Attachment 2 - Planning Scheme Amendment C112 – Planning
advertisement
Attachment 2 - Planning Scheme Amendment C112 – Planning Permit Exemptions for Bushland Reserve Ecological Burns – Response to Submissions Number Number 1 Name Submitter position Submitter Submitters Name position Jansen Property No Support 2 Pty Ltd c/Hocking Stuart Comments Officer response: Patrick O’Callaghan, Strategic Planner. Submitter comments No comment Officer Response Support noted Support noted 2 Jenny Collie Support No comment 3 Barbie S Wickiton Support Bushland needs to be burned re: safety Support noted and replanting 4 Melva & McClure 5 Ken Rendell Support Concerned about the previously planned The specific date for future burns is outside the scope of what the Long Hollow Reserve burn being stopped. amendment proposes and knowledge of burn program. When can this burn be carried out? 6 Helen Vaughan Support Happy to trust Council position. Hopes all future burns are in autumn, so burns don't take place in prime nesting periods. Concern with spraying that occurs in spring and it might be toxic for nesting birds. Amendment C112 seeks to remove planning permit requirements for ecologic burns and the removal of non-locally indigenous species. This comment falls outside of the ambit of the Amendment and is a management issue. 7 Victoria Stopp Support No comment Support noted 8 Daphne Standish Support No comment Support noted Alister Support No comment Support noted Attachment 2 - Planning Scheme Amendment C112 – Planning Permit Exemptions for Bushland Reserve Ecological Burns – Response to Submissions Number Name Submitter position Comments Officer response: Patrick O’Callaghan, Strategic Planner. 9 Kenneth Dobson Support Has witnessed the last two burn offs in Support noted. Balcombe Park, prior preparations to burns have removed and collected many old trees which inhibit the growth of smaller species. Considers the presence of MFB essential during each Burn. The vast improvement in the two areas covered by the last burn off speaks for itself. 10 Tony Manning Support Strongly support. The foreshore reserve is outside the scope of Amendment C112. Wishes to remove tea tree along the foreshore also. 11 Dr Derek Griffiths Support Has asked a series of questions about who plans the burns, who carries out the burns and what their experience and qualifications are. Where can I see the health and safety plan for the burns and what controls are in place to ensure the plan works? 12 Robert B Dun Support What is proposed seems a good approach Support noted to reduce admin burden 13 James J Andrews Support I value the heathlands and appreciate any Support noted activity to enhance them Support noted. Amendment C112 seeks to remove planning permit requirements for ecologic burns and the removal of non-locally indigenous species. The Amendment is not altering the method employed by Council’s Ecological Burn Policy. The questions have been referred to the relevant Council Department. Attachment 2 - Planning Scheme Amendment C112 – Planning Permit Exemptions for Bushland Reserve Ecological Burns – Response to Submissions Number Name Submitter position Comments 14 David Kirton Support No comment Support noted 15 Cristopher Smith Support No comment Support noted 16 Valerie M Divers Support No comment Support noted 17 Olive Anne Evans Support Happy to support has been a long time Support noted coming. 18 Faye Buller Support No comment Support noted 19 Stan & Mangalson Jane Support No comment Support noted 20 Mr C.R. Taylor Support No comment Support noted 21 Valda Mann Support Indigenous people have burnt off as part Support noted of their ritual and then the new growth appears as new life 22 Patricia Smith Support She is concerned that the seven bushland A 'clerical error' resulted in the sheet with reference to the seven reserves were not listed and that without areas being left out of initial mail out. This was rectified and this she feels the community will not be therefore would have been received by those consulted. properly consulted. 23 Stephanie & Gary Support Simmons No comment Officer response: Patrick O’Callaghan, Strategic Planner. Support noted Attachment 2 - Planning Scheme Amendment C112 – Planning Permit Exemptions for Bushland Reserve Ecological Burns – Response to Submissions Number Name Submitter position Comments Officer response: Patrick O’Callaghan, Strategic Planner. 24 S M Barry Support No comment 25 Nigel Murch Support Supports the strategy but would also like Nature strip trees are not for consideration in Amendment C112. nature strip trees in front of his house to The questions have been referred to the relevant Council be inspected and or trimmed. Department. 26 L P & R E Dickman Support No comment Support noted 27 T.E Kendrick Support No comment Support noted 28 Paul De Bruin Support No comment Support noted 29 R & D Irwin Support No comment Support noted 30 M Wolstenholme Oppose No Comment Telephone contact has been received that the submitter believes that Council should obtain a planning permit as residents have to. 31 S. Ruth Pascoe Support No comment None required Support noted Attachment 2 - Planning Scheme Amendment C112 – Planning Permit Exemptions for Bushland Reserve Ecological Burns – Response to Submissions Number Name Submitter position Comments Officer response: Patrick O’Callaghan, Strategic Planner. 32 M Curtis Support Well known that fire is important to Support noted regenerate many Australian plantsControlled burning in George St Reserve have bought a magnificent display of Heathland species up. Previously this area was dominated by coastal tea tree. There is a risk management benefit to controlled burning i.e reduces fuel for wildfires. It is a practice endorsed by state and other Australian Government. Amendment simply removes red tape from current practices. 33 John de C Douglas Support Comments in general support for the Amendment C112 seeks to remove planning permit requirements amendment including reference to the for ecological burns and the removal of non-locally indigenous management of burns and post burn areas species. The Amendment is not altering the method employed by Council’s Ecological Burn Policy. 34 Ralph Edelmaker Oppose No comment. Support noted. 35 Coleman & Erica Support Levin No comment. Support noted. Attachment 2 - Planning Scheme Amendment C112 – Planning Permit Exemptions for Bushland Reserve Ecological Burns – Response to Submissions Number Name Submitter position Comments Officer response: Patrick O’Callaghan, Strategic Planner. 36 Cheryl Edwards Support Ecological burns should occur as it is a Support noted. proven scientific management intervention and is a less intrusive technique. Smoke related problems will be mitigated with appropriate notice as it is short lived and people can go indoors. 37 Jan Lamont Support No comment Support noted 38 Michael Bubuttic Support C/O Cerebrus Developments No comment Support noted 39 Kellie Wills Support No comment Support noted 40 Jean Risely Support No comment Support noted 41 Peter Koutsoumbot Support No comment Support noted 42 Norm Mills Support If the changes provide appropriate Support noted safeguards which they appear to 43 Linda Kirchier Support No comment Support noted 44 Dinesh Rao Support No comment Support noted Attachment 2 - Planning Scheme Amendment C112 – Planning Permit Exemptions for Bushland Reserve Ecological Burns – Response to Submissions Number Name Submitter position Comments Officer response: Patrick O’Callaghan, Strategic Planner. 45 H J Artuhrs Support No comment 46 Kath Fletcher Wants Changes -Is 250 metres Zone to advise residence - The development of the Ecological Burn Policy in 2011 (in enough? consultation with the community), provides the necessary - My Husband is a severe asthmatic? safeguards including the proposal to continue liaising with MFB regarding fire work plans for bushland reserves, establishing a resident notification procedure informed by DOH, EPA Vic, The Asthma Foundation and the DSE. 47 Heather Reith Support No comment Support noted 48 Janette Gallagher Support No comment Support noted 49 William A Adams Support Supports ecological burn for regeneration Support noted of native flora. 50 Damien Carden Support No comment Support noted 51 A Argeres Oppose A Planning Permit is an essential safeguard & process that should be retained. BCC requires ratepayers to obtain planning permits for a wide range of practices to safeguard against shoddy/illegal practices- To ensure Council also go through this process permit requirements should not be done away with. Council is seeking to reduce human and financial resource burden by providing permit exemptions for management of bushland reserves. Council has sound ecological justification for the management techniques to be exempted through the Bushland Strategy (2002) and the Native Vegetation Works program (2008) which contains a list of prioritised management actions for all bushland reserves in Bayside. The development of the Ecological Burn Policy in 2011 (in consultation with the community), provides the necessary safeguards including the proposal to continue liaising with MFB regarding fire work plans for bushland reserves, establishing a resident notification procedure informed by DOH, EPA Vic, The Asthma Foundation and the DSE Support noted Attachment 2 - Planning Scheme Amendment C112 – Planning Permit Exemptions for Bushland Reserve Ecological Burns – Response to Submissions Number Name Submitter position Comments Officer response: Patrick O’Callaghan, Strategic Planner. 52 Jacques Reuuers Support No comment Support noted 53 R.V Fenwick Support No comment Support noted 54 Yvonne Miller Support No comment Support noted 55 Mrs N A & Mr P J Support Bramich No comment Support noted 56 Mrs Joy F Kavanagh Support No comment Support noted 57 Jack Deakin Oppose The amendment is opposed without See response to submission 51 comment. Telephone contact has revealed that the submitter opposes pursuing this amendment as he believes the planning permit process provides a necessary layer of checks prior to ecological. 58 Adam Koch Withdrawn Is concerned that once permit requirements are removed the ecological burns may be subject to poor preparation and therefore present more fire danger to residents. The development of the Ecological Burn Policy in 2011 (in consultation with the community), provides the necessary safeguards including the proposal to continue liaising with MFB regarding fire work plans for bushland reserves, establishing a resident notification procedure informed by DOH, EPA Vic, The Asthma Foundation and the DSE. Altering the Ecological Burn Policy and or procedure's ensuring safety of the burn is outside the ambit of this amendment. Attachment 2 - Planning Scheme Amendment C112 – Planning Permit Exemptions for Bushland Reserve Ecological Burns – Response to Submissions Number Name Submitter position Comments 59 K & R Lansley Support Residents need to be aware of the burn Residents will continue to be notified before burns as per the off periods. Ecological Burn Resident Notification Procedure 60 G & J Storey Support Bushland reserves are a marvellous asset. The foreshore reserve is outside the ambit of Amendment C112. Council needs to do more to eradicate foreshore weeds. 61 MD Baker & Ms M Oppose Hoffmann The amendment was opposed without No further clarification has been provided and the opposition comment. remains Telephone contact was made with the submitter. A copy of the Ecological Burn Policy and Explanatory Report were sent to the submitter seeking further clarification. 62 John Green No comments Support Officer response: Patrick O’Callaghan, Strategic Planner. Support noted Attachment 2 - Planning Scheme Amendment C112 – Planning Permit Exemptions for Bushland Reserve Ecological Burns – Response to Submissions Number Name Submitter position Comments Officer response: Patrick O’Callaghan, Strategic Planner. 63 Lesley Winning Oppose - vehemently opposes the amendment on the grounds that Council is providing one law for itself and another for the community - thinks the amendment will effectively remove the protection of vegetation provided by the vegetation overlay. -the amendment would enable Council staff to remove what they consider to be 'undesirable' native flora and forever change the character of sadly depleted public lands. Council has pursued Amendment C112 in accordance with all requirements of the Planning and Environment Act (1987). Council is pursuing the amendment as it believes the Bushland Strategy, Ecological Burn Policy and its Native Vegetation Works Program establish good justification to exempt proven management techniques for bushland reserves. The permit exemption is only provided when the removal, lopping or destruction of a tree will improve or maintain the area as a flora and fauna conservation site. 64 Angela Berry Support No comments Support noted 65 B. Hage Support No comments Support noted 66 Craig Chandler & Support Diana Agius No comments Support noted 67 Rodie Pty Ltd Support No comments Support noted 68 Mr J & Mrs A & Mr Support I W Harris No comments Support noted 69 Perfect Bay Pty Ltd Support (E.Koss) No comments Support noted 70 A. C Mills Support No comments Support noted 71 T Todisco Support No comments Support noted Attachment 2 - Planning Scheme Amendment C112 – Planning Permit Exemptions for Bushland Reserve Ecological Burns – Response to Submissions Number Name Submitter position Comments Officer response: Patrick O’Callaghan, Strategic Planner. 72 KJ & R E Golding Support No comments Support noted 73 Liz Manning Support No comments Support noted 74 Betty S Harris Support No comments Support noted 75 Somyot Yodmanee Support No comments Support noted 76 Nick Bodi Support No comments Support noted 77 Ren Glasirin Support No comments Support noted 78 R Hayes Support No comments Support noted 79 R Greenwood Support It is an unrealistic requirement for the Support noted Council to spend funds applying for a town planning permit to carry out good maintenance of bushland reserves. 80 Bob Whiteway Support No comments 81 Margaret Putt Support Regular burning is a good policy as native Support noted tea tree is destroyed and does not regenerate. 82 John Abbott Support No comments Support noted Support noted Attachment 2 - Planning Scheme Amendment C112 – Planning Permit Exemptions for Bushland Reserve Ecological Burns – Response to Submissions Number Name Submitter position Comments Officer response: Patrick O’Callaghan, Strategic Planner. 83 B Anrzejeski Support No comments Support noted 84 Jane Saunders Support No comments Support noted 85 Roger Wotherspoon Support No comments Support noted 86 AJ & JA Hardy Support Sounds like good work for the local Support noted bushland 87 K Hedger Support No comments Support noted 88 E Giannakis Support No comments Support noted 89 N & L Gordon Support No comments Support noted 90 R Gluyas Support No comments Support noted 91 C Smitten Support No comments None required 92 Alan Gray Oppose The current arrangement requiring the Council to apply for a planning permit before carrying out an ecological burn adds additional control over the fire safety plans and ecological justifications. Notes periodic burning can have both ecological improvements and fire risk reduction when correctly employed. Reports of ecological test burns carried out during high temperature and dry conditions in the Monash area have Council is seeking to reduce human and financial resource burden by providing permit exemptions for management of bushland reserves. Council has sound ecological justification for the management techniques to be exempted through the Bushland Strategy (2002) and the Native Vegetation Works program (2008) which contains a list of prioritised management actions for all bushland reserves in Bayside. The development of the Ecological Burn Policy in 2011 (in consultation with the community), provides the necessary safeguards including the proposal to continue liaising with MFB regarding fire work plans for bushland reserves, establishing a resident notification procedure informed by DOH, Attachment 2 - Planning Scheme Amendment C112 – Planning Permit Exemptions for Bushland Reserve Ecological Burns – Response to Submissions Number Name Submitter position Comments Officer response: Patrick O’Callaghan, Strategic Planner. indicated the possibility of severe plant EPA Vic, The Asthma Foundation and the DSE. seed destruction rather than stimulating growth. Ecological burns during high temperature and dry conditions seem to increase the short term fire risk to surrounding properties. High winds also increase risk. Bayside climate stats show significant temp reduction from May to September with minimal wind conditions for May and June. Current arrangement provides extra consultation, planning and responsibility rather extra human resource burden on the Council. Strongly support right of Council's Support noted team/citywide bushland team under the thoughtful and caring direction of experts to do the appropriate control measures. 93 John & Margaret Support Waugh 94 B L Legge Support Keep doing a great job!! 95 Nicolle Malini Oppose No need for burn off in built up areas. The safety procedures in relation to ecological burning meet the No matter whether precautions are taken, appropriate recognised standards. fire gets out of control. Support noted Attachment 2 - Planning Scheme Amendment C112 – Planning Permit Exemptions for Bushland Reserve Ecological Burns – Response to Submissions Number Name Submitter position Comments 96 Richard Chan Oppose Because you (Council) consider yourselves above the law, members of the public are still required to apply for a permit. If you don't need to apply then neither should we when maintaining our own gardens. The principle is the same. Council propose to amend Clause 52.17 and Schedule 2 to the Vegetation Protection Overlay. Clause 52.17 does not apply to parcels of land under 4000 square metres and does not apply to most private residential lots. The VPO2 applies only to bushland reserves. Through existing processes which have been the subject of community consultation, including the; Bushland Strategy (establishing the strategic basis for the use of fire to regenerate the bushland flora); the Ecological Burn and Post Burn Management policy; and the ecological burn resident notification procedure (internal policy), Council has significant support for the management practices and existing processes which make applying for a planning permit an administrative burden the amendment seeks to remove. 97 Sandra Mast Bernie O'Brien Sounds logical! Support noted. 98 John Hunt Support No comments Support noted. 99 Linda Weiss Support No comments Support noted. 100 Patricia Glazier Support No comments Support noted 101 Judy Williams Support No comments Support noted & Support Officer response: Patrick O’Callaghan, Strategic Planner. Attachment 2 - Planning Scheme Amendment C112 – Planning Permit Exemptions for Bushland Reserve Ecological Burns – Response to Submissions Number Name Submitter position Comments 102 Rob Carseldine Support No comments Support noted 103 Paul Weir Support No comments Support noted 104 Jennifer Buck Support No comments Support noted 105 Geoffrey Goode Support Amendment is justified and will assist Support noted better management of Bayside's bushland reserves for the specific purposes that are well expressed in the management plans that Bayside City Council has produced and publicised. 106 Rosa Zouzoulas Support Team leader Strategic Planning Kingston City Council No objection Officer response: Patrick O’Callaghan, Strategic Planner. Support noted Attachment 2 - Planning Scheme Amendment C112 – Planning Permit Exemptions for Bushland Reserve Ecological Burns – Response to Submissions Number Name Submitter position Comments Officer response: Patrick O’Callaghan, Strategic Planner. 107 Sam Loizou Oppose Strongly oppose the exemption as there are processes that must be followed and why should Council be exempted from these permit exemptions? Requests clarification on the frequency of burns. Burning in bushland will be a continuous disruption to the area and devalue properties. In some cases eco burns may have a negative impact on the quality of native veg. Vegetation may benefit from excluding fire to allow elements of the native vegetation to recover, mature and set seed. Have any of the reserves been subjected to a fire in the last 30 years? Has analysis of the affect it (burns) will have on the animals in the reserves? 108 Janette Frazer Support Provided Council looks after areas listed in - Council will continue to manage Bushland reserves as per existing the way that they have done in the past policy and Native Vegetation works program 109 Sau Ying Lam Support No comments Through existing processes which have been the subject of community consultation, including the; Bushland Strategy (establishing the strategic basis for the use of fire to regenerate the bushland flora); the Ecological Burn and Post Burn Management policy; and the ecological burn resident notification procedure (internal policy), Council has significant support for the management practices and existing processes which make applying for a planning permit an administrative burden the amendment seeks to remove. Currently budget dictates that 1 burn of 1000 sq m takes place per year. (Generally this results in each of the seven bushland reserves being subject to an eco burn once every seven (7) years. The impact of ecological burns on property value is outside the ambit of Amendment C112. In any case the low frequency of burns and lack of causal link between ecological burns and property value further dismisses its relevance to this amendment. A suitable fire regime is necessary to the ongoing health and management of the particular Ecological Vegetation Classes (EVC's) that are indigenous to the bushland reserves. Ecological burns have been use as a management tool in Bayside since 1984. Support noted Attachment 2 - Planning Scheme Amendment C112 – Planning Permit Exemptions for Bushland Reserve Ecological Burns – Response to Submissions Number Name Submitter position Comments 110 Robert Saunders Wants changes 111 Beaumaris Conservation Society Support Fully supports the proposal as long as is carried out within the approved management plan. Eco burns and removal of native weed species are established practices in natural resource management that are vital to bushland health. Management plans, Bushland Strategy (2002) and the Ecological Burn and Post Burn Management Policy adopted in June 2011 should also be made Incorporated Documents in the Planning Scheme. Society recognises the need to remove non-locally indigenous or vegetation that is not part of the specific vegetation for which the reserve is being maintained. BCS was an original proponent for the creation of the Gramatan Ave Heathland Sanctuary - it leased this land from 1960 1990 and removed most of the invasive Coastal Tea Tree. Society has respect for the component and well-qualified staff that have been managing Bayside’s excellent bushland reserves. Current requirement for a permit for removal of inappropriate species from the reserves produces an unnecessary impediment to good management. Officer response: Patrick O’Callaghan, Strategic Planner. -The incorporation of any of these documents in the Bayside Planning Scheme is not a recommended approach. These policies and strategies were produced to manage the bushland reserves as part of Council's role as the public land manager and are not in the appropriate form to be incorporated in the Bayside Planning Scheme. Support noted Attachment 2 - Planning Scheme Amendment C112 – Planning Permit Exemptions for Bushland Reserve Ecological Burns – Response to Submissions Number Name Submitter position Comments Officer response: Patrick O’Callaghan, Strategic Planner. 112 Susan e Wright Support I agree it would be a good idea for Council Support noted to decide when and where to burn off. I think McDonald Reserve is a fire hazard and would approve of burning dead timber. Thank you for giving residents the opportunity to respond. 113 Jennifer Johnson Support No comments 114 Lynette Fitcher Support Residents within 250 metres must be Support noted advised of a burn so windows can be closed and no washing placed on the line. Can see that this is a good way of conserving the Bayside Bushland Reserves 115 Rob Casament Support - Fully support the amendment and think Support noted that the Council has done a terrific job in managing the Heathland reserves over the last 20 years Support noted Attachment 2 - Planning Scheme Amendment C112 – Planning Permit Exemptions for Bushland Reserve Ecological Burns – Response to Submissions Number Name Submitter position Comments 116 David Oppenheim Oppose Burning in a metropolitan area is a significant event and should be very closely controlled. Affects many people; danger to health; substantial inconvenience and loss of amenity; and contributes to greenhouse gas. Substantial scrutiny and control - even exploration of alternatives - Should apply to each and every proposed burn. Furthermore I do not see why the rules applying to Council should be different to the rules applying to residents. Brighton Council banned residents burning off whenever they wanted decades ago and Brighton Improved immeasurably. Council is seeking to reduce human and financial resource burden by providing permit exemptions for management of bushland reserves. Council has sound ecological justification for the management techniques to be exempted through the Bushland Strategy (2002) and the Native Vegetation Works program (2008) which contains a list of prioritised management actions for all bushland reserves in Bayside. The development of the Ecological Burn Policy in 2011 (in consultation with the community), provides the necessary safeguards including the proposal to continue liaising with MFB regarding fire work plans for bushland reserves, establishing a resident notification procedure informed by DOH, EPA Vic, The Asthma Foundation and the DSE. - Council propose to amend Clause 52.17 and Schedule 2 to the Vegetation Protection Overlay. Clause 52.17 does not apply to parcels of land under 4000 square metres and does not apply to most private residential lots. The VPO2 applies only to bushland reserves. Therefore it is not considered that there is comparison between publicly owned and privately owned land that is being affected by this amendment 117 Luke & Murphy No comments Support noted 118 Susan Raverty, Support Convenor Friends of Ricketts Point Landside Tania Support Officer response: Patrick O’Callaghan, Strategic Planner. Agree that the various savings in time and Support noted money involved by not applying for a permit for each burn is considerable. Benefit of a controlled burn far outweighs the inconvenience sustained by the close neighbours. Prior to undertaking an ecological burn Council should notify affected parties so as Attachment 2 - Planning Scheme Amendment C112 – Planning Permit Exemptions for Bushland Reserve Ecological Burns – Response to Submissions Number Name Submitter position Comments Officer response: Patrick O’Callaghan, Strategic Planner. 119 Marjorie Cumming Support to enable them to undertake coping methods to minimise the effects of smoke which usually only lasts a few hours. No comments Support noted 120 Malcolm Cumming Support No comments 121 Derek Wilson Support Sensible amendment, likely to save effort Support noted and cut red tape. As long as removal is of invasive and/or opportunistic species and removed under guidance of Council's ecological experts, I believe Council should be empowered to implement the burns policy without having to repeatedly seek permission. Support noted Attachment 2 - Planning Scheme Amendment C112 – Planning Permit Exemptions for Bushland Reserve Ecological Burns – Response to Submissions Number Name Submitter position Comments 122 Deb Tate Wants changes 123 Lyndsay Rex Support Support provided that native vegetation removal, destruction or lopping is carried out within the approved management plan for each reserve. Ecological burning and the removal of native weed species are established practices in natural resource management that are vital to promote the health of bushlands. Not necessary for Council to apply for a (planning) permit for these practices, with the resultant administrative costs. Management plans, Bushland Strategy (2002) and the Ecological Burn and Post Burn Management Policy adopted in June 2011 should also be made Incorporated Documents in the Planning Scheme. Logical way to increase Council's efficiency which is in all ratepayer's interests 124 Ian Parsons Support Officer response: Patrick O’Callaghan, Strategic Planner. The incorporation of any of these documents in the Bayside Planning Scheme is not a recommended approach. These policies and strategies were produced to manage the bushland reserves as part of Council's role as the public land manager and are not in the appropriate form to be incorporated in the Bayside Planning Scheme. Support noted I am a friend of several of the Bayside Support noted Reserves and have attended some ecological burns, and later assisted in the maintenance of the resulting rejuvenated landscape and I approve the necessary weed removal, lopping etc. It seems an unnecessary and time wasting procedure to have to obtain planning permission for such beneficial results. Attachment 2 - Planning Scheme Amendment C112 – Planning Permit Exemptions for Bushland Reserve Ecological Burns – Response to Submissions Number Name Submitter position Comments 125 Gregory Mier Support 126 Gerry Kempson Support 127 Amanda Murphy Oppose Essential that Council is empowered to conduct appropriate burns in order to preserve, regenerate and enhance our unique native flora Fire essential for the regeneration of our coastal heathlands. Without burning we will sure lose their biodiversity. As a volunteer working in our bushlands reserves for twenty years I have seen the benefit of burns and the removal of coastal wattles and tea-tree. Any amendment to the requirement to obtain a planning permit to destroy, remove, and lop native vegetation should be applied equally to Council and residents. This ensures there is transparency and probity in Council and resident actions. Officer response: Patrick O’Callaghan, Strategic Planner. Support noted Support noted -Council propose to amend Clause 52.17 and Schedule 2 to the Vegetation Protection Overlay. Clause 52.17 does not apply to parcels of land under 4000 square metres and does not apply to most private residential lots. The VPO2 applies only to bushland reserves. Therefore it is not considered that there is comparison between Council and private land that is being affected by this amendment. Attachment 2 - Planning Scheme Amendment C112 – Planning Permit Exemptions for Bushland Reserve Ecological Burns – Response to Submissions Number Name Submitter position Comments Officer response: Patrick O’Callaghan, Strategic Planner. 128 Brian Octigan Support 129 Allan Cox Support In complete support of the application in Support noted Amendment C112. Waste of time for Council to have to apply for individual permits to remove native weed species prior to every ecological burn. Reserves are priceless to the Bayside community as well as people outside the area. The submitter has read Bill Grimmage book "Biggest Estate on Earth" which put forward the view that controlled burns were carried out by indigenous Australians’. The submitter is of the view ecological burning is necessary to address the previous mismanagement of land. No comment Support noted Attachment 2 - Planning Scheme Amendment C112 – Planning Permit Exemptions for Bushland Reserve Ecological Burns – Response to Submissions Number Name Submitter position Comments Officer response: Patrick O’Callaghan, Strategic Planner. 130 Elizabeth Walsh Support Understand the long term benefit to heathlands of burning cycles. Would like to see simple and sensible information to this effect published so that the general public understands how to preserve Australian flora and fauna. Misinformation needs to be carefully collected and rejected in writing for all to read. Science and common sense need to reign over misrepresentation of the facts 131 Elizabeth Allen Support It is essential to continue with the 'burn Support noted off' program so that we can maintain the indigenous flora in the area. 132 Jennifer Morris Support Permit process will cost time and money. Support noted Reserves and heathland are rare habitats. Ecological burns are essential to ensure seed germination and removal of potential wildfire hazard. 133 Garry Allan Support - Essential that we can do the burns to Support noted preserve the native flora 134 Duncan Richardson Support - Support the amendment as it will save Support noted money and remove uncertainty about proper care of our wonderful bushlands As part of the Amendment Exhibition process Council has provided concise and accessible information on planning permit exemptions, use of ecological burning and the bushland reserves. This was distributed in letters, in the leader newspaper and on Council's website. The submitter may be referring to the misinformation spread in the reserves during the exhibition period of Amendment C110. This matter was dealt with when the submissions to Council were put to Council. Support noted Attachment 2 - Planning Scheme Amendment C112 – Planning Permit Exemptions for Bushland Reserve Ecological Burns – Response to Submissions Number Name Submitter position Comments Officer response: Patrick O’Callaghan, Strategic Planner. 135 Pauline Reynolds Support 136 William Gleadell Support For Council to have to continue to apply Support noted for individual permits to remove native weed species prior to every ecological burn or for weed control is cumbersome and costly. Council have understood for years that certain native species are in fact weeds in some circumstances and have removed them to protect the our established bushland reserves. Council has also used controlled burning to control weeds and encourage regeneration of indigenous species. This is an approved practice supported by DEPI and Ecologists Australia wide, not to mention our original Australians. No comment Support noted 137 Ian Frazer Support No comment Support noted 138 Ken Beadle Support No comment Support noted 139 Kate Burnestein Support Sound environmental management that Support noted shouldn't need a planning permit 140 Kerry Smith Support I support the amendment as long as there is no change to resident notification and assuming that thorough surveys are done to ensure no danger to resident wildlife prior to burning off. The resident notification procedure falls outside the ambit of Amendment C112 and is therefore not being altered. The pre-burn process and the inclusion of measures to mitigate impact on fauna are also outside the ambit of Amendment C112. Attachment 2 - Planning Scheme Amendment C112 – Planning Permit Exemptions for Bushland Reserve Ecological Burns – Response to Submissions Number Name Submitter position Comments 141 Bridget MacNamara Oppose Do not oppose the undertaking of ecological burning on the reserves. However, the planning permit process provides a very sound process for the authorisation and community consultation The proposed amendment documentation and other documentation do not provide any substantial information on why being required to apply for a permit is such an unreasonable burden. There is no documentation provided that supports the need for the exemption that could not be at least equally as well addressed through a permit application for the Council to undertake ecological burns as per the burn plan for the 7 year burn program. The amendment implies that the only statutory approval required is a (planning) permit to destroy damage or remove native veg. However, as the reserves are public land it appears Council will still require a permit or consent under the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act. As consent is required under the FFG Act there does not seem to be a significant reason for the removal of the permit requirement. Officer response: Patrick O’Callaghan, Strategic Planner. Council has existing positions and practices in place that have been developed in consultation with the community. These include the Bushland Strategy (2002) and the Ecological Burn and Post-Burn Management Policy (2011). Council has also developed the Bayside Native Vegetation Works Program which is an operational document for carrying out management techniques including ecological burns. The EBP includes safeguards such as the proposal to continue liaising with MFB regarding fire work plans for bushland reserves, establishing a resident notification procedure informed by DOH, EPA Vic, The Asthma Foundation and the DEPI. To apply for a planning permit in the context of these already well founded procedures is a resource burden on Council. The purpose of the Clause's that are being amended is not to impede the management of these reserves by Council in their role as public land manager. The requirement for consent or more accurately a licence or permit pursuant to the Flora or Fauna Guarantee Act is outside the ambit of what is being considered as part of Amendment C112. In accordance with the Act if works or activities might kill, injure or disturb protected native plants a licence or permit must be obtained from DEPI. The ecological communities present in Bayside's bushland reserves are not those that require this licence however, some of the individual listed plants could be. If any activity was going to potentially damage, injure or disturb a species on the relevant list Councils Environmental department would seek advice from DEPI. Attachment 2 - Planning Scheme Amendment C112 – Planning Permit Exemptions for Bushland Reserve Ecological Burns – Response to Submissions Number Name Submitter position Comments Officer response: Patrick O’Callaghan, Strategic Planner. 142 Helen Williams & Support Dianna Mannigel 143 Colin Turner Support 144 Lydia Judkins Support 145 Russell Kemp Support As a volunteer Friend of Balcombe Park I Support noted think it is crucial that controlled burns can be undertaken when needed 146 Gaile Kemp Support No comment. We are aware it is not practical of cost- Support noted efficient for the Council to have to apply for individual permits to remove native weed species for weed control and before each ecological burn. Council have understood for years that certain native species are in fact weeds in some circumstances and have removed them to protect the our established bushland reserves. Council has also used controlled burning to control weeds and encourage regeneration of indigenous species. We are Friends of George Street and Friends of Bay Road Heathland Sanctuary. I totally support the Council's proposed Support noted amendment. I believe the ecological burns are essential for proper management of the reserves and Council shouldn't have to apply for a planning permit. No comment. Support noted Support noted Attachment 2 - Planning Scheme Amendment C112 – Planning Permit Exemptions for Bushland Reserve Ecological Burns – Response to Submissions Number Name Submitter position Comments Officer response: Patrick O’Callaghan, Strategic Planner. 147 Public Transport Support Victoria PTV has no objections to the amendment. Support noted The amendment will not have an impact on the transport system. 148 Barry Sutton Support No comment Support noted 149 Chris Sutton Support Residents should receive appropriate advanced notice of a burn to prepare if they are vulnerable to smoke. I have no concerns about smoke arising from a burn. I am more worried about the effects of exhaust from increased traffic in Bayside. 150 Margaret Sutton Support No comment Support noted. Council’s Ecological burn policy establishes guiding principles for ecological burning, including notification of surrounding residents prior to a burn. Residents within a 250 metre radius of the burn site will be notified about any burn 6 months, 3 months and 1 month prior to any burn. On the day of a burn residents and affected persons in the adjoining properties will be directly notified that the burn is going ahead and in the event that there is no response a letter will be left at the premise. This requirement will remain unchanged by Amendment C112. Support noted 151 Elizabeth Whittle Support No comment Support noted Attachment 2 - Planning Scheme Amendment C112 – Planning Permit Exemptions for Bushland Reserve Ecological Burns – Response to Submissions Number Name Submitter position Comments 152 Michael Norris Support The Submitter is a Co-ordinator of the Friends of the Bay Road Heathland Sanctuary has previously been presented with awards presentations of awards for his contribution. Native vegetation in the context of these controls means vegetation indigenous to Victoria. The removal of native vegetation is crucial to the ongoing maintenance of the bio diversity of the bushlands. The Vegetation community in the bushland reserves is known as Sandringham heath. The reserves are reputedly an unparalleled example of this vegetation community with the exception of French Island. Removal of entire plants is essential. Examples of unwanted plants include the sweet pittosporum, and Coastal tea-tree which shade out smaller species and are either not indigenous to Bayside or are not indigenous to the bushland reserves. There are a range of other natives to be limited to encourage greater diversity include: Bracken, Kuneza, Hedge Wattle and Black Wattle. Lopping is also helpful in some instances to reduce shade. Removing species to prepare for, and as part of, burns are recognised by the State government and many experts as crucial Officer response: Patrick O’Callaghan, Strategic Planner. Support is noted and several statements are verified as correct including: the definition of native vegetation; the substantial support for caring for the bushland reserves (as evidenced by support for Amendment C112); the importance of various management techniques including removal of non-locally indigenous species and ecological burning. The wording included in Amendment C112 offers sufficient exemptions from planning requirements for the management activities Bayside conducts are intended to improve the area as a Flora and Fauna conservation site. The need for felling or lopping for safety reasons is established in both the VPO and Clause 52.17 there is no need to establish this further. Attachment 2 - Planning Scheme Amendment C112 – Planning Permit Exemptions for Bushland Reserve Ecological Burns – Response to Submissions Number Name Submitter position Comments to proper ecological outcomes arising from burns. There is substantial public support for caring for the bushland. Applying for a planning permit to carry out any of the above activities would place administrative and financial expensive and divert Councillors from other work. There is potential for various delays on minor grounds. Delays can damage biodiversity by enabling the appearance of exotic weeds and changes to the composition of the vegetation. Delays also have safety implications. Perhaps the intent of the VPO2 may not have been to constrain Council, but rather the permit requirement may have been intended for leasees. Suggest that altering the wording from "as a flora and fauna conservation site" to "flora and/or fauna conservation site". It may be helpful to recognise the occasional need for lopping or even felling for safety reasons including in the case of wild fires. Perhaps something like "in accordance with State Policies, relevant Management Plans and other approved Council policies" would reassure the public that removal is authorised. Officer response: Patrick O’Callaghan, Strategic Planner. Attachment 2 - Planning Scheme Amendment C112 – Planning Permit Exemptions for Bushland Reserve Ecological Burns – Response to Submissions Number Name 153 John Hunter Submitter position Ronald Seeking Changes to the Amendment. Comments The amendments should cover the beach reserves. Schedule to Clause 52.17 should refer to any and not all native vegetation. Otherwise the reserves could be totally destroyed. The words by 'burning or setting fire to' should be added to both amendments. The words subject to the health of the residents affected by smoke - here I am thinking of Alzheimer’s residents at Karinya or asthmatics at the George or children at the schools. What notice will be given? Officer response: Patrick O’Callaghan, Strategic Planner. The amendment is not intended to cover the beach reserves, the VPO2 does not apply to that area and Council has not resolved to include them in the amendment. Schedule 52.17 does read any and not all. The planning permit exemptions are intended to apply not only in the instance of ecological burning but also the reduction of species such as Coastal wattle through other means. Council’s Ecological burn policy establishes guiding principles for ecological burning, including notification of surrounding residents prior to a burn. Residents within a 250 metre radius of the burn site will be notified about any burn 6 months, 3 months and 1 month prior to any burn. Also on the day of any burn letter droppers and door knockers will walk surrounding streets to ensure all adjoining properties are notified that a burn is going ahead. This requirement will remain unchanged by Amendment C112. The policy was informed by EPA Vic, DEPI, Asthma foundation and Department of Health Attachment 2 - Planning Scheme Amendment C112 – Planning Permit Exemptions for Bushland Reserve Ecological Burns – Response to Submissions Number Name Submitter position 154 Geoff Wood Oppose. C/O Louise Wolfers Comments Council thinks following due and proper planning process is an excessive waste of time and money. The VPP have been written in a way to ensure native vegetation, in all its forms and locations (except some zones) is not exempted from requiring planning approval. This includes other government agencies including DEPI, Vic roads, Gas Companies, Melbourne Water and other agencies where their utility works and current exemptions do not cover excessive vegetation removal and vegetation works during major utility installations. Vegetation protection provisions have been written to underpin the Victorian Native Vegetation Framework and the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act which protects native vegetation and animals in their native habitats. Bayside has extensive indigenous bushland reserves with significant coastal vegetation. The value of these is recognised by Council in the MSS planning policies. The planning permit exemptions should not take place due to the value of these areas and it could give rise to arbitrary tree clearing and ruin the conservation of the bushland reserves. Officer response: Patrick O’Callaghan, Strategic Planner. The Victorian planning provisions (VPP) have been written with provisions that facilitate exemptions from the planning permit requirements of Clause 52.17 'Native Vegetation'. Examples of approved exemptions are the Knox Planning Scheme which provides exemptions to remove certain species and the Nillumbik Planning Scheme who provided exemptions to "Improve the efficiency of the Nillumbik Planning Scheme by removing unnecessary planning permit triggers for the removal of vegetation. Permit exemptions for Vegetation removal also apply in instances to facilitate infrastructure such as roads. Council appreciates the unique conservation value of its bushland reserves as evidenced through its adoption of the Bushland Strategy (2002) and the Ecological Burn and Post-Burn Management Policy (2011). Council has also developed the Bayside Native Vegetation Works Program which is an operational document for carrying out management techniques including ecological burns. At the core of these policies is the objective of maintaining and improving the conservation of these highly valued areas. The proposed planning permit exemptions do not provide Council an avenue to arbitrarily lop or clear trees. The exemption does not apply unless the removal, lopping or destruction of vegetation can be demonstrated to be undertaken for conservation purposes. Council has adopted policies for managing the bushland reserves in its capacity as the public land manager. Requiring a planning permit to carry out the management techniques, which aim to improve or maintain the bio-diversity of the bushland reserves, requires resources from the ESOS and Statutory Planning Departments. It is also possible that the cost of legal support during a statutory planning process could also be a significant financial and resource burden that is reduced. A further reason the Attachment 2 - Planning Scheme Amendment C112 – Planning Permit Exemptions for Bushland Reserve Ecological Burns – Response to Submissions Number 155 Name EPA C/O Leigh Unit EPA Metro Submitter position Victoria Support Bryant Manager Southern Comments There is existing provisions to manage dead or diseased vegetation that poses a threat to life/property. Suggests Council has not demonstrated that it has adopted a full bushland management approach. Questions who will monitor the appropriateness of Councils actions. The planning controls are the same for all Councils and there are public notification requirements for planning permit applications of Council. In discussions with strategic planning about what the additional cost was for the Council to leave the controls unchanged were told the costs have not been qualified but it will save money on barristers if the Council has to go to VCAT. Council has not determined the need of the amendment and demonstrated cost savings. The motive of the amendment is to eliminate third party appeal rights for planning permits that would be required under Clause 52.17 and Clause 42.02. EPA has no concerns. Officer response: Patrick O’Callaghan, Strategic Planner. planning permit exemptions are required is to effectively manage the reserves. The potential unpredictable delays in the Statutory process could result in missing the appropriate window to conduct a burn or not responding to management needs in a manner timely enough to most effectively promote the bio-diversity occurring in a particular EVC. Support noted Attachment 2 - Planning Scheme Amendment C112 – Planning Permit Exemptions for Bushland Reserve Ecological Burns – Response to Submissions Number Name Submitter position Comments 156 George Bennett Oppose Ecological burns are unsafe and other options exist. Cheltenham Park has unique ecological value and the soil type is different to those found in the heathland areas of Beaumaris. The Bayside Planning Scheme offers insufficient protection to mature vegetation communities compromised of exotic and natural vegetation. Most of the vegetation in Open Space areas of Bayside are the result of colonisation of the land by adventitious species. The Explanatory Report is misleading due to its failure to mention the area is covered by a 'Parks Victoria Fire Zone' and this means there is an increased risk of wildfire. Cheltenham Park may be at enhanced risk due to the proposed regeneration of heathland, the types of vegetation currently present and the close proximity of adjoining uses such as a school. Controlled burns have a history of getting out of control. Does not see proof that burning will be effective. The Explanatory Report seems to suggest that in a controlled burn may not be the method of vegetation control in the VPPs. Officer response: Patrick O’Callaghan, Strategic Planner. Amendment C112 does not specifically approve the practice of ecological burns, which have been carried out within the Bayside area since 1984. Ecological burning is implemented via a policy that Council adopted in its role as public land manager of the reserves. Therefore the safety of conducting burns at certain times of the year and in built up areas falls outside the ambit of Amendment C112. However there is no intention to alter existing safety procedures Council undertakes when conducting ecological burns. Several other comments included in the submissions such as: commentary on soil type, the protection of mature exotic and native tree communities; the existence of adventitious species in Bayside’s Open space are outside the ambit of what is relevant to Amendment C112. Bayside and its former iterations prior to amalgamation have conducted ecological burns since 1984 and they have in the past been conducted safely. The Parks Victoria Fire Zone is not a relevant consideration to the Planning Scheme Amendment process. The Explanatory report does not suggest a controlled burn is not the method for control in the VPPs. The submitter refers to the practice note “Managing Native Vegetation in the planning system”, which does not mention ecological burning. The Explanatory Report states that removing the planning permit requirements (in the context of existing Council policy and practice to manage reserves) results in a reduction in admin and resource burden. The report cites on several occasions the ecological justification for existing practices such as burns. Attachment 2 - Planning Scheme Amendment C112 – Planning Permit Exemptions for Bushland Reserve Ecological Burns – Response to Submissions Number Name Submitter position Comments The Explanatory Report also suggests the reason for ecological burns is cost saving and not sound ecological processes. Officer response: Patrick O’Callaghan, Strategic Planner.
