Mr Snooks relied on the affidavit of Mr Sean Anthony Dillon, Planning Compliance Officer sworn 7 May 2010.

Carrying out works (placement of fill) in contravention of clauses 42.01-2 and 42.03-2 of the Mornington Peninsula Planning Scheme

1. Within 30 days from the date of this order the respondent must obtain a survey report prepared by a licensed surveyor showing the natural ground level and contours of the subject land as nearly as possible prior to the placement of the fill.
2. Within 60 days from the date of this order, the respondent must submit a plan prepared by a suitably qualified and experienced environmental consultant for the removal of the fill to original contours (as close as practicable) and the remediation of the subject land to the responsible authority for its approval. Without limiting the scope of this plan, at minimum, it must include:

1. tree protection measures, with particular emphasis on roadside pine trees; 2. earthmoving methods and equipment to be used;

1. remediation measures including mulching, weed control and replanting of suitable species of grasses and ground cover;

1. details of the timing of works (not exceeding 90 days from the date of approval); and 2. ongoing maintenance and monitoring of the replanting and remediation measures required by the plan for a minimum of 2 years from the completion of the works under the plan.
2. The respondent must complete all works (excluding the maintenance and monitoring works outlined in order 3(e) above) within 90 days from the approval of the plan referred to in order 3 to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.
3. The applicant must serve a copy of this order on the owner and occupier of the land, and any other person against whom the order is made, pursuant to section 140 of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998.

1. The respondent was responsible for bringing a very substantial amount of mounded fill onto the roadside adjacent to his property.[1] I am satisfied that the respondent was served with a copy of the application and was given notice of this hearing.
2. The responsible authority estimated that approximately 300 cubic metres had been brought onto the roadside. In its submissions and evidence it described the extensive lengths it had gone to over the past year to attempt to have this fill removed.
3. The affidavit material documents the various opportunities given to the respondent to apply for a planning permit for the fill (or part of it) that were not followed through.
4. The works are clearly unlawful since they would have required a planning permit under both the Environmental Significance Overlay and the Significant Landscape Overlay.[2] Shoreham Road has scenic and environmental qualities reflected by these planning controls that I regard as having been compromised by the expansive fill placed on the roadside.
5. Accordingly, I consider the orders sought by the responsible authority to be appropriate and proportional.
6. In addition, I will permit the responsible authority to recoup a portion of its costs in bringing the application, recognising that it acted within its duty to enforce the planning scheme and was unable to achieve the results it required via non-litigious means.

[1] The only break in the mounding is to allow access via the driveway.

[2] It also appears that they are works carried out on public land, being under the care and control of the responsible authority but this was not determinative of the application.