2 The Application for Review was lodged on 1 July 2004. It seeks an amendment to the Cranbourne East Development Plan ("CEDP") to delete a requirement for a 12 metre tree reserve on the north and south sides of Linsell Boulevard related to land that is planned as an activity centre.

3 The subject site is located on the east side of the Narre Warren Cranbourne Road extending to Rochester Parade[1]. The land is held by DFC together with other lots to east and south. The additional DFC land is partly developed for the Hunt Club Estate which is a large residential area of some 700 existing lots to the south of the subject land. There are also two recent permit approvals for a retirement village and Stages 21-24 of the Hunt Club Estate, both being the subject of proceedings before the Tribunal[2]. To the north of the review site is the Brindalee residential estate, which has housing backing onto the proposed Linsell Boulevard alignment.

4 The review site is part of the Cranbourne East growth corridor. The CEDP is adopted by the Council as the plan that is intended to guide development in this large area. We were advised that the subject site is intended for use and development as an activity centre as part of that approved development plan, however, it is currently grassed and vacant. The CEDP also shows a new east-west arterial road, named Linsell Boulevard, in a 34 metre wide road reserve. That road would link Camms Road to the west of the Narre Warren Cranbourne Road with the Berwick Cranbourne Road (Clyde Road) to the east. That would be to the north of the proposed activity centre and south of the Brindalee Estate. Linsell Boulevard is not yet built but is intended to eventually join with the Cranbourne By-Pass.

5 Relevant provisions of the Casey Planning Scheme ("the Scheme") are:

* Clause 32.01 which includes the subject site in a Residential 1 Zone.

* Development Plan Overlay (Schedule 1 - Residential Areas) that applies to the land. It is common ground that the Cranbourne East Development Plan[3] is the approved development plan for the purposes of Clause 43.04. With relevance to the subject land, the forerunner to this adopted development plan were Local Structure Plan 3 Cranbourne East January 1997 ("LSP3") and an associated Development Contributions Plan and the 2000 Hunt Club Development Plan ("HCDP") that addressed part of the area affected by LSP3 and the CEDP[4].

* Clause 45.06 that relates to a Development Contributions Plan.

* Clauses 11, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18.01, 19.03, 21, 22.01 (Future Urban Areas Policy), 22.05 (Residential Development Policy that applies to all residentially zoned land), 22.14 (Infrastructure Policy), 22.15 (Good Design Policy) and Clause 65.

6 Melbourne 2030 has also been taken into account.

7 We were also referred to other documents, including adopted Council policies such as the Casey 21 Strategy and Casey Arterial Roads Tree Strategy 7 October 2003 as well as several other approved Development Plans. There is also proposed Amendment C73 to the Scheme that seeks to introduce a Public Acquisition Overlay and changes to the Development Contributions Plan. The Amendment has been exhibited and, we were advised, will be considered by a Panel at a Hearing in November 2004.

8 Both parties referred to the findings of the Tribunal in the two recently issued permits as cited. It is relevant to the current proceedings that we refer to these findings.

9 In the first decision, The Dennis Family Corporation v Casey CC [2003] VCAT 1891, two matters were before the Tribunal - a proposal for a retirement village on land to the east of the subject land in the current Application and an associated request to amend the CEDP. The Applicant sought review of the Council's failure to determine the retirement village application and requested that tree reserves shown in the CEDP on the north and south side of the proposed Linsell Boulevard alignment be deleted or varied. After reciting extracts from the submissions and evidence, Senior Member Sharkey reached the following conclusions[5]:

One of the Grounds of the Applicant was that the plantation reserve would unreasonably and unfairly affect the development of the retirement village. It could not be argued that it would not affect the development. The evidence of Mr McCaffrey was that the number of units would be reduced from 212 to 192. Mr Rantino argued that this is not a relevant consideration. I consider that this reduction in the development of the retirement village would not be matched by an increase in public benefit.

The second Ground was that the extent of the plantation reserve is excessive, and not necessary for the proper function of the road. I consider, having regard to the fact that the retirement village can provide an attractive interface to Linsell Boulevard, that the proposed width of 12 metres is excessive and would not assist the proper function of the road.

The third Ground was that the request is excessive and unfair. I consider that the submission of Mr Pitt, quoted at paragraph 23 above, is relevant. The permit application was lodged on 16 December 2002 and the Development Plan incorporating this requirement was adopted on 4 February 2003. The application took account of Hunt Club Development Plan, which itself was fairly recent, having been amended in July 2001. I do not consider that the requirement for two 12 metre wide plantation reserves, particularly the northern 12 metre wide plantation reserve, has an adequate nexus to the retirement village, and I accept the submission of Mr Pitt in this respect.

Clause 22.05 sets out the Local Residential Development Policy. Clause 22.05-3 sets out Policy, including:

s Residential development be in accordance with any approved Development Plan under an approved Development Plan Overlay.

s Departures from approved Development Plans will be supported in exceptional circumstances and only if it can be demonstrated that the departure will result in a net community benefit.

s New development contributes fairly to the infrastructure needs of the area.

I consider that this is a case where a departure for the Development Plan requirement would be appropriate. I also consider that the proposed retirement village would contribute fairly to the infrastructure needs of the area by the provision of the reserve for Linsell Boulevard, and a 4.5 metre wide tree reserve on the south side of Linsell Boulevard.

I consider it appropriate therefore to amend the Development Plan accordingly, pursuant to Clause 43.04-3.

10 We were also referred to the findings of Senior Member Liston in The Dennis Family Corporation v Casey CC [2004] VCAT 1031 ("the second decision"). That was a conditions appeal in relation to stages 21-24 of the Hunt Club subdivision to the east of the retirement village site. The Tribunal was required to address Condition 1(b) that sought "a 12 metre wide plantation reserve along the northern side of the proposed location of Linsell Boulevard between Cameron Street and on the proposed north south collector road at stage 24/21 of the subdivision". The Tribunal said[6]:

The proposed plan of subdivision incorporates a 12 metre wide service road/ plantation reserve along its interface with the proposed Linsell Boulevard. This condition relates to a plantation reserve being sought by the Responsible Authority further to the west, although within the same estate, to the north of land within the estate which is set aside for the purpose of a shopping centre. I agree that there is room for debate about the merits of such large plantation reserves from an urban design perspective, and about whether or not the cost of setting aside land for that purpose should or should not be part of the overall cost of a development contribution plan, ultimately I do not think that these are matters which I need and perhaps even should resolve in the context of this application for review. It is my opinion that the land in question is remote from the land being subdivided, and the question of whether or not there should be a tree reserve as proposed should more properly be dealt with in the context of a proposal for the development of the shopping centre itself. This condition should be deleted.

11 The permit application provided for "a 12 metre service road/plantation reserve" on the south side of the Linsell Boulevard alignment which the Tribunal found acceptable. On the information before us, we understand that it is not in the form shown in the CEDP, rather, the layout is in the form of T-shaped court bowls. The Tribunal deleted any requirement for additional reserves associated with other land and, in so doing, acknowledged that the width of a reserve and the basis for its acquisition could be debated. Mr Liston reached no findings on these points.

12 We have considered the submissions and evidence presented by the parties having regard to the policies, objectives and decision guidelines of the Scheme and the adopted Council documents. The subject land and locality have also been inspected.

13 The issue for determination is whether an amendment to the Development Plan should be granted that would remove a requirement for service roads/tree reserves adjacent to the Linsell Boulevard alignment as it affects land generally described as between Rochester Road and the Narre Warren Cranbourne Road.

14 In considering this matter, there is a large quantity of background information which we have endeavoured to simplify by way of the table we have appended to these reasons. That table does not address all the points made in submissions and evidence, but assists to understand the timing at which certain events occurred. From that table and other documents presented to us, we record that:

* The CEDP's requirement for tree reserves along arterial roads accords with the vision and objectives for the municipality referred to at Clause 21 of the Scheme.

* LSP3 proposed Linsell Boulevard (then called Camms Road extension) as 4-lane divided sub-arterial road. It followed a different alignment to that now shown in the CEDP, being further southwards rather in the straight east-west alignment adopted in the CEDP. LSP3 required residential frontages onto the Camms Road extension as identified under the policy for arterial roads. LSP3 also proposed a series of small activity centres, although the subject site in the current proceeding was not so designated.

* Following the City of Casey Activity Centre Strategy (May 2000) the Council reviewed activity centres planned in Cranbourne East. As part of the review of LSP3, a consolidated and larger activity centre was proposed on the subject land. The Council's submission was that to accommodate a larger activity centre, Linsell Boulevard had to be relocated approximately 160 metres north of its previous position to allow enough land for a retail centre (a position with which the Applicant disagreed). In the same process, Linsell Boulevard was upgraded to arterial status with a requirement for a service road or, if not achievable, a 12 metre wide tree reserve on each side of the road reserve. The changes were shown in a draft CEDP exhibited in September 2002 and provided for in the adopted version of the CEDP of February 2003. In the final document the requirement for a service road is based on a standard shown in the document which varies from the draft CEDP.

* On the information before us, in addition to meetings between the Council and DFC, DFC made several written submissions to the Council in relation to the draft CEDP and what appears from the tendered correspondence to also include some earlier draft documents. The Council's position was that DFC was prepared to accept the CEDP whereas the Applicant's position was that it was not. Mr Pitt explained that the Applicant does not object to providing service roads or the equivalent for its residential allotments in accordance with the principles established in adopted Development Contributions Plans applying equally to all lands within the Plan boundaries.

* In October 2003, the Council adopted the Casey Arterial Roads Tree Strategy. Its aim is to use tree planting to develop an identifiable character for the road system with roads having different functions being treated differently in terms of landscaping. Mr Dance's evidence was that the concept of a service road or 12 metre reserve was developed by the team preparing the Casey Arterial Roads Tree Strategy to achieve a double row of evergreen native trees in "the Valley Zone". The opportunity to plant large trees with spreading canopies was said to be an important part of the strategy given that fewer like opportunities are available in the private realm particularly since the advent of more compact residential allotments.

* Other development plans adopted by the Council (eg. Cranbourne Development Plan, Hampton Park Development Plan, Lynbrook and Lyndhurst Development Plan) have sought to include a requirement for 12 metre wide reserves for arterial roads. There appears, therefore, general consistency in terms of the approach taken across the municipality although there appear to be examples where the design standard varies, as referred to in Mr McCaffrey's evidence.

* From road management and engineering perspective, a 34 metre wide road reserve, without 12 metre wide tree reserves, can function effectively and safely. That is, there is no traffic imperative for the reserves.

* There is no need to establish a nexus between the provision of the tree reserves and a specific use/development application as there is no permit application related to the current request to amend the CEDP.

* From a landscape perspective, it is possible to either:

s provide vegetation within a 6 metre wide verge associated with the 34 metre road reservation using frangible[7] plantings;

s provide a single row of taller canopy trees in a 4.5 metre wide reserve, but of a different type and in a different setting to those envisaged by the Council in its Arterial Roads Tree Strategy;

but either would not meets the overall design or strategic goals.

16 Thus we must consider whether there are sound reasons in support of the amendment to the CEDP that is proposed on the basis that the change is not needed for traffic reasons or to facilitate a specific use/development shown in a permit application but mindful that it would impact on the ability to achieve the outcomes sought for a proposed boulevard.

17 The Applicant's submission in this regard was, inter alia, that as a result of the Tribunal's earlier decisions and permit approvals, the form of Linsell Boulevard would be disjointed and produce a deviation in the road alignment if the tree reserves on the north and south side of the Boulevard relating to the subject land are not deleted. Mr McCaffrey was concerned that the reserves would impact on the size of the shopping centre with no real public benefit. In response, Mr Montebello submitted that the Council seeks the retention of the tree reserves as part of its strategic planning for the arterial road network. It is seeking to "retrieve" the reserves "lost" as a result of the first Tribunal decision through proposed Amendment C73 and, in that way, does not consider that the strategy can not be implemented.

18 It was said by Mr Pitt and Mr Montebello that the tree reserve on the south side is less critical because the detail will be "sorted out" when a rezoning is considered for the shopping centre site. The Council, nonetheless, sought for the reserve to be retained while the Applicant argued that it should be deleted. This raises the question why bring forward the current proceedings when the matter of the reserves could be addressed as part of the proposed rezoning of the shopping centre site? When we asked this at the Hearing, Mr Pitt explained that his client wished for the matter to be resolved following the same approach as the Tribunal took in the first decision. Moreover, he noted that his client had submitted engineering drawings to the Council relating to drainage from Stages 21-24 of the Hunt Club but the Council would not approve them given that they do not include the 12 metre wide reserve on the southern side of the Brindalee Estate[8].

19 In considering the submissions and evidence we conclude that:

* It is not our role to find whether the Council's entire arterial road landscaping strategy is flawed. The "overall outcomes"[9] of the CEDP, which include the creation of boulevard planting along the main road network (double rows of staggered tree planting), are not sought to be varied by the Applicant. Rather, we are asked to amend a specific section of the CEDP relating to one proposed boulevard given the removal and variation of the reserves to the east of the subject land.

* The CEDP's requirement for service/tree reserves is a strategy being pursued across the municipality and the 12 metre reservation is developed upon a reasoned logic with community and stakeholder consultation as presented to us in Mr Montebello's submission. Acceding to the request to amend the CEDP would impact on the ability to achieve the Plan's desired outcome at one location. Nonetheless, that alone should not cause the Application to fail, as there may be circumstances where variations are appropriate.

* In the current case, the absence of a tree reserve on the north side opposite the retirement village site would produce a different alignment and visual outcome compared with a form of the Boulevard that includes the desired consistent service roads/tree reserves. If the tree reserve is not provided on the north side opposite the retirement village, we are not persuaded that deleting the tree reserve entirely to its west would produce a desirable outcome in the terms of the CEDP, Rather, whether with a tree reserve of 12 metres or a lesser width, there would be scope to design a road link that tapers from the corner of Narre Warren Cranbourne Road eastwards to meet the 34 metre wide reservation and then tapers out again. There does not need to be an abrupt change in road alignment. Consistent with the overall objectives of the CEDP and state and local policies within the Scheme (such as Clauses 18.01 and 19.03), a tapered alignment with a northern tree reserve would be more compatible with the outcomes sought by the arterial roads tree strategy than could be achieved relying only on the vegetation possible in a 6 metre wide reserve that is part of the 34 metre wide road reserve. This includes consideration of the visual impact of the rear paling fencing of the Brindalee Estate.

* The CEDP includes the requirements for an activity centre[10] such as a supermarket, "at least 15-20 retail and other tenancies" and leaves the way open for a wide range of other services and facilities. It does not nominate a desired floorspace. We have only sketchy information before us in relation to the impact of the tree reserves on the activity centre site, which mainly take the form of some general comments in Mr McCaffrey's and Mr Robertson's written evidence and some calculations as to land area that Mr McCaffrey made during cross-examination. On the basis of this material, we are not persuaded that the proposal for tree reserves would impact on the ability to achieve the nominated components of an activity centre specified in the CEDP. Moreover, there is nothing before us to suggest that the CEDP has set requirements for an activity centre without taking into account other obligations included in the same Plan such as the tree reserves and Linsell Boulevard. Rather, it appears that the Council was mindful of the area needed for an activity centre by relocating Linsell Bouelvard to the north.

20 In addition, we are concerned that we are asked to amend the CEDP without any information or justification by the Applicant as to the potential impacts of the requested change on the development, use and enjoyment of the abutting and nearby land and associated residents.

21 Based on these findings, we are not persuaded that there are grounds to delete the northern tree reserve as this would preclude the ability to achieve the landscape outcome sought by the CEDP with nothing before us to persuade us that there would be a resultant net community benefit as sought by Clause 22.05. There is then the southern reserve which as suggested by both parties and Mr Liston is a matter that is appropriately dealt with as part of a rezoning/specific proposal for the activity centre. We concur with that view and are not persuaded to delete the southern reservation in the interim. Moreover, we consider that the future form of the northern section of the Boulevard should be dealt with in that context to enable an integrated solution to this part of the Boulevard and adjacent lands.

22 The need to amend the DECP is put by the Applicant on the basis of a failure to gain agreement with the Council about servicing arrangements (water mains) for Stages 21-24 of the Hunt Club and the siting of a 2 lane section of Linsell Boulevard as required by the permit for Stages 21-24 of the Hunt Club subdivision. While we understand that the ongoing dispute between the Council and Applicant in relation to the tree reserves is a concern (to both parties) we are not persuaded that the problems associated with approving engineering plans for that subdivision and meeting the permit conditions for Stages 21-24 of the Hunt Club override the concerns about the deletion of the tree reserves we have set out above. We are influenced in our finding by the availability of an avenue for appeal under Section 40 of the Subdivision Act 1988 in relation to a refuse or failure to approve the engineering plans.

23 This then leads us to arguably the strongest point in support of the Application. Mr Pitt referred us to the oft-cited cases in relation to "repeat appeals" including Amoco (Australia) Ltd v City of Berwick (1983) 1 PABR 166 and some more recent decisions relying on that case and others as authority for the proposition that although each case must be determined on its merits the Tribunal should pay regard to a previous decision of the Tribunal and give great weight to that decision. That is desirable from the viewpoint of consistency in decision-making, although this should not be the only or determinative consideration, and the Tribunal should not hesitate to depart from a prior decision if it was clearly erroneous. The latter was the view argued by Mr Montebello, that is, the position reached by the Tribunal in the first decision was wrong given the undesirable outcomes that follow from the decision. Conversely, Mr Pitt submitted that we should be persuaded to reach the same view as Senior Member Sharkey as although the subject land differs to that in the first Tribunal decision, all other circumstances such as the CEDP, the physical circumstances of the land and the Scheme provisions remain the same.

24 Four matters are identified in K & B Reichert vs City of Banyule and Ors (Appeal 1996/38819) to assist to determine the weight a previous Tribunal decision should be afforded, or, put another way, establish criteria to determine whether a departure from a Tribunal's previous conclusions is warranted. We address those four criteria in respect of this Application:

* Significant changes in the application itself. The current proposal relates to different land than the lots that were the subject of the Tribunals' consideration in the first and second decisions. In addition, in the current case, we have no permit application before us only a request to amend the CEDP relating to a specific section of land. Both previous Tribunal decisions were considering permit applications in addition to the provisions of the CEDP.

* Changes in the circumstances of the land and its surrounds. We understand that there are no significant or material changes in the physical circumstances of the review site or surrounding area.

* Changes in planning policy. There appears to have been no material change in the Scheme or adopted Council policies (other than the Tribunal's directed changes to the CEDP) since the first Tribunal decision. Amendment C73 is new, but that has only reached the stage of exhibition and is now proceeding to a Panel hearing. It is not an amendment that we consider can be regarded as a seriously entertained proposal, although we do recognise that it demonstrates the Council's commitment to achieve service roads or, as an alternative, a 12 metre wide tree reserve along the proposed new east-west arterial road.

* Changes in the interpretation of the facts or law relevant to the Tribunal's consideration. No changes were identified by the parties in relation to the law, while Mr Montebello referred to facts about the preparation and background to the CEDP, HCDP, and LSP3 that may not have previously been provided to the Tribunal.

25 A different presentation of a case could, dependent on the facts and circumstances, also amount to a change in circumstances. For example, in Murray and Ors v Minister for Planning and Environment (1987) 5 PABR 206 the Tribunal established that the presentation of better or supporting evidence could amount to sufficient change in circumstances to depart from a previous Tribunal finding. In the current proceedings, Mr Dance and Mr McCaffrey both gave evidence in the first Tribunal case. The evidence of Ms Fleisher is different to that of Mr Dalheim in the previous case, based on her answers in cross-examination by Mr Pitt and having read Mr Dalheim's evidence as tendered to us by Mr Pitt. Key differences include background provided to us about the preparation of the CEDP, HCDP, and LSP3 and the associated consultative processes for the CEDP. However background information was referred to in supplementary submissions received and considered by Mr Liston. The traffic witnesses also differed in the two cases.

26 In our view, the most obvious differences in the circumstances of the two previous Tribunal decisions and the current Application are that:

* our consideration of amendments to the CEDP is not linked to any specific permit application relating to the subject land.

27 These are not circumstances that can be dismissed particularly as in the first decision, the Tribunal reached a view that (inter alia) a net benefit would be achieved by varying the CEDP because of the impact on the proposed retirement village. We have no like circumstances as there is no proposal before us in relation to the activity centre and we only have conjecture as to the possible impact of the reserves on that centre.

28 In the second decision, the Tribunal accepted that a reserve had been provided on the south side of the Boulevard and found that a debate about the form of other reserves should be within the context of a proposal for the activity centre. We concur with that view for the following reasons.

29 We are being asked to vary a specific part of a Development Plan that provides an overall strategy for the development of the Cranbourne East area consistent with a wider strategy for the whole municipality. Amending the CEDP as sought in this Application would not allow the outcomes sought to be achieved for the subject land. As we have already said, there may be circumstances where changes to the DECP are justified and Clause 22.05 acknowledges that by including a policy that departures from approved Development Plans will be supported "only in exceptional circumstances and only if it can be demonstrated that the departure will result in a net community benefit". Even without Clause 22.05, we would consider whether the proposed CEDP amendments are consistent with the principles of orderly planning.

30 On the information before us, we have nothing persuasive to conclude that there would be a net community benefit by deleting or varying the tree reserves relating to the subject land in terms referred to at Clause 22.05 or orderly planning. In addition, as there is no use/development application before us, we do not make findings about the transfer or costs associated with the reserves, a matter that was clearly of concern to Senior Member Sharkey in relation to development contributions associated with the retirement village. That is another factor that distinguishes the current Application from the first Tribunal decision and, indeed, it is a debate that will no doubt be pursued through Amendment C73.

31 For the above reasons, we will disallow the Application for Review and direct that there be no change to the Cranbourne East Development Plan.

s City of Cranbourne adopts Local Structure Plan 3 (LSP3) over 912ha of residential land including the subject land (~11,600 households).

s Establishes (former) alignment of Camms Rd extension (now Linsell Bvd): 34m wide with no provision for adjacent tree reservations. Alignment is ~160 m south of that shown in CEDP.

s Requires service roads on either side of Camms Rd extension (now Linsell Bvd)

s Council commissioned Consultants to formulate a tree planting strategy for the arterial road network

s Hunt Club Development Plan adopted by Council to supercede part of LSP3.

s Included design objective for boulevard planting only along Narre Warren-Cranbourne Rd.

s Camms Rd Extension (now Linsell Bvd) designated sub-arterial.

s In-principle adoption by Council of Casey Activity Centres Strategy to consolidate several proposed shopping centres into one site immediately west of retirement village.

s DFC purchased Corrigan land (abuts Brindalee Estate and land in which Linsell Bvd is now proposed).

s DFC submitted Draft Master Plan for Hunt Club Estate (215ha).

s DFC requested amendment to rezone land in Hunt Club Estate from Residential to Business (including proposal to re-align Linsell Bvd) to provide for proposed Activities Centre on cnr of Linsell Bvd and Narre Warren - Cranbourne Rd.

s Draft Cranbourne East Development Plan (CEDP) released for public exhibition. Proposes extension to Camms Road with a requirement for a service road with 10 metre outer separator or if not achievable 12 metre tree reserve. Cross-sections shown.

s Submission received from DFC on Draft CEDP regarding tree reserves and other issues. Included request for City `to clarify the Camms Rd requirements and adjacent tree reserves.'

s Permit application lodged by DFC for Retirement Village (without property frontage onto Linsell Bvd).

s Permit application lodged by DFC for Retirement Village.

s CEDP adopted by Casey Council (under Clause 43 of Scheme).

s Includes requirement service roads beside arterial roads based on the standard drawings shown in the CEDP, or if not achievable (e.g. where houses back onto rather than front onto the road), the need for a 12m wide plantation reserve on each side of the roads additional to 34m wide road reserve.

s Casey provided DFC and other land developers with copy of the Draft Casey Arterial Road Tree Strategy, for comment by 18 June 2003

s DFC requested amendment of CEDP on basis that requirement for 12m wide tree reserves on each side of Linsell Bvd is excessive.

s Council resolved not to support the DFC objection.

s Council adopts City of Casey Arterial Roads Tree Strategy

s Design objective is to use tree planting to develop an identifiable character for the arterial road system using themes to integrate the road system into the overall environment while recognising the function of the individual roads and surrounding landscape.

s Main tree species for use on subject land the is Forest Red Gum (E. tereticornis) to provide clean stems and spreading canopy of high trees that will not block out backdrop.

s Council issues Permit P529/03 for Stages 21-24 of Hunt Club Estate.

s CEDP amended by VCAT in first Tribunal decision.

s Deleted requirement for plantation reserves on north side of proposed Linsell Bvd abutting Brindalee Estate residential development and reduces tree reserve on southern side of Linsell Bvd to 4.5m.

s Tribunal Hearing in second decision in relation to DFC appeal against conditions of Planning Permit re Stages 21-24 of Hunt Club Estate immediately east of Retirement Village Site and also including land north of the retirement village site included in the Subject land under current consideration (ie to southern boundary of Brindalee Estate).

s Letter from DFC (via Bosco Johnson) requesting amendment to CEDP by deleting plantation reservations between retirement village site and Narre Warren-Cranbourne Rd

s DFC requested Council to amend CEDP to exclude requirement for 12m road reserves on either side of Linsell Bvd in vicinity of DFC land. (ie. subject of current VCAT proceedings).

s Requires development of a sealed 2-lane roadway along the Linsell Bvd alignment between Narre Warren-Cranbourne Rd and north-south collector road in proposed stages 21/24 of the Hunt Club Estate

s Suggests decision on tree reserve requirement be at the time of a decision on the proposal for development of shopping centre on corner of Linsell Bvd with Narre Warren- Cranbourne Rd.

s DFC submit engineering plans for Stages 21-24 of Hunt Club Estate to Casey Council.

[1] This road name is associated with a retirement village approved to the east of the subject land.

[2] The proposed retirement village and an associated amendment to the CEDP was addressed in The Dennis Family Corporation v Casey CC [2003] VCAT 1891 while a conditions appeal relating to Stages 21-24 of the Hunt Club Estate was the subject of consideration in The Dennis Family Corporation v Casey CC [2004] VCAT 1031.

[3] Adopted by the Council on 4 February 2003 and amended on 7 October 2003 and 27 January 2004.

[4] The Hunt Club Development Plan is generally the area now developed as the Hunt Club Estate but also includes (inter alia) the subject site in the current proceedings and the retirement village site.

[7] Based on Mr Robertson's evidence, these are plantings allowed by VicRoads next to the road carriageway that could be up to 80-100mm in diameter at maturity and provide a "more forgiving roadside " environment if a car departs the carriageway. His evidence was that taller trees may be permitted if appropriate treated/secured such as by a safety barrier.

[8] Correspondence dated 1 and 8 October 2004 from Council to Dennis, Price & Miller.

[11] This table excludes reference to the creation of plans of subdivision and certification of plans relating to land titles of DFC property.