appendix 1 title documentation

Register Search Statement - Volume 11056 Folio 805

Copyright State of Victoria. This publication is copyright.No part may be reproduced by any process except in accordance withthe provisions of the Copyright Act and for the purposes of Section32 of the Sale of Land Act 1962 or pursuant to a written agreement.The information is only valid at the time and in the form obtainedfrom the LANDATA REGD TM System. The State of Victoria accepts noresponsibility for any subsequent release, publication or reproductionof the information.

REGISTER SEARCH STATEMENT (Title Search) Transfer of Land Act 1958--------------------------------------------------------------------------------VOLUME 11056 FOLIO 805 Security no : 124051447550D

Produced 21/07/2014 10:59 amLAND DESCRIPTION----------------Crown Allotment 39 Section A Parish of Hazelwood.PARENT TITLE Volume 03067 Folio 279Created by instrument AF700319X 06/03/2008

REGISTERED PROPRIETOR---------------------Estate Fee SimpleAs to 1 of a total of 3 equal undivided sharesSole Proprietor

ROBERT LESLIE of 18 REEVES STREET LAKES ENTRANCE VIC 3909AF700319X 06/03/2008

ENCUMBRANCES, CAVEATS AND NOTICES---------------------------------CAVEAT AG155782A 23/10/2008

CaveatorPREMIER RESIDENCES HOLDINGS PTY LTDCapacity PURCHASER/FEE SIMPLELodged byJELLIE MCDONALDNotices toJELLIE MCDONALD of 64 KEPLER STREET WARRNAMBOOL VIC 3280

CAVEAT AJ193865E 14/09/2011CaveatorGILESTEAD PTY LTDCapacity PURCHASER/FEE SIMPLELodged byRENNICK & GAYNOR SOLICITORSNotices toRENNICK & GAYNOR of 431 RIVERSDALE ROAD HAWTHORN EAST VIC 3123

For details of any other encumbrances see the plan or imaged folio set outunder DIAGRAM LOCATION below.

DIAGRAM LOCATION----------------SEE TP792113C FOR FURTHER DETAILS AND BOUNDARIES

ACTIVITY IN THE LAST 125 DAYS-----------------------------

NIL

------------------------END OF REGISTER SEARCH STATEMENT------------------------

Additional information: (not part of the Register Search Statement)

OTHER TITLES WITH INTERESTS AFFECTING THE FEE SIMPLE IN THIS LAND11056/806, 11056/807

Street Address: 25 JEERALANG WEST ROAD CHURCHILL VIC 3842

DOCUMENT END

Delivered from the Landata ® System by SAI Global Property Division Pty LtdDelivered at 21/07/2014, for Order Number 22688022. Your reference: DJ_glendonald road, churchill.



REGISTER SEARCH STATEMENT (Title Search) Transfer of Land Act 1958--------------------------------------------------------------------------------VOLUME 11056 FOLIO 808 Security no : 124051650279V

Produced 05/08/2014 10:38 amLAND DESCRIPTION----------------Crown Allotment 39C Section A Parish of Hazelwood.PARENT TITLE Volume 06130 Folio 890Created by instrument AF700319X 06/03/2008


ROBERT LESLIE of 18 REEVES STREET LAKES ENTRANCE VIC 3909AF700319X 06/03/2008





DIAGRAM LOCATION----------------SEE TP770344F FOR FURTHER DETAILS AND BOUNDARIES


NIL





DOCUMENT END

Delivered from the Landata ® System by SAI Global Property Division Pty LtdDelivered at 05/08/2014, for Order Number 23008475. Your reference: 14101_glendonald road_DJ.



REGISTER SEARCH STATEMENT (Title Search) Transfer of Land Act 1958--------------------------------------------------------------------------------VOLUME 11056 FOLIO 810 Security no : 124051650277X


REGISTERED PROPRIETOR---------------------Estate Fee SimpleAs to 1 of a total of 3 equal undivided sharesJoint Proprietors

ROBERT LESLIE of 18 REEVES STREET LAKES ENTRANCE VIC 3909PAUL MATTHEW DAVINE of SUITE 3 1 BARKLY STREET WARRAGUL VIC 3820 LegalPersonal Representative(s) of ADAM LESLIE deceasedAF700319X 06/03/2008

ENCUMBRANCES, CAVEATS AND NOTICES---------------------------------MORTGAGE AF700320P 06/03/2008

W. HOWE NOMINEES PTY LTD

CAVEAT AG155782A 23/10/2008CaveatorPREMIER RESIDENCES HOLDINGS PTY LTDCapacity PURCHASER/FEE SIMPLELodged byJELLIE MCDONALDNotices toJELLIE MCDONALD of 64 KEPLER STREET WARRNAMBOOL VIC 3280





NIL





DOCUMENT END




REGISTER SEARCH STATEMENT (Title Search) Transfer of Land Act 1958--------------------------------------------------------------------------------VOLUME 11056 FOLIO 809 Security no : 124051650273B



MICHAEL ANTHONY BEWICKE of 280 ESPLANADE MOUNT MARTHA VIC 3934 LegalPersonal Representative(s) of MARY GRACE THORNTON deceasedAF700319X 06/03/2008







NIL





DOCUMENT END




REGISTER SEARCH STATEMENT (Title Search) Transfer of Land Act 1958--------------------------------------------------------------------------------VOLUME 11056 FOLIO 807 Security no : 124051650270F


REGISTERED PROPRIETOR---------------------Estate Fee SimpleAs to 1 of a total of 3 equal undivided sharesJoint Proprietors

ROBERT LESLIE of 18 REEVES STREET LAKES ENTRANCE VIC 3909PAUL MATTHEW DAVINE of SUITE 3 1 BARKLY STREET WARRAGUL VIC 3820 LegalPersonal Representative(s) of ADAM LESLIE deceasedAF700319X 06/03/2008

ENCUMBRANCES, CAVEATS AND NOTICES---------------------------------MORTGAGE AF700320P 06/03/2008

W. HOWE NOMINEES PTY LTD

CAVEAT AG155782A 23/10/2008CaveatorPREMIER RESIDENCES HOLDINGS PTY LTDCapacity PURCHASER/FEE SIMPLELodged byJELLIE MCDONALDNotices toJELLIE MCDONALD of 64 KEPLER STREET WARRNAMBOOL VIC 3280





NIL





DOCUMENT END




REGISTER SEARCH STATEMENT (Title Search) Transfer of Land Act 1958--------------------------------------------------------------------------------VOLUME 11056 FOLIO 806 Security no : 124051650266K



MICHAEL ANTHONY BEWICKE of 280 ESPLANADE MOUNT MARTHA VIC 3934 LegalPersonal Representative(s) of MARY GRACE THORNTON deceasedAF700319X 06/03/2008







NIL





DOCUMENT END


appendix 2 explanatory report

Planning and Environment Act 1987

LATROBE PLANNING SCHEME

AMENDMENT C90

EXPLANATORY REPORT

Who is the planning authority? This amendment has been prepared by Latrobe City Council, which is the planning authority for this amendment.

The amendment has been made at the request of Hansen Partnership Pty Ltd on behalf of Junction Road Partnership.

Land affected by the amendment The amendment applies to land at Glendonald Road, Churchill (TP770344F - formerly CA39 Sec A Parish of Hazelwood Vol 11056 Fol 808,809,810 & TP792113C - formerly CA39C Sec A Parish of Hazelwood Vol 11056 Fol 805,806,807).

Figure 1: Subject Site Source: Nearmap

The subject site is located on Glendonald Road, Churchill approximately 1.6km from the Churchill town centre. The site is approximately 49 hectares with a frontage to Glendonald Road of approximately 485 metres and a depth of 1000 metres.

The site is predominately vacant with a number of small water bodies (farming dams) scattered around the site as well as a dilapidated farm shed at the southern edge of the property. The site is devoid of native vegetation and is covered by introduced grass species being reflective of its active farming use for livestock grazing. The site accommodates a generally undulating topography.

What the amendment does The amendment proposes the following changes within the Latrobe Planning Scheme to specifically apply to the subject site:

• Rezone the land from Rural Living Zone (RLZ4) to Low Density Residential Zone (LDRZ);

• Introduces the Development Plan Overlay Schedule 8 (DPO8) which sets out the requirements for a development plan which must be prepared before the land can be developed.

Strategic assessment of the amendment

Why is the amendment required?

The Latrobe City Council Residential and Rural Residential Land Assessment (2009) identified that there is a low proportion of Low Density Residential Zone (LDRZ) lots available for development. The amendment will provide for additional residential land for future development in Latrobe City Council.

How does the amendment implement the objectives of planning in Victoria?

The rezoning of land will provide for the fair, orderly, economic and sustainable use and development of land. The application of the Development Plan Overlay Schedule 8 (DPO8) will facilitate development in accordance with the objectives of planning in Victoria.

How does the amendment address the environmental effects and any relevant social and economic effects?

The re-zoning and subsequent development of the land for low density residential purposes will provide greater dwelling diversity in Churchill and will have a positive social impact on the community. The development of the land will further enhance Churchill as a desirable place to live and will also have a positive impact on population growth. The provision of additional residential land will encourage higher-order goods and services to become available within the local community.

The introduction of Development Plan Overlay Schedule 8 (DPO8) will facilitate the appropriate planning and development of the subject site and the integration of services such as road connections, bike and pedestrian links, public open space and connected public transport routes.

Economic effects of the proposed rezoning are expected to be positive as future subdivisions will provide opportunities for new housing development. The development of the subdivision will provide opportunities for local businesses, both during construction and as a consequence of an increased population base, which are both positive economic outcomes. Additional residences will also result in an increased rate base for Council which can be reinvested in the community for their benefit.

Does the amendment address relevant bushfire risk? The land is not currently within the area of the Bushfire Management Overlay (BMO). The area is generally grazing land with minimal tree cover on the rezoned area or adjacent land, therefore bushfire risks are considered to be low.

Future development will be required to accord with relevant Building Standards and Country Fire Association requirements.

Does the amendment comply with the requirements of any Minister’s Direction applicable to the amendment? The amendment is consistent with Minister’s Direction 11 Strategic Assessment of Amendments under Section 12 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 as well as the Form and Content of Planning Schemes.

How does the amendment support or implement the State Planning Policy Framework and any adopted State policy? The amendment supports/implements the State Planning Policy Framework (SPPF) through its consistency with the following Clauses:

Clause 11 – Settlement The proposed amendment is consistent with Clause 11 Settlement which states;

‘planning is to anticipate and respond to the needs of existing and future communities through provision of zoned and serviced land for housing, employment, recreation and open space, commercial and community facilities and infrastructure’.

Furthermore, Urban growth is addressed at Clause 11.02 and establishes the objective to:

‘ensure a sufficient supply of land is available for residential, commercial, retail, industrial, recreational, institutional and other community uses’.

The amendment will improve the supply of residential land in the general ‘Latrobe City’ region* which is identified at Clause 11.05 Regional Development as a ‘major regional city’ (* as illustrated on the Regional Victoria Settlement Framework Map). In particular the amendment addresses the State planning policy strategy to:

‘provide for growth in population…across a region or sub-region network’.

The proposed amendment does not conflict with the State Planning Policy Framework.

Clause 13 – Environmental Risks

Clause 13 Environmental Risks nominates that planning should adopt a best practice environmental management and risk management approach in seeking to avoid or minimise environmental hazards and degradation. Planning should also identify and manage the potential for the environment, and environmental changes, to impact upon the economic, environmental or social well-being of society. No environmental risks or management issues are anticipated from the rezoning and subsequent subdivision of the subject site.

Clause 14 – Natural Resource Management Clause 14 Natural Resource Management nominates that planning should assist in the conservation of natural resources, including, water, energy, land, minerals etc. so that the State’s base is protected from the unplanned loss of high quality productive agricultural land due to permanent changes of land use and to enable protection of productive farmland, which is of high quality and strategic significance in the local or regional context.

The site does not constitute significant agricultural land, and agricultural viability is constrained by the size of the site. The amendment would therefore not negatively impact on productivity of agricultural land within the local area.

Clause 15 – Built Environment and Heritage

Clause 15 Built Environment and Heritage nominated that planning should ensure all new land use and development appropriately responds to its context (landscape, valued built form and cultural context) and which protect places and sites with significant heritage, architectural, aesthetic, scientific and cultural value.

Planning should also create built environments which support the social, cultural, economic and environmental wellbeing of our communities, cities and towns, and seek the development and maintenance of communities with adequate and safe physical and social environments for their residents.

The design and built form of the subdivision of the land will be guided by the requirements of Schedule 8 to the Development Plan Overlay (DPO8) and the associated Development Plan which is required to be prepared, and will ensure that the development of the land will be designed to be sympathetic with the environmental, landscape and topographical values of the site.

Clause 16 – Housing Clause 16 seeks the management of development in rural areas to protect agriculture and ensure housing is focused towards existing settlements where community infrastructure and services are provided.

The rezoning of the subject is appropriate as the land is currently zoned and has been identified as being suitable for rural living and rural residential development through the application of the Rural Living Zone (RLZ4). The rezoning will not negatively impact or encroach on any agricultural landuse or activity and will encourage the consolidation of new housing in an existing settlement where physical and community infrastructure services are provided.

Strategies have previously identified the suitability of the subject site for development and the land is located close to existing towns and urban centres, but not in areas that will be required for fully serviced urban development.

The site can be supplied with electricity and water and good quality road access and it will accommodate future residential growth away from the coal buffer identified in the Churchill Regional Growth Plan (2014).

Additionally the site will provide an underutilised housing choice within Churchill where developable Low Density Residential Land (LDRZ) land is currently unavailable yet an ideal dwelling choice for this region of Latrobe municipality. Traralgon, the largest regional centre in Latrobe is undergoing a significant growth in population and home buyers are increasingly becoming priced out of the housing market. Providing for Low Density Residential Zone (LDRZ) land in Churchill will create an identity and attractive housing market for the town.

Clause 18 – Transport Clause 18 Transport nominates that planning should ensure safe, integrated and sustainable transport systems which contribute to environmental sustainability, ensure the management of road systems and ensure the provision of appropriately designed and located car parking.

A preliminary traffic assessment has been conducted to seek appropriate vehicle connections to the site from existing roads. The outcomes of this assessment has highlighted that the level of anticipated additional traffic generated by the development of the subject site will not compromise the safety or function of the surrounding road network against existing traffic volumes in the vicinity of the site.

There will be opportunity to further consider site access and potential traffic etc. as part of future Planning Permit application to subdivide the subject site.

Clause 19 – Infrastructure

Clause 19 Infrastructure nominates that planning should ensure the provision of social and physical infrastructure in an efficient, equitable, accessible and timely manner and recognise social needs by providing land for a range of community resources.

A preliminary infrastructure assessment has been conducted to seek appropriate servicing connections to the subject site and there are no critical issues or impediments that would prevent the development of the site for low density residential zoned subdivision, subject to various conditions being met and service infrastructure being developed and incorporated into the design. Detailed issues associated with connection to required infrastructure will be logically considered as part of any future Planning Permit applications to subdivide the subject site.

Based on early advice from Gippsland Water stormwater drainage and sewerage will need to be managed on site. The details of the Land Capability Assessment identified that:

"Given The minimum lot size of 0.4 Ha this investigation has concluded that: Adequate land area is available for sustainable long term land application of

wastewater from residential dwellings, given the proposed rezoning.

If the prescriptions of this report are followed the likely human and environmental health risks associated with effluent disposal over the site is low".

How does the amendment support or implement the Local Planning Policy Framework? The amendment is consistent with the following objectives and strategies of the Local Planning Policy Framework. Relevant Clauses include:

21.04-2 Settlement

The towns of Moe, Morwell, Traralgon and Churchill are recognised as being part of a ‘networked city’ as well as being places with unique characteristics which contribute to the local sense of place and provide diversity.

The amendment supports this clause as the proposed amendment will enable Churchill to continue to play a role as part of the ‘networked city’ settlement system as well as contributing to local sense of place and providing housing diversity.

Clause 21.04-2 – Objective 1- Settlement states that main towns must seek:

‘to build upon the existing structure of the towns and settlements to create an integrated network of urban areas’.

The amendment supports this clause as the rezoning will build on the existing settlement structure of Churchill and locate Low Density Residential Zone (LDRZ) land adjacent to existing standard urban residential development to the north providing a gradual buffer between urbanised land and the wider natural/ rural landscapes surrounding Churchill.

Clause 21.04-6 – Objective 1 – Infrastructure states that new development must seek;

‘to maximise the use of existing infrastructure and the strategy, to ensure the integration of roads, bike paths, footpaths and public transport options’.

The amendment supports this clause through the introduction of the proposed Development Plan Overlay Schedule 8 (DPO8) which makes provision for the integration of roads, bike paths, footpaths and public transport options. In addition, preliminary site servicing and traffic assessments have demonstrated that the site can be connected to required services and traffic volumes are reasonable and manageable.

Clause 21.05-2 – Objective 1 – Main Towns states that these towns must seek;

‘to provide the flexibility for development to occur in each town to accommodate the needs of its population as well as to contribute to the municipal networked city’.

The amendment supports this clause as the rezoning will provide for housing choice and variety of rural lifestyle options, which will meet the needs of the current and future population. Such development will assist with accommodating the future growth of Churchill.

Clause 21.05 – 2 - Objective 2 – Main Towns states that these town must seek;

‘to facilitate development in accordance with the specific Town Structure Plan outlined in this clause with strategies to discourage urban growth outside the urban development boundaries designated in the relevant structure plan.

‘contain new residential subdivision within residential areas shown on the local structure plans’.

The objectives of this clause are acknowledged, noting that urban development and growth is most typically considered to be standard urban sized housing blocks. The subject amendment although applying to land outside of the Town Structure Plan boundary, seeks to provide for a lower order rural lifestyle type development, which is not typically urban in form. Furthermore the existing zoning of the Rural Living Zone (RLZ4) already allows the subdivision of the land into rural lifestyle type allotments, of which the Low Density Residential Zone (LDRZ) will result in a similar outcome, albeit with slightly smaller rural lifestyle allotments as a result, thus providing a differing housing market product.

Furthermore it is considered that the Low Density Residential Zone (LDRZ) will function as a buffer and transition between the standard urban type residential development located immediately to the north and the Rural Living Zone (RLZ3) land to the east, west and south as well as agricultural land further to the south. Furthermore allowable subdivision under the Low Density Residential Zone (LDRZ) will broadly reflect that the existing allotment sizes found on Geoffrey Court, Haverbrack Avenue, Denise Court and Roberts Road which within the range of 0.25 to 0.30ha. This is recognised as a suitable residential structure for the town and will maintain the existing and emerging residential character of Churchill.

Does the amendment make proper use of the Victoria Planning Provisions? The proposed amendment makes proper use of the Victorian Planning Provisions. The proposal to apply, modify and incorporate the abovementioned planning tools and provisions is considered to be the most appropriate for the intended use and development of the land affected by the amendment.

How does the amendment address the views of any relevant agency?

Initial advice has been sought from servicing agencies which has not raised any particular issues of concern, but noting that Gippsland Water has identified that stormwater drainage and sewerage will need to be managed on site. Furthermore relevant agencies will be provided opportunity to review and provide comment on the proposed Planning Scheme Amendment as part of the formal referral of application documentation.

Does the amendment address relevant requirements of the Transport Integration Act 2010?

The amendment is not considered to have a significant impact on the transport system or the Transport Integration Act 2010. Future internal roads will be designed to accommodate expected capacity and to accommodate the primary road connection with Glendonald Road. Opportunity also exists for potential secondary road connections to Riga Court, Roberts Road and Laughtons Rise. All future road connections will require further assessment at the detailed design phase, which will occur as part of the Planning Application for the subdivision of the site.

Resource and administrative costs

What impact will the new planning provisions have on the resource and administrative costs of the responsible authority? There is unlikely to be any additional resource and/or administrative costs to the responsible authority. The finalisation of development plans will facilitate efficient planning permit assessments, particularly those related to subdivision. Council is aware of the future resource implications.

Where you may inspect this Amendment The amendment is available for public inspection, free of charge, during office hours at the following places:

TBC

TBC

The amendment can also be inspected free of charge at the Department of Planning and Community Development web site at www.dpcd.vic.gov.au/planning/publicinspection.

appendix 3 schedule to the design and development overlay


DEVELOPMENT PLAN OVERLAY – SCHEDULE 8 PAGE 1 OF 5

SCHEDULE 8 TO THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN OVERLAY

Shown on the planning scheme map as DPO8

LOW DENSITY AND RURAL LIVING GROWTH AREAS

1.0 Requirement before a permit is granted for minor building and works

A permit may be granted before a development plan has been prepared to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority for the following:

a minor extension, minor addition or minor modification to an existing building and works that does not prejudice the future orderly development of the general area affected by the Development Plan Overlay.

2.0 Decision Guidelines for permits

Before deciding on an application to subdivide land, construct buildings, or carry out works, the responsible authority must consider, as appropriate:

Whether the development of the land is occurring in an orderly manner having regard to essential services, community facilities, open space and roads.

The potential for future re-subdivision.

The interface between proposed and existing nearby developments, to reduce the chance of conflicting developments.

The need to minimise access points to designated Category 1 Roads.

The design of any proposed buildings to enhance and reinforce the character of the area.

The timing and staging of the development of the land.

The consistency of the proposed development with the approved development plan.

The consistency of the proposed development with adopted Structure Plans, where relevant.

3.0 Conditions for permits

All planning permits to subdivide land must include the following conditions:

Effluent from each residential lot must be treated, retained and disposed of within each individual lot boundary, in accordance with the Environment Protection Authority – Code of Practice – Onsite Wastewater Management, February 2013 (as amended).

Stormwater from each residential lot must be retained and treated on the lot (or within a subdivision-scale integrated stormwater treatment system) so as to ensure that there are no adverse drainage or stormwater quality impact on adjoining properties.

4.0 Requirements for development plan

A development plan must be prepared to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

The plan must show:

Effluent from each residential lot must be treated, retained and disposed of within each individual lot boundary, in accordance with the Environment Protection Authority – Code of Practice – Onsite Wastewater Management, February 2013 (as amended).

14/08/2014 C82

14/08/2014 C82

14/08/2014 C82

14/08/2014 C82

14/08/2014 C82



Stormwater from each residential lot must be retained and treated on the lot (or within a subdivision-scale integrated stormwater treatment system) so as to ensure that there are no adverse drainage or stormwater quality impact on adjoining properties.

Land use and subdivision

The proposed boundaries of the development area, and provide the strategic justification for those boundaries. The boundaries of the development area must align with zone boundaries. The re-subdivision of land in the development area must be undertaken in such a way as to not create allotments in two zones. This is to ensure the future orderly development of the general area affected by the Development Plan Overlay.

The overall subdivision of the area, including the proposed size and density of allotments which provide opportunities for a diverse range of housing types.

The proposed building envelopes and effluent disposal field areas within an indicative lot layout for the overall development plan area. Future lots proposed to be created by way of subdivision will be formalised at the planning permit application stage.

The overall pattern of development of the area, including any proposed re-zoning of land and proposed land uses.

Street networks that support building frontages with two way surveillance.

An accessible and integrated network of walking and cycling routes for safe and convenient travel to adjoining communities (including existing and future areas included in the DPO), local destinations or points of local interest, activity centres, community hubs, open spaces and public transport.

The provision of any commercial facilities and the extent to which these can be co-located with community and public transport facilities to provide centres with a mix of land uses and develop vibrant, active, clustered and more walkable neighbourhood destinations.

Waterways

Unless otherwise agreed by the relevant Catchment Management Authority, a buffer zone of 30 metres each side of waterways designated under the Water Act 1989 or a buffer based on a flood study which identifies the 100 year flood extent must be set aside for ecological purposes.

Infrastructure Services

An integrated stormwater management plan that incorporates water sensitive urban design techniques which provides for the protection of natural systems, integration of stormwater treatment into the landscape, improved water quality, and reduction and mitigation of run-off and peak flows, including consideration of downstream impacts.

The pattern and location of the major arterial road network of the area including the location and details of any required:

road widening

intersections

access points

pedestrian crossings or safe refuges

cycle lanes

bus lanes and stops



The pattern and location of any internal road system based on a safe and practical hierarchy of roads including safe pedestrian and bicycle connections and crossing points in accordance with Latrobe City Bicycle Plan 2007-2010, (as amended).

In consultation with relevant agencies and authorities, provision of public transport stops where appropriate within easy walking distance to residential dwellings and key destinations. Stops should also be located near active areas where possible.

Domestic Wastewater

If sewerage infrastructure cannot be provided to the development area, a Land Capability Assessment report must be submitted demonstrating:

the capability of the site to sustainably manage wastewater within allotment boundaries.

compliance with State and local policies on effluent disposal.

consideration of all environmental constraints on the site, including but not limited to:

soil profiling

existing dams

erosion

drainage lines and depressions

water logging

slopes

contours

A Wastewater Management Plan must also be prepared that identifies preferred wastewater systems and a maintenance program to minimise the health and environmental impacts of on-site wastewater.

Open Space

The location and size of the proposed open spaces that cater for a range of user groups and provide a variety of functions that perform both an active and passive role for recreation, as appropriate.

Public open spaces designed to provide:

Public spaces of a minimum of 0.5 hectares within a 500 metre walking distance of all residents in accordance with Latrobe City Public Open Space Plan 2013, (as amended).

The inclusion of pedestrian and cycle paths and play equipment, that encourage active recreational opportunities.

Opportunities for visual surveillance to promote safety of users, through encouraging active frontages, using buildings to frame public spaces and locating open spaces within or adjacent to activity centres where possible.

A landscape concept plan for all open space areas, indicating the location of plantings, pathways, shade, shelter and seating at activity areas as well as at intervals along pathways.

Flora and Fauna

In consultation with relevant agencies and authorities, a flora and fauna assessment including how flora and fauna values will be managed if required.



An assessment of any native vegetation to be removed having regard to Victoria’s Native Vegetation Management: A Framework for Action, including how it is proposed to protect and manage any appropriate native vegetation.

Regard must be had to the West Gippsland Native Vegetation Plan 2003.

Any management plan should take into account that the Strzelecki Bioregion is one of Victoria’s most fragmented Bioregions and address this as a consideration.

Consideration must also be given to adjoining or adjacent properties to the development area that have been identified as having a conservation, heritage or archaeological significance.

Cultural Heritage

In consultation with relevant agencies and authorities, a cultural heritage assessment including how cultural heritage values will be managed if required.

Bushfire Risk

The location, design and construction of development considers the need to implement bushfire protection measures.

Process and Outcomes

Before deciding to approve a development plan, the responsible authority must consult with potentially affected parties. This must include direct notification of the development plan to all adjoining and adjacent landowners.

The responsible authority must consider the views of all submitters prior to making a decision in respect to the development plan.

An implementation plan must be submitted as part of the development plan, indicating the proposed staging of the entire development plan area.

The requirements for the development plan must be address to the satisfaction of the responsible authority prior to the issuing of a planning permit, except for matters listed in item 1 of this schedule.

The approved Development Plan may be amended to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

5.0 Decision guidelines for development plan

Before deciding on a development plan, the Responsible Authority must be satisfied that the plan has regard to the following information:

Latrobe City Healthy Urban Design Good Practice Guideline: Meeting Healthy by Design® Objectives, June 2008 (as amended)

Permitted Clearing of Native Vegetation, Biodiversity Assessment Guidelines, Department of Environment and Primary Industries, September 2013

Latrobe Healthy by Design® – Background and Issues Report (Beca Pty Ltd, December 2007)

National Heart Foundation of Australia (Victorian Division) 2004, Healthy by Design: a planners’ guide to environments for active living®, National Heart Foundation of Australia (Victorian Division)

Latrobe City Public Open Space Plan 2013 (as amended)

14/08/2014 C82



Latrobe City Bicycle Plan 2007-2010 (as amended)

Latrobe City Public Toilet Plan 2010-2014 (as amended)

Small Town Structure Plans: Boolarra, Glengarry and Tyers Background Report 2010 (revised edition)

Environment Protection Authority – Code of Practice – Onsite Wastewater Management, February 2013

Planning for Bushfire Victoria – Guidelines for meeting Victoria’s Bushfire Planning Requirements, November 2012.

appendix 4 traffic impact assessment

14

M1

987

000

2

3/0

7/1

4

Crown Allotments 39 and 39A

Section A

Glendonald Road, Churchill

Transport Impact Assessment

© GTA Consultants (GTA Consultants (VIC) Pty Ltd) 2014

The information contained in this document is confidential and

intended solely for the use of the client for the purpose for which it has

been prepared and no representation is made or is to be implied as

being made to any third party. Use or copying of this document in

whole or in part without the written permission of GTA Consultants

constitutes an infringement of copyright. The intellectual property

contained in this document remains the property of GTA Consultants.

TIA

/RSA

MA

– V

IC 1

31029 v

7.5

)

Crown Allotments 39 and 39A Section A

Glendonald Road, Churchill


Issue: A 23/07/14

Client: Junction Road Partnership

Reference: 14M1987000

GTA Consultants Office: VIC

Quality Record

Issue Date Description Prepared By Checked By Approved By Signed

A-Dr 15/07/14 Draft Goran Mihic Chris Coath Chris Coath Chris Coath

A 23/07/14 Final Goran Mihic Chris Coath Chris Coath

Table of Contents

14M1987000 23/07/14

Crown Allotments 39 and 39A Section A, Glendonald Road, Churchill Issue: A


Table of Contents

1. Introduction 1

1.1 Background & Proposal 1

1.2 Subject Site 1

1.3 Purpose of this Report 2

1.4 References 3

2. Existing Conditions 4

3. Access Principles 9

3.1 Site Access Location 9

4. Traffic Impact Assessment 11

4.1 Traffic Generation 11

4.2 Traffic Distribution and Assignment 11

4.3 Post Development Conditions 13

4.4 Summary of Traffic Impacts 16

4.5 Daily Assessment of Traffic Impacts 16

5. Internal Road Network 17

5.1 Overview 17

6. Other Matters 19

6.1 Car Parking Provision 19

6.2 Waste Collection 19

6.3 Emergency Vehicles 19

7. Conclusion 20

Appendices

A: Existing Condition SIDRA Intersection Results

B: Post Development Conditions SIDRA Intersection Results

Figures

Figure 1.1: Subject Site and its Environs 2

Figure 1.2: Land Zoning Map 2

Figure 2.1: Glendonald Road looking east (Adjacent to the site) 5

Figure 2.2: Glendonald Road looking west (Adjacent to the site) 5

Figure 2.3: Churinga Drive looking north 5

Figure 2.4: Churinga Drive looking south 5

Figure 2.5: Haverbrack Crescent looking north 5

Figure 2.6: Haverbrack Crescent looking south 5

Figure 2.7: Monash Way looking north 6

Table of Contents

14M1987000 23/07/14



Figure 2.8: Monash Way looking south 6

Figure 3.1: Potential Site Access Location To/From Glendonald Road 10

Figure 3.2: Sight Line Looking East 10

Figure 3.3: Sight Line Looking West 10

Figure 4.1: AM Peak Hour Site Generated Traffic Volumes 13

Figure 4.2: PM Peak Hour Site Generated Traffic Volumes 13

Figure 4.3: Post-Development AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 14

Figure 4.4: Post-Development PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 14

Tables

Table 2.1: Monash Way/Glendonald Road Intersection – Existing Operating Conditions 8

Table 4.2: Monash Way/Glendonald Road Intersection

– Post Development Operating Conditions 15

Table 4.3: Glendonald Road/Site Access Intersection

– Post-Development Unsignalised Intersection Operation 15

Table 5.1: Proposed Internal Road Hierarchy

– Clause 56.06 of Latrobe Planning Scheme (Minimums) 17

Table 5.2: Proposed Internal Road Hierarchy – Table 4.2 of Latrobe City Design

Guidelines 17

Introduction

14M1987000 23/07/14


Transport Impact Assessment Page: 1

1. Introduction

1.1 Background & Proposal

It is currently being sought to rezone land identified as Crown Allotments 39 and 39A Section A,

Parish of Hazelwood. Specifically, it is understood that the subject site is currently zoned Rural

Living Zone (RLZ4) which requires a minimum subdivision size of 4 hectares. As part of this proposal,

it is proposed to rezone the land to a Low Density Residential Zone (LDRZ), to allow a greater

subdivision yield (i.e. minimum subdivision size of 0.4 hectares per lot). However, in the event that

a reticulated sewer is available, the minimum subdivision size will be 0.2 hectares per lot.

GTA Consultants was commissioned by Junction Road Partnership in May 2014 to undertake a

transport impact assessment of the proposed rezoning.

1.2 Subject Site

The subject site has an overall area of 49 hectares and is located on the southern side of

Glendonald Road, southeast of the Monash Way/Glendonald Road intersection. The site has a

northern frontage of approximately 450m to Glendonald Road, an eastern frontage of

approximately 9m to Roberts Road and a western frontage of approximately 5m to Riga Court.

Monash Way is located within a Road Zone 1 under the Latrobe Planning Scheme.

In addition to the above, it is understood that a new road ("Laughton Rise") is proposed to be

constructed along the southern boundary of the subject site, as part of a Rural Living Zone 3

development which is to commence construction shortly.

The site is located within a Rural Living Zone 4 (RLZ4) and is currently undeveloped.

Surrounding properties are primarily Rural Living Zone to the west, east and south of the subject

site while a Residential 1 Zone is located to the north of the subject site.

The location of the subject site and the surrounding environs is shown in Figure 1.1 and the land

zoning is shown in Figure 1.2.

Introduction

14M1987000 23/07/14



Figure 1.1: Subject Site and its Environs

(Reproduced with Permission from Melway Publishing Pty Ltd)

Figure 1.2: Land Zoning Map

(Reproduced from Land Channel web site)

1.3 Purpose of this Report

The report sets out an assessment of the anticipated traffic and transport implications of the

proposed rezoning, including consideration of the:

Subject Site

Subject Site

Introduction

14M1987000 23/07/14



i the anticipated site generated traffic

ii the acceptability of the traffic impacts of the proposed rezoning, including the need for

mitigating road works

iii Potential access opportunities to the site.

1.4 References

In preparing this report, reference has been made to the following:

Memorandum prepared by Richard Stevenson of Hansen to Chris Coath of GTA

Consultants, dated 18 March 2014

Latrobe Planning Scheme

Australian Standard / New Zealand Standard, Parking Facilities (AS2890)

traffic surveys undertaken by GTA Consultants as referenced in the context of this report

an inspection of the site and its surrounds

other documents as nominated.

Existing Conditions

14M1987000 23/07/14



2. Existing Conditions

2.1.1 Road Network

Glendonald Road

Glendonald Road functions as a local road (Council controlled). It is a two-way road aligned in

an east-west direction and configured with a two-lane, 6 metre wide carriageway set within a 20

metre wide road reserve (approx.).

Glendonald Road carries approximately 700 vehicles per day1, east of Monash Way.

Monash Way

Monash Way functions as an arterial road (VicRoads controlled) and is located within a Road

Zone (Category 1) in the Latrobe Planning Scheme. It is a two-way road aligned in a north-south

direction and configured with a two-lane, 7 metre wide carriageway set within a 65 metre wide

road reserve (approx.).

Monash Way carries approximately 3,000 vehicles per day1, south of Glendonald Road.

Churinga Drive

Churinga Drive functions as a local road (Council controlled). It is a two-way road aligned in a

north-south direction and configured with a two-lane, 9 metre wide carriageway set within an 18

metre wide road reserve (approx.).

Churinga Drive carries approximately 200 vehicles per day1, north of Glendonald Road.

Haverbrack Crescent

Haverbrack Crescent functions as a local road (Council controlled). It is a two-way road aligned

in a north-south and in an east-west direction, configured with a two-lane, 5 metre wide

carriageway set within a 20 metre wide road reserve (approx.).

Haverbrack Crescent carries approximately 300 vehicles per day1, south of Glendonald Road.

2.1.2 Other Roads

Other roads in the vicinity of the subject site include:

Wongan Crescent

Northways Road.

Glendonald Road, Churinga Drive and Haverbrack Crescent and Monash Way are shown in

Figure 2.1 to Figure 2.8.

1 Based on the peak hour traffic counts commissioned by GTA on Tuesday 25 March 2014 and assuming a peak-to-daily ratio of

10%.

Existing Conditions

14M1987000 23/07/14



Figure 2.1: Glendonald Road looking east

(Adjacent to the site)

Figure 2.2: Glendonald Road looking west

(Adjacent to the site)

Figure 2.3: Churinga Drive looking north Figure 2.4: Churinga Drive looking south

Figure 2.5: Haverbrack Crescent looking north Figure 2.6: Haverbrack Crescent looking south

Existing Conditions

14M1987000 23/07/14



Figure 2.7: Monash Way looking north Figure 2.8: Monash Way looking south

2.1.3 Surrounding Intersections

Key intersections in the vicinity of the site include:

Monash Way/Glendonald Road (unsignalised T-intersection)

Glendonald Road/Haverbrack Crescent (west) (unsignalised T-intersection)

Glendonald Road/Northways Road (unsignalised T-intersection)

Glendonald Road/Haverbrack Crescent (east) (unsignalised T-intersection)

Glendonald Road/Churinga Drive (unsignalised T-intersection).

2.1.4 Traffic Volumes

GTA Consultants commissioned traffic movement counts at the abovementioned intersections on

Wednesday 18 June 2014 during the following peak periods:

7:00am - 9:00am

4:00pm - 6:00pm.

The AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes are shown in Figure 2.9 and Figure 2.10 respectively.

Figure 2.9: Existing AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes

41 19 13 = 9 0 7 " 17 = 4 4

$ 9 26 " Glendonald Road 11 " 8 9 5 ? 1 ? 8 $

# ; < 30 ! 34 < 1 : ; ! 7 : #

232 7 > 6 ! 25 14 11 > 2 4 23

21 = 3 0

Roberts Road Haverbrack Crescent 0 ? 8 $

: #

0 2

Churinga Drive

Monash Way

Northways Road

Ha

ve

rbra

ck C

resc

en

t

Glendonald Road

Subject Site

Existing Conditions

14M1987000 23/07/14



Figure 2.10: Existing PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes

213 37 12 = 6 1 11 " 7 = 16 18

$ 9 44 " Glendonald Road 26 " 8 9 8 ? 9 ? 8 $

# ; < 19 ! 19 < 1 : ; ! 7 : #

114 7 > 7 ! 13 9 3 > 9 0 9

8 = 19 6


: #

0 4

Glendonald Road

Churinga Drive

Monash Way

Northways Road

Ha

ve

rbra

ck C

resc

en

t

Subject Site

2.1.5 Existing Intersection Operation

The operation of the following intersections have been assessed using SIDRA INTERSECTION 62, a

computer based modelling package which calculates intersection performance:

Monash Way/Glendonald Road (unsignalised T-intersection)

Glendonald Road/Northways Road (unsignalised T-intersection)

Glendonald Road/Churinga Drive (unsignalised T-intersection).

The commonly used measure of intersection performance is referred to as the Degree of

Saturation (DOS). The DOS represents the flow-to-capacity ratio for the most critical movement

on each leg of the intersection. For unsignalised intersections, a DOS of around 0.80-0.90 has

been typically considered the ‘ideal’ limit, beyond which queues and delays increase

disproportionately3.

Table 2.1 presents a summary of the existing operation of the abovementioned intersections, with

full results presented in Appendix A of this report.

2 Program used under license from Akcelik & Associates Pty Ltd.

3 SIDRA INTERSECTION adopts the following criteria for Level of Service assessment:

Level of Service Intersection Degree of Saturation (DOS)

Unsignalised Intersection Signalised Intersection Roundabout

A Excellent <=0.60 <=0.60 <=0.60

B Very Good 0.60-0.70 0.60-0.70 0.60-0.70

C Good 0.70-0.80 0.70-0.90 0.70-0.85

D Acceptable 0.80-0.90 0.90-0.95 0.85-0.95

E Poor 0.90-1.00 0.95-1.00 0.95-1.00

F Very Poor >=1.0 >=1.0 >=1.0

Existing Conditions

14M1987000 23/07/14



Table 2.1: Monash Way/Glendonald Road Intersection – Existing Operating Conditions

Intersection Peak Hour Approach DOS

Average

Delay (sec)

95th Percentile

Queue (m)

Monash

Way/Glendonald

Road

AM

South: Monash Way 0.13 1 sec 5 m

East: Glendonald Road 0.06 10 sec 2 m

North: Monash Way 0.02 3 sec 0 m

PM

South: Monash Way 0.07 1 sec 3 m


North: Monash Way 0.12 1 sec 0 m

Glendonald

Road/Churinga

Drive

AM


North: Churinga Drive 0.01 5 sec 0 m

West: Glendonald Road 0.01 4 sec 0 m

PM


North: Churinga Drive 0.01 5 sec 0 m


Glendonald

Road/Northways

Road

AM

South: Glendonald Road 0.02 1 sec 0 m

North: Northways Road 0.01 3 sec 0 m


PM

South: Glendonald Road 0.01 1 sec 0 m

North: Northways Road 0.02 3 sec 1 m


DOS – Degree of Saturation, # - Intersection DOS

Table 2.1 indicates that all the intersections currently operate with an excellent level of service,

with minimal queues and delays on all approaches during the AM and PM peak hour periods.

These modelled results are consistent with site observations.

Access Principles

14M1987000 23/07/14



3. Access Principles

3.1 Site Access Location

At this time no plans have been prepared to show the potential layout of lots or road network

should the rezoning of land be approved. As such the following has been prepared to identify

the potential opportunities for access to the site in order to demonstrate that should the rezoning

of the site be approved that appropriate access can be achieved.

To gain an understanding of appropriate opportunities for access, GTA Consultants undertook an

inspection of the subject site and its surrounds, having specific regard to existing road network

configurations, general road gradients, and sight lines for motorists.

On-site observations indicate that Glendonald Road generally consists of a relatively flat gradient

between Monash Way and Churinga Drive. An access point to the site to the west of Churinga

Drive would be considered appropriate.

On-site observations indicate that the gradient of Glendonald Road gradually increases to a

crest at the northeast corner of the subject site, approximately 200m east of the Churinga Drive

intersection. At this location, sight lines for motorists are considered to be inadequate; therefore

the provision of a sight access point at this location would not be a desirable outcome.

An access point opposite, or in close proximity to Churinga Drive is considered to not be a

desirable outcome as this option would create a southern approach to Glendonald

Road/Churinga Drive intersection. This option would cause potential conflict between right-

turning vehicles into and out of Churinga Drive and the proposed access point. Additionally, sight

lines in the eastbound direction at this location are not maximised, given that this location is near

the abovementioned crest in the road.

In addition to the above and as mentioned earlier in this report, the subject site has an eastern

frontage of approximately 9m to Roberts Road and a western frontage of approximately 5m to

Riga Court. While it is not recommended that primary access be achieved from these roads, it is

recognised that Roberts Road and Riga Court could potentially provide secondary access points

for the proposed development, if required.

Based on the above discussion, the provision of a primary site access point approximately 300m

east of Monash Way would represent an ideal scenario. At this location, field measurements

suggest that a maximum Safe Intersection Sight Distance (SISD) of 190m to the east and 180m to

the west could be achieved onto Glendonald Road. A review of the above sight distance

provisions at this location has been undertaken with reference to the design guidance contained

in the ‘Austroads Guide to Road Design – Part 4A: Unsignalised and Signalised Intersections’.

The Austroads guide requires that the Safe Intersection Sight Distance (SISD):

”provides sufficient distance for a driver of a vehicle on a major road to observe a vehicle on a minor road

approach moving into a collision situation (e.g. in the worst case, stalling across the traffic lanes) and to

decelerate to a stop before reaching the collision point”.

Based on the above, the available sight distance at the recommended site access location

meets the minimum requirements of 181m and is considered adequate.

For reference, the location of the recommended access point is shown in Figure 3.1, with sight

lines at this location shown in Figure 3.2 and Figure 3.3.

Access Principles

14M1987000 23/07/14



It is however noted that the exact location of a site access point will be subject to detailed

design and the consideration of an efficient internal lot layout.

The above however provides guidance and comfort that appropriate access will be achievable.

Figure 3.1: Potential Site Access Location To/From Glendonald Road

(Source: Nearmap)

Figure 3.2: Sight Line Looking East Figure 3.3: Sight Line Looking West

Further to the above discussions regarding appropriate opportunities for access locations for the

proposed development, it should be noted that there is the potential for a selected number of

lots to front directly onto Glendonald Road, therefore requiring their own lot crossovers to

Glendonald Road. Such an approach is consistent with the approach adopted on the northern

side of Glendonald Road and therefore would be considered appropriate.

Subject Site

Potential Primary

Access Point

300m (approx.) from

Monash Way/Glendonald

Road intersection Potential Secondary

Access Point

Potential Secondary

Access Point

Proposed New Road

(Laughton Rise) –

Indicative Only

Traffic Impact Assessment

14M1987000 23/07/14



4. Traffic Impact Assessment

4.1 Traffic Generation

A single house on a standard lot in an outer metropolitan area will typically generate up to 1 trip

in the peak hour and 8 to 10 trips per day. Medium density dwellings generally exhibit a lower

traffic generation rate. In the outer metropolitan areas, where public transport accessibility is

relatively low, the rate for medium density units is typically in the order of 6 to 8 trips per day.

Closer to the Melbourne CAD the rate reduces to in the order of 3 to 6 trips per day depending

on dwelling size, parking provisions and accessibility to public transport and local amenities,

among other things. Peak hour rates are typically 10–12% of daily rates.

Having consideration to the size of residential lots and their location, among other things, it is

estimated that the proposed residential lots will generate up to 1 vehicle movements per

residential lot in each peak hour, and 10 daily vehicle movements per residential lot. Of these, in

the order of 80% of vehicle movements in the AM peak hour would be exit movements, with in

the order of 60% of vehicle movements in the PM peak hour being entry movements.

The subject site has an overall area of 49 hectares. It is noted that a Low Density Residential Zone,

which is proposed for the subject site, allows a minimum subdivision size of 0.2 hectares, subject to

connection with reticulated sewerage. As such, it is evident that the subject site could potentially

accommodate an absolute maximum of 245 residential lots. It is noted however that the subject

site will require at a minimum an internal road network to provide suitable access to each lot thus

reducing the land available for residential lots. For the purposes of this assessment, it has been

assumed that 85% of the subject site will be available for residential lots equating to a lot yield in

the order of 210 lots.

On the above basis, application of above traffic generation rate to the proposed development

anticipates in the order of 210 vehicle movements during the AM and PM peak hour periods and

in the order of 2,100 daily vehicle movements, as set out in Table 4.1.

Table 4.1: Residential Traffic Generation Estimates

Period

Traffic Generation Rate

(Movements/Dwelling) Vehicle Movements

In Out In Out Total

AM Peak 0.20 0.80 42/hr 168/hr 210/hr

PM Peak 0.60 0.40 126/hr 84/hr 210/hr

Daily 5.0 5.0 1,050/day 1,050/day 2,100/day

4.2 Traffic Distribution and Assignment

The directional distribution and assignment of traffic generated by the site following rezoning will

be influenced by a number of factors, including the:

i configuration of the arterial road network in the immediate vicinity of the site

ii existing operation of intersections providing access between the local and arterial road

network

iii surrounding employment centres, retail centres and schools in relation to the site

iv configuration of access points to the site.


14M1987000 23/07/14



Having consideration to the above, for the purposes of estimating vehicle movements, the

following general distribution principles have been assumed based generally on existing traffic

flows in the vicinity of the site.

It is also important to note that these distributions have been conservatively assumed based on

the site having a single access point to Glendonald Road, west of Churinga Drive.

A majority of vehicles will utilise the most proximate arterial road network, travelling to

and from the west (Monash Way).

Of these vehicles travelling to and from the east it has been assumed that two thirds will

travel through to the Northways Road intersection while one third may choose to travel

along Churinga Drive.

The allocation of a small portion of traffic to Churinga Drive reflects the opportunity of using

Churinga Drive to travel north toward key retail destinations, however also reflects the natural

preference of drivers to use the higher order road network when capacity is available, as is the

case in this instance. Further it is noted that speed attenuation treatments are already in place

along Churinga Drive which would be expected to further encourage the use of the arterial road

network.

As such the following directional distributions have been assumed:

To/From the west (Monash Way/Glendonald Road intersection): 70%

To/From the east (Glendonald Road/Northways Road intersection): 20%

To/From Churinga Drive: 10%

Further to the above directional distributions, the following turning movement splits have been

adopted:

At Monash Way/Glendonald Road intersection

North: 75%

South: 25%

At Glendonald Road/Northways Road intersection

North: 75%

South: 25%

Based on the above, Figure 4.1 and Figure 4.2 have been prepared to show the estimated

increase in turning movements in the vicinity of the subject property following full site

development.


14M1987000 23/07/14



Figure 4.1: AM Peak Hour Site Generated Traffic Volumes

22 17 = 4 33 " 25 = 6

9 22 ? Glendonald Road 33 " 8 0 ? 8 ? 8

; < 88 : ; ! 8 :

7 > 29 118 50 > 13 ! 8 > 2

8

Roberts Road Haverbrack Crescent $

#

2

Glendonald Road

Northways Road

Monash Way

Ha

ve

rbra

ck C

resc

en

t

Subject Site

Churinga Drive

Site Access

Figure 4.2: PM Peak Hour Site Generated Traffic Volumes

66 8 = 13 17 " 12 = 19

9 66 ? Glendonald Road 17 " 8 4 ? 8

; < 44 : ; ! 25 :

22 > 15 59 25 > 38 ! 25 6

4

Roberts Road Haverbrack Crescent $

#

6

Glendonald Road

Northways Road

Monash Way

Ha

ve

rbra

ck C

resc

en

t

Subject Site

Churinga Drive

Site Access

4.3 Post Development Conditions

4.3.1 Post Development Traffic Volumes

By adding the development traffic to the existing traffic flows we can obtain the ‘Design’ or Post-

Development traffic volumes. These are outlined in Figure 4.3 and Figure 4.4.


14M1987000 23/07/14



Figure 4.3: Post-Development AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes

Northways Road

41 41 26 " 30 = 13 0 40 " 42 = 10 4

$ 9 22 ? Glendonald Road 44 " 8 9 5 ? 9 ? 8 $

# ; < 118 : ; ! 34 < 1 : ; ! 15 : #

232 14 > 35 118 50 > 13 ! 33 14 11 > 2 6 23

Monash Way 21 = 3 8


: #

0 4

Site Access

Churinga Drive

Ha

ve

rbra

ck C

resc

en

t

Glendonald Road

Subject Site

Figure 4.4: Post-Development PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes

Northways Road

213 103 44 " 20 = 19 1 28 " 19 = 35 18

$ 9 66 ? Glendonald Road 43 " 8 9 8 ? 13 ? 8 $

# ; < 63 : ; ! 19 < 1 : ; ! 32 : #

114 29 > 22 59 25 > 38 ! 38 9 3 > 9 6 9

Monash Way 8 = 19 10


: #

0 10

Site Access

Glendonald Road

Churinga Drive

Ha

ve

rbra

ck C

resc

en

t

Subject Site

4.3.2 Nearby Intersection Operation

The impact of the development traffic upon intersections in the vicinity of the site was assessed

using SIDRA INTERSECTION 6. On the basis of the turning movement estimates presented above,

Table 4.2 to Table 4.3 present a summary of the anticipated future operation of the nominated

intersections following the full development of the site.

Detailed results of this analysis are provided in Appendix B of this report.


14M1987000 23/07/14



Table 4.2: Monash Way/Glendonald Road Intersection – Post Development Operating Conditions

Intersection Peak Hour Approach DOS

Average

Delay (sec)

95th Percentile

Queue (m)

Monash

Way/Glendonald

Road

AM

South: Monash Way 0.14 (0.13) 1 sec (1 sec) 6 m (5 m)

East: Glendonald Road 0.18 (0.06) 9 sec (10 sec) 5 m (2 m)

North: Monash Way 0.02 (0.02) 4 sec (3 sec) 0 m (0 m)

PM

South: Monash Way 0.09 (0.07) 3 sec (1 sec) 4 m (3 m)


North: Monash Way 0.12 (0.12) 3 sec (1 sec) 0 m (0 m)

Glendonald

Road/Churinga

Drive

AM


North: Churinga Drive 0.01 (0.01) 5 sec (5 sec) 0 m (0 m)

West: Glendonald Road 0.04 (0.01) 3 sec (4 sec) 0 m (0 m)

PM


North: Churinga Drive 0.02 (0.01) 5 sec (5 sec) 0 m (0 m)


Glendonald

Road/Northways

Road

AM

South: Glendonald Road 0.02 (0.02) 1 sec (1 sec) 0 m (0 m)

North: Northways Road 0.01 (0.01) 5 sec (3 sec) 0 m (0 m)


PM

South: Glendonald Road 0.01 (0.01) 3 sec (1 sec) 0 m (0 m)

North: Northways Road 0.03 (0.02) 4 sec (3 sec) 1 m (1 m)



Table 2.1 indicates that all the intersections can be expected to continue to operate with an

excellent level of service, with minimal queues and delays on all approaches during the AM and

PM peak hour periods following the full development of the subject site.

4.3.3 Site Access Point Operation

The impact of the development traffic upon the proposed site access point was assessed using

SIDRA INTERSECTION 6. On the basis of the turning movement estimates presented above, Table

4.3 presents a summary of the anticipated future operation of the site access following the full

development of the site.

Table 4.3: Glendonald Road/Site Access Intersection – Post-Development Unsignalised Intersection

Operation

Peak Hour Approach DOS Average Delay

(sec)

95th Percentile

Queue (m)

AM

South: Site Access 0.12 5 sec 4 m



PM

South: Site Access 0.06 5 sec 2 m




As described earlier, a DOS of around 0.80-0.90 for unsignalised intersections has traditionally

been considered the practical limit beyond which intersection performance is unsatisfactory, as

beyond this value queues and delays increase disproportionately. On this criterion, the

calculated DOS, queuing and delays suggest that a site access point can be expected to

operate with an excellent level of service following full development of the site. The analysis also


14M1987000 23/07/14



indicates that a site access point will operate appropriately without designated turn lanes. This is

consistent with the design and operation of the Glendonald Road/Churinga Drive intersection.

4.4 Summary of Traffic Impacts

Further to the above, 210 vehicle movements in a peak hour equates to approximately three to

four vehicle movement every minute. This level of additional traffic generated, following the

rezoning of the site could not be expected to compromise the safety or function of the

surrounding road network against existing traffic volumes in the vicinity of the site.

4.5 Daily Assessment of Traffic Impacts

As mentioned earlier in this report, Glendonald Road currently carries in the order of 700 vehicle

movements over an entire day. Based on the above discussions and analysis, the proposed

development can be expected to generate in the order of 2,100 daily vehicle movements. On

this basis, Glendonald Road can be expected to result in a post development traffic volume of

2,800 vehicles. It is however noted that two thirds of the development traffic is expected to travel

to/from the west (from Monash Way) with the remaining one third likely to travel to the east.

On the above basis, while a post development traffic volume of 2,800 vehicles is anticipated, this

level of traffic will not be expected at any one point. Specifically, in the order of 2,100 vehicles

can be expected to utilise Glendonald Road, west of the proposed site access point, with

approximately 1,400 vehicles are expected to utilise Glendonald Road, east of the proposed site

access point.

Reference to Clause 56.06 of the Latrobe Planning Scheme indicates that Glendonald Road

exhibits characteristics suitably similar to a ‘Connector Street – Level 1’ which has an indicative

maximum daily traffic volume of up to 3,000 vehicles per day. Therefore, it is evident that the

anticipated post development daily traffic volumes on Glendonald Road will not exceed the

indicative maximum daily traffic volume at any point for an ‘Connector Street – Level 1’.

Internal Road Network

14M1987000 23/07/14



5. Internal Road Network

5.1 Overview

At this stage, no internal road layout has been prepared for the proposed development. It is

however noted that the internal road network has the ability to be designed in accordance with

the requirements of either Clause 56 of the Latrobe Planning Scheme or the Latrobe City Design

Guidelines. Further to this, it is envisaged that this will be examined in further detail at the

subsequent planning permit stage.

As the overall site can be expected to generate up to approximately 2,100 vehicle movements

per day, it is expected that the internal road network is likely to predominantly compromise

‘Access Streets - Level 1’ and ’ Access Streets - Level 2’.

In respect of the configuration of road cross sections guidance is sought from the below

references.

5.1.1 Latrobe Planning - Clause 56.06

Clause 56.06 of the Latrobe Planning Scheme indicates the following characteristics of Access

Streets, as summarised in Table 5.1.

Table 5.1: Proposed Internal Road Hierarchy – Clause 56.06 of Latrobe Planning Scheme (Minimums)

Description Indicative Maximum

Daily Volume [1]

Carriageway

Width Verge Width Pedestrian Pathways

Access Street-

Level 1 1,000vpd-2,000vpd 5.5m

4.0m minimum

each side

1.5m wide footpath on one

side of road

Access Street-

Level 2 2,000vpd-3,000vpd 7m-7.5m

4.5m minimum

each side

1.5m wide footpath on both

sides of the road

[1] As defined in Table C1 to Clause 56.06 of the Latrobe Planning Scheme.

vpd denotes vehicles per day

5.1.2 Latrobe City – Design Guidelines

Further to the road design requirements outlined in Clause 56.06 of the Latrobe Planning Scheme,

further reference has been made to the Design Guidelines document prepared by Latrobe City,

for subdivisional developments, urban a rural and drainage construction, and traffic

management projects. The characteristics of Access Streets are set out by this document are

summarised in Table 5.2.

Table 5.2: Proposed Internal Road Hierarchy – Table 4.2 of Latrobe City Design Guidelines

Street Type Carriageway Width

Parking

Provision within

street reserve

Minimum Verge

Width (includes

footpath) [1]

Minimum Road Reserve

Width [2]

Access Street

(Minor) 7.3m Yes (both sides)

4.0m minimum

each side 16.0m

Access Street

(Major) 7.3m Yes (both sides)

4.5m minimum

each side 18.0m

[1] The developers must ensure that verge widths are sufficient to accommodate services that are required to be located.

[2] The minimum width of road reserve cannot be calculated by adding the minimum distances of the components within the road

reserve.

Designers and developers need to ensure that the road reserve width adopted complies with the requirements of the following

documents and Authority requirements:

Department of Transport – Public Transport Guidelines.

Various walkability and bicycle strategies.

CFA may require the minimum Carriageway width to be 7.3 metres in certain areas unless parking is restricted to one side.

Internal Road Network

14M1987000 23/07/14



5.1.3 Summary

Based on the above, it is evident that the road types outlined in Clause 56.06 of the Latrobe

Planning Scheme are similar to the road types outlined in the Latrobe City Design Guidelines

document. Furthermore, the main entrance road to the proposed development is expected to

be suitably similar to an Access Street-Level 2 or an Access Street (Major). The remaining internal

roads can either be expected to be an Access Street-Level 1 or an Access Street (Minor).

As such, it is recommended that the internal road layout be designed in accordance with either

of the following:

Clause 56.06 of the Latrobe Planning Scheme

Latrobe City Design Guidelines.

Other Matters

14M1987000 23/07/14



6. Other Matters

6.1 Car Parking Provision

As part of the proposed development, it is recommended that the provision of car parking and

the design be in accordance with Clause 52.06 of the Latrobe Planning Scheme.

6.2 Waste Collection

It is anticipated that waste will be stored within each individual lot and brought kerbside for

collection as part of Council’s regular service. The internal road network should be designed to

be capable of accommodating Council’s typical waste collection vehicle.

6.3 Emergency Vehicles

The proposed development should be designed so that the internal road network does not

prejudice emergency vehicle access to any part of the subject site. Specifically, the internal road

network should be designed to accommodate vehicles up to and including 9.8m long fire

vehicles.

Conclusion

14M1987000 23/07/14



7. Conclusion

Based on the analysis and discussions presented within this report, the following conclusions are

made:

i A primary access point could be provided along Glendonald Road, approximately

300m east of the intersection with Monash Way.

ii A single access point would be expected to suitably service the site be absolutely

needed to service the site.

iii A secondary access point could be provided from Roberts Road to the east of the site,

and Riga Court to the west of the site, if required.

iv A new road (Laughton Rise) is proposed to be constructed along the southern

boundary of the subject site. It is recognised that this road could potentially provide

further access connections to the proposed development.

v The full development of the site following rezoning is expected to generate up to 210

and 2,100 vehicle movements during the peak and daily periods respectively.

vi There is adequate capacity in the surrounding network to cater for the traffic

generated by the development of the site following the rezoning, and no mitigation

measures are required.

vii It is recommended that the internal design of the site be in accordance with Clause

56.06 of the Latrobe Planning Scheme.

viii The internal road network should be designed to be capable of accommodating

Council’s typical waste collection vehicle.

ix The proposed development should be designed so that the internal road network does

not prejudice emergency vehicle access to any part of the subject site.

Appendix A

14M1987000 23/07/14



Ap

pe

nd

ix A

Appendix A

Existing Condition SIDRA Intersection Results

LANE SUMMARY

Site: AM Peak Hour - Existing Conditions

Glendonald Road & Churinga DriveGiveway / Yield (Two-Way)

Lane Use and Performance

Demand Flows 95% Back of QueueCap.

Deg.Satn

LaneUtil.

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Lane Config

Lane Length

Cap.Adj.

Prob. Block.Total HV Veh Dist

veh/h % veh/h v/c % sec m m % %East: Glendonald Road

Lane 1 27 2.0 1861 0.015 100 0.3 LOS A 0.1 0.5 Full 500 0.0 0.0

Approach 27 2.0 0.015 0.3 NA 0.1 0.5

North: Churinga Drive

Lane 1 11 2.0 1254 0.008 100 4.7 LOS A 0.0 0.2 Full 500 0.0 0.0

Approach 11 2.0 0.008 4.7 LOS A 0.0 0.2

West: Glendonald Road

Lane 1 25 2.0 1819 0.014 100 3.8 LOS A 0.0 0.0 Full 500 0.0 0.0

Approach 25 2.0 0.014 3.8 NA 0.0 0.0

Intersection 63 2.0 0.015 2.4 NA 0.1 0.5

Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay (HCM 2000).

Lane LOS values are based on average delay per lane.

Minor Road Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all lanes.

NA: Intersection LOS and Major Road Approach LOS values are Not Applicable for two-way sign control since the average delay is not a good LOS measure due to zero delays associated with major road lanes.

SIDRA Standard Delay Model is used. Control Delay includes Geometric Delay.

Gap-Acceptance Capacity: SIDRA Standard (Akçelik M3D).

HV (%) values are calculated for All Movement Classes of All Heavy Vehicle Model Designation.

Processed: Thursday, 10 July 2014 12:25:16 PMSIDRA INTERSECTION 6.0.22.4722

Copyright © 2000-2014 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltdwww.sidrasolutions.com

Project: P:\14M1900-1999\14M1987000 Glendonald Road, Churchill - Rezoning\Modelling\SIDRA 6\140704sid-14M1987000-Glendonald Road & Churinga Drive.sip68000056, GTA CONSULTANTS, NETWORK / Enterprise

LANE SUMMARY

Site: PM Peak Hour - Existing Conditions




Deg.Satn

LaneUtil.

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Lane Config

Lane Length

Cap.Adj.



Lane 1 15 2.0 1852 0.008 100 0.6 LOS A 0.0 0.3 Full 500 0.0 0.0

Approach 15 2.0 0.008 0.6 NA 0.0 0.3


Lane 1 7 2.0 1263 0.006 100 4.7 LOS A 0.0 0.1 Full 500 0.0 0.0

Approach 7 2.0 0.006 4.7 LOS A 0.0 0.1


Lane 1 40 2.0 1840 0.022 100 2.2 LOS A 0.0 0.0 Full 500 0.0 0.0

Approach 40 2.0 0.022 2.2 NA 0.0 0.0

Intersection 62 2.0 0.022 2.1 NA 0.0 0.3











LANE SUMMARY


Monash Way & Glendonald RoadGiveway / Yield (Two-Way)



Deg.Satn

LaneUtil.

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Lane Config

Lane Length

Cap.Adj.


veh/h % veh/h v/c % sec m m % %South: Monash Way

Lane 1 252 4.9 1899 0.132 100 0.4 LOS A 0.7 5.4 Full 500 0.0 0.0

Approach 252 4.9 0.132 0.4 NA 0.7 5.4

East: Glendonald Road

Lane 1 38 2.0 598 0.063 100 9.9 LOS A 0.2 1.7 Full 500 0.0 0.0

Approach 38 2.0 0.063 9.9 LOS A 0.2 1.7

North: Monash Way

Lane 1 20 2.0 1850 0.011 100 7.9 LOS A 0.0 0.0 Short 90 0.0 0.0

Lane 2 43 5.0 1908 0.023 100 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 Full 500 0.0 0.0

Approach 63 4.1 0.023 2.5 NA 0.0 0.0

Intersection 353 4.4 0.132 1.8 NA 0.7 5.4










Project: P:\14M1900-1999\14M1987000 Glendonald Road, Churchill - Rezoning\Modelling\SIDRA 6\140704sid-14M1987000-Monash Way & Glendonald Road.sip68000056, GTA CONSULTANTS, NETWORK / Enterprise

LANE SUMMARY





Deg.Satn

LaneUtil.

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Lane Config

Lane Length

Cap.Adj.



Lane 1 127 4.8 1865 0.068 100 1.3 LOS A 0.4 3.0 Full 500 0.0 0.0

Approach 127 4.8 0.068 1.3 NA 0.4 3.0


Lane 1 27 2.0 855 0.032 100 8.8 LOS A 0.1 0.9 Full 500 0.0 0.0

Approach 27 2.0 0.032 8.8 LOS A 0.1 0.9

North: Monash Way

Lane 1 39 2.0 1850 0.021 100 7.9 LOS A 0.0 0.0 Short 90 0.0 0.0

Lane 2 224 5.0 1908 0.117 100 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 Full 500 0.0 0.0

Approach 263 4.6 0.117 1.2 NA 0.0 0.0

Intersection 418 4.5 0.117 1.7 NA 0.4 3.0











LANE SUMMARY


Glendonald Road & Northways RoadGiveway / Yield (Two-Way)



Deg.Satn

LaneUtil.

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Lane Config

Lane Length

Cap.Adj.


veh/h % veh/h v/c % sec m m % %South: Glendonald Road

Lane 1 28 2.0 1940 0.015 100 1.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 Full 500 0.0 0.0

Approach 28 2.0 0.015 1.0 NA 0.0 0.0

North: Northways Road

Lane 1 8 2.0 1819 0.005 100 3.4 LOS A 0.0 0.2 Full 500 0.0 0.0

Approach 8 2.0 0.005 3.4 NA 0.0 0.2


Lane 1 19 2.0 1563 0.012 100 7.0 LOS A 0.0 0.3 Full 500 0.0 0.0

Approach 19 2.0 0.012 7.0 LOS A 0.0 0.3

Intersection 56 2.0 0.015 3.4 NA 0.0 0.3










Project: P:\14M1900-1999\14M1987000 Glendonald Road, Churchill - Rezoning\Modelling\SIDRA 6\140704sid-14M1987000-Northways Road & Glendonald Road.sip68000056, GTA CONSULTANTS, NETWORK / Enterprise

LANE SUMMARY





Deg.Satn

LaneUtil.

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Lane Config

Lane Length

Cap.Adj.



Lane 1 11 2.0 1945 0.005 100 0.7 LOS A 0.0 0.0 Full 500 0.0 0.0

Approach 11 2.0 0.005 0.7 NA 0.0 0.0


Lane 1 36 2.0 1839 0.019 100 3.1 LOS A 0.1 0.7 Full 500 0.0 0.0

Approach 36 2.0 0.019 3.1 NA 0.1 0.7


Lane 1 17 2.0 1368 0.012 100 6.9 LOS A 0.0 0.3 Full 500 0.0 0.0

Approach 17 2.0 0.012 6.9 LOS A 0.0 0.3

Intersection 63 2.0 0.019 3.7 NA 0.1 0.7











Appendix B

14M1987000 23/07/14



Ap

pe

nd

ix B

Appendix B

Post Development Conditions SIDRA Intersection

Results

LANE SUMMARY

Site: AM Peak Hour - Post Development Conditions




Deg.Satn

LaneUtil.

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Lane Config

Lane Length

Cap.Adj.



Lane 1 36 2.0 1860 0.019 100 0.4 LOS A 0.1 0.7 Full 500 0.0 0.0

Approach 36 2.0 0.019 0.4 NA 0.1 0.7


Lane 1 15 2.0 1192 0.012 100 4.9 LOS A 0.0 0.3 Full 500 0.0 0.0

Approach 15 2.0 0.012 4.9 LOS A 0.0 0.3


Lane 1 78 2.0 1832 0.043 100 2.8 LOS A 0.0 0.0 Full 500 0.0 0.0

Approach 78 2.0 0.043 2.8 NA 0.0 0.0

Intersection 128 2.0 0.043 2.4 NA 0.1 0.7











LANE SUMMARY

Site: PM Peak Hour - Post Development Conditions




Deg.Satn

LaneUtil.

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Lane Config

Lane Length

Cap.Adj.



Lane 1 41 2.0 1862 0.022 100 0.4 LOS A 0.1 0.8 Full 500 0.0 0.0

Approach 41 2.0 0.022 0.4 NA 0.1 0.8


Lane 1 21 2.0 1187 0.018 100 4.9 LOS A 0.1 0.4 Full 500 0.0 0.0

Approach 21 2.0 0.018 4.9 LOS A 0.1 0.4


Lane 1 66 2.0 1840 0.036 100 2.2 LOS A 0.0 0.0 Full 500 0.0 0.0

Approach 66 2.0 0.036 2.2 NA 0.0 0.0

Intersection 128 2.0 0.036 2.1 NA 0.1 0.8











LANE SUMMARY





Deg.Satn

LaneUtil.

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Lane Config

Lane Length

Cap.Adj.



Lane 1 259 4.8 1888 0.137 100 0.7 LOS A 0.8 5.7 Full 500 0.0 0.0

Approach 259 4.8 0.137 0.7 NA 0.8 5.7


Lane 1 161 2.0 902 0.179 100 8.7 LOS A 0.7 5.3 Full 500 0.0 0.0

Approach 161 2.0 0.179 8.7 LOS A 0.7 5.3

North: Monash Way

Lane 1 43 2.0 1850 0.023 100 7.9 LOS A 0.0 0.0 Short 90 0.0 0.0

Lane 2 43 5.0 1908 0.023 100 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 Full 500 0.0 0.0

Approach 86 3.5 0.023 3.9 NA 0.0 0.0

Intersection 506 3.7 0.179 3.8 NA 0.8 5.7











LANE SUMMARY





Deg.Satn

LaneUtil.

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Lane Config

Lane Length

Cap.Adj.



Lane 1 151 4.4 1736 0.087 100 2.7 LOS A 0.5 3.9 Full 500 0.0 0.0

Approach 151 4.4 0.087 2.7 NA 0.5 3.9


Lane 1 89 2.0 797 0.112 100 9.4 LOS A 0.4 3.1 Full 500 0.0 0.0

Approach 89 2.0 0.112 9.4 LOS A 0.4 3.1

North: Monash Way

Lane 1 108 2.0 1850 0.059 100 7.9 LOS A 0.0 0.0 Short 90 0.0 0.0

Lane 2 224 5.0 1908 0.117 100 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 Full 500 0.0 0.0

Approach 333 4.0 0.117 2.6 NA 0.0 0.0

Intersection 573 3.8 0.117 3.7 NA 0.5 3.9











LANE SUMMARY





Deg.Satn

LaneUtil.

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Lane Config

Lane Length

Cap.Adj.



Lane 1 31 2.0 1934 0.016 100 1.4 LOS A 0.0 0.0 Full 500 0.0 0.0

Approach 31 2.0 0.016 1.4 NA 0.0 0.0


Lane 1 15 2.0 1776 0.008 100 4.8 LOS A 0.0 0.3 Full 500 0.0 0.0

Approach 15 2.0 0.008 4.8 NA 0.0 0.3


Lane 1 54 2.0 1511 0.036 100 7.0 LOS A 0.1 1.0 Full 500 0.0 0.0

Approach 54 2.0 0.036 7.0 LOS A 0.1 1.0

Intersection 99 2.0 0.036 5.0 NA 0.1 1.0











LANE SUMMARY





Deg.Satn

LaneUtil.

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Lane Config

Lane Length

Cap.Adj.



Lane 1 16 2.0 1916 0.008 100 2.8 LOS A 0.0 0.0 Full 500 0.0 0.0

Approach 16 2.0 0.008 2.8 NA 0.0 0.0


Lane 1 56 2.0 1801 0.031 100 4.4 LOS A 0.1 1.0 Full 500 0.0 0.0

Approach 56 2.0 0.031 4.4 NA 0.1 1.0


Lane 1 34 2.0 1415 0.024 100 6.9 LOS A 0.1 0.6 Full 500 0.0 0.0

Approach 34 2.0 0.024 6.9 LOS A 0.1 0.6

Intersection 105 2.0 0.031 5.0 NA 0.1 1.0











LANE SUMMARY

Site: AM Peak Hour - Post Development

Proposed Site Access & Glendonald Road IntersectionGiveway / Yield (Two-Way)



Deg.Satn

LaneUtil.

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Lane Config

Lane Length

Cap.Adj.


veh/h % veh/h v/c % sec m m % %South: Site Access

Lane 1 177 2.0 1424 0.124 100 4.8 LOS A 0.5 3.6 Full 500 0.0 0.0

Approach 177 2.0 0.124 4.8 LOS A 0.5 3.6


Lane 1 49 2.0 1898 0.026 100 1.9 LOS A 0.0 0.0 Full 500 0.0 0.0

Approach 49 2.0 0.026 1.9 NA 0.0 0.0


Lane 1 51 2.0 1797 0.028 100 3.2 LOS A 0.1 1.0 Full 500 0.0 0.0

Approach 51 2.0 0.028 3.2 NA 0.1 1.0

Intersection 277 2.0 0.124 4.0 NA 0.5 3.6










Project: P:\14M1900-1999\14M1987000 Glendonald Road, Churchill - Rezoning\Modelling\SIDRA 6\140704sid-14M1987000-Proposed Site Access & Glendonald Road.sip68000056, GTA CONSULTANTS, NETWORK / Enterprise

LANE SUMMARY

Site: PM Peak Hour - Post Development

Proposed Site Access & Glendonald Road IntersectionGiveway / Yield (Two-Way)



Deg.Satn

LaneUtil.

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Lane Config

Lane Length

Cap.Adj.


veh/h % veh/h v/c % sec m m % %South: Site Access

Lane 1 88 2.0 1397 0.063 100 4.8 LOS A 0.2 1.7 Full 500 0.0 0.0

Approach 88 2.0 0.063 4.8 LOS A 0.2 1.7


Lane 1 60 2.0 1861 0.032 100 4.7 LOS A 0.0 0.0 Full 500 0.0 0.0

Approach 60 2.0 0.032 4.7 NA 0.0 0.0


Lane 1 116 2.0 1758 0.066 100 4.2 LOS A 0.3 2.3 Full 500 0.0 0.0

Approach 116 2.0 0.066 4.2 NA 0.3 2.3

Intersection 264 2.0 0.066 4.5 NA 0.3 2.3










Project: P:\14M1900-1999\14M1987000 Glendonald Road, Churchill - Rezoning\Modelling\SIDRA 6\140704sid-14M1987000-Proposed Site Access & Glendonald Road.sip68000056, GTA CONSULTANTS, NETWORK / Enterprise

www.gta.com.au

Melbourne

A Level 25, 55 Collins Street

PO Box 24055

MELBOURNE VIC 3000

P +613 9851 9600

F +613 9851 9610

E [email protected]

Canberra

A Unit 4, Level 1, Sparta Building, 55 Woolley Street

PO Box 62

DICKSON ACT 2602

P +612 6243 4826

F +612 6243 4848

E [email protected]

Townsville

A Level 1, 25 Sturt Street

PO Box 1064

TOWNSVILLE QLD 4810

P +617 4722 2765

F +617 4722 2761

E [email protected]

Sydney

A Level 6, 15 Help Street

CHATSWOOD NSW 2067

PO Box 5254

WEST CHATSWOOD NSW 1515

P +612 8448 1800

F +612 8448 1810

E [email protected]

Adelaide

A Suite 4, Level 1, 136 The Parade

PO Box 3421

NORWOOD SA 5067

P +618 8334 3600

F +618 8334 3610

E [email protected]

Brisbane

A Level 4, 283 Elizabeth Street

BRISBANE QLD 4000

GPO Box 115

BRISBANE QLD 4001

P +617 3113 5000

F +617 3113 5010

E [email protected]

Gold Coast

A Level 9, Corporate Centre 2

Box 37

1 Corporate Court

BUNDALL QLD 4217

P +617 5510 4800

F +617 5510 4814

E [email protected]

appendix 5 service infrastructure report

Junction Road Partnership Glendonald Road, Churchill

Infrastructure Servicing Report

July 2014

GHD | Report for Junction Road Partnership –Glendonald Road, Churchill, 31-31705| i

This report: has been prepared by GHD for Junction Road Partnership and may only be used and relied on by Junction Road Partnership for the purpose agreed between GHD and the Junction Road Partnership as set out in section 1.1 of this report.

GHD otherwise disclaims responsibility to any person other than Junction Road Partnership arising in connection with this report. GHD also excludes implied warranties and conditions, to the extent legally permissible.

The services undertaken by GHD in connection with preparing this report were limited to those specifically detailed in the report and are subject to the scope limitations set out in the report.

The opinions, conclusions and any recommendations in this report are based on conditions encountered and information reviewed at the date of preparation of the report. GHD has no responsibility or obligation to update this report to account for events or changes occurring subsequent to the date that the report was prepared.

The opinions, conclusions and any recommendations in this report are based on assumptions made by GHD described in this report (refer section 1.3 of this report). GHD disclaims liability arising from any of the assumptions being incorrect.

GHD has prepared this report on the basis of information provided by Junction Road Partnership, relevant utility authorities and others who provided information to GHD (including Government authorities), which GHD has not independently verified or checked beyond the agreed scope of work. GHD does not accept liability in connection with such unverified information, including errors and omissions in the report which were caused by errors or omissions in that information.

GHD has not been involved in the preparation of the Planning Scheme Amendment and has had no contribution to, or review of the Planning Scheme Amendment other than in the Infrastructure Servicing Report. GHD shall not be liable to any person for any error in, omission from, or false or misleading statement in, any other part of the Planning Scheme Amendment.

ii | GHD | Report for Junction Road Partnership –Glendonald Road, Churchill, 31-31705

Executive summary GHD has been engaged by Junction Road Partnership to prepare an Infrastructure Servicing

Report for an approximately 49.0 hectare parcel of land in Glendonald Road, Churchill. This

report will provide support for the Planning Scheme Amendment Application to rezone the land

from Rural Living Zone 4 to Low Density Residential.

The sizing of the lots within the Low Density Residential Zone is dependent upon the site’s

ability to be serviced by a reticulated sewer network and Gippsland Water approval. There are

sewer assets within the vicinity of the proposed development, which suggests the development

(or at least a portion of it) is serviceable by sewer.

This report also looked at the ability of the site to be serviced by water, stormwater, power,

telecommunications and gas, and it was found that each utility was present. Depending on the

capacity of each service, upgrades may be required in order to service a future development on

the site.

This report is subject to, and must be read in conjunction with, the limitations set out in section

1.3 and the assumptions and qualifications contained throughout the Report.

GHD | Report for Junction Road Partnership –Glendonald Road, Churchill, 31-31705| iii

Table of contents 1. Introduction..................................................................................................................................... 5

1.1 Purpose of this report........................................................................................................... 5

1.2 Scope ................................................................................................................................... 5

1.3 Assumptions ........................................................................................................................ 5

2. Site Description .............................................................................................................................. 6

3. Sewer Mains .................................................................................................................................. 7

3.1 Existing Sewerage Conditions ............................................................................................. 7

3.2 Service Constraints/Impacts ................................................................................................ 7

4. Stormwater ..................................................................................................................................... 9

4.1 Existing Stormwater Drainage Conditions ........................................................................... 9

4.2 Service Constraints/Impacts ................................................................................................ 9

5. Water Supply Mains ..................................................................................................................... 11

5.1 Existing Water Mains Conditions ....................................................................................... 11

5.2 Service Constraints/Impacts .............................................................................................. 11

6. Gas Mains .................................................................................................................................... 12

6.1 Existing Gas Main Conditions ............................................................................................ 12


7. Power ........................................................................................................................................... 13

7.1 Existing Power Conditions ................................................................................................. 13


8. Telecommunications .................................................................................................................... 14

8.1 Existing Telecommunications Conditions .......................................................................... 14


9. National Broadband Network ....................................................................................................... 15

9.1 Existing NBN Conditions .................................................................................................... 15


10. Road connections ........................................................................................................................ 15

11. Conclusion/Recommendations .................................................................................................... 16

12. References ................................................................................................................................... 17

Figure index

Figure 1 Site locality plan ......................................................................................................................... 6

Figure 2 Sewer services ........................................................................................................................... 7

Figure 3 Overland flow path and legal points of discharge ...................................................................... 9

Figure 4 Designated Waterways ............................................................................................................ 10

iv | GHD | Report for Junction Road Partnership –Glendonald Road, Churchill, 31-31705

Figure 5 Water services ......................................................................................................................... 11

Figure 6 Gas services ............................................................................................................................ 12

Figure 7 Power services ......................................................................................................................... 13

Figure 8 Telecommunications services .................................................................................................. 14

GHD | Report for Junction Road Partnership – Glendonald Road, Churchill, 31-31705 | 5

1. Introduction GHD has been engaged by Junction Road Partnership to prepare an Infrastructure Servicing

Report for the property in Glendonald Road, Churchill. The land is currently zoned as a Rural

Living Zone (RLZ4), and will be subject to a Planning Scheme Amendment aimed at modifying

the zoning to a Low Density Residential Zone (LDRZ).

1.1 Purpose of this report

The purpose of this report is to review the existing services infrastructure and document the

findings and detail the requirements necessary to service the parcel of land located at

Glendonald Road, Churchill.

This Report will provide supporting information for the Planning Scheme Amendment to rezone

the land from a Rural Living Zone (RLZ4) to a Low Density Residential Zone (LDRZ).

1.2 Scope

The report will review the existing services of sewer, water, stormwater, electricity, gas,

telecommunications and the national broadband network to identify the adequacy of the existing

infrastructure to provide for the proposed development and to report on the findings and any

required upgrades to service the development

1.3 Assumptions

This report has been undertaken as a desk top study only and no proving of services on site

has been carried out to verify the existence, location or condition of the assets. The information

on existing assets has been obtained from the utility authorities’ advice, and they have given no

guarantee on the accuracy of the data supplied.

Within the report, the capacity of the existing services to cope with additional demand from the

proposed development has not been verified.

Due to the absence of a conceptual subdivision layout, only general requirements have been

assessed in the ability for the property to be serviced. Additional specific assumptions have

been stated in the report.

6 | GHD | Report for Junction Road Partnership –Glendonald Road, Churchill, 31-31705

2. Site Description The subject site is located in Glendonald Road, Churchill. The approximately 49.0 hectare

parcel of land is bound by Glendonald Road to the north, residential housing to the east and

west, and a vacant parcel of land to the south. The Site Locality Plan is presented in Figure 1

below.

Figure 1 Site locality plan

(Map from Land Vic, State Government of Victoria)

The site is currently a vacant parcel of land zoned within the Rural Living Zone 4. Surrounding

the site are properties zoned within Rural Living Zone 3 and Residential 1 Zone.

Without completing a detailed survey, it appears the land has a high point on the south side,

and slopes towards the north and east.

N SITE LOCATION


3. Sewer Mains 3.1 Existing Sewerage Conditions

Gippsland Water has advised that there are three existing sewer networks within the vicinity of

the site:

1. A 150 mm sewer main heading south on Monash Way, then turning east on Glendonald

Road and terminating at 10 Glendonald Road.

2. A 150 mm main heading east in an easement at the back of the properties of 1-45

Glendonald Road, crossing Churinga Drive and terminating at 4 Churinga Drive.

3. A 225 mm main running north through the intersection of Glendonald Road and

Haverbrack Crescent.

The red lines in Figure 2 below shows this information visually.

Figure 2 Sewer services

(Gippsland Water 2014)

3.2 Service Constraints/Impacts

The ability to service the development with reticulated sewer directly impacts the size and

number of lots that the developer can achieve. As per the Latrobe Planning Scheme (2014), a

Low Density Residential Zone (LDRZ) requires:

Lots without reticulated sewerage to be at least 0.4 hectares.

Lots with reticulated sewerage to be at least 0.2 hectares.

1. Glendonald Road 2. Churinga Drive

3. Intersection Glendonald Road & Haverbrack Crescent


Gippsland Water has advised that the proposed site is outside of the existing sewerage district,

as per Churchill’s Structure Plan published in 2007. Therefore the allowance of the extension of

the sewerage network, and hence the sewer servicing for the site, will be dependent upon

Gippsland Water Board approval. Gippsland Water have also advised that if the land is re-

zoned and approval is granted for the sewer extension, significant upgrades to downstream

sewer mains would be required at the developers cost.

If the Board was to approve the network extension, Gippsland Water has advised that there

would be some capacity to connect to the existing sewer mains. Without the benefit of a

preliminary master plan for the proposed subdivision, Gippsland Water have been able to

advise that the closest main that may have additional capacity is located at the intersection of

Glendonald Road and Haverbrack Crescent. Without verifying the invert levels of the existing

sewer on site, Gippsland Water can only estimate that if the existing 225 mm main was at a

grade of 1:150 it would have the capacity for an additional 176 connections.

Gippsland Water has also advised that the mains to the immediate north of the subject site

(identified as sewers 1 and 2 in Figure 2 above) do not have any additional capacity to service

any additional lots.

Based on the advice received from Gippsland Water, the proposed development will need to

gain approval from the Gippsland Water Board to extend the sewer network. If approval is

granted, the site would be able to be serviced by sewer, however the additional capacity of the

existing network is unable to be accurately estimated without further investigation.


4. Stormwater 4.1 Existing Stormwater Drainage Conditions

Within the vicinity of the subject site, Glendonald Road is a two lane, two way sealed rural road

with table drains constructed on both sides. On the site specifically, there are four constructed

dams which capture overland flow.

From the limited contour information that is available, the property falls from the high point at the

south, to the low point at the east at Glendonald Road. There is an overland flow path from the

south end of the property which enters a dam on the site, and overflows through 16 Wongan

Crescent and between 1 and 3 Roberts Road before continuing down Wongan Crescent. The

red arrows in Figure 3 below depict this visually.

Figure 3 Overland flow path and legal points of discharge



Latrobe City Council has advised that there are thee legal points of discharge (LPOD) for the

proposed development;

1. The north west LPOD is to the table drain in Glendonald Road,

2. The east LPOD is to the designated waterway (DW1 as per Figure 4) that flows through

Wongan Crescent, to Eel Hole Creek and eventuates at Lake Hyland,

3. The south west LPOD is to the designated waterway (DW2 as per Figure 4) that flows

across Monash Way to a dam within 760 Hazelwood Estate Road.

LPOD 1

LPOD 3

LPOD 2


Figure 3 above displays the three different points of discharge shown as circles with their

corresponding catchment areas, and Figure 4 below shows the two designated waterways

discussed, designated waterway 1 (DW 1) and designated waterway 2 (DW 2).

Any connection to these designated waterways will require approval from the West Gippsland

Catchment Management Authority, and will need to be assessed for their suitability. The post-

development flows resulting from the proposed subdivision will likely need to be limited to the

pre-development flows through on-site detention, especially to protect the current designated

waterways.

Latrobe City Council has advised that the four dams located on the site are able to be filled,

however permission will need to be granted from the West Gippsland Catchment Management

Authority if there is a change in the current designated waterway.

Figure 4 Designated Waterways


DW 2

DW 1


5. Water Supply Mains 5.1 Existing Water Mains Conditions

Gippsland Water has advised that there is a water main running the length of Glendonald Road.

The pipe is 100 mm PVC and follows the north side of Glendonald Road from the west until it

reaches Churinga Drive where it crosses the road and follows the south side of Glendonald

Road, closest to the subject site.

There is also a 100 mm PVC water main pipe along the length of Roberts Road, and half the

length of Riga Court.

Figure 5 below represents the above information graphically, with the green lines showing the

water mains described.

Figure 5 Water services

(Gippsland Water 2014)


The proposed development can be serviced by the existing mains stated above; however an

upgrade may be needed. Once a subdivision plan has been created, a more accurate estimate

can be made.

Glendonald Road

Roberts Road

Churinga Drive


6. Gas Mains 6.1 Existing Gas Main Conditions

APA Group have advised that there is an existing 63 mm gas main located on the northern side

of Glendonald Road until it reaches Churinga Drive from the west, and a 40 mm gas main also

on the northern side of Glendonald Road up until 55 Glendonald Road from the east. In

addition to these, there is also a 40 mm gas main down the length of the north side of Roberts

Road. Figure 6 below shows the locations of the gas services.

Figure 6 Gas services

(APA Group 2014)


There are two possibilities for connecting gas to the site:

The existing 40 mm main in Roberts Road terminates at 6 Roberts Road where the road

terminates, suggesting that a future connection was allowed for.

There are also the 63 mm or 40 mm gas mains in Glendonald Road which have the ability

to service the site.


7. Power 7.1 Existing Power Conditions

SP AusNet has advised that there are power assets within the vicinity of the subject site. In

Glendonald Road, there are high and low voltage underground cables from Monash Way to

Churinga Drive. In addition, from Churinga Drive westward on Glendonald Road there is a high

voltage overhead line. Roberts Road and Riga Court also have a low voltage underground

cable terminating at 4 Roberts Road and 31 Riga Court, respectively, which could possibly be

utilised.

Within the boundaries of the property, SP AusNet has advised that there is a high voltage

overhead power line running east-west through the centre, as shown in Figure 7 below.

Figure 7 Power services

(SP AusNet 2014)


There are enough power assets surrounding the site to allow the development to be serviced

with electricity. The high voltage overhead line however, provides a number of constraints for

the development, which have three alternatives to be overcome:

1. The overhead power line could be relocated underground, or

2. An easement may need to be created to restrict the vicinity of the buildings from the

power line, or,

3. The overhead power line could be relocated along a future road reserve.

Depending on the height of the power line, it may also create issues with clearances from

proposed properties and issues during construction.


8. Telecommunications 8.1 Existing Telecommunications Conditions

Telstra have advised that there is an existing Telstra network within the vicinity of the subject

site. Telstra cabling runs along the length of Glendonald Road adjacent to the proposed

development, as well as being present in both Roberts Road and Riga Court. It can be seen

from Figure 8 below that there is an extensive network surrounding the property.

Figure 8 Telecommunications services

(Telstra 2014)


The development will have the ability to be serviced by Telstra communications assets.


9. National Broadband Network 9.1 Existing NBN Conditions

There is currently no NBN connection directly to the site, however the NBN Co have advised via

their website (nbnco.com.au 2014) that it is within a fixed wireless coverage area and is

therefore available.


Prior to connection with the wireless NBN network, a radio signal survey will need to be

conducted to ensure a high quality broadband service can be obtained.

10. Road connections Please refer to the traffic assessment report (compiled by others) for the future road connection

investigation.


11. Conclusion/Recommendations This report has reviewed the existing services within the Glendonald Road, Churchill site to

assess the suitability of a proposed development. The information has been collected from the

relevant authorities to perform this assessment, and has considered the existing sewer, water,

stormwater, electricity, gas, telecommunications and national broadband network.

The report has been produced to support the Planning Scheme Amendment application to

rezone the land from Rural Living Zone (RLZ4) to Low Density Residential (LDRZ). Of

particular importance for this purpose is the ability of the site to be serviced by sewer, which is

dependent upon Gippsland Water’s approval.

Based on the above assessment of the capacity to service the proposed development at

Glendonald Road, Churchill, GHD advises that there are no significant issues that would

prevent the servicing of the site. However, the ability of the site to be serviced by sewer will

need to be further investigated with Gippsland Water to ensure that approval to extend the

sewer district is possible.


12. References APA Group, 2014, Dial before you dig response

Gippsland Water, 2014, Dial before you dig response

Interactive Map – Land Channel, 2014, Land Vic, Department of Environment and Primary

Industries, State Government of Victoria

Latrobe Planning Scheme, 30 May 2014, Department of Transport, Planning and Local

Infrastructure, State Government of Victoria

NBN Co, 2014, http://www.nbnco.com.au/connect-home-or-business/check-your-address.html

SP AusNet, 2014, Dial before you dig response

Telstra, 2014, Dial before you dig response

GHD

Level 2, 45 Brougham Street, Geelong VIC, 3220 T: +61 3 5273 1800 F: +61 3 5273 1801 E: [email protected]

© GHD 2014

The document may only be used for the purpose for which it was commissioned and in accordance with the Terms of Engagement for the commission. Unauthorised use of this document in any form whatsoever is prohibited.

G:\31\31705\WP\GHD Report.docx

Document Status

Rev No.

Author Reviewer Approved for Issue Name Signature Name Signature Date

0 L Friend D Mapleson

C Leonard

03/07/14


C Leonard

18/07/14


C Leonard

23/07/14

www.ghd.com

appendix f land capability assessment

Land Capability Assessment, Onsite Wastewater Management Plan and Concept System Designs for

Proposed Rezoning Glendonald Road

Churchill

December 2014

LCA, Onsite Wastewater Management Plan and Concept System Designs for Proposed Rezoning Glendonald Road Churchill

© Strata - Geoscience and Environmental. Report 01536. 15/01/2015 2

Important Notes:

The author, Strata Geoscience and Environmental, gives permission for this report to

be copied and distributed to interested parties only if it is reproduced in colour and in

full including all appendicies. No responsibility is taken for the contents and

recommendations of this report if it is not reproduced as requested.

Strata Geoscience and Environmental reserves the right to submit this report to the

relevant regulatory agencies where it has a responsibility to do so.



TableOfContentsExecutiveSummary .......................................................................................................... 4

1.IntroductionandBackground ................................................................................. 51.1PurposeofReport ............................................................................................................... 61.2Background........................................................................................................................... 61.3Codes,GuidelinesandStandardsReferenced ........................................................... 6

2.DescriptionoftheProposedDevelopment ......................................................... 73.SoilAssessmentandConstraints ..........................................................................113.1PublishedSoilInformation............................................................................................113.2SoilClassificationandPhysicalProperties ..............................................................123.3SoilChemicalProperties ................................................................................................133.4SoilPermeability ...............................................................................................................13

4.LandCapabilityAssessmentMatrix.....................................................................14

5.ProposedOnsiteWastewaterSystemConceptDesignsandManagementPlan.......................................................................................................................................165.1GeneralSystemRecommendations ............................................................................165.2OnsiteWastewaterFlowandLandApplicationAreaModelling.......................165.2.1FlowandLandApplicationAreaRequirement.............................................................165.2.2WaterBalanceandLandApplicationAreaModelling ...............................................175.2.3NutrientBalanceandLandApplicationAreaModelling ..........................................175.2.4Mound/Bed/TrenchAreaSizing .........................................................................................185.2.5WastewaterBOD ........................................................................................................................185.2.6AlternativeLoadingsandLAAModelling ........................................................................18

5.3ProposedSystemConceptDesigns..............................................................................185.3.1TreatmentSystems ...................................................................................................................185.3.2LandApplicationAreas ...........................................................................................................195.3.3ProvisionofAdequateSetbackDistancesandReserveArea..................................19

5.4Monitoring,OperationandMaintenance..................................................................195.5StormwaterManagement...............................................................................................20

6.ConclusionsandFurtherRecommendations ...................................................22

7.References ....................................................................................................................24



ExecutiveSummary Strata Geoscience and Environmental Pty Ltd was commissioned to perform a

Planning Stage Land Capability Site Reconnaissance and Onsite Wastewater

System Concept Designs for a proposed rezoning of land at Glendonald Road

Churchill “the site”.

The investigation involved desktop research, field reconnaissance,

geotechnical drilling, permeability testing and soil sampling for laboratory

chemical analysis.

The investigation has found that secondary treatment of effluent with onsite

disposal are suitable concept designs to support the rezoning application.

Suitable systems include:

• Approved commercially available AWTS system with minimum daily

flow capacity of 1500L.

OR:

• Min 4000L dual purpose septic tank with outlet filter

• Min 22m2 gravity dosed EPA endorsed sand filter (for 5 bed dwelling)

• Min 1000L pump well

Suitable land application area concept designs include:

• Min 889 m2 of subsurface irrigation with appropriate buffer zones

OR

• Min 90m2 trench/bed basal area.

• Provision for 50% reserve area (must remain free from development)



The investigation has found that the nominated land application area (LAA)

derived from the water balance method is large given low permeability

subsoils and high rainfall with low evaporation throughout the winter months.

However given the minimum lot size of 0.4 Ha this investigation has

concluded that:

• Adequate land area is available for sustainable long term land

application of wastewater from residential dwellings, given the

proposed rezoning.

• If the prescriptions of this report are followed the likely human

and environmental health risks associated with effluent disposal

over the site is low.



1. IntroductionandBackground

1.1PurposeofReport It is the objective of this report to assess the ability of the land to be used for

sustainable on-site domestic wastewater management systems given a

rezoning from RLZ4 (min Lot size = 4 Ha) to LDRZ (min Lot size = 0.4 Ha).

1.2Background The proponent, Comdev Pty Ltd, has engaged Strata Geoscience &

Environmental Pty Ltd to conduct a Land Capability Assessment based upon

a request from Latrobe City Council. The proponent is seeking to rezone the

subject land for the purpose of creating a low density residential subdivision

with a minimum lot size of 0.4 Ha.

1.3Codes,GuidelinesandStandardsReferenced The investigation with reference to the following documents:

1. EPA Victoria (2013) Code of Practice for Onsite Wastewater Management

2. Australian Standard AS1547-2012 Onsite Wastewater Management

The investigation also follows the principles outlined in:

1. MAV & DSE 2006 (as amended) Model LCA Report

2. AS1726-1993 Geotechnical Site Investigations.



2.DescriptionoftheProposedDevelopment

Table 1 Site Description

Site Address Glendonald Road Churchill Owner/Developer/Agent Comdev Pty Ltd Address PO Box 755 Sale 3850 Authorities: Council Area Latrobe City Water Supply Gippsland Water Sewage Gippsland Water CMA West Gippsland Catchment

Management Authority Zoning RLZ4 Proposed Allotment Size 0.4 Ha approx Proposed Domestic Water Supply Onsite roof water collection Anticipated Wastewater Load 1080 L/D (See Section 6) Availability of Sewer Unsewered and unlikely to be

unsewered in mid term 3. Key Property Features S Nielsen (MEngSc, CPSS-2) undertook a site investigation on 2 December

2014. A range of soil and landscape features were assessed for their

potential to impact upon land application area siting and level of wastewater

treatment required over the site. Figures 1 &2 give locality and site plans

respectively whilst Table 2 summarises key features as in relation to effluent

management over the site.



Figure 1 Locality Plan



Figure 2 Aerial Plan



Table 2 Site Features Climate The nearest weather station with long term data is the TRARALGON

CREEK Station with a mean annual rainfall of 789.5 mm (BOM 2013) and no evaporation data. LATROBE STATION has the closest evaporation data. The region has a near Mediterranean climate with maximum temperatures and minimum rainfall in the summer.

Exposure The site is relatively unshielded with exposure to winds which predominate from the NW/SW directions

Vegetation Improved Pasture, Remnant Natives

Landform Undulating Hillslopes and Flats

Slope Slight to moderate slopes

Fill No fill evident

Rocks and Rock Outcrops

None evident

Erosion Potential None observed

Surface Water Several Dams on Titles. Hazelwood cooling pondage and Eel Hole Creek approx. 2km NE of site. Site not in a water catchment

Flood Potential <1:100 AEP

Site Drainage and Subsurface Drainage

The site is likely to receive significant run on and shows signs of springs/Dams or other areas of ephemeral subsurface water retention. Given clay subsoils ephemeral perched watertables may exist in some areas of the site.

Stormwater Run-on and Upslope Seepage

Run on from slopes to flatter areas. Drainage likely required

Groundwater • Permanent

Groundwater Table

Unknown, likely several metres below ground surface contained within fractured rock

• Perched Watertables

Flatter areas likely to suffer from seasonal perched water table given heavy clay subsoils

• Groundwater Quality

Unknown, possible high TSS and saline

Geology and Soils

• Site Geology Creataceous Sediments

• Soil Classification (Isbell)

Yellow, Brown and Grey Dermosols

Recommended Buffer Distances

Given the significant land area, all buffer distances as stipulated in EPA (2013) are achievable.

Available Land Application Area

There is surplus space to land application area requirements (including reserves).



3.SoilAssessmentandConstraints Soils have been assessed for their suitability for onsite wastewater

management through both desktop review and intrusive field investigation.

3.1PublishedSoilInformation Reconnaissance land system mapping carried out by DEPI (2003) at a scale

of 1:100,000, indicates the subject land is underlain by Yellow/Grey and

Brown Dermosols weathering from Cretaceous aged sediments.



3.2SoilClassificationandPhysicalProperties Field investigation consisted of drilling 20 soil bores using a Dando Terrier

percussion drilling rig driving 50mm soil probes to 1.5m-2.0m (or refusal on

rock) with retrieval of undisturbed soil cores for logging, sampling and testing

for pH, EC and Emmerson Aggregate Class using a handheld meter to

measure 1:5 soil:water solutions.

Bore logs and soil permeability data/soil dispersion test results (where

relevant) are presented in Appendix 2/4.

With reference to the classification system of Isbell (2002) soils are classified

as Yellow and Brown Dermosols lacking strong textural contrast with

structured subsoils. Soils had gradual increases in texture with soils depth

grading to silty clays/clayey silts to approximately 1500mmbgs. Soils are

moderately structured and may show the existence of vertical macropores

throughout drier periods, significantly increasing their unsaturated hydraulic

conductivities. These soils will show a moderate cation exchange complex for

the absorption of nutrients, are non dispersive and a slightly acidic pH trend.

Table 3 Key Soil Characteristics of Proposed LAA Soil Depth (m) 2.0m+ (variable) Depth to Water Table (m) 2.5m+ Coarse Fragments (%) 0-5% Soil Permeability and Design Loading Rates

Approximately 0.1m/d DIR of 3mm/d suitable

Topsoils (A1-A3) Subsoils (B1-B3) Description Silty SAND (SM) Silty CLAY

(CL)/Clayey SILT (ML)

Soil Category (AS1547-2011)

2 5

DIR (mm/d)/DLR (L/D) (Secondary)

30/5 12/3

Indicative field pH 6.4 5.5 Indicative field EC 2.1 3.7



3.3SoilChemicalProperties Select soils across the site were sampled and analysed for Exchangeable

Cations, Exchangable Sodium, pH, Electrical Conductivity, CEC and

Emmerson Class. Full results and chain of custody is presented in Appendix

2. A summary is presented in Table 4 below.

Table 4 Summary of Key Soil Chemical Parameters Units BH4

(500) BH5 (500)

BH6 (1000)

BH 7 (1000)

Indicative Desirable Levels

Conductivity uS/cm 28 36 21 68 <300 Exchangeable Ca meq/100g 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.8 >1 Exchangeable Na meq/100g 0.3 0.8 0.2 0.8 <1 Exchangeable Mg meq/100g 1.3 3.4 1.2 4.1 >1.6 Exchangeable K meq/100g 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 >0.5 Ca:Mg units 0.12 0.12 0.50 0.19 2-4 pH units 6.7 6.4 6.5 5.9 5.5-7.5 CEC meq/100g 1.9 4.7 2.0 5.7 Sum>15 Exchangable Sodium Percentage

% 14 17 8.6 14 <5

Emmerson Class units 5 5 5 5 7-8 * Note Green shading indicates desirable levels for plant growth without soil amendment, Yellow indicates

suboptimal.

3.4SoilPermeability Soil permeability was measured using the constant head Talsma-Hallam

method in accordance with AS 1547:2011 and are presented in Table 5

below:

Table 5 Results of Field Permeability Testing (m/day)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Mean Location 1 0.12 0.07 0.18 0.07 0.04 0.11 0.17 0.11 Location 2 0.04 0.01 0.16 0.02 0.07 0.06 0.08 0.06 Location 3 0.17 0.18 0.20 0.11 0.09 0.160 0.18 0.15 Location 4 0.22 0.08 0.19 0.11 0.09 0.07 0.17 0.13 Location 5 0.09 0.04 0.01 0.07 0.02 0.08 0.09 0.06



4.LandCapabilityAssessmentMatrix

Referring to MAV & DSE (2006) and EPA Victoria Publication 746.1 Land

Capability Assessment (LCA) for Onsite Domestic Wastewater Management,

the following LCA assessment table has been produced for the site:

Table 5 Land Capability Assessment Matrix Land Features Very

Good (1) Good (2) Fair (3) Poor (4) Very

Poor (5) Site Class

General Characteristics Site Drainage No visible

signs of dampness

Moist soil, no standing water in pit/bore

Visible signs of dampness

Water ponding on surface

2

Runoff None Low Moderate High – need for diversionary structures

Very High – diversion not practical

3

Flood Levels Never <1 in 100 >1 in 100 to < 1 in 20

<1 in 20 1

Proximity to Watercourses

>60m <60m 3

Slope % 0-2 2-8 8-12 12-20 >20 3 Landslip No actual or

potential failure

Low potential for failure

High potential for failure

Present or past failure

3

Groundwater (seasonal depth, m)

>5 5-2.5 2.5-2.0 2.0-1.5 <1.5 3

Rock Outcrop (% of land surface)

0 <10% 10-20% 20-50% >50% 1

Erosion Potential No erosion potential

Minor Moderate High Severe Erosion Potential

3

Exposure High sun and wind exposure

Moderate Low sun and wind exposure

1

Landform Hillcrests, Convex side slopes and plains

Concave side slopes and footslopes

Floodplains and incised channels

3

Vegetation Type Turf and Pasture

Dense forest with little understorey

1

Average Rainfall (mm/yr)

<450 450-650 650-750 750-1000 >1000 4

Pan Evaporation (mm/yr)

>1500 1200-1500 1000-1250 <1000 3

Fill No fill Fill present 1



Table 5 Land Capability Assessment Matrix (cont)

Land Features

Very Good (1)

Good (2)

Fair (3) Poor (4) Very Poor (5)

Site Class

Soil Profile Characteristics Soil Permeability Category (AS1547-2012)

2 and 3 4 5 1&6 4

Profile Depth

>2 1.5-2.0 1.5-1 1-0.5 <0.5 2

Presence of Mottling

None Extensive 1

Coarse Fragments %

<10% 10-20% 20-40% >40% 1

pH

6-8 4.5-6 <4.5, >8 3

Emerson Test

4,6,8 5 7 2,3 1 4

Electrical Conductivity (dS/m)

<0.3 0,3-0.8 0.8-2 2-4 >4 3

Sodicity (ESP%) <3 6-8 8-14 >14 4

Overall Site Rating

The generalised land capability class for the site is between Rating 2-3. See

Section 6 for system recommendations.



5.ProposedOnsiteWastewaterSystemConceptDesignsandManagementPlan

5.1GeneralSystemRecommendations Given the results of the LCA, the following recommendations are made for a

suitable wastewater treatment system:

• That secondary treatment of effluent with appropriate land application

design is suitable given low soil permeability and proximal waterbodies

(dams).

Adoption of designs considering these recommendations will limit the public

and environmental health risks associated with effluent treatment and disposal

over the site and provide for a sustainable long term solution to effluent

treatment and land application.

5.2OnsiteWastewaterFlowandLandApplicationAreaModelling

5.2.1FlowandLandApplicationAreaRequirement

The modelling below allows for the construction of a wastewater system to

service a 5 bedroom equivalent dwelling with provision for future mains water

availability and standard water savings fixtures and a design flow allowance

under EPAV 2013 of 180 L per person per day. Therefore the calculated

effluent flows and required disposal area is as follows:



As a result of these calculations, at least 360 m2 of area is required dispose of these flows on a

daily basis via subsurface irrigation

5.2.2WaterBalanceandLandApplicationAreaModelling Please refer to Appendix 2 for the water balance modelling for each lot based

upon VLCAF (2013). The nominated area method is used to calculate the area

required to balance all inputs and outputs, without the need for wet weather storage. As a

result of these calculations, at least 889 m2 of area is required to achieve zero wet weather

storage.

5.2.3NutrientBalanceandLandApplicationAreaModelling Please refer to Appendix 2 for the nutrient balance modelling (Nitrogen and

Phosphorus) for each lot based upon VLCAF (2013). The methodology aims to

ensure that the LAA is of sufficient size to ensure all nutrients from the applied effluent are

assimilated by soils and vegetation. As a result of these calculations, at least 358 m2 of area

is required to achieve sustainable assimilation of N and P over the nominated system design life.

BASED UPON THE ABOVE MODELLING THE MAXIMUM MODELLED LAA REQUIREMENT IS 889 m2 FOR SECONDARY TREATED EFFLUENT BASED UPON THE WATER BALANCE MODEL.



5.2.4Mound/Bed/TrenchAreaSizing Based upon Trench/Bed Area Sizing Spreadsheet (EPA 2013) the modelled

loading would require 90 m2 of bed/mound basal area based upon loading

secondary treated effluent into Category 5 clays.

5.2.5WastewaterBOD Based upon a loading of 60 g BOD/person/day under EPAV 2013 maximum

daily influent BOD would be 360 g BOD/day.

5.2.6AlternativeLoadingsandLAAModelling Given that the water balance model produces the most conservative LAA, it

has been used to calculate the subsurface drip irrigation area for a range of

loadings based upon the “Number of bedrooms plus 1” model at

180L/person/day. Results are detailed in Table 6 below:

Table 6 LAA Requirement for Various Dwelling Sizes Number of Bedrooms Theoretical Loading

(L/day) Required LAA (m2 of irrigation)

3 720 593 4 900 741 5 1080 889 6 1260 1037 7 1440 1185

5.3ProposedSystemConceptDesigns

5.3.1TreatmentSystems Given the above modelling the following treatment system would be

appropriate:

• Min DN100 gravity fed sewer pipe

• Approved commercially available AWTS system with minimum daily

flow capacity of 1500L.



OR:

• Min 4000L dual purpose septic tank with outlet filter

• Min 22m2 gravity dosed EPA endorsed sand filter (for 5 bed dwelling)

• Min 1000L pump well

5.3.2LandApplicationAreas

• Min 889 m2 of subsurface irrigation with appropriate buffer zones

OR:

• Min 90m2 trench/bed basal area.

• Provision for 50% reserve area (must remain free from development)

• Interceptor drainage where necessary

5.3.3ProvisionofAdequateSetbackDistancesandReserveArea Given the minimum land application areas modelled above combined with the

current development plan, setback distances complying with the minimum

requirements of EPA Vic (2013) are achievable (see Figure 2 and Appendix

4). Further more there is adequate room for the modelled reserve

requirements as modelled above.

5.4Monitoring,OperationandMaintenance It is imperative that regular servicing of the AWTS unit compliant with the

prescriptions of the manufacturer and Council permit occur.

To ensure that the treatment system functions adequately and provides

effective treatment and disposal of effluent over its design life, asset owners

have the following responsibilities:

• Suitably qualified maintenance contractors must be engaged to service

the AWTS every three months, as required by Council under the

approval to operate.

• Keep as much fat and oil out of the system as possible; and

• Conserve water.



To ensure that the land application area (LAA) functions adequately and

provides effective treatment and disposal of effluent over its design life, asset

owners have the following responsibilities:

• Irrigation areas should be checked regularly to ensure that effluent is

draining freely, including flushing of irrigation lines and cleaning of

inline filters

• All vehicles, livestock and large trees should be excluded from around

the irrigation area.

• Low sodium/phosphorous based detergents should be used to increase

the service life of irrigation area.

• Regularly harvest (mow) vegetation within the LAA and remove this to

maximise uptake of water and nutrients;

• Not to erect any structures over the LAA;

• Ensure that the LAA is kept level by filling any depressions with good

quality topsoil (not clay).

Excessive surface dampness, smell or growth of vegetation around the LAA

may indicate sub-optimal performance and professional advice should be sort.

5.5StormwaterManagement Stormwater flows are to be captured and diverted around any land application

area. Given the variable slopes of the site combined with low permeability

clay soils, interceptor drainage or barrier diversion of stormwater or

surface/subsurface water will likely be required on a lot specific basis.

It is further recommended that:

• adequate capture and reticulation of stormwater to approved discharge

points is achieved

• rainwater capture be a part of the design of the future dwellings and

buildings, with the aim of supplying at least the toilet cisterns and

laundry with rainwater, with the excess rainwater from the tanks going



to a soak trench(es) appropriately sized via the Australian rainfall and

runoff method.

• An integrated communal stormwater management system following

water sensitive urban design principals be installed for the entire

proposed subdivision.



6.ConclusionsandFurtherRecommendations In conclusion the following comments and recommendations are made:

• The LCA has found that the generalised capability rating is 2-3 and is

suitable for secondary effluent disposal.

• Given low permeability subsoils, the slope of some areas and proximity

to existing surface waters secondary treatment with subsurface

disposal is required.

• The maximum wastewater flow rate (MWWF) modelling shows that the

generated flows from the proposed 5 bedroom equivalent dwelling is

likely to be no more than 1080 L/day.

• Modelled flows will likely require a land application area comprising:

o Min 889 m2 of irrigation derived from the water balance

OR

o Min 90m2 trench/bed basal area

o Provision for min 50% reserve area (must remain free from

development)

• It is likely that peak flows associated with the modelled development on

each lot should be within the buffering capacity of proposed systems

both in terms of the system sizing as well as for their acceptance into

the disposal area.

• Given the proposed lot size of 0.4 ha adequate setback distances and

reserve provisions can be met.

• It is likely that bulk earthworks and drainage installation associated with

development proposal will alter conditions of the site and as a result the

recommendations of this report MUST be reconfirmed after these

works have occurred. Stormwater diversion or interceptor drain

installation may be appropriate at this time.



• If the prescriptions of this report are followed the likely human

and environmental health risks associated with effluent disposal

over the site is low.

S Nielsen MEngSc CPSS-2 Director Strata Geoscience and Environmental Pty Ltd P: 0413545358 E: [email protected] W: www.strataconsulting.com.au



7.References

• AS1726-1993- Geotechnical Site Investigations

• AS 1547-2012 Onsite Wastewater Disposal

• Bureau of Meteorology Website- Monthly Climate Statistics

• EPA (2013) Vic Code of Practice for Onsite Wastewater Management

• MAV & DSE 2006 (as amended) Model LCA Report

• VLCAF (2013) Victorian Land Capability Assessment Framework –

Calculation of Water and Nutrient Balances

• Isbell (2002) Australian Soil Classification (Revised Edn) CSIRO

Publishing

LCA and Onsite Wastewater Management Plan and System Design for Proposed Rezoning Glendonald Road Churchill

© Strata - Geoscience and Environmental. Report 01534 15/01/2015 25

Appendix 1 Water and Nutrient Balance Method Calculations (after VLCAF 2013)



Appendix 2 Laboratory Results

Certificate of Analysis

Strata Geoscience and Environmental P/L

17 Little Arthur Street

North Hobart

TAS 7000

Attention: Sven Nielsen

Report 441013-S

Project name CHURCHILL

Received Date Dec 03, 2014

Client Sample ID BH4 500 BH5 500 BH6 1000 BH7 1000

Sample Matrix Soil Soil Soil Soil

Eurofins | mgt Sample No. M14-De03458 M14-De03459 M14-De03460 M14-De03461

Date Sampled Dec 03, 2014 Dec 03, 2014 Dec 03, 2014 Dec 03, 2014

Test/Reference LOR Unit

Conductivity (1:5 aqueous extract at 25°C) 10 uS/cm 28 36 21 68

pH (1:5 Aqueous extract) 0.1 pH Units 6.7 6.4 6.5 5.9

Calcium (exchangeable)* 0.1 meq/100g 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.8

Magnesium (exchangeable)* 0.1 meq/100g 1.3 3.4 1.2 4.1

Potassium (exchangeable)* 0.1 meq/100g < 0.1 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1

Sodium (exchangeable)* 0.1 meq/100g 0.3 0.8 0.2 0.8

% Moisture 0.1 % 13 13 12 15

Emerson Class Number 1 units See attached See attached See attached See attached

Ion Exchange Properties

Cation Exchange Capacity 0.05 meq/100g 1.9 4.7 2.0 5.7

Exchangeable Sodium Percentage (ESP)* 0.1 % 14 17 8.6 14

Date Reported: Dec 17, 2014

Eurofins | mgt 2-5 Kingston Town Close, Oakleigh, Victoria, Australia, 3166

ABN : 50 005 085 521 Telephone: +61 3 8564 5000 Facsimile: +61 3 8564 5090

Page 1 of 6

Report Number: 441013-S

NATA AccreditedAccreditation Number 1261Site Number 1254

Accredited for compliance with ISO/IEC 17025.The results of the tests, calibrations and/ormeasurements included in this document are traceableto Australian/national standards.



Sample History

Where samples are submitted/analysed over several days, the last date of extraction and analysis is reported.A recent review of our LIMS has resulted in the correction or clarification of some method identifications. Due to this, some of the method reference information on reports has changed. However,no substantive change has been made to our laboratory methods, and as such there is no change in the validity of current or previous results (regarding both quality and NATA accreditation).

If the date and time of sampling are not provided, the Laboratory will not be responsible for compromised results should testing be performed outside the recommended holding time.

Description Testing Site Extracted Holding Time

Conductivity (1:5 aqueous extract at 25°C) Melbourne Dec 05, 2014 7 Day

- Method: LM-LTM-INO-4010

Ion Exchange Properties Melbourne Dec 05, 2014

pH (1:5 Aqueous extract) Melbourne Dec 05, 2014 7 Day

- Method: LM-LTM-INO-4000

% Moisture Melbourne Dec 03, 2014 14 Day

- Method: LTM-GEN-7080 ‘Moisture Content in Soil or other Solid Matrices byGravimetry’

Calcium (exchangeable)* Melbourne Dec 05, 2014 0 Day

Magnesium (exchangeable)* Melbourne Dec 05, 2014 0 Day

Potassium (exchangeable)* Melbourne Dec 05, 2014 0 Day

Sodium (exchangeable)* Melbourne Dec 05, 2014 0 Day




Page 2 of 6




.

Co

mp

an

y N

am

e:

Str

ata

Ge

oscie

nce

an

d E

nviro

nm

en

tal P

/LO

rde

r N

o.:

Re

ce

ive

d:

De

c 3

, 2

01

4 1

2:3

4 P

M

Ad

dre

ss

:1

7 L

ittle

Art

hu

r S

tre

et

Re

po

rt #

:4

41

01

3D

ue

:D

ec 1

0,

20

14

No

rth

Ho

ba

rtP

ho

ne

:P

rio

rity

:5

Da

y

TA

S 7

00

0F

ax

:C

on

tac

t N

am

e:

Sve

n N

iels

en

Pro

jec

t N

am

e:

CH

UR

CH

ILL

Eu

rofi

ns

| m

gt

Cli

en

t M

an

ag

er:

On

ur

Me

hm

et

Sa

mp

le D

eta

il

% Moisture

Emerson Class Number

Exchangeable Sodium Percentage(ESP)*

pH (1:5 Aqueous extract)

Exchangeable Cations

Cation Exchange Capacity

La

bo

rato

ry w

he

re a

na

lys

is i

s c

on

du

cte

d

Me

lbo

urn

e L

ab

ora

tory

- N

AT

A S

ite

# 1

25

4 &

14

27

1X

XX

XX

Sy

dn

ey

La

bo

rato

ry -

NA

TA

Sit

e #

18

21

7

Bri

sb

an

e L

ab

ora

tory

- N

AT

A S

ite

# 2

07

94

Ex

tern

al

La

bo

rato

ryX

Sa

mp

le I

DS

am

ple

Da

teS

am

pli

ng

Tim

eM

atr

ixL

AB

ID

BH

4 5

00

De

c 0

3,

20

14

So

ilM

14

-De

03

45

8X

XX

XX

X

BH

5 5

00

De

c 0

3,

20

14

So

ilM

14

-De

03

45

9X

XX

XX

X

BH

6 1

00

0D

ec 0

3,

20

14

So

ilM

14

-De

03

46

0X

XX

XX

X

BH

7 1

00

0D

ec 0

3,

20

14

So

ilM

14

-De

03

46

1X

XX

XX

X

AB

N –

50

005

085

521

e.m

ail :

Env

iroS

ales

@eu

rofin

s.co

m.a

u

w

eb :

ww

w.e

urof

ins.

com

.au

Mel

bour

neM

elbo

urne

Mel

bour

neM

elbo

urne

3-5

Kin

gsto

n T

own

Clo

seO

akle

igh

VIC

316

6P

hone

: +

61 3

856

4 50

00N

AT

A #

126

1S

ite #

125

4 &

142

71

Syd

ney

Syd

ney

Syd

ney

Syd

ney

Uni

t F3,

Bui

ldin

g F

16 M

ars

Roa

dLa

ne C

ove

Wes

t NS

W 2

066

Pho

ne :

+61

2 9

900

8400

NA

TA

# 1

261

Site

# 1

8217

Bris

bane

Bris

bane

Bris

bane

Bris

bane

1/21

Sm

allw

ood

Pla

ceM

urar

rie Q

LD 4

172

Pho

ne :

+61

7 3

902

4600

NA

TA

# 1

261

Site

# 2

0794

Dat

e R

epor

ted:

Dec

17,

201

4

Eur

ofin

s | m

gt 2

-5 K

ings

ton

Tow

n C

lose

, Oak

leig

h, V

icto

ria, A

ustr

alia

, 316

6

AB

N :

50 0

05 0

85 5

21 T

elep

hone

: +61

3 8

564

5000

Fac

sim

ile: +

61 3

856

4 50

90

Pa

ge

3 o

f 6

Re

po

rt N

um

be

r: 4

41

01

3-S



Eurofins | mgt Internal Quality Control Review and Glossary

General

Holding Times

UNITS

TERMS

QC - ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA

QC DATA GENERAL COMMENTS

1. Laboratory QC results for Method Blanks, Duplicates, Matrix Spikes, and Laboratory Control Samples are included in this QC report where applicable. Additional QC data may be available on

request.

2. All soil results are reported on a dry basis, unless otherwise stated.

3. Actual LORs are matrix dependant. Quoted LORs may be raised where sample extracts are diluted due to interferences.

4. Results are uncorrected for matrix spikes or surrogate recoveries.

5. SVOC analysis on waters are performed on homogenised, unfiltered samples, unless noted otherwise.

6. Samples were analysed on an 'as received' basis. 7. This report replaces any interim results previously issued.

Please refer to 'Sample Preservation and Container Guide' for holding times (QS3001).

For samples received on the last day of holding time, notification of testing requirements should have been received at least 6 hours prior to sample receipt deadlines as stated on the Sample

Receipt Advice.

If the Laboratory did not receive the information in the required timeframe, and regardless of any other integrity issues, suitably qualified results may still be reported.

Holding times apply from the date of sampling, therefore compliance to these may be outside the laboratory's control.

**NOTE: pH duplicates are reported as a range NOT as RPD

mg/kg: milligrams per Kilogram mg/l: milligrams per litre

ug/l: micrograms per litre ppm: Parts per million

ppb: Parts per billion %: Percentage

org/100ml: Organisms per 100 millilitres NTU: Nephelometric Turbidity Units

MPN/100mL: Most Probable Number of organisms per 100 millilitres

Dry Where a moisture has been determined on a solid sample the result is expressed on a dry basis.

LOR Limit of Reporting.

SPIKE Addition of the analyte to the sample and reported as percentage recovery.

RPD Relative Percent Difference between two Duplicate pieces of analysis.

LCS Laboratory Control Sample - reported as percent recovery

CRM Certified Reference Material - reported as percent recovery

Method Blank In the case of solid samples these are performed on laboratory certified clean sands.

In the case of water samples these are performed on de-ionised water.

Surr - Surrogate The addition of a like compound to the analyte target and reported as percentage recovery.

Duplicate A second piece of analysis from the same sample and reported in the same units as the result to show comparison.

Batch Duplicate A second piece of analysis from a sample outside of the clients batch of samples but run within the laboratory batch of analysis.

Batch SPIKE Spike recovery reported on a sample from outside of the clients batch of samples but run within the laboratory batch of analysis.

USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

APHA American Public Health Association

ASLP Australian Standard Leaching Procedure (AS4439.3)

TCLP Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure

COC Chain of Custody

SRA Sample Receipt Advice

CP Client Parent - QC was performed on samples pertaining to this report

NCP Non-Client Parent - QC performed on samples not pertaining to this report, QC is representative of the sequence or batch that client samples were analysed within

TEQ Toxic Equivalency Quotient

RPD Duplicates: Global RPD Duplicates Acceptance Criteria is 30% however the following acceptance guidelines are equally applicable:

Results <10 times the LOR : No Limit

Results between 10-20 times the LOR : RPD must lie between 0-50%

Results >20 times the LOR : RPD must lie between 0-30%

Surrogate Recoveries : Recoveries must lie between 50-150% - Phenols 20-130%.

1. Where a result is reported as a less than (<), higher than the nominated LOR, this is due to either matrix interference, extract dilution required due to interferences or contaminant levels within

the sample, high moisture content or insufficient sample provided.

2. Duplicate data shown within this report that states the word "BATCH" is a Batch Duplicate from outside of your sample batch, but within the laboratory sample batch at a 1:10 ratio. The Parent

and Duplicate data shown is not data from your samples.

3. Organochlorine Pesticide analysis - where reporting LCS data, Toxophene & Chlordane are not added to the LCS.

4. Organochlorine Pesticide analysis - where reporting Spike data, Toxophene is not added to the Spike.

5. Total Recoverable Hydrocarbons - where reporting Spike & LCS data, a single spike of commercial Hydrocarbon products in the range of C12-C30 is added and it's Total Recovery is reported

in the C10-C14 cell of the Report.

6. pH and Free Chlorine analysed in the laboratory - Analysis on this test must begin within 30 minutes of sampling.Therefore laboratory analysis is unlikely to be completed within holding time.

Analysis will begin as soon as possible after sample receipt.

7. Recovery Data (Spikes & Surrogates) - where chromatographic interference does not allow the determination of Recovery the term "INT" appears against that analyte.

8. Polychlorinated Biphenyls are spiked only using Arochlor 1260 in Matrix Spikes and LCS's.

9. For Matrix Spikes and LCS results a dash " -" in the report means that the specific analyte was not added to the QC sample.

10. Duplicate RPD's are calculated from raw analytical data thus it is possible to have two sets of data.




Page 4 of 6




Comments

Emerson Aggregate Test : SESL Australia, report number 32949

Sample Integrity

Custody Seals Intact (if used) N/A

Attempt to Chill was evident No

Sample correctly preserved Yes

Appropriate sample containers have been used Yes

Sample containers for volatile analysis received with minimal headspace Yes

Samples received within HoldingTime Yes

Some samples have been subcontracted Yes

Authorised By

Onur Mehmet Analytical Services Manager

Emily Rosenberg Senior Analyst-Metal (VIC)

Huong Le Senior Analyst-Inorganic (VIC)

Glenn Jackson

National Laboratory Manager

- Indicates Not Requested

* Indicates NATA accreditation does not cover the performance of this service

Uncertainty data is available on request

Eurofins | mgt shall not be liable for loss, cost, damages or expenses incurred by the client, or any other person or company, resulting from the use of any information or interpretation given in this report. In no case shall Eurofins | mgt be liable for consequential damages including, but notlimited to, lost profits, damages for failure to meet deadlines and lost production arising from this report. This document shall not be reproduced except in full and relates only to the items tested. Unless indicated otherwise, the tests were performed on the samples as received.




Page 6 of 6




Tel: 1300 30 40 80Fax: 1300 64 46 89

Em: [email protected]: www.sesl.com.au

Consultant: Authorised Signatory:

Ryan JackaKelly Lee

Tests are performed under a quality system certified as complying with ISO 9001: 2008. Results andconclusions assume that sampling is representative. This document shall not be reproduced except in full.

Draft FinalReport Status:

Multiple Analysis ProfileSample Drop Off: 16 Chilvers Road

Thornleigh NSW 2120

Mailing Address: PO Box 357Pennant Hills NSW 1715

32949 1Batch N°: Sample N°:

Client Name:

Client Contact:

Client Job N°:

Client Order N°:

Address:

Project Name:

SESL Quote N°:

Sample Name:

Description:

Test Type:

REF: 441013

14/1091 441013BH4 500/De03458

Eurofins - MGT Environmental

MGT

PO Box 276Oakleigh VIC 3166

Soil

EAT

Method Reference:

Emerson Class: AS 1289.3.8.1-2006

No commentary requested from SESL.

Page 1

Date Report Generated10/12/2014

Analysis Unit Result

Class Class 5Emerson Aggregate Test

8/12/14Date Instructions Received:



Tel: 1300 30 40 80Fax: 1300 64 46 89



Ryan JackaKelly Lee

Tests are performed under a quality system certified as complying with ISO 9001: 2008. Results and conclusions assume that sampling is representative. This document shall not be reproduced except in full.



Thornleigh NSW 2120



Client Name:

Client Contact:

Client Job N°:

Client Order N°:

Address:

Project Name:

SESL Quote N°:

Sample Name:

Description:

Test Type:

REF: 441013

14/1091 441013BH5 500/De03459


MGT


Soil

EAT

Method Reference:



Page 2







Tel: 1300 30 40 80Fax: 1300 64 46 89



Ryan JackaKelly Lee




Thornleigh NSW 2120



Client Name:

Client Contact:

Client Job N°:

Client Order N°:

Address:

Project Name:

SESL Quote N°:

Sample Name:

Description:

Test Type:

REF: 441013

14/1091 441013BH6 1000/De03460


MGT


Soil

EAT

Method Reference:



Page 3







Tel: 1300 30 40 80Fax: 1300 64 46 89



Ryan JackaKelly Lee




Thornleigh NSW 2120



Client Name:

Client Contact:

Client Job N°:

Client Order N°:

Address:

Project Name:

SESL Quote N°:

Sample Name:

Description:

Test Type:

REF: 441013

14/1091 441013BH7 1000/De03461


MGT


Soil

EAT

Method Reference:



Page 4







Appendix 3 Wastewater System Concept Design and Construction Notes

Septic Tank and Pumpwell Installation

1. Septic Tanks should be installed in firm ground and/or on a uniform layer of sand of

minimum thickness 100mm. 2. Septic Tanks should be surrounded by sand or compacted soil by watering and

tamping to the firmness of the surrounding soil. 3. The influent pipe should be installed with a minimum grade of 1.65% or 1 in 60. 4. It is recommended that septic tanks are installed a mimimum of 3 meters from

foundations and for systems utilising a pump well, away from bedrooms. 5. The effluent pipe MUST have an outlet filter fitted. This MUST be cleaned every

month. 6. Fiberglass or plastic tanks set in urban or Aboriginal Housing in Remote Area

Communities shall be fitted with concrete lids or collars. 7. All vehicles and livestock should be excluded from septic tank areas. 8. The Septic Tank MUST be a dual purpose design with a minimum capacity compliant

with the stipulations of AS1547-2000 Appendix 4.3 A 9. An outflow filter and pump well shall be connected to the outflow of the sand filter.

The pump well shall: i. Have the minimum emergency storage capacity of 1000L or one

days flow, which ever is greater, to provide for situations such as pump or power failure.

ii. Contain a pumpset of the submersible type, driven by motors not less than 0.3 Kw, activated by a float switch, with plastic impellers to minimise corrosion problems.

iii. Contain a non return valve to be fitted to the discharge pipe. iv. Have a high level alarm light and/or audible device (bell or buzzer)

connected to the pumpset and located within the serviced dwelling so that failure of the pumpset is readily observed. All electrical cabling shall be resistant to moisture and gas penetration and control switches shall be installed in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications and to the requirements of the local electricity supply authority.



Sand Filter Design and Construction Notes



Irrigation Area Concept Designs

Figure 1 Irrigation cross section showing major delivery/flush lines and irrigation lines.

Figure 2 Irrigation Plan View



Land Application Area Design and Construction Notes

1. Delivery/flush line diameter = 25 -30 mm 2. Irrigation line diameter = 12-16mm 3. Irrigation line spacing (A) =300 mm for Sands, Sandy Loams and Loams to 600mm

for Clay Loams, Light Clays and Heavy Clays (see the wastewater flow modelling section of this report for soil classification).

4. Dripper/Sprinkler spacing (B) as per manufacturers specifications. 5. A vacuum breaker should be installed at the highest point of the irrigation area (or in

the case of multiple irrigation lots at each lot). This breaker should be protected and marked).

6. A flush line should be installed at the lowest point of the irrigation area incorporating a return valve for back flushing of the system back into the treatment chamber.

7. All lateral lines MUST be installed parallel to the contours of the land. All minimum setbacks MUST be adhered to.

8. An inline filter must be inserted into the delivery line. 9. The first 100mm of the natural soil below the ground surface should be mechanically

tilled to aid line installation and soil permeability 10. Gypsum should be incorporated at the rate of 1kg/5m2 in dispersive soils. 11. Selected vegetation should be planted at a density of approx. 1 plant per 4m2.

Recommendation regarding suitable species is made in this report. 12. Irrigation areas greater than 400 m2 should be split into 100 m2 cells with effluent

flows switched between irrigation lots with an automatic valve system. 13. Where practical a 50% reserve area should be identified on the site to allow

movement of the irrigation area if required. 14. In areas of moderate to steep slopes (>10%) then upslope cut off drainage should be

installed to minimise shallow ground water recharge of the irrigation area from upslope.



Interceptor Ag Drain Design and Construction Notes

Figure 2 Ag drain cross section showing key dimensions

1. Ag drain should be located upslope of the proposed irrigation

area/trenches/beds as shown in site plan.

2. Ag drain should be 300mm wide and 700mm deep. The base of the trench

MUST be excavated evenly with a minimum fall to the discharge point of 1%.

In clay soils smearing of walls and floors of bed MUST be avoided. Gypsum

MUST be applied to base of trench at a rate of 1kg/m2.

3. Ag drains are best employed for areas where significant subsurface

groundwater recharge is anticipated.

4. Ag. drains should be constructed to ensure adequate fall to appropriate

stormwater discharge points or other suitable areas provided that any water is

not disposed of over site boundaries.



Appendix 4 Borelogs and Test Locations



Appendix 5 Extract from EPAV 2013



Appendix 6 Permeability Test Methodology (AS1547-2012)



Appendix 7 Terms and Conditions Scope of Work These Terms and Conditions apply to any services provided to you (“the Client”) by Strata Geoscience and Environmental Pty Ltd (“Strata”). By continuing to instruct Strata to act after receiving the Terms and Conditions or by using this report and its findings for design and/or permit application processes and not objecting to any of the Terms and Conditions the Client agrees to be bound by these Terms and Conditions, and any other terms and conditions supplied by Strata from time to time at Strata’s sole and absolute discretion. The scope of the services provided to the Client by Strata is limited to the services and specified purpose agreed between Strata and the Client and set out in the correspondence to which this document is enclosed or annexed (“the Services”). Strata does not purport to advise beyond the Services. Third Parties The Services are supplied to the Client for the sole benefit of the Client and must not be relied upon by any person or entity other than the Client. Strata is not responsible or liable to any third party. All parties other than the Client are advised to seek their own advice before proceeding with any course of action. Provision of Information The Client is responsible for the provision of all legal, survey and other particulars concerning the site on which Strata is providing the Services, including particulars of existing structures and services and features for the site and for adjoining sites and structures. The Client is also responsible for the provision of specialised services not provided by Strata. If Strata obtains these particulars or specialised services on the instruction of the Client, Strata does so as agent of the Client and at the Client's expense. Strata is not obliged to confirm the accuracy and completeness of information supplied by the Client or any third party service provider. The Client is responsible for the accuracy and completeness of all particulars or services provided by the Client or obtained on the Client’s behalf. Strata is not liable, and accepts no responsibility, for any claim, demand, charge, loss, damage, injury or expense whatsoever suffered by the Client or any other person or entity resulting from the failure of the Client or third party to provide accurate and complete information. In the event additional information becomes available to the Client, the Client must inform Strata in writing of that information as soon as possible. Further advice will be provided at the Client’s cost. Any report is prepared on the assumption that the instructions and information supplied to Strata has been provided in good faith and is all of the information relevant to the provision of the Services by Strata. Strata is not liable, and accepts no responsibility, for any claim, demand, charge, loss, damage, injury or expense whatsoever if Strata has been supplied with insufficient, incorrect, incomplete, false or misleading information. Integrity Any report provided by Strata presents the findings of the site assessment. While all reasonable care is taken when conducting site investigations and reporting to the Client, Strata does not warrant that the information contained in any report is free from errors or omissions. Strata is not liable, and accepts no responsibility, for any claim, demand, charge, loss, damage, injury or expense whatsoever resulting from errors in a report. Any report should be read in its entirety, inclusive of any summary and annexures. Strata does not accept any responsibility where part of any report is relied upon without reference to the full report. Project Specific Criteria Any report provided by Strata will be prepared on the basis of unique project development plans which apply only to the site that is being investigated. Reports provided by Strata do not apply to any project other than that originally specified by the Client to Strata. The Report must not be used or relied upon if any changes to the project are made. The Client should engage Strata to further advise on the effect of any change to the project. Further advice will be provided at the Client’s cost. Strata is not liable, and accepts no responsibility, for any claim, demand, charge, loss, damage, injury or expense whatsoever where any change to the project is made without obtaining a further written report from Strata. Changes to the project may include, but are not limited to, changes to the investigated site or neighbouring sites, for instance, variation of the location of proposed building envelopes/footprints, changes to building design which may impact upon building settlement or slope stability, or changes to earthworks, including removal (site cutting) or deposition of sediments or rock from the site. Classification to AS2870-2011 It must be emphasised that the site classification to AS2870-2011 and recommendations referred to in this report are based solely on the observed soil profile at the time of the investigation for this report and account has been taken of Clause 2.1.1 of AS2870 - 2011. Other abnormal moisture conditions as defined in AS2870 – 2011 Clause 1.3.3 (a) (b) (c) and (d) may need to be considered in the design of the structure. Without designing for the possibility of all abnormal moisture conditions as defined in Clause 1.3.3, distresses will occur and may result in non “acceptable probabilities of serviceability and safety of the building during its design life”, as defined in AS2870 - 2011, Clause 1.3.1. Furthermore the classification is preliminary in nature and needs verification at the founding surface inspection phase . The classification may be changed at this time based upon the nature of the founding surface over the entire footprint of the project area. Any costs associated with a change in the site classification are to be incurred by the client. Furthermore any costs associated with delayed works associated with a founding surface inspection or achange in classification are to be born by the client. Where founding surface inspections are not commissioned the classifications contained within this report are void. Subsurface Variations with Time Any report provided by Strata is based upon subsurface conditions encountered at the time of the investigation. Conditions can and do change significantly and unexpectedly over a short period of time. For example groundwater levels may fluctuate over time, affecting latent soil bearing capacity and ex-situ/insitu fill sediments may be placed/removed from the site. Changes to the subsurface conditions that were encountered at the time of the investigation void all recommendations made by Strata in any report. Strata is not liable, and accepts no responsibility, for any claim, demand, charge, loss, damage, injury or expense whatsoever resulting from any change to the subsurface conditions that were encountered at the time of the investigation. In the event of a delay in the commencement of a project or if additional information becomes available to the Client about a change in conditions becomes



available to the Client, the Client should engage Strata to make a further investigation to ensure that the conditions initially encountered still exist. Further advice will be provided at the Client’s cost. Without limiting the generality of the above statement, Strata does not accept liability where any report is relied upon after three months from the date of the report, (unless otherwise provided in the report or required by the Australian Standard which the report purports to comply with), or the date when the Client becomes aware of any change in condition. Any report should be reviewed regularly to ensure that it continues to be accurate and further advice requested from Strata where applicable. Interpretation Site investigation identifies subsurface conditions only at the discrete points of geotechnical drilling, and at the time of drilling. All data received from the geotechnical drilling is interpreted to report to the Client about overall site conditions as well as their anticipated impact upon the specific project. Actual site conditions may vary from those inferred to exist as it is virtually impossible to provide a definitive subsurface profile which accounts for all the possible variability inherent in earth materials. This is particularly pertinent to some weathered sedimentary geologies or colluvial/alluvial clast deposits which may show significant variability in depth to refusal over a development area. Rock incongruities such as joints, dips or faults may also result in subsurface variability. Soil depths and composition can vary due to natural and anthopogenic processes. Variability may lead to differences between the design depth of bored/driven piers compared with the actual depth of individual piers constructed onsite. It may also affect the founding depth of conventional strip, pier and beam or slab footings, which may result in increased costs associated with excavation (particularly of rock) or materials costs of foundations. Founding surface inspections should be commissioned by the Client prior to foundation construction to verify the results of initial site characterisation and failure to insure this will void the classifications and recommendations contained within this report. Strata is not liable, and accepts no responsibility, for any claim, demand, charge, loss, damage, injury or expense whatsoever resulting from any variation from the site conditions inferred to exist. Strata is not responsible for the interpretation of site data or report findings by other parties, including parties involved in the design and construction process. The Client must seek advice from Strata about the interpretation of the site data or report. Report Recommendations Any report recommendations provided by Strata are only preliminary. A report is based upon the assumption that the site conditions as revealed through selective point sampling are indicative of actual conditions throughout an area. This assumption cannot be substantiated until earthworks and/or foundation construction is almost complete. Where variations in conditions are encountered, Strata should be engaged to provide further advice. Further advice will be provided at the Client’s cost. Strata is not liable, and accepts no responsibility, for any claim, demand, charge, loss, damage, injury or expense whatsoever if the results of selective point sampling are not indicative of actual conditions throughout an area or if the Client becomes aware of variations in conditions and does not engage Strata for further advice. Geo-environmental Considerations Where onsite wastewater site investigation and land application system designs are provided by Strata, reasonable effort will be made to minimise environmental and public health risks associated with the disposal of effluent within site boundaries with respect to relevant Australian guidelines and industry best practise at the time of investigation. Strata is not liable, and accepts no responsibility, for any claim, demand, charge, loss, damage, injury or expense whatsoever resulting from:

(i) changes to either the project or site conditions that affect the onsite wastewater land application system’s ability to safely dispose of modelled wastewater flows; or

(ii) seepage, pollution or contamination or the cost of removing, nullifying or clearing up seepage, polluting or contaminating substances; or

(iii) poor system performance where septic tanks have not been de-sludged at maximum intervals of 3 years or AWTS systems have not been serviced in compliance with the manufacturers recommendations; or

(iv) failure of the client to commission both interim and final inspections by the designer throughout the system construction; or

(v) the selection of inappropriate plants for irrigation areas; or (vi) damage to any infrastructure including but not limited to foundations, walls, driveways and pavements; or (vii) land instability, soil erosion or dispersion; or (viii) design changes requested by the Permit Authority.

Furthermore Strata does not guarantee septic trench and bed design life beyond 5 years from installation, given the influence various household chemicals have on soil structural decline and premature trench failure in some soil types. Sand filters are not warranted for more than 2 years given the large impact pre- filtration and septic tank loading and de-sludging has on sand filter performance. Strata does not consider site contamination, unless the Client specifically instructs Strata to consider the site contamination in writing. If a request is made by the Client to consider site contamination, Strata will provide additional terms and conditions that will apply to the engagement. Copyright and Use of Documents Copyright in all drawings, reports, specifications, calculations and other documents provided by Strata or its employees in connection with the Services remain vested in Strata. The Client has a licence to use the documents for the purpose of completing the project. However, the Client must not otherwise use the documents, make copies of the documents or amend the documents unless express approval in writing is given in advance by Strata. The Client must not publish or allow to be published, in whole or in part, any document provided by Strata or the name or professional affiliations of Strata, without first obtaining the written consent of Strata as to the form and context in which it is to appear.

If, during the course of providing the Services, Strata develops, discovers or first reduces to practice a concept, product or process which is capable of being patented then such concept, product or process is and remains the property of Strata and:

(i) the Client must not use, infringe or otherwise appropriate the same other than for the purpose of the project without first obtaining the written consent of Strata; and

(ii) the Client is entitled to a royalty free licence to use the same during the life of the works comprising the project. Digital Copies of Report If any report is provided to the Client in an electronic copy except directly from Strata, the Client should verify the report contents with Strata to ensure they have not been altered or varied from the report provided by Strata.

appendix g amendment documentation

Planning and Environment Act 1987


AMENDMENT C90 INSTRUCTION SHEET

The planning authority for this amendment is the Latrobe City Council

The Latrobe Planning Scheme is amended as follows:

Planning Scheme Maps

The Planning Scheme Maps are amended by a total of 4 attached maps sheets.

Zoning Maps

1. Amend Planning Scheme Map Nos 98 and 99 in the manner shown on the 2 attached maps marked “Latrobe Planning Scheme, Amendment C90.

Overlay Maps

2. Amend Planning Scheme Map No 98DPO in the manner shown on the 1 attached map marked “Latrobe Planning Scheme, Amendment C90”.

3. Insert new Planning Scheme Map No 99 DPO in the manner shown on the 1 attached map marked ”Latrobe Planning Scheme, Amendment C90”.

Planning Scheme Ordinance

The Planning Scheme Ordinance is amended as follows:

4. In General Provisions – Clause 61.03, replace the schedule with a new Schedule in the form of the attached document.

End of document

LOCAL PROVISIONLATROBE PLANNING SCHEME

001

| Planning Mapping Services || Amendments Coordination Team || Planning & Building Systems || Planning, Building & Heritage |

250

metres

0

LEGEND Part of Planning Scheme Maps 98 & 99

AMENDMENT C90

Low Density Residential Zone

CT

CT

CT

ELO

NE

RA

ROBERTS RD

CR

WO

NG

AN

RIGA

GLENDONALD

CH

UR

ING

A

HA

VE

RB

RA

CK

HAVERBRACK

GEO

FFREYH

WY

RD

DR

CR

CR

LOCAL PROVISIONLATROBE PLANNING SCHEME

002

| Planning Mapping Services || Amendments Coordination Team || Planning & Building Systems || Planning, Building & Heritage |

250

metres

0

LEGEND Part of Planning Scheme Maps 98DPO & 99DPO

AMENDMENT C90

Low Density Residential Zone

CT

CT

CT

ELO

NE

RA

ROBERTS RD

CR

WO

NG

AN

RIGA

GLENDONALD

CH

UR

ING

A

HA

VE

RB

RA

CK

HAVERBRACK

GEO

FFREYH

WY

RD

DR

CR

CR

appendix 1 title documentation - Department of Primary...

Documents

Transcript of appendix 1 title documentation - Department of Primary...