VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
planning and environment LIST	vcat reference No. P60/2021
Permit Application no. 200029	
CATCHWORDS	
Bass Coast Planning Scheme; medium density development in an Incremental change area in Cowes; Clauses 02.03, 11.01-1L-03, and 12.05-2L-01 of the Bass Coast Planning Scheme; Schedule 1 to the Design and Development Overlay in the Bass Coast Planning Scheme; scale and setback of development adjacent to the foreshore; landscape outcomes in the context of vegetation removed prior to the planning permit application and Clause 55.03-8 of the Bass Coast Planning Scheme.	

APPLICANT	Meglyn Pty Ltd	
responsible authority	Bass Coast Shire Council	
RESPONDENTs	A Oswin, R & H Patch	
SUBJECT LAND	6 Charmandene Court, Cowes	
HEARING TYPE	Hearing 	
DATE OF HEARING	10 August & 1 October 2021	
DATE OF ORDER	29 November 2021	
citation	Meglyn Pty Ltd v Bass Coast SC [2021] VCAT 1433	

Order
1	Pursuant to clause 64 of Schedule 1 of the Victorian Civil & 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:	No attribution	
•	Drawing numbers:	TP 1 to 6 of 6, TP Appendix 2 to 4 of 4	
•	Dated:	23 June 2021 (Revision M)	
•	Prepared by:	Bayview Landscaping	
•	Drawing numbers:	TP Appendix 1 of 4	
•	Dated:	June 2021	

2	In application P60/2021 the decision of the responsible authority is affirmed.

3	In planning permit application 200029 no permit is granted.

Michael Deidun			
Member			

Appearances
For applicant	Mick Meyer, Town Planner of Urbis	
For responsible authority	Melanie Wright, Town Planner of Bass Coast Shire Council	
For respondents	Mary Duffy, Town Planner of Beveridge Williams
Anne Oswin also appeared in person	

Information
Description of proposal	Construction of two dwellings	
Nature of proceeding	Application under section 79 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 – to review the failure to grant a permit within the prescribed time. 	
Planning scheme	Bass Coast Planning Scheme	
Zone and overlays	General Residential Zone
Design and Development Overlay 1
Vegetation Protection Overlay 2	
Permit requirements	Clause 32.08-6 to construct two or more dwellings on a lot on land within the General Residential Zone
Clause 43.02-2 to construct a building and construct or carry out works	
Relevant scheme policies and provisions	Clauses 2, 11, 12, 15, 16, 18, 19, 32.08, 43.02, 52.06, 55, 65 and 71.02.	
Land description	The land is an irregular shaped allotment, with a frontage to Charmandene Court of 13.96 metres, a rear abuttal to a public path named ‘Lovers Walk’ of 21.32 metres, and an overall area of 1061 square metres.	
Tribunal inspection	The Tribunal inspected the site and surrounding area on 8 November 2021.	

Reasons
What is this proceeding about?
1	Meglyn Pty Ltd (the ‘Applicant’) seeks to review the failure of the Bass Coast Shire Council (the ‘Council) to grant a permit within the prescribed time, in respect of a proposed development of two dwellings on land at 6 Charmandene Court, Cowes (the ‘review site’).
2	The Council’s grounds of refusal raise concern with the impact of the proposal on the surrounding neighbourhood character, and the adjacent foreshore reserve, by virtue of the scale and mass of the proposal, the setbacks to boundaries, and the extent of landscaping proposed for the site.  While the Council’s grounds express these concerns generally, the submissions from Council identify that it is the interface between the review site and the foreshore to the immediate north of the review site that is its real concern.
3	The Respondents in these proceedings are now largely satisfied with the proposal, having regard to the changes made in the latest set of amended plans.  They still however raise concerns in relation to the potential for angled overlooking views from the first floor balcony of the proposed Dwelling 1, and the lack of landscaping proposed along the eastern boundary of the review site.
4	The issues or questions for determination are:
a.	Is the proposal an appropriate built form and landscaping response to the surrounding neighbourhood character?
b.	Will there be any unreasonable off-site amenity impacts?
c.	Is an appropriate level of internal amenity achieved?
d.	Does the proposal appropriately provide for car parking and traffic movements?
5	The Tribunal must decide whether a permit should be granted and, if so, what conditions should be applied.  Having considered all submissions presented with regard to the applicable policies and provisions of the Bass Coast Planning Scheme, I have decided to affirm the Council’s decision, and direct that no planning permit be granted.  My reasons for this decision follow.
Is the proposal an appropriate built form and landscaping response to the surrounding neighbourhood character?
6	The review site is sited in a coastal location within the established township of Cowes.  It is within walking distance of a range of services and facilities, including public open space, schools, and the activity centre at Cowes.  As such, the review site benefits from a range of policy statements at a State level that seek to encourage urban consolidation in established suburbs that are well serviced.
7	The review site is identified as an Incremental change area on the Cowes and Silverleaves strategic framework plan at Clause 11.01-1L-03 of the Bass Coast Planning Scheme.  The following policy guidance applies to this area:
Residential strategies 
Provide greater residential densities near the Cowes Activity Centre in locations that can accommodate greater densities without impacting upon the established and valued character of existing communities.
Encourage increased housing densities in Wonthaggi, Cowes, San Remo, Inverloch and Grantville in areas that are either: 
•	Close to activity centres, community facilities and services. 
•	Nominated in structure plans or design frameworks.
…
Cowes and Silverleaves strategies 
Encourage the following form of development in areas identified in the Cowes and Silverleaves Strategic Framework Plan to Clause 11.01-1L-03: 
•	Substantial change areas – diversity in built form and higher densities. 
•	Incremental change areas – an increase in density and diversity in built form, provided the development is sympathetic to the character of the area. 
•	Minimal change areas – the maintenance of the established built form and character.
8	As such, the policy support for urban consolidation identified at a State level is continued at a local level, on the proviso that new development is sympathetic to the character of the area.  
9	Aside from this support for urban consolidation, there are a range of other relevant policy considerations, namely as a result of the coastal location of the review site.  The review site directly abuts land within the Public Park and Recreation Zone that is contiguous with the foreshore and the north facing Cowes/Silverleaves beach.  While the land to the immediate north of the review site is located within a road reserve, it contains Lovers Walk, which is a popular coastal walk that sits alternatively atop of, or immediately inland from, the primary sand dune.  Given the physical conditions of this area, I regard Lovers Walk as forming part of the foreshore, and therefore consider the review site to abut the foreshore along its northern boundary.
10	Under policy at Clause 02.03-2 of the Bass Coast Planning Scheme, the review site is identified as within a landscape character area on the northern coast of Phillip Island that requires protection.  The relevant policy is set out below.
Significant environments and landscapes 
Coastal landscapes and hinterlands in the Shire are identified by six ecologically distinct Character Areas which landscape character requires protection: 
•	Westernport Lowlands. 
•	Phillip Island Northern Coast. 
•	Bunurong Coast and Hinterland. 
•	Phillip Island Southern Coast. 
•	Anderson Peninsula. 
•	Bass Hills. 
In addition to these areas, there are four coastal landscapes of state or regional significance, including: 
•	Phillip Island Western and Southern Coast – State Significance. 
•	Phillip Island Eastern Coast – Regional Significance. 
•	Kilcunda to Inverloch Coast – Regional Significance. 
•	Venus Bay Peninsula and Anderson Inlet (part) – Regional Significance. 
Building dwellings on ridgelines to gain views over rural hills and to the water in the distance has been a popular development trend. The protection of the visual qualities of hilltops, ridgelines and prominent landforms in coastal landscapes and hinterlands is important in safeguarding critical views to undeveloped headlands, beaches and dunes, and in maintaining the landscape qualities of the Shire. 
Council seeks to: 
•	Protect areas of environmental, landscape, agricultural, cultural or recreational significance such as rural, coastal and hinterland landscapes. 
•	Protect locally significant views and vistas that contribute to the character of the region. 
•	Protect the undeveloped character of the coastal strip.
11	Clause 02.03-5 of the Bass Coast Planning Scheme contains the Council’s policies in relation to Landscape and the built form.  The parts of this policy that are relevant to this proposal are set out below.
Landscape and built form 
Bass Coast Shire’s rural and coastal setting, historic development patterns and residential architecture combine to give the municipality its appearance and character. The Bass Valley, Phillip Island, Bass Highway and Bunurong Coastal Drive are locations and corridors where the rural farmed landscape and coastal views are key elements of the landscape character. 
Towns within the municipality have particular settlement patterns and housing types that contribute to their identity and liveability. It is important that valued aspects of their character are not lost through redevelopment. 
…
Council seeks to: 
•	Support a built environment that enhances surrounding natural environment and landscape values. 
•	Protect individual settlement character and identity.
•	…
•	Support building design that complements its setting. 
•	Support the role of landscape design as integral to any development. 
•	…
12	Clause 02.03-6 of the Bass Coast Planning Scheme contains the Council’s Housing policies, which includes the following policy support for the development of additional housing on the review site.
Urban consolidation is encouraged in areas that have the physical infrastructure, community facilities and commercial facilities to support an increase in population. 
…
Council seeks to: 
•	…
•	Support increased housing densities close to commercial centres and community facilities. 
13	Clause 12.05-2L-01 of the Bass Coast Planning Scheme set out the local policies for Landscapes.  Relevant to the coastal township context of the review site, it encourages the following:

Landscapes 
Objectives 
To ensure development is subordinate and sympathetic to the natural, visual and environmental landscape character and significance of the area. 
To protect the undeveloped character of the coastal strip. 
To protect locally significant views and vistas that contribute to the character of the coastal and coastal hinterland region. 
To minimise the impact of infrastructure on the landscape and viewpoints. 
Siting and design strategies 
Design coastal development to be sympathetic to the landscape setting and character of the area. 
…
Retain the dominant natural or undeveloped character of coastal landscapes by: 
•	Setting development back from the coast. 
•	Locating development in flatter locations. 
•	Avoiding loss of vegetation. 
•	Minimising the visibility and impact of pedestrian and vehicular access paths and site servicing. 
Design development at the coastal edge of settlements to be sensitive to the surrounding landscape and development and the visual setting of the settlement, particularly when visible from the foreshore through the use of scale, height, massing and colour. 
Design buildings and structures with materials and colours that minimise visual intrusion to the landscape. 
Discourage the use of reflective surfaces to minimise glare and limit the visual impact of the development. 
…
Ensure that development does not detrimentally impact on existing walking trails and that it enhances views to and from these walking trails. 
14	Further guidance is also provided as Clauses 15.01-1L-01, 15.01-2L and 15.01-5L of the Bass Coast Planning Scheme.  
15	Finally, this policy framework is supported by the application of Schedule 1 to the Design and Development Overlay (DDO1) to the review site and surrounding land.  The Schedule to this overlay sets out the following Design objectives.

Design objectives 
To protect views from the coast to adjacent residential areas. 
To protect views to the coast from adjacent residential areas. 
To minimise the impact of development along the coastline. 
To protect and enhance the visual amenity and landscape of the coastal area. 
To respond to the potential coastal impacts of climate change.
16	DDO1 also contains a number of decision guidelines, including the following that are of particular relevance to this proposal.
•	The siting and design of proposed development in response to background documents Design and Siting Guidelines for Coastal Areas and Rural Hinterland 1999, and Siting and Design Guidelines for Structures on the Victorian Coast (Victorian Coastal Council 1998).
•	The preservation of views from the waters of Western Port, Bass Strait, and Anderson Inlet.
•	The siting, colour and design of buildings.
•	The extent of any proposed removal of native vegetation. 
•	The need for landscaping or vegetation screening.
17	Overall, a theme emerges where medium density development that will bring about incremental change and an increase in density and diversity in built form is encouraged for the review site.  This encouragement exists as a result of the location of the review site within an existing township area that is close to a commercial centre and a range of community facilities.  Given the site’s location adjacent to a public path along the foreshore, new medium density development on the review site is encouraged to achieve the following outcomes:
a.	A design that is sympathetic to the existing neighbourhood character;
b.	The retention of the dominant natural character of the coastal landscape, by setting development back from the coast to minimise the visibility of development from walking trails, and by avoiding the loss of vegetation; 
c.	Development that is subordinate and sympathetic to the natural, visual and environmental landscape character, and minimises visual intrusion into the landscape, by having regard to the use of scale, height, massing and color; and,
d.	The provision of a landscaped setting for new development.
18	The Applicant submits that the existing character of this part of the neighbourhood that interfaces with the foreshore is evolving to include a greater proportion of larger contemporary two storey dwellings, sited closer to the foreshore, with large windows and first floor balconies.  They say that this proposal for the review site is an appropriate response to this evolving or emerging character, while being an appropriate balance to the more established dwellings to the east of the review site.  As a result, the Applicant submits that the proposed dwelling will sit comfortably in its surrounds when viewed from the adjacent foreshore, including Lovers Walk.  They make this submission on the basis that:
a.	The proposed setbacks from the foreshore are consistent with those of more recent development in this locality, including those immediately to the west of the review site, and those further afield to the east;
b.	The proposed dwelling maintains a residential scale that is consistent with that of nearby dwellings, and an articulated façade that adds visual interest to the built form when viewed from the foreshore;
c.	An appropriate range of colors and materials are proposed; and,
d.	The landscape will be enhanced through the planting of six canopy trees on the review site, which they say will provide an increased level of landscaping to that which is commonly found in this area.
19	Finally, the Applicant submits that the proposal does not unreasonably impact the landscape values of the northern coast of Phillip Island, noting that this northern coast contains a wide variety of interfaces, including commercial and residential development.  They note that the review site is in a location where a view from the coastline reveals dwellings visible through a vegetated foreshore embankment, which will prevail in front of the review site.
20	I am not persuaded by these submissions, and instead find that the proposed development does not appropriately respond to the guidance provided by the Bass Coast Planning Scheme, by seeking to repeat elements of recent robust housing forms that are not supported by planning policy.  The Council submits that it’s revised policy framework is in part a response to the large and prominent dwellings which have emerged along this part of the foreshore in recent times.  As a result of the application of DDO1 to the review site and surrounding land, planning permits are now required for new large single dwellings.  As such, the type of dwelling which was previously constructed without a planning permit on the land immediately to the west of the review site, would now require a planning permit, and assessment against the relevant policy framework.  Further, policies have now been introduced into the Bass Coast Planning Scheme that seek to encourage more modest housing forms, with larger setbacks from the foreshore, and a greater degree of landscaping.  By seeking to reflect and essentially repeat the emerging forms of more robust development nearby, but particularly the dwelling to the immediate west of the review site, the proposed development on the review site has neglected to address this changing policy approach.
21	The proposed Dwelling 2 is a modest single storey dwelling that will barely be visible from the foreshore environment.  This proposed Dwelling 2 is therefore responsive to the current guidance from the Bass Coast Planning Scheme.  However, there are a number of design elements of the proposed Dwelling 1, which combine to produce a built form that will be prominent on views from the foreshore, including the adjacent Lovers Walk, to an extend that stands in contrast to the policy intent set out in the Bass Coast Planning Scheme.  These design elements include the following:
a.	A two storey form in the northern part of the review site where the proposed first floor generally repeats the layout of the ground floor below with no recession, insofar as the northern two-thirds of the proposed Dwelling 1 is proposed, that will sit adjacent to the foreshore;
b.	A large Dwelling 1 which contains 432 square metres of internal floorspace (plus the oversized double garage, plus the large first floor balcony) and which will present a sizeable building mass as visible from the adjacent foreshore; 
c.	A broad two storey northern façade to Dwelling 1 that expands for a width of 14.85 metres as it presents to the foreshore to the immediate north of the review site;
d.	A set of narrow setbacks to the northern boundary of the review site, and the adjacent foreshore.  While the northern wall of the internal floor space is setback between 6.0 and 9.5 metres, the gable roofed and partly enclosed first floor balcony extends to within 2.4 metres of the northern boundary, with the eaves to this roofline setback 1.94 metres from the northern boundary.  Further, the unroofed portion of the first floor balcony extends to within 2.3 metres of the northern boundary;  
e.	The manner in which the first floor balcony is partly roofed with a gable end pitched roof, and partly enclosed by walls.  As a result, the proposed setback of 2.4 metres to the enclosed portion of the first floor balcony, is a fair indication of the setback at which the scale and mass of the proposed dwelling will be viewed from the adjacent foreshore, including Lovers Walk; and,
f.	A limited number of landscaping opportunities adjacent to the foreshore, with the proposed landscape plan depicting the planting of only two trees in the northern half of the review site, comprising of two Coastal Banksias.  One of these Coastal Banksias will be adjacent to the eastern end of the northern façade, and the other near the northern end of the western façade.  This extent of landscaping needs to be considered in the context of the extent of mature vegetation that was removed prior to the lodgement of the planning permit application, I matter which I come to separately below.
22	The result of these design elements is a proposed Dwelling 1 that will loom large from the adjacent foreshore, including from Lovers Walk, in a manner that is not consistent with the policy guidance.  The policy context is encouraging new development to reflect the form of housing found to the east of the review site, and further west of the immediately adjoining properties to the west, which are modest in scale, setback from the foreshore, and in a substantial landscaped setting.  In comparison, the proposal that is before me seeks to largely replicate the robust nature of the housing found to the immediate west of the review site, which is no longer consistent with the changed policy guidance one now finds in the Bass Coast Planning Scheme.  
23	However, even when compared to the existing robust dwellings to the west of the review site at 8, 9 and 10 Charmandene Court respectively, the proposed development on the review site will present with a greater extent of building bulk to the adjacent foreshore.  I make this finding for the following reasons.
24	Firstly, the proposed setback to a roofed and enclosed first floor balcony of between 2.4 and 3.7 metres on the review site, is much closer to the northern boundary and adjacent foreshore than the roofed but otherwise open balconies at 9 & 10 Charmandene Court, which have setbacks of between and 3.45 and 6.8 metres to their roofed elements.  The comparison with the setbacks of the existing dwelling at 8 Charmandene Court cannot easily be undertaken, given that this single dwelling did not, at the time, require a planning permit.  However, based on a scaling of the site context information that is included on the plans that are before me, it appears that at its closest point, the enclosed and roofed portion of the first floor balcony at 8 Charmandene Court is setback 2.94 metres from the northern boundary of that site.
25	Secondly, the proposed dwelling on the review site has a much wider elevation facing the foreshore, than the existing dwellings at 8, 9 & 10 Charmandene Court.  The proposed northern façade on the review site at a width of 14.85 metres, is wider than the approximately 10.3 metre northern façade width on the existing dwelling at 8 Charmandene Court, and the 7.0 and 6.0 respective façade widths at 9 & 10 Charmandene Court.
26	Given the clear policy guidance which I have set out above, an appropriate and reasonable development of the review site should have a greater setback from the foreshore for Dwelling 1, and a reduced visual presence of new built form from the adjacent Lovers Walk, that forms a part of the adjacent foreshore.  In addition, the proposed development of the review site has not achieved the appropriate balance of built form and landscaping opportunities as visible from the adjacent foreshore.  In order to respond to the clear guidance from the Bass Coast Planning Scheme, an outcome that provides improved landscaping opportunities is appropriate.
27	For these reasons I cannot find that the proposed development of the review site represents an appropriate response to the range of guidance from the Bass Coast Planning Scheme.  Given my findings on this matter, I cannot support the grant of a planning permit for the proposed development.  As I have reached this finding in relation to the proposed built form outcome, I will not proceed to conduct the remaining usual analysis in relation to off-site amenity impacts, internal amenity, traffic and car parking provision.
Are there any other issues?
28	There is one other matter I wish to address which, while not determinative in my decision making task, is another indicator of an inappropriate approach to the proposed development of the review site.
29	The Council in their submission identified that vegetation had been removed from the review site shortly prior to the lodgement of the planning permit application.  The Council’s submissions on this matter include the following.
Council acknowledge that substantial vegetation was removed off the site in the months leading up the submission of the Application being lodged with Council. The vegetation was legally removed under the Bushfire Exemptions which were since amended under VC176 and the same exemptions do not apply today. While vegetation removal is not a consideration of the DDO1, the vegetation that was removed was of iconic coastal species and contributed to the landscape. 
30	In response Mr Meyer advised that he has been instructed that the vegetation was removed in 2018.  This conflicts with the plans (dated May 2020) that were lodged during the course of the planning permit application, and that includes a Neighbourhood site & description plan that identifies the existence of a number of trees on the review site.  This plan is based on a survey that was conducted on 28 February 2019.  Further, Council is in possession of a photograph of tree removal occurring on the review site on 16 May 2019.  The planning permit application was lodged with Council on 31 January 2020.  Based on the date of the survey, and the date of the Council’s photograph, it is therefore reasonable to conclude that vegetation was removed from the review site within 12 months of the lodgement of the planning permit application.
31	As a result of this timing, Clause 55.03-8 of the Bass Coast Planning Scheme takes on added relevance.  This Clause is set out in full below.
Landscaping objectives 
To encourage development that respects the landscape character of the neighbourhood. 
To encourage development that maintains and enhances habitat for plants and animals in locations of habitat importance. 
To provide appropriate landscaping. 
To encourage the retention of mature vegetation on the site. 
Standard B13 
The landscape layout and design should: 
•	Protect any predominant landscape features of the neighbourhood. 
•	Take into account the soil type and drainage patterns of the site. 
•	Allow for intended vegetation growth and structural protection of buildings. 
•	In locations of habitat importance, maintain existing habitat and provide for new habitat for plants and animals. 
•	Provide a safe, attractive and functional environment for residents. 
Development should provide for the retention or planting of trees, where these are part of the character of the neighbourhood. 
Development should provide for the replacement of any significant trees that have been removed in the 12 months prior to the application being made. 
The landscape design should specify landscape themes, vegetation (location and species), paving and lighting. 
Development should meet any additional landscape requirements specified in a schedule to the zone. 
Decision guidelines 
Before deciding on an application, the responsible authority must consider: 
•	Any relevant neighbourhood character objective, policy or statement set out in this scheme. 
•	Any relevant plan or policy for landscape design in the Municipal Planning Strategy and the Planning Policy Framework. 
•	The design response. 
•	The location and size of gardens and the predominant plant types in the neighbourhood. 
•	The health of any trees to be removed. 
•	Whether a tree was removed to gain a development advantage.
(My underlining)
32	Given the circumstances involved, and the extent of information that is before me, it is arguable whether the trees have been removed to gain a development advantage.  As I have already determined to refuse to grant a permit on neighbourhood character and built form grounds, I do not need to make a finding about this matter in this proceeding.
33	Rather, I intend to focus on two other aspects of my decision making task.  The first is that in applying Standard B13, I need to have regard to the component of the Standard that seeks replacement of any significant tree removed in the 12 months prior to the application being made.  While the word significant is not defined, I was informed by Council that the vegetation removed comprised mature native coastal vegetation.  Given that the review site directly abuts the foreshore, including Lovers Walk, I consider that in this context, any mature native coastal vegetation could reasonably be considered significant, regardless of their individual height, width or age.
34	The proposed landscaping that forms a part of the development proposal for the review site, which comprises of just two trees that would be visible from the foreshore, and which are to be planted in narrow setbacks that would constrain their growth, does not adequately replace the extent of vegetation that was removed from the review site.  I make this finding having regard to historical aerial photography available on Nearmap, which provides a reasonable understanding of the level of canopy contribution provided by the vegetation that previously existed on the review site.  This finding is significant, given the presence of the Vegetation Protection Overlay over the review site, and the range of policy encouragement, that I come to next.
35	Secondly, I find that in applying policy statements and other guidance that encourages outcomes which enhance the landscape and the natural environment, that I should compare the proposed outcome on the review site, with that which existed prior to the recent vegetation removal.  That is, insofar as these policy statements and decision guidelines are to be applied to my assessment of the impact of the proposal on the landscape character of the review site, it is the previously vegetated condition of the site that is of most relevance, not the existing barren site condition.  Such an approach can be applied to the following policy statements and other guidance.
Support a built environment that enhances surrounding natural environment and landscape values. 
Retain the dominant natural or undeveloped character of coastal landscapes by… avoiding loss of vegetation.
Ensure that development does not detrimentally impact on existing walking trails and that it enhances views to and from these walking trails.
To protect and enhance the visual amenity and landscape of the coastal area.
It is estimated that less than 15 per cent of Phillip Island retains a natural cover of vegetation. Given the general lack of vegetation on Phillip Island, it is important to protect indigenous and large native trees in urban areas. It is also important to encourage and facilitate the planting of vegetation indigenous to a particular locality to maintain and enhance the natural environment of the urban areas of Phillip Island and to enhance habitat. 
The urban areas of Phillip Island are generally characterised by native vegetation that contribute towards the character of these seaside communities and provide habitat for native fauna. Conservation and enhancement of the natural environment is very important to the character of these urban areas.
36	In applying these considerations in this matter, the proposed development fails to enhance the landscape values of the review site and surrounding area, and fails to enhance the views from the adjacent walking trail and foreshore, compared to the site conditions that existed prior to the removal of vegetation.  Instead, the proposal, including the prior vegetation removal, seeks to replace a heavily vegetated allotment, with one where substantial and prominent built form would be the primary visual element.  Such an outcome stands contrary to the matrix of guidance that applies to the land from the Bass Coast Planning Scheme.  
37	While I have already found that a permit should not be granted based on neighbourhood character and built form considerations, my finding in relation to the failure of the proposal to enhance the landscape, environmental and vegetated qualities of this important location, is another reason to support the Council’s decision.
Conclusion
38	For the reasons given above, the decision of the responsible authority is affirmed.  No permit is granted.

Michael Deidun			
Member