Planning and Environment Panel...

Planning and Environment Act 1987

Panel Report

Wodonga Planning Scheme

Amendment C93

3 January 2014

Wodonga Planning Scheme Amendment C93 Report of the Panel 3 January 2014

Planning and Environment Act 1987

Panel Report pursuant to Section 25 of the Act

Wodonga Planning Scheme Amendment C93

David Whitney, Chair


Contents

Page

1 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 1

2 Gateway Island ........................................................................................................... 3

3 Background ................................................................................................................. 4 3.2 What is Proposed? .................................................................................................. 6 3.3 Planning Context ..................................................................................................... 6

4 Submissions .............................................................................................................. 16

5 The Issues ................................................................................................................. 18 5.1 Should reference to the Master Plan should be removed or retained in

the planning scheme? ........................................................................................... 18 5.2 Is it appropriate to cap the number of accommodation units on Gateway

Island until an emergency evacuation plan is prepared? ..................................... 21 5.3 Other matters ........................................................................................................ 28

6 Conclusion and Recommendations ........................................................................... 29

List of Figures

Page

Figure 1 Google Earth image of Gateway Island. .................................................................. 3

Figure 2 Galleries and workshops in Gateway Village. ......................................................... 4

Figure 3 Landscaped gardens with Lincoln Causeway in background. ................................. 4

Figure 4 Harveys Fun Park on Gateway Island. ..................................................................... 4

Figure 5 Zoning of Gateway Island. ....................................................................................... 9

Figure 6 Section of Master Plan showing areas for accommodation ................................. 12

Figure 7 The areas on Gateway Island within the SUZ1. ..................................................... 13

List of Tables

Page

Table 1 Parties to the Panel Hearing .................................................................................... 2


List of Abbreviations AWC Albury Wodonga Corporation

DEPI Department of Environment and Primary Industries

G‐MW Goulburn‐Murray Water

GIMPR The Gateway Island Master Plan Review 2002

LPPF Local Planning Policy Framework

MFEMP Municipal Flood Emergency Management Plan

MSS Municipal Strategic Statement

NECMA North East Catchment Management Authority

NERWA North East Region Water Authority

SPPF State Planning Policy Framework


Page 1 of 30

1 Introduction

Amendment C93 to the Wodonga Planning Scheme was prepared by the Wodonga Council as Planning Authority.

As exhibited, the Amendment proposes to introduce controls to limit future accommodation development to nominated areas on Gateway Island. In addition it:

amends the Municipal Strategic Statement at Clause 21.08 by deleting the Gateway

Island Master Plan;

amends wording at Clauses 21.08‐2, 21.08‐3 and 21.08‐4 and corrects the numbering

of figures;

amends Clause 21.15 by removing reference to the Gateway Island Master Plan

Review (Coomes Consulting Group 2002);

amends Schedule 1 to the Special Use Zone to require development to be

constructed to withstand the impact of a high velocity flood event, prohibits the

development of residential dwellings on the island and requires that floor levels are

constructed at least 500mm above the 1% ARI flood level; and

introduces a new Local Planning Policy, Clause 22.20 Development – Gateway Island.

The amendment was prepared at the request of The North East Catchment Management Authority (the proponent) and was authorised by the former Department of Planning and Community Development (DPCD) on 31 May 2013 (Authorisation No A02545).

The amendment was placed on public exhibition between 29 June 2013 and 2 August 2013, with 7 submissions received. Submissions from VicRoads, the CFA and the North East Region Water Authority (NERWA) had no objection to the proposed Amendment. Goulburn‐Murray Water (G‐MW) had some minor advisory recommendations but also had no objection to the amendment. The Department of Environment and Primary Industries (DEPI) pointed to mapping anomalies in the amendment documentation.

Two objecting submissions were as follows:

North East Catchment Management Authority (NECMA) who requested: – the removal of the already referenced Gateway Island Project Environmental

Management Plan and that reference be made to the Murray River Environmental Plan No. 2 and the River Management Plan, Wodonga Reach Management Zone, March 2005; and

– the following setback be included within Schedule 1 to the Special Use Zone: A minimum of 30m wide buffer will be applied to all major waterways for all development and applied through the creation of a reserve where practical and when subdivision is proposed. Existing vegetation in waterways and wetlands will be retained.

Habitat Town Planning on the following grounds: – there is no justification for the removal of the Gateway Island Master Plan from

the MSS; – it is inappropriate to place an inferred or stated prohibition within the MSS;


Page 2 of 30

– the grounds for placing a limit on the number accommodation rooms is not justified and there should be no restriction to the number of rooms for tourist accommodation;

– the ability to exclude mineral exploration from the Table of Uses is questioned; and

– works should not be subject to a minimum floor level as stated in the Schedule at Section 3.

At its meeting of 21 October 2013, Council resolved to refer the submissions to a Panel. As a result, a Panel to consider Amendment C93 to the Wodonga Planning Scheme was appointed under delegation from the Minister for Planning on 30 October 2013 and comprised David Whitney (Chair).

A Directions Hearing in this matter was considered unnecessary. The Panel met in the offices of Wodonga City Council on 12 December 2013 to hear submissions in respect of the amendment. Those in attendance at the Panel hearing are listed in Table 1.

Submitter Represented by

Wodonga City Council Mr Timothy Cheetham, Strategic Planner and Mr Bruce Ray Emergency Management Coordinator

North East Catchment Management Authority Mr Tim Loffler

Habitat Planning Mr David Hunter

Table 1 Parties to the Panel Hearing

At the hearing, Council stated that the amendment seeks to:

remove reference to an outdated strategic Master Plan for Gateway Island;

amend existing land use controls to better pursue a future envisaged outcome for the island outlined in a new local policy; and

limit future accommodation development in an interim manner on nominated areas on the island while the issue of island evacuation due to flooding is resolved.

The Panel undertook an unaccompanied inspection of Gateway Island following the hearing.

In reaching its conclusions and recommendations, the Panel has read and considered the submissions and a range of other material referred to it. This includes written submissions and verbal presentations. The following chapters of this report discuss the issues raised in submission relating to the amendment in further detail, with the Panel’s conclusions and recommendation provided in Chapter 4.


Page 3 of 30

2 Gateway Island

Gateway Island is located within the Murray River Floodplain approximately 12 km downstream from Lake Hume. It is approximately 500 hectares in area and is located between the Murray River and the Wodonga Creek anabranch. The island is traversed by a single road named the Lincoln Causeway which links Wodonga with Albury. Lincoln Causeway was previously a section of the Hume Highway.

The island comprises Crown Land and privately held land. To the west of the causeway the island is host to a substantial gravel extractive industry. Council has advised that the licences that apply to the extraction industry have recently been extended to 2021 with options to operate till 2031. On this side of the causeway there are also some water bodies which are used for water sports.

Figure 1 Google Earth image of Gateway Island.

East of the causeway there a number of uses based around tourism including restaurants, a jazz club, art galleries and workshops, wood crafters, the Burraja Aboriginal Cultural Centre and a fun park. A number of these uses are within ‘Gateway Village’. In addition there is a masonry supplies outlet and fortnightly Farmers Market.

Council’s broad vision for Gateway Island is that development of the island be tourism and recreation based.


Page 4 of 30

Figure 2 Galleries and workshops in Gateway Village.

Figure 3 Landscaped gardens with Lincoln Causeway in background.

Figure 4 Harveys Fun Park on Gateway Island.


Page 5 of 30

3 Background

Mr Cheetham outlined the following as background to the amendment:

A request was received from North East Catchment Management Authority (NECMA) on 3 December 2009, following an on‐site meeting with Council officers, to discuss the future development of Gateway Island in accordance with the “Gateway Island Master Plan”. The plan was originally completed in 2002.

NECMA stated it supported the vision for the island which was that upon completion of gravel extraction, lakes for active water sports would be created with surrounding parklands. This support was conditional that development did not include habitable development and caused no adverse environmental effects on the New South Wales side of the Murray River or on the river system itself. NECMA noted that until extraction was completed only a small strip of land between Gateway Village and Harvey Fun Park was open for development and that this would have to take into account flooding and other environmental aspects.

A recent extension of licences to continue extraction operations has been negotiated with the land owners (Albury Wodonga Corporation (AWC)) and this may see extraction operations on the island continue until 2031 if options are exercised.

NECMA was also concerned that Gateway Island presented a strategic risk in so far as it was subject to flooding, potentially subject to flood waters of high velocity and had limited points of access. It believed that the combination of these issues presented an evacuation risk when considering tourism and accommodation type land uses envisaged by the Master Plan and any long term extension of long term accommodation such as dependent persons units.

In 2011 NECMA objected to a planning permit application seeking the development of eco‐accommodation and a function centre on land on the western side of the Lincoln Causeway. This application was never proceeded with.

Council resolved to seek authorisation from the Minister for Planning to prepare the Planning Scheme Amendment C93 at its January 2013 meeting. Ministerial Authorisation to prepare the Amendment was dated 31 May 2013 in accordance with section 8A(3) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (the Act).

The Amendment was exhibited from the 29 June 2013 and concluded on 2 August 2013. Notice of the Amendment was published in the Border Mail on 29 June 2013 and Government Gazette on 4 July 2013. Seven (7) submissions were made, two (2) of which were objections to the amendment. As part of post exhibition consultation with submitters (particularly the objectors), a number of matters raised were resolved resulting in alterations to the exhibited documentation.

Council resolved to proceed with the Planning Scheme Amendment C93 and authorised officers to request the appointment of a Planning Panel to consider the amendment as exhibited under Section 23(1)(b) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 in October 2013.


Page 6 of 30

3.1 What is Proposed?

Amendment C93 applies to land on Gateway Island which is within the Special Use Zone Schedule 1 (SUZ1). The amendment proposes to:

amend the Municipal Strategic Statement at Clause 21.08 by deleting the Gateway Island Master Plan;

amend the wording at Clauses 21.08‐2, 21.08‐3 and 21.08‐4 and correct the numbering of figures;

amend Clause 21.15 by removing reference to the Gateway Island Master Plan Review (Coomes Consulting Group 2002);

amend Schedule 1 to the Special Use Zone to require development to be constructed to withstand the impact of a high velocity flood event, prohibit the development of residential dwellings on the island and require that floor levels are constructed at least 500mm above the 1% ARI flood level; and

introduce a new Local Planning Policy, Clause 22.20 Development – Gateway Island.

3.2 Planning Context

(i) State policy

Council’s submission to the Panel responded to relevant clauses in the SPPF as follows:

Clause 10.04 Integrated decision making. Council stated that the proposed amendment is a practical response to a number of issues across a range of policies. The Gateway Island Master Plan is considered to be out of date and no longer reflective of what development has occurred on Gateway Island. In addition, it is apparent that the existing extractive industry on the western side of the Causeway is likely to continue for many years. Finally, greater research and risk assessment of potential flooding of the island has raised awareness of the need for future development, particularly tourism and accommodation type uses, to be considered in the context of disaster/flood event management. These issues of supporting economic land uses (including transition of uses), responding to potential flooding implications and removing an out dated master plan responds to a broad range of policy and is considered to be an appropriate response in this instance.

Clause 11 Settlement. Council stated that the proposed amendment implements the objectives of Clause 11 as it anticipates future development of Gateway Island and a transition from its current extractive based industry to one of primarily tourism. The amendment seeks to prohibit broader residential development on the island and ensures that as future tourism and recreational opportunities come forward, certain key issues (flooding and response procedures) are addressed prior to substantial development taking place.

Clause 13.02 Floodplain Management. Council stated that the risk management associated with evacuation of a future significant tourism precinct is one of the driving principles in bringing this amendment forward. The capping of accommodation units and consideration of development within the floodplain and future consideration of the natural river system and its importance in any development proposal, properly supports this policy.


Page 7 of 30

Clause 14.02 Water. Council stated that the amendment provides for proper coordination and consideration of catchment management authorities and the flows of the Murray River and its implications on future use and development on the island.

Clause 15.01 Urban Environment. Council stated that the amendment provides for proper consideration of the preservation of life and safety of the community, in the event of a major flood and catastrophic events such as the collapse or destruction of infrastructure.

Clause 16 Housing. Council stated that the proposed amendment seeks to make a dwelling a prohibited land use under Schedule 1 to the Special Use Zone. The environmental factors applicable to the island (flooding, extractive industries), the risk management factors associated with that and the future vision for the island being predominantly recreation, leisure and tourism, does not lend itself to an integrated form of development which includes residential. In such a context, the risk management implications of allowing a typical residential outcome on the land would be unacceptable and it is appropriate to prohibit this form of development.

(ii) Local policy

Council’s submission to the Panel responded to relevant clauses in the LPPF as follows:

Clause 21.01 Planning for the Future. This clause seeks to protect and maintain environmental assets including the Murray River. Council stated that the proposal supports this policy through implementing decision guidelines in relation to environmental considerations appropriate in a Riverina environment.

Clauses 21.03–2 & 21.03‐3 Context for the Municipal Strategic Statement encourages Wodonga to be an attractor to those seeking an improved lifestyle including employment, recreation and tourism assets. In addition the Murray River and its floodplain provide a strong landscape element and sense of identity for the City of Wodonga. Council stated that the amendment supports this broad vision by providing a more definitive process for the achievement of the goals identified for Gateway Island, being a future tourism and recreation hub of State economic and social significance and consideration of the Murray River and overland flow of flood water (environmental).

21.05‐2 Issue – Albury Wodonga identifies Gateway Island as an opportunity to link the cities and provide employment opportunities. Council stated that the amendment does not take away from this vision, instead strengthening it by introducing a Gateway Island specific local policy and providing greater clarity on the issues and way forward through the removal of an outdated Master Plan and clarification on use and development through Schedule 1 to the Special Use Zone.

Clause 21.06‐3 Environment seeks that the environment and its resources be managed in a practical and sustainable manner recognising Wodonga’s location in the upper catchment of the Murray River. Council stated that the amendment supports this policy through introducing the need to consult the Department of Environment and Primary Industries where future development adjoins Crown Land and implementation of environmental protection measures form both policy and zoning considerations.

Clause 21.06‐6 Economic and Social Development seeks to strengthen and diversify the economic base of Wodonga, including through tourism and the attraction of new


Page 8 of 30

investment. Council stated that the proposed amendment supports this policy by recognising the existing extractive industry whilst seeking to manage a future transition to the envisaged tourism and recreational outcomes at appropriate locations.

Clause 21.08‐2 Gateway Island identifies Gateway Island as offering a significant opportunity to provide a tourism, cultural and recreational focal point for the wider Albury Wodonga region. It is envisaged that when fully developed, the island could attract in excess of 200,000 visitors each year and be a top attraction within Victoria. This clause also currently introduces Figure 4 – Gateway Island Master Plan.

Council stated that it is this clause which is subject to review as part of the amendment. The Master Plan is considered to be out of date and no longer reflective of development that has occurred over time within the precinct. With the additional issues of flooding and risk management, it is considered good practice to remove the Master Plan entirely from the planning scheme including reference to specific land use outcomes and locations associated with it. The amendment updates Clause 21.08 and refines the discretion afforded to the types of land uses envisaged for the area and refers back to Schedule 1 of the applicable Special Use Zone. Council believes that until such time as an updated Master Plan is prepared, this is an appropriate outcome.

It is to be noted that under this Clause the strategic actions include:

– Land use and development will be regulated by the application of a Special Use Zone and guided by the adopted master plan for Gateway Island.

– The Gateway Island Project Environmental Management Plan provides the structure for ongoing environmental management of Gateway Island including environmental protection measures which are to be applied to any proposed development.

– Industrial development with the exception of extractive industry will not be supported on Gateway Island.

– Permanent residential development will be strongly discouraged on Gateway Island.

– Commercial and retail development must demonstrate a strong link to the themes and core tourism functions of Gateway Island. Commercial uses, that serve primarily a retail focus and potentially weaken the primacy role of the Wodonga CBA, will not be supported.

Clause 21.09 Environment and Natural Resources highlights Council’s commitment to environmental initiatives (including flooding related) and to support NECMA in its implementation of the North East Regional Catchment Strategy. Council stated that the proposed amendment supports this policy including working in partnership with NECMA to ensure practical measures in reducing flooding risk including a cap on accommodation units and minimum floor levels and construction requirements.

Clause 21.11‐03 Tourism The Wodonga Council recognises the importance that tourism plays in the local and regional economy. The planning scheme seeks to assist in the development and improvement of tourism opportunities that have regard to environmental values. Council stated that the amendment supports this policy through prohibiting inappropriate development and identifying the desired transition from current extractive industry to one based on tourism and recreation. In addition it


Page 9 of 30

argued that the amendment supports the Council’s objective of maintaining the primacy of the CBA in its retail hierarchy by discouraging retail development that may challenge that primacy.

Clause 21.15 Reference Documents. This clause states that the direction and policies that form part of the planning scheme have been influenced by a number of studies and strategies. The Gateway Island Master Plan Review is listed under this clause as a document of particular relevance.

(iii) Zones

The zoning of Gateway Island comprises a range of zones including the Public Conservation and Resource Zone, the Public Park and Recreation Zone, the Farming Zone and the Special Use Zone Schedule 1.

Figure 5 Zoning of Gateway Island.

On the plan, the land coloured dark green is within the Public Conservation and Resource Zone. Land coloured mid green is within the Public Park and recreation Zone. Land coloured light green is within the Farming Zone. The land that sits on either side of Lincoln Causeway coloured lime green is in the Special Use Zone Schedule 1. It is the land within the Special Use Zone Schedule 1 (SUZ1) to which the amendment applies.

The purposes of the SUZ1 are:

To implement the State Planning Policy Framework and the Local Planning Policy Framework including the Municipal Strategic Statement and Local Planning Policies.

To recognise the state significance of Gateway Island as a tourism, recreational and environmental resource and as the gateway to Victoria.

To provide for a range of uses and development compatible with the strategy for Gateway Island and the environmental, cultural, recreational and entertainment themes identified in the Gateway Island project reports.


Page 10 of 30

To ensure that future development in the zone recognises its location on the River Murray Floodplain, the flooding characteristics of the floodplain and the need to safeguard the integrity of the river.

While the last of these purposes relates to the flood potential of land on the island it is arguable that this purpose is not matched adequately enough by the provisions of the Schedule which:

under the use of land decision guidelines requires consideration to be given to the purpose of the zone, the Gateway Island local planning policy (Clause 22.05‐2), the recommendations and findings of the Gateway Island Project Reports and implementation plans and compliance with any Design Guidelines and development control plans for the area; and

under the subdivision and Buildings and works decision guidelines requires consideration to be given to the Gateway Island Local Planning Policy (Clause 22.05‐2) and the preferred layout identified in the Gateway Island Master Plan and Gateway Island Project Reports.

It is significant that these decision guidelines refer to the Gateway Island Local Planning Policy (Clause 22.05‐2) which is a clause that simply does not exist. The Panel has traced the history of the Wodonga Planning Scheme since the introduction of the new format planning scheme in 1999. In so far as it has been able, it has found that with the introduction of the new format scheme Schedule 1 to the Special Use Zone has always referred to Clause 22.05‐2. The planning scheme at that stage contained only a Clause 22.05 Land Conservation and Management and this clause made no specific reference to Gateway Island.

Clause 22.05 was removed from the scheme following a review of the MSS and local policies by Amendment C57 in December 2008.

The reference to Clause 22.05‐2 in SUZ1 is in itself a reason to review the provisions of the Schedule.

Under the Schedule provisions it is significant that accommodation is a Section 2, permit required, use and it is this use which lies central to the issues raised by Amendment C93.

(iv) Overlays

The whole of Gateway Island is covered by a Flood Overlay (FO).

The purposes of the FO are:

to implement the State Planning Policy Framework and the Local Planning Policy Framework, including the Municipal Strategic Statement and local planning policies;

to identify waterways, major floodpaths, drainage depressions and high hazard areas which have the greatest risk and frequency of being affected by flooding;

to ensure that any development maintains the free passage and temporary storage of floodwater, minimises flood damage and is compatible with flood hazard, local drainage conditions and the minimisation of soil erosion, sedimentation and silting;

to reflect any declarations under Division 4 of Part 10 of the Water Act, 1989 if a declaration has been made;

to protect water quality and waterways as natural resources in accordance with the provisions of relevant State Environment Protection Policies, and particularly in


Page 11 of 30

accordance with Clauses 33 and 35 of the State Environment Protection Policy (Waters of Victoria); and

to ensure that development maintains or improves river and wetland health, waterway protection and flood plain health.

Under the provisions of the FO permits are required for subdivision and for buildings and works (with some minor exceptions). Where a local floodplain development plan has been developed for the area and has been incorporated into the scheme, an application must be consistent with the plan.

However where a local floodplain development plan for the area has not been incorporated into the scheme, an application must be accompanied by a flood risk report to the satisfaction of the responsible authority, which must consider the following, where applicable:

the State Planning Policy Framework and the Local Planning Policy Framework;

the existing use and development of the land;

whether the proposed use or development could be located on flood‐free land or land with a lesser flood hazard outside this overlay;

the susceptibility of the development to flooding and flood damage;

the potential flood risk to life, health and safety associated with the development;

flood risk factors to consider include: - the frequency, duration, extent, depth and velocity of flooding of the site and

accessway; - the flood warning time available; - the danger to the occupants of the development, other floodplain residents and

emergency personnel if the site or accessway is flooded; - the effect of the development on redirecting or obstructing floodwater,

stormwater or drainage water and the effect of the development on reducing flood storage and increasing flood levels and flow velocities; and

- the effects of the development on river health values including wetlands, natural habitat, stream stability, erosion, environmental flows, water quality and sites of scientific significance.

Further the FO requires that an application be referred to the relevant floodplain management authority under Section 55 of the Act unless in the opinion of the responsible authority the proposal satisfies requirements or conditions previously agreed in writing between the responsible authority and the floodplain management authority.

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

the State Planning Policy Framework and the Local Planning Policy Framework, including the Municipal Strategic Statement and local planning policies;

the local floodplain development plan or flood risk report;

any comments of the relevant floodplain management authority; and

the Victorian River Health Strategy (2002) and any relevant regional river health strategy and associated wetland plan.


Page 12 of 30

(v) The Gateway Island Master Plan Review 2002 (GIMPR)

This document replaced a 1997 version taking into account a number of regional and local developments including the extension of licences to CSR for the extraction of gravel and sand from the island. The plan included amongst the shortcomings of the earlier plan:

despite having a vision for accommodation the plan provided for no dwellings or other forms of accommodation. Concerns for the implications of flooding had influenced both DNRE and NECMA to foreclose on the option of accommodation on the island; and

the Master Plan did not adequately address flooding issues as they might impact upon Albury or have regard to the Wodonga Rail Bypass and internal Arterial Road impacts on overall floodplain management.

The GIMPR claimed to be a staged 20 year strategy in which the balance between extraction and quarrying progressively gives over to an outcome that is a combination of commercial, residential, recreational, educational and environmental attractions.

The plan is not an Incorporated Document in the Wodonga Planning Scheme but is listed in Clause 21.15 as a Reference Document.

The Panel notes that the Master Plan concentrates largely on the area west of Lincoln Causeway where the major emphasis of development will occur following the extraction operations of CSR. It nominates an area as a Commercial and Accommodation Precinct and a second area as a potential building envelope for commercial/ residential use. This second area would appear to the Panel to lie outside the SUZ1.

This can be seen on the following two plans.

Figure 6 Section of Master Plan showing areas for accommodation


Page 13 of 30

Figure 7 The areas on Gateway Island within the SUZ1.

(vi) The Gateway Island Flood Emergency Review (Molino Stewart 2010)

This review was undertaken for NECMA following its concerns about life safety risks of those on the island and whether it was feasible to accommodate a proposed 200 bed tourist accommodation development given warning times and evacuation routes. The review stated that the Council wanted to sell a parcel of land on the eastern side of Lincoln Causeway for the purpose of tourist accommodation.

The Molino review outlined the history of major flooding of the island which occurred in 1867, 1870, 1916, 1917, 1931, 1956, 1974, and 1975. Further, flooding concerns occurred in 1996 when levels in Lake Hume were reduced as a dam wall safety measure following movements in the dam wall. It was also stated that as the island was in the Murray River’s main floodway it was to be expected that velocities of flood waters would be high across the island in all floods that overtop it.

The review stated that the risks associated with flooding were:

access to and from Gateway Island could be hazardous in floods and evacuation was required before routes were cut;

if people did not evacuate or left the island too late, they could be stranded in high hazard floodwaters which would pose a serious risk to life; and

the current river course of the Murray River Channel could change across its floodplain due to natural geological processes.

The review warned that substantial growth in evacuation traffic would occur if developments outlined in the Master Plan were to go ahead. In this regard it recommended that:

an evacuation plan be prepared for the whole island which is based on the latest flood hydrography, dam failure and road survey data and is developed in conjunction with


Page 14 of 30

the Bureau of Meteorology to ensure warning times are realistic and that the Bureau understands what trigger levels it should be forecasting to;

the plan needs to consider the time needed for emergency service personnel to mobilise and a decision made as to whether that is practical and desirable before it can forecast that evacuation routes will be cut;

each existing and new business develop a flood response plan which is consistent with the overall flood evacuation plan for the whole island;

building floor levels for new developments be built above the 1% flood level;

there is a rising pedestrian path provided from the ground floor of new developments to the Lincoln Causeway; and

total development does not exceed the evacuation capacity of the existing roads taking into account the time realistically needed by emergency service personnel to mobilise.

The review also concluded that before an evacuation plan for the island is prepared, no more than 200 accommodation beds should be approved so that the vehicles evacuating the island would be unlikely to increase over current numbers.

(vii) The Gateway Island Project Environmental Management Plan

The Gateway Island Project Environmental Management Plan provides the structure for ongoing environmental management of Gateway Island including environmental protection measures which are to be applied to any proposed development. The Plan is mentioned in the list of strategic actions under Clause 21.08‐2.

The plan, prepared in 1997 was intended for incorporation in the Wodonga Planning Scheme but this has not occurred. It was prepared to provide a framework to ensure the ongoing protection of the unique floodplain environment which is a core attraction of the total Gateway Island concept. The plan included a series of environmental performance requirements in relation to:

pollution control in surface waters;

air quality;

noise;

soil erosion control;

land filling and landscaping impacts on flooding;

heritage and archaeology;

waste minimisation and disposal;

environmental responsibilities for contractors and tenants;

dangerous goods handling and storage strategy; and

vegetation establishment.

(viii) Council’s Emergency Management responsibilities

Council’s submission states:

The City of Wodonga has emergency management responsibilities as defined within Section 20 of the Emergency Management Act 1986 and Part 6 of the Emergency Management Manual Victoria 2013. One requirement is that Council prepare an emergency management plan. Part 6 of the Emergency Management Manual Victoria (2013) Specific Hazard Planning states:


Page 15 of 30

The Plan need not incorporate the arrangements to deal with specific hazards such as fire, flood, storm etc. However, where they are identified as priority risks, hazard‐specific plans should be developed as sub‐plans. Sub‐plans detail the relevant prevention and response arrangements, and are referenced in the MEMPlan. Where a risk is not as significant, the MEMPlan itself may well contain hazard‐specific plans and information for that risk.

The Gateway Island Precinct Evacuation Plan will be a sub‐plan of the City of Wodonga Municipal Flood Emergency Management Plan (MFEMP). Subsequently, the MFEMP is a sub‐plan of the City of Wodonga MEMPlan.

Council advised that it has engaged an Emergency Management consultant (Mr Bruce Ray) who has commenced a draft of the Evacuation Plan (or sub‐plan). Mr Ray who appeared at the hearing advised that he expected the plan to be completed by the first quarter of 2014.


Page 16 of 30

4 Submissions

The Amendment generated seven submissions from the Department of Environment and Primary Industries (DEPI), VicRoads, CFA, North East Water, Goulburn‐Murray Water, NECMA and Habitat Planning. Only NECMA and Habitat Planning objected to aspects of the amendment.

DEPI whilst having no objection to the amendment drew the Council’s attention to a minor mapping error which Council has undertaken to correct. Goulburn Murray Water similarly had no objection to the amendment but made some advisory recommendations. It suggested that a decision guideline be included requiring all buildings to be located a minimum of 50 metres from the Murray River and Wodonga Creek and its anabranch and that a further decision guideline be added for subdivision requiring that any proposed development must occur in accordance with a Council approved stormwater management plan. The plan must be prepared in accordance with the principles described in Urban Stormwater: Best Practice Environmental Management (Victorian Stormwater Committee, 1999) and be to the satisfaction of Council. It is to be noted that Goulburn Murray Water advised that the recommendations were merely advisory and to be utilised at Council’s discretion. They were not intended to be interpreted as conditional requirements to the amendment.

NECMA expressed concern about reference to the Gateway Island Project Environmental Management Plan in Clause 21.08 stating that it was not a document with which it was familiar. It suggested this reference be removed and that reference be made instead to the Murray River Regional Environmental Plan No 2 of New South Wales and to the River Management Plan, Wodonga Reach Management Zone March 2005. Council has determined to retain reference to the Gateway Island Project Environmental Management Plan and include reference to the approved waterway management plan. NECMA has advised that it accepts this response.

NECMA also requested that the Schedule to the SUZ should include a 30 metre wide setback to all major waterways for all development and that existing native vegetation be retained. Council advised that the 30 metre setback was already included in Clauses 14 and 21 of the planning scheme and repetition was unnecessary. While this aspect of the NECMA objection was not withdrawn, it was not a matter pursued at the hearing. The Panel agrees with Council’s response.

Habitat Planning, a town planning and environmental assessment consulting firm objected to the amendment on several grounds as follows:

the grounds for removing the Gateway Island Master Plan from the Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS) are not justified and hence references to the Master Plan should be retained;

it is inappropriate to place an inferred or stated prohibition within the MSS (e.g. use of phrases “will not be encouraged”, “will not be supported” and “will be prohibited”);

the grounds for placing a limit on the number of rooms are not justified and consequently there should be no restriction with proposals considered on their merits;

the ability to exclude ‘mineral exploration’ and ‘mining’ in Schedule 1 to the Special Use Zone (SUZ) is questioned; and


Page 17 of 30

‘Works’ should not be subjected to a minimum level in Section 3.0 of Schedule 1 to the SUZ.

In subsequent discussion with Habitat Planning, Council accepted the concerns expressed in the 2nd, 4th and 5th dot points above and agreed to modify the amendment accordingly. The Panel concurs with Council’s action in relation to these aspects of the Habitat Planning submission.

It remains therefore that two issues require resolution:

whether reference to the Master Plan should be removed or retained in the planning scheme; and

whether it is appropriate to cap the number of accommodation units on the island until an emergency evacuation plan is prepared.


Page 18 of 30

5 The Issues

5.1 Should reference to the Master Plan should be removed or retained in the planning scheme?

(i) What is the Issue?

As stated earlier in this report the Gateway Island Master Plan Review replaced a 1997 version taking into account a number of regional and local developments including the extension of licences to CSR for the extraction of gravel and sand from the island. The plan included amongst the shortcomings of the earlier plan:

despite having a vision for accommodation the plan provided for no dwellings or other forms of accommodation. Concerns for the implications of flooding had influenced both DNRE and NECMA to foreclose on the option of accommodation on the island; and

the Master Plan did not adequately address flooding issues as they might impact upon Albury or have regard to the Wodonga Rail Bypass and internal Arterial Road impacts on overall floodplain management.

The GIMPR claimed to be a staged 20 year strategy in which the balance between extraction and quarrying progressively gives over to an outcome that is a combination of commercial, residential, recreational, educational and environmental attractions.

The plan is not an Incorporated Document in the Wodonga Planning Scheme but is listed in Clause 21.15 as a Reference Document. It is mentioned in Council’s MSS at Clause 21.08‐2 which currently includes Figure 4 from the Master Plan document and outlines the four main precincts in which recreational, tourism, leisure and business activities are to be encouraged.

Further the clause states under Strategic Actions that land use and development will be regulated by the application of a Special Use Zone and guided by the adopted Master Plan for Gateway Island.

The Master Plan is also mentioned in the Use of land Decision Guidelines under the provisions of Schedule 1 to the Special Use Zone.

(ii) Submissions

Mr Hunter disclosed that while Habitat Planning had made a submission on its own behalf, Habitat Planning had acted for landowners on the island and in particular in respect to the application for the eco tourism project that had not been proceeded with.

It was his submission that whilst the proposed Local Policy titled ‘Development – Gateway Island’ maintains support for “leisure, recreation and tourism businesses including accommodation“ on Gateway Island, the proposed policy lacked the spatial context and detail of the revised Master Plan. He submitted that the revised Master Plan is an extensive and thoroughly researched land use strategy based on a number of relevant specialist reports addressing earthworks, vegetation, geotechnical, flooding and economics. It has been endorsed by all stakeholders on Gateway Island including Department of Natural Resources and Environment, North East Catchment Management Authority, Gateway Island Implementation Committee, Regional Parklands, Albury Wodonga Development Corporation,


Page 19 of 30

City of Albury, City of Wodonga, CSR and the Murray Darling Basin Commission. It is noted that other than NECMA, no other stakeholder has expressed their support for disenfranchising the revised Master Plan.

Mr Hunter’s submission continued as follows:

The current Wodonga Council Plan 2013‐2014 to 2016‐2017 (“the Council Plan”) is developed around three key areas, one of which is Planning for growth and development. Under this title there are a number of actions Council has committed to in order to achieve their strategies. Each of these actions is set for completion within the first, second, third or fourth year of the Council Plan. The action to “develop a strategic plan for Gateway Village and Gateway Lakes precinct” is slated for the third year being 2015‐2016 and to be “presented to councillors by June 2016”.

Given that Council is to complete a new strategy for Gateway Island in the next two and a half years, it raises the question as to why the current revised Master Plan needs to be discarded in the meantime. It is our view that the revised Master Plan remains a relevant planning document for future development on Gateway Island and should remain so until it is replaced.

It was Mr Hunter’s opinion that the appropriate time to remove reference to the revised Master Plan was when a replacement had been completed and adopted. He added that by not doing so would leave a vacuum of clear strategic direction and some loss of control for Council in determining development proposals on Gateway Island in the short term. Under the current planning regime, the revised Master Plan provides Council (as well as VCAT) with the ability to ensure no inappropriate development is undertaken on this strategically important strip of land between Wodonga and Albury.

Mr Cheetham on behalf of the Council submitted as follows:

In its simplest form the amendment identifies that the current Gateway Island Master Plan is outdated and whilst doing so acknowledges that the current extractive industry will be in situ for a considerable period of time. It further acknowledges that whilst the future tourism and recreation outcome remains an important high order strategic goal for the Council and community, it is in an area geographically prone to flooding and management of a human population in such a location should be properly thought through before significant development proceeds. These core principles of the amendment are at the heart of proper and orderly planning and are supported by a broad policy base at both the State and Local level through economic facilitation and protection, environmental consideration and risk and human safety considerations. To put in place what is essentially a more conservative approach to development on the island whilst an evacuation plan is resolved and a new master plan prepared is considered appropriate.

Mr Loffler on behalf of NECMA provided a detailed submission outlining the flood history of Gateway Island, the island’s exposure to flood and the Authority’s assessment as to the minimum extent of planning control that that should apply to development on the island.

Whist this submission did not specifically address the Master Plan and its place in the planning scheme, it provided up to date flood information and the need for an extremely cautious approach to development on the island. It can be inferred from the NECMA submission that development contemplated by the Master Plan could potentially, in the


Page 20 of 30

Authority’s view, pose unnecessary risk in the absence of an evacuation plan for the island that is based on up to date flood information.

The submission stated that the recent Albury City to Greater Hume Flood Study had reviewed the level and extent of flooding for a wide range of flood events taking into account recently completed major infrastructure improvements (Hume Freeway and Railway bypasses) and had suggested that flood levels were up to 200mm higher than the declared levels currently used for planning purposes.

Mr Loffler stated that the presence of upstream storages did little to mitigate the flood potential for Gateway Island as they are not operated to provide flood mitigation. Rather, they pose additional risks by virtue of potential dam safety incidents (as happened in the 1996 flood which led to the need to release water from Lake Hume due to dam safety concerns). He stated that in a probable maximum flood (PMF) situation flood levels would reach RL156.4 metres AHD or about 3.5 metres depth. Dam break scenarios would add a massive 10 metres flood wave depth. Given that the island is in the Murray River’s main floodway it could be expected that velocities would be high across the island in all floods which overtop it. Warning times are typically 8 – 12 hours, although as little as 2 hours for a sunny day failure.

He added that Gateway Island will be almost completely inundated in a 100 year flood event where the shallowest inundation will be around the Gateway Village area. However, the declared 100 year ARI (average recurrence interval) of RL153.5 metres AHD in the Gateway Village area will result in inundation to 0.5 – 0.8 metres depth.

Mr Loffler stated that NECMA’s primary concern is the safety risks associated with all flooding of those on the island and in particular how this risk can be managed if a tourist accommodation development proceeds.

(iii) Discussion and Findings

The Panel has considered the various submissions and finds that the submission by Habitat Planning has some merit in its concern that the removal of reference to the Master Plan in the planning scheme will leave a void in respect to some of the detailed strategic direction for the island depicted in the plan. However, if the Council considers the Master Plan outdated, ostensibly in response to updated flood data and the need for future development to be considered in the context of the need for emergency evacuation from the island, then it is important that the presence of reference to the Master Plan in the planning scheme does not give rise to inappropriate development expectations prior to the preparation of an evacuation plan and any consequent revision of the Master Plan.

The Panel accepts that the amendment, based on the concerns of NECMA, takes an extremely cautious approach. However, there is little doubt that following recent emergency situations across the nation such as severe flooding and fire, it is entirely appropriate that planning schemes take a precautionary approach where risks to life and property are concerned.

Removal of reference to the Master Plan will not alter the policy imperative of making Gateway Island a focus of tourism, recreation and leisure. And it will not remove the ability for development providing tourist accommodation to be considered. It will however, remove the ability to use an outdated document as the basis for supporting a development which may pose an unacceptable risk.


Page 21 of 30

5.2 Is it appropriate to cap the number of accommodation units on Gateway Island until an emergency evacuation plan is prepared?

(i) What is the Issue?

Amendment C93 arose as a result of concerns by NECMA regarding a proposal to develop a tourist accommodation facility on Gateway Island. As a consequence, the amendment, in recognising the concerns about the ability to evacuate people from the island in the event of a flood, seeks to prohibit permanent accommodation on the island and cap the number of tourist accommodation units until such time as an evacuation plan for the island has been prepared.

As exhibited the amendment seeks to restrict the number of rooms on Gateway Island for tourist accommodation to 200. The restriction is expressed in the fifth dot point of Clause 22.20‐3 in proposed Local Policy for ‘Development – Gateway Island’, the third dot point of the purpose of Schedule 1 to the SUZ and the land use table in the schedule as a condition against ‘accommodation’ in Section 2.

(ii) Submissions

In its submission to the Panel, Council stated that following the request by NECMA to amend the planning scheme, Council met and discussed the authority’s concerns in greater detail. As an outcome NECMA advised that it would accept amongst other things, the following:

Schedule 1 to the Special Use Zone to be amended to prohibit future residential development; and

a limit of 200 ‘accommodation rooms’ be included in the zone provisions and this is to be limited to the eastern side of the Lincoln Causeway and on part lot TP314029 at the western side of the Causeway.

In response to the Habitat Planning submission that there were insufficient grounds to place a limit on accommodation rooms, Council determined to maintain a cap of 200 rooms and stated that there would be flexibility on this cap moving forward when an emergency evacuation plan was adopted. The Panel notes however that whilst maintaining reference to the cap in Schedule 1 to the Special Use Zone, it decided to remove reference to the cap in the Development – Gateway Island policy (the fifth dot point of Clause 22.20‐3 of the amendment as exhibited).

Council’s submission stated:

Council has directed its Project Manager – Emergency Management Mr. Bruce Ray to undertake and prepare for approval the Gateway Island Precinct Evacuation Plan. This plan is required to address the issue of evacuation procedures in the event of flooding that will anticipate the potential future tourism based population on the island, in terms of hotel room numbers. It is the absence of this plan that is the driver for the 200 room cap on accommodation units. The completion and implementation of this plan will ultimately drive any future changes in the cap or, indeed, the need for a cap moving forward.

Council’s submission concluded as follows:

... ... that whilst the future tourism and recreation outcome remains an important high order strategic goal for the Council and community, it is in an area geographically


Page 22 of 30

prone to flooding and management of a human population in such a location should be properly thought through before significant development proceeds. These core principles of the amendment are at the heart of proper and orderly planning and are supported by a broad policy base at both the State and Local level through economic facilitation and protection, environmental consideration and risk and human safety considerations. To put in place what is essentially a more conservative approach to development on the island whilst an evacuation plan is resolved and a new master plan prepared is considered appropriate.

Mr Ray advised the Panel that the Gateway Island Precinct Evacuation Plan was being developed as a result of the recommendations contained in the Molino Report. In summary, those recommendations required amongst other things:

an evacuation plan with triggers for evacuation;

existing and new businesses to develop a flood response plan;

changes to building floor levels above the 1% annual exceedance probability (AEP);

installation of rising pedestrian pathways from ground floor of new developments to Lincoln Causeway; and,

total development to not exceed evacuation capacity of existing roads.

It was his belief that limits on room‐based accommodation can best be considered in light of the formal approval of the evacuation plan which he stated was expected in the first quarter of 2014.

Mr Loffler on behalf of NECMA stated that the Authority supported the amendment as exhibited in so far as it prohibited residential development and, in the absence of an overall evacuation plan, limited tourist accommodation to 200 rooms to ensure that evacuation procedures can be adequately planned for and executed in the event of a catastrophic flood event on the island. He added that the intent of the cap was to ensure that total development did not exceed the evacuation capacity of the existing roads taking into account the time realistically needed by emergency personnel to mobilise.

It was NECMA’s view that the 200 room limit could be removed following the development of an agreed overall evacuation plan for Gateway Island should this demonstrate a greater evacuation capacity.

Mr Hunter’s written submission pointed to an apparent confusion on this issue. It noted that under the purpose of Schedule 1 to the SUZ, it was stipulated that the restriction on rooms for tourist accommodation essentially applies to land on the eastern side of the Lincoln Causeway. As exhibited the purpose states inter alia:

To limit tourist accommodation to a total of 200 rooms on the land east of Lincoln Causeway, between Gateway Village and Lot 2 LP48376 and on part of Crown Allotment B46 Parish of Wodonga located between the south boundary of that lot and 80m north of the southern boundary, until the approval of an overall evacuation plan for Gateway Island.

Mr Hunter assumed that that there was no restriction on such rooms elsewhere in the SUZ as it applies to Gateway Island (e.g. the western side of the Lincoln Causeway) but noted that the restriction in the land use table against ‘accommodation’ and ‘motel’ simply makes a broad reference to Gateway Island as the area to which the room limit applies. In this regard he sought clarification of Council’s intentions.


Page 23 of 30

Mr Hunter submitted that if it was Council’s intention to exclude the western side of the Lincoln Causeway from consideration of tourist accommodation development then Habitat Planning would strongly object on the following grounds:

The revised Master Plan clearly supports such development on this land and in fact, prefers the western side of the Lincoln Causeway to the eastern side.

The land on the western side is no more constrained for development than the eastern side (e.g. flooding).

The attributes of land on the western side are more amenable to a tourist accommodation development than the eastern side because of existing vegetation and wetland features.

Council is conflicted because it is the owner of land on the eastern side.

Mr Hunter pointed to the fact that Council was committed to the preparation of both an emergency evacuation plan and a new strategic plan for Gateway Island and that the emergency evacuation plan is to be presented to Councillors by mid 2014. It was his submission that it makes little sense to introduce a specific control in to the planning scheme via an amendment process that effectively will become immediately redundant. He was of the opinion that a more appropriate planning response would be to complete both the new strategy and evacuation plan and then undertake an amendment to the planning scheme to reflect those changes.

In further support of his opposition to the restrictions on accommodation rooms proposed to be introduced Mr Hunter directed the Panel’s attention to the following conclusion in the Molino report:

Evacuation modelling suggests that there would be ample time to evacuate the existing Gateway Island Developments along with the proposed hotel/motel providing the emergency services are ready to issue the evacuation order in sufficient time. Even were the full development for Gateway Island to proceed, and the development on the west failed to evacuate to the north, there should theoretically be sufficient time for everyone to evacuate ahead of the floodwaters if the emergency services are already mobilised beforehand.

In light of that conclusion and the immanent preparation of the emergency evacuation plan, Mr Hunter could not understand why it was deemed necessary to introduce controls in to the planning scheme that limit the amount of tourist accommodation on Gateway Island based on evacuation during a flood.

He added:

In regards to the flooding threat, the Panel should be aware that unlike unconstrained watercourses catering for large catchments, flooding on Gateway Island is highly predictable and to some extent controllable. The uninhibited catchment upstream of Gateway Island is in fact very small because of the near presence of Hume Weir. Flooding on Gateway Island is in fact largely dictated by the amount of water being released from Lake Hume. Except when Lake Hume is full or close to full, flows generated by major rain events in the upstream catchment are generally contained by the lake. With this in mind, there is considerable forewarning of potential flooding downstream of the weir wall and even then the flooding is ‘controlled’.


Page 24 of 30

(iii) Discussion and findings

It is the Panel’s opinion that despite the fact that flooding on Gateway Island might to a degree be predictable and to an extent controllable, it would be unsound planning to ignore the threat of flooding or to allow development to an extent that evacuation of the island at a time of flood could not be guaranteed. And it would be unsound to ignore the fact that flooding of the island had previously occurred as a result of the emergency release of waters from Lake Hume which became necessary following the discovery of movements in the dam wall itself.

The Panel understands the concerns of NECMA and the Council regarding the flooding potential of Gateway Island. It also understands the basis for adopting a precautionary approach in framing appropriate planning policy and controls for the island. Were people’s safety to be put at risk unnecessarily through the approval of inappropriate levels of development, it would be the Council as the responsible planning authority who would largely be held accountable.

The Panel also can understand Mr Hunter’s view that the amendment is unnecessary (or premature) as an evacuation plan for the island appears imminent and Council is committed to the preparation of a revised Master Plan.

In discussing this issue at the hearing, the Panel expressed its concern about the wording of the purpose of Schedule 1 to the SUZ in so far as that purpose attempted to define the areas to which a cap on accommodation beds would apply. It appeared to the Panel that the wording was not in the form of a ‘purpose’ and in addition its reference to particular lots and Crown allotments made it difficult for readily appreciate the land to which the room limits applied. This was borne out by Mr Hunter’s initial confusion as to whether or not restrictions applied to land to the west of Lincoln Causeway.

The Panel expressed the view that the zone purpose should be simply worded to express the fact that one of the purposes of the Schedule was to ensure the safety of visitors on the island by limiting tourist accommodation until the approval of an overall evacuation plan for the island. The Panel considered that reference to particular areas of the island should be included elsewhere in the Schedule and possibly with the inclusion of an accompanying plan.

In this regard it invited the Council, in conjunction with NECMA to consider alternative options for wording the Schedule to achieve the desired outcome with greater clarity. It directed the Council to forward its alternative to Mr Hunter for his consideration and that the parties forward their responses to the Panel.

The Panel has now received the Council’s revised wording and the comments from Mr Hunter. It is clear that the parties are still in disagreement.

Council’s proposal included two options for the wording of the Schedule purpose as follows:

Option 1 (NECMA preference):

To limit tourist accommodation within the Special Use Zone to a total of 200 rooms, prior to the approval by the relevant authorities, of an emergency flood evacuation plan. The 200 rooms are limited to that land shown hatched on the Tourism Accommodation Plan attached to this schedule. (NECMA preference)


Page 25 of 30

Option 2 (Council preference):

To ensure that tourist accommodation at Gateway Island is limited to land shown as hatched on the Tourism Accommodation Plan attached to this schedule.

To ensure that tourist accommodation on land shown as hatched on the Tourism Accommodation Plan attached to this schedule is limited to a total of 200 rooms unless an emergency flood evacuation plan is approved by the relevant authorities.

The plan referred to in both options is shown below.

Council also provided options for the rewording of the condition attached to ‘accommodation’ in Section 2 of the Table of uses in the Schedule to the SUZ.

As exhibited, the wording of the condition is as follows:

Total accommodation room numbers for Gateway Island must not exceed 200 rooms (prior to the approval of an overall evacuation plan for Gateway Island).


Page 26 of 30

The options provided by Council were:

Option 1 (Council preference):

Any tourist accommodation may only be developed on land shown as hatched on the Tourism Accommodation Plan attached to this schedule. Prior to the approval of an emergency flood evacuation plan, tourist accommodation within the Special Use Zone on Gateway Island must not exceed 200 rooms. Following the approval of the emergency flood evacuation plan the 200 room limit may be exceeded in accordance with the emergency flood evacuation plan, but only in the land shown as hatched.

Option 2 (NECMA preference):

Prior to the approval of an emergency flood evacuation plan, tourist accommodation within the special use zone on Gateway Island must not exceed 200 rooms. Any tourist accommodation may only be developed on land shown as hatched on the Tourism Accommodation Plan attached to this schedule. Following the approval of the emergency flood evacuation plan the 200 room limit may be exceeded, dependent on the evacuation limits identified by the evacuation plan, but only in the land shown as hatched on the Tourism Accommodation Plan attached to this schedule.

Whilst the Panel did not specifically seek changes other than in relation to the Schedule purpose, it has considered the above options and the Habitat Planning response.

Habitat Planning responded by stating that as it was unable to reach a consensus with Council on the issue it maintained its objection. It stated that the issue that continues to concern us is what is now clearly Council’s and NECMA’s intentions to exclude without justification the northern part of Lot B46 from having the same opportunity as other land on Gateway Island for accommodation until an evacuation plan is introduced.

Habitat Planning’s response stated amongst other things that no evidence or submission has been made to the Panel justifying the exclusion of the northern part of Lot B46. No investigations have been undertaken or analysis made by either NECMA or Council in instigating the amendment other than a flood risk report commissioned by NECMA (the Molino report) in direct response to a planning permit application by the owner of Lot B46 for accommodation on Gateway Island. While this was true, Habitat Planning neither provided nor called evidence to support its claims in this regard.

Habitat Planning continued by stating that it was concerned that by nominating certain land as ‘no accommodation’, the Schedule to the SUZ will become a de facto planning control used in the ongoing assessment of planning permit applications even after the evacuation plan has been adopted.

The Panel has some difficulty in understanding this concern as the Schedule to the SUZ is a planning control. And it will continue in the ongoing assessment of planning permit applications after the approval of an evacuation plan. But it is clear to the Panel that the 200 room limit is intended to apply only until such time as an evacuation plan is approved.

However, what is not clear to the Panel (and Habitat Planning), is the basis for nominating part only of Crown Allotment B46 as an area suitable for tourist accommodation. There appears nothing on the flooding maps provided by Mr Loffler that would suggest that only the nominated portion of the Crown Allotment is suitable for tourist accommodation. It appears from the documentation provided that a cap on rooms is to be introduced as an


Page 27 of 30

interim measure principally to ensure that the total development on the island does not exceed the evacuation capacity of existing roads.

The Panel acknowledges that changes to the planning scheme are warranted in view of the updated research and flood potential risk assessment which has raised awareness of the need for future development, particularly tourism and accommodation type uses, to be considered in the context of disaster/ flood event management.

Council has taken a precautionary approach by proposing to prohibit permanent accommodation on the island and limiting to 200 rooms, tourist accommodation on parts of the island (as shown hatched on the Tourist Accommodation Plan provided subsequent to the Panel hearing) until such time as an evacuation plan for the island is approved. While this seems sensible in the Panel’s opinion, the Panel cannot see the basis for restricting development west of the causeway to a section only of part Crown Allotment B46. Surely, if the flooding potential of the balance of the allotment is no greater than that of the portion included, then it is not so much the area that is hatched that is important but rather the ability of the road network to enable evacuation and this is controlled by the number of accommodation units rather than the extent of the nominated land.

However the wording it has proposed in respect to the condition pertaining to ‘accommodation’ in Section 2 of the Table of uses in the Schedule, suggests that it is Council’s intention to restrict tourist accommodation to those areas even after the approval of the evacuation plan. Should this be the case then such a restriction may unnecessarily prejudice the preparation of a revised Master Plan.

In respect to the cap on tourist accommodation rooms it is the Panel’s opinion that:

a cap of 200 tourist accommodation rooms can be justified until such time as an overall evacuation plan for Gateway Island is approved.

Council’s decision to remove reference to the 200 tourist accommodation room cap from the Development – Gateway Island policy at Clause 22.20‐3 is supported.

The third dot point in the purpose of Schedule 1 to the SUZ should be reworded. The Panel considers that the wording should a slight variation of the Council preferred option to read as follows:

To ensure that tourist accommodation on land shown as hatched on the Tourism Accommodation Plan attached to this schedule is limited to a total of 200 rooms until an emergency flood evacuation plan is approved by the relevant authorities.

The condition pertaining to ‘accommodation’ and ‘motel’ in Section 2 of the Table of uses in Schedule 1 to the SUZ should be amended to read as follows:

Prior to the approval of an emergency flood evacuation plan for Gateway Island, tourist accommodation may only be developed on land shown as hatched on the Tourism Accommodation Plan attached to this schedule and must not exceed 200 rooms.

The Tourist Accommodation Plan prepared by Council following the hearing should be included in Schedule 1 to the SUZ but should be amended to include the whole of Lot TP314029 (CA B46) in the hatched area in which the limit of 200 rooms is to apply prior to the approval of an emergency flood evacuation plan.

The decision to prohibit permanent occupation on the island by including ‘dwelling’ in Section 3 of the Table of uses in Schedule 1 to the SUZ is supported.


Page 28 of 30

5.3 Other matters

Council has proposed a number of other modifications to aspects of the planning scheme provisions that relate to Gateway Island. Some of these have been further modified post exhibition as a result of consultation with submitters. The Panel is mindful that while the changes proposed to the planning scheme remove reference to the Revised Master Plan and place limitations on accommodation on the island, it is the Council’s desire to continue to promote Gateway Island as offering a significant opportunity to provide a tourism, cultural and recreational focal point for the wider Albury Wodonga region.

Specifically other changes proposed under the amendment relate to the following:

Changes to the wording of Clause 21.08 which are designed largely to remove reference to the outdated Master Plan. The Panel supports these changes.

The introduction of a new Clause 22.20 Development – Gateway Island in the LPPF which is a policy to apply to use and develop land on the island for leisure, recreation and tourism businesses including accommodation. The introduction of this policy as amended post exhibition is supported.

A proposal to require the finished floor levels of all new development to be a minimum 500mm above the 1:100 ARI flood levels. This provision is supported.

Reference to the new Clause 22.20 Development – Gateway Island in the Buildings and works and Subdivision decision guidelines sections of the schedule is variously referred to as both ‘Clause 22.20 Development of accommodation‐ Gateway Island’ and ‘Clause 22.20 Gateway Island Local Planning Policy’. Reference to this Clause should be consistent.

Other inconsequential changes to the provisions of Schedule 1 to the SUZ about which there has been no concern are supported by the Panel.

The Panel also notes that the amendment proposes to remove the Gateway Island Master Plan Review from the list of documents in Clause 21.15 Reference Documents. While this is supported it would appear that several other documents could be referred to as reference documents in the proposed new Clause 22.20. These include the Lustig Report (already mentioned in the clause) and also the Molino Report in view of it providing a great deal of the basis behind the proposed amendment.


Page 29 of 30

6 Conclusion and Recommendations

The Panel concludes that Amendment C93 should be adopted subject to the modifications proposed by Council post exhibition and the further modifications recommended in this report.

In reaching this conclusion the Panel wishes to state that it considered that there was a degree of merit in several of the concerns expressed by Habitat Planning in its objecting submission to the amendment. The Panel understood the concern that the amendment was prepared at a time when Council had committed to the preparation of a revised Master Plan for Gateway Island and when the finalisation of an emergency evacuation plan for the island was well underway. However, the Panel is also cognisant of the fact that the finalisation of plans, particularly where consultation and agreement by multiple authorities is required, can, and regularly do, fail to meet timeline expectations.

The Panel also acknowledges that the planning scheme already contains a number of measures with regard to concerns about flooding. These include the presence of a Flood Overlay over the whole of the island which requires amongst other things, applications to be accompanied by a flood risk report to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

Regardless of the timing of the revised Master Plan and the emergency evacuation plan, and the provisions of the Flood Overlay, the Panel does not believe that the Council can be criticised for taking a precautionary approach in ensuring that its planning scheme can respond to emergency situations that might arise from flooding. For this reason therefore, the amendment warrants support.

With regard to the concern expressed about the land west of Lincoln Causeway designated for tourist accommodation, the Panel agrees with the concerns expressed by Habitat Planning. The thrust of the planning scheme changes (originally sought by NECMA) appeared more about the ability of the road network to enable evacuation from the island, than it was about the specific land from which evacuation may have been required at a time of emergency. In the absence of any evidence to demonstrate the need to restrict this area the Panel has suggested modifications to the proposed wording of critical sections of Schedule 1 to the SUZ and the plan proposed to be inserted into that schedule.

Finally, the Panel wishes to express its appreciation to the parties for the comments they provided following the hearing in their responses to the Panel’s request for assistance in finalising the content of Schedule 1 to the SUZ.

The Panel recommends that:

1 Amendment C93 to the Wodonga Planning Scheme be adopted as exhibited subject to:

a) The third dot point in the purpose of Schedule 1 to the SUZ should be reworded as follows:

To ensure that tourist accommodation on land shown as hatched on the Tourism Accommodation Plan attached to this schedule is limited to a total of 200 rooms until an emergency flood evacuation plan is approved by the relevant authorities.


Page 30 of 30

b) The condition pertaining to ‘accommodation’ and ‘motel’ in Section 2 of the Table of uses in Schedule 1 to the SUZ should be amended to read as follows:

Prior to the approval of an emergency flood evacuation plan for Gateway Island, tourist accommodation may only be developed on land shown as hatched on the Tourism Accommodation Plan attached to this schedule and must not exceed 200 rooms.

c) The Tourist Accommodation Plan prepared by Council following the hearing should be included in Schedule 1 to the SUZ but should be amended to include the whole of Lot TP314029 (CA B46) in the hatched area in which the limit of 200 rooms is to apply prior to the approval of an emergency flood evacuation plan.

d) Reference to the new Clause 22.20 Development – Gateway Island in the Buildings and works and Subdivision decision guidelines sections of the schedule is variously referred to as both ‘Clause 22.20 Development of accommodation‐ Gateway Island’ and ‘Clause 22.20 Gateway Island Local Planning Policy’. Reference to this Clause should be consistent.

e) Consideration being given to including the Lustig Report and the Molino Report as reference documents in the proposed new Clause 22.20 in view of these reports providing a great deal of the basis behind the proposed amendment.

Date post:	01-Feb-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	dolien
View:	215 times
Download:	0 times