Posted 25/3/14

Amendment C92:  Relevant quotes from the independent Panel's report:

At 3.5 (i) Need for a strategic fire review

• “The Panel’s concluded view, is that no proper strategic fire analysis has been presented which would support this Amendment.” (p36)
• “The Panel was not presented with any cogent argument that a strategic analysis of fire hazard for the township supports the Amendment outcome.” (p37)
• “The Panel does not consider that the amendment is an appropriate response to the State policies at Clause 13.05 [prioritise the protection of human life over other policy considerations]” (p37)
• “In the Panel’s view, adding households to a township in an area of extreme fire hazard is not to prioritise the protection of human life over other policy considerations. (p37).
• “The panel does not believe that a precautionary approach [to fire] is represented by adoption of this Amendment”. (p38)

• “In the Panel’s view, this issue of the absence of a strategic assessment of fire issues is sufficient reason alone to abandon the Amendment.” (p38)

At 3.5 (ii) Prematurity given required zones and overlays review

• “The Panel has some difficulty with this assertion or at least the appropriateness of this Review proceeding on the basis of a claim of it being a response to those studies and policies” [Small Towns Study, Settlement Strategy and Council Plan] (p38)
• “This review of the RO conducted in isolation would appear to be premature.” (p39)

At 3.5 (iii) The Strategic RO Review

• “How the Review was undertaken and the process around it is less than clear.” (p39)
• “There are questions about whether the Review and its follow up were conducted satisfactorily.” (p39)
• “The Panel remains perplexed about the actual process of selection of lots in the Review.” (p39)
• "The selection basis [for candidate lots] is less than satisfactory.” (p40)

• “The Review lacks an adequate level of transparency and rigour to provide that [strategic justification] basis.” (p41)

At 3.5 (iv) Irregularities in the amendment

• “The amendment should not have proceeded to exhibition in its current form.” (p41)
• “It is possible to read the second list together with the introductory notes and come to a different conclusion about a property than if the first list is read together with the notes.” (p41)
• “The Amendment contains a large number of errors, inconsistencies and structural deficiencies and for this reason alone it should not proceed.” (p42)

At 3.5 (v) Is this no growth?

• “In the Panel’s view, the additional lots which might potentially be developed if the Amendment were approved would no represent ‘no growth’ in the township.” (p42)
• “The Panel also considers that describing the increase in developable lots as not representing ‘significant growth’ is a misnomer: any growth is significant in the context of the extreme fire risk of the area.” (p43)

At 3.5 (vi) Precedent issues

• “Despite this infrastructure capacity and economic support which additional town residents might offer the commercial and other facilities, the Panel does not believe this is a basis on which to support the Amendment.” (p43)
• “More significantly, if the Amendment were approved on the basis that it offered such support, the same argument could be made on any number of future occasions for even more numerous dwelling site releases. It would set an unsatisfactory precedent to allow this argument to prevail against other considerations.” (p43)

At 3.5 (vii) Fairness and equity issues

• “With respect to submitters’ properties, it has to be said that many of them seem no less a candidate for possible development than the Amendment lots when looked at from an immediate BAL assessment perspective.” (p43/44)
• “The number of lots for which development controls are now sought to be relaxed is more than double the number that was put on exhibition. There is an issue of transformation to be addressed.” (p44)

• “If it was contemplated approving the amendment with additional properties, the issue of further notice and fairness to others arises.” (p44)

At 4 Overall Conclusion and Recommendation

• “Arguments in favour of the amendment are in the panel’s view considerably less substantial than those against.” (p46).