Community planning services in Glenelg Shire Council : 1998-2005 ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

52 Did the council comply with key legislative, planning scheme and other requirements? CASE STUDY 6: FAILURE TO CONSIDER ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT In early March 2003, the council received a planning permit application for the construction and use of a dwelling on a property located on the edge of Portland Bay. As a reticulated sewerage service was not available to the property, the council sought advice from the Environment Protection Authority (EPA) (14 March 2003) on whether a domestic wastewater system could be used to treat and dispose of sewerage on site. On 1 April 2003, a planning permit was issued. The permit included a condition that all wastes will be treated and disposed on the site in accordance with appropriate Australian standards. The EPA responded to the council’s request on 31 March 2003 (received 2 April 2003) indicating that it had a number of concerns with the on-site treatment of wastewater which included: under the proposal, the effluent envelope would be located within 35 metres of Portland Bay, whereas the EPA’s Code of Practice for Septic Tanks requires a minimum 60 metre buffer between any effluent and any surface water given the size of the block (less than 0.4 ha) and the nature of the sandy soil, it would be very difficult to treat and reuse the wastewater by irrigating on-site as required by EPA’s Reclaimed Water Guidelines. On 8 April 2003, an application was received to install a septic tank on the property. This application was initially rejected by the council on 8 July 2003, but was later reconsidered following the provision of a land capability assessment (August 2003) and other information from the applicant. The proposal was again referred to the EPA. The EPA responded on 31 October 2003, indicating, that following its review of the land capability assessment, it considered that the only sustainable wastewater management strategy for properties located along Portland Bay foreshore was for the properties to be part of a reticulated sewerage scheme. The council again rejected the application on 20 November 2003. The applicant appealed against the council’s decision at the Building Appeals Board on 4 March 2004. The board dismissed the appeal. The council then sought advice on the application from Portland Coast Water (response received 12 November 2003), Western Coastal Board (21 September 2004) and the Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE) (16 September 2004). All of these organisations expressed concern with the proposal.
Did the council comply with key legislative, planning scheme and other requirements? 53 CASE STUDY 6: FAILURE TO CONSIDER ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT – continued In its response, DSE concluded that the proposed development: was contrary to the Victorian Coastal Strategy, and the Siting and Design Guidelines for structures on the Victorian coast located in a high-risk area which is vulnerable to coastal recession and extreme erosion events was deficient as it had no environmental wastewater management plan. The applicant requested VCAT to review the council’s decision to refuse to grant it a permit. On 6 December, VCAT affirmed the council’s decision (of 20 November 2003) and ordered that a permit for the septic tank not be granted. In assessing the initial March 2003 application for a permit to construct a dwelling on the property, the council should have considered: the impact of the proposal on the natural environment in the absence of reticulated sewerage, the capability of the lot to treat and retain all wastewater. As the council was aware of the concerns with the installation of septic tanks on properties located along the Portland Bay foreshore, it is difficult to understand why the application to construct the dwelling was issued before the council received advice from the EPA regarding the installation of a septic tank on the property (a). The council was also aware that properties in the immediate area were accessing underground water supplies to provide drinking water, and that effluent from the proposed septic tank was likely to contaminate these supplies. As the property was located on the foreshore, the council was aware that any development on the property was subject to the Victorian Coastal Strategy and the Siting and Design Guidelines for structures on the Victorian coast. Despite this, the proposal was not referred to DSE until after the permit for the dwelling was approved. (a) On 18 November 2002, the council received advice from the EPA expressing concerns with an application from the above applicant to install a septic tank on a property in the same subdivision along Portland Bay. This application was subsequently withdrawn by the applicant. Source: Glenelg Shire Council, Application no. 044/03, Lot 1, Dutton Way, Portland. Environmental: Case study 7 The following case study illustrates a permit issued by the council for a subdivision which did not accord with the planning scheme or the zone requirements.
Page 1 and 2:
PP No. 162, Session 2003-05 V I C T
Page 3 and 4: The Hon. Monica Gould MP The Hon. J
Page 5 and 6: Contents FOREWORD..................
Page 7 and 8: 1. Executive summary 1
Page 9 and 10: 4 Executive summary 1.2 Overall aud
Page 11 and 12: 6 Executive summary 3. That the cou
Page 13 and 14: 8 Executive summary attempt to res
Page 15 and 16: 10 Executive summary RESPONSE provi
Page 17 and 18: 2.1 Victoria’s planning system Vi
Page 19 and 20: Reform of the planning system Victo
Page 21 and 22: 2.2.1 Council’s planning services
Page 23 and 24: 2.3.1 Conduct of the audit Victoria
Page 25 and 26: Did the council comply with key leg
Page 53: Did the council comply with key leg
Page 79 and 80: 4. Did the council have appropriate
Page 81 and 82: 80 Did the council have appropriate
Page 101 and 102: 5. Did the council effectively mana
Page 103 and 104: 104 Did the council effectively man
Page 105 and 106:
106 Did the council effectively man
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Appendix A. Performance improvement
Page 119 and 120:
122 Appendix A. Performance improve
Page 121 and 122:
Appendix B. Contract for town plann
Page 123 and 124:
128 Appendix B. Contract for town p
Page 125 and 126:
FIGURE C1: AUDIT CASE STUDIES INDEX
Page 127:
Availability of reports Copies of a
show all

Community planning services in Glenelg Shire Council : 1998-2005 ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?