Bass Coast Planning Scheme

AMENDMENT C6 PERMIT No. 011172

PANEL REPORT

March 2003

Bass Coast Planning Scheme

AMENDMENT C6 PERMIT No.. 011172

PANEL REPORT

Malcolm Lee, Chairperson

Graeme David, Member

March 2003

Table of Contents

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...... 1

2. THE PANEL...... 3

2.1 PANEL APPOINTMENT...... 3 2.2 THE PLANNING AND RESPONSIBLE AUTHORITY...... 3 2.3 THE PROPONENT...... 3 2.4 PLANNING HISTORY ...... 3 2.5 THE AMENDMENT AND PERMIT AS EXHIBITED ...... 4 2.6 MODIFIED AMENDMENT ...... 4 2.7 EXHIBITION, NOTICE AND SUBMISSIONS ...... 5 2.8 PANEL HEARINGS ...... 5 2.9 DIRECTIONS ...... 5 2.10 APPEARANCES ...... 6 2.11 SITE VISITS ...... 6 2.12 STRATEGIC ASSESSMENT GUIDELINES...... 7 2.13 DOCUMENTS REFERRED TO ...... 7 3. THE PROPOSAL ...... 8

3.1 PLANNING HISTORY ...... 8 3.2 THE MODIFIED PROPOSAL TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE PANEL...... 8 4. EXISTING CONDITIONS ...... 10

4.1 SUBJECT LAND ...... 10 4.2 SURROUNDING LAND ...... 10 5. STRATEGIC FRAMEWORK...... 12

5.1 STATE PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK...... 12 5.2 LOCAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK...... 15 3.3 MINISTERIAL DIRECTION NO. 6 ...... 18 6. STATUTORY PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS...... 19

6.1 RURAL ZONE ...... 19 6.2 RURAL LIVING ZONE ...... 20 6.3 LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ZONE ...... 21 6.4 SCHEDULE 1 TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE OVERLAY...... 21 6.5 SCHEDULE 3 TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE OVERLAY...... 22 6.6 FUTURE ZONING OF THE LAND TO BE RESERVED ...... 22 6.7 PANEL RESPONSE TO STATUTORY CONSIDERATIONS...... 23

7. PLANNING ISSUES...... 24

7.1 LAND SUPPLY AND DEMAND ...... 24 7.2 EDGE OF TOWN ...... 26 7.3 ALLOTMENT SIZE AND DESIGN OF THE PROPOSAL ...... 29 7.4 AGRICULTURE ...... 36 7.5 ENVIRONMENTAL VALUES AND GIFTING OF LAND TO THE CROWN ...... 39 7.6 STORMWATER TREATMENT ...... 46 7.7 PROVISION OF INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES (ELECTRICITY, TELEPHONE, WATER) ...... 49 7.8 PROVISION OF INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES (SEWERAGE)...... 50 7.9 ACCESS ...... 59 7.10 COASTAL PLANNING...... 62

8. MINISTERIAL DIRECTION NO. 6...... 66

9. STRATEGIC ASSESSMENT GUIDELINES ...... 69

9.1 IS AN AMENDMENT REQUIRED?...... 69 9.2 WHAT IS THE STRATEGIC BASIS FOR THE AMENDMENT?...... 69 9.3 DOES THE PROPOSAL MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT ACT?...... 69 9.4 STATE PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK...... 70 9.5 LOCAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK...... 70 9.6 ZONES, OVERLAYS AND SCHEDULES...... 70 9.7 REFERRAL AUTHORITIES ...... 71 9.8 AMENDMENT OUTCOME ...... 71 10. CONCLUSIONS...... 72

11. PLANNING PERMIT ...... 75

12. RECOMMENDATIONS...... 82

Appendices

A. Instruments of Appointment B(1). Amendment as exhibited B(2) Exhibited Permit B(3) Revised draft permit submitted to the Panel C. List of submimtters D. Directions E. Letter from the Department of Prmary Industries dated 21 January 2003 F. Documents provided to the Panel G. Revised Plan of Proposed Subdivision

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Amendment C6 to the Bass Coast Planning Scheme as exhibited proposes to rezone a parcel of land about 2 km east from the Inverloch town centre and adjoining Screw Creek from the Rural Zone to the Rural Residential Zone. It proposes to amend the schedule to the Rural Living Zone to specify a minimum lot size of one hectare for the subject site. It also proposes to apply Schedule 3 of the Environmental Significance Overlay to the land containing bushland on the western part of the site and Schedule 1 of the Environmental Significance Overlay on the balance of the land.

Draft Permit N0. 011172 proposes the subdivision of the land into 22 lots ranging in size from 0.50 ha to 5.63 ha. It also proposes to create a reserve on land adjoining Screw Creek to be transferred to public ownership.

Subsequent to the exhibition period, the Council and the owner of the land negotiated an amended proposal which was put to the Panel at the hearing. The new proposal created a larger reserve to be gifted to the Crown containing all the treed area. It also proposed the creation of 31 lots ranging in size from 0.4 ha to 0.6 ha. The development of a wetland on a cleared part of the proposed reserve to allow treatment of storm water prior to discharge to Screw Creek was also included in the amended proposal.

The amended proposal overcomes some of the matters of concern to some submitters by the inclusion of all the treed area in the reserve. The Panel accepted the changed proposal as a reasonable modification of the original proposal and it is this modified proposal that was considered by the Panel. While Council had informed submitters prior to the directions hearing of the amended proposal and invited contact with Council officers, the Panel directed Council to give all submitters the opportunity to make further written submissions in relation to the changed amendment and permit application. This resulted in a number of further submissions.

The main concerns of submitters related to the possible impact of the proposed development on the conservation values of Screw Creek and its environs, and the related need to have all the treed area an the western end of the site added to the Screw Creek reserve. They were also concerned that the site was not suitable for rural residential development in that the land would not be able to adequately cope with discharges from septic tanks. Concerns were also expressed that the proposed development would not be consistent with the objectives of the State and Local Planning Policy Framework and the Victorian Coastal Strategy.

The Panel has read all the written submissions and has considered these and the evidence and verbal submissions presented at the hearing.

The Panel finds that the treed area which is proposed to be added to the Screw Creek reserve has significant environmental values and would make a valuable addition to the reserve. The Panel supports the proposal that this area be gifted to the State.

Bass Coast Planning Scheme Amendment C6 and Permit No. 011172 Panel Report: March 2003 1 The Panel finds, on the evidence before it, that the land in question would be capable of dealing with treated sewerage effluent in a way that would meet Environment Protection Authority and Council requirements. The proposed wetland to treat stormwater will ensure runoff from the proposed development will not impact adversely on Screw Creek in accordance with best practice management.

The Panel has examined the objectives and strategies contained in the State and Local Planning Policy Frameworks and the Victorian Coastal Strategy. The Panel is satisfied that approval of the proposal will not compromise the overall intent of these strategic policies.

The Panel concludes that the balance of net community benefit is in favour of the proposal. On this basis, the Panel has recommended that the amended proposal as presented to the Panel at the hearing be adopted and that the draft permit with the changes made by the Panel be issued.

Bass Coast Planning Scheme Amendment C6 and Permit No. 011172 Panel Report: March 2003 2 2. THE PANEL

2.1 PANEL APPOINTMENT Malcolm Lee and Graeme David were appointed as a Panel under sections 96B and 153 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 as amended (referred to below as 'the Act'). Malcolm Lee was appointed as the chair under section 155 of the Act. The Panel was appointed to hear submissions in relation to Amendment C6 to the Bass Coast Planning Scheme and draft permit No. 011172 using the combined amendment and permit procedure.

The two Instruments of Appointment are attached as Appendix A of this report.

2.2 THE PLANNING AND RESPONSIBLE AUTHORITY The planning authority for Amendment C6 was the Bass Coast Shire Council. That Council was also the responsible authority for Permit No. 011172. The municipality in both roles is referred to below as 'the Council'.

2.3 THE PROPONENT The proponent for the amendment and permit was Mr I.A. and Mrs E.J. Pellizzer, referred to below as 'the proponent'. The proponent is the owner of the subject land.

2.4 PLANNING HISTORY Several attempts have been made by the proponent over the last ten years to have the subject land rezoned. There has also been strong community pressure to have part of the land which adjoins Screw Creek added to the Screw Creek reserve. In 1997, Amendment L52 to the then Woorayl Planning Scheme was considered by a Panel. The Panel recommended that part of the land adjoining Screw Creek pass into public ownership and the remainder be subdivided into lots no smaller than 1.5 ha. After negotiations with the owner, the Council resolved to abandon that amendment.

The Panel makes it clear that it does not consider the lengthy history behind this proposal to be relevant to its deliberations. The fact that the proposal has a long history is regarded purely as an indication of the proponent’s persistence. This is a totally separate issue to the consideration of the proposal on planning grounds.

The Panel also comments that the consideration by the Panel that reported on Amendment L 52 took into account the Woorayl Planing Scheme which was the planning ordinance in place at the

Bass Coast Planning Scheme Amendment C6 and Permit No. 011172 Panel Report: March 2003 3 time. The current Panel will be assessing the proposal in the light of the Bass Coast Planning Scheme, a relatively new ‘New Format’ scheme based on the Victorian Planning Provisions.

2.5 THE AMENDMENT AND PERMIT AS EXHIBITED Amendment C6 to the Bass Coast Planning Scheme as exhibited proposes to: ƒ rezone the subject site from a Rural Zone to a Rural Living Zone; ƒ amend the Schedule to the Rural Living Zone to specify minimum lot sizes of one hectare for the subject site; ƒ insert Schedule 1 to the Environmental Significance Overlay (ESO1) over the balance of the land. ƒ insert Schedule 3 to the Environmental Significance Overlay (ESO3) over the land containing bushland and vegetation located at the western part of the site; Permit No. 011172 proposes: ƒ Subdivision of the land into 22 lots, ranging in size from 0.5 ha to 5.63 ha; ƒ The creation of a reserve on land adjoining and in proximity to Screw Creek to be transferred to public ownership; ƒ A draft planning permit with a range of conditions. A copy of the exhibited amendment is at Appendix B(1). Appendix B(2) contains the exhibited draft permit.

2.6 MODIFIED AMENDMENT Following exhibition of Amendment C6, Council advised the proponent that it did not support the amendment or planning permit application as exhibited. It sought agreement from the proponent to changes in the subdivision design to provide greater protection and enhancement of the natural environment with due consideration of the Screw Creek Nature Park proposal. Revised plans were submitted to Council, and considered on 16 October 2002. The changes to the proposal as exhibited were as follows: ƒ Removal of the superlot from the cleared oval parcel of land; (The 'superlot' was a lot of 5.6 ha adjoining Screw Creek and while cleared, was surrounded by native vegetation.) ƒ Placing no future freehold lots over land containing existing native vegetation. ƒ An increased number of lots on the eastern portion of land, resulting in 31 lots in total. These lots are all 4000 m2 (1 acre) or larger but are smaller in size on average than those in the original proposal; ƒ The creation of a 16.05 ha reserve, to be transferred to the Crown at no cost; ƒ The development of a wetlands system on a currently cleared portion of the future reserve to allow natural treatment of stormwater prior to its discharge to Screw Creek.

Bass Coast Planning Scheme Amendment C6 and Permit No. 011172 Panel Report: March 2003 4 It is this modified proposal that has been considered by the Panel. The decision of the Panel to accept the modified proposal was given in the Directions made following the Directions Hearing. (See Appendix D)

Appendix B(3) is a revised draft permit that was submitted by Council to the Panel.

2.7 EXHIBITION, NOTICE AND SUBMISSIONS The amendment was exhibited between 4 April 2002 and 6 May 2002.

As a result of the exhibition process, Council received 127 submissions. Five of these were from government authorities/statutory authorities.

Because of the modifications to the amendment as exhibited, the Panel directed that all submitters be given the opportunity to make further written submissions. As a result, a further eleven submissions were received. (See section 2.9 relating to Directions.)

A list of submitters is attached as Appendix C.

The main issues raised in submissions can be summarised as follows: ƒ Importance of Screw Creek and adjoining land as a conservation asset. ƒ Potential for development on the subject land to impact on Screw Creek. ƒ Acceptability of extension of the town boundary. ƒ Unsuitability of the site for rural residential development. ƒ The proposed development would not comply with the objectives and strategies in the State and Local Planning Policy Framework and the Victorian Coastal Strategy. ƒ The proposal does not conform with the recommendations of a previous Panel that considered, among other things, development of the subject land.

2.8 PANEL HEARINGS A Directions hearing was held on 5 December 2002 at the Bass Coast Shire Offices, McBride Street, Wonthaggi. The Panel hearing was held at the same venue on 22-24 January 2003.

2.9 DIRECTIONS At the Directions Hearing, the Panel made directions relating to the conduct of the Panel Hearing including the circulation of expert witness statements. The Panel also directed that submitters be given the opportunity to make further written submissions in relation to the modification of the exhibited amendment.

The Directions were circulated to those parties who requested to be heard. They are included with this report as Appendix D.

Bass Coast Planning Scheme Amendment C6 and Permit No. 011172 Panel Report: March 2003 5 2.10 APPEARANCES The following persons appeared in front of the Panel at the hearing:- ƒ Mr Kevin Hazell, Senior Strategic Planner, for Council ƒ Mr Ian Pitt, S.C., of Best Hooper Solicitors on behalf of the proponent. He called the following witnesses: − Dr Robert van de Graaff of van de Graaff & Associates Pty Ltd. − Mr Peter Krstic, Town Planning Manager of Beveridge Williams & Co. Pty Ltd − Mr Darren S. Powell, Director, of Beveridge Williams & Co. Pty Ltd. − Dr. Nicholas Somes, Manager, Water Quality and Environment, WBM Oceanics Australia. ƒ Mr David Sutton and Ms Wendy Davies for the Inverloch Residents and Ratepayers Association. ƒ Mrs Elisabeth Williams, assisted by Bronwyn Teesdale, and Jim and Anthea Whitelaw for the South Gippsland Conservation Society. ƒ Mr Martin Forster for Bernadette and John Forster. ƒ Mr John Cuttriss for Sophie and John Cuttriss. ƒ Ms Wendy Davies ƒ Ms Aileen Vening. ƒ Ms Christine Hamilton. ƒ Mr Jim Robinson. ƒ Ms Marion Kavenagh. At the Directions Hearing, the Panel directed Council to request the appearance at the Panel Hearing of a representative of the Department of Natural Resources and Environment (DNRE). On the first morning of the hearing, the Panel was notified that the DNRE officer/officers who had intended to attend were involved in bushfire related duties and asked to be excused. A letter to Council dated 21 January 2003 from the Acting Regional Manager for Gippsland was received. The Panel has accepted this submission from the Department. It is included as Appendix E.

The Panel has considered all verbal submissions and evidence presented to it.

2.11 SITE VISITS The Panel undertook a formal site visit on the morning of the second day of the hearing. It was accompanied on that visit by Council's representative, the proponent and a number of submitters. It viewed the site from Townsend Bluff Road and then inspected the area of native vegetation along Screw Creek, and parts of the Creek itself.

Bass Coast Planning Scheme Amendment C6 and Permit No. 011172 Panel Report: March 2003 6 The Panel, unaccompanied, also: ƒ viewed the site from Townsend Bluff Road prior to the Directions Hearing; ƒ inspected Screw Creek and its environs from its mouth to the subject land; ƒ inspected Townsend Bluff and the walking track to the Bluff to assess sight lines to the subject land; ƒ inspected land generally in the vicinity of the subject land.

2.12 STRATEGIC ASSESSMENT GUIDELINES The Panel has assessed the amendment and permit application against the Strategic Assessment Guidelines that are contained in a General Practice Note, November 2001.

The purpose of the Strategic Assessment Guidelines is to provide a consistent framework for the evaluation of a proposed planning scheme amendment and the outcomes it produces.

The Guidelines are designed to ensure that the strategic basis of the amendment has been established and that it supports and implements the State and Local Planning Policy Frameworks, and considers any relevant Ministerial Directions.

The Panel has taken into account the Guidelines and responded to them throughout the report. It has summarised its response in Section 9 of this report.

2.13 DOCUMENTS REFERRED TO The Panel has considered all the written submissions referred to it by Council. During the hearing, other documents were tendered to the Panel either as part of submissions, or at the request of the Panel. These documents are listed in Appendix F.

Bass Coast Planning Scheme Amendment C6 and Permit No. 011172 Panel Report: March 2003 7 3. THE PROPOSAL

3.1 PLANNING HISTORY The possible subdivision of the subject land and the conservation value of the treed area has been the subject of considerable discussion and negotiation going back over the last ten years. In 1997,a Panel Hearing relating to Amendment L52 to the then Woorayl Planning Scheme was conducted. The land involved in that Amendment included the land which is now the subject of Amendment C6. Amongst other things, that Panel recommended that the land east of Screw Creek (the subject land of this Amendment) be rezoned to "Rural Residential" which would have allowed permits to be issued for residential subdivision into lots with a minimum area of 1.0 ha subject to the achievement of an average area of not less that 1.5 ha. That Panel also recommended that:-

… any development of the land which may follow a rezoning would need to avoid the treed area particularly in the lower lying areas and along the Inverloch-Lower Tarwin Road. These areas have significant vegetation and need adequate protection and would best form part of a Public Open Space zone.

When arrangements could not be negotiated to transfer the treed land into public ownership, Council voted to abandon Amendment L52.

3.2 THE MODIFIED PROPOSAL TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE PANEL The proposal to be considered by the Panel varies from that which was exhibited following negotiations between the proponent and Council.

The proposal now is: ƒ to transfer an area of 16.05 ha to the Crown to form part of the Screw Creek Nature Reserve; ƒ rezone the remaining land, 13.39 ha, from the Rural Zone to the Rural Living Zone; ƒ subdivide the rezoned land into 31 lots ranging in size from 0.4 ha to 0.594 ha and averaging 0.432 ha. The land which is subject to the amendment includes part of the Townsend Bluff road reserve. The road reserve is currently approximately 40 m wide with approximately 20 m fenced into the subject land. The proponent has indicated the intention to acquire part of the road reserve for inclusion in the subdivided lots which abut Townsend Bluff Road. The Panel notes a submission from the Department of Natural Resources and Environment (10 May 2002) and a later letter to Council from the (new) Department of Primary Industries (21 January 2003) which indicate the Department's views that the possible acquisition of part of the road reserve should not form part of

Bass Coast Planning Scheme Amendment C6 and Permit No. 011172 Panel Report: March 2003 8 scheme amendment, but should be dealt with separately under section 12A of the Land Act 1958. The Panel shares this view and makes no comment on whether the acquisition should or should not proceed. The Panel notes, however, that should the acquisition not proceed that some realignment of lot boundaries and possible reduction in the number of lots may be necessary to retain a minimum lot size of 0.4ha.

The modified plan submitted to the Panel (see Appendix G) shows a subdivision of 31 lots. No lot will have direct access to Tarwin Lower Road and a narrow reserve on the subject land and adjoining the Tarwin Lower Road reserve has been proposed to prevent direct access. A curved internal road running between Tarwin Lower Road and Townsend Bluff, and two blind court roads running off the connecting road will provide access to most of the lots. Lots 1-8 would have access direct to Townsend Bluff Road.

It is proposed to construct a wetland in the reserve land adjoining lots 23 and 24. Stormwater run- off from the subdivided area would be channelled through this wetland which would act as a "filter" before the water is discharged into Screw Creek.

The land which it proposed to transfer to the Crown contains remnant native vegetation abutting Screw Creek. Community groups, Council and the Department of Natural Resource and Environment have been active in protecting and maintaining the lower reaches of Screw Creek because of its conservation values. These parties have indicated support for the addition of the treed part of the subject land to form part of the Screw Creek Nature Park. To compensate for the proposed "gift" of the treed land to the Crown, the proponent seeks to maximise his return by having a larger number of smaller lots than had originally been proposed.

Bass Coast Planning Scheme Amendment C6 and Permit No. 011172 Panel Report: March 2003 9 4. EXISTING CONDITIONS

4.1 SUBJECT LAND The land which is the subject of this amendment is Crown Allotment 13B, Parish of Drumdlemara, County of Buln Buln, and part of the Townsend Bluff Road Reservation. It is 29.44 ha in area.

The site is located about 2 km east of the Inverloch township centre.

The land is wedge-shaped. It is bounded to the north by the Tarwin Lower Road. The south-east boundary is Townsend Bluff Road which intersects with the Tarwin Lower Road at the eastern end of the land. The western boundary is the stream side reserve of Screw Creek. (See Appendix G)

The eastern part of the site slopes from east to west. Surface cover is mainly introduced and native grass species. The western part is generally flat and not as well drained. This part of the site contains a mature stand of native vegetation dominated by eucalypt species.

There is a farm shed, water tank and cattle yards with access from the Tarwin Lower Road. The whole of the site is currently grazed with beef cattle.

The present zoning of the land is Rural.

4.2 SURROUNDING LAND The following description of the surrounding land was provided by Council with in its submission to the Panel and has been confirmed by the Panel:- ƒ Land to the north - To the immediate north is Inverloch-Tarwin Lower Road which is in a Road Zone Category 1. Land across Inverloch-Tarwin Lower Road is zoned Rural and is used for agricultural purposes. ƒ Land to the south - Land to the south includes a 14-lot subdivision known as the Townsend Bluff Estate which is in a Rural Living Zone. These lots are on average 1.5 ha in size. The Public Conservation & Resource Zone covers other land to the south. This land is managed by Parks Victoria. ƒ Land to the east - Land to the east is Rural Zoned land and is currently used for agriculture. ƒ Land to the west - Screw Creek is immediately to the west of the subject site and is included in a Public Conservation & Resource Zone. The creek corridor averages over 60 metres in width along the boundary of the subject site. Land further to the west is

Bass Coast Planning Scheme Amendment C6 and Permit No. 011172 Panel Report: March 2003 10 zoned Residential 1. This land is not currently developed. Council's waste transfer station is also located to the west of the subject site.

Bass Coast Planning Scheme Amendment C6 and Permit No. 011172 Panel Report: March 2003 11 5. STRATEGIC FRAMEWORK

The Panel is required to consider the proposed Amendment in relation to relevant strategic policies. The Panel has identified the following that are relevant to its considerations:- ƒ State Planning Policy Framework ƒ Local Planning Policy Framework ƒ Ministerial Direction No. 6 ƒ Victorian Coastal Strategy 2002 and Coastal Action Plan – Integrated Coastal Planning for Gippsland. The Panel is aware that there is a wide range of objectives contained in these policies. Individual objectives may appear in some instances to be in conflict with other objectives. It is the Panel's role to determine which policies and objectives are relevant to the matter under consideration, and then to balance the conflicting objectives in favour of net community benefit and sustainable development.

The Council and the proponent in their submissions to the Panel noted a number of policies and objectives that they considered to be relevant. The Panel has considered these, but has also further selected from the various strategic policies other objectives which it considers also are relevant. The material in this section details the relevant objectives that are important in assessing the impact of the proposal.

This Section of the report details the various policies and objectives that are relevant to the proposal. In Section 7 the Panel discusses how the proposal relates to the policies and objectives.

5.1 STATE PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK The State Planning Policy Framework (SPPF) is common to all Planning Schemes in the State.

Clause 11 outlines the expectation that policies relevant to the issue under consideration need to be integrated and balanced in favour of net community benefit and sustainable development.

Clause 14 considers Settlement and has the objective of ensuring

… a sufficient supply of land is available for residential, commercial, industrial, recreational, institutional and other public uses.

It also indicates that planning authorities should accommodate projected population growth over a ten-year period.

Bass Coast Planning Scheme Amendment C6 and Permit No. 011172 Panel Report: March 2003 12 Clause 15 relates to the Environment and the protection, and where possible, restoration of catchments, waterways, water bodies, groundwater, and the marine environment.

Clause 15.01.2 indicates that the impact of catchment management should be considered by responsible authorities, and where possible should encourage: ƒ The retention of natural drainage corridors with vegetated buffer zones at least 30m wide along waterways to maintain the natural drainage function, stream habitat and wildlife corridors and landscape values, to minimise erosion of stream banks and verges and to reduce polluted surface run-off from adjacent land uses. ƒ Measures to minimise the quantity and retard the flow of stormwater run-off from developed areas. ƒ Measures, including the preservation of floodplain or other land for wetlands and retention basins, to filter sediment and wastes from stormwater prior to its discharge into waterways. Clause 15.08 deals with coastal areas. The objective in coastal areas is to assist the protection and maintenance of significant environmental features and sustainable use of natural coastal resources. Planning authorities must have regard to any Victorian Coastal Strategy and any relevant coastal action plan. In this case, Victorian Coastal Strategy 2002 and the Gippsland Coastal Action Plan are applicable.

Clause 15.09 deals with conservation of native flora and fauna. It has the objective: To assist the protection and conservation of biodiversity, including native vegetation retention and provision of habitats for native plants and animals and control of pest plants and animals. It indicates that decision-making by planning authorities should, amongst other things: ƒ assist the protection of conservation values of national parks and conservation reserves and ƒ assist re-establishment of links between isolated habitat remnants. Planning authorities are required to ensure that any changes in land use or development would not adversely affect the habitat values of wetlands and wetland wildlife habitats designated under the Convention on Wetlands of International Importance (the Ramsar Convention) or utilised by species designated under the Japan-Australia Migratory Birds Agreement (JAMBA) or the China-Australia Migratory Birds Agreement (CAMBA). Clause 16.03 deals with rural living and rural residential development. It has the objective of identifying land suitable for rural living and rural residential development.

Bass Coast Planning Scheme Amendment C6 and Permit No. 011172 Panel Report: March 2003 13 In 16.03.2 - General Implementation it states that

Minister's Direction No 6, Rural Residential Development applies to the preparation of planning scheme amendments to allow rural residential development.

Land should only be zoned for rural living or rural residential development where it: ƒ Is located close to existing towns and urban centres, but not in areas that will be required for fully serviced urban development. ƒ Can be supplied with electricity and water and good quality road access. Land should not be zoned for rural living or rural residential development if it will encroach on high quality productive agricultural land or adversely impact on waterways or other natural resources. Clause 17.05 deals with agriculture. The objective is to retain and protect the State's bank of high quality agricultural land. Relevant factors in the implementation of this objective are:

Land capability is a fundamental factor for consideration in rural land use planning. Planning authorities should consult with the Department of Natural Resources and Environment and utilize available information to identify areas of high quality agricultural land.

In considering a proposal to subdivide or develop agricultural land, the following factors must be considered: ƒ The desirability and impacts of removing the land from primary production, given its agricultural quality and productivity. ƒ The impacts of the proposed subdivision or development on the continuation of primary production on adjacent land, with particular regard to land values and to the viability of infrastructure for such production. ƒ The compatibility between the proposed or likely development and the existing uses of the surrounding land. ƒ Assessment of the land capability. Clause 18.09 deals with water supply, sewerage and drainage. The objective is:

To plan for the provision for water supply, sewerage and drainage services that efficiently and effectively meet state and community needs and protect the environment.

To implement this objective:

Urban development must be provided with sewerage at the time of subdivision, or lots created by the subdivision must be capable of adequately treating and retaining all domestic wastewater within the boundaries of each lot consistent with the Code of Practice - Septic Tanks (EPA 1996) and relevant State environment protection policies.

Bass Coast Planning Scheme Amendment C6 and Permit No. 011172 Panel Report: March 2003 14 Planning and responsible authorities should ensure that: ƒ planning for urban stormwater drainage systems considers the catchment context and is coordinated with adjacent municipalities; ƒ best environmental management practice is used where practicable in the design and management of urban stormwater drainage systems, including measures to reduce peak flows and assist screening, filtering and treatment of stormwater, to enhance flood protection and minimise impacts on water quality in receiving waters; ƒ drainage systems are protected where practicable from the intrusion of litter, in accordance with strategies set out in Victoria's Litter Reduction Strategy (EPA 1995)

5.2 LOCAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK The Local Planning Policy Framework (LPPF) provides the local strategic content of the planning scheme and is specific to the Bass Coast Shire. The LPPF is in two parts - the Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS) and Local Planning Policies.

5.2.1 Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS) The MSS is found at Clause 21 of the Bass Coast Planning Scheme.

Clause 21.02 provides a profile of the municipality. It indicates that the local economy is primarily based on dairying and beef farming, and on tourism.

It is projected that the Shire's population will rise from 21 248 (1996 Census) to 26 200 by the year 2011 and 29 200 by 2021. It is estimated that only 50% of the Shire's 17 000 dwellings are occupied on a permanent basis reflecting the popularity of the area as a holiday destination.

Key issues which have emerged in submissions and in the Panel's consideration of the evidence placed before it are: ƒ settlement and rural residential development ƒ protection of the natural environment. These issues are dealt with consistently throughout the MSS. The Panel below has selected the more pertinent parts of the MSS which relate to these issues. They are also considered in some depth in Section 7 of this report.

5.2.1.1 Settlement and rural residential development In Clause 21.03-1, there is a reference to "the oversupply of vacant residential and low density residential lots".

Bass Coast Planning Scheme Amendment C6 and Permit No. 011172 Panel Report: March 2003 15 Despite this, Council predicts:

Pressure from landowners to subdivide into low density residential and rural lots is expected to place considerable pressure on Council's urban consolidation policy. (Cl.21.03-3)

Council's vision in relation to settlement sees:

Clear boundaries between urban and rural areas.

Fully serviced residential and low density residential development within defined town boundaries.

No extension to the boundaries of isolated residential and low density residential estates.

Limited expansion of low density residential housing on the periphery of towns. (Cl.21.04)

Objectives which are relevant seek:

To provide adequate residential land in each town to accommodate anticipated population growth.

To consolidate urban development within existing urban boundaries separated by rural land. (Cl. 21.05-1)

Strategies which Council proposes include: ƒ Strongly discourage expansion of all urban areas into the rural land that separates townships. ƒ Strongly discourage rural living and low density residential development to locate in areas that compromise the future development of town. Rural living and low density residential development should be located on the periphery of, but be functionally part of, existing urban settlement. ƒ Require all new residential and low density residential development to connect to all available reticulated services. Where reticulated sewerage is not available, it should be demonstrated that all effluent can be effectively treated and disposed of on-site. (Cl.21.01) Council indicates that these strategies will be implemented by a number of measures including: ƒ Applying how Low Density Residential Zone over all land developed or committed for low density residential development on the periphery of the urban areas at … ƒ Applying the Rural Living Zone over all land developed or committed for rural living development that are generally isolated or physically separated at … (Cl. 21.05) Clause 21.05-3 deals with housing and has a specific section relating to rural living and low density residential development.

Bass Coast Planning Scheme Amendment C6 and Permit No. 011172 Panel Report: March 2003 16 Relevant issues recognised by Council include: ƒ Pressure to subdivide rural land into rural living and low density residential lots. ƒ Maintenance of existing urban consolidation policy. ƒ Over-supply of existing rural living and low density residential lots throughout the municipality. ƒ Impact on the environment. ƒ Protection of high quality agricultural land in viable rural holdings. The MSS at Cl. 21.05-3 has objectives directly relating to these issues and has adopted strategies which are similar to those in Clause 21.05-1.

Clause 21.05-5 deals with infrastructure and the section on physical infrastructure has objectives which include: ƒ To have reticulated water and sewerage available to all urban areas. ƒ To have adequate drainage services. ƒ To provide an appropriate level of physical infrastructure in new subdivisions. Strategies to meet these objectives include: ƒ Require all new residential and low density residential development to connect to all available reticulated services. ƒ Require full street construction and drainage works for all new residential and low density residential subdivisions. ƒ Encourage the incorporation of urban stormwater quality management (ie. retention, treatment, wetlands etc.) into future, and where practicable, existing urban subdivisions.

5.2.1.2 Protection of the natural environment Clause 21.02-3 recognises the importance of Screw Creek and its estuary, Anderson Inlet and Western Port Bay as natural resources.

A section on environmental hazards includes the following:

Stormwater drainage is a concern … Disposal of effluent from other residential areas not connected to sewerage, and low density residential development is a major problem in the municipality, which impacts on the water quality of Western Port Bay and inland waterways.

This issue is again raised in Clause 21.03-2.

Bass Coast Planning Scheme Amendment C6 and Permit No. 011172 Panel Report: March 2003 17 The objectives relating to natural resources and in Cl. 21.05-2 ƒ To effectively manage the Shire's biologically diverse natural environment as an ecologically sustainable resource for present and future generations. ƒ To facilitate development which does not impact or conflict with the quality and sensitivity of the natural environment. One of the strategies which is relevant to the matter before the Panel is to protect and enhance nature conservation reserves in the Screw Creek and Little Screw Creek environs. Another strategy indicates that all development in proximity to the coastline should be either connected to reticulated sewerage or an approved on-site effluent disposal system.

5.2.2 Local Planning Policies There is only one Local Policy that is relevant to the proposal. Clause 22.02 deals with fire safety and wildfire hazard. Its objectives are: ƒ To ensure that new land use or development does not increase the level of fire risk. ƒ To ensure that new land use or development includes adequate fire protection measures.

5.3 MINISTERIAL DIRECTION NO. 6 Ministerial Direction No. 6 deals with rural residential development. It applies to the subdivision of land into one or more lots which have an area of between 0.4 hectares and 2.0 hectares if the lot is or the lots are intended primarily for a residential use.

When preparing an amendment that would have the effect of allowing rural residential development, a planning authority must: ƒ Comply with Guidelines for Rural Residential Development, October 1997 prepared by the Department of Infrastructure. ƒ Include in the explanatory report for the amendment, a report showing how the amendment complies with Guidelines for Rural Residential Development. The Panel deals with the material necessary to assess the proposal in terms of the Guidelines in Section 7 of this report and provides its summation of the proposal’s compliance with the Guidelines in Section 8.

Bass Coast Planning Scheme Amendment C6 and Permit No. 011172 Panel Report: March 2003 18 6. STATUTORY PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS A number of statutory considerations arise from the Victorian Planning Provisions (VPP) as applied and proposed to be applied in the Bass Coast Planning Scheme.

This section of the report examines: ƒ The Rural Zone as currently applied to the amendment and permit site. ƒ The Rural Living Zone as proposed to be applied to the subject land. ƒ The Low Density Residential Zone. ƒ The Environmental Significance Overlay No. 1 to be applied to the land to be developed. ƒ The Environmental Significance Overlay No. 3 to be applied to the treed land to be reserved. ƒ The future zoning of the land to be reserved. A purpose which is common to all zones and overlays is:

To implement the State Planning Policy Framework and the Local Planning Policy Framework, including the Municipal Strategic Statement and local planning policies.

The Panel has considered this purpose, but will not discuss that purpose in this Section.

6.1 RURAL ZONE (CLAUSE 35.01) The specific purposes of this zone are:

To provide for the sustainable use of land for Extensive animal husbandry (including dairying and grazing) and Crop raising including Horticulture and Timber production).

To encourage:

• An integrated approach to land management.

• Protection and creation of an effective rural infrastructure and land resource.

• Improvement of existing agricultural techniques.

• Protection and enhancement of the bio-diversity of the area.

• Value adding to agricultural products at source.

• Promotion of economic development compatible with rural activities.

• Development of new sustainable rural enterprises.

Bass Coast Planning Scheme Amendment C6 and Permit No. 011172 Panel Report: March 2003 19 To ensure that subdivision promotes effective land management practices and infrastructure provision.

The schedule to the zone does not specify a minimum subdivision area so the default size of 40 ha applies. Clearly, if the proposal was to proceed, the Zone would not be appropriate.

6.2 RURAL LIVING ZONE (CLAUSE 35.03) The Amendment as exhibited proposes to apply the Rural Living Zone to the subject land. Council also proposed a schedule to the zone relating to this piece of land which specified a minimum subdivision area of 1 ha. The default minimum subdivision area is 8 ha if no area is specified in the schedule.

The specific purposes of this zone are:

To encourage:

• An integrated approach to land management.

• Protection and creation of an effective rural infrastructure and land resource.

• Improvement of existing agricultural techniques.

• Protection of the bio-diversity of the area.

• Value adding to agricultural products at source.

• Promotion of economic development compatible with rural living activities.

• Development of new sustainable rural enterprises.

To ensure that subdivision promotes effective land management practices and infrastructure.

The emphasis in this zone is on residential use in a rural environment. While it may have been applicable to the Amendment as exhibited, the Panel holds the firm view that it is not the appropriate zone to be applied in the revised proposal being considered by the Panel. The revised proposal will see lots varying in size from 0.4 ha to 0.6 ha. Under the revised proposal, opportunity for productive agriculture would disappear and the lots would be, in effect, large house blocks.

The Panel notes the adjoining land to the south of Townsend Bluff Road is zoned as Rural Living but lots in this development average 1.5 ha.

6.3 LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ZONE (CLAUSE 32.03) This zone nests with four other Residential Zones as distinct from the Rural Zone and the Rural Living Zones which nest in a group of Rural Zones.

Bass Coast Planning Scheme Amendment C6 and Permit No. 011172 Panel Report: March 2003 20 The specific purpose of the Low Density Residential Zone is:

To provide for low-density residential development on lots, which, in the absence of reticulated sewerage, can treat and retain all wastewater.

A permit is required to subdivide land and the minimum lot size is 0.4 ha.

One dwelling can be built on each lot without a permit subject to meeting conditions in Cl 32.03-1 relating to provision of sewerage, water supply and electricity. Note that the Environmental Significance Overlay discussed below picks up the requirement for a permit for a dwelling.

After considering the modified proposal, the Panel's view is that the Low Density Residential Zone is the most appropriate zone. This view was discussed at the hearing as a possible recommendation that could be made by the Panel. Council and the proponent agreed with the view of the Panel.

6.4 SCHEDULE 1 TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE OVERLAY (CLAUSE 42.01) Council proposes that this overlay be applied to the land to be developed for residential purposes. The specific purpose of this overlay is:

To identify areas where the development of land may be affected by environmental constraints.

To ensure that development is comparable with identified environment values.

Schedule 1 to the Environmental Significance Overlay (ESO1) applies to coastal areas in the Shire. The environmental objectives to be achieved are:

• To ensure that development is compatible with the environmental sensitive coastal area.

• To protect and enhance wetlands and waterbird habitat.

• To conserve and enhance the environmental quality of the coastal area.

• To protect and enhance the natural beauty of the coastal landscape.

• To protect and enhance the visual amenity and landscape of the coastal area.

• To minimise the risk of erosion, pollution and destruction by fire.

The decision guidelines for ESO1 are extensive and aimed at ensuring the objectives are met.

The Overlay requires a permit to be obtained to construct a dwelling (among other things).

Bass Coast Planning Scheme Amendment C6 and Permit No. 011172 Panel Report: March 2003 21 This Overlay and schedule has been used extensively in the coastal areas of the Shire and the Panel considers its use appropriate.

6.5 SCHEDULE 3 TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE OVERLAY (CLAUSE 42.01) This Overlay has been applied to significant flora and fauna habitats in the Shire. The Amendment as exhibited, proposed to apply it to the part of the treed area adjoining Screw Creek. The modified proposal which is being considered by the Panel applies the Overlay to a larger area which includes all the treed area and the open area in the west which is surrounded by trees. This is the area which is proposed to pass to the Crown.

The environmental objectives to be achieved are:

• To protect and enhance sites of botanical and zoological significance, remnant indigenous vegetation and wetlands to conserve biological diversity.

• To protect and conserve the diverse, significant flora and fauna habitats from development which may threaten environmental quality and characteristics.

• To minimise the impact of development on the natural environment and landscape quality of the area.

• To encourage development consistent with any management plan for a particular area.

This Overlay is applied to the stream reserve on Screw Creek from the Tarwin Lower Road to the mouth of the Creek. It is also applied to the public land adjoining Screw Creek south from the subject land to the coast. The extension of the Overlay to the proposed reserve land is appropriate.

This Overlay will provide protection to the area of the subject land that has conservation values and the Panel supports its use.

6.6 FUTURE ZONING OF THE LAND TO BE RESERVED The proposed amendment as exhibited showed all the subject land, that is the whole of CA 13B, Parish of Drumdlemara, to be rezoned as Rural Living Zone. The amended proposal now being considered has 16.05 ha being transferred to the Crown. Should this transfer take place, the Rural Living Zone would no longer be appropriate.

Land to the south of the proposed transfer land is currently zoned Public Conservation and Resource Zone (PCRZ). The specific purposes of this zone are:

To protect and conserve the natural environment and natural processes for their historic, scientific, landscape; habitat or cultural values.

Bass Coast Planning Scheme Amendment C6 and Permit No. 011172 Panel Report: March 2003 22 To provide facilities which assist in public education and interpretation of the natural environment with minimal degradation of the natural environment or natural processes.

To provide appropriate resource based uses.

Without having heard evidence in relation to the possible future zoning of the "reserve", the Panel believes that a Public Conservation and Resource Zone would be appropriate once the land passes to the Crown.

6.7 PANEL RESPONSE TO STATUTORY CONSIDERATIONS The Panel recommends the following zones and overlays for the subject land.

Low Density Residential Zone be applied to that part of the land shown on the revised plan as land to be used for residential development.

Public Conservation and Resource Use Zone be applied to that part of the land which is to be transferred to the Crown, i.e. the balance of the subject land.

Schedule 1 to the Environmental Significance Overlay be applied to the land shown on the revised plan as land to be used for residential development, i.e. the Low Density Residential Land.

Schedule 3 to the Environmental Significance Overlay be applied to the land to be transferred to the Crown, i.e. the Public Conservation and Resource Use Land.

Bass Coast Planning Scheme Amendment C6 and Permit No. 011172 Panel Report: March 2003 23 7. PLANNING ISSUES In this Section of the report, the Panel discusses and draws conclusions about the various issues raised in submissions. It also discusses these issues in relation the relevant strategic policies that were identified in Section 5 of the report.

7.1 LAND SUPPLY AND DEMAND

7.1.1 The current situation The Panel received conflicting anecdotal evidence that land for housing in the Inverloch area is either in plentiful supply (i.e. by objectors) or in high demand. Council, the proponent and other The Panel received conflicting anecdotal evidence that land for submitters did not provide substantiated evidence to support respective arguments. The Panel has therefore needed to draw from other documents, its own observations, and knowledge of local and other coastal area trends.

The Bass Coast Rural and Rural Residential Strategy of 1998 identified that there were 517 vacant rural residential allotments (0.4-4.0 ha) in the Shire, mostly located in or near townships, and including 43 at Inverloch. It further stated that as there was an adequate supply of rural residential land available, no available rural residential land should be made available at that time, and any future development should be directed to specific areas and should comply with certain specified conditions.

No subsequent information on these or other allotments is available. The Strategy includes the following principles within a longer list for consideration in future rural residential development: ƒ Recognition of the current supply and distribution of available rural residential land. ƒ Recognition of the rate of development of rural residential land.

7.1.2 The proponent

The proponent noted that the land between Screw Creek and the developed Inverloch township is all zoned residential and that it is being progressively developed. It was proposed that while the Planning Scheme indicates that planning authorities ‘should plan to accommodate projected population growth over at least a 10 year period’, the rate at which such land becomes available for residential development depends on a range of factors. These include the preparedness of landowners to release land onto the residential market from other uses. During the Panel proceedings it was indicated that the proponent owns several undeveloped allotments on the Townsend Bluff Estate, and that he receives in the order of two potential purchase enquiries per month regarding that land. The proponent also owns Residential 1 Zone land west of Screw Creek that is not yet developed. Confidence was expressed that land released for sale from the proposed development would be in demand.

Bass Coast Planning Scheme Amendment C6 and Permit No. 011172 Panel Report: March 2003 24 7.1.3 The Council The Council supports the proposal on the basis of land supply and demand as expressed against SPPF and LPPF Clauses in the following table

SPPF Clause Council opinion 14.01: Planning for The current Bass Coast MSS highlights a general oversupply of rural Urban settlement living and low-density residential lots. Whilst no definitive assessment has been undertaken recently it is apparent that the MSS in this regard is now out of date … and that the supply of rural living and low-density lots, particularly within and in proximity to the Shire’s townships, is considerably more limited. 16.03: Rural living and The proposal is consistent with this clause as follows: rural residential • The subject site is located close to the existing township Inverloch development township but this land cannot be serviced with reticulated sewerage and therefore is not likely to required for fully serviced development • The subject land can be supplied with electricity and water and good quality road access * • The subject site is not deemed to be classed as high quality agricultural land and should not adversely impact on any waterways or other natural resources. LPPF Clause 21.05-1: Urban Council opinion is as for SPPF 14.01 above. settlement 21.05-3: Rural Living The Council considers that existing urban boundaries are maintained and Low Density Rural through the subject land being sited against the Rural Residential-zoned Residential Townsend Bluff Estate. development Source: Council formal submission to Panel Hearing. * Panel note: Water connection is not being proposed.

7.1.4 Referral agencies Referral agencies do not oppose the proposal on the basis of land supply and demand.

7.1.5 Other submitters Community and private submitters generally argued that there is an adequate residential land supply already available in the Inverloch area, the proposed development is not required, and environmental damage is likely to result from the density of allotments being proposed.

7.1.6 Panel comment The Panel can only consider the supply and demand issue to the extent that information is available, and is largely dependent on the Council’s knowledge of and judgement on these matters. However, the Panel moved extensively around the Inverloch area during the panel sitting days. It noted that active development is occurring into the land zoned Residential between Inverloch and the subject land, and is also actively occurring west of the township. One developed allotment on Townsend Bluff estate was also on the market. Sale notices were evident within the town proper but it did not appear that these were in abundance.

Bass Coast Planning Scheme Amendment C6 and Permit No. 011172 Panel Report: March 2003 25 The MSS projects that the Shire’s population will increase from 21,248 (1996 Census) to 26,000 and 29,200 by 2011 and 2021 respectively. This is the best indicator that substantial growth is likely. It is also reported that approximately half of the residences in the Inverloch areas are not lived in permanently, thus indicating the area’s popularity as a holiday location. This information is consistent with the Panel’s awareness that demand for and land values of land in Victorian coastal areas generally have increased dramatically. This is particularly the case near the coastal foreshore.

As the subject land is within walking distance and almost in sight of the beach it is clear that land in this location could well be desired by a portion of the public. The Panel does not have knowledge of, nor was it presented with, substantiated data on the sizes of allotments being sought nor of their desired distance from town services (shops, banks, medical facilities etc). However there are few allotments of the size proposed by this development (0.4ha) in the Inverloch area, and the size would provide owners with space for privacy.

The Panel also noted that development infill is occurring west of the developed township into the Residential Zone land, and that some new houses are being constructed in the town on the sites of demolished houses. The Panel was also informed that application for further subdivision of land west of the road to the Inverloch transfer station into 800 m2 allotments is currently with VCAT.

Despite the above discussion, the Panel received no evidence that the proposal is being demand driven.

The Panel concludes that that residential allotments of the type proposed would be in some demand.

7.2 EDGE OF TOWN

7.2.1 The current situation The triangular-shaped subject land is adjoined by land subject to three different zones. ƒ To the immediate west of Screw Creek is land zoned Residential (R1Z) contiguous with the Inverloch township. This land is open farmland currently unoccupied by residential development. Under its current Residential zoning the land could in due course become occupied by residential development right up to Screw Creek which forms the western boundary of the subject land. ƒ To the immediate south and south east, across Townsend Bluff Road, the subject land adjoins the low density residential Townsend Bluff Estate zoned Rural Living (RLZ). This land is situated on higher land overlooking Anderson Inlet to the south and inland, to farmland to the north, and is subdivided to an average allotment size of 1.5 ha. Most of the allotments have been developed with single dwellings and associated infrastructure. One of the allotments contains Bed and Breakfast-type accommodation which the Panel understands to contain a main dwelling and three cabin type B&B facilities.

Bass Coast Planning Scheme Amendment C6 and Permit No. 011172 Panel Report: March 2003 26 ƒ Land east Townsend Bluff (and hence east of the subject land) between the Inverloch- Tarwin Lower Road and Anderson Inlet, is Rural zoned land that has also been divided into mixed lot sizes but is still used for agriculture. ƒ To the immediate north and north-east, and across the Inverloch-Tarwin Lower Road the subject land adjoins open broadacre farmland zoned Rural. Both the Inverloch-Tarwin Lower and Townsend Bluff Roads are sealed. The former is a main through road. The latter is a minor ‘dead end’ street that primarily takes local traffic and some visitor traffic.

The subject land therefore exists as an enclosed triangle of land between land in different directions currently or destined for three different primary uses.

7.2.2 The proponent The proponent proposes that the developed Townsend Bluff Estate defines the natural eastern extent of the township boundary. Its use is residential rather than rural, and the proponent argues that the subject land: ƒ does not project further eastward than the Townsend Bluff Estate ƒ sits behind the Townsend Bluff estate relative to Anderson Inlet and by its triangular shape merges with it. The proponent also suggests that coastal strip land immediately east (as per the third dot point above) may already provide for rural residential development.

7.2.3 The Council The Council opinion on this matter coincides with that relating to the supply and demand for land, and is again summarised in the following table. LPPF Clause 21.05-3: Rural Living The Council considers that existing urban boundaries are maintained through and Low Density the subject land being sited against the Rural Residential-zoned Townsend Rural Residential Bluff Estate. development Source: Council formal submission to Panel hearing. The Council further proposes that while it does not have detailed structure plans for the Shire’s townships including Inverloch, the site’s location is not inconsistent with the Council’s settlement policies, and it is appropriate to consider a change of land use from rural to urban on the subject land. The Council further submits that: ƒ the presence of urban settlement east of Screw Creek has already defined this area as being part of the long-term urban area of Inverloch. and ƒ the subject land does not extend the urban area of Inverloch but in fact completes the urban development of this area, a process started with the Townsend Bluff Estate …

Bass Coast Planning Scheme Amendment C6 and Permit No. 011172 Panel Report: March 2003 27 In its concluding paragraph, the Council submitted that one of three outcomes of the amendment and permit application would be the provision of a definitive long-term boundary to the township of Inverloch.

7.2.4 Other submitters Various submitters proposed that the Screw Creek and its associated bushland, being immediately to the east of the currently undeveloped residential boundary of the town, defines the natural township boundary. They proposed that the subject land, being east of this point, is outside the natural township boundary.

7.2.5 Panel comment The Panel considers that both arguments have some merit. If land to the east of Screw Creek (i.e. Townsend Bluff Estate) was not developed and not already subject to low-density and rural- residential use, the community submitters’ position could be clearly supported. However, the following points weaken the argument. ƒ The proposed development extends to, but not beyond, the eastern end of the Townsend Bluff Estate. ƒ The Townsend Bluff Estate fully ‘shields’ the subject land from the coast. ƒ The subject land is the only land south of the Inverloch-Tarwin Lower Road to the eastern end of the Townsend Bluff Road, not zoned for residential use ƒ All land north of the Inverloch-Tarwin Lower Road is zoned Rural and is held in large properties. It can therefore equally be argued on geographic grounds that it would be an anomaly to retain the subject land under a rural zoning. The Panel is inclined to support the position of the proponent, however a final conclusion needs to be considered in balance with a range of other issues. These include: ƒ the merit in retaining the land under a rural use zoning from a production perspective; ƒ landscape issues; ƒ impact on the Screw Creek and environs including the proposed gifting of land to the state; and ƒ traffic and associated safety implications. These matters are discussed in the following Sections of this report.

The Panel concludes that definition of the appropriate location to the edge of town is not clear-cut and needs to be considered together with other issues to form an opinion ‘on balance’.

Bass Coast Planning Scheme Amendment C6 and Permit No. 011172 Panel Report: March 2003 28 7.3 ALLOTMENT SIZE AND DESIGN OF THE PROPOSAL

7.3.1 The current situation The proposal under consideration is for 31 allotments ranging in size from 4000 m2 to 5940 m2 and averaging 4240 m2. This differs from the advertised proposal. As discussed in Section 2.5, the advertised proposal differed in that the total land area proposed for subdivision into rural residential lots was greater and included part of the land now proposed for gifting to the Crown. The advertised proposal involved 22 larger lots averaging 1.05 ha.

The current proposal therefore sits within the charter of Ministerial Direction No 6 which requires regard be given to appropriate strategic considerations and to land suitability for the development purpose.

7.3.2 The proponent The proponent’s representative informed the Panel that the current configuration and size of allotments is not negotiable. This is not taking into account that the outcome of the proposal to purchase a hearing 20 metre strip of the 40 metre wide Townsend Bluff Road reserve currently fenced into the proponent’s land (which is not at issue under the Panel process) could impact on the final outcome. It is argued that in context of the gifting of 16.05 ha to the Crown, the subsequent development of the 31 proposed allotments is critical to the financial viability of the project.

The proponent also argued that the average lot size should be considered as that arrived at by dividing the total area of the subject land, including that proposed for gifting to the Crown. This produces 31 allotments at an average size of approximately 9000m2, or 0.9 ha, (or 0.87 ha for 32 lots including the gifted land), compared with the 4240 m2 average area of the actual allotments.

7.3.3 The Council The Council considers that Ministerial Direction No 6 ‘has generally been complied with.’ The following table summarises its position relevant to allotment size, against the SPPF and the LPPF.

SPPF Clause Council opinion 14.01: Planning for The current Bass Coast MSS highlights a general oversupply of rural living Urban Settlement and low density residential lots. While no definitive assessment has been undertaken recently, it is apparent that the MSS in this regard is now out of date in this matter and the supply of rural living and low density lots, particularly within and in close proximity to the Shire’s townships, is considerably more limited. 16.03: Rural Living The proposal is consistent with this clause as follows: and Rural Residential • The subject site is located close to the existing township of Inverloch but development this land cannot be serviced with reticulated sewerage and therefore is not likely to be required for fully serviced development • The subject site can be supplied with electricity and water and good quality road access • The subject site is not deemed to be classified as high quality agricultural land and should not adversely impact on any waterways or other natural resources

Bass Coast Planning Scheme Amendment C6 and Permit No. 011172 Panel Report: March 2003 29 18.09: Water supply, The subject site adequately meets the objective of this clause in part as follows: sewerage and Information submitted with the amendment shows that the land can adequately drainage treat wastewater effluent in accordance with the requirements of the EPA LPPF Clause 21.05-1 Urban As for SPPF Clause 14.01 (above) Settlement 21.05-3 Rural Living The section of the Shire submission headed ‘Strategic Justification’ (see and Low Density below) has responded to the issue of maintaining existing urban boundaries Residential and the MSS statements about rural living development. Development

The Council also noted the following:

… It is clear that the size of these small lots is contrary to the recommendation of the Panel which investigated the former Amendment L52.

However, this proposal specifically seeks to ensure that the subject site does not end in a “stalemate” over issues such as the transfer of the future reserve to the Crown or the cost of such a transfer by providing for the eastern part of the site to be developed more densely. This increased density is clearly being provided as a balance against the transfer of the future reserve to the Crown at no cost.

Whilst it is not the role of the planning system to seek out trade-offs that are not in the public interest, it is appropriate for the planning system to seek out a balance. Therefore, in the circumstances where the subject site is suitable for urban development and the specific proposal does advance many objectives of the Bass Coast Planning Scheme, reaching a balanced outcome between the “conservation” western part of the site and the “development” eastern part of the site is appropriate if the overall outcome is of overall community benefit.

Whilst many different stakeholders (including many submitters) will come to their own conclusions about the extent of any overall community benefit associated with the current proposal, the question Council was forced to ask itself it this: - Does the benefit of the future reserve outweigh the disbenefit of having a density of development on the balance of the land greater than might otherwise be the case?

To attempt to answer this question Council must be satisfied that the developed part of the land can cater for the density proposed. To this end, the crucial consideration is waste water disposal and stormwater runoff. …

As noted under discussion on sewerage treatment in Section 7.8, the Council is satisfied, based on the evidence before it, that lots of the size proposed can adequately treat wastewater without any detriment to the natural environment. It states a similar position regarding stormwater management off the site and concludes the following:

As Council has before it evidence that appears to confirm that the density of development can be adequately addressed and catered for, it has concluded that this proposal may be worthy of support given the benefit associated with the creation of the reserve. It does however fall short of outright support for the proposal at this

Bass Coast Planning Scheme Amendment C6 and Permit No. 011172 Panel Report: March 2003 30 stage on the basis that the recommendations of this independent Panel are a crucial piece of information necessary before Council finalises its position.

7.3.4 Referral agencies The Central Coastal Board (30 May 2002) does not refer explicitly to allotment sizes, but requests consideration be given to land capability, environment protection of Screw Creek, and planning principles to ensure the orderly planning of the land between Inverloch and Townsend Bluff.

Southern Rural Water, and the CFA did not comment on allotment size. South Gippsland Water also does not comment on allotment size but notes that it cannot provide reticulated water to the site. This would have bearing if dams were to be required to service domestic consumption needs, but as discussed under services provision this is not generally considered an issue within Inverloch’s rainfall zone.

The EPA as discussed later under the provision of services, referred to the requirement to ensure that allotments created must be capable of adequately treating and retaining all domestic wastewater. It further notes that before Council could issue a permit the EPA will need to satisfy itself over the above issue.

The Department of Infrastructure (DoI) discusses strategic level issues. In commenting on the advertised proposal, it referred to the Council’s MSS settlement and housing strategies, noting that the minimum lot size for new subdivision within Rural Living Zones should be 8 hectares to discourage further subdivision in this zone. It proposed that given the proximity of the Townsend Bluff Estate as Rural Living Zone land to the subject land justification needs to be given why a higher density should be allowed on the subject land.

DoI further states that the MSS’s Housing strategies for Rural Living and low density residential development are not generally supportive of the type of subdivision proposed in that they strongly discourage: ƒ rural living and low density residential subdivision outside existing town boundaries except in accordance with approved restructure plans; and ƒ low density residential development in areas of high quality natural environment or landscape significance It notes that due to the MSS recognition of the ecological significance of the Screw Creek environs, it is important to demonstrate that ecologically sustainable residential development can be supported. This in turn requires demonstration that the proposed development density will not result in effluent disposal and stormwater drainage adversely impacting on Screw Creek’s water quality.

DoI also states that attention needs to be given the Guidelines for Rural Residential Development , October 1997.

Bass Coast Planning Scheme Amendment C6 and Permit No. 011172 Panel Report: March 2003 31 7.3.5 Other submitters Community organisations and individual submitters criticised the proposed allotment size mainly on the following bases: ƒ Smaller allotments are contrary to the recommendations of the 1997 L52 Panel report, which concluded that the land now proposed for subdivision should be zoned Rural Residential rather than Rural Living A (i.e. zones in the previous Planning Scheme), and should be subject to the same density as Townsend Bluff rather than the currently proposed 0.4 ha. ƒ Landscape impact of such densities in a currently rural area. ƒ Smaller allotments are out of character with the neighbouring Townsend Bluff Estate. ƒ Potential for treated effluent not to be contained on site and to impact on terrestrial and aquatic biodiversity values ƒ Inferred impact of additional population density on the Screw Creek environs A further concern was that approval of the proposed allotment sizes would create expectations that the same could be applied to land east and south of the site.

Arguments behind these proposals are discussed under other sections and are not elaborated upon here.

Submitters also refer to the South West Gippsland Coastal Towns Strategy which contains the following specific recommendation regarding the subject land.

… That land between the east side of Screw Creek and the Townsend Bluff subdivision be rezoned to provide for a lot size smaller than that of Townsend Bluff (i.e. 1-2 ha) subject to the resolution of the important environmental issues, particularly stormwater runoff, native vegetation protection, water course and water availability. (page 16)

Comment was not made on the specific design of the proposal, but several submitters inferred that it does not follow that limiting the proposal to small lots would necessarily result in a higher financial return to the proponent.

7.3.6 Panel comment The Panel has devoted considerable thought to this issue, and the following comments are structured on the above submitter issues.

Landscape impact The Panel notes that ‘Screw Creek and Townsend Bluff Estuary’ is listed as an ‘Identified Landscape’ in the Bass Coast Shire Rural and Rural Residential Strategy 1998. The boundaries relevant to this listing are not defined.

Bass Coast Planning Scheme Amendment C6 and Permit No. 011172 Panel Report: March 2003 32 The Panel has viewed the subject land from all available positions. This includes from the beach, from within the Screw Creek Reserve including the Townsend Bluff walking track, from the Inverloch-Tarwin Lower Road, from the eastern side of the Inverloch township and from Townsend Bluff Road. The following observations were made: ƒ The subject land is generally lower than the Townsend Bluff Estate land and the developments on the Estate would generally overlook the subject land. Almost without exception land adjacent to Townsend Bluff Road in the Estate’s developed lots is planted to trees and shrubs, and from the residences on the Estate, the development on the subject land is unlikely to be prominent and in most instances will not be visible. ƒ The Panel notes that most of the houses built on the Estate have been built to take advantage of views to the south over Anderson Inlet and that views to the north would be secondary. ƒ The subject land is not and cannot be visible from the foreshore, nor from almost any location inside the current Screw Creek Reserve, and from within a large part of the subject land that is proposed for gifting to the Crown for reservation. ƒ A small portion only of the land proposed for subdivision development is visible from a 70 metre length of the Townsend Bluff walking track within the current Screw Creek Reserve area. In keeping with statements from the South Gippsland Conservation Society about the importance of maintaining a strong vegetation edge to the Reserve to buffer against dust and seed drift from adjoining lands, the area between the track and the fence with the adjoining lots has been planted with trees and shrubs. Within a short time (possibly 2-3 years) views onto the subject land from this length of walking track will be obliterated, and viewing from the track will be directed to the west across the Screw Creek Reserve until that view is also obliterated by emerging revegetation. Further, the Panel considers that the current view of the subject land from the walking track is at a distance and of a significantly small section of the development site that it will have negligible impact on the visual experience from the track generally. The Inverloch-Tarwin Lower Road reserve adjacent to the subject land is heavily vegetated and is afforded high conservation status. The subject land is virtually not visible when travelling on the road. The establishment of a further narrow reserve in the subject site adjacent to the road reserve to prevent access from lots onto the Road will add to this screening over time.

The subject land is not visible from the residential zoned land to the west of Screw Creek, nor from the broadacre farming land to the immediate north.

The Panel also notes that while landscape impact is an important consideration, retention by individuals of an unaltered landscape in a mixed land use setting is not a right in itself.

The Panel also notes the Bass Coast Shire Design and Siting Guidelines for Coastal and Hinterland Areas 1999 as a reference document to the Planning Scheme. The Guidelines note the visual prominence of Townsend Bluff and the objective to minimise visual impact of development on the surrounding coastal and rural landscape. For the Townsend Bluff area generally, it provides five main guidelines covering height, design, and construction materials of buildings, and proposes that the planting of indigenous vegetation and landscaping be strongly encouraged to screen any

Bass Coast Planning Scheme Amendment C6 and Permit No. 011172 Panel Report: March 2003 33 new development, particularly on Townsend Bluff where development ‘can be seen from many kilometres away’. This visual prominence does not apply to the subject land.

As stated above the Panel considers that the subject land has very limited external visibility. This can be further minimised through the application of the Design and Siting Guidelines. The Panel therefore considers that landscape impact is not relevant to the setting of minimum allotment sizes over the subject land.

The Panel concludes that development of the subject land will be visible only from Townsend Bluff Road. It does not consider that the development proposal has significant landscape impact nor that the setting of 1.5 ha or 0.4 ha average allotment sizes is significant as a landscape issue in this situation.

Compatibility with Townsend Bluff Estate The Panel does not necessarily accept that the 1.5 ha minimum average lot size as at Townsend Bluff is the appropriate model for the subject area. The main argument put to the Panel over this was that the larger size has more capacity to absorb treated effluent. It was also inferred that it has preferred landscape implications. The effluent issue is discussed in Section 7.8. The landscape issue was discussed above.

The Panel notes the following: ƒ An argument has been advanced by the proponent that 0.4 ha is an adequate size for effluent absorption in this location. It will also be a requirement that EPA is satisfied with the ability of allotments to contain treated effluent on site prior to the Council issuing a permit for development. ƒ While Townsend Bluff Estate is a highly visible area, as confirmed in the Council’s Design and Siting Guidelines, this does not apply to the subject land. ƒ There is no established basis that confirms that 1.5 ha subdivisions provide a better visual impact than smaller sized low density lots, particularly where sound project design and allotment development specifications are put in place. ƒ An argument could be advanced that considerable areas of land within lot sizes of 1.5 ha remain virtually unused for any purpose and that the size is wasteful of space. It can also be argued that 0.4 ha or thereabouts, provides ample space for most residential needs including shedding and recreation (eg tennis court), while also providing for landscaping and privacy, and that such allotment sizes are less wasteful of space. ƒ One developed lot on the Townsend Bluff Estate is currently operating as a Bed and Breakfast establishment, containing at least three independent cabin developments allowable under the current planning scheme. This in effect provides for increased development density on Townsend Bluff beyond that which is generally current. On the basis of the above discussion linked with that of landscape issues, the Panel finds it difficult to identify a need to establish a consistent ‘character’ with the Townsend Bluff Estate which is on a very different landform and landscape type.

Bass Coast Planning Scheme Amendment C6 and Permit No. 011172 Panel Report: March 2003 34 The Panel concludes that subject to satisfaction that treated effluent can be contained on site, it is difficult to identify a justifiable basis for requiring a consistent ‘character’ with the Townsend Bluff Estate.

Containment of treated effluent This matter is fully discussed in Section 7.8.

The important issue regarding allotment size is the outcome of whether or not treated effluent will be retained on site regardless of the allotment size. The EPA makes it clear that its satisfaction on this issue is a condition to be included in a permit for subdivision.

The Panel concludes that if the EPA is satisfied that the outcome of no off-site release of treated effluent can be achieved there is no basis to require that allotments be larger than identified in the proposal.

Population density The Panel was informed during the hearing by the Inverloch Residents and Ratepayers Association (IRRA) representative that the Screw Creek reserve currently attracts about 50 000 people per annum and that the gifting of part of the subject land to the Crown for creation of the Screw Creek Nature Park will increase visitation to the Screw Creek environs. This was stated in general context of the proposed development contributing a net environmental benefit. The Council also presented projected growth figures for the Shire identified elsewhere in this report, and the IRRA proposed that Inverloch house ownership is about 50:50 across permanent residents and holiday house owners.

It is clear from the above that substantial visitation increases are likely to occur to the Screw Creek environs regardless of the level of development permitted on the subject land. It is apparent from this that the management of the Nature Park will be a more important factor than whether 30,20 or no homes are built on the subject land. The Panel is guided on this by the response from the Department of Primary Industries, which states that Parks Victoria will manage the reserve, and supports the current proposal.

The Panel concludes that population associated with lot sizes is not a significant issue for the sustainability of the proposed Screw Creek Nature Park.

In consideration of the above issues in this section the Panel concludes that subject to EPA satisfaction that treated effluent can be contained on lots created from the proposal, there is no physical, landscape, or environmental sustainability argument to support a requirement for a minimum average lot size of 1.5 hectares in preference to the proposed 0.4 ha minimum.

Subdivision design The Panel considers the design of the subdivision component of the proposal to be unimaginative and based on the maximum number of lots able to be fitted into the area, rather than good design

Bass Coast Planning Scheme Amendment C6 and Permit No. 011172 Panel Report: March 2003 35 principles. This was more or less conceded by the proponent in stating that the viability of the proposal is dependent on approval of number of lots proposed, given that a sizeable portion of the land is proposed for gifting to the Crown.

Good design principles should be based on the compatibility with the features of the land and the development of a community identity. The first of these is relatively easily catered for on the subject land, which is relatively forgiving. While there are two distinct land forms on the site the transition between them is not sharp, and as stated elsewhere the lower wetter portion of the land can be well protected by an adequate formal drainage system such as that being proposed.

The Panel does not have access to intelligence on whether or not larger allotments would return more or less return per hectare than smaller lots at this site, but is aware that as a general rule increasing the size of lots is not accompanied by proportionately higher sale prices.

On the issue of promoting a sense of community through layout design, some limitations conceivably apply to a development of the scale of that proposed, and it is highly likely that because of its small size and partially isolated location that a sense of community will generate itself. Nonetheless the Panel considers that the current design of the proposal would do nothing to contribute to this. It provides road access into and out of the area for landowners but little else.

As noted elsewhere, the number of allotments able to be developed will need to be reduced should the Department of Sustainability and Environment determine to not sell half of the two chain width of the Townsend Bluff Road reserve to the proponent for incorporation into the design. Another ‘external’ force for change to allotment size and hence subdivision design, would occur should the EPA not be satisfied with the effluent disposal potentials prior to the issue of a planning permit. The first of these is not likely to force a significant change, but the latter could do so by requiring the development of larger lots. This may also lead to abandonment of the project.

The Panel does not consider that the subdivision design is a matter that has precedence in its final conclusions. It does believe however that potential exists for a better subdivision design. The Panel cannot be more specific on this matter but proposes that there may be value in further discussion between the proponent and the Council.

The Bass Coast Design and Siting Guidelines for Coastal and Hinterland Areas does not adequately deal with the issue of broader subdivision design.

The Panel concludes that the subdivision design has been dictated more by the number of lots able to be fitted to the site rather than by good design principles, and that there is an opportunity to provide a design more sensitive to the requirements of the site and community expectations.

7.4 AGRICULTURE

7.4.1 The current situation Section 17.05 of the SPPF seeks to ensure that the State’s agricultural base is protected from the unplanned loss of high quality agricultural land.

Bass Coast Planning Scheme Amendment C6 and Permit No. 011172 Panel Report: March 2003 36 The land is currently zoned and used for agriculture (grazing). Under an agricultural rating system for land developed and used by the (former) Department of Agriculture and applied in this area through a report by that Department, the land is rated as Class 3A in a five class rating system (i.e. moderate suitability for agriculture). Under this system, best quality agricultural land, which is highly fertile and contains no limitations for agricultural use, is rated 1, while land with very poorly suitability for agriculture for any of a range of reasons including high slope or high rock covering, is rated 5. No argument was proposed against the Class 3A rating although the Panel clarified that Class 3A land is merely a descriptive category within Class 3, not a poorer quality designation within Class 3 as put by Council and the proponent.

7.4.2 The proponent The proponent submitted that the subject land as a 29.44 ha parcel separated from other agricultural land by the Inverloch Tarwin-Lower Road is too small to be retained as a viable agricultural entity in its own right. The proponent further presented that retention of the land, including the vegetated Screw Creek environs, under agricultural use is more deleterious to the stability and water quality of the creek than would be the case under rural residential use. This matter is discussed in a later section.

7.4.3 The Council The Council wrongly proposes that Class 3A land is of lower agricultural capability than Class 3. It nonetheless identifies that the land is not classed as high quality agricultural land. Its overall position is summarised in its following responses to SPPF and LPPF agricultural policy requirements. SPPF Clause Council opinion 17.05: Note: The following statement summarises the Council’s stated position on Agriculture this matter, and is not a direct quote. Protection of the State’s agricultural base against the unplanned loss of high quality agricultural land is catered for by the following: • While the land is deemed good for grazing and dairying it is deemed not to be of high agricultural value, • The land is of inadequate size to allow for a productive and viable farming enterprise to be maintained into the long-term, particularly given the subject site’s size and close proximity to existing and future surrounding urban land. • It is unlikely that the land is locally or regionally significant. • The proposal to reserve the uncleared land would further reduce the area of the land available for farming • The proposal is not inconsistent with the Shire’s settlement policies. LPPF Clause 21.05-3: Rural While the site is currently (or has been ) used for grazing the proposal is consistent Living and Low with this clause given the following: Density • The land is not classed as high quality agricultural land Residential • The size of the lot makes it questionable as to whether this land could be Development viable on its own for a productive agricultural enterprise (Retention of • The subject site is neither agriculturally significant in the local context or the viable rural regional context holdings on high • The constraints of the site (existing vegetation which should not be cleared, quality interface with the waterway, close proximity to existing and future agricultural land) surrounding urban development) would make this site a particularly difficult one to farm

Bass Coast Planning Scheme Amendment C6 and Permit No. 011172 Panel Report: March 2003 37 21.05: Same opinion as for SPPF Clause 17.05 Agriculture (above) Agriculture

The Council also considers that site constraints (i.e. existing vegetation that should not be cleared, interface with the waterway, close proximity to existing and future surrounding urban development) would make the site ‘a particularly difficult one to farm.’

7.4.4 Referral agencies The DNRE proposed the following in its letter of 21 January 2003 to the Panel.

The land apart from being cleared in its eastern portion is relatively unimproved for pastoral purposes and has not been subject to systematic development of pasture for the purpose of intensive grazing. The area of the site available for agricultural purposes is not large by local standards and is not viewed by the Department as having significant potential to be of high value for pastoral or other likely agricultural purposes. The rezoning of the land from Rural Zone to rural Living Zone is not viewed as significantly diminishing the productive capacity of the Rural Zone locally or generally.

7.4.5 Other submitters Objecting submitters were generally more concerned about what would be developed on the agricultural land, and the potential effects of the proposed development on the Screw Creek and its environs, than on the loss of productive land. Their premise was that the Screw Creek environs should be fenced off to prevent cattle access, and that preference would be for the remainder of the land to be retained under agriculture. This is primarily due to expressed concern regarding a perceived potential inability of the residential land to absorb treated effluent, and the submitters’ proposition that agricultural use is less likely to impact on water quality and terrestrial ecological values of the Screw Creek environs than residential development.

It was also submitted that the western part of the subject land is low-lying and subject to water logging. The Inverloch Residents and Ratepayers Association proposed that this is evident from the vegetation types, and by the ‘large numbers of waterbirds that use the area for feeding.’

7.4.6 Panel comment The Panel considers that planning decisions should not remove land from agriculture lightly, irrespective of its quality. However it also considers that the subject land does not have a future as a viable stand-alone parcel of agricultural land. It is too small to sustain a viable broadacre enterprise irrespective of its inherent quality.

As the land is almost totally cleared of native vegetation except for that portion proposed to be gifted to be State, the remaining native vegetation provides a valuable asset for shade and shelter for stock (currently cattle). Animals will naturally congregate in the remnant vegetation area to

Bass Coast Planning Scheme Amendment C6 and Permit No. 011172 Panel Report: March 2003 38 shelter from wind and sun. This was occurring during the Panel inspection of the site conducted during hot conditions.

The Panel also agrees that the lower western end of the cleared land proposed for subdivision is likely to be subject to wetness through portions of the year. However, this is neither insurmountable nor a main issue relating to the land’s potential, as such wetness can easily be rectified at this location under either agricultural or residential use, by an effective drainage system.

Under the above agricultural scenario, the future of the land would most likely be limited to use either as a dryland holding paddock with some production value to supplement other farming enterprises, or as a hobby farm probably supporting a residence and associated built infrastructure and services. Most of the currently pastured land would be likely to remain under pasture, probably grazed by cattle or horses. The encroachment of residential development adjacent to the site also increases potential for problems for farm animals from stray or roaming domestic animals.

Stock movement to and from adjacent lands if part of a larger farming enterprise would be hampered by the combination of the small size of the allotment and its position against the Inverloch-Tarwin Lower Road.

It is also clear that while land values were not indicated to the Panel, the value of the land for non- agricultural pursuits being so close to Inverloch, would greatly exceed its value for broadacre agricultural use. The value of the full allotment would most probably be enhanced by the presence of the remnant native vegetation. These factors will almost inevitably result in the land regularly being the subject of subdivision proposals into the future.

Therefore the Panel considers that as the subject land is a discrete allotment in its own right, its use into the future as a component of a larger farming enterprise is most unlikely.

The land is also unlikely to be suited for use under intensive agriculture for a range of reasons. These include the proximity of current and future residential development, and associated concern regarding issues such as spray drift onto and from nearby residential land, and difficulties regarding the movement of vehicles onto and from the site.

The Panel concludes that the subject land is not high quality agricultural land and is not of sufficient area size to support an ongoing viable agricultural enterprise in its own right.

7.5 ENVIRONMENTAL VALUES AND GIFTING OF LAND TO THE CROWN

7.5.1 The current situation The land proposed to be gifted to the Crown is approximately 16 ha. It is predominantly covered by treed bushland, except for an area the size of a cricket oval in its centre. (In previous proposals, the cleared area and some of the surrounding vegetated area was to be sold as a discrete allotment.) The land has been open to stock for a long period and is currently accessible to cattle.

Bass Coast Planning Scheme Amendment C6 and Permit No. 011172 Panel Report: March 2003 39 It contains many old remnant trees and from the Panel’s inspection and from submissions, it clearly contains an abundance of wildlife.

The vegetated Screw Creek environs generally, including the existing Screw Creek Reserve abutting the subject land downstream to the south, is highly valued within the region. Most streamside vegetation in the wider region has been cleared. The vegetated land in the streamside is also covered by an Environmental Significance Overlay – Schedule 3 under the Bass Coast Shire Planning Scheme.

DNRE describes the native vegetation values as follows:

The area mainly supports Damp Sands Herb-rich Woodland and Ecological Vegetation Class (EVCs) considered vulnerable within the Gippsland Plain Bioregion. Its intact stand of native habitat has considerable value for fauna conservation, due to its condition, age class and the low incidence of weeds.

Damp Sands Herb-rich Woodland is poorly represented in the protected are a system particularly along the Bass Coast. The only other occurrences within this are at Wonthaggi, within the Wonthaggi Heathlands Nature Conservation Reserve (approx 3ha) and Wonthaggi State Coal Mine Historic and Cultural Features Reserve 1.5h ) …

The South Gippsland Conservation Society added further biodiversity information: ƒ The EVC type is vulnerable due to historic clearing trends, and the vegetation is the only remaining remnant of Messmate/Sweet Bursaria Woodland remaining in South Gippsland and is a vital breeding ground for many birds. ƒ It forms a buffer to the estuary of Little Screw Creek and the mangrove and estuarine plant community present. ƒ The vegetation on the roadside along the Inverloch–Tarwin Lower Road for the full length of the northern boundary of the property has been given high conservation status, and few roadsides in the Bass Coast Shire have such status. ƒ The Screw Creek through the subject land is tidal and is edged with mangroves and other aquatic breeding vegetation. ƒ The area is rich in birdlife. Screw Creek has a gazetted 20 metre wide Permanent Public Reserve (Water Frontage) abutting the subject land. The agricultural grazing licence that existed over the water frontage was cancelled in August 1998 in an effort to prevent further grazing of the frontage. However, the DNRE in its submission of 10 May 2002 proposed that construction of a fence on the Reserve boundary would result in the destruction of vegetation, and that ‘in view of the reduced grazing pressure in the recent past, this would be seen as counter-productive’.

As a grazed remnant, the vegetation is in exceptionally good condition. Much of it has full canopy cover and strong undergrowth except in main cattle congregation points.

Bass Coast Planning Scheme Amendment C6 and Permit No. 011172 Panel Report: March 2003 40 It has been and is, subject to proposals to establish a Screw Creek Nature Park incorporating both the current reserve and the private land now proposed for gifting to the State. Various unsuccessful attempts have been made to obtain Government funding for creation of the Park, and the Council has previously offered to purchase the land. Creation of the Park would involve fencing off the land and cessation of grazing. The Panel was provided with a proposal on this subject.

The proponent did not provide a botanical report on the land as it appears unanimously agreed by interested parties that gifting will provide a biodiversity net benefit that will enhance rather than diminish biodiversity values. Nonetheless, at the Directions Hearing, the Panel requested more information on the significance of the area to the Region. Comment on this is incorporated into the following discussion.

7.5.2 The proponent The proponent is offering to gift the land to the State, but in so doing has increased the number of lots applied for under the subdivision from 22 including part of the area of the land now proposed for gifting, to 31 smaller allotments. The apparent trade-off was proposed by the proponent as being non-negotiable in that it is claimed that if the full number of allotments is not approved the subdivision, and hence the gifting of the land, will not proceed.

The proponent put to the Panel that the gifting will generate a range of benefits including the removal of cattle from the site and subsequent buffering against diminishing water quality. This is supported by an expert witness statement by Dr Robert van de Graaff, which is discussed under the headings of Provision of Services, and Storm Water Treatment. In short, Dr van de Graaff proposes that the removal of stock from the area and the use at each residence of an Aerated Wastewater Treatment System (AWTS) for sewerage treatment, will reduce pollution and nutrient loading to Screw Creek and subsequently, to Anderson Inlet.

7.5.3 The Council The Council acknowledges the environmental value of the site and supports its gifting on the following SPPF and LPPF bases: SPPF Clause Council opinion 15.01: Creation of a public reserve along most of the extent of the Creek and potential Protection of for revegetation portions of the proposed reserve will protect the Screw Creek catchments waterway waterways and groundwater 15.07: The area is not in an area of any known fire risk Protection from Wildfire 15.08: Coastal The proposal will: areas • protect the significant environmental features of the subject site, and lock into place a long-term sustainable solution to an areas that has a long history of unresolved planning and environmental issues, and does not prejudice any long-term objective • bring about a net gain in the quantity and quality of the public estate along the coast as encouraged by the Victorian Coastal Strategy

Bass Coast Planning Scheme Amendment C6 and Permit No. 011172 Panel Report: March 2003 41 15.09: The proposal provides protection for all existing trees on site, through their Conservation of placement into a public reserve and the ability for substantial revegetation native flora and fauna LPPF Clause 21.05-1: Urban The proposal provides for development that is responsive to and interactive with settlement the natural environment, by providing for significant environmental features into the future public reserve. Also the proposed wetlands system will add to the area’s environmental diversity. 21.05-2: The proposal protects and enhances natural environmental values by providing Natural for setback of allotments from the creek, the creation of the proposed public Resources reserve, the protection of all trees on site, and replanting potential. 21.05-2: The proposal protects against water and soil resource deterioration by setback of Environmental allotments from the creek, the creation of the creek reserve, protection of current hazards vegetation, providing adequately for wastewater treatment in accordance with EPA guidelines, and provision of the wetlands filtration system, and providing for waterway restoration and revegetation. 21.05-3: Rural The proposal will minimise impact of low density residential development via the Living and Low factors identified in the above category discussions Density Residential development

7.5.4 Referral agencies DNRE is the main referral agency regarding biodiversity values. Its submission of 10 May 2002 noted that amendments of this type must only provide for rural residential use of land which is not within 200 metres of Crown Land, including stream reserves unless the Regional Manager of the Department specifies a lesser buffer.

The DNRE letter of 10 May 2002 further states the following:

The passing of management of the native vegetation areas to DNRE would consolidate management of native vegetation within the subject area with that of public land to the south currently managed by Parks Victoria. This is seen by the Department as a positive outcome consistent with the SPPF (Clauses 15.01, !5.08, 15.09)

The application of an Environmental Significance Overlay, Schedule 3, significant flora and fauna habitats over the native vegetation within the western portion of the subject land is supported by the Department

Other comments in the 10 May 2002 submission proposing that the boundaries of the subdivision should reflect native vegetation boundaries have been accommodated in the final proposal and are no longer relevant.

A following DNRE letter of 21 May 2002 complemented that of 10 May. It concluded that for the Planning Permit sought at that time to be acceptable to DNRE the following would need to be met: ƒ The reserve area be formally surrendered to the Crown for reservation ƒ The reserve are identified to be fenced to the satisfaction of Parks Victoria

Bass Coast Planning Scheme Amendment C6 and Permit No. 011172 Panel Report: March 2003 42 ƒ The lots created not contain areas of native vegetation which are shown as being covered by the proposed Environmental Significance Overlay Schedule 3 of the Bass Coast Planning Scheme, these vegetated areas are to be included within the proposed reserve ƒ The waste water systems and building envelopes be located a minimum of 20 metres from the proposed reserve boundary, the location of these building envelope is to be secured by a Section 173 agreement under the Planning and Environment Act 1987 ƒ The average size of Lots abutting the reserve should be 1.5 ha and not have greater than a 15% variation in size between these lots In consequence of its inability to appear before the Panel due to bushfire commitments DNRE (now as the Department of Primary Industries) provided a written statement of 21 January 2003. Key points in this submission relevant to biodiversity and the gifting of land include the following: ƒ The (gifted) area will make a valuable contribution to Victoria’s protected areas system which aims to protect viable representative samples of the State’s natural environments ƒ The grouping and management of the vegetated land with the stream frontage as a reserve to be managed by Parks Victoria accords well with the principles for native vegetation management contained within the State’s Native Vegetation Management Framework policy. This would over time ‘lead to a net gain in the quality and quantity of the native vegetation values contained within the subject land and that of the existing Crown reserves to which it abuts.’ The DPI letter of 21 January 2003 also states the following:

The revised proposal excludes the areas of remnant vegetation from within the subdivision described as being of concern to the Department in its letter … 10 May 2002… The revise proposal has the area of all the lots falling within the general guidelines contained within this Ministerial Direction No. 6. The Department does not oppose or seek further changes to the configuration of the proposed Lots on the basis that the land partially within 200 metres of the permanent public reserve abutting Screw Creek. and

The consolidation of the existing remnant vegetation abutting Screw Creek within a Reserve structure is viewed as a very positive outcome of this subdivision proposal. Once surrender of the land to the Crown has been effected the land would be formally Reserved and managed by Parks Victoria as part of the abutting Coastal Park

The above statement in effect rescinds the 200 metre buffer requirement.

DPI concluded the following:

This proposed amendment offers the potential to create a rural residential development while improving the natural values and biodiversity of native vegetation at Screw Creek and bringing the management of the vegetated area under one regime.

Bass Coast Planning Scheme Amendment C6 and Permit No. 011172 Panel Report: March 2003 43 The Department of Infrastructure discusses issues at the strategic level. It notes that the MSS recognises the Screw Creek environs as being significant for flora and fauna habitat, and calls for any measures to protect the vegetated areas through management integrated with that of adjacent vegetated areas. This is achieved in the current proposal. DoI adds that: ƒ given the significance of the Screw Creek environment it is important that it be demonstrated that the subject land can support ecologically sustainable residential development, and that ƒ substantive evidence should be submitted with the application to demonstrate that the proposed development density can ensure that effluent disposal and stormwater drainage will not adversely impact on the water quality of Screw Creek ƒ attention also needs to be given to all the considerations contained in the Guidelines for Rural Residential Development , October 1997

7.5.5 Other submitters Many of the individual submitters were concerned about the potential of the development to impact adversely on the area’s biodiversity value, and the need to maintain a functioning ecosystem. The submissions received prior to the Directions Hearing all related to the exhibited proposal rather than the considered proposal. Most considered that the sale as house lots of some of the land now proposed to be gifted to the Crown would be against the public interest in that biodiversity values would be diminished. These comments are largely superseded by the proposal under the Panel’s consideration.

Substantial submissions and presentations on the current proposal were provided by several individuals, and by the Inverloch Residents and Ratepayers Association (IRRA), and the South Gippsland Conservation Society (SGCS). Both groups have been active with the objective of establishing a Screw Creek Nature Park incorporating the vegetated area of the subject land, and with other submitters support the gifting of the proposed land to the Crown. They also support the placement of the proposed Environmental Significance Overlay over the public portion of the land. The IRRA provided a well researched presentation on the environmental values of the Screw Creek and its environs.

The IRRA has a policy of no residential development or alternative residential lifestyle developments on coastal land outside existing town boundaries, and based much of its submission on concern about the potential for development to adversely impact on the Screw Creek environs.

The IRRA concluded the following in its Panel presentation and in its written submission of 14 January 2003:

We are pleased that the amended proposal addresses the previous panel (L52) recommendations to place all the bushland (including the large open space area within the bush) into public open space (Source: 14 January 2003)

The rezoning and development of this land if done carefully and with adequate controls has the potential to provide benefit to the community. The outcome will be a sustainable,

Bass Coast Planning Scheme Amendment C6 and Permit No. 011172 Panel Report: March 2003 44 environmentally friendly, innovative sought after subdivision combined with the development of the Screw Creek Nature Park proposal. (Source: Panel presentation document)

The South Gippsland Conservation Society has adopted a similar position, and notes the ongoing commitment of its members to the management of the existing Screw Creek Reserve and to the creation of the larger Nature Park. It considers the inclusion of a wetland as ‘admirable in a genuine attempt to treat stormwater and effluent runoff from the blocks’, but regards it as a last resort proposal and doubts the capacity of the wetland to cope with the runoff to which it may be subjected. It considers the exclusion of cattle to be an environmental improvement.

The SGCS noted through J and A Whitelaw that 58 bird species have been recorded in the immediate Screw Creek area since 1996. A list of the species was provided.

In concluding the above, the IRRA calls for a range of conditions. Those most relevant to natural environmental values include the following: ƒ The need for all effluent to be absorbed on site. ƒ Assurance that the proposed wetland will not have adverse environmental impact. ƒ No lots to be within 200 metres of Crown land. ƒ Use of indigenous vegetation in nature strips and in a 10 metre buffer around the perimeter of all subdivision lots. ƒ Prohibition of dogs and cats or grazing livestock on the created allotments. ƒ A listing of prohibited potentially invasive plant species be prepared.

7.5.6 Panel comments The Panels supports the gifting of the vegetated land to the Crown for inclusion into a Screw Creek Nature Reserve to be managed by Parks Victoria. It is guided on this matter by the advice from DNRE/DPI that Crown ownership and management by Parks Victoria will result in a positive net result.

The Panel further notes that while community submitters focussed strongly on the values of the subject vegetated land and the Screw Creek area in general, substantiation was not provided on how the proposal to allow housing development on the remainder of the land would adversely impact on those values. Also, while larger 1.5 ha lots were regularly stated as being preferred over 0.4 ha lots, it was not substantiated how the difference would be adversely significant on the natural values. This is particularly the case in context of support for opening the currently private land to public access and the increased visitation pressure that would result from it. The main inference appeared to be concern for the potential of the subdivision component of the subject land to absorb treated effluent. This mater is further discussed in Section 7.8.

In adopting its supporting position, the Panel notes that it does not necessarily follow that reservation of remnant bushland results in improved environmental conditions and management.

Bass Coast Planning Scheme Amendment C6 and Permit No. 011172 Panel Report: March 2003 45 The IRRA noted during its presentation that around 50,000 people visit the Screw Creek nature environs annually. This is likely to increase over time as general visitation increases, including into the subject land. This represents a vast visitor increase over numbers that would currently visit the subject land under restricted entry private ownership. While privately owned small remnant vegetation areas have often been open to livestock access they have also historically been accompanied by very limited human visitation and accompanying human use impacts. The Panel considers that the net impact of changes proposed is not as clear-cut as seemingly assumed by some submitters.

The final outcome will depend strongly on the level of management provided into the area, which needs to focus on provision of ‘guided’ access via formed pathways and boardwalks to designated access areas. The Panel was encouraged by the level of government and community interest and involvement in management of this type in the existing Screw Creek Reserve.

The Panels response to proposals regarding permit conditions is considered in the section on that matter.

The Panel accepts on the advice of the key referral agency that biodiversity values will be enhanced by incorporating private bushland into the Screw Creek reserve, and associated removal of livestock grazing, and hence meets the objectives of the State’s biodiversity Net Gain objective for developments. However the Panel has difficulty in reconciling the accompanying notion put by various submitters that the opening of the land to high levels of public access (eg in the order of 50,000 people per annum) is necessarily beneficial, while the subdivision of the adjoining land presents inherent terrestrial and aquatic biodiversity threats to the nature reserve area.

The Panel concludes that in context of the high levels of visitation proposed into the Screw Creek nature reserve, and the requirement that residential effluent be treated and contained on site, there is no substantiated reason why the subdivision of the subject cleared land into allotments averaging around 0.4 ha is more threatening to biodiversity values than subdivision into allotments averaging 1.5 ha. It follows that the Panel considers that the conceptual distinction between 0.4 ha being un-acceptable and 1.5 ha being acceptable is technically arbitrary beyond the notion that ‘bigger must be better.’

7.6 STORMWATER TREATMENT

7.6.1 The current situation As open broadacre farmland there is currently no drainage system on the land, which contains two distinct land types. Surface water on the allotment primarily drains from the east toward the vegetated and low-lying western portion off the land.

A stormwater management concept plan has been developed for the proposal by WBM Oceanics Australia. This needs to comply with the State Environment Protection Policy (SEPP) - Waters of Victoria, which sets the environmental standards for waterways and bays. A document titled Urban

Bass Coast Planning Scheme Amendment C6 and Permit No. 011172 Panel Report: March 2003 46 Stormwater: Best Practice Environmental Management Standards Guidelines (CSIRO,1999) translates the SEPP into practices. The stormwater treatment objectives defined in the document as reported by WBM Oceanics is as follows:

Pollutant Performance Objective Suspended Solids 80% reduction of the typical urban load Total Phosphorous (TP) 45% reduction of the typical urban load Total Nitrogen (TN) 45% reduction of the typical urban load Litter 70% reduction of the typical urban load Flows Maintain discharges for the 1.5 year ARI at pre-development levels Source WBM Oceanics expert witness statement

7.6.2 The proponent The proponent considers that based on the work of WBM Oceanographics and Dr Robert van de Graaff, the subdivision being proposed will have a beneficial impact on local water quality.

Through WBM, the proponent proposes that typical urban loads would overestimate the actual loads emanating from the proposed development.

Calculations have been prepared based on the following: ƒ Site hydrology characterised using data from the Bureau of Meteorology’s Koo Wee Rup station. ƒ 11% imperviousness was assumed for each site. ƒ Stormwater drainage from most of the site will be directed to and through a constructed wetland located adjacent to lots 23 and 24 via grassed roadside tabledrains from which considerable infiltration is to be expected. ƒ Drainage from lots along the western edge of the subdivision development will drain overland to Screw Creek via the vegetated buffer area to be incorporated into the Screw Creek Nature Park. Pollutant export modelling using a computer model developed by the Cooperative Research Centre (CRC) for Catchment Hydrology showed that the development would reduce the pollutants currently exported from the site. This is despite an increased net overall discharge without accounting for reductions (eg resulting from revegetation and tank water collections etc) on lots.

Pollutant Export Results from the development Pollutant load Undeveloped Developed land Developed land % Reduction (kg/yr) land (Current (no treatment (with proposed in Load conditions) measures) best practice compared with treatment current measures) conditions TSS 4,220 7,290 468 89% TP 12.2 13.7 3.44 72% TN 86.9 105 45.6 48% Flow (ML/yr) 24.4 32.7 32.7 Incr of 34% Source WBM Oceanics Expert witness statement

Bass Coast Planning Scheme Amendment C6 and Permit No. 011172 Panel Report: March 2003 47 Dr Somes of WBM for the proponent proposed that the beneficial impact is dependent on a number of conditions being met to ensure that the location of surface water treatment measures and effluent treatment systems are appropriate.

The grassed roadside table drains and the constructed wetland at the ‘downstream’ end of the subdivision are important elements. Design concepts were presented to the Panel for both elements.

7.6.3 The Council The Council is supportive of the stormwater treatment proposal, and indicated at the hearing that it endorses the grassed table drain proposal in preference to traditional concrete curb and channelling.

7.6.4 The referral agencies The referral agencies did not identify any objections regarding stormwater management

7.6.5 Other submitters Submitters did not generally focus on stormwater issues beyond the following concerns: ƒ that the proposed wetland may not be capable of handling the flow volumes to which it may be subjected. ƒ that any treated effluent emanating from lots would pass via the drainage system to the wetland and potentially into Screw Creek.

7.6.6 Panel comment As identified in Section 5, the SPPF Clause 15.01.2 requires consideration of catchment management issues relating to drainage, wetlands and floodplains and to the relevant Regional Catchment Strategy (i.e. West Gippsland RCS).

The Panel is satisfied with the attention given to stormwater management through the grassed roadside tabledrain and wetlands system. The inclusion of the proposed wetland is a considerable advance over previous proposals subject to approved final design being consistent with best practice stormwater management. The Panel also considers that the establishment of a formal drainage system across the site should alleviate any existing ground wetness difficulties in the lower lying western lots. It also accepts that both the wetland and the grassed tabledrains will perform an important role in the removal of sediment and nutrient from drainage water prior to discharge to Screw Creek.

The Panel concludes that the stormwater management concept plan presented in the proposal is appropriate for the level of subdivision being proposed and that it is consistent with sound catchment planning principles.

Bass Coast Planning Scheme Amendment C6 and Permit No. 011172 Panel Report: March 2003 48 7.7 PROVISION OF INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES (ELECTRICITY, TELEPHONE, WATER)

7.7.1 The current situation The subject land is currently serviced by electricity to the proponent’s farm shed adjacent to the Inverloch-Tarwin Lower Road. The adjacent Townsend Bluff Estate is also serviced by electricity. The land zoned Residential west of Screw Creek will be connected to town water, and extension into the subject land would be possible potentially through the Screw Creek Reserve.

7.7.2 The proponent Three-Phase underground electricity extended from the existing network will be a cost on the development. Telephone service will be provided via underground wiring. Reticulated water will not be provided. Water will need to be collected by harvesting roof runoff.

7.7.3 The Council The Council supports the proposal on the basis of electricity being provided, and capacity for adequate water collection in this relatively high rainfall area

The Council’s summary position against the SPPF and LPPF is presented in the following table: SPPF Clause Council opinion 16.03 The proposal is consistent with this Clause as follows: • The subject site can be supplied with electricity and water and good quality road access 18.09: Water The subject site can adequately meet this objective as follows: supply sewerage • Water supply will be via tanks collected from roofs and drainage LPPF Clause 21.05-1 Urban The proposal if approved will have an appropriate level of physical infrastructure Settlement 21.05 As for SPPF 18.09 above

7.7.4 Referral agencies South Gippsland Water advised the proponent by letter on 21 May 2001 that it had no objection to the rezoning ‘but cannot provide water or sewer service to the proposed subdivision.’ The Authority did not respond on the revised proposal.

7.7.5 Other submitters No real concerns were expressed on the provision of electricity, telephone and water.

Bass Coast Planning Scheme Amendment C6 and Permit No. 011172 Panel Report: March 2003 49 7.7.6 Panel comment The Panel is satisfied with the situation regarding electricity, telephone and water. The average rainfall in the area exceeds the lower limit requiring connection to reticulated water supply, and is generally sufficiently uniform in distribution within and across years to ensure that with adequate storage tanks connected to roofs, water supply for normal domestic purposes can be assured. This could be dealt with through permit approval by stipulation of minimum tank sizes required at occupied dwellings.

The Panel accepts that adequate provision is made for electricity, water and telephone services.

7.8 PROVISION OF INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES (SEWERAGE)

7.8.1 The current situation The subject land will not be serviced by reticulated sewerage.

The current proposal is that individual allotment owners will be required to install a packaged sewerage treatment plant (or Aerated Wastewater Treatment System (AWTS)), approved by the EPA. There are currently around six approved products on the market, which at $3000 - $4000 per unit are equivalent in cost with septic systems. The requirement for the packaged treatment systems, which treat water to a secondary treatment level, is new in the current proposal. Previous proposals including that advertised, were based on the use of septic tank systems, required to operate under the provisions of the Septic Tanks Code of Practice 1996. Disposal from AWTS systems is via absorption trenches or irrigation systems (i.e. commonly dripper-type systems).

Following the Hearing, the Panel sought clarification from the EPA on some issues regarding the operation of AWTS systems. These are covered in the following two paragraphs.

The 1996 Septic Tanks Code of Practice superseded a previous 1990 Code. It is applicable to the operation of AWTSs in that it contains sections relating to the disposal of water treated to secondary or ‘20/30’ standard (i.e. <20mg/L of Biological Oxygen Demand, BOD; <30mg/l of Suspended Solids, SS). The following description of secondary treatment is sourced from the EPA Publication 464 Guidelines for Wastewater Reuse (March 1996).

Secondary treatment … follows a primary process where aerobic biological treatment removes the organic matter and some of the nutrients …

There is currently no Code of Practice specific to the operation of AWTSs, however the 1996 Code for septic tanks provides tabulations for absorption trench design and length requirements. Table 6.3 Determination of required length of sub-soil absorption trench in metres specifically provides for the halving of absorption trench lengths associated with wastewater treated to

Bass Coast Planning Scheme Amendment C6 and Permit No. 011172 Panel Report: March 2003 50 secondary treatment standard. This recognises that AWTS-treated water is of higher quality than that from septic-treated water. The design of disposal fields on individual lots is defined by the Council, based on assessment of a range of variables associated with soil permeability, trench width, and other site factors.

The Panel was advised following the Panel Hearing that a new Code of Practice was approved in mid February 2003 for public release in around April 2003. The Panel cannot be guided by the content of the new Code prior to its release. However it is verbally advised by the EPA that the new Code will be similarly relevant to AWTSs, but with tighter conditions covering the disposal trench length for wastewater of secondary-treatment quality. Any development following release of the 2003 Code will be required to comply with it.

7.8.2 The proponent The proponent is satisfied with a requirement for packaged treatment plants and associated plant maintenance provisions to be included in Planning Permit conditions. The proponent engaged Dr Robert van de Graaff to provide Expert Witness evidence on his behalf. Dr van de Graaff has been engaged on the project through various stages and in evidence discussed two reports written by him: ƒ Assessment of the Potential of the Pellizzer Land near Inverloch, Victoria, to Absorb Septic Tank Effluent from a Subdivision and the Potential Environment Impact of the Rezoning on Screw Creek. (27 January 1997) ƒ Environmental Impact Assessment of the Proposed Plan of Subdivision, Nature Park Estate, Inverloch, Submitted in 2003 (January 2003) Dr van de Graaff proposed that there are three available options for effluent treatment and disposal: ƒ An all-waste septic tank followed by absorption trenches receiving raw septic tank effluent. ƒ A domestic treatment plant treating effluent to secondary quality, followed by absorption trenches designed at twice the loading rate as for the first option. ƒ A domestic treatment plant treating effluent to secondary stage, including to required bacterial and health standards, followed by surface irrigation using trickle emitters or sprinklers capable of giving coarse droplets He further proposed that trickle irrigation allows for better and more even effluent distribution over a disposal area than trench systems, and that it also enables plants to utilise water and nutrients more effectively than is possible in a subsoil disposal system. Consequently a smaller area is needed for an irrigation disposal field than for a subsoil absorption system.

The latter report summarises and draws conclusions from the first in context of the proposal before the Panel. The following points summarise the main issues from the reports: ƒ The first report was based on three components: ƒ site investigation involving six backhoe pits to study the soil to 2 m depth;

Bass Coast Planning Scheme Amendment C6 and Permit No. 011172 Panel Report: March 2003 51 ƒ an interpretation of an enlarged aerial photograph to assess natural drainage of the land; and ƒ two sets of percolation tests to check earlier absorption tests by Beveridge Williams in 1993. Absorption testing under the third point was conducted on the two land types on the subject land (i.e. gently sloping uplands (Kls unit), and almost level, high alluvial terrace (Qpa unit)). ƒ There are no limitations in terms of shallow groundwater and shallow soil mantles over bedrock or impermeable layers. Comparisons were drawn with 1993 testing conducted at the site in accordance with the 1990 Septic Tanks Code of Practice, which indicated that the soils were capable of absorbing 1000 litres/day of septic tank effluent in disposal field incorporating between 50 and 150 metres of 0.5 metre wide trench.

Dr van de Graaff’s absorption testing showed that: ƒ for Kls land, 100 m of 0.5 m conventional absorption trench is needed to absorb 1000 litre/day of raw septic tank effluent ƒ for Qpa land 130 m of trench was needed. ƒ Assessment was conservatively based on households generating 1000 litres/day (average) of effluent, which is normal for residences on town water, while those on tank water generate only 400-600 litres/day. ƒ Data on composition of typical septic tank effluent that enabled comparison of the contribution of 50 homes with that of continued grazing, demonstrated that a 50 lot subdivision on 29.4 ha contributed ‘much less’ in nutrients (i.e. mainly nitrates and phosphates) than continued grazing. (The main technical substance to this statement is contained in Dr van de Graaff’s 1997 report.) ƒ In rural residential developments nutrients are normally released at depth in trenches or at selected locations on the soil surface (eg via irrigation dripper systems). In well- designed subdivisions nutrient movement may also occur via designated stormwater drainage systems, whereas under grazing, nutrients are released randomly on the soil surface. ƒ The bulk of nutrients added to the soil are immobilised there or in the case of nitrates are denitrified to form nitrogen gas that returns to the atmosphere. ƒ The EPA indicated by letter (22 May 1996) to the proponents that on-site retention of wastewater was generally possible, and that tests should be carried out on each lot in order to ensure that disposal sites chosen are suitable within than lot. ƒ The EPA had earlier proposed (on 13 May 1994) that it did not object to the development proposed at that time, ‘provided Council is satisfied that the development of the area will comply with the with the SEPP and the Septic Tanks Code of Practice.’

Bass Coast Planning Scheme Amendment C6 and Permit No. 011172 Panel Report: March 2003 52 Specifically relating to the current proposal Dr van de Graaff’s latter report includes the following: ƒ The size of effluent disposal areas is directly proportional to the volume of effluent being disposed. The trench lengths and irrigation areas listed in the 1997 report are based on a flow of 1000 l/day per household. Thus if the daily flow is 1500 l/day, these lengths and areas are increased by 50%. ƒ Any surface flows from the developed land must pass through the wetlands system to be constructed as part of the development. ƒ Calculations on nitrogen and phosphorous loadings from 31 residences based (conservatively) on 6 person households under permanent occupation (i.e. 186 persons), and design flows of 1500 litres/day, converted to kg/hectare, indicate loadings of 7.5 kg/ha/year of total phosphorous and 26 kg/ha/year of total nitrogen. These figures are stated as being approximately midway in the ranges calculated from the US Environment Protection Agency’s document Design Manual - Onsite Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Option. ƒ Under a perceived but most unlikely ‘worse case’ scenario (i.e. complete failure of 10 of 31 systems resulting in release of total effluent to the constructed wetlands, when all soils are under full saturation), and a one week repair turnaround, 1.37 kg of phosphorus and 4.73 kg of nitrogen would reach the wetlands. A main design feature of the wetlands is to strip sediment and nutrients from water and it was proposed that the loads of sediments and nutrients entering Screw Creek following release from the wetlands would be substantially lower than those entering the wetlands.

Broad projections are also presented for nutrients associated with continued livestock production assuming phosphorous application of around 15 kg/ha/year (compared with good dairy farming practice in the area of adding 40 kg/ha of phosphorous and 100kg/ha of nitrogen per year). Ingested phosphorous and nitrogen is used by livestock or returned to the soil as faeces and urine. The report does not provide calculations of loadings to the Creek apart from stating that since there is usually no control over runoff from pastures, a portion of P and N will find its way to streams draining an area.

There is therefore no basis for comparison and the reader is required to consider only the likely impacts of loadings under residential land use.

Dr van de Graaff variously concludes (i.e. across both reports) that:

The areas needed as dedicated effluent disposal fields are small and easily fit into on the 0.4 ha lots (1997)

… even under a worst case scenario the amount of nutrients reaching the wetlands will be rather insignificant, and the possibility that they reach Screw Creek in concentrations that will adversely affect its environmental and ecological qualities may be safely discounted (2003)

Nutrient flows will be less from the proposed development than they are likely to be from continued grazing and pasture fertilisation (2003)

Bass Coast Planning Scheme Amendment C6 and Permit No. 011172 Panel Report: March 2003 53 The environmental impact of a subdivision in terms of contributing nutrients to Screw Creek is beneficial, but probably minor in view of the fact that the area of the subdivision occupies less than 1.9% of the catchment. The current agricultural practices risk contributing much greater nutrient loadings to Screw Creek

7.8.3 The Council The Council supports the proposal on the basis of the ability for the land to adequately treat wastewater effluent in accordance with EPA requirements. It noted that the 1997 van de Graaff report concluded that the ‘areas needed as dedicated effluent disposal fields are small and will easily fit on the 0.4 ha lots’. In the absence of reticulated sewerage, it also supports the use of treating effluent to a secondary stage, followed by surface irrigation, as the preferred treatment system. To this end the Council states its satisfaction that lots of the size proposed can adequately treat wastewater without any detriment to the natural environment.

The Council would have an ongoing role in monitoring and ensuring the satisfactory operation of the AWTSs in accordance with issued permit conditions and in accordance with EPA requirements. It currently oversees the operation of a number off AWTSs. Installation of AWTSs is normally accompanied by a maintenance contract with the retailer, and the Council discussed its requirement for quarterly reporting to it on the operation and maintenance of individual systems. The Council is therefore aware of substantial public and environmental health responsibilities and accountabilities.

The Council’s summary position against the SPPF and LPPF is presented in the following table: SPPF Clause Council opinion 18.09: Water The subject site can adequately meet this objective as follows: supply sewerage • Information submitted with the amendment shows that the land can and drainage adequately treat waste-water effluent in accordance with the requirements of the EPA. LPPF Clause 21.05 As for SPPF 18.09 above

7.8.4 Referral agencies South Gippsland Water advised the proponent by letter on 21 May 2001 that it had no objection to the rezoning ‘but cannot provide water or sewer service to the proposed subdivision.’ The Authority did not respond on the revised proposal.

The EPA is responsible for setting and overseeing the Statewide policy context covering water quality issues. As inferred above, the Council is responsible for administering the day-to-day practicalities of a range of matters including the operation and maintenance of private sewerage treatment facilities including septic tanks and AWTSs.

The EPA in May 2001, advised the following in regard of the State Environment Protection Policy (SEPP) Waters of Victoria:

Bass Coast Planning Scheme Amendment C6 and Permit No. 011172 Panel Report: March 2003 54 … any subdivision to create smaller lots must not result in the creation of a lot which is not capable of adequately treating and retaining all domestic wastewater generated within its boundaries on-site.

It also advised that any rezoning issues by Council should ensure the following provisions are included:

The allotments created must be capable of adequately treating and retaining all domestic wastewater generated within their boundaries. Unsewered development must comply with Clause 40 of the ‘State Environment Protection Policy – Waters of Victoria’ and the ‘Septic Tanks Code of Practice (1990) (sic) )EPA Publication No 451 (Note: The EPA has advised that this should read 1996)

To help minimise environmental problems associated with sediment run-off, any clearing or construction activity associated with development on the subject land should be carried out in accordance with ‘Construction Techniques for Sediment Pollution Control’ EPA Publication No 275.

Satisfaction of the ability to retain treated effluent on-site requires site assessment investigations. The requirement for this on rural residential land is stipulated in Clause 3.4 of the Guidelines for Rural Residential Development in Ministerial Direction No 6 for Rural Residential Development, which states:

….. the report accompanying an amendment must demonstrate that detailed site-specific investigations have been made in compliance with each of the criteria and constraints described below

3.4 Health and hazard

The Report must include an assessment of the locality’s health and hazard-related features which could affect or be affected by rural residential development

An amendment must only provide for rural residential use or development of land which: ƒ … ƒ has been the subject of a soil absorption testing program carried out in accordance with the requirements of the Septic Tanks Code of Practice for which the test results have been submitted to the EPA, and it has expressed in writing its satisfaction that subdivision of the land as proposed by the amendment will comply with Clause 40 of the State Environment Protection Policy (Waters of Victoria). Note the Code of Practice requires that the land must not: ƒ have a seasonal watertable within one metre of the natural ground surface at any time of the year ƒ be subject to seasonal surface waterlogging, ƒ have less than one metre depth to bedrock.

Bass Coast Planning Scheme Amendment C6 and Permit No. 011172 Panel Report: March 2003 55 Similar strategic requirements are stipulated by Southern Rural Water in a letter to Beveridge Williams of 4 May 2001, namely:

Permits for buildings with the potential to generate effluent shall require that the site is capable of containing an appropriate water treatment system and that the set back distance for the disposal of septic effluent be in accordance with EPA’s Code of Practice – Septic Tanks 1996

7.8.5 Other submitters Community submitters expressed concern over the potential for the rural residential development proposed to cause nutrient pollution of the biodiversity and water quality values of the Screw Creek and its vegetated environs, and potentially to the environmental values of Anderson Inlet. It should be noted that many of these concerns were expressed at a time when it was proposed that septic tanks be used and before the proposal was changed to involve the use of the AWTS method of treatment.

The collective concerns are summarised below: ƒ Fewer lots means less dwellings and hence less effluent and risk of pollution of Screw Creek by runoff. Larger lots are considered to provide more area for effluent disposal fields and better potential to retain effluent on site. ƒ Advice from the EPA Freshwater Sciences Division, is that the Screw Creek estuary is ‘is not in good shape’ and ‘appears to have the poorest quality water in the area’ seemingly due to the release of phosphorous and nitrogen from the Screw Creek catchment. ƒ Septic disposal and nutrient loads from the proposed development has not been sufficiently addressed, and that soil absorption data is insufficient and does not comply with the Septic Tanks Code of Practice. ƒ No quantified data has been supplied to show that effluent can be contained on site. ƒ Concern that satisfactory ongoing maintenance of domestic treatment systems may not occur, potentially resulting in effluent reaching Screw Creek. ƒ Most indigenous trees may not be suited to growth in nutrient-rich effluent fields. ƒ Extension of the Inverloch sewerage system can be the only effective method of reducing nutrient export to Screw Creek. ƒ Concern that the proposed wetland should be regarded by the proponent as ‘another line of defence against effluent from domestic use entering the creek system’, when the EPA Septic Tank Code of Practice requires that all waste must be contained on site. ƒ A proposal for an unsewered 31-lot development within the township would not be permitted. ƒ The previous Panel noted concern over potential risk from the previously proposed development for pollution of the estuarine system if septic systems were to fail.

Bass Coast Planning Scheme Amendment C6 and Permit No. 011172 Panel Report: March 2003 56 The Inverloch Residents and Ratepayers Association challenged the validity of the percolation tests conducted Dr van de Graaff on the basis that the tests were conducted in April 1993 and January 1997: both considered dry times. The Association submitted that for the 1993 tests soakage times for wetting the soil profile was 3-5 hours. It inferred that this was in contradiction to the (then operative) 1990 septic tanks Code of Practice that stipulated a soakage time of 24 hours or until stable infiltration conditions are achieved. The Association further proposed that the 1997 tests were also conducted in dry soils.

The IRRA challenged the independence of Dr van de Graaff due to his engagement by the proponent, and on the basis of the concerns identified above commissioned its own percolation testing. A report on this work accompanied the IRRA’s submission. This testing occurred at five sites outside of the property along Townsend Bluff Road, being the highest point adjacent to the property, and in accordance with Appendix B of the Septic Tanks Code of Practice. The IRRA states that the report from the said tests concluded the following:

Of the 5 test sites established 3 failed to meet the required 15mm/hour, and 2 were 1mm/hour over this requirement. This coupled with the high rainfall (>900mm) of the site leads us to the conclusion that if these results are representative for the area, standard absorption or absorption-transpiration systems may not be suitable

The Association also proposed that while secondary treatment systems (AWTSs) are now being proposed, domestic maintenance is likely to be lacking, and that indigenous trees are unlikely to be suited to irrigation with the treated effluent.

Based on the above matters, the IRRA proposed that if a greater allotment density than that proposed by the previous Panel is permitted then an independent environment impact study should be required via the appropriate Authority. Its final preferences on the proposal relating to the sewerage issue include the following: ƒ a need for more information on evidence that the soil can absorb all effluent on site, and the ability of the wetland not to have any adverse environmental impact ƒ a designated effluent field designed to ensure maximum protection to prevent off-site runoff ƒ larger lots consistent with those on the Townsend Bluff Estate.

7.8.6 Panel comment The Panel considers that on the subject of nutrient movement, the content of Dr van de Graaff’s reports do not enable him to conclude as he did, that the proposed development would lead to a better outcome than the current agricultural use/grazing situation. Dr van de Graaff’s 1997 report discusses nutrient application rates through fertilizer, and the Panel finds no fault in that. However while the report identifies that Screw Creek has not been subject to eutrophication problems, it does not estimate potential nutrient loss rates into the creek from agricultural use. The discussion on nutrient discharge from septic tanks and AWTSs is more complete, and provides the Panel with a notion of the order of magnitude of likely nutrient movement. The Panel therefore does not have the information to make a comparison between the impact of the respective land uses.

Bass Coast Planning Scheme Amendment C6 and Permit No. 011172 Panel Report: March 2003 57 The Panel also notes the community submitters issues, but following from above discussion, does not support the assertion that no quantified data has been supplied that effluent can be contained on site. Further, the Panel does not accept on face value that the consultant engaged by the IRRA for soil testing, is any more or less independent than that engaged by the proponent.

The Panel believes that Dr van de Graaff’s stated reluctance to use absorption determination techniques outlined in the 1996 Septic Tank Code of Practice is misguided, despite any misgivings he might hold regarding the specified techniques. The failure to comply with the Code’s techniques leaves the proposal open to criticism or rejection. At the very least it does not assist the Panel with its task. Planning Panels and responsible authorities need to be satisfied that proposals can meet a range of State criteria, the Septic Tank Code of Practice being one of these. The EPA has confirmed with the Panel that 1996 Code superseded the 1990 Code. While there are strong consistencies between the two, the 1990 Code does not now have status.

Despite the above, the Panel is satisfied with Dr van de Graaff’s calculations regarding potential nutrient movement associated with AWTSs and his conclusion that the impact of the proposed development would not be significant. The Panel is also satisfied that the following combination of matters will provide a satisfactory outcome: ƒ Dr van de Graaff’s calculations are based on conservative estimates of residence occupation and effluent generation. ƒ The requirement for AWTS’s to be approved by the EPA, and their capacity to treat to secondary treatment level. ƒ The requirement for AWTS operations to comply with the Code of Practice - Septic Tanks, and with the operational and maintenance reporting requirements identified by the Council at the Hearing. (It follows that failure to comply with requirements will result in compliance orders and potential closure or modification of systems to ensure compliance). ƒ Lots of 0.4 ha are of adequate size for the siting of effluent fields containing absorption trenches of up to 100 or 130 metres, (i.e. lengths calculated by Dr van de Graaff for the operation of septic tanks at the site, as distinct from shorter lengths required for AWTSs) or shorter if appropriate, to contain treated effluent within their boundaries, where operations are in accordance with the appropriate septic Tank Code of Practice, and appropriate permit requirements. ƒ The grassed swale design of roadside verges to feature in the proposal, will have absorption and nutrient stripping values in its own right. ƒ The proposal to construct, and the base design criteria proposed for the wetland through which all drainage from the development site will be required to pass, prior to discharge into Screw Creek. It is also noted that both Panel members have long experience in rural land management issues, and believe that wetness of the lower western areas of the property adjacent to the wetland can readily be rectified via a constructed drainage system as proposed.

Bass Coast Planning Scheme Amendment C6 and Permit No. 011172 Panel Report: March 2003 58 Ultimately the Panel must be guided by the notion that, assuming capacity exists to accommodate adequate absorption tench length, the Council’s responsibilities will be complied with. The Panel notes that the EPA Publication 746 of February 2001 (Information Bulletin: Domestic Wastewater Management Series: Land Capability Assessment for Onsite Domestic Wastewater Management) provides guidelines on key policy issues and land type assessment criteria which must be taken into account. Considerable onus therefore rests with the Council to comply with its designated responsibilities and accountabilities covering the monitoring of wastewater treatment facilities on private land, including the proposed development.

The Panel further believes that the findings of minimal impact need to be considered within the overall size of the catchments to Screw Creek and to Anderson Inlet. The Panel also finds some anomaly between submitters’ concerns about the potential nutrient pollution from residential development to damage the natural environment, while also strongly encouraging increased human visitation into the proposed extended Screw Creek Nature Park area.

The Panel accepts that in the absence of a reticulated sewerage system, EPA-approved AWTS’s accompanied by appropriately designed absorption or disposal fields is the preferred wastewater treatment system for the site.

The Panel accepts, on the basis of EPA and Council support as the regulatory agents, that AWTS systems operated in accordance with the appropriate Septic Tank Code of Practice requirements, will not impact adversely on the terrestrial and aquatic biodiversity values of Screw Creek and its environs including Anderson Inlet.

The Panel’s conclusions on this matter are made on the basis that the Council recognises and will abide by its obligations under respective EPA and public health legislation to ensure the ongoing safe operation of installed AWTSs, and that EPA satisfaction is required that treated effluent can be contained on site prior to the issue of planning permits for the development.

7.9 ACCESS

7.9.1 The current situation Road access is potentially available onto the site from either the Inverloch-Tarwin Lower Road or from Townsend Bluff Road. Current access is via the gate to the farm shed from the Inverloch- Tarwin Lower Road.

7.9.2 The proponent The proposal presents access to the site from single points on both the Inverloch-Tarwin Lower Road and Townsend Bluff Road. A narrow reserve is to be established inside the road reserve of the former road that will vest in Council the right to refuse other access onto the Inverloch-Tarwin Lower Road. All vehicles onto the subdivision component of the site will therefore be limited to one

Bass Coast Planning Scheme Amendment C6 and Permit No. 011172 Panel Report: March 2003 59 of the two above-mentioned access points. Access provision into and from the land to be gifted to the Crown is not an issue for the Panel. This will be a future matter for Parks Victoria subject to the development proceeding.

7.9.3 The Council The Council endorses the proposal on the basis of access and egress: With regard to the SPPF and LPPF it states the following: SPPF Clause Council opinion 16.03 The proposal is consistent with this Clause as follows: • The subject site can be supplied with electricity and water, and good quality road access * 18.01: Declared The proposal provides a new access to Inverloch-Tarwin Lower Road. VicRoads, highways, railway in addition to the Shire’s engineers, have no concern with the proposed access and tramways from Inverloch-Tarwin Lower Road. There is a need however to ensure appropriate conditions are inserted on any planning permit issued LPPF Clause 21.05: Transport As for SPPF 18.01 above. Source: Bass Coast Shire Council submission * Panel note: Provision of reticulated water is not to occur

7.9.4 Referral agencies Vic Roads responded on 17 April 2002 that it had no objections to the proposed Planning Scheme Amendment C6 or to the issue of a planning permit for the subdivision subject to inclusion of several matters. Some of these relate specifically to the previous proposal. The conditions apparently relevant to the current proposal include the following.

Access must achieve Safe Intersection Site Distance (SISD) as described on pages 24 and 25 of the AusRoads publication ‘ Guide to Traffic Engineering Practice, Intersections at Grade’. VicRoads further required that: ƒ access onto Inverloch-Tarwin Lower Road be limited to the one point via the internal subdivisional road. ƒ the developer must widen the Inverloch-Tarwin Lower Road after the sale of the first six lots fronting the internal subdivisional road. ƒ the widening would be required to occur in accordance with a VicRoads provided plan (attached to the letter) and to VicRoads standard specification at no cost to VicRoads. Other requirements relate to contractor insurances and the lodgement of bonds.

It is assumed that while the letter was written to the previous proposal, its primary intent and conditions stand and VicRoads maintains no objection to the current proposal.

The CFA did not respond to the advertised proposal but did respond on 3May 2001 to a previous 22 lot proposal. It stated no objection subject to the following: ƒ Access points must be provided to allow safe two way access in and around the subdivision

Bass Coast Planning Scheme Amendment C6 and Permit No. 011172 Panel Report: March 2003 60 ƒ There must be no obstructions within one metre of the edge of the formed width of roads at any time, and there must be four metres clearance above all roads ƒ The minimum width of the trafficable road must be six metres, however a four metre width is permitted provided there is a passing bay every 200 metres. The combined width of the passing bay and trafficable road must be six metres and the passing bay must be 20m long ƒ Adequate provision for turning of fire brigade vehicles must be provided in dead end roads and cul de sacs by: ƒ Court bowl with a minimum trafficable area of 10 metres radius; or ƒ ‘tee’ head or ‘wye’ head with a minimum formed road surface of each leg being at least 8 metres length measured from a centre point of the head, and 4 metres trafficable width; or ƒ provision of an alternative access approved by CFA ƒ The amount and location of parking facilities should not impede access of emergency vehicles. Off-street parking is therefore encouraged where possible ƒ Road structures must have a minimum load limit of 15 tonnes ƒ All roads should have a maximum cross fall alignment of 1 in 33 (3%) and a minimum of curves ƒ Curves should have a minimum inner radius of 10 metres.

The CFA also stated that water supply must be provided to the CFA’s satisfaction. It did not elaborate on this but during the Panel Hearing it was explained by one of the proponent’s representatives that this would require the fitting of a CFA compatible outlet to the base of water tanks, at a lower elevation than that of the normal supply outlet.

7.9.5 Other submitters Only one community submitter raised road safety as an issue with the proposal. Mr Forster of Townsend Bluff Estate proposed in discussion that he faces safety issues in turning into and from Townsend Bluff Road now and that additional traffic resulting from the development would add to safety problems.

7.9.6 Panel comment The Panel accepts the advice from Vic Roads and the Council as the two agencies with responsibilities and expertise in traffic matters. Traffic in the area will inevitably increase to some extent but there has been no suggestion from either authority that this cannot be handled by what is being proposed by them.

The Panel concludes that there are no access or traffic issues that adversely impact on the proposal.

Bass Coast Planning Scheme Amendment C6 and Permit No. 011172 Panel Report: March 2003 61

7.10 COASTAL PLANNING Discussion on this item is last in this Section as it requires a conclusion drawn from consideration of most of the above discussion issues.

7.10.1 The current situation As previously identified, the subject land is buffered from Anderson Inlet to the south by the rural residential Townsend Bluff Estate. Its nearest point is about 200 metres from the Inlet’s water. Townsend Bluff provides topographic shelter from southerly climatic elements and the Screw Creek vegetated environs provide visual and weather protection from the west.

Section 5.4 identifies the strategic planning framework relevant to coastal development. The objectives of SPPF Clause 15.08 deal with coastal areas, and the Victorian Coastal Strategy of 2002. The Strategy sets objectives across a range of subject areas that have potential applicability to the current proposal. Its Objective 5.2 seeks to protect and enhance the built environment and coastal infrastructure through a range of mechanisms. These include appropriate wording in and application of planning schemes, the establishment of township boundaries via planning schemes, the development of local guidelines and overlays, and confining coastal developments to activity and recreation nodes within existing settlements. Objectives in other sections of the Strategy include the need to protect estuarine and natural coastal environments from threats such as nutrient pollution and excessive population pressures

7.10.2 The proponent The proponent claimed that the proposed development would not impinge on coastal values because: ƒ it does not extend ribbon development along the coast as it sits behind and does not extend beyond the eastern end of Townsend Bluff. ƒ the proposed site is not visible from the beach and from most of the existing Screw Creek Reserve ƒ water quality in Screw Creek and Anderson Inlet would be enhanced through the removal of cattle from the banks of the creek and the use on all developed allotments of private sewerage treatment plants instead of septic treatment systems.

7.10.3 The Council The Council supports the proposal against the SPPF and LPPF coastal objectives as identified in the following table:

Bass Coast Planning Scheme Amendment C6 and Permit No. 011172 Panel Report: March 2003 62 SPPF Clause Council opinion 15.08: Coastal areas The main element to be considered in this Clause is the Victorian Coastal Strategy (VCS). The VCS was approved by the State Government in 2002. The key matter that needs to be addressed is the hierarchy of principles that should be applied to coastal planning and management. The following is a response to each principal. Protection of significant environmental features It is submitted that this proposal protects the significant environmental features of the site being the existing vegetation and the creek environs. Further, it appears that the proposal provides features such as packaged treatment plants and wetlands which will protect coastal and other waters from any detrimental affect of the development of the eastern part of the site. Sustainable use of natural coastal resources .It is submitted that this proposal locks into place a long-term sustainable solution to an area that has a long history of unresolved planning and environmental issues. The proposal does not prejudice any long-term objective.

Direction for the future Other parts of this submission will highlighted that even in the absence of a detailed plan for Inverloch, this proposal does fit into the settlement pattern and is located so as to form a long term barrier to Inverloch. This proposal will also bring about a net-gain in the quantity and quality of the public land estate along the coast as encouraged by the VCS. Suitable development on the coast The proposal constitutes appropriate development as it enhances the protection and rehabilitation of the natural environment. The subject site does not in itself extend Inverloch along the coast. The existing subdivision abutting the coast to the south of subject site has already done that. This site is set back from the coast and sets no precedent for linear development along the coast. The other matter that needs to be addressed is the issue of establishing the limits of settlements. This proposal is not located outside of an area that could be realistically assessed as being outside of a defined limit of Inverloch, particularly given the Townsend Bluff Estate’s presence. It is therefore submitted that the proposal is consistent with the VCS. Source: Bass Coast Shire Council submission * Panel note: Provision of reticulated water is not to occur

7.10.4 Referral agencies The EPA and DNRE do not object to the proposal.

The Central Coastal Board submission of 30 May 2002 objected on the grounds of land capability, environment protection of Screw Creek and environs, and planning principles including the orderly planning of the land between Inverloch and Townsend Bluff. The first two of these issues have been addressed in the proposal considered by the Panel, and elaboration is not given on the orderly planning issues. However more broadly the Coastal Board noted that it had previously proposed to the Bass Coast Shire Council, the need for an outline development plan of the ‘whole area’ to be prepared including the different land holdings east and west of Screw Creek. It proposes that this would allow for development in suitable areas whilst increasing the protection of natural areas.

Bass Coast Planning Scheme Amendment C6 and Permit No. 011172 Panel Report: March 2003 63 7.10.5 Other submitters A common argument from objecting submitters including the Inverloch Residents and Ratepayers Association and the South Gippsland Conservation Society that the proposal is inconsistent with the Victorian Coastal Strategy, and the Gippsland Coastal Action Plan. The Action Plan was endorsed in late 2002. While most submissions were not specific the main issues put were: ƒ Coastal development is not adequately controlled, and that the proposal would add to strip or ribbon development by extending development east of the existing residential zone and of Screw Creek. ƒ Concerns regarding ribbon development are exacerbated by the suggested site visibility from the foreshore and from the current Screw Creek reserve area. ƒ Nutrient discharge from the development may adversely impact on water quality of the Screw Creek estuary and Anderson Inlet.

7.10.6 Panel comment The Panel is acutely aware that coastal areas are highly sensitive and dynamic in terms of activity and pressures for changing use.

The main issues identified by submitters have been discussed in previous relevant section of this report but are discussed here briefly for context. ƒ Regarding strip development, the proposed development is set behind and shielded by, and will not extend easterly beyond the developed Townsend Bluff, and will not be visible from the foreshore. (Refer Section 7.3). ƒ Regarding the urban boundary of Inverloch the Council has proposed that with Residential 1 Zone land up to the western edge of the Screw Creek reserve and the development of the land on Townsend Bluff Road, the eastern boundary of the Inverloch township is properly defined as the eastern end of the Townsend Bluff development. As such, the proposed development does not constitute linear development along the coast. The Panel agrees with that position. This is reinforced by the fact that the subject land is too small for the conduct of a stand-alone broadacre agricultural enterprise. (Refer Section 7.2) • The Panel received expert evidence that on-site treatment of sewerage and sullage, and the proposed wetland to receive stormwater run-off would not increase nutrient and other pollutant accessions to Screw Creek. Further, a Planning Permit cannot be issued for the development without the EPA’s satisfaction that treated effluent can be contained on-site. (Refer Section 7.8) ƒ Approval would set a precedent for other development rezoning and proposals to the east and north of the subject land. The waters and environs of Anderson Inlet and the Screw Creek catchment have been subject to fundamentally changed land conditions since settlement. The environmental virtues of Anderson Inlet were regularly extolled during the hearing, and these undisputed values remain in spite of the impact of any local and broader catchment changes that have occurred. No suggestion was made

Bass Coast Planning Scheme Amendment C6 and Permit No. 011172 Panel Report: March 2003 64 to the Panel that the Inlet’s environment might be at a critical hinge point. Also, the gifting of the vegetated land to the state was unanimously regarded as a net long-term environmental benefit, albeit that up to 50,000 people annually are reported by the Inverloch Residents and Ratepayers to visit the existing Screw Creek reserve. The proposed development is also not visible from the beach and the Screw Creek estuarine area and does not extend ribbon development along the coastline. As previously discussed, the land proposed for residential development is visible only from a 70 metre section of the Townsend Bluff walking track near the head of the Bluff and only until recent revegetation plantings obscure the view.

The Panel does not accept that approval of the current rezoning and development proposal would set a precedent for other development proposals.

It is understandable that the Coastal Action Plan was not raised in written submissions as the Plan was released after the time of acceptance of submissions had passed. Nor was it raised in verbal submissions to the Panel.

The Action Plan outlines a Coastal Policy for Local Government in Gippsland and seeks the inclusion of the policy in Council planning schemes. The vision and objectives in the policy reinforce those of the Victorian Coastal Strategy.

The Panel has carefully considered the vision, intent, and desired outcomes of the Victorian Coastal Strategy 2002 and the Gippsland Coastal Action Plan, and concludes that the objectives and strategies of neither will compromised if the proposal proceeds.

The above finding is based on the more specific conclusions that: ƒ the addition of up to 31 houses on the subject land would not be significant in terms of wider development and people movement in the area; ƒ because of the configuration of surrounding zoning and development, the proposed rezoning and development cannot be considered to be adding to ribbon development along the coast; and ƒ it does not follow that approval of this proposal would set a precedent for further development in coastal areas.

Bass Coast Planning Scheme Amendment C6 and Permit No. 011172 Panel Report: March 2003 65 8. MINISTERIAL DIRECTION NO.6

The requirements relating to Ministerial Direction No.6 are outlined in Section 5.3.The guidelines are detailed and the Panel does not propose to comment on each and every guideline. It does, however, provide comment in this Section on those that are most relevant to the proposal. The comments are mainly based on the discussion of a range of issues in Section 7 of the report. The reference numbers used in this section are those used in the Guidelines.

1. The guideline indicates that land proposed for rural residential use or development should be included in a Low Density Residential Zone. Council's amendment has placed the land subject to development in the Rural Living Zone. This matter is dealt with in Section 6.3.

2.1 and 2.2 Amendments must be consistent with the State and Local Planning Policy Frameworks. See Section 9 where the Panel concludes that the proposal is consistent with State and Local Policies.

2.3 Amendments must be consistent with Regional Catchment Strategies. Council indicated in its submission that there was no evidence to suggest that the proposal is inconsistent with any regional catchment strategies.

2.5 This deals with the integration of rural residential developments into existing urban areas. In this case, the development will be separated from existing Residential 1 Zone land to the east by the streamside reservation on Screw Creek, but could be seen as adjoining (but not abutting) the urban area.

2.6 Supply and Demand. An amendment must not provide for rural residential use or development of land which would increase the supply of rural residential land to more than that required to meet a 10 year demand.

2.7 Agency Comments. The Guidelines list a number of agencies that must be consulted. This consultation has been undertaken and most agencies raised no objection, subject to a number of conditions being applied. One agency, the Central Coastal Board did object to the proposal on the following grounds:

• Land capability.

• Environmental protection of Screw Creek and its environs.

• Planning principles including the orderly planning of land between Inverloch and Townsend Bluff.

The comments made by the Board about protecting Screw Creek were made before the revised plan to include all the treed area in the reserve was prepared. The Board did not respond to the circulation of the revised plan nor was it represented at the hearing.

Bass Coast Planning Scheme Amendment C6 and Permit No. 011172 Panel Report: March 2003 66 The vesting of all the treed area in the Crown and the proposed wetland may well provide the protection to Screw Creek requested by the Board.

Planning of the area between Inverloch and Townsend Bluff involves land outside the brief of this Panel.

3.1 Land use capability. The Guideline requires that the proposed use and development of the land must be compatible with the existing and likely uses in the locality.

The Guideline specifies that rural residential development should not be within 500 metres of a National Park, Reference Area, Wilderness, Marine Park or State Park, or within 200 metres of other Crown Land unless the regional manager of DNRE specifies a lesser buffer. The 500 metre buffer is not applicable and in relation to the 200 metre buffer, the Department (now Department of Primary Industry [DPI]), said:

The revised proposal excludes the areas of remnant native vegetation from within the subdivision described as being of concern in the Departments letter of response dated 10 May 2002 to Mr Stephen Foster of the Bass Coast Shire. The revised proposal has the area of all the lots falling within the general guidelines contained within this Ministerial Direction No. 6. The Department does not oppose or seek further changes to the configuration of the proposed Lots on the basis that the land lies partially within 200 metres of the permanent public reserve abutting Screw Creek. (D.P.I. to Council 21 January 2003)

3.2 Resource Protection. Rural residential use and development of land must not take place on high quality production agricultural land. The subject land is not considered as "high quality" using Assessment of agricultural quality land in East Gippsland (Swan and Volum, undated) and this assessment was confirmed by the Department of Primary Industry when it said:

The area of the site … is not viewed by the Department as having significant potential to be of high value for pastoral or other likely agricultural purposes.

No evidence was presented to the Panel to indicate that the land proposed for rural residential development contains flora or fauna of significance. It is proposed to vest the treed area to the Crown.

3.3 Landscape and Heritage Values. No significant landscape or heritage values that would be impacted by the proposed development have been identified.

3.4 Health and hazard. The Panel heard no evidence that would indicate that fire hazard, flooding, salinity, contamination, and excessive slope would impact on the proposed use and development. Soil absorption testing has been undertaken and this is reported in detail in Section7.8.

Reference in the Guidelines is made to a system for land capability classification for rural residential subdivision based on DNRE land capability criteria. The Panel has made extensive enquiries, but has not been able to locate these guidelines, nor could other parties to the hearing shed light on their existence.

Bass Coast Planning Scheme Amendment C6 and Permit No. 011172 Panel Report: March 2003 67 3.5 Infrastructure and social services. This area has a relatively high rainfall which is above the level that would require a reticulated potable water supply.

Sullage and sewerage treatment is dealt with in Section 7, as is the treatment of stormwater.

Power and telephone can be made available, and garbage collection will be provided by the Council. The subject land is about 2km from the centre of Inverloch which will provide access to existing social facilities and services.

The Panel is satisfied that the proposal in all relevant requirements is in accord with Ministerial Direction No. 6.

Bass Coast Planning Scheme Amendment C6 and Permit No. 011172 Panel Report: March 2003 68

9. STRATEGIC ASSESSMENT GUIDELINES This section of the report deals with the Strategic Assessment Guidelines contained in a General Practice Note, November 2001. The purpose of the Strategic Assessment Guidelines is to provide a consistent framework for the evaluation of a proposed planning scheme amendment and the outcomes it produces. The Guidelines ask a series of questions and this Section provides the Panel’s response.

9.1 IS AN AMENDMENT REQUIRED? If the proposal to subdivide the amendment site into a number of small lots with a minimum lot size of 0.4 ha and to allow development of residences on each lot is to proceed, an amendment to the current rural zoning is necessary. The present zoning of the site is Rural with a minimum subdivision lot size of 40 ha. The proposal would also see an area of native vegetation with conservation values being gifted to the Crown. If this takes place, the present zoning of this parcel as Rural will need to be changed to a zone which properly reflects its ownership and conservation status.

9.2 WHAT IS THE STATEGIC BASIS FOR THE AMENDMENT? The strategic basis for the amendment is provided in Section 6 of this report. A detailed analysis of the relevant issues and the Panel’s findings are contained in Section 8. The Panel considers that, on balance, there is strategic support in the SPPF and LPPF for the proposal.

9.3 DOES THE PROPOSAL MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT ACT? The amendment has considered the relevant environmental, social and economic effects. These are dealt with in detail in Section 7 of the report. While there may be some apparent negative aspects of the proposal, the very strong positive outcome of having a significant area with conservation values given protection provides support for the amendment on environmental grounds. The provision of residential allotments in the range of 0.4 – 0.6 ha is likely to meet a demand for this sized parcel in the market and thus could be seen as providing economic and social benefits.

Bass Coast Planning Scheme Amendment C6 and Permit No. 011172 Panel Report: March 2003 69 The amendment complies with the Ministerial Direction on the Form and Content of Planning Schemes.

Ministerial Direction No. 6 relating to Rural Residential Development is also applicable. This matter is dealt with in Section 5.3 and Section 8 of this report. The Panel concluded that the proposal in all relevant requirements is in accord with this Direction.

9.4 STATE PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK The Panel has identified in Section 6 the SPPF policies that are relevant to this amendment. In Section 8 the issues arising from submissions and relating to these policies are discussed. The Panel finds that the amendment is consistent with these policies, and in relation to the protection and enhancement of areas of conservation significance, is directly supportive.

9.5 LOCAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK Section 6 of this report has identified the parts of the MSS that are relevant to this amendment and Section 8 deals with the issues arising from submissions in relation to the policies. The amendment would appear to be in conflict with that part of the MSS that indicates that there is an ample supply of rural residential allotments and that further subdivision will not be encouraged. However, the Panel notes that the data in the MSS relating to supply and demand is now somewhat dated. In recent years there has been considerable development within the municipality, and that high population growth rates have been predicted. Council informed the Panel that the information in the MSS relating growth rates is ‘now out of date’. The Panel also notes that the MSS is currently under review. The Panel accepts Council’s advice on this matter and finds, on balance, that the amendment would implement and support the policies in the MSS.

One Local Policy, Fire Safety and Wildfire Hazard, is relevant. Conditions which have been recommended by the CFA and have been included by Council in the draft planning permit which was exhibited will ensure that the proposed development will meet the objectives of the policy.

The amendment does not propose to make changes to the MSS or any local policies.

9.6 ZONES, OVERLAYS AND SCHEDULES Section 7 of the report deals with the statutory changes that are proposed by the amendment. The amendment as exhibited provided that the Rural Living Zone be applied to the land proposed for rural residential development. As detailed earlier in this report, (Section 2.5) the Panel is considering a proposal that differs from the original. One change has been to increase the number of lots from 22 to 31 with a consequent reduction in size so that lots range in area from 0.4 ha to 0.6 ha. In light of this change, it is appropriate that the land proposed for rural residential subdivision be zoned as Low Density Residential Zone rather than Rural Living Zone.

Bass Coast Planning Scheme Amendment C6 and Permit No. 011172 Panel Report: March 2003 70 The amendment also proposes to apply Schedule 1 of the Environmental Significance Overlay to the land to be used for residential development and the Overlay with Schedule 3 to the land to be gifted to the Crown. In both instances, this is consistent with the use of these overlays in the Bass Coast Planning Scheme for similar land.

The change in status from freehold to Crown of the area to be gifted to the Crown will require a change to its zoning. This was not dealt with in the exhibited amendment. The Panel has recommended that the appropriate zoning for this land is the Public Conservation and Resource Use Zone.

9.7 REFERRAL AUTHORITIES The Panel was appointed to consider both Amendment C6 and draft permit No. 011172 using the combined amendment and permit procedure. Council has referred the amendment and permit application to the relevant servicing authorities, VicRoads and the Country Fire Authority.

9.8 AMENDMENT OUTCOME The outcome of the amendment is clear. It will allow for the development, subject to the issue of a planning permit, of up to 31 new houses on lots ranging in size from 0.4 ha to 0.6 ha on the edge of the Inverloch township. It will also provide for an area of 16.05 ha with high regional conservation values to be transferred to the Crown and added to the existing Screw Creek Reserve. On balance, the outcome of the amendment is supported by the State and local planning policies and the Panel believes would provide a net community benefit.

Bass Coast Planning Scheme Amendment C6 and Permit No. 011172 Panel Report: March 2003 71 10. CONCLUSIONS The Panel’s conclusions have been drawn after considering the written submissions made in response to the exhibition of the proposal, further written submissions resulting from the Panel’s direction, and verbal submissions and expert evidence presented at the Panel hearing. The Panel has considered the relevant policies that have been identified in the State and Local Planning Policy Frameworks and in the Victorian Coastal Strategy.

As detailed earlier in this report, the Panel is considering a revised amendment that sees a larger area including all the treed area being gifted to the Crown and a larger number of smaller lots being developed on the remaining land. The Panel accepts, on balance, that this is change which would provide a better outcome than would have the exhibited amendment.

Section 5 of this report looked at the policies in the strategic framework relevant to the amendment. There is a wide range of objectives contained in these policies. In some instances these objectives may appear to be in conflict with other objectives. It is the role of the Panel to determine which policies and objectives are relevant and then to balance the objectives in favour of net community benefit.

The Municipal Strategic Statement indicates that there is an oversupply of undeveloped rural living and low density residential lots in the municipality. This may have been the case when the MSS was approved in December 1999. While no hard data was presented to the Panel, anecdotal evidence and observations made by the Panel during its inspections in the Inverloch area indicate that there has been considerable development during the last few years. Population projections indicate a period of strong growth over the next decade. The Panel concludes that the earlier concern about an oversupply of rural residential and low density residential lots is not likely to be valid now and is not a reason for refusing to support the amendment.

A major concern in submissions and during the hearing was that effluent from septic tanks could enter Screw Creek and cause deterioration in the conservation values of the Creek and Anderson Inlet. The Panel heard expert evidence that the use of Aerated Wastewater Treatment Systems (AWTS’s) to treat effluent, the nature of the soils in the area and the size of allotments would ensure that all treated waste water could be retained on site and that the chance of any treated waste causing pollution of the Creek would be very low. On-going maintenance and inspection of AWTS plants is required to ensure their efficient operation. Council is aware of this need and its responsibilities. Some submitters indicated that larger lots (1.5 ha) would be necessary to allow all discharges to be retained on the lot of origin. The Panel does not share this view and concludes on the evidence available to it that the effective treatment and discharge of effluent can be obtained on the proposed lots. The Panel notes that the EPA has still to indicate that the proposed method of sewerage treatment and disposal meets its requirements.

The revised proposal put to the Panel includes the construction of a wetland on a cleared area of the proposed reserve to catch and hold stormwater running off the proposed residential lots. The evidence heard by the Panel was that this would substantially reduce the silt and nutrient load of water coming from the developed area before it entered Screw Creek. The wetland addition is in

Bass Coast Planning Scheme Amendment C6 and Permit No. 011172 Panel Report: March 2003 72 line with best practice management for stormwater sediment and discharge at subdivision development sites. The Panel concludes that the wetlands proposal is consistent with best practice management for stormwater treatment at subdivision development sites, and that with the wetland in place, stormwater emanating from the developed lots would not have a detrimental impact on the Creek and Anderson Inlet.

In relation to coastal planning, the Panel finds that the proposed development is not of a scale or nature that would present an unacceptable threat to coastal values. This is in the context of wider land use change, land development and people movement occurring on the coastal fringe and in the catchments of Screw Creek and Anderson Inlet.

It was suggested in submissions that the development of the site for rural residential or low density housing would impact on the visual amenity of the general area particularly if lots as small as 0.4 ha were allowed. The Panel does not accept this. During its inspections of the area, it took particular note of site lines and the visibility of the site. Apart a view into the site from Townsend Bluff Road, there will be very limited exposure of the site from surrounding areas including the Screw Creek reserve, Townsend Bluff and the foreshore area on Anderson Inlet. Any visual impact from outside the site will be ameliorated after a few years by the growth of trees planted as part of the development of the lots, and in the current Screw Creek /Townsend Bluff reserve area Increasing the lot size to 1.5 ha as was suggested by some submitters would have little effect on reducing visual impact.

The impact on agriculture is always a factor that must be taken into account when assessing proposals for rural residential development. A written submission from the Department of Primary Industries handed to the Panel at the hearing stated that the subject land is not high quality agricultural land and it is of inadequate size to support an ongoing viable agricultural enterprise. The Panel shares this view and concludes that the proposal would not remove high quality agricultural land from agricultural production nor would it impact in any significant way to agricultural production in general.

All parties to the hearing were in agreement that the treed area on the site had considerable conservation values and is worth preserving. The original proposal as exhibited would have seen up to six of the proposed lots including part of the treed area. The revised proposal saw all the treed area being included in the reserve to be gifted to the Crown. The Panel accepts that biodiversity values will be enhanced by including what is now private bushland into the Screw Creek reserve and will meet the State’s biodiversity Net Gain objective for developments. The Panel notes, however, the difficulty is has reconciling the notion put by some submitters that the opening of the land to high levels of public access (an estimated 50 000 people per annum visit the existing reserve) is necessarily beneficial while the subdivision of adjoining land presents inherent terrestrial and aquatic biodiversity threats to the reserve.

The Panel concludes that the proposal, on balance, is consistent with the relevant objectives and strategies in the State and Local Planning Policy Frameworks and the Victorian Coastal Strategy, and with Ministerial Direction No.6.

Taking into account the conclusions drawn by the Panel and summarised above, the overall conclusion of the Panel is that there would be a net community benefit if the revised

Bass Coast Planning Scheme Amendment C6 and Permit No. 011172 Panel Report: March 2003 73 proposal as put to the Panel and outlined in Section 2.5 of this report was to proceed. It follows that that the Panel recommends that the revised amendment as outlined in Section 2.5 proceed and that a permit should issue with the changes detailed in Section 11 of the report.

Bass Coast Planning Scheme Amendment C6 and Permit No. 011172 Panel Report: March 2003 74 11. PLANNING PERMIT

Section 96A of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 allows a person who requests a planning authority to prepare an amendment to a planning scheme to apply to the planning authority for a permit for a purpose which the amendment would allow and allows the amendment and the permit application to be considered concurrently. The Panel must make a recommendation to the planning authority about both the amendment and the permit. If it recommends that a permit be granted, it must recommend the conditions to which the permit should be subject.

In the previous Part of this report, the Panel has considered the amendment and has concluded that Amendment C6 to the Bass Coast Planning Scheme should proceed. The Panel now comes to its consideration of whether a planning permit should issue, and if it does issue, what conditions should apply.

Draft Planning Permit No. 011172 was exhibited along with the amendment. It proposed: ƒ subdivision of the subject land into 22 lots ranging in size from 0.5 ha to 5.63 ha ƒ creation of a reserve on land adjoining and in the proximity of Screw Creek to be transferred to public ownership ƒ a draft planning permit with a range of conditions. The exhibited draft permit is at Appendix B(2). As a result of negotiations between Council and the proponent following the exhibition period, the original proposal as exhibited was changed and at the Panel hearing a new proposal which was acceptable to Council was submitted to the Panel. This new proposal is the one that has been considered by the Panel. An amended draft planning permit to accommodate the changes in the proposal was also submitted to the Panel. This is at Appendix B(3).

After all submissions at the Panel hearing had been made, but prior to the close of the hearing, the Panel, Council, proponent and those submitters present engaged in discussion on the conditions that should be included in the permit should it issue. The Panel has taken into consideration the contributions from the parties and has prepared a recommended draft permit with conditions that should apply. This recommended draft permit is at shown at the end of this Section.

The recommended draft permit is similar in intent to the exhibited permit but contains variations to accommodate the changed proposal and suggestions made during discussions at the hearing. The significant changes are as follows. ƒ The recommended permit allows subdivision into not more than 31 lots, one reserve to be gifted to the Crown and one reserve adjacent to the Inverloch – Tarwin Lower Road to control lots access from lots adjoining the Road. This increases the number of lots from the original 22 in line with the new proposal. It also allows the land that is to be

Bass Coast Planning Scheme Amendment C6 and Permit No. 011172 Panel Report: March 2003 75 transferred to public ownership and the strip of land adjacent to the Tarwin Lower Road to be dealt with in the one subdivision. ƒ Allowance is made for a change in layout depending on the outcome of the proponent’s negotiations to purchase part of the Townsend Bluff Road reserve. ƒ Drainage is to be generally in accordance with reports and concept plan provided by expert witnesses at the hearing and to the satisfaction of Council. ƒ The requirement for the proponent to prepare an Environment Management Plan prior to the issue of a Statement of Compliance has been removed but the matters originally intended to be included in the Plan have been picked up as items to be specifically included in a Section 173 Agreement which also must be in place before the Statement of Compliance is issued. ƒ Reference to the Septic Tanks Code of Practice (1990) has been changed to refer to the later 1996 document or subsequent Codes. The 1990 reference was apparently an error. The conditions that were requested by Southern Rural Water, Environment Protection Authority and Country Fire Authority have been retained in full. Conditions requested by VicRoads and Aboriginal Affairs Victoria which were not included in the exhibited draft permit have been included in the recommended draft permit.

Bass Coast Planning Scheme Amendment C6 and Permit No. 011172 Panel Report: March 2003 76

PERMIT RECOMMENDED BY THE PANEL

This Permit allows: Subdivision into not more than 31 lots and one reserve abutting the Inverloch-Tarwin Lower Road reserve and one conservation reserve to be gifted to the Crown.

THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO THIS PERMIT:

General Conditions:

1. No lot shall have an area less than 0.4 ha.

2. The subdivision shall be in accordance with a plan approved by the Responsible Authority generally in accordance with plan reference 4135 … but the layout may be modified to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority if that part of the Townsend Bluff Road reserve shown as part of lots on the said plan is not available, or if required to meet the requirements of the Environment Protection Authority to cater for on-site effluent disposal as discussed under Clause 11 of this Permit. When endorsed as to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority those plans shall be the endorsed plans and part of this permit.

3. The subdivision as shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered without the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority.

4. Each lot shown on the endorsed plans must be drained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority generally in accordance with the report of Dr Nicholas Somes dated 15/1/03 and the concept plan in Appendix A in the report of Darren S Powell Ref. E4135.

5. Before any works associated with the subdivision begin, detailed construction plans must be prepared to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. All works constructed or carried out must be in accordance with those plans.

6. Prior to the issue of Statement of Compliance for any stage of the subdivision hereby permitted, the owner/applicant must enter into an agreement under Section 173 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 with the Responsible Authority to provide for

I. Protection and management of indigenous vegetation with the exception of a garden area immediately adjoining dwellings.

II. A prohibition on the keeping of cats.

III. A prohibition on the further subdivision of allotments.

Bass Coast Planning Scheme Amendment C6 and Permit No. 011172 Panel Report: March 2003 77 IV. The discharge of all effluent must be a minimum of 20 metres from land contained in the conservation reserve.

The Section 173 Agreement shall be registered on the title to the land pursuant to Section 181 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. All costs associated with the preparation and registration of the agreement shall be at the applicant’s expense. Prior to the issuing of a statement of compliance for any stage of the subdivision hereby permitted, the reserve area created by the subdivision must be fenced with to the satisfaction of Parks Victoria and the Responsible Authority.

The conservation reserve area created by the subdivision must either be formally surrendered to the Crown for reservation prior to a Statement of Compliance for the first stage of the subdivision hereby permitted or set aside as a reserve in the first plan of subdivision pursuant to this permit to be vested in the Crown or any Statutory Authority nominated by the Responsible Authority.

7. The owner/applicant must enter into agreements with the relevant authorities for the provision of drainage, electricity and telecommunication services to each lot shown on the endorsed plan in accordance with the authority’s requirements and the relevant legislation at the time.

8. All existing and proposed easements and sites for existing or required utility services and roads on the land must be set aside in the plan of subdivision submitted for certification in favour of the relevant authority for which the easement or site is to be created.

9. The plan of subdivision submitted for certification under the Subdivision Act 1988 must be referred to all referral authorities in accordance with Section 8 of that Act. All stormwater infrastructure must be designed and constructed in accordance with the Urban Stormwater: Best Practice Environmental Management Guidelines to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Prior to the issuing of a statement of compliance for any stage of subdivision hereby permitted, the wetlands shown on the endorsed plans, and all associated infrastructure and works, must be constructed to the satisfaction of the Department of Sustainability and Environment and the Responsible Authority.

Southern Rural Water

10. Permits for buildings with the potential to generate effluent shall require that the site is capable of containing an appropriate water treatment system and that the set back distance for the disposal of septic tank effluent be in accordance with the EPA's Code of Practice – Septic Tanks 1996, or subsequent Code current at the time of building permit approval.

Bass Coast Planning Scheme Amendment C6 and Permit No. 011172 Panel Report: March 2003 78 Environment Protection Authority

11. The allotments created must be capable of adequately treating and retaining all domestic wastewater generated within their boundaries. Unsewered development must comply with Clause 40 of the ‘State Environment Protection Policy – Waters of Victoria’ and the ‘Septic Tanks Code of Practice (1996)’, EPA Publication No. 451.or subsequent Code current at the time of building permit approval.

12. Any clearing or construction activity associated with the development on the subject land, must be carried out in accordance with ‘Construction Techniques for Sediment Pollution Control’, EPA Publication No. 275.

Country Fire Authority

13. Access points must be provided to allow safe two-way access in and around the subdivision.

14. There must be no obstructions within one metre of the edge of the formed width of roads at any time, and there must be four metres height clearance above all roads.

15. The minimum width of the trafficable road must be six metres; however, a four metre width is permitted provided there is a passing bay every 200 metres. The combined width of the passing bay and trafficable road must be six metres and the passing bay must be 20 metres long.

16. Adequate provision for turning of fire brigade vehicles must be provided in dead end roads and cul de sacs by:

(a) A court bowl with a minimum trafficable area of 10 metres radius; or “tee” head; or

(b) “wye” head with a minimum formed road surface of each leg being at least 8 metres length measured from the centre point of the head, and 4 metres trafficable width; or

17. The amount and location of parking facilities should not impede access of emergency vehicles. Off-street parking is therefore encouraged where possible.

18. Road structures should have a minimum load limit of 15 tonnes.

19. All roads should have a minimum cross fall alignment of 1 in 33 (3%) and a minimum of curves.

20. Curves should have a minimum inner radius of ten metres.

Bass Coast Planning Scheme Amendment C6 and Permit No. 011172 Panel Report: March 2003 79 21. Areas of public open space must be managed in a minimum fuel condition during the fire danger period.

22. Water supply must be provided to the CFA’s satisfaction.

VicRoads

23. Vehicle access to all lots created by this development must be via Townsend Bluff Road or the internal roadways created by the development. No direct vehicle access from any lot created by the development will be permitted from Inverloch- Tarwin Road.

24. The developer must widen the Inverloch-Tarwin Road after the sale of the first six lots fronting the internal subdivisional road. Such widening must be carried out in accordance with the plans attached to the letter from VicRoads dated 17 April 2002.

25. All works shall be carried out in accordance with VicRoads Standard Specification for Roadworks and at no cost to VicRoads.

26. Evidence must be provided that the contractor undertaking these works has public liability insurance policy for at least $10 million that will be effective for the duration of the works.

27. Prior to commencing any works within the declared road reserve, the developer will be required to lodge a security deposit of 10% of the construction costs, refundable at satisfactory completion of the defects liability period.

28. Two copies of detailed plans and specifications for the widening of Inverloch- Tarwin Road, including all drainage, linemarking and signage details shall be submitted to VicRoads for approval.

Aboriginal Affairs Victoria 29. Works must cease immediately upon the discovery of any Aboriginal cultural material, and Aboriginal Affairs Victoria shall be immediately notified of any such discovery.

30. Development on the subject land must cease immediately upon the discovery of any suspected human remains. The Police or State Coroner’s Office must be informed of the discovery without delay. If there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the remains are Aboriginal, the discovery shall also be reported to Aboriginal Affairs Victoria.

31. The use authorised by this permit shall not commence, and no works may be undertaken, until the following requirements have been met to the satisfaction of Aboriginal Affairs Victoria and the Responsible Authority: -

Bass Coast Planning Scheme Amendment C6 and Permit No. 011172 Panel Report: March 2003 80 a) the applicant is to fund a survey by a suitably qualified heritage consultant to locate, record and assess Aboriginal sites, places and objects on all land likely to be affected by the development, including land which may be disturbed by associated works such as roads, buildings, services and future erosion.

b) the applicant is to undertake and fund any archaeological sampling or salvage excavations which may reasonably be recommended as a result of the above mentioned survey.

Permit Expiry

32. The permit will expire if one of the following circumstances applies:

a) The subdivision has not commenced within two years of the date of this permit.

b) The subdivision is not completed within five years of the date of commencement.

The Responsible Authority may extend the periods referred to if a request is made in writing before the permit expires or within three months afterwards.

Bass Coast Planning Scheme Amendment C6 and Permit No. 011172 Panel Report: March 2003 81

12. RECOMMENDATIONS The Panel appointed to consider submissions in relation to Amendment C6 to the Bass Coast Planning Scheme and Planning Permit No.011172 recommends as follows:

1. That Amendment C6 be adopted with the following changes

• The Low Density Residential Zone be applied to the land to be subdivided into rural residential lots instead of the Rural Living Zone as proposed in the exhibited amendment and the Schedule to the Rural Living Zone not be amended.

• The Public Conservation and Resource Use Zone be applied to the land to be gifted to the Crown

• Schedule 1 to the Environmental Significance Overlay be applied to the land to be subdivided into rural residential lots.

• Schedule 3 to the Environmental Significance Overlay be applied to the land to be gifted to the Crown.

2. That the appropriate changes be made to the documentation accompanying the amendment to accommodate the recommendations above.

3. That Planning Permit No.011172 should issue subject to the changes detailed in Section 11 of this report and incorporated in the recommended Permit shown in Section 11.

Bass Coast Planning Scheme Amendment C6 and Permit No. 011172 Panel Report: March 2003 82 APPENDICES

A. Instruments of appointment

B(1) Amendment as exhibited

B(2) Exhibited Permit

B(3) Revised draft permit submitted to the Panel

C. List of submitters

D. Directions

E. Letter from the Department of Primary Industries dated 21 January 2003

F. Documents provided to the Panel

G. Revised Plan of Proposed Subdivision

Bass Coast Planning Scheme Amendment C6 and Permit No. 011172 Panel Report: March 2003 INSTRUMENTS OF APPOINTMENT APPENDIX A

INSTRUMENT OF APPOINTMENT

PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT ACT 1987

SECTION 153

SECTION 155

Under delegation from the Minister for Planning, I appoint the following persons as a panel to consider and hear submissions about the following amendment to a planning scheme.

PANEL PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT

2pp Malcolm Lee Bass Coast C6 (Chairperson) Graeme David “ “

Helen Gibson Chief Panel Member Planning Panels Victoria

Date: 15/11/02

Bass Coast Planning Scheme Amendment C6 and Permit No. 011172 Panel Report: March 2003

INSTRUMENT OF APPOINTMENT

PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT ACT 1987

SECTION 96B

SECTION 153

SECTION 155

Under delegation from the Minister for Planning, I appoint the following persons as a panel to consider and hear submissions about the following Planning Permit Application.

PANEL MUNICIPALITY APPLICATION

2pp Malcolm Lee Bass Coast 011172 (Chairperson) Graeme David “ “

Helen Gibson Chief Panel Member Planning Panels Victoria

Date: 15/11/02

Bass Coast Planning Scheme Amendment C6 and Permit No. 011172 Panel Report: March 2003 AMENDMENT AS EXHIBITED APPENDIX B(1) AMENDMENT C6 Bass Coast Planning Scheme local Provision

I RLZ IRURAL LIVING ZONE " EXHIBITED MAP

Bass Coast Planning Scheme Amendment C6 and Permit No. 011172 Panel Report: March 2003 AMENDMENT C6 Ba Coast Planning Scheme Local Provision

ENVIRONMENTAL IIIGNIf'ICANCI OIi'lilALAV'" - NCItIilDULI NO a

EXHIBITED MAP

Bass Coast Planning Scheme Amendment C6 and Permit No. 011172 Panel Report: March 2003 EXHIBITED PERMIT APPENDIX B(2)

BASS COAST PLANNING SCHEME

DRAFT PLANNING PERMIT

PERMIT NUMBER:

PLANNING SCHEME: BASS COAST PLANNING SCHEME

ADDRESS OF LAND: CROWN ALLOTMENT 13B, PARISH OF DRUMDLEMARA, INVERLOCH

THE PERMIT ALLOWS:

The subdivision of land into twenty-two (22) lots in accordance with the endorsed plans.

THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO THIS PERMIT:

General Conditions

1. The subdivision as shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered without the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority.

2. Prior to the commencement of works, the owner/applicant must enter into an agreement under Section 173 of the Planning & Environment Act 1987 that shall be registered on the title created for Lot 22, shown on plan “C” Version 2 – Ref. No. 4135, prohibiting the lot from being further subdivided. The agreement must be prepared and registered at no cost to the Responsible Authority.

3. Each lot shown on the endorsed plans must be drained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority or other specified authority.

4. Before any works associated with the subdivision begin, detailed construction plans must be prepared to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. All works constructed or carried out must be in accordance with those plans.

5. Prior to the issue of Statement of Compliance for any lot, the owner/applicant must enter into an agreement under Section 173 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 with the Responsible Authority to provide for the following:

(a) The preparation of an Environmental Management Plan that includes provisions that deal with the following matters:

Bass Coast Planning Scheme Amendment C6 and Permit No. 011172 Panel Report: March 2003 I. Protection and management of indigenous vegetation with the exception of a garden area immediately adjoining dwellings.

II. A prohibition on the keeping of cats.

III. A prohibition on the further subdivision of allotments.

The Section 173 Agreement shall be registered on the title to the land pursuant to Section 181 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. All costs associated with the preparation and registration of the agreement shall be at the applicant’s expense.

6. The reserve to be created by the subdivision is to be vested in the Department of Natural Resources and Environment who will be responsible for its management.

7. The owner/applicant must enter into agreements with the relevant authorities for the provision of water supply, drainage, sewerage facilities, electricity, gas and telecommunication services to each lot shown on the endorsed plan in accordance with the authority’s requirements and the relevant legislation at the time.

8. All existing and proposed easements and sites for existing or required utility services and roads on the land must be set aside in the plan of subdivision submitted for certification in favour of the relevant authority for which the easement or site is to be created.

9. The plan of subdivision submitted for certification under the Subdivision Act 1988 must be referred to the relevant authority in accordance with Section 8 of that Act.

Southern Rural Water

10. Permits for buildings with the potential to generate effluent shall require that the site is capable of containing an appropriate water treatment system and that the set back distance for the disposal of septic tank effluent be in accordance with the EPA's Code of Practice – Septic Tanks 1996.

Environment Protection Authority

11. The allotments created must be capable of adequately treating and retaining all domestic wastewater generated within their boundaries. Unsewered development must comply with Clause 40 of the ‘State Environment Protection Policy – Waters of Victoria’ and the ‘Septic Tanks Code of Practice (1990)’, EPA Publication No. 451.

12. To help minimise environmental problems associated with sediment run-off, any clearing or construction activity associated with the development on the subject land, should be carried out in accordance with ‘Construction Techniques for Sediment Pollution Control’, EPA Publication No. 275.

Bass Coast Planning Scheme Amendment C6 and Permit No. 011172 Panel Report: March 2003 Country Fire Authority

13. Access points must be provided to allow safe two-way access in and around the subdivision.

14. There must be no obstructions within one metre of the edge of the formed width of roads at any time, and there must be four metres height clearance above all roads.

15. The minimum width of the trafficable road must be six metres; however, a four metre width is permitted provided there is a passing bay every 200 metres. The combined width of the passing bay and trafficable road must be six metres and the passing bay must be 20 metres long.

16. Adequate provision for turning of fire brigade vehicles must be provided in dead end roads and cul de sacs by:

(c) A court bowl with a minimum trafficable area of 10 metres radius; or “tee” head; or

(d) “wye” head with a minimum formed road surface of each leg being at least 8 metres length measured from the centre point of the head, and 4 metres trafficable width; or

(e) provision of alternative access provided by CFA.

17. The amount and location of parking facilities should not impede access of emergency vehicles. Off-street parking is therefore encouraged where possible.

18. Road structures should have a minimum load limit of 15 tonnes.

19. All roads should have a minimum cross fall alignment of 1 in 33 (3%) and a minimum of curves.

20. Curves should have a minimum inner radius of ten metres.

21. Areas of public open space must be managed in a minimum fuel condition during the fire danger period.

22. Water supply must be provided to the CFA’s satisfaction.

VicRoads

Bass Coast Planning Scheme Amendment C6 and Permit No. 011172 Panel Report: March 2003 Permit Expiry

The permit will expire if one of the following circumstances applies:

(a) The subdivision has not commenced within two years of the date of this permit.

(b) The subdivision is not completed within five years of the date of commencement.

The Responsible Authority may extend the periods referred to if a request is made in writing before the permit expires or within three months afterwards.

Bass Coast Planning Scheme Amendment C6 and Permit No. 011172 Panel Report: March 2003 APPENDIX B(3)

REVISED DRAFT PERMIT SUBMITTED BY COUNCIL TO THE PANEL

THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO THIS PERMIT:

General Conditions:

1. The subdivision as shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered without the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority.

2. [deleted]

3. Each lot shown on the endorsed plans must be drained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority or other specified authority.

4. Before any works associated with the subdivision begin, detailed construction plans must be prepared to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. All works constructed or carried out must be in accordance with those plans.

5. Prior to the issue of Statement of Compliance for any lot, the owner/applicant must enter into an agreement under Section 173 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 with the Responsible Authority to provide for the following:

The preparation of an Environmental Management Plan that includes provisions that deal with the following matters:

I. Protection and management of indigenous vegetation with the exception of a garden area immediately adjoining dwellings.

II. A prohibition on the keeping of cats.

III. A prohibition on the further subdivision of allotments.

NEW

IV. The location of waste water effluent envelopes and building envelopes which must be a minimum of 20 metres from land contained in the reserve.

The Section 173 Agreement shall be registered on the title to the land pursuant to Section 181 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. All costs associated with the preparation and registration of the agreement shall be at the applicant’s expense.

Bass Coast Planning Scheme Amendment C6 and Permit No. 011172 Panel Report: March 2003 NEW Prior to the issuing of a statement of compliance for any lots, the reserve area created by the subdivision must be fenced to the satisfaction of Parks Victoria and the Responsible Authority.

NEW The reserve area created by the subdivision must be formally surrendered to the Crown for reservation.

6. The reserve to be created by the subdivision is to be vested in the Department of Natural Resources and Environment who will be responsible for its management.

7. The owner/applicant must enter into agreements with the relevant authorities for the provision of water supply, drainage, sewerage facilities, electricity, gas and telecommunication services to each lot shown on the endorsed plan in accordance with the authority’s requirements and the relevant legislation at the time.

8. All existing and proposed easements and sites for existing or required utility services and roads on the land must be set aside in the plan of subdivision submitted for certification in favour of the relevant authority for which the easement or site is to be created.

9. The plan of subdivision submitted for certification under the Subdivision Act 1988 must be referred to the relevant authority in accordance with Section 8 of that Act. NEW All stormwater infrastructure must be designed and constructed in accordance with the Urban Stormwater : Best Practice Environmental Management Guidelines to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. NEW Prior to the issuing of a statement of compliance for any lots, the wetlands shown on the endorsed plans, and all associated infrastructure and works, must be constructed to the requirements and satisfaction of Parks Victoria and the Responsible Authority.

Southern Rural Water

10. Permits for buildings with the potential to generate effluent shall require that the site is capable of containing an appropriate water treatment system and that the set back distance for the disposal of septic tank effluent be in accordance with the EPA's Code of Practice – Septic Tanks 1996.

Bass Coast Planning Scheme Amendment C6 and Permit No. 011172 Panel Report: March 2003 Environment Protection Authority

11. The allotments created must be capable of adequately treating and retaining all domestic wastewater generated within their boundaries. Unsewered development must comply with Clause 40 of the ‘State Environment Protection Policy – Waters of Victoria’ and the ‘Septic Tanks Code of Practice (1990)’, EPA Publication No. 451.

12. To help minimise environmental problems associated with sediment run-off, any clearing or construction activity associated with the development on the subject land, should be carried out in accordance with ‘Construction Techniques for Sediment Pollution Control’, EPA Publication No. 275.

Country Fire Authority

13. Access points must be provided to allow safe two-way access in and around the subdivision.

14. There must be no obstructions within one metre of the edge of the formed width of roads at any time, and there must be four metres height clearance above all roads.

15. The minimum width of the trafficable road must be six metres; however, a four metre width is permitted provided there is a passing bay every 200 metres. The combined width of the passing bay and trafficable road must be six metres and the passing bay must be 20 metres long.

16. Adequate provision for turning of fire brigade vehicles must be provided in dead end roads and cul de sacs by:

(a) A court bowl with a minimum trafficable area of 10 metres radius; or “tee” head; or

(b) “wye” head with a minimum formed road surface of each leg being at least 8 metres length measured from the centre point of the head, and 4 metres trafficable width; or

(c) [deleted]

17. The amount and location of parking facilities should not impede access of emergency vehicles. Off-street parking is therefore encouraged where possible.

18. Road structures should have a minimum load limit of 15 tonnes.

19. All roads should have a minimum cross fall alignment of 1 in 33 (3%) and a minimum of curves.

Bass Coast Planning Scheme Amendment C6 and Permit No. 011172 Panel Report: March 2003 20. Curves should have a minimum inner radius of ten metres.

21. Areas of public open space must be managed in a minimum fuel condition during the fire danger period.

22. Water supply must be provided to the CFA’s satisfaction.

VicRoads NEW

Vehicle access to all lots created by this development must be via Townsend Bluff Road or the internal roadways created by the development. No direct vehicle access from any lot created by the development will be permitted from Inverloch-Tarwin Road.

NEW

The developer must widen the Inverloch-Tarwin Road after the sale of the first six lots fronting the internal subdivisional road. Such widening must be carried out as per the attached plan.

NEW

All works shall be carried out in accordance with VicRoads Standard Specification for Roadworks and at no cost to VicRoads.

NEW

Evidence must be provided that the contractor has public liability insurance policy for at least $10 million that will be effective for the duration of the works.

NEW

Prior to commencing any works within the declared road reserve, the developer will be required to lodge a security deposit of 10% of the construction costs, refundable at satisfactory completion of the defects liability period.

NEW

Two copies of detailed plans and specifications for the widening of Inverloch-Tarwin Road, including all drainage, linemarking and signage details shall be submitted to VicRoads for approval.

Bass Coast Planning Scheme Amendment C6 and Permit No. 011172 Panel Report: March 2003 AAV

NEW

Works must cease immediately upon the discovery of any Aboriginal cultural material, and Aboriginal Affairs Victoria shall be immediately notified of any such discovery.

NEW

Development on the subject land must cease immediately upon the discovery of any suspected human remains. The Police or State Coroner’s Office must be informed of the discovery without delay. If there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the remains are Aboriginal, the discovery shall also be reported to Aboriginal Affairs Victoria.

NEW The use authorised by this permit shall not commence, and no works may be undertaken, until the following requirements have been met to the satisfaction of Aboriginal Affairs Victoria and the Responsible Authority: - a) the applicant is to fund a survey by a suitably qualified heritage consultant to locate, record and assess Aboriginal sites, places and objects on all land likely to be affected by the development, including land which may be disturbed by associated works such as roads, buildings, services and future erosion.

Bass Coast Planning Scheme Amendment C6 and Permit No. 011172 Panel Report: March 2003 SUBMITTERS TO AMENDMENT C6 APPENDIX C

Submitter No. Name Address Address 1 Statutory Authorities Submissions Central Coastal Board Att. Nick Wimbush, Executive Officer 535 Bourke MELBOURNE VIC 3000 Street VicRoads Eastern Victoria Headquarters PO Box 158 TRARALGON VIC 3844 Aboriginal Affairs Victoria Att. Dr Michael Green PO Box 515 EAST MELBOURNE VIC (DNRE) 3002 Department Natural Resources Traralgon Regional Office 71 Hotham TRARALGON VIC 3844 and Environment Att. Tony Edgar, Regional Manager Street Country Fire Authority Att. Christian Knight, Statutory Compliance PO Box 1212 Sale, 3850 Officer, Gippsland Area

General Public Submissions

1 Inverloch Residents and Att. Wendy Davies, Secretary C/- 1 Streeton INVERLOCH VIC 3996 Ratepayers Assoc. Court

2 Mrs. M Kavanagh 1 Bass Street INVERLOCH VIC 3996 3 Wendy Davis & Paul Berger 1 Streeton Court INVERLOCH VIC 3996 4 Mrs Sue Nelson PO Box 281 INVERLOCH VIC 3996 5 Morag Loh 1/26 Rockley Road SOUTH YARRA VIC 3141 6 Helen Ward 6 Beach Avenue INVERLOCH VIC 3996 7 John F Williams 3 Golf Street INVERLOCH VIC 3996 8 Janice Raysan 6 Alwyn Street INVERLOCH VIC 3996 9 John and Ann Slee 8 Dixon Street INVERLOCH VIC 3996 10 Anthea G Spehr 660 Fairbank Road ARAWATA VIC 3951 11 Ailsa Drent PO Box 290 INVERLOCH VIC 3996

Bass Coast Planning Scheme Amendment C6 and Permit No. 011172 Panel Report: March 2003 12 V & M Crisp 16 Victoria Street INVERLOCH VIC 3996 13 Anne Denton 11 Park Street INVERLOCH VIC 3996 14 Delves Family PO Box 240 HANWOOD NSW 2002 15 John & Shirley Gunson 10 High Street INVERLOCH VIC 3996 16 Lyn Chambers 80 Broome Crescent WONTHAGGI VIC 3995 17 E.P Brewster 15 Scarborough Street INVERLOCH VIC 3996 18 Fay White 21 Wilson Avenue INVERLOCH VIC 3996 19 Elma Robertson 45 Bena Road KORUMBURRA VIC 3950 20 Marcia Ryan & Damien Grove 112 Surf Parade INVERLOCH VIC 3996 21 Paula Dent 77 Beatrice Street CHELTENHAM VIC 3192 22 R & J Manhal 7 Edgar Street INVERLOCH VIC 3996 23 Mary Ellis PO Box 67 FISH CREEK VIC 3959 24 Ken & Olga Shaw 61 Florida Avenue INVERLOCH VIC 3996 25 John & Margaret MacDonald 82 Halford Street INVERLOCH VIC 3996 26 Joanne Southern (email) [email protected] 27 Deanne Strachan 9/1 Stewart Avenue INVERLOCH VIC 3996 28 Christine Hamilton 15 Grandview Grove INVERLOCH VIC 3996 29 Neil Rankine 15A Heslop Road NORTH WONTHAGGI VIC 3995 30 Tamara Ball PO Box 722 VENUS BAY VIC 3956 31 W Terlingen 17 Lavington Street INVERLOCH VIC 3996 32 N.W Drummond PO Box 115 INVERLOCH VIC 3996 33 South Gippsland Conservation Att. Fay Arnold, Secretary PO Box 60 INVERLOCH VIC 3996 Society 34 Joanne David 49 Cruickshank Road JUMBUNNA VIC 3951 35 Mike and Olive Wellings PO Box 203 WONTHAGGI VIC 3995 36 Janet Pett & Jill Godwin 2 Ti-Tree Court KILSYTH VIC 3137 37 K Layton 10/1 Monaro Road KOOYONG VIC 3144 38 Del Hanna Koonwarra PO KOONWARRA VIC 3954 39 Jim Robinson 4 Prince Street INVERLOCH VIC 3996 40 Elizabeth & Marc Moerkerk 7 Caringal Street WARATAH BAY VIC 3959 41 Glenys & Bill Warren 8 Ethel Street BORONIA VIC 3155 42 Robyn Ansell 76 Pier Road INVERLOCH VIC 3996 43 Robyn Zammit 8 Glendale Court INVERLOCH VIC 3996 44 Sergei & Heather Zaitzev PO Box 136 SHEPPARTON VIC 3630 45 Sonya Dobson 38 Halford Street INVERLOCH VIC 3996

Bass Coast Planning Scheme Amendment C6 and Permit No. 011172 Panel Report: March 2003 46 Lyndal Chambers 59 Moore Street TRARALGON VIC 3844 47 Linda Clarke & M O’Grady 28 Braeside Drive LAUNCHING PLACE VIC 3139 48 Flora Dickson 1/8 Mitchell Road MONT ALBERT NORTH VIC 3129 49 Rick & Francis Brumpton 32 Lysbeth Street MCKINNON VIC 3204 50 Melanie Mumford & Nicola 65 Bateson Road GLEN FORBES VIC 3990 Miller 51 A &M Lacey 85 Sandy Point Road SANDY POINT VIC 3959 52 Meredith & Harry Schapp 7 Wanbrow Avenue NORTH BALWYN VIC 3104 53 Janet Coogan PO Box 57 FOSTER VIC 3960 54 Janet Coogan (South Gippland C\- Foster Branch PO Box 57 FOSTER VIC 3960 Conservation Society – Foster South Gippsland Conservation Society Branch) (see also above) 55 F.L Mathews “Hillside” Bridge Road KORUMBURRA VIC 3950 56 Barbara Leaver 11 Shara Court CHELTENHAM VIC 3192 (11 Ikara Court) 57 Bert Terlingen 17 Lavington Street INVERLOCH VIC 3996 58 Bernadette Forster 13 Townsend Bluff Road INVERLOCH VIC 3996 59 E.J. Waye 35 Kingston Road WONTHAGGI VIC 3995 60 Gerard Lonergan 21 Albert Street INVERLOCH VIC 3996 61 Marion Waupt Unit 24, Winton Court FOSTER VIC 3960 62 Ruth may & Marguerite 144 Surf Parade INVERLOCH VIC 3996 Menon 63 Rosalind & Gavin Faichney 10 Fern Street INVERLOCH VIC 3996 64 Matt Bowler 11 Sandymount Avenue INVERLOCH VIC 3996 65 Clare Hake 60 Willow Avenue GLEN WAVERLEY VIC 3150 66 Sael Thornton 36 Halford Street INVERLOCH VIC 3996 67 John Glare 15 Tara Avenue BLACKBURN VIC 3130 68 Susan Whiting 15 Tara Avenue BLACKBURN VIC 3130 69 Ruth Glare 44 Pier Road INVERLOCH VIC 3996 70 Peter Glare 44 Pier Road INVERLOCH VIC 3996 71 Stan Harrison 43 Grandview Grove INVERLOCH VIC 3996 72 R.P. Widmer 220 Hollins Road MOUNT ECCLES VIC 3953 73 M Wiltshire 23 Mermaids Walk CAPE PATERSON VIC 3995 74 Gavin Neely 23 Mermaids Walk CAPE PATERSON VIC 3995

Bass Coast Planning Scheme Amendment C6 and Permit No. 011172 Panel Report: March 2003 75 George Durham 48 Cutriss Street INVERLOCH VIC 3996 76 Ina Aitken 88 Surf Parade INVERLOCH VIC 3996 77 Ruth & Peter Chambers 17 Pymble Avenue INVERLOCH VIC 3996 78 Mei-lin Loh 4/26 Rockley Road SOUTH YARRA VIC 3141 79 John & Sophie Cuttriss 6 View Street INVERLOCH VIC 3996 80 Jennifer Marshall PO Box 218 BENDIGO VIC 3552 81 Cleo Pereira & Su-lin Loh 3/26 Rockley Road SOUTH YARRA VIC 3141 82 Lorraine Carroll 40, 62 Murray Street WONTHAGGI VIC 3995 83 M.N Brown 24 Foam Street CAPE PATERSON VIC 3995 84 Aletta Wolswinkel 4/12 Campbell Street WONTHAGGI VIC 3995 85 Paul Speirs 30 Bateson Road GLEN FORBES VIC 3990 86 Elizabeth Hyde 17/75 Eastfield Road SOUTH CROYDON VIC 3136 87 Elizabeth McColl 18 Glassford Street ARMADALE VIC 3143 88 Friends of Wonthaggi Friends of Wonthaggi Heathland and 52 Sail Street CAPE PATERSON VIC 3995 Heathland and Coastal Coastal Reserve Inc Reserve Inc. 89 Hugh Thomas C\- A’Beckett Street Veterinary Clinic 3-23 A’Beckett INVERLOCH VIC 3996 Street 90 Karen Reed & Peter Bateman 32 Freda Street INVERLOCH VIC 3996 91 Caroline & Ian Hamilton 52 Chamberlain Drive LEONGATHA VIC 3953 92 Robert & Lorraine Scott 20 Bruce Street INVERLOCH VIC 3996 93 Therese Tilligan 15 Ascot Place INVERLOCH VIC 3996 94 Aileen Vening 1 Davidson Street LEONGATHA VIC 3953 95 Mary Florrimell 3 Cassia Street CAPE PATERSON VIC 3995 96 Lee Evans 13 Hopetoun Street INVERLOCH VIC 3996 97 Steve Dubford 13 Hopetoun Street INVERLOCH VIC 3996 98 Susan McLeod 83 Lohr Avenue INVERLOCH VIC 3996 99 Sue & Nicholas Keks 25 Duggan Street NORTH BALWYN VIC 3104 100 Amada Pearce (email) [email protected] PRESTON 3072 18 William St 101 Mardi Paul 37 Beach Avenue INVERLOCH VIC 3996 102 South Gippsland conservation South Gippsland Conservation Society 14 Hamilton INVERLOCH VIC 3996 Society – Inverloch Branch – Inverloch Branch Street 103 Paula Horton 136 Lohr Avenue INVERLOCH VIC 3996

Bass Coast Planning Scheme Amendment C6 and Permit No. 011172 Panel Report: March 2003 104 South Gippsland Conservation C\- Ms E Williams 3 Golf Street INVERLOCH VIC 3996 Society Inc & Inverloch Secretary Residents and Ratepayers Association Inc 105 Margaret Douglas 3 Powlett Street INVERLOCH VIC 3996 106 Inverloch Koala Action Inverloch Koala Action Information PO Box 60 INVERLOCH VIC 3996 Information and Research and Research 107 Cheryl & Owen Tyler PO Box 175 INVERLOCH VIC 3996 108 Bill & Sue Rewell 2 Maud Street IVANHOE VIC 3079 109 Christine Larsen RMB 5044 COWES VIC 3922 110 Susan Purdy RSD Inglis Road STONY CREEK VIC 3957 111 Marion & Andrew Chapman 2 Beach Avenue INVERLOCH VIC 3996 112 Jill McCulloch 22 Fern Street INVERLOCH VIC 3996 113 Ian Chambers 24 High Street INVERLOCH VIC 3996 114 Jane Chambers 24 High Street INVERLOCH VIC 3996 115 Judith Aitken 37 Royal Parade INVERLOCH VIC 3996 (88 Surf Parade) 116 Sally Schafter PO Box 217 VENUS BAY VIC 3956 117 Richard and Carol Lowey 17 Fairfax Court INVERLOCH VIC 3996 118 Judy Stampton 69-71 Brown Street LEONGATHA VIC 3953 119 Jenny Bond 33 Freda Street INVERLOCH VIC 3996 120 J.S Leaman PO Box 165 INVERLOCH VIC 3996 121 Beveridge Williams (on behalf PO Box 129 WONTHAGGI VIC 3995 of the proponent) 122 Jan Hillyard 4 Park Street INVERLOCH VIC 3996

Bass Coast Planning Scheme Amendment C6 and Permit No. 011172 Panel Report: March 2003

DIRECTIONS APPENDIX D

BASS COAST PLANNING SCHEME

AMENDMENT C6 and PLANNING PERMIT APPLICATION NO.011172

DIRECTIONS

The Panel appointed to consider Amendment C6 and Planning Permit Application No. 011172 has made certain directions in relation to these matters and the public hearing that will be conducted. These directions are made under section 159 (1) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.

In these directions, the ‘planning authority’ refers to the Bass Coast Shire Council and the ‘proponent’ refers to Mr IA & Mrs EJ Pellizzer.

1. The proposal before the Panel. At the directions hearing held on 5 December 2002 it was brought to the Panel’s attention that negotiations between the planning authority and the proponent had resulted in a new proposal which differed from the original proposal that had been exhibited. In summary, these changes involved • Placing no future freehold lots over land containing existing trees. • Increasing the number of lots from 22 to 31 with a consequent reduction in average lot size. • Removal of the “superlot’ from the proposal and the creation of a 16.0 ha reserve to be transferred to the Crown at no cost • The development of a wetland system on the future reserve to allow natural treatment of stormwater runoff prior to its discharge to Screw Creek.

Council by letter dated 18 November 2002 advised all submitters of the changes to the proposal and invited them ‘to speak to Council officers one-to-one in relation to this matter’. Council planning officer, Kevin Hazell, advised the Panel at the directions hearing that this letter elicited four responses, none of which raised an objection to the changed proposal.

Two matters arise from the changed proposal and how it was dealt with.

Firstly, the Panel has to decide if it can deal with the changed proposal in its new form, or whether it should advise the planning authority that the process should start again and the proposal be advertise anew. A general objective of the panel process is to achieve good outcomes without unnecessary delay or protraction of process. If modifying a proposal will achieve a good outcome, which overcomes legitimate and reasonable concerns, it is

Bass Coast Planning Scheme Amendment C6 and Permit No. 011172 Panel Report: March 2003 better to do so as part of the process of considering the matter than to reject it and require the process to be recommenced. The Panel is satisfied that the proposed changes to the proposal are modifications to the original proposal and are not of such magnitude as would constitute a transformation to a new proposal, and that the changes will overcome some of the concerns expressed in submissions. It will therefore consider and report on the changed proposal.

Secondly, the Panel must consider whether the rules of natural justice would be adhered to if the process was allowed to continue based on the changed proposal without giving submitters full opportunity to make comment to Council on the new proposal. The Panel notes that the planning authority did notify all submitters by letter of the proposed changes and invited them to speak to a Council officer about the changes. The letter did not invite further written submissions. In the Panel’s view, submitters should have been offered the opportunity to make written submissions if they wished. The Panel therefore directs that the planning authority write again to all submitters advising them that further written submissions to Council will be accepted and will be referred to the Panel for consideration. Any further written submissions are to with Council by close of business on 15 January 2003. Any party lodging a further written submission can also lodge with Council a request to be heard by the Panel. This request shall also be lodged by 15 January 2003.

2. The Panel hearing for Amendment C 6 to the Bass Coast Planning Scheme and the hearing for Planning Application No. 011172 will be held at the Council Chamber of the Bass Coast Shire Council, 76 McBride Avenue, Wonthaggi commencing at 9.00am on Wednesday 22 January 2003. Note that this date and time has been changed from that advised in earlier correspondence due to the direction above which will give submitters an opportunity to comment on the changed proposal.

3. A timetable for the hearing will be prepared by the panel and posted to all parties who have requested to be heard. As far as practicable, Panel hearings will be conducted according to the circulated timetable, although the Panel reserves the right to make changes to the timetable and will endeavour to circulate a revised timetable when it does so. However, it may make changes without further notice to submitters.

4. Equipment and facilities

The planning authority will provide and maintain the following equipment and facilities for Panel hearings: • a ‘document table’ containing copies of the Panel directions and timetable, all core documents and documents tendered to the Panel; • an overhead projector; • display/pin boards; • photocopying facilities; and • refreshment and toilet facilities.

Bass Coast Planning Scheme Amendment C6 and Permit No. 011172 Panel Report: March 2003 Any party requesting access to equipment beyond that listed above must contact Kevin Hazell at the planning authority on 03 5671 2222 by close of business on Wednesday 15 January 2003 to make the necessary arrangements.

5. Core documents

For the information of all parties, the Panel clarifies that the core documents available to it are as follows: ƒ The approved Bass Coast Planning Scheme. ƒ The exhibited Amendment C6. ƒ The exhibited Permit No. 011172 ƒ Correspondence from authorities in relation to the amendment ƒ Officer reports to Council relating to the amendment ƒ Bass Coast Shire Rural and Rural Residential Strategy. AGC Woodward Clyde 1997 ƒ Amendment L52 Panel Report relating to the subject site ƒ Report prepared by Van de Graff and Associates relating to flooding and use of septic tanks ƒ Assessment of Agricultural Quality of Land in Gippsland 1984, including map taking in site ƒ Design and Siting Guidelines for Coastal Hinterlands 1999 ƒ South West Gippsland Coastal Townships Strategy 1997 ƒ Strategic Assessment Guidelines. ƒ Ministerial Direction NO 6

6. The planning authority and proponent submissions must each address the relevant contents of the Strategic Assessment Guidelines and Ministerial Direction NO.6. Other submitters may use these documents to support their own assessment of the proposed amendment and permit application.

7. Site Visits

By agreement with parties at the directions hearing, an accompanied site visit will take place at the close of hearing on Day 2.

All parties are welcome to attend, but are asked to note that the Panel is not formally in session during the site visit. Submissions must be made in the public hearings and discussions on site will be limited to advising the Panel of locations referred to in submissions and in responding to the Panel’s questions of fact.

8. Witnesses, Evidence and Statements

Any party calling expert witnesses shall arrange for each witness to prepare a written statement of evidence. Hard copies of all witness statements are to be served on the Panel and sufficient copies provided to the planning authority and for parties requesting sight of

Bass Coast Planning Scheme Amendment C6 and Permit No. 011172 Panel Report: March 2003 them. Copies of witness statements shall also be placed on the ‘document table’during the hearing. Parties shall serve witness statements by close of business on Wednesday 15 January 2003. They are to be available for inspection and collection from Thursday 16 January 2003 at the Bass Coast Shire Planning Department counter, Shire Offices. Witness statements shall be served as follows: • two (2) copies to Panels Victoria (attention – Diana Michetti) at 11th Floor, 80 Collins Street Melbourne for the use of the Panel • three (3) copies to the Shire of Bass Coast (attention Kevin Hazell) of which one copy is for Council use, one copy for public exhibition at the counter which during the hearing will be available on the document table and one copy to be available as a shared copy for the Inverloch Residents & Ratepayers Association (David Sutton) and the South Gippsland Conservation Society (Elisabeth Williams). There was no indication from the submitters who wish to be heard that they will be calling expert witnesses.

Where written statements to amplify the content of submissions are to be made at the hearing by submitters, they are requested to provide 6 copies of such statements for circulation to the Panel, to other parties at the hearing and to the ‘document table’. Material to be provided to the Panel should preferably be typed, on one-sided A4 paper, two-hole punched, clipped but not bound or stapled.

9. Native Vegetation and associated matters

The Panel requests the Council to invite the Department of Natural Resources and Environment to appear at the Hearing to discuss the following matters: • The agricultural value of the site • The value of the native vegetation on the subject site • The value of that vegetation as a gifted asset to the State and any management or other issues associated with that matter • The relevance and application of the State’s recently endorsed Native Vegetation Management Framework policy to this proposal. • Any other matters relevant to the charter of DNRE • The implications of Ministerial Direction No.6 for the proposal.

Bass Coast Planning Scheme Amendment C6 and Permit No. 011172 Panel Report: March 2003 LETTER FROM DEPARTMENT OF PRIMARY INDUSTRIES 21JANUARY 2003 APPENDIX E

IIAliSJ {X)klIT lI'LL"!IIL"i(l S(CllltMlK ;L'Jt£:'¥bMf~''l: ,,:'¥n N(lT1C:1 OJ/' ~"Af1'UCATlOI'I tT'IlII'I,"!ll'lli'i(; rlRF>lJT :"61111111

Bass Coast Planning Scheme Amendment C6 and Permit No. 011172 Panel Report: March 2003 .,.

n",_ ...... ,-... ' ... __ .. , .. _

Dooop ...... '"'...... _ '._ 7 . ... ~ , .... _.-< __ ...

_c- 1100...,._" "",... _ ... _ .... " 7 ai __ .. ~ 'w" '.

" " 7 -. C -.. 1_. JOo)'" .'... ,p ..... Cool M _ "'-., ... ~ ._-.., . ' ..' ...... _._ 50 ....

~ v_...... ___ .. ..-_, "F ' -w _ ...... _ T...... ' .. ' , ...... ' • •, ..... v.... _,,, .. L ",,__ on...,. .

.... , 7 ... .-,_..... __...... _ ...... , ' ''' -~--2 ' ______...... ---,-~- V--..n.. '· ... _of "'_"'''F ...... --...... ". _... _ ...... ___...... _ .. a' '.- ... ..w ...... " ...... ""F_'5, ',",,___ ...... ' .... _ .... "". , ...... _ .. .. _ ... _ ...... _...... '..-.. __ ...... 01 .. n_",,-" ...... _ _ _

[ _ .0.-_ .... OJ_ ...... " ...... __...... 'L ....., ...... _...... __ ...... II!' , ,,.., ... • _ ...... _ .. T• • '_ ..... _ _ - _p' = __ ...... _ ~- .._ ..¥ ~ , ..... __ - ...... -.w_.... : -- ..... er-...... - .....___ .- .. ,...... 0 . ' ...... ,. __ ...... ,, _ .....' " .' .. __ ...... '_0 , ' oalI. A __ "" ...... -.' • , .. .;..,._-,. ' ..... D" • ..... _ ... -t ...... -.. ,...... _ ...... ", oJ.

A"'''' £ ...... ,.. __ .... '" ".~ .... _ ...... __ 'U ...... ,... , .... "...... , .. ,. ...._ ,_.,...-...... _ _-_, ,. , , .... _~ i ',_. ,,,... ,..." , ... , . __ ...... __ - ...... _. __.. ..- .... __ .. _.... _...... - ~""-..- .. ,-- .. '""' .. . ,...... ".,- ",-.~ ..... " oj ... ~~~: .. _ ... __ ... r, _._"'h,.. __ ...... _ '• ...,.lIIO' __ ...... _-,__ ......

.... .:-,___ .....· ,... ,. .. """...... "...... ~ ,...D . '...... _ ... _ _ ..... _ _2_ _, ... . ._ .... ~, ,...... __ ..... '.. _..-lIIO_ .... _~_ ...... c-.

.... "' ___... _ ...... "-"..-.0.- D' · , .. . -._.. _ .... . ". F' '. '- , .u_..... _ ...... "-" ... _._ ... __ .. _. ,.... 2 ...... -.. -..... -~--

Bass Coast Planning Scheme Amendment C6 and Permit No. 011172 Panel Report: March 2003 If

Bass Coast Planning Scheme Amendment C6 and Permit No. 011172 Panel Report: March 2003 DOCUMENTS ACCESSED BY THE PANEL APPENDIX F

The following documents were provided to the Panel, either at its request or by Council, the proponent or submitters.

Bass Coast Shire Council Planning Scheme

Amendment C6 as exhibited.

Draft Planning Permit No. 011172 prepared by Council.

Draft Planning Permit No. 011172 prepared by the proponent.

Submissions to Council in relation to Amendment C6 and Planning Permit Application No. 011172

Written submissions handed to the Panel by Council, the proponent and submitters during the Panel Hearing.

Letter from Department of Primary Industries (Acting Regional Manager) in lieu of verbal presentation to the Panel. 21 January 2003.

Expert Witness Statements by witnesses called by the proponent • Dr Robert HM van de Graff of van de Graff & Associates • Mr Peter Krstic of Beveridge Williams & Co Pty Ltd. • Mr Darren S Powell of Beveridge Williams & Co Pty Ltd. • Dr Nicholas Somes of WBM Oceanics Australia.

Strategic Assessment Guidelines for Planning Schemes. General Practice Note. Nov. 2001

Ministerial Direction No.6. Rural Residential Development.

Victorian Coastal Strategy 2002. Victorian Coastal Council.

Integrated Coastal Planning for Gippsland – Coastal Action Plan.

Code of Practice – Septic Tanks. EPA Publication 451. March 1996.

Guidelines for Wastewater Reuse. EPA Publication 464. March 1996

Land Capability Assessment for Onsite Domestic Wastewater Management. EPA Publication No. 746. February 2001.

Woorayl Planning Scheme. Amendment L52. Report of Independent Panel. 1997

Bass Coast Planning Scheme Amendment C6 and Permit No. 011172 Panel Report: March 2003 Bass Coast Shire Rural and Rural Residential Strategy. Prepared by Woodward-Clyde for Bass Coast Shire. 1998.

South-West Gippsland Coastal Townships Strategy. Department of Infrastructure, Planning Group 1997.

Design and Siting Guidelines for Coastal and Hinterland Areas. Bass Coast Shire. 1999

Assessment of agricultural quality of land in Gippsland. Swan and Volum. Department of Agriculture. Victoria. Undated.

Screw Creek Reserve Proposed Conservation and Recreation Area. Notes by Bram. Dawson. Includes bird, mammal and plant lists for the area. Undated but probably 1988.

Letter from Ausbotany (Andrew Paget) to John Cutriss re. Botanical Significance of Proposed Development Site East Of Screw Creek. 21 February, 1996.

Screw Creek Nature Park _ A Proposal. prepared by Inverloch Residents & Ratepayers Association Inc and South Gippsland Conservation Society Inc Projects Committee. February 1998.

A Report on the Proposal for Establishing Screw creek Nature Park Inverloch. Prepared by Geostudies Pty Ltd and Ecocentrics Australia for Bass Coast Shire Council. April; 1999.

Bass Coast Planning Scheme Amendment C6 and Permit No. 011172 Panel Report: March 2003 REVISED PLAN OF PROPOSED SUBDIVISION APPENDIX G

• i •• •

Bass Coast Planning Scheme Amendment C6 and Permit No. 011172 Panel Report: March 2003