Clause 32.08-3: A permit is required to subdivide land.

Clause 42.02-2: A permit is required to remove, destroy or lop vegetation.

Clause 43.02-3: A permit is required to subdivide the land.

Clause 44.01-2: A permit is required for roadworks.

Clause 44.01-3: A permit is required remove vegetation.

Clause 44.01-5: permit is required to subdivide land.

Clause 52.02: Proceeding under Section 23 of the Subdivision Act 1988 (Vic) to remove an easement (water).

Clause 52.17-1: A permit is required to remove, destroy or lop any native vegetation.

Clauses 02.03-1, 02.04, 11.01-1L-01, 11.03-4L-01, 11.03-4L-04, 12.01-1S, 12.01-2S, 13.04-2S, 13.04-2L, 15.01-3S, 15.01-5S, 16.01-1S, 18.02-4S, 32.08, 42.02, 43.02, 44.01, 52.02, 52.17, 53.01, 56, 65.02 and 71.02.

The review site (formally known as Lot 2 on PS509109) is regular in shape and currently developed with a dwelling and associated outbuildings. The site also contains well established canopy trees and a range of planted/exotic vegetation.

Access to the land is currently obtained from Bossie Court to the north of the property from a sealed road ('T' shaped cul-de-sac). The property slopes from the northwest to southeast and has an overall area of approximately 6,001sqm.

The surrounding area is generally characterised by low scale dwellings and holiday accommodation. Existing dwellings are generally set on relatively large lots with existing vegetation cover (both native and exotic).

East of the review site is a large parcel of land developed for holiday accommodation (155 Metung Road - McMillans of Metung Costal Resort); west is an unmade Government Road that has remnant native vegetation; while further west lies the Metung Bushland Reserve and East Gippsland Water storage facility.

South of the review site is a vacant lot which has a recently approved ten lot residential subdivision (7 Christmas Street, Metung - application reference 508/2021/P). Subdivision construction works have commenced on this land.

Further north of the review site are smaller residential properties developed with detached dwellings. These dwellings are located within established garden settings.

Undertaken on 28 January 2025, including the review site and wider surrounds and road network.

1. This matter relates to a review under Section 79 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Vic) ('Act') by Upper Windmill Resort Pty Ltd ('applicant') against the failure of the responsible authority ('Council') to grant a permit ('application reference 5.2023.242.1') within the prescribed time under the Act. The application proposes a two lot subdivision, removal of vegetation, roadworks and removal of an easement ('proposal') on the subject land at 10 Bossie Court, Metung ('review site').
2. Following lodgement of the review proceeding by the applicant, the responsible authority advised the Tribunal it would have refused the application on the following grounds:

The proposal is inconsistent with the East Gippsland Planning Scheme, particularly:

• Clause 11.01-1S the proposal does not provide an appropriate balance of strategic objectives to achieve improved land use and development outcomes at a local level.
• Clause 15.01-3S: the proposal does not demonstrate that the subdivision design will achieve a safe neighbourhood.
• Clause 18.02-4S: the proposal does not facilitate a safe road network and best use of existing infrastructure.
• Clause 56.06-8: the proposal does not provide for safe vehicle access.

1. Prior to the hearing, Council reviewed its position and concluded there was insufficient link between planning policy at 11.01-1S and the local and neighbourhood nature of the proposal. Council no longer relies upon its first ground as stated above.
2. Council also formed the position that the proposed native vegetation removal did not appropriately demonstrate avoidance of removal of native vegetation. This concern was highlighted in more detail in its written and oral submission.
3. Council also submits that the '...proposed subdivision has failed to adequately address the circumstances of the subject site and surrounding area in relation to the provision of a safe and functional movement network'.[3] This includes the safe movement of pedestrian and vehicles throughout the broader road network.
4. Council relies on the expert traffic evidence of Brett Young in support of its position on traffic concerns.
5. The respondents agree with Council and submit:

The objectors are of the view that application and the response of the applicant continues to be deficient. There is insufficient detail of what vegetation is on the site, how claimed permit exemptions properly apply and why a permit is not required, and no succinct outline under what provision a permit is required.'[4]

1. While accepting the two lot subdivision should be a 'simple' outcome on the review site, the respondents consider the extension and connection of the road to Bossie Court is 'unnecessary and unjustified'.
2. The applicant does not agree with Council or the respondents and relies on the expert evidence of John Glossop (planning), Leigh Furness (traffic) and Alan Brennan (ecology). Along with Alan Brennan's evidence statement, an Indigenous Revegetation Plan and Fauna Management Plan were also filed by leave of the Tribunal.
3. The applicant considers the proposal is an 'acceptable planning outcome' under the Scheme, noting:
   • The proposed two lot subdivision is consistent the General Residential Zone and local policy;
   • The proposed road connection will result in traffic volumes that are well within the environmental capacity of Bossie Court and the surrounding road network;
   • The road connection will not cause any safety issues, but any concerns are acceptably dealt with by signage;
   • Vegetation removal is provided for by offsets and otherwise the Fauna Management Plan (FMP) and the Indigenous Revegetation Plan (IRP) secure an enhanced habitat and indigenous vegetated outcome for the future of the Site; and
   • The removal of Easement E-1 and E-3, and variation to E-2 are consented to by East Gippsland Water.[5]

1. We have determined the key issues before us are:
   • Is the proposal strategically supported by the Municipal Planning Strategy, Planning Policy Framework and purposes of the zone and overlays?
   • Is the proposed traffic access and design response satisfactory?
   • Is the extent of vegetation removal acceptable under the provisions of Clause 52.17, VPO3 and EMO1?
   • Does the proposal represent an acceptable character and design response to clause 56?
2. Having considered the submissions and evidence of the parties, we find the proposal has not demonstrated that the proposed vegetation removal and overall vegetation character setting of the review site has been appropriately assessed. Particularly regarding the relevant provisions and planning objectives and strategies that apply in the VPO3 (and to a less degree in the EMO1).
3. We note the 'Statement of nature and significance of vegetation to be protected' in Schedule 3 to the VPO, highlights the important aesthetic values and conservation contributions that vegetation makes in the 'Nungurner-Metung Vegetation Protection Area'. The overlay objectives, amongst other matters, seeks 'To preserve existing trees and other vegetation where it contributes to high landscape and aesthetic values of the area.'
4. In the absence of a detailed vegetation assessment as sought under the terms of the VPO3, we have not been persuaded that an acceptable outcome for the proposal can be satisfactorily demonstrated. We find this omission to conduct this vegetation assessment over the entire review site and to demonstrate the findings of an appropriate assessment under the VPO3 is fatal to the proposal before us.
5. Our detailed reasons follow.

1. The main hearing commenced on 6 November 2024.
2. As a preliminary matter, the applicant sought to table several additional documents/supporting evidence that it wished to rely on during the proceeding (refer to comments above). This material included a supplementary evidence statement from Mr Glossop that addressed open space contributions.
3. The Council and respondents opposed this material being considered by the Tribunal, submitting that insufficient time had been provided to assess this new material and was not provided in accordance with the Tribunal's Practice Note (Practice Note - PNVCAT2 Expert Evidence).
4. Following further consideration of oral submissions from the parties, we agreed with the concerns of Council and the respondents.
5. We directed that the Tribunal required certain matters to be clarified and further time was provided to the other parties to make additional submissions (should this be required).
6. Additionally, the Tribunal required further clarification from the applicant of specific permit triggers that applied to the proposal, including proposed vegetation removal provisions and open space contributions that applied under the Scheme.
7. By order dated 7 November 2024, we adjourned the proceeding to the 3, 4, 5 and 6 February 2025. Specifically, the order required the following actions to be addressed by the parties:
   • Leave is granted to the applicant to file and rely on the supplementary statement of evidence of John Glossop from Glossop Town Planning Pty Ltd dated 4 November 2024.
   • Leave is granted to the applicant to file and rely upon the additional material prepared by Alan Brennan of Nature Advisory previously circulated to the Tribunal and parties on 2 November 2024 and 4 November 2024.
   • By 22 November 2024, the Council must file and serve on all other parties a copy of submissions setting out its position on the public open space contribution sought by the Council.
   • By 22 November 2024 the applicant must file and serve a written statement clarifying which trees are proposed to be removed from the subject land as part of this application and under which provisions of the East Gippsland Planning Scheme the applicant considers this removal is required to be considered.
   • By 6 December 2024, the responsible authority must, and any other party may, provide written submissions as to the relevance, if any, of permit no. 508/2021/P for subdivision at 7 Christmas Street Metung including the requirements of condition 22 to this matter.
   • By 6 December 2024 the responsible authority and other parties may provide any written submissions on which they intend to rely at the hearing in reply to any further written submissions arising from these orders.
   • Paragraphs 58 to 60 of the written submissions filed and served on 30 October 2024 on behalf of the respondents are struck out.
8. All parties provided further submissions. These submissions and additional evidence are on file with the Tribunal. The hearing proceeded based on these submissions and supplementary evidence.
9. We address this material in more detail (as and where relevant) in our Key Issues below.

1. The proposal consists of the following:
   • Proposed Lot 1 will have an area of approximately 3,566sqm and will retain the existing dwelling and outbuildings. Proposed Lot 2 will be vacant with an approximate area of 1,294sqm.
   • A 16.0m wide road reserve with a 7.3m road carriageway is proposed through the subject land, providing access to the proposed two lots and connecting the recently approved residential subdivision at 7 Christmas Street, Metung from the south, through to Bossie Court in the north.
2. The proposal also includes consideration for vegetation removal under clause 52.17 and the VPO3.
3. The proposed lots are less than 4,000sqm in area. As such, in accordance with clause 52.17 provisions, identified 'native vegetation' on the review site is 'presumed to be lost' as set out under the Guidelines for the Removal, Destruction or Lopping of Native Vegetation (DELWP, 2017) ('Guidelines'). The biodiversity offset required under the Guidelines contemplates all native vegetation, other than that which is exempt from an offset under Clause 52.17 of the Scheme, is 'presumed lost' on the subject land.
4. In this case, the applicant submits the native vegetation offset has been appropriately assessed and results in a 0.181ha native vegetation offset which is required to be offset.[6]
5. We note this offset assessment and vegetation report prepared by the applicant was referred by the Council to the Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action ('DEECA').
6. On 8 November 2023, DEECA advised the Council it did not object to the grant of a planning permit for the proposal. However, it recommended the responsible authority consider the following actions:
   • The responsible authority consider a permit condition requiring the preparation and implementation of a fauna management plan to manage any unintentional harm to fauna that could occur during tree removal. The site provides suitable habitat for the following species (with species significance shown in brackets) and these species have been recorded within a kilometre search using Naturekit records:
     • Regent Honeyeater Anthochaera phrygia (critically endangered)
     • Swift Parrot Lathamus discolor (critically endangered)
     • Barking Owl Ninox connivens (critically endangered)
     • Grey Goshawk Accipiter novaehollandiae (endangered)
     • Gang-gang Cockatoo Callocephalon fimbriatum (endangered)
     • White-bellied Sea-Eagle Haliaeetus leucogaster (endangered)
     • Lace Monitor Varanus varius (endangered)
     • Little Eagle Hieraaetus morphnoides (vulnerable)
     • White-throated Needletail Hirundapus caudacutus (vulnerable)
   • The responsible authority require an indigenous revegetation plan for the site which includes seed collection prior to removal of the mature trees. The plan may include the propagated tube stock of harvested seed be integrated into the revegetation plan.
7. The applicant subsequently prepared the Fauna Management Plan ('FMP') and the Indigenous Revegetation Plan ('IRP') that now forms part of the material which has been considered by the Tribunal.
8. The Tribunal also notes that a permit trigger also applies for proposed vegetation removal under the relevant requirements and objectives expressed in the VPO3 and EMO1.
9. The proposed road construction associated with the proposal also requires a permit for roadworks under the EMO1. The applicant provided a geotechnical engineering assessment of the proposed roadworks as part of its application material.[7] We have considered this assessment in our assessment below.
10. The review site also includes existing easements in favour of East Gippsland Water. We were advised that the relevant water service authority water prefers these water infrastructure assets to be located within easements on title and placed within road reserves.
11. To this end, the applicant advised if the subdivision was approved and developed, the required water asset easement was proposed to be relocated within the proposed road reserve located between the two proposed lots.
12. The overall proposal, together with proposed road connection alignment and native vegetation to be removed as off-set, is shown in the submitted application plan below.

Figure 1: Plan of proposed subdivision including location of road reserve and vegetation to be removed and retained. Prepared by Crowther & Sadler Pty Ltd, Surveyors Reference 20253, dated 13/1/23 ('vegetation removal plan').

1. As noted above, the review site is located within General Residential Zone, Schedule 1 ('GRZ1') and affected by the following overlays:
   • Design and Development Overlay, Schedule 11 ('DDO11');
   • Erosion Management Overlay, Schedule 1 ('EMO1'); and
   • Vegetation Protection Overlay, Schedule 3 ('VPO3').
2. Relevant permit triggers that apply under the zone and overlays have been provided above. These permit triggers are not contested by the parties. We agree these apply under the Scheme provisions before us.
3. We note that Schedule 11 to the DDO specifies subdivision requirements relating to the town of 'Newlands Arm' only. Nevertheless, Council submits the proposed subdivision is generally considered to be consistent with the design objectives of DDO11, noting:
   • The two lots proposed to be created are generous in size and can allow for retention of established native vegetation and further landscaping opportunities.
   • The proposed allotments are respectful of the land topography, native vegetation and surrounding neighbourhood character.[8]
4. In its updated written submission dated 3 December 2024, Council stated (at paragraph 1.8) the following:

Considerations in respect of the suitability of native vegetation removal under Clause 52.17 and the vegetation protection overlay have been revised from the 29 October 2024 submission, in response to the expert evidence obtained and tabled by the applicant for review. Council forms the position that the native vegetation removal does not appropriately demonstrate avoidance of removal of native vegetation.

1. At paragraph 7.7 and 7.8 of its updated submission, Council stated:

Council is satisfied that the proposal addresses the strategies of Clause 15 relating to compact neighbourhoods that have walkable distances between activities; providing a range of lot sizes to suit a variety of dwelling and household types to meet the needs and aspirations of different groups of people; and protecting and enhancing habitat for native flora and fauna.

However, the proposal fails to address the objectives and strategies of Clause 15 that require subdivision design to support functional and safe neighbourhoods.

1. The key purpose of the EMO is to protect areas prone to erosion, landslip, other land degradation by minimising land disturbance and inappropriate development. The applicant has responded to this overlay by lodging a Geotechnical Risk Assessment undertaken by Chris O'Brien and Company (dated 29 November 2022). This report identifies that the erosion risk on the land in the context of the proposed subdivision is low and permit conditions can appropriately address these matters in detail. This is a view also supported by Council.
2. We note the proposal also requires permissions under:
   • Clause 52.02 (Easements, restrictions and reserves), before proceeding under Section 23 of the Subdivision Act 1988 (Vic) to remove an easement; and
   • Clause 52.17 (Native Vegetation), to remove destroy or lop native vegetation, unless exempted.
3. We agree the permit triggers and provisions under the EMO1 do not attract third party review rights. However, the respondents referenced these provisions in its written submission. We have not relied upon this material and ruled that paragraphs 58 to 60 of the respondent's written submission (filed and served on 30 October 2024) would be struck out.[9] However, we have considered the written submissions from the responsible authority and applicant in respect of this permit trigger below under key issues.
4. The proposal also requires consideration under clause 56 of the scheme, by reason of the relevant provisions expressed in clause 32.08-3. All parties have assessed the proposal against the standards and objectives of this clause, as and where relevant to their submissions.
5. As we noted above, the Council did not initially raise the extent of removal of native vegetation in its revised statement of refusal grounds, lodged in its response to the Tribunal's subsequent order dated 4 September 2024.
6. However, in its pre-filed written submissions filed in advance of the hearing, Council submitted, that on detailed re-examination of its position, 'the extent of vegetation removal within the propose (sic) Road is considered not an appropriate response to the avoidance principle in respect of Native Vegetation'.
7. The Council clarified this position further at the hearing. At paragraph 1.8 of its written submission, it stated:

Having given more careful consideration of the matter in preparation of this submission, a position is formed that the native vegetation removal does not appropriately demonstrate avoidance of removal of native vegetation.

A party in a proceeding for review under this Act is not restricted at the hearing of the proceeding to any grounds previously notified to the other parties (whether in the course of or before the proceeding) or the Tribunal.

1. We also note the evidence from John Glossop who stated at paragraph 39 of his evidence statement:

From reading this policy, it is clear to me that development/ subdivision within Metung is supported subject, in particular, to native vegetation considerations. My view on this is supported by the fact that the Review Site is zoned GRZ1, which includes the following 'encouragement' objectives:

• To encourage development that respects the neighbourhood character of the area[10].
• To encourage a diversity of housing types and housing growth particularly in locations offering good access to services and transport.

1. The respondents also referenced native vegetation removal impacts in their joint statement of grounds and written submission. These concerns were expanded upon by the respondent's advocate at the hearing.
2. Given the relevance of section 84A of the Act and combination of permit triggers regarding vegetation removal under the respective overlays and native vegetation off-sets that apply under clause 52.17, we find the removal of native vegetation is a relevant consideration before us.

1. DEECA and the Country Fire Authority ('CFA') were given notice of the proposal under 52(c) of the Act (referral provisions). The responses of these authorities are summarised in the Council and applicant's written submissions.[11]
2. DEECA and the CFA do not object to the proposal, subject to requirements and conditions as set out in their respective responses (DECCA - response dated 8 November 2023 and CFA - response dated 22 November 2023).
3. East Gippsland Water also provided consent to the proposal, subject to a range of conditions as set out in its written response, dated 18 September 2024.
4. We are satisfied that the proposal has been appropriately referred as required under the relevant permit triggers. We have considered these responses in our assessment that follows.

1. Key planning policies that apply to the proposal have been set out above. We do not consider it is necessary to repeat these here. We have considered these provisions as and where relevant in our reasons below.
2. We note the evidence statement of Mr Glossop also provides a comprehensive summary of the relevant policy framework and permit triggers that apply to the proposal.[12] Council's written submission at paragraphs 7.2-7.11 also addresses this policy framework all of which have been considered.
3. We are satisfied that the proposed subdivision has general policy support within the policy framework that applies under the Scheme. This was not contested by the parties.
4. Nevertheless, the Tribunal is also required to balance that policy against net community benefit as set out in clause 71.02. In the following Key Issues section below, we set out our assessment and relevant findings of the proposal in the policy framework and permit trigger settings that apply under the scheme.

1. We have provided a summary description of the physical setting of the review site in our Information Section above. It is not necessary to repeat this description here. We accept and acknowledge the review site is located within the Metung Township boundary and is identified for 'residential purposes' as set out under clauses 02.03-1, 02.04, 11.01-1L-01 and 11.03-4L-04 of the Scheme.
2. The strategic nature and physical context of the review site, including the proposed subdivision and the adjoining subdivision which was approved by the Council at 7 Christmas Street[13] is depicted in Figure 1 below.
3. We have included this aerial map below as it provides a useful reference and context for the review site's location in reference to the existing Metung Road network.

Figure 2: Local Road Network - Source: Brett Young, Evidence Statement

Planning Permit 508/2021/P, Subdivision, 7 Christmas Street, Metung

1. Planning Permit 508/2021/P ('Christmas Street Permit')[14] allows a multi-lot subdivision (up to 10 lots), roadworks and removal of native vegetation of land immediately adjoining and to the south of the review site.
2. Conditions 1(a) and 22 of this permit, enables provision of a 'temporary court bowl' on the southern portion of the review site (being part of Lot 2 on PS 509109 - review site).
3. The Tribunal sought further submissions from all parties 'as to the relevance, if any, of permit no. 508/2021/P for subdivision at 7 Christmas Street Metung, including the requirements of condition 22 to this matter.'[15]
4. We provide a copy of the endorsed Christmas Street Permit subdivision layout below.

Figure 3: Approved Subdivision Layout, 7 Christmas Street, Metung - Source: Tribunal Book, page 1248.

1. Condition 22 of the approved Christmas Street Permit provides for the following outcome:

1. We note that Council approved this permit, without amending the Christmas Street Permit, to reflect that temporary court bowl to service the Christmas Street subdivision would be constructed on part of Lot 2 on PS 509109 - review site.
2. The applicant submits that while an amendment to the Christmas Street Permit could be contemplated subject to the outcome of this review appeal, it was not unusual for permit conditions, or a section 173 agreement under the Act, to affect land beyond a review site.
3. In support of this proposition, the applicant says '...condition 22 provides no impediment to approval of the application for review and indeed at 22(b) expressly contemplates it and makes provision for it'.[16] Council agrees with this view. The respondents also accept the Christmas Street Permit would require an amendment, subject to the Tribunal's decision arising from this review proceeding.
4. Under clause 65.02 of the scheme, the Tribunal finds this is a relevant consideration in this review proceeding.
5. We acknowledge that both parcels of land now appear to be in the same ownership and in that sense, could be legally bound to each other by amending the Christmas Street Permit, with the consent of the owner.
6. Nevertheless, there still appears to be a level of uncertainty for the Council and respondents in the scenario we have outlined above. Particularly as to the future impacts arising from any access arrangements approved between the existing permit provisions and the review site in this proceeding.
7. The applicant also acknowledges there is some level of 'ambiguity' if a subdivision of the review site commences into the future, without a connecting road being approved in some form between the land in Christmas Street and Lot on PS 509109.
8. Other road/pedestrian access options between Christmas Street and Bossie Court are not matters before us. Nevertheless, we would encourage the Council and applicant/landowner to address this matter expeditiously to ensure the existing ambiguity/uncertainty of a road/pedestrian access between the two parcels of land in question can be satisfactorily resolved.

1. Having regard to the written submissions and evidence of the parties, including the Decision Guidelines of clauses 32.08-14, 43.02-6, s.6.0 (DDO11), 44.01-8, s.5.0 (EMO1), 43.02-5, s.5.0 (VPO3), and clauses 65.01 and 65.02, we consider the key issues before us are:
   • Is the proposal strategically supported by the Municipal Planning Strategy, Planning Policy Framework and purposes of the zone and overlays?
   • Is the proposed traffic access and design response satisfactory?
   • Is the extent of vegetation removal acceptable under the provisions of Clause 52.17, VPO3 and EMO1?
   • Does the proposal represent an acceptable character and design response to clause 56?
2. Having considered the submissions and evidence of the parties, we find the proposal has not demonstrated that the existing and proposed vegetation removal and overall vegetation character setting of the review site has been appropriately assessed under the relevant provisions and planning objectives and strategies that apply under the VPO3 (and to a less extent the EMO1).
3. Nor do we consider that an acceptable outcome has been demonstrated. We find this omission to conduct this vegetation assessment over the entire review site and to demonstrate the findings of an appropriate assessment under the VPO3/EMO1 is fatal to the proposal before us.
4. Our detailed reasons follow.

Is the proposal strategically supported by the Municipal Planning Strategy, Planning Policy Framework and purposes of the zone and overlays?

1. We have set out the relevant policy framework, zone and overlay purposes and permit triggers in the Information Section above.
2. Council accepts that the proposal will help facilitate the growth of Metung within the existing township boundary. It also no longer contests that the proposal does not satisfy the strategic objectives found at clause 11.01-1S.[17]
3. However, Council remains concerned the proposal does not achieve an appropriate subdivision design outcome (clause 15.01-3S). It also says the proposal will not result in a safe neighbourhood or achieve an appropriate vehicle access through the review site into Bossie Court and the immediate road network (clauses 18.02-4S and 56.06-8).
4. The respondents agree with Council's concerns regarding the subdivision layout. The respondents say:

The proposal is not an acceptable design response and will not result in a proper and orderly planning outcome. It will not result in a demonstrably needed network connection and will only result in impacts on the residential amenity of Bossie Court, decrease convenience and increase the risk associated with vehicular and pedestrian usage.

Further, the layout proposed unnecessarily requires removal of high retention value native vegetation which could be avoided and further minimised by providing access to the lots via a court bowl and not persisting with a through road.[18]

1. The applicant submits the proposal is an 'acceptable planning outcome' that is consistent with the GRZ purposes and relevant local policy. It relies on the evidence of Mr Glossop and says in the absence of no contrary expert planning evidence before the Tribunal, Mr Glossop's evidence should be given 'great weight'.

1. It is the evidence of Mr Glossop that the proposal responds appropriately to the broader planning strategic and policy settings that apply to the Metung township, including clauses 02.03-1 (Settlement and housing), the Strategic Framework Plan at clause 02.04, clause 11.01-1L-01 (East Gippsland settlements) and clause 11.03-4L-04 (Metung Framework Plan), where the review site is identified for residential purposes.
2. Mr Glossop also notes the proposal responds appropriately to the provision of a 'permeable road network' that 'facilitates easy vehicular and pedestrian access' (clause 56.06-4 - Neighbourhood Street network objective).
3. Regarding the current subdivision approval at 7 Christmas Street to the south of the review site, it is Mr Glossop's opinion that the approved subdivision layout provides 'an excellent opportunity to improve the permeability of the local road network' in the context of relevant Scheme objectives, as noted in his expert witness statement.

1. We are satisfied that the proposal provides a consistent policy response to the ongoing growth of Metung. The additional two lots proposed on the review site will be located within the established Metung township boundary. This is demonstrated in the Metung Framework Plan shown below.

Figure 4: Metung Framework Plan - Source: Clause 11.03-4L-04 of the Scheme.

1. However, while we find the proposal is generally consistent with the Planning Policy Framework and purposes of the GRZ1, this finding needs to be balanced and considered against other relevant planning policy settings that are discussed in more detail below.

Is the proposed traffic management and access design satisfactory?

1. Clause 18 of the Scheme addresses transport matters. Clause 18.02-4S provides the following objective and strategies that are relevant to this proposal:

• To facilitate an efficient and safe road network that integrates all movement networks and makes best use of existing infrastructure.

• Plan and develop the road network to:
  • Ensure people are safe on and around roads.
  • Improve people's perceptions of safety on and around roads.
  • Improve road connections for all road users.
  • Facilitate the use of public transport, cycling and walking.

1. In the context of this clause and relevant provisions under clause 56, Council advised the Tribunal that its Road Safety and Assets team found that:
   • Whilst a through road is not supported, a controlled emergency services/pedestrian link from Christmas Street to Bossie Court would be appropriate.
   • A revised Traffic Impact Assessment to include the peak hour traffic would be required to determine whether the proposed increase in traffic will cause a material detriment to surrounding properties.
   • A revised Traffic Impact Assessment would be required to identify suitable measures to control traffic speed on the proposed through road would need more detailed consideration.[19]
2. Council accepts the provision of a 'through road' linking Christmas Street to Bossie Court would help permeability of the local road network. However, it submits this outcome must also be balanced against the road network strategies expressed under clause 18 of the Scheme.
3. Council is concerned the proposed road connection is not perceived by Bossie Court residents as a safe design. The Council agrees with these concerns, noting the additional traffic that will flow from Christmas Street into Bossie Court and the existing steep topography and driveway connections and vegetation setting in this court setting.
4. Council also relies on the evidence of its traffic expert, Mr Young. Mr Young's opinion is discussed below.
5. The respondents agree with Council and submit:

...the proposed subdivision is an illogical and inappropriate response to the site and by virtue of the connecting road to the wider area. It is manifestly clear to them that more sensible, more practical, less costly and less impactful options are available to the applicant to pursue.[20]

1. The applicant does not agree with Council or the respondents and submits the proposal will result in a satisfactory planning outcome. It also relies on the evidence of its traffic expert, Mr Furness and planning evidence from Mr Glossop.

1. A summary of Mr Young's evidence statement is provided below:

Based on my independent traffic engineering assessment for the proposed residential subdivision of the existing lot into two lots at 10 Bossie Court, Metung, I am of the opinion that:

• Traffic Volume Assessment: The estimated traffic volumes on Bossie Court may reach up to 304 vehicles per day, slightly exceeding the upper design range for an Urban Access Lane of 300 vehicles per day. However, this volume does not raise significant concerns regarding the road's capacity in my view given the small amount that it exceeds the range by.
• Safety Concerns for Pedestrians: The absence of footpaths on Bossie Court, in combination with its curved geometry and being estimated to carry traffic at the upper end of its design capacity poses a safety risk for pedestrians in my view, both for existing users and others making use of the new connection. To improve safety for all road users, the implementation of a shared zone treatment is recommended, including appropriate shared zone signage at both ends of Bossie Court to advise drivers to apply caution.
• Driveway Safety Issues: Several existing driveways along Bossie Court have steep inclines and acute angles, resulting in restricted visibility. The lack of parking restrictions further exacerbates this issue, increasing the risk of conflicts as traffic volumes rise. To address this risk, parking restrictions should be considered in the vicinity of existing crossovers to ensure adequate visibility.
• Accessway Design Considerations: At the terminal end of Bossie Court, two access points will be retained for Number 8 and Number 13 Bossie Court, along with a gated access for 155 Metung Road. The designs provided do not clearly indicate how these driveways will connect to the new road or if modifications are necessary. As a condition of any approval granted or as a pre-requisite to any permit granted, a detailed plan should be prepared to address these connections, ensuring consideration of gradients, levels, and adequate visibility at each retained property access point.[21]

1. A summary of the expert opinion of Leigh Furness for applicant is provided below:

Having undertaken a detailed traffic engineering assessment of the proposed residential subdivision at 10 Bossie Court Metung I am of the opinion that:

a) proposed internal road layout is in accordance with the requirements of the Planning Scheme IDM and VPA guidelines (where relevant) and current practice,

b) the new internal road should be provided with a footpath on one side consistent with the approved subdivision at 7 Christmas Street,

c) the through road connection improves pedestrian connectively emergency access to nearby lots and eliminates reverse movements by waste collection vehicles,

d) the expected traffic generation of the development will itself is negligible and it is the acceptability of creating a through road link that is the key traffic impact consideration,

e) Bossie Court would continue to carry a low level of traffic well within the traffic capacity definition of an Access Place under the IDM or Clause 56 06 during the typical week and holiday periods,

f) the additional traffic using Bossie Court will be limited to nearby residents in the immediate area not through traffic as Metung Road and Stirling Road will continue to provide a more direct connection for residents outside the immediate vicinity of the proposed subdivision, and

g) I am satisfied that there are no traffic engineering reasons why the proposed subdivision at 10 Bossie Court Metung should not be granted subject to appropriate conditions.

1. Mr Glossop is of the opinion that while the proposal will bring some physical change for existing residents in Bossie Court, he considers '...the road connection represents a better outcome than the existing situation in town planning terms'.[22]
2. He notes that estimated daily traffic volumes expected in Bossie Court by Mr Young and Mr Furness will vary between 204 and 304 vehicles per day. It is his opinion, that this estimated traffic volume is '...unlikely to have an unreasonable amenity impact' in this locale.[23]

1. At the direction of the Tribunal Mr Furness and Mr Young met in conclave and produced a Traffic Engineering Experts - Joint Report, dated 22 October 2024 ('Conclave Traffic Report').
2. The areas of agreement between the traffic experts include:
   • Functional road classification;
   • Both agree that September surveys had Bossie Court carrying more traffic than February;
   • Both agree the daily traffic volumes remain low;
   • Traffic distribution is similar;
   • Bossie Court can accommodate the estimated daily traffic volume;
   • No footpaths are required;
   • Shared zone signage would be an acceptable treatment in Bossie Court - noting Furness does not consider this necessary; and
   • Proposal would bring benefits to emergency services and related situations.
3. The experts disagree on the following matters:
   • Traffic rate generation rate estimated in Bossie Court from Christmas Street and the new lots; (Young estimates 304 vehicles/day-Furness estimates 204 vehicles/day).
   • Concerns around visibility and safe access from existing residents into Bossie Court and safety of on-street parking arrangements.
4. Council provided an Addendum Submission dated 23 Jan 2025. It continues to rely on the evidence of Young, preferring the inclusion of a signed shared zone in Bossie Court. It notes the Council's traffic engineers also supported a controlled emergency services/pedestrian link from Christmas Street to Bossie Court. Additionally, Council notes its traffic expert supports the inclusion of parking restrictions in the vicinity of existing crossovers in Bossie Court and a detailed plan to address whether alterations are required for access points at 8 and 13 Bossie Court.
5. The issue of traffic and safety impacts along and into Bossie Court is a key concern for the respondents. In addition to the concerns raised in the Council's submission, the respondents submit:
   • The proposed road connection is not warranted from the perspective of shorter travel times and distances into Metung Township.
   • No connectivity issue has been identified by emergency services, Victoria Police, Ambulance Victoria and the Country Fire Authority.
   • An alternative road access connector would avoid the loss of significant vegetation. The provision of a formal court bowl for the Christmas Street permit subdivision is preferred.
   • The estimated traffic volumes arising from 'through traffic' would increase amenity impacts 'four-fold'.
   • Safety concerns arising from additional traffic using the road connector and the steepness/visibility of vehicles entering and leaving properties in Bossie Court. The respondents say 'Given the acute entry angle, slope and location of the tree there is concern from residents that the increased traffic and difficult site lines will increase the risk of collisions'.[24]
6. The applicant relies on the evidence of Mr Furness. It submits that based on the traffic expert evidence and conclave report, the proposed road connection '...is an acceptable outcome that will not cause any safety issues and that will result in traffic volumes that can be acceptably accommodated in Bossie Court and the surrounding area.[25]

1. Having considered the submissions of the parties, expert traffic evidence from Young and Furness and the conclusions of the traffic experts arising from the traffic conclave report, we prefer the evidence of Mr Furness.
2. We note that Mr Young did not undertake a site visit, whereas Mr Furness did. The applicant says this goes to 'weight' the Tribunal should give to this evidence. We agree.
3. Based on the traffic evidence, we find that the proposed road connection will provide a satisfactory planning outcome sought under the relevant provisions of clause 18 of the Scheme. We are satisfied the proposed road connection would result in improved road permeability between the two parcels of land (Christmas Street Permit land and the review site) and Bossie Court. This was also the view of Mr Glossop.
4. We also accept the evidence of both traffic experts that the estimated traffic volumes on this road connector is a modest increase that can be accommodated within the surrounding road network, including along Bossie Court.
5. We do not support the recommendations of Mr Young to create a shared traffic zone in Bossie Court to address potential pedestrian and vehicle access issues. Mr Young did not inspect the site and Bossie Court, relying on aerial and other material provided by the Council.
6. Mr Furness undertook a detailed and comprehensive site inspection of the review site and properties located within Bossie Court. He took the Tribunal to detailed notes and photographs of respective properties along Bossie Court, pointing out the sight lines and driveway grades that would achieve an acceptable traffic outcome according to clause 18 and relevant Australian Standards.
7. We were persuaded by Mr Furness who had inspected the existing site conditions in Bossie Court, including inspections of the relevant vehicle access points raised by Young as problematic. Mr Furness concluded a 'shared zone' would not be necessary in Bossie Court.
8. It was Mr Furness opinion that the existing vehicle access points into Bossie Court would not be adversely impacted by the proposed road connection, given the low traffic flows that could be expected along this road connection and the view lines he considered during his inspection.
9. We find that the proposed traffic management and access design associated with the proposed road connection on the review site will result in a satisfactory planning outcome. However, we need to qualify this finding.
10. While we acknowledge the arborist assessment of two impacted trees within the proposed road alignment between Christmas Street and Bossie Court, we find the overall lack of an arborist vegetation assessment across the entire review site requires further investigation, recording and assessment.
11. While we were directed to the report prepared by Roots 2 Leaves that assessed the impacts on two trees in the proposed road connection alignment, this report recommended further assessment was required. We were not taken to any other assessment of an alternative alignment that would help avoid the potential loss of both trees.
12. For the reasons explained below, we find this is a significant shortcoming of the proposed layout and road connector design before us.

Is the extent of vegetation removal acceptable under the provisions of clause 52.17, VPO3 and EMO1?

1. We find the manner in which information has been provided in relation to the assessment of vegetation removal has not assisted the Tribunal's consideration of the three permit triggers which relate to vegetation removal. We have set out in chronological order how and when the most relevant material was provided to us in relation to vegetation removal.
   1. The application included a plan of vegetation removal plan (Figure 1).
      1. A Native Vegetation Removal Report was provided which indicated the application was subject to an intermediate assessment pathway and:

(1) Extent of proposed removal: 0.296 hectares; and

(3) General offset amount 0.056 general habitat units;

(4) 0.206 minimum strategic biodiversity value score; and

1. A quotation for the supply of native vegetation credits was provided on the basis of:

(1) General offset amount 0.056 general habitat units;

(2) 0.206 minimum strategic biodiversity value score; and

(3) Four large trees.

1. A planning report was prepared by Crowther and Sadler dated June 2023 which includes an assessment against clause 52.17 and acknowledges the need for a permit under VPO3. It included some photographs of vegetation below:

Figure 5 - Images of trees from pages 16 and 17 - Crowther and Sadler Two Lot Subdivision, Removal of Vegetation Roadworks and Removal of Easement - 10 Bossie Court - June 2023 ('Planning Report')

1. A servicing plan shows the interaction with the 7 Christmas Street subdivision to the south and the trees retained within that subdivision. The northern connection to the existing termination of Bossie Court, when compared with the vegetation removal plan, confirms the necessity for removal of two trees within the road reserve, generally where the new roadway is proposed to meet Bossie Court. These trees along with others (about which we do not have details) are referred to as 'planted vegetation to be removed' on the vegetation removal plan shown below.

Figure 6 - Detail from Crossco Engineering & Environmental Consultants Access and Services Layout Plan (Source: 'Engineering Plan')

1. A response from DEECA dated 8 November 2023 which responds to notification given under section 52 of the Act indicates that the Minister does not object to the proposal as an adjoining land owner and under VPO3, subject to the preparation of a fauna management plan and an indigenous revegetation plan.
2. On 23 October 2024 an FMP and IRP prepared by Nature Advisory dated October 2024 was provided to the Tribunal.
   1. The fauna management plan identified the fauna habitat as being primarily limited to the trees. Tree #14 contains small to medium hollows although it is noted that it was difficult to observe these from the ground and that it should be appropriately inspected by a botanist. The report refers to Tree #14 as being retained.
   2. The Indigenous Revegetation Plan states (amongst other matters):

(1) Nature Advisory Pty Ltd undertook a detailed assessment of the study area in October 2024, during which the nature of indigenous vegetation in and around the study area was recorded, as well as the indigenous vegetation values present in the study area. The site assessment was used to inform this Indigenous Revegetation Plan.

(2) It includes the following plan identifying some of the trees on the site by species:

Figure 7 - Detail from Crossco Engineering & Environmental Consultants Access and Services Layout Plan (Source: 'Engineering Plan')

1. The plan recommends revegetation in the north and east[26] portion of the study area.
2. It says that elements of indigenous vegetation should be retained 'where possible' (p 8). In particular it identified mature canopy trees as valuable for retention where possible such as mature individuals of Coast Grey Box, Gippsland Red-gum and Coast Manna-Gum. The 'Cherry Ballart' is also identified as being of high retention value. Two Cherry Ballart trees were identified on site. A colony of Coastal Greenhood orchids was also identified on the land as being valuable to retain. The revegetation plan suggested additional revegetation plantings.

1. The Outline of Submissions on behalf of the Permit applicant/applicant for review dated 29 October 2024 made observations about the vegetation removal plan but in our view, did not comprehensively address this issue. It did state:
   1. Consequential removal of vegetation and native vegetation is required. Although the Site is not proposed to be cleared of all vegetation and native vegetation, the size of the Site means that all vegetation is 'presumed lost' for the purposes of offsets.
2. The responsible authority's submissions dated 29 October 2024 indicated a change of position in relation to vegetation removal on the site, indicating that it now considers that this has not been adequately addressed.[27]
3. Submissions filed on 30 October 2024 on behalf of the respondents relied upon matters relating to vegetation retention and submitted that there were various inconsistencies in the documentation.
4. On 1 November 2024 prior to the Tribunal hearing schedule for 6 November 2024[28] the Tribunal received an email on behalf of the applicant seeking leave to file new material and to call Alan Brennan of Nature Advisory to the 'address the Tribunal on these matters'. The attached material comprised two native vegetation removal reports which assess the native vegetation on alternative basis as four large trees and five scattered trees, or alternatively four old trees and a patch of native vegetation.
   1. One scenario described as Scenario 1 (below):

Figure 8 - Scenario 1 - Source: November Native Vegetation Report 1 plan

Figure 9 - Scenario 2 - Source November Native Vegetation Report 1 plan

1. Documents providing native vegetation off set calculations for both scenarios were attached.

1. On Monday 4 November 2025 further evidence was received on behalf of the applicant comprising a Statement of Alan Brennan of Nature Advisory. This was said to relate to the Council's new grounds of refusal.[29] We note the evidence statement of Alan Brennan indicated that he was instructed at 5:13 on 29 October 2024.
   1. The Brennan statement says in respect of VPO3:

1. On 4 November 2024, the Tribunal emailed the parties to indicate it would consider these matters at the commencement of the hearing.
2. Following oral submissions from the parties at the commencement of the proposed hearing on 6 November 2024, the hearing was adjourned. Additional orders arising from the adjournment required amongst other matters, that:

By 22 November 2024 the applicant must file and serve a written statement clarifying which trees are proposed to be removed from the subject land as part of this application and under which provisions of the East Gippsland Planning Scheme the applicant considers this removal is required to be considered.

1. The submission from the applicant received in response to this order stated:
   1. 10 Bossie Court, Metung (Site), is within Schedule 1 to the General Residential Zone (GRZ1) and subject to:

a) Schedule 11 to the Design and [Development Overlay (DDO11).

b) Erosion Management Overlay (EMO)

c) Schedule 3 to the Vegetation Protection Overlay.

1. The permit requirements in relation to the vegetation are set out within the following clauses of the planning scheme:

a) Clause 44.01-3 (EMO) to remove, destroy and lop any vegetation unless exempted; > > b) Clause 42.02-2 (VPO) to remove destroy or lop any vegetation unless exempted; and > > c) Clause 52.17 (Native vegetation), to remove, destroy or lop native vegetation, unless specifically exempted.

2. Matters to be considered under the EMO are exempt from third party review rights.[30]
3. The Plan of Vegetation Removal extracted at [Figure 1][31] was submitted with the permit application and sought to differentiate between planted vegetation to be retained, planted vegetation to be removed, native vegetation to be retained, native vegetation to be offset, native vegetation to be removed, regrowth less than 10 years old, and vegetation within 2 metres of an existing boundary, native trees within 2 metres of a boundary and dead vegetation.
4. The statement of evidence of Mr Brennan assesses that vegetation loss is proposed to be 0.181 hectares of native vegetation in the form of:

a) One large, scattered tree (equating to a loss of 0.070 hectares); and > > b) 0.111 hectares of native vegetation in patches (including 3 large trees in patches).

5. The table below sets out the classification of vegetation in Figure 1 alongside their status.

9. No other vegetation is proposed to be removed.

1. Consequential ('deemed') vegetation loss due to the proposed lots being smaller than 4000m2 is appropriately provided for by offsets, as the evidence of Mr Brennan will demonstrate.

Figure 10: Table of vegetation removal (Source: Brennan Evidence)

1. The Council's further written submission (Updated written submission of the responsible authority (changed Orders) dated 3 December 2024 addresses the VPO3. The Council identifies the retention of additional vegetation as a further reason not to connect the proposed subdivision to Bossie Court as this approach would minimise the loss of vegetation.[32]
2. In respect of native vegetation removal under clause 52.17, the Council submitted that 'the extent of vegetation removal within the proposed road is an appropriate response to the 'avoidance principle' in respect of Native Vegetation. It is considered that a two-lot subdivision which terminates the proposed road in a court bowl formation can appropriately provide access to both of the proposed lots and would impact on planted vegetation only'.[33] The Council's submissions relating to native vegetation removal are connected to its submissions in opposition to the creation of through road link through the site.
3. The Respondents' 5 December 2024 submission was made in response to the Tribunal's orders. These are addressed below:
   1. The objectors remain of the view that the application documentation remains deficient.[34]
   2. The obligation is on the permit applicant to identify what vegetation including trees are proposed to be removed and under which provision of the planning scheme it is triggered.[35]
   3. The triggers for vegetation removal under the scheme are the Erosion Management Overlay, the Vegetation Protection Overlay and Clause 52.17 with each provision triggering a permit using different criteria to establish when and why a planning permit is required.
   4. The respondents state that:
      1. The Plan of Vegetation Removal produced by Crowther & Sadler, which was submitted as part of the application, is again relied upon in the applicant's latest submission as being sufficient to distinguish the following categories of vegetation:
         • Native vegetation to be removed.
         • Planted vegetation to be removed.
         • Native vegetation to be offset.
         • Planted vegetation to be retained.
         • A native shrub to be retained.
         • Native vegetation within 2 metres of an existing boundary.
         • Dead shrubs.
         • Regrowth ....

1. Trees shown in orange are also nominated to be removed as they are within the alignment of the road and are, according to the applicant, "planted vegetation". It is the applicant's submission that these trees are exempt from a permit under Clause 52.17-7 as they are planted however, no rationale or evidence to substantiate this assertion has been provided. There is no information before the Tribunal that establishes what type of trees these are, whether they are indigenous, native or exotic species, why they categorised as being 'planted' or whether they may be less than 10 years old.

1. The respondent's submission identified a native tree within the road reserve as subject to removal and a further four trees which sit on the border between this land and the Christmas Street site as not having been assessed.[37]

Inspection of the site shows that several of these trees along the alignment of the internal road may be indigenous or native and from a laymen's perspective there is little to distinguish some of these trees in terms of their appearance from Tree 4 or why they are considered planted whilst Tree 4 is not. Again, the proposal contains no baseline information on these trees of explanation for their categorization.

1. The following figure is included to demonstrate the point:

1. It is the respondent's understanding, based on the categorisation of the vegetation on the Plan of Vegetation Removal and the applicants' submissions of 22 November 2024, that the proposal relies upon exemptions within the scheme that apply to regrowth, planted vegetation and vegetation under 10 years old. These exemptions are within the VPO and Clause 52.17, however, the respondents say neither the initial planning report, Mr. Brennan's evidence, or the additional submissions provide any assessment to substantiate how the exemptions apply.

1. In response the applicant says:
   1. All trees on the review site were assessed by a qualified botanist to determine whether they were indigenous, native, planted or introduced and that expert assessment forms part of the expert opinion of Mr Brennan.
   2. The figure shown in Figure 2 of the respondents' submission is not on the review site and not currently proposed to be removed. The tree is a planted Spotted Gum and exempt from VPO3 and 52.17.
   3. Trees 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 are not proposed to be removed and the respondent has adduced no evidence that they will be. They are not relevant unless they will be removed. In any event trees 10, 11, 12, and 13 are all assessed in the Arborist Report that accompanied the Christmas Street Permit application (refer to Appendix A) as a species that does not typically originate in Metung and to have been planted - they are all aligned. Appendix A: Development Report prepared by Roots 2 Leaves (28 September 2021) Pages 3, 8 and 9. The group of four trees is also referred to as Tree 5 on page 8.
2. On 6 December 2024 Mr McGuckian sought a copy of the Roots 2 Leaves report from 2021 referred to by the applicant as well as details of the qualified and experienced botanist referred to in the applicant's submission.
3. On 6 December 2024 the 2021 Roots 2 Leaves assessment of 7 Christmas Street was provided by the applicant ('Roots to Leaves 2021 assessment'). This report refers to:

A Single group of 4 trees which comprised of native trees have also been observed on the northern end of the property. These trees where not part of the initial assessment request but have been flagged during the site assessment due to their location. These trees appear to be planted vegetation due to their location being parallel to each other. These trees also are not typically found growing naturally in the Metung area.[38]

1. On 16 January 2025 a further report was filed being a Tree Impact Assessment Report prepared by Nathan Williamson, dated 17 December 2024, which referred to a site inspection conducted in December 2024. The report assesses Tree #6 and a tree in the proposed road reserve only. Roots 2 Leaves Tree Services were appointed by the applicant in December 2024 to conduct an arborist inspection of two existing trees that would be impacted by the proposed road connection on the review site. The following image taken from that report shows the location of the proposed road alignment and subject trees (identified in the Tree Impact Report as trees No. 6 and Tree RR).

Figure 11: Existing tree locations impacted by proposed road alignment on review site - Source: Tree Impact Report, prepared by Roots 2 Leaves Tree Services, dated 17 December 2024. ('Roots 2 Leaves Tree #6 and RRT Dec Report')

• Main Observations

Tree one (Tree 6) will be heavily impacted, A total impact of 27.5% of the Tree protection zone has been calculated to be lost by the construction design, from here there are 2 main options aside from redesigning the road path.

Option 1 - Tree is considered lost as impacts are well over acceptable threshold, offsets may be required as tree is considered native however this tree has been planted on this property as Blakey's gum is not native to our region.

Option 2 - tree is retained and further investigation is carried out, subsoil ground investigation can be carried out by way of GPR or HYDROVAC at the furthers point of impact by construction. Investigation and Root calculation can then be carried out to determine the actual root mass loss. If this is under 22.5% then tree can be retained and will be considered viable.

Tree 2 (Tree RR) is considered lost, the structural root zone is heavily impacted and the tree will require removal with the current design. This tree is not native to this area and is considered planted, other than a small pocket near Buchan, these trees are endemic to the NSW coastal region.

It's advisable in our arborists opinion to carry out further investigation on tree one as although not native to this area, this tree is still significant to the landscape, Tree two however will regrow to that size in 10 - 15 years and is not significant, removal is advised. (note: tree 1 is tree 6)

(emphasis added).

This report provided a table which identified the Blakely's Red Gum as being of high retention value and the spotted gum in the road reserve as of medium retention value.

The Blakely's Red Gum is considered is said to be 'considered planted vegetation'. The spotted gum is identified as likely self-sewn or planted.

The conclusion included the following:

It is this arborist's expert opinion that tree one should be retained, its environmental significance to the landscape makes it a highly valuable tree in the Metung area. Further investigations should be carried out or if possible, the road construction should be altered to only impacted no more than 15% of the TPZ. Tree 2 (Tree RR) is directly impacted and will require removal. This tree is a common species in the area and has no major environmental significance.

All other trees within the site that area being retained will require a Tree Management Plan to help identify protections measures and distances, fencing etc.[39]

1. On 23 January 2025, Council provided a supplementary response to the Report. Council highlighted the following concern:

While the potential protection of one additional tree may be considered to minimise actual vegetation loss, the responsible authority maintains, as in its 3 December 2024 submission (Paragraphs 7.23 -7.26, 7.30 -7.36 and 9.2) that the proposal does not adequately avoid the removal of native vegetation. An alternative two-lot subdivision may be considered which achieves the avoidance principal, while achieving the desired result of terminating the road being created through subdivision at 7 Christmas Street to the south of the review site.

1. The respondents filed a letter from East Gippsland Tree Works dated 2 February 2024 addressing Tree #6 and confirming its was in good health, had good structure and was a Gippsland Red Gum (Eucalyptus Tereticornis subsp.mediana).

1. The only expert called in relation to tree removal was Alan Brennan, an ecologist with Nature Advisory.
2. We note the written evidence of John Glossop identified the question 'Is the extent of vegetation removal acceptable?' as a key town planning consideration. However, his evidence records that he considers this to be outside his area of expertise - a matter he confirmed in his oral evidence to the Tribunal.[40]
3. We agree with John Glossop that this is a matter which needs to 'fall into place' for a permit to be granted. However, we have been unable to conclude that they have fallen into place in this instance.
4. In respect clause 52.17 of the Scheme, Alan Brennan confirmed that the fact that the lots to be created would be of a size of less than 4000 square metres did not mean that when applying the 'avoid, minimise and offset' provisions of the Scheme it was unnecessary to consider the 'avoidance' assessment.
5. Alan Brennan's evidence focussed on the identification of offsets under clause 52.17 of the Scheme. He had produced the FMP and IVP sought by DEECA and gave evidence about those, accepting that they were done at a 'high level' and that it would be preferable to retain large trees on site 'where feasible'.
6. His view was that in respect of the native vegetation, the inability to retain trees within the roadway was driven by the placement of the roadway but that it would be preferable to retain Tree #6 assuming the roadway could be designed in a way that did not affect it. This was consistent with the Roots 2 Leaves Assessment Tree #6 and RRT December Report.
7. Alan Brennan's evidence also provided us with some insight into the background of the provision of documentation. In particular, he described what he considered to be best practice processes for vegetation assessment. He indicated that it would be preferable for him to have been 'retained' earlier to provide an assessment as to whether trees ought to be retained and to conduct and assessment of the avoid, minimise and offset approach required by the net gain guidelines.
8. He agreed that the arborist report provided to the hearing only assessed Tree #6 and the spotted gum in the proposed road reserve.
9. He further confirmed that the 'client's arborist had clearly misidentified' Tree #6 as a Blakely Gum rather than a River Red Gum as his firm and the arborist engaged by the respondents had done.
10. He indicated that the new proposed road reserve contained some trees native to Victoria including southern blue gums and others which he considered to be "planted" and had not been assessed. These are in addition to Tree #4 which has been assessed.
11. He indicated he had 'some familiarity' with VPO3 and agreed that unlike clause 52.17 it addressed the assessment of landscape values of trees rather than ecological value. He confirmed in answer to questions from the Council's representative that he had not undertaken an assessment under VPO3, that he had not seen such an assessment from any other person and that he was not aware of any such assessment.
12. He also considered that it would have been preferable if an arborist assessment of all trees on site had occurred prior to the subdivision design being finalised which identified each tree with a consistent numbering pattern which could be adopted across the documentation.
13. He also indicated that based on his knowledge of how DEECA assesses applications where it not a determining referral authority, as in this instance, he 'would imagine a proposal like this would only have warranted a desktop assessment'.[41]

1. In respect of how the assessment was carried out we readily accept that a best practice process may not be required in every case, just as the planning process does not require ideal outcomes but rather acceptable outcomes. What is of significance here is that the process that has been undertaken means that we are unable to be satisfied that we can properly assess the vegetation removal proposed. It follows, that we are not persuaded that a permit should issue under the relevant permit triggers that apply.
2. In reaching this finding, we stress we are not critical of the evidence provided by Alan Brennan, who we consider provided fair and reasonable answers to all the questions put to him. He was, however, hampered, in our view, by his designated role in the project and his recent engagement which resulted in him preparing limited written evidence prior to attending the site (which he visited in the week before the case commencing).
3. Having reviewed all the evidence, we are not satisfied nor persuaded that we can rely on the material submitted to us, as a sufficiently accurate statement of what vegetation is to be removed, whether it could be offset and whether it should be removed under VPO3 and nor are we clear on exactly what is to remain. This arises from:
   1. Our concerns about the accuracy of the plan provided in terms of whether it has accurately recorded the location of each of the trees;
   2. The absence of a clear reconciliation between the terms of the overlay provisions and exemptions and each tree proposed to be removed;
   3. The absence of detailed arborists' evidence addressing the provisions of VPO3, which we regard as being a part of the assessment of this application which we find ought not be disregarded or minimised in its impact; and
   4. Uncertainty about the implementation of the conditions offered towards the end of the hearing and the interrelationship between the conditions offered and the permit triggers.

1. A detailed assessment of the trees on the site of the type referred to by Alan Brennan would have assisted our assessment of the application.
2. We had some information provided about Tree #6 which indicated a level of significance that had not previously been identified. The Roots 2 Leaves Tree #6 and RRT Dec Report assessment arrived shortly prior to the hearing. It covered only two trees and the one identified as being of significance was mis-identified by the authors as to the type of tree.
3. We have been provided with a complete or adequate assessment of the native trees within the road reserve which other than some information about Tree #4. Mr Brennan has confirmed that there are other native trees to be lost within the proposed road reserve such as a Southern Blue Gums but that he has not assessed them because they fall within the relevant exemption under clause 52.17. [42]
4. The respondents raised concerns about the location of four trees raised in its submission. These trees were addressed in the Roots 2 Leaves 2001 document provided to the Tribunal which identified trees on the 7 Christmas Street permit site. The implication of that report is that these were not on the subject site and were in any case not sought to be removed.
5. We have proceeded on the basis that they are not on the subject site and not intended for removal. We accept that there are significant potential discrepancies in the aerial imagery and we do not know how it has been established as to which side of the boundary these tress are located.
6. Alan Brennan explained in his evidence that the use of aerial imagery may explain the discrepancy, although he was unable to explain some discrepancies between the trees[43] on the plan and those on the site between the plans and his observations on site. That may be so but there has been no apparent attempt to "ground truth" the plans to ensure the information before the Tribunal is accurate.
7. That alone may not have been a critical omission as it may have been possible to ensure that any permit which issued did not constitute permission to remove those trees whether or not they were location on the subject site.

1. As Alan Brennan confirmed, this assessment has not been conducted and he has not conducted it. He was asked questions about this assessment and submissions can be made about it but we do not consider that this can fairly be substituted for a detailed assessment under this permit trigger.
2. The information we received about Tree #6 only confirmed our finding that this is important and should be done wholistically and comprehensively.
3. We note that the purposes of clause 42.02 of the VPO include:
   • To protect areas of significant vegetation.
   • To ensure that development minimises loss of vegetation.
   • To preserve existing trees and other vegetation.
   • To recognise vegetation protection areas as locations of special significance, natural beauty,
   • interest and importance.
   • To maintain and enhance habitat and habitat corridors for indigenous fauna.
4. The Statement of nature and significance of vegetation to be protected under VPO3, identifies the importance and role that vegetation makes towards the aesthetic values of the area, '...resulting in a highly attractive area to both local residents and visitors'.
5. Section 2.0 of the schedule to the VPO3 (Nungurner - Metung Vegetation Protection Area) highlights the overlay 'seeks to conserve high conservation value vegetation and vegetation with high aesthetic and landscape value'. Further, vegetation protection objectives to be achieved in the VPO3 include:
   • To conserve areas of high conservation value vegetation by minimising the extent of vegetation loss.
   • To preserve existing trees and other vegetation where it contributes to high landscape and aesthetic values of the area.
6. While we may have been persuaded to accept that the applicant has undertaken sufficient analysis in respect of the vegetation offset assessment as required under clause 52.17, we find the policy objectives described in VPO3 above have not been satisfactorily assessed. Put more simply, we do not have this level of evidence before us to reach a satisfactory conclusion on whether the proposal has satisfied the relevant purposes and objectives of the VPO3 and we have not been persuaded that it does.
7. This planning outcome is clearly expressed in the decision guidelines at section 5.0 of the VPO3 schedule, that amongst other matters, requires a new proposal to consider '...The extent to which the vegetation sought to be removed or cleared contributes towards the need to: ...Protect and enhance the visual amenity and landscape quality of the area'.
8. We questioned John Glossop and Alan Brennan on this matter. Mr Glossop conceded his specialist planning skill set did not extend to undertake an assessment under the specific terms of the VPO3. Mr Brennan also acknowledged there was a different skill set and specialist knowledge and experience that was used by an 'arborist' to undertake the vegetation assessment sought by the VPO3. He conceded his specialist skill as an 'ecologist' did not enable him to undertake this type of vegetation assessment. He agreed this work and assessment would normally be undertaken by an arborist.
9. The applicant provided further oral submissions on this matter, submitting the material and evidence provided to the Tribunal was sufficient to determine if the objectives expressed in the VPO3 had been satisfactorily addressed. We have not been persuaded by this submission and find it is an omission that is fatal to the proposal as submitted.

1. We record that there was a disagreement between the parties as to the species of Tree #6. At the hearing it became apparent that the evidence of Alan Brennan and the arborist report prepared for the respondents were in agreement as to the species of the tree (i.e. a Gippsland red gum). However, this view differed from the Roots 2 Leaves Tree #6 and RRT Dec Report.
2. This Roots 2 Leaves assessment appeared to support the retention of Tree #6 if that was possible. We note a draft condition to that effect was offered by the applicant at the conclusion of the hearing.
3. Further, a Section 173 Agreement which requires the retention of all vegetation shown on the plans as 'native vegetation to be offset' except with the further permission of the responsible authority, was also suggested by the applicant in closing submissions and was offered as a condition.
4. We have considered these conditions and broadly accept they may have some merit. Although, it seems likely that most of the trees fall into that 'protected' category under VPO3; such that further permission would be required prior to removal in any case.
5. In respect of Tree #6, we agree that its retention would be a positive response to both VPO3 and the 'avoid' requirement of 52.17.[44] We also understand that it would likely require a diversion of the road. Whether that is possible from an engineering perspective, acceptable from a traffic perspective, or appropriate in accordance with the EMO1, are matters on which we would be required to speculate.

Does the proposal represent an acceptable character and design response to clause 56?

1. The proposed two-lot subdivision triggers specific character and layout design assessment against clauses 56.03-5, 56.04-2, 56.04-3, 56.04-5, 56.06-8 to 56.09-2 of the Scheme. Clause 15.01-3S (Subdivision) of the Scheme provides overarching decision guidance for proposed subdivisions within the municipality. Additionally, further guidance regarding assessment of subdivisions is also set out in clause 65.02.
2. Council acknowledges the proposed subdivision is modest in scale and will create 'only two additional lots in the GRZ'.[45] Council is also satisfied:

...that the proposal addresses the strategies of Clause 15 relating to compact neighbourhoods that have walkable distances between activities; providing a range of lot sizes to suit a variety of dwelling and household types to meet the needs and aspirations of different groups of people; and protecting and enhancing habitat for native flora and fauna.[46]

1. However, Council submits that the proposal '...fails to address the objectives and strategies of Clause 15 that require subdivision design to support functional and safe neighbourhoods.'[47] Council also says that the proposed design fails to respond appropriately to the objectives and strategies of clause 18, stating the proposed road connection must also be balanced against:
   • The safety of people on and around roads.
   • The perception of safety on and around roads.
   • Facilitating the use of active transport including cycling and walking.
2. The respondents agree with and support the Council submission on these matters.

1. The applicant relies on the evidence of Mr Glossop. It is the evidence of Mr Glossop that the proposed two lot subdivision responds appropriately to the character of the area (clause 56.04-5). Particularly noting the approved subdivision layout and lot density at 7 Christmas Street to the south and the relevant decision guidelines contained in the DDO11 (Newlands Arm Estate).
2. It is Mr Glossop's evidence that the proposed subdivision is supported by the GRZ1 purposes and local settlement policy at clauses 11.01-1L-01, 11.03-4L-01 and 11.03-4L-04. He is also satisfied the proposed subdivision responds appropriately to the design requirements outlined in relevant standards and objectives that apply under clauses 15.01-3S and 56 of the Scheme.

1. We acknowledge Mr Glossop's assessment and opinion that the proposed subdivision is generally consistent with many of the design and local character objectives that apply to the proposal under relevant clauses 15.01-3S and 56 of the Scheme.
2. We also agree with Council and the applicant that the proposed subdivision is a modest character and design outcome on the review site.
3. However, we find the proposal must also be balanced against other relevant zone and overlay provisions and associated local policy objectives. We discuss this in more detail under applicable key issue headings below.

1. The key purpose of the EMO seeks to 'protect areas prone to erosion, landslip, other land degradation or coastal processes by minimising land disturbance and inappropriate development'. Exemption from notice and review provisions are set out at clause 44.01-7 of the overlay.
2. Schedule 1 of the EMO sets out the following erosion management objectives to be achieved by new development proposals:
   • To ensure that applications for the development of land subject to high or very high geotechnical hazard are accompanied by expert geotechnical risk assessments.
   • To ensure that development is designed and carried out in accordance with the recommendations of expert geotechnical risk assessments.
   • To ensure that development does not increase the risk of geotechnical hazard to life or property.
   • To encourage the rehabilitation of land affected by geotechnical hazard.
3. The relevant provisions of EMO1 also require an assessment of the proposal against proposed roadworks and vegetation removal including:
   • The risk to life, property and community infrastructure from geotechnical hazard.
   • The recommendations of any geotechnical risk assessment and application documentation.
   • The recommendations of any independent review of the geotechnical risk assessment and application documentation.
   • The need for any ongoing geotechnical risk management measures.
4. The applicant provided a geotechnical report that sought to address and respond to these matters.[48] The technical assessment considered that the risk from landslide, sheet/rill erosion and tunnel erosion was 'low'. This assessment was based on the following observations:
   • Low to moderate grades over the entire site ranging from about 1 in 10 to 1 in 5.
   • There is no evidence of any landslip or soil erosion and any of the surrounding properties.
   • Vegetation removal in Bossie Court and the proposed access road carriageway.
   • Provide erosion and sediment control measures i.e. silt fences to protect the existing area from any sediment run-off.
   • A construction management plan will need to be implemented for entire construction time for the roads and associated underground services. The plan will need to show measures to be undertaken to control erosion and storm water during the construction period.
5. Council acknowledges the applicant lodged a detailed geotechnical assessment that seeks to address the relevant considerations arising from the proposal under the EMO1. It agrees that the erosion risk on the land is low and 'subject to sediment and stormwater controls' placed on the proposal during construction, other relevant matters in the EMO1 can be addressed by permit conditions, should a permit issue.
6. As noted above, submissions from the respondents regarding the EMO1 were struck out by the Tribunal, given the notice and review exemption provisions that apply under clause 44.01-7.[49]

1. In summary, the evidence of Mr Glossop on this matter notes and concludes:

A permit under the EMO is required to construct a road and is subject to geotechnical considerations. Vegetation considerations also apply. Assuming these are adequately addressed, the proposed two-lot subdivision 'falls into place'. It is appropriate to include the recommendations of the submitted geotechnical report as permit conditions.

1. We note that erosion risk has been identified as 'low' on the subject land (as identified in the Chris O'Brien geotechnical report). This report highlights there is no evidence of any landslip or soil erosion and any of the surrounding properties.
2. We also agree with Mr Glossop that vegetation considerations need to be applied under the EMO1.
3. We accept the findings and assessment undertaken in the geotechnical report and agree with Council. This is a matter that could be appropriately addressed through permit conditions, if a permit was to issue. This is not a direct concern that would have led us to refuse this proposal.

1. The proposal seeks approval for an existing 'water/sewerage' easement on the subject land (Easement E-1) which is proposed to be relocated within the proposed road reserve; an outcome that is supported by the relevant service asset authority, East Gippsland Water.
2. Council does not oppose the removal of the easement should a permit issue. The respondents are silent on this matter.

1. Mr Glossop also notes referral comments from East Gippsland Water that existing E2 and E3 easements that run along the northern boundary of the review site would require removal/modification, should a permit issue for the proposal. He is of the view that the authority is correct and therefore recommends any permit preamble be amended to reference the variation of these easements.

1. We agree with Mr Glossop's evidence that if a permit was to issue for this proposal, the permit preamble would need to be amended to reflect the relevant water authority referral.

1. Clause 53.01 of the Scheme (Public open space contributions and subdivision) states that:

A person who proposes to subdivide land must make a contribution to the council for public open space in an amount specified in the schedule to this clause (being a percentage of the land intended to be used for residential, industrial or commercial purposes, or a percentage of the site value of such land, or a combination of both). If no amount is specified, a contribution for public open space may still be required under section 18 of the Subdivision Act 1988.

1. Section 18(8) (a-c) of the Subdivision Act 1988 (Vic) provides three 'tests' to determine whether a public open space contribution is required as follows:

1. The Tribunal sought further submissions from the parties on the application and quantum of private open space contributions that may be applicable to the proposal.[50]
2. Council submitted that the resident population of the Metung District had increased from 1743 persons in 2016 to 2236 persons in 2021.[51] Council says based on the estimated increase in the number of dwellings on the subject land, it anticipates 'The increase in density and demand for such facilities is marginal in relation to the review proposal'.[52]
3. While Council acknowledges the Scheme does not include any specific local policy regarding this matter, it is in the 'process of developing a Public Open Space Strategy.'[53] Council says the existing policy framework provides a priority for pedestrian connectivity and upgrading of existing places of public resort and recreation.
4. Council agrees with the evidence of Mr Glossop that a reduced open space contribution is appropriate. However, it submits that the percentage should be applied at 4 per cent.[54]
5. The respondents did not make any specific submissions on this matter.

1. Mr Glossop's supplementary evidence supports Council's submission that an open space contribution is required for the proposal. His evidence and conclusions are:
   • The land has the potential to be further subdivided;
   • The maximum subdivision potential is an additional lot as part of Lot 1 (i.e. Lot 1A) and an additional lot as part of Lot 2 (i.e. Lot 2A);
   • Lots 1 and 1A will both likely be large lots and have areas of more than 1,500 square metres each. Lots 2 and 2A will be smaller and be in the vicinity of 650 square metres;
   • The subdivision will result in a marginal increase in demand for public open space;
   • The additional demand for public open space should be based on three potential additional dwellings; and
   • The subdivision will improve access to existing open space for lots in Bossie Court.
   • I conclude that a public open space contribution rate of 2.5% is justified.

1. We agree with Mr Glossop and Council that a requirement for open space contribution would apply to this proposal as submitted. Particularly noting the relevant provisions expressed under clause 53.01 of the Scheme and Section 18(1A) of the Subdivision Act 1988 (Vic).
2. We note the Council initially proposed a 5 per cent contribution but '.... now proposes 4 per cent'. The applicant considers it should be 2.5 per cent. This is based on the evidence of Mr Glossop.
3. There is no specific local policy in the Scheme addressing the percentage requirement for open space contributions that may be applied to approved subdivisions.
4. In this regard we consider the appropriate percentage requirement is problematic and largely dependent upon the final subdivision layout and proposed lot sizes that may ensue from any approved subdivision on the subject land.
5. We do not make any specific finding on the appropriate percentage to be applied for open space contribution for this proposal. Rather, noting that a percentage requirement between Mr Glossop's estimate of 2.5 per cent and Council's revised estimate of 4 per cent would appear useful starting points for further discussion; subject to the comments and our findings above.

1. For the reasons given above, the decision of the responsible authority is affirmed. No permit is granted.

[1] 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.

[2] 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.

[3] Paragraph 8.9, Council Written Submission, dated 3 December 2024.

[4] Paragraph 5, respondents' written submission, undated received 5 December 2024 ('Respondents 5 December submission')

[5] Paragraph 8, applicant written submission 29 October 2024.

[6] We note that assessments were provided to the Tribunal on an alternative basis in November which superseded the assessments provided with the application.

[7] Geotechnical Risk Assessment Report, dated 29/11/2022, prepared by Chris O'Brien & Company Pty Ltd.

[8] Council's written submission dated 29 October 2024.

[9] See Tribunal's order dated 7 November 2024.

[10] We note that this objective now states "to encourage development that is responsive to the neighbourhood character of the area" following planning scheme amendment VC267. This change is not material to our decision.

[11] Tribunal Book, pages 1800-1801 and 1802-1801.

[12] See paragraphs 19-28 and 32-43, Written Evidence Statement of John Glossop, dated 23 October 2024.

[13] See paragraphs 14-24 of the applicant's written Reply Submission, dated 6 December 2024.

[14] Permit issued by Council on 24 October 2022.

[15] Tribunal Order dated 7 November 2024.

[16] Paragraph 22, Applicant Reply Submission, dated 6 December 2024.

[17] See paragraph/s 1.7 and 8.2-8.3 of the Council's written submission, dated 3 December 2024.

[18] Paragraphs 7 & 8, Respondents 5 December submission.

[19] Paragraph 6.14, Council written submission, dated 3 December 2024.

[20] Paragraph 99, Respondent's written submission, undated.

[21] Paragraph 9, Expert Witness Statement, Brett Young, dated 15 October 2024.

[22] Paragraph 60, Mr Glossop's written evidence statement, dated 23 October 2024.

[24] Paragraph 130, Respondents written submission (updated version) received 1 November 2024.

[25] Paragraph 33, Applicant written submission, dated 29 October 2024.

[26] We have understood this area to be within the area hatched.

[27] See paragraphs 7.29-7.30 Written Submission of the Responsible Authority dated 29 October 2024.

[28] To put this in context, this further material was provided on the Friday prior to the long weekend in circumstance where the hearing was proposed to commence on the Wednesday following the Melbourne Cup Day holiday.

[29] No reference was made to the objectors' grounds.

[31] Figure 1 is a copy of the vegetation removal plan.

[34] See para 5 Respondents 5 December submission.

[35] See para 6 Respondents 5 December submission.

[36] See para 12 Respondents 5 December submission.

[37] Paras 15-16 Respondents 5 December submission.

[38] These appear to be the same trees shown in the Respondents Figure 3. We are told but cannot be certain that these are within the land known as 7 Christmas Street.

[39] No one from Roots 2 Leaves was called to give evidence at the hearing

[40] Town Planning Evidence Statement prepared by John Glossop, 23 October 2024.

[41] We have considered the paragraphs 220-225 of Spring v Minister for Planning [2025]

VCAT 10 to which we were taken on behalf of the applicant. We have given weight to the DEECA comments in this case and have not reduced that weight, despite Alan Brennan's observations, but we do not consider there is a basis to give them additional weight to be derived from that decision. In that case, DEECA appear to have been engaged and had issued and requested further information. In this case, we acknowledge the status of DEECA and its expertise and have weighed their comments with the additional evidence before us.

[42] There are the trees referred to in Figure 2 of the 5 December submissions of the respondents reproduced above.

[43] including potentially the southernmost Cherry Ballart which was identified as vegetation worthy of retention.

[44] Alan Brennan agreed with this proposition.

[45] Paragraph 6.16, Council written submission, dated 29 October 2024.

[46] Paragraph 7.7, Council written submission dated 3 December 2024.

[47] Paragraph 7.8, Council written submission, ibid.

[48] Prepared by Chris O'Brien & Company Pty Ltd, dated 29 November 2022 (Chris O'Brien report).

[49] Tribunal Order dated 7 November 2024.

[50] Tribunal Order dated 7 November 2024.

[51] Taken from idcommunity demographic resources - https://profile.id.com.au/east-gippsland/population?WebID=170.

[52] Paragraph 2.5 Council written submission 19 November 2024.

[54] Mr Glossop supports a 2.5 per cent open space contribution.