protections).

 With respect to management of native vegetation across the broader study area, the original PMP does not provide any of the following:

– Simple, realistic and achievable management objectives, management actions and monitoring protocols. The original PMP is overly complicated and unrealistic, making it difficult for landowners to carry out without significant supervision.

– Baseline data against which management performance could be assessed.

– Scope for adaptive management if/when conditions or circumstances change. For example, the PMP does not include consideration for new and emerging weed species, such as African Box- thorn, which were not previously recorded within the study area.

There appears to have been a disconnect between the Planning Permit for the subdivision (P04/1887), the Net Gain Assessment (Ecology Australia 2005), the original PMP (Ecology Australia 2006), the s 173 agreement

(Appendix 1) and the overarching government policy at the time, the Native Vegetation Framework (DNRE 2002).

Condition 2 of the Planning Permit stated that ‘offset management arrangements in accordance with the Native Vegetation Framework must be prepared and approved’ before the development starts. Offset requirements were calculated as part of the Net Gain Assessment (Ecology Australia 2005) but were not calculated in accordance with the Native Vegetation Framework (DNRE 2002), as required by Condition 2.

The offset calculations were fundamentally flawed because they were calculated on the assumption that Coastal Alkaline Scrub has a large tree benchmark. In reality, there is no large tree benchmark for Coastal Alkaline Scrub, meaning that the offsets should never have included requirements for protection of large trees or recruitment of trees and shrubs. Under the Framework, recruitment targets were calculated on the basis of the number of large trees lost (DNRE 2002). In this case, recruitment targets were 20 times the number of large trees lost and 10 times the number of medium trees lost. The failure of the offset site to meet recruitment targets is hardly surprising. It was unrealistic to expect a scrubland vegetation type with no large tree benchmark (i.e. Coastal Alkaline Scrub) to meet the targets of a woodland or forest vegetation type, which would have large trees and would therefore have recruitment targets.

Clause 3.1.1.3 of the s 173 agreement required the original PMP to outline means of calculating offset requirements but neither the original PMP nor the s 173 agreement make reference to the offset calculations contained within the Net Gain Assessment (Ecology Australia 2005; Ecology Australia 2006; Appendix 1). No other offset calculations are presented in the original PMP, so it is assumed that the original PMP adopts the calculations of the Net Gain Assessment.

Indeed, Clause 3.1 of the s 173 agreement specifies all of the details that the original PMP was required to address, but several of these are not fully considered in the original PMP. There is no dimensioned plan showing existing native vegetation (Clause 3.1.1.1), no calculation of offset requirements (Clause 3.1.1.3, noted above) and limited explanation of the methods for permanent protection of vegetation (Clause 3.1.1.7), beyond generic statements that Moonah trees would be protected by a s 173 agreement. The s 173 agreement does not include any obligation to protect or manage specific vegetation within the study area, beyond a general obligation that a PMP be prepared to document any vegetation proposed for protection. The disconnect between the original PMP and s 173 agreement probably arose because the original PMP was finalised two weeks before the s 173 agreement was executed.

It is unclear how often, if ever, monitoring and auditing of the original PMP took place. If appropriate monitoring and auditing had taken place, it would have alerted landowners to the fact that the PMP’s objectives were not being met and alerted landowners to the need to increase management effort accordingly and/or find alternative approaches to meet the objectives. Ultimately, the original PMP does not achieve its main purpose: the provision of an offset that is sufficient to compensate for the loss of native vegetation from the 2006 subdivision. The PMP therefore requires significant revision and updates, which are outlined in the following sections.

3. Offset strategy

3.1 Offsets under the Native Vegetation Framework (2002)

Offset calculations contained within the Net Gain Assessment are flawed and unachievable, meaning that the original PMP does not fulfil its primary purpose (Ecology Australia 2005; Ecology Australia 2006). Had offset requirements been calculated ‘in accordance with the Native Vegetation Framework’ (DNRE 2002), as required by Clause 3.1 of the s 173 agreement, the requirement would have been for habitat hectares offsets only.

As it stands, the habitat hectares target (a gain of at least 0.040 habitat hectares) was an overestimate because a large part of the habitat hectares scores for vegetation proposed for removal relied on the large tree scores that were erroneously assigned to Coastal Alkaline Scrub. This EVC has no benchmark DBH for large trees. Correcting the 2005 habitat hectares scores (by correcting underestimated understorey scores, removing large tree scores and standardising) results in an offset requirement under the Native Vegetation Framework of 0.038 habitat hectares. The Native Vegetation Framework would not have imposed a target for large tree protection or recruitment of trees and shrubs as offset requirements (DNRE 2002).

3.2 Offsets under the Native Vegetation Guidelines (2017)

Victoria’s policy approach to managing ecological values and impacts on native vegetation has changed considerably since the Native Vegetation Framework came into effect in 2002. The Guidelines for the Removal, Destruction or Lopping of Native Vegetation (Native Vegetation Guidelines; DELWP 2017a) came into effect in 2017. The Native Vegetation Guidelines and accompanying Assessor’s Handbook (DELWP 2018) introduce the concept of assumed and consequential loss of native vegetation, which was not considered when native vegetation removal and offset requirements were assessed in 2005 and 2006 under the Native Vegetation Framework.

Assumed loss takes into consideration the risk or probability of indirect loss of native vegetation occurring as the result of a proposed development (DELWP 2018). For example, a tree may be assumed lost due to encroachment into its Tree Protection Zone (TPZ; Photo 7). Consequential loss takes into consideration the facilitated loss of native vegetation due to exemptions that would apply following approval of a permit or plan (DELWP 2018). For example, where a subdivision results in lots smaller than 0.4 hectares, all native vegetation on these subdivided lots is considered consequentially lost (even though it may not be physically removed during the subdivision) because the subdivision would allow the ‘site area’ exemption of the Native Vegetation Guidelines to be applied, thereby lessening the protections for native vegetation on the site.

If the Nee Morna subdivision was considered under current planning policies (the Native Vegetation Guidelines), assumed and consequential loss of native vegetation would apply. Loss of native vegetation would not be limited to the 0.093 hectares of native vegetation (43 Moonah) within the new building envelopes and driveway footprint, as was the case when native vegetation losses were calculated in 2005 (Ecology Australia 2005). The building envelopes encroach on the TPZs of trees outside of the envelopes and the subdivision has resulted in three lots (Lots 1, 3 and 4) that are less than 0.4 hectares. If this assumed and consequential loss of native vegetation is taken into account, the total loss of native vegetation from subdivision of the Nee Morna estate is 0.716 hectares, including four scattered trees (Figure 3). Note that the calculation of native vegetation loss under current policies is based on the following:

 Since the 2006 subdivision took place, the building envelope of Lot 1 has been developed. According to the Net Gain Assessment, this would have resulted in the direct removal of 0.030 hectares of Coastal Alkaline Scrub. It is difficult to verify the extent of native vegetation removal that ultimately

occurred because Ecology Australia’s Flora and Fauna Assessment (2003), Net Gain Assessment (2005) and PMP (2006) do not include maps of vegetation removal. This vegetation removal has therefore not been considered as part of the contemporary native vegetation loss calculations, but contemporary calculations have included removal of five Moonah that have been subsequently planted or recruited in Lot 1.

 The contemporary calculations are based on the subdivision that occurred in 2006. The size of Lot 4 was reduced in 2019, which would reduce consequential loss of native vegetation from this lot (comparison of Figures 2 and 3 shows the difference in Lot 4 under the 2006 subdivision and at present). The original and larger size of Lot 4 has been used for contemporary native vegetation loss calculations.

Under the Native Vegetation Guidelines, loss or removal of 0.716 hectares of Coastal Alkaline Scrub from Nee Morna would require an offset of 0.245 general habitat units (GHU), as per the following calculations (Table 5; Appendix 3; DELWP 2017a; DELWP 2018):

Required Offset (GHU) = General Habitat Score x Risk Multiplier

General Habitat Score = Habitat Hectares x General Landscape Factor = 0.1633

Where,

Habitat Hectares = Vegetation Extent x Vegetation Condition = 0.2590

General Landscape Factor = 0.5 + (Strategic Biodiversity Value Score / 2) = 0.6304

Risk Multiplier for General Offsets = 1.5

Therefore, Required Offset (GHU) = 0.1633 x 1.5 = 0.2449 GHU

This general offset is equivalent to a gain of 0.388 habitat hectares, when expressed in the offset units of the Native Vegetation Framework (DNRE 2002):

Required Gain (Habitat Hectares) = Vegetation Extent x Vegetation Condition x Risk

= 0.2590 x 1.5

= 0.3884

Importantly, the offset of 0.245 GHU (0.388 habitat hectares) takes into account assumed and consequential loss and is ten times the offset quantum that should have been required under the Native Vegetation Framework (see Section 3.1). Under the Native Vegetation Guidelines, the offset would need to have a minimum strategic biodiversity value score of 0.209 and would need to be located within the Port Phillip and Westernport catchment or Mornington Peninsula Shire (Table 5; Appendix 3).

It is unrealistic, if not impossible, for this offset to be secured and managed in perpetuity on-site. To ensure appropriate compensation for the permitted removal or loss of native vegetation from the Nee Morna subdivision in 2006, this updated PMP requires that the Nee Morna landowner(s) secure 0.245 general habitat units, with a minimum strategic biodiversity value score of 0.209 within the Mornington Peninsula Shire, from a third party offset credit provider. The general habitat units would be secured within the Mornington Peninsula Shire, rather than elsewhere in the Port Phillip and Westernport catchment (which is permitted under current policy), to ensure proximity of the offset to the clearing site. Since this offset involves the purchase of existing credits via DELWP’s Native Vegetation Offset Register, rather than direct management of an offset site by the landowners, a fully dimensioned plan of the native vegetation offset (as required by 3.1 of the original s 173 agreement) cannot be provided. However, the purchasing of offset credits significantly reduces the risk of the offset not being achieved.

Table 5 Summary of native vegetation offsets that will be secured under this PMP

Attribute Outcome Notes

Native vegetation removal location Location 1

Native vegetation removal extent 0.716 ha (0.2590 habitat ha) 7 patches and 4 scattered trees

Assessment pathway Detailed More than 0.5 ha from Location 1

SBV* score of removed vegetation 0.260-0.262

Modelled habitat for rare or Yes Modelled habitat for 35 species threatened species (Appendix 3) but impact is below the 0.005% habitat threshold

Offset requirement 0.245 general habitat units No large tree offsets are required

Offset vicinity Port Phillip and Westernport The offset will be secured within the catchment or Mornington Peninsula Mornington Peninsula Shire Shire

Minimum SBV* score of offset 0.209 *SBV: Strategic Biodiversity Value

4. Native vegetation management

The study area has been divided into two types of zone based on their management requirements (Figure 4):

 Conservation Zones (CZs)

 General Use Zone (GUZ).

4.1 Objectives of Conservation Zones

Seven CZs, with a total area of 0.673 hectares, are distributed across the Nee Morna estate to capture a selection of the four habitat zones and three quality classes that are present (Figure 2), to provide continuity with native vegetation on adjoining properties or reserves and to allow for potential improvements to habitat connectivity while not impeding the use of existing and potential future dwellings (Figure 4). The CZs mostly support Coastal Alkaline Scrub, although there are some small areas of predominantly introduced vegetation (e.g. within CZ7), where there are opportunities to remove introduced species, improve the condition of existing Moonah and provide supplementary in-fill planting with indigenous species.

The CZs follow physical boundaries (e.g. boundaries of land parcels and building envelopes) and ecological boundaries (e.g. the dripline of existing Moonah). While the ecological boundaries are irregular and may not be easily demarcated on the ground, they better capture the current extent of ecological values and canopy trees that will be prioritised for conservation management. The ecological boundaries may require minor adjustments when the PMP is next reviewed, to account for death, recruitment and planting of Moonah that may occur in the interim.

For the most part, the conservation objectives and management actions apply equally to all CZs. However, some additional objectives and actions relate specifically to CZ1 and CZ2, which are the highest priority zones for conservation. CZ1 corresponds with the high quality Coastal Alkaline Scrub at Nee Morna, while CZ2 is moderate quality but has good connectivity with CZ1 and the adjacent Sorrento Foreshore Reserve. The additional objectives and actions that apply to CZ1 and CZ2 are specifically noted in the following paragraphs and sections.

The conservation objectives of the CZs are as follows:

 Conservation Objective 1: Moonah protection – At least 307 Moonah will be retained and maintained within the CZs.

– The Net Gain Assessment (and therefore the original PMP) committed to retaining and protecting an estimated 307 Moonah across the study area (Ecology Australia 2005). This commitment remains and will be achieved within the seven CZs, where 310 mature Moonah are currently located. The 310 Moonah does not include five Moonah that are within CZs but assumed lost due to encroachment by building envelopes into their TPZs. Under this PMP, a minimum of 307 Moonah will be protected and maintained within the CZs. Management of Moonah that are outside of the CZs is discussed in Sections 4.2 and 4.3 of this PMP.

– Natural recruitment of Moonah will be encouraged within the CZs, particularly within CZ1 and CZ2. If natural recruitment is insufficient to replace any Moonah that may die, supplementary Moonah will be planted to maintain the minimum number of Moonah within the CZs.

– Pruning of native vegetation may be required (e.g. to maintain the health and vigour of Moonah), in which case the ‘lopping and pruning for maintenance’ exemption of Clause 52.17 of the

Mornington Peninsula Planning Scheme will apply. That is, lopping or pruning of native vegetation is permitted, for maintenance only, provided no more than one third of the foliage of each individual plant is lopped or pruned and the trunk of a native tree is not subject to lopping or pruning.

 Conservation Objective 2: Maintenance of indigenous understorey – Recruitment of indigenous understorey flora species will be encouraged within high priority zones (CZ1 and CZ2) and any supplementary planting within any CZs must be with locally indigenous plant species only (Appendix 5).

– At least four understorey lifeforms will be maintained across CZ1 and CZ2, including shrubs, herbs, graminoids and climbers/scramblers. Examples of these lifeforms are listed in Appendix 5. The understorey will be maintained or enhanced by promoting recruitment and/or by supplementary planting. This means that mowing and slashing is not permitted in CZ1 or CZ2, except for maintenance or rejuvenation of indigenous species (e.g. rejuvenation of tussock grasses).

– The understorey will be further maintained by retaining and/or instating logs (greater than 10 centimetres in diameter). The target is for the benchmark for Coastal Alkaline Scrub to be met, meaning that at least 11 metres of logs will need to be present across CZ1 and CZ2.

– Supplementary planting may be required to maintain the required minimum number of Moonah within all CZs and the minimum number of understorey lifeforms in CZ1 and CZ2. Any supplementary planting that does occur within any of the CZs must use locally indigenous plant species only.

 Conservation Objective 3: Elimination of high threats – High threat weeds and pest animals will be eliminated from the CZs and other introduced species will be controlled.

– Weeds and pest animals that represent a high threat to the long-term persistence of at least 307 Moonah within the CZs will be eliminated from the CZs (Appendix 4). Elimination requires that target plant species be reduced to less than 1% cover and that no signs (direct or indirect) of target animal species are present within the CZs.

– Other introduced species that may not be naturalised within the CZs but may nevertheless represent a threat to Moonah will be controlled e.g. the planted Monterey Cypress Hesperocyparis macrocarpa, which have caused decline of Moonah by shading (Photo 6), or some types of livestock, which may browse on existing Moonah but are not currently present within the study area. Control of these species requires that their spread be minimised and, as far as possible, prevented.

– Note that two of the high threat weeds listed in Appendix 4 are native species outside of their natural range: Coast Wattle Acacia longifolia subsp. sophorae and Sweet Pittosporum Pittosporum undulatum. A planning permit is not required to remove Sweet Pittosporum because it is listed as a weed in the Schedule to Clause 52.17 of the Mornington Peninsula Planning Scheme. However, Coast Wattle is not listed in the Schedule and a planning permit is required for its removal.

4.2 Objectives of the General Use Zone

The GUZ covers 1.382 hectares of the study area and is concentrated in and around existing buildings, building envelopes and associated amenities, such as driveways, landscaped gardens and the tennis court (Figure 4). Vegetation within the GUZ is predominantly introduced vegetation, although the GUZ also includes native vegetation (Coastal Alkaline Scrub and scattered trees), particularly near buildings, building envelopes and amenities. Most of this native vegetation has been assumed lost by the subdivision (Figure 3) and will be offset in accordance with the offset strategy (Section 3).

Within the GUZ, any proposal to remove native vegetation will need to follow the relevant planning process applicable at the time. For example, at the time of writing, vegetation within the entire Nee Morna estate is subject to the requirements of VPO1 and ESO25 of the Mornington Peninsula Planning Scheme. A planning permit is required to remove, destroy or lop any vegetation, except in certain circumstances.

Weeds, pest animals and other threats will be controlled within the GUZ but there is no requirement to eliminate high threats within the GUZ, beyond the existing obligations imposed by the Victorian Catchment and Land Protection Act 1994 (CaLP Act). For example, the Monterey Cypress at the southern end of CZ2 will be removed so that it does not shade Moonah within CZ2 and the spread of high threat weeds within the GUZ will be prevented (e.g. by removing mature weed specimens).

There is no requirement that plantings within the GUZ be limited to indigenous species only. For example, lawns, vegetable gardens and fruit trees may be planted in the GUZ around existing dwellings, where they do not adversely impact on the conservation objectives of the CZs. There will be no planting of high threat weed species in the GUZ, as this would conflict with the requirement for control of high threat weeds within the GUZ. Note that the list of high threat weeds (Appendix 4) must be periodically reviewed and updated so that weed management remains adaptive.

4.3 Management actions

Table 6 provides a management framework for achieving the conservation objectives of the CZs at Nee Morna. Some management actions pertain to specific zones (e.g. the higher priority CZ1 and CZ2) while others are more general. Management actions for the GUZ are included in Table 6 because appropriate management of the GUZ is required to achieve the conservation objectives of the CZs.

Given that the offset site is not located on-site, there is no obligation to revegetate the study area, beyond replanting of Moonah and understorey species that may be needed to maintain a minimum number of Moonah and understorey species within the applicable CZs. A detailed revegetation plan for Nee Morna is therefore not required and not provided as part of this PMP. Instead, a list of indigenous species suitable for any supplementary planting in CZs is provided in Appendix 5.

Table 6 Management actions to achieve the conservation objectives of this PMP

Zone Management actions Timing Outcomes Monitoring Responsibility Conservation Objective 1: Moonah protection CZ1-7 1.1. No native vegetation removal, except where In perpetuity Persistence of at least 307 Monitoring required Landowner(s) permitted e.g. if a ‘lopping and pruning for maintenance’ Moonah and no every 5 years. See exemption applies, a ‘weeds’ exemption applies (e.g. to unpermitted removal of Section 5. eliminate Sweet Pittosporum) or a planning permit is native vegetation within issued (e.g. for removal of Coast Wattle). the CZs.

CZ1-7 1.2. Fence CZ boundaries and/or TPZs, when required e.g. As required Persistence of at least 307 Monitoring required Landowner(s) if construction works are occurring nearby and risk Moonah and no removal every 5 years. See impacting on native vegetation within the CZs or to of native vegetation Section 5. minimise the risk of high threats entering the CZs (see within the CZs. Management Action 2.2).

GUZ 1.3. Native vegetation removal in accordance with In perpetuity No unpermitted removal Monitoring required Landowner(s) applicable planning policy (i.e. planning permit required). of native vegetation from every 5 years. See within the GUZ. Section 5.

Zone Management actions Timing Outcomes Monitoring Responsibility Conservation Objective 2: Maintenance of indigenous understorey CZ1-7 3.1. Plant indigenous flora only. As required Any supplementary Monitoring required Landowner(s) plantings are of locally every 5 years. See indigenous species only. Section 5.

CZ1-7 3.2. Replace dead or dying Moonah. As required Persistence of at least 307 Monitoring required Landowner(s) Moonah within the CZs. every 5 years. See Section 5.

CZ1-2 3.3. Maintain or enhance understorey vegetation by In perpetuity Four lifeforms present: Monitoring required Landowner(s) promoting recruitment (no mowing or slashing) and/or shrubs, herbs, graminoids every 5 years. See supplementary planting of indigenous understorey and scramblers/climbers. Section 5. species.

CZ1-2 3.4. Maintain or enhance understorey by retaining and/or Within 5 years At least 11 m of logs Monitoring required Landowner(s) instating logs (≥10 cm diameter). present (i.e. benchmark every 5 years. See for EVC). Section 5.

GUZ 3.5. No planting of high threat weeds. No introduction of In perpetuity All plantings are Monitoring required Landowner(s) other species into areas that would hinder achievement sympathetic to every 5 years. See of the conservation objectives of the CZs. achievement of the Section 5. conservation objectives of the CZs.

Zone Management actions Timing Outcomes Monitoring Responsibility Conservation Objective 3: Elimination of high threats CZ1-7 2.1. Undertake targeted removal of high threat weeds At least Elimination of high threat Site walkover at least Landowner(s) and pest animals using treatments listed in Appendix 4. annually weeds (<1% cover) and annually to assess Undertake targeted control of all other introduced pest animals (no direct or current presence of species to minimise their spread. indirect signs) within the high threat weeds and CZs. Control (prevention pest animals and to of the spread) of all other assess the success of introduced species. previous treatments.

CZ1-7 2.2. Fence boundaries of CZs, where required to minimise As required Elimination of high threat Site walkover at least Landowner(s) spread of high threats from GUZ and/or adjoining land. weeds (<1% cover) and annually to assess risk Maintain fences to ensure that they retain their function pest animals (no direct or of high threats and do not become a support for weedy climbers, such as indirect signs) within the spreading into CZs. Common Dipogon and Bridal Creeper. CZs.

GUZ 2.3. Undertake targeted control of high threat weeds and At least Spread of high threats Site walkover at least Landowner(s) pest animals using treatments listed in Appendix 4. annually minimised and, as far as annually to assess possible, prevented within spread of high threat the GUZ to assist in weeds and pest animals elimination of high within GUZ. threats from the CZs.

CZ2, CZ7 2.4. Remove five Monterey Cypress (four from within CZ7 One-off action Monterey Cypress no Not applicable. Owner of Lot 5 and GUZ and one within GUZ at southern boundary of CZ2), within first 5 longer shading Moonah subject to permit approval. years (or within CZ2 and CZ7. otherwise as required by permit)

5. Monitoring and review

5.1 Native vegetation offsets

This updated PMP provides an offset strategy to compensate for the loss of native vegetation arising from subdivision of the Nee Morna estate in 2006. The original PMP (Ecology Australia 2006) proposed offsets that were not calculated in accordance with the Native Vegetation Framework that was operational at the time (DNRE 2002) and ultimately failed to realise the modest offset gains that were set.

In contrast, this updated PMP provides clear and accurate calculations of offset requirements in accordance with current policy: the Native Vegetation Guidelines (DELWP 2017a). The calculations take into account assumed and consequential loss of native vegetation, as is required under the Guidelines.

Importantly, this PMP’s offset strategy is realistic and achievable. It requires that the Nee Morna landowner(s) secure 0.245 general habitat units, with a minimum strategic biodiversity value score of 0.209 within the Mornington Peninsula Shire, from a third party offset credit provider. The purchase of offsets via DELWP’s Native Vegetation Offset Register is a low-risk exercise. Once the offset has been secured by payment of the fee and DELWP has issued an allocated credit extract as proof of the offset having been secured, no monitoring or review of the offset strategy will be necessary.

5.2 Native vegetation management

This updated PMP provides objectives, actions and outcomes for management of the native vegetation across the Nee Morna estate. It is intended that these management requirements remain in place for a minimum of 10 years from the date that this PMP is approved. After 10 years, the native vegetation management objectives, actions and outcomes of this PMP must be reviewed by an appropriately qualified ecologist and, if required, the PMP should be updated. The outcome of the review and any updates to the PMP must be provided to Council for approval.

Native vegetation management at Nee Morna should remain adaptive (e.g. to account for novel weed species) and, with this in mind, the Nee Morna landowner(s) may conduct a voluntary review of this PMP at any time during the 10 years. As a minimum, an appropriately qualified ecologist should review the PMP every 5 years to ensure that management actions remain adaptive (e.g. to account for new and emerging weeds). Any updates to the PMP, whether during or at the end of the 10-year period, will need approval from Council.

The Nee Morna landowner(s) will be responsible for monitoring the outcomes of the native vegetation management actions according to the schedule outlined in Table 6, which is closely linked to the PMP review schedule. Monitoring of Moonah protection (Conservation Objective 1) and indigenous understorey maintenance (Conservation Objective 2) is required every 5 years. Monitoring of high threats in CZs (Conservation Objective 3) is required at least annually, during a site walkover. Monitoring results must be presented to Council as part of any review of the PMP.

The conservation objectives and native vegetation management actions are designed to be adaptive, realistic and achievable. They allow for conservation of key ecological values across the Nee Morna estate and for improvements to local habitat connectivity while not impeding the use of existing and potential future dwellings across the estate.

References

Ecology Australia 2003. Flora and Fauna Assessment of Nee Morna Property, Sorrento. Report to Watsons Pty Ltd. Author: Kohout M. Ecology Australia Pty Ltd, Melbourne. Project No. 03-36.

Ecology Australia 2005. Net Gain Assessment of Nee Morna Property, Sorrento. Report to Watsons Pty Ltd. Authors: Campbell C & McMahon A. Ecology Australia Pty Ltd, Melbourne. Project No. 05-19.

Ecology Australia 2006. Nee Morna Property Management Plan, Sorrento. Report to Watsons Pty Ltd. Authors: Campbell C & McMahon A. Ecology Australia Pty Ltd, Melbourne. Project No. 06-22.

DELWP 2017a. Guidelines for the Removal, Destruction or Lopping of Native Vegetation. Victorian Government Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning, Melbourne.

DELWP 2017b. Native Vegetation Gain Scoring Manual: Version 2. Victorian Government Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning, Melbourne.

DELWP 2018. Assessor’s Handbook: Applications to Remove, Destroy or Lop Native Vegetation. Victorian Government Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning, Melbourne.

DEPI 2014. Advisory List of Rare or Threatened Plants in Victoria – 2014. Victorian Government Department of Environment and Primary Industries, Melbourne.

DNRE 2002. Victoria’s Native Vegetation Management: A Framework for Action. Victorian Government Department of Natural Resources and Environment, Melbourne.

Figures

t M e

r o n !( u B n F ur t w w oo a y d i Melbourne H n wy N M H e o w p n e a y a s y n h w F F H w es w y nc y ri P O y ld w P H r es in c c rin P e P e s n H i w n y s u l a

L i n Geelong k y !( F B w w e H ll y ar c i u y n e d w H w o o H y r t o s o a M o

Port Phillip Bay

B ay Be ach

d R

s k k l r

r T u B T r a a e l y i P p Trl a p t i l S S S C h ore bre ak

Trk

R C r

v k T

o r r

A B o

ea T e

s chc i R e y om b er P i S rr u c t t h t e a a S T

S a Tr t ik v k n A lo nM C a e en e S s d c d es P i n d l a e S rl S t E K u v in lli H A n va il d e n

l i

S o l B t o a r S y ly t o C H o t rs S t a S ir id a e tt Po G M R u d int r l a lc R N v p v e A P r er a s r s t i C k p e e S ck n e th in i a a t t S L n e is e H r s t t n R A

u d

e S

s n t

A C le S c e h i l v a r p L l e P e A eggett W im P o d a a s i e y r iu s P r C c t s s s o o a n t R i v m Aurora C C ll t o A s V CT r e i u e si c st W o Fyne Ct k i n t h l e L C oc y A a L C S v n A re t la viemo e v A l dL t n a n C A d N e la y t l s N h a e T n R r o e b MORNINGTON o r ls y A e o a P s l c n a m C n l R o PENINSULA a o

n o D C a k s r P e m e l t SHIRE t e C Rodmar Ct a t r t A o S P v n e M e ala t o bar P r B A h l e l i rn n M Ti g o a a ma A tt v S r r v h S I a b u t l ra t d y C an Cl l M n t a o C M r r e W D Y o n ay ata ta a lb F t l i m y o ir n a S r a u s e C t Ja t m P t t W rn Settle e S P y e L k o

e a i n l n a T in R n a ck a k d t

d o S a j N u r

m q r t i B C a S S e a T M t p m P e e ia n Ct l b a a i t ll y n n i l le S o l t u ar r R W a H n o s v v o A d y i M L S ll s a t n u is b o T u d F M a Bak g e H n ew n r K S e a a o t ll L F m ana v C a gh e ko t w G n k r A d n v a M e S r K t a Legend e S c A a e fa v t r F a r t d i D o v la S R n d i ll g r t e n a m r R w g r A D e S A u e ra s s o Study area v t e k S v d g r n t e ic t c e A h r H a in b v r e M r B B y g e s t la t i n P A u D e S rg h a v H K r ow Jo c a S if y ri ic t e Acknowledgement:VicMap Data ©State of Victoria A S A v t v Figure 1 Location of the study area, Nee Morna, 3110-3120 Point Nepean Road, Sorrento, Victoria 0 100 200 300 400

Matter: 29532, Biosis Pty Ltd Date: 26 February 2019, ± Metres Albury, Ballarat, Melbourne, Newcastle, Checked by: JDT, Drawn by: SKM, Last edited by: lwilson Sydney, Wangaratta & Wollongong Location:P:\29500s\29532\Mapping\29532_F1_Locality.mxd Scale 1:10,000 @ A4, GDA 1994 MGA Zone 55 d R h c a e B n a e c O Sorrento

Rd uls Pa St

d R s e Blairgowrie h g u H

Legend Study area Lot boundary Proposed building envelope Lot 2 Scattered tree Coastal Alkaline Scrub (GipP0858) Low quality Moderate quality Lot High quality CM1

Lot 1

t S a tt u Lot 5 lc a C

Figure 2 Ecological P o in features of the study area t Lot 3 N e p e a n d R R d

L 0 9 18 27 36 45

Metres Scale: 1:800 @ A3 Coordinate System: GDA 1994 VICGRID94

Lot 4

Biosis Pty Ltd Albury, Ballarat, Melbourne, Newcastle, Sydney, Wangaratta & Wollongong

Matter: 29532, Date: 13 November 2019, Checked by: MG, Drawn by: LW, Last edited by: skumar Location:P:\29500s\29532\Mapping\ Acknowledgements: VicMap ©State of Victoria - Imagery- Nearmap 2018 29532_F2_EcoFeatures.mxd 00 d R h c a e B n a e c O Sorrento

Rd uls Pa St

d R s e Blairgowrie h g u H

Legend Study area Impact area Scattered tree Native vegetation assumed lost (2006) Ecological Vegetation Class (2019) Coastal Alkaline Scrub (GipP0858)

t S a tt u lc a C

Figure 3 Native vegetation that would have been

P assumed lost by the o in t subdivision, had current N e p e a regulations applied n d R R d

L 0 9 18 27 36 45

Metres Scale: 1:800 @ A3 Coordinate System: GDA 1994 VICGRID94

Biosis Pty Ltd Albury, Ballarat, Melbourne, Newcastle, Sydney, Wangaratta & Wollongong

CZ1 Blairgowrie GF !

CZ2

Legend Study area Lot boundary Proposed building envelope CZ6 GF GF Scattered tree Ecological vegetation class GF Coastal Alkaline Scrub (GipP0858) Management zones Conservation GF General use, subject to VPO1 and GF ESO25

CZ5 CZ7 GF GF GF t GF S a tt u lc a C

CZ3

Figure 4 Property management zones

Po in d t N R e s pe k a n n i R L d 0 10 20 30 40 50

Metres CZ4 Scale: 1:1,000 @ A3 Coordinate System: GDA 1994 VICGRID94 ± Biosis Pty Ltd Albury, Ballarat, Melbourne, Newcastle, Sydney, Wangaratta & Wollongong e d P Matter: 29532, s n Date: 21 September 2020, lli o Checked by: MG, Drawn by: LW, Last edited by: skumar C Location:P:\29500s\29532\Mapping\ Acknowledgements: VicMap ©State of Victoria - Imagery- Nearmap 2018 29532_F4_ManagementZones.mxd 00

Photos

Photo 1 Introduced species have been used for understorey landscape plantings (8 March 2019).

Photo 2 The openness of the understorey within the on-site offset area suggests that there has been negligible revegetation using locally indigenous species (8 March 2019).

Photo 3 Young Agapanthus persist in the northern extent of Lot 5 (8 March 2019).

Photo 4 Common Dipogon smothering a fence and scattered Moonah at the boundary of Lots 1 and 2 (8 March 2019).

Photo 5 Bridal Creeper persists at the base of Moonah throughout the study area (8 March 2019).

Photo 6 Decline in Moonah caused by shading from Monterey Cypress (8 March 2019).

Photo 7 Under the Native Vegetation Guidelines (DELWP 2017a), many of these Moonah would be assumed lost due to encroachment into their Tree Protection Zones (TPZs) by the nearby building envelope of Lot 2 (8 March 2019).

Appendices

Appendix 1 Original Section 173 agreement

Appendix 2 Vegetation quality assessments

The following vegetation quality field assessment sheets document the habitat hectares data collected across the study area by Biosis in 2019 and should be viewed in conjunction with Figure 2.

Appendix 3 Native Vegetation Removal (NVR) Report

Appendix 4 Weeds and pest animals

The following abbreviations are used in Table A4:

 Weed statuses: – P – State prohibited species under CaLP Act – C – Regionally controlled species under CaLP Act – R – Restricted species under CaLP Act – # – Native species outside natural range

 Control methods: – 1 – Apply herbicide or heat treatment (steam, flame or solarisation) directly to foliage – 2 – Cut and apply concentrated herbicide to the trunk (i.e. cut and paste) – 3 – Physical removal – 4 – Set baited traps – 5 – Set poison baits – 6 – Improve fencing

 Permits: – * – Control of this species may require a permit under the Planning Scheme

Note that the required actions outlined in Table A4 are the minimum required actions.

Table A4 Target weed and pest animals requiring management within the study area

Control Required action Status Scientific name Common name method CZs GUZ High threat weeds Acacia longifolia subsp. # * Coast Wattle 2,3 Eliminate Control sophorae Agapanthus praecox subsp. Agapanthus 1,3 Eliminate Control orientalis R Asparagus asparagoides Bridal Creeper 1,3 Eliminate Eliminate R Asparagus scandens Asparagus Fern 1,3 Eliminate Eliminate Billardiera heterophylla Bluebell Creeper 1,3 Eliminate Control Cotoneaster glaucophyllus Cotoneaster 2,3 Eliminate Control Dipogon lignosus Common Dipogon 1,3 Eliminate Control C Lycium ferocissimum African Box-thorn 2,3 Eliminate Eliminate Malus x domestica Apple 2,3 Eliminate Control # Pittosporum undulatum Sweet Pittosporum 2,3 Eliminate Control Polygala myrtifolia Myrtle-leaf Milkwort 2,3 Eliminate Control Rhamnus alaternus Italian Buckthorn 2,3 Eliminate Control Vinca major Blue Periwinkle 1,3 Eliminate Control Zantedeschia aethiopica White Arum-lily 1,3 Eliminate Control High threat pest animals Oryctolagus cuniculus European Rabbit 4 Eliminate Control Vulpes vulpes Red Fox 5 Eliminate Control Other threats Stenotaphrum secundatum Buffalo Grass 1,3 Control Cenchrus clandestinus Kikuyu 1,3 Control Livestock 6 Control

Appendix 5 Revegetation list

Table A5 List of recommended species for synpathetic revegetation

Species name Common name Trees Allocasuarina verticillata Drooping Sheoak Melaleuca lanceolata Moonah Shrubs Acacia paradoxa Hedge Wattle Acacia uncifolia Coast Wirilda Adriana quadripartita Coast Bitter-bush Allocasuarina verticillata Drooping Sheoak Bursaria spinosa subsp. spinosa Sweet Busaria Correa alba var. alba White Correa Correa reflexa var. reflexa Common Correa Hibbertia sericea s.l. Silky Guinea-flower Leucopogon parviflorus Coast Beard-heath Melaleuca lanceolata Moonah Pimelea serpyllifolia subsp. serpyllifolia Thyme Rice-flower Pomaderris oraria subsp. oraria Bassian Pomaderris Pomaderris paniculosa subsp. paralia Coast Pomaderris Rhagodia candolleana subsp. candolleana Seaberry Saltbush Herbs Acaena novae-zelandiae Bidgee-widgee Dichondra repens Kidney-weed Lagenophora stipitata Common Bottle-daisy Swainsona lessertiifolia Coast Swainson-pea Zygophyllum billardierei Coast Twin-leaf Climbers and scramblers Clematis microphylla s.l. Small-leaved Clematis Tetragonia implexicoma Bower Spinach Graminoids Austrostipa flavescens Coast Spear-grass Dianella brevicaulis Small-flower Flax-lily Dianella revoluta Black-anther Flax-lily Ficinia nodosa Knobby Club-sedge Lomandra longifolia Spiny-headed Mat-rush Poa poiformis var. poiformis Coast Tussock-grass

Attachment 4 Certificate of Titles (3106-3120 Point Nepean Road, Sorrento)

6 Copyright State of Victoria. This publication is copyright. No part may be reproduced by any process except in accordance with the provisions of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) and for the purposes of Section 32 of the Sale of Land Act 1962 (Vic) or pursuant to a written agreement. The information is only valid at the time and in the form obtained from the LANDATA REGD TM System. None of the State of Victoria, LANDATA REGD TM System, Victorian Land Registry Services Pty. Ltd. ABN 86 627 986 396 as trustee for the Victorian Land Registry Services Trust ABN 83 206 746 897 accept responsibility for any subsequent release, publication or reproduction of the information.

VOLUME 11017 FOLIO 777 Security no : 124086065507P Produced 15/10/2020 01:21 PM

LAND DESCRIPTION

Lot 1 on Plan of Subdivision 540310W. PARENT TITLES : Volume 09653 Folio 069 Volume 10379 Folio 726 Volume 10951 Folio 808 Created by instrument PS540310W 03/07/2007

REGISTERED PROPRIETOR

Estate Fee Simple Joint Proprietors TREVOR RONALD GORMAN SUZANNE ELEANOR GORMAN both of 90 ILLAWARRA ROAD HAWTHORN VIC 3122 AF413337V 18/10/2007

ENCUMBRANCES, CAVEATS AND NOTICES

MORTGAGE AG889351K 25/11/2009 WESTPAC BANKING CORPORATION

COVENANT PS540310W 03/07/2007

COVENANT AF413337V 18/10/2007

Any encumbrances created by Section 98 Transfer of Land Act 1958 or Section 24 Subdivision Act 1988 and any other encumbrances shown or entered on the plan set out under DIAGRAM LOCATION below.

NOTICE Section 47(2) Heritage Act 1995 REGISTER NO. 1050 AC612091T 19/01/2004

NOTICE Section 47(2) Heritage Act 1995 REGISTER NO. 1050 AC612103P 19/01/2004

NOTICE Section 47(2) Heritage Act 1995 REGISTER NO. 1050 AC612117C 19/01/2004

AGREEMENT Section 173 Planning and Environment Act 1987 AE638010J 02/10/2006

DIAGRAM LOCATION

SEE PS540310W FOR FURTHER DETAILS AND BOUNDARIES

ACTIVITY IN THE LAST 125 DAYS

NIL

------END OF REGISTER SEARCH STATEMENT------

Additional information: (not part of the Register Search Statement)

Title 11017/777 Page 1 of 2 Copyright State of Victoria. This publication is copyright. No part may be reproduced by any process except in accordance with the provisions of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) and for the purposes of Section 32 of the Sale of Land Act 1962 (Vic) or pursuant to a written agreement. The information is only valid at the time and in the form obtained from the LANDATA REGD TM System. None of the State of Victoria, LANDATA REGD TM System, Victorian Land Registry Services Pty. Ltd. ABN 86 627 986 396 as trustee for the Victorian Land Registry Services Trust ABN 83 206 746 897 accept responsibility for any subsequent release, publication or reproduction of the information.

Street Address: 3120 POINT NEPEAN ROAD SORRENTO VIC 3943

ADMINISTRATIVE NOTICES

NIL eCT Control 16320Q WESTPAC BANKING CORPORATION Effective from 23/10/2016

OWNERS CORPORATIONS

The land in this folio is affected by OWNERS CORPORATION 1 PLAN NO. PS540310W

DOCUMENT END

Title 11017/777 Page 2 of 2 Copyright State of Victoria. This publication is copyright. No part may be reproduced by any process except in accordance with the provisions of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) and for the purposes of Section 32 of the Sale of Land Act 1962 (Vic) or pursuant to a written agreement. The information is only valid at the time and in the form obtained from the LANDATA REGD TM System. None of the State of Victoria, LANDATA REGD TM System, Victorian Land Registry Services Pty. Ltd. ABN 86 627 986 396 as trustee for the Victorian Land Registry Services Trust ABN 83 206 746 897 accept responsibility for any subsequent release, publication or reproduction of the information.

VOLUME 11017 FOLIO 780 Security no : 124086547004X Produced 12/11/2020 01:46 PM

LAND DESCRIPTION

Lot 4 on Plan of Subdivision 540310W. PARENT TITLES : Volume 09653 Folio 069 Volume 10379 Folio 726 Volume 10951 Folio 808 Created by instrument PS540310W 03/07/2007

REGISTERED PROPRIETOR

Estate Fee Simple Sole Proprietor APPLETREE SORRENTO PTY LTD of LEVEL 21 333 COLLINS STREET MELBOURNE VIC 3000 AQ087733E 27/07/2017

ENCUMBRANCES, CAVEATS AND NOTICES

COVENANT PS540310W 03/07/2007

COVENANT AF707819N 11/03/2008

Any encumbrances created by Section 98 Transfer of Land Act 1958 or Section 24 Subdivision Act 1988 and any other encumbrances shown or entered on the plan set out under DIAGRAM LOCATION below.

NOTICE Section 47(2) Heritage Act 1995 REGISTER NO. 1050 AC612091T 19/01/2004

NOTICE Section 47(2) Heritage Act 1995 REGISTER NO. 1050 AC612103P 19/01/2004

NOTICE Section 47(2) Heritage Act 1995 REGISTER NO. 1050 AC612117C 19/01/2004

AGREEMENT Section 173 Planning and Environment Act 1987 AE638010J 02/10/2006

DIAGRAM LOCATION

SEE PS540310W FOR FURTHER DETAILS AND BOUNDARIES

ACTIVITY IN THE LAST 125 DAYS

NIL

------END OF REGISTER SEARCH STATEMENT------

Additional information: (not part of the Register Search Statement)

Street Address: 3108 POINT NEPEAN ROAD SORRENTO VIC 3943

Title 11017/780 Page 1 of 2 Copyright State of Victoria. This publication is copyright. No part may be reproduced by any process except in accordance with the provisions of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) and for the purposes of Section 32 of the Sale of Land Act 1962 (Vic) or pursuant to a written agreement. The information is only valid at the time and in the form obtained from the LANDATA REGD TM System. None of the State of Victoria, LANDATA REGD TM System, Victorian Land Registry Services Pty. Ltd. ABN 86 627 986 396 as trustee for the Victorian Land Registry Services Trust ABN 83 206 746 897 accept responsibility for any subsequent release, publication or reproduction of the information.

OWNERS CORPORATIONS

The land in this folio is affected by OWNERS CORPORATION 1 PLAN NO. PS540310W

DOCUMENT END

Title 11017/780 Page 2 of 2 Copyright State of Victoria. This publication is copyright. No part may be reproduced by any process except in accordance with the provisions of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) and for the purposes of Section 32 of the Sale of Land Act 1962 (Vic) or pursuant to a written agreement. The information is only valid at the time and in the form obtained from the LANDATA REGD TM System. None of the State of Victoria, LANDATA REGD TM System, Victorian Land Registry Services Pty. Ltd. ABN 86 627 986 396 as trustee for the Victorian Land Registry Services Trust ABN 83 206 746 897 accept responsibility for any subsequent release, publication or reproduction of the information.

VOLUME 11017 FOLIO 781 Security no : 124086547096X Produced 12/11/2020 01:49 PM

LAND DESCRIPTION

Lot 5 on Plan of Subdivision 540310W. PARENT TITLES : Volume 09653 Folio 069 Volume 10379 Folio 726 Volume 10951 Folio 808 Created by instrument PS540310W 03/07/2007

REGISTERED PROPRIETOR

Estate Fee Simple Sole Proprietor APPLETREE SORRENTO PTY LTD of L21/333 COLLINS STREET MELBOURNE VIC 3000 AQ096976A 31/07/2017

ENCUMBRANCES, CAVEATS AND NOTICES

COVENANT AF707857E 11/03/2008

Any encumbrances created by Section 98 Transfer of Land Act 1958 or Section 24 Subdivision Act 1988 and any other encumbrances shown or entered on the plan set out under DIAGRAM LOCATION below.

NOTICE Section 47(2) Heritage Act 1995 REGISTER NO. 1050 AC612091T 19/01/2004

NOTICE Section 47(2) Heritage Act 1995 REGISTER NO. 1050 AC612103P 19/01/2004

NOTICE Section 47(2) Heritage Act 1995 REGISTER NO. 1050 AC612117C 19/01/2004

AGREEMENT Section 173 Planning and Environment Act 1987 AE638010J 02/10/2006

DIAGRAM LOCATION

SEE PS540310W FOR FURTHER DETAILS AND BOUNDARIES

ACTIVITY IN THE LAST 125 DAYS

NIL

------END OF REGISTER SEARCH STATEMENT------

Additional information: (not part of the Register Search Statement)

Street Address: 3110 POINT NEPEAN ROAD SORRENTO VIC 3943

OWNERS CORPORATIONS

Title 11017/781 Page 1 of 2 Copyright State of Victoria. This publication is copyright. No part may be reproduced by any process except in accordance with the provisions of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) and for the purposes of Section 32 of the Sale of Land Act 1962 (Vic) or pursuant to a written agreement. The information is only valid at the time and in the form obtained from the LANDATA REGD TM System. None of the State of Victoria, LANDATA REGD TM System, Victorian Land Registry Services Pty. Ltd. ABN 86 627 986 396 as trustee for the Victorian Land Registry Services Trust ABN 83 206 746 897 accept responsibility for any subsequent release, publication or reproduction of the information.

The land in this folio is affected by OWNERS CORPORATION 1 PLAN NO. PS540310W

DOCUMENT END

Title 11017/781 Page 2 of 2 Copyright State of Victoria. This publication is copyright. No part may be reproduced by any process except in accordance with the provisions of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) and for the purposes of Section 32 of the Sale of Land Act 1962 (Vic) or pursuant to a written agreement. The information is only valid at the time and in the form obtained from the LANDATA REGD TM System. None of the State of Victoria, LANDATA REGD TM System, Victorian Land Registry Services Pty. Ltd. ABN 86 627 986 396 as trustee for the Victorian Land Registry Services Trust ABN 83 206 746 897 accept responsibility for any subsequent release, publication or reproduction of the information.

VOLUME 11017 FOLIO 778 Security no : 124086547191U Produced 12/11/2020 01:52 PM

LAND DESCRIPTION

Lot 2 on Plan of Subdivision 540310W. PARENT TITLES : Volume 09653 Folio 069 Volume 10379 Folio 726 Volume 10951 Folio 808 Created by instrument PS540310W 03/07/2007

REGISTERED PROPRIETOR

Estate Fee Simple Sole Proprietor APPLETREE SORRENTO PTY LTD of LEVEL 21 333 COLLINS STREET MELBOURNE VIC 3000 AQ087571E 27/07/2017

ENCUMBRANCES, CAVEATS AND NOTICES

COVENANT PS540310W 03/07/2007

COVENANT AF707760V 11/03/2008

Any encumbrances created by Section 98 Transfer of Land Act 1958 or Section 24 Subdivision Act 1988 and any other encumbrances shown or entered on the plan set out under DIAGRAM LOCATION below.

NOTICE Section 47(2) Heritage Act 1995 REGISTER NO. 1050 AC612091T 19/01/2004

NOTICE Section 47(2) Heritage Act 1995 REGISTER NO. 1050 AC612103P 19/01/2004

NOTICE Section 47(2) Heritage Act 1995 REGISTER NO. 1050 AC612117C 19/01/2004

AGREEMENT Section 173 Planning and Environment Act 1987 AE638010J 02/10/2006

DIAGRAM LOCATION

SEE PS540310W FOR FURTHER DETAILS AND BOUNDARIES

ACTIVITY IN THE LAST 125 DAYS

NIL

------END OF REGISTER SEARCH STATEMENT------

Additional information: (not part of the Register Search Statement)

Street Address: 3118 POINT NEPEAN ROAD SORRENTO VIC 3943

Title 11017/778 Page 1 of 2 Copyright State of Victoria. This publication is copyright. No part may be reproduced by any process except in accordance with the provisions of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) and for the purposes of Section 32 of the Sale of Land Act 1962 (Vic) or pursuant to a written agreement. The information is only valid at the time and in the form obtained from the LANDATA REGD TM System. None of the State of Victoria, LANDATA REGD TM System, Victorian Land Registry Services Pty. Ltd. ABN 86 627 986 396 as trustee for the Victorian Land Registry Services Trust ABN 83 206 746 897 accept responsibility for any subsequent release, publication or reproduction of the information.

OWNERS CORPORATIONS

The land in this folio is affected by OWNERS CORPORATION 1 PLAN NO. PS540310W

DOCUMENT END

Title 11017/778 Page 2 of 2 Copyright State of Victoria. This publication is copyright. No part may be reproduced by any process except in accordance with the provisions of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) and for the purposes of Section 32 of the Sale of Land Act 1962 (Vic) or pursuant to a written agreement. The information is only valid at the time and in the form obtained from the LANDATA REGD TM System. None of the State of Victoria, LANDATA REGD TM System, Victorian Land Registry Services Pty. Ltd. ABN 86 627 986 396 as trustee for the Victorian Land Registry Services Trust ABN 83 206 746 897 accept responsibility for any subsequent release, publication or reproduction of the information.

VOLUME 11017 FOLIO 779 Security no : 124086551698V Produced 12/11/2020 03:41 PM

LAND DESCRIPTION

Lot 3 on Plan of Subdivision 540310W. PARENT TITLES : Volume 09653 Folio 069 Volume 10379 Folio 726 Volume 10951 Folio 808 Created by instrument PS540310W 03/07/2007

REGISTERED PROPRIETOR

Estate Fee Simple Sole Proprietor APPLETREE SORRENTO PTY LTD of LEVEL 21 333 COLLINS STREET MELBOURNE VIC 3000 AQ087671A 27/07/2017

ENCUMBRANCES, CAVEATS AND NOTICES

COVENANT PS540310W 03/07/2007

COVENANT AF707785D 11/03/2008

Any encumbrances created by Section 98 Transfer of Land Act 1958 or Section 24 Subdivision Act 1988 and any other encumbrances shown or entered on the plan set out under DIAGRAM LOCATION below.

NOTICE Section 47(2) Heritage Act 1995 REGISTER NO. 1050 AC612091T 19/01/2004

NOTICE Section 47(2) Heritage Act 1995 REGISTER NO. 1050 AC612103P 19/01/2004

NOTICE Section 47(2) Heritage Act 1995 REGISTER NO. 1050 AC612117C 19/01/2004

AGREEMENT Section 173 Planning and Environment Act 1987 AE638010J 02/10/2006

DIAGRAM LOCATION

SEE PS540310W FOR FURTHER DETAILS AND BOUNDARIES

ACTIVITY IN THE LAST 125 DAYS

NIL

------END OF REGISTER SEARCH STATEMENT------

Additional information: (not part of the Register Search Statement)

Street Address: 3106 POINT NEPEAN ROAD SORRENTO VIC 3943

Title 11017/779 Page 1 of 2 Copyright State of Victoria. This publication is copyright. No part may be reproduced by any process except in accordance with the provisions of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) and for the purposes of Section 32 of the Sale of Land Act 1962 (Vic) or pursuant to a written agreement. The information is only valid at the time and in the form obtained from the LANDATA REGD TM System. None of the State of Victoria, LANDATA REGD TM System, Victorian Land Registry Services Pty. Ltd. ABN 86 627 986 396 as trustee for the Victorian Land Registry Services Trust ABN 83 206 746 897 accept responsibility for any subsequent release, publication or reproduction of the information.

OWNERS CORPORATIONS

The land in this folio is affected by OWNERS CORPORATION 1 PLAN NO. PS540310W

DOCUMENT END

Title 11017/779 Page 2 of 2 Imaged Document Cover Sheet

The document following this cover sheet is an imaged document supplied by LANDATA®, Land Use Victoria.

Document Type Instrument Document Identification AF707819N Number of Pages 2

(excluding this cover sheet)

Document Assembled 28/11/2019 15:29

Copyright and disclaimer notice: © State of Victoria. This publication is copyright. No part may be reproduced by any process except in accordance with the provisions of the Copyright Act and for the purposes of Section 32 of the Sale of Land Act 1962 or pursuant to a written agreement. The information is only valid at the time and in the form obtained from the LANDATA® System. The State of Victoria accepts no responsibility for any subsequent release, publication or reproduction of the information.

The document is invalid if this cover sheet is removed or altered.

Attachment 5 Receipt of payment for Application