This is the land proposed for development at Newhaven West. The developers’ proposed concept designs – not available to the public – included extensive carparking along Phillip Island Road and service roads, for mooted tourism facilities.
The key expert witness supporting Newhaven West’s future subdivision agreed he had a conflict of interest, with his company also acting as a lobbyist for the land’s developers, a hearing was told last week.
Landscape architect Darren Atkinson of Human Habitats last Wednesday appeared before the state government’s two-month hearing on new planning controls for Phillip Island, under the Distinctive Areas and Landscapes project (DAL).
Mr Atkinson was called to give evidence on behalf of the owners of 906, 910 and 930 Phillip Island Road, Newhaven, which fronts Churchill Island and adjoins a marine national park, and is part of the internationally-recognised Western Port RAMSAR wetland.
Currently the town boundary for Newhaven ends at Boys Home Road, but the landowners are seeking to rezone for future subdivision their land behind the chocolate factory.
Mr Atkinson told the hearing the site did not have landscape attributes that should exclude it from Newhaven’s town boundary.
“I am fully supportive of protecting the distinctive landscapes in Bass Coast Shire but of the opinion the subject site does not fall into a distinctive landscape as it does not contain the landscape attributes,” said Mr Atkinson, who is a specialist in urban landscapes.
“The future landscape of the subject site can be of high quality. It can adequately provide for the replacement of the vegetation previously cleared for farming.”
Conflict?
Under examination from the Planning Minister’s lawyer Julie Forsyth, Mr Atkinson confirmed he was one of five directors of Human Habitats, the company that wrote the initial submission for the Newhaven West landowners for the DAL.
He confirmed his company had been working with the landowners for several years and had created concept subdivision plans for the Newhaven land.
Human Habitats had also been lobbying the council to develop the land and stood to benefit from future work if it was included in Newhaven town boundaries.
“You as a director would benefit from that future work?” Ms Forsyth asked, adding this would impact his impartiality. “Do you understand your independence is compromised?”
Mr Atkinson replied “that could be seen as correct, yes”. He said he believed he was an independent witness because he had not read all documents in the brief given to him.
Ms Forsyth asked if any of these conflicts of interest had been disclosed through the DAL process, and Mr Atkinson said none of the issues had been flagged.
Panel members questioned Mr Atkinson’s impartiality and he replied his assessment was “completely independent”.
Two weeks ago consultant Claire Scott – who set out criteria for what made a distinctive landscape in the DAL – was challenged by lawyers for developers as having a conflict of interest because her husband owned a holiday house in Ventnor.
Ms Scott disagreed with the assertion, saying she had a more intimate understanding of Phillip Island and Bass Coast because of her connection to the area.
Significant?
Mr Atkinson highlighted a telecommunication tower at Newhaven – behind the garden centre – was visible from Samuel Amess Drive, while homes at Newhaven were visible from Churchill Island and therefore these set a precedent for further development.
“You drive down the beautiful tree lined landscape of Samuel Amess Drive and the telecommunication tower is a point of reference,” he said.
Ms Forsyth asked if the development would be prominent and “completely change the view to the mainland” from Churchill Island.
Atkinson: “I can see there’s some change to the view, yes.”
Forsyth: “Do you agree the development would be detrimental to the distinctive attributes of that land?”
Atkinson: “No”.
Forsyth: “You think it would be a positive change?”
Atkinson: “It could be, yes.”
While Mr Atkinson agreed land neighbouring the developer’s site was significant, he said his client’s site wasn’t significant.
Ms Forsyth highlighted that Mr Atkinson had used photos in his evidence that “underplayed the visibility” of the proposed Newhaven West development.
She asked if the proposed designs would be a different landscape to the current farmland and native vegetation on the land and Mr Atkinson agreed it would.
She asked whether any future resident on the subdivision would be allowed to cut down significant vegetation because it was in a bushfire zone, and Mr Atkinson agreed.
Environment
Ms Forsyth examined the developers’ proposed concept designs for the Newhaven West land, which included extensive carparking along Phillip Island Road and service roads – for mooted tourism facilities – asserting it wouldn’t provide a green break on the tourist road.
Mr Atkinson said he wouldn’t want to “experience a sea of car parks” on Phillip Island Road but bitumen could be softened with tree planting.
The Phillip Island Conservation Society’s (PICS) Terry Nott asked Mr Atkinson whether the lands’ proximity to the RAMSAR and marine national park areas required more stringent controls.
Mr Atkinson agreed. “Absolutely. It’s about best practice and urban sensitive water design, whether it’s a paddock (or a housing subdivision),” he said, comparing this proposed development to one in Werribee.
Mr Nott also questioned Mr Atkinsons selective use of photos, failing to show environmentally-sensitive areas. Mr Atkinson replied he had selected photos “I thought would be helpful”.
Lawyer Graeme Peake represented the Newhaven West landowners at the planning panel, who include Howard Verwey and Geoff Moed.
Mr Peake said according to the 2010 San Remo, Newhaven and Cape Woolamai structure plan, this land is “future residential subject to a detailed structure plan and coastal vulnerability hazard assessment”, with the town boundary finishing at Samuel Amess Drive.
He said if Newhaven’s boundary finished at Boys Home Road “there would be no more land available” in the hamlet for development.
“We don’t dispute the coastal landscapes need to be protected. But it’s not the same as prohibiting development,” Mr Peake said, adding the Newhaven West subdivision would be vegetated 2000sqm lots.
Read more:
DAL hearings: Airport land and Smiths Beach
DAL hearings: Coronet Bay and Corinella
DAL hearings: more land rezoned does not address affordability
DAL hearings: Is Phillip Island state or nationally significant?
DAL must protect Western Port Woodlands, says Mayor
