By Catherine Watson
A BASS Coast couple wanting to offer joy flights has been given the all clear by the Victorian Civil and Administrative tribunal.
A BASS Coast couple wanting to offer joy flights has been given the all clear by the Victorian Civil and Administrative tribunal.
On Monday, VCAT senior member Ian Potts over-ruled a decision by Bass Coast Council to decline a permit for Michael and Christine Malone to operate the business from a 65-hectare property on the Bass Highway, midway between Wonthaggi and Inverloch.
The couple appealed to VCAT after councillors narrowly voted to decline the permit in September 2017, following about 20 objections from neighbouring residents and others.
Three of the Malones’ neighbours appeared at the two-day VCAT hearing in April and stated that noise from the aircraft operations could affect farming activities and would be intrusive on the quiet rural amenity they enjoyed.
The Malones told VCAT that most of the joy flights, in a four-seat, Cessna 182 aircraft, would be along the southern coast to Wilsons Promontory or over Phillip Island. They called an acoustic consultant to give evidence on the noise levels at various locations during take-off and landing and flight overhead at cruising altitude.
In allowing the permit, Mr Potts found that the Bass Coast planning policy framework encouraged the creation of innovative tourism experiences and nature-based tourism proposals.
He said the proposal provided diversification in tourist attractions, enabled flights from a convenient location on a major tourist road; and relied on the coast line and other natural features of the area.
“These are outcomes that are consistent with tourism planning policy without causing permanent loss of agricultural land.
“Accordingly, while this is not a form of tourism venture that is specifically identified in policy and seeks to make use of agricultural land which would otherwise be contrary to local planning policy, I find that the proposal does not offend such policy.”
The permit allows use of the property for joy flights in a single-engine, fixed-wing aircraft, construction of a hangar/office and waiting room and advertising signs. A maximum of 10 flights a day are permitted between the hours of 8am and 5pm.
Read Ian Potts’ full finding at Malone versus Bass Coast Shire Council.
The couple appealed to VCAT after councillors narrowly voted to decline the permit in September 2017, following about 20 objections from neighbouring residents and others.
Three of the Malones’ neighbours appeared at the two-day VCAT hearing in April and stated that noise from the aircraft operations could affect farming activities and would be intrusive on the quiet rural amenity they enjoyed.
The Malones told VCAT that most of the joy flights, in a four-seat, Cessna 182 aircraft, would be along the southern coast to Wilsons Promontory or over Phillip Island. They called an acoustic consultant to give evidence on the noise levels at various locations during take-off and landing and flight overhead at cruising altitude.
In allowing the permit, Mr Potts found that the Bass Coast planning policy framework encouraged the creation of innovative tourism experiences and nature-based tourism proposals.
He said the proposal provided diversification in tourist attractions, enabled flights from a convenient location on a major tourist road; and relied on the coast line and other natural features of the area.
“These are outcomes that are consistent with tourism planning policy without causing permanent loss of agricultural land.
“Accordingly, while this is not a form of tourism venture that is specifically identified in policy and seeks to make use of agricultural land which would otherwise be contrary to local planning policy, I find that the proposal does not offend such policy.”
The permit allows use of the property for joy flights in a single-engine, fixed-wing aircraft, construction of a hangar/office and waiting room and advertising signs. A maximum of 10 flights a day are permitted between the hours of 8am and 5pm.
Read Ian Potts’ full finding at Malone versus Bass Coast Shire Council.