Last October, the Advertiser reported VCAT knocked back a planning permit for a home on this Smiths Beach property because the south coast of Phillip Island is of “state significance”. The owner is now seeking to have his land rezoned for subdivision through the Bass Coast DAL process.
The 48ha Phillip Island airfield site at 1 Veterans Drive was debated at last week’s state government panel hearing, with the owners – Glen Waverley Real Estate – seeking to have it rezoned for subdivision. The site has high-quality vegetation and is home to nationally-protected animal species.
Best Hooper Property Lawyers’ Geoff Lake (top right) – who is representing the owners of land at the Phillip Island airport and Smiths Beach – said the DAL was “too parochial” and focused on the “biased influence” of residents who had moved to the area in recent years who “seek to shut the gate behind them”.
Even though the current level of human population on Phillip Island is “threatening” to the environment, land at the Cape Woolamai airport and Smiths Beach could be subdivided to benefit nationally-protected species.
That’s according to an expert witness on behalf of the owners of these sites who last week gave evidence at the state government’s two-month hearing on new planning controls for Phillip Island, under the Distinctive Areas and Landscapes project (DAL).
Best Hooper Property Lawyers’ solicitor Geoff Lake last week represented four clients over two days.
The clients – all seeking to have their land rezoned for subdivision – are:
- The 48ha Phillip Island airfield site at 1 Veterans Drive (owned by Glen Waverley Real Estate)
- 34ha at 87 Back Beach Road, between Sunderland Bay and Smiths Beach (Jim Goumas)
- 90ha south of the existing Coronet Bay settlement (Coastal Estates) and
- 13ha south-east of Dalyston’s settlement boundary (Justin Taylor).
Mr Lake called on four witnesses – in planning, economics, landscape and ecology – concluding no town boundary in any town in Bass Coast should be protected, also questioning the merits of planning controls to protect significant landscapes.
Mr Lake said the DAL was “too parochial” and focused on the “biased influence” of residents who had moved to the area in recent years who “seek to shut the gate behind them”.
Flora, flauna
Brett Lane of Nature Advisory gave evidence on behalf of the landowners on the ecological importance of the airport and Smiths Beach site.
Mr Lane said even though both sites had significant biodiversity, they would be suitable for subdivisions without “adversely impacting the ecology”.
He said Cape Woolamai had more than a hectare of high-quality vegetation and was home to nationally-protected animal species, such as the short-tailed shearwater, while the Smiths Beach property had significant coastal vegetation and a dam home to protected bird species.
The Planning Minister’s lawyer Julie Forsyth asked whether this flora and fauna would be impacted by increased human populations, dogs, cats, and lighting, for example.
Mr Lane agreed but said subdivisions could be managed well with careful design and resident compliance, such as paying biodiversity levies.
Ms Forsyth asked if good management of biodiversity could be achieved with other projects such as tourism under one manager, as opposed to housing subdivisions, which had many individual owners.
“There are risks with urban development and in particular subdivisions and if you don’t allow urban development you don’t open up those risks,” she asked.
Mr Lane eventually conceded this was correct but only after repeating the benefits of managed subdivisions on protected flora and fauna.
Ms Forsyth asked if indirect threats from urban development were “more pronounced on Phillip Island” than other areas, because of its habitat.
Mr Lane replied the current level of human settlement was “potentially quite threatening” but Phillip Island Nature Parks management had ensured species such as hooded plovers were protected and enhanced.
“Political risk”
Landscape architect Steve Schutt of Hansen Partners gave evidence on behalf of the four landowners that the methodology used to create the DAL was “not sufficiently robust to be relied on”, was weak and “not up to industry standards”.
Mr Schutt said sections of the landscape at the airport were not significant enough to be protected and should not be locked out of the town boundaries, especially where it had been cleared and contained airport buildings.
He said while sections of the land around Smiths Beach was deserving of its ranking as state significant, it was unclear why the area closest to Back Beach Road was protected from development.
Under a three-hour cross-examination, the Planning Minister’s lawyer Julie Forsyth asked whether Mr Schutt had approached the Bass Coast DAL with “an eye for error”, instructed to find weaknesses, to which he agreed.
Ms Forsyth challenged Mr Schutt’s conclusions by highlighting the methodology used in Bass Coast was the same as that applied to the Victorian coastline, such as the Great Ocean Road, asking whether his criticism had been “misleading” and “woefully inadequate”.
“I certainly wouldn’t say it’s misleading,” Mr Schutt replied. “I’ll accept it’s incomplete.”
Ms Forsyth asked Mr Schutt whether protected settlement boundaries were “treated with caution given the political risk and uncertainty for landowners”, to which he replied he was “no more political than anyone else who votes”.
VCAT
Bass Coast Shire’s lawyer David Vorchheimer asked Mr Schutt whether he had declared a potential conflict of interest to the DAL panel, having represented the owner of the same property at 87 Back Beach Road, Smiths Beach, on behalf of Best Hooper Lawyers, in a VCAT hearing last year.
Mr Schutt said he had not declared this because he didn’t think it was “relevant”.
Last October, the Advertiser reported VCAT knocked back a planning permit for a home on the Smiths Beach property because the south coast of Phillip Island is of “state significance” (“Coastal beauty wins over development”).
Mr Goumas had sought a permit to build a 290sqm, four-bedroom home 57 metres from the cliff edge.
After Bass Coast Shire rejected the permit, the owner took the shire to VCAT who also refused it.
“Phillip Island has a strong history of inappropriate residential development,” VCAT member Christopher Harty said at the time.
“The Phillip Island western and southern coasts are recognised as of state significance with policy referring to protecting the undeveloped character of the coastal strip and setting back development from the coast.”
At the VCAT hearing Mr Schutt argued the dwelling wouldn’t be visible and wouldn’t impact the green break between Smiths Beach and Sunderland Bay.
Mr Vorchheimer told last week’s hearing ultimately VCAT disagreed with Mr Schutt’s evidence, adding the land represented almost 30 per cent of the green break between the two hamlets.
Read more:
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
