VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
planning and environment division	
planning and environment LIST	vcat reference No. P604/2017
Permit Application no. P16/0953	
CATCHWORDS	
Section 77 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987; Mornington Peninsula Planning Scheme; Special Use Zone; Camping and caravan park; Land use; Policy; Landscape; Bushfire; Amenity	

APPLICANT	Long Lane Pty Ltd	
responsible authority	Mornington Peninsula Shire Council	
RESPONDENTs	J & G Barfoot	
SUBJECT LAND	161 and 189 Old Cape Schanck Road, and Old Cape Schanck Road road reserve, Boneo	
WHERE HELD	Melbourne	
BEFORE	Bill Sibonis, Senior Member
Sarah McDonald, Member	
HEARING TYPE	Hearing	
DATEs OF HEARING	11, 12, 13, 14, and 15 November, 9 December, 2019 and 4 March 2020	
date of interim Order	11 December, 2019	
DATE OF ORDER	9 April, 2020	
CITATION	Long Lane Pty Ltd v Mornington Peninsula SC [2020] VCAT 401	

Order
1	Pursuant to section 127 of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 the application is amended by changing the address of the land to:
161 and 189 Old Cape Schanck Road, and Old Cape Schanck Road road reserve, Boneo
2	Pursuant to clause 64 of Schedule 1 of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 the permit application is amended by changing the description of the land to:
161 and 189 Old Cape Schanck Road, and Old Cape Schanck Road road reserve, Boneo
3	Pursuant to clause 64 of Schedule 1 of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 the permit application is amended by changing the description of the proposal to:
Use and development of the land for a camping and caravan park and a caretaker’s house and associated works; tree removal; and works within the Old Cape Schanck Road road reserve
4	Pursuant to clause 64 of Schedule 1 of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998, the permit application is amended by substituting for the permit application plans, the following plans filed with the Tribunal:
•	Prepared by:	Peter L Brown Architects Pty Ltd	
•	Drawing numbers:	TP03 Revision G, TP03A Revision G, TP03B, TP04 Revision F, TP05 Revision F, TP06 Revision F	
•	Dated:	23/09/2019	
5	In application P604/2017 the decision of the responsible authority is set aside.
6	In planning permit application P16/0953 a permit is granted and directed to be issued for the land at 161 and 189 Old Cape Schanck Road, and Old Cape Schanck Road road reserve, Boneo in accordance with the conditions set out in the Appendix.  The permit allows:
•	Use and development of the land for a camping and caravan park and a caretaker’s house and associated works;
•	tree removal; and
•	works within the Old Cape Schanck Road road reserve
in accordance with the endorsed plans.

Bill Sibonis
Senior Member		Sarah McDonald
Member	

Appearances
For Long Lane Pty Ltd	Mr P Connor QC and Mr J Kane of Counsel, by direct brief.  Evidence was called from:
•	Ms C Dunstan, Traffic Engineer of Traffix Group Pty Ltd
•	Mr T Vernon, Landscape Architect of CDA Design Group Pty Ltd
•	Mr S Howe, Arboriculturalist of Landscape DEPT
•	Mr R Kelderman, Town Planner of Contour Consultants Australia Pty Ltd
•	Mr L Kern, Ecological and Bushfire Risk Consultant of Practical Ecology	
For Mornington Peninsula Shire Council	Mr L English, Solicitor of Mornington Legal	
Mr G and Mrs J Barfoot	In person	
For Country Fire Authority	Mr S Foster, Town Planner, and Mr A Mair, Fire Safety Officer	

Information
Description of proposal	Use and development of a camping and caravan park and caretaker’s house, tree removal and associated works.	
Nature of proceeding	Application under section 77 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 – to review the refusal to grant a permit.	
Planning scheme	Mornington Peninsula Planning Scheme (Planning Scheme)	
Zone and overlays	Special Use Zone – Schedule 4, Recreational Development (SUZ4)
Environmental Significance Overlay – Schedule 28, Mornington Peninsula Bushland (ESO28)
Vegetation Protection Overlay – Schedule 2, Significant Treelines (VPO2)
Significant Landscape Overlay – Schedule 4, Scenic Recreation Sites (SLO4)	
Permit requirements	Cl. 37.01-1 and 71.03-2 (use of land in SUZ4 for camping and caravan park and for a caretaker’s house)
Cl. 37.01-4 (the construction of a building and the construction or carrying out of works on land in SUZ4)
Cl. 42.01-2 (the construction of a building and the construction or carrying out of works and the removal of vegetation on land in ESO28)
Cl. 42.02-2 (the removal of vegetation on land in VPO2)	
Key scheme policies and provisions	Cl. 11, 12, 13, 15, 17, 21, 22.05, 22.11, 37.01, 42.01, 42.02, 51.02, 52.06, 52.17 and 65	
Land description	The review site is located on the east side of Old Cape Schanck Road in Boneo.  It comprises two lots.  No. 161 is a vacant lot and was formerly used as a native plant nursery.  The land supports sheds, a dam and established trees.  No. 189 is occupied by a dwelling and outbuildings.  It, too, supports established trees.  The land has an overall site area of approximately 6.9 hectares.	
	To the north, the land adjoins Drum Drum Alloc Creek, beyond which is the Tudor Caravan Park.  To the east is Grasslands Road, an unconstructed road, further east of which is farming land.  To the south, land is used for the purpose of a market garden which produces organic crops.  On the opposite (west) side of Old Cape Schanck Road is a residential subdivision comprising predominantly single-storey detached houses.	
Tribunal inspection	An accompanied site inspection was undertaken during the hearing.	

Reasons
What is this proceeding about?
1	This proceeding concerns a proposal to develop and use the review site for a camping and caravan park.  The Mornington Peninsula Shire Council (Council) has refused a permit on grounds which broadly refer to matters of policy, inconsistency with the zone purpose, bushfire risk, landscape character, internal amenity, off-site amenity impacts and overdevelopment.  The respondents support the Council’s position.
2	This is an application for a review of the Council’s decision.
3	On the basis of the submissions, the key issues for determination in this proceeding may be expressed as follows:
•	Is the use consistent with the purpose of the SUZ4?
•	Is the development acceptable?
•	Is the tree removal and landscaping acceptable?
•	Will there be any unacceptable amenity impacts?
•	Is sufficient car parking provided and is the vehicle access acceptable?
•	Does the proposal provide an acceptable response to the bushfire risk?
4	The Tribunal must decide whether a permit should be granted and, if so, what conditions should be applied.  Having considered the submissions and the evidence, with regard to the relevant policies and provisions of the Planning Scheme, assisted by our inspection, we have determined to set aside the Council’s decision.  Our reasons follow.
Preliminary issue – cultural heritage management plan
5	At the commencement of the hearing, a preliminary issue arose as to whether a Cultural Heritage Management Plan (CHMP), prepared in relation to the proposal which formed part of the planning permit application could be relied upon in respect of the amended proposal as shown on the substituted plans.  This was expressed as questions of law.  The Tribunal was re-constituted to include Member Whitney solely for the purpose of determining the questions of law.  Submissions addressing this issue were made on the second day of the hearing.  Member Whitney reserved her opinion on the questions of law.
6	On the final day of the hearing, the Tribunal was advised that an amended CHMP had been prepared and approved.  A copy of the amended CHMP was provided.  In respect to its approval, the applicant drew our attention to the following:
•	The relevant Registered Aboriginal Party, being the Bunurong Land Council Aboriginal Corporation, approved the amended CHMP on 6 December, 2019.
•	Pursuant to section 64 of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006:
(1)	Subject to subsection (2), a cultural heritage management plan takes effect as an approved cultural heritage management plan when—
(a)	it is approved by each registered Aboriginal party to which an application is required to be made under section 62; and
(b)	the sponsor lodges the following with the Secretary—
(i)	a copy of the plan; and
(ii)	 a copy of each notice of approval received by the sponsor under section 63(1)(b).
•	A copy of the plan and of the notice of approval had been lodged with the Secretary to the Department of Premier and Cabinet on 6 December 2019.
7	Accordingly, the amended CHMP is now approved and Member Whitney’s opinion on the questions of law is not required.
In summary, What is proposed?
8	In addition to 128 pitch sites, the proposal includes 12 mobile home sites, a ‘community centre and facilities building’, swimming pool, gymnasium, tennis court, lawn bowls rinks, a communal kitchen building and toilet/shower facilities.  Four motel rooms and a manager’s residence are within the community and facilities building.  The existing dwelling is to be used as a caretaker’s house.
9	Car parking is to be provided within each of the pitch sites (either one or two spaces) and visitor parking is to be located in three areas accessed via the internal driveway/circulation network.  Vehicle access and exit is to be provided via new crossings to Old Cape Schanck Road, with the driveway traversing No. 189.  The vehicle crossings will require the removal of four Monterey Pines which form part of a row that extends along the site frontage.
10	Within the site, 48 trees in total are proposed to be removed to facilitate the vehicle access across No. 189, and to allow for the construction of the buildings, recreational facilities, pitch sites and internal circulation network.
Is the use consistent with the purpose of the SUZ4?
Can the proposal be considered to be an integrated recreational and residential facility?
11	One of the grounds on which the Council opposes the grant of the permit is:
The proposal is contrary to the purposes of the Special Use Zone and fails to adequately respond to the intent of the Mornington Peninsula Localised Planning Statement (MPLPS), referred to in the Planning Policy Framework at clause 11.03-5S of the Scheme, particularly in relation to strategies 4, 14, 39 and 40 of the MPLPS.
12	The purpose of the SUZ4 is to provide for integrated recreational and residential development in appropriate locations.
13	In the Council’s submission, the proposal is not an integrated recreational and residential proposal.  Rather, the Council argued it is an accommodation proposal with some incidental elements of recreational resort available on-site for occupants/residents of the camping and caravan park or their visitors.  In support of this position, the Council submitted that the recreational component is not significant enough to be considered a ‘real and substantial’ purpose of the proposed use.  The Council went on to observe that there is no legal way in a planning context to distinguish between a tourist facility and one that accommodates permanent or long-term residents.  Reference was made to the following section of the Residential Tenancies Act 1997:
518	A planning scheme or permit under the Planning and Environment Act 1987 whether made before or after this section cannot limit the duration of residency in a caravan park.
14	The Council is concerned that the land could become a ‘de-facto Residential Village’.  It referred to the Tribunal’s decision in the matter of National Lifestyle Villages Pty Ltd v Wyndham CC (National Lifestyle) where the similarities between a camping and caravan park and a residential village were identified.  In that case, what was proposed was described in the following terms by the Tribunal:
1	National Lifestyle Villages Pty Ltd wishes to establish a “Lifestyle Village” on land at Point Cook.  The proposal involves the placement of 292 factory built homes in landscaped grounds with communal facilities.  The homes are typically of 70 to 90 square metres (or thereabouts) in area and consist of a kitchen, a lounge, one or two bedrooms, a bathroom and a carport.
15	The fact that that proposal was materially different to what is proposed here, as no cabins are proposed but, rather, a series of pitching sites on which caravans may be placed or tents erected, was acknowledged by the Council.  However, the Council submitted that, if a permit was granted, then a future proposal might include the provision of cabins, which would only require development (ie ‘buildings and works’) permission, as the use will already be established.
16	What is proposed, and what is before us for determination, is a camping and caravan park with no cabins.  There are no material similarities between this proposal and that considered by the Tribunal in the National Lifestyle case.  The proposal cannot be classified as a residential village as no dwellings are included.  In the National Lifestyle case, the Tribunal found that dwellings must be buildings.  It found that a tent or caravan would not normally be regarded as a dwelling, even if equipped with a kitchen sink, shower, toilet and so on.
17	We acknowledge that the Council is not saying that this proposal is a residential village, but that it may operate as a de-facto residential village by virtue of the fact that the duration of tenancy cannot be regulated.  This gives rise to the Council’s concern that it may be used for permanent or long-term accommodation, which is an outcome it does not support.
18	In respect of the Council’s concern that if a permit were granted a future application may seek to install cabins, this possibility cannot be discounted.  It is not uncommon for camping and caravan parks to also provide accommodation in cabins.  In considering whether such an outcome would mean that the use transforms from a camping and caravan park into a residential village (which is not what the Council is arguing, but which we will address for completeness), we have been assisted by the Tribunal’s assessment in National Lifestyle:
13	Well, what distinguishes a “camping and caravan park” from a “residential village”?  I think there are two types of factors:  essential requirements and qualitative differences.
14	For a use to be characterised as a “camping and caravan park” it will be essential that land is available for use for accommodating persons in caravans, cabins, tents or the like.  For a use to be characterised as a “residential village” it will be essential that:
(a)	the land is in one ownership;
(b)	the land contains a number of dwellings;
(c)	the land is used to provide permanent accommodation (although it does not follow that all dwellings on the land must be used for permanent accommodation, as it is the way the land as a whole is used which is relevant); and
(d)	communal, recreation, or medical facilities for residents of the village are provided.
It is to be observed that a camping and caravan park may also consist of land in one ownership.  Moreover a camping and caravan park may contain dwellings:  for example, cabins may be equipped so as to be self contained and have the necessary attributes of dwellings.  Dwellings forming part of a camping and caravan park may also provide permanent accommodation.  Finally, a camping and caravan park may contain communal, recreation, or medical facilities for residents.  Hence the fact that a use satisfies the four elements essential to a “residential village” – which is the case here – does not necessarily make the use that of a residential village; it may still be a “camping and caravan park”.  In order to determine whether or not this will be so it will be necessary to look at qualitative difference.
In my opinion, qualitative differences between the two uses will include the following.
a	Permanency of residence:  if the accommodation is intended to be occupied on a permanent basis, the more likely it will be that the term “residential village” is appropriate.  This is so notwithstanding section 518 of the Residential Tenancies Act:  that section prohibits a restriction on permanent residency in a caravan park; it does not make permanent residency mandatory.  Typically, camping and caravan parks have many residents who are not permanent residents.
b	Accommodation standard and size:  the higher the standard of the accommodation provided, the more likely the term “residential village” will be appropriate.  Although cabins may be dwellings, they tend to be at the lower end of the scale of all dwellings when ranked in terms of accommodation standard.  Further tents, caravans, cabins and the like tend to be small when compared with all types of accommodation units.
c	Moveability of accommodation units:  accommodation units which are permanent and fixed, and not movable, are more likely to be a “residential village” than a “camping and caravan park”.  As there will be degrees of physical permanency (or movability), the position on the spectrum will be relevant.
d	The nature of communal facilities:  Although both a “residential village” and a “camping and caravan park” may have communal facilities, if those facilities are oriented towards ablution and cooking facilities, it will be more likely that the appropriate characterisation is “camping and caravan park”.
19	In the context of these findings, we do not consider that, even if cabins were introduced, it would mean that the use would be (or be akin to) a residential village.
20	This then leads us to the question of whether the possibility that this proposed camping and caravan park may be used for permanent or long-term accommodation (which is a potential outcome) means that it should not be approved.
21	Before turning to this issue, however, we will address the Council’s concern that the proposal is contrary to the SUZ4.  In summary, the Council does not consider that the development proposal is an integrated recreational and residential development.  As outlined earlier, the Council submitted that the proposal is for ‘accommodation’ with some incidental elements of recreational resort available.
22	The applicant does not agree.  Its submission sets out the proposed recreational facilities, which were summarised in an earlier section of these reasons, and argued that they are integrated with the accommodation component of the development.  It said this on the basis that they form part of the application and will be available for use by the occupants.
23	By reference to other land uses defined within the Planning Scheme and which contain the term ‘residential’, the applicant submitted that these all involve some form of accommodation, whether it be in the nature of permanent residency or accommodating persons away from their usual place of residence.  It also referred to the provisions of clause 51.02 and observed that a ‘camping and caravan park’ is one of the accommodation uses that is permissible.
24	Mr Kelderman’s evidence is that, while not a residential development, a camping and caravan park falls within the definition of ‘accommodation’ and is not inconsistent with the purpose of the zone.  He did not see a distinction between the use proposed and a residential development in terms of assessing the suitability of the use in the zone, stating that if it is suitable for dwellings, it is suitable for a camping and caravan park.
25	We were not taken to any part of the Planning Scheme, or to any reference document or other extraneous material to assist us in understanding what is meant by ‘integrated recreation and residential development’ in the purpose of the SUZ4.  In considering whether the proposal can be classified as a residential development for the purpose of the SUZ4, we have taken into account the provisions of the schedule.  Specifically, we note that in the Table of Uses, ‘accommodation’ (with the exception of ‘dependent person’s unit’ and ‘dwelling’) is a section 2 use for which a permit is required.  Pursuant to clause 73.03 the term ‘accommodation’ is defined as:
Land used to accommodate persons.
26	Amongst others, the land use term ‘accommodation’ includes a ‘camping and caravan park’.
27	The title of SUZ4 is ‘Recreational development’.  The sole purpose of SUZ4 to provide for integrated recreational and residential development is very specific.  On the question of whether a camping and caravan park can be considered to be a residential development for the purposes of the schedule, we consider it significant that the Table of Uses does not exclude it from accommodation and does not list it in section 3 as a prohibited use.  If the Council did not consider that a camping and caravan park is a residential use (or, alternatively, a use which would not be consistent with the purpose of the SUZ4), then it was open to it to exclude it from section 2 of the Table of Uses and nominate it in section 3.  It has not done so.
28	More broadly, while clause 51.02 prohibits accommodation, it specifically excludes camping and caravan park from this prohibition, making it a permissible use in the Green Wedge (within which the review site is located).
29	On the information available to us, and the minimal guidance in the Planning Scheme in relation to this specific issue, we consider it is open to us to conclude that a camping and caravan park is a use that can be contemplated in the SUZ4 and, of itself, not be contrary to the purpose of the schedule.  This is particularly so given the duration of the tenancy cannot be regulated, meaning that occupants cannot be restricted to tourists and the like who would only be present for limited periods of time.  It is possible that some of the pitching sites may be used for caravans and annexes which provide for long-term accommodation.  This may also be the same for the motorhome sites.  Therefore, while not necessarily representing what might be referred to as ‘conventional’ residential use, the proposed camping and caravan park can nonetheless represent a form of residential occupation that is contemplated by the relevant Planning Scheme provisions within the context of this application.
30	The next, and related, consideration is whether the proposal provides for recreational facilities that are integrated with the accommodation component.  Again, we were not taken to any part of the Planning Scheme or to any reference document or extraneous material to assist us in understanding what is intended by the SUZ4 with respect to recreational development.  
31	While it may be arguable that the proposed recreational facilities may be ancillary, or incidental to, the accommodation component, we do not consider that this means they do not qualify as a legitimate component of the overall proposal in the assessment of whether it is an integrated recreational and residential development.  The recreational facilities are of some substance and have a notable presence as part of the overall scheme for the site.  This is particularly the case with respect to the 25 metre swimming pool, the tennis court and the bowling rinks.  The facilities are on the review site and will be available for use by all occupants.  They are integral elements of the development.  The Council has not suggested that these facilities will form a distinct use separate to the camping and caravan park use or be open for use by the general public.  We consider that they are a component of the integrated recreational and accommodation development.
32	Beyond this question of whether the proposal is consistent with the purpose of the zone, the Council submitted that it fails to adequately respond to clause 11.03-5S and to the MPLPS, particularly strategies 4, 14, 39 and 40.
33	Clause 11.03-5S forms part of the Planning Policy Framework (PPF) and has the objective of protecting and enhancing the valued attributes of identified areas and landscapes.  A relevant related strategy is to develop a Localised Planning Statement for, amongst others, the Mornington Peninsula.
34	The strategies of the MPLPS referred to by the Council are:
4.	The Mornington Peninsula will not accommodate major population growth and the existing Urban Growth Boundary and Green Wedge rural area will be maintained.
14.	Maintenance of environmental quality and protection against pollution and degradation of every description will be primary considerations.
39.	Support for larger scale tourism based development in appropriate locations within the rural Green Wedge area will be considered on the basis of substantial strategic justification, will be subject to comprehensive design and environmental impact assessment, must maintain a low overall development footprint and will need to demonstrate substantial net community benefit.
40.	Use and development, which by its intensity or form would result in defacto urbanisation of the rural or coastal landscape, including large scale caravan park or mobile home based developments, will not be permitted.
35	The Council does not view the proposal as being for a larger-scale tourism development.  It views it as an accommodation proposal and that it does not benefit from Strategy 39.  In respect of Strategy 40, the Council considers that what is proposed is not a small caravan park and should, therefore, be regarded as a ‘larger one’.  While acknowledging that neither the Planning Scheme nor the MPLPS define ‘large scale caravan park’, it submitted that the classification can be made by considering the context.  It went on to refer to such matters as the overall number of people accommodated or the number of sites; the area of the land, the intensity and density of the development; and the extent to which it would, if every site was permanently occupied, increase the residential population of the area.  In the Council’s opinion, when all these factors are considered, the proposal is for a large-scale caravan park.
36	The applicant submitted that the proposal is neither a large-scale caravan park nor a larger-scale tourism-based development.  Guidance was sought from the Panel Report prepared in respect of proposed Amendment C133 to the Planning Scheme, which was ultimately not pursued by the Council.  As part of that Amendment, the Council sough to introduce a policy that the total number of accommodation sites in any caravan park proposal for the Green Wedge Zone should be 100 sites or less.  Such a limit was not sought for land in the SUZ4.  The applicant commented that the proposed 140 sites is close to the Council’s preferred benchmark as expressed in proposed Amendment C133 for locations in the Green Wedge Zone.  The applicant concluded that the debate as to whether the proposal is a ‘large scale’ caravan park is of limited value, and that the focus should be on the proposed design, layout and impacts.
37	Mr Kelderman’s evidence also referred to the Panel Report for proposed Amendment C133, making note of a submission from Tourism Victoria that most new caravan parks it was aware of had in the order of 300-400 sites, substantially greater than the 100 pursued by Council.  In this respect, we note the Council’s submission that this is irrelevant to our decision.
38	Strategy 40 is related to the objective of recognising and protecting the recreational role of the Mornington Peninsula and making provision for appropriate tourism-based use and development.  What appears to underpin the strategy is the desire to avoid large areas of rural land becoming ‘urbanised’ in the form of a caravan park that may have permanent residents.
39	Within the context of caravan parks that can accommodate up to 400 sites, the proposal is relatively modest.  While not as small as the adjacent Tudor Caravan Park, which has in the order of 90 sites, it is not of a dissimilar size.  We are not persuaded that the proposal would qualify as a large-scale facility, or one that would otherwise give rise to a concern that it would manifest either in its intensity or form as de-facto urbanisation of rural land.  In this regard we note that the proposal before us does not include any cabins or moveable dwellings, and includes only a limited number of larger motorhome sites.  For all intents and purposes, it will appear and operate as a caravan park within a semi-rural context (noting the exception of the residential subdivision directly opposite, on the western side of Old Cape Schanck Road).  It is not of an intensity or form that would, for example, manifest as an eastward extension of urban land use introduced by the subdivision opposite.
40	For these reasons we find that the proposal is an integrated recreation and residential use, the use is consistent with the purpose of the SUZ4, and the proposal responds to the MPLPS in an acceptable way.
Is the development acceptable?
Buildings
41	The principal built form on the land will be the two-storey attic-style building situated proximate to the site’s frontage and annotated as ‘reception, community centre and facilities’.  The plans show this structure as accommodating an office, meeting room/library, multi-purpose hall, four motel rooms, and a manager’s residence on the ground floor, with two bedrooms in the roof space.  These rooms form part of the manager’s residence.  The building is to be set back in excess of 30 metres from the frontage to Old Cape Schanck Road, with additional separation from the actual road pavement being provided by the vegetated verge.  The setback area is proposed to be landscaped with a mix of large evergreen canopy trees.  Wall heights of up to 3.9 metres are proposed, with the maximum overall height to the top of the roof ridge being nominated as 8.61 metres.
42	The substantial setback from the frontage, together with the proposed landscaping and retained trees means that the building will not have any prominence in the Old Cape Schanck Road streetscape.  It will have a recessive presence.  Further adding to its recessive profile is the use of an attic-style second storey with hipped pitch roof form which avoids any gable-ends.  The highest point of the structure is centrally located, further removing it from the interface with the public realm.  The building displays a restrained architecture which reflects residential forms in the locality, including regular proportions, rectangular fenestration, weatherboard cladding, rendered finishes and a pitched Colorbond roof.
43	The plans show the gymnasium and lavatories building as accommodating a gymnasium, table tennis room, billiard room, lavatories and laundry.  This building is located in the north-eastern corner of No. 161, 43 metres from the northern boundary and 30 metres from the boundary with Grasslands Road.  This is an elongated building of narrow width and of a design that emulates that of the reception and community centre building.  It is of a slightly lesser height, rising to 8.1 metres, and is sited well within the property.  Its substantial setbacks from the property boundaries and planting proposed along the nearest property boundaries will act to screen the appearance of the structure from outside the site and reduce its visual impact.
44	The remaining building is the communal toilet block and kitchen.  This is a more modest structure with a wall height in the order of 3.2 metres and has a hipped roof with a shallow pitch.  Its footprint measures 10.0 metres by 10.0 metres.  The overall height to the roof ridge is 4.0 metres.  It is located proximate to the site’s south-eastern corner, with a 3.0 – 5.0 metre setback from the southern boundary and a 21.0 metre setback from the eastern boundary to Grasslands Road.  The structure has a similar architecture to the other buildings.  Its modest proportions in conjunction with its siting mean that there will not be any unacceptable visual impact on the adjoining property or Grasslands Road.
Internal circulation
45	The internal circulation network is to comprise both sealed and unsealed roads that are intended to be shared by vehicles and pedestrians.  While raising no concerns regarding the layout or connectivity of the network, the Council opposes the unsealed nature of part of it.  In the Council’s submission unacceptable dust emissions will be generated by vehicles, particularly in hot, dry weather conditions, causing detriment to the amenity of occupants.
46	The applicant submitted that the unsealed sections of the internal road network will be constructed of crushed gravel which will be compacted.  Given the compaction, the applicant argued that the use of these sections will not generate any unreasonable or unacceptable dust.  It further submitted that such a treatment is preferable to a sealed surface as it is consistent with sensitive and efficient drainage principles.
47	The use of unsealed surfaces in camping and caravan parks is not unusual, as it reflects the informal nature of the occupation by caravans and tents.  That said, we acknowledge that, unless it is properly managed, an unsealed surface has the potential to generate dust emissions which will impact adversely on the amenity of occupants.
48	This was a matter which was discussed as part of the parties’ submissions on the draft ‘without prejudice’ permit conditions.  It was suggested that, rather than prescribe a specific surface (such as asphalt, for example), it could be described as a ‘resilient permeable surface’ to give the applicant the flexibility of selecting a different material that has an informal appearance, will not generate dust and allows for water percolation.
49	The Country Fire Authority’s subsequent comments include a requirement that access for fire-fighting purposes must be of ‘all-weather construction’.  The implications of such a requirement may be of issue with respect to compliance with the requirements of the CHMP in relation to ground disturbance, as well as to the potential impact on trees where access roads pass through the Tree Protection Zones.  In this regard, we note in his evidence that Mr Howe commented in relation to the internal access road within No. 189 that this road “… is proposed to be unsealed and constructed on-grade to further limit any potential impacts on these trees” . However, in response to the Tribunal’s questions, Mr Howe clarified that it was his ‘preference’ for this road to be unsealed, but that it could be engineered to be sealed with lateral drainage on to the ground either side.  We have included permit conditions to address these matters.
Is the tree removal and landscaping acceptable?
50	Both native and exotic vegetation is proposed to be removed from No. 161 and No. 189, and from within the eastern road reserve of Old Cape Schanck Road.  While, overall, some 48 trees are proposed to be removed from the land, the key issues relate to the following vegetation removal:
•	Four Monterey Pine trees in the road reserve.
•	Native trees around the dam on No. 161.
•	Row of Blue Gums on No. 161.
51	The Council submitted that while a planning permit is being sought for the removal of the vegetation on the road reserve, the applicant has not applied for a permit to remove native vegetation.  There is some dispute as to whether the proposed native vegetation removal requires a planning permit.
52	The Council’s updated grounds of refusal include that the application is piecemeal and does not represent proper and orderly planning regarding the removal of vegetation from the land.
53	The Council also takes issue with the impact of the tree removal on the landscape character of the area, particularly the removal of the Monterey Pines from the road reserve.
Native vegetation removal
Native trees around the dam on No. 161
54	The native trees around the dam comprise nine Manna Gums, five Black She-oaks, and two Gossamer Wattles.  Mr Kern’s evidence notes that the Manna Gums and She-oaks are indigenous, while the Wattles are native to Victoria.
55	The Council rejected the applicant’s assertion that the removal of the native vegetation on No. 161 is exempt from the need for a permit.  It cited the provisions of clause 52.17, which provide that a permit is required to remove, destroy or lop any native vegetation, including dead native vegetation.
56	The Council noted Mr Kern’s written evidence, which includes:
2.5	The small wetland and stand of trees in the western end of 161 Old Cape Schanck Road is relatively species-poor and is very likely planted by the operator of the indigenous nursery that operated on the site for many years.  Nonetheless, it meets the criteria for native vegetation under clause 52.17 and needs to be described and required offsets calculated because it is proposed to remove it for the proposed development.
57	At the hearing Mr Kern corrected his evidence in relation to the requirement for a permit under the provisions of clause 52.17.  He stated that, having seen aerial photographs tabled by the applicant, the trees around the dam were “definitely planted”.
58	Based on the aerial photographs and the evidence of both Mr Kern and Mr Howe, we are persuaded that these trees were planted.  As such we are satisfied that their removal is exempt from the requirement to obtain a permit under clauses 52.17-1 (Permit requirement) and 52.17-7 (Table of exemptions) where the latter states that the requirement to obtain a permit does not apply to:
Native vegetation that is to be removed, destroyed or lopped that was either planted or grown as a result of direct seeding.
This exemption does not apply to native vegetation planted or managed with public funding for the purpose of land protection or enhancing biodiversity unless removal, destruction or lopping of the native vegetation is in accordance with written permission of the agency (or its successor) that provided the funding.
59	While Council’s cross-examination of Mr Kern queried the possibility of the trees being planted from tube stock, rather than seed, we are not persuaded that even if this were the case it would mean that the vegetation did not benefit from the exemption from the requirement for a permit.  The relevant provision at clause 52.17-7 exempts ‘Native vegetation that is to be removed, destroyed or lopped that was either planted or grown as a result of direct seeding.’  We do not interpret the reference to ‘direct seeding’ is intended to apply to vegetation that was ‘planted’ rather than ‘grown’.
60	Despite some suggestions by the Council and Mr and Ms Barfoot that these trees may have been planted with the benefit of public funding, which would exclude them from eligibility for the permit exemption under clause 52.17, we have been provided with no evidence or documentation to demonstrate that this is the case.
Row of Blue Gums on No. 161
61	The row of Blue Gum trees is oriented in a north-south arrangement generally centrally down the eastern part of No. 161.  In total 15 trees are proposed to be removed, with three trees at the southern end of the row to be retained.
62	Based on Mr Howe’s evidence that these trees are native to Victoria, rather than indigenous, and their spacing in a row indicates that they have been planted, we are satisfied that a planning permit is not required for their removal due to the permit exemptions for planted vegetation under clause 52.17.
63	Although we find that this row of Blue Gums makes a valuable contribution to the landscape character of the land and it would be desirable to retain them, we accept Mr Howe’s assessment that these trees are in poor/fair-poor health and of low arboricultural value.  In this regard we are persuaded by Mr Howe’s evidence that many of these trees are in decline as evidenced by the existence of ‘cankers’ and ‘conks’.
Other tree removal
Monterey Pines in the road reserve
64	The four Monterey Pines within the road reserve are to be removed to provide the new vehicle access within the southern end of the frontage of No. 189.  These trees are part of a row of 37 Monterey Pines along the road reserve in front of the subject land.
65	These trees require a planning permit for their removal under the provisions of clause 42.02-2 of the VPO2 and clause 2.0 of the VPO2 schedule.
66	Having regard to the statement of nature and significance of the vegetation to be protected, the vegetation protection objectives to be achieved, and the decision guidelines of the VPO2, we find that the removal of these four trees is acceptable.
67	We are satisfied that the high landscape quality of the Monterey Pine row will be maintained, despite the loss of these four trees.  Overall this row will remain substantially intact, with 33 of the 37 trees to be retained.  We also consider that the resultant gaps in the row will not be obvious to a person travelling along the road in car at 80–100 kilometres per hour.
68	To the extent that this row of trees may provide a habitat corridor, albeit not comprising indigenous or native vegetation, we are satisfied that the corridor will remain substantially intact, given the small number of trees to be removed.  We have no evidence to the contrary.
69	We also note that the siting of the vehicle access to provide safe access to and from the land has been a key issue throughout the lengthy history of this planning application.  Based on the submissions of the parties and evidence of Ms Dunstan, it is clear to us that the options for the location and alignment of the vehicle access are constrained.  When balanced against the need to provide safe vehicle movements to and from the land and within Old Cape Schanck Road we are satisfied that the loss of these four trees provides an acceptable outcome.
Moreton Bay Fig on No. 189 
70	During the inspection of the subject land we observed a semi-mature Moreton Bay Fig tree on No. 189 that is to be removed as it is within the path of the proposed access driveway.  From our observations this tree makes a valuable contribution to the planted garden character of No. 189.  Although no permit is required to remove this tree under the Planning Scheme provisions, given Mr Howe’s assessment of this tree as being in fair-good health, having moderate arboricultural value and a useful life expectancy of 20 plus years, we find that this tree should be retained.  While this will necessitate a slight realignment of the access driveway, which may result in the loss of other trees from this land, we consider this acceptable.  In this regard we note that two other nearby trees (a Moreton Bay Fig and Brush Box) that are most likely to be impacted by realignment of the access driveway are assessed by Mr Howe as having a low arboricultural value.
Landscaping and planting
71	Mr Vernon’s evidence includes an illustrative landscape masterplan for the land.  This plan generally shows new planting of large and medium evergreen shrubs planted in a continuous lineal pattern along the northern, eastern, and western boundaries of No. 161.  The plan also shows pockets of new planting along the southern boundaries, the internal accessways, and the eastern side of the heritage park in the south-western corner of No. 161.
72	We accept Mr Vernon’s evidence that new supplementary vegetation will reinforce a comprehensively vegetated treatment and positive relationship with Old Cape Schanck Road, to the extent that this relates to the boundary interfaces.  However, we are not persuaded that this will be achieved across the broader camping and caravan ground area.  While the landscape masterplan identifies some areas for planting large evergreen trees, much of the area of the pitch sites is not proposed to have planting, and there is no planting around the recreation facilities.
73	We are not satisfied that the limited extent of proposed landscaping across the broader area of No. 161 will be consistent with the objective and supporting strategies of the MPLPS that seeks to protect landscape and cultural values.  In particular, we are not persuaded that the proposal will enhance the natural environment, rural landscape and scenic values of this area of the Green Wedge.
74	We consider that additional planting of large and medium evergreen trees can be accommodated across the area of the pitch sites and around the recreation facilities.  We note that this may require reducing some of the larger Type B pitches to smaller Type A pitches, or removing some pitches entirely. We do not consider that this will unreasonably impact the scale or layout of the camping and caravan park.  
75	We also note that any additional tree planting will need to comply with conditions relating to vegetation management recommended by the Country Fire Authority (CFA), which we address later in these reasons.
Drum Drum Alloc Creek buffer
76	The plans show an area for ‘possible overflow car parking’ and eight motor home sites within 20 metres of the northern boundary of No. 161 and within 30 metres of the Drum Drum Alloc Creek.
77	The landscape masterplan shows a landscaped strip comprising large and medium evergreen trees along the northern boundary, and grass within the remainder of this area.
78	We have concluded that this buffer should be set aside for landscaping, as specified in policy, in order to meet the following strategy:
Retain natural drainage corridors with vegetated buffer zones at least 30 metres wide along each side of a waterway to:
•	Maintain the natural drainage function, stream habitat and wildlife corridors and landscape values,
•	Minimise erosion of stream banks and verges, and
•	Reduce polluted surface runoff from adjacent land uses.
79	Despite Mr Kern’s evidence that there may be little possibility of pollution from the proposed development reaching the creek due to the minimal production of stormwater pollutants in a tourist facility and the filtering capability of soils and vegetation along the creek, we are not persuaded that the proposal in its current form provides an acceptable response to this policy.  We are not persuaded the siting of both the overflow parking and motorhome sites on a grassed area is consistent with the intention of a vegetated buffer that provides for ‘wildlife corridors and landscape values’.
80	We are satisfied that it is possible for the overflow parking area to be removed from the buffer area (for reasons we discuss later), and for this area to be landscaped as part of a vegetated buffer along the creek.
81	Although it would be preferable for the motorhome sites not to be located within the creek buffer area, we consider that they are acceptable.  The extent of the encroachment of these sites into the buffer area is relatively minor and, subject to the removal of the overflow car parking area, a substantial area of the buffer will remain available for landscaping as part of a vegetated buffer.  We also accept Mr Kern’s evidence that the infrastructure features to be included in the buffer be a permeable material, such as gravel or grass, and constructed or supported with reinforcement to ensure that cars or motorhomes are accommodated without damage.  We have included a condition accordingly.
Will there be any unacceptable Amenity impacts?
Noise
82	Concerns were expressed regarding the potential for noise emissions from the site to cause disturbance to the area.  This was principally in respect of late-night activities, including the playing of music.  The permit conditions include a requirement for an Operation Management Plan.  Matters to be addressed by the Operation Management Plan include (but are not limited to) hours of operation for the facilities, procedures to minimise noise emissions from the site, and the presence of a person who will be responsible for ensuring that the use complies with the requirements of the Operation Management Plan.
Dust
83	The concerns relating to dust emissions from the land relate to the proposed use of unsealed roads.  As discussed above, this concern can be addressed by a permit condition that requires the roads to be provided with surfaces that are resilient and permeable.  A relevant consideration as part of that assessment is whether the surface will be durable and whether it will avoid or minimise dust emissions.
Is sufficient car parking provided and is the vehicle access acceptable?
Car parking
84	Clause 52.06-5 does not nominate a car parking rate for a camping and caravan park.  Accordingly, pursuant to clause 52.06-6, car parking is to be provided to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.  The Council’s referral comments from its traffic engineering consultants are that the provision of one car space in the smaller ‘Type A’ pitches and two car spaces in tandem in the larger ‘Type B’ pitches is considered to be reasonable, as is the provision of 28 visitor parking spaces throughout the site.  This is supported by Ms Dunstan’s evidence, which referred to the RTA Guide to Traffic Generating Developments (2002) that sets out a car parking rate of one space to each caravan site for caravan parks.  As a minimum of one car space is provided for each site, and a further 28 car spaces are provided for visitors, the evidence is that the on-site car parking is more than sufficient to cater for the likely parking demands.  We have no evidence to the contrary and on this basis, in addition to the support expressed in the Council’s traffic engineering referral comments, we consider the car parking provision is acceptable.
85	In relation to the ‘possible overflow car parking’ within the 30.0 metre buffer to Drum Drum Alloc Creek, as discussed above we have concluded that this buffer should be set aside for landscaping.
86	Based on Ms Dunstan’s evidence, we are satisfied that this overflow car parking is not needed in order to meet the car parking requirements of the proposed use.  In addition, this conclusion is supported by the Council’s assessment.  Accordingly, we have included a condition requiring the deletion of this overflow car parking.
Vehicle access
87	The Council provided the amended plans to its traffic engineering consultants for comment.  The comments received can be summarised as follows:
•	The provision of separate entry and exit lanes to/from Old Cape Schanck Road allows for simultaneous movements and addresses an earlier concern.  Swept path diagrams demonstrating that an 8.8 Medium Rigid Vehicle and B99 car with caravan can enter and exit the site simultaneously are required.
•	The provision of a basic right-turn treatment and an auxiliary left turn at the access is considered appropriate.
•	The sight distance requirement for an access driveway as specified in the Australian Standard for Off-street Parking (AS/NZS 2890.1:2004) appears to be met.  These distances are designed to allow for a vehicle exiting the site to pick a sufficient gap in the traffic stream to enter or exit the road.  They also account for a safe stopping distance for vehicles approaching on the main road.
•	It is recommended that an independent Road Safety Audit be undertaken for the site access arrangements and consideration should be given to the installation of ‘concealed driveway’ and ‘caravan’ warning signs at the approach.
88	The applicant relied upon Ms Dunstan’s evidence, which sets out similar conclusions.  The evidence includes a detailed sight distance assessment against AS/NZS 2890.1:2004 and the Austroads Guide To Road Design Part 4A: Unsignalised and Signalised Intersections (Austroads Guide).  That assessment showed that the Minimum Gap Sight Distance (MGSD) and the Approach Sight Distance (ASD) are met on both the north and south approach along Old Cape Schanck Road.  The assessment, however, demonstrated that the Safe Intersection Sight Distance (SISD) will not be met.  The evidence provides the following definition of SISD:
SISD provides sufficient distance for a driver of a vehicle on the major road to observe a vehicle on a minor road approach moving into a collision situation and to decelerate to a stop before reaching the collision point.
SISD allows for a 3 second observation time for a driver on the through leg of the intersection to detect the problem ahead (e.g. car from a minor road stalling in through lane), in addition to the ASD.
89	The evidence is that the SISD is a more conservative value than the MGSD and should ideally be provided.  The SISD requirement (181 metres) is not achieved to the north for vehicles propped at the proposed access to turn right into Old Cape Schanck Road, as 175 metres is provided.  This is also the case for vehicles propped in Old Cape Schanck Road waiting to turn right into the site, as 171 metres is provided, rather than the 181 metres required to meet the SISD.
90	According to the evidence, the Austroads Guide includes Extended Design Domain (EDD) criteria for sight distance where the ‘normal’ sight distance requirements cannot be met due to tighter road alignments and roadside vegetation.  The evidence states:
The EDD allows for a less conservative value to be substituted for ‘Observation Time’.  Based on the type of intersection in this case, the observation time can be reduced to 1.5 seconds because the intersection satisfies the following criteria:
T-intersections on single carriageway roads (two-lane, two-way roads and one-way roads) that have a traffic volume of < 4000 veh/d
91	The assessment contained in the evidence shows that from the north, a minimum sight distance of 133 metres (for a car) and 165 metres (for a truck) is required to achieve the minimum 1.5 second SISD observation time.  The minimum sight distance of 171 metres achieves this requirement.  From the south, a minimum sight distance of 183 metres (for a car) and 233 metres (for a truck) is required to achieve the minimum 1.5 second SISD observation time.  The site distance from the exit location exceeds 300 metres and the requirement is met.
92	Having regard to the evidence, and to the absence of a concern from the Council’s traffic engineering consultants, we have no basis to conclude that the vehicle access to and from the site is unacceptable.  That said, we have included a condition requiring a Road Safety Audit, which is sought by the Council and is not opposed by Ms Dunstan.
93	Swept path diagrams demonstrating the entry and exit manoeuvres of an 8.8 Medium Rigid Vehicle and B99 car with caravan form part of Ms Dunstan’s evidence.
94	No concerns have been raised regarding the traffic generation of the proposal or the ability of Old Cape Schanck Road to absorb the additional vehicle movements.  A left-turn lane and right-turn lane are proposed in Old Cape Schanck Road to facilitate movements into the site.  This is in accordance with the evidence, which states:
Based on the expected traffic volumes generated by the development and traffic volumes recorded along Old Cape Schanck Road, the assessment identifies that the proposed access points require the provision of a Basic Left Turn Lane (BAL) and a Basic Right Turn Lane (BAR).
Given the types of vehicles likely to access the site (vehicles with trailers/caravans), I recommend an Auxiliary Left Turn (AUL) treatment rather than a basic treatment.  I am satisfied an AUL is a more appropriate treatment to manage the traffic impacts of the application on Old Cape Schanck Road based on the expected turn volumes and the types of vehicles accessing the site.
Does the proposal provide an acceptable response to the bushfire risk?
95	The land is within a bushfire prone area designated in accordance with the regulations made under the Building Act 1993.  Pursuant to clause 13.01-1S, bushfire risk should be considered when assessing planning applications for, amongst others, ‘Accommodation’.  It is policy that when assessing a planning permit application to:
•	Consider the risk of bushfire to people, property and community infrastructure.
•	Require the implementation of appropriate bushfire protection measures to address the identified bushfire risk.
•	Ensure new development can implement bushfire protection measures without unacceptable biodiversity impacts.
96	The objectives of the Mornington Peninsula Fire Protection Policy at clause 22.11 are:
To assist efforts to mitigate the risk to life, property and the environment for m [sic] uncontrolled fire.
To ensure that landuse [sic] and development does not increase the level of fire risk.
To ensure that land use and development includes adequate fire protection measures.
97	In rural areas, it is policy that all proposals for land use and development should comply with the following criteria:
•	Road access to and within the site should be designed to provide safe access to both fire fighting and other vehicles at all times.
•	An adequate supply of water with suitable flow rates and appropriate couplings for Country Fire Authority equipment should be readily available to landowners or emergency services.
•	The design siting and layout of any development should improve protection for life and minimise the level of fire risk.
•	access, fencing and the location of dams should maximise fire-fighting potential and minimise interference with fire fighting measures.
98	The applicant called evidence from Mr Kern.  In summary, his evidence is:
•	The area within a 150 metre distance of the site would be considered low threat vegetation under the bushfire construction standard AS3959, as there is no ‘classified vegetation’ near the site.  Any building on the land would therefore only need to be built to the minimum level required, being BAL 12.5
•	More broadly, the ‘vast majority’ of the local area is low threat vegetation of either grazed or farmed paddocks with much urban development.  Any small areas of native vegetation which may be a hazard are distant from the site.  The area to the north is the most likely source of bushfire in Victoria and, here, as this area is all suburbia or water, fires are very unlikely to come from the north
•	The same minimal risks occur across most of the larger landscape around the site.
99	Despite the low risk, Mr Kern’s evidence is that safety measures will need to be implemented.  These were identified as a minimum BAL 12.5 construction level for any permanent buildings, adequate fire breaks, and landscaping that prevents bushfire spread.  In addition, he recommended an emergency management plan incorporating a response to bushfire events.  In Mr Kern’s opinion:
3.14	With only moderate bushfire risk on the site, a local landscape with significant cleared areas that are easily accessed, more than adequate room for defendable space and the required emergency management planning during operation the bushfire risk can be adequately mitigated to keep the community safe as is generally required under Clause 13.02.
100	The CFA is not a referral authority in this instance.  Having considered the submissions and the evidence, we determined that we would be assisted by the views of the CFA.  We required the plans to be referred to the CFA for comment.
101	In response, the CFA advised that it has no objection to the proposal subject to conditions.  A Practice Day hearing was held, with the CFA in attendance, to further consider the CFA’s position and the need or otherwise for a further hearing.
102	The CFA advised that the site is within an area of lower to moderate bushfire risk, and the site itself is one of ‘lower risk’.  This accords with Mr Kern’s evidence.  In the context, the trees on the site do not adjoin an area with significant fuel load, and the CFA submitted that the main issue is the existence of understorey vegetation, which can lead to a ‘laddering effect’ which leads to an ignition of the tree canopy.
103	According to the CFA, an acceptable outcome would be achieved if there was little or no vegetation beneath the trees and the lowest branches were more than 2.0 metres above the ground.  It confirmed that separation could be required between groups of trees, rather than individual specimens, and that the CFA should have input into the landscape plan for the site.  An example given was having a ‘run of trees’ for 10.0 metres and then a 5.0 metre gap.  In the CFA’s opinion, if the vegetation management is done well, this is a low risk site – one which has a lower risk than the foreshore reserves which are utilised for camping.
104	The CFA’s conditions, which were discussed amongst the parties, address water supply, vegetation management, construction standards and vehicle access.  Having heard from the CFA and considered the submissions and evidence, we consider that, subject to the CFA’s conditions, the proposal would not be exposed to an unacceptable bushfire risk.  We will also include a requirement that the landscape plan be to the satisfaction of both the CFA and the Council.
Are there any other issues?
105	The plan shows signs located within the road reserve adjacent to the vehicle access.  The Council submitted that as the proposed signs are not on the review site, they are a ‘promotion sign’, and that a planning permit is required as they exceed the 3.0 square metre advertisement area.  The applicant confirmed that it does not seek permission to display signs and has no objection to the signs being deleted.
Conclusion
106	For the reasons given above, the decision of the responsible authority is set aside.  A permit is granted subject to conditions.

Bill Sibonis
Senior Member		Sarah McDonald
Member	

Appendix – Permit Conditions

Permit Application No	P16/0953	
Land	161 and 189 Old Cape Schanck Road, and Old Cape Schanck Road road reserve, Boneo	

What the permit allowS	
•	Use and development of the land for a camping and caravan park and a caretaker’s house and associated works;
•	tree removal; and
•	works within the Old Cape Schanck Road road reserve
in accordance with the endorsed plans.	

Conditions
1	Before the development starts, amended plans and documents to the satisfaction of the responsible authority must be submitted to, and be approved by, the responsible authority.  When approved, the plans and documents will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit.  The plans must be drawn to scale with dimensions.  The plans must be generally in accordance with the plans identified as TP03 Revision G, TP03A Revision G, TP03B, TP04 Revision F, TP05 Revision F, TP06 Revision F, prepared by Peter L Brown Architects Pty Ltd dated 23/09/2019 but modified to show:
(a)	deletion of signs in the road reserve
(b)	an intersection treatment within Old Cape Schanck Road that complies with the Traffix Group Review of Vehicle Access Arrangements for 167-189 Old Cape Schanck Road, Boneo, Reference G26755M-01A, dated Tuesday 24th September 2019, and the relevant Austroads Guidelines for the posted speed of 80 Kph to the north of the proposed entry location and for the posted speed of 100 Kph to the south of the proposed entry location
(c)	lighting of the entrance and exit within Old Cape Schanck Road and the left and right turn treatments to the relevant Australian Standard
(d)	the access and egress driveways from Old Cape Schanck Road to 189 Old Cape Schanck Road located within the road reserve being asphalt sealed pavements capable of accommodating the vehicles expected to enter and exit the site
(e)	the access driveway within 189 Old Cape Schanck Road being shown as a 6 metre wide two-way and constructed with a resilient permeable surface that will minimise dust, or sealed with an all-weather seal and provided with lateral drainage to the ground either side
(f)	a notation to the effect that all other driveways within the site will be constructed with a resilient permeable treatment that will minimise dust
(g)	cross-sections of all access roads, to the satisfaction of the Country Fire Authority
(h)	any modifications required by the approved Operation Management Plan (refer to Condition No. 3 of this permit)
(i)	any modifications required by the approved Bushfire Management Plan (refer to Condition No. 40 of this permit)
(j)	any modifications required by the approved Waste Management Plan (refer to Condition No. 12 of this permit)
(k)	a notation stating that there is no access or egress from the site via Grasslands Road other than for Emergency Vehicles or otherwise in accordance with the approved Operation Management Plan
(l)	internal footpaths being a minimum of 1.5 metres wide and surfaced with:
i	concrete or other material to the satisfaction of the responsible authority adjacent to the reception community centre facilities, swimming pool, bowls court, tennis court and gymnasium
ii	a resilient permeable surface on other areas
(m)	lighting along internal roads and footpaths
(n)	the accurate location of tree rows 139 and 140
(o)	a landscape plan in accordance with Condition No. 16 of this permit
(p)	deletion of the overflow car parking area within the 30 metre wide landscape buffer to Drum Drum Alloc Creek, and the provision of any additional visitor car parking within the site in locations satisfactory to the responsible authority
(q)	the location of a waste disposal point/s for disposal of wastewater (grey and black water) cassettes/cartridges/tanks from motorhomes and caravans
(r)	the retention of Tree 106 and the consequential realignment of the internal access driveway within 189 Old Cape Schanck Road
(s)	removal of Tree 112
(t)	the relocation of the underground service lines to be outside the heritage parks required under the approved Cultural Heritage Management Plan
(u)	the relocation of motorhome site No. 9 so that no part is within the heritage park required under the approved Cultural Heritage Management Plan
(v)	details (including elevations) of all fences
(w)	construction materials, external finishes and colours of all buildings
(x)	barriers/bollards/fencing to restrict access to the buffer to Drum Drum Alloc Creek by vehicles other than emergency services or maintenance vehicles
(y)	any infrastructure features to be included in the buffer to Drum Drum Alloc Creek to be a permeable material such as gravel or grass, and constructed or supported with reinforcement to ensure that cars or motorhomes are accommodated without damage to the ground surface
(z)	barriers/bollards/fencing around Tree group 137.
Approved use and development not altered
2	The use and development as shown or detailed on the endorsed plans and documents must not be altered or modified without the written consent of the responsible authority. 
Operation Management Plan
3	Before the development starts, three (3) copies of an Operation Management Plan to the satisfaction of the responsible authority must be submitted to, and approved by, the responsible authority.  When approved, the Operation Management Plan will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit.  The Operation Management Plan must address the following:
(a)	an Emergency Management Plan.  In addition to all other relevant matters, the Emergency Management Plan must address bushfire and flooding
(b)	staffing numbers
(c)	hours of operation for the facilities within the site, including the lawn bowls court/rink, swimming pool, tennis court, gymnasium and communal kitchen
(d)	the procedures required for patrons to enter and exit the camping and caravan park
(e)	a procedure for recording and responding to any complaints, including the provision of the manager’s telephone number of neighbours
(f)	procedures for managing and addressing amenity impacts including noise, music and dust
(g)	no parking or washing-down of vehicles or other equipment of any type within the buffer area to Drum Drum Alloc Creek
(h)	a requirement that at all times during the operation of the use there must be present on the premises a person over the age of 18 years who is responsible for ensuring that the activities on the premises and the conduct of persons attending the premises are in accordance with the Operation Management Plan
all to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.
4	The Operation Management Plan must be reviewed on an annual basis, or as otherwise agreed to in writing by the responsible authority.
5	The use must be conducted in accordance with the approved Operation Management Plan to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.
Tree Protection Plan
6	Before the development starts, three (3) copies of a Tree Protection Plan to the satisfaction of the responsible authority must be submitted to, and approved by, the responsible authority.  When approved, the Tree Protection Plan will be endorsed and will them form part of the permit.  The Tree Protection Plan must incorporate the recommendations included in the Arboricultural Assessment (V2.0 September 2019) prepared by Landscape Dept.
The Tree Protection Plan must be prepared in compliance with Australian Standard AS 4970-2009 Protection of trees on development sites by a Level 5 (Australian Qualifications Framework) Arborist and demonstrate how the trees to be retained will be protected during all stages of development to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.
The Tree Protection Plan must:
(a)	show all trees to be retained:
i	on the development site
ii	on adjoining land where any works fall within the tree protection zone of any tree
iii	on the road reserve where the proposed road works of the development of any crossover (on either the east or west side of Old Cape Schanck Road or adjacent to Cleek Crescent) falls within the tree protection zone of any retained tree
(b)	require the grinding of the stumps of the four Monterey Pines proposed to be removed within the road reserve so that roots from adjacent trees are not impacted by mechanical extraction
(c)	specify an on-grade pavement system for the entry and exit points and the internal entry road across the west side of 189 Old Cape Schanck Road to mitigate against disturbance to underlying roots of the Monterey Pine trees
(d)	require the sealing of the widened shoulder on the east side of Old Cape Schanck Road be confined to the existing gravel shoulder to prevent excavation into the batter formed by the previous intersection works at Cleek Crescent
(e)	require that non-destructive tree root investigation be undertaken for Trees 142 and 145 to allow for root pruning of either tree, if required, prior to construction.
7	The approved Tree Protection Plan must be implemented and must be complied with to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.
8	Any pruning of trees (including the pruning of roots) on the subject site and adjoining land must be undertaken by a qualified arborist in compliance with the procedures and practices described in Australian Standard AS 4373-2007 Pruning of amenity trees.
9	The owner and occupier of the site must ensure that, before the commencement of buildings and works, all contractors and tradespersons operating on the site are advised of the status of trees to be retained and are advised of any obligations in relation to the protection of those trees.
10	No trenching or soil excavation may occur within the Tree Protection Zones of retained trees unless shown on the endorsed plans without the prior written consent of the responsible authority.
Tree Management Plan
11	Before the development starts, three (3) copies of a Tree Management Plan to the satisfaction of the responsible authority must be submitted to, and approved by, the responsible authority.  When approved, the Tree Management Plan will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit.  The Tree Management Plan must be specific to the trees shown on the endorsed Tree Protection Plan on the land, must:
(a)	be in accordance with Australian Standard AS4970-2009 Protection of trees on development sites
(b)	be prepared by a suitably qualified arborist
(c)	provide details of:
i	tree protection measures that will be used to ensure all trees to be retained remain viable post-construction; and
ii	stages of development at which inspections are required to ensure tree protection measures are adhered to must be specified.
The approved Tree Management Plan must be implemented, and must be complied with, to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.
Waste Management Plan
12	Before the use starts, three (3) copies of a Waste Management Plan to the satisfaction of the responsible authority must be submitted to, and approved by, the responsible authority.  When approved, the Waste Management Plan will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit.  The Waste Management Plan must be generally in accordance with the Waste Management Plan prepared by Leigh Design dated 8 October, 2019.
13	The storage and collection of waste must be undertaken in accordance with the approved Waste Management Plan to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.
Tree Removal
14	The extent of clearing of vegetation as shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered or modified without the consent of the responsible authority.
15	All disturbed surfaces on the land must be revegetated or stabilised to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.
Landscaping
16	Before the development starts, three (3) copies of a landscape plan to the satisfaction of the responsible authority and the Country Fire Authority must be submitted to, and be approved by, the responsible authority.  When approved, the landscape plan will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit.  The landscape plan must be generally in accordance with the landscape concept plan dated 24 September 2019 prepared by CDA Design Group Pty Ltd titled ‘Illustrative Concept Masterplan’ and identified as Revision A.  The landscape plan must show:
(a)	the existing vegetation to be retained, including Tree 106
(b)	details of surface finishes of pathways and driveways
(c)	a planting schedule of all proposed trees, shrubs and ground covers, including botanical names, common names, pot sizes, sizes at maturity, and quantities of each plant
(d)	provision of mulch beneath the canopy of Tree group 137 to discourage use or occupation of this area
(e)	additional tree planting throughout the site, including within the area of the pitch sites and around the recreation facilities.  Tree species selection must be appropriate to the use of the land as a camping and caravan park, having regard to the planting of trees adjacent to pitch sites
(f)	a notation that any excavation or digging (including for planting) within the heritage parks required under the approved Cultural Heritage Management Plan must be undertaken by hand and that there must not be any excavation below 15cm.
17	Before the use starts, or by such later date approved by the responsible authority in writing, the landscaping shown on the endorsed landscape plan must be carried out and completed to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.
18	The landscaping shown on the endorsed landscape plan must be maintained to the satisfaction of the responsible authority, including that any dead, diseased or damaged plants must be replaced.
Amenity 
19	Any external areas used for the storage or cleaning of waste receptacles, equipment or vehicles must be connected to the reticulated sewer system to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.
20	Exhaust ventilation systems must comply with Australian Standard 1668:4 – The Use of Ventilation and Air Conditioning in Buildings.
21	Noise from refuse collection and deliveries to the site must comply with Environment Protection Authority Publication 1254 – Noise Control Guidelines.
22	Noise levels emanating from the land must not exceed those set out in State Environment Protection Policy (Control of Noise from Commerce, Industry and Trade) No. N-1 and State Environment Protection Policy (Control of Music Noise from Public Premises) No. N-2, or equivalent regulatory framework operating under the Environment Protection Act 2017.
23	The amenity of the area must not be detrimentally affected by the use or development, through the:
(a)	transport of materials, goods or commodities to and from the land
(b)	appearance of any buildings, works or materials
(c)	emission of noise, artificial light, vibration, smell, fumes, smoke, vapour, steam, soot, ash, dust, waste water, waste products, grit or oil
(d)	or in any other way
to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.
Drainage
24	The land must be drained to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.
Infrastructure
25	Before any works associated with the development start, detailed engineering plans to the satisfaction of the responsible authority must be submitted to, and be approved in writing by, the responsible authority. The plans must be drawn to scale with dimensions and two copies must be provided.
The plans must show details of:
(a)	all drainage
(b)	the intersection treatment adjacent to 189 Old Cape Schanck Road, including levels
(c)	all internal roads, footpaths and parking areas within the site.
The development must be undertaken in accordance with the approved engineering plans to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.
Environmental Management Plan
26	No less than fourteen days before the start of any works, a project specific Environmental Management Plan must be submitted to, and be approved by, the responsible authority.  When approved the Environmental Management Plan will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit.  The approved Environmental Management Plan must be implemented to the satisfaction of the responsible authority prior to, and during construction of, the development works.  The Environmental Management Plan must provide for, but not be limited to, the following:
(a)	methods to prevent discharge of construction materials into the drainage system
(b)	protection of native vegetation
(c)	hours of operation of all machinery including transportation of any fill to the site
(d)	security fencing and site access details
(e)	measures to control noise, dust and water runoff, including sediment control during construction to prevent any sediment entering the existing drainage system
(f)	arrangements to ensure that no debris is deposited on any road while vehicles are travelling to and from the site
(g)	appropriate arrangements to ensure roads in the locality are not damaged by the movement of construction vehicles to and from the site
(h)	measures to minimise any adverse impact on surrounding property owners
(i)	the maximum number of trucks entering the site per day
(j)	maintenance and repair of any damage to roads or footpaths used to access the site during construction.
27	Before the development starts, the owner must pay a $30,000 bond to the responsible authority to be used if, required, for purposes such as sweeping of roads external to the site, cleaning silt from drainage pipes and for the provision of safety or emergency operations carried out by the responsible authority during the construction of the development. The bond minus the costs of associated maintenance/rectification works is to be refunded by the responsible authority on completion of the works.
Traffic Management
28	No less than fourteen days before to the commencement of works a project-specific Traffic Management Plan must be submitted to, and be approved by, the responsible authority.  Once approved, the Traffic Management Plan will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit.  The approved Traffic Management Plan must be implemented to the satisfaction of the responsible authority prior to and during construction of the development works.
29	Before the development starts, a Road Safety Audit of Old Cape Schanck Road in the vicinity of the land, to the satisfaction of the responsible authority, must be submitted to, and be approved in writing by, the responsible authority.  The recommendations and requirements of the approved Road Safety Audit must be implemented to the satisfaction of the responsible authority before the use starts.
Access and car parking
30	Before the use starts, the following must be completed to the satisfaction of the responsible authority:
(a)	the intersection treatment including lighting within Old Cape Schanck Road adjacent to 189 Old Cape Schanck Road
(b)	the access driveway within 189 Old Cape Schanck Road
(c)	all buildings and works, including pathways and driveways
(d)	all drainage works.
31	All access and egress to 161 Old Cape Schanck Road (other than emergency access or egress to Grasslands Road) must be via the constructed access through 189 Old Cape Schanck Road.
32	The access through 189 Old Cape Schanck Road must be maintained at all times.
33	Before the use starts, the intersection works within Old Cape Schanck Road, the access roadway within 189 Old Cape Schanck Road and the areas set aside for the parking of vehicles and access roadways as within 161 Old Cape Schanck Road shown on the endorsed plans must be:
(a)	constructed
(b)	properly formed to such levels that they can be used in accordance with the plans
(c)	surfaced in accordance with the endorsed plans to the satisfaction of the responsible authority
(d)	drained and maintained
(e)	line marked to indicate each car space and all access lanes
(f)	clearly marked to show the direction of traffic along access lanes and driveways
(g)	provided with appropriate signs and lighting
all to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.
34	Before the development starts, either:
(a)	the land identified in Certificates of Title Volume 08631 Folio 992 (Lot 2 on Plan of Subdivision 073748) and Volume 08631 Folio 993 (Lot 3 on Plan of Subdivision 073748) must be consolidated; or
(b)	the accessway to 161 Old Cape Schanck Road across 189 Old Cape Schanck Road must be secured by creating a carriageway easement in favour of 161 Old Cape Schanck Road which is to remain in place while the use is in operation; or
(c)	the owner of the land must enter into an agreement with the responsible authority pursuant to section 173 Planning and Environment Act 1987.  The agreement must be registered on title and must provide for the following:
i	the access through 189 Old Cape Schanck Road must be maintained while the use is operating
ii	all access and egress to 161 Old Cape Schanck Road (other than emergency access or egress to Grasslands Road) must be taken via the constructed access through 189 Old Cape Schanck Road.
The costs of the preparation and execution of the agreement must be paid by the owner.
Grasslands Road
35	There must be no access or egress from the site via Grasslands Road except for Emergency Vehicles or otherwise in accordance with the approved Operation Management Plan.
Completion and implementation of buildings and works
36	Once the approved development has commenced, it must be continued and completed to the satisfaction of the responsible authority. 
Country Fire Authority conditions
37	Before the use starts, a fire hydrant system must be provided in consultation with, and to the satisfaction of, the Country Fire Authority.
38	Fire hose reels must be provided to meet the requirements of the Caravan Park Safety Guideline (published 2012) and the Country Fire Authority.
39	A water tank with a minimum capacity of 10,000 litres for fire-fighting purposes, with Country Fire Authority fittings, must be provided proximate to the proposed caretaker’s house, all to the satisfaction of the Country Fire Authority.
40	Before the development starts, a Bushfire Management Plan must be submitted to, and be approved in writing by, the responsible authority.  The Bushfire Management Plan must show bushfire mitigation measures to the satisfaction of the Country Fire Authority and responsible authority.
The approved Bushfire Management Plan must be implemented to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.
41	All buildings (including Unregistered Movable Dwellings and cabins, if later approved) must be designed and constructed to a minimum Bushfire Attack Level of BAL-12.5.
42	Access for fire-fighting purposes must meet the following requirements:
(a)	be of all-weather construction
(b)	have a minimum trafficable width of four metres
(c)	be clear of encroachments for at least 0.5 metre on each side and four metres above the accessway
(d)	cross-sections of all access roads must be provided to the satisfaction of the Country Fire Authority.
Permit Expiry
43	This permit will expire if one of the following circumstances applies:
(a)	the development is not started within two years of the issue date of this permit
(b)	the development is not completed, or the use does not start, within four years of the issue date of this permit.
In accordance with section 69 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, an application may be submitted to the responsible authority for an extension of the periods referred to in this condition.
– End of conditions –