By KATH GANNAWAY
YARRA Ranges Council has unanimously rejected a call from the owners of Burnham Beeches in Sherbrooke for a planning scheme amendment that would allow up to 80 hotel villas on the historic site.
The villas would be sold as investment properties to raise funds to complete the overall development, the 11 August meeting heard.
Owners Shannon Bennett and Adam Garrisson had requested that the council seek authorisation from the Minister for Planning to exhibit the amendment as the first step towards the second stage of their major redevelopment of the property.
The proposed amendment would be a change to the current Special Use Zone and facilitate the three-stage master plan including the villas, restaurants, a brewery, spa, concert facilities, agriculture and, in the third stage, the restoration of the original Norris building as a hotel and function centre.
While rejecting the application, the council called gave in-principle support for an amendment that would support the redevelopment of the Norris Building, but not one with “intense residential development” as proposed.
Objectors to the proposal say the hotel villas proposed in stage two are an over-development of the site and a de facto residential development.
But Mr Bennett and Mr Garrisson maintain they want to build 68 villas, not 80 indicated in the council notes, and said they would be strictly hotel accommodation with measures in place to ensure they were not used as owner dwellings.
Betty Marsden, president of The Save the Dandenongs League, spoke against the proposal and was applauded several times as she obviously reflected the views of the majority of people who came off the mountain for the meeting.
She said while stage one, spearheaded by The Piggery Cafe, seemed to be working well, stage two was the problem.
“It is an extremely large development, surrounded by Green Wedge, and is of the type of small-scale subdivision that would not be allowed in that area,” she said.
“It is contrary to everything the council has worked for in the past 30 or 40 years,” she said, adding that it was contrary to the Regional Development Strategy and would set a bad precedent.
Granted extra time to elaborate on “other concerns” Ms Marsden said the effect on the local environment, traffic and access issues and bushfire risk were all issues that needed to be addressed.
“It’s a bit shallow … sounds like a good idea at the time, but lacks detail,” she said.
Ms Marsden also called for the reinstatement of third party rights to object which were removed when the property was zoned ‘Special Use – Major Tourism Development’ several years ago.
“It’s not right that people aren’t informed, and have no right of appeal,” she said.
Mr Bennett and Mr Garrisson defended both their right to call for an amendment, and the proposed villa development, rejecting claims that it was a residential development.
Met with heckling and interruptions from some members of the gallery as they spoke of their vision for the site, the men said the stage two villa plan was an investment opportunity that would fund the Norris Building redevelopment.
Mr Garrisson said the Norris hotel proposal of 150 rooms wouldn’t work.
“We have done a lot of analysis and the way to get the minimum bedroom capacity to make this a viable business is to create extra rooms by building the villas,” he said.
Responding to questions from the councillors, Mr Garrisson said there were a number of mechanisms and restrictions attached to the sales that would ensure that the villas did not become permanent dwellings.
Cr Mike Clarke moved the alternative motion which supported in principle an amendment that would support the redevelopment of the Norris Building, but not ‘intense residential development”.
He said the crucial matter was the extensive nature of the development.
“I believe the intention is genuine and where I see the fundamental problem is in finishing Norris to a high standard,” he said.
He said that, and how to fund it was the significant sticking point.
Mr Bennett told the Mail last week that he believed the purpose of the meeting was lost.
“We were there to seek authorisation to exhibit the amendment and to start the process of community consultation, but it got lost in the scaremongering of a small number of people,” he said.
He said he agreed that more detail was required and said that would come at the planning stage.
The Mail understands there is a community meeting to be held next week to further discuss the issue and Mr Bennett has indicated his willingness to attend.
