Adam Wojcik - City of Casey · 2019. 2. 13. · 2 Thank you for your submission to Amendment C225 (Botanic Ridge – Stage 4) to the Casey Planning Scheme. In response to the submissions

1

Adam Wojcik

From: Andrew Scott <[email protected]>

Sent: Friday, 28 April 2017 1:27 PM

To: Adam Wojcik

Cc: Megan Vallas

Subject: RE: Casey C225 - Amended Development Plan Overlay - Schedule 23

Follow Up Flag: Follow up

Flag Status: Flagged

Hi Adam, Hope your well. EPA has reviewed the Amended Development Plan Overlay and Post-submission track changes document you circulated in regards to C225. EPA approves and supports the structure and wording of Schedule 23 to the Development Plan Overlay. The incorporated comments in relation to the separation distances that apply to the this amendment address EPA’s requirements. EPA supports the depicted separation distances illustrated on Map 3 as shown. Please don’t hesitate to contact me with any follow up questions. Regards, Andrew Scott Planning Assessment Officer Southern Metro Region Environment Protection Authority Victoria 35 Langhorne Street, Dandenong VIC 3175 | GPO Box 4395 Melbourne Vic 3001 | DX 211566 � 1300 372 842 (1300 EPA VIC) | E [email protected]|www.epa.vic.gov.au

Follow us A healthy environment that supports a liveable and prosperous Victoria.

From: Adam Wojcik [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: Thursday, 13 April 2017 12:31 PM

To: [email protected]; Andrew Scott; '[email protected]'; 'Sam Trowse'; '[email protected]'; 'Lisa Stubbs'; Michael Pollard; [email protected]; Civic Centre-Council Chamber 2

(CC.02); Heather Hutchinson; Vandana Rama; 'Andrew Rodda'; Louise Lowe; 'Jenny Divine' Cc: Keri New; Dana Mizrachi; Vandana Rama; Michael Pollard

Subject: Casey C225 - Amended Development Plan Overlay - Schedule 23

Hello,

2

Thank you for your submission to Amendment C225 (Botanic Ridge – Stage 4) to the Casey Planning Scheme.

In response to the submissions received and the outcomes of the Separation Distances Workshop (held on 23 January

2017), I have amended the exhibited Development Plan Overlay - Schedule 23 proposed as part of Amendment C225. I

have also created a new map (Map 3) that illustrates the separation distances.

I have provided ‘comments’ to explain why each change has been made. Where the comment reads 'Requested by…',

this means the proposed change has been taken verbatim from the submission.

Please specify if you:

• Approve of the changes

• Disagree with the changes

• Request any further changes

I am still awaiting a couple of submissions, and further clarification from VicRoads about their submission.

Could you please provide me with your response by COB Friday 28 April. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you

have any further queries or concerns.

Kind regards,

Please consider our environment before printing this email.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Please Note:This message may contain privileged and confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not disclose, distribute, copy or use the information contained in this email or any attachments. If you have received this message in error, please notify the City of Casey by return email and delete this email and any attachments from your system. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender and may not necessarily reflect the view of the City of Casey.

Scanned by MailMarshal

_______________________________________

Is this a business related email? Then ECM SOFA ? Save Once Find Always

________________________________________

Adam Wojcik | Strategic Planner City Planning Department

City of Casey | Civic Centre | P. O. Box 1000 Narre Warren 3805

T: 03 9792 7260

E: [email protected] | W: www.casey.vic.gov.au

1

Adam Wojcik

From: [email protected]

Sent: Monday, 8 May 2017 2:41 PM

To: Adam Wojcik

Subject: Re: Casey C225 - Amended Development Plan Overlay - Schedule 23

Adam

Thank you for providing a further copy of Schedule 23 to the DPO and making the changes that clarify the buffer distances and the range of land uses needing separation from the proposed Ballarto Road landfill and Resource recovery site.

The new Map 3 to Schedule 23 to Clause 43.04 provides a clearer picture of the buffers that do apply to the site and will inform the development of residential uses in precinct 1.

MWRRG has no further comments to make at this time.

Kind regards

Michelle Lee

PRINCIPAL STRATEGIC PLANNER PHONE 8698 9821 MOBILE:0408 545 281 FAX 9699 3840 EMAIL [email protected]

OFFICE Level 4, Tower 4, World Trade Centre, 18-38 Siddeley Street, Melbourne, VIC 3005 POST PO Box 1326, South Melbourne 3205 WEBSITE www.mwrrg.vic.gov.au

Please think before you print this email.

From: Adam Wojcik <[email protected]> To: "'[email protected]'" <[email protected]>, "'Andrew Scott'" <[email protected]>, "'[email protected]'" <[email protected]>, "'Sam Trowse'" <[email protected]>, "'[email protected]'" <[email protected]>, "'Lisa Stubbs'" <[email protected]>, "Michael Pollard" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "Civic Centre-Council Chamber 2 (CC.02)" <[email protected]>, "'[email protected]'" <[email protected]>, Vandana Rama <[email protected]>, "'Andrew Rodda'" <[email protected]>, Louise Lowe <[email protected]>, "'Jenny Divine'" <[email protected]>, Cc: Keri New <[email protected]>, Dana Mizrachi <[email protected]>, Vandana Rama <[email protected]>, "Michael Pollard" <[email protected]> Date: 13/04/2017 01:05 PM Subject: Casey C225 - Amended Development Plan Overlay - Schedule 23

Hello, Thank you for your submission to Amendment C225 (Botanic Ridge – Stage 4) to the Casey Planning Scheme.

2

In response to the submissions received and the outcomes of the Separation Distances Workshop (held on 23 January 2017), I have

amended the exhibited Development Plan Overlay - Schedule 23 proposed as part of Amendment C225. I have also created a new

map (Map 3) that illustrates the separation distances. I have provided ‘comments’ to explain why each change has been made. Where the comment reads 'Requested by…', this means

the proposed change has been taken verbatim from the submission. Please specify if you:



• Request any further changes I am still awaiting a couple of submissions, and further clarification from VicRoads about their submission. Could you please provide me with your response by COB Friday 28 April. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any

further queries or concerns. Kind regards,



Scanned by MailMarshal [attachment "Post-Submission Track Changes - Amendment C225 - Botanic Ridge Stage 4 - Clause 43 04_23 - Schedule 23 to the Development Plan Overlay .docx" deleted by Michelle Lee/Person/VICGOV1]

Notice:

This email and any attachments may contain information that is personal,

confidential, legally privileged and/or copyright. No part of it should be

reproduced, adapted or communicated without the prior written consent of the

copyright owner.

It is the responsibility of the recipient to check for and remove viruses.

If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender by return

email, delete it from your system and destroy any copies. You are not authorised

to use, communicate or rely on the information contained in this email.

Please consider the environment before printing this email.

Adam Wojcik | Strategic Planner City Planning Department City of Casey | Civic Centre | P. O. Box 1000 Narre Warren 3805 T: 03 9792 7260 E: [email protected] | W: www.casey.vic.gov.au

Suite 1 Building 2 3 Ordish Road Dandenong South Vic 3175 T: 03 9794 1600 | E: [email protected] | ACN 005 376 125 | ABN 94 005 376 125 | www.klms.com.au

PLA

NN

ERS

SU

RV

EYO

RS

EN

GIN

EER

S

Our Reference: 3885.02

28th April 2017 Integrated Planning City of Casey By Email: [email protected] Attention: Adam Wojcik – Planning Officer Dear Adam, RE: Planning Scheme Amendment C225

Revised Planning Scheme documentation Your Ref: PSA00019/15.A

KLM Spatial continues to act on behalf of 860 Ballarato Road Pty Ltd, the owner of the said property which is central to this planning scheme amendment. We appreciate the opportunity to review the revised Planning Scheme Amendment documentation as forwarded to our office by email of 13th April 2014. Our response generally concerns the materials recycling facility proposed as part of the redevelopment of 950 Ballarto Road under Planning Permit PLNA00857/07. We understanding that SBI Landfill Pty Ltd has recently lodged plans for endorsement under this planning permit with Council and it appears these plans have not been considered by Council in revising the amendment documentation. We understand this to be a matter of timing. The submitted plans assist to clarify the nature and extent of the materials recycling facility and the impact of any buffers on our client’s land and the content of the amendment in this regard. The Recycling Buffer Layout Plan Rev 0 prepared by Tonkin and Taylor (attached) as provided to our office indicates:

• Concrete crushing (denoted in green) will be located a minimum of 250m from the northern extent of the ‘fire break’ shown on the 860 Ballarto Road land. We further understand that crushing will occur below grade and therefore potential amenity impacts will be further mitigated. Much of the 33m strip of land shown as fire break along the boundary of 860 Balarto Road is indicated as having a Bushfire Attack Level (BAL) of 40 or higher in the Bushfire Hazard Assessment prepared by Practical Ecology (dated 14/8/15 and submitted to Council) and is therefore considered inappropriate for residential development.

• Other recycling activities will occur a minimum of 200m from the northern edge of the firebreak. The other recycling activities will have lower amenity impacts than the crushing activities and therefore a reduction of the buffer from 250m to 200m is considered reasonable, whilst still retaining substantial separation. We anticipate that SBI Landfill Pty Ltd will provide additional information to support the reduction of this buffer.

On the basis of the plans submitted for endorsement for the recycling facility it is requested that a number of changes be made to the documentation:

1. The Indicative Materials Recycling Facility Buffer be removed from Map 3, and the buffer be shown as indicated on the following plan. We consider the buffer shown on the amended documentation is entirely inappropriate as there was never any intention for a materials recycling facility to be located along the entire length of the boundary of the two properties resulting in a buffer (as shown on the plan) that impacts

Page 2 Suite 1 Building 2 3 Ordish Road Dandenong Vic 3175 T: 03 9794 1600 | E: [email protected] | ACN 005 376 125 | ABN 94 005 376 125 | www.klms.com.au

over 50% of our client’s land. We urge Council to remove the buffer as shown on the amended documentation.

The buffer shown above accurately reflects a 250m offset from the crushing activities and provides a substantial 200m separation distance for all other recycling activities.

2. It is requested the following new clause in section 2.1 be deleted from the amendment documentation,

A report that demonstrates that the proposal responds appropriately to the refuse disposal facility and materials recycling facility at 950 Ballarto Road (authorised under Planning Permit PLNA00857/07 issued by the City of Casey on 19 June, 2015).

We consider that it is the responsibility of SBI to ensure that the new facility does not impact on adjoining land owners and we understand that an Environmental Management Plan is required under that permit to be submitted and approved Council in this regard. Given a BAL exceeding 40 applies to the land along the joint boundary there is no opportunity for screening plants or an acoustic wall to be constructed along this boundary, as such works or planting are likely to contribute to fire hazard.

3. It is requested the following new clause in 2.2 be amended as follows,

Residential development cannot be located within 250m of any crushing activities associated with the materials recycling facility, and within 200m of any other recycling activities, authorized under Planning Permit PLNA00857/07 issued by the City of Casey on 19 June, 2015.

Whilst we accept that a buffer of 250m is appropriate between residential lots and crushing activities, we consider that a buffer of 200m would be acceptable for other recycling activities.


4. It is requested the following new clause in section 2.2 be deleted from the amendment documentation,

Residential development cannot be located within 250m of the property boundary of 950 Ballarto Road, Botanic Ridge, until the location of the materials recycling facility (authorized under Planning Permit PLNA00857/07) is confirmed with an endorsed plan and the planning permit is amended,

We consider that the new clause is entirely inappropriate as there is no intention by SBI to locate recycling activities adjacent to the boundary between the two properties, and this is supported by the recently submitted plans. There is further no need to repeat the buffer requirements which are proposed to be articulated in dot point 3 above.

5. It is requested the development exclusion areas proposed in clause 4.2 for materials recycling be subject

to further review as follows,

Development exclusion areas corresponding to separation distances from:

� Quarry blasting (300m)

� Mechanical extraction (200m)

� Refuse disposal facility (200m)

� Materials recycling facility (250m for crushing activities, 200m for other activities)

� Post-closure of landfill and gas migration (200m)

� Broiler farm operation (500m)

With regard to other Amendment matters it is proposed some minor clarification be provided within the documentation:

• In section 2.2 it is proposed that further clarity be provided in relation to the location of services and the Tree Reserve. We understand that it is Council’s intention in this regard that services be located within the Tree Reserve rather than within the Ballarto Road Reserve. It is important to acknowledge however that some services unavoidable need to traverse the road reserve. (It is noted that road construction and removal of trees in the Ballarto Road reserve is currently being considered in relation to the current SBI planning permit.) It is proposed the wording of this clause be amended from,

All services must be located wholly within the site to avoid impacts upon existing vegetation within the Ballarto Road reservation, and not compromise the planting of appropriate vegetation within the 20m tree reserve.

to, Infrastructure services should substantially be located within the land or within the 20m tree reserve in order to minimise impacts upon existing vegetation within the Ballarto Road Reserve and in such a way as to minimize impacts on the planting of appropriate vegetation within the Tree Reserve.


We look forward to continuing to progress Amendment C225 through to gazettal. We look forward to further discussing these matters prior to the forth coming Panel hearing. Should you wish to discuss any of the above further, please don’t hesitate to contact me directly on 9794 1600. Yours sincerely

Louise Lowe KLM Spatial

This page has intentionally been left blank


Suite 1, Building 2, 3 Ordish Road, Dandenong South VIC 3175 T: 03 9794 1600 | E: [email protected] | ACN 005 376 125 | ABN 94 005 376 125 | www.klms.com.au

PLA

NN

ERS

SU

RV

EYO

RS

EN

GIN

EER

S

Our Reference: 3885.02

23 May 2017

Casey City Council PO Box 1000 Narre Warren VIC 3805 Attention: Adam Wojcik Dear Adam Re: Planning Scheme Amendment C225

Council Reference: PSA00019/15.A Further to our telephone conversation a week last Friday regarding the above, below is our response to the various items discussed: Cranbourne Turf Club Submission We have reviewed the submission and believe their concerns with respect to the traffic impacts of the proposed future residential subdivision on the racing precinct are unfounded, given that both Laurie Cleary Lane and Cyril Beechey Lane are no-through roads and are, therefore, unlikely to generate any traffic from future residents of the subject site. With respect to the Club’s request regarding an upgrade of the eastern section of Ballarto Road as a consequence of increased traffic generated by the Royal Botanic Gardens, and to restricting public access to Cyril Beechey Lane and Laurie Cleary Lane by installing gates at their Ballarto Road extent, these issues are considered beyond the scope of this Planning Scheme Amendment. Proposed DPO Schedule Amendments In relation to the proposed further Amendments to Section 4.2 of the DPO Schedule, we have no objection to sub-points 1 and 3 under bullet point 2 of Section 4.2 being reworded as follows:

• “How development will be designed to respect and take advantage of the significant natural assets of the Royal Botanic Gardens Cranbourne, including facilitating pedestrian and bicycle access, vegetation and habitat connectivity.”

• “A road, cycling, and pedestrian network, supported by a Transport Impact Assessment Report, that gives consideration to the location of local roads and trails in adjoining precincts…”

Connector Street Cross-section In relation to the proposed Connector Street, we have reviewed our file and note that Jonathan Jackson (KLM Spatial) and Hong Knowling (Council’s Strategic Planning Department) engaged in numerous discussions about the cross-section, and copy was provided to Council’s Strategic Planning and Traffic Departments for careful examination and formal agreement, prior to lodgement of the Planning Scheme Amendment request. In this regard, I note that the Connector Street will only provide access to a relatively small area of residential development; hence the agreed position with Council for a reduction of the typical width.


PLA

NN

ERS

SU

RV

EYO

RS

EN

GIN

EER

S

Materials Recycling Buffer As per our discussions last week on Friday, we continue to oppose depiction of a 250m buffer line measured from the common boundary between 860 Ballarto Road and the SBI landfill site. Although the Map states that this is “indicative” and includes an asterisk requiring referral back to Section 2.2 of the Schedule, these map notations are considered vague in contrast to the definitive nature of the line shown on the map. As such, there is a risk that the intent of this buffer line could be misinterpreted, regardless of the finally approved location of the materials recycling facility under PLNA00857/07. We have recently received advice from SBI that it is seeking to have Planning Permit No. PLNA00857/07 amended to include a condition which requires the materials recycling facility to be located 217 metres from its common boundary with 860 Ballarto Road (i.e. resulting in a buffer encroachment of only 33 metres into the boundary of the site and the firebreak area). Our client is supportive of this outcome, and I understand that SBI has also informed you of this eventuality by way of a letter dated 19 May 2017 (copy of which is enclosed). Consequently, we submit that this matter has been amicably resolved between the parties, and that the indicative materials recycling buffer line (which currently extends 250 metres onto 860 Ballarto Road) can be removed from Map 3 of the DPO Schedule. We also request that the following other amendments be made to the DPO Schedule to avoid any future confusion on this point:

• Delete the fourth bullet point under Section 2.1 (“ Application Requirements”) which currently reads:

A report that demonstrates that the proposal responds appropriately to the refuse disposal facility and materials recycling facility at 950 Ballarto Road (authorised under Planning Permit PLNA00857/07 issued by the City of Casey on 19 June 2015).

• Amend Section 2.2 (“Development requirements”) first bullet point under “General” sub heading to

read:

Dwellings cannot be located within 250m of any materials recycling facility authorised under Planning Permit PLNA00857/07 issued by the City of Casey on 19 June 2015

• Delete first bullet point under Section 2.2 “Development Requirements” – “Precinct 1 Only” –

“General” which states:

Residential development cannot be located within 250m of the property boundary of 950 Ballarto Road, Botanic Ridge, until the location of the materials recycling facility (authorised under Planning Permit PLNA00857/07) is confirmed with an endorsed plan and the planning permit is amended.

• Delete reference to the refuse disposal and materials recycling facilities under sub-point 10 of bullet

point 2 under Section 4.2 “Components of the development plan”, given that issues of noise, dust, and odour from the refuse disposal and materials recycling facilities are not within our client’s control, and will be fully addressed by the EMP prepared by SBI. We also note that interface treatment opportunities adjacent to the south-eastern boundary may be limited due to the defendable space restrictions of AS3959-2009.


PLA

NN

ERS

SU

RV

EYO

RS

EN

GIN

EER

S

SBI Submission We have reviewed SBI’s submission to Council dated 19 May 2017 and have no objection to its requested revisions to the DPO Schedule. Retention of Remnant Patches & Scattered Trees After undertaking a further review of the amended DPO Schedule, we note the inclusion at Section 4.2 under the urban structure plan requirements of the following:

“the retention of significant vegetation on or adjoining the land, including patches of remnant vegetation and all scattered trees, to be incorporated into public open space and other public land”.

Whilst any proposed subdivision will endeavour to accommodate tree retention, it may not be possible for all the trees on the site to be retained. Consequently, we request that this section of the DPO schedule be reworded as follows to allow some flexibility, based on the results of any future native vegetation assessment:

“the retention of significant vegetation on or adjoining the land, including where possible patches of remnant vegetation and scattered trees to be incorporated into public open space and other public land”.

I trust the above will be found to be in order. Please feel free to contact me, however, should you wish to discuss any of the above items in further detail. Yours sincerely

Jenny Divine

KLM Spatial


1

Adam Wojcik

From: Jill Burness <[email protected]>

Sent: Wednesday, 3 May 2017 2:58 PM

To: Adam Wojcik

Cc: Chris Russell

Subject: RE: Casey C225 - Amended Development Plan Overlay - Schedule 23 - Changes by

RBGV



Dear Adam

Thank you for forwarding the proposed changes to the Cranbourne Gardens re Amendment C225.

We wish to request that one change is included in the revision of Amendment C225, as follows:

1. Section 4.2 Components of the development plan. Second dot point.

We request the following words (underlined)are added to the existing words:

“How development will be designed to respect and take advantage of the significant natural assets of the Royal

Botanic Gardens Cranbourne, including facilitating pedestrian and bicycle access, vegetation and habitat

connectivity.”

Apart from the above item, we advise that the intent of the submission provided by the Royal Botanic Gardens Victoria,

to the City of Casey, has been incorporated into Amendment C225.

Regards

Jill

From: Adam Wojcik [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: Monday, 1 May 2017 2:03 PM To: Jill Burness; Chris Russell

Subject: RE: Casey C225 - Amended Development Plan Overlay - Schedule 23 - Changes

Hello Jill and Chris,

Thank you for RBGC’s submission to Amendment C225 (Botanic Ridge – Stage 4) to the Casey Planning Scheme.

A fortnight ago, I sent you an email with an edited Development Plan Overlay – Schedule 23 which responds to the

submissions received to Amendment C225. It has only come to my attention today that this email did not come through

your system due to its file size. I have now attached a smaller version of this document for your response. This smaller

version has removed figures 1 and 2, and maps 1 and 2 – they are unchanged from the exhibition version. These figures

will remain in the final DPO23, and have only been removed from the version you see here to keep the file size low over

email.

I have provided ‘comments’ to explain why each change has been made. Where the comment reads 'Requested by…',

this means the proposed change has been taken verbatim from the submission.

2

Please specify if you:



• Request any further changes

Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any further queries or concerns. I will contact you later today to

confirm that you received this email, and to confirm when you will be able to provide me with a response.

Kind regards,



Scanned by MailMarshal

_______________________________________

Is this a business related email? Then ECM SOFA ? Save Once Find Always

________________________________________

Adam Wojcik | Strategic Planner City Planning Department

City of Casey | Civic Centre | P. O. Box 1000 Narre Warren 3805

T: 03 9792 7260

E: [email protected] | W: www.casey.vic.gov.au

1

Adam Wojcik


Sent: Tuesday, 13 June 2017 1:20 PM

To: Adam Wojcik

Subject: Fw: Casey C225 - Amended Development Plan Overlay - Schedule 23

Attachments: Ballarto Road roundabout design.pdf



Adam - further to the attached email from VicRoads' Project Advice team regarding a review of traffic data

associated with Casey Amendment C225, VicRoads advise the Transport Impact Assessment Report

(TIAR) meets to VicRoads satisfaction and no further information is required.

Regards Jeremy Beaver Statutory Referral VicRoads 12 Lakeside Drive Burwood East Vic 3152 T: 9881 8084 F: 9887 7590 E: [email protected] ----- Forwarded by Jeremy Beaver/VicRoads on 13/06/2017 01:14 PM -----

From: Manni Jiang/VicRoads To: Adam Wojcik <[email protected]> Cc: Jeremy Beaver/VicRoads@VICROADS Date: 22/05/2017 09:37 AM Subject: Fw: Casey C225 - Amended Development Plan Overlay - Schedule 23

Ext: 8958 Business Area: Metro South East

Hi Adam,

Please refer to the email below of my assessment for the Botanic Ridge Stage 4 development.

Regards Manni Jiang Senior Traffic Engineer (Project Interface) VicRoads Metropolitan South East Regin 12 Lakeside Drive, Burwood East, 3101 T: 03 9881 8958 Email: [email protected] The following conditions apply to this communication and any attachments: VicRoads reserves all of its copyright; the information is intended for the addressees only and may be confidential - it must not be passed on by any other recipients; and VicRoads accepts no liability for any consequences arising from the recipient's use of this means of communication. If received in error, please contact us and delete all copies. ----- Forwarded by Manni Jiang/VicRoads on 22/05/2017 09:34 AM ----- From: Manni Jiang/VicRoads


1

Adam Wojcik


Sent: Wednesday, 22 March 2017 3:50 PM

To: [email protected]

Cc: Adam Wojcik

Subject: Re: SP458783 - Casey C225 Amendment



Hi Joanne,

Thanks for referring this. Bellow is further clarification regarding our response:

It is important to note that DELWP's letter outlined recommendations only. DELWP does not have the authority to require the implementation of these recommendations.

•

In recommending retention of any areas of Southern Brown Bandicoot habitat, we were referring to the remnants of the Heathy Woodland and Swamp Scrub Ecological Vegetation Class identified on the precinct. Remnant native vegetation is represented in DELWP's time-stamping data layer. As above, while recommending retention where possible DELWP does not have the authority to require retention of native vegetation within this precinct.

•

Incorporating Southern Brown Bandicoot friendly measures in the design and management of open space could include:

• Identifying areas for revegetation utilising species and planting densities suitable for the species (DELWP is currently preparing landscape standards however in the case of Botanic Ridge Stage 4 plantings consistent with the Heathy Woodland and Swamp Scrub EVC's would be considered suitable)

• Co-locating areas of open space to be contiguous with areas of retained native vegetation.

Another Southern Brown Bandicoot friendly measure that may not be relevant to open space or the development plan would be encouraging developers and landowners to plant native vegetation for bandicoot habitat through incentives. We would be keen to see whether there is any capacity to somehow have this represented in the amendment.

I hope this helps. Let me know if you need anything further.

Regards, Michael

Michael Ward | A/Team Leader Precinct Structure Planning | Melbourne Strategic Assessment Energy, Environment and Climate Change | Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning

Level 2, 8 Nicholson Street, East Melbourne, Victoria, 3002 | DX 210098

T: 03 9637 8125 | M: 0418 667 579 | E: [email protected]

2

From: Joanne Lee/Person/VICGOV1 To: Michael Ward/Person/VICGOV1@VICGOV1, Cc: [email protected] Date: 20/03/2017 04:16 PM Subject: SP458783 - Casey C225 Amendment

Hi Michael,

I hope this email finds you well.

I've had a quick chat with Adam from Casey CC this afternoon regarding the Department's response to Amendment C225 re Botanic Ridge. More specifically, Adam requires clarification on the comment on the second page of our response:

• Under Section 4 of Schedule 23 to the Development Plan Overlay the components of the development plan should require consideration of the following:

o Retention of any areas comprising Southern Brown Bandicoot habitat;

And how this would be applied as the entire subject area land is identified as bandicoot habitat (ie: if an application was received that did not retain habitat, would this warrant a refusal?)

Furthermore, the second dot point:

• Incorporation of Southern Brown Bandicoot friendly measures in the design and management of open space.

•

Do we have any suggested examples?

Could you please give Adam a buzz to discuss 9792 7260.

Warm regards,

Joanne Lee | Senior Statutory Planner | Regional Planning and Approvals Forest, Fire and Regions | Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning 123 Brown Street Heidelberg, Victoria 3084 T: 03 9450 8759 | E: [email protected]

[attachment "SP458783 Amendment C255.pdf" deleted by Michael Ward/Person/VICGOV1]

Documents

Adam Wojcik - City of Casey · 2019. 2. 13. · 2 Thank you for your submission to Amendment C225 (Botanic Ridge – Stage 4) to the Casey Planning Scheme. In response to the submissions