Special DAC Minutes - 2 June 2014

MINUTESSPECIALDEVELOPMENTASSESSMENTSCOMMITTEE

MEETING

MONDAY, 2 JUNE, 2014

MUNICIPAL OFFICESBESGROVE STREET, ROSEBUD

MORNINGTON PENINSULA SHIRE COUNCIL

WARDS AND COUNCILLORS

Cr. Bev ColombBriars

Cr. Andrew Dixon

Cr. Anne Shaw

Cr. David GarnockCerberus

Cr. Hugh FraserNepean

Cr. Tim Rodgers

VacantRed Hill

Cr. Antonella Celi - MayorSeawinds

Cr. David Gibb

Cr. Graham Pittock

Cr. Lynn BowdenWatson

EXECUTIVE MANAGEMENT TEAM

Chief Executive OfficerDr. Michael Kennedy OAM

Director – Sustainable InfrastructureMr. Alex Atkins

Director – Sustainable EnvironmentMr. Stephen Chapple

Acting Director – Sustainable OrganisationMs. Alison Leighton

Director – Sustainable CommunitiesMr. Rob Macindoe

2Mornington Peninsula Shire Council

Monday, 2 June, 2014Special Development Assessments Committee Meeting Minutes

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE NOSUBJECTITEM

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

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

1.2 Disclosure of Conflicts of Interest Pursuant to Section 79 of the LocalGovernmentAct 1989 ............................................................................................................................. 4

1.3 Advice to Public on Committee Decisions ...................................................................... 4

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

2.1 Application for Planning Permit P13/1992 – Arthurs Seat Skylift Gondola .............. 6

3 URGENT BUSINESS .................................................................................................................... 92

4 NOTICES OF MOTION ............................................................................................................... 93

4.1 Notice of Motion 137 ...................................................................................................... 93

5 CONFIDENTIAL ITEMS ............................................................................................................ 94

6 MEETING CLOSE ....................................................................................................................... 95

Mornington Peninsula Shire Council


1 OPENING AND PROCEDURALMATTERS

The meeting opened at 7:04 p.m.

PROCEDURALMOTION

Election of Chairperson

Moved: Cr. GarnockSeconded: Cr. Dixon

That Cr. Shaw be elected Chairperson of the Special Development Assessments CommitteeMeeting heldon 2 June, 2014.

Carried

Present

Cr. Anne Shaw (Chairperson)Cr. Lynn BowdenMayor, Cr. Antonella CeliCr. Bev ColombCr. Andrew DixonCr. Hugh FraserCr. David GarnockCr. David GibbCr. Tim Rodgers

Dr. Michael Kennedy OAM, Chief Executive Officer

1.1 Apologies

Cr. Graham Pittock

1.2 Disclosure of Conflicts of Interest Pursuant to Section 79 of the Local Government Act 1989

Nil.

1.3 Advice to Public on Committee Decisions

“Recommendations contained in Sections 2, 3 and 5 of this Agenda have been referred by Officers to theDevelopment Assessments Committee for a decision under delegation.”



Deputations

2.1 Application for Planning Permit P13/1992 - Arthurs Seat Skylift Gondola

Mr. Warwick Cavanagh, Submitter;Mr. John Willson, Submitter;Ms. Dianne Smith, Submitter;Ms. Tricia Allen, Submitter;Ms. Deb Fischer, Submitter;Ms. Alison Laird, Submitter;Mr. Matthew Bisogni, Submitter;Mr. Adam Shalekoff, Submitter;Ms. Kylie Greer, Submitter;Mr. Charlie Owen, Submitter;Mr. Len Warfe, Submitter;Mr. Ray Gerring, Submitter;Mr. Michael Savage, Submitter;Mr. Thomas Ho, Submitter;Mr. Tim Womersley, Submitter;Mr. Chris Halek, Submitter; andMr. Simon McKeon, Applicant.



2 DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENTS

2.1 Application for Planning Permit P13/1992 – Arthurs Seat Skylift Gondola

Jane Lowson, Senior Statutory PlannerPrepared By

Manager – Statutory PlanningAuthorised By

A5186280File ID

YESAttachment(s)

P13/1992Application No.

Use and development of Arthurs Seat Skylift gondola facility comprising ofan upper station (including café, interpretive centre, office and toilet facilities),a lower station (including kiosk, gondola workshop/storage and interpretive

Proposal

centre) and gondolas, pylons, loading area and cable, water tanks, vegetationremoval and lopping, car parking consent, illuminated signage, landscapingand associated works generally in accordance with the submitted plans

159E12Melway Reference

PPRZ, RDZ1Zoning

Tract Planning ConsultantsApplicant

27 November, 2013Date Received

PURPOSE

Use and development of Arthurs Seat Skylift gondola facility comprising of anupper station (including café, interpretative centre office and toilet facilities), alower station (including kiosk, gondola workshop/storage and interpretive centre)

Proposal

and gondolas, pylons, loading area and cable, water tanks, vegetation removaland lopping, car parking consent, illuminated signage, landscaping and associatedworks generally in accordance with the submitted plans.

Clause 36.02 – Public Park and Recreation Zone (PPRZ).Zoning

Clause 36.04 – Road Zone Category 1 (RDZ1) (Affects Arthurs Seat Road).

Clause 42.01 – Environmental Significance Overlay:Overlays

Schedule 28 – Mornington Peninsula Bushland (ESO28).

Clause 42.03 – Significant Landscape Overlay:

Schedule 1 – Ridge and Escarpment Areas (SLO1);



Schedule 3 – Scenic Roads (SLO3);Schedule 4 – Scenic Recreation Sites (SLO4);Schedule 5 – Scenic Vantage Points (SLO5); andSchedule 6 – National Trust Classified Landscapes (SLO6).

Clause 43.01 – Heritage Overlay:

Schedule 4 – Arthurs Seat Reserve and Tower (HO4).

Clause 44.01 – Erosion Management Overlay:

Schedule 1 (EMO1); andSchedule 2 (EMO2).

Clause 44.06 – Bushfire Management Overlay (BMO).

The application was advertised pursuant to S52 of thePlanning and EnvironmentAct 1987 including:

Advertising

Sending letters to surrounding property owners and occupiers;Erecting four signs on the site (at both the upper and lower stations); andPublishing a notice in the local newspaper.

To date Council has received a total of 58 letters of objection to the applicationand 22 letters of support.

Submissions

A ‘Public Information Drop In Session’ was held at the Safety Beach SailingClub on 4 March, 2014, between 4:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m.

Consultation

Key issues to be considered include:Key IssuesConsistency with the Mornington Peninsula Shire Planning Scheme;Consideration of land use, including appropriateness of late night operation;Is the proposed built form considered to be appropriate;Will the proposal result in an unreasonable impact on the amenity of thearea;The effect of the use and development on the landscape and environmentalvalues of the site;Consideration of Bushfire Risk; andWhether the siting of the upper station on the summit of Arthurs Seat isappropriate.

It is recommended that Council issue a Notice of Decision to issue PlanningPermit No. P13/1992, subject to conditions.

Recommendation



2.1 Application for Planning Permit P13/1992 – Arthurs Seat Skylift Gondola (Cont.)

BACKGROUND

Previous Permits

Council records indicate that the following planning application relates to the subject site:

P03/1698 – Replacement works to the existing chair lift in accordance with the endorsed plans – approved30 September, 2003.

Existing Conditions Subject Site and Surrounding Land

This application relates to a leased area zoned PPRZ within Arthurs Seat State Park. The lease area is the siteof a previous chairlift facility, which has since ceased operation. The majority of the infrastructure associatedwith the previous operation has been removed. The lease area is illustrated on submitted plan TP-1200.

The subject site is located on Crown land this is managed by Parks Victoria. Arthurs Seat Road abuts theproposed area for the lower and upper stations, and cuts through the gondola corridor section at three otherpoints.

For the purposes of this application, the site can be separated into three distinct sections:

The lower station;The gondola corridor; andThe upper station.

The Lower Station Site

The lower station site is located at the base of the State Park. Arthurs Seat Road abuts the site to the east andthe Mornington Peninsula Freeway to the north. The topography of the site is varied, however generally slopesdown towards the road, with a cross-fall from the south-west to the north-east. Vegetation is scattered throughoutthe lower station site, and along the road frontage. An existing car park associated with the former chairliftfacility is located adjacent to Arthurs Seat Road, and provides vehicular access to the site. As previously noted,the majority of infrastructure associated with the previous chair lift operation has been removed, with theexception of the timber kiosk building which is centrally located within the site.




Officer Photograph of Existing Timber Kiosk at Proposed Lower Station Site

Beyond Arthurs Seat Road to the east lies the rear property boundaries of 25-39 Wunda Street, Dromana. Eachof the residential lots contain single dwellings of varying architectural design. Some of the lots have vehicularaccess on to Arthurs Seat Road.

The land to the west of the subject site forms part of the Arthurs Seat State Park, managed by Parks Victoria.This area can be charartised as bushland and contains substanial vegetation cover. Beyond this strip of vegetatedland is the Dromana Cemetary. To the north is a service accessway to the Dromana Cemetry. This land ismanaged by Mornington Peninsula Shire Council.

2013 Aerial Photograph of the Proposed Lower Station Site




The Upper Station Site

The proposed upper station would be located on the summit of Arthurs Seat, south of Arthurs Seat Road andeast of Purves Road. It is approximately 1 kilometre south of the lower station. The site is currently vacant ofbuildings with the exception of a concrete water tank sited toward the rear of the site, information boards andpicnic facilities.

Officer Photograph of Upper Station Site Looking Across Arthurs Seat Road

Vegetation is scattered throughout the site with significant trees along the rear (southern) and side (eastern)boundary, shared with the telecommunications tower.

The land immediately abutting the subject site to the east (known as 787 Arthurs Seat Road) comprises six lotsowned by Telstra. An informal vehicular access cuts across the subject site and provides vehicular access fromArthurs Seat Road to the centrally located Telstra communication tower and associated infrastructure. A meshfence is located along the common boundary.

Purves Road (Council managed) abuts the south-west, and Arthurs Seat Road (VicRoads managed) abuts thesite to the north-west. There is an existing sealed car park located opposite the upper station site, connected viaan informal crossing from the subject land. The car park adjoins the lookout point over Arthurs Seat towardsthe bay. An existing restaurant (Arthurs Hotel) is located next to the car park/viewing platform, at 790 ArthursSeat Road.

A secondary unsealed car park is located adjacent to the upper station site, close to the Purves Road intersection.




2013 Aerial Photograph of the Proposed Upper Station Site

The Gondola Corridor

The proposed gondola corridor follows a similar alignment to the previous chairlift, and can be characterisedas being an approximately 10 metre wide cleared corridor of grasses and shrubs, between a dense cover ofcanopy trees to either side. It is noted that the lease area as shown on the submitted plans is 20 metres wide.

The gondola corridor crosses Arthurs Seat Road at four points. This represents one additional crossing of theroad, by virtue of the proposed siting of the upper station on the summit.

The land abutting the corridor area is predominately State Park, with the exception of the residential propertiesalong Nestle Court to the east (towards the upper station), and Bracken Ridge South of the lower station.




Officer Photograph Looking Down the Existing Corridor

PROPOSAL

The permit Applicant is seeking planning permission for the “use and development of Arthurs Seat Skyliftgondola facility comprising of an upper station (including café, interpretative centre, office and toilet facilities),a lower station (including kiosk, gondola workshop/storage and interpretive centre) and gondolas, pylons,loading area and cable, water tanks, vegetation removal and lopping, car parking consent, illuminated signage,landscaping and associated works generally in accordance with the submitted plans.”

The proposed skylift would be operated by a private company (Arthurs Seat Skylift Pty Ltd) within ArthursSeat State Park. As previously stated, the State Park is managed by Parks Victoria. Parks Victoria has providedwritten consent for the proposal, and will undertake some of the works. The works to be undertaken by ParksVictoria cannot be formally assessed as part of this planning application, since Parks Victoria do not requireplanning permission to undertake works on land under their control. The scope of works being undertaken byParks Victoria includes the car parking area at the bottom station, the car parking adjacent to Purves Road atthe top station, as well as works within the road reserve of Arthurs Seat Road and Purves Road, and associatedvegetation removal outside of the lease area.

The elements of the development provided by Arthurs Seat Skylift Pty Ltd that do require planning permissioncan be split into three components; the lower station, the upper station and the gondola corridor. The threecomponents are described in turn below.




The Lower Station

A building of approximately 1,800 square metres comprising of:

An information centre,Kiosk,Gondola workshop (including washbay and service area),Gondola storage area,Open courtyard and staff toilets; andAt first floor level flexible office space.

The building will have a maximum building height of 8.4 metres above natural ground level, and be set back5.96 metres from Arthurs Seat Road (from the lower Courtyard).

Approximately 7.11 metres of cut is required to accommodate the development.

A substation is located in the setback area between the proposed building and Arthurs Seat Road. The substationis proposed to be 2.4 metres (width) x 2.3 metres (depth) x 1.5 metres (height) and will be constructed incolourbond, Eucalypt Green.

A 1.2 metre timber fence is proposed around the rear elevation of building. This fencing will restrict access tothe gondola takeoff and landing area, and the area at the rear of the proposed building.

A total of 49 trees are proposed to be removed at the lower station (See Arboricultural Inspection Report –Attachment 2). It is noted that the design seeks to retain the two gum trees located towards the front of the site.The proposed courtyard will surround this vegetation.

As noted previously, the vegetation required to be removed within the land managed by Parks Victoria is notsubject to this planning application. Likewise, the proposed car park and toilet facilities as shown on thesubmitted plans are outside of the lease area, and also do not form part of this planning application.

Upper Station

A building of approximately 1,392 square metres comprising:

A 100 seat café/restaurant (60 indoor seats and 40 outdoor seats);Information/history gallery;Office/safety room and ticket booth;Public toilets;Gondola loading/unloading area; andMezzanine flexible office/meeting and storage area.

The building will have a maximum building height of 9 metres above natural ground level and requires minimalearthworks to accommodate the proposed development.

Two 150,000 litre water tanks (diameter 9.5 metres x 3.5 metres high) are proposed adjacent to the upper stationbuilding, next to the existing concrete water tank.




Twenty-four trees are proposed to be removed at the upper station site (See Arboricultural Inspection Report– Attachment 2)

Proposed Building Materials and Colours

The below table provides a summary of the proposed building materials and colours for both the upper andlower stations:

Table 1: Proposed Building Materials

DescriptionItem

Pre-cast concrete panel (light grey), Biowood (spotted gum), brickwork (glazedblack) and vertical metal cladding (black).

External walls

Longline 305 roofing – Colorbond Whitehaven)Roof

Concrete crib wallRetaining wall

8.3% exposed aggregate concrete, cement stabilised Dromana gravel unsealed pathand sawn basalt pavers

Surface treatment

Gondola Corridor

As previously noted, the Gondola corridor extends for approximately 1 kilometre up Arthurs Seat, connectingthe lower and upper stations. The corridor will have a width of 16 metres within the 20 metre lease area.

The corridor will include 13 pylons spaced generally equally up the corridor, depending on the topography andsite features.

The pylons vary in height up the corridor depending on the topography at each point from 4metres to a maximumheight of 20 metres. The pylons will be constructed of steel with concrete foundations.

The pylons will be connected via two steel cables running in parallel 5 to 6 metres apart. The cables form aloop up and down the corridor between the two stations.

Submitted plan TP-1300 illustrates the vegetation removal required along the gondola corridor. A total of 26trees are proposed to be removed. It is noted that the Applicant has advised that there may be a requirement tolop other vegetation for safety purposes along the corridor. This information is not shown on the submittedplans.




Operational Details

The submitted application included an Operational Statement which provided the following details regardingthe operation of the Skylift gondola facility:

A total of 14 full time staff will be employed (including ticketing, maintenance, administration andhospitality). Seven staff at each station;Operating hours between 8:00 a.m. and midnight;Food and drink will be provided via the proposed kiosk (over counter service only) at the lower stationand the proposed 100 patron restaurant at the upper station (60 indoor seats and 40 outdoor seats);The facility will include 40 gondolas (cabins), to be stored in the lower station;Each cabin can accommodate up to eight passengers; andThe travel time from bottom to top is approximately 15 to 20 minutes (at around 3 kilometres per hour).

Signage

The application proposes signage at both the upper and lower stations. Each station proposes two signs,comprising one of each of the following:

A feature sign located at the base of the building. The sign will comprise of 3-D white acrylic letterssaying ‘Arthurs Seat Skylift’. The sign will be externally illuminated; andA canopy sign comprising of 3-D white acrylic letters saying ‘Arthurs Seat’. This sign will be lit via abacking feature light.

Access and Parking

Car Parking

Whilst a new car park is shown on the submitted plans for the lower station, it is reiterated that the car parkand toilet facilities do not form part of the scope of works under assessment for this application, and are shownfor indicative purposes only. As noted previously, works outside of the lease area are to be carried out by ParksVictoria, and are not subject to this planning application.

Notwithstanding, the planning application was accompanied by a Car Parking Precinct Plan which details theexisting and potential car parking options within the Arthurs Seat area in general (both upper and lower).Although unable to be formally assessed, any approval granted for the skylift would need to be contingent uponthe construction of the car park areas in Parks Victoria controlled land (as notionally shown on the layout plans)prior to the commencement of the use.

The application similarly shows pedestrian treatments around the upper station within both Purves Road andArthurs Seat Road, to connect the facility to the existing walking trail and parking facilities within the precinct.It would be a recommendation of any approval granted that these works also be implemented prior tocommencement of the use (and as noted in the suite of conditions provided by VicRoads).

Bicycle Parking

The planning submission states that the proposal includes 10 spaces to be provided at the lower station and 20spaces at the upper station.




NOTIFICATION AND CONSULTATION

Notification and Consultation

The application was advertised on 25 February, 2014 by way of letters to nearby land owners and occupiers,and the display of four signs between the lower and upper stations. The application was also advertised in thelocal newspaper.

A Shire facilitated information session was held at the Safety Beach Sailing Club on 4 March, 2014, between4:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. Notification of this information session was sent out with the advertising material, andwas also posted on the Shire website. The session was hosted by Council officers and attended by the architect,the permit Applicant, and a member of the Chairlift Consortium. Submitted plans and documents were madeavailable for interested parties to view. Approximately 60 people attended the session.

On 19 March, 2014 following the submission of the Flora, Fauna and Habitat Hectare Assessment Report, allpersons previously advertised to, as well as those who had made written submissions to Council, were notifiedin writing that the document was available to view from Council offices, and on the Shire website.

Submissions

Council has received a total of 58 objections to the application to date. The objections can be grouped into thefollowing key concerns:

Inconsistent with the zoning and overlay controls of the Scheme;Loss of vegetation;Use of public parkland for commercial development;The hours of operation, particularly the late evening period (8:00 a.m. to midnight);Additional traffic movements and road safety concerns;Loss of amenity and proximity to residential development (lighting, noise, etc.);Traffic and access concerns;Impact on existing landscape character;Environmental impact of the use (landslip, drainage, etc.); andBushfire risks.

An officer response to the objections received is provided later in this report.




In addition to the above, a total of 22 letters of support have been received (comprising a mix of local residents,as well as local and regional tourism organisations), including:

The National Trust;Puffing Billy;Phillip Island Nature Reserve;Tourism Victoria;Victorian Tourism Industry Council;Western Port Toursim Inc.;Tourism & Transport Forum Australia; andConnect East.

REFERRALS

Section 55 External Referrals

Department of Environment and Primary Industry (DEPI)

“No Objection – Conditions Required Section 56(1)

That the Department of Environment and Primary Industries has considered the proposal (as determiningauthority under Clause 44.06-5 BMO) and has no objection to the granting of a permit for the above applicationsubject to the following conditions being included on any permit granted.

No Objection – Conditions Required Section 56(1)

That the Department of Environment and Primary Industries has considered the proposal (as recommendingauthority under Clause 66.02-2) and has no objection to the granting of a permit for the above applicationsubject to the following conditions being included on any permit granted.”

See Attachment 4 – DEPI referral response including conditions.

VicRoads

“Transport Impact Assessment Report

Given the nature of the proposed development and the potential transport impact on the existing road network,VicRoads considers that a Transport Impact Assessment Report (TIAR) be prepared prior to the commencementof the facility. In doing so, the need for road improvement works can be ascertained to mitigate any adverseimpact on the road network.

Pedestrian Refuge and Traffic Calming Measures

VicRoads understands that Parks Victoria is proposing works on Arthurs Seat Road and will include pedestrianrefuges in the vicinity of the Skylift Stations. VicRoads is supportive of pedestrian refuges as an appropriatemitigation treatment which will assist improving pedestrian amenity and safety.




Upper Skylift Station

The Upper Skylift Station proposes an outdoor seating area located in close proximity to the arterial road. Itis considered that appropriate safety measures should be implemented for the safety of the motorists and usersof the outdoor seating area.

Secondary Car Park in Summit Area

The proposed traffic circulation arrangements for the secondary car park located proximate to the ArthursSeat Road/Purves Road intersection will enable vehicles and buses performing ingress movements from thearterial road. Given the proximity of the entrance of the car park to an intersection, it is considered likely thatvehicles indicating to perform a right-turn movement into the car park will be confused with vehicles indicatingto perform a right-turn movement into Purves Road. In peak periods, vehicles attempting to enter the car parkare likely to queue within the arterial road in a location with substandard sight-lines. Accordingly, it is consideredappropriate that vehicular circulation through the car park be simplified by reducing the number of accesspoints, such that ingress/egress is achieved wholly from Purves Road. VicRoads invites further discussionregarding access arrangements and traffic direction within the secondary car park.

Permit Conditions

VicRoads has no objection to the granting of the planning permit subject to following conditions being includedin any Notice of Decision to issue a Planning Permit or Planning Permit:

Prior to the commencement of the permitted development, a Transport Impact Assessment Report(TIAR) must be prepared in accordance with VicRoads Guidelines for Transport Impact AssessmentReports to the satisfaction of VicRoads. The TIAR must as a minimum:

1.

Provide a traffic volume forecast and traffic distribution for peak seasons for the permitteduse.

a.

Assess the need for right turn lanes along Arthurs Seat Road at 1) Purves Road intersection,2) access to the secondary car park in the summit area, and 3) the access to the upper andlower stations.

b.

Include Functional Layout Plans of the mitigating road works identified in the TIAR.c.

Include Functional Layout Plans (FLPs) for the road improvement works identified in theTIAR, including the actions assessed as ‘High Priority’ as listed in the Arthurs Seat State ParkTraffic Management Plan (AECOM ID 60266552, Date 18-Nov-2013, Revision C, Section4.5 Implementation).

d.

Include Functional Layout of any other proposed works within the Arthurs Street Road.e.

Prior to the commencement of the development, the following must be submitted to the satisfactionof the VicRoads:

2.

Amended plan showing vertical clearance of the Skylift from the Arthurs Street Road level.The vertical clearance needs to be at least 6m from the road level.

a.

An analysis of the pedestrian and patron safety throughout the site in relation to the arterialroad network. The analysis must include, but not be limited to:

b.




The vertical geometry of the arterial road and proximate Outdoor Seating Area in the upperstation, and any appropriate safety measures.

Calculation of sight distances throughout the summit area, and any appropriate safety measures.

Prior to the commencement of any road works, detailed engineering designs and lighting plan, inaccordance with the endorsed FLPs, must be submitted to and approved by VicRoads.

3.

Prior to the commencement of the use, all the road improvements works as identified in the approvedTIAR must be completed in accordance with the detailed engineering plans and lighting plan to thesatisfaction of, and at no cost to VicRoads.

4.

The preparation of the detailed engineering design and the construction and completion of all roadworks must be undertaken in a manner consistent with current VicRoads’ policy, procedures andstandards and at no cost to VicRoads. In order to meet VicRoads’ requirements the developer mustcomply with the requirements documented within “Standard Requirements – Developer FundedProjects” and any other requirements as considered necessary, to the satisfaction of VicRoads.

5.

No work must commence in, on, under or over the road reserve without having first obtained allnecessary approvals pursuant to the Road Management Act 2004, the Road Safety Act 1986, andany other relevant acts or regulations created under those Acts.”

6.

External Referrals

County Fire Authority (CFA)

“CFA does not object to the grant of a permit to Arthurs Seat Skylift Pty Ltd for an Application for a PlanningPermit at 800 Arthurs Seat Road, Arthurs Seat subject to the following conditions being attached to any permitwhich may be issued and a copy of the permit being forwarded to CFA.

CFA CONDITIONS:

1. Emergency Management Plan

That an Emergency Management Plan be developed to the Responsible Authority satisfaction. The EmergencyManagement Plan should be developed in consultation with relevant Emergency Services and the ResponsibleAuthority. The Emergency Management Plan must address but not be limited to

1.1 A risk assessment

1.2 Specified measures to reduce emergency risks (before an emergency)

1.3 Emergency procedures (communications, response and evacuation).”

South East Water

No comment, objection or conditions.




National Trust

“As a community organisation concerned with heritage conservation, we have not made any assessmentregarding amenity issues, and we respect the view of the traditional owners regarding the Aborigional heritageof the site. We have only addressed the natural heritage impacts of the proposal, given the altered footpath ofthe chairlift.

We acknowledge that many large trees will require removal or lopping to clear the area required for the liftcorridor and terminus. However, we understand that the chosen location for the upgraded upper terminus ofthe skylift is the safest location for visitors, and the removal of indigenous vegetation will be offset.

The National Trust appreciates that the offset site chosen, being located on Arthurs Seat in an integral – butthus far excluded – part of Arthurs Seat State Park. This outcome is preferable to other sites available elsewherewithin the Port Philip and Western Port Catchment Management Area.

We note that Section 7.6.2 (page 37) of the Flora and Fauna Assessment report states that ‘potential improvementgains based on actions to improve the vegetation quality over a ten year management period” will be achieved,in the order of “between c.8 and 14 gain points per hectare over the 21 Habitat Zones (Table 7)”. However,while Table 7 does detail the number of gain points generated from improvement gains for each habitat zone,it does not detail the actual vegetation management actions which will be undertaken to achieve theseimprovement gains. Given the proposed site will be include in Arthurs Seat State Park, we assume Parks Victoriawill be responsible for undertaking these management actions.

It would be ideal if the Mornington Peninsula community could understand what management actions will beimplemented under the offset package to create the calculated improvements to the vegetation, over the tenyear period of offset implementation.”

Internal Referrals

Council’s Heritage Planner

“I have no heritage concerns or requirements for this proposal. The reason for referral, it appears, is becausethe site is protected under HO4, but the key feature of this, the former tower, was demolished within the lastyear or two. There is no architecture remaining on or sufficiently close to the site that sets any sort of precedentor cue for the new design. What is proposed both at top and bottom of the chairlift, is appropriately contemporaryin style, suitable for the use and able to make a positive contribution to the setting.”

Environmental Health Officer (EHO)

Initially Council’s EHO advised that support could not be given to the proposal in its current form, due toconcerns relating to the potential volume of waste water that may be generated at the upper station (which doesnot have access to the reticulated sewerage network at present). Following the Applicant submitting an UpperStation Waste and Water Brief in response to the above concerns (which set out three potential options forwastewater disposal, including connection of the upper station to sewer at the base of the summit), Council’sEHO provided the following comments:

“The proposal has been amended since comments were made in April 2014. It appears the Skylift café/restaurantwill no longer trade in the evening or provide dinner/breakfast options.




The proposal details that there will only be one seating for the hours of operation 10:00 a.m. – 5:00 p.m.Footnote 9 on page 32 of the Code of Practice requires that consideration be given to the number of seats bemultiplied by the number of seatings (morning/afternoon tea and lunch). I consider that to be a minimum of 2seatings per day. Therefore I calculate the café/restaurant hydraulic load at 100p x 2 x 30l/p/d = 6000L/d.

The revised daily flow will be 10,500L/d. If the Applicant chooses to proceed with containing wastewater on-sitethen they will require Environment Protection Authority (EPA) works approval or licensing. Option 2 & 3 isbest directed to EPA for consideration.

It is in the best interests for Skylift, the Council, the food proprietor and the environment that the wastewatergenerated by this proposal be discharged in accordance with option 1 – connection to reticulated sewer.”

Manager of Economic Development

“The Economic Development Unit is highly supportive of this proposal as the venture adds significantly to theregional tourism product mix, importantly the proposal will generate additional flow on benefits that increaselocal employment opportunities through the attractions of high yielding visitors who will spend more time inthe region and visit other local attractions….the proposal is a perfect fit with our regions Tourism DestinationManagement Plan as it builds on the region’s core strengths and values.”

Council’s Natural Systems Planner

Strategic Planning have no in principle objection to the planning permit application.“1.

The application seeks to minimise the loss and modification of native vegetation associated with thechair lift alignment and defendable space requirements

2.

The proposed offset site is on land that will be transferred from Mornington Peninsula Shire to theState Government for incorporation into Arthurs Seat State Park. The proposed offset site is supportedas providing a suitable location to accommodate and secure the required offset.

3.

A landscape plan should be required as a condition of permit for the lower and upper public areasof the facility and which should incorporate suitable local native plants of the Mornington Peninsulaand associated interpretation of the environmental and cultural values of the selected indigenousspecies.”

4.

Municipal Building Surveyor

No objection – Advised a building permit will be required for works.

Municipal Fire Prevention Officer

“Defendable Space – General Comments

I believe the defendable space plans for both the upper and lower station using the alternative method to beappropriate for the development as per Defendable Space plans – version 4. Any vegetation removal as a resultof implementing the defendable space requirements be detailed in a vegetation or landscape plan and bereferenced as a permit condition.




Lower Station

There is land where MPSC is the responsible land manager to the north and north-west of the lower station.Most of this land will need to be maintained to an ‘Outer Zone’ management level and a small portion willrequire ‘Inner Zone’ management as outlined on the defendable space plan. I propose that once avegetation/landscape plan is completed that the Shire through the Natural Systems team create a new firemanagement map for the area of Shire land around the cemetery entrance.

I note you have been in discussion with the Infrastructure department concerning the use of the cemetery carpark as an ‘overflow’. In its current state the area would not be appropriate for an overflow car park not onlydue to the standard of the road but the cemetery entrance is significantly overgrown and would require asubstantial cut back if that determination was made for it to be utilised as an overflow car park.

Upper Station

I note the Defendable Space Plan provided does not detail defendable space requirements to the east of theupper station. Whilst there is not a considerable understorey on the Telstra land to the east in question, I donot believe that the area would fit the requirements as outlined as ‘Inner Zone’ management – particularlywith regards to the requirement for an overall canopy cover of no more than 15% at maturity. I do not believethis area fits the current description as ‘currently managed in a low fuel state and there is reasonable assurancethis will continue’ as noted on the defendable space plan. The area identified as MPSC as the responsible landmanager (pictured below) is currently mowed four times per annum (known to Council as Nestle Court RoadReserve) and achieves the defendable space vegetation management standards as per the defendable spaceplan. No further adjustments to this fire management regime will be required by Council for the upper station.




Bushfire Emergency Plan

The preliminary draft plan provided by the Applicant (Version 2.1 – 22 January, 2014) is not to a satisfactorystandard for it to be considered by Council. The draft plan is light on detail particularly in relation to:

Exact locations of signage, access roads, gates and locks;Doesn’t appropriately reference the bushfire management statement and defendable space plan;Evacuation procedures are impractical and not clear;Evacuation procedures should not be referencing Neighbourhood Safer Places as a logical off-sitesheltering place; andIt is not appropriate that the Bushfire Emergency Plan – infrastructure and equipment be signed off bythe Mornington Peninsula Municipal Emergency Management Planning Committee

I look forward to the Applicant providing a more complete Bushfire Emergency Plan and can provide morefeedback when that occurs, this plan should be further discussed with other agencies including CFA, DEPIand Parks Victoria.”

Development Engineer

No objection subject to the inclusion of the following conditions:

Amended Plans

Before the works start, amended plans and documents to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authoritymust be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, and endorsedaccordingly, these plans and documents will form part of this permit. Plans are to be dimensionedand drawn to scale. The plans must be generally in accordance with submitted plans, but modifiedto show:

1.

The proposed pedestrian crossing within the Purves Road road reserve.a.

Construction Plans

After the endorsement of Condition 1 plans and before any works associated with the developmentstarts, detailed construction plans to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submittedto and approved by the Responsible Authority. The plans must be drawn to scale with dimensions

2.

and two copies must be provided. Alternatively, plans in pdf format may be emailed to . to thesatisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the ResponsibleAuthority. The plans must be drawn to scale with dimensions and two copies must be provided.Alternatively, plans in pdf format may be emailed to [email protected].

The plans must show:

All areas of the upper and lower stations including car parking areas being drained by means of anunderground drainage system to retain a post development 1 in 10 year storm event for the criticalstorm duration. Discharge from the site must be limited to an equivalent pre-development flow basedon a 1 in 2 year storm event for the critical storm duration and be connected to the existingunderground drainage system adjacent to each station.




mailto:[email protected]

Details and location of each pylon.a.

Details of the crib wall at the rear of the lower station.b.

All foot paths within the upper and lower station areas.c.

The pedestrian crossing within the Purves Road.d.

Access to the upper and lower station common areas being in accordance with currentAustralian Standards for accessibility.

e.

Prior to the commencement of any works associated with the development, drainage computationsare required for the drainage system, including consideration of any drainage catchment externalto the development that may drain to the drainage system.

3.

Prior to the commencement of any works for the lower station site building and the gondola structures,a Form B must be completed by an Engineer and a Specialist Geotechnical Engineer or a SpecialistEngineering Geologist with a copy being lodged with the Responsible Authority.

4.

The Form B referred to is a Structural or Civil or Geotechnical Engineering Declaration’ inaccordance with the AGS ‘Practice Note Guidelines for Landslide Risk Management 2007’

A Specialist Geotechnical Engineer or a Specialist Engineering Geologist is a person defined in theAGS ‘Practice Note Guidelines for Landslide Risk Management 2007’.

Prior to the occupation of the lower station site building, or the operation of the gondola, a Form Gmust be completed by a Specialist Geotechnical Engineer or Specialist Engineering Geologist witha copy being lodged with the Responsible Authority.

5.

The Form G referred to is a ‘Final Geotechnical Certificate’ in accordance with the AGS ‘PracticeNote Guidelines for Landslide Risk Management 2007’.

Before the initial occupation of the upper or lower station site buildings, or the operation of thegondola, all civil works within the development must be constructed in accordance with approvedconstruction plans, and to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.”

6.

Traffic Engineer

“The traffic volume and parking analyses are based on empirical evidence from reports undertaken by ParksVictoria in 2002, when the previous chairlift was still in existence. Although the data is not current, there isvery little other data available to base estimates of traffic and parking on.

The recommendations of the TMP and PPMP are basically supported.

All measures proposed should be detailed on construction or installation plans to be approved by the responsibleauthority or Road Management Authority.




VicRoads is also the Road Management Authority for Arthurs Seat Road and would be required to approveany of these measures including pedestrian refuges and other traffic treatments (such as long term intersectionimprovements at the Purves Road intersection). It is understood that discussions have taken place with VicRoads.

Traffic Treatments

The recommendations for implementation traffic treatments including speed humps in the summit car park forpedestrian safety and to discourage ‘hoon’ behaviour and speed deterrent works in Purves Road are supported.

Signage

Improvements to advisory and information signage for motorists and pedestrians would be a benefit for trafficcirculation and traffic safety.

Parking Arrangements

Improvements to the capacity, delineation and geometry of parking areas are supported.

The analysis of ‘peak parking periods’ indicates that sufficient parking will be provided for peak demand(provided that the Seawinds parking and improved bottom car parking areas are adequately utilised). Howeverthe report still mentions additional overflow parking areas to be utilised.

The linking of the overflow parking areas with convenient pathways to the chairlift terminals and viewing areaswill be essential and some of the more remote parking areas may benefit from the use of a shuttle bus service

Construction of a path to the northern boundary of the Parks Victoria area in Arthurs Seat Road (near GlenoneAvenue) is considered to be desirable as it will link to Council’s strategic path network.

The ‘bottom’ parking area has been the subject of discussions with MPSC, as MPSC controls part of this area,including the access toad to the Dromana cemetery.

The use of parking time limits and restrictions and designation of staff car parking areas are all consideredappropriate measures to implement.”




PLANNING SCHEME PROVISIONS

Permit Triggers

The following table outlines each of the permit triggers, based on the relevant sections of the MorningtonPeninsula Planning Scheme:

SignageAlterAccessto aRDZ1

CarParking

Remove,Destroy orLop aTree

Non-NativeVegetationRemoval

NativeVegetationRemoval

Buildingsand

Works

Use

XXPPRZ

XRoadZone

XXESO28

XXSLO1

XXSLO3

XXSLO4

XXSLO5

XXSLO6

XXXHO4

XXXEMO1

XXXEMO2

XBMO

XClause52.05

XClause52.06 (CarParking)

XClause52.17(NativeVegetation)




State Planning Policy Framework

The following clauses under the State Planning Policy Framework (SPPF) are considered relevant in theassessment of this application:

Clause 11.03-1 (Open Space Planning);Clause 11.03-2 (Open Space Management);Clause 12.01-1 (Protection of Biodiversity);Clause 12.01-2 (Native Vegetation Management);Clause 12.04-1 (Environmentally Sensitive Areas);Clause 12.04-2 (Landscapes);Clause 13.03-2 (Erosion and Landslip);Clause 13.04-1 (Noise Abatement);Clause 13.05-1 (Bushfire Planning Strategies and Principles);Clause 15.01-2 (Urban Design Principles);Clause 15.03 (Aboriginal Cultural Heritage);Clause 17.01 (Business);Clause 17.03-1 (Facilitating Tourism); andClause 19.03-2 (Water Supply, Sewerage and Drainage).

Clause 11.03-1 (Open Space Planning) aims “to assist creation of a diverse and integrated network of publicopen space commensurate with the needs of the community”. The proposal is considered to satisfy this objectivethrough addressing a number of strategies outlined under this section of the Scheme, including to (amongstother things):

Ensure that land use and development adjoining regional open space networks, national parks andconservation reserves complements the open space in terms of visual and noise impacts, treatment ofwaste water to reduce turbidity or pollution and preservation of vegetation; andImprove the quality and distribution of open space and ensure long-term protection.

The use of the subject land (established within the Arthurs Seat State Park) would be generally consistent withthe previous operation on the site for a commercial chairlift facility between 1960 and 2006. The proposedskylift facility and associated development would complement the existing use associated with the surroundingState Park area, particularly in terms of any potential visual and noise impacts. Further to this, Council officersconsider that the proposed redevelopment and associated uses of the land would enhance and promote thelong-term protection of the established parkland area, particularly given the high standards which the surroundingparkland area would need to be managed to in order to meet defendable space requirements.

The objective of Clause 11.03-2 (Open Space Management) of the Scheme is “to provide for the long-termmanagement of public open space”. Council officers consider that the proposal would accord with a numberof strategies, as the following outcomes should be achieved:

Ensure the provision of buildings and infrastructure is consistent with the management objectives of thepark; andProtect sites and features of high scientific, nature conservation, biodiversity, heritage, geological orlandscape value.




The Arthurs Seat State Park Management Plan (prepared by Parks Victoria, 2004) acknowledges that theprevious chairlift facility was not only an integral feature of the park, but also of regional significance withinthe Mornington Peninsula. Specifically, the plan states that:

“The summit and chairlift have the potential to become a greater focal point for tourism on the Peninsula,although parking availability may be a constraint. The chairlift, a significant attraction, has been in operationsince 1960. There is potential to upgrade the chairlift and provide enhanced visitor experiences all year round.”

The gondolas associated with the proposed skylift would essentially travel up and down the existing corridorof cleared land between the two stations in a north/south direction. Given that each of the proposed gondolastations at the upper and lower sections of the Arthurs Seat summit would result in the construction of new,significantly larger buildings (including a new 100 seat restaurant at the summit) it is essential to ensure thatthe development will not unreasonably impact upon the value of the State Park.

As will be discussed in detail later in this report, the proposed skylift facility is contained wholly within thearea of the park zoned PPRZ which seeks to recognise areas for public recreation, as well as commercial usewhere appropriate. It is appropriate to confine the siting of the proposed buildings and works associated withthis significant tourism facility within this zone, subject to an appropriate design response to minimise theimpact on the surrounding land which is zoned Public Conservation and Resource Zone (PCRZ).

Clause 11.03-2 seeks to protect the scientific, nature conservation, biodiversity, heritage geological and/orlandscape values associated with the park and provide for the long term management of public open space.

The development of the upper station on the south side of Arthurs Seat Road will result in the loss of publicopen space in the existing open grassed area.While the upper station does not consume the whole of the summitarea, it does seek to develop a considerable portion as illustrated on the submitted plans. Taking a broader viewof the State Park, it is considered that the modification to this portion of the summit can be accommodatedhaving regard to the availability of open recreation space both on the lower side of Arthurs Seat Road at thesummit, as well as the adjacent parkland at Seawinds.

The area of open space that would be displaced as a result of the upper station will be (in part) offset throughthe required management of the area on the lower side of Arthurs Seat Road. To expand, this area is identifiedas being within the inner zone of the defendable space around the upper station, and will be subject to DEPImandated vegetation management requirements. The vegetation management regime to inner zone standardswill mean that this area will be able to be further utilised as public open space. In terms of conservational valuesof the land, the application seeks the removal of vegetation both within the lease area and the identified defendablespace areas surrounding the upper and lower stations. As will be discussed later in this report all requiredvegetation removal must be offset in accordance with DEPI conditions (Attachment 4); such offsets willnecessarily be off-site, given the practicalities of achieving defendable space requirements. Should a permit beissued, a condition of the permit will require that a landscape plan be submitted for both the upper and lowerstations. It is considered that landscape integration can still be achieved whilst also meeting the inner zonevegetation management requirements as stipulated by DEPI.




The potential environmental impacts resulting fromwastewater associated with ongoing operation of the facilitymust also be considered. The permit Applicant has proposed three options for the management of wastewaterat the upper station site. Two of the options require further geotechnical investigation and the development ofan on-site water treatment plant or septic system adjacent to the building. Should a permit be issued, option 1(requiring that the Applicant connect to sewer at the bottom of Arthurs Seat) is the preferred option. This optionwill reduce the impact on the remaining vegetation at the upper station, and can be installed at the same timeas the proposed undergrounding of services. As noted in the comments of Council’s Environmental HealthOfficer, reduced operating hours for the café is highlighted as a potential means of limiting wastewater volumes.However, should the preferred option of connecting to sewer be achieved, then limitation of hours based onwastewater treatment capacity would be resolved.

The proposed upper station is to be located on the southern side of Arthurs Seat Road which differs from theprevious operation which did not cross the road at the summit and was located adjacent to the existing car park.The permit Applicant has advised that the alternative location was chosen for the following reasons:

The site is flatter thus requiring less earthworks and contains less vegetation;It is centrally located for car parks in the surrounding areas;Offers the ability for the lift to go to the top of Arthurs Seat; andAllows the facility to be fully accessible.

In addition to the above, given the required height to accommodate the gondolas and associated infrastructure,it is considered that siting the upper station building on the northern side of Arthurs Seat Road would potentiallyhave a greater impact on the landscape values of the State Park when viewed from the freeway and surroundingareas.

As previously noted under the referral section of this report the application was referred to Council’s HeritagePlanner, who advised that the proposal will not compromise the heritage values associated with the park.

Based on the above, it is considered that the development will not unreasonably impact the biodiversity,geological, heritage and landscape values associated with the subject land.

Clause 12.01-1 (Protection of Biodiversity) aims “to assist the protection and conservation of Victoria’sbiodiversity, including important habitat for Victoria’s flora and fauna and other strategically valuablebiodiversity sites”. One of the key strategies outlined under this section of the Scheme is to:

Ensure that decision-making takes into account the impacts of land use and development on Victoria’shigh value biodiversity.

Pursuant to Section 55 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, this application was referred to DEPI whoare the relevant authority for the consideration of any biodiversity impacts associated with the proposal (includingthe removal of any native vegetation). The Applicant has submitted a Flora, Fauna and Habitat HectareAssessment report in support of the proposed development and use. Further to this, DEPI have offered conditionalconsent to the application, including the support of the proposed biodiversity gains to be achieved through theacquisition of a suitable off-site location (to be subsequently transferred from Council to Parks Victoria).




The objective of Clause 12.01-2 (Native Vegetation Management) is “to ensure that the permitted clearing ofnative vegetation results in no net loss in the contribution made by native vegetation to Victoria’s biodiversity”.One of the strategies identified under this clause is:

Where native vegetation is permitted to be removed, ensure that an offset is provided in a manner thatmakes a contribution to Victoria’s biodiversity that is equivalent to the contribution made by the nativevegetation to be removed.

As discussed above, the proposal includes the identification of a suitable off-site location (comprising of 55hectares) of high biodiversity value which would satisfy the minimum offset requirements specified by theDEPI. Given that any permit issued would require a specified offset to be achieved, then the proposed skyliftdevelopment will not result in any net loss of biodiversity within Victoria.

Clause 12.04-1 (Environmentally Sensitive Areas) aims “to protect and conserve environmentally sensitiveareas.” This Clause recognises that the Mornington Peninsula features many areas of environmental sensitivitywith significant recreational value, including the Arthurs Seat State Park. Further to this, Clause 12.04-2(Landscapes) aims “to protect landscapes and significant open spaces that contribute to character, identityand suitable environments.” The relevant strategies relating to this application include to:

Ensure sensitive landscape areas such as the bays and coastlines are protected and that new developmentdoes not detract from their natural quality;Improve the landscape qualities, open space linkages and environmental performance in green wedgesand conservation areas and non-urban areas;Recognise the natural landscape for its aesthetic value and as a fully functioning system; andEnsure natural key features are protected and enhanced.

The proposal would achieve the objective of this clause through providing a sensitively designed tourist attractionthat would respect the identified landscape and environmental values associated with Arthurs Seat and thesurrounding State Park area. With the exception of the upper station, the built form elements of the proposeddevelopment would be largely situated within the building footprint of the previous chairlift facility, includingthe cleared vegetation corridor from the top of the summit down to the northern end of Arthurs Seat Road. Asa result, the proposed development and associated works would be sympathetic to natural quality of the areawhilst minimising (as far as practicable) the impact on the key natural features of the Arthurs Seat State Park.

The objective of Clause 13.03-2 (Erosion and Landslip) of the Scheme is “to protect areas prone to erosion,landslip and other land degradation processes.” Three strategies have been identified to achieve this objective,being to:

Identify areas subject to erosion or instability in planning schemes and when considering the use anddevelopment of land;Prevent inappropriate development in unstable areas or areas prone to erosion; andPromote vegetation retention, planting and rehabilitation in areas prone to erosion and land instability.

The subject land is partly affected by EMO1 and EMO2 which identifies areas within the development site thatare potentially susceptible to landslide activity. The Applicant has submitted a Landslide Hazard Assessmentand Erosion Management Report in support of the proposal which identifies that the location of the upper andlower gondola stations would be constructed in areas of low risk.




Council’s Development Engineers have consented to the proposal subject to conditions being included in thepermit, which require that the details of the pylons and that all works are carried out in accordance with a peerreviewed geotechnical investigation report.

Clause 13.04-1 (Noise Abatement) aims “to assist the controls of noise effects on sensitive land uses”. Thestrategy offered to achieve this objective is to:

Ensure that development is not prejudiced and community amenity is not reduced by noise emissions,using a range of building design, urban design and land use separation techniques as appropriate to theland use functions and character of the area.

A Noise Assessment Report has been submitted as a part of the application which has considered the potentialimpact on the residential properties located within close proximity to the lower and upper gondola stations.The findings of this report indicate that any noise levels generated by the proposed facility would satisfy therelevant levels set out under the State Environment Protection Policy No. N-1 (SEPP N-1) for the daytime andevening periods as defined in the Policy. It has been recommended, however, that the mechanical plant roomassociated with the lower station be appropriately treated so as to ensure that noise levels do not exceed theSEPP noise limits. Council officers consider that this requirement could be satisfactorily addressed through theinclusion of a suitable condition on any permit issued for the proposal.

Clause 13.05-1 (Bushfire Planning Strategies and Principles) of the Scheme aims “to assist to strengthencommunity resilience to bushfire.” The following strategies are considered to be of particular relevance to thisapplication, being:

In areas identified in the planning scheme as being affected by the bushfire hazard, require a site-basedassessment to be undertaken to identify appropriate bushfire protection measures for development thathas the potential to put people, property or community infrastructure at risk from bushfire; andOnly permit new development where:

The risk to human life, property and community infrastructure from bushfire can be reduced to anacceptable level;Bushfire protection measures, including the siting, design and construction of buildings, vegetationmanagement, water supply and access and egress can be readily implemented and managed withinthe property; andThe risk to existing residents, property and community infrastructure from bushfire is not increased.

The subject land is affected by a BMO, where DEPI is the responsible fire authority. A Bushfire ManagementStatement and a Bushfire Emergency Plan (Draft) have been submitted by the Applicant in support of theapplication. The BushfireManagement Statement considered the ability of the proposed development to complywith the relevant statutory requirements under Clause 44.06 (BMO) and Clause 52.47 (Bushfire Protection:Planning Requirements) of the Scheme. The findings of the report concluded that:

“It is considered that the landscape is not severe or extreme enough to prevent the development. The bushfirerisk to life can be reduced to an acceptable level by providing, implementing and maintaining the bushfiresafety measures proposed in this BMS and finalising, to the satisfaction of the responsible authorities, theBEP”.




Further to this, the DEPI as the responsible fire authority has offered conditional consent to the proposal withthe assistance of the CFA, who were notified under the Section 52 provisions of the Planning and EnvironmentAct 1987.

Clause 15.03-2 (Aboriginal Cultural Heritage) aims “to ensure the protection and conservation of places ofcultural heritage significance.” The two relevant strategies which are applicable to the consideration of thisapplication are as follows:

Provide for the protection and conservation of pre- and post-contact Aboriginal cultural heritage places;andEnsure that permit approvals align with recommendations of a Cultural Heritage Management Planapproved under the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006.

An approved Cultural Heritage Management Plan (CHMP) has been submitted to Council as a part of thisapplication. This document (approved by Aboriginal Affairs Victoria) includes a number of recommendationsrequired to be adopted during the construction phase, given that the initial investigations carried out by WandriArcheology found that the proposed works associated with the upper gondola station would potentially harman identified area of cultural heritage significance, where six stone artefacts were unearthed. Any additionalartefacts discovered as a part of any future construction works associated with the proposal would be requiredto be salvaged, catalogued and re-buried with the assistance of the Traditional Land Owners.

Clause 17.01-1 (Business) of the Scheme aims “to encourage development which meet the communities’ needsfor retail, entertainment, office and other commercial services and provides net community benefit in relationto accessibility, efficient infrastructure use and the aggregation and sustainability of commercial facilities”.

Further to this, the objective of Clause 17.03-1 (Facilitating Tourism) is “to encourage tourism developmentto maximise the employment and long-term economic, social and cultural benefits of developing the State as acompetitive domestic and international tourist destination”.

It is considered that the proposal would provide a net community benefit, particularly in relation to accessibilityand existing infrastructure use. The redevelopment of the subject site for the new skylift facility would rejuvenatethe previous use of the land as the Arthurs Seat Chairlift, which was recognised as a major tourist attractionfor the Mornington Peninsula. The Applicant has indicated that the proposal would generate approximately 20equivalent full-time jobs, with likely flow-on benefits to local businesses and tourism operators.

Clause 19.03-2 (Water Supply, Sewerage and Drainage) aims “to plan for the provision of water supply,sewerage and drainage services that efficiently and effectively meet State and community needs and protectthe environment”.

At present, a reticulated sewerage system is not available to the upper station. However, Council’s EnvironmentalHealth Department have indicated that the given the likely daily flow rate of wastewater from the proposal, itwould be in the best interests for the Skylift operators, Council, and the environment that the wastewatergenerated by this proposal be discharged via connection to reticulated sewer. A condition of any permit shouldrequire that this be undertaken prior to the commencement of the use.




Local Planning Policy Framework

The following clauses under the Local Planning Policy Framework (LPPF), including Council’s MunicipalStrategic Statement, are considered relevant in the assessment of this application:

Clause 21.02 (Profile of the Mornington Peninsula);Clause 21.03 (Mornington Peninsula – Regional Role and Local Vision);Clause 21.06 (Strategic Framework and the Peninsula’s Settlement Plan);Clause 22.05 (Aboriginal Cultural Heritage);Clause 22.10 (Advertising Signs);Clause 22.11 (Mornington Peninsula Fire Protection Policy); andClause 22.14 (Mornington Peninsula Land Units).

Clause 21.02 (Profile of theMornington Peninsula) recognises the significant role of the Peninsula on a regionalscale, with it considered to be the most popular informal recreation area within Victoria. This in turn provideslocal business and tourist operators with up to 2.5 million visitors per year, with tourism accountable for up to23% of trade within some local township areas. Whilst the benefits associated with economic developmentwithin the municipality is acknowledged, the Mornington Peninsula is an area of significant environmental andlandscape value on a regional, national and international scale.

Clause 21.06 (Strategic Framework and the Peninsula’s Settlement Plan) includes reference to landscapes,recreation and tourism, with its regional role summarised within the following statement:

“Outstanding natural landforms, rural landscapes, seascapes, coastlines and beaches are considered one ofthe Peninsula’s key strengths. These areas are suitable for a wide range of recreational activities, particularlyunstructured outdoor pursuits. They are supported by a well-developed scenic road network that caters forthrough traffic, sightseeing, local access, walking and riding.

The rural and coastal landscapes of the Peninsula reflect diverse landforms, environmental systems and landuse histories. They provide the basis for recreational experiences and a ‘sense of place’, that have a strongcultural significance. Much of the Peninsula’s attraction for recreation is connected to this ‘cultural capital’and a key challenge is to ensure that land use and development does not lead to incremental change thatdevalues the Peninsula as a recreational area.

In this sense, sustainable development is seen as that which supports the inherent values of the Peninsula andprovides opportunities for access, understanding and enjoyment rather than introducing elements that aredisruptive, intrusive or out of character”.

While Clause 21.02 recognises the role of tourism on the peninsula, Clause 21.06 recognises that it is thelandscape and environmental values that contribute to the areas success. Therefore, in consideration of theabove policies a key element in the assessment of the application is to ensure that while the proposal does seekto develop a regional tourist attraction it must not devalue the Peninsula’s role as a recreational area.

Council’s Economic Development Unit have provided comment on the proposal, recognising that the facilityis consistent with the region’s Tourism Destination Management Plan.




The potential impact of the development on surrounding landscape values and the associated environmentalimpacts of the proposed vegetation removal is a key consideration throughout this report. Vegetation removalhas been minimised through the use of alternative methods of calculating defendable space, and through sitingthe upper station on the southern side of Arthur Seat Road. All vegetation removal would be need to beappropriately offset, and a condition of any permit would require landscape plans to be submitted, demonstratingappropriate planting of indigenous vegetation around the upper and lower stations to soften the impact of thedevelopment within the landscape.

The proposed design response and development siting (subject to appropriate permit conditions relating torequired landscaping, vegetation offsets and ongoing operation) is considered to support the above natural andeconomic values associated with the Mornington Peninsula.

One of the key objectives of Clause 22.05 (Aboriginal Cultural Heritage) is “to protect sites and features ofAboriginal cultural heritage and archeological significance.” As discussed earlier within this report, theapproved CHMP submitted as a part of this application includes a number of recommendations to ensure thatany artefacts unearthed during construction would be appropriately removed from the subject site, cataloguedand reburied off-site.

Clause 22.10 (Advertising Signs) aims, amongst other things:

To ensure that advertising signs provide appropriate and effective identification of businesses and otherland uses requiring identification;To ensure that advertising signs do not detract from the amenity and streetscape/landscape character ofthe surrounding area, particularly in sensitive and strategic landscape areas, residential areas and alongmain roads;To ensure that the size and height of advertising sign is compatible with the scale of the building or thesite on which they are displayed, the surrounding streetscape and the size and scale of other signs in thearea; andTo ensure that advertising signs are well designed and well maintained to contribute to the appearance ofbuildings and streetscapes.

A total of four advertising signs are proposed in association with the new skylift facility. Two of the proposedsigns associated with each gondola station would be externally illuminated, so as to minimise any adverse lightspill impacts onto the adjoining residential areas. The proposed signs would contribute to the appearance ofthe new buildings and to the surrounding landscape character. Two of the signs are shown as back lit; subjectto a condition regarding the intensity of illumination for these signs, it is considered that the backlit signs canbe reasonably accommodated without causing undue detriment to the amenity of the area.

Clause 22.11 (Mornington Peninsula Fire Protection Policy) of the Scheme aims:

To assist efforts to mitigate the risk to life, property and the environment for uncontrolled fire;To ensure that land use and development does not increase the level of fire risk; andTo ensure that land use and development includes adequate fire protection measures.

As discussed under the previous section of this report, subject to conditions relating to ongoing vegetationmanagement, and the provision of an emergency management plan prior to the use commencing, the risksassociated with bushfire can be appropriately mitigated.




Clause 22.14 (Mornington Peninsula Land Units) aims, amongst other things:

To maintain and conserve the environmental systems, habitat areas, soil stability, drainage patterns andstream quality of the Mornington Peninsula;To conserve areas of native vegetation, including native grasses and ground flora;To promote the siting and design of buildings, including the choice of building materials that is responsiveto landscape character;To maintain the scenic value of roads and recreational routes; andTo promote use and development which is compatible with the maintenance of long term natural,agricultural, landscape and recreational values of the Mornington Peninsula.

The proposal is considered to satisfy each of the relevant requirements of this clause, given that the biodiversityvalues of the area would be conserved (based on an approved offset location) whilst maintaining and enhancingthe scenic value of roads and recreational routes within Arthurs Seat State Park. The design of the buildingsboth at lower and upper level have undergone a review process via the Office of the Victorian GovernmentArchitect prior to submission of the plans, and part of this review was to account for the setting of the buildingsin the context of the surrounding landscape. This is discussed further under the Design Considerations sectionof this report.

Zoning

The subject land is affected by the following zones:

Clause 36.02 (Public Park and Recreation Zone); andClause 36.04 (Road Zone).

The purpose of Clause 36.02 (Public Park and Recreation Zone) is:

To implement the State Planning Policy Framework and the Local Planning Policy Framework, includingthe Municipal Strategic Statement and local planning policies;To recognise areas for public recreation and open space;To protect and conserve areas of significance where appropriate; andTo provide for commercial uses where appropriate.

It is considered that the proposed skylift facility would satisfy each of the above objectives outlined for thiszone, acknowledging that commercial uses may be appropriate in certain instances where it is supported by theState and Local Planning Policy Framework. Parks Victoria is the relevant land manager for the subject site,which forms part of the Arthurs Seat State Park. The proposed development and use for ‘leisure and recreation’is generally consistent with the Arthurs Seat State Park Management Plan (2003), which identifies that thereis an opportunity to upgrade the previous chairlift facility. Accordingly, the proposal is considered to be consistentwith the purposes of the PPRZ.

Clause 36.04 (Road Zone) of the Scheme aims:

To implement the State Planning Policy Framework and the Local Planning Policy Framework, includingthe Municipal Strategic Statement and local planning policies;To identify significant existing roads; andTo identify land which has been acquired for a significant proposed road.




Arthurs Seat Road is identified as a Road Zone Category 1. A permit is triggered for the proposed developmentand use in the nominated air space area at four points along this road where it traverses the subject site (asopposed to any physical alterations to the existing road or access points). Specifically, the 1.2 kilometre longsection of the summit to be utilised by the proposed gondolas between the upper and lower stations wouldproject over Arthurs Seat Road at four points of the roadway.

VicRoads, as the relevant roads authority, has offered no objection to the proposal subject to the inclusion ofsix conditions on any permit issued.

Overlay Controls

The subject site is affected by the following overlays:

Clause 42.01 (ESO28);Clause 42.03 (SLO 1,3,4,5,6);Clause 43.01 (HO 4);Clause 44.01 (EMO 1 and 2); andClause 44.06 (BMO).

The purpose of Clause 42.01 (ESO) is:

To implement the State Planning Policy Framework and the Local Planning Policy Framework, includingthe Municipal Strategic Statement and local planning policies; andTo identify areas where the development of land may be affected by environmental constraints; andTo ensure that development is compatible with identified environmental values.

A planning permit is triggered under the ESO for the construction of buildings and works and to remove nativevegetation. Schedule 28 (Mornington Peninsula Bushland) to the Overlay is applicable to the subject site andincludes a number of environmental objectives which are considered relevant in the consideration of thisapplication, being:

To protect and conserve native vegetation and habitat areas, including those of rare, threatened andendangered flora and fauna species, from clearing, degradation or fragmentation;To arrest and reverse the decline of remnant native vegetation, and to achieve a net increase in nativevegetation within the Shire over time;To promote the maintenance of ecological processes and biodiversity; andTo conserve the Shire’s vegetation based landscape assets.

The Flora, Fauna and Habitat Hectare Assessment identifies the conservation status of the flora and faunaspecies that exist within the study area. A total of 111 plant species were recorded throughout the study area,comprising of 64% indigenous species, 34% exotic species and 2% were identified as non-indigenous species.Further to this, two Ecological Vegetation Classes (EVCs) were assigned to the existing remnant vegetation asa part of the assessment comprising of EVC 175 Grassy Woodland which is recognised as ‘endangered’ andEVC 16 Lowland Forest which is identified as ‘vulnerable’.




With respect to fauna, there are records of three threatened species that have been sighted within 5 kilometresof the study area, being the Powerful Owl (Ninox strenua), Lace Monitor/Tree Goanna (Varanus varius) andthe Southern Toadlet (Pseudophryne semimarmorata). However, the report has found that the proposal isunlikely to have a significant effect on the identified species as:

The study area may be in the foraging range of the Powerful Owl, but very unlikely to provide nest orroosting habitat;The authors are aware of no recent sightings or records of LaceMonitor within or near areas to be impacted;andThere would be very small loss only of potential habitat for the Southern Toadlet.

The proposal would not result in a net loss of native vegetation to the area and will, in fact, be required toachieve a net increase through the offset gains to be provided on a suitable off-site location within the PortPhillip and Western Port Catchment Management Authority or the Mornington Peninsula.

The Applicant is also seeking to plant at least 14 new indigenous Blackwood (Acacia melanoxlyon) treesadjacent to both the lower and upper stations in addition to the retention of established trees wherever possible.

The decision guidelines of ESO28 include among other things that the Responsible Authority considers:

The comments of any relevant coastal management fire prevention, catchment protection, landmanagementor soil conservation authority; andThe extent to which the removal of vegetation is necessary to achieve proper fire management.

The vegetation proposed to be removed around the upper and lower station and within the identified areas ofdefendable space have been identified as necessary for the purpose of bushfire protection. DEPI as theResponsible Fire Authority have stipulated the relevant standards to be met through permit conditions. Analternative method to calculating defendable space has been adopted and accepted by both CFA and DEPI tominimise the vegetation removal required, yet still ensure that the proposal satisfies the objectives and decisionguidelines of the relevant planning policy relating to bushfire protection.

Accordingly, the proposal is considered to satisfy each of the relevant environmental objectives underlinedunder Schedule 28 to the ESO.

Clause 42.03 (SLO) of the Scheme includes the following objectives:

To implement the State Planning Policy Framework and the Local Planning Policy Framework, includingthe Municipal Strategic Statement and local planning policies;To identify significant landscapes; andTo conserve and enhance the character of significant landscapes.

A planning permit is required to construct and carry out works and to remove native vegetation under the SLO.Specifically, the following schedules are applicable to the subject site:

Schedule 1 (Ridge and Escarpment Areas);Schedule 3 (Scenic Roads);Schedule 4 (Scenic Recreation Sites);Schedule 5 (Scenic Vantage Points); andSchedule 6 (National Trust Classified Landscapes).




The relevant landscape objectives under Schedule 1 (Ridge and Escarpment Areas) are:

To protect and enhance the visual, natural and cultural heritage values of ridge and escarpment landscapes;To maintain the natural skyline of ridge and escarpment areas and avoid obtrusive building silhouettes;To avoid the construction of any buildings within 10 metres of a ridge area, unless no alternative site isavailable on the land;To protect ridge and escarpment landscapes from visual intrusion resulting from inappropriate buildingsand works, and their siting, design or materials;To encourage siting, design and landscaping of buildings and works that is responsive to the landscapevalues of ridge and escarpment areas; andTo maintain vegetation as an important element of ridge and escarpment landscapes.

The proposal is considered to satisfy each of the above objectives of the SLO1 as the new skylift developmentshould not visually impact upon the ridge and escarpment landscape values attributed to the Arthurs Seat StatePark. Specifically, no buildings and works would be located within 10 metres of a ridge area, and the siting,design andmaterials associatedwith the proposed development is considered to be sympathetic to the surroundingarea.

The relevant landscape objectives under Schedule 3 (Scenic Roads) are:

To ensure that the scenic and recreational value of scenic routes throughout the Peninsula is notcompromised by the inappropriate siting and design of buildings; andTo maintain the asset of a varied network of scenic roads, featuring roadside vegetation and having regardto construction standards appropriate to the function of each road.

The design and visual presentation associated with the new development should not compromise the scenicand recreational values associated with the existing routes throughout the Arthurs Seat State Park.

The relevant landscape objectives under Schedule 4 (Scenic Recreation Sites) are:

To protect scenic recreation sites from visual intrusion resulting from the inappropriate siting or designof buildings and works;To encourage the siting, design and landscaping of buildings and works which is responsive to therecreational value and landscape environment of scenic recreation sites; andTo maintain vegetation as an important element in the value of scenic recreation sites.

The proposed buildings and works which form part of the new skylift development should not detract from thevalues associated with existing scenic recreation sites, namely the Arthurs Seat Summit Lookout which includesinformal recreation space at the southern end of the subject site.

The relevant landscape objectives under Schedule 5 (Scenic Vantage Points) are:

To protect scenic vantage points from visual intrusion resulting from the inappropriate siting or design ofbuildings and works; andTo encourage the siting, design and landscaping of buildings and works which is responsive to the landscapevalue of scenic vantage points.




As discussed previously, the proposed development should not visually intrude upon the Arthurs Seat Lookoutand the surrounding environs given the sympathetic design, siting and landscape works which form part of theapplication. It is acknowledged, however, that Pylon No. 11 would be sited within close proximity to the existinglookout area at the summit which would project approximately 20 metres above the existing natural groundlevel. The pylon height is required to achieve appropriate clearance over Arthurs Seat Road. It is acknowledgedthat the proposed height is much greater than that associated with the previous operation’s infrastructure,however given that the development is limited to a single pylon and will not be externally illuminated, it isconsidered to be acceptable in this instance.

The relevant landscape objectives under Schedule 6 (National Trust Classified Landscapes) are:

To protect and enhance the visual, natural and cultural heritage values of classified landscapes;To protect classified landscapes from visual intrusion resulting from the inappropriate siting, design ormaterials of buildings and works;To encourage siting, design and landscaping of buildings and works which is responsive to the landscapevalues of classified landscapes; andTo maintain vegetation as an important element of classified landscapes.

The National Trust (Victoria) has not formally objected to the proposal, but has provided some general commentswith respect to the proposed buildings and works and how they may respond to the identified landscape valuesattributed to the Arthurs Seat State Park.

One of the decision guidelines of the SLO requires that consideration be given to the need to remove, destroyor lop vegetation to create defendable space to reduce the risk of bushfire to life and property. This, along withthe decision guidelines of the ESO, lends weight to the vegetation management regime required at both theupper and lower stations to mitigate the bushfire risk to patrons and the facility.

Clause 43.01 (HO) of the Scheme aims:

To implement the State Planning Policy Framework and the Local Planning Policy Framework, includingthe Municipal Strategic Statement and local planning policies;To conserve and enhance heritage places of natural or cultural significance;To conserve and enhance those elements which contribute to the significance of heritage places;To ensure that development does not adversely affect the significance of heritage places; andTo conserve specifically identified heritage places by allowing a use that would otherwise be prohibitedif this will demonstrably assist with the conservation of the significance of the heritage place.

The subject land is partly affected by HO4 (Arthurs Seat Reserve and Tower) at the southern end of the site atthe summit. A planning permit is required under this overlay to demolish or structurally alter a building, todisplay signage and to remove, lop or destroy vegetation. It is noted that external paint controls and tree controlsare applicable to this area. Council officers acknowledge that the lookout tower was demolished in 2012,however, the heritage controls are still relevant in the consideration of this proposal with respect to the ArthursSeat Reserve, adjacent to the upper gondola station.

It is considered that the proposed development at the summit (namely comprising the upper station and the newcafé/restaurant) would promote a vibrant public recreation and open space area without compromising anyremnant heritage values.

Clause 44.01 (Erosion Management Overlay) aims:




To implement the State Planning Policy Framework and the Local Planning Policy Framework, includingthe Municipal Strategic Statement and local planning policies; andTo protect areas prone to erosion, landslip or other land degradation processes, by minimising landdisturbance and inappropriate development.

The subject land is partially affected by areas covered by the EMO1 and EMO2. A planning permit is requiredto construct and carry out works and also to remove, lop or destroy any vegetation.

As detailed in previous sections of this report, the areas within the subject land which have been identified asbeing prone to erosion, landslip or other land degradation processes should duly protected. Specifically, thereport states that “the pylon foundations will be engineered designed and founded at a depth below the likelyeffects of any ground movements that have currently been identified, subject to the ground conditions at eachpylon location.” The only area of particular concern identified is the slope between the 450 metre and 650metre mark on the summit and a small area at the 750 metre mark (based on the present activity). A number ofconditions on any permit issued for the proposal should require the final location of the pylons to be nominatedwith specific details of any risk mitigation measures required.

Additionally, the minimal amount of vegetation removal is proposed in areas within the subject land which hasbeen identified as being of future moderate landslide risk. Furthermore, the construction of the proposed gondolastations and the new restaurant associated with the use would occur in areas of low risk only and the requisiteengineering works would be undertaken in accordance with the recommendations set out under the LandslideHazard Assessment and Erosion Management Report, as necessary.

Clause 44.06 (Bushfire Management Overlay) aims:

To implement the State Planning Policy Framework and the Local Planning Policy Framework, includingthe Municipal Strategic Statement and local planning policies;To assist to strengthen community resilience to bushfire;To identify areas where the bushfire hazard requires specified bushfire protection measures for subdivisionand buildings and works to be implemented;To ensure that the location, design and construction of development considers the need to implementbushfire protection measures; andTo ensure development does not proceed unless the risk to life and property from bushfire can be reducedto an acceptable level.

The entire site is affected by the BMO. A planning permit is required to construct a building and to constructand carry out works associated with a leisure and recreation use.With respect to this application, the requirementsoutlined under Clause 52.47 (Bushfire Protection: Planning Requirements) have been met as detailed as a partof the Bushfire Management Statement (BMS) submitted to Council.

It is acknowledged that the use of the existing corridor cleared for the previous chairlift facility will minimisethe bushfire risk associated with the development however this area is not intended as defendable space boththe clearance and addition vegetation removal is required to ensure operational safety. It has been identifiedthat it is neither appropriate or practical to create defendable space for the gondola line. The submitted BMSstates that over 100 metre of clearance would be required to achieve this. In recognition of this, it is fundamentalto the application that an operational emergency management plan be supplied to (and endorsed by) theResponsible Authority as part of the permit. CFA, DEPI and Council’s Fire Officer have emphasised thisrequirement in their respective referral responses. It is typical that this type of document be finalised prior tothe commencement of the use, and would be conditioned accordingly on any permit issued.




With regard to the upper and lower stations all new buildings constructed as a part of the proposal must beundertaken in accordance with the Bushfire Attack Level (BAL) requirements under Clause 52.47 of the Scheme.This is supported by DEPI as the relevant fire authority (and the CFA) through conditions stipulated in thereferral responses received.

It is considered that the bushfire protection conditions stipulated by DEPI can be accommodated onsite includingvegetation management, access, static water supply and emergency management.

A detailed assessment of the associated bushfire risk is included in the consideration section of this report.

Subject to condition and ongoing vegetation management within the identified defendable space areas theproposal should not result in an increase to the risk to life and property from the likelihood of future bushfireoccurrences.

Particular Provisions

Clause 52.05 (Advertising Signs) of the Scheme aims:

To regulate the display of signs and associated structures;To provide for signs that are compatible with the amenity and visual appearance of an area, including theexisting or desired character;To ensure signs do not contribute to excessive visual clutter and visual disorder; andTo ensure that signs do not cause loss of amenity or adversely affect the natural or built environment orthe safety, appearance or efficiency of a road.

A planning permit is required to display a total of four signs (comprising of two floodlit business identificationsigns and two canopy sign at each gondola station). Given that the subject land is located within a PPRZ, anyadvertising signs would be considered under the Category 4 (Sensitive Areas) provisions under this Clause.The total advertisement area of each premises must not exceed 3 square metres.

The proposed advertising signage is considered to be relatively modest in terms of size and location, beinggenerally compatible with the amenity and landscape character of the area. Further to this, the proposed signageassociated with the two gondola stations should not adversely impact on the safety, appearance or efficiencyof Arthurs Seat Road. As such, the proposal is considered to satisfy the purpose of Clause 52.05 of the Scheme.

Clause 52.06 (Car Parking) of the Scheme aims:

To ensure that car parking is provided in accordance with the State Planning Policy Framework and LocalPlanning Policy Framework;To ensure the provision of an appropriate number of car parking spaces having regard to the demand likelyto be generated, the activities on the land and the nature of the locality;To support sustainable transport alternatives to the motor car;To promote the efficient use of car parking spaces through the consolidation of car parking facilities;To ensure that car parking does not adversely affect the amenity of the locality; andTo ensure that the design and location of car parking is of a high standard, creates a safe environment forusers and enables easy and efficient use.




Pursuant to Clause 52.06-5A (Number of Car Parking Spaces Required for Other Uses), the number of carparking spaces generated by this proposal is determined by the following:

“Where a use of land is not specified in Table 1 or where a car parking requirement is not specified for the usein another provision of the planning scheme or in a schedule to the Parking Overlay, before a new use commencesor the floor area or site area of an existing use is increased, car parking spaces must be provided to thesatisfaction of the Responsible Authority”.

Given that leisure and recreation as a ‘use’ does not generate a specific car parking rate with respect to thisapplication, any car parking to be provided in conjunction with the proposal must be to the satisfaction of theResponsible Authority. As previously indicated in this report, all buildings and works associated with the newcar parking areas for the proposal would be constructed on land outside of the nominated lease area (comprisingof the subject site) and under the responsibility of Parks Victoria.

A Parking Precinct Plan has been prepared and submitted as a part of this application, which considers thepotential car parking implications associated with the skylift proposal, namely in relation to supply and demand.The report has also factored in the likely demand associated with the proposed restaurant and the existingArthurs Seat lookout. Combined with the existing car parking areas available at the summit (including thoseat the Seawinds Gardens), the proposal would have access to a total of 278 spaces. A number of contingentstrategies are proposed by the Applicant in the likelihood of a future increase in car parking demand at boththe upper and lower level gondola stations.

Council’s Traffic Engineer has reviewed the submitted documentation and supports the proposal, based on thestrategies and recommendations outlined in the Parking PrecinctManagement Plan and the TrafficManagementPlan.

Clause 52.17 (Native Vegetation) of the Scheme aims to:

To ensure permitted clearing of native vegetation results in no net loss in the contribution made by nativevegetation to Victoria’s biodiversity. This is achieved through the following approach:

Avoid the removal of native vegetation that makes a significant contribution to Victoria’s biodiversity;andMinimise impacts on Victoria’s biodiversity from the removal of native vegetation.

Where native vegetation is permitted to be removed, ensure that an offset is provided in a manner thatmakes a contribution to Victoria’s biodiversity that is equivalent to the contribution made by the nativevegetation to be removed;To manage native vegetation to minimise land and water degradation; andTo manage native vegetation near buildings to reduce the threat to life and property from bushfire.

A planning permit is required to remove, destroy or lop native vegetation. This application seeks the removalof a total of 89 trees in conjunction with the proposed development, all of which are of indigenous or nativeorigin with the exception of four exotic specimens.




The proposed removal of native vegetation as a result of the construction of the buildings and works associatedwith the new facility is unavoidable, but also necessary for safety reasons and the provision of defendable spacefor bushfire protection reasons. A significant outcome of the proposal includes the use of the existing north/southcorridor (comprising of approximately 1.2 kilometres of cleared land) which was utilised by the previouschairlift facility. Consequently, the extent of native vegetation removal required is minimised. It is importantto note that only the extent of vegetation removed to occur within the nominated lease area of the subject landforms part of the consideration of this application.

As previously detailed in this report, the proposed clearing of existing vegetation is required to result in no netloss in the contribution made by native vegetation to Victoria’s biodiversity. The Applicant has endeavored tominimise the extent of vegetation removal required andwould be required (in accordancewith DEPI’s conditionalsupport) to provide offset gains in a suitable location within the Port Phillip and Westernport CatchmentAuthority or the Mornington Peninsula Shire. This would be required as a condition of any permit issued forthe proposal.

Clause 52.34 (Bicycle Facilities) aims:

To encourage cycling as a mode of transport; andTo provide secure, accessible and convenient bicycle parking spaces and associated shower and changefacilities.

Pursuant to Clause 52.34-1 of the Scheme, a new use must not commence or the floor area of an existing usemust not be increased until the required bicycle facilities and associated signage has been provided on the land.Given that the use of land for ‘leisure and recreation’ is not specified under this section of the Scheme, theamount of bicycle parking spaces to be provided for the new development is at the discretion of the ResponsibleAuthority.

A total of 30 bicycle parking spaces are proposed to be available in conjunction with the proposed use, with10 spaces to be provided at the lower station and 20 adjacent to the upper station. The Applicant has alsoindicated that there should be additional scope to provide for a greater number of bicycle spaces if future demanddictates.

Clause 52.47-8 (Bushfire Protection: Planning Requirements) aims to:

To ensure that the defendable space to be provided and the construction of buildings are appropriate tothe number, age and mobility of anticipated occupants.

This objective only applies to an application to construct or extend a building in association with the use ofland for (amongst other things) ‘leisure and recreation’.

A bushfire risk assessment has been submitted as a part of the application, in accordance with Standard BF8.1under this section of the Scheme. The proposed buildings to be constructed on the subject land would beconstructed to a Bushfire Attack Level of 12.5, which satisfies the minimum requirements specified by theDEPI and the CFA.

Accordingly, the proposal is considered to satisfy the relevant planning scheme requirements in the assessmentof bushfire protection.




CONSIDERATION

As noted in the Purpose, the key issues affecting this application are considered to be:

Consistency with the Mornington Peninsula Shire Planning Scheme;Consideration of land use, including the appropriateness of night-time operations;Is the proposed built form considered to be appropriate;Will the proposal result in an unreasonable impact on the amenity of the area;The affect of the use and development on the landscape and environmental values of the site;Consideration of Bushfire Risk; andWhether the location of the top station on the summit of Arthurs Seat is appropriate?

Each of above issues is considered below.

Compliance with theMornington Peninsula Planning Scheme andConsideration of LandUse (Includingthe Appropriateness of Night Time Operations)

The history of this site is unique, in that the land has historically been used for a chairlift operation and thisapplication seeks to replace the previous operation. The original chair lift operated between 1960 and 2003,and comprised an open air structure that connected the existing timber kiosk at the lower station with the ArthursSeat summit, on the lower (north) side of Arthurs Seat Road. It is acknowledged that although the proposalbeing considered generally follows a similar alignment as the previous operation, this application seeks tosubstantially increase the scale and intensity of the operation. This application proposes a much more modernfacility comprising enclosed gondola-style cabins between the two stations, including a re-siting of the upperstation to be south of Arthurs Seat Road, on the summit.

As discussed in the previous section of this report, the proposed development and use of the land for theskylift/gondola facility is considered to highly accord with all relevant sections of the Scheme, with particularreference to the State and Local Planning Policy Framework. The proposal also satisfies the key purposesidentified with the PPRZ, which includes the ability to allow for commercial uses on public land (whereappropriate). It is also considered that the proposal is consistent with the preferred future use of the land underthe Arthurs Seat State Park Management Plan (2003) prepared by Parks Victoria.

The proposal, if approved, would provide the Mornington Peninsula with a new tourist attraction of local,regional and state significance. It is anticipated that the project would generate approximately 159,000 visitorsper year (the previous chairlift facility attracted around 100,000 visitors a year). In addition, the proposal islikely to result in approximately 20 equivalent full-time positions with flow on benefits to local businesses andtourist operators. Given the combination of the above factors, the proposal would result in a net communitybenefit at a local, regional and state level.




Notwithstanding the above, the application does seek to develop a substantially larger facility than that previouslyoperating from the site. While the use is considered to be generally consistent with the relevant State and localplanning policy, how the facility proposes to operate must be considered. The permit Applicant submitted anOperational Statement (OS) as part of the application. It details among other things operating hours, staffinglevels, waste management and OH&S. The OS states that the facility is intended to operate daylight/twilighthours falling between 8:00 a.m. and 12 midnight. Given that the site abuts residential areas at both the upperand lower station, a commercial use operating until midnight on any day may not be appropriate. Therefore acondition will restrict the use to no later than 10:00 p.m. Sunday to Thursday, with late night operations permittedon Fridays and Saturdays. This is considered to strike a reasonable balance having regard for the interface withresidential land and the practicalities of operating this commercial facility.

While the submitted OS does provide some details to the overall operation of the site, an updated OperationalManagement Plan (OMP) should be required as a condition of any permit that may issue. The revised OMPshould include (amongst other things) the approved operating hours, emergency procedures, location of safetysignage and delivery times. The permit holder would be responsible for ensuring that the facility was operatedin accordance with these requirements.

The proposal includes a kiosk at the lower station, and cafe at the upper station. These facilities are consideredto be ancillary to the skylift facility (meaning that they would not be permitted to operate independently of theskylift). The café proposes to include 100 seats for patrons (60 indoors and 40 outdoors). The scale of the caféis considered to be reasonable in association with a regional tourist facility of this nature, though it is notedthat several objectors have raised issue with the need for such a facility, since it adds to the overall buildingfootprint on the summit. This is a valid concern, since its inclusion clearly does add to the size of the building.However, if the principle of placing the upper station for the gondalas on the summit is accepted, then thissiting necessarily alters the way in which this space can and will be used by visitors. Given the already limitedsize of the land at the summit, removing the café component is unlikely to bring about significant benefits interms of additional open space around the building. The views afforded from the upper station would make thisan attractive place for visitors to stop for food and drink, and in this regard, the additional building bulk associatedwith the café is considered reasonable.

Notwithstanding, wastewater disposal remains an inherent issue, since the capacity of the café has potential togenerate significant volumes of waste water. As noted previously, the Applicants have presented three optionsfor waste water treatment.Were Council to contemplate on site treatment/disposal options, it is likely that hoursof operation for the café component would need to be restricted via permit conditions as a means of limitingpotential wastewater volumes (indeed the Applicant’s report on wastewater management references this). Giventhat this report is recommending that the upper station should be required to connect to the reticulated sewernetwork, issues of wastewater capacity become less relevant.

Noting that the proposed facility is estimated to attract 159,000 visitors annually, consideration must be givento whether the use can be supported by the surrounding infrastructure. Again, it is noted that the car park at thelower station does not form part of this application, however consideration is given to the availability of parkingwithin the Arthurs Seat State Park Precinct. A Precinct Parking Management Plan was submitted as part of theplanning application supporting documentation, and provides an overview of the existing and possible futureparking opportunities in and immediately surrounding the State Park. The study was based on the existingparking data when the previous facility was operational, as well as site inspections and stakeholder consultation.Given that this is a unique proposal it is considered reasonable to consider the previous traffic study data.Council’s Traffic Engineer has reviewed the submitted documentation and is supportive of the approach thathas been taken.




The report identifies opportunities to provide sufficient parking within the Arthurs Seat Park to support the use.There are a number of mitigation measures that Parks Victoria can implement to meet both initial parkingdemand and future visitation forecasts. There are opportunities to connect the skylift facility with existingwalking tracks within the State Park. To address patron safety, pedestrian islands are proposed within bothArthurs Seat Road and Purves Road, next to the upper station site. These proposed treatments within both roadsreflect the recommendations of Parks Victoria’s 2004 Landscape Concept Plan. Both VicRoads and Council’sDevelopment Engineers raise no objection, and consent to the works subject to conditions.

Design, Built Form and Siting Considerations

The siting, design and built form associated with the proposed development warrants particular consideration,given the significant landscape and environmental values associated with the area. It is acknowledged that manypeople value the existing, treed nature of the area, with particular reference to the summit. Approval of thisdevelopment would necessarily see significant modifications to the current landscape setting, with the grassedsummit being replaced by a large development.

As a part of the planning assessment process, this application has been referred to a number of internal andexternal authorities, including Council’s Strategic Planning Department (Heritage Planner) and the NationalTrust. The proposed development has also undergone substantial review by the Office of the VictorianGovernment Architect.

Council’s Heritage Planner has raised no concerns regarding the proposal, noting that since the demolition ofthe Lookout Tower in 2012, “there is no precedent or cue for the new design. What is proposed both at topand bottom of the chairlift, is appropriately contemporary in style, suitable for the use and able to make apositive contribution to the setting.”

The formal response to the proposal offered by the National Trust has only given consideration to the likelyimpact on the natural heritage features associated with the site. However, is has been acknowledged that theremoval and lopping of existing vegetation will be ultimately necessary for safety reasons and bushfiremanagement purposes. The National Trust has offered support to the nominated off-site location required inorder achieve the minimum offset requirements for the removal of native vegetation. It is important to note,however, that no specific comments were provided with respect to any potential impact on the scenic landscapevalues identified under the SLO6 (National Trust Classified Landscapes) in this instance. Overall, no objectionwas offered in response to the proposed development.

The Office of the Victorian Government Architect has also offered the following comments with respect to thedesign and built form associated with the proposal, being:

“In summary, we support the key design moves for the project as presented, and believe the developmentbuildings to the lower and upper lift stations demonstrate an appropriate degree of design consideration withregard to siting (relative to topography/cut and fill), patterns of circulation within both the building and thelarger site, and considered window locations that respond to both outlook and inlook.”




The siting of the upper station on the south side of Arthurs Seat Road will inevitably result in a significantchange to the landscape at the summit of Arthurs Seat. As previously noted, the previous upper station was onthe lower side of Arthurs Seat Road, adjacent to the lookout. The permit Applicant has advised that the alternativesiting was chosen for the following reasons:

The site is flatter, contains less vegetation, and will require less cutting and filling than the original location;It is more central to the many summit car parks;It offers a ride closer to the top of Arthurs Seat; andIt provides a fully accessible facility.

Given the scale of the proposed development, it is not considered appropriate to locate the building on the lowerside of Arthurs Seat Road as per the original chairlift operation. Siting the building in this manner would resultin additional earthworks (both cut and fill), with potentially greater environmental and landscape impacts thanthe current layout. Further to this, siting the building on the lower side of the road would result in significantalterations to the agreed defendable space requirements. Presently, the proposed siting is able to benefit fromthe hardstand areas of car park and road pavement between the slope face and the building. Additionally, it issurrounded to the rear bymanaged land (residential and Telstra), further reducing defendable space requirements.To site the development on the lower side of Arthurs Seat Road would require substantial alterations to thedefendable space requirements given the gradient of the slope at this point. This would result in a significantincrease in the amount of vegetation required to be removed outside of the lease area. It is therefore consideredthat the proposed siting is more appropriate within the context of the surrounding landscape. The universalaccessibility offered by the proposed siting versus the lower scenario also adds weight to the assessment.

Conditional landscaping works around both stations, including the nature reserve on the opposite side of ArthursSeat Road at the lower station, will (over time) assist in integrating the buildings within their respectivelandscapes. Given the environmental sensitivity of the area, any plantings associated with the facility shouldbe indigenous to the locality.

The proposal is considered to appropriately respond to the context of the subject site, by minimising the visualimpact of the new buildings, whilst addressing the environmental risks associatedwith the proposed development.In particular, each of the proposed gondola stations has been designed to respect the existing landscape throughthe use of contemporary building materials. It is considered that any building bulk and mass concerns regardingthe proposed buildings should be further minimised through the varied building footprint on nominated areasof construction. The visual impact attributed to the scale and height of the proposed lower gondola station atthe northern end of the site would be significantly reduced by undertaking earthworks (up to 7.11 metres), soas to create a visually appealing entrance for the Arthurs Seat State Park. The design principles adopted by theArchitects also include many Environmentally Sustainable Development (ESD) initiatives, including the useand maximisation of passive solar access, natural cross ventilation in buildings, solar panels, use of waterefficient fittings and on-site storm-water collection.

It is recognised that the size of each building is largely a function of the operational requirements to accommodatethe enclosed style gondalas. On balance, the built form associated with the proposal is considered to representan appropriate response to the environmental and landscape characteristics of the site.




Off-Site Amenity Impacts

A number of potential off-site amenity impacts have been identified with the proposal, namely in relation tonoise, lighting, signage and the evening hours of operation.

The permit Applicant is seeking planning permission to operate between 7:00 a.m. and midnight seven days aweek. ANoise Assessment report using predictive noise modeling has been submitted as part of the application,and details recommendations for appropriate acoustic treatment at the upper and lower stations. The proposalhas been assessed against the relevant EPA policy requirements (in this case, State Environment ProtectionPolicy No N-1 [SEPP N-1]). The prescribed maximum noise levels under SEPP N-1 vary between day timeand night time, with the lower level logically being applicable at night time period.

Using the most stringent levels under the modeled scenario (i.e. applying night time noise limits and assuminggondala doors are open rather than closed), the maximum allowable noise levels at surrounding residentialproperties equate to 45 dBA for the lower station, and 47 dBA at the upper station. The predicted noise levelsat the nearest sensitive receptors along the gondala route fall below the levels prescribed by SEPPN-1, providingreasonable assurance that the facility is unlikely to represent a nuisance to surrounding residents as a result ofnoise. The report does however recommend that suitable acoustic treatment be incorporated into the lowerstation’s mechanical plant room to attenuate this noise source. A condition on any permit issued would addressthis matter.

The noise report is based on predictive modeling; whilst it is acknowledged that this is an accepted and typicalform of assessment for such matters, it is nevertheless considered prudent to require as part of any permit thatmay issue that within three months of the use commencing, a further acoustic report be submitted to demonstratethat the ‘as constructed’ operational noise levels from the facility do not exceed the relevant SEPPN-1 mandatedlevels. Until this has been suitably demonstrated, it is recommended that the proposed hours of operation(between 8:00 a.m. and midnight) be reduced. As noted previously, a balanced outcome would be to limittrading until 10:00 p.m. on Sundays to Thursdays, whilst still allowing the later finishing time on Fridays andSaturdays.

Lighting associated with the facility is also an important consideration to ensure that the amenity of nearbyresidential properties is not unreasonably affected. The submitted plans omit details of the location and potentiallight spillage associated with any proposed light poles within or adjacent to any of the new buildings associatedwith the gondola stations. Further to this, the Applicant has not provided specific information regarding thetype of illumination associated with the above canopy signs. It is considered that details regarding the locationand type of lighting to be provided in association with the proposal should be required under Condition 1 ofany permit issued. Furthermore, it is considered appropriate to require that all illuminated signage to be turnedoff outside of the approved operating hours, and that all lighting be baffled to the satisfaction of the ResponsibleAuthority to prevent an unreasonable adverse impact on surrounding properties. Such a condition is typical formost commercial type developments.

In regard to the appropriateness of the type of signage proposed, Council officers consider that the four businessidentification signs to be displayed are appropriate in terms of their size, scale and location on the host buildings.The proposed signage is also highly consistent with the relevant policies under Clause 22.10 (Advertising Signs)and objectives under Clause 52.05 (Advertising Signs) of the Scheme where advertising signs are proposed onsensitive land.

On balance, it is considered that any potential off-site amenity impacts generated by the proposal could besatisfactorily addressed through the inclusion of suitable permit conditions.




The Effect of the Use and Development on the Environmental Values of the Site

Given that the subject site is located within the Arthurs Seat State Park, and that native vegetation within theState Park is recognised as being an integral landscape feature, the environmental impacts associated with theproposed vegetation removal is a key consideration in the assessment of the application. The planning policyassessment outlined previously in this report provides a comprehensive assessment of the proposed vegetationremoval against the relevant policies and provisions, and is not repeated here. It is self-evident that approvalof this proposal represents a significant modification to the existing landscape by virtue of the clearing requiredfor the buildings themselves, but also for the creation of defendable space around those buildings. The permitApplicant has advised that the vegetation required to be removed has been limited to the minimum extentpossible to achieve both defendable space requirements, and to ensure ongoing safety of the gondola line (i.e.to ensure that no trees/branches can potentially fall across the line). To this end, the Applicant has advised thatalong the corridor, the intent is to retain as many trees as is practicable through pruning or lopping (as opposedto complete removal). The submitted plans illustrate the trees proposed to be removed along the gondola corridor.A condition of the permit will require amended plans detailing the trees to be pruned and/or lopped to maintainthe safety of the line.

As discussed above in the policy assessment, DEPI have stipulated that a condition of any permit that mayissue must require that the vegetation removed be appropriately offset within the Port Philip Catchment Area.

Further to this, the Applicant will be required to submit a landscape plan detailing the proposed replantingwithin the upper and lower station sites, to integrate the development within the surroundings.

The vegetation to be retained will be protected in accordance with the recommendations of the Arboriculturalreport. A condition of any permit will require that the recommendations of the report are implemented to ensurethe health and stability of the trees to be protected throughout the construction phase of the development.

In addition to the above, given the scale of the development and environmental sensitivity of the surroundingarea, it is considered necessary to require that a construction environmental management plan be submittedensuring that surrounding vegetation is not impacted through the construction phase of the development.

Consideration of Bushfire Risk

Given the location and history of the site, and the topography of the land, consideration of bushfire risk alsoforms a key component of this assessment. As previously outlined, a Bushfire Management Statement (BMS)and draft EmergencyManagement Statement (EMS) was included with the applicationmaterial. The applicationwas referred to DEPI under Section 55 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, as the relevant Fire Authorityin this instance.




The below diagrams provided by the permit Applicant illustrate the defendable space for both the upper andlower stations. The defendable space has been calculated based on the BMO ‘Forest’ model. This calculationhas been accepted by DEPI as the responsible Fire Authority for this site.

Submitted Plan Detailing Defendable Space Requirements for the Lower Station




Submitted Plan Detailing the Defendable Space for the Upper Station

The balance between vegetation removal (linked to the need to provide defendable space and provide foroperation safety along the gondola corridor) and the desire to limit the impact on environmental and landscapefeatures is understandably difficult; nevertheless, this element of the proposal is seen to be one of the keyconsiderations in the assessment of the application.

The decision guidelines of the ESO and SLOs affecting the site recognise the need to allow for the creation ofdefendable space to protect life and property from fire risk. Therefore while significant vegetation is requiredto be removed, the relevant policies protecting the vegetation require Council to consider the need to removethe vegetation for the purpose of bushfire protection. In order to respond to the relevant policy requirementsof the BMO and the environmental controls, the permit Applicant (in consultation with DEPI and CFA) hassought to reduce the extent of vegetation removal through reducing the defendable space south west of theupper station to 65 metres (previously 65 metre inner zone and 25 metre outer zone). This eliminated the needfor vegetation management west of Purves Road and South of Arthurs Seat Road. This approach has beenassessed and accepted by DEPI, and reflected in the conditions stipulated.




The defendable space shown on the above plans incorporates land within the lease area, within Parks Victoriamanaged land, as well as land managed byMPSC. Given the proposed use, and the priority that planning policyplaces on bushfire protection outcomes, measures to ensure ongoing vegetation management for all of the landin the defendable space areas must be considered. As the relevant Fire Authority in this instance, DEPI haverequired (as a condition of any permit that may issue) that a Vegetation Management Plan be submitted toaddress this matter and ensure that the defendable space is maintained to the nominated standards in the longterm. The proponents (within the nominated lease area) Parks Victoria and MPSC will each be responsible forensuring that the vegetation located within the defendable space is managed to agreed standards within theirrespective area of responsibility. Councils Municipal Fire Officer has supported this approach.

The vegetation management plan must be prepared to the satisfaction of DEPI and approved as part of theplanning permit prior to the commencement of work. The comments provided by Council’s Municipal FirePrevention Officer highlight Council’s commitment to managing the land in the long term.

While it is acknowledged that the submitted Emergency Management Plan was in a draft format it must bestated that there are clear deficiencies in the information provided. This was emphasised in the commentsprovided by Councils Municipal Fire Prevention Officer who highlighted the following information wasdeficient:

Exact locations of signage, access roads, gates and locks;Does not appropriately reference the bushfire management statement and defendable space plan;Evacuation procedures are impractical and not clear; andEvacuation procedures should not be referencingNeighbourhood Safer Places as a logical off-site shelteringplace.

As discussed earlier in this report, the emergency management plan is considered to be a critical component inensuring operational safety. The submitted BMS advises that given that the gondolas and associated infrastructurecannot be designed, sited or constructed to provide safe shelter in the event of fire, patron safety will need tobe achieved through implementing approved operating procedure and a bushfire emergency management plan.Conditions of any permit will require that an operation management plan and emergency management plan besubmitted prior to the commencement of the use. The plans will be required to detail evacuation measures andtimings, as recommended in the BMS. These requirements reflect the referral comments received from bothDEPI and CFA, requiring that an emergency management plan be required via permit conditions. This planwould need to be submitted to Council for endorsement prior to the commencement of use. Prior to endorsement,this plan would be referred to CFA and DEPI to ensure each authority is satisfied with the content of thedocument.

Further, DEPI has stipulated through permit conditions that the facility cannot operate on Code Red days ordays with a fire danger index greater than or equal to 100 for the relevant fire district. This will mean that theentire facility will be closed, including the ancillary café and gallery components.

It is considered that subject to mandatory ongoing vegetation management within the site and surroundingdefendable space, the implementation of an approved emergency management plan, along with the provisionof sufficient static water and emergency access, that the proposed use and development accords with the relevantfire protection standards and policies.




CONSIDERATION OF OBJECTIONS

The key grounds of objection have been noted below, with Council’s response noted in italics beneath eachpoint of objection.

1. Inconsistent with the Zoning and Overlay Controls of the Scheme

As detailed in the previous sections of this report, the proposed development and use is considered to be highlyconsistent with the relevant provisions of the Mornington Peninsula Planning Scheme. The Applicant hassubmitted an extensive Planning Report in support of this application which satisfactorily addresses all of theapplicable zoning provisions, overlay controls and particular provisions of the Scheme. Of particular importance,the proposal does not conflict with any specific state or local planning policies which form part of the PlanningScheme.

2. Loss of Vegetation

Consideration of the proposed vegetation removal associated with the new skylift development (including thepruning and maintenance of existing trees) has been discussed at length in previous sections of this report.Further to this, it is imperative to note that the extent of vegetation removal proposed would represent theminimum amount necessary to enable to the construction of the new facilities and to effectively manage thebushfire risk associated with subject land. Council officers also acknowledge that the proposal would alsoinclude the retention of two existing large Eucalyptus trees (comprising of a Spotted Gum and a Lemon-ScentedGum) located adjacent to Arthurs Seat Road adjacent to the lower station.

3. Use of Public Parkland for Commercial Development

Concern has been raised by many objectors regarding the use of public land for the purpose of a large,commercial development. The subject land is acknowledged as being Crown land and is managed by ParksVictoria on behalf of the State Government. Council officers do acknowledge, however, that the purpose of thePublic Park and Recreation Zone does not preclude commercial development on public land and, further, doesencourage the provision of commercial uses, where appropriate. Further to this, the proposed developmentand use is considered to satisfy the three decision guidelines for this zone outlined under Clause 36.02-2 of theScheme.

A number of objections have also highlighted concerns regarding the proposed offset of public land to beprovided by Council (as part of a land transfer yet to be approved) in lieu of the loss of public land as a resultof the area of existing vegetation to be cleared for bushfire management purposes. However, Council officersconsider that this ground of objection is not relevant in terms of the planning assessment of the application.The proposed vegetation removal generates the need for a particular offset amount, and that amount would beincorporated into any planning permit, as a condition to be satisfied prior to commencement. There are numerousways in which the offset may be achieved. The Applicant has highlighted one potential option, however this isnot the sole means of achieving the offset amount. If that option did not eventuate, there would be other avenuesavailable for the offset amount to be achieved.




4. The Hours of Operation (8:00 a.m. to Midnight)

Significant concern has been raised by a number of objectors with regard the proposed hours of operationassociated with the new skylift and associated facilities, many of whom occupy and own properties locatedwithin close proximity to the two gondola stations. The nominated hours of use for the proposal, being from8:00 a.m. to midnight, have generated many objections due to the potential amenity impacts. These includenoise (as a result of the mechanical operation of the new gondola facility) and increased vehicle movementsand lighting associated with the proposed development.

Council officers consider that it is reasonable to limit the hours of operation, at least in the initial period ofoperations, in order to establish the amenity impacts, with particular regard to ground trothing of the acousticmodeling.

5. Additional Traffic Movement and Road Safety Concerns

As detailed in the previous section of this report, the additional amount of vehicle movements likely to begenerated by the proposal has been addressed to the satisfaction of VicRoads and Council’s engineeringdepartments. It is noted that as a part of the conditional consent offered by VicRoads, a number of permitconditions are required which include the provision of a Traffic Impact Assessment Report prior to thecommencement of any approved development.

Many of the objections received from residents within the local area have raised concerns regarding the likelyincrease in traffic movements associated with the proposal, with associated safety concerns for pedestriansand cyclists. Council’s Traffic Engineers have reviewed the application and associated documentation andhave raised no objection to the proposal, subject to the inclusion of a number of permit conditions relating totraffic treatments, signage and car parking arrangements. It has been conceded, however, that any buildingsand works associated with the proposed car parking areas would be located on land outside of Council’sjurisdiction. Therefore, Council consent with respect to any likely implications associated with the proposalcan only be given in principle regarding this application.

6. Impact on Existing Landscape Character

The relevant external and internal referral authorities have offered various levels of support to the proposal,with particular reference to the potential impact of the proposal on the existing landscape character associatedwith the Arthurs Seat State Park. This includes the Office of the Victorian Government Architect which hasreviewed three stages during the design process and, as a result, has offered a high level of support for thecurrent proposal. Of particular note is the fact that this authority has acknowledged that the design of theproposal is appropriate in terms of its location, siting and design, within the context of the overall site.

Further to this, the National Trust has not objected to the proposal which is important given that the land isaffected by the SLO6 which identifies the subject site as a National Trust Classified Landscape. Whilst Councilofficers acknowledge that the proposal will result in a significant alteration to the existing landscape characterassociated with Arthurs Seat, the overall response to the existing features of the area is considered to be highlyappropriate given that it would revitalise a popular destination on the Peninsula.




7. Environmental Impact of the Use (Landslip, Drainage etc.)

As previously discussed, the Applicant has provided a number of supplementary documents including a LandslideHazard Assessment and Erosion Management Report which indicates that the location of the proposed workswould be undertaken in areas identified as being of low to moderate risk. Where the construction of the lowerand upper stations is to take place, the respective areas are identified as being of low risk for future possiblelandslide. It is also noted that the proposed earthworks required in association with the proposed lower station(where a maximum site cut of 7.11 metres is proposed) would be battered and provided with a concrete ‘crib’structural wall. Council’s Development Engineers have reviewed the submitted report and have not raised anyconcerns with respect to its main findings, however, have recommended the inclusion of a number of conditionson any permit issued.

Council’s Environmental Health Department initially objected to the proposal, however, has subsequentlyreceived additional information from the Applicant (Upper Station Waste and Water Service Brief, May 2014)which recommends a number of options for the treatment of wastewater. The most viable (and preferred) optionconsidered by Council is that the upper station area be connected to reticulated sewerage, at the expense ofthe owner/developer. Such a requirement could be adequately addressed through the inclusion of a suitablecondition on any permit issued.

8. Bushfire Risks

As detailed earlier in this report, the BMO is applicable to the entire site. The Applicant has provided Councilwith supporting documentation, including a Bushfire Management Statement and a Bushfire Emergency Plan(Draft), which has been reviewed by Council’s Municipal Fire Prevention Officer with no major concernsraised. Whilst it is acknowledged that DEPI is the responsible fire authority for the subject land, the CFA hasalso offered comments and recommended a number of permit conditions in terms of fire prevention and bushfiremanagement risk.

Council officers do recommend, however, that a condition of any permit issued for the proposal should requirethat a finalised version of the Bushfire Emergency Plan be endorsed by the Responsible Authority to form partof any approval issued, and that the use not be permitted to commence until such document has been supplied,reviewed by the relevant referral authorities and subsequently endorsed to form part of the permit. .

OFFICER DIRECT OR INDIRECT INTEREST

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




CONCLUSION

The above assessment has considered the relevant provisions of the Planning Scheme, including the decisionguidelines found at Clause 65, and concludes that it is appropriate to approve this application. It is acknowledgedthat themodification to the current landscape setting as a result of the new buildings and the associated defendablespace requirements will alter the way in which the space is used by both local residents and visitors to the StatePark, particularly at the summit. The views of those who have raised significant concern with the proposal(particularly in relation to vegetation removal and siting the upper station at the summit) are understood andappreciated. However, the notion of a commercial use occupying public land is not unique. Although the wayin which the public will interact with this space will change, the proposal nevertheless represents an opportunityfor other areas of the State Park to be utilised for similar recreational purposes. Vegetation managementrequirements for bushfire controls will see land on the lower side of Arthurs Seat Road at the summit (whichis presently overgrown and with limited public access) managed to a higher level, making it an open grasslandsetting.

The proposal satisfactorily meets the requirements of the Planning Scheme as outlined in this report includingthe State and Local Planning Policies and the requirements of the Zone and Overlays. The assessment includesinput from relevant referral authorities, each of whom have provided conditional consent to the application.The proposal represents a tourism facility of local, regional and State significance, and subject to appropriateconditions, the proposal is supported.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council, being a Responsible Authority under theMornington Peninsula Planning Scheme and thePlanningand Environment Act 1987, having considered all matters in respect of Planning Applications P13/1992 resolvesto issue a Notice of Decision to grant a planning permit subject to the following conditions:

Amended Plans

Before the use and development starts, amended plans to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authoritymust be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the plans will beendorsed and will then form part of the permit. The plans must be to scale with dimensions and threecopies must be provided. The plans must show:

1.

The location and details of all lighting provided in conjunction with the proposed lower and uppergondola stations.

A.

Any earthworks (cut or fill) associated with the construction of the proposed development inconjunction with the upper gondola station.

B.

The recommended noise attenuation treatment set out under Section 6 of the Arthurs Seat GondolaNoise Assessment (Version 0, 15 November, 2013) incorporated to the satisfaction of theResponsible Authority.

C.

Demonstrate compliance with Department of Environment and Primary Industries Conditions35-59.

D.

Demonstrate compliance with VicRoads Conditions 63-68.E.




Details of the proposed pedestrian crossing within Purves Road.F.

Provision of an amended Tree Removal Plan for the upper station showing the retention of TreeNo. 59 and No. 64.

G.

Provision of a Gondola Corridor Plan, showing (but not limited to):H.

The location and full details of each pylon;i.

The location and details of any proposed underground services and/or infrastructure;ii.

A minimum 6.4 metre height clearance between the base of the gondolas and the roadpavement at any point where Arthurs Seat Road is traversed; and

iii.

All existing trees within the corridor, and nominating whether each tree is to be retained,removed, or lopped and/or pruned.

iv.

All proposed water tanks at both the lower and upper levels nominated to be of low-reflectivityand of muted colours/tones.

I.

A landscape plan prepared by a suitably qualified person/form generally in accordance with thesubmitted landscape concept plan but amended to include the following:

J.

A planting schedule of all proposed trees, shrubs and ground covers, including botanicalnames, common names, pot sizes, sizes at maturity and quantities of each. All planting mustbe indigenous to the locality;

i.

The provision of a minimum 1.5 metre high timber fence adjacent to the western perimeterof the proposed retaining wall associated with the lower gondola station;

ii.

Details of the landscaping treatment directly adjacent to the front (west) façade of the proposedupper station;

iii.

A fence between the front (western) façade of the upper station and Arthurs Seat Road;iv.

The provision of planting within the road reserve adjacent to the rear (west) boundary of theresidential properties located directly opposite the lower station and associated car parkingarea. Any existing pedestrian or vehicular access points along this section of Arthurs SeatRoad are to be clearly shown on this plan;

v.

Demonstrating compliance with the minimum defendable space requirements of Conditions44-45; and

vi.

Anymodifications to accord with the approved landscape plan required by DEPI, as requiredunder Condition 46 of this permit.

vii.

The layout and use of the land, the size and type of the proposed works, including the materials ofconstruction, on the endorsed plans must not be altered or modified without the written consent of theResponsible Authority.

2.




Use

The use must not commence until the development of the land as detailed on the endorsed plans iscompleted to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

3.

Prior to the commencement of works a Construction Management Plan (CMP) prepared by a suitablyqualified person to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved bythe Responsible Authority. When approved the plan will be endorsed and will then form part of thepermit. The plan must be to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and must show and/or providefor the following:

4.

Details of the staging of all buildings and works.A.

Hours during which construction activity will take place.B.

The location of any temporary cabins and site sheds.C.

The location and storage of machinery on the site.D.

Security fencing and site access details.E.

A Traffic Management Plan which ensures that no traffic hazards are created in or around the site(upper and lower stations, and the corridor) and which must include the following details:

F.

The movement of construction vehicles to and from the site;i.

Details of the delivery and unloading points and expected frequency; andii.

The location for parking of contractors’ vehicles, which must be contained within the land.iii.

The location of the building refuse points and methods for ensuring the containment of wastewithin the land during construction.

G.

Methods to prevent discharge of construction materials and sediment entering into the existingunderground drainage system.

H.

Arrangements to ensure that no debris is deposited on any road while vehicles are travelling toand from the site, and details of the method and frequency of clean up procedures including facilitiesfor vehicle washing.

I.

The nomination of and contact details of a dedicated liaison officer for contact by the ResponsibleAuthority in the event of relevant queries or problems experienced.

J.

An outline of any necessary requests to occupy public footpaths or roads and anticipated disruptionsto local services.

K.

The measures to minimise noise/dust and other amenity impacts from mechanical equipment anddemolition/construction activities.

L.




The erection of a sign on the site prior to any work commencing which is clearly visible from theadjacent road reserves stating that unauthorised entry to the site is not permitted and showing thename of the builder or another person responsible for the site and a telephone number for contactoutside working hours. The signs may only be removed on satisfactory completion of the works.

M.

Prior to the commencement of use authorised by this permit, an ‘Operational and Management Manual’(OMM) must be prepared and submitted to the Responsible Authority for approval. When approved theOMMwill be endorsed and form part of this permit. The premises must be operated and managed at alltimes to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority in accordance with the endorsed OMM. TheOMMmust include (but is not limited to) the following:

5.

The contact details of the nominated person(s) responsible for the day to day management andcontrol of the facility.

A.

A complaint handling process to effectively manage any complaints received from neighbours.Details of a Complaints Register to be kept at the premises that must include details of the complaintreceived, any action taken and the response provided to the complainant. This Complaints Registershall be shall be maintained by the permit holder and available for inspection by the ResponsibleAuthority at all times.

B.

Details of delivery times which must not occur prior to 7:00 a.m. or after 7:00 p.m. on any day.C.

Details of hours of operation, as specified by this permit.D.

Documented emergency procedures in the event of any systems failure, as well as measures forsafe passenger and staff evacuation should it be required.

E.

Frequency and method of inspection of equipment, including erosion management inspection.F.

Location of safety signage.G.

Prior to the commencement of the approved use, a detailed Waste Management Plan (WMP) preparedby a suitably qualified person to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to andapproved by the Responsible Authority. When approved the plan will be endorsed and will then formpart of the permit. The plan must be to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and must showand/or provide for the following:

6.

The storage and collection of waste from the approved use.A.

The storage of other refuse and solid wastes in bins or receptacles within suitably screened andaccessible areas to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

B.

Designation of methods of waste collection, including the need to provide for private wastecollection services.

C.

Waste bins not being placed or allowed to remain in view of the public.D.

Appropriate areas for bin storage on site and areas for waste bin storage on collection days.E.




Details for best practice waste management once the use has commenced.F.

The regular removal of waste and litter from public areas surrounding the upper and lower stations,including the adjoining car park at the lower station.

G.

Management practices to ensure that the amenity of surrounding residents is not detrimentallyaffected by waste disposal practices. This must include that any external refuse bins must not beemptied after 8.00 p.m. or before 8.00 a.m. Monday to Saturday, and not after 9.00 p.m. or before10.00 a.m. on Sundays.

H.

Prior to the commencement of development, a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP)must be prepared and submitted to the Responsible Authority for approval. Once approved the CEMPwill be endorsed and form part of the planning permit. The development must be carried out in accordancewith the CEMP at all times to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The CEMP must includebut is not limited to:

7.

Details of how the excavated topsoil from the approved works site will be stockpiled and spreadto minimise disturbance to the natural soil profile.

A.

Weed management to ensure stockpiling and spread excavated topsoil material is kept clean ofweed material.

B.

The location of temporary fencing to be installed during the construction phase.C.

Details of how existing vegetation on site adjacent will be protected during construction.D.

Confirmation that no machinery, vehicles, storage of materials and site buildings will be locatednear or amongst existing native vegetation.

E.

The Waste Management Plan and Operation Management Manual endorsed under this permit shall beimplemented and continually maintained and updated to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

8.

Unless with the further written consent of the Responsible Authority, the approved use may only operatebetween the following times:

9.

Sunday to Thursday 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.A.

Friday and Saturday 8:00 a.m. to midnight.B.

Themaximum number of patrons permitted within the upper station café (including indoor and outdoorseating areas) at any time must not exceed one hundred (100) people, and no more than 100 seats maybe made available within the café area (comprising both the indoor and outdoor areas).

10.

The lower station kiosk and upper station café may only operate when the Skylift is operational, to thesatisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

11.

No live or amplified music is permitted within the upper station café or the associated outdoor seatingarea, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

12.




Signage

Lighting associated with the approved signage must be designed, baffled and located to the satisfactionof the Responsible Authority so as to prevent any adverse effect on adjoining land.

13.

The signs must not be illuminated after closing time of the use, and not more than 60 minutes beforethe use opens to the public, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

14.

Landscaping

Prior to the commencement of the use, the landscaping works as shown on the endorsed plans must becarried out and completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

15.

The landscaping referred to in Condition 15 above must be maintained to the satisfaction of theResponsible Authority, including that any dead, diseased or damaged plants are to be replaced as soonas practicable.

16.

Prior to the commencement of any buildings or works, appropriate tree protection preconstructionmethods must be erected in accordance with Australian Standard AS4970 – 2009 (Protection of treeson development sites) and the recommendations of Arboricultural Inspection Report dated October2013. The tree protection measures must remain in place until the completion of any works herebyapproved to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

17.

Engineering

All disturbed surfaces on the land resulting from the development must be appropriately revegetatedand stabilised to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

18.

Prior to commencement of the use, the car parking shown at the lower station and adjacent to PurvesRoad at the upper station must be completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

19.

Prior to the commencement of use, all alteration to Purves Road and Arthurs Seat Road must becompleted to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and any other relevant Authority.

20.

After the endorsement of Condition 1 plans and before any works associated with the developmentstarts, detailed construction plans to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submittedto and approved by the Responsible Authority. The plans must be drawn to scale with dimensions andtwo copies must be provided. Alternatively, plans in pdf format may be emailed [email protected]. The plans must show:

21.

All areas of the upper and lower stations including car parking areas being drained by means ofan underground drainage system to retain a post development one in 10 year storm event for thecritical storm duration. Discharge from the site must be limited to an equivalent pre-developmentflow based on a one in two year storm event for the critical storm duration and be connected tothe existing underground drainage system adjacent to each station.

A.

Details and location of each pylon.B.




Details of the crib wall at the rear of the lower station.C.

All footpaths within the upper and lower station areas.D.

The pedestrian crossing within the Purves Road.E.

Access to the upper and lower station common areas being in accordance with current AustralianStandards for accessibility.

F.

Prior to the commencement of any works associated with the development, drainage computations arerequired for the drainage system, including consideration of any drainage catchment external to thedevelopment that may drain to the drainage system.

22.

Prior to the commencement of any works for the lower station site building and the gondola structures,a Form B must be completed by an Engineer and a Specialist Geotechnical Engineer or a SpecialistEngineering Geologist with a copy being lodged with the Responsible Authority.

23.

The Form B referred to is a Structural or Civil or Geotechnical Engineering Declaration’ in accordancewith the AGS ‘Practice Note Guidelines for Landslide Risk Management 2007’

A Specialist Geotechnical Engineer or a Specialist Engineering Geologist is a person defined in theAustralian Geomechanics Society ‘Practice Note Guidelines for Landslide Risk Management 2007’.

Prior to the occupation of the lower station site building, or the operation of the gondola, a Form Gmust be completed by a Specialist Geotechnical Engineer or Specialist Engineering Geologist with acopy being lodged with the Responsible Authority.

24.

The Form G referred to is a ‘Final Geotechnical Certificate’ in accordance with the AustralianGeomechanics Society ‘Practice Note Guidelines for Landslide Risk Management 2007’.

Before the initial occupation of the upper or lower station site buildings, or the operation of the gondola,all civil works within the development must be constructed in accordance with approved constructionplans, and be to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

25.

Amenity

The approved uses must not cause unreasonable amenity impacts to persons beyond the land becauseof emission of noise or light-spill, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

26.

Sound levels emanating from the land must not exceed those required to be met under the applicableState Environment Protection Policy (as amended from time to time).

27.




Within three months of the commencement of the skylift operation, a report prepared by a suitablyqualified and experienced acoustic consultant must be submitted to the Responsible Authority. Thereport must demonstrate that the emitted noise levels do not exceed the relevant SEPP N-1 noise limits

28.

to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Should the levels exceed the relevant levels, the reportmust recommendmitigation measures to ensure compliance with the relevant noise standard. Any suchrecommendations must be implemented within three months of the date of the report (or other suchtime as approved in writing by the Responsible Authority).

All external lighting provided on the site must be baffled so that no direct light is emitted beyond theboundaries of the site and no nuisance is caused to adjoining properties.

29.

All excess soil/spoil from the works and other waste material must be removed from the land at regularintervals (at least on one occasion per week) to ensure that the amenity of the area is not detrimentallyaffected, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

30.

Upon commencement of the approved use, goods may only be delivered to and from the land betweenthe 8.00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. on any day, unless with the further written consent of the ResponsibleAuthority.

31.

Waste Water

Prior to the commencement of the approved use, reticulated sewer and reticulated water must be suppliedto the upper station, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and any other relevant Authority.

32.

Permit Expiry

This permit will expire if any of the following occur:33.

The development does not start within two (2) years from the date of this permit.A.

The development is not completed, or the use is not started, within four (4) years from the dateof this permit.

B.

In accordance with Section 69 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, an application may besubmitted to the Responsible Authority for an extension of the periods referred to in this condition.

Country Fire Authority Condition

Emergency Management Plan

That an Emergency Management Plan be developed to the Responsible Authority satisfaction. TheEmergency Management Plan should be developed in consultation with relevant Emergency Servicesand the Responsible Authority. The Emergency Management Plan must address but not be limited to:

34.

A risk assessment.A.

Specified measures to reduce emergency risks (before an emergency).B.




Emergency procedures (communications, response and evacuation).C.

Department of Environment and Primary Industries (DEPI) Conditions

Amended Plans

Prior to the commencement of works, the plans submitted as part of the application must be amendedto the satisfaction of DEPI and to the satisfaction and approval of the Responsible Authority. Whenapproved these plans will form part of the permit. The plans must be generally in accordance with theplans submitted with the application but modified to show:

35.

The access to any water supply required under Conditions 58 and 59 of this permit.A.

The water supply of the lower station in accordance with Conditions 58 and 59 of this permit.B.

Any pedestrian or vehicular access to the gondola corridor (being the area located 10 metreseither side of the gondola centerline between the upper station and lower station).

C.

Closure

The Arthurs Seat Gondola must be closed on days with a forecast Fire Danger Rating of Code Redand/or a Fire Danger Index greater than or equal to 100 for the relevant fire district.

36.

Defendable Space

The upper station must provide the following areas of defendable space, generally in accordance withthe Bushfire Management Statement prepared by Terramatrix in February 2014:

37.

To the north-west of Arthurs Seat Road: An inner zone of 85 metres and an outer zone of 30metres.

A.

To the south-east of Arthurs Seat Road: An inner zone of 65 metres or to Purves Road.B.

Vegetation in the inner zone of defendable space must be managed to the following standard, unlessotherwise agreed in writing by DEPI and the Responsible Authority:

38.

Within 10 metres of a building, flammable objects such as plants, mulches and fences must notbe located close to the vulnerable parts of the building such as windows, decks and eaves.

A.

Trees must not overhang the roofline of the building, touch walls or other elements of a building.B.

Grass must be no more than 10 centimetres in height. All leaves and vegetation debris must beremoved at regular intervals.

C.

Shrubs should not be planted under trees and must be separated by at least 1.5 times their matureheight.

D.




Plants greater than 10 centimetres in height at maturity must not be placed directly in front of awindow or other glass feature.

E.

Overall tree canopy cover of no more than 15% at maturity.F.

Tree branches below 2 metres from ground level must be removed.G.

The lower station must provide the following areas of defendable space, generally in accordance withthe Bushfire Management Statement prepared by Terramatrix in February 2014:

39.

To the north and west of the lower station: An inner zone of 60 metres and an outer zone of 20metres.

A.

To the south and south-west of the lower station: An inner zone of 41 metres and an outer zoneof 19 metres or to Arthurs Seat Road.

B.

Vegetation in the outer zone of defendable space must be managed to the following standard, unlessotherwise agreed in writing by DEPI and the Responsible Authority:

40.

Grass must be no more than 10 centimetres in height and leaf and other debris mowed, slashedor mulched.

A.

Shrubs and/or trees must no form a continuous canopy with unmanaged fuels.B.

Tree branches below 2 metres from ground level must be removed.C.

Trees may touch each other with an overall canopy cover of no more than 30% at maturity.D.

Shrubs must be in clumps of no greater than 10 square metres, which are separated from eachother by at least 10 metres.

E.

The gondola corridor must incorporate a fuel reduction zone (where practicable) that is managed inaccordance with Conditions 46-54 this permit.

41.

The management of vegetation within the inner zone and outer zone of defendable space must beundertaken in accordance with the Landscape Plan and the Vegetation Management Plan approvedunder Conditions 46-54 of this permit and to the satisfaction of DEPI.

42.

Prior to the commencement of buildings and works, the Applicant must demonstrate to the satisfactionand approval of the Responsible Authority and DEPI that the inner and outer zones of defendable spacewill be managed in accordance with the requirements of this permit on an ongoing basis.

43.




Defendable Space Plan

Prior to the commencement of works, a Defendable Space Plan must be prepared to the satisfaction ofDEPI and to the satisfaction and approval of the Responsible Authority. When approved the plan willbe endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The plan must be drawn to scale with dimensionsand three copies must be provided. The plan must:

44.

Be titled as a ‘Defendable Space Plan’, be dated and include a version.A.

Show the location of defendable space (inner zone, outer zone, and the area of fuel reductionwithin the gondola corridor) in accordance with Conditions 37, 39 and 41 of this permit.

B.

Show the location of any excludable vegetation located within the defendable space areas of theupper station or lower station.

C.

Show the name and responsibilities of any relevant authority, land manager or organisation(private or public) that will manage the area of defendable space (inner zone, outer zone or areawithin the gondola corridor). The area managed by any relevant authority, land manager ororganisation (private or public) must be clearly identified on the Defendable Space Plan.

D.

Omit any detail which is not required to depict the above information. This includes but is notlimited to omitting site feature survey information.

E.

The Defendable Space Plan endorsed under this permit must not be altered unless with the writtenconsent of DEPI and the Responsible Authority.

45.

Landscape Plan

Prior to the commencement of works, a Landscape Plan must be prepared to the satisfaction of DEPIand to the satisfaction and approval of the Responsible Authority. When approved the landscape planwill form part of the permit.

46.

The Landscape Plan endorsed under this permit must not be altered unless with the written consent ofDEPI and the Responsible Authority.

47.

All landscaping works must be maintained in accordance with the approved Landscape Plan, unlessotherwise agreed in writing by the Responsible Authority and DEPI.

48.

Vegetation Management Plan

Prior to the commencement of works, a detailed Vegetation Management Plan must be prepared to thesatisfaction of DEPI and to the satisfaction and approval of the Responsible Authority. The plan mustoutline the degree, approach, method, timing and organisation of vegetation management within thedefendable space associatedwith the development.When approved the VegetationManagement Planwillform part of the permit.

49.




The Vegetation Management Plan must detail the name and responsibilities of any relevant authority,land manager or organisation (private or public) that has vegetation management responsibilities withinthe defendable space associated with the development.

50.

The VegetationManagement Plan must include written agreement from all parties detailed in Condition50 that they agree to undertake these works on an ongoing basis.

51.

All vegetation works must be maintained in accordance with the approved Vegetation ManagementPlan, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Responsible Authority and DEPI.

52.

The VegetationManagement Planendorsed under this permit must not be altered unless with the writtenconsent of DEPI and the Responsible Authority.

53.

The Vegetation Management Plan must be reviewed a minimum of every five years from the date ofissue of this permit, and any amendments approved by DEPI and the Responsible Authority.

54.


Prior to the commencement of works, a Bushfire Emergency Plan (BEP) to the satisfaction of theResponsible Authority and DEPI must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority.When approved the BEP will be endorsed and will form part of the permit.

55.

The BEP must be prepared by a suitably qualified emergency management consultant/specialist.56.

Construction

The construction of the upper station and lower station must be to a minimum Bushfire Attack Level(BAL) BAL-12.5 in accordance with the relevant sections to AS3959-2009.

57.

Static Water

Prior to the commencement of the use of the development and operation of the gondola facility, staticwater supplies must be provided for both the upper station and lower station and must meet all of thefollowing requirements:

58.

The water supplies must each have a minimum capacity of 40,000 litres that is maintained solelyfor firefighting purposes.

A.

The water supply must be stored in an above ground water tank constructed of concrete, steelor corrugated iron.

B.

Each water supply must be located within 60 metres of the furthest point (including anyobstructions) of each station.

C.

The water supply outlet/s must be attached to the water tank andmust face away from the buildingif located less than 20 metres from the building to enable access during emergencies.

D.




All pipework between the water supply and the outlet/s must be a minimum of 64 millimetrenominal bore.

E.

All fixed above-ground water pipelines and fittings must be of non-corrodible andnon-combustible materials.

F.

The water supply must:G.

Be located in a position approved by the relevant fire authority;i.

Be located within close proximity to the main entrance of either gondola station andaccessible from the main road network or other approved area e.g. Arthurs Seat Road oran adjacent car parking area;

ii.

Be located so that fire brigade vehicles are able to get to within 4 metres of the watersupply outlet and provide for a hardstand of 12 metres by 5 metres;

iii.

Be located so that fire brigade vehicles are able to get to within 4 metres of the watersupply outlet;

iv.

Incorporate an additional 64 millimetre (minimum) gate or ball valve and 64 millimetre(fixed size), three threads per inch, male fitting to suit a CFA coupling; and

v.

Incorporate a vortex inhibitor or additional water must be provided to ensure that thevolume of water available is not restricted by a vortex. Refer to Section 5 of AS.2419 forrequirements for vortex inhibitors.

vi.

The water supply outlet must incorporate a ball or gate valve to provide access to the water bythe operator of the lift.

H.

All below-ground water pipelines must be installed to at least the following depths:I.

Subject to vehicle traffic: 300 millimetres;i.

Under buildings or concrete slabs: 75 millimetres; andii.

All other locations: 225 millimetres.iii.

The water supply must be readily identifiable from the building or appropriate signage must beprovided which:

J.

Has an arrow pointing to the location of the water supply;i.

Has dimensions of not less than 310 millimetres high and 400 millimetres long;ii.

Is red in colour, with a blue reflective marker attached; andiii.

Is labelled with a ‘W’ that is not less than 15 centimetres high and 3 centimetres thick.iv.




Access

Prior to the commencement of the use of the development and operation of the gondola facility, accessto any static water supply outlet provided under Condition 60 of this permit must be designed to allowemergency vehicle access. The design of the access (including gates, bridges and culverts) must complywith the following minimum requirements:

59.

Access to the water supply must be provided in accordance with Condition 60.A.

Curves in any driveway must have a minimum inner radius of 10 metres.B.

The average grade must be no more than one in seven (14.4%) (8.1 degrees) with a maximumof no more than one in five (20%) (11.3 degrees) for no more than 50 metres.

C.

Dips must have no more than a one in eight (12.5%) (7.1 degrees) entry and exit angle.D.

Designed, constructed and maintained for a load limit of at least 15 tonnes and be of all-weatherconstruction.

E.

Have a minimum trafficable width of 3.5 metres and be substantially clear of encroachmentsfor at least 0.5 metres on each side.

F.

Be clear of encroachments at least 4 metres vertically.G.

Incorporate a turning area for fire fighting vehicles close to the building, by either providing:H.

A turning circle with a minimum radius of 8 metres; ori.

The driveway encircling the dwelling; orii.

A T-head or Y-head with a minimum formed surface of each leg being 8 metres in lengthmeasured from the centre point of the head, and 4 metres trafficable width.

iii.

Biodiversity

In order to offset the removal of 4.282 hectares of native vegetation and two scattered trees approvedas part of this permit, the Applicant must provide a native vegetation offset approved by the Departmentof Environment and Primary Industries that provides the following:

60.

The general offset must:

Contribute gain of 0.498 general biodiversity equivalence units.A.

Be located within the Port Phillip andWestern Port CatchmentManagement Authority boundaryor Mornington Peninsula Shire Council municipal district.

B.

Have a strategic biodiversity score of at least 0.333.C.




Before works start, a plan to the satisfaction of the Department of Environment and Primary Industries(DEPI) identifying all native vegetation to be retained and describing the measures to be used to protectthe identified vegetation during construction, must be prepared and submitted to and approved by DEPI.When approved, the plan will be endorsed and will form part of this permit. All works constructed orcarried out must be in accordance with the endorsed plan.

61.

Before any native vegetation is removed, evidence that an offset has been secured must be providedto the satisfaction of the Department of Environment and Primary Industries. This offset must meetthe offset requirements set out in this permit and be in accordance with the requirements of Permittedclearing of native vegetation – Biodiversity assessment guidelines and the Native vegetation gainscoring manual. Offset evidence can be either:

62.

A security agreement, to the required standard, for the offset site or sites, including an offsetplan; or

A.

A credit register extract from the Native Vegetation Credit Register.B.

VicRoads Conditions

Prior to the commencement of the permitted development, a Transport Impact Assessment Report(TIAR) must be prepared in accordance with VicRoads Guidelines for Transport Impact AssessmentReports to the satisfaction of VicRoads. The TIAR must as a minimum:

63.

Provide a traffic volume forecast and traffic distribution for peak seasons for the permitted use.A.

Assess the need for right turn lanes along Arthurs Seat Road at 1) Purves Road intersection, 2)access to the secondary car park in the summit area, and 3) the access to the upper and lowerstations.

B.

Include Functional Layout Plans of the mitigating road works identified in the TIAR.C.

Include Functional Layout Plans (FLPs) for the road improvement works identified in the TIAR,including the actions assessed as ‘High Priority’ as listed in the Arthurs Seat State Park TrafficManagement Plan (AECOM ID 60266552, Date 18 November, 2013, Revision C, Section 4.5Implementation).

D.

Include Functional Layout of any other proposed works within the Arthurs Street Road.E.

Prior to the commencement of the development, the following must be submitted to the satisfaction ofthe VicRoads:

64.

An amended plan showing vertical clearance of the Skylift from the Arthurs Seat Road level.The vertical clearance needs to be at least 6 metres from the road level.

A.

An analysis of the pedestrian and patron safety throughout the site in relation to the arterial roadnetwork. The analysis must include, but not be limited to:

B.




The vertical geometry of the arterial road and proximate Outdoor Seating Area in theupper station, and any appropriate safety measures; and

i.

Calculation of sight distances throughout the summit area, and any appropriate safetymeasures.

ii.

Prior to the commencement of any road works, detailed engineering designs and lighting plan, inaccordance with the endorsed FLPs, must be submitted to and approved by VicRoads.

65.

Prior to the commencement of the use, all the road improvements works as identified in the approvedTIAR must be completed in accordance with the detailed engineering plans and lighting plan to thesatisfaction of, and at no cost to VicRoads.

66.

The preparation of the detailed engineering design and the construction and completion of all roadworks must be undertaken in a manner consistent with current VicRoads’ policy, procedures andstandards and at no cost to VicRoads. In order to meet VicRoads’ requirements the developer mustcomplywith the requirements documentedwithin ‘Standard Requirements – Developer Funded Projects’and any other requirements as considered necessary, to the satisfaction of VicRoads.

67.

No work must commence in, on, under or over the road reserve without having first obtained allnecessary approvals pursuant to the Road Management Act 2004, the Road Safety Act 1986, and anyother relevant acts or regulations created under those Acts.

68.

Part B

That the Committee resolves that Attachment 3 to this report be retained as a confidential item pursuant toSection 77(2)(a) and (b) of the Local Government Act 1989 and be placed in a separate minute book forconfidential items.




Deputations

2.1 Application for Planning Permit P13/1992 - Arthurs Seat Skylift Gondola

Mr. Warwick Cavanagh, Submitter;Mr. John Willson, Submitter;Ms. Dianne Smith, Submitter;Ms. Tricia Allen, Submitter;Ms. Deb Fischer, Submitter;

PROCEDURALMOTION

Extension to Speaking Time

Moved: Cr. BowdenSeconded: Cr. Celi

That a two minute extension to the speaking time be granted to Ms. Deb Fischer, Submitter, in relationto the above matter.

Carried

Ms. Alison Laird, Submitter;

PROCEDURALMOTION


Moved: Cr. RodgersSeconded: Cr. Colomb

That a two minute extension to the speaking time be granted to Ms. Alison Laird, Submitter, in relationto the above matter.

Carried

Mr. Matthew Bisogni, Submitter;




PROCEDURALMOTION


Moved: Cr. BowdenSeconded: Cr. Gibb

That a two minute extension to the speaking time be granted to Mr. Matthew Bisogni, Submitter, inrelation to the above matter.

Carried

Mr. Adam Shalekoff, Submitter;Ms. Kylie Greer, Submitter;Mr. Charlie Owen, Submitter;Mr. Len Warfe, Submitter;

PROCEDURALMOTION


Moved: Cr. ColombSeconded: Cr. Bowden

That a two minute extension to the speaking time be granted to Mr. Len Warfe, Submitter, in relationto the above matter.

Carried

Mr. Ray Gerring, Submitter;Mr. Michael Savage, Submitter;Mr. Thomas Ho, Submitter;Mr. Tim Womersley, Submitter;Mr. Chris Halek, Submitter; andMr. Simon McKeon, Applicant.




PROCEDURALMOTION


Moved: Cr. CeliSeconded: Cr. Dixon

That a twominute extension to the speaking time be granted toMr. SimonMcKeon, Applicant, in relationto the above matter.

Carried

Adjournment of Meeting

Moved: Cr. CeliSeconded: Cr. Colomb

That the meeting be adjourned at 9:30 p.m.

Carried

Resumption of Meeting

Moved: Cr. GibbSeconded: Cr. Bowden

That the meeting resume at 9:36 p.m.

Carried




COMMITTEE DECISION

Moved: Cr. GibbSeconded: Cr. Celi

That Council, being a Responsible Authority under theMornington Peninsula Planning Scheme and thePlanning and Environment Act 1987, having considered all matters in respect of Planning ApplicationsP13/1992 resolves to issue a Notice of Decision to grant a planning permit subject to the followingconditions:

Amended Plans

Before the use and development starts, amended plans to the satisfaction of the ResponsibleAuthority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, theplans will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The plans must be to scale withdimensions and three copies must be provided. The plans must show:

1.

The location and details of all lighting provided in conjunction with the proposed lower andupper gondola stations.

A.

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

B.

The recommended noise attenuation treatment set out under Section 6 of the Arthurs SeatGondola Noise Assessment (Version 0, 15 November, 2013) incorporated to the satisfactionof the Responsible Authority.

C.

Demonstrate compliance with Department of Environment and Primary Industries (DEPI)Conditions 37-61.

D.

Demonstrate compliance with VicRoads Conditions 65-70.E.

Details of the proposed pedestrian crossing within Purves Road.F.

Provision of an amended Tree Removal Plan for the upper station showing the retention ofTree No. 59 and No. 64.

G.

Provision of a Gondola Corridor Plan, showing (but not limited to):H.

The location and full details of each pylon;i.

The location and details of any proposed underground services and/or infrastructure;ii.

A minimum 6.4 metre height clearance between the base of the gondolas and the roadpavement at any point where Arthurs Seat Road is traversed; and

iii.

All existing trees within the corridor, and nominating whether each tree is to be retained,removed, or lopped and/or pruned.

iv.




All proposedwater tanks at both the lower and upper levels nominated to be of low-reflectivityand of muted colours/tones.

I.

A landscape plan prepared by a suitably qualified person/firm generally in accordance withthe submitted landscape concept plan but amended to include the following:

J.

A planting schedule of all proposed trees, shrubs and ground covers, including botanicalnames, common names, pot sizes, sizes at maturity and quantities of each. All plantingmust be indigenous to the locality;

i.

The provision of a minimum 1.5 metre high timber fence adjacent to the westernperimeter of the proposed retaining wall associated with the lower gondola station;

ii.

Details of the landscaping treatment directly adjacent to the front (west) façade of theproposed upper station;

iii.

A fence between the front (western) façade of the upper station andArthurs Seat Road;iv.

The provision of planting within the road reserve adjacent to the rear (west) boundaryof the residential properties located directly opposite the lower station and associatedcar parking area. Any existing pedestrian or vehicular access points along this sectionof Arthurs Seat Road are to be clearly shown on this plan;

v.

Demonstrating compliance with the minimum defendable space requirements ofConditions 37-47; and

vi.

Any modifications to accord with the approved landscape plan required by DEPI, asrequired under Condition 48 of this permit.

vii.

The layout and use of the land, the size and type of the proposed works, including the materialsof construction, on the endorsed plansmust not be altered ormodified without the written consentof the Responsible Authority.

2.

Use

The use must not commence until the development of the land as detailed on the endorsed plansis completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

3.

Prior to the commencement of works a Construction Management Plan (CMP) prepared by asuitably qualified person to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted toand approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved the plan will be endorsed and willthen form part of the permit. The plan must be to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authorityand must show and/or provide for the following:

4.

Details of the staging of all buildings and works.A.

Hours during which construction activity will take place.B.

The location of any temporary cabins and site sheds.C.




The location and storage of machinery on the site.D.

Security fencing and site access details.E.

A Traffic Management Plan which ensures that no traffic hazards are created in or aroundthe site (upper and lower stations, and the corridor) and which must include the followingdetails:

F.

The movement of construction vehicles to and from the site;i.

Details of the delivery and unloading points and expected frequency; andii.

The location for parking of contractors’ vehicles, which must be contained within theland.

iii.

The location of the building refuse points andmethods for ensuring the containment of wastewithin the land during construction.

G.

Methods to prevent discharge of construction materials and sediment entering into theexisting underground drainage system.

H.

Arrangements to ensure that no debris is deposited on any road while vehicles are travellingto and from the site, and details of themethod and frequency of clean up procedures includingfacilities for vehicle washing.

I.

The nomination of and contact details of a dedicated liaison officer for contact by theResponsible Authority in the event of relevant queries or problems experienced.

J.

An outline of any necessary requests to occupy public footpaths or roads and anticipateddisruptions to local services.

K.

Themeasures tominimise noise/dust and other amenity impacts frommechanical equipmentand demolition/construction activities.

L.

The erection of a sign on the site prior to any work commencing which is clearly visible fromthe adjacent road reserves stating that unauthorised entry to the site is not permitted andshowing the name of the builder or another person responsible for the site and a telephonenumber for contact outside working hours. The signs may only be removed on satisfactorycompletion of the works.

M.

Prior to the commencement of use authorised by this permit, an ‘Operational and ManagementManual’ (OMM) must be prepared and submitted to the Responsible Authority for approval.When approved the OMM will be endorsed and form part of this permit. The premises must beoperated and managed at all times to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority in accordancewith the endorsed OMM. The OMMmust include (but is not limited to) the following:

5.




The contact details of the nominated person(s) responsible for the day to day managementand control of the facility.

A.

A complaint handling process to effectivelymanage any complaints received fromneighbours.Details of a Complaints Register to be kept at the premises that must include details of thecomplaint received, any action taken and the response provided to the complainant. ThisComplaints Register shall be shall be maintained by the permit holder and available forinspection by the Responsible Authority at all times.

B.

The operator commits to quarterly meetings with a neighbourhood advisory committee forthe first 24 months once the Skylift is operational and annually thereafter.

C.

Details of delivery times which must not occur prior to 7:00 a.m. or after 7:00 p.m. on anyday.

D.

Details of hours of operation, as specified by this permit.E.

Documented emergency procedures in the event of any systems failure, as well as measuresfor safe passenger and staff evacuation should it be required.

F.

Frequency andmethod of inspection of equipment, including erosionmanagement inspection.G.

Location of safety signage.H.

Prior to the commencement of the approved use, a detailed Waste Management Plan (WMP)prepared by a suitably qualified person to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must besubmitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority.When approved the planwill be endorsedand will then form part of the permit. The plan must be to the satisfaction of the ResponsibleAuthority and must show and/or provide for the following:

6.

The storage and collection of waste from the approved use, including provision for dedicatedrecycling bins at lower and upper stations.

A.

The storage of other refuse and solid wastes in bins or receptacles within suitably screenedand accessible areas to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

B.

Designation of methods of waste collection, including the need to provide for private wastecollection services.

C.

Waste bins not being placed or allowed to remain in view of the public.D.

Appropriate areas for bin storage on site and areas for waste bin storage on collection days.E.

Details for best practice waste management once the use has commenced.F.

The regular removal of waste and litter from public areas surrounding the upper and lowerstations, including the adjoining car park at the lower station.

G.




Management practices to ensure that the amenity of surrounding residents is not detrimentallyaffected by waste disposal practices. This must include that any external refuse bins mustnot be emptied after 7:00 p.m. or before 8:00 a.m. Monday to Saturday, and not after 7:00p.m. or before 10:00 a.m. on Sundays.

H.

Prior to the commencement of development, a Construction Environmental Management Plan(CEMP)must be prepared and submitted to theResponsibleAuthority for approval. Once approvedthe CEMP will be endorsed and form part of the planning permit. The development must becarried out in accordance with the CEMP at all times to the satisfaction of the ResponsibleAuthority. The CEMP must include but is not limited to:

7.

Details of how the excavated topsoil from the approved works site will be stockpiled andspread to minimise disturbance to the natural soil profile.

A.

Weed management to ensure stockpiling and spread of excavated topsoil material is keptclean of weed material.

B.

The location of temporary fencing to be installed during the construction phase.C.

Details of how existing vegetation on site adjacent will be protected during construction.D.

Confirmation that no machinery, vehicles, storage of materials and site buildings will belocated near or amongst existing native vegetation.

E.

The Waste Management Plan and Operation Management Manual endorsed under this permitshall be implemented and continuallymaintained and updated to the satisfaction of the ResponsibleAuthority.

8.

Unless with the further written consent of the Responsible Authority (and not before the elapseof 12months from the commencement of the approved use)may only operate between the followingtimes:

9.

Sunday to Thursday 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. for 12 months from the commencement ofoperation.

A.

Friday and Saturday 8:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. for 12 months from the commencement ofoperation.

B.

Notwithstanding Condition 9 above and with a further written consent of the ResponsibleAuthority subject to the satisfactory performance of the skylift, the operatormay apply to increasethe operating hours to:

10.

Sunday to Thursday 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.A.

Friday and Saturday 8:00 a.m. to midnight.B.




The food and beverage sales must conclude 30 minutes prior to the nominated closing times inCondition 9 above.

11.

The maximum number of patrons permitted within the upper station café (including indoor andoutdoor seating areas) at any time must not exceed one hundred (100) people, and no more than100 seats may be made available within the café area (comprising both the indoor and outdoorareas).

12.

The lower station kiosk and upper station café may only operate when the Skylift is operational,to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

13.

No live or amplified music is permitted within the upper station café or the associated outdoorseating area, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

14.

Signage

Lighting associated with the approved signage must be designed, baffled and located to thesatisfaction of the Responsible Authority so as to prevent any adverse effect on adjoining land.

15.

The signs must not be illuminated after closing time of the use, and not more than 60 minutesbefore the use opens to the public, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

16.

Landscaping

Prior to the commencement of the use, the landscaping works as shown on the endorsed plansmust be carried out and completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

17.

The landscaping referred to in Condition 17 above must be maintained to the satisfaction of theResponsible Authority, including that any dead, diseased or damaged plants are to be replacedas soon as practicable.

18.

Prior to the commencement of any buildings orworks, appropriate tree protection preconstructionmethods must be erected in accordance with Australian Standard AS4970 – 2009 (Protection oftrees on development sites) and the recommendations of Arboricultural Inspection Report datedOctober 2013. The tree protection measures must remain in place until the completion of anyworks hereby approved to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

19.

Engineering

All disturbed surfaces on the land resulting from the development must be appropriatelyrevegetated and stabilised to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

20.

Prior to commencement of the use, the car parking shown at the lower station and adjacent toPurves Road at the upper station must be completed to the satisfaction of the ResponsibleAuthority.

21.

Prior to the commencement of use, all alteration to Purves Road and Arthurs Seat Road mustbe completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and any other relevant Authority.

22.




After the endorsement of Condition 1 plans and before any works associated with the developmentstarts, detailed construction plans to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must besubmitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The plans must be drawn to scale withdimensions and two copies must be provided. Alternatively, plans in pdf format may be emailedto [email protected]. The plans must show:

23.

All areas of the upper and lower stations including car parking areas being drained bymeans of an underground drainage system to retain a post development one in 10 yearstorm event for the critical storm duration. Discharge from the site must be limited to anequivalent pre-development f ow based on a one in two year storm event for the criticalstorm duration and be connected to the existing underground drainage system adjacentto each station.

A.

Details and location of each pylon.B.

Details of the crib wall at the rear of the lower station.C.

All footpaths within the upper and lower station areas.D.

The pedestrian crossing within Purves Road.E.

Access to the upper and lower station common areas being in accordance with currentAustralian Standards for accessibility.

F.

Prior to the commencement of any works associated with the development, drainage computationsare required for the drainage system, including consideration of any drainage catchment externalto the development that may drain to the drainage system.

24.

Prior to the commencement of any works for the lower station site building and the gondolastructures, a Form B must be completed by an Engineer and a Specialist Geotechnical Engineeror a Specialist Engineering Geologist with a copy being lodged with the Responsible Authority.

25.

The Form B referred to is a Structural or Civil or Geotechnical Engineering Declaration’ inaccordance with the AGS ‘Practice Note Guidelines for Landslide Risk Management 2007’

A Specialist Geotechnical Engineer or a Specialist Engineering Geologist is a person def ned inthe Australian Geomechanics Society ‘Practice Note Guidelines for Landslide Risk Management2007’.

Prior to the occupation of the lower station site building, or the operation of the gondola, a FormG must be completed by a Specialist Geotechnical Engineer or Specialist Engineering Geologistwith a copy being lodged with the Responsible Authority.

26.

The Form G referred to is a ‘Final Geotechnical Certif cate’ in accordance with the AustralianGeomechanics Society ‘Practice Note Guidelines for Landslide Risk Management 2007’.




Before the initial occupation of the upper or lower station site buildings, or the operation of thegondola, all civil works within the developmentmust be constructed in accordance with approvedconstruction plans, and be to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

27.

Amenity

The approved uses must not cause unreasonable amenity impacts to persons beyond the landbecause of emission of noise or light-spill, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

28.

Sound levels emanating from the land must not exceed those required to be met under theapplicable State Environment Protection Policy (as amended from time to time).

29.

Within three months of the commencement of the skylift operation, a report prepared by asuitably qualified and experienced acoustic consultant must be submitted to the ResponsibleAuthority. The report must demonstrate that the emitted noise levels do not exceed the relevant

30.

SEPP N-1 noise limits to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Should the levels exceedthe relevant levels, the report must recommend mitigation measures to ensure compliance withthe relevant noise standard. Any such recommendations must be implemented within threemonths of the date of the report (or other such time as approved in writing by the ResponsibleAuthority).

All external lighting provided on the site must be baffled so that no direct light is emitted beyondthe boundaries of the site and no nuisance is caused to adjoining properties.

31.

All excess soil/spoil from the works and other waste material must be removed from the land atregular intervals (at least on one occasion per week) to ensure that the amenity of the area is notdetrimentally affected, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

32.

Upon commencement of the approved use, goods may only be delivered to and from the landbetween the 8.00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. on any day, unless with the further written consent of theResponsible Authority.

33.

Waste Water

Prior to the commencement of the approved use, reticulated sewer and reticulated water mustbe supplied to the upper station, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and any otherrelevant Authority.

34.

Permit Expiry

This permit will expire if any of the following occur:35.

The development does not start within two (2) years from the date of this permit.A.

The development is not completed, or the use is not started, within four (4) years from thedate of this permit.

B.




In accordance with Section 69 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, an application may besubmitted to the Responsible Authority for an extension of the periods referred to in this condition.

Country Fire Authority Condition

Emergency Management Plan

That an Emergency Management Plan be developed to the Responsible Authority satisfaction.The EmergencyManagement Plan should be developed in consultation with relevant EmergencyServices and the Responsible Authority. The Emergency Management Plan must address butnot be limited to:

36.

A risk assessment.A.

Specified measures to reduce emergency risks (before an emergency).B.

Emergency procedures (communications, response and evacuation).C.

Department of Environment and Primary Industries (DEPI) Conditions

Amended Plans

Prior to the commencement of works, the plans submitted as part of the application must beamended to the satisfaction of DEPI and to the satisfaction and approval of the ResponsibleAuthority. When approved these plans will form part of the permit. The plans must be generallyin accordance with the plans submitted with the application but modified to show:

37.

The access to any water supply required under Conditions 60 and 61 of this permit.A.

Thewater supply of the lower station in accordance with Conditions 60 and 61 of this permit.B.

Any pedestrian or vehicular access to the gondola corridor (being the area located 10metreseither side of the gondola centerline between the upper station and lower station).

C.

Closure

The Arthurs Seat Skylift Gondola must be closed on days with a forecast Fire Danger Rating ofCode Red and/or a Fire Danger Index greater than or equal to 100 for the relevant fire district.

38.

Defendable Space

The upper station must provide the following areas of defendable space, generally in accordancewith the Bushfire Management Statement prepared by Terramatrix in February 2014:

39.




To the north-west of Arthurs Seat Road: An inner zone of 85 metres and an outer zone of30 metres.

A.

To the south-east of Arthurs Seat Road: An inner zone of 65 metres or to Purves Road.B.

Vegetation in the inner zone of defendable space must be managed to the following standard,unless otherwise agreed in writing by DEPI and the Responsible Authority:

40.

Within 10metres of a building, flammable objects such as plants, mulches and fences mustnot be located close to the vulnerable parts of the building such as windows, decks andeaves.

A.

Trees must not overhang the roofline of the building, touch walls or other elements of abuilding.

B.

Grass must be no more than 10 centimetres in height. All leaves and vegetation debrismust be removed at regular intervals.

C.

Shrubs should not be planted under trees and must be separated by at least 1.5 times theirmature height.

D.

Plants greater than 10 centimetres in height at maturity must not be placed directly infront of a window or other glass feature.

E.

Overall tree canopy cover of no more than 15% at maturity.F.

Tree branches below 2 metres from ground level must be removed.G.

The lower station must provide the following areas of defendable space, generally in accordancewith the Bushfire Management Statement prepared by Terramatrix in February 2014:

41.

To the north and west of the lower station: An inner zone of 60 metres and an outer zoneof 20 metres.

A.

To the south and south-west of the lower station: An inner zone of 41 metres and an outerzone of 19 metres or to Arthurs Seat Road.

B.

Vegetation in the outer zone of defendable space must be managed to the following standard,unless otherwise agreed in writing by DEPI and the Responsible Authority:

42.

Grass must be no more than 10 centimetres in height and leaf and other debris mowed,slashed or mulched.

A.

Shrubs and/or trees must no form a continuous canopy with unmanaged fuels.B.

Tree branches below 2 metres from ground level must be removed.C.




Treesmay touch each other with an overall canopy cover of nomore than 30%atmaturity.D.

Shrubs must be in clumps of no greater than 10 square metres, which are separated fromeach other by at least 10 metres.

E.

The gondola corridormust incorporate a fuel reduction zone (where practicable) that is managedin accordance with Conditions 48-56 this permit.

43.

The management of vegetation within the inner zone and outer zone of defendable space mustbe undertaken in accordance with the Landscape Plan and the Vegetation Management Planapproved under Conditions 48-56 of this permit and to the satisfaction of DEPI.

44.

Prior to the commencement of buildings and works, the Applicant must demonstrate to thesatisfaction and approval of the Responsible Authority and DEPI that the inner and outer zonesof defendable space will be managed in accordance with the requirements of this permit on anongoing basis.

45.

Defendable Space Plan

Prior to the commencement of works, a Defendable Space Planmust be prepared to the satisfactionof DEPI and to the satisfaction and approval of the Responsible Authority. When approved theplan will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The plan must be drawn to scalewith dimensions and three copies must be provided. The plan must:

46.

Be titled as a ‘Defendable Space Plan’, be dated and include a version.A.

Show the location of defendable space (inner zone, outer zone, and the area of fuel reductionwithin the gondola corridor) in accordance with Conditions 39, 41 and 43 of this permit.

B.

Show the location of any excludable vegetation located within the defendable space areasof the upper station or lower station.

C.

Show the name and responsibilities of any relevant authority, landmanager or organisation(private or public) that will manage the area of defendable space (inner zone, outer zoneor area within the gondola corridor). The area managed by any relevant authority, landmanager or organisation (private or public) must be clearly identified on the DefendableSpace Plan.

D.

Omit any detail which is not required to depict the above information. This includes butis not limited to omitting site feature survey information.

E.

TheDefendable Space Plan endorsed under this permitmust not be altered unless with the writtenconsent of DEPI and the Responsible Authority.

47.




Landscape Plan

Prior to the commencement of works, a Landscape Plan must be prepared to the satisfaction ofDEPI and to the satisfaction and approval of the Responsible Authority. When approved thelandscape plan will form part of the permit.

48.

The Landscape Plan endorsed under this permit must not be altered unless with the writtenconsent of DEPI and the Responsible Authority.

49.

All landscaping works must be maintained in accordance with the approved Landscape Plan,unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Responsible Authority and DEPI.

50.

Vegetation Management Plan

Prior to the commencement of works, a detailed VegetationManagement Plan must be preparedto the satisfaction of DEPI and to the satisfaction and approval of the Responsible Authority.The plan must outline the degree, approach, method, timing and organisation of vegetationmanagement within the defendable space associated with the development. When approved theVegetation Management Planwill form part of the permit.

51.

The Vegetation Management Plan must detail the name and responsibilities of any relevantauthority, land manager or organisation (private or public) that has vegetation managementresponsibilities within the defendable space associated with the development.

52.

The Vegetation Management Plan must include written agreement from all parties detailed inCondition 52 that they agree to undertake these works on an ongoing basis.

53.

All vegetationworksmust bemaintained in accordancewith the approvedVegetationManagementPlan, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Responsible Authority and DEPI.

54.

The Vegetation Management Planendorsed under this permit must not be altered unless withthe written consent of DEPI and the Responsible Authority.

55.

The Vegetation Management Plan must be reviewed a minimum of every five years from thedate of issue of this permit, and any amendments approved by DEPI and the ResponsibleAuthority.

56.


Prior to the commencement of works, a Bushfire Emergency Plan (BEP) to the satisfaction ofthe Responsible Authority and DEPI must be submitted to and approved by the ResponsibleAuthority. When approved the BEP will be endorsed and will form part of the permit.

57.

The BEPmust be prepared by a suitably qualified emergencymanagement consultant/specialist.58.

Construction

The construction of the upper station and lower station must be to a minimum Bushfire AttackLevel (BAL) BAL-12.5 in accordance with the relevant sections to AS3959-2009.

59.




Static Water

Prior to the commencement of the use of the development and operation of the gondola facility,static water supplies must be provided for both the upper station and lower station and mustmeet all of the following requirements:

60.

The water supplies must each have a minimum capacity of 40,000 litres that is maintainedsolely for firefighting purposes.

A.

The water supply must be stored in an above ground water tank constructed of concrete,steel or corrugated iron.

B.

Each water supply must be located within 60 metres of the furthest point (including anyobstructions) of each station.

C.

The water supply outlet/s must be attached to the water tank and must face away fromthe building if located less than 20 metres from the building to enable access duringemergencies.

D.

All pipework between the water supply and the outlet/s must be aminimumof 64millimetrenominal bore.

E.

All fixed above-ground water pipelines and fittings must be of non-corrodible andnon-combustible materials.

F.

The water supply must:G.

Be located in a position approved by the relevant fire authority;i.

Be located within close proximity to the main entrance of either gondola station andaccessible from the main road network or other approved area e.g. Arthurs SeatRoad or an adjacent car parking area;

ii.

Be located so that fire brigade vehicles are able to get to within 4 metres of the watersupply outlet and provide for a hardstand of 12 metres by 5 metres;

iii.

Be located so that fire brigade vehicles are able to get to within 4 metres of the watersupply outlet;

iv.

Incorporate an additional 64 millimetre (minimum) gate or ball valve and 64millimetre (fixed size), three threads per inch, male fitting to suit a CFA coupling;and

v.

Incorporate a vortex inhibitor or additional water must be provided to ensure thatthe volume of water available is not restricted by a vortex. Refer to Section 5 ofAS.2419 for requirements for vortex inhibitors.

vi.




Thewater supply outlet must incorporate a ball or gate valve to provide access to the waterby the operator of the lift.

H.

All below-ground water pipelines must be installed to at least the following depths:I.

Subject to vehicle traffic: 300 millimetres;i.

Under buildings or concrete slabs: 75 millimetres; andii.

All other locations: 225 millimetres.iii.

The water supply must be readily identifiable from the building or appropriate signagemust be provided which:

J.

Has an arrow pointing to the location of the water supply;i.

Has dimensions of not less than 310 millimetres high and 400 millimetres long;ii.

Is red in colour, with a blue reflective marker attached; andiii.

Is labelled with a ‘W’ that is not less than 15 centimetres high and 3 centimetresthick.

iv.

Access

Prior to the commencement of the use of the development and operation of the gondola facility,access to any static water supply outlet provided under Condition 60 of this permit must bedesigned to allow emergency vehicle access. The design of the access (including gates, bridgesand culverts) must comply with the following minimum requirements:

61.

Access to the water supply must be provided in accordance with Condition 60.A.

Curves in any driveway must have a minimum inner radius of 10 metres.B.

The average grade must be no more than one in seven (14.4%) (8.1 degrees) with amaximum of no more than one in five (20%) (11.3 degrees) for no more than 50 metres.

C.

Dips must have no more than a one in eight (12.5%) (7.1 degrees) entry and exit angle.D.

Designed, constructed and maintained for a load limit of at least 15 tonnes and be ofall-weather construction.

E.

Have aminimum trafficable width of 3.5metres and be substantially clear of encroachmentsfor at least 0.5 metres on each side.

F.

Be clear of encroachments at least 4 metres vertically.G.




Incorporate a turning area for fire fighting vehicles close to the building, by either providing:H.

A turning circle with a minimum radius of 8 metres; ori.

The driveway encircling the dwelling; orii.

A T-head or Y-head with a minimum formed surface of each leg being 8 metres inlength measured from the centre point of the head, and 4 metres trafficable width.

iii.

Biodiversity

In order to offset the removal of 4.282 hectares of native vegetation and two scattered treesapproved as part of this permit, the Applicant must provide a native vegetation offset approvedby the Department of Environment and Primary Industries that provides the following:

62.

The general offset must:

Contribute gain of 0.498 general biodiversity equivalence units.A.

Be located within the Port Phillip and Western Port Catchment Management Authorityboundary or Mornington Peninsula Shire Council municipal district.

B.

Have a strategic biodiversity score of at least 0.333.C.

Before works start, a plan to the satisfaction of DEPI identifying all native vegetation to beretained and describing the measures to be used to protect the identified vegetation duringconstruction, must be prepared and submitted to and approved by DEPI. When approved, theplan will be endorsed and will form part of this permit. All works constructed or carried outmust be in accordance with the endorsed plan.

63.

Before any native vegetation is removed, evidence that an offset has been securedmust be providedto the satisfaction of DEPI. This offset must meet the offset requirements set out in this permitand be in accordance with the requirements of 'Permitted clearing of native vegetation –Biodiversity assessment guidelines' and the 'Native vegetation gain scoring manual'. Offsetevidence can be either:

64.

A security agreement, to the required standard, for the offset site or sites, including anoffset plan; or

A.

A credit register extract from the Native Vegetation Credit Register.B.

VicRoads Conditions

Prior to the commencement of the permitted development, a Transport Impact AssessmentReport (TIAR) must be prepared in accordance with VicRoads Guidelines for Transport ImpactAssessment Reports to the satisfaction of VicRoads. The TIAR must as a minimum:

65.




Provide a traffic volume forecast and traffic distribution for peak seasons for the permitteduse.

A.

Assess the need for right turn lanes alongArthurs Seat Road at 1) Purves Road intersection,2) access to the secondary car park in the summit area, and 3) the access to the upper andlower stations.

B.

Include Functional Layout Plans of the mitigating road works identified in the TIAR.C.

Include Functional Layout Plans (FLPs) for the road improvement works identified in theTIAR, including the actions assessed as ‘High Priority’ as listed in the Arthurs Seat StatePark TrafficManagement Plan (AECOM ID 60266552, Date 18 November, 2013, RevisionC, Section 4.5 Implementation).

D.

Include Functional Layout of any other proposed works within the Arthurs Street Road.E.

Prior to the commencement of the development, the followingmust be submitted to the satisfactionof the VicRoads:

66.

An amended plan showing vertical clearance of the Skylift from the Arthurs Seat Roadlevel. The vertical clearance needs to be at least 6 metres from the road level.

A.

An analysis of the pedestrian and patron safety throughout the site in relation to the arterialroad network. The analysis must include, but not be limited to:

B.

The vertical geometry of the arterial road and proximate Outdoor Seating Area inthe upper station, and any appropriate safety measures; and

i.

Calculation of sight distances throughout the summit area, and any appropriatesafety measures.

ii.

Prior to the commencement of any road works, detailed engineering designs and lighting plan,in accordance with the endorsed FLPs, must be submitted to and approved by VicRoads.

67.

Prior to the commencement of the use, all the road improvements works as identified in theapproved TIARmust be completed in accordance with the detailed engineering plans and lightingplan to the satisfaction of, and at no cost to VicRoads.

68.

The preparation of the detailed engineering design and the construction and completion of allroadworksmust be undertaken in amanner consistent with current VicRoads’ policy, proceduresand standards and at no cost to VicRoads. In order tomeet VicRoads’ requirements the developer

69.

must comply with the requirements documented within ‘Standard Requirements – DeveloperFunded Projects’ and any other requirements as considered necessary, to the satisfaction ofVicRoads.

No work must commence in, on, under or over the road reserve without having first obtained allnecessary approvals pursuant to the Road Management Act 2004, the Road Safety Act 1986, andany other relevant acts or regulations created under those Acts.

70.




Part B

That the Committee resolves that Attachment 3 to this report be retained as a confidential item pursuantto Section 77(2)(a) and (b) of the Local Government Act 1989 and be placed in a separate minute bookfor confidential items.

Vote by Division (Requested by Cr. Rodgers)

For the Motion: Cr. Celi, Cr. Dixon, Cr. Garnock, Cr. Gibb and Cr. Shaw

Against the Motion: Cr. Colomb. Cr. Rodgers, Cr. Fraser and Cr. Bowden

Carried

VIEW ATTACHMENT 1

VIEW ATTACHMENT 2

ATTACHMENT 3 – CONFIDENTIAL

This attachment contains personal submitter details and is therefore not available for public viewing.

VIEW ATTACHMENT 4




www.mornpen.vic.gov.au/files/71e2d5c5-57bd-402f-ac3c-a33700abc194/140206da_att_21_1.pdf

www.mornpen.vic.gov.au/files/8f9670bb-9b48-4c0d-8476-a33700abed28/140206da_att_21_2.pdf

www.mornpen.vic.gov.au/files/339b12a1-1345-4a6e-9a96-a33700ac09d5/140206da_att_21_4.pdf

3 URGENT BUSINESS

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

1. Relates to a matter which has arisen since distribution of the Agenda.2. Cannot because of its urgency, be reasonably listed in the Agenda of the next Committee Meeting.3. Councillors by a majority vote, vote in favour of a matter being dealt with as urgent business.

Nil.



4 NOTICES OF MOTION

4.1 Notice of Motion 137

Cr. Hugh Fraser gave notice of his intention to move the following motion at this meeting:

“That the matter of Planning Application number P13/1830, in respect to Lot 5, 3080 Point Nepean Road,Sorrento be heard and determined by Council and not under delegation by Council officers, and on a date tobe fixed by Council.”

Summary

The property, the subject of this planning application to Council, is on the shore of Port Phillip Bay, and is partof the significant heritage site of the 1803 Collins First Settlement of Port Phillip, requiring consideration ofany treatment in respect of both the sensitive environment of the eroding cliff face and consideration of thepublic viewing across it from the neighbouring Parks Victoria's lookout towards the Western Sister and beachand waters of Sullivan Bay.

These views are relevant for interpretation of the place in its broader historical, cultural and geographic contextand enabling visitors to appreciate the surviving elements of the pre-settlement landscape. The proposeddevelopment requires consideration of the impact of the development in this context.

The Nepean Ratepayers Association, the Nepean Historical Society and the Nepean Conservation Group haveall lodged objections about certain aspects of the planning application and their letters to Council of 11 March,29 April and 9 May, 2014 are attached to this Notice of Motion. Reference will be made to these documents.

COMMITTEE DECISION

Moved: Cr. FraserSeconded: Cr. Rodgers

That the matter of Planning Application number P13/1830, in respect to Lot 5, 3080 Point Nepean Road,Sorrento be heard and determined by Council and not under delegation by Council officers, and on adate to be fixed by Council.

Carried

VIEW ATTACHMENT 1



www.mornpen.vic.gov.au/files/07bccb13-ef89-4f9d-83eb-a340010021e8/140206da_att_51_1.pdf

5 CONFIDENTIAL ITEMS

Nil.



6 MEETING CLOSE

As there was no further business, the meeting closed at 10:12 p.m.

CONFIRMED THIS 21ST DAY OF JULY 2014

…………………………………………………….CHAIRMAN

AUTHORITY TO STAMP INITIALS ON MINUTES

I, Cr. Tim Rodgers, Chairman – Development Assessment Committee hereby authorise the use of a stampof my initials to initial each page of these Minutes of the Special Development Assessments CommitteeMeeting held on Monday, 2 June, 2014, confirmed on 21 July, 2014.

………………………………………………………………….

(Cr. Tim Rodgers, Chairman – Development Assessments Committee)

Dated this 21st day of July 2014



Special DAC Minutes - 2 June 2014

Documents