Upload
others
View
2
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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
Whittlesea C187 - WOLLERT - Unresolved Submissions
Sub. #Affected property /
propertiesIssue Raised
Change to the amendment
requested?MPA Comment / Proposed Outcome ACTION STATUS
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.
Further review/discussion
requiredDecision pending further review
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.
No action Unresolved - Refer to panel
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.
No action Unresolved - Refer to panel
2 of 14
Whittlesea C187 - WOLLERT - Unresolved Submissions
Sub. #Affected property /
propertiesIssue Raised
Change to the amendment
requested?MPA Comment / Proposed Outcome ACTION STATUS
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
requiredDecision pending further review
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.
Change the amendment Decision pending further review
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.
Further review/discussion
requiredDecision pending further review
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.
Further review/discussion
requiredDecision pending further review
3 of 14
Whittlesea C187 - WOLLERT - Unresolved Submissions
Sub. #Affected property /
propertiesIssue Raised
Change to the amendment
requested?MPA Comment / Proposed Outcome ACTION STATUS
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
requiredDecision pending further review
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.
Further review/discussion
requiredDecision pending further review
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.
Change the amendment Unresolved - Refer to panel
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.
Further review/discussion
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.
No action Unresolved - Refer to panel
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.
Change the amendment Decision pending further review
4 of 14
Whittlesea C187 - WOLLERT - Unresolved Submissions
Sub. #Affected property /
propertiesIssue Raised
Change to the amendment
requested?MPA Comment / Proposed Outcome ACTION STATUS
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
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.
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%.
Change the amendment Decision pending further review
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
Whittlesea C187 - WOLLERT - Unresolved Submissions
Sub. #Affected property /
propertiesIssue Raised
Change to the amendment
requested?MPA Comment / Proposed Outcome ACTION STATUS
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
requiredDecision pending further review
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
Whittlesea C187 - WOLLERT - Unresolved Submissions
Sub. #Affected property /
propertiesIssue Raised
Change to the amendment
requested?MPA Comment / Proposed Outcome ACTION STATUS
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.
Further review/discussion
requiredDecision pending further review
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
Whittlesea C187 - WOLLERT - Unresolved Submissions
Sub. #Affected property /
propertiesIssue Raised
Change to the amendment
requested?MPA Comment / Proposed Outcome ACTION STATUS
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
requiredDecision pending further review
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.
Change the amendment Decision pending further review
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.
No action Unresolved - Refer to panel
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.
Change the amendment Decision pending further review
8 of 14
Whittlesea C187 - WOLLERT - Unresolved Submissions
Sub. #Affected property /
propertiesIssue Raised
Change to the amendment
requested?MPA Comment / Proposed Outcome ACTION STATUS
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.
Change the amendment Unresolved - Refer to panel
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
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.
No action Unresolved - Refer to panel
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
No action Unresolved - Refer to panel
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
No action Unresolved - Refer to panel
9 of 14
Whittlesea C187 - WOLLERT - Unresolved Submissions
Sub. #Affected property /
propertiesIssue Raised
Change to the amendment
requested?MPA Comment / Proposed Outcome ACTION STATUS
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.
No action Unresolved - Refer to panel
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.
No action Unresolved - Refer to panel
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.
No action Unresolved - Refer to panel
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 .
No action Unresolved - Refer to panel
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.
Further review/discussion
requiredDecision pending further review
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.
No action Unresolved - Refer to panel
10 of 14
Whittlesea C187 - WOLLERT - Unresolved Submissions
Sub. #Affected property /
propertiesIssue Raised
Change to the amendment
requested?MPA Comment / Proposed Outcome ACTION STATUS
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.
No action Unresolved - Refer to panel
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.
No action Unresolved - Refer to panel
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.
No action Unresolved - Refer to panel
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.
No action Unresolved - Refer to panel
11 of 14
Whittlesea C187 - WOLLERT - Unresolved Submissions
Sub. #Affected property /
propertiesIssue Raised
Change to the amendment
requested?MPA Comment / Proposed Outcome ACTION STATUS
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.
No action Unresolved - Refer to panel
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.
No action Unresolved - Refer to panel
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.
No action Unresolved - Refer to panel
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.
No action Unresolved - Refer to panel
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
requiredDecision pending further review
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.
Further review/discussion
requiredDecision pending further review
12 of 14
Whittlesea C187 - WOLLERT - Unresolved Submissions
Sub. #Affected property /
propertiesIssue Raised
Change to the amendment
requested?MPA Comment / Proposed Outcome ACTION STATUS
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
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.
No action Unresolved - Refer to panel
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.
No action Unresolved - Refer to panel
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.
No action Unresolved - Refer to panel
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.
Change the amendment Decision pending further review
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
No action Unresolved - Refer to panel
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.
No action Unresolved - Refer to panel
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.
No action Unresolved - Refer to panel
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.
No action Unresolved - Refer to panel
13 of 14
Whittlesea C187 - WOLLERT - Unresolved Submissions
Sub. #Affected property /
propertiesIssue Raised
Change to the amendment
requested?MPA Comment / Proposed Outcome ACTION STATUS
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.
No action Unresolved - Refer to panel
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
Further review/discussion
requiredDecision pending further review
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.
Change the amendment Unresolved - Refer to panel
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.
No action Unresolved - Refer to panel
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.
No action Unresolved - Refer to panel
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