1. The CFA was also offered an opportunity to respond to the amended GA1DP Version G advising the council that:[36]

Thank you for providing CFA with an opportunity to comment on the proposed amendment to the existing VCAT approved Development Plan.

CFA has assessed the proposed amendment to provide a Retirement Village type facility to the southwestern boundary of the proposed development.

• The appropriate ongoing fuel management of vegetation within land adjacent to the development - (previous Quarry site - Southern Rural Water land), must be guaranteed for the protection of the future development.
• Clauses within the original Bushfire Management Statement specifying this will be instrumented via a Fire Direction Notice issued by the Municipal Fire Prevention Officer under Section 41 of the CFA Act 1958 are not valid as it appears such land may be deemed Crown Land.
• Where no binding guarantee is provided for the management of adjoining land for fire buffer purposes, CFA recommends an amendment to design be undertaken to provide a perimeter road / open space to separate grass/ bushfire risk from future residential development.

In conclusion CFA supports the proposed development plan in its current form with the undertakings/ modifications as specified above

1. We note the CFA's later comments[37] expose an issue with management of the SRW land for bushfire mitigation:

In addition, the Bushfire Development Report continues to state fire prevention notices will be served on the land currently managed by Southern Rural Water. CFA have repeatedly stated:

"Clauses within the original Bushfire Management Statement specifying this will be instrumented via a Fire Direction Notice issued by the Municipal Fire Prevention Officer under Section 41 of the CFA Act 1958 are not valid as it appears such land may be deemed Crown Land."

1. From the above brief outline of changes from GA1DP Version D in 2023 it is evident that the subject land was assumed to be of low threat. The applied, Version G change to the GA1DP continued to assume a low threat bushfire risk, primarily because it has been assumed that vegetation on the SRW land would be maintained in a low threat condition, thus offering significant mitigation and risk reduction for either residential lots or for the now proposed RV.
2. Material put to us about bushfire hazard and risk identifies that if vegetation on the SRW land is not managed in a low threat state, lots and dwellings directly abutting the SRW land would be directly exposed to a BAL FZ or Flame Zone.[38] This is confirmed in the 2025 Bushfire Planning Report prepared by Terramatrix and in the bushfire evidence of Mr Potter. These are the conventional residential lots (as shown in the existing GA1DP Version D) and the proposed RV dwellings and PA2 lots, directly abutting the SRW land in proposed GA1DP versions G, H and I.
3. In response to the comments from SRW and CFA and council, the applicant proposed further amendments in GA1DP Version I with Option B, as an alternative subdivision layout for the PA2 area, where lots interfacing with bushfire hazards are designed to mitigate bushfire hazard and risk within the subject land, and subject to a higher BAL 29 rating. In addition to the proposed Option B, the applicant remains committed to seeking an agreement with SRW for vegetation on their land to be managed to retain Option A. The GA1DP Version I therefore includes the following in section 6.10 relating to 'Land Budget and Indicative Subdivision Layout':

In case a legally enforceable agreement cannot be secured requiring the neighbouring SRW-owned land to be managed in a low-threat state, an alternative indicative overall subdivision layout (refer Figure 16B) has been prepared to ensure that relevant BAL construction standards may be appropriately met in these circumstances.

1. In summary, the changes between Option A and Option B, as set out in GA1DP Version I, include:
   • An increased setback along the western boundary with the introduction of a 'reserve' area and road to ensure vegetation can be managed on the RV land rather than requiring vegetation to be managed on the SRW land.
   • A corresponding change to the lot layout to reflect the revised road layout.
   • A minor amendment to the configuration of the green link, but an overall increase in green space.
2. The GA1DP Version I is silent on what bushfire mitigation response should be applied to the lot identified for the RV. It simply refers to the RV being set aside in the GA1DP Version I as a super lot subject to a separate permit application.

Figure 10 - Layout changes in Option A and Option B for PA2 land (North), PA2 land (South) and RV land, sourced from the applicant's submission.

1. The PA2 subdivision[39] plans and RV permit application include Option B changes to the layouts of both to increase setbacks from the SRW land, including provision of perimeter roads and a higher BAL 29 rating.
2. Fundamentally, the changes between options A and B (refer to Figure 10) relate to separation distances and vegetation management between residential development and the bushfire hazard with residential lots or dwellings abutting adjoining land including the SRW land (Option A) or separation distances and vegetation management between residential development and the bushfire hazard being undertaken wholly within the subject land including provision of perimeter roads (Option B).
3. Mr Potter provided evidence in relation to Option A and Option B including with respect to BAL construction standards and building setback requirements and other risk mitigation measures.
4. Mr Potter's evidence is that:

The primary bushfire hazard is located within the SRW property, and the classification of vegetation meets the requirements of AS3959. However, the landscape is highly fragmented due to the mix of vegetation types and areas where vegetation has difficulty in establishing. This results in likely bushfire behaviour where it will be sporadic and will be heavily influenced by the availability of fuel to support fire spread. The likely bushfire behaviour in the SRW property will not be consistent with a bushfire burning in a forested landscape where there is vegetation continuity. This results in a lesser risk landscape when compared to forested areas.

1. Mr Potter's evidence is that for both the PA2 subdivision and the RV proposal, Option A or Option B would be effective in mitigating bushfire risk.
2. For the RV proposal and PA2 subdivision Mr Potter suggests:
   • For Option A:
     • Within the RV proposal, dwellings 48, 65, 66, 92 and 203 to 221 (23 dwellings facing the SRW land) should be constructed to a minimum BAL 29 rating.
     • Within the PA2 subdivision around nine lots in Stages 12 and 15 will require BAL 29 building envelope setbacks.
     • Vegetation within the SRW land be managed to limit radiant heat exposure onto the property boundary to less than 29 KW/m2. He suggests this would be subject to further detailed assessment but could include modification of the existing vegetation and the introduction of managed areas to separate the patches of vegetation or the entire area becoming a grassland area that enables slashing during the fire danger period.
   • For Option B, dwellings that are exposed to BAL 29 conditions should be constructed to a minimum of BAL 29.
   • For both Option A and Option B:
     • The boundary adjoining the SRW property be provided with a minimum two metre high non-combustible fence which should be maintained prior to the declared Fire Danger Period.
     • The dwelling occupants facing the SRW land regularly receive instructions on the evacuation procedure and the importance of retreating two streets back from the interface during a bushfire.
     • The RV develops and maintains a Bushfire Emergency Plan that includes the following as a minimum:
       • Notification procedures for all residents.
       • The provision of information to residents when the bushfire forecast is to be elevated.
3. For the RV proposal, Mr Potter's evidence is that the above mitigation measures assume that the following passive mitigation measures are implemented:
   • The subject land is managed in a low threat state.
   • The broader landscape bushfire hazard is limited due to the disruptive presence for a fire front run of the Rosslynne Reservoir and the surrounding road network.
   • The likely bushfire impact is from a local bushfire event.
   • The first row of dwellings will provide a shielding effect to the remaining areas of the development.
4. The evidence of Mr Potter concludes that:

In summary, the management of bushfire risk can be effective and will provide options for the future occupants to either shelter within the development or to leave early along the new and existing road network. The assessment of the bushfire risk and the proposed mitigation measures ensure the proposed development meets the requirements.

1. The council says that even if Option B is utilised, there are issues with allowing the RV. This is because the RV is a more intensive form of residential development compared to the conventional sized lots currently shown in the approved GA1DP Version D that are exposed to bushfire hazard. The council submits the RV is also a form of development that is likely to attract older occupants, who may have more heightened sensitivity and risk to any bushfire hazards. Allowing such use and development with increased BAL 29 ratings compared to the BAL 12.5 and BAL 19 ratings suggested in the earlier bushfire reports heightens the level of exposure to these future residents. The council says this is not an appropriate outcome. It says its concerns are reinforced by the suggestion in Mr Potter's evidence that residents in the dwellings facing any bushfire hazard area would need to evacuate a couple of streets behind. It says this should 'sound alarm bells.'
2. The RV proposal is a MDH use with potentially vulnerable occupants in a medium bushfire risk setting. Although locations within bushfire prone areas are generally considered lower risk for bushfire hazard with areas of higher risk generally included within the BMO, we note the various bushfire development reports have generally reiterated that the subject land is in an area of moderate bushfire risk. In our view, this heightens bushfire risk for whatever occurs around the edge of the subject land where it interfaces with adjoining land considered a bushfire hazard.
3. We consider the suggestion of Mr Potter is one akin to a front row of dwellings that become almost sacrificial. However, we do note that the likelihood of a significant fire run from the north-west towards the subject land would likely be disrupted and lessened by the reservoir. We also accept that having these 'frontline' dwellings constructed to a BAL 29 rating would make them more resilient structures in the event of a bushfire and support protection of the balance of the RV community.
4. Towards the end of the hearing, the applicant suggested the following additional wording to section 6.11 of the GA1DP Version I to address its silence with respect to bushfire response on the RV land:

The Residential Village design should appropriately respond to bushfire risk through incorporation of built form outcomes, urban design, low threat state vegetation management and adequate access and egress from the site.

1. In the applicant's view there are no material changes between the approved GA1DP Version D and the further amended GA1DP Version H which both contemplate the SRW land being managed in a low threat state. The applicant says the changes proposed in the GA1DP Version I are more, not less, protective against bushfire risk than the approved GA1DP Version D. This is because Version I and the subsequently proposed PA2 and RV permit conditions, include provision for a section 173 agreement to enact Option A, or failing the ability for such agreement to be made, the alternative Option B layout adopted. It says this achieves a flexible approach which ensures appropriate mitigation of bushfire risk.
2. In pursuing Option A, the applicant provided further correspondence from SRW dated 9 October 2025 stating that:

Documents 1 and 2 - GA1DP Version I:

GA1DP Version H was publicly exhibited on the 5 June 2025. SRW made a submission to this version on the 23 June 2025.

SRW has reviewed the updated version of the GA1DP (Version I) that has been provided and can confirm SRW have no objections to this version being endorsed by the Tribunal.

Documents 3 to 6 - Option B Subdivision Layout Plans (PA2/RV):

SRW has provided in-principle agreement to entering into an agreement with the Applicant for maintenance to be undertaken on its land to reduce the bushfire threat to the residential development. A Section 173 Agreement is the most appropriate mechanism to secure this long term arrangement, which would be registered on the titles of the Residential Village (RV) and continue in perpetuity. SRW are further reviewing whether this agreement would also have to be included on the SRW land title.

SRW is currently working with the Applicant on the particulars of this agreement, including arboricultural impacts, vegetation management strategies, access statements, legal obligations, CFA support etc. SRW will have to be satisfied that maintenance can occur safely and that every effort has been made to minimise native vegetation loss and/or impact on the SRW land.

The Option B2 Plans for PA2 and the RV have been provided to SRW as an alternative residential development layout if the above agreement cannot be reached. SRW confirms it has no objections to the layouts as shown in these plans if a maintenance agreement is not reached between the two parties.

In summary, SRW have no objections to the following documents being endorsed by the Tribunal:

• Version I of the Gisborne Area 1 Development Plan (GA1DP)
• Options A or B2 PA2 Plans
• Options A or B2 RV Plans

1. The council says the response of these proposals to bushfire hazard and risk is poor and unresolved. It says clause 13.02-1S calls for population growth to be directed to low-risk locations.
2. The council says it does not want to be a de-facto CFA and does not want to sign up to any section 173 Agreement for fire management on SRW land as required to enact Option A. It says reliance on management of land through a voluntary agreement does not provide clarity on how enforcement of the agreement would occur and by whom with respect to what would happen if vegetation were not managed. The council also raised concerns about uncertainty with any removal of native vegetation that may require approvals under clause 52.17 of the scheme that involves land that does not form part of the 'planning unit' with respect to permissions being sought.
3. The council also referred us to the Tribunal decision in Wallis v South Gippsland SC[40] ('Wallis') where reliance on managing bushfire hazard on adjoining land, even though in a BMO, was not accepted.
4. The applicant says that Wallis was in a BMO which includes reference to Measure AM 3.1 under clause 53.02-4.2 for defendable space to be provided wholly within the title boundaries of the land and is not in the same context as that of the subject land, and hence, not applicable.
5. Providing for defendable space to mitigate bushfire risk wholly within the subject land is a far more certain prospect to achieve an acceptable outcome with regards to protecting human life than the alternative offered under Option A which contains many uncertainties. In the context of the bushfire evidence and policy at clause 13.02-1S, while a 'legally enforceable' agreement may be achieved, we are not satisfied that it is orderly planning to rely on such arrangements for the protection of human life on the subject land.
6. Our views in this regard are reinforced by our understanding from the applicant that the RV manager would be required to manage defendable space on the interfacing SRW land.
7. We find the combination of an inability to rely on fire prevention notices to manage vegetation on the SRW land, the lack of a confirmed agreement with SRW, and the reliance on land beyond the control of the applicant to ensure vegetation is managed in a low threat state in perpetuity, reinforces our concerns.
8. We therefore agree with the council that relying on external defendable space in the absence of a long-term, binding agreement with the adjoining landowner, or a section 173 agreement, is inappropriate and does not represent an orderly planning outcome. We therefore do not support the use of Option A in the proposed changes to the GA1DP to incorporate MDH in the form of the RV.
9. We find the appropriate base on which the GA1DP could be amended, and the proposed subdivision and RV development approved, is to provide bushfire hazard mitigation wholly within the subject land where it can be directly managed through a combination of urban design, vegetation management where necessary and appropriate landscaping under direct control of the applicant. It avoids uncertainty with adjoining landowners and placement of ongoing obligations on adjoining land that is not directly managed by the applicant.
10. We find the Option B design layout can form an acceptable outcome to address reasonable mitigation of bushfire hazard. This is because it relies only on the subject land and with no reliance on adjacent land. It can appropriately manage bushfire risk and satisfactorily achieve the policy goal to protect human life.
11. Provision of perimeter roads across the interfaces of both the RV land and Stages 12 and 15 of the PA2 subdivision to the SRW land provides separation between the residential development and land containing bushfire hazards. We note in response to questions from us, that Mr Potter has a preference to not having perimeter roads because of the potential for higher exposure risk for emergency services personnel to bushfire hazard. However, we consider provision of perimeter roads better accords with CFA requirements and responsive planning for new residential developments that interface with areas of bushfire risk.
12. Regarding the appropriateness of setbacks from bushfire hazards, council submitted in its supplementary submission on bushfire matters that the RV proposal should include setbacks for dwellings from bushfire risk equivalent to what would be assessed with BAL 12.5. This was because the RV is most likely to be marketed to the over-55 population and noting that policy under clause 13.02-1S seeks to give priority to protection of human life by directing development to low risk locations.
13. Council also referred to concerns expressed by the CFA about the ability of dwellings 203 - 221 in the RV proposal (Option A) to achieve a radiant heat exposure not exceeding 12.5 kW/m2 and compliance with the application of the Residential Tenancies (Caravan Parks and Moveable Dwellings Registration and Standards) Regulations 2024 and the 'CFA Caravan Park Fire Safety Guidelines 2024', particularly with respect to separation between dwellings.
14. In an overall sense, council expressed significant concern that the applicant had submitted numerous documents since the lodgement of the review applications and even since the circulation of evidence. Council considers this to be 'planning on the run'. It is critical of the lack of opportunity to properly consider the material given the lateness of its circulation. We acknowledge that it has been challenging to keep abreast of the extent of material and changes, particularly considering two scenarios in response to bushfire hazard.
15. Option B is responsive to the Australian Standard 'AS3959:2018 - Construction of buildings in bushfire-prone areas' and bushfire policy and we find that for the GA1DP to be amended to facilitate the RV that includes greater density close to the SRW interface, that it should only proceed on the basis of Option B.
16. We are satisfied with the proposal in Option B and in the evidence of Mr Potter, that a BAL 29 rating for both setbacks and construction is acceptable. Approved GA1DP Version D already identifies lots facing adjoining land that may be at Flame Zone and dwellings may not meet a BAL 12.5 exposure level and hence must be designed to a higher (more conservative) BAL construction standard. We also accept that the building regulations contemplate that dwellings in a BPA may need to be constructed to higher BAL ratings, and hence it is a matter to be considered for new residential development on land that is already zoned for residential purposes.
17. The council and the applicant confirmed that the proposed dwellings in the RV can be moved but that they are not caravan style dwellings. As movable dwellings they may not require building approval and would not require complying with building requirements for BAL rating construction. However, the RV dwellings would require compliance with the requirements for fire safety in the CFA Caravan Park Fire Safety Guidelines 2024.
18. Irrespective, we note the applicant's acceptance to include permit conditions requiring appropriate BALs being applied to the RV dwellings as an outcome under Option B so as to provide certainty of appropriately responding to bushfire risk for the RV. We consider these arrangements provide for an appropriate management regime to address the design response of the RV to bushfire risk.

1. In conclusion we find Option B is the only appropriate option to be included in the amended GA1DP sought, based on the information before us. If, in the future, changes occur on the adjoining SRW land to the extent that the current hazard is reduced, mitigated or otherwise managed to reduce the current risk, then further amendment could be sought to the GA1DP to recognise this change. Based on the current conditions and extent of risk we find the only appropriate basis for proposed changes to the GA1DP is to address them only using Option B.
2. By accepting GA1DP Version I that relies on Option B alone, some editorial changes are required to this version. We have set these out in Appendix A.

Are trees, identified for protection in the existing GA1DP, adequately protected through the proposed amendment?

1. Version I of the GA1DP includes trees 28, 29 and 30 within the RV land. As we have set out already, provided text confirms that trees 28 and 29 are to be located within communal open space of the RV, we are satisfied that the changes are an acceptable response to the DPO4 requirements. We do express specific concerns about the protection of trees 28 and 29 in our review of the RV permit application, that we address further below in our assessment of the RV permit application.
2. The council also questions the location of trees 23, 25 and 26 in Option B of GA1DP Version I.
3. In an extract of the existing GA1DP Version D, in Figure 11 below, trees 25 and 26 are fully contained within a public reserve and tree 23 is contained within one individual lot with a tree reserve, as aligned in the design guidelines.

Figure 11 - Existing approved GA1DP - Version D extract of stage 12 area.

1. Most parts of Version I of the GA1DP maintain this arrangement. This includes the description in Figure 5, as we have extracted below, and other diagrams relating to tree protection and landscaping (e.g. Figure 8 - Public Open Space Network, Figure 10 - Road Network Plan and Figure 15 Open Space Framework Plan).

1. Option B at Figure 16B, however, removes the open space proposed for trees 25 and 26 and assumes removal of tree 23.

Figure 13 - extract of Figure 16B - Option B, of GA1DP Version I.

1. No basis for making this change was provided.
2. Just prior to the hearing,[41] the applicant circulated an updated detail of how Option B could retain all three trees. This included tree 23 straddling two lots and trees 25 and 26 being in an open space reserve, albeit with a 10 percent overhang of canopy into adjoining lots.

Figure 14 - Plan attached to email 6 October 2025 from applicant: Amendments to Stage 12.

1. This design detail was further refined during the hearing to show that a narrower road reserve of 14 metres, abutting the SRW land could accommodate road needs and better retain tree 23 across two lots. This included tree protection envelopes to lots affected by tree 23.
2. We have already found that Option B should be the basis of an approval for changes sought to the GA1DP to incorporate the RV because of bushfire hazard.
3. The GA1DP needs to reflect the bushfire hazard protection, however, we find that this should not lead to changes in already approved protection of trees 23, 25 and 26. Our reading of the 2023 decision was that these trees were intended to be kept for their landscape value, although acknowledged as lost for the purposes of biodiversity provision under clause 52.17.
4. There is nothing before us to rationalise or direct the change in the existing protection provided for trees 23, 25 and 26 in the existing approved GA1DP - Version D. Trees 25 and 26 should continue to be located fully within an open space reserve and tree 23 should be retained in a single lot so that it can be managed by a single entity, as was provided for in Version D. We will therefore direct that the GA1DP - Version I be further amended to retain trees 25 and 26 wholly within an open space reserve and tree 23 within a single lot.

IS THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION OF LAND AND CONSTRUCTION OF DWELLINGS ON LOTS LESS THAN 300 SQUARE METRES, IN PA2 ACCEPTABLE? (P323/2025)

1. The council submits it accepts much of what is proposed in the PA2 subdivision application. Its opposition to the subdivision permit application primarily relates to its concerns that the subdivision includes a lot for the RV. It is the future of this lot as an intensified housing area that the council opposes.
2. As set out above, we are satisfied that the GA1DP can include a lot for use for the proposed RV. We therefore find the general concept for subdivision proposed for the PA2 area could be acceptable. This is subject to the design of the subdivision being amended to accord with Option B of the GA1DP - Version I as discussed above to address bushfire hazard.
3. Our examination of issues about the proposed subdivision and dwelling approvals is therefore made on an interim basis, and without prejudice, pending the outcome of orders inviting the applicant to provide further changes to the GA1DP, as set out in Appendix A, and these changes being found acceptable.
4. In this context we address other specific elements of the PA2 subdivision proposal that the council maintains concerns, in addition to its in-principle concerns about the inclusion of the RV. These are:
   • How are trees 23, 25 and 26 to be retained and protected, consistent with the requirements of the existing GA1DP?
   • Are bushfire matters appropriately addressed?
   • Is there sufficient diversity in housing for lots under 300 square metres?
   • Is sufficient information provided to approve dwellings on lots less than 300 square metres?

1. From our review of trees 23, 25 and 26 in discussion of the GA1DP amendments above we are satisfied a subdivision can be accommodated, provided changes are made to retain these three trees with the protection they were afforded in the existing GA1DP Version D. This includes retaining trees 25 and 26 wholly within a tree reserve and retaining tree 23 wholly within a single lot, similar to that provided for in the existing GA1DP Version D.
2. We are satisfied these are matters that can be addressed by permit condition, if a permit for subdivision is granted.

1. As also set out in our discussion of proposed changes to the GA1DP, provided matters of bushfire protection are addressed wholly within the subject land, as generally demonstrated in the Option B plans, we are satisfied that the subdivision can reasonably manage risk from bushfire hazard.
2. We are therefore satisfied that a permit for the subdivision could be granted having regard to bushfire hazard.

Is there sufficient diversity in housing for lots under 300 square metres?

1. The council submits that the dwellings proposed on the smaller lots all comprise at least three bedrooms and therefore lack dwelling diversity.
2. The proposed dwellings on lots under 300 square metres provide one form of housing for Gisborne. We do not see that they need to include more dwellings with fewer bedrooms, to make the overall proposal acceptable. Some of the dwellings remain small, albeit including at least three bedrooms. The overall GA1DP also includes the RV that further diversifies housing choice. On this basis we see no need to further vary the composition of bedroom numbers for the dwellings proposed on lots less than 300 square metres.
3. We also note that the council acknowledges that the approval of the dwellings is for dwellings on individual lots. As such the housing diversity provisions of clause 55 do not apply.

Is there sufficient information for approval of dwellings on lots less than 300 square metres

1. The council's primary position before the hearing was that inadequate information had been provided about proposed dwellings on lots less than 300 square metres, to the extent that a permit could be granted.
2. The applicant relied on planning evidence from Ms Horsfield. Ms Horsfield's evidence concurred with part of the council's concerns about sufficient information. This led to Ms Horsfield requesting the applicant's architect to provide additional dimensions on plans as well as shadow diagrams so that assessment in accordance with clause 54 of the scheme could be made.
3. In concluding submissions, the council acknowledged that it accepts the recommendations relating to solar access but considered that private and secluded private open space requirements of standard A17 under clause 54 should be met.[42] The applicant submits it understands the specific concerns of the council relate to dwelling designs 'Lacebark 24' and 'Banksia 24'. The applicant submits that these matters, and other clarifications sought by the council can be addressed by condition. The council likewise proposed draft conditions to address these issues of compliance with clause 54.
4. With additional detail as can be provided in permit conditions, we are satisfied that the proposed dwellings on lots less than 300 square metres can be acceptable. This is subject to the GA1DP being updated so that such a permit would align with an approved GA1DP.

IS THE PROPOSED RV APPLICATION IN P324/2025 ACCEPTABLE?

1. As with our consideration of the PA2 subdivision and dwellings, we consider the proposed RV in application P324/2025, in context of our findings about the proposed amendment to the GA1DP. The following analysis is subject to our findings about the GA1DP amendments being enacted, as set out in our orders. The conclusions from our analysis of issues put to us below are therefore interim findings and without prejudice, pending the outcome of our interim order.
2. The council submits the proposed RV is too intensive a use for its location that is therefore contrary to housing policy at clause 16.01 and urban design policy at clause 15.01. It also submits that the RV will not result in an orderly planning outcome due to various failings. These include:
   • Inadequate car parking locations.
   • A failure of the internal vehicle/pedestrian network design to provide for the appropriate movement of pedestrians throughout the site.
   • Poor resolution of protection of trees 28, 29 and 30.
   • Has a poor interface to the surrounding area due to proposed fencing.
   • The proposal does not adequately address bushfire hazard issues.
3. We address these issues in context of the key questions about whether the proposal addresses housing and urban design policy.

Is the RV an acceptable response to housing policy?

1. The council submits the RV is too intense for the land and is not orderly planning if it is developed prior to the NAC that can provide services to the property. We have already found in our discussion of the GA1DP above that the site is an acceptable location for an RV. We find no need for it to be 'staged' after the NAC. Nothing in the planning scheme, either in the GRZ1 or DPO4 directs such staging.
2. We are satisfied that the RV provides an opportunity for an alternative form housing that diversifies housing opportunities within Gisborne. Provided it addresses its interface to the SRW land in context of potential bushfire hazard, as we find necessary to meet the development plan requirements, we are satisfied that the use is appropriate for this land.

Is the RV an acceptable response to urban design and character policy?

1. The council's primary position is that the proposal provides a form of housing that is out of character with the area, providing inadequate opportunities for landscaping and landscape space, commensurate with the 'semi-rural' character sought for Gisborne.
2. Clause 15.01-5L: Neighbourhood character - Macedon Ranges townships includes an objective for Gisborne:

To maintain and improve key urban and landscape elements, and heritage assets that contribute to the established semi-rural township and village character of Gisborne and New Gisborne.

1. The clause then has corresponding strategies to:
   • Ensure that development responds to key features of existing streetscapes including building materials, colours, height, setbacks, bulk, articulation, significant vegetation, site coverage and density, particularly within established township areas and areas of landscape sensitivity.
   • Ensure urban development is of a low profile and compatible with the landscape qualities of the area.
2. As we have set out earlier, in the 2023 decision, the Tribunal commented that in considering if the GA1DP needed to respond to a semi-rural character, 'it needs to be remembered that character evolves over time. As well, there is no uniform existing character in Gisborne.'[43]
3. We concur with the subsequent comments of the Tribunal in the 2023 decision that the earth bund on the SRW land, directly adjacent to where the RV is now proposed 'prevents any real appreciation of the development from the SRW land, noting of course that no public access to the SRW land and the reservoir is permitted.'[44] This land, along with other land identified in the 2023 decision for medium density housing continues to be internal to the GA1DP area and therefore, as with the 2023 decision, this 'means that the externally appreciated character does not include MDH.'[45]
4. All of the proposed development in the RV area is single storey. Consistent with similar findings in the 2023 decision such development will not be seen from further afield due to intervening buildings around the direct interfaces of the GA1DP area that are of a lower density.
5. We also note the comments of the applicant that since the 2023 decision the council has adopted the 2024 Gisborne Futures Plan. This identifies the subject land as having a 'contemporary garden suburban' neighbourhood character. These areas are described as master planned estates or contemporary subdivisions that generally conform to ResCode standards. We also note that the 'Neighbourhood character types' diagram at page 55 of Gisborne Futures Plan identifies the subject land as 'Contemporary Garden Suburban'. This diagram includes areas of 'entrances, edges and visually sensitive areas'. These include the direct interface of the GA1DP area to the north and south, but not the land proposed for the RV, directly adjacent to the SRW land.
6. The Gisborne Futures Plan is not part of the scheme but is a recently adopted policy of the council and we therefore give it some weight. It adds to our view that while the closer built form of the RV will result in some change in character, it will sit within the GA1DP area where it can create its own character, without impeding on the adjoining existing development outside of the GA1DP area.

1. The RV relies on shared pedestrian and private accessways. As an expert Tribunal, we are familiar that such arrangements are common in residential villages and retirement villages. The cross sections proposed for the accessways show sufficient room for tree planting in the accessways to enable a 'greening' of the RV.
2. The sites on which dwellings are to be located are small, however, a landscape concept plan provided identifies that gardens can be established around the individual dwellings.
3. The location of the RV land does not inhibit residents of surrounding lots to access open space or generally traverse the broader GA1DP area. This is noting the existing key pedestrian links in the approved existing GA1DP Version D do not traverse the area to be re-allocated for the RV. The RV itself has a central road connection that has a walkable, direct pedestrian link to the NAC.

1. The council accepts the quantum of parking provided is acceptable but questions whether the shared accessways provide sufficient dimension to accommodate visitor parking. It also questions the length of driveways for tandem car parking.
2. At the hearing the council questioned the traffic witness, Mr Walsh, about whether the car spaces were adequate, especially if they are used by larger than average vehicles. We accept the evidence of Mr Walsh that the design meets the parameters set in the planning scheme with reference to Australian Standards. We see no need to deviate from the metrics of the planning scheme. We also acknowledge the evidence of Mr Walsh that the proposal meets the quantum of parking required by the scheme.

1. In the existing GA1DP Version D, tree 29 is identified as being located in a landscape / tree reserve. Trees 28 and 30 are identified as being located in low density lots with building envelopes outside of nominated tree protection zone ('TPZ') areas. All trees were deemed lost for biodiversity purposes of clause 52.17. This does not change with the proposed amendments to the GA1DP.
2. The council officer report that assessed the amendment Version H, and associated application material for the RV, including acknowledgment that an effort to avoid and minimise vegetation had occurred by retaining trees 28 and 29 in the clubhouse communal open space area.[46] It also acknowledges that tree 30 is now proposed to sit in a landscape reserve and can be protected.
3. This assessment was made on plans that differed from those circulated on 10 September 2025 and substituted at the start of the hearing. A copy of the plan, attached to the officer report is replicated in Figure 15 below. In this figure trees 28 and 29 are marked as items 3 and 4 respectively, both with a notation 'to be retained TPZ 15.0m'.
4. In the plans before us, being the plans circulated on 10 September 2025 and substituted at the start of the hearing, the clubhouse plans have substantially altered with part of the TPZ for trees 28 and 29 now encroaching in to building areas, as set out in Figure 16 below.
5. The council is critical that the clubhouse, associated pathways and other works may impact on TPZs nominated for trees 28 and 29. These trees were to be retained in the GA1DP in the 2023 decision with their full TPZ areas protected.

Figure 15 - Extract from council officer report for the RV application plans (image rotated to align with Figure 16).

Figure 16 - Clubhouse architectural plans extract of plans circulated 10 September 2025.

1. The council submits the trees to be retained were acknowledged to be old trees with some history of limb drop. It says the clubhouse 'pushes up hard against' these trees, representing 'a substantial threat to their ongoing viability and creates a risk of danger through limb drop'.
2. We are not opposed to the trees forming part of the communal open space around the clubhouse but we have no expert evidence from any party to determine that the encroachment of buildings into their TPZ areas is acceptable. This is in context that the existing GA1DP Version D protects the trees and the proposed Version I continues to show trees 28, 29 and 30 as within the RV lot, with TPZ areas.
3. In this context, notably not having any arboricultural evidence to deviate from the 2023 decision, we find it appropriate to require alteration of the clubhouse buildings to sit fully outside of the TPZ areas. This can be addressed by a condition on permit. We are satisfied there is sufficient room in the land identified for the clubhouse for this to occur.

1. Dwellings facing the perimeter of the RV are 'dual facing' so that they have a permeable fence and landscape space to face the perimeter road outside of the RV while still having street address and access inside the RV.
2. The council is critical of the 1.8 metre high fencing proposed around the perimeter of the RV. It is concerned the fence is too high and long, as well as not in keeping with guidelines attached to the approved GA1DP - Version D.
3. We are satisfied it is acceptable provided it is an open palisade type fencing. It is not ideal in context of its setting, but we find it acceptable in context of the nature of a residential village and associated management arrangement that come with such a proposal. On balance of competing needs and the openness of the fencing we are satisfied it provides an acceptable landscape and urban design outcome. It still enables landscaping to establish on either side of the fence so as to dominate the view in the street.

1. We have already addressed whether the site is appropriate for an RV, in context of bushfire in our review of bushfire earlier.
2. We note the specific concern of the council about how street tree planting will work close to the SRW boundary in context of maintaining low risk vegetation. This is a question of design detail that can be considered in finalisation of a landscape plan. Choice of species and separation of trees will be important. We note this issue would occur regardless of the density of development on the land.

1. We have identified some other matters for consideration which, for completeness, we will address. Matters include environmental hazards associated with erosion due to the land slope adjoining the Jacksons Creek waterway and flooding associated with part of the subject land affected by the Land Subject to Inundation Overlay ('LSIO'). There are also issues associated with respect to the PIP, development contributions for the RV site and with the design guidelines under the development plan.

Erosion and flooding hazards and stormwater management

1. The subject land presents as a relatively gently undulating area with a scattering of large old growth trees and cleared pasture. The slope of the subject land increases towards the escarpment area of Jacksons Creek in the south-west. Much of this area is proposed to be set aside in the GA1DP as a conservation reserve ('Jacksons Creek Conservation Reserve').[47]
2. We do not consider there to be any significant risks from erosion or flooding that will impact on new development on the subject land. The Jacksons Creek Conservation Reserve covers the escarpment area as well as that part of the subject land affected by the LSIO. Accordingly, there is no residential development on the escarpment or in proximity of the Jacksons Creek waterway. It is proposed that larger lots (approximately 1,500 square metres) will continue to provide a low-density interface to the Jacksons Creek Conservation Reserve and escarpment.
3. Stormwater is proposed to be managed via a large drainage reserve, with an area of around 2.35 hectares located between stages 12 and 13 of the proposed PA2 subdivision and the Jacksons Creek Conservation Reserve. Melbourne Water has advised it does not object to the subdivision subject to conditions.[48] No runoff from urban development from the subject land is proposed into the Rosslynne Reservoir, with flows from the GA1DP area discharging into Jacksons Creek, downstream from the reservoir and via the drainage reserve to detain and treat stormwater prior to discharge into Jacksons Creek. These stormwater drainage works will be required to be designed in detail via permit conditions.
4. We are satisfied the design arrangements for waterway protection and stormwater management are appropriate and note the lack of objection from Melbourne Water and council in this regard.

1. We note that while the council raised some issues about changes needed to the PIP, our review of changes agreed to between parties about without prejudice conditions and draft changes to the GA1DP - Version I, that this matter can be addressed through minor editorial changes and permit conditions.
2. The council submits that the changes to the GA1DP and associated changes to subdivision leads to a failure to respond to the Development Contributions Plan Overlay Schedule 2 - 'Gisborne Development Contributions Plan' ('DCPO2') applying to the land.
3. We understand the concern of the council that by placing a section of the land into the RV, dwellings approved through this permit may not be subject to the DCPO2 as they are not 'lots'. Our review of the provisions of DCPO2 is that it applies to subdivision of land and there is no merits determination for us to make about how it applies. The matters of the overlay are mandatory. Nor did the council seek us to make any determination on the DCPO2.

1. The council's written submission is that it is concerned that the GA1DP Version I does not include the RV in the attached design guidelines. However, we agree with the applicant that this is appropriate.
2. The design guidelines are to direct consideration to individual dwellings that are not otherwise the subject of a planning permit approval. Details of the design of the RV are addressed through a planning application and do not need a duplication in process through the design guidelines. During the discussion of draft without prejudice conditions and potentially agreed edits to the GA1DP at the conclusion of the hearing, we understand the council acknowledged this position.

1. For the reasons given above, we invite the applicant to submit an altered GA1DP to accord with changes we seek in Appendix A.
2. If this offer is taken up, as set out in the orders, we will then make final findings whether to substitute the decision of Macedon Ranges Shire Council to refuse to amend the GA1DP - Version D, with a different decision to that deemed to be made by the council. We will also then make final determinations as to whether to grant a permit in proceedings P323/2025 and P324/2025, having regard to our findings in this interim decision.

FURTHER MODIFICATIONS TO THE GISBORNE AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT PLAN VERSION I DATED 10 SEPTEMBER 2025**

1. Update the Table of contents on PDF page 3, as may be required and include page numbers to accord with the table of contents.
2. Delete 'This amended version of the GA1DP has been submitted to MRSC for approval / to their satisfaction to allow for the development of a residential village within the approval area' and include a relevant date when modifications are made and a substituted Development Plan is filed.

Option B, to form the basis of the amendments to be made

1. Amend Figures 5, 8, 9, 10, 14, 15 and 17, to accord with Option B but with further modification, as relevant to the figures, to show:
   1. Locate the tree protection zones of trees 25 and 26 (in the schedule at Appendix A wholly within the public open space for trees 25 and 26.
   2. In what is described as stage 12, show the tree protection zone of tree 23 within a single lot. This may include some minor (less than 10% overhang) into the abutting road reserve. This may also include the reduction of the road reserve abutting the SRW land, to 14 metres in this stage.
2. In section 6.10:
   1. Update the land budget to reflect changes in item 3 above.
   2. Delete Figure 16A.
   3. Update Figure 16B to accord with items 3a and 3b above, and then re-label this figure as 'Figure 16 Overall Subdivision Layout'.
   4. In the text below the table on PDF 39, change any reference to Figure 16A to 'Figure 16' and update the dot point to refer to indicative lots derived from Option B and item 3 above.
   5. Delete the last paragraph of text sitting below the dot points.
   6. Update the lot size and density table to accord with the above.
3. In section 6.6 - Public Open Space Network, and other land budget / PIP requirements, amend the public open space calculations to accord with item 3a and 3b above.
4. In section 6.7 include an additional road cross section as set out in the figure below, as extracted from plans attached to 'Applicant's DP Comments' filed with VCAT on 15 October 2025, as part of proceeding P325/2025.

1. In section 5.2 amend the fourth dot point to read.

The protection and enhancement of Jacksons Creek to provide a multi-purpose function of drainage, conservation reserve, attractive landscaped area, open space opportunity and to cater for the passive recreation needs of future residents. The protection of the existing native vegetation within the Jacksons Creek Escarpment and Conservation Reserve will be achieved through the implementation of a landscape management and enhancement plan. For example, a 2 metres high Colorbond (or other non-combustible material) fence in muted tones and an exclusion fence to prevent access to Southern Rural Water (SRW) land, with exclusion signage to be installed along the public interfaces, as shown on the development plan (Figure 5) and as agreed with the relevant authorities.

1. In section 6.5, under the text stating 'In relation to the 'Exclusion Fencing SRW Land' as shown on Figure 5' amend the dot points to read:
   • the cyclone fencing must be in place before the occupation of Stage 1 of the development;
   • the 2 metres high Colorbond (or other non-combustible material) fencing in muted tones for boundary fencing along SRW's boundary, must be installed before the occupation of dwellings in the lot to be used for the Residential Village, or any other lot within 20 metres of the SRW boundary;
   • if there are any temporary interfaces with the SRW land that are not fences, temporary fencing will be put in place until permanent fencing is in place to the satisfaction of the SRW;
   • a cross section of the proposed treatments along the SRW boundary will be provided to the satisfaction of the SRW.
2. Amend Figures 5, 9 and 16 to amend any notation regarding fencing to show 'Colorbond (or other non-combustible fence) along boundary of RV and PA2 Land with SRW Land, in addition to the Cyclone Exclusion Fence along the whole SRW boundary'.
3. Amend line 20 of the Project Infrastructure Plan (PIP), last page of the development plan, read as follows:

Colorbond (or other non-combustible material) fence

Colorbond (or other non-combustible material) fencing in muted tones along SRW's boundary

1. In design guidelines page 11, under the heading 'Fencing' delete the section titled 'Side and Rear Fencing - South-Western boundary lots (adjoining Southern Rural Water Land), including the text and diagram forming this section (as there will be no lots directly abutting the SRW land).

6.11 RESIDENTIAL VILLAGE

The land identified for 'proposed residential village' will be subject to separate planning permit application for its use and development. Development should take into consideration the following principles.

• Specialised housing that forms part of a resident village should:
  • yield approximately 220 dwellings (plus a managers residence);
  • located at least partially within the walkable catchment of the future local neighbourhood activity centre and have an entry point that provides walkable access to nearby existing or planned public transport;
  • respond to and integrate with adjoining development, avoiding inactive interfaces and blank facades to the public street network.
  • Not present an unreasonable barrier to movement through the surrounding public road and pedestrian movement network.
• The Residential Village design should appropriately respond to bushfire risk by:
  • managing bushfire hazard wholly within the GA1DP area.
  • Providing detailed design to show how this is achieved, having regard to Terramatrix report 15 September 2025. This includes:
    • relevant built form and/or construction standards,
    • urban design,
    • management of vegetation in a low threat state, and
    • adequate access and egress from the site.
  • Where appropriate, include, operational measures such as an emergency management plan and other passive mitigation measures.
• Trees should generally be located to provide shade to paved surfaces, with specific focus on shading pedestrian paths.
• Any boundary fencing to the broader GA1DP area, installed should be sympathetic to the surrounding urban or rural character.
• The continued protection of the Reservoir and other measures, as specified in the document, to be applied at the interface between the residential village development and the SRW owned land. Specifically,
  • the provisions of section 6.5, regarding the access and protection of the Reservoir / SRW land, and the
  • project infrastructure plan in Appendix F;
  • the 2 metres high Colorbond, (or other non-combustible fencing) to be constructed along the residential village boundary with the SRW land, as noted on Figures 5 and 16, must be in place before the use of the site as a residential village commences.
• Retain trees 28, 29 and 30 within public or communal open space within the residential village.
• Retain a patch of native vegetation within a landscape reserve within the residential village.
• Provision of community facilities and / or a clubhouse precinct to create a sense of place and foster a healthy and active lifestyle for residents and community wellbeing.
• Areas of communal open space should be designed to be focal points of the village as well as to be functional, comfortable and convenient places for people to meet.

Bushfire Development Report for 89 Ross Watt Road, Gisborne, Terramatrix, 12 September 2024 and Bushfire Planning Report for 89 Ross Watt Road, Gisborne, VIC 3437, 15 September 2025, Terramatrix.

1. At PDF page 14, in 4 - 'The Scheme Provisions and Response' item 3, amend the 'comments' to read:

GA1DP is in a bushfire prone area and a bushfire risk assessment (Bushfire Development Report for 89 Ross Watt Road, Gisborne, Terramatrix, 12 September 2024) has been completed for the GA1DP area and forms part of the background reports. This report concludes that bushfire risk can be mitigated to an acceptable level and the development of GA1DP can protect human life if dwellings are separated from hazardous vegetation to allow an appropriate BAL construction standard and the recommendations of the bushfire risk assessment are followed in relation to appropriate buffers and management strategies.

This report was further updated by report 15 September 2025, filed as part of VCAT proceeding P325/2025 and the subject of expert fire consultant evidence of Mark Potter, being evidence Statement dated 24 September 2025. The 15 September 2025 report and evidence statement dated 24 September 2025 were the subject of review by VCAT who determined, as a result of its deliberations that Option B of these reports should be the basis of amendment to the GAIDP. This amended GAIDP therefore reflects the findings of VCAT about bushfire as an environmental hazard affecting the land.

1. At PDF Page 55 - Appendix C, after the title 'Landscape Concept Plans 24 February 2025, CDA Design Group' add the following text:

These concept plans do not fully align with the amended GA1DP, being based on an earlier proposed change to the GA1DP. Where any inconsistency may arise, the words and diagrams of the GA1DP take precedence.

1. At PDF Page 70 (Page 1 of the Ross Watt Road Design Guidelines), under the heading 'Purpose' add an additional dot point to state:
   • There is no requirement for a Design Assessment Panel in relation to lots less than 300 square metres in Permit Area 2 or in relation to the residential village lot because the design of dwellings on those lots will be assessed under plans to be endorsed by the responsible authority_._
2. At PDF Page 86 and onward:
   1. Amend the title of Appendix E Building Envelope Plan to Revision 7 14 October 2025.
   2. Amend the subsequent Building Envelope Plans to accord with sheets 1 to 7 Revision 7 dated 14 October 2025, as attached to the 'Applicant's DP Comments' filed with VCAT on 15 October 2025, as part of proceeding P325/2025, other than that for tree 23. An amended building envelope for this tree must be provided to accord with item 3b) of this Appendix A, above.

[2] Section 4(2)(d) of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 (Vic) states a failure to make a decision is deemed to be a decision to refuse to make the decision.

[3] The submissions and evidence of the parties, any supporting exhibits given at the hearing and the statements of grounds filed have all been considered in the determination of the proceeding. In accordance with the practice of the Tribunal, not all of this material will be cited or referred to in these reasons.

[4] ID Ross Watt Road Pty Ltd v Macedon Ranges SC [2023] VCAT 471.

[5] ID Ross Watt Road Pty Ltd v Macedon Ranges SC (Corrected) [2024] VCAT 738.

[8] Paragraph 6 of remarks to the 19 May 2025 orders.

[9] [2023] VSC 353.

[10] Letter dated 9 October 2025, TBVol8 [492].

[11] [2007] VSC 238.

[12] TB2 [340] being paragraph 332 of the council main submissions.

[14] [2023] VCAT 1382.

[17] [2025] VCAT 250.

[18] [2014] VSC 127.

[21] Parties acknowledge that clause 21.12 no longer exists. The council submission is that policy under clause 21.13 is now largely replicated in clause 11.01-1L. This includes the Gisborne / New Gisborne Framework Plan that is found under clause 11.01-1L.

[23] Council webpage https://www.mrsc.vic.gov.au/Build-Plan/Planning-For-Our-Future/Town-planning-projects/Gisborne-and-New-Gisborne/Gisborne-Futures accessed 20 October 2025.

[27] ID Ross Watt Road Pty Ltd v Macedon Ranges SC [2023] VCAT 784.

[30] The council estimates it is about half. Our rough measurement of plans is that it is closer to two thirds.

[32] Page 64 of Woodland evidence statement to hearing in the 2023 decision, TB Vol 7, [163]

[33] [2023] VCAT 1377.

[37] By letter dated 24 December 2024 in response to the RV proposal.

[38] A Flame Zone exposure means extreme risk level with an extremely high risk of ember attack and a likelihood of exposure to an extreme level of radiant heat and direct exposure to flames from the fire front.

[39] Shown in Option B that was not formally substituted, but circulated with other substituted plans on 10 September 2025.

[40] [2023] VCAT 1180.

[42] Parties agreed that clause 54 provisions, prior to Amendment VC282 should be used relying on the transition provisions of clause 32.08.

[46] Officer report to Council Meeting 27 August 2025 [50].

[48] The latest correspondence is dated 17 September 2025.