samantha in the press

In response to this article:

The owners of Burnham Beeches have asked the Minister for Planning to determine a Planning Scheme Amendment (PSA) for their site.

 

It is up to the Minister to decide if the community will be consulted, not councillors, not council officers, not Burnham Beeches owners (unless the owners ask the Minister to do so and  at any rate it's still the Minister's call). It is also up to the Minister to determine if he makes a decision or asks council for a decision on the PSA.

 

The owners of Burnham Beeches have been in talks with Yarra Ranges Council for approximately 2 years, in this time they have been encouraged by council officers to lodge a Planning Scheme Amendment with council, the owners have chosen to go directly to the Minister and not to council.

 

What will be interesting in all of this is what the Minister will do, given it is very close to a state election in Victoria. I can only hope that the community does get to have a say, consultation is an important part of the planning process. Given it's a tight contest in the seat of Monbulk I wonder what all the candidates for Monbulk think?

It is an exciting time for Burnham Beeches, it's a much loved site and it's terrific to see it being used again, but I also think the community has a right to be consulted.

 
Tourism feast
FTG Mail Newspaper
by Marc McGowan
26 Aug 2014

 

samantha in the press

Yarra Ranges Council bypassed on massive Burnham Beeches expansion plan
Free Press Leader
by Therese Allaoui
7 Aug 2014

amendment request for burnham beeches

Earlier this month council was advised that Burnham Beeches have written to the Minister for Planning, Matthew Guy, seeking a Ministerial Amendment to the Yarra Ranges Planning Scheme to allow for up to 1,700 people on the Burnham Beeches site.

Uses requested for inclusion in the amendment include a Micro Brewery, Hotel, Steak House, Bakery, Hotel, Villas, Eco Pods, tea house, moonlight cinema, spa, wellness centre, chapel, etc.

Currently the site is zoned Special Use (schedule 2, clause 2.9) and includes a Heritage Overlay (HO5).

It’s not clear if the Minister will be seeking Council’s or community views on the amendment request, which will be numbered C142. Our planning team are currently seeking advice as to how the Department for Planning (DTPLI) propose to engage with the Council and community on this development.

I’ll keep you posted as we learn more. As this is a recent request the amendment is not yet available to view online.

maccas update @ 10 april

After an hour and three quarters of submission and debate,
the moment council unanimously refused the application
for a McDonalds in Tecoma. 10/11/10

Here's a summary since my last blog entry on the 20th March, I thought the best way to keep community informed was via my blog so everyone can have access to information.
 

Before the development starts

There's still a range of information the shire is waiting for to fulfill the permit conditions set down by VCAT. The tribunal members set out a number of different conditions that need to be shown on amended plans, you can find a copy of those conditions here (1.a through to 1.s).

I've had verbal advice that changes to blade signage as detailed in condition 1.j.ii will be amended from McDonalds red. We are still awaiting other information or assessing information supplied to date including the engineering construction plans, parking and traffic management plan, and a range of other information set out in conditions 1a to s.

The Shire hasn't received a Construction Management Plan as yet, but we expect to in the next week or so.

Another thing that needs to happen before the development starts is the consolidation of the property titles for lots 1, 2 & 3 and the carriageway easement (the public access way at the rear of the site) needs to be registered on the title of 1533 Burwood Hwy. This cannot happen until conditions 1.a through to 1.s are met, according to advice it is expected that additional information will be submitted next week.

VicRoads and the Public Transport Authority have approved the detailed functional layout of Burwood Hwy. This is the configuration of the right hand turn into the BP (east bound), the left hand turn into the site (west bound) and the right hand turn into McNicol Rd (east bound), all within the same corridor of road only separated by line marking not traffic islands - a recipe for disaster if you ask me, however as VicRoads have signed off on it and they are the roads authority there is no avenue to overturn this.

Until all the information required prior to the start of the development is provided, no works should commence in order to comply with permit conditions.

I will certainly keep you posted via my blog with how this is progressing.

Demolition of current buildings on site

A demolition permit can be issued by a private Building Surveyor with a copy provided to council. A building permit for demolition must be issued prior to demolition works being carried out. The demolition of the buildings on site can happen at any time and are not linked to any permit conditions so it doesn't matter if the Shire has all the information required or not (as discussed above) as demolition is a separate process.

Matters the private building surveyor must consider before the issue of a permit include:

1. Public safety and protection of the public

2. Protection of adjoining property

3. Section 29A report and consent. This is a planning requirement to prevent demolition of heritage buildings, in this instance none of the buildings on site have heritage protection.

4. Insurance, qualifications, equipment & experience of person carrying out the work.

Documentation must be provided to the relevant building surveyor satisfying the above requirements and describing the scope of work.

 

Before occupation of the development 

This information and /or actions are required prior to the occupation of the building:

• An amended landscape plan (condition 6)
• The landscaping works are completed and maintained
• An amended Patron Management Plan (condition 10)
• Odour filters installed
• Acoustic fences erected along relevant boundaries (condition 20)
• Subject to the consent of the relevant landowners acoustic fences must be constructed on the boundaries of 1533 (vacant lot) and 1535 (DVD Destination) Burwood Highway (condition 21) - it is unknown at this stage if consent has been given, in the case of 1533 I think that's a given, however I'm not sure of conversations between the applicant and the owners of the DVD Destination and do wonder if they have or will give consent. Why is this important? Failure to construct acoustic fences at 1533 & 1535 constitutes a breach of permit condition. Potentially this will mean an application to amend the permit conditions will be required, but any amendment to the permit can only be done via VCAT.
• An acoustic consultant report to demonstrate noise from mechanical services equipment complies
• A Lighting Management Plan
• A Litter Management Plan
• Construction of left and right turning lanes in Sandells Rd (at the Burwood Hwy intersection)

Meeting with Planning Minister, Matthew Guy

I have had informal discussions with the Minister about VCAT and the issue of the tribunal not taking into account the number of community objections and the need for policy reform in this area. The McDonalds appeal as well as the

Orrong Rd appeal demonstrate more than any others the failings of the Tribunal in relation to taking into account community objection.
I will be attending a meeting with the Minister to discuss the adequacy of the current planning scheme controls for drive through style convenience restaurants in the Dandenong Ranges.

I will also be discussing Localised Planning Statements, first detailed as part of Liberal Policy in the lead up to the 2010 state elections and restated by the Minister in February 2013. I am interested to explore with the Minister and his department how Localised Planning Statements may assist in informing changes to the planning scheme in the Dandenongs.

As always I'll keep you posted with the outcomes and keep fighting for what we love about the Dandenongs.

puffing billy seeks planning scheme exemptions

report from the roundtable – 12 feb

At this week’s council meeting we had to consider a request from the Minister for Planning via the Emerald Tourist Railway Board (ETRB), the board that runs Puffing Billy. The request was to undertake a planning scheme amendment that would see any building and works associated with the ‘normal’ operations of the railway be exempt from planning permits without the need for public consultation.


The issue came about from the most recent construction by Puffing Billy out at the Menzies Creek Railway Station, an enormous zincalume shed, built without any consultation with the neighbours or with a planning permit.


The planning scheme amendment sought by ETRB would mean that no advertising or public consultation would be required to change the planning scheme, it would also mean that the current compliance action and need for a planning permit would cease out at Menzies Creek.

The issue out at Menzies Creek highlights how important public consultation is. The newly constructed shed is reflective silver in colour, far greater in size than anything in the region and there’s no vegetation buffer or screen planting, a resident in the rail corridor would never be allowed to build in that way and many local residents complained to council about the construction.


I had concerns about allowing the amendment without proper process. I think it’s important that the community, particularly those who live along the Puffing Billy corridor have a say about what happens in the corridor and the station precincts. I was concerned about changing the planning scheme first, then consulting residents second. The community who lives along the line understands the importance of the landscape and the environment, I believe maintaining that corridor is a shared responsibility and it is as much up to Puffing Billy to consult residents and go through proper process as it is for residents to apply to Puffing Billy when they seek changes.


Mr John Robinson, CEO of Puffing Billy, presented to council. He advised that Puffing Billy were developing a strategic plan that they would be sharing with council and the community in the future, that the organisation wanted to be transparent and consult with the community over the plan. He said that the railway was vigorously protective of the environment.


It was my view that locals are equally vigorously protective of the environment and that’s why the amenity of the corridor is a shared responsibility. I thought that no advertising was inappropriate and usurped good process.


I congratulated Puffing Billy on the development of a masterplan as a great mechanism to get community and council input to inform any changes to the planning scheme and the direction of the railway into the future.


Council agreed unanimously to write to the Minister indicating:


Resolved on the motion of Crs Dunn and Cliff

That Council write to the Minister for Planning indicating the following:

1. It is Council’s preferred approach to retain the current planning provisions affecting the land managed by the Emerald Tourist Railway Board and that any changes to permit exemptions should be undertaken as part of a detailed master planning exercise that involves public consultation.

2. As an interim arrangement, Council would be agreeable to work with the ETRB and the Department of Planning and Community Development in modifying the current permit exemptions under Clause 53 generally as proposed by the ETRB but modified to address issues raised in this report and in particular:

a. The definition of normal operations is clarified to determine the exact location and area of land where the proposed exemption would apply.

b. Clarify the meaning of the interpretation centre, cafe/kiosk, gift/souvenir shop and define the extent of the station precinct/precincts, or remove them from the proposed exemption altogether.

c. Either through a permit threshold trigger or an alternative mechanism ensure that any building constructed in the railway corridor is designed appropriately to minimise environmental, amenity and visual impacts.

d. In supporting the interim provisions, Council seeks assurance from the Minister that the ETRB will seek community input on a detailed master plan and proposed planning framework for the whole Puffing Billy railway corridor within 12 months of approval of the interim provisions.