REASONS FOR DECISION TO EXERCISE POWER OF INTERVENTION
UNDER SECTION 20(4) OF THE PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT ACT 1987
CASEY PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C188
The Planning and Environment Act 1987 (the Act), the Heritage Act 1995 and the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 provide for the intervention of the Minister for Planning in planning and heritage processes.
In exercising my powers of intervention, I have agreed to:
§ Make publicly available written reasons for each decision; and
§ Provide a report to Parliament at least every twelve months detailing the nature of each intervention.
REQUEST FOR INTERVENTION
1. The Growth Areas Authority (now known as the Metropolitan Planning Authority (MPA)) requested me to prepare, adopt and approve Amendment C188 to the Casey Planning Scheme and concurrently exempt myself from the exhibition and notice requirements of the Act.
2. The request was accompanied by a fully drafted planning scheme amendment and the documented results of a public notification and submission process including changes made to the draft amendment following the consultation.
WHAT POWER OF INTERVENTION IS BEING USED?
2. I have decided to exercise my powers to exempt myself from all the requirements of sections 17, 18 and 19 of the Act and the regulations in respect to Amendment C188 to the Casey Planning Scheme.
3. Section 20(4) of the Act enables the Minister for Planning to exempt an amendment which the Minister prepares from any of the requirements of sections 17, 18 and 19 of the Act or the regulations.
4. In seeking to exercise this power, section 20(4) of the Act requires that the Minister must consider that compliance with any of those requirements is not warranted or that the interests of Victoria or any part of Victoria make such an exemption appropriate.
BACKGROUND
5. The amendment replaces the now outdated Berwick Waterways Development Plan with the Berwick Waterways Precinct Structure Plan (PSP) and the Berwick Waterways Development Contributions Plan (DCP), and implements the PSP and DCP by:
· Rezoning land from Rural Living Zone 2 to Urban Growth Zone 9 (UGZ9);
· Deleting the Development Plan Overlay 1 from the land;
· Inserting Schedule 18 to the Development Contributions Plan Overlay and applying it to the land being rezoned to UGZ9;
· Amending the Schedule to Clause 52.17 to allow native vegetation removal without a planning permit provided it is undertaken in accordance with the approval for urban development in Melbourne’s south east growth corridor under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth).
· Amending the Schedule to Clause 81.01 to include the new incorporated documents “Berwick Waterways Precinct Structure Plan, October 2014” and “Berwick Waterways Development Contributions Plan, October 2014”.
6. The MPA initially drafted the amendment in consultation with Casey City Council and Melbourne Water during the first half of 2014 following advice from Melbourne Water that the precinct could be effectively and safely drained to facilitate urban development.
7. The draft amendment was exhibited for public inspection online and at the MPA and Council offices. The exhibition was consistent with sections 17–18 of the Act. Additionally the amendment was on display at a public information session at the Old Cheese Factory, Homestead Road, Berwick from 4-7pm on 29 July 2014 at which Officers of MPA, Melbourne Water and Council were available for discussion.
8. The MPA directly notified owners and occupiers of land in and adjoining the area covered by the amendment, ministers prescribed in the Act, affected State agencies, consistent with Section 19 of the Act. The notice consisted of a mailed four page colour brochure explaining the amendment in plain English, through plans and cross sections and with a formal description of what the draft amendment proposed. The brochure provided details of: where the amendment may be inspected; how to submit; by which date to submit; the information session; and the direct contact details of two MPA staff and two Council staff. The MPA placed notices of the proposed amendment in the Cranbourne Leader in the week commencing 16 July 2014 and Cranbourne News in the week commencing 17 July 2014.
9. The MPA received twelve submissions addressing the amendment. Seven submissions were received from government bodies, namely Melbourne Water, VicRoads, Public Transport Victoria, the Department of Education and Early Childhood Development, the Office of Living Victoria and the Minister for Water. Casey City Council provided a submission. Moremac Property Group submitted representing a substantial number of property owners in the precinct. Four further private submissions were received from nearby private landowners.
10. Officers of the MPA met with all submitters who requested a meeting and discussed the relevant submissions between August and October 2014. MPA has made changes to the amendment resulting from submissions and those discussions, and it is considered that all issues raised in submissions have been appropriately addressed in the final amendment documentation.
Benefits of exemption
11. The exemption will avoid unnecessary duplication of process, having regard to the extensive informal public consultation process already undertaken by the MPA in relation to the amendment which met the objectives of the Act in relation to notice and exhibition. As a result of that process, the views of interested parties are known and understood, and have been taken into account in the revisions made to the amendment documentation.
12. The exemption also allows the introduction of the new controls in a timely manner.
Effects of Exemption on Third Parties
13. As a result of this exemption the twelve parties who made a submission will not have the opportunity for their submissions to be considered by a panel. However the MPA, together with Council and Melbourne Water, met with all submitters who requested a meeting, and their issues have been considered and dealt with appropriately, including through changes to the amendment documentation.
14. Given the consistency of the amendment with State and local planning policy and the Precinct Structure Planning Guidelines and the absence of outstanding objections from directly affected landowners, I would not expect any further value to be gained from an additional independent review of submission to the amendment.
Assessment as to whether benefits of exemptions outweigh effects on third parties
15. Given the informal public notice and consultation process undertaken by the MPA which effectively mirrored the statutory consultation process under the Act, the fact that the issues raised in submissions have been considered and dealt with (including through changes to the amendment documentation), and the consistency of the amendment with State and local planning policy, I do not consider that further consultation would be likely to result in any further changes to the amendment.
16. Accordingly I consider that the benefits of exempting myself from sections 17, 18 and 19 of the Act outweigh any effects of the exemption on third parties.
DECISION
13. I have decided to exercise my power to exempt myself from all the requirements of sections 17, 18 and 19 of the Act and the regulations in respect of Amendment C188 to the Casey Planning Scheme.
REASONS FOR INTERVENTION
14. I provide the following reasons for my decision to exercise my power under section 20(4) of the Act.
15. I am satisfied that -
Compliance with any of the requirements of sections 17, 18 and 19 of the Act and the regulations is not warranted, as potentially affected parties have been given the opportunity to express their views regarding the amendment through a comprehensive non-statutory consultation process, their views have been taken into account in the preparation of the amendment, and any further consultation would be unlikely to alter the outcome.
SIGNED BY THE MINISTER
MATTHEW GUY MLC
Minister for Planning
Date: 4 November 2014