RYMAN REFUSAL WELCOME, BUT IT’S ONLY THE FIRST STEP

Mornington MP David Morris has welcomed the decision by the Mornington Peninsula Shire to reject a plan to build a retirement village outside the Urban Growth Boundary at Mount Eliza. But Mr Morris has warned that the Shire’s decision is only the first step.

The Council report shows that the Mount Eliza and Mornington communities are overwhelmingly opposed to the development, with 1068 objections lodged, compared with only 33 letters of support. This level of opposition alone should be enough to stop the development in its tracks.

But, at the Council meeting, it was revealed that Ryman has submitted the project for consideration by the State Government’s Building Victoria Recovery Taskforce.

The Taskforce has been set up to bypass normal planning process and “fast track” applications. It answers directly to the Minister for Planning and the Treasurer, and the Minister for Planning alone is responsible for making decisions.

“The Ryman site is already the subject of a proposed rezoning to prevent further urban creep. Despite repeated requests from the Council and myself, the Planning Minister has refused to allow the amendment to protect this land to proceed.”

“The Minister has also rejected a request from me to “call-in” and refuse a permit for the development. He must not now allow Ryman to hide behind a health driven economic emergency to subvert proper planning process.”

“I have written to the Minister demanding he reject this attempt to bypass the planning system, and I will raise the issue in Parliament at the very first opportunity. In the meantime I urge every person opposed to this application to email the Minister insisting he not approve this application.”

The Minister’s email address is Richard.Wynne@Parliament.vic.gov.au

Planning Minister – Call in this Application Now!

MR MORRIS (Mornington) (17:15): (2591) I raise a matter for the Minister for Planning. It relates to a planning application at 60–70 Kunyung Road, Mount Eliza, and the action I am seeking is that he call in the application and reject it.

This is an application for a retirement village. The site is outside the urban growth boundary, but it is an application to facilitate a major addition to the Mount Eliza urban area—with more than 23 000 square metres of floorspace, eight new four-storey buildings, three three-storey buildings, 272 apartments, 362 car spaces, 115 nursing beds and a place of worship to satisfy a loophole in the planning scheme.

As the minister well knows, the Planning and Environment Act 1987 requires the ratification of an amendment which proposes to move the urban growth boundary by both houses of this Parliament. If the application is allowed to proceed, a de facto realignment of the urban growth boundary will have occurred without parliamentary approval.

This is clearly an overdevelopment of the site, but I am not asking the minister to call it in on that basis. If it was simply a matter of reducing the scale of the development, I would leave it to the council and to VCAT. This is a policy matter.

The question that must be asked is not whether the plans that have been submitted are an overdevelopment of the site but rather whether this is an appropriate site for this type of development full stop. Development of a retirement village is only permitted in conjunction with a place of worship.

The description for the relevant clause of the Mornington Peninsula planning scheme, special use zone 2, is private sportsgrounds and religious, health and educational establishments—nothing about retirement villages. Both a retirement village and a residential aged-care facility are only permitted in association with, amongst other things, a place of worship.

If a place of worship is not constructed as part of the development, then those uses would not be permitted. Clearly a place of worship is included in the plan solely for the purposes of obtaining a permit.

The application is contrary to the Mornington Peninsula Localised Planning Statement. It does not reflect the role of the peninsula as endorsed by the state government as an area of special character and clearly distinct from and complementary to metropolitan Melbourne.

Contrary to the statement, this is a linear development between towns. It is an expansion into areas between towns. It will compromise the sense of separation between townships. It will compromise the special character of the area. It is not respectful of the natural environment, the rural landscape or the aesthetic values of the immediately adjoining green wedge.

The arguments used to support this application could be mounted for any parcel of land adjacent to the urban growth boundary. If they are accepted, we would find ourselves very quickly in a situation where that special character of the Mornington Peninsula is simply a distant memory.

In February I asked the minister to authorise amendment C270, which includes this land. He stood in this place and said he would look out for it. More than three months on it is still not authorised.

This proposal is contrary to the intent of the planning scheme. It is contrary to the intent of broader state policy, both current and historic, and it is contrary to the wishes of the overwhelming majority of my community.

Should the Kunyung Road Retirement Village Proceed? No!

Submission to the Mornington Peninsula Shire Council:

I write to object to the granting of a planning permit for the above application.

At 23,322 m², the sheer scale of this proposed development would warrant serious consideration. With eight new four-storey buildings (including the two wings proposed for the historic building), three three-storey buildings, 272 apartments, 362 car spaces,115 nursing beds and a token place of worship; this is a vast development.

While this might be a development intended for older Victorians, this is not a retirement village in the accepted sense of the word. This is an urban apartment development with expansive, and no doubt expensive, water views, and it should be assessed on that basis.

While this is clearly an overdevelopment of the site, I trust the Council will not consider this application an ambit claim. Do not be tempted to reduce the four-storey buildings to three-storey, or perhaps remove a building or two, to lower the density.

The question that you must ask is not whether the plans that have been submitted are an overdevelopment of the site, but rather whether this is an appropriate site for this type of urban development full stop.

As the council is aware, the site is outside the Urban Growth Boundary, yet this is an application to facilitate a major addition to the Mount Eliza urban area. The Planning and Environment Act (Division 3 of Part 3AA) requires the ratification of any amendment which proposes to move the urban growth boundary by both Houses of the Victorian Parliament. If this application is allowed to proceed, a de facto realignment of the Urban Growth Boundary will have occurred without Parliamentary approval.

Additionally, the approval of this amendment would be totally contradictory to established planning policies on the Mornington Peninsula going back to at least the 1970s, and probably longer.

No doubt some will argue that this is a permitted use, so approval should be granted.

However, the development of a retirement village is only permitted in conjunction with a place of worship. The description for the relevant clause of the Mornington Peninsula Planning Scheme Special Use Zone 2 is ‘Private sports grounds, Religious, Health and Educational Establishments’, nothing about retirement villages.

Both “Retirement village” and “Residential aged care facility” are only permitted in association with, amongst other things, a Place of Worship. If a Place of Worship is not constructed as part of the development, then those uses would not be permitted.

Clearly a Place of Worship is included in the plans solely for the purposes of obtaining a permit.

The planning report submitted with the application contends that the proposal is consistent with elements of State Planning Policy (Section 6.1) and the Local Planning Policy (Section 6.2). Those elements appear to have been selected to buttress the case for approval. The report is silent on a range of other relevant policies.

The most glaring omission is the complete lack of reference to the Mornington Peninsula Localised Planning Statement (the Statement).

The Statement, which is adopted State Policy, states on Page 1:

The Mornington Peninsula will be planned as an area of special character and importance with a role clearly distinct from and complimentary to metropolitan Melbourne and designated growth areas…

For this reason, it is necessary to put in place clear policy directions for the long-term benefit of both local communities and the wider metropolitan population. This includes…

  • providing for a clear separation of the Mornington Peninsula from metropolitan Melbourne, preventing expansion of the metropolitan area onto the Peninsula and maintaining the current settlement patterns.

Further:

  • Clause 21 states The character and functions of the towns and villages will be protected and there will be no linear development between towns along the coast or expansion into areas between townships.
  • Clause 24 states Areas of special character, beauty and significance, including areas of strategic importance necessary to maintain the sense of separation between townships will be designated and protected.
  • Clause 26 states All development will be designed to respect and, where possible, enhance the natural environment, the rural landscape and scenic values of the Green Wedge.

The fact is that a number of the claimed benefits of this development, in terms of consistency with the State Planning Policy Framework, relate to broader metropolitan Melbourne, and do not necessarily reflect the role of the Peninsula, as endorsed by the State government, as an area of special character and clearly distinct from and complimentary to metropolitan Melbourne.

Additionally, and contrary to the Statement,

  • this is a linear development between towns,
  • it is an expansion into areas between townships,
  • it will compromise the sense separation between townships,
  • it will compromise the special character of the area,
  • it is not respectful of the natural environment, the rural landscape, or the scenic values of the immediately adjoining Green Wedge.

The development is totally contrary to those aspects of State Policy.

With regard to the Local Planning Policy Framework, the Planning Report references a number of clauses including clause 21.04, 21.06, 21.07, and 22.13 to support the case for the development. These clauses may be relevant if the subject site was in fact part of the Mount Eliza township. It is not, and the application must not be judged as if it were!

The same arguments could equally be mounted for any parcel of land adjacent to the Urban Growth Boundary. If they are accepted, we will very quickly find ourselves in a situation where that “special character of the Mornington Peninsula” is simply a distant memory.

This proposal is contrary to the intent of the planning scheme, it is contrary to the intent of broader state policy, both current and historic, and it is contrary to the wishes of the overwhelming majority of this community.

As I noted above, the question that must be asked is not whether the plans that have been submitted are an overdevelopment of the site, the question is whether this is an appropriate site for this type of urban development at all?

The answer should be an unequivocal NO.

Proposed Retirement Village, Kunyung Road, Mount Eliza

The following letter was sent to all households in the 3930 postcode.

The advertising period for this application expires on 15th May however the Council have confirmed that late submissions, up to the time the application is determined, will be taken into consideration.

I am writing to draw your attention to a town planning application to redevelop the former Mount Eliza Business School site in Kunyung Road, Mount Eliza, into a retirement village. I have taken this unusual step for two reasons:

  • The site is outside the urban growth boundary, and such a development would not normally be permitted in a non-urban area.
  • The scale of development is significant by metropolitan standards, and particularly so by Mornington Peninsula standards.

Should the proposal proceed, it will have a significant impact on the scale and character of both Mount Eliza itself and particularly on the green break between Mount Eliza and Mornington.

The application proposes to demolish the non-heritage buildings on the site, refurbish the mansion, and develop a retirement village with a total footprint of 23,322 sq metres. The application includes construction of:

  •   Two new four storey wings to the existing mansion building.
  •   Six new four storey buildings.
  •   Three new three storey buildings.
  •   362 car spaces
  •   A place of worship.

The buildings will contain a total of 272 apartments, including 115 two bedroom apartments and 92 three bedroom apartments. The mansion building will also house 124 aged care beds.

The application has been advertised, and all submissions will be considered by the Mornington Peninsula Shire Council before they make a decision to approve or reject the proposal. Further details, including all plans and submission forms are available on the Council’s website at:

www.mornpen.vic.gov.au – Planning application: P19/2453
Given the significance of this application I encourage you to have your say on this important issue.