GOING against the expert opinion of its own shire officers, the Bass Coast Shire Council has made a decision that local real estate agents say will send shockwaves through the Silverleaves settlement on Phillip Island.
Despite Melbourne Water opposing the development of other new homes at Pioneer Bay and also at Silverleaves in recent times, because of the risk of inundation from sea level rise, due to the impact of climate change, the authority has offered no objection to the proposal for a two-storey, four-bedroom house to be built at 42 Bruce Road Silverleaves.
The land is also subject to the conditions of a Bushfire Management Overlay (BMO) and yet the Country Fire Authority offered no objection to the application, subject to suitable conditions.
Other referral agencies including the Department of Energy Environment and Climate Action, and the council’s own Environmental Health department and arborist also offered no objection.
It was tick, tick, tick right down the application form and despite 30 objections being received over such things as size and bulk of the house, overlooking and shadowing, and removal of vegetation; council officers dismissed these issues.
“The construction of a single dwelling which occupies just over 50% of the site area is not considered to be overdeveloped. The site can accommodate the proposal,” said officers.
They also said the height and scale of the house was “not excessive”, and the location of a fire hydrant “less than 120 metres from the subject site” plus a 5000-litre capacity water tank “exclusively for firefighting purposes” would ameliorate the bush-fire risk.
The shire’s officers also noted that the project design had addressed the possible impacts of climate change:
“Consideration has been given to the building's response to climate change impacts which exacerbate height through raised finished floor levels, absence of fill padding and location of wicking beds at the furthest point from the abutting wetlands,” said council officers in their report when recommending that council issue a permit subject to the conditions outlined in the report.
But that wasn’t good enough for the Bass Coast Shire Council.
Despite the shire’s Manager Strategy and Growth Donna Taylor reminding the council, prior to discussion of the application, that it had sought an assessment from Melbourne Water as part of its investigations, receiving no objection, no one even moved the motion to issue a planning permit.
Cr Michael Whelan put up an alternate motion for a notice of refusal to be issued and council ultimately voted that way.
Among his reasons for recommending refusal of the application were that the proposal failed to respond to the shire’s inundation overlay clause for a 1:100 year flood, excessive vegetation removal and issues relating to environmental and other impacts as a result of the project, but he only addressed the impact of climate change when speaking to the motion.
Claiming he was reluctant to recommend rejection of the application to build a house in Bruce Road, he said the lack of leadership on the issue of coastal inundation by the State Government was the problem.
“I have read the report by the officers and I understand the position they find themselves in. I also understand there's a juxtaposition with the previous issue where we talk about the inevitability of going through to VCAT. The issue here is, and I quote the Insurance Council of Australia, the modern planning schemes do not protect people from flood risk. And if you've read through the recommendations of the officers working within the planning scheme, it drives them towards recommending approval,” said Cr Whelan while speaking to his alternate motion.
“The problem is our planning scheme, I believe, and I've railed against it for probably seven and a half years, because it does not deal with these issues properly.
“I cannot understand Melbourne Water. They've been causing havoc around the place by knocking back development proposals in Pioneer Bay and Inverloch and different other places and suddenly this one just sails through with them. I don't get it.
“It has been put to me that it is because the other applications have been very close to the coast, in the sense of being erosion risks perhaps. This one is right on the Rhyll Inlet. It's where the inundation will come from, is through the Rhyll Inlet. It's more exposed than if it was on Woodland (Avenue), although Woodland has other problems as we know. So that gets me. I just don't get it.
“I cannot be in a position of putting people in harm's way which is how I would see an approval. Now, I've heard the arguments earlier, and I understand them, and I do appreciate them that those other blocks have been allowed to be developed. Yes, they have but putting more people in harm's way isn't a justification.
“It is unfair, because the state and the federal government haven't come together to develop the policy that allows us to deal with these legacy issues of developments in areas that are subject to hazards.
“And until such time as we have policy direction and those sorts of things on retreat and stopping further densification of development in hazardous areas, then we're going to continue to have these problems and they're going to rattle around through VCAT and all these other places probably come out with very bad outcomes I expect.
“I heard an esteemed colleague say the other day that we're dealing with the inundation and coastal erosion issue one planning application at a time. And that is right, and it shouldn't be the case.
“We are here because of a lack of policy direction from the state government and the federal government, more so from a different perspective but we need leadership here. Local Government cannot handle it, so that's why I'm recommending to knock this back but in the event there isn't support the substantive motion, I move this and believe it's the way we should go.”
Cr David Rooks, who seconded Cr Whelan’s motion, said he also felt frustrated about the lack of consistency from Melbourne Water.
“We should not be approving applications,” he said, “that will be dealing with rising water levels in the future.”
Cr Brett Tessari, who said he had always been one to support housing and development also supported the refusal motion.
“It frustrates me that we are being put in this position, but this is obviously in a flood zone that is going to go under very, very early as sea levels rise.”
He said Melbourne Water had “completely dropped the ball on this one”.
“I feel so sorry for the owners of the land because they must be sitting there shaking their heads when they look around them and there are houses everywhere but we’re refusing to allow them to build… but it just doesn’t make sense to be approving a house, not that may be under water, it is going to be under water.”
Cr Halstead also agreed it was the only option in the absence of any direction from government.
But Cr Les Larke disagreed, saying all of the agencies had passed the proposal through and that the property owners were well aware of what they were getting into.
In closing, however, Cr Whelan said a certain amount of sea level rise was already locked in as a result of climate change, which we aren’t doing very well at addressing, and it was time government faced up to it.
The motion to refuse the planning permit passed on a vote of 7:2 with Cr Ron Bauer and Cr Les Larke against.
According to the shire’s planning manager Donna Taylor, the applicant has 60 days to appeal to VCAT.
It’s worth noting that the owners of 42 Bruce Road Silverleaves purchased the 675m2 residentially zoned site in June 2022 for $710,000.
