A proposed two-story home in Upper Beaconsfield has been rejected by VCAT due to it requiring more than 550 trees to be cut down.
Cardinia Shire Council previously refused a permit to construct a house and garage at 209 Berglund Road in Upper Beaconsfield.
The development of the 2.38h site was originally deemed inappropriate within existing conservation and bushfire management provisions by the council.
Despite the applicant providing renewed plans with more details in their appeal to VCAT, tribunal member Kerrie Birtwistle upheld the council’s decision, ruling the proposal did not provide an overall benefit worthy of the cost.
The applicant submitted a recent tree assessment report that proposed 573 standing trees to be removed for the development over approximately a 7000 sqm area, 255 of them being native trees that require a permit.
Of the natives, 146 were identified as Green Scentbarks, which are classified as endangered.
If the development occurred, 144 scentbarks would remain at the site, the report argued that this was a considerate decision as these are more mature trees than the ones proposed to be removed.
Due to requirements of bushfire management, 159 of the natives are proposed to be removed to provide a setback for firefighting.
The CFA approved the Bushfire Management Plan on the condition of specific permit clauses around defensible space.
The site is outside the residential township of Upper Beaconsfield, where residential development is not encouraged, but not impossible if deemed a significant benefit to the community or environment.
The area is considered to be of high conservation value as well as significant for native flora and fauna.
Ms Birtwistle ruled the proposal was inappropriate for the zoning, even if it was mostly a result of requirements for bushfire management.
“This modification is directly contrary to the zoning, overlay and policy outcomes sought in the scheme,” Ms Birtwistle said.
The Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action (DEECA) did not oppose the proposal with the application of certain permit conditions around offsets to the native vegetation removal.
Despite this, CFA approval, the applicant’s amended plans and new assessments in response to initial concerns, Ms Birtwistle was not convinced of the proposal’s benefit.
“Whilst I accept that there is benefit to the landowners if a permit is granted, that does not outweigh the costs to the broader community of allowing a dwelling on this site, where such an extensive degree (both quantity and quality) of vegetation is required to support the proposal,” Ms Birtwistle said.
“The proposal has not demonstrated that it will result in an overall net community benefit.”
The council’s decision was affirmed.
