//
[2007] VCAT 546
General information, not legal advice.
Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal
2007-04-04
Original judgment source is linked above.
Application under section 80 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 to review conditions in a permit.
Residential 1 zone. Vegetation Protection Overlay. Environmental Significance Overlay. Heritage Overlay. Subdivision of land. Native vegetation management framework. Clause 52.17. Relevance and adherence to agreement under the under previous permit.
Estate of WG Hiscock v Mornington Peninsula SC [2007] VCAT 546
The decision of the Responsible Authority is affirmed. The Tribunal directs that Permit P06/0517 must contain the conditions set out in the Notice of Decision to Grant a Permit issued by the Responsible Authority on 31 July 2006.
The Responsible Authority is directed to issue the permit in accordance with this order.
Mr John Cicero, Solicitor of Best Hooper who called as expert witness Mr Andrew McMahon, Ecologist of Ecology Australia Pty Ltd.
Mr Arthur Cooksley, Town Planner of Mornington Peninsula Shire Council.
Ms Tania Heber, Solicitor of Victorian Government Solicitors Office for DSE.
1 This application for review of the permit conditions has been in relation to the condition requiring deletion of one lot (Lot 3) from the proposed plan of subdivision (Condition 1(a) of Permit No P06/0517). It is a peculiar matter in that the applicants for review hold a current permit for subdivision of the subject land (Permit No P04/1887). This permit was granted after applying for a six lot subdivision, but being granted a permit that allowed only five lots. The sixth lot, Lot 3, was removed by a condition of the issued permit - the same condition 1(a) of the current permit under consideration.
2 Further I am given to understand from submissions that this permit has been acted on, that the subdivision works were nearing completion at the time of the hearing and certification was imminent. Additionally, a s.173 agreement[1] has been registered on the land. This agreement was registered on 28 September 2006 in accordance with a condition of permit P04/1887. Amongst other matters this agreement requires the preparation and implementation of a Property Management Plan that addresses the management of vegetation on the land.
3 Mr Cooksley informed me that the current permit application under review:
is seeking the creation of an additional lot (lot 3) generally in accordance and (sic) the location of lot 3 as proposed in the application...that led to the issue of the existing permit.
4 Mr Cicero informed me that at the time of the original permit application, the applicants did not want to delay the development by appealing the condition requiring deletion of lot 3. It is only now, through this application that the applicants are now seeking to contest this condition to delete Lot 3.
5 The Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE) has contested the review of condition 1(a) contained in the permit P06/0517. DSE's objection was on the basis that lot 3 be retained for conservation as:
It is a condition of the grant of the 2004 permit [P04/1887] that the vegetation be retained;
The native vegetation is of very high conservation significance and therefore clearing should not be permitted;
The proposal has not demonstrated how it avoids vegetation loss; and
The subject land abuts the foreshore reserve and is located within the 1803 Collins Settlement historical site.
6 Mr Cooksley indicated that if it were not for DSE's objection, Council would have issued a permit for the six lot subdivision, i.e. in affect granting the additional (sixth) lot to the current subdivision.
7 The subject site is the property known as "Nee Morna" located on the Point Nepean Road near Sorrento. The subject land comprises 2.055ha. The land includes the historic "Nee Morna" house and landscape gardens[2]. Other improvements include a number of outbuildings and a tennis court. The land lies within the Nationally Listed Collins Settlement Site of 1803. The buildings and other improvements are set within coastal vegetation that extends east and west along the bay's coast.
8 As I noted earlier the land has been the subject of subdivision works under the existing permits. Materials submitted at the hearing indicated this to include the creation of a sealed internal road with kerbing drainage and provision of services.
9 The lands southern frontage abuts the Point Nepean Road and beyond that is residential land. To the east and west lies residential land, with houses set within coastal vegetation typical to this area. The land to north comprises bushland within a public coastal reserve beyond which are the waters of Port Phillip Bay.
10 The proposal under this application is for a six lot subdivision. The largest lot of 7,193 sqm is to contain the "Nee Morna" house, tennis court, gardens and vehicle access. The remaining five proposed lots range in area from 2,042 sqm (Lot 3) to 3,021 sqm (Lot 1). A carriageway easement of 4m through the land is proposed to service two existing adjoining residences ("Windward" and "Westering") and also provide access to the lots within the subdivision.
11 Lots 1 to 6 are proposed to contain a building envelope (ranging from 254 sqm in Lot 3 to 415 sq m in Lot 1) and driveway access.
12 I was informed that this proposal reflected the same proposal that was the subject of the granting of permit P04/1887. However under this permit, lot 3 was required to be removed, i.e. it was merged into Lot 2.
13 The subject land is located in a Residential 1 (R1Z)[3]. Relevant to this matter, the purpose of the zone is, amongst other matters:
To provide for residential development at a range of densities with a variety of dwellings to meet the housing needs of all households.
To encourage residential development that respects the neighbourhood character.
14 At cl.32.01-2 a permit is required for subdivision. A permit application is required to address the requirements of cl.56. Clause 56 was amended by Planning Scheme Amendment VC 42 on 9 October 2006. However under transitional arrangements[4] the requirements of cl.56 as they were prior to amendment VC 42 apply to this application.
15 The purpose of cl.56 as set out prior to VC42 included amongst other matters:
To encourage subdivisions that provide a wide range of lot size, are cost-effective and meet community standards for health and amenity.
• Identifies and appropriately responds to site opportunities and constraints.
• Respects the existing neighbourhood character or achieves a preferred neighbourhood character for the area.
16 I have had regard to the standards and objectives as they are set out in cl.56 and in particular those of most relevance to the key issues in this matter. These include clauses, standards and decision guidelines relevant to vegetation and landscape, residential diversity, site context and design response, environmental constraints[5].
17 The subject land is also affected by a number of overlays. Mr Cooksley set these out as:
•
DDO3 - Schedule 3 of the Design and development Overlay.
•
ESO25 - Schedule 25of the Environmental Significance Overlay.
•
VPO1 - Schedule 1of the Vegetation Protection Overlay.
•
HO176 - Schedule 176 of the Heritage Overlay.
18 A permit is required to subdivide land affected by DDO3. The purposes of DDO3 includes amongst other matters[6]:
To ensure that the design of subdivision and housing is responsive to the environment, landform, site conditions and character of coastal villages, hillsides and clifftop areas.
To recognise areas where substantial vegetation cover is a dominant visual and environmental feature of the local area by ensuring site areas are large enough to accommodate development while retaining natural or established vegetation cover and to provide substantial areas for new landscaping and open space.
To protect shared viewlines (sic) where reasonable and practical.
To ensure that subdivision and development proposals have proper regard to heritage values and coastal landscapes, including those of areas such as the Portsea Clifftop area, the Sorrento Heritage Precinct and the Ranelagh Estate in Mount Eliza.
To ensure that subdivision proposals will enable new buildings to be integrated with their site and the surrounding area in terms of the relationship to existing buildings, open space areas and the coastal landscape. [Emphasis added]
19 In respect to subdivisions, DDO3 requires that
Where land is within a Residential 1 Zone, the average area of all lots within a subdivision must be no less than 1500 square metres and each lot must be able to contain a rectangle with minimum dimensions of 25 metres x 35 metres"[7]. [Emphasis added].
The size of the subdivision lots was not in dispute for this matter, however the requirement to be able to contain a rectangle of given dimensions is relevant to considerations, in that the proposed Lot 3 relies on a combination of existing cleared land and removal of some native vegetation in order to accommodate the required dimensioned area.
20 Decision guidelines set out under this overlay include consideration of:
Any relevant...heritage study, code or policy relating to the protection and development of land in the area.
The effect of any proposed subdivision....on the environmental and landscape values of site and of the local area, including the effect on...foreshores, areas of remnant vegetation...and on the amenity...of areas of public open space. [Emphasis added]
21 A permit is required to remove vegetation under ESO25 and VPO1. I have had regard to the purposes, objectives, requirements and decision guidelines to these overlays. Of particular relevance is the following objectives and decision guidelines contained within these overlays:
To protect and enhance the natural features, vegetation, ecological diversity, landscape quality, heritage values and recreation opportunities of the Port Phillip Bay coastal area and associated intertidal and marine habitats.[8]
Whether any proposed....removal of vegetation, is likely to cause any deterioration of the Port Phillip Coastal Area by virtue of erosion or the deposition of sand or silt or any other reason.[9]
... ensure new development has proper regard for the established landscape....and development pattern in terms of being consistent with the existing balance between vegetation and building form in the local area and contributing to the landscape character of the area.
....ensure that any removal of natural vegetation and works associated with development in environmentally sensitive areas...is carried out with proper regard to the physical characteristics of each site and the local area.
....ensure that any removal of natural vegetation in proximity to...other public land has proper regard to the impact on these areas.
...protect and conserve native vegetation, including grasses and ground flora.
...protect and conserve the habitat value of vegetation within township areas[10].
...the responsible authority must consider, as appropriate:
The value of the native vegetation to be removed in terms of its habitat, landscape and environmental values, age, physical condition, rarity or variety.[11]
22 A permit is required to subdivide land or remove vegetation (where specified) under the Heritage Overlay[12]. The purpose set outs amongst other matters:
To ensure that development does not adversely affect the significance of heritage places.
The decision guidelines set out the following relevant considerations:
The significance of the heritage place and whether the proposal will adversely affect the natural or cultural significance of the place.
Any applicable heritage study and any applicable conservation policy.
Whether the proposed subdivision or consolidation will adversely affect the significance of the heritage place.
Whether the proposed subdivision or consolidation may result in development which will adversely affect the significance, character or appearance of the heritage place.
23 Thus a permit is required under a number of provisions for the subdivision, and for the removal of vegetation arising from the provision of the building envelope and associated works for the subdivision.
24 Additionally the removal of vegetation is subject to the provisions of cl.52.17 Native Vegetation. A number of matters raised within this clause have been considered in this application and these are discussed as appropriate in these reasons.
25 Relevant policy was set out by Mr Cooksley and Ms Heber in their submissions and so I will not repeat the detail here. Of most relevance to this matter are the policies contained in clauses 15.09 (Native vegetation), 22.08 (Foreshore and coastal areas), 22.04 (Cultural heritage places) and 22.13 (Township environment).
26 The general decision guidelines that must be considered are set out at Clause 65 and for subdivisions particularly at cl.65.02. These require consideration to be given to, amongst other things, the planning scheme's policies; the purpose of the zone and overlays, orderly planning and the impact on the amenity of the area. Cl65.02 sets out a number of matters relevant to the consideration of an application for subdivision, many of which emphasis the matters set out in policy or provisions dealt with above.
27 I find that in some respects the subdivision into 6 blocks is one that potentially has merit and could be supported if one were to only consider the character of the adjoining land (i.e. the size, shape and landscape setting of adjoining lots). However having regard to the submissions and the site's characteristics I find that the substantive matter is one of balancing the efficient and appropriate use of land zoned for residential purposes against planning controls and policy for the protection or maintenance of native vegetation and the heritage context of the site. These matters are dealt with in more detail below.
28 Ms Heber also submitted that to pursue further subdivision was against the intent of the s173 agreement entered into under permit P04/1887.
29 I concur with Ms Heber in that permit P04/1887 and associated s.173 agreement have set in train a requirement to manage the subject land in accordance with the endorsed Property Management Plan (PMP)[13]. Whatever the reasons submitted by Mr Cicero as to why the applicant did not object to the permit conditions of P04/1887, it is now fact that the approved subdivision is for five lots , the s.173 agreement is in place and the PMP has been finalised and endorsed by Council (having been subject to consultation with DSE).
30 As per Ms Heber's submission I am duty bound under s.84B(2)(h) to "have regard to any agreement made pursuant to section 173 [of the Planning and Environment Act 1987] affecting the land the subject of the application for review".
31 The situation regarding the power of the Tribunal in respect to a s.173 agreement is perhaps best summarised by then Deputy President Horsfall[14]:
The Tribunal has in a number of decisions held that neither the Responsible Authority nor the Tribunal should direct the issue of a permit where it is contrary to a Section 173 Agreement affecting the subject land and to do so ...is a material mistake of law.
32 This is not to say that the Tribunal could not issue an order to vary the agreement and so have a subsequent permit comply[15].
33 The question for this Tribunal is therefore whether allowing a permit without Condition 1(a) would contravene the s.173 agreement and if I were of mind to allow such a permit would it be necessary to modify the s.173 agreement?
34 Having regard to my consideration of the planning merits of the appeal it is clear that I will not order a permit to issue that allows the six lot subdivision. I am not therefore required to make a finding with respect to this matter.
35 I now turn to the substantive matters of merit in respect to this application for review.
36 The various overlays (as set out above) call for consideration of the values of the site's native vegetation and its appropriate protection. It is policy at cl.15-09 that:
Planning and responsible authorities must have regard to Victoria's Native Vegetation Management - A Framework for Action (Department of Natural Resources and Environment 2002). If a permit is required to remove native vegetation...or an application for subdivision could result in the removal of native vegetation, planning and responsible authorities should follow the three-step approach as defined in the Framework. This is achieved firstly, as a priority, by avoiding the removal of native vegetation; secondly, if the removal of native vegetation cannot be avoided, by minimising the loss of native vegetation through appropriate consideration in planning processes and expert input into project design or management; and thirdly, by identifying appropriate offset actions. [Emphasis added]
Responsible authorities should ensure that the siting of new buildings and works minimises the removal or fragmentation of native vegetation.
38 While this is not an application for development cl.65.02 requires consideration of possible future development of the land when considering subdivision applications. Further, the requirements of DDO3 anticipate development and require consideration of such matters as building envelopes. It follows that in the act of subdivision, the siting of such envelopes expressly considers the potential nature of the development. Thus the relevant planning merits of the potential siting of buildings within the envelope within the lot and associated works should be considered as pert of this application.
39 The implementation of cl.15.09 is through cl.52.17 Native Vegetation. This clause sets out amongst other matters the following purposes:
If the removal of native vegetation cannot be avoided, to minimise the removal of native vegetation through appropriate planning and design.
To appropriately offset the loss of native vegetation.
40 Mr Cicero submitted that under the residential zone, and having regard to the Villawood decision[16], urban densities should optimise the land because urban land is a scarce resource; it should be considered that up to 13 lots could be contemplated and by applying for six lots the avoid principle had been addressed; that Net Gain must be balanced with other strategic outcomes to achieve a net community benefit; and if the vegetation is highly significant it should be bought into public ownership.
41 I do not accept the argument pursued that the avoid principle has been applied in that the original consideration of 13 lots was reduced to six. Such an argument can only be pursued if it were accepted that a 13 lot subdivision had been tested and found to be a valid option for subdivision. A true reading of the "avoid principle" is that removal or other destruction of the vegetation has been avoided because of the regard made to its inherent ecological, landscape and / or catchment conservation values[17].
42 It follows therefore that the conservation significance of the vegetation is a fundamental matter to consider.
43 It was the evidence of Mr McMahon that the conservation significance of the vegetation (the Coastal Moonah Woodland) was not high enough to warrant the criteria of "Very High Conservation Significance"[18] and the consequential highest degree of protection afforded under the Native Vegetation Management Framework that would follow from such a classification. He proceeded on the basis that the habitat hectare score of 0.35 (which he later conceded rounded to 0.4 on the convention of the framework adopting values to only one significant figure) and the EVC conservation status of "endangered" combined to provide for a "High" conservation classification and thus removal of some vegetation could be contemplated. He therefore proceeded to estimate a value of habit hectare offsets based on the loss of vegetation from the whole of the lot (noting that only 5 trees were to be removed) to be applied on land other than the subject site.
44 Ms Heber however tendered the recently released (December 2006) Port Phillip and Westernport Native Vegetation Plan (PPW Native Vegetation Plan) which confirms Coastal Moonah Woodland to have an endangered bioregional conservation status on the basis of its listing under the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988. This bioregional conservation status in combination with the (rounded) habitat hectare score of 0.4 translates to a "Very High" conservation status. Additionally listed communities under the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 are also to be considered as having "Very High" conservation significance under the revised convention contained in the PPW Native Vegetation Plan.
45 Mr Cicero challenged the applicability of the regional native vegetation plan as a reference document, as it has not been incorporated into the planning scheme. However I accept that reference is made to these plans within the Victoria's Native Vegetation Management - A Framework for Action at Section 9 Implementation (see pages 32 to 33) and at footnote 2 to Table 5 of Appendix 3. This framework document is a reference document and further defers to these regional plans as they are developed. As such I am satisfied that weight can be given to this Vegetation Management Plan and the elevation of the conservation significance of the Coastal Moonah Woodland from "High" in Mr McMahon's assessment to "Very High" under the regional vegetation plan.
46 It is therefore a matter of fact that the vegetation community on this portion of the site has a conservation significance of "Very High". Under this conservation significance "clearing is not permitted unless exceptional circumstances apply" or "impacts are an unavoidable part of a development project with approval from the Minister for Conservation and Environment based on considerations of statewide (sic) environmental, social and economic values"[19].
47 At the first instance, therefore the body of planning policy and provisions in relation to vegetation matters leads me to the conclusion that for this site and its associated "very high conservation significance" vegetation, wherever possible avoidance of native vegetation clearance should be the first priority. Avoidance means just that in this matter and whether or not more lots could be established but weren't in order to minimise the amount of vegetation loss is immaterial. As no exceptional circumstance or matters of "state significance" have been demonstrated to justify the removal of the Moonah Coastal Woodland vegetation to allow this subdivision and its associated building envelope, it follows that further vegetation removal from this site does not constitute an acceptable outcome. As a consequence the additional lot, with its need to remove vegetation to establish a building envelope is inappropriate.
48 Such a decision raises the question of whether under residential use the loss of vegetation values would occur regardless of whether this land remained as one lot or was subdivided into two. This is the subtext of the submissions put by Mr McMahon, Mr Cicero and Ms Heber in their submissions of the Villawood case. I find that a proper and full reading of the Villawood case is a commentary on the approach to estimating the off-set habitat hectares and the corresponding management of such an off-set. It was not a commentary that development of residential zoned land will result in a total loss of native vegetation. It is acknowledged however, that the concerns of the council and DSE in the Villawood case was that it was their collective experience that the value of native vegetation retained on private property could not be guaranteed in the long term[20]. There was also discussion by the members in this case as to the onerous task of managing compliance, importing an expectation that the pressure for residential land use would, in the absence of strong controls, result in the loss of native vegetation or its intrinsic ecological value.
49 It would be fair to say that the loss of vegetation values is not only about loss of individual trees. It is also about loss of understorey and other contributory vegetation such as grasses associated with the floristic community on which the value of the vegetation is rated. This was a proposition I put to which DSE agreed. The loss of such vegetation may not be just from intentional, physical removal. Pressure from people's general activity on the land can and does disturb vegetation and reduce its distribution or habitat / ecological value. Thus the density of development and corresponding level of activity that may occur on a lot can influence the longer term viability of such vegetation. It follows that larger blocks of land may reduce the intensity of activity or otherwise allow for the management of activity away from more sensitive areas. The use of larger lots sizes may therefore be one way to maintain (and possibly contribute to an increase in) the ecological value of native vegetation communities in urban areas. Consideration of such matters within the decision making process are triggered under the applicable environmental and vegetation protection overlays (as I have set out earlier). Thus to allow residential development in areas of native vegetation is not an automatic death knell to this vegetation and one should have regard to the way the land can be set out and utilised to assist in achieving the aims of the Native Vegetation Management Framework within urban areas.
50 To conclude on this matter, while I have had regard to the conservation significance of the vegetation community and the statutory obligations, at the pragmatic level, it is, I believe, a better outcome for management of the Coastal Moonah Woodland community in this location if the larger lots and the less intensive subdivision as it currently stands at five lots is maintained.
51 While this matter has substantially turned on the ecological value of the native vegetation, my attention was also drawn to the heritage values of the site and surrounding land. It was Ms Heber's submission that DSE is also a referral authority to this matter because of the adjacent PPRZ land[21], i.e. the foreshore reserve which encompasses the heritage 1803 Collins Settlement land.
52 Matters raised by Ms Heber included the possible adverse impact to the "Nee Morna's" site context within the 1803 Collins Settlement site as well as the wider Collins Settlement historic site context arising from removal of tree canopy. She referred to the 1803 Collins Settlement Site: Future Direction Management Plan (Context Pty Ltd, December 2002) (the Collins Settlement Management Plan), which provides for the management of public and private land within this heritage site, including the subject site. It was commonly agreed by the parties that the Collins Settlement Management Plan is not an incorporated document in the planning scheme. What was disputed was how much weight the Tribunal should place on it.
53 It was Mr Cicero's submission that while I may have some regard to the Collins Settlement Management Plan, the outcomes of the subdivision would not be adverse to it and perhaps "provide for a better outcome for the balance of the site".
54 I consider that the appropriate response is that the Responsible Authority (now the Tribunal) should rely on the referral response to DSE as to how to incorporate outcomes sought from the Collins Settlement Management Plan into this subdivision. In this respect, I note that condition 3.2 of both permits for this deal with heritage issues arising from DSE's referral response and that in both permit applications, this condition has not been challenged.
55 Further, having considered the response of the Council and the applicants I agree with Ms Heber that the context of the site and consideration of past heritage studies highlights the priority to retain vegetation in the area of Lot 3 to maintain the site's and surrounding areas heritage context[22] and that this has been paid scant regard in this application despite it having been raised in referral responses from DSE.
56 It is also my concern that not only has this permit application not fully addressed the above matter, the protection of significant sight lines to and from "Nee Morna" as set out in the heritage impact assessment by Mr Graeme Butler & Associates[23] (the Heritage Impact Statement) has not been appropriately addressed. The s.173 agreement has regard only to the view lines set out in the Collins Settlement Management Plan and even so in only the most general of terms which I consider future land owners will struggle to understand let alone apply to their situation.
57 Having regard to the purposes and decision guidelines of the Heritage Overlay[24] I consider it appropriate to consider and give some weight to the Heritage Impact Statement. Amongst other matters this statement draws attention to the heritage value of sight lines from / to "Nee Morna" toward / from the north-west that range over the proposed Lot 3. The statement suggests that the building envelope could be set further southward to avoid impinging on this view line (not an option given the native vegetation matters) or implement building height controls. Such controls are not apparent in the permit and further more point to a poor planning outcome.
58 While not singularly fatal to this application, to have allowed building within the proposed envelope of Lot 3 under the proposed permit conditions would in my opinion, have failed to have decisively addressed this matter. These grounds further add to my finding that to delete Condition 1(a) of the permit leads to a more orderly planning outcome.
59 It follows from the above that I will not allow the removal of Condition 1(a) from permit P06/0517 and so direct that the permit be issued without amendment.
[1] A section 173 agreement lodged in accordance with The Planning and Environment Act 1987.
[2] The nature of the heritage values of the property are set out in the Graeme Butler Heritage Report submitted in the permit application: Six (6) Lot Residential Subdivision of the "Nee Morna" Property. Heritage Impact Statement. Prepared by Graeme Butler & Associates, August 2004.
[3] Clause 32.01 of the Mornington Planning Scheme.
[4] Transitional arrangements are set out under cl. 56.10.
[5] Referenced clauses included 56.01-2, 56.02-3, 56.02-4, 56.02-7, 56.06-3 and 56.06-4 as they were prior to amendment VC 42.
[6] Clause 1 of DDO3.
[7] Clause 3 of DDO3
[8] Section 2 (Environmental objectives to be achieved) of ESO25.
[9] Section 4 (Decision guidelines) of ESO25.
[10] Section 2.0 (Vegetation protection objective to be achieved) of VPO1.
[11] Section 4 (Decision guidelines) to VPO1.
[12] Clause 43.01-1.
[13] Nee Morna Property Management Plan, Sorrento (Ecology Australia) dated 15 September 2006.
[14] Beluli v Brimbank City Council [2004] VCAT 164.
[15] See Eastbrook Hall v Boroondara CC & Ors [2006] VCAT 249
[16] Villawood Properties v Bendigo City Council [2005] VCAT 2703
[17] Such values and the need to apply the "avoid first" principle are expressed through out Victoria's Native Vegetation- A Framework for Action (2002, Department of Natural Resources and Environment). See for example Section 4 Principles for Native Vegetation Management (pp13), Section 6 A shared Understanding of the Net Gain Goal (in particular pp19, 23 and 27)
[18] See page 27 and Table 5 of Appendix 3 of Victoria's Native Vegetation- A Framework for Action.
[19] Refer to Table 6 of Appendix 4 of the NVMF document and Table 3.4A of the Port Phillip and Western Port Native Vegetation Plan.
[20] Villawood Properties v Bendigo City Council [2005] VCAT 2703 at paragraphs 35 and 37.
[21] That DSE is a referral authority is set out through clause 42.01-2 Environmental Significance Overlay (ESO), clause 3 of schedule 25 to the ESO and clause 66.04-2 and associated schedule.
[22] See 1803 Collins Settlement Site: Future Directions Management Plan. Context Planning Pty Ltd. December 2002 and more specifically at pages 7 to 14 of the Heritage Impact Statement prepared by Graeme Butler & Associates dated August 2004.
[23] Six (6) Lot Residential Subdivision of the "Nee Morna" Property. Heritage Impact Statement. Prepared by Graeme Butler & Associates, August 2004.
[24] Clause 43.01-1.
Estate of WG Hiscock
Mornington Peninsula SC [2007] VCAT 546