dac 22 april 2015 - mornington peninsula · pdf fileelevation. ... watertank;...

MINUTESDEVELOPMENTASSESSMENTSCOMMITTEEMEETING

WEDNESDAY, 22 APRIL, 2015

MUNICIPAL OFFICESBESGROVE STREET, ROSEBUD

MORNINGTON PENINSULA SHIRE COUNCIL

WARDS AND COUNCILLORS

Cr. Bev Colomb - MayorBriars

Cr. Andrew Dixon

Cr. Anne Shaw

Cr. David GarnockCerberus

Cr. Hugh FraserNepean

Cr. Tim Rodgers

Cr. Tim WoodRed Hill

Cr. Antonella CeliSeawinds

Cr. David Gibb

Cr. Graham Pittock - Deputy Mayor

Cr. Lynn BowdenWatson

EXECUTIVE MANAGEMENT TEAM

Chief Executive OfficerMr. Carl Cowie

Director – Sustainable InfrastructureMs. Alison Leighton

Director – Sustainable EnvironmentMr. Stephen Chapple

Acting Director – Sustainable CommunitiesMr. Robin Adams

Chief Financial OfficerMr. Matthew Hubbard

2Mornington Peninsula Shire Council

Wednesday, 22 April, 2015Development Assessments CommitteeMeetingMinutes

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE NOSUBJECTITEM

1 OPENING AND PROCEDURAL MATTERS ...................................................................... 4

1.1 Apologies ............................................................................................................ 4

1.2 Confirmation of Minutes .................................................................................... 4

1.3 Disclosure of Conflicts of Interest Pursuant to Section 79 of the LocalGovernment Act 1989 ......................................................................................... 5

1.4 Advice to Public on Committee Decisions ....................................................... 5

2 DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENTS .................................................................................... 6

2.1 Application for Secondary Consent P13/1992.01 and Approval ofAmended Plans Required by Condition 1 of Permit P13/1992 – ArthursSeat Skylift Gondola ........................................................................................... 6

2.2 Proposed Amendment to the Mornington Peninsula Planning Scheme– Moorooduc Coolstores, Eramosa Road West, Moorooduc ....................... 39

3 URGENT BUSINESS ....................................................................................................... 53

4 NOTICES OF MOTION .................................................................................................... 54

5 CONFIDENTIAL ITEMS ................................................................................................... 55

6 MEETING CLOSE ............................................................................................................ 56

Mornington Peninsula Shire Council


1 OPENING AND PROCEDURAL MATTERS

Appointed Chairperson - Cr. Anne Shaw

The meeting opened at 7:04 p.m.

Present

Cr. Anne Shaw (Chairperson)Cr. Antonella CeliMayor, Cr. Bev ColombCr. Hugh FraserCr. David GarnockCr. David GibbDeputy Mayor, Cr. Graham PittockCr. Tim Rodgers

Mr. Carl Cowie, Chief Executive Officer

1.1 Apologies

Cr. Lynn BowdenCr. Andrew DixonCr. Tim Wood

1.2 Confirmation of Minutes

RECOMMENDATION

That the Minutes from the Previous Development Assessments Committee held on 26 November,2014 be confirmed.

COMMITTEE DECISION

Moved: Cr. GarnockSeconded: Cr. Celi

That the recommendation be adopted.

Carried



1.3 Disclosure of Conflicts of Interest Pursuant to Section 79 of the Local Government Act1989

Nil.

1.4 Advice to Public on Committee Decisions

"Recommendations contained in Sections 2 and 5 of this Agenda have been referred by Officers tothe Development Assessments Committee for a decision under delegation.”

As the first two items to be considered relate to matters concerning secondary consent and theendorsement of Condition 1 Plans under an approved permit, neither former objectors nor the permitholder are being provided the opportunity to address Council to discuss their views on what is beingconsidered.

Likewise, the permit holder and former objectors to the proposal are not being provided with theopportunity to address Council regarding the proposal to amend the location and heights of thegondola pylons. In this case, Council does not have it usual status as the determining body. Instead,it has, and will have, the same status as the other parties at the hearing, with VCAT being responsiblefor making a decision on what is being proposed."



2 DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENTS

2.1 Application for Secondary Consent P13/1992.01 and Approval of Amended PlansRequired by Condition 1 of Permit P13/1992 – Arthurs Seat Skylift Gondola

Stephen Powell – Senior StatutoryPlanner; and Lucas Gardiner, TeamLeader – Statutory Planning

Prepared By

Niall Sheehy, Manager – StatutoryPlanning

Authorised By

A5813266Document ID

YESAttachment(s)

P13/1992.01Application No.

The application seeks:ProposalSecondary consent approval to amend the plans;To form Councils views on amending the location and numberof pylons; andThe endorsement of the amended plans pursuant to Condition1 of the permit.

159 E12Melway Reference

Public Park and Recreation Zone (PPRZ) and Road Zone Category1 (RDZ1)

Zoning

Tract Planning ConsultantsApplicant

19 February, 2015Date Received

This item was considered second.

PURPOSE

The application seeks:ProposalSecondary consent approval to amend the plans required to beendorsed under Condition 1 of the Planning Permit;To form Councils views on amending the location and number ofpylons; andThe endorsement of the amended plans required by Condition 1 ofthe permit subject to the resolution of Condition 1h currently beingconsidered by VCAT under Section 87A of the Planning andEnvironment Act 1987.



That Council, being the Responsible Authority under the MorningtonPeninsula Planning Scheme and Planning and Environment Act 1987,having considered all matters in respect of Planning ApplicationP13/1992.01 resolve to:

Recommendation

Approve the amended plans under the secondary consent provisionsafforded under Condition 3 of the Permit;Advise the Tribunal that it supports the amended pylon configurationand design; andEndorse the submitted plans subject to the resolution of Condition1h currently being considered by VCAT under Section 87A of thePlanning and Environment Act 1987.

BACKGROUND

Planning Permit

Planning Application P13/1992 was considered at a Development Assessment Committee Meetingheld on 2 June, 2014 where the Committee resolved to issue a Notice of Decision to Grant a Permitsubject to conditions allowing:

“The use and development of Arthur's Seat Skylift Gondola facility comprising of an upper station(including café, interpretative centre office and toilet facilities), a lower station (including kiosk,gondola workshop/storage and interpretive centre) and gondolas, pylons, loading area andcable, water tanks, vegetation removal and lopping, car parking consent, illuminated signage,landscaping and associated works generally in accordance with the endorsed plans.” .”

A Notice of Decision was subsequently issued on 6June, 2014. Application for Review was receivedby the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) on 27 June, 2014.

After an eight day hearing starting on 5 November, 2014, Council’s decision to grant a permit wasupheld by VCAT who found that the proposal had strong strategic support and overall would resultin net community benefit.

A Planning Permit was issued at the direction of VCAT on 23 December, 2014 which allowed:

Demolition;Use and development of the land for a Leisure and Recreation Facility (chairlift/gondola)comprising an upper station (with café, interpretative centre, office and toilet facilities), a lowerstation (with a kiosk, gondola workshop/storage area and interpretative centre), pylons andgondola infrastructure, loading area and cable, and associated water tanks;Removal of, and lopping, native and non-native vegetation;Illuminated signage; andLandscaping and associated works in accordance with the endorsed plans.



2.1 Application for Secondary Consent P13/1992.01 and Approval of Amended Plans Requiredby Condition 1 of Permit P13/1992 – Arthurs Seat Skylift Gondola (Cont.)

The permit included 71 Conditions including matters to be to the satisfaction of the ResponsibleAuthority including measures to protect the heritage fabric at the summit, tree retention, GondolaCorridor Plan, a detailed Vegetation Plan/Defendable Space Plan a Construction EnvironmentalManagement Plan, a detailed Waste Management Plan and a Bushfire/Emergency ManagementPlan.

The Tribunal was mindful of the unresolved nature of the plans relating to the pylons, specifically theirlocation, size and height. Accordingly, the Tribunal exercised its powers under Section 87A of thePlanning and Environment Act 1987 and directed that Condition 1(h)(i) on the Permit must not beamended by the Responsible Authority, therefore requiring that changes relating to the pylons needto be presented back to VCAT for a decision.

PROPOSAL

Plans submitted to be considered under secondary consent are appended to the report as Attachment1. Attachments 2 and 3 consist of the previously assessed plans and the Planning Permit respectfully.

Please refer to the following Attachments:

Attachment 1 – Secondary Consent Amended Plans;Attachment 2 – Previously Assessed Plans;Attachment 3 – Planning Permit;Attachment 4 – Applicant’s detailed breakdown of how Conditions 40-70 are to be achieved;Attachment 5 – Applicant’s detailed breakdown of plan changes; andAttachment 6 – Revised Pylon Location Plan (TP1500).

Secondary Consent

The application seeks consent to amend the plans required to be endorsed under Condition 1, pursuantto the secondary consent mechanism afforded under Condition 3 of the Permit:

“The layout and use of the land, the size and type of the proposed works, including the materialsof construction, on the endorsed plans must not be altered or modified without the writtenconsent of the Responsible Authority .”

The amendments to the plans generally involve:

Upper Station:

Existing water tank deleted;Increase in height of water tanks on east elevation from 2.6metres to 3.5metres;Café layout changed by:

Deleting the cool room; andRelocating the kitchen and preparation areas.

Amenities layout block changes by:




Providing external access to the male, female and baby change;The all ability toilet reduced in size with access maintained from within the building; andUniversal toilets added.

Front entry reduced and reconfigured to reduce the building footprint and increase the setbackto Arthurs Seat Road;The width of the Loading Station increased from 12.45 metres to 13.3 metres to meet gondolamanufacturer’s requirements;The building footprint rotated 0.631 degrees to align with the centreline of the gondola, at therequest of the pylon manufacturer and to meet operational requirements;Information/History Gallery has been deleted;AC units relocated to the east side of the building (rear);Increase of glazing to north and west sides of building;Changes to the facade treatment of the buildings including a change in materials from biowoodspotted gum composite panel to vertical metal cladding;Simplification of the building’s design particularly to the western elevation to introduce additionalglazing and remove the battered screen;Swing doors added to north elevation;Decrease to the setback of the building to the eastern boundary; andTotal building area reduced from 1,392 square metres to 1,323 square metres.

Lower Station:

Extent of forecourt reduced by deleting the lower forecourt;The ramp to the forecourt relocated to the north, away from Arthurs Seat Road;The amenities block removed. The amenities block is to be located within the Parks Victoriaconstructed car park;The substation located from the east side of the building to the rear (northwest corner) of thebuilding adjacent to the car park;The crib wall deleted from the west elevation and replaced with a 45 degree batter;Workshop removed from building footprint (184 square metres reduction);The building footprint rotated 0.631 degrees to align with the centreline of the gondola, at therequest of the pylon manufacturer;The fire service tank relocated from beneath the forecourt to the rear (northwest corner) of thebuilding adjacent to the car park;Ticketbooth and Kiosk relocated from adjacent to the north elevation to face east onto theforecourt in order to improve efficiency;Information centre removed and replaced with a slim-line information wall;Operators Room, Plant Room and Storage Room reduced in size from 57 square metres to 40square metres;Gondola storage building reduced in size from 438 square metres to 414 square metres;The floor level of the Gondola Storage increased by 1.5 metres without increasing the overlayheight of the building (i.e. the floor to ceiling height reduced);First floor office deleted;




Changes to the facade treatment of the buildings including a change in materials from precastconcrete panels to vertical metal cladding; andTotal building footprint reduced from 1,796 square metres to 1,323 square metres.

General:

Pylons relocated to suite preferred manufacture, overall reduction from 13 to 11. A change isalso proposed to the height of the pylons;Lease corridor width increased from 20 metres to 40 metres; andTrees 59 and 64 retained.

Satisfaction of Condition 1

In addition, the application also seeks endorsement of the submitted plans pursuant to Condition 1of the Planning Permit.

Condition 1 of the Planning Permit reads as follows:

Before the development starts, amended plans to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authoritymust be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority . When approved, the planswill be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The plans must be drawn to scale withdimensions and three copies must be provided. The plans must be generally in accordancewith the submitted plans and modified to show:

1.

Demolition plan;A.

Measures to protect heritage fabric at the summit such as Arthurs Seat and plaques;B.

The location and details of all lighting provided in conjunction with the proposed lowerand upper gondola stations, pylons and gondolas (as applicable);

C.

Any earthworks (cut or fill) associated with the construction of the proposed developmentin conjunction with the upper gondola station;

D.

How compliance with DEPI Conditions 40-61 is to be achieved;E.

How compliance with VicRoads Conditions 65-70 is to be achieved;F.

The retention of Tree No. 59 and Tree No. 64 at the upper station site;G.

A Gondola Corridor Plan, showing (but not limited to):H.

The location and full details of each pylon. This must include the surveyed location,dimensioned height and breadth of all gondola pylons consistent with thesubmitted plans

i.

The location and details of any proposed underground services and/orinfrastructure

ii.




A minimum 6.4 metre height clearance between the base of the gondolas andthe road pavement at each point where Arthurs Seat Road is traversed

iii.

All existing trees within the corridor, and nominating whether each tree is to beretained, removed, lopped or pruned

iv.

All proposed water tanks at both the lower and upper levels nominated to be oflow-reflectivity and of muted colours and tones; and

I.

A schedule of the external colours and finishes of the gondolas, demonstrating that thegondolas will complement the natural landscape to the satisfaction of the ResponsibleAuthority.

J.

Direction under Section 85(1A) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987

By order dated 10 December, 2014, the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal in proceedingno. P1045/2014 has directed that Condition 1(h)(i) on this Permit must not be amended by theResponsible Authority under Division 1A of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.

NOTIFICATION AND CONSULTATION

There are no formal notification/consultation requirements or third party appeal rights applicable toa secondary consent proposal given the minor nature of the changes being proposed in the contextof the existing approval.

In regards to the application to amend the pylon location and design, the Tribunal have directed thatthe amended proposal not be advertised.

CONSIDERATION/ANALYSIS – SECONDARY CONSENT TESTS

The application seeks consent to amend the plans required to be endorsed under Condition 1 of thepermit as discussed in the Proposal section above.

What is Meant by ‘Secondary Consent’?

A Secondary Consent amendment is a commonly utilised mechanism for assessing relatively minormodifications required to endorsed plans. This is afforded under Condition 3 of the permit whichreads:

3. The layout and use of the land, the size and type of the proposed works, including thematerials of construction, on the endorsed plans must not be altered or modified without thewritten consent of the Responsible Authority .

The ‘tests’ to be considered in assessing a secondary consent application have been establishedthrough a number of Tribunal decisions (particularly Westpoint Corporation v Moreland CC (Red Dot)[2005] VCAT 1049 (31 May 2005).




Paragraph 38 of Westpoint summarises the secondary consent mechanism as follows

“38 In summary, when deciding whether a use or development may be altered under a secondaryconsent provision in a permit, the scale of the change is not relevant per se. The change need notsimply be ‘minor’ to be allowable under a secondary consent provision provided it meets the followingrequirements:

It does not result in a transformation of the proposal.It does not authorise something for which primary consent is required under the planningscheme.It is of no consequence having regard to the purpose of the planning control under whichthe permit was granted.It is not contrary to a specific requirement as distinct from an authorisation within thepermit, which itself cannot be altered by consent.”

The following table provides an assessment of the proposed changes against the VCAT principlesreferred to above:

The amendment will not result in a transformation of the developmentoriginally approved as the permit already allows for the use anddevelopment of the land for a Leisure and Recreation Facility

Transformation?

(chairlift/gondola) and associated works. The proposed amended plansbeing considered under secondary consent are not a transformation tothe approved proposal with the approved uses remain the same. Thechanges to the building also does not transform the development intoanother type of building considered by Council and VCAT.

The amendment does not authorise something for which primary consentis required under the planning scheme. No new permit triggers areintroduced as a result of the amended plans.

New ‘primaryconsent’?

Please refer to below.Are the changes ofconsequence?

The proposed changes are not contrary to any specific requirement ofthe planning permit. The minor design changes to the upper and lowerstation do no conflict with any permit condition.

Conflict with Permit?

Are the Changes of Consequence?

The changes proposed as listed in the Proposal section above are considered to be inconsequentialhaving regard to the purpose of the planning controls which lead to the need for a planning permit.

The changes to the plans make a number of operational revisions arising from further detailed design,greater site investigations, and input from the preferred gondola manufacturer and are necessary toachieve greater functionality of the upper and lower stations.




In general the scale of the development has been reduced (noting that the upper station footprint hasbeen reduced from 1,392 square metres to 1,323 square metres and the lower station reduced from1,796 square metres to 1,323 square metres). The changes largely relate to the internal alterationsof the building to improve the functionality and to address critical issues relating to the operation ofthe facility (i.e. increase width of the loading station to meet manufacturers requirements). The externalchanges are cosmetic in nature and do not conflict with the objectives of the planning scheme.

A detailed breakdown of each change is provided in Attachment 5 – Applicant’s detailed breakdownof plan changes.

What are Key Changes?

The key changes to the plans have been provided in the bullet points below with delegate officer’scomments provide in italics:

Upper Station:

There are no concerns with the removal of the existingwater tank given it has no heritage value and it is beingreplaced by two new 150,000 litre water tanks aspreviously approved.

Existing water tank deleted

This is a minor increase which is inconsequential giventhe setback of the tanks to Arthurs Seat Road.

Increase in height of water tanks oneast elevation from 2.6 metres to 3.5metres

The layout change of the café is inconsequential innature and will not adversely impact the design orfunctionality of the building. The changes are designedto improve the internal functionality of the building.

Café layout changed by:

Deleting the cool room; andRelocating the kitchen andpreparation areas.

There are no concerns with the internal layout changesas these are inconsequential changes designed toimprove the internal functionality of the building. The

Amenities layout block changes by:

Providing external access to themale, female and baby change; amenities block is to be accessed internally and

externally however is located in the same footprint asprevious.

The all ability toilet reduced insize with and access maintainedfrom within the building; andUniversal toilets added.

The front entry stairs and ramp have been reconfiguredto increase the setback to Arthurs Seat Road fromapproximately 5 metres to a minimum of 8.5 metres.

Front entry reduced and reconfiguredto reduce the building footprint andincrease the setback to Arthurs SeatRoad. This minor change resulting in a more favourable




setback from Arthurs Seat Road is supported withappropriate access to the building with people of allabilities being provided.

This change is necessary for effective operations ofthe gondolas. The minor increase to the width of theloading station on the north façade of the building anddoes not make an appreciable difference to the extentor appearance of the building.

The width of the loading stationincreased from 12.45 metres to 13.3metres to meet gondolamanufacturer’s requirements.

The building has footprint alignment has been veryslightly shifted to ensure it is centred to the gondolacorridor. This very minor change is of no consequenceand will not be noticeable when viewed externally.

The building footprint rotated 0.631degrees to align with the centreline ofthe gondola, at the request of thepylon manufacturer.

There are no concerns with the removal of this element.The removal the information/history gallery will resultin a reduction in the buildings footprint. An informationwall located within the ticketbooth area will still provideappropriate information to visitors of the facility.

Information/history gallery has beendeleted.

There are no concerns with the relocation of the airconditioning units as they will be further setback fromArthurs Seat Road and located to the rear of thebuilding.

Air Conditioning (AC) units relocatedto the east side of the building (rear).

Refer to section below - Alterations to the claddingtreatment and building appearance

Increase in the extent of glazing onthe north and west sides of building.


Changes to the facade treatment ofthe buildings including a change inmaterials from biowood spotted gumcomposite panel to vertical metalcladding.


Simplification of the building’s designparticularly to the western elevationto introduce additional glazing andremove the battered screen.

These doors are required for direct egress for thegondolas and does impact on the form or architectureof the building.

Swing doors added to north elevationto the gondola loading station.

There is a very minor decrease to the setback to theeastern boundary from 5.34 metres to 4.39 metreswhich is considered to be of no significant

Decrease to the setback of thebuilding to the eastern boundary.

consequence. The setback reduction is required toensure the gondola line is centre to the gondola corridorand to facilitate an extra internal width of 900mm for




the gondola infrastructure and services as requestedby the gondola manufacturer. This is considered to beamore appropriate thanmoving the building to the westwhich would mean that the café space and base stairswould be located closer to Arthurs Seat Road.

The minor reduction to the footprint reduces the scaleof the building and will not impact on the operation ofthe facility or internal amenity.

Total building area reduced from1,392 square metres to 1,323 squaremetres.

Lower Station:

There are no concerns with the reduction of theforecourt with an attractive entrance still being providedto the building.

Extent of forecourt reduced bydeleting the lower forecourt

The relocation of the all ability access ramp is on noconsequence with it still located within the previousbuilding curtilage and providing all ability access.

The all ability access ramp to theforecourt relocated to the north, awayfrom Arthurs Seat Road.

The revised plans have deleted the amenities blockwhich formed part of the lower station. This facility isnow to be constructed by Parks Victoria as part of theworks associated with the carpark (these works fallingoutside the scope of this permit).

The amenities block removed. Theamenities block is to be located withinthe Parks Victoria constructed carpark.

Parks Victoria have confirmed that the provision of anamenities facility forms part of the design brief for thecarpark but which is currently being designed.

The relocation of the substation will result in it beinglocated behind the lower station when viewed fromArthurs Seat Road. This is an improvement to the visualappearance of the building.

The substation located from the eastside of the building to the rear(northwest corner) of the buildingadjacent to the car park.

A 45 degree battered slope is now proposed on thesouth elevation of the lower station to replace a cribwall as shown on the previous plans. The specific

The crib wall deleted from the westand replaced with batter

design of the battered slope will be designed toengineering specifications which is a matter determinedunder the building permit process.

The removal of the workshop results in a reducedbuilding area and is considered a favourable alternativeto the permit.

Workshop removed from buildingfootprint (184 square metresreduction)




The building has footprint alignment has been veryslightly shifted to ensure it is centred to the gondolacorridor. This very minor change is of no consequenceand will not be noticeable when viewed externally.

The building footprint rotated 0.631degrees to align with the centreline ofthe gondola, at the request of thepylon manufacturer.

There are no concerns with the relocation of the fireservice tank given the new location complies with allwater supply requirement of Condition 60 of the permit

The fire service tank relocated frombeneath the forecourt to the rear(northwest corner) of the buildingadjacent to the car park. including being located to enable a fire vehicle to get

within 4 metres of the water supply outlet and providefor a hardstand area of 12 metres by 5 metres.

The new location of the ticket boot provides for greateraccessibility as it now faces the forecourt area. Theticketbooth and kiosk is now located within the previousfootprint of the Information Centre which has beenremoved.

Ticketbooth and kiosk relocated fromadjacent to the north elevation to faceeast onto the forecourt in order toimprove efficiency.

The new information wall is an unobtrusive element tothe building located within the upper forecourt and willprovide appropriate information to visitors of the facility.

Information centre removed andreplaced by a slimline informationwall.

The reduction in the floor area of the operators room,plant room and storage room is consideredinconsequential due to its minor change.

Operators room, plant room andstorage room deuced in size from 57square metres to 40 square metres.

The reduction in the floor area of the gondola storageis considered inconsequential due to its minor change.

Gondola storage building reduced insize from 438 square metres to 414square metres

The floor level alteration is inconsequential and has nobearing on the overall height of the building with thefloor to ceiling height being reduced to accommodatethe increased floor level to the gondola storage.

The floor level of the gondola storageincreased by 1.5 metres withoutincreasing the overlay height of thebuilding (i.e. the floor to ceiling heightreduced of the level above).

There are no concerns with the removal of this elementwhich results in a further reduction in the floor area ofthe building.

First floor office deleted.


Changes to the facade treatment ofthe buildings including a change inmaterials from precast concretepanels to vertical metal cladding.

The reduction to the footprint reduces the scale andvisual impact of the development without adverselyimpacting on the functionality of the facility.

Total building footprint reduced from1,796 square metres to 1,323 squaremetres.




General:

The lease corridor agreement with Parks Victoria hasalways been 40 metres. This is illustrated on planTP-1200. This formalises this agreement and allowsgreater flexibility in the installation of services with thecorridor to respond to the onsite constraints.

Lease corridor width increased from20 metres to 40 metres.

This was a requirement of Condition 1g of the permit.Trees 59 and 64 retained.

Alterations to the Cladding Treatment and Building Appearance

The noteworthy changes are the alterations to the cladding treatment and the introduction of someadditional glazing and metal cladding (in lieu of composite timber cladding) to both the upper andlower stations. The elevations below compare the approved north and west elevations with thechanges proposed.




As seen in the diagrams above, the elevations have been generally amended by introducing minorfaçade treatment changes to the buildings which generally relate to:

Replacing some areas clad with Biowood composite panel to vertical metal cladding;The introduction of some additional glazing areas particularly to the western elevation of theupper station; andSimplification of the building’s design particularly to the western elevation to introduce additionalglazing and remove the battered screen.

In response to concerns raised by Council Officers to the initially submitted amended plans, themajority of the vertical metal cladding from the upper station’s elevation has been removed andreplaced with Biowood composite cladding (as per the original proposed elevation treatment). Themajority of the façade of both the upper and lower station remains Biowood composite cladding(including the caterlivered roof) and in this regard the vertical metal cladding is a subordinate to theoverall appearance of the building would not be an obtrusive elevement. This will integrate well withthe dominant cladding material (Biowood Cladding) and will provide additional visual interest to thiselevation.

External timber screens have been included on three windows of the western elevation of the upperstation which is consistent with the treatement of glazing to the lower station. This treatment alsoprovides an aesthetically pleasing outcome which has appropriate regard to the natural setting andlandscape.

The proposed changes to the cladding treatment and building appearance are considered reasonablegiven the general form and achitectural language of both the upper and lower station has beenmaintained. Having regard to the above, the external changes to the upper and lower station areappropriate and is wothy of support.

CONSIDERATION/ANALYSIS – ENDORSEMENT OF PLANS UNDER CONDITION 1 OF THEPERMIT

Please refer to the following Attachment:

Attachment 1 – Secondary Consent Amended Plans; andAttachment 3 – Planning Permit.

How Do the Submitted Plans, As Amended Under the Secondary Consent Provisions, Complywith Condition 1 of the Permit?

For the purpose of this report each specific requirement of Condition 1 of the Permit has been itemisedalong with commentary to address the above question:

Condition 1A – Demolition Plan

Please refer to the following plan/s:

TP-1600 (Upper Station Site Plan/Demolition Plan).




The upper station is affected by Heritage Overlay 4 (Arthurs Seat Reserve and Tower) which requiresplanning permission for demolition. The lower station is not affected by this overlay and thereforeplanning permission is not required for demolition of any buildings or structures at the lower stationsite.

Submitted drawing TP-1600 details the extent of demolition at the upper station site as required byCondition 1A of the Permit.

The following building/structures are proposed to be demolished:

Existing steps;Picnic tables within leased area;Water tank;Parks Victoria signage;Removal of some rock garden beds with some retained where possible and integrated into newlandscaping;Existing steps and paved landed removed (and made good);Removal of a small section of the rock retaining wall adjacent to the existing steps (reinstatedto match existing) (see Image 2 below); andRemoval of timber barriers adjacent to Arthur’s Seat Road (see Image 1 below).

The extent of demolition is consistent with the existing approval in terms of what is required to beremoved to facilitate the upper station and associated works.

Image 1: Existing timber road barriers to be removed




Image 2: Existing rock retaining wall to be patrially removed and reinstated to match existing).

Condition 1B – Measures to protect heritage fabric at the summit such as Arthurs Seat and plaques


TP-1600 (Upper Station Site Plan/Demolition Plan).

What is the Heritage Fabric Identified?

In paragraph 193 of the VCAT order (VCAT 1494) the Tribunal notes:

“Some fabric remains such as the granite walls, the seat itself, and some other markers. Other thandemolition of some stairs to provide all-ability access, the heritage fabric will be retained. Permitconditions can ensure this occurs.”

It is noted that none of the remaining heritage elements such as plaques or Arthurs Seat will beremoved as per TP-1600.

How do the Submitted Plans Respond to Condition 1B?

The plans note the following heritage fabric elements of the upper station are to remain:

Arthur’s Seat (see image 3 below);Existing garden bed and adjacent information shelter (see Image 3 below);Existing PM Marker and Plaque; andExisting rock retaining wall (see Image 3 and 4 below).




Image 3: Existing Rock retaining wall with Arthurs Seat and Information Shelter

Image 4: Existing Rock retaining wall

All remaining heritage elements such as plaques or Arthurs Seat are to be retained as per the Tribunaldecision:

The plans include notations that these heritage fabric elements will be protected during construction.This includes the installation of temporary fencing and signage. All contractors will be made awareof the heritage significance as part of their induction.

Condition 1C – The location and details of all lighting provided in conjunction with the proposed lowerand upper gondola stations, pylons and gondolas (as applicable)


TP-1700 (Lighting Layout Plan Upper and Lower Station); andTP-1800 (Lighting Details – Gondola corridor).




Upper and Lower Station Lighting Layout

The plans show the location of lighting for both stations which is considered reasonable and appropriateto provide for safe access for users of the facility. As required in Condition 35, all lighting will bebaffled.

Gondola Corridor Lighting Layout

Each gondola is provided with external mounted lighting which has a diameter of 240 millimetre.

External lighting will only be used for emergency situations.

Condition 1D – Any earthworks (cut or fill) associated with the construction of the proposeddevelopment in conjunction with the upper gondola station


TP-500 (Lower Station Elevations);TP-800 (Upper Station Elevations); andTP-1600 (Upper Station Demolition Plan).

All earthworks associated with the development have been accurately represented in TP-500, TP-800and TP-1600.

The plans also show retaining walls and batter details. All retaining walls are noted to be to engineeringspecifications and provided with a high quality rendered finish.

To facilitate the upper stations an area of 290 square metres is required to be cut and an area of 658square metres is required to be filled (see TP1600).

In addition it is noted that a 45 degree slope is now proposed on the South Elevation of the LowerStation to replace a crib wall as shown on the previous plans, This has been discussed in the‘secondary consent’ assessment provided above and as noted, is considered appropriate.

Condition 1E – How compliance with DEPI Conditions 40-61 is to be achieved

Please refer to the following attachment/s:

Attachment 4 – Applicant’s detailed breakdown of how conditions 40-70 are to be achieved.

This condition seeks information on the methodology on how compliance is to be achieved with regardto DEPI (now DELWP) conditions 40-61. This condition does not require demonstration that actualcompliance has been met, rather it deals with the approach to ensure compliance is met.

The actual task of complying with the DEPI Conditions 40-61 is for the permit holder to undertake tothe satisfaction of DEPI after Condition 1 plans have been approved.

The permit holder has provided a summary of the actions and status of how conditions 40 to 61 ofthe permit are to be met (refer to Attachment 4). The actions proposed/underway are considered tobe satisfactory in demonstrating how compliance with DEPI Conditions 40-61 are to be achieved.




The methodology sets out a clear direction on how the permit holder is to satisfy the relevant DEPI(DELWP) conditions. The methodology as submitted will ensure that the requirements of condition40-61 will be satisfied within an appropriate timeframe in the context of the construction and ongoinguse of the facility.

Further, there are no spatial implications within Condition 40-61 of the permit which would impact onthe endorsement of Condition 1 plans.

Condition 1F – How compliance with VicRoads Conditions 65-70 is to be achieved

Please refer to the following attachment/s:

Attachment 4 – Applicant’s detailed breakdown of how conditions 40-70 are to be achieved.

This condition seeks information on the methodology on how compliance is to be achieved withregards to VicRoads conditions 65-70. This condition does not require demonstration that actualcompliance has been met, rather it deals with the methodology on how compliance is to be achieved.

The actual task of complying with the VicRoads conditions 65 to 70 is for the permit holder to undertaketo the satisfaction of VicRoads prior to the commencement of works.

The permit holder has provided a summary of the actions and status of how conditions 65-70 of thepermit are to be met (refer to Attachment 4). The actions proposed/underway are considered to besatisfactory in demonstrating how compliance with VicRoads Conditions 65-70 are to be achieved.

Further, there are no spatial implications within Condition 65-70 of the permit which would impact onthe endorsement of Condition 1 plans.

Condition 1G – The retention of Tree No. 59 and Tree No. 64 at the upper station site


TP-1300 (Corridor Vegetation Plan)

Submitted drawing TP-1300 details the extent of vegetation removal associated with the development.Trees No. 59 and Tree No. 64 have been retained as required by Condition 1G (see below).




A GONDOLA CORRIDOR PLAN

Condition 1H (i) – The location and full details of each pylon. This must include the surveyed location,dimensioned height and breadth of all gondola pylons consistent with the submitted plans.

This matter is discussed in the consideration of the change to the pylon location and design discussedlater in the report.

Condition 1H (ii) - The location and details of any proposed underground services and/or infrastructure.


TP-1900 (Gondola Corridor Plan – Underground Services).

Drawing TP-1900 has been prepared after consultation with South East Water and VicRoad. Theplans shows all underground services and infrastructure associated with the connection of the upperand lower stations to the reticulated sewer system of South East Water.

A 3 metre wide Sewerage Easement is to be created in favour of South East Water with the sewerline being centrally located within the easement.

It is noted that no native vegetation will be impacted on by the underground services and infrastructure.

Condition 1H (iii) - A minimum 6.4 metre height clearance between the base of the gondolas and theroad pavement at each point where Arthurs Seat Road is traversed.





TP-1100 (Overall Context Plan); andTP-1500 (Gondola Profile Plan).

As noted on TP-100 and TP1500, a 6.4 metre clearance has been provided between the base of thegondolas and the road pavement at each point where Arthurs Seat Road is traversed.

Condition 1H (iv) - All existing trees within the corridor, and nominating whether each tree is to beretained, removed, lopped or pruned.

Submitted drawing TP-1300 details the extent vegetation to be removed from within the gondolacorridor. It is noted that this is consistent with condition 1G which shows the retention of trees 59 and64.

Condition 1I - All proposed water tanks at both the lower and upper levels nominated to be oflow-reflectivity and of muted colours and tones.

Lower Station

Submitted drawing TP-400 provides details of a 40,000 litre water tank. The water tank has a diameterof 5.4 metres and is 2.55 metres high. The water tank is located in a remote area of the site, adjacentto the substation. This area is not visible from Arthurs Seat Road. As notated on the plans, the watertank will have a smooth concrete finish to match the lower station building materials. It is also notatedthat the location and capacity of the water tank complies with the static water requirements of Condition60 of the permit as shown below:




TP-400 – Proposed 40,000 litre water tank

Upper Station

Submitted drawing TP-700 provides details of two 150,000 litre water tanks. The waters tanks havea diameter of 9.5 metres and are 3.5 metres high. The water tanks are well setback from ArthursSeat Road, adjacent to the existing water tank (to be removed) and screened by a 2100mm highcyclone fence. As notated on the plans, the water tank will have a smooth concrete finish to matchthe lower station building materials.




TP-700 – 2 x 150,000 litre water tanks

Condition 1J – Schedule of the external colours and finishes of the gondolas, demonstrating that thegondolas will complement the natural landscape to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

As shown on TP-200 the gondola cabin external frame is proposed to be ‘Signal Red’ as depictedbelow:




The colour is similar to the traditional red chair lift and in this regard it will complement the historicalcontext of the previous attraction. The nature of the gondola design (safari type gondola) means thattransparent surfaces are maximised with the red finish only covering a very small part of each gondola.During inclement weather, the openings will be closed with tinted polycarbonate grey glazing beforethe dominant colour. The proposed colours are considered to be respectful of the natural landscapeand historical context of the previous chairlift.




CONSIDERATION/ANALYSIS – PYLON LOCATION (TO BE DETERMINED BY THE TRIBUNAL)

The permit holder has applied to VCAT to request the Tribunal’s endorsement of amended plans forthe location of the pylons required to support the gondolas.

Condition 1h(i) of the planning permit specified that the applicant must provide:

A Gondola Corridor Plan, showing (but not limited to):H.

The location and full details of each pylon. This must include the surveyed location,dimensioned height and breadth of all gondola pylons consistent with the submittedplans.

i.

Further to this, the permit also specified that in relation to Condition 1h)(i):

Direction under section 85(1A) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987

By order dated 10 December, 2014, the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal in proceeding no.P1045/2014 has directed that Condition 1(h)(i) on this Permit must not be amended by the ResponsibleAuthority under Division 1A of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.

Since the revised plans cannot be considered to be “consistent with the submitted plans” as specifiedin the wording of the permit, only VCAT may authorise the changes. A hearing has been scheduledfor 21 and 22 May to review the merits of the proposed changes. Prior to the hearing, Council willneed to form its own view on the merits of the alterations, in order to establish a position at the hearing.

What are the Changes?

In essence, the number of pylons has been reduced from 13 to 11. As a result of the change, somepylons have had only a very minor change to their location with others having a greater shift. Heightsof individual pylons have also altered.

In order to illustrate the proposed changes in the context of the plans as originally assessed, theapplicant has prepared drawing No. TP200, showing a profile of the pylon locations along the alignmentfrom the bottom station to the top station. A copy of the revised layout is provided at Attachment 6.The three drawings show the original layout, the proposed layout, and an overlay of both to demonstratethe contrast. The drawing also features a table to indicate the overall height of each pylon, as wellas levels at the base and cable height (refer to Attachment 6).

Aside from the revised siting, the plans also demonstrate that the angle of some pylons (particularlythose on the steeper sections of the slope) have been altered to sit more perpendicular with the slopeas opposed to vertical.

Consideration of the Changes

Consideration of the changes generally relates to the appropriateness of the revised siting incomparison to the original, and the effect (if any) of the height differences.




Siting

LocationDistance changePylon Number

No changeNo changePylon 1

North of previous pylon 31 metrePylon 2

North of previous pylon 44 metresPylon 3

South of previous pylon 51 metrePylon 4



South of previous pylon 89 metresPylon 7


North of previous pylon 112.5 metresPylon 9


South of previous pylon 131 metrePylon 11

In terms of siting, the reduction in numbers effectively means that pylons 2 and 9 from the originallayout have been deleted. Of those that remain, it is evident from the profile overlay shown on TP1500(Appendix 6) that several pylons remain generally in accordance with the original layout in terms oftheir overall siting. Proposed pylons 5, 7 and 8 have seen the greatest shift in terms of location. Ofthese, proposed pylon No. 8 is considered to have the greatest potential for impact in terms ofresidential amenity and outlook, given its location relative to the nearest dwelling at Number 40 NestleCourt (shown as Lot 42 on TP-1400).

The original layout saw Pylon 10 located in alignment with the side elevation of the dwelling at No.40. Moving the pylon further down the hill brings proposed pylon 8 into the view-cone of this property,albeit at an oblique angle relative to the outlook from the rear of the dwelling. Although the pylon isnow visible from the rear of this dwelling, the primary view obtained from this property is away fromthis dwelling towards the north east. It is therefore not considered that the new siting of the pylon willsignificantly impact on the visual amenity of residents of 42 Nestle Court. It is also important to notethat the owner of this property has provided a letter to state that he has viewed the most recent plansof the pylons, and has no concerns with their location as they relate to his property. Of the remainderof the pylons, the revised siting does not bring about any particular cause for concern and will sitcomfortably within the landscape.

Height

The revised plans show that some pylons have increased in height, whilst others have been reduced.This is represented in the table below. The figures represent the height of the pylons above groundlevel.




Increase/DecreaseRevised Pylon NumberOriginal Pylon Number

49 centimetre decreasePylon 1: 4.36 metresPylon 1: 4.85 metres

N/ADeletedPylon 2: 4.85 metres



4.27 metre increasePylon 4: 15.46 metresPylon 5: 11.19 metres

2.51 metre decreasePylon 5: 9.56 metresPylon 6: 12.05 metres

48 centimetre increasePylon 6: 13.22 metresPylon 7: 12.74 metres


N/ADeletedPylon 9: 12.61 metres





Of the above, the pylons that have decreased in height are considered of no consequence. Likewise,the pylons that have only marginally increased in height (being revised No’s 6, 9 and 10) are notconsidered to cause any adverse amenity impacts. Consideration therefore turns to Pylons 4, 7 and8, which show height increases in the range of 4.19 metres to 4.38 metres.

The plans assessed by Council (and later by the Tribunal) contained a notation regarding the pylonsto indicate that the pylon sizes would not be determined until documentation stage, and that levelscould not be finalized until the final manufacturer had been chosen and their final design produced.It is likely for this reason that the Tribunal has elected to call this element back in for any alterationsto be considered.

Overall, it is a positive outcome that there are fewer pylons proposed, and that of the 11 that remain,five have been reduced in height. Three of the remaining six pylons have only marginally increasedin height, so as noted above, the impact of the three remaining pylons is the key issue. On balance,it is considered unlikely that the additional height of these three pylons will result in an outcome thatis so unacceptable (from a visual perspective) that it would mean that the proposal should not besupported.

Whilst these three pylons are increasing in height, it is not considered that this increase of between4.1-4.3 metres will unreasonably impact on the landscape values of Arthurs Seat. This is due to thecontext of the pylons when read within the unique topographical features of Arthurs Seat, the vegetationcoverage of the area and the location of the pylons which have the more significant height.




Although it is anticipated that the three pylons will project above the tree canopy of directly adjacentvegetation, the undulating nature of the surface of Arthurs Seat together with its dense coverage ofmature vegetation will limit the impact of these pylons on the landscape. With Arthurs Seat as abackdrop and with the pylons being located a significant distance from main public areas/vantagepoints (a minimum of 20 metres (approximately) from Arthurs Seat Road), pylons 4 and 7 will havethe most impact when users of Arthurs Seat Road are within the vicinity of the pylons. This impactwill be significantly reduced as road users continue along their along Arthurs Seat Road.

With an increase in height of 4.1 metres, pylon 8 is located a significant distance from Arthurs SeatRoad (approximately 96 metres) and 20metres to the closest dwelling. The pylon’s significant distancefrom the road and the nearest dwelling combined with the presence of mature vegetation in the vicinityof the pylon will ensure that it will not have a significant impact on the visual amenity of the area andis considered appropriate. As previously mentioned, the nearest neighbour adjacent to pylon 8 hasalso provided consent.

Subject to this, it is considered that the amended pylon location and heights is worthy of support.

OFFICER DIRECT OR INDIRECT INTEREST

No person involved in the preparation of this report has a direct or indirect interest requiring disclosure.

CONCLUSION

The above assessment has considered the proposed minor changes to the plans under the secondaryconsent mechanism of Condition 3 of the permit.

The changes to the plans make a number of operational revisions arising from further detailed design,greater site investigations, and input from the gondola manufacturer. These changes are necessaryto achieve greater functionality of the upper and lower stations.

As discussed in this report, the changes are considered to be inconsequential having regard to thepurpose of the planning controls which affect the land. In addition the plans have been assessed asappropriately responding to the Condition 1 requirements (other than Condition 1h which is currentlybeing considered by VCAT under Section 87A of the Planning and Environment Act 1987).

It is also concluded that the change in the pylon location and height is appropriate and will notunreasonably impact on the landscape of Arthurs Seat.

RECOMMENDATION A

That Council, being the Responsible Authority under the Mornington Peninsula Planning Schemeand Planning and Environment Act 1987, having considered all matters in respect of PlanningApplication P13/1992.01 resolve to approve the amended plans under the secondary consentprovisions of Condition 3 of the Permit.




RECOMMENDATION B

That Council, being the Responsible Authority under the Mornington Peninsula Planning Schemeand Planning and Environment Act 1987, having considered all matters in respect of PlanningApplication P13/1992.01 resolve to endorse the submitted plans subject to the resolution of Condition1h currently being considered by VCAT under Section 87A of the Planning and Environment Act1987.

RECOMMENDATION C

That Council advise the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal that it supports the amended pylonlocation and heights as proposed in the submitted plans.

Adjournment of Meeting

Moved: Cr. ColombSeconded: Cr. Garnock

That the meeting be adjourned at 8:21 p.m.

Carried

Resumption of Meeting

Moved: Cr. FraserSeconded: Cr. Garnock

That the meeting resume at 8:41 p.m.

Carried




COMMITTEE DECISION

Moved: Cr. CeliSeconded: Cr. Fraser

RECOMMENDATION A

That Council, being the Responsible Authority under the Mornington Peninsula PlanningScheme and Planning and Environment Act 1987, having considered all matters in respectof Planning Application P13/1992.01 resolve to approve the amended plans under thesecondary consent provisions of Condition 3 of the Permit subject to:

The retention of the interpretive centre at the upper station referred to in the submittedplans and provision of the details of the Arthurs Seat historical artefacts to bedisplayed in the interpretive centre as part of the next consent application presentedto Council, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

A.

The gondola colour be amended to green, grey or blue to the satisfaction of theResponsible Authority.

B.

Carried

Moved: Cr. GibbSeconded: Cr. Celi

RECOMMENDATION B

That Council, being the Responsible Authority under the Mornington Peninsula PlanningScheme and Planning and Environment Act 1987, having considered all matters in respectof Planning Application P13/1992.01 resolve to endorse the submitted plans subject to theresolution of Condition 1h currently being considered by VCAT under Section 87A of thePlanning and Environment Act 1987 and subject to the changes required in RecommendationA.

Carried




Moved: Cr. CeliSeconded: Cr. Gibb

RECOMMENDATION C

That Council advise the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal that it supports theamended pylon location and heights as proposed in the submitted plans.

Carried

VIEW ATTACHMENT 1

VIEW ATTACHMENT 2

VIEW ATTACHMENT 3

VIEW ATTACHMENT 4

VIEW ATTACHMENT 5

VIEW ATTACHMENT 6




www.mornpen.vic.gov.au/files/ea1604bc-5c19-4548-82b2-a47a00a80111/152204da_att_21_1.pdf

www.mornpen.vic.gov.au/files/81aaca33-07ae-473d-a39e-a47a00a83d82/152204da_att_21_2.pdf

www.mornpen.vic.gov.au/files/50806422-ba71-4efc-a040-a47a00a84b14/152204da_att_21_3.pdf

www.mornpen.vic.gov.au/files/9e0a3e7d-fa19-4ea0-8a59-a47a00a85940/152204da_att_21_4.pdf

www.mornpen.vic.gov.au/files/64a80bf1-d680-4627-b426-a47a00a8655f/152204da_att_21_5.pdf

www.mornpen.vic.gov.au/files/7bb3fde0-ee9a-48d9-9922-a47a00a87120/152204da_att_21_6.pdf

2.2 Proposed Amendment to the Mornington Peninsula Planning Scheme – MoorooducCoolstores, Eramosa Road West, Moorooduc

Allan Cowley, Manager – Strategic PlanningPrepared By

Director – Sustainable EnvironmentAuthorised By

A5818815Document ID

YES (3)Attachment(s)

This item was considered first.

Addendum – Late Report

Circulated on Thursday, 16 April, 2015

PURPOSE

This report relates to the Moorooduc Coolstores Development located at 475 Moorooduc Road,Moorooduc and hereafter referred to as the Moorooduc Coolstores.

The purpose of this report is to present a proposal to amend the Mornington Peninsula PlanningScheme, primarily to enable the implementation of a more relevant and up-to-date IncorporatedDocument that simplifies the approval process for changing land uses within the site. It takes intoaccount the context of relatively recent planning permit approvals.

Moorooduc Coolstores is currently subject to the April 2008 Incorporated Document that was originallyintroduced into the Planning Scheme by Amendment C88 on 5March, 2009. Please refer to Attachment1 which includes the 2008 Incorporated Document and Moorooduc Coolstores Heritage Citation.

The following points provide further context:

The subject land has heritage significance associated with an historic orchard complex and postoffice and the existing complex of buildings although altered has potential to have its heritagesignificance better protected;The site has been used, at least since the 1980s, for a mixture of entertainment and commercialpurposes (restaurant/function rooms, lounge bar etc);Since 1986 there have been a series of planning approvals that have provided for various usesof the site ranging from dwelling, retail plant nursery, art and craft sales, museum, antique shop,radio station, function centre and restaurant;The subject land has in the past been viewed as part of a ‘gateway’ location to the MorningtonPeninsula’s Green Wedge. In supporting Amendment C88 the special character and functionof this site was recognised;There has been a history of planning approvals (planning permits and Planning Schemeamendments) dating from 1999 with special concessions for a rural area having been made inorder to find suitable uses that would complement its heritage values;



Following from the approval of Amendment C88, the owner has substantially upgraded the fabricof the Moorooduc Coolstores complex;However, the range of uses approved under the Incorporated Document, which was designedto enable the establishment of an integrated tourist, food, leisure and entertainment centre, hasso far proved to be commercially unviable. This concept is unlikely to proceed as envisaged inthe current Incorporated Document and the related Planning Permit (CP06/002 which has nowexpired);In the interim a range of new uses have been approved, including the Endota Spa. The usesapproved to date reflect a basic principle that the site should be used for activities associatedwith tourism/entertainment or health and wellness, and not for ‘core retail activities’, which aremore appropriately located in township commercial areas. However, lack of clarity regarding theappropriate range and scale of uses has meant that planning applications are often subject touncertainty and delay, making commercial decisions by prospective tenants more difficult;Accordingly, the owner is seeking a more certain approval process, expressed in a more relevantand updated Incorporated Document that continues a themed approach to land use anddevelopment whilst ensuring that land uses such as supermarkets and the like are not permittedon the site; andThe owner is not seeking to expand the development footprint on the site, nor to seek approvalfor accommodation based uses.

It is considered that there is a net community benefit in widening the range of permissible uses forthe land in the interest of both providing for the better utilisation of the site (with associated economicand social benefits) and to provide for long term heritage protection (noting that the site is includedin the Heritage Overlay).

It is therefore recommended that Council includes relevant amendment proposals for the MoorooducCoolstores in the next general amendment, generally as outlined in Attachment 3.

BACKGROUND

Land

The land affected by this Incorporated Document is the old Moorooduc Coolstores site at 475Moorooduc Highway, Moorooduc (Lot 1 on PS 500205U, approximately 2.9 hectares) plus part ofthe former road along Eramosa Road West that is generally affected by the encroachment of thebuilding (approximately 53 square metres).

The land is an ‘L shaped’ lot, located at the south-east corner of Eramosa Road West and theMoorooduc Highway, Moorooduc. The existing buildings on the land have a total approximate areaof 2,321 square metres (figure quoted in documentation for Planning Scheme Amendment C88) withapproximately half of that being contained in the original Moorooduc Coolstores building.

The following is the latest aerial view of the site.



2.2 Proposed Amendment to the Mornington Peninsula Planning Scheme – MoorooducCoolstores, Eramosa Road West, Moorooduc (Cont.)

Planning Scheme

The land is within the Green Wedge Zone except for that small part which was formerly part of theEramosa RoadWest; this is still zoned Road Zone Category 2. The land adjoins a Road Zone Category1, being Moorooduc Highway, and also a Road Zone Category 2, being Eramosa Road West.

The land is also affected by the Heritage Overlay which applies to the northern part of the site in orderto offer heritage protection in respect of the heritage described in Heritage Overlay, Schedule 139 –Two Bays Orchard Packing Sheds.

A permit is required for the construction and removal of buildings, tree removal, demolition, externalbuilding alterations including painting and repairs and routine maintenance which change theappearance of a heritage place or which are not undertaken to the same details, specifications andmaterials. The schedule provides no control over internal alterations and does not provide the possibilityfor the approval of prohibited uses.

The relevant Heritage Study records the heritage significance of the site as follows:

“The Two Bays Coolstores, packing sheds and the associated mature Monterey pine rows aresignificant within the Mornington Peninsula as including the Peninsula’s most extensive built remindersof what was once a vast orchard and nursery industry. Although modified, this complex is externallyamong the early orchard complexes in the State and the comparatively large size of this company isclearly expressed by the size of the remaining original buildings and the extent of the pine hedgerows.”




(Graeme Butler & Associates (1994) ‘Shire of Mornington Heritage Study’).

The whole of the land is also affected by the Environmental Significance Overlay, Schedule 1Moorooduc Plain and Balcombe Valley (ESO1). This overlay is not relevant to the use of land butwould be relevant to any future application for the development of the land.

The whole of the land is also affected by Clause 52.03 Specific sites and exclusions and theIncorporated Document referred to in the Schedule to this Clause (see Attachment 1).

The purpose of Clause 52.03 is:

To recognise specific controls designed to achieve a particular land use and developmentoutcome existing on the approval date; andTo provide in extraordinary circumstances specific controls designed to achieve a particular landuse and development outcome.

Clause 52.03 enables particular uses and developments to be prohibited, allowed or restrictedirrespective of other provisions of the Planning Scheme. In this case, the Clause 52.03 Schedulecontrol allows a select range of uses that would otherwise be prohibited by the provisions of the GreenWedge Zone.

Planning History

A copy of the original 1999 incorporated plan, showing the overall site plan is included as Attachment2. The currently approved plan is also included in Attachment 2.

Planning Scheme Amendment C88 and the related planning permit (CP06/002) were approved bythe Minister for Planning on 5 March, 2009, in recognition that some restricted redevelopment of thesite for a wider range of otherwise prohibited uses would be beneficial to the protection of its heritagevalues.

The current Incorporated Document and the concurrent planning permit CP06/002 allowed for theuse and development of the land as an integrated tourist, food, leisure and entertainment centre.This includes a licensed multi-purpose function centre with lounge bar/tavern, licensedrestaurants/cafes, licensed food and wine centre including packaged liquor sales, visitor information,public toilets, tourist interpretive displays and community radio station) with associated landscapingand car parking. The approval also allows for alteration of access to a Road Zone (Category 1), acar parking dispensation, demolition alterations and additions to buildings in a Heritage Overlay.

A number of relevant restrictions include that:

The site and/or the buildings on the site must not be used as a discotheque or nightclub;The lounge bar and post office club room must be operated in conjunction with the PeninsulaLounge function room and bistro;Except with the further permission of the Responsible Authority that part of the Food and WineCentre designated as ‘Peninsula – Wine and Food Display’ and ‘Peninsula Food Expo’ mustonly sell food grown mainly on the Mornington Peninsula or wine that is primarily produced (80%)from grapes grown on the Mornington Peninsula;




The Food and Wine Centre packaged liquor use must not have a floor area exceeding 100square metres and must not have an entrance from an external wall of a building;The restaurants and café must not be used as a ‘convenience restaurant’ as separately definedunder the Mornington Peninsula Planning Scheme; andNo gaming machines are permitted on the site.

The expiry date of the Incorporated Document Moorooduc Coolstores Development, April 2008, wasoriginally 1 August, 2014. This has been extended by Council to 1 August, 2016, for commencement,with a completion date of 1 August, 2018. A subsequent Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunaldecision amended the relevant condition to read:

“ This permit will expire if the use approved under this permit has not commenced by 1 August2016, in accordance with the terms of the Incorporated Document – Moorooduc CoolstoresDevelopment, April 2008.”

The site is prominent as a landmark for visitors travelling to the southern Peninsula. As indicated inprevious reports on the Moorooduc Coolstores, the prominence of the land is created by:

The main building on the site having virtually no front setback from Moorooduc Highway (oneof the main road entries for the Peninsula);The Coolstores being much larger than nearby buildings in an otherwise rural landscape;It having a commercial use that contrasts with the surrounding predominantly rural landscape;andIt being within the direct sightline of drivers travelling south as they reach a slow point createdby a railway crossing and roundabout.

The most recent significant town planning approvals for the site (some of these are not approvalspursuant to the Incorporated Document) relate to the following.

Permit P12/1463 for Use of an Existing Building as a Day Spa Comprising the Following:

A maximum of 60% of the floor space occupied by the day spa and 40% occupied by ancillaryadministrative service;A day spa offering a range of spa and beauty treatments and the sale of the beauty productsthat are used in the treatments;The conducting of wellness workshops and classes;A minimum of three staff and a maximum of 20 staff being required on site; andHours of operation:

Monday – Wednesday: 9:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m;Thursday – Friday: 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m;Saturday: 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m; andSunday: 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

Permit P12/1463 for Use of Existing Buildings Comprising the Following:

Boutique Gymnasium (Tenancy 3)




The boutique gymnasium is not a typical gym. The facility has been designed to provide holistictraining for health and wellbeing. The facility has been approved to:

Operate Monday to Saturday 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. by appointmentonly;Have a maximum staff number of two; andHave a maximum patron number of no more than five people at any one time.

Wellness Centre (Tenancy 4a)

The wellness centre or complementary health and relaxation retreat is proposed to enhance andcomplement the existing day spa activities. The original planning submission states that the wellnesscentre will provide the following range of services: education; counselling; natural energy basedhealing; food detoxes; pilates and other body conditioning routines; and auditory sound vibrationhealing. The facility has been approved to:

Operate Monday to Friday 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.;Have no more than six staff present at any one time (one administration and five wellnessproviders);Provide a majority of consultancies on a one on one basis with wellness providers;Have appointments lasting up to 1¼ hours;Have attendance by appointment only;Have group sessions (e.g. Pilates) to involve no more than 15 people to each wellness providerat any one time;Have no more than 24 people on site at any one time.

The application included the following floor plan of the proposed wellness centre, as follows.

Restaurant including liquor license (Tenancy 6)

The sale and consumption of liquor within the entire restaurant area is permitted.




The restaurant has been approved on the basis that:

The restaurant will provide up to 150 seats to the public at any one time;Maximum staff numbers will be between four and 10 at any one time;The restaurant will operate seven days a week between 7:00 a.m. and 1:00 a.m.; andThe proposal does not include music or entertainment other than background music, with theexception of a group booking up to 12 times a year.

The application included the following floor plan of the proposed restaurant;

Cake Shop (Tenancy 7)

The proposed hours of operation of this tenancy have not been specifically stated other than to notethat the use intends to operate during normal business hours. There will be only one staff memberon site at any one time.

Most production will occur off site although there may be some onsite ancillary production. Wherepracticable, local produce will be used in the production of the cakes.

Function Centre (Tenancies 4 and 5)

Permit P13/1684 has been issued for use of an existing building for a multi-purpose function centre(including liquor license) with a capacity of 260 people. Car parking is to be accommodated in theexisting on-site parking areas.

It is also appropriate to note that Permit P10/2007 was issued on 12 November, 2010 for the ‘carryingout of works (re-paint exterior of all heritage buildings) in accordance with the endorsed plans’. PermitP12/2032 was issued 24 January, 2013, for ‘the development of a walkway, alterations to the existingbuilding and associated works’. Permit P12/1505 was issued for 15 February, 2013, for ‘thedevelopment of buildings and works to the existing building including partial demolition, floodlightbusiness identification signage and associated works’.

These permits have been the basis for the substantial ‘uplift’ to the site resulting in the attractive sitecontext evident in the following photograph.




The Endota Spa as shown in the following photograph is now a significant use of the site.

The new restaurant as shown in the following photograph is also now a significant use of the site.




Planning Policy Framework

The policy context is set by the Mornington Peninsula Planning Scheme, in particular the State andLocal Planning Policy Frameworks (SPPF and LPPF). As has been stated in past reports concerningthe Moorooduc Coolstores, the most relevant clauses and their objectives are:

State Planning Policy Framework

Policy ObjectiveClause

Planning Authorities and Responsible Authorities should endeavour tointegrate the range of policies relevant to the issues to be determined andbalance conflicting objectives in favour of net community benefit andsustainable development for the benefit of present and future generations.

10.04: Integrateddecision making

To build up activity centres as a focus for high-quality development, activityand living for the whole community by developing a network of activitycentres.

11.01-1: Activity centrenetwork

To encourage the concentration of major retail, residential, commercial,administrative, entertainment and cultural developments into activity centreswhich provide a variety of land uses and are highly accessible to thecommunity.

11.01-2: Activity centreplanning

To protect the green wedges of Metropolitan Melbourne from inappropriatedevelopment.

11.04-6: Greenwedges

To ensure that potentially contaminated land is suitable for its intendedfuture use and development, and that contaminated land is used safely.

13.03-1: Use ofcontaminated andpotentiallycontaminated land




To protect landscapes and significant open spaces that contribute tocharacter, identity and sustainable environment.

12.04-2: Landscapes

To achieve architectural and urban design outcomes that contributepositively to local urban character and enhance the public realm whileminimising detrimental impact on neighbouring properties.

Clause 15.02: Urbandesign principles

To ensure the conservation of places of heritage significance.15.03-1: Heritageconservation

To ensure the protection and conservation of places of Aboriginal culturalheritage significance.

15.03-2: Aboriginalcultural heritage

To encourage development which meet the communities’ needs for retail,entertainment, office and other commercial services and provides netcommunity benefit in relation to accessibility, efficient infrastructure useand the aggregation and sustainability of commercial facilities.

17.01-1: Business

To encourage tourism development to maximise the employment andlong-term economic, social and cultural benefits of developing the Stateas a competitive domestic and international tourist destination.

17.03-1: Facilitatingtourism

To ensure an adequate supply of car parking that is appropriately designedand located.

18.02-5: Car parking

To plan for the provision of water supply, sewerage and drainage servicesthat efficiently and effectively meet State and community needs and protectthe environment.

19.03-2: Water supply,sewerage anddrainage

Local Planning Policy Framework

Policy ObjectiveClause

To establish an integrated land use pattern that recognises the regionalrole and character of the Peninsula, and ensures that urban developmentdoes not prejudice the environmental, recreational and agricultural valuesof the Peninsula nor the potential for appropriate port related development.

21.06: Strategicframework and thePeninsula’s settlementpattern.

The most relevant strategies to implement this objective is:

Ensure that the intensity of subdivision and development in thePeninsula’s rural areas is compatible with environmental values andland capability, the capacity of different landscapes to absorb furtherdevelopment without adverse impact and the maintenance ofproductive agricultural land use.




Tomaintain the recreational role of the Peninsula by protecting the qualitiesof its landscapes, natural environment and cultural heritage.

21.09-3: Maintainingand enhancinglandscape, culturaland recreationalvalues

The most relevant strategies to implement this objective are:

Promote appropriate recreational activities in non-urban areasparticularly activities that are linked with the existing historic,agricultural, environmental and landscape features of the Peninsula;and

Acknowledge the role of State significant tourist and recreationalfacilities as an important part of the economic development of thePeninsula.

DISCUSSION

It is now a matter of fact, that since the approval of Amendment C88 there have been many enquiriesabout potential land uses other than that approved under permit CP06/002, most of them seeking touse the existing building complex without the substantial alteration and extension envisaged inCP06/002.

However, the provisions of the Green Wedge Zone and Clause 52.03 have meant that they areprohibited and the main coolstore building has until relatively recent times largely remained unoccupiedand the other key heritage building on site, the Moorooduc Post Office had also until relatively recentlybecome increasingly dilapidated.

That has changed significantly through the issuing of a number of permits as noted above, includingthose that have enabled a major visual improvement of existing buildings.

Major concerns for the operator of the Moorooduc Coolstores have been the inability to provide certainadvice to prospective tenants and the fact that permit applications have often taken considerabletime to reach the stage of a final approval.

More often than not the delays are brought about by the difficulty in interpreting the existing controls.

Whilst the Planning Scheme contains a site specific provision for the subject land, neither it nor thescheme’s policy framework, contain objectives describing the outcome to be achieved in any futureuse or development of the subject land. However, reference to the policy framework and knowledgeof deliberations concerning the past planning history indicates that site-specific objectives for theland, which are listed in order of their priority, could be considered to guide future land use anddevelopment. For example:

Performance standardSite-specific Objective

To avoid the establishment of anew activity centre and protect theexisting settlement pattern.

Retain a prohibition on shops such as supermarkets andgrocery stores; andLimit the total floor area for shops to a gross floor area of500 square metres.




To protect the vitality of existingactivity centres.

Retain a prohibition on motels, residential hotels and thelike;Discourage large scale uses that would impact upon theviability of similar existing uses in activity centres; andRetain a prohibition on offices unless in conjunction withanother use on the land or associated with tourism.

To protect the function ofMoorooduc Highway andEramosa Road West

Confine all vehicular access to Eramosa Road West;Avoid any design that would encourage pedestrian accessfrom or car parking along Moorooduc Highway; andEnsure any demand for car parking and loading andunloading can be fully met within the land.

To protect and enhance theheritage values of the land.

Ensure that the coolstore building and the post officeremain the ‘landmarks’ of the site in any proposed designwith the coolstore building being the most visuallyprominent element; andMaintain certainty that the heritage buildings will beprotected and enhanced in the approval of any other useor development.

To protect the rural landscapevalues and the interface of theurban and rural area.

Encourage a high standard of landscaping and themaintenance of that landscaping as part of an integrateddevelopment;Retain a prohibition on convenience restaurants;Retain a prohibition on motels, residential hotels and thelike;Retain a prohibition on uses that are likely to be unsightly;andPrevent excessive signage and signage that detracts fromthe heritage buildings including above roof signage.

To protect the agricultural valuesof the Peninsula.

Retain a prohibition on subdivision; andEncourage uses linked to agriculture.

To realise the rural recreationalvalues of the land and its‘gateway’ location.

Encourage on-site heritage interpretation of the land’sheritage values;Encourage non-accommodation uses that would give thepublic opportunities to freely access the land;Encourage uses that are associated with the sale, storageor display of Mornington Peninsula produce or productsthat are manufactured fromMornington Peninsula produce;Encourage uses that have a heritage theme such as thesale of antiques or vintage goods;




Encourage non-accommodation uses that would beattractive as a day-tripper destination in their own right;Encourage non-accommodation uses that are consistentwith a rural retreat, rural experience or wellbeing healthexperience;Encourage the provision of facilities for visitors such astoilets and visitor information to supplement larger officialvisitor information centres in other locations; andEncourage a mix of non-accommodation uses that wouldenable a day-tripper to have a multi-dimensionalexperience.

The Moorooduc Coolstores needs to continue to strengthen its attraction as a destination for thosevisiting the Mornington Peninsula seeking to avail themselves of a significant recreation experience.

This will not occur if this facility does not have an appropriate range of tenancy opportunities with anappropriate and relatively certain mechanism to enable changes to occupancy to occur withoutunreasonable delay, so that the overall level of activity of the facility is retained.

In short, appropriate endeavour needs to be made to ensure this now substantially improved complexdoes not fall back to its past status of appearing to be ‘floundering’.

That does not mean that there should not be strong resistance to any proposals for a change to thecontrols that would open up the door for theMoorooduc Coolstores to assume a ‘conventional shoppingcentre status’ as would be apparent should, for example, a supermarket be permitted.

It is also considered that the Moorooduc Coolstores site needs to be managed in an integrated wayand that there should be no basis for the subdivision of the various buildings into separate allotments.

It is upon the above basis that the revised Incorporated Document and related Planning Schemedocumentation have been prepared (refer Attachment 3).

There has been no specific public consultation on the request.

The timing for this review takes into account the landowner’s representative having approachedCouncil with varied proposals that are prohibited by the current planning provisions which apply tothe site, but most of which are arguably consistent with the objective of retaining and protecting theheritage values of the land whilst respecting other planning policy objectives for the Peninsula.

It is noted that the exhibition of Amendment C88 in 2007 attracted 16 submissions, none of whichraised objections that required consideration by an Independent Panel.

ISSUES

Fees for consideration of the Amendment request have been received. All other fees will be chargedif/as the amendment proceeds. Other costs can be accommodated within budget.




OFFICER DIRECT OR INDIRECT INTEREST

No person involved in the preparation of this report has a direct or indirect interest requiring disclosure.

CONCLUSION

A revised Incorporated Document for the Moorooduc Coolstores is considered to be an appropriateand important step forward to secure its sustainable and long term future.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council includes relevant amendment proposals for the Moorooduc Coolstores in the nextgeneral amendment, generally as outlined in Attachment 3.

AMENDMENT

Moved: Cr. GibbSeconded: Cr. Pittock

Table 2 Performance Standard changed to: No single tenancy may be greater than 150 squaremetres and a combined total retail shop space of 250 square metres.

The Amendment Was Put and Lost

COMMITTEE DECISION

Moved: Cr. CeliSeconded: Cr. Garnock

That Council includes relevant amendment proposals for the Moorooduc Coolstores in thenext general amendment, generally as outlined in Attachment 3 subject to refinement of theprovision to better meet the underlying intent and restrict the location of any new buildingsto a mapped northern precinct of the land.

Carried

VIEW ATTACHMENT 1

VIEW ATTACHMENT 2

VIEW ATTACHMENT 3




www.mornpen.vic.gov.au/files/6508bbf7-21d4-4de6-93af-a48400ac7bb6/152204da_att_22_3.pdf

www.mornpen.vic.gov.au/files/9e01005b-2fd4-40db-ac5c-a48400ac5940/152204da_att_22_1.pdf

www.mornpen.vic.gov.au/files/faa889f4-9260-4b91-8cc8-a48400ac69f3/152204da_att_22_2.pdf

3 URGENT BUSINESS

Under Council's Meeting Procedure and Common Seal Local Law, no business may be admitted asurgent business unless it:

1. Relates to a matter which has arisen since distribution of the Agenda.2. Cannot because of its urgency, be reasonably listed in the Agenda of the next Committee

Meeting.3. Councillors by a majority vote, vote in favour of a matter being dealt with as urgent business.

Nil.



4 NOTICES OF MOTION

Notices of Motion must be received three (3) clear business days prior to a Meeting.

Nil.



5 CONFIDENTIAL ITEMS

Nil.



6 MEETING CLOSE

As there was no further business, the meeting closed at 9:11 p.m.

CONFIRMED THIS 6TH DAY OF MAY 2015

…………………………………………………….CHAIRPERSON

AUTHORITY TO STAMP INITIALS ON MINUTES

I, Cr. Anne Shaw, Chairperson – Development Assessment Committee hereby authorise the useof a stamp of my initials to initial each page of these Minutes of the Development AssessmentsCommittee Meeting held on Wednesday, 22 April, 2015, confirmed on 6 May, 2015.

………………………………………………………………….

(Cr. Anne Shaw, Chairperson – Development Assessments Committee)

Dated this 6th day of May 2015



dac 22 april 2015 - mornington peninsula · pdf fileelevation. ... watertank;...

Documents