expert - Yarra Ranges Shire€• Permit the use and development of a hotel, shop (Provedore),...

Prepared for Burnham Beeches Pty Ltd

Prepared by Colleen Peterson November 2017

exp

ert:evid

ence

Town Planning Expert Evidence Section 96a Application - Amendment C142 1 Sherbrooke Road, Sherbrooke “Burnham Beeches”

1 Sherbrooke Road, Sherbrooke 2

Prepared for:

Our reference: 14875P

ratio:consultants pty ltd

This work is copyright. Apart from any use as permitted under Copyright Act 1968, no part may be reproduced without written permission of ratio:consultants pty ltd.

Disclaimer: neither ratio:consultants pty ltd nor any member or employee of ratio:consultants pty ltd takes responsibility in anyway whatsoever to any person or organisation (other than that for which this report is being prepared) in respect of the information set out in this report, including any errors or omissions therein. ratio:consultants pty ltd is not liable for errors in plans, specifications, documentation or other advice not prepared or designed by ratio:consultants pty ltd.


Chapter / Section Page No.

1 Introduction: ........................................................................................ 4 1.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................. 4 1.2 Name and Address ................................................................................................ 4 1.3 Qualifications & Expertise ................................................................................... 4 1.4 Relevant Expertise ................................................................................................. 4 1.5 Investigations & Research .................................................................................. 5 1.6 Assumptions ............................................................................................................. 5 1.7 Relationship with the party for whom the report has been prepared

6 1.8 Summary & Opinion ............................................................................................... 6 1.9 Declaration ................................................................................................................ 7

2 Existing Conditions: ........................................................................... 8 2.1 The Subject Site and Surrounds ....................................................................... 8

3 The Proposal: ..................................................................................... 15 3.1 The current provisions........................................................................................15 3.2 The Proposal ...........................................................................................................15

4 Relevant Planning Provisions: ........................................................ 20 4.1 Zone Controls .........................................................................................................20 4.2 Overlays ....................................................................................................................21 4.3 Planning History ....................................................................................................23 4.4 State Planning Policy Framework (SPPF) ....................................................24 4.5 Local Planning Policy Framework ..................................................................26 4.6 General & Particular Provisions .......................................................................27

5 Assessment of the Amendment ..................................................... 29 5.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................29 5.2 Strategic Assessment Guidelines ..................................................................29

6 Assessment of the planning permit application: ........................ 39 6.1 The Proposal ...........................................................................................................39 6.2 Land use ...................................................................................................................39 6.3 Hours of operation ...............................................................................................40 6.4 Built Form ................................................................................................................41 6.5 Heritage ....................................................................................................................43 6.6 Landscape ...............................................................................................................43 6.7 Vegetation ...............................................................................................................43 6.8 Car parking and access .....................................................................................43

7 Conclusion: ......................................................................................... 47

Appendices:

Appendix A Statement of Significance

Appendix B Exhibited SUZ

Tab

le o

f co

nte

nts

:


1.1 Introduction

1.1.1 I was engaged by Burnham Beeches Pty Ltd on 10 November 2017 to review a Section 96a Application proposed at 1 Sherbrooke Road, Sherbrooke, also known as ‘Burnham Beeches’. The application broadly seeks approval to:

― Amend the Special Use Zone Schedule 2 by removing the existing provisions for Burnham Beeches and to create a new ‘stand-alone’ Schedule within the same zone (Amendment C142); and

― Permit the use and development of a hotel, shop (Provedore), restaurant, microbrewery and on-site accommodation, and associated tree removal (Planning Permit Application YR-2016/105)

1.1.2 The Application has undergone public exhibition with 93 submissions received. Subsequently, Yarra Ranges Council (the ‘Council’) resolved at its meeting on 26 September 2017 to request the Minister for Planning to appoint an independent Panel to review all submissions.

1.2 Name and Address

1.2.1 My name is Colleen Yvonne Peterson. I am Managing Director at Ratio Consultants Pty. Ltd, which conducts its business at 9 Clifton Street, Richmond.

1.3 Qualifications & Expertise

1.3.1 I am a qualified Town Planner and have practiced town planning since 1992. My experience includes 6 years in local government, culminating as Planning Approvals Coordinator at the City of Stonnington in 1998. I have been practicing as a consultant town planner for the past 19 years and was formerly an Associate at SJB Planning and Director of Metropol Planning Solutions. I joined Ratio Consultants as an Associate Director in September 2004 and was made a Director in July 2005. In 2014 I was made Managing Director.

1.3.2 I hold a Bachelor of Planning and Design (Hons) from the University of Melbourne.

1.3.3 I am a board member of the Victorian Planning and Environmental Law Association (VPELA), a member of the Planning Institute of Australia (PIA) and am a fully Certified Practicing Planner.

1.4 Relevant Expertise

1.4.1 During the past 25 years, I have gained extensive experience in a range of town planning matters, including medium and higher density housing, commercial land use such as regional shopping centres, liquor licencing matters and industrial developments throughout Victoria. I have experience in advising a variety of public sector and private clients on a wide range of planning and development issues, including social and economic impact analysis in the gaming industry and the preparation of cumulative impact assessments.

1.4.2 I have been involved in the preparation of numerous Social and Economic Impact Statements and appear regularly as an expert in this field before the Victorian Commission for Gambling and Liquor Regulation, its predecessors and the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal.

1.4.3 I was a member of the former RAPI working group on ResCode 2000 and was jointly responsible for the Institute’s submission and presentation to the Ministerial Advisory Committee appointed to consider the Code. I was

1 In

tro

du

ctio

n:


also an inaugural member of the Department of Sustainability’s Planning Aid Program, which sought to provide free planning advice to the community.

1.4.4 I sat on the VPELA/PIA joint committee for the organisation of the 2010 State Planning Conference and in 2012 was selected as an Expert Community Panel Member for PIA’s Clean Energy Future Project. I regularly present at VPELA/PIA events and in 2014, I was part of the 2014 Victorian State Planning Conference session on the zone reforms in Victoria.

1.4.5 I have been a guest lecturer at the University of Melbourne and RMIT in matters pertaining to planning and heritage on numerous occasions.

1.4.6 From 2010 to 2014 I was elected to the Architectural Registration Board of Victoria (ARBV), being Deputy Chair of the Board from 2013 to 2014.

1.5 Investigations & Research

1.5.1 In preparing this report I have:

― Inspected the site and surrounds on 14 November 2017 specifically for the purpose of this application.

― Reviewed the application material lodged with the S96a application and all subsequent material (including various versions of plans).

― Reviewed Council information which includes internal referral comments.

― Reviewed a copy of the draft planning permit. ― Reviewed the Council’s Agenda dated 26 September 2017. ― Considered the relevant planning policies, including the SPPF and

LPPF of the Yarra Ranges Planning Scheme. ― Reviewed the submissions received as part of the public exhibition.

1.5.2 I have read the ‘Guide to Expert Evidence’, prepared by Panels Victoria and understand my duty to Planning Panels.

1.5.3 I was assisted by Ms Edelene Loke of my office in the preparation of this report.

1.6 Assumptions

1.6.1 In forming my opinions about this proposal, I have relied upon:

― My own review of the site and surrounds. ― The Application documentation, which includes (but not limited to):

• Architectural drawings prepared by Woods Bagot (Revision 4); • Town planning report prepared by Urbis; • Transport Infrastructure Plan prepared by SALT3; • Site Effluent Management Update, prepared by Spiire Australia Pty

Ltd; • Preliminary Assessment of Erosion Management Overlay prepared

by Golder Associates; • Landscape Report prepared by Oculus; • Native Vegetation Assessment prepared by Brett Lane &

Associates Pty Ltd; • Parks Victoria Agreement prepared by Maddocks; • Bushfire Management Statement prepared by Terramatrix; • Bushfire Emergency Management Plan (Preliminary) prepared by

Terramatrix; • Arboricultural Impact Assessment prepared by C&R Ryder

Consulting Pty Ltd;


• Proposed Schedule 11 to the Special Use Zone; and • Advice from Yarra Valley Water dated 26 June 2017.

― The Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda dated 26 September 2017. ― The provisions of the Yarra Ranges Planning Scheme. ― The Upper Yarra Valley & Dandenong Ranges Regional Strategy Plan

(Amendment No. 120). 1.6.2 I understand that the Panel will also have the benefit of expert evidence

from:

― Ms Charmain Dunstan (Traffic) ― Mr Hamish Allan (Bushfire) ― Mr Cameron Ryder (Arborist)

1.6.3 I defer to their opinions in their area of expertise.

1.7 Relationship with the party for whom the report has been prepared

1.7.1 I have no relationship with Burnham Beeches Pty Ltd other than a business agreement for the preparation of my independent expert opinion with regard to this matter.

1.8 Summary & Opinion

1.8.1 I am satisfied that it is appropriate that the schedule to the Special Use Zone be amended to allow for greater flexibility for the use and development of the land.

1.8.2 Considerable time has passed since the implementation of the restrictions imposed by the zone. In this time there has been wide ranging changes that would influence the potential for the site to be development. These include a fundamental overhaul of the Victorian Planning System, changes in planning controls and policies, changes in the nature of the economy, the emergence of gastro tourism, environmental considerations, bushfire risk and even changes in society and how we function within it.

1.8.3 I am satisfied that broadening the discretion to enable Burnham Beeches to be redeveloped in a manner that will facilitate the restoration of this historically significant property whilst respecting the range of other planning considerations is fundamentally sound.

1.8.4 I am satisfied that the Amendment as proposed will result in net community benefit with the restoration of a State significant heritage building that has laid derelict for the past 20 years as well other economic contributions through the operation and restoration of the other elements of the proposal.

1.8.5 I have reviewed the details of the planning permit application. I am generally satisfied that the manner in which the various components of the site are proposed to be used and developed are consistent with the provisions of the Yarra Ranges Planning Scheme.

1.8.6 The redevelopment will enable not only the restoration of a significant heritage asset and other buildings on the land, but will bring an appropriate level of economic development and tourism to a site that has been designated as a major tourist facility for many years.

1.8.7 I am satisfied that the proposal will not result in the unreasonable intensification of the land, which is in part due to the significant size of the site, the physical separation between a number of the uses, the complementary nature of many of the uses which has varying peaks of


usage, ranging from the middle of the day for the café and provedore to the evening for the function centre and restaurant.

1.8.8 I am satisfied that the building and works proposed are not only sensitive and respectful of the heritage qualities of the property and heritage listing, but are sympathetic to the landscape qualities of the Dandenong Ranges and the broader visual amenity of the area.

1.8.9 The land uses are generally well setback from the boundaries1 and will have little impact on the amenity or operation of adjoining properties. The majority of works will not be visible from adjoining properties or publicly accessible land and, for what is visible, I am satisfied is appropriate for the landscape and visual qualities of the area.

1.8.10 I am also satisfied that the extent of tree removal is limited given the need to provide appropriate levels of on-site car parking and given the relatively modest retention value of these trees and the overall landscaping proposed for the site, will not unreasonably diminish the landscape or environmental qualities of the site or its contribution to the Dandenong Ranges.

1.8.11 I am mindful that the redevelopment will introduce additional people and traffic to the region. It is evident that the property was always envisaged to be a major tourist drawcard, which will of course result in additional traffic and the like.

1.8.12 I rely on the expert opinion of Ms Dunstan. However, I am comfortable that given the extent to which tourism related traffic influences the general ambience of the area generally, particularly during peak periods, such as weekends, that the additional traffic and activity caused by the activity falls within reasonable limits.

1.8.13 I have reviewed the draft Bushfire Emergency Management Plan and am satisfied that it will appropriate address issues pertaining to bushfire risk. I am mindful that it will be required to be approved by the CFA and any amendments to the Plan would appropriately be addressed at that stage.

1.8.14 I have recommended several additional conditions and subject to these, am satisfied that the planning scheme should be amended as proposed and the planning permit be issued.

1.9 Declaration

1.9.1 I have made all the enquiries that I believe are desirable and appropriate and no matters of significance that I regard as relevant have, to my knowledge, been withheld from the Panel.

1 The exception is Norris House, with the restoration of the hotel generally in line with the current planning scheme provisions


2.1 The Subject Site and Surrounds

The Subject Site

2.1.1 Burnham Beeches is located at 1 Sherbrooke Road, Sherbrooke. It is a large irregular shaped parcel of land which covers an area of approximately 23 hectares. It has undulating topography, with the land rising significantly towards the west.

2.1.2 The site comprises:

• Burnham Beeches Mansion, also known as the Norris Building, a historically significant building;

• A caretaker’s residence; • A piggery and adjoining silos; • Calfery; • A conservatory; • A greenhouse; and • A series of buildings scattered throughout the site.

2.1.3 The buildings/structure are nestled within a landscaped setting which comprises a combination of treed areas, open lawn areas, gardens and farmland.

2.1.4 These buildings, with the exception of the recently refurbished piggery, which operates as a café, are in dilapidated condition. In my opinion it is evident that these buildings will continue to deteriorate unless they are restored.

2.1.5 The site is accessed from Sherbrooke Road with a combination of sealed and unsealed driveways meandering through the site.

2.1.6 At present, only the piggery building is occupied which is used as a café and bakery.

Photograph 1

‘The Piggery’ café and bakery

2 E

xist

ing

Co

nd

itio

ns:


Photograph 2

Burnham Beeches Mansion ‘Norris Building’

Photograph 3

Rear of Norris Building

Site History

2.1.7 Historically, Burnham Beeches was built as a rural retreat in 1930-33 for the Nicholas family (Aspro founder) and is of State heritage significance.

2.1.8 The Art Deco mansion was designed by Harris Norris and is commonly known as the ‘Norris Building’.


2.1.9 The Norris Building has been used for a number of activities including a children’s hospital during World War II and later as a medical and veterinary research facility.

2.1.10 The formal gardens which formed the main entrance to the mansion was subsequently subdivided from the site, donated to the State of Victoria and is now managed by Parks Victoria. This is known as the Alfred Nicholas Gardens and is located to the immediate east of Norris House.

2.1.11 In the early 1980s, the mansion was used as Hotel and eventually closed in the early 1990s. Since that time, it has remained vacant and has fallen into disrepair.

2.1.12 The building is listed on the Victorian Heritage Register with its significance centering around:

― A significant example of a retreat built in the tradition of a colonial hill station.

― The use of the Moderne style and a rare example of a domestic example.

― The use of reinforced concrete, which was advanced technology at the time.

― The use of the design analogy of a ship in the sea. ― The association with the wealthy business man Alfred Nicholas. ― The mansion’s example of ‘up to the minute’ high style living and

entertainment in the 1930s. 2.1.13 A copy of the statement of significance is attached as Appendix A.

2.1.14 My recent inspection revealed that the building is in a state of disrepair, both externally and internally.


Photograph 4

Northern side of Norris Building


Photograph 5

Interior of the Norris Building

Adjoining Properties

2.1.15 The subject land adjoins a notable number of properties.

2.1.16 To the east is the Alfred Nicholas Gardens (1A Sherbrooke Road), comprising the formal gardens which were originally part of the Burnham Beeches estate.

2.1.17 Vehicular access to the gardens is restricted with public parking located in an unsealed car park on the opposite side of Sherbrooke Road.


Photograph 6

Entrance to the Alfred Nicholas Gardens

2.1.18 Hilton Road and Tan Track extends along the southern boundary. Further south is Sherbrooke Forest which forms part of the Dandenong Ranges National Park. The Ferny Creek Ornamental Gardens Reserve is located to the south-west.

2.1.19 Dwellings in rural residential settings are located to the east of Alfred Nicholas Gardens, and are located more than 200 metres from the Piggery.

2.1.20 To the west and north are ‘rural’ residential properties located in Green Wedge areas. There are dwellings on a number of the adjoining properties, typically to the western end, accessed from Clarkmont Road, Hilton Road and Panteg Road. These properties are well separated by over 500 metres from the eastern area of the site where the commercial activities are proposed.

Surrounding Area

2.1.21 The subject site is located within the Dandenong Ranges, an area known for its significant landscaped setting and recreational value. This mountain range has a mix of rolling foothills, steep forested land and open valleys.

2.1.22 Buildings are generally low rise and nestled into the topography of the land, and have a varying degree of visibility.

2.1.23 In terms of land use, there is a predominant mix of agricultural, residential and public parkland. The area attracts many visitors with tourism contributing significantly to the economy of the Shire.


Figure 1

Aerial photograph (taken 20 November 2016)

Source: Nearmap


3.1 The current provisions

3.1.1 The detailed provisions of the planning scheme are detailed in Section 4. However, for the purpose of understanding the proposal Schedule 2 of the Special Use Zone presently enables the Responsible Authority to grant a permit for the following:

― guest accommodation up to 110 suites and dwellings, ― restaurant seats not exceeding 120; ― bar/lounge not exceeding 52 people; and ― Function facilities not exceeding 375 people.

3.1.2 The current planning scheme provisions therefore allows for 110 tourist accommodation rooms, and 547 additional people on the site. Assuming an average occupancy of 1.5 patrons per room, this would equate to a total 712 patrons permissible on the site, subject to planning approval.

3.1.3 If a maximum occupancy of 2 person per room is adopted, the maximum number of people anticipated on the site would be 767.

3.2 The Proposal

Proposed Amendment (C142)

3.2.1 Amendment C141 to the Yarra Ranges Planning Scheme proposes to:

― Modify Schedule 2 (Major Tourist Facility) to the Special Use Zone by deleting reference to ‘Burnham Beeches’, Sherbrooke Road at Clause 2.9; and

― Create a new stand-alone Schedule 11 to the Special Use Zone which will relate specifically to Burnham Beeches. This new schedule will remove the limits on patron numbers and provide for a range of uses (subject to planning approval) which includes an education centre, exhibition centre, market, shop and brewery.

3.2.2 In essence, the changes to the Schedule will provide more flexibility for the future use and development of the land as a major tourist facility, although I consider that the intent that the property be developed as a tourist facility and hotel remains.

3.2.3 Importantly, the use of the land for dwelling (other than for guest or staff accommodation) will be prohibited under the zone provisions whilst under the current controls a permit may be granted for dwellings.

3.2.4 The Amendment will require:

― Deletion of the Special Use Zone Schedule 2 from the subject land; ― The current exemption of the Special Use Zone Schedule 2 from the

provisions of Clause 57 (Metropolitan Green Wedge Land) to be replicated in the new Special Use Zone Schedule 11.

3.2.5 A copy of the exhibited Special Use Zone – Schedule 11 is at Appendix B.

Proposed Planning Permit Application

3.2.6 The proposal encompasses the following:

PIGGERY (CAFÉ/BAKERY) 3.2.7 This existing use is to continue, maintaining the existing maximum

number of 188 patrons, operating 7 days a week.

3.2.8 The Piggery will continue to operate from 10am to 5pm Monday to Friday and 9am to 5pm on weekends.

3 T

he

Pro

po

sal:


3.2.9 With the current planning scheme provisions envisaging a restaurant of up to 120 seats, what is proposed is 68 seats greater than the SUZ currently permits.

HOTEL 3.2.10 The Norris Building is to be extensively renovated to facilitate its ongoing

operation as a six-star hotel. This will require an exhaustive overhaul of the entire building. I am mindful that separate approval will be required from Heritage Victoria for all works, including the interior works.

3.2.11 I consider that the detail and appropriateness of the works for the Hotel with regard to heritage are most appropriately considered by Heritage Victoria at that time.

3.2.12 In summary, the building will be restored to facilitate:

• 55 rooms; • A function room; • Bar and lounge areas; • A restaurant seating; • Rooftop terrace and bar; • Indoor swimming pool; • A cinema room; and • A games room.

3.2.13 The hotel and its operation will have a maximum capacity of 415 patrons, which includes the operation of the function room and other eating and drinking premises as part of the Hotel.

3.2.14 The hotel and its internal facilities, such as the function room and roof bar are intended to have 24 hour operating hours.

3.2.15 The use of the land for a hotel with up to 110 rooms and a 375 person capacity function room is contemplated by the current planning scheme provisions.

3.2.16 Accordingly, the scale of the Hotel/Function room component of the proposal is in line with what has previously been contemplated for the land.

SHOP (PROVEDORE) 3.2.17 The Provedore is to be located within the existing caretaker’s house and

provide coffee and deli goods for purchase. It will also provide food and beverage for consumption on-site, with a maximum capacity of 60 patrons (both indoor and outdoor).

3.2.18 The premises will focus on the sale and supply of locally sourced and made products.

3.2.19 The existing building will be restored and partially altered by reducing the internal footprint and replacing it with verandah areas.

3.2.20 The proposed hours of operation are 10am – 7pm 7 days a week.

3.2.21 The use of shop is prohibited under the current provisions of the SUZ. Accordingly, this is a new use to be introduced via the planning scheme amendment.

RESTAURANT 3.2.22 A new 140 seat restaurant is proposed within the unused northern section

of existing piggery building. The building will be refurbished and connectivity to the existing café/bakery will be maintained.

3.2.23 The proposed hours of operation are from midday to midnight, 7 days a week.


3.2.24 Given the existing operation of the Piggery, the proposed restaurant represents a permitted use but additional numbers under the current provisions of the SUZ.

MICROBREWERY 3.2.25 The microbrewery is proposed within a purpose built two storey structure

(plus basement) located to the south of the existing silos attached to the Piggery.

3.2.26 The proposed building (with a ground floor area of approximately 260sq m) will be connected to the existing silos by a walkway at the first floor. The existing silos will be retrofitted and include a series of new round windows and door openings. A dumbwaiter shaft is also proposed on the northern side of the silos.

3.2.27 The new building is contemporary in design with a skillion roof. The external finishes include frameless glazing, concrete panels, metal cladding and steel frames.

3.2.28 It provides for a total of 120 patrons.

3.2.29 The proposed hours of operation are 11am to 5pm Sunday to Thursday and 11am to Midnight Friday and Saturdays

3.2.30 The use of the land for a microbrewery is prohibited under the current provisions of the SUZ and would introduce an additional 120 patrons.

ACCOMMODATION 3.2.31 The existing Calfery Building is to be converted into an accommodation

suite for 2 persons. I am instructed that it is envisaged that this will be occupied by professionals/leaders in the gastro field, with whom the operators of the property will collaborate with on specific projects.

3.2.32 An existing shed (located between the Norris Building and provedore) is to be converted into a three bedroom guest accommodation.

3.2.33 A new staff accommodation building is proposed central to the site. The building will be constructed of timber with a pitched roof. It will contain two suites for a total of 2 persons.

3.2.34 The current provision of the SUZ allow for up to 110 accommodation rooms. Accordingly, together with the Hotel, there will be 58 accommodation rooms on the site.

TOTAL NUMBERS 3.2.35 As detailed in 3.1.2, the current provisions of the SUZ envisage up to 712

patrons on the site, assuming an average occupancy of 1.5 patrons per accommodation room.


3.2.36 Under the proposal the differences in numbers are summarized as follows:

Table 1 – summary of intensity of land uses

Land use Current Proposed

Hotel accommodation 110 rooms = 165 people @1.5 or 220 @2

55 rooms but 415 people including functions/bar/lounge2

Restaurant 120 140

Bar/Lounge 52 -

Function 375 -

Provedore - 60

Piggery 188

Micro Brewery 120

Standalone accommodation 10

Total patrons 712/767 933

COST OF CONSTRUCTION 3.2.37 I am advised by the Applicant that the total cost of all the works is $40

million.

STAFFING 3.2.38 It is anticipated that the land uses proposed on the site will result in a

total of 246 jobs. Due to the varying periods of operation and peak hours of the various uses, these staff would not all be on the site at the same time.

CAR PARKING AND ACCESS 3.2.39 A total of 345 car parking spaces are proposed, located within:

― The existing sealed car park (83 spaces), located to the west of the main driveway;

― A new sealed car park (162 spaces), located on the eastern side of the main driveway; and

― A gravel overflow car park (100 spaces), located to the north of the new car park.

3.2.40 The car parks provide 5 disabled spaces and include staff allocated spaces.

3.2.41 Vehicular access for the general public and staff entering the site is proposed via the existing entrance at the Alfred Nicholas Memorial Gardens. Vehicles will then exit the site via the existing access point on the subject land. A 3 year agreement has been reached with Parks Victoria who manage the Gardens.

3.2.42 Bus and service vehicles will enter and exit via the existing access point on the subject land.

2 The applicant’s figures assume occupancy of 2 patrons per room. If using 1.5 patrons per room the total number of people on the site would reduce by 26.


3.2.43 On fire risk days, the Alfred Nicholas Gardens are usually closed, restricting access into Burnham Beeches.

SHELTER-IN-PLACE/BUSHFIRE RISK 3.2.44 In the event of ‘Code Red’ fire danger days the entire site will be closed.

3.2.45 Utilising the data collected by Urbis, in the past 10 years there has been a maximum of 11 fire ban days in any one year with 7 of the past 10 years having less than 4 total fire ban days in any one year.

3.2.46 On days of severe of extreme fire danger, the maximum capacity of the venue will be reduced to the capacity of the designated ‘shelter in place’ buildings.

3.2.47 The existing café, new restaurant, provedore and microbrewery are to be the ‘shelter-in-place’ locations. These buildings will be able to accommodate short-term shelter for up to 500 people in the event of a bushfire.

TREE REMOVAL 3.2.48 The proposed car park will require the removal of eight trees which based

on the arborist report, are either of no, low or moderate retention value.

3.2.49 The proposal involves the loss of 0.045 hectares of native vegetation from remnant patches. This generates an offset of 0.013 general biodiversity equivalence units with a minimum strategic biodiversity score of 0.488 within the Port Philip and Western Port CMA area of the Yarra Ranges Shire.

LANDSCAPING 3.2.50 Landscaping is proposed throughout the site premised on retaining the

existing ecological and heritage identity of the site. The landscape design is guided by 8 key principles which are:

• Authenticity; • Harmony; • Considered Siting; • Diversity; • Sustainability; • Heritage; • Connectivity; and • Bushfire Protection.

3.2.51 New landscaping will comprise a combination of lawns (grasses), shrubs and canopy trees of varying native and exotic species. New plantings will be in both existing and proposed garden beds. This will be complemented by:

• New rain gardens; • Repairs to existing stacked stone walls; • New timber furniture (ie. outdoor seats); and • Designated pathways of asphalt or compacted gravel.


4.1 Zone Controls

4.1.1 The majority of the subject site is presently located within the Special Use Zone – Schedule 2 (Major Tourist Facility).

4.1.2 Pursuant to Clause 37.01, the Purpose of the Special Use Zone (SUZ) is:

― To implement the State Planning Policy Framework and the Local Planning Policy Framework, including the Municipal Strategic Statement and local planning policies.

― To recognise or provide for the use and development of land for specific purposes as identified in a schedule in this zone.

4.1.3 Pursuant to Clause 37.01-4, a permit is required to construct a building or construct or carry out works unless the schedule to this zone specifies otherwise.

4.1.4 The Purpose of Schedule 2 to the zone is ‘to provide for the use of land for a major tourist facility subject to appropriate controls on any future changes to the use and management of the land’.

4.1.5 Clause 2.9 of the Schedule references ‘Burnham Beeches’. It states that the property, subject to the grant of a permit, may be developed and used for ‘a major tourist facility comprising a residential hotel, other guest and staff accommodation, and function, restaurant, leisure and recreational facilities’.

4.1.6 It outlines that a permit can only be granted if:

― The total guest accommodation does not exceed 110 suites and dwellings,

― The number of restaurant seats does not exceed 120; ― The bar/lounge area does not cater for more than 52 people; and ― Function facilities do not cater for more than 375 people.

4.1.7 An application is exempt from the decision requirements of Section 64(1), (2) and (3) and the review rights of Section 82(1) of the Act.

4.1.8 Before deciding on an application, the responsible authority must consider:

― The view of Heritage Victoria. ― Any comments received from the public notification of the

application. ― Protection of the historical and cultural integrity and special values of

the site. ― Any other appropriate matter.

4.1.9 I have noted comments from Heritage Victoria (dated 2 May 2017) who acknowledged that the proposed works ‘are considered reasonable interventions required for the adaptive reuse of the Burnham Beeches Complex subject to possible further refinements required as part of a heritage permit assessment process’. I also note that Heritage Victoria advised the owners in 2014 that it held no concerns regarding the planning scheme amendment and the removal of restrictive limits associated with patron numbers.

4 R

ele

van

t P

lan

nin

g P

rovi

sio

ns:


Figure 2

Zoning map

Source: Planning Maps Online

4.1.10 Schedule 2 to the SUZ outlines a range of Section 2 (permit required) uses, which includes (but not limited to):

― Accommodation (must be for tourists); ― Agriculture (other than Apiculture and Intensive animal husbandry); ― Car park; ― Dwelling; ― Food and drink premises (other than convenience restaurant); and ― Function centre.

4.1.11 Section 3 (prohibited) uses include:

― Industry; ― Place of assembly (other than Function Centre); and ― Retail premises.

4.1.12 A narrow parcel of the subject land is zoned Green Wedge A – Schedule 1 (GWAZ1).

4.1.13 The proposed planning application only relates to land in the SUZ.

4.2 Overlays

4.2.1 The review site is affected by a number of overlays.


Figure 3

Overlay map

Source: Planning Maps Online

Bushfire Management Overlay (BMO)

4.2.2 The BMO affects the entire site. Pursuant to Clause 44.06, the Purpose is:

― To implement the State Planning Policy Framework and the Local Planning Policy Framework, including the Municipal Strategic Statement and local planning policies.

― To ensure that the development of land prioritises the protection of human life and strengthens community resilience to bushfire.

― To identify areas where the bushfire hazard warrants bushfire protection measures to be implemented.

― To ensure development is only permitted where the risk to life and property from bushfire can be reduced to an acceptable level.

4.2.3 Pursuant to Clause 44.06-2, a permit is required to construct a building or construct or carry out works associated with a range of uses, which includes:

― Accommodation. ― Child care centre. ― Education centre. ― Leisure and Recreation. ― Place of assembly. ― Retail premises. ― Warehouse.

4.2.4 An application must be referred to the relevant fire authority with some exemptions applying to outbuildings.

Heritage Overlay (HO5)

4.2.5 The eastern portion of the site is affected by Heritage Overlay – Schedule 5, being site specific to Burnham Beeches. It is included on the Victorian Heritage Register (Ref No. H868).

4.2.6 Pursuant to Clause 43.01-2, no permit is required under this overlay to develop a heritage place which is included on the Victorian Heritage Register.


Significant Landscape Overlay – Schedule 9 (SLO9)

4.2.7 SLO9 affects the entire site and relates to ‘Yarra Ranges Significant Landscapes’. The landscape character objectives to be achieved are:

― Protect and enhance the environmental, scenic, visual, cultural and scientific values of the significant landscapes which have been identified in the Shire.

― Conserve the flora and fauna and associated ecological processes that contribute to the significance of the identified landscapes.

― Ensure that any new development is located and designed to avoid inappropriate visual intrusion or other detrimental effects on the key characteristics of the identified landscapes.

― Protect the historic and cultural importance of the Puffing Billy Railway Line and the scenic corridor through which it passes.

4.2.8 Pursuant to Clause 3.0, a permit is required to construct a building or construct or carry out works as a permit is required under the applicable zone.

4.2.9 A permit is also required to remove, destroy or lop any vegetation (whether exotic or native). This does not apply if a permit is not required under the schedule to Clause 53.

Environmental Significance Overlay – Schedule 1 (Site Z3) (ESO1-Z3)

4.2.10 The northern portion of the site is affected by ESO1 – Z3, however no works are being proposed within the overlay area.

4.2.11 Site Z3 relates to the Dandenong Ranges National Park.

Erosion Management Overlay (EMO)

4.2.12 Part of the site is affected by the EMO. The Schedule to the EMO identifies this land as having a high risk of potential instability.

4.2.13 Pursuant to Clause 44.01-1, a permit is required to construct a building or construct or carry out works.

4.2.14 The proposal seeks to construct a new staff accommodation building within the EMO.

4.3 Planning History

4.3.1 I have relied upon Attachment 3 of the Council Meeting Agenda and the Urbis Report (dated July 2017) in understanding the ‘planning history’ of the site. A brief summary is as follows:

― Prior to the new format of the Yarra Ranges Planning, the site was under the Tourism and Recreation Zone of the former Sherbrooke Planning Scheme. I have been unable to source a copy of this original zone.

― In June 1998, the existing Special Use Zone and Schedule were implemented by Ministerial Planning Scheme Amendment L94 to the Sherbrooke Chapter of the Yarra Ranges Planning Scheme. As part of the new format of planning schemes, the Special Use Zone was applied to a handful of sites to recognise existing or approved development that did not fit into the standard suite of zones. In the case of the subject site, it enabled the future use for a major tourist facility3.

3 As described in the Explanatory Report


Notably, Amendment L94 removed an existing site specific control which limited the uses on the subject land to guest accommodation not exceeding 54 suites and a restaurant not exceeding 100 seats. These limitations were imposed as part of a previous permit issued which was never acted upon.

― A planning permit was issued in March 1999 allowing a mix of accommodation, function and ancillary leisure and recreational facilities. This permit was not acted upon.

― An unsuccessful rezoning application occurred in 2003 for the use and development of a retirement living complex.

― A planning permit (YR-2004/2028) was issued in July 2005 allowing the restoration of the Norris Building as a hotel with function and other facilities. This permit has been amended numerous times, most notably in 2013 when a portion of the patron capacity of the Norris Building was transferred to a newly proposed café and bakery in the Piggery Building. This resulted in the permit being split into two stages: Stage 1 being the café and bakery and Stage 2 encompassing the hotel development. The Piggery Café and Bakery commenced operation in mid 2014 however Stage 2 of the permit has not been acted upon.

― In October 2013, a planning permit (YR-2012/973) was issued allowing a two lot subdivision (Stage 1) and the removal of easements. The subdivision allowed one lot (of approximately 1.12 hectares) to contain the Piggery building and surrounding land, and the other lot to contain the remaining balance of land (approximately 21.43 hectares) which includes the Norris Building. In December 2016, an extension of time of one year was granted to this permit.

The subdivision permit contains a condition that requires the owner of the land to enter into a Section 173 agreement requiring the site to continue to be operated as a single entity and preserve the cultural heritage significance of the property.

― A Planning Scheme Amendment application to facilitate a more extensive redevelopment of the site was lodged in 2014. The Amendment sought the Minister for Planning to intervene under 20(a) of the Planning and Environment Act under the rationale that the redevelopment should be considered as a State Significant project. The amendment was eventually abandoned, and the second amendment was lodged in 2015 which included a number of dwellings/villas on the subject land. This amendment was also abandoned following the Council’s resolution which did not support the intense residential development component.

4.3.2 I have not been able to extensively determine how the cap on numbers contained within the Schedule to the SUZ were derived. I have assumed that they are based on a proposal that was put to Council at some point in time, more than 20 years ago. What is not self-evident is how these limits were derived at the time and whether they were based on any specific limitations at the time, such as limitations to effluent disposal.

4.4 State Planning Policy Framework (SPPF)

4.4.1 The following SPPF provisions that are relevant to this proposal are:

― Clause 10. Operation of the State Planning Policy Framework ― Clause 11 Settlement ― Clause 11.06 Metropolitan Melbourne


― Clause 12 Environmental and Landscape Values ― Clause 13 Environmental Risks ― Clause 15 Built Environment and Heritage ― Clause 17 Economic Development ― Clause 18 Transport ― Clause 19 Infrastructure

4.4.2 These provisions generally seek:

― To balance conflicting objectives of relevant policies in favour of net community benefit and sustainable development in both the short and long term. Planning aims to address aspects of economic, environmental and social well-being affected by land use and development (Clause 10.04).

― For planning to anticipate and respond to the needs of existing and future communities. It should recognise economic viability, diversity of choice, high standard of urban design and amenity, energy efficiency, accessibility and land use and transport integration (Clause 11).

― To protect and enhance the valued attributes of the Dandenong Ranges (Clause 11.05-2).

― To increase local access to employment (Clause 11.06-1). ― To support the regeneration of heritage assets through adaptive re-

use (Clause 11.06-4) ― To support development in the green wedge that provides for

environmental, economic and social benefits (Clause 11.06-7). ― To protect sites and features of nature conservation, biodiversity,

geological or landscape value (Clause 12). More specifically, it seeks to protect environmentally sensitive areas with significant recreational value such as the Dandenong Ranges (Clause 12.04).

― To protect areas prone to erosion and landslip (Clause 13.03-2). ― To assist the community’s resilience to bushfire (Clause 13.05-1). ― To promote urban design excellence in the built environment and to

create a liveable city (Clause 11.06-4). This includes the creation of inclusive, vibrant and healthy neighbourhoods which promote strong communities, healthy lifestyles and good access to local services and jobs (Clause 11.06-5).

― To recognise and protect cultural identity, neighbourhood character and sense of place (Clause 15.01-5).

― To promote sustainable development (Clause 15.02). ― To ensure the conservation of places of heritage significance (Clause

15.03-1). ― To encourage tourism development to maximise the employment

and long-term economic, social and cultural benefits of development the State as a competitive domestic and international tourist destination (Clause 17.03-1).

― To maintain and develop Metropolitan Melbourne as a desirable tourist destination (Clause 17.03-2).

― To manage the road system to be efficient and safe and making efficient use of the existing infrastructure (Clause 18.02-4).

― The provision of an adequate supply of car parking that is appropriately designed and located (Clause 18.02-5).

― The development of social and physical infrastructure which is efficient, equitable, accessible and timely (Clause 19).

4.4.3 In light of these relevant provisions, I am satisfied that this proposal fulfills the general thrust of the SPPF. My reasons are outlined in Section 5 of this statement.


4.5 Local Planning Policy Framework

4.5.1 The following LPPF provisions that are relevant to this proposal are:

― Clause 21.01. Introduction ― Clause 21.02 Municipal Profile ― Clause 21.03 Vision ― Clause 21.04 Land Use ― Clause 21.06 Built Form – Objectives, Strategies and Implementation ― Clause 21.07 Landscape – Objectives, Strategies and Implementation ― Clause 21.09 Environment – Objectives, Strategies and

Implementation ― Clause 21.11Community Infrastructure – Objectives, Strategies and

Implementation ― Clause 22.05 Vegetation Protection

4.5.2 The Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS) states:

― Clause 21.01-1 The Upper Yarra Valley and Dandenong Ranges Regional Strategy Plan provides key policy directions, which includes: • There be no net increase in the total provision of residential

development in the Dandenong Ranges and no significant increase in the Yarra Valley and the southern foothills, beyond that provided for in proposals approved or exhibited at April 1979.

• Planning and management of resources in the region take account of the interests and views of the community, both within and beyond the region.

• Development be contained to ensure that it does not prejudice the conservation of natural resources and the amenity of those who live there and those who visit the area for recreation.

• Planning that seeks to minimise fire risk. • Planning for recreation that seeks to minimise any adverse effect

of tourism and day-tripping on residents, existing land use and the environment, and ensures compatibility with the primary aims of the Policy.

• Landscapes and scenic features be maintained, enhanced where appropriate, and rehabilitated where necessary.

This Regional Strategy Plan seeks urban containment and conservation protection, requiring a sensitive and measured approach to land use and development. The Plan is currently implemented via Clause 53 of the Yarra Ranges Planning Scheme and provides additional controls to that found in the Victorian Planning Provisions (VPPs). This Regional Strategy Plan is currently administered under the Planning and Environment Act 1987. Section 46F of the Act prohibits the Minister for Planning from approving any amendment to the Yarra Planning Scheme which is inconsistent with the Strategy Plan.

― Clause 21.02 Municipal Profile describes the Shire of Yarra Ranges to be a special place for its natural beauty and diverse habitats. It contains some of the most environmentally important areas in Victoria, which are a significant factor in attracting residents and tourists. Each year, over 2.2 million tourists visit the area, including the wineries of the Yarra Valley and townships and gardens of the Dandenong Ranges.

― Clause 21.03 Vision expresses the Council Plan, which is:


The Shire of Yarra Ranges will be a vibrant and dynamic Shire based on strong local communities living in a place of great natural beauty. Our world class Shire will be sustained by a strong local economy and a rich social fabric that is consistent with and support its environmental values.

This clause outlines the Strategic Framework plan, which designates the Shire into a range of area and provide a broad strategy for land use and development. The subject land falls within the ‘rural areas’.

― Clause 21.04 Land Use provides a range of objectives and strategies associated with residential, commercial, restaurant, local employment, tourism, accommodation and agricultural uses. There is particular emphasis on the role that tourism plays in the Shire’s economy with a key issue being to achieve and maintain a balance between tourism, the environment and protecting the amenity of existing residents.

― Clause 21.05 Built Form – Objectives, Strategies and Implementation seeks to ensure that new development respects and maintains the valued characteristics of the Shire. The planning and design of new development is guided by 5 sustainable design principles: • Sense of Place; • Protection of Environments; • Design Quality; • Sustainable Urban Form; and • Sustainable Building Design. This clause provides specific strategies for the design and development of tourism and recreational facilities, and also recognises the importance of heritage conservation.

― Clause 21.07 Landscape – Objectives, Strategies and Implementation seeks to retain and protect the scenic landscapes, rural and green wedge character and special environmental features of the Shire. This includes those environmental and landscaped values derived from remnant indigenous vegetation.

― Clause 21.09 Environment – Objectives, Strategies and Implementation seeks to protect and conserve the environmental characteristics of the Shire which are of local, regional, state and national significance. Relevant strategies relate to vegetation, environmental hazards and sustainability.

― Clause 21.10 Infrastructure – Objectives, Strategies and Implementation seeks to establish a good standard of physical infrastructure for all new development and to provide utilities that maintain the environmental qualities of the Shire.

― Clause 21.11 Community Infrastructure – Objectives, Strategies and Implementation promotes leisure, recreational and cultural facilities and programs.

4.6 General & Particular Provisions

4.6.1 There are a number of General and Particular provisions that should be considered in assessing this application, there are as follows:

― Clause 52.06 – Car Parking ― Clause 52.17 – Native Vegetation ― Clause 52.47 – Planning for Bushfire ― Clause 53.01 Upper Yarra Valley and Dandenong Ranges Regional

Strategy Plan


― Clause 65 - Decision Guidelines

Clause 53.01 Upper Yarra Valley and Dandenong Ranges Regional Strategy Plan

4.6.2 The Purpose of this clause is to ensure consistency between the Yarra Ranges Planning Scheme and the Upper Yarra Valley and Dandenong Ranges Regional Strategy Plan pursuant to the requirements of the Part 3A of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.

4.6.3 In the event that there is an inconsistency between any provisions in this clause or a schedule to this clause and any other clause or provisions in the Scheme, the requirements of this clause or a schedule to this clause prevail.

4.6.4 Pursuant to Clause 53.01-1, a planning permit is required to:

― Construct a building or construct or carry out works. This does not apply if the schedule to this clause specifically states that a permit is not required.

― Remove, destroy or lop any vegetation. This does not apply if the schedule to this clause specifically states that a permit is not required.

4.6.5 Pursuant to Clause 53.01-2, the use of land must meet the requirements of the schedule to this clause.

4.6.6 Clause 1.0 of the Schedule to Clause 53.01 states that a permit is not required to construct a building or construct or carry out works except to construct a building or carry out works (including those matters listed in Clause 62.02-2) within 2 metres of any vegetation that is subject to a planning permit under the provisions of this Clause. Other exemptions apply however they are not relevant in this instance.

4.6.7 All other provisions of the Scheme must be met.


5.1 Introduction

5.1.1 My role in this matter is to provide a planning opinion as to whether the proposal represents an acceptable outcome in the State and local strategic planning context of the subject land, and whether the proposed planning scheme amendment is appropriate to guide the future use and development of the subject land.

5.1.2 In determining my conclusions on this proposal, I have:

― Undertaken an assessment of the Amendment; and ― Assessed the merits of the proposal (see Section 6.0 of this

statement). 5.1.3 I am satisfied that, given the considerable time has passed since the

implementation of the restrictions imposed by the SUZ and changes in planning and other changes in the economy and cultural habits, broadening the discretion within the schedule to the zone is appropriate.

5.1.4 It is self-evident that given the history of the site over the past 20 years, the current controls have been generally unsuccessful in achieving the strategic vision for the land: developing the site for a major tourist facility.

5.1.5 It is also apparent that the lack of ongoing investment in the land has resulted in the gradual deterioration of the buildings on the site. Of most importance is the historically significant Norris House.

5.1.6 With a rationale to facilitate a range of uses which will provide an economic stimulus for the entire redevelopment of the site, I consider that revisiting the schedule is appropriate.

5.1.7 I have used the Strategic Assessment Guidelines to form the basis of my analysis.

5.2 Strategic Assessment Guidelines

Why is the amendment required?

5.2.1 An amendment to the Planning Scheme is required to enable the total number of patrons permitted on the site to increase as well as to enable a permit to be granted for uses that are currently prohibited.

5.2.2 The Table below summarises the current and proposed uses on the site as well as the number of patrons permitted/proposed.

Table 2 - summary of changes being sought to the SUZ as a result of the proposal

Proposed Uses

Permissible by SUZ (subject to the grant of a permit)

Proposed Difference

Hotel/standalone accomodation

110 suites 55 rooms

- 55 rooms

Bar/Lounge 52 patrons (within Hotel) 120 patrons

+ 86 patrons

Function Room 375 patrons (within Hotel) 180 patrons

- 195 patrons

5 A

sse

ssm

en

t o

f th

e A

me

nd

me

nt


Restaurant 120 seats

(adjacent to the existing Piggery café) 140 patrons

+ 20 patrons

Shop Prohibited 60 patrons + 60 patrons

Microbrewery Prohibited 120 patrons + 120 patrons

The Piggery Prohibited due to cap on numbers

188 patrons +188 patrons

5.2.3 At present, the ‘Piggery Café’ is operating as a licensed restaurant. Planning permit YR/2008/2028 allows this restaurant to operate with a total of 188 seats based upon the following seat allocation:

― 120 seats (café); ― 52 seats (bar/lounge); ― 16 seats (function).

5.2.4 The Piggery currently utilises the patron numbers under various uses permissible under the existing SUZ requirements.

5.2.5 As detailed earlier in my statement, it is not clear as to how the existing limitations on the site were established. Whilst presumably they were linked to a particular proposal considered by Council more than 20 year ago, it is not clear if there were strategic, economic, physical or other constraints to these numbers.

5.2.6 Given the inability of the site to achieve its strategic direction of being a Major Tourist Facility and, in my opinion, a strong preference to see the successful adaption of the Norris Building to enable its restoration, a revisiting of the numbers and permissible land uses is appropriate.

5.2.7 The introduction of a new ‘stand-alone’ schedule to the SUZ which is site specific provides a suitable ‘planning tool’ to guide the future use and development of the site. Importantly, it will enable planning permit applications to be lodged and subsequently assessed on their individual merits.

5.2.8 This S96a application, comprising a separate planning permit application, provides a clear picture of the proposed land use and development sought for the subject land. The preparation of the permit application comprises a range of supporting documents which reinforces the appropriateness of the amendment.

5.2.9 The amendment does not seek to amend any planning policy and I consider that the overall development of the site and the amendment is consistent with the existing planning policy context.

NET COMMUNITY BENEFIT 5.2.10 An intrinsic consideration of the Amendment is whether there is a net

community benefit. With most proposals there is the potential for benefits and disbenefits to arise, particularly when there are changes to the built form or land uses.

5.2.11 I am satisfied that on balance, there is a net benefit to the community as a result of this 96a Amendment. The amendment will facilitate the redevelopment of the site as a major tourist facility in line with the strategic direction of the site.


5.2.12 I consider that there will be a range of community benefits that arise from the proposal, which include:

― The restoration and retention of the heritage significance of the site, both in the short and long term. More specifically, it provides an adaptive and sustainable re-use of a historic building which is of State Significance. I do not consider that the conservation of Norris House should be underestimated. Given the current state of the building, it will take a significant financial investment to restore it. Government funds are unlikely to be made available to save the building so it is unlikely that without a commercially viable operation on the site, the building will be saved;

― The $40 million investment in the site, which will create economic stimulus for the builders, ancillary trades and suppliers during the construction phase;

― It will contribute to the local economy of the area by attracting visitors to the area, creating flow on economic benefits to the community. It reinforces the important role that tourism plays within the Shire, particularly in the Dandenong Ranges and the development of the Hotel with its 55 rooms will encourage tourists to stay in the region for longer periods, enhancing the economic spinoffs;

― It provides a range of hospitality land uses which can integrate and complement the environmental/landscape character and recreational offerings within the Dandenong Ranges;and

― It will introduce of 240 jobs into the region. Given the nature of hospital employment, it is likely that many of these employees will come from the local area.

5.2.13 I am mindful that there will be potential disbenefits to the proposal as perceived by some sectors of the community. This is evidence by the volume of submissions regarding the proposal. These disbenefits, such as increased traffic, car parking pressure and the commercialization/intensification of the uses on the land do not outweigh the substantial community benefit that is derived by facilitating the development.

5.2.14 Of course, the planning permit process will ensure that specific issues are considered in a finer detail and can be addressed, where appropriate, via permit conditions.

5.2.15 Concern has been raised regarding the potential for the commercial elements of the proposal to proceed without the restoration of Norris House, particularly given the issue of a planning permit for a 2 lot subdivision by Council in 2013, which enables the piggery and other buildings to be separated from Norris House.

5.2.16 I am advised that this plan of subdivision has not been acted upon and is due to expire in Dec 2017. In order for the subdivision to be certified, the permit requires the owner of the land to enter into a Section 173 agreement requiring the site to continue to be operated as a single entity and preserve the cultural heritage significance.

5.2.17 Whilst not a guarantee, the inability to subdivide the land and operate it separately to the remainder of the property increases certainty regarding the restoration of Norris House.


Does the amendment implement the objectives of planning and address any environmental, social and economic effects?

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE OBJECTIVES OF PLANNING IN VICTORIA 5.2.18 The objectives of planning in Victoria outlined in Section 4(1) are:

(a) To provide for the fair, orderly, economic and sustainable use, and development of land;

(b) To provide for the protection of natural and man-made resources and the maintenances of ecological processes and genetic diversity;

(c) To secure a pleasant, efficient and safe working, living and recreational environment for all Victorians and visitors to Victoria;

(d) To conserve and enhance those buildings, areas or other places which are of scientific, aesthetic, architectural or historic interest, or otherwise of special cultural value;

(e) To protect public utilities and other assets and enable the orderly provision and co-ordination of public utilities and other facilities for the benefit of the community;

(f) To facilitate development in accordance with the objectives set out in paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e);

(g) To balance the present and future interests of all Victorians.

5.2.19 I am satisfied that the proposal advances the above planning objectives by:

― Providing a major tourist facility on a site specifically earmarked for this use and development, and in an area where tourism contributes meaningfully to the local economy.

― Providing an appropriate working and recreational environment for both Victorians and visitors to the State – the changes proposed by the amendment will enable the site to evolve and develop in line with community needs and a growing interest in gastro tourism, food provenance and the environment;

― Protecting and enhancing a site of environmental, aesthetic and historical interest. More specifically, the proposal will largely facilitate the adaptive re-use of existing buildings, including a prominent building of historical State significance; and

― Balances existing and future interests with the restoration of Norris House, enabling the property to be a valued part of Victoria’s social and architectural heritage for many years to come.

ENVIRONMENTAL, SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC EFFECTS 5.2.20 The environmental effects of the proposal are limited and are

appropriately addressed as demonstrated by:

― Wastewater and sewerage will be appropriately managed including the construction of a sewer pipeline to service the site as part of the Yarra Valley Water’s Community Sewerage Program;

― The proposed staff accommodation building is very modest and does not pose an unacceptable risk in an area prone to landslip;

― All other building works are largely confined to the restoration and refurbishment of existing buildings; and


― The new car parking areas will require the removal of eight trees which are not of high arboricultural value.

5.2.21 In relation to social and economic effects, the amendment will:

― Facilitate the redevelopment of the Norris Building which is of State architectural and cultural significance. The viable re-use of this building as a Hotel provides a high degree of historical protection both in the short and long term at a State level;

― Provides for a range of land uses which are associated with a tourist facility. This will generate a range of employment opportunities in construction, hospitality and tourism, and reinforces the attraction of the Dandenong Ranges.

Does the amendment address relevant bushfire risks?

5.2.22 The subject land is affected by a Bushfire Management Overlay (BMO), which reinforces the importance of bushfire matters.

5.2.23 A key consideration is whether the amendment results in an increase to the risk of life as a priority, property, community infrastructure and the natural environment from bushfire.

DOES THE AMENDMENT MEET THE OBJECTIVES AND GIVE EFFECT TO THE STRATEGIES TO ADDRESS BUSHFIRE RISK IN THE SPPF (CLAUSE 13.05-1)?

5.2.24 The objective of Clause 1305 is ‘to assist to strengthen community resilience to bushfire’, with the overarching strategies as:

― Prioritise the protection of human life over other policy considerations in planning and decision-making in areas at risk from bushfire.

― Where appropriate, apply the precautionary principle to planning and decision-making when assessing the risk to life, property and community infrastructure from bushfire.

5.2.25 More specific strategies are outlined which relate to:

― Bushfire hazard identification and risk assessment; ― Strategic and settlement planning; ― Planning scheme implementation; and ― Development control.

5.2.26 The amendment has broadly responded to the objectives and gives effect to relevant strategies by:

― Identifying the bushfire risks at both the local and broader context; ― Reducing the bushfire risk to future occupants, property and

infrastructure to an acceptable level. ― Ensuring the bushfire risk to existing residents, property and

community infrastructure will not increase as a result of the future land use and development.

― Undertaking a site-based assessment to identify bushfire protection measures for development. This includes the siting, design and construction of buildings, vegetation management, water supply, access and egress.

5.2.27 More specifically, there has been direct liaison with the CFA and this proposal involves the preparation of a Bushfire Management Statement and a draft Bushfire Emergency Management Plan (BEMP). These documents broadly outline that:

― The proposed use and development of Burnham Beeches will not increase the bushfire hazard of the area. Rather the on-going fuel management of the site will be enhanced by having a greater


percentage of the property being managed as ‘defendable spaces’ enforceable under the Planning Scheme;

― The bushfire risk to future patrons and staff at Burnham Beeches would be reduced to an acceptable level through compliance with the BMO requirements and the development of a BEMP;

― The bushfire risk of any subsequent new uses permitted by the amendment can be managed through the Bushfire Emergency Management Plan; and

― The provisions of the BEMP will minimise the impact of patrons on the surrounding community during a bushfire by closing the site on forecasted Code Red days and limiting the number of people on-site on days of Severe of higher Fire Danger ratings to accord with the number that can be accommodated in the designated ‘shelter-in-place’ buildings.

5.2.28 I defer to the expert evidence of Mr Hamish Allan from Terramatrix.

HAS THE VIEW OF THE RELEVANT FIRE AUTHORITY BEEN SOUGHT? 5.2.29 As outlined at paragraph 5.3.22, the views of the CFA have been sought.

5.2.30 A summary of their advice is provided in the Urbis Report (July 2017) at Section 8.5.2.

IS THE AMENDMENT CONSISTENT WITH THE LOCAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK OBJECTIVES AND STRATEGIES THAT APPLY TO BUSHFIRE RISK?

5.2.31 A key direction at Clause 21.01-1 (The Upper Yarra Valley and Dandenong Ranges Regional Strategy Plan) is for ‘planning that seeks to minimise fire risk’.

5.2.32 The objective at Clause 21.09-2 (Environmental Hazards) is ‘to ensure that the use of land and development takes account of physical development constraints such as flood, fire and landslip and to control development in these areas’. Relevant strategies include:

― Implement fire prevention programs which are closely integrated with environmental and fire management principles;

― Encourage people to adopt principles and practices in the planning and development of their land which minimises the risks from wildfires.

― Limit development in areas prone to intense wildfire behavior and provide township protection features.

― Promote safety of people and property. ― Provide adequate design and services that allow rapid and effective

response by emergency services. ― Ensure the community is aware of the risks of landslide, wildfire

hazards, flooding (in specific areas) and the need to limit, and even prevent, development where there are problems or to apply special development criteria.

5.2.33 Clause 21.09-2 further nominates that a Wildfire Management Overlay (now Bushfire Management Overlay) be applied to land where the intensity of wildfire is significant and likely to pose a threat to life and property.

5.2.34 The amendment recognizes the risk of bushfire. The entire site is affected by the BMO which will require any future use and development on the site to respond to its requirements, which includes building construction standards, defendable spaces, water and access.

5.2.35 In addition, Clause 52.47 (Planning for Bushfire) is also relevant where an application is made under the BMO.


5.2.36 I am satisfied that the amendment is consistent with the bushfire considerations in the LPPF.

Does the amendment comply with all the relevant Minister’s Directions?

5.2.37 The amendment is consistent with the Minister’s Direction on the Form and Content of Planning Schemes. It seeks to amend an existing schedule to the SUZ and proposes a new schedule to the SUZ. A draft Schedule 11 to the SUZ has been prepared and is at Appendix B

5.2.38 The amendment is also consistent with the following:

Ministerial Direction No. 9 – Metropolitan Strategy ― It improves access to jobs across Melbourne and closer to where

people live by facilitating investment to Melbourne’s outer areas. ― It respects Melbourne’s heritage by:

• Recognising the value of heritage when managing growth and change;

• Stimulating economic growth through heritage conservation; and • Protecting Melbourne’s heritage through telling its stories.

― It seeks to protect and enhance valued attributes of distinctive areas and landscapes.

― It mitigates exposure to natural hazards. ― It seeks to protect natural habitats. Ministerial Direction no. 11 – Strategic Assessment of Amendments ― Providing a comprehensive strategic evaluation of the planning

scheme and the outcomes it produces.

Does the amendment support or implement the State Planning Policy Framework (SPPF)?

5.2.39 The relevant provisions of the SPPF are outlined at Section 4.4 of this statement.

5.2.40 The amendment supports or implements the SPPF by:

― Balancing conflicting objectives of relevant policies in favour of net community benefit and sustainable development as detailed earlier in this evidence statement (Clause 10.4).

― Recognising economic viability, accessibility and land use in planning for existing and future communities. This is a key part of the rationale for the proposal to enable a commercial operation on the site that will justify the $40 million investment to restore the buildings on the site (Clause 11).

― Protecting and enhancing the valued attributes of the Dandenong Ranges, with all buildings proposed to be restored and renovated, including Norris House (Clause 11.05-2).

― Increasing local access to employment with over 240 created (Clause 11.06-1).

― Protecting and regenerating heritage assets through adaptive re-use of Norris House and returning the hotel use it previously was used for in the 1990s (Clause 11.06-4).

― Facilitating development in the green wedge that provides for environmental, economic and social benefits. I am satisfied that the approach to the development and use of the site has these principles at the core, consistent with the eco/gastro tourism intent of the overall redevelopment (Clause 11.06-7).


― Protecting the Dandenong Ranges which contains environmentally sensitive areas with significant recreational value which is evident from the modest increase in buildings on the site (Clause 12.04).

― Responding appropriately to erosion and landslip risks with limited risk due to the concentration of buildings and use at the eastern portion of the land (Clause 13.03-2).

― Assisting the community’s resilience to bushfire through the introduction of refuge areas on the site (Clause 13.05-1).

― Recognising and protecting cultural identity and sense of place with the restoration of all buildings on the site (Clause 15.01-5).

― Promoting sustainable development with all buildings incorporating ESD principles (Clause 15.02).

― Conserving places of heritage significance with the significant investment in restoring Norris House (Clause 15.03-1).

― Encouraging tourism development to maximise the employment and long-term economic, social and cultural benefits of development the State and metropolitan Melbourne as a desirable tourist destination from both a domestic and international perspective – this is the core principle for the proposed businesses (Clause 17.03).

― Ensuring the road system is efficient and safe and making efficient use of the existing infrastructure – I defer to the opinion of Ms Dunstan in these matters (Clause 18.02-4).

― Providing an adequate supply of car parking that is appropriately designed and located - I defer to the opinion of Ms Dunstan in these matters (Clause 18.02-5).

5.2.41 The amendment is also supported by Schedule 1 (State Planning Policy

for the Region) of the Upper Yarra Valley & Dandenong Ranges Regional Strategy Plan. It aims to retain and improve:

― The amenity of the area for present and future residents, the farming community and other users with the sensitive adaption of existing buildings on the property and the maintenance of the high value landscape amenity of the site;

― Scenic and bushland environments for recreation and conservation with only very limited vegetation removal and maintenance of the very low density of buildings and built forms on the site; and

― Other landscapes of value as a feature of the State of Victoria, and more particularly the Melbourne region with the improvement of the existing gardens and landscape values of the property.

How does the amendment support or implement the Local Planning Policy Framework (LPPF) and, specifically, the Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS)?

5.2.42 The relevant provisions of the LPPF are outlined at Section 4.5 of this statement.

5.2.43 The amendment supports or implements the LPPF by:

― Being consistent with the key policy directions outlined in the Upper Yarra Valley and Dandenong Ranges Regional Strategy Plan. More specifically it will: • Provide no net increase to residential development in the

Dandenong Ranges with dwellings (other than tourist accommodation) prohibited under the proposed schedule to the SUZ;

• Continue to ensure that future development is assessed to ensure it does not prejudice the conservation of natural resources, the


amenity of existing residents and those who visit the area for recreation.

• Ensures that minimisation of fire risk remains a consideration for planning permit applications.

• Maintains, rehabilitates and enhances the landscape and scenic features of the site.

― Recognising the uniqueness of the Dandenong Ranges as a place of natural beauty which is a significant drawcard for tourism. The redevelopment of the site will promote the region and attract additional visitors into the area or encourage existing visitors to stya for longer (Clause 21.02).

― Achieving and maintaining an appropriate balance between tourism, the environment and protecting the amenity of existing residents with what I consider to be a relatively low key development of what is a significantly size property (Clause 21.04).

― Ensuring the built form of new development respects and maintains the valued characteristics of the Shire with the new works on the site relatively low key in nature well setback from boundaries and publicly accessible area (Clause 21.06).

― It responds to Objective 5 – Design and Development of Tourism and Recreation Facilities which is ‘that development of new tourist facilities be compatible and integrated with surrounding land uses and the natural and built environment’. It satisfies the relevant strategy which is to ‘ensure that tourism and recreation use and development is managed, located, designed and sited in a manner which protects and enhances the special environmental and landscape characteristics of the area’ (Clause 21.06).

― Protecting and conserving the Shire’s cultural heritage with the restoration of Norris House as well as other buildings on the property (Clause 21.06-1).

― Retaining and protecting the scenic landscape and rural character of the subject land and broader area (Clause 21.07).

― Retaining and conserving the environmental characteristics of the area (Clause 21.09).

― Providing leisure, cultural and recreational facilities which form part of major tourist facility (Clause 21.11).

Does the amendment make proper use of the Victorian Planning Provisions?

5.2.44 The amendment involves the introduction of a new Schedule 11 to the SUZ that is site specific to Burnham Beeches and to amend the existing Schedule 2 to delete reference to the subject land.

5.2.45 This is an appropriate use of the VPPs.

How does the amendment address the views of relevant agencies?

5.2.46 The amendment has undergone public exhibition with view of relevant agencies obtained the CFA, EPA and Heritage Victoria.

5.2.47 These views can be readily addressed via the specific planning permit application.

Does the amendment address the requirements of the Transport Integration Act 2000?

5.2.48 The amendment is not likely to have a significant impact on the transport system.


5.2.49 I defer to the expert evidence of Ms Dunstan on these matters.


6.1 The Proposal

6.1.1 In summary, planning permit approval is being sought for:

― Hotel (55 rooms) including restaurant/bar and function room – 415 patrons

― Provedore (shop) – 60 patrons ― Restaurant – 120 patrons ― Microbrewery – 120 patrons ― Calfery (accommodation for visiting staff/guests) – 2 persons ― Shed (guest accommodation) – 6 persons ― Staff accommodation – 2 persons

6.1.2 The Piggery already has approval for its operation with 188 patrons but is included within the proposal so that one planning approval controls the use and development of the site.

6.1.3 This proposal requires an assessment against a range of issues which are:

― Land use; ― Built form; ― Heritage; ― Landscape; ― Vegetation; ― Car parking and access; ― Erosion; ― Bushfire; and ― Waste water and effluent treatment.

6.1.4 My assessment of this proposal is as follows:

6.2 Land use

6.2.1 The overarching goal within the Special Use Zone, both in its current and proposed form, is to develop Burnham Beeches as a major tourist facility with a hospitality focus.

6.2.2 The reinstatement of the Norris Building as a hotel and the provision of a range of food and drink uses (being the café and restaurant) and staff accommodation are appropriate uses for the subject land based upon the existing planning controls outlined in the SUZ-Schedule 2. It is the increase in the numbers of patrons associated with the restaurant/café uses that is reasonably in question.

6.2.3 The proposal seeks to place conditions on the permit that would, in effect, limit the total number of patrons on the site to 933. The existing schedule to the SUZ provides for somewhere in the order of 712 to 767 patrons, depending on the underlying assumption of the occupancy of the hotel rooms.

6.2.4 I do not consider the increase in patron numbers in the order of 160-220 to be an unreasonable increase that will change the character of the uses on the site or unduly influence the amenity of the broader area.

6.2.5 I am cognisant that the variety of uses on the site mean that there would rarely being 933 patrons on the site at any time. Hotel patrons will come and go as they explore the Dandenongs, the function room will operate intermittently – at best 2-3 times a week – and likely in the evenings, whilst the piggery and provedore will be day time uses only. Other uses, such as the restaurant and microbrewery will crossover from lunch to evening trade and this will also wax and wane depending on the weather, time of the week and year.

6 A

sse

ssm

en

t o

f th

e p

lan

nin

g p

erm

it a

pp

licat

ion

:


6.2.6 The introduction of a microbrewery and a shop will provide complementary uses which are associated with a tourist development and the themes of high quality locally produced and grown produce. The introduction of these types of uses are indicative of how changes in the hospitality industry have changed over the past 20 years with a growing interest in locally sourced produced and gastro tourism.

6.2.7 Based upon the hours of operation of these individual uses, it is clear that patronage levels will vary throughout the day and evening and throughout the week, and it is unlikely that all uses would be at capacity at the one time. I am satisfied that the varying peaks of the uses will ensure that the overall capacity of the site will sit comfortably with the designation of the site as a major tourist facility but also within the environmental, landscape and recreational values of the broader area.

6.2.8 The proposed microbrewery will be located adjacent to the existing silos and is over 200m away from the nearest dwelling, which is at 3 Sherbrooke Road, east of the subject land. I am satisfied that there will be no effect on this property with the distance well separated to offset any odour issues. Previous breweries that I have been involved with previously in the inner city have had EPA licences requiring a separation of less than 15 metres to residential properties.

6.2.9 The operation of the brewery will be consistent with the paddock to plate philosophy of the site and the serving of light meals and drinks consistent with the tourist role of the property.

6.2.10 The shop will also focus on locally produced produce. Given the limited hours of operation and the focus on gourmet products, I am satisfied that this use will be unlikely to be a generator of activity in its own right but rather a complementary use in the overall offer.

6.2.11 Some submitters have raised concern regarding the generation of noise from the site. Conditions are proposed on the draft permit, such as requiring a Management Plans for each of the licenced premises (Condition 43), the preparation of a noise and amenity management plan (condition 42), compliance with SEPP1 (condition 39) together with the distance of more than 200 metres to the nearest residential property will enable noise to be emitted from the site to fall within reasonable limits.

6.3 Hours of operation

6.3.1 The hours of operation of the various aspects of the application is summarised in Table 3 below.

Table 3 – summary of hours of operation

Land use Hours of operation

Hotel 24/7

Piggery

10am to 5pm, Monday to Friday

9am to 5pm, Saturday and Sunday

Provedore 10-7pm, 7 days


Steakhouse / restaurant 7 days midday – midnight

Brewery 11am to 5pm, Sunday to Thursday

11am to midnight, Fri and sat

6.3.2 I am generally satisfied that the hours of operation proposed in the context of the location of the site more than 200 metres from the nearest residential property.

6.3.3 I do recommend that hours of operation be placed on the exterior bars/lounges and function room at the Hotel. I would typically recommend that a condition be placed on the permit restricting these to 1am. Room service and interior lounges should not be restricted in their service.

6.3.4 I observe that Condition 9 of the draft planning permit proposes that the uses on the site operate between the hours of 6am to 12.30am the following day. I consider this to be an acceptable outcome.

6.3.5 It would also be appropriate to specify the hours of operation of the Piggery, Provedore and Brewery.

6.4 Built Form

6.4.1 The hotel, café/bakery, restaurant, provedore, calfery and part of the microbrewery will utilise existing buildings throughout the site. These existing buildings will require both external and internal works.

6.4.2 The new buildings are confined to the microbrewery and staff accommodation.

6.4.3 I consider the built form of each of these aspects of the proposal as follows.

CAFÉ/BAKERY (THE PIGGERY) 6.4.4 The café/bakery currently utilises part of the Piggery building and has

already been renovated. It provides both indoor and outdoor seating areas.

6.4.5 I am satisfied that the renovated building integrates appropriately within the landscaped character of the area.

6.4.6 Approvals have already been granted from both Yarra Ranges Shire and Heritage Victoria.

HOTEL 6.4.7 The restoration of the historic Norris Building will be guided by Heritage

Victoria via a separate application.

6.4.8 Nonetheless, the proposed hotel use will effectively require most new works to occur internal to the building and that the integrity of the Art Deco building will be retained.

6.4.9 With little change to the exterior of the building, I see the renovation of the Hotel as a very positive aspect of the application.

RESTAURANT 6.4.10 The new restaurant will be in the unused section of the Piggery building.


6.4.11 Minor alterations are required to the external of the building including the provision of an airlock on the eastern side of the building.

6.4.12 I am satisfied that the new works will retain and enhance the original appearance of the building. With no real extension to the building, it has little negative impact on the character of the area.

PROVEDORE (SHOP) 6.4.13 The provedore will be located in the existing caretaker’s house, east of

the Piggery building.

6.4.14 The proposed works will partially alter the internal footprint and introduce an outdoor area under a verandah.

6.4.15 I am satisfied that the proposed works will enhance the overall appearance of an existing building.

MICROBREWERY 6.4.16 The new microbrewery will be housed in a purpose built two storey

structure and connected with the existing silos. A basement is also proposed for storage purposes.

6.4.17 This contemporary structure constructed of concrete panels, glazing, steel frames and metal cladding with a metal skillion roof provides a clear distinction from the original structures.

6.4.18 I am comfortable with the architectural response.

6.4.19 The location, scale and design of this new building will integrate sympathetically as a contemporary addition within the site, and will not be visually dominant when viewed from the main road.

CALFERY (ACCOMMODATION) 6.4.20 The existing calfery building will be converted to a small staff

accommodation suite.

6.4.21 Most the existing door and window openings will be retained whilst the existing pitched roof will be extended to the ground to create a ‘green roof’.

6.4.22 I am satisfied that the overall appearance of the building will be largely retained and the new works will integrate sympathetically in the rural landscaped character of the area.

STAFF ACCOMMODATION 6.4.23 The proposed single level timber building (approximately 54sq m in area)

located in the western section of the site is of a low scale and height.

6.4.24 I am satisfied that this modest building, constructed of timber with a pitched roof, will be discrete and blend appropriately within the rural character of the area, particularly on a sloping part of the subject site.

GUEST ACCOMMODATION 6.4.25 An existing shed building, located to the east of the provedore, will be

converted into a three bedroom guest accommodation.

6.4.26 New window and door openings and an external deck are the main changes, which in my view, are confined and maintains the overall external appearance of this outbuilding. Importantly, the conversion of the building for guest accommodation purposes makes efficient use of an existing structure.


6.5 Heritage

6.5.1 Heritage Victoria will be required to approve any works associated with buildings of heritage significance, including that of the Norris Building.

6.5.2 The adaptive re-use of existing buildings is clearly encouraged by planning policies and provides an effective avenue to ensure that historic buildings will be protected and conserved in both the short and long term.

6.5.3 I am satisfied that there is nothing about the proposal that should prevent a planning permit to issue. It would be appropriate to have a condition on permit requiring any changes required by Heritage Victoria to be included on the endorsed plans.

6.6 Landscape

6.6.1 I am satisfied that the proposed landscaping (including outdoor furniture and pathways) treatments will retain and enhance the existing landscape character of the Burnham Beeches estate.

6.6.2 A mixture of both native and exotic species proposed throughout the site will complement existing and proposed buildings including the forested areas adjacent to the new car park.

6.6.3 I am satisfied that the overall landscape outcome for the site, which includes the removal of 8 trees, is consistent with the LPPF and the natural landscape values of the site and broader area.

6.6.4 The new landscaping is also cognisant of bushfire considerations and will influence the choice of species and separation distances. Further consultation with the CFA will be required and again, any changes as required by the CFA should be reflected in a condition of planning permit.

6.7 Vegetation

6.7.1 The location of the new car park will require the removal of eight trees. These trees are identified of either no, low or moderate retention value. These trees are proposed to be removed largely to facilitate the construction of the car park near the entrance to the site.

6.7.2 I am satisfied that the removal of these trees is appropriate given the modest number, the retention value of the trees in question and the limited impact their removal will have on the landscape character of the site and broader area.

6.7.3 A native vegetation offset of 0.013 general biodiversity equitable units will need to be provided. I consider that this, together with the landscaping proposed will more than offset any loss of vegetation and landscape character by the removal of the trees in question.

6.7.4 I defer to the expert evidence of Mr Cameron Ryder for arboricultural matters.

6.8 Car parking and access

6.8.1 I am of the view that the proposed location of the new carpark is appropriate given it is within an area that is relatively flat and mostly cleared of vegetation. It is also located close to Sherbrooke Road and has a good visual relationship with the majority of uses the car park will provide for.

6.8.2 The car park is sufficiently setback from the main road and with existing vegetation, will not be unduly prominent from the public realm.


6.8.3 Based on the opinion of Ms Dunstan, I would expect the new car park, together with the existing car park would meet the demand of the ranges on uses on the site for much of the time.

6.8.4 I consider that the provision of an overflow gravel car park is an appropriate response to cater for periods of peak demand, such as when there is a middle of the day function during the weekend, where the Piggery, Micro Brewery and other uses are likely to be operating at peak capacity. The location and gravel nature of the car park will maintain the rural landscape character of the area, whilst still cater to car parking demands.

6.8.5 In terms of access, I am instructed that there are various options available, including utilising the existing access to the site and/or utilising access through the Alfred Nicholas Gardens.

6.8.6 Whilst I defer to the opinion of Ms Dunstan, I would consider that the issue of combined access through the gardens will require appropriate signage to ensure that:

― Patrons for the various uses operating for the site are aware of the entry point

― The people attending the gardens park in the public car park opposite Alfred Nicholas Gardens

6.8.7 Condition 1xi in the draft permit conditions makes the provision of such signage a requirement.

6.8.8 Some of the submitters have raised concerns that the increase in traffic would diminish the ambience of the gardens and detract from pedestrian access. The increase in traffic generated from the site will impact on the amenity of the gardens, where vehicular access is, at present, tightly restricted.

6.8.9 However, I consider on balance that the benefits that arise from having one way traffic circulation through the entire site and the overall benefits the proposal brings, outweighs the increase in traffic through the gardens. I do not consider that the increase in traffic will make the gardens ‘unfit for purpose’ and assume that Parks Victoria have formed a similar view given the agreement between the two parties.

6.8.10 I would expect that there would be a portion of people who would elect to park at Burnham Beeches and attend the gardens. In practice I understand that this is occurring already to some degree. Given the range of uses on offer at Burnham Beeches, café, provedore, restaurant, microbrewery etc, it would be reasonable to expect that there would be an element of shared trips through the co-use of the car park. I consider this to be appropriate with the principles of proper and orderly planning and the sharing of infrastructure.

6.8.11 I would expect that the bushfire management measures in place that require the site to close on ‘Code Red’ fire days and limit the capacity of the site to 500 people, the capacity of the fire shelters on the site, that the proposal will further endanger residents or tourists in the result of an evacuation.

6.8.12 I defer to the expert evidence of Ms Charmain Dunstan for all matters relating to car parking, traffic and access.

Erosion

6.8.13 From my review of the material prepared by Golder Associates, there is no evidence for slope instability on the site. They concluded that there


were no general concerns with the land being used for the proposed staff accommodation, but further geotechnical assessment would be required.

6.8.14 It further concluded that the development should accord with good hillside practices and the requirements of the EMO.

6.8.15 On this basis I am satisfied that there are no outstanding issues regarding erosion.

Bushfire

6.8.16 The development provides for a range of bushfire measures which includes the preparation of a draft Bushfire Emergency Management Plan in consultation with the CFA.

6.8.17 More specific bushfire measures include (but not limited to):

― The provision of ‘shelter-in-place’ within the Piggery building (café and restaurant), the microbrewery and the provedore building. These are clustered together and are located away from hazardous vegetation. These buildings collectively provide short-term shelter for up to 500 persons.

― The provision of defendable spaces. ― The proximity of buildings to Sherbrooke Road which enhances

access for both visitors/occupants and emergency vehicles. ― Identifying appropriate management actions such as closure of the

site on Code Red Fire Danger days and limiting persons on the site during Severe or Extreme Fire Danger days to 500, the capacity of the ‘shelter in place’ buildings on the site.

6.8.18 I am satisfied that bushfire considerations have been explored and any further outstanding matters can be resolved.

6.8.19 I defer to the expert evidence of Mr Hamish Allan on bushfire related matters.

Waste water and effluent treatment

6.8.20 I understand that the current manual removal of effluent will remain in place until the sewer pipeline is extended to Burnham Beeches, which is to expected to occur in mid 2019. This sewer pipeline is part of Yarra Valley Water’s Community Sewer Program which is to eliminate the majority of septic tanks and absorption drains currently in use as they are causing contamination of natural waterways.

6.8.21 I understand that the sewer pipeline is the sole responsibility of YVW and will occur regardless of whether any further development is to occur on the subject land. Given the construction times associated with this proposed development, I would expect that buildings will be designed to be connected directly into the sewer or connected with EPA water treatment plans in the interim.

6.8.22 On the basis, I am satisfied that the waste water and effluent treatment generated by the redevelopment of the site will be adequately catered by the new sewer. In addition, the internal sewerage infrastructure will direct effluent to the YVW connection point at the south-east corner of the site.

Conclusion

6.8.23 In my opinion, the proposed development represents an acceptable planning outcome. The proposal strikes an appropriate balance of facilitating a major tourist facility which entails a range of social and


economic benefits against the need to protect and conserve environmentally sensitive areas and minimise off-site amenity impacts.

6.8.24 Notably, the development provides a significant impetus to conserve and enhance this historic property.

6.8.25 I am of the view that the proposal achieves a net community benefit.


7.1.1 The amendment will facilitate a viable major tourist facility and proposes an appropriate mechanism to guide the future use and development of the subject land.

7.1.2 The planning application provides the specific details of the development and seeks to also reinforce the appropriateness of the amendment.

7.1.3 It is my view that the proposal is an acceptable outcome in light of the State and local strategic planning context of the subject land.

7.1.4 It is for these reasons and those contained in this report that I am of the view that this S96a application is worthy of the Panel’s support subject to the following conditions:

― Amend proposed Condition 9 to restrict the hours of operation of the Piggery, Provedore and Microbrewery as follows:

Piggery 10am to 5pm, Monday to Friday

9am to 5pm, Saturday and Sunday

Provedore 10-7pm, 7 days

Brewery 11am to 5pm, Sunday to Thursday

11am to midnight, Friday and Saturday

― Any changes required by Heritage Victoria to be included on the

endorsed plans. ― Any changes to the landscaping as required by the CFA be shown on

the landscaping plan

7 C

on

clu

sio

n:


Ap

pe

nd

ix A

Sta

tem

en

t o

f S

ign

ific

ance

Victorian Heritage Database Report

BURNHAM BEECHES

BURNHAM BEECHES SOHE 2008 1 burnham beeches sherbrooke road sassafras front view

burnam beeches extent plan A.JPG

Report generated 27/11/17

burnam beeches extent plan B.JPG

burnam beeches air photo.JPG

Location

1 SHERBROOKE ROAD SHERBROOKE, YARRA RANGES SHIRE

Municipality

YARRA RANGES SHIRE

Level of significance

Registered

Victorian Heritage Register (VHR) Number

H0868

Heritage Overlay Numbers

HO5

VHR Registration

March 27, 1991

Heritage Listing

Victorian Heritage Register

Statement of Significance

Last updated on - July 2, 1999

Burnham Beeches was constructed in 1930-33 as a rural retreat for the wealthy Aspro king Alfred Nicholas. The property was taken over by the Nicholas institute for medical and veterinary research in 1955, and in the early 1980s converted to provide guest-house accommodation.

1. Burham Beeches is a significant example of a retreat built in the tradition of a colonial hill station. The property includes sporting recreational facilities, utilitarian outbuildings and picturesque gardens and farmland in addition to the main house. Of hill station type homesteads in Victoria, only Duniera at Mt Macedon has comparable gardens and no other example has farmlands on the same scale.

2. The use of the Moderne style at Burnham Beeches is a particularly early example in Victoria and reflects contemporaneous developments in American architecture. It is a successful synthesis of the ornament and styling of the 1920s Jazz period with Streamlined Moderne which was to become popular in the 1930s in Australia.

3.Burnham Beeches is a rare domestic example of the Moderne genre and was designed by Harry Norris, one of the leading commercial architects in Melbourne between the wars.

4. The use of advanced reinforced concrete technology at Burnham Beeches is significant in that it generated the unusual streamlined appearance of the main house and allowed architectural devices such as cantilevered balconies, wide spans and continuous windows to be achieved.

5. The use of the design analogy of a ship in the sea was particularly appropriate for the retreat. The house sits in a contrived garden landscape with farmlands and outbuildings conveying modernity, reflecting a belief that progress and technology were necessarily good. In contrast, the utilitarian outbuildings suggest confidence in a self-reliant future. Such a successful design analogy is rare in Australian architecture.

6. The Burnham Beeches estate is historically important for its associations with the wealthy business man Alfred Nicholas, co-founder of the Nicholas Company which developed the famous Aspro formula. The estate is able to provide evidence of the aspirations and values of the first generation Australian who "made-good".

7. The mansion provides an example of "up-to-the-minute" high style living and entertainment of the 1930s in Australia, contrasting with the traditional nineteenth century layout of the estate. The estate also demonstrates the social demarcations which existed in pre-Second World War Australia and those changes which occurred following World War 2 with the development of secondary industry and a trend towards reduction in social barriers.

Permit Exemptions

All internal works to the 1980s Forest and Garden wings of the property, as long as they have no impact upon the exterior of the place in any way

Construction dates 1930,

Architect/Designer Norris, Harry A,

Heritage Act Categories Heritage place,

Hermes Number 1013

Property Number

Extent of Registration

AMENDMENT OF REGISTER OF HISTORIC BUILDINGSHistoric Building No. 868:Burnham Beeches, Sherbrooke Road, Sassafras.(To the extent of the former house (including the extensions), the silo and dairy buildings, the cottage, the garage with attached cottage, the calf shed, the greenhouses and the machinery shed and part of the land entered in the Register Book Certificate of Title Volume 9746 Folio 599, as shown hatched in Plans A and B, endorsed by the Chairperson, Historic Buildings Council and held by the Director, Historic Buildings Council.)[Victoria Government Gazette No. G12 27 March 1991 p.797]

This place/object may be included in the Victorian Heritage Register pursuant to the Heritage Act 1995. Check the Victorian Heritage Database, selecting 'Heritage Victoria' as the place data owner.

For further details about Heritage Overlay places, contact the relevant local council or go to Planning Schemes Onlinehttp://planningschemes.dpcd.vic.gov.au/

http://planningschemes.dpcd.vic.gov.au/


Ap

pe

nd

ix B

Exh

ibit

ed

SU

Z

expert - Yarra Ranges Shire€• Permit the use and development of a hotel, shop (Provedore),...

Documents

Transcript of expert - Yarra Ranges Shire€• Permit the use and development of a hotel, shop (Provedore),...