THE Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) has upheld Whittlesea Council’s rejection of a proposed Hindu temple in Woodstock, saying while a place of worship is appropriate in Council’s Green Wedge Zone (GWZ), inadequate addressing of bushfire risks and agricultural risks was a key reason for the upholding of the decision.
The VCAT ruling said the Bushfire Emergency Plan (BEP) made a number of errors, which ‘makes its reliability and relevance questionable’ – with many residents still scarred from Black Saturday in 2009.
“A number of respondents in their written and oral submissions spoke to the bushfire risk posed to this locality, including their experiences as part of the Black Saturday bushfires in 2009,” they wrote.
Referring to a facility on 330 Grants Road Woodstock, VCAT said there was inconsistent information on the bushfire plan.
“It refers to a cricket/football ground as the primary emergency evacuation area, when no cricket or football ground is proximate to the subject land,” they wrote.
“It depicts on a plan a different assembly area, which is described as being a car park, when no car park is proposed in the area marked on the plan.
“It refers to at least four staff forming the Incident Management Team in the event of an evacuation, when the application sets out that there will only be two staff on site when the place of worship is in operation.
“It refers to the need to evacuate players, officials and spectators, when that is not relevant to the proposal that is before us.
“It refers to the likelihood that many of the attendees of the place of worship will be local residents who can evacuate direct to their own dwellings, when we understand that this proposed place of worship will draw from a regional-level catchment, and not necessarily local residents.”
VCAT referred to Clause 71.02-3 of the Planning Scheme.
“In bushfire affected areas, planning and responsible authorities must prioritise the protection of human life over all other policy considerations,” they wrote.
“We need to be satisfied that the proposal prioritises the protection of human life… before a permit can be granted.”
VCAT rejected an argument which suggested the location in the Green Wedge Zone was inappropriate.
“We are not persuaded by this evidence and submissions, insofar as they address the issue of the locational attributes of the subject land as being fundamentally unsuitable for a place of worship,” they wrote.
“Firstly, a place of worship is a land use for which a permit can be granted in the GWZ.
“Secondly, the Planning Scheme recognises the GWZ as appropriate for a range of land uses, that are Section 2 uses in the zone, subject to the grant of a permit. These include a place of worship. It also does this through policy which does not discourage a place of worship in the GWZ.
“In our view, a place of worship could be appropriate in urban, regional or rural land locations, subject to the policies and provisions of the applicable planning scheme, and the relevant facts and circumstances.
“Despite these broad findings about the land use, we are not persuaded that this proposal for this place of worship will represent an acceptable planning outcome. We find this application to not be satisfactorily resolved.”
Other common objections, including traffic and noise, were also rejected by VCAT.
“We are unable to conclude that the proposal will give rise to unacceptable traffic impacts,” they wrote.
“It appears that noise emissions from the subject land are able to be managed to avoid or minimise unacceptable impacts on the amenity of the area.”
VCAT said, on balance, they could not grant the permit.
“On balance, for the reasons detailed, having considered relevant matters against the applicable policies and provisions of the Planning Scheme, and having had regard to the submissions and evidence, with the benefit of the accompanied site inspection, we are not persuaded that the proposal will result in a net community benefit,” they wrote.
“Council’s decision is affirmed. No permit is granted.”
