whittlesea c187 - wollert - unresolved submissions...mtc designation in aurora in the gcp. the...

Whittlesea C187 - WOLLERT - Unresolved Submissions

AMENDMENT C187 - WOLLERT PSP 1070

Unresolved Submissions

Sub. #Affected property /

propertiesIssue Raised

Change to the amendment

requested?MPA Comment / Proposed Outcome ACTION STATUS

1 Catholic Education Office

Melbourne

6) Revised town centre concept - schools no longer co-located Yes -PSP Noted, the MPA and Council are working with Villawood to develop a town centre design that provides a

balanced planning outcome. No action Unresolved - Refer to panel

5 Peter and Anna Sallis 3) If the amendment is not refused, request consideration given to rezoning the light industrial land to

residential.

Yes - PSP Give the location of the site within the quarry buffer, residential development is not considered

appropriate in this area. No action Unresolved - Refer to panel

4) If light industrial area is to remain, request consideration given to creating parkland directly across

from the residential area covering the submitters house and their neighbours. This would improve the

visual and acoustic amenity.

Yes - PSP A direct frontage to an arterial road is desirable for the viability of the a light industrial area, it is

considered that the upgrades to the road with sufficient room for canopy tree planting combined with

on-site landscaping will provide sufficient visual amenity for residents opposite. No action Unresolved - Refer to panel

7 Colin and Pamela Clune 1) Objects to the rezoning of their land to 'local park'. Local park would be better situated within

residential regions within close proximity of residents who have very small backyards. Believes their

property would be more appropriately zoned residential, office park or light industrial.

Yes - PSP This will be amended to be consistent with surrounding applied zoning (C2Z).

Change the amendment Unresolved - Refer to panel

8 Hanson Construction

Materials Pty Ltd.

1) Support the intent of the clause at Section 2.9, however suggest the wording be modified as it is not

possible for a use or subdivision of land to demonstrate compliance with the BPEM for Landfills as they

are not landfills. The following wording is suggested:

"Any application for subdivision, use, and/or development on land within the Wollert Landfill and Quarry

Buffer or the Odour Buffer shown on Map 2 to Schedule 5 to Clause 37.07 must demonstrate to the

satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, (in consultation with the Environment Protection Authority) that

such development will not be incompatible with the Landfill and Quarry given the likely reduction in

amenity from odour, noise and dust associated with the Landfill and Quarry from time to time.

It will not be sufficient for an applicant to rely on the wording of the Landfill and Quarry Permits and

Approvals relating to amenity issues. The applicant must demonstrate that it will take its own measures

to protect its amenity given the proximity to the Landfill and Quarry."

Yes MPA to revise clause 2.9 to outline risk assessment and design requirements to address landfill gas

migration specifically. The potential amenity impacts will addressed by identification of the landfill and

quarry buffer in the PSP plans and by prohibiting or requiring a permit for sensitive uses via the use of

land table in the UGZ Schedule.

Change the amendment Decision pending further review

12 Peter Gazeas 1) Conservation areas CA31 is misaligned with existing native vegetation and as a consequence

negatively impact the extent of developable area. Recognise the value of the red gums on the site but do

not agree with isolated trees being used to broaden the extent of conservation area. The existing

boundary includes remote trees that could otherwise be incorporated into pocket parks or streetscapes

within future development.

Yes MPA forwarded the proposed changes to Conservation Area 31 to DELWP for consideration. MPA will

keep landowners informed of progress.

Further review/discussion

requiredDecision pending further review

2) Object to the inclusion of the drainage asset WL21 as it is not based on detailed design but rather

broad assumptions around drainage requirements for the area. Any small scale drainage requirements

should be dealt with through MW and the DSS, as linking the requirements to the Structure Plan only

serves to unnecessarily lock in the land required for drainage. Requests that WL21 be removed from the

plan or that flexibility be provided within the Amendment to make changes to the NDA for properties

impacted by stormwater quality treatment assets.

Yes The PSP has been informed by the Melbourne Water DSS but the exact location and size of assets will be

refined at permit stage. It is not proposed to remove WL21.

Refer to panel Unresolved - Refer to panel

13 Lend Lease, represented by

Echelon

6) The Wollert PSP should be amended to adopt the medium growth development scenario for its town

centres so as not to prejudice the development of the Aurora North Town Centre.

Yes MPA does not support this submission. The Wollert MTC was designated in the GCP whereas there is no

MTC designation in Aurora in the GCP. The highest and best land use at the Wollert MTC needs to be

protected, noting flexibility to rezone part of the TC should the high population growth scenario not

eventuate.No action Unresolved - Refer to panel

14 APA GasNet Australia

(Operations Pty Ltd)

Gas Transmission Pipelines

1 of 14






3) The Explanatory Report sets out that 'the PSP protects current surrounding land uses, such as Hanson

Quarry and Hanson Landfill by placing compatible land uses (industrial and bulky goods) in proximity to

these areas and creating a buffer to interface residential areas'. The same consideration should be

applied to the buffers required by the compressor station, as a major gas infrastructure facility that

services all of northern Victoria and metropolitan Melbourne, and a more compatible land use should be

employed for the buffer represented in Figure 3 on p.38, as nominally the 35 dB(A) contour line.

Yes These sites have existing approvals and therefore as the agent of change, the PSP must plan

appropriately for surrounding areas. Additionally the land uses shown in the Wollert PSP reflect

allocations in the approved Growth Corridor Plan. There is not the required level of certainty about the

location and impact of the potential gas fired power plant to apply a non-residential zone to land

required for the buffer. APA should contain impacts within their site boundary. No actionUnresolved

Refer to panel

Gas Fired Power Station

13) It is not clear what a "buffer" area is intended to be. The concept is not consistent with the planning

scheme and is not a defined term either in the scheme or in the Wollert PSP. It is not clear what planning

controls would be applied to the land to implement the concept of the buffer and how these controls

would interact with the proposed residential designation (on its face entirely contradictory land use

designations).

Yes Buffer and separation distance are used interchangeably in planning. These terms refer to the distance

between uses with adverse amenity impacts and sensitive land uses. There is not sufficient certainty to

zone land surrounding the APA GasNet site for anything other than residential - APA should seek to

contain negative impacts within their site. No actionUnresolved

Refer to panel

14) In our submission the concept of a 'buffer' is vague and uncertain. It is important to recognise that

the proposed power station will have off site impacts (in the form of noise) which are inconsistent with

the use of some parts of the adjacent Wollert PSP land for sensitive purposes. This should be reflected in

the imposition of town planning controls which establish an appropriate separation distance between

APA's land and sensitive land use. We suggest than an industrial, farming or open space zoning would be

appropriate. The concept of a separation distance rather than a buffer is consistent with all Victorian

planning schemes and will deliver a degree of certainty that will assist current and future land owners to

understand and plan properly for use and development in the area.

Yes See response to issue 9 above

No actionUnresolved

Refer to panel

17 Greencor, represented by

Tract

1) The intersection of Craigieburn Road and Andrews Road does not align with the approved intersection

location in the development to the south. The intersection will need to be located further to the east

which will impact on red gum retention and the design of the local park in the south of the site. There is

a need to show a modified intersection / connector road location and redesigned park to reflect the

approved intersection location.

Yes MPA understands that CoW and the submitter are currently in discussion regarding the realignment of

Andrew Road as part of the subdivision design.



4) Delete provision R3 (the issue of red gum protection needs to be addressed on a site specific basis

through a town planning permit).

Yes MPA support Council position. However, the requirement will be revised to provide more clarity in

relation to how the 80% will be measured.No action Unresolved - Refer to panel

5) Introduce a new "Guideline" worded generally as "Subdivision design should seek to retain red gums

in public domain, where feasible and to the satisfaction of the responsible authority where this enables

the objectives, lot yield and developable area of the PSP to be maintained".

Yes MPA dose not support this submission. MPA support Council position (PSP as it stands).

No action Unresolved - Refer to panel

10) Modify the wording of LP 24 and LP 25 to describe the alternate park design to reflect the

intersection.

Yes The intersection alignment has not yet been finalised and the provision of passive open space will need

to be generally in accordance with the PSP, so no change will be made to the PSP.No action Unresolved - Refer to panel

11) Shift R71 (master plan for a park) to a Guideline OR Build in wording that allows the responsible

authority greater flexibility to respond to each park in detail.

Yes MPA does not support this submission. MPA support Council position.


12) In Plan 9, the designation of Andrews Drive as a 'boulevard connector' does not recognise the

significant open space and school provision adjoining the road which provides a significant 'barrier' to

movement. Recommend removing boulevard connector roads and replacing with standard connector

roads OR Introducing a provision that allows greater flexibility in the design of boulevard connector

roads to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, where site specific influences necessitate greater

flexibility.

Yes Amendment to Andrews Drive alignment will enable two-sided development.


2 of 14






19 Wollert JV Nominee P/L,

represented by Taylors (AV

Jennings & Australian Super)

2) Have no objection to the proposed zones, however submit that the precise location of the RCZ is

overstated and question the shape of the zoning from an urban design perspective. Request that the

MPA provide the basis for the shapes presented and the opportunity to examine them to seek an agreed

outcomes. Refer to the draft Master Plans that have been tabled in previous meetings with the MPA and

Council.

Yes The local conservation reserves have been located to protect areas where multiple values overlap, for

example biodiversity, arboricultural, landscape, historic and cultural heritage as well as to connect with

the broader open space and biodiversity conservation network. DELWP and CoW are currently reviewing

local conservation areas as they relate to the BCS guidance note. Further review/discussion


5) In relation to the IPO map, question the size and shape as per our comments on the RCZ. Yes See comments in relation to issue 2 above.

No action Decision pending further review

23) In relation to R3 - The 80% retention rate is too high and arbitrary and is likely to be in conflict with

yield and population objectives. It should be a guideline not a requirement. The retention rate should be

based upon tree health and urban design outcomes rather than arbitrary figures. Support the Mesh

submission in this regard.

Yes MPA supports Council position. Retention rate includes trees in local parks, conservation areas, etc. and

is considered reasonable in the context of other objectives.

No actionUnresolved

Refer to panel

25) R16: It is unclear why the dry stone wall running along and through the subject land is significant.

Seek clarification as to how its retention should be incorporated in an urban design sense. The retention

of dry stone walls needs to be balanced with other urban design and practical outcomes. This should be

a guideline.

Yes MPA supports revision of R16 to provide greater direction on where dry stone walls should be prioritised

for retention, i.e. locations where natural and heritage features overlap.


30) Seek clarification on the requirements and guidelines at 3.3.1.1-6 and reserve the right to lodge

specific objections pending further discussions with the MPA and Council.

TBC Submitter to provide clarification.



32) In relation to Plan 7 and Table 9, submit that the LCR04 and LCR05 should be designed differently

than shown, for the reasons noted above. Submits that there should be the opportunity co-locate

passive open space pursuant to Clause 52.01 within these areas.

Yes These reserves are identified primarily for conservation purposes, which is not consistent with their use

for recreation activities. Opportunities to create passive open space within the local conservation

reserves may be considered, however, this would be in addition to that required in the PSP. It is

therefore considered that the use of conservation reserves for passive open space is not appropriate

pursuant to Clause 52.01.No action

Unresolved

Refer to panel

33) Plan 8, nominates the Public Transport Corridor that runs through the land. We support its inclusion,

but submit that the station forecourt and the bus interchange should be designated State Infrastructure

and credited against GAIC similar to the Public Transport Corridor.

Yes The Minister for Planning and Treasurer periodically allocate funds for projects identified for GAIC (there

is not a public request process available). The GAIC expenditure is reported each year in the MPA’s

annual report.No action

Unresolved

Refer to panel

34) Plan 9 nominates the following cross sections of relevance to this submission: CS01a

(Craigieburn/Lehmanns-41m), CS02e (Boundary Road-34m), CS03a (Standard Connector-25m), CS03b

(Boulevard Connector-29m), CS03c (MTC North South Main Street -20m), CS03d (MTC East West Main

Street), CS03e (MTC PT Interchange - 28m) and CS05b (PT Corridor Interface - 20m). Many of these cross

sections are excessive in width in totality and in relation to some of their individual elements. There is

also unnecessary duplication of pathways. Request reduced cross-sections.

Yes With the exception of Summerhill Road, MPA does not support this submission. Cross sections are based

on long term traffic volumes and the role within the broader, strategic network that needs to ensure

connectivity for pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles in the long term.

No actionUnresolved

Refer to panel

35) It is submitted that R112 should be a guideline so as to provide flexibility and allow for product

evolution especially in the higher density precinct.

Yes MPA does not support this submission. This requirement prevents vehicle crossovers and garages

dominating in areas with small frontages and preserves opportunities for tree planting.

No actionUnresolved

Refer to panel

37) In relation to the DCP, the submitter supports the Mesh submission in this regard. Not in this submission Noted. Refer to responses to Wollert Developer Consortium Submission

No actionUnresolved

Refer to panel

21 Murdesk Pty Ltd,

represented by Tract

Consultants

1) The PSP may have overestimated the flora and fauna values of 470 Craigieburn Road. The submitter

has concerns over the methodology involved in the previous State Government assessment of the land

and is in the process of having the land independently assessed. The assessment will be completed in

time for the panel hearing. Notes that the PSP indicates at Plan 2 that the BCS boundaries are subject to

refinement.

Yes The CA 32 boundary is currently being reviewed by DELWP. Landowners were contacted by DELWP for

input as part of this process.



3 of 14






3) The PSP adopts an inappropriate boundary. As it affects the subject site, the PSP adopts Curly Sedge

Creek as its boundary which creates management, development and ownership difficulties as it ignores

the balance of the site north of the creek. Requests that property boundaries be used as the PSP

boundaries.

Yes The MPA does not support realignment of the PSP boundary as there is no developable land on the

portion of the property outside the PSP and there is therefore no material benefit to changing the

boundary.No action Unresolved - Refer to panel

22a Villawood Properties,

represented by Mesh

3) Villawood Properties are of the view that a review of BCS reserve 32 should be initiated with urgency

with the co-operation and involvement of DELWP, WCC, the MPA, Melbourne Water and Villawood

Properties. Villawood Properties will seek to confirm the intention of DELWP to initiate the review in the

short term. Should DELWP confirm this intention, it is important that the process to follow incorporated

the potential for the outcomes of any such review to be incorporated within the approvals process

rather than be reliant on a subsequent PSA process. Participation in the review process is requested with

the opportunity to resolve an agreed position prior to the approval of the PSP and DCP.

No Noted. DELWP has commenced the process to review CA 32. Ideally, prior to panel, the conservation

areas boundaries will be confirmed and approved between land owners, DELWP and DoE to ensure they

are correctly identified in the PSP. If this is not possible prior to Panel or final gazettal, then the words

“subject to refinement” will be deleted and an asterix* be used for a notation at the bottom of plans

Plan 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 & 7 which indicates that an application for review is under consideration.Change the amendment Decision pending further review

4a) The drainage requirements of MW changed just prior to public exhibition of the PSP, with significant

implications for properties 2, 3, 4 and 5. The outcome of discussions between Villawood and Melbourne

Water will be communicated to the WCC and the MPA including any matters that have been agreed or

are in dispute as soon as is possible.

Yes Noted. MW has updated the DSS following exhibition. Submitter to confirm that the updated DSS

reflects the outcomes of Villawood's discussion with MW.Further review/discussion


4b) As indicated in relation to the possible review of the BSC reserve no. 32, the opportunity is sought to

consider the possible relationship between the MW requirements and any possible revision to the

boundary of BCS reserve no. 32.

The drainage requirements will be reviewed once the outcomes of the review of the Conservation Area

32 boundary. Note also that there is capacity for landowners to refine the design of water management

assets at the permit application stage, with approval from Melbourne Water.



5) The size, location and configuration of the local town centre are subject to on-going discussion with

the City of Whittlesea. In lieu of the outcome of these discussions, Villawood Properties reserves the

right to demonstrate the benefits associated with the preferred location of the centre on Craigieburn

Road East before an independent Panel.

Yes MPA supports the submission, with the exception that an increase in the retail floor space area from

3,500m2 to 5,000m2 only is proposed.


6) In the intervening period (prior to Panel), Villawood are seeking the opportunity to discuss the matter

of the local town centre size, configuration and location further with the WCC, and seek confirmation

that the size of the centre can be amended to provided for up to approximately 8,000m2 of retail floor

space wherever the activity centre is located.

Yes Noted, the MPA supports an increase of the retail floor space from 3500m2 to 5000m2.


requiredAwaiting response from submitter

7) Given that there are no current proposals by APA GasNet, it is appropriate that the potential buffer

area be removed from the Future Urban Structure Plan. This approach is in accordance with the exhibit

PSP which states that it is APA GasNet's responsibility to assess and undertaken all amenity mitigation

measures on-site, rather than impacting UGZ land.

Yes The PSP identifies a 'potential future gas fired power station buffer' on the Future Urban Structure plan

and notes that land as encumbered within the land budget. This essentially deems the land

undevelopable as a result of the proposed infrastructure on the adjoining site. The MPA notes that there

is currently no application for the facility being considered, which has provided some uncertainty on the

location and potential impacts of the power station particularly to adjoining landowners. Whilst the PSP

does not directly refer to potential proposals on the APA site, the Growth Corridor Plan requires that the

PSP considers buffer requirements.

The MPA have met with APA to discuss these concerns and will seek to provide a greater level of detail

and clarity around the buffers within the PSP and Amendment documentation.


22b Villawood Properties,

represented by Mesh

2) Confirm Villawood’s request for the retail floors space soft ‘cap’ that is referenced in the exhibited

version of the PSP to be increased from 3,500m2 to 6,000m2 .

Yes MPA supports an increase of the retail floor space from 3,500m2 to 5000m2. This allows for a full line

supermarket (approximately 2,500m2) and adequate specialty retail shops. The submitter is able to seek

additional retail floor space through a planning permit application. Note: retail floor space areas are to

be deleted from Figures 4-6, but the increase will be reflected in Table 6.


4 of 14






24 Wollert Developer

Consortium, represented by

Mesh

2) O42 - The Consortium seeks confirmation of GasNet's power station proposal. Submits there should

be no impact from any future APA GasNet Proposal on the UGZ land.

Notes that nowhere in the PSP document is there reference to:

~ The likelihood of a future proposal within APA's site and the type of proposal;

~ The reason for identification of a 'potential' buffer; and

~ What implications the 'potential' buffer will have on the developable area.

No The PSP identifies a 'potential future gas fired power station buffer' on the Future Urban Structure plan









No actionUnresolved

Refer to panel

3) Section 2.3 Summary Land Budget should be updated to utilise at least 30% assumption for local

roads. The 20% figure is queried and considered too low within the proposed urban context.

Yes The MPA supports an increase to 25%.


15) Figure 2 - Query the requirement for 2.7m nature strip abutting open space / waterway. Council

historically has permitted 1m landscape strip to open space. There should be flexibility to reduce the

landscape width adjacent to open space / waterway to a minimum of 1m.

Yes MPA does not support this submission. MPA considers 2.7 m nature strip is appropriate to allow of

adequate canopy planting along roads.

No actionUnresolved

Refer to panel

17) Section 3.2.1 High Density housing -Notwithstanding the interest of the Planning Authority in both

issues, a density target approach is preferred with flexibility to work through the approvals process to

deliver the overall target on a property by property (or group of properties) basis. In this way the

requirements and guidelines of the PSP can be applied within the contact of the particular landholding/s

without the spatial constraint of the 400m walkable catchment boundary as a requirement.

Yes MPA considers that plan-based approach is appropriate for the Wollert PSP, however rather than

identifying medium density residential in the legend of Plan 5, a 400m walkable catchment will be

identified as preferred areas for higher residential density. The PSP provides guidance for preferred

density, however flexibility is provided for throughout the requirements and guidelines. Density targets

will also be reviewed.Change the amendment

Unresolved

Refer to panel

20) R40 should be relaxed to provide flexibility to identify other forms of public meeting places or spaces

that could be delivered or to a different size.

Yes MPA does not support this submission. R40 reflects the GAA Town Centre Guidelines. Note that this

requirement does not preclude delivery of additional public meeting places. No action

Unresolved

Refer to panel

21c) Be expressed as a guideline rather than a requirement (relocate requirement R3 to appear as a

guideline).

Yes MPA does not support relocation of this requirement to a guideline; R3 is required to ensure the 80%

target is achieved. However, R3 can be reviewed to provide flexibility. No actionUnresolved

Refer to panel

21h) Having regard to the PSP Future Urban Structure and the location of existing Red Gums depicted in

Plan 4 for example, there are a number of instances where existing trees conflict with proposed

infrastructure such as road alignments and non-residential uses.

The PSP is currently silent on who should bear the costs associated with the loss of this vegetation,

particularly where the loss is caused by a PSP requirements.

Yes The offsets will be payable by the landowner, as per any subdivision works - see R138.

No actionUnresolved

Refer to panel

32) Figure 11 - Confirm if 20m is required to all conservation open space i.e. BCS and local conservation

reserves. This cross-section is contradictory with Plan 8 and Figure 12 which shows the shared path

within the conservation reserve.

No A local road interface will be required to all Conservation Areas and Local Conservation Reserves to

provide a buffer between conservation land and developable land. Shared paths may also be included

within Conservation Areas, as shown in Plan 8 and Figure 12 to form a continuous network for

recreational purposes.No action

Unresolved

Refer to panel

35) R98 - The frequency of formal pedestrian crossings should be reduced from 400m intervals to 800m

which still provides adequate level of pedestrian connectivity. It is submitted that the design standards of

the formal pedestrian crossings should not replicate major crossings and reflect the use of these

crossings.

Yes MPA does not support this submission. The 400m proposed accords with MPA and Melbourne Water

standards.

No actionUnresolved

Refer to panel

36) R112 - This requirement should be deleted as it is too restrictive and does not provide for flexibility

to respond to new housing product. There are currently a number of products available on the market

on widths less than 7.6m which are front loaded (single car garage) which would not comply with this

requirement.

Yes MPA does not support this submission.

No actionUnresolved

Refer to panel

45) R134 - This new requirement requiring lighting along shared paths is not supported by the

Consortium.

Yes MPA does not support this submission.

No actionUnresolved

Refer to panel

5 of 14






47) Koukoura Drive Cross-section - Koukoura Drive exists as a paper road and as such its future delivery

should utilise as much as this road as possible and limit land taken on adjoining allotments. As such, the

need for an additional 7m between the linear reserve/shared path link and the carriageway is not

supported and should be removed or reduced.

Yes MPA do not support the full reduction. The 7m is required by VicRoads clear zone requirements from the

Dry stone walls.

No actionUnresolved

Refer to panel

48) The cross-sections are unclear on what is to be constructed by developers in the interim, and which

cross-section elements are to be delivered by others (e.g. VicRoads) in the future. For example, it is

unclear what the interim Boundary Road and Summerhill Road treatment will be. That is, the elements

to be constructed by developers.

Yes The interim FLPs provide an indication of what the costings were prepared on. The FLPs will be included

in the updated PSP to provide further clarity, however final design will be subject to VicRoads / RA

approval at the time of permit application. Change the amendment

Unresolved

Refer to panel

51) Page 103 - Tree Removal, First paragraph: Remove reference to tree retention in a lot. Yes MPA supports the submission. In order for trees to be considered retained and therefore exempt from

offsets, they must be located on land owned by a public authority.Change the amendment

Unresolved

Refer to panel

53) Local Conservation Reserves must be exempt from offset payments as required under the

Biodiversity Conservation System.

Yes CoW and DELWP are continuing discussions regarding the extent and status of local conservation

reserves. Further review/discussion


56) It is submitted that the PSP needs to provide confirmation and commitment from the key servicing

authorities, such as Yarra Valley Water and others to recognise this PSP area as the next growth front

within the Epping corridor. This designation is consistent with the North Corridor Plan and should have

triggered a requirement on the part of Yarra Valley Water and other service providers to plan for service

provision without the burden of bringing forward cost to developers. Support is requested from the MPA

and the WCC to confirm this status and to assist with discussions with Yarra Valley Water to bring

forward trunk services such that development can proceed in an orderly way.

Yes Plan 11 shows the current alignment of utilities, however it is up to Yarra Valley Water to facilitate the

roll out of these services. It is not the role of the PSP process to facilitate this. Bring forward cost is as per

advised by the agencies.

No actionUnresolved

Refer to panel

57) The traffic volumes predicted for Boundary Road do not warrant the proposed cross-section design.

Its cross-section should be reviewed having regard to its role in improving the urban form and scale in

the context of adjoining development and the Major Town Centre.

Yes Cross section of Boundary Road is being reviewed by MPA and CoW. VicRoads have indicated that they

do not have an interest in Boundary Road from a strategic perspective.

No action Decision pending further review

58) The upgrade of the existing Summerhill Road reservation (east of Andrews Road) and its intersection

with Epping Road (IN32), particularly given the relatively low traffic volumes this northern end of the PSP

area will experience, and the future alignment and role of Summerhill Road.

Yes Upgrades to existing Summerhill Road are required in the interim as the ultimate Summerhill Road

alignment related to the E6 is not expected to come on line until the E6 is delivered. Summerhill Road

will be used to access the precinct and upgrades are required for safety. No actionUnresolved

Refer to panel

59) The VITM model (on which the transport model is based) assumes connections (and associated

traffic assignments) that do not currently exist and which are unlikely to be delivered over the life of the

PSP - see for example westerly extension of Summerhill Road and the northerly extension of Koukoura

Drive.

Yes MPA does not support this submission. The PSP needs to provide for the long term strategic network for

when future connections may occur.

No actionUnresolved

Refer to panel

60) In terms of contributions toward land and construction to establish the planned road network, the

DCP introduces a level of equity by gathering the full land requirement but only requires construction of

effectively half of the ultimate cross-section with duplication to be undertaken by others.

This level of shared responsibility and equity is undermined by the approach that is adopted within the

DCP toward construction of intersections. The SIDRA modelling that has been undertaken assigns traffic

and direction splits in the ultimate scenario, irrespective of the origin of the traffic as the basis to require

delivery of an ultimate intersection albeit on a staged basis.

In this context, the standard of intersection design has escalated significantly over recent years to the

point where the cost of intersections (interim and ultimate standard) are far exceeding the traffic

demands in the early stages of the development where traffic demands are very low and the increased

design standards are threatening project delivery due to peak debt problems early in the life of new

development.

Yes Road an intersection designs consider the long term strategic role roads will play within the broader

network. Temporary works that can be demonstrated to contribute to the ultimate alignment may be

credited by the Collecting Agency. The extent of credit granted will depend on how the temporary works

fit in with the DCP's "interim-on-ultimate project. Note VicRoads approval will also be required for

temporary works.

No actionUnresolved

Refer to panel

6 of 14






61) Support within the PSP and DCP is requested to acknowledge the potential for developers to plan for

and deliver three stages of intersection design and delivery. Essentially this would involve delivery of an

un-signalised 'Type C' intersection for an agreed period based on rate of development and predicted

traffic volumes before the intersection is signalised and thereafter upgraded to its ultimate standard.

Yes See response to item 60 above.

No actionUnresolved

Refer to panel

62) In terms of timing of upgrade of the intersection to its ultimate standard, it is important to

acknowledge that in this context that the interim signalised design standard is likely to satisfy the

medium to long term needs of development for the key intersections that assume demand from traffic

beyond the PSP area.

Yes See response to item 60 above.

No actionUnresolved

Refer to panel

Comments on Schedules - UGZ5

65) 3.1 - The need for an additional site-specific arborist report is not considered to be required where

the PSP arborist report (background report) has already assessed the trees. Instead, the UGZ

requirement could be amended to refer to a summary of the existing arborist report.

Yes Site specific arboricultural assessments are required to confirm the GPS coordinates of trees (these were

only recorded on hand-held devices by Treelogic) and to re-assess the condition or the trees, which may

have changed since the background report was completed. No actionUnresolved

Refer to panel

66) 3.1 - The requirement for 'indicative layout of land identified as future medium and high density and

/ integrated housing sites' is considered to be premature for subdivision applications. Consortium wish

to understand the basis for this requirement as it is considered inflexible.

Yes MPA does not support this submission. Note that this is an indicative plan only to show that the

development outcomes are achievable.

No actionUnresolved

Refer to panel

67) 3.4 - The need for a Kangaroo Management Plan is queried, particularly as a requirement for a

subdivision application. If a KMP is required, it is submitted it is required as a condition of permit, to be

finalised prior to commencement of works.

Yes Noted. No change. This is an agreed position with DELWP and is standard a standard requirement.

No actionUnresolved

Refer to panel

73) 4.11 - ESA - It is considered any remediation works or implementation of recommendations be

deferred to prior to Statement of Compliance or Commencement of Works. Prior to certification as

currently drafted in the UGZ is considered to be premature.

Yes This is to confirm whether the land is suitable for the proposed use within the subdivision plan.

Traditionally this is required earlier in the process as the remediation of contaminated land should be

undertaken prior to any development occurring. Wording revised as follows: Before a plan subdivision

is certified under the Subdivision Act 1988 or before the commencement of any buildings or works, as

appropriate, the recommendations of the

- Phase 2 Environmental Site Assessment or

- The environmental audit

as relevant, must be carried out.



Comments on Schedules - SUZ

74) The SUZ must be applied to gas pipe line easements as they are a similar category as transmission

lines easements.

Yes MPA does not support this submission. Unless the easement was previously zoned as being constrained,

or the other land further down the gas line is zoned as something else, we expect the land to be zoned

UGZ. As the GAIC is a broad hectare tax we are generally do not seek to reduce the area that is subject to

GAIC .

No actionUnresolved

Refer to panel

Comments on Schedules - IPO4 and IPO5

79) IPO4 - Section 2.1 - The need for an arboriculture assessment and flora and fauna assessment within

the local conservation reserves requires clarification, particularly given the identification of these areas

by Council and MPA were undertaken during PSP preparation. The purpose of these reports is not

known.

Yes The MPA does not support this submission. This is required to appropriately assess the impacts of any

proposals within the local conservation reserves.

No actionUnresolved

Refer to panel

24(b) Wollert Developer

Consortium, represented by

Mesh

4) The PLEM method used should be adjusted to either apply a site specific valuation for land that is

required for public purposes or increase the site specific broad hectare rate to take into account various

charges (including GAIC and DCPs etc.) and taking into account the transition from undeveloped land to

developed land OR apply an agreed flat per hectare land value to de-risk the process and ensure an

equitable outcome is achieved.

Yes MPA does not support this position. A site specific rate is applied to land provided in excess of average

public land percentage for the PSP.

No actionUnresolved

Refer to panel

6a) In advance of receipt of the traffic advice it is requested that the combined authorities give early

consideration to:

- the principle of staged delivery of the key intersections

Yes MPA does not support this position. Works other than the 'interim-on-ultimate' arrangement will only be

credited where they are considered by the Collecting Agency to contribute to the DCP project. Note

VicRoads approval will also be required for temporary works. No actionUnresolved

Refer to panel

6c) The principle of whether two stages of intersection upgrade would be capable of being included

within the DCP with a specified standard, cost and credit value

Yes The MPA does not support this submission. Refer to issue 6a above.

No actionUnresolved

Refer to panel

7 of 14






7a) It is requested that the combined authorities review the exhibited position with regard to Boundary

Road in terms of standard or road and intersection design and construction.

Yes The MPA to is unable support the amended cross sectins proposed by the City of Whittlesea without

further information on the impact of the proposed concepts and without VicRoads and Public Tranport

Victoria's approval.Further review/discussion


7b) It is requested that the combined authorities review the exhibited position with regard to Summerhill

Road in terms of standard or road and intersection design and construction.

Yes MPA would consider alterative cross sections proposed by the submitter. Note: the exhibited cross

section will be reviewed as 22kv and 66KV power poles are currently incorrectly labelled (it's the other

way around), meaning the cross section doesn't comply with VicRoads standards. Note Summerhill Road

interim intersections are now all unsignalised.


10) It is requested that the PAO is applied to the public transport corridor. Yes The MPA is unable to apply a PAO without the support of PTV.No action

Unresolved

Refer to panel

11) Confirmation is sought of the way in which State Infrastructure items are to be secured e.g. GAIC

process.

No The Minister for Planning and Treasurer periodically allocate funds for projects identified for GAIC (there

is not a public request process available). Note, PTV has endorsed the transfer of land upon which the

corridor is located as suitable for the purposes of GAIC Works in Kind (land), noting that the landowner

and the Minister would need to agree to such a process.

No actionUnresolved

Refer to panel

Issues raised in table:

5b) RD04 - (Summerhill Road) From a review of cross-section CS02d within the PSP and review of the

description within Table 3 of the DCP it is unclear whether this road its to be future declared arterial

road, and if so, what portion of the cross-section is to be delivered by development. It currently is

interpreted that development funds the construction of the full cross-section, which is not supported.

No RD04- Summerhill Road - will be a future declared arterial road. The DCP funds land take for ultimate

duplication, and construction of the first carriageway (the existing rural standard is unsuitable for the

urbanised area). Table 3 describes the construction element of R4 as "design and replacement of existing

carriageway with new carriageway (interim)." No actionUnresolved

Refer to panel

15) - Works in Kind - The following dot point is queried: "The Collecting Agency may permit development

proponents to undertake works in lieu of cash contributions provided that: - in particular, the works will

only be accepted in lieu of a financial contribution required by the DCP to the extent that they constitute

part or all of the design of the infrastructure item and reduce the cost to complete that design, to the

satisfaction of the Collecting Agency. Temporary works will no t be accepted as works in kind.

Specifically, it is Council / MPA's intention that Works in Kind will only be accepted where the

infrastructure item will produce less cost? It is submitted the Consortium will look to nominated works in

kind such as Craigieburn Road intersections which may not adhere to this requirement.

No The dot point refers to the fact that Works in Kind will only be credited where they are considered by the

Collecting Agency to contribute to the DCP project (e.g. reduce the extent, and therefore cost of works,

required to complete the DCP project). In relation to Craigieburn Road intersection projects, the extent

of credit granted will depend on how the temporary works fit in with the DCP's "interim-on-ultimate

project. Note VicRoads approval will also be required for temporary works.

No actionUnresolved

Refer to panel

25 Evolve Development,

represented by Mesh

1) The current form of LCR04 creates a land locked parcel in the south-east corner of the property that is

not contiguous with any other land controlled by Evolve. Request the LCR04 boundary be reviewed to

establish a local road link through the conservation reserve to give access to this site. It is hoped that the

design review that Evolve is undertaking to identify a suitable connection can be used to assist in

finalising the RCZ zone boundary.

Yes A road through LCR04 is not supported as it is inconsistent with the purpose of the local conservation

reserve. Noting that it is considered unlikely that this parcel will develop in the medium term, it is

suggested that Evolve liaise with adjoining landholders to secure access opportunities.


2) There is support from DELWP, the City of Whittlesea and MPA for a reduction in the area of CA31 to

rationalise the eastern and western boundaries, resulting in an overall reduction in the reserve area.

Following this Council and the MPA are to update the relevant sections and plans within both the PSP

and DCP to reflect the approved changes to the reserve, including the detailed land budget, zone and

overlay provisions.

Yes The boundary of Conservation Area 31 is currently being reviewed by DELWP and will subsequently be

forwarded to the Commonwealth for approval. Ideally, prior to panel, the conservation areas boundaries

will be confirmed and approved between land owners, DELWP and DoE to ensure they are correctly

identified in the PSP. If this is not possible prior to Panel or final gazettal, then the words “subject to

refinement” will be deleted and an asterix* be used for a notation at the bottom of plans Plan 1, 2, 3, 5,

6 & 7 which indicates that an application for review is under consideration at the time of exhibition.


8 of 14






7) There are two small areas of developable land nominated between the north-south gas easement and

the future Koukoura Drive alignment (figure provided in submission). It is submitted that this land be

reviewed as it is not large enough to accommodate residential development. Assistance is sought in

identifying a more practical solution for this area e.g. open space or driving. This would allow the north-

east corner to the Craigieburn Road / Koukoura Drive intersection to be used as a green area into the

development, softening the appearance of the intersection and arterial road interface.

Yes Melbourne Water has advised that the gap to the north will be utilised for a sediment basin. However

the gap to the south will be unencumbered. This gap is a result of the road design requirements and the

presence of the existing gas transmission easement. The location at the intersection of two arterial roads

means this area is inappropriate for passive open space.


8) Seeks confirmation of GasNet's power station proposal. Submits there should be no impact from any

future APA GasNet Proposal on the UGZ land.

Notes that nowhere in the PSP document is there reference to:

~ The likelihood of a future proposal within APA's site and the type of proposal;

~ The reason for identification of a 'potential' buffer; and

~ What implications the 'potential' buffer will have on the developable area.

Yes The PSP identifies a 'potential future gas fired power station buffer' on the Future Urban Structure plan










9) Given there are no current proposals by APA GasNet, it is requested that the buffer area be removed

from the Future Urban Structure Plan and PSP documents; and

Yes See response to item 8 above


10) It is submitted that the PSP should state that it is APA GasNet's responsibility to assess and undertake

all amenity mitigation measures on-site, rather than impacting on UGZ land.

Yes See response to item 8 above


9 of 14






11) Dry Stone Walls - Requirement 16 of the PSP should be moved from a Requirement to a Guideline to

provide more flexibility and detailed assessment during the detailed permit application and having

regard to other influencing factors such as the proposed movement network, open space, knolls, etc.

which collectively influence a subdivision design.

Yes MPA does not support this submission. Note, the Requirement states that dry stone walls identified for

retention must be retained, 'unless otherwise agreed to by the Responsible Authority', which provides

the flexibility sought by the submitter.

The MPA and Council will review which sections of drystone wall are nominated as “priority for

retention” on Plan 4, ensuring that those identified in PSP road cross sections, and in the conservation

and open space network are identified for priority retention.

It is understood that within those priority retention walls, there will be sections which are not in suitable

condition for retention. The requirement at R16 will be reworded to ensure that there is flexibility to

consider the condition of the wall. The MPA / Council propose to add the following wording to R16:

"...after consideration of overall design response and following receipt of advice from a suitably qualified

professional regarding the condition of the wall".

However, subdivision layouts should in the first instance attempt to retain drystone walls which are in

fair to good condition. It should not be assumed that support will be given for removal of drystone walls

that are not identified as being priority for retention. It is noted that the requirement is to the

satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, providing Council with discretion to allow for the removal of

dry stone walls.


12) Requirement 19 of the PSP be moved from a Requirement to a Guideline again to provide flexibility.

"R19: Where dry stone wall removal is proposed, land owners/applicants must consult with Council to

determine the most suitable relocation and reconstruction opportunity for the removed wall and

appropriate arrangements for relocation and reuse of removed stones where reconstruction is not

possible".

Yes Refer to response to item 11 above.


14) Evolve's landholdings are reliant on RBWL12 for drainage, and as such there is limited development

that can be undertaken prior to construction of this wetland. It was discussed with MW to apply a PAO

over the land for the wetland which would provide MW the certainty and flexibility to provide the land

for this wetland as and when required. Evolve has engaged consultants to undertake a review of the

proposed drainage requirements.

Yes The MPA cannot apply a PAO without approval of the requiring authority and therefore does not support

this request.


15) It is submitted that the PSP be amended to apply the PAO over wetland area RBWL12 giving MW the

ability to acquire the land for development of the wetlands when required by development.

Yes MPA does not support this submission. MPA cannot apply a PAO without approval of the requiring

authority.No action Unresolved - Refer to panel

17) The pipeline should be treated similarly to the high voltage transmission line easement and zoned to

the SUZ given it cannot be developed and should therefore not attract payment of GAIC.

Yes MPA does not support this submission. Unless the easement was previously zoned as being constrained,

or the other land further down the gas line is zoned as something else, we expect the land to be zoned

UGZ. As the GAIC is a broad hectare tax we are generally do not seek to reduce the area that is subject to

GAIC .


25a Evolve Development,

represented by Mesh

1) Query the basis for LCR07 located within the active rec reserve (Property 94). There does not appear

to be the same level of overlapping features and characteristics which would warrant its protection as a

Local Conservation Reserve. Furthermore the LSC appears to have a direct interface with car parking

areas which may undermine the value of the reserve. On this basis, Evolve submit that the land should

form part of the active recreation reserve.

Yes - PSP Will be reviewed following DELWP advice on LCRs.



26 Westrock, represented by

Mesh

3) In relation to comments 1 and 2 above, adopt the submissions of the Wollert Developer Consortium

and offer the land in Bodycoats Road as a smaller scale example of the difficulties associated with the

80% retention target without clarification of the interest and involvement of DELWP and without

confirmation of a practical retention approach with some flexibility in application of TPZs etc.

Yes Noted, see responses to Wollert Developer Consortium submission.


10 of 14






30 Danny Hanna 2) Land take for Epping Road widening and intersection is excessive. Has engaged traffic engineers to

review.

Yes The ultimate designs are based on traffic modelling, which considers traffic volumes and flow directions.

The size of the Epping Road and Craigieburn Road intersection allows two right-turn lanes, three through

lanes and a left-turn slip lane to permit traffic to travel in a safe and timely manner through the road

intersection. Design requirements are established by VicRoads and reflected in plans created by the MPA

and are unlikely to change without significant strategic justification.No action Unresolved - Refer to panel

31 Greencor, represented by

Tract - DCP response

1) Intersections IN-02; 04 and 05 represent a major upfront outlay of cost for either a developer or

Council in the initial stage of development ($16,322,242). It is recommended that a new category of

'interim intersections' is introduced to the intersection category for the 3 main intersections on

Craigieburn Road. This should provide 3 new infrastructure items "interim intersection treatments" and

cost the works as new items. Where possible this should seek to recognise any works that can be used

by the ultimate intersection in costing.

Yes The MPA does not support this submission. Works that can be demonstrated to contribute to the

ultimate alignment may be credited by the Collecting Agency. In relation to Craigieburn Road intersection

projects, the extent of credit granted will depend on how the temporary works fit in with the DCP's

"interim-on-ultimate project. Note VicRoads approval will also be required for temporary works.No action Unresolved - Refer to panel

5) It is recommended that land is revalued on a site specific residential rate and include the re valued

cost into the DCP. The methodology for the DCP factors in current rural land value not zoned land with

full services connected and the GAIC charges having been paid, all of which will ultimately increase the

value of land. The risk of not implementing this methodology is the Council will need to compensate at

higher land values than those included in the DCP.

Yes MPA does not support a change to the valuation methodology. The valuation methodology employed by

Urbis assumes an approved PSP is in place and that all of the usual services are connected or available to

be connected to the properties including electricity, reticulated water, sewerage and telephone.


6) It is requested that on Page 36 of the DCP after "Works in Kind" heading, add an additional dot point:

"Where appropriate the responsible authority may allow works that are to be provided as works in kind,

to be staged on the basis that only works that will form part of the ultimate should be discounted

against the Development Contributions Plan".

Yes Dot point 8 under the heading Works In Kind addresses this concern: "In particular, the works will only

be accepted in lieu of a financial contribution required by the DCP to the extent that they constitute part

or all of the design of the infrastructure item and will reduce the cost to complete that design, to the

satisfaction of the Collecting Agency. Temporary works will not be accepted as works in kind." No action Unresolved - Refer to panel

32 Merri Creek Management

Committee

5) MCMC recommends that waterway corridors be widened beyond MW's minimum 45m requirement in

order to improve amenity and recreational outcomes.

Yes MPA does not support this proposal. Proposed waterway widths are considered sufficient for their

intended purpose and include capacity for a shared trail network. Additionally, the PSP currently

provides over 10% of the total precinct as credited open space (i.e. local parks) and more than 40% of

the precinct as open space in total (including conservation reserves, easements and drainage assets). No action Unresolved - Refer to panel

6) MCMC recommends that specific requirements/ guidelines be established and incorporated into the

PSP to ensure surface and groundwater flows to Conservation Areas are maintained in a pre-

development pattern, as specified by the BCS.

Yes This is supported in principle. Melbourne Water has advised that the DSS will endeavour to meet any

requirements detailed in any subsequent Conservation Management Plans (where feasible), and will

enter in discussions with DELWP as to the most appropriate design to complement the Conservation

Area.

R120 of the PSP requires that development maintain existing flow regimes at pre-development levels.

This is not specific to conservation areas but will be considered as part of an application for subdivision

by Council.


7) MCMC recommends that a linear area of public open space be created adjacent to CA32, particularly

in the section of the narrow set back from Curly Sedge Creek, in order to provide for public use and

amenity and to reduce conflict between public recreation use and conservation.

Yes MPA does not support this proposal. The PSP provides for a 20 metre setback along conservation area

boundaries in the form of an edge road to offset the built form edge. Opportunities for passive

recreation spaces are identified in Figure 12. No action Unresolved - Refer to panel

33 Friends of Merri Creek 4) Recommend that all the area of native grassland should be protected in the Conservation Area along

the south-western edge of the precinct. At the very least the eastern boundary should be re-aligned to

remove the narrow residential incursion, and to widen the corridor along Curly Sedge Creek to at least

100m from the waterway.

Yes The boundary of Conservation Area 32 is currently being reviewed by DELWP and will subsequently be

forwarded to the Commonwealth for approval. Note, however, that the Conservation Area is likely to be

reduced, rather than increased, in size based on surveys completed for the respective areas.No action Unresolved - Refer to panel

5) The area of CA31 should be reinstated to 29.75 hectares. Yes See above response No action Unresolved - Refer to panel

6) It is recommended that the RCZ is not used in its current form and a new Conservation Zone should be

developed that is fit for purpose. FoMC's secondary preference would be to zone each conservation area

PPRZ.

Yes The MPA is currently reviewing its approach to the statutory planning controls applying to BCS

Conservation Areas. The final approach is still being finalised, however if it does change, is likely to be

similar to that which was adopted for the English Street PSP, i.e. a schedule to the RCZ with an IPO and

ESO. The RCZ schedule will reflect the values as per the BCS.


7) As protection of the area and its multiple values needs to be enhanced in the context of urban

development, FoMC advocate for the retention of the ESO's.

Yes As discussed in response to comment 6 above, the controls relating to the BCS areas are currently under

review. The controls will implement the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity

Conservation Act 1999 , potentially through a combination of Schedule 5 to the IPO, a new RCZ schedule

and an ESO which will replace the existing ESOs. The MPA consider that these controls will provide

adequate protection of the environmental values.


11 of 14






8) FoMC strongly support the Requirements, Guidelines and local conservation areas that protect native

vegetation and biodiversity. FoMC urge the MPA and municipal councils to identify local conservation

areas to protect significant native vegetation and fauna habitat in other PSPs, to supplement the BCS

conservation areas.

No Noted. The Local Conservation Reserves are currently under review. It has been indicated that within

Wollert, the local conservation reserves may be afforded a level of protection by DELWP. This is being

worked through. No action Unresolved - Refer to panel

9) Recommend consulting with MCMC about adjustments to the PSP Future Urban Structure Plan so as

to create continuous habitat corridor links across the precinct and adjoining areas, as it is not currently a

network (linked).

Yes The existing network of credited open space, easements, waterways and conservation areas have been

designed to maximise connectivity. The PSP currently provides over 10% of the area in credited open

space (i.e. local parks), which is above the average amount provided across PSPs. No action Unresolved - Refer to panel

10) The requirement for 'clearing of rubbish and weeds, levelled, topsoiled and grassed with warm

climate grass' is inappropriate and potentially damaging if there is indigenous vegetation in the park or

reserve, or if natural rock formations are present. A number of other provisions are problematic. Instead

the following provisions are recommended:

- Levelling must not impinge on natural rock formations (e.g. stony knolls) or native vegetation

- The stony knoll area within SR04 should be explicitly exempted from the requirement (R136) for

removal of loose surface / protruding rocks

- Weed control in conservation areas and open space with native vegetation should avoid soil

disturbance (i.e. not use mechanical or physical 'clearing')

- Warm climate grasses must not include Couch, Brown-top Bent or Kikuyu where the reserve has native

vegetation, as these are highly invasive species

- Planting of trees and shrubs: indigenous species are preferred in a local park with native vegetation.

Exotic deciduous trees can cause die-off through shading and the impact of smothering and disturbed

nutrient cycling. These have downstream impacts as well on creeks when this material enters

stormwater drainage.

Yes R135 and R137 require finishing works to be completed to a standard that satisfies the Responsible

Authority, which gives Council the flexibility to amend these requirements. In relation to the stony rise in

SR-04, this is to be retained within a local conservation area which is in Council ownership.


11) All parkland or open space containing indigenous vegetation and /or natural features such as rocky

areas should be managed to enhance the natural values, and the above listed guidelines (comment 10)

should be implemented.

Yes See above response.


34 Wildlife Victoria 1) A whole of government response is needed (State, Councils and Police) with a two pronged approach.

Firstly to develop a response to the current situation and then an on-going management plan to deal

with the proposed escalation in development. Kangaroo management plans are ineffective as individual

developers cannot be responsible for kangaroos, what is needed is an overarching plan looking at a

larger geographical area where kangaroos can roam.

No Noted, however this is out of the scope of the PSP.


2) We propose the costs of macropod call outs be borne through the DCP process in conjunction with

the relevant Council.

Yes MPA is unable to support this position as the DCP is only able to include infrastructure costs associated

with the proposed development and cannot include ongoing costs such as this.No action Unresolved - Refer to panel

35 City of Whittlesea 2) Support the approach of fixing the land value at $800,000 per hectare indexed to the Consumer Price

Index over time

Yes MPA does not support this position.


5) Request the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning formally recognise Local

Conservation Reserves as contributing to the Biodiversity Conservation Strategy and nominate these

areas as Nature Conservation.

Yes MPA notes that CoW and DELWP continue to discuss the extent and status of the Local Conservation

Reserves.Further review/discussion


7) Support the measures proposed in the amendment to respond to existing uses. No Noted. However the MPA notes that it is continuing discussions with Hanson, EPA and MWRRG in

relation to planning for the quarry and landfill buffers in the PSP and UGZ schedule as well as with APA

in relation to the buffer requirements of the proposed future gas fired power station. CoW will be

consulted as required during these discussions.



12 of 14






8) Seek clarification from the Metropolitan Planning Authority and APA regarding the status of the Power

Station proposal and the potential implications for the designated buffer area.

No The PSP identifies a 'potential future gas fired power station buffer' on the Future Urban Structure plan










9) Request that the process to secure land required to extend the Epping North Public Transport Corridor

in the precinct commence prior to the finalisation of the proposed amendment

No The Minister for Planning and Treasurer periodically allocate funds for projects identified for GAIC (there

is not a public request process available). Note, PTV has endorsed the transfer of land upon which the

corridor is located as suitable for the purposes of GAIC Works in Kind (land), noting that the landowner

and the Minister would need to agree to such a process.


12) Request the Metropolitan Planning Authority strengthens the Staging Guidelines within the Precinct

Structure Plan to improve outcome with respect to community isolation and early provision of

infrastructure and services.

Yes Submitter to specify how staging guidelines should be strengthened.


38 Metropolitan Waste and

Resource Recovery Group

3) MWRRG supports specific provisions being made in Clause 2.9 of the proposed UGZ5 to set out

requirements for applications for the use and development of land within the buffer area around the

Wollert Landfill. However, it is noted that the drafting of Clause 2.9 would benefit from revision to

ensure that it more specifically articulates the requirements for the use and development of land, rather

than the current general requirement for applications to demonstrate compliance with the Best Practice

Environmental Management: Siting, Design, Operation and Rehabilitation of Landfills (EPS, 2014).

MWRRG considers that applications for the use and development of land within the buffer area around

the Wollert Landfill should demonstrate that such use or development is appropriate and will not

inappropriately impact n the operation of the landfill. Any redrafting of this clause should also ensure

that references to buffer areas align with the corresponding references on Map 2 to the UGZ5.

Yes MPA supports this submission. MPA has reviewed Clause 2.9 in consultation with MWRRG, Hanson, EPA

and Council. Clause 2.9 now relates to the design and risk assessments associated with the landfill gas

migration issue, and the odour and amenity impacts are dealt with through the use of the IN1Z and the

tailoring of the Use table within the UGZ5.


39 Boglis family, represented by

Norton Rose Fulbright

2) To the extent that there is any doubt about its future function, it is submitted that Vearings Road to

the north of Craigieburn Road should continue to provide access to the Subject Land, in both the short

and long term.

Yes See above response


3) In the short term, ongoing access is needed provide an access point from Craigieburn Road into the

residential development on the Subject Land and into the proposed Local Town Centre, particularly in

circumstances where development has not progressed on adjoining sites. In the long term, it is

submitted that there is merit in having a secondary access into the Local Town Centre from this location.

Yes Vearings Road will provide access to the subject site in the interim, with alternative access ultimately

provided from adjoining sites.


4) In the short term, as part of the immediate future development of the Subject Land, it is proposed to

upgrade the intersection of Vearings Road and Craigieburn Road to provide an auxiliary right and left

turn lane into Vearings Road. Once the upgrade of Craigieburn Road occurs in accordance with the PSP,

the access into and from Vearings Road can convert to left in and left out only. The submitter enclosed a

concept functional plan providing detail on the proposed intersection upgrade works at Vearings Road

and Craigieburn Road in the interim.

No It is not intended that Vearings Road will continue to provide access once alternative access from

adjoining sites is provided.


41 Michael Shine Request that consideration to be given to reducing the size of the school site shown on 65 Bodycoats

Road, Wollert in line with requirements for government schools (with any reduction in size of school

being replaced with Residential); The land allocated for the potential government school is

approximately 35 acres which significantly exceeds any existing private or government school within the

City of Whittlesea or other surrounding municipals. In addition, the school is proposed to be adjoining a

large sports recreational reserve. With the facilities provided within the sports reserve, and given the

school will have primary access to these facilities, consideration should be given as to whether such a

large parcel of land is required.

Yes The size of the school reflects the requirements of the Department of Education for a Prep to Year 12

school, which requires more land than either a primary or secondary school. However, the land required

for the school has been reduced in size from 12.22 hectares (approximately 30 acres) to 11.92

(approximately 29.5 acres) in line with the Department's requirement for a site of 11.9 hectares.

Additionally, the land required for the waterway has been reduced by creating a more regular size site

for the school. While the co-location with the sports reserve does create some efficiency in terms of land

use, this is reflected in the land area required by the Department.


13 of 14






Request that Residential Land Zoning on 65 Bodycoats Road, Wollert be specified as 'medium-high

density' to greater respond to the opportunities of the nearby open space, waterways and educational

facilities.

Yes Plan 5 in the PSP identifies areas within 400m of town centres as suitable for medium or high density

housing. An area along the southern boundary of the property is located within the 400 metre walkable

catchment of the Major Town Centre. Additionally, a range of subdivision options can be explored at the

planning permit application stage and may include a range of lot sizes.


42 Bruce & Colleen Batten,

represented by SJE

Consulting

4) Query whether consideration will be given to the Plan Melbourne Discussion Paper which proposes a

minimum dwelling density in the urban growth and precinct structure plan areas of 25 dwellings per

hectare.

Yes CoW to review minimum dwelling densities



6i) a land budget table in the same format and methodology as those within the PSP applying to the

land, setting out the amount of land allocated to the proposed uses and expected population, dwellings

and employment yields

Yes This information is a standard requirement within the UGZ schedule which will demonstrate general

compliance by the applicant with the land budget. The MPA does not agree that this level of detail is

onerous or unnecessary. The term 'expected' has been replaced with indicative. Change the amendment Unresolved - Refer to panel

6 ii) A housing diversity plan that identifies the size and proposed housing type with reference to Table 3

and Table 4 of the PSP

Yes This wording has been amended to read: "A plan identifying how the proposed subdivision will provide

for a diversity of housing as intended by Tables 3, 4 and 5 and Plan 5 of the Wollert Precinct Structure

Plan". The intent of the clause remeains, as this is considered necessary in assisting Council in

determining whether an application will achieve the objectives of the PSP. Change the amendment Unresolved - Refer to panel

6 iii) Indicative lot layouts for land identified as future medium and high density and /or integrated

housing, that is located adjacent to a waterway which details the following to the satisfaction of the

Responsible Authority or Melbourne Water:

- Location of conservation areas

- Potential dwelling yield

- Indicative floor plans

- Safe and effective internal vehicle and pedestrian circulation

- Proposed means and location for waste collection

- Servicing arrangements

- Landscaping treatments

- Active interface treatment with adjacent streets, open spaces and waterways.

Yes This clause has been amended to read:

Indicative lot layouts for land identified as future medium and high density and/or integrated housing

which details the following to the satisfaction of the responsible authority:

- Location of conservation areas.

- Indicative dwelling yield.

- Indicative building envelopes.

- Safe and effective vehicle ingress and egress.

- Proposed means and location for waste collection.

- Servicing arrangements.

- Landscaping treatments.

- Show how the site will be able to facilitate active interfaces to adjacent streets, open spaces and

waterways.

Where land identified as future medium and high density and/or integrated housing is located adjacent

to a waterway, the above must be to the satisfaction of the responsible authority and Melbourne Water.

As above, this clause is considered necessary in assisting Council in determining whether subdivided

allotments for medium and high density housing will have the potential to achieve workable and

desirable outcomes in the future.


7) In respect to the above point (melbourne Water requirements), except where the proposed lots are

less than 300m2, no permit is required for the construction of a dwelling. If the site is of the size and

dimensions to suitably accommodate multiple dwellings in the future, this is a matter for separate

consideration and assessment at that time and the provisions of Clause 3.1 should be rewritten to

reference those matters applicable for the construction of medium density housing as opposed to

residential subdivision.

Yes The requirement applies to subdivision applications which contain superlots identified for future

medium and high density and / or integrated housing. The clause has been re-written as above.


8) Request that Clause 3.4 is removed from Schedule 5 to the UGZ. A management regime should be led

by Council as the approach proposed in the PSP will give rise to individual developers shifting the

problem onto adjoining land on the premise of timing for each application.

Yes MPA does not support the submission. These conditions have been negotiated with DELWP and is an

agreed approach in growth areas.


9) Clause 4.7 should also be removed from Schedule 5 to the UGZ. Yes As response to point 8 above. No action Unresolved - Refer to panel

43 Bob and Maria Basile,

represented by SJE

Consulting

Issues raised mirrored those within Submission #42. Refer responses above. Yes Refer to response to submission 42.

14 of 14

whittlesea c187 - wollert - unresolved submissions...mtc designation in aurora in the gcp. the...

Documents