By Catherine Watson
COUNCILLORS say they have no legal grounds to stop the felling of 44 trees as part of a major redevelopment of a Phillip Island holiday park.
However, they have appealed to the owner to listen to community concerns and minimise the tree loss.
The proposal, lodged by the Park Lane Group for its site at 1805–1825 Phillip Island Road, will replace ageing buildings with 23 new tourist cabins, upgraded parking areas and enhanced bushfire protection measures.
COUNCILLORS say they have no legal grounds to stop the felling of 44 trees as part of a major redevelopment of a Phillip Island holiday park.
However, they have appealed to the owner to listen to community concerns and minimise the tree loss.
The proposal, lodged by the Park Lane Group for its site at 1805–1825 Phillip Island Road, will replace ageing buildings with 23 new tourist cabins, upgraded parking areas and enhanced bushfire protection measures.
Vegetation removal on the site is exempt from permit requirements because it falls within a Bushfire Management Overlay. Bushfire-related elements of the proposal are also exempt from third-party review.
Despite 18 objections from residents, the planning permit was approved at Wednesday’s council meeting.
Several councillors expressed frustration around state planning and bushfire laws that limit councils’ ability to protect vegetation, even in environmentally sensitive areas such as this.
A council officer’s report found the project would modernise the park and improve safety while reinforcing the site’s tourism role. The works largely replace existing structures rather than expanding the park’s footprint, the report noted.
It includes a mix of duplex, single and accessible cabins — 23 units across 18 buildings — along with 32 car spaces and new landscaping, including the planting of 14 trees.
Objectors raised concerns about bushfire risk, overdevelopment in a Rural Activity Zone and the removal of 44 mature trees adjoining the Koala Conservation Reserve.
The officer’s report concluded the redevelopment aligns with state and local planning policy, supports tourism growth and maintains the area’s rural character, describing it as “an orderly and appropriate development outcome” that would strengthen Phillip Island’s year-round visitor economy.
Moving the motion to approve the permit, Cr Ron Bauer said he recognised the environmental value of the trees but urged councillors to consider the broader benefits.
“A hollow tree is as valuable to our environment as a living tree because it provides habitat for flora and fauna. I get it, but we have to look at the forest, not just the trees,” he said.
He pointed to improved accessibility, with five cabins designed for people with disabilities, and employment benefits including construction jobs and an estimated seven to nine ongoing positions.
Cr Tracey Bell acknowledged strong community concern about the removal of mature trees on Phillip Island, and said state legislation created contradictions between vegetation protection and bushfire policy.
“Approving an application that facilitates the removal of 44 trees seems in direct opposition to our strategic direction,” she said, urging the applicant to work with council to retain as many trees as possible.
Cr Mat Morgan said the Bushfire Management Overlay left council with no legal grounds to refuse the application.
“I disagree with the State Government’s blanket approach. It undermines our strategic and environmental objectives,” he said, adding that potential federal environmental protections under the EPBC Act also sat outside council’s jurisdiction.
Cr Jon Temby criticised the applicant’s description of the site as largely devoid of vegetation, noting the upgrade would remove mature trees adjoining the koala sanctuary.
“Our state planning laws need updating,” he said, calling for more nuanced CFA assessments and design changes to maximise tree retention and passive solar benefits.
Despite 18 objections from residents, the planning permit was approved at Wednesday’s council meeting.
Several councillors expressed frustration around state planning and bushfire laws that limit councils’ ability to protect vegetation, even in environmentally sensitive areas such as this.
A council officer’s report found the project would modernise the park and improve safety while reinforcing the site’s tourism role. The works largely replace existing structures rather than expanding the park’s footprint, the report noted.
It includes a mix of duplex, single and accessible cabins — 23 units across 18 buildings — along with 32 car spaces and new landscaping, including the planting of 14 trees.
Objectors raised concerns about bushfire risk, overdevelopment in a Rural Activity Zone and the removal of 44 mature trees adjoining the Koala Conservation Reserve.
The officer’s report concluded the redevelopment aligns with state and local planning policy, supports tourism growth and maintains the area’s rural character, describing it as “an orderly and appropriate development outcome” that would strengthen Phillip Island’s year-round visitor economy.
Moving the motion to approve the permit, Cr Ron Bauer said he recognised the environmental value of the trees but urged councillors to consider the broader benefits.
“A hollow tree is as valuable to our environment as a living tree because it provides habitat for flora and fauna. I get it, but we have to look at the forest, not just the trees,” he said.
He pointed to improved accessibility, with five cabins designed for people with disabilities, and employment benefits including construction jobs and an estimated seven to nine ongoing positions.
Cr Tracey Bell acknowledged strong community concern about the removal of mature trees on Phillip Island, and said state legislation created contradictions between vegetation protection and bushfire policy.
“Approving an application that facilitates the removal of 44 trees seems in direct opposition to our strategic direction,” she said, urging the applicant to work with council to retain as many trees as possible.
Cr Mat Morgan said the Bushfire Management Overlay left council with no legal grounds to refuse the application.
“I disagree with the State Government’s blanket approach. It undermines our strategic and environmental objectives,” he said, adding that potential federal environmental protections under the EPBC Act also sat outside council’s jurisdiction.
Cr Jon Temby criticised the applicant’s description of the site as largely devoid of vegetation, noting the upgrade would remove mature trees adjoining the koala sanctuary.
“Our state planning laws need updating,” he said, calling for more nuanced CFA assessments and design changes to maximise tree retention and passive solar benefits.
“I appeal to Park Lane to modify their plans … or consider expanding onto land that's already environmentally degraded.” |
Cr Tim O’Brien said some residents feared tree removal would leave “a gash in the landscape”, but noted the changes would not be visible from the road.
“I believe there is sincerity of intent by the proponent,” he said, expressing hope the company would continue working with council given the ecological importance of nearby koala habitat.
“I believe there is sincerity of intent by the proponent,” he said, expressing hope the company would continue working with council given the ecological importance of nearby koala habitat.