Panel Hearing, 25 November 2013 SUMMARY OF UNRESOLVED ... · Panel Hearing, 25 November 2013...

Panel Hearing, 25 November 2013 SUMMARY OF UNRESOLVED SUBMISSIONS

C177 C176 C175

Version: 2.0 (Update for distribution on 18 November)

Contents

PART A - Summaries of unresolved submissions

C177 WYNDHAM NORTH DCP 6

C176 RIVERDALE PSP 11

C175 TRUGANINA PSP 15

PART B – Summaries of unresolved detailed requests for changes

C177 WYNDHAM NORTH DCP 19

Submission 28 – Wyndham City 19

C176 RIVERDALE PSP 22

Submission 18 – Stockland Development Pty Ltd 22


C175 TRUGANINA PSP 27


Submission 17 – ID_Land Pty Ltd 32

Submission 18 – Leakes Pty Ltd 33

Submission 22 – Tarneit Development Project Pty Ltd 35

PART A SUMMARY OF UNRESOLVED SUBMISSIONS

SUMMARY OF UNRESOLVED SUBMISSIONS – C177 – WYNDHAM NORTH DCP 6

AMENDMENT C177 - WYNDHAM NORTH DCP

SUMMARY OF UNRESOLVED SUBMISSIONS Version: Prepared for Directions Hearing on 28 October

Submission No.

Submission

1 Les Kretzschmar

1.1 Requests the construction of Morris Rd from Dohertys to Leakes Rd be listed as a 0-5 year project in Table 10

6 AMEX Corporation Pty Ltd

6.2 Submits that the building and intersection construction costs included in the DCP are high compared to recent precedence. Requests greater justification for the costing of items included in the DCP.

6.3 Submits that Section 5 and Table 10 of the DCP are too rigid. Requests that they be amended to improve flexibility and allow the DCP to better respond to the real demand of development.

6.4 Submits that the anticipated project timing is inconsistent with Wyndham City's Growth Management Strategy. Requests that a consistent approach to delivery priorities be used through all policies to reduce difficulties in implementation.

7 Dennis Family Corporation

7.2 Submits that the demand level in the interim traffic model is too high which has resulted in the excessive size of road infrastructure. Requests that the model be amended with the assumption that 66-75% of area is developed and that there is at least one crossing of the Werribee River in place.

7.3 Submits that duplication of arterial roads is inconsistent with the Draft Arterial Roads Planning Protocol. Requests that the funding of second carriageways on Leakes, Dohertys, and Davis Roads be removed from the DCP.

7.4 Requests that the collection of GAIC from the DCP area should be built into the funding formula for DCP projects.

7.7 Requests that any costly bridge on the local road network shown in a PSP be included in the DCP.

7.8 Submits that the scope of arterial road infrastructure is too great. Requests that it be managed through a reduction in the width of road corridors.

7.9 Submits that the land valuation methodology should be generally consistent with the Land Acquisition and Compensation Act 1986.

7.10 Requests that alternative contingency values be adopted for each type of project.

7.11 Submits that the costs for grade separations included in the DCP are inadequate and should be revised.

7.13 Requests review of the priority projects listed in Table 10 of the DCP. Further, objects to Section 4.1.3 in limiting Works In Kind agreements to these projects.

7.15 Requests that more detail is provided on the facilities included within active reserve and community facilities to be delivered by the DCP.

7.16 Requests the addition of 'anti scope creep' measures for DCP projects.

7.17 Requests various text changes to the DCP - refer to submission for details.

7.18 Requests that any project along Boundary Road be included with a 50% apportionment.

7.20 Requests the addition of a second signalised intersection on Derrimut Rd between Dohertys Rd and the Regional Rail Link.

8 Norton Rose Fulbright on behalf of Stockland Pty Ltd

8.1 Notes that the limited information about and strategic justification for DCP projects across PSP areas that are yet to be exhibited


has made a full assessment of the DCP difficult.

8.2 Submits that PSP areas 1088, 1089, and 1091 are subsidising the level of infrastructure required in PSP area 1090 due to the flat DCP charge. Considers that it would be more equitable to land owners in the other three precincts to have four separate charge areas. Notes that in the interest of progressing the amendment that Stockland will accept the 'global' approach.

8..3 Submits that bridge projects associated with the Regional Rail Link are state infrastructure. Requests that all projects be removed from the DCP.

8.4 Supports the addition of introduction of a 'GAIC funded infrastructure plan' to detail the funding and delivery of state infrastructure items.

8.5 Submits that there is an inconsistent approach to the apportionment of projects on the DCP area boundary. Requests that as communities outside the DCP area will benefit from these projects, all items on the boundary should be 50% apportioned.

8.6 Submits that it is not appropriate to include infrastructure items funded by the DCP as requirements in a condition of a planning permit. Further, considers it unreasonable for there to be uncertainty in whether Council will accept these projects as DCP 'Works In Kind'. Requests that any DCP projects delivered through development be fully offset against DCP liabilities.

8.7 Requests that all interim intersection designs be amended to match interim road designs.

8.8 Requests that the pedestrian and cyclist crossing of Davis Creek required through Condition 41 of the relevant planning permit be included in the DCP.

8.9 Requests that landscaping and rail development along Davis Creek and the Werribee River should be included in the DCP with 50% apportioned to Tarneit West.

8.10 Requests the Bethany Road bridge across Davis Creek should be funded by Council or included in the DCP

8.11 Submits that the provision of public open space through the DCP and associated PSPs is excessive and inconsistent with previous amendments.

8.12

Requests that more detail is provided on the facilities included within active recreation to allow for an assessment of the appropriateness of the costs included within the DCP. Considers there to be a need for provisions to prevent developers from being required to deliver works that are above and beyond the construction allowance in the DCP for active reserves through conditions on permit.

8.13 Submits that the passive open space on the subject land exceeds the requirements of Clause 52.01 and the PSP and DCP provide no information on equalisation measures.

8.14 Submits that the areas shown for Growling Grass Frog conservation and flooding encumbrance are excessive. Requests that if any improvements of these areas are required that they be included in the DCP and be 50% apportioned to residents of Tarneit West who are likely to benefit from the additional amenity.

8.15 Requests that all other shared paths (in addition to those along waterways) also be included in the DCP.

8.16 Submits that the DCP is silent on who is responsible for the acquisition and improvement of land set aside for regional open space (Werribee Township Regional Park).

8.17 Submits that projects RD-91-01 and RD-91-02 have the same description and are not consistent with the FLPs.

8.18 Submits that traffic modelling includes SIDRA analysis for only three intersections in Riverdale. Requests that all interim and ultimate intersections are modelled.

8.19 Requests that a consistent funding mechanism be used for both pedestrian bridges across the Werribee River (currently one is included in the DCP and the other is to be delivered by the state).

8.20 Requests that intersection designs show existing pavement to be retained where applicable.

8.21 Submits that the FLP for the intersection of Davis and Sayers does not consider earthworks.

8.22 Submits that the intersection of Sayers, Sewells, and Hogans is operationally impractical and unsafe.

8.24 Requests that the methodology for the valuation of land be revisited.


10 Norton Rose Fulbright on behalf of ID Land Pty Ltd

10.2 Submits that the land valuation methodology should be generally consistent with the Land Acquisition and Compensation Act 1986.

10.3 Submits that the demand level in the interim traffic model is too high which has resulted in the excessive size of road infrastructure. Requests that the model be amended to adopt a lower demand level.

10.4 Submits that there is an inconsistent approach to the apportionment of projects on the DCP area boundary. Requests that as communities outside the DCP area will benefit from these projects, all items on the boundary should be 50% apportioned.

10.5 Submits that duplication of arterial roads is inconsistent with the Draft Arterial Roads Planning Protocol. Requests that the funding of second carriageways on Leakes, Dohertys, and Davis Roads be removed from the DCP.

10.6 Submits that bridge projects associated with the Regional Rail Link are state infrastructure. Requests that all projects be removed from the DCP.

10.7 Requests that any bridge on the local road network shown in a PSP be included in the DCP to assist with timely and orderly development.

10.10 Requests that more detail is provided on the facilities included within active recreation to allow for an assessment of the appropriateness of the costs included within the DCP.

10.11 Requests that the collection of GAIC from the DCP area should be built into the funding formula for DCP projects.

10.12 Requests that the collection of Council rates from the DCP area should be built into the funding formula for DCP projects.

10.14 Submits that the scope of arterial road infrastructure is too great. Requests that it be managed through a reduction in the width of road corridors.

10.15 Requests that alternative contingency values be adopted for road and bridge projects.

10.16 Requests that a detailed valuation process be undertaken with greater detail on individual site valuations in order to arrive at a more equitable flat rate charge.

10.17 Requests review of the priority projects listed in Table 10 of the DCP.

10.18 Requests the addition of 'anti scope creep' measures for DCP projects.

11 Urbis - Tarneit Development Project Pty Ltd, Tarneit West Development Project Pty Ltd

11.6 Concerned about the rounded average land value adopted by the DCP.

11.9 Submits that the land take for intersection IN-89-15 cannot be determined in the absence of a property-specific land budget. Assuming the intersection is on the subject land, it is requested that it be downgraded to a local access street and confirmation is sought on who will be responsible for the 50% of costs not included in the DCP.

11.12 Notes concern about the proximity of IN-90-09 & BR-90-02. Requests that the connector road north of IN-90-09 be included in the DCP.

12 Taylors - Trukeel Pty Ltd

12.1 Requests that road and pedestrian bridges over the RRL be excluded from the DCP

12.2 Concerned about the broad hectare land valuation of $500,000 per hectare. Requests a mechanism for landowners to provide an alternative valuation.

13 Taylors - Golden Group



14 Taylors - TCG (RM) Pty Ltd




15 PEET Pty Ltd

15.2 Objects to Section 5.3 & Table 10 on the grounds that it would make development in the Tarneit North precinct economically unfeasible. Suggests that the mechanism as proposed is staging 'by stealth' and should be dealt with in a more transparent manner.

15.3 Requests that DCP includes clear timelines for project delivery.

15.4 Requests that the DCP be subject to regular review including adjustment as necessary of project costs but not increase in the scope of works.

15.5 Request Section 3.2 be amended to provide that there will be no increase to the scope of works for projects funded by the DCP

15.6 Requests that more detail is provided about the location and facilities included within active recreation and community facility projects as well as clarification of how money collected for works in active reserves will be distributed.

15.7 Requests the inclusion of an assessment of apportionment & equity of the DCP

15.8 Requests the deletion of reference in the DCP to CIL being payable up to any amended cap amount & clearly provide that CIL is capped at $900 per lot.

15.9 Requestions to deletion of "tendering" from bullet point 3 of section 4.1.3.

15.10 Requests section 4.1.3 be amended to ensure that credit for works are to the amount specified in the DPC and not to the amount 'qual to the final cost of the works up to the maximum identified' in the DCP as exhibited.

15.11 Requests additional information about the land valuation methodology used in the DCP and submits that an alternative valuation approach should be adopted.

15.12 Requests bridge crossings of the RRL, duplication of Dohertys bridge & interim intersections that match ultimate layouts should be deleted.

16 Verve Projects

16.2 Submission related to shared paths covered through PSP.

16.3 Concerned that the DCP o not provide any effective mechanism for timely delivery of community facilities.

16.4 Request that the connector road bridges linking to the subject land are included in the DCP.

16.7 Notes view that the broad hectare rate adopted for the DCP is low.

17 REEDS Consulting

17.5 Request that land for acquisition through the DCP be revalued at the time the relevant PSP is gazetted.

18 SWEETT on behalf of Ms Amanda Driver

18.3 Seek the 3.8ha of active reserve on subject land be reduced to 3.0ha due to its proximity to the 2.4ha town park

18.4 Submit that part of the required 1.2ha water quality basin should be included in the Growling Grass Frog conservation area along the Werribee River to avoid further reducing developable land.

20 YourLand Developments

20.4 Submits that the Regional Rail Link and any associated infrastructure is state infrastructure and removed from the DCP.

20.5 Requests that the DCP be amended to include a list of potential GAIC WIK projects.

20.10 Requests that connector road bridges over waterways be funded by the DCP.

20.13 Notes a 20% contingency on infrastructure projects is high. Requests the DCP clarify how these contingency funds will be redistributed to developers in the event they are not spent.


22A Ferrier Hodgson

22A.1 Requests that bridge across Davis Creek along Hogans Road should only be a culvert crossing rather than 'clear span' and this item then re-costed.

26 TRACT on behalf of RK Hospitality

26.1 Submits that the land valuation methodology is inequitable and not consistent with previous PSPs or the Land acquisition and compensation act 1986.

26.2 Submits that the anticipated project timing is inconsistent with Wyndham City's Growth Management Strategy. Requests that a consistent approach to delivery priorities be used through all policies to reduce difficulties in implementation.

27 SWEETT on behalf of Benneb Pty Ltd

27.1 Submits that the broad hectare land valuation adopted by the DCP is too low and does not reflect the intended use of the subject land for a major town centre.

27.2 Submits that Wyndham City's growth management concerns could be alleviated by promoting the delivery of the Sayers Road - Armstrong Road link across the Werribee River for the purposes of increasing network capacity.

28 Wyndham City

28.2 Requests that Council's share of road infrastructure costs and revenue flows are amended to be more equitably and practically aligned.

28.3 Requests that the DCP provide adequate funding for the duplication of local arterial roads and overpasses where warranted.

28.4 Requests the addition of an 'infrastructure and land release' strategy.

28.5 Requests that the priority of road projects is adjusted to ensure that duplication of local arterials is given equal consideration to the duplication of future declared arterials.

28.6 Requests the addition of an agreed funding model for Boundary Road.

28.7 Requests that apportionment of road projects is adjusted to reflect external traffic impacts.

28.8 Requests that local charge areas are included to address the funding and delivery of local infrastructure items (connector streets, shared trails, and passive open space).

28.11 Requests that active open space is provided at a ratio of two hectares per 1,000 people instead of 7% of NDA.

28.12 Requests amendments to the administrative elements of the DCP - refer to submission for details.

28.15 Requests the addition of funding for playgrounds.

29 Public Transport Victoria (PTV)

29.8 Requests that the grade separation of Forsyth Road over the railway line be included in the DCP.

SUMMARY OF UNRESOLVED SUBMISSIONS – C176 – RIVERDALE PSP 11

AMENDMENT C176 - RIVERDALE


Submission No.

Submission

6 Wyndham City Council (as landowner)

6.1 Submits that the PSP is premature given the master planning work the Council is currently undertaking. Request that the amendment be deferred.

6.2 Submits that the PSP poses a significant restriction on how the Council can use its 'Liveable cities funding'.

6.3 Submits that the station as located and town centre as designed acts as a barrier and divider of neighbourhoods. Requests that the Oakbank PSP be prepared in conjunction with Riverdale.

6.4 Submits that the location of the indoor recreation centre is restrictive on Council's development outcomes. Request that it be moved.

6.5 Submits that no compensation has been received for the Sewells Road Conservation Area and that it has not been appropriately incorporated into the open space network.

6.6 Submits that the low density proposed in the Golden Group s96a application does not adequately address the corner of Sayers and Sewells Road.

7 Gina Farrugia

7.1 Landowner of 1080 Leakes Road, Tarneit objects to the location of passive open space on their land and requests that it be relocated.

7.3 The landowners suggests that land on the north west corner of Leakes and Davis Road may be more suitable as it is prone to annual flooding or a neighbouring property with a large excavated dam to the west of 1080 Leakes Road.

8 Sweett Group on behalf of Amanda Susan Driver (landowners of 1245 Sayers Road, Tarneit.)

8.5

The proposed open space arrangement in the vicinity of the North Base Stone is not supported: a) The location of the 0.8ha open space to protect the North Base Stone is unnecessary and results in a loss of context. Adequate protection is provided via the Heritage Overlay and State Significance registration. b) It is recommended that the North Base Stone be incorporated into the adjoining proposed active open space/school site. This would allow for a more appropriate north-south boulevard and a clearer open space link between the town centre and the Werribee river. c) Refer to submission plan for suggested layout.

8.6

The flora and fauna identified on the site is not supported: a) The proposed GGF reserve between the RRL and the southern boundary of the subject land is considered excessive; b) The proposed reserve boundary on the subject land (1245 Sayers Road) does not reflect the topography and ecology of the site, including the steep escarpment on the subject land; c) There is no category 2 habitat on the land due to the disturbed nature of the land and the proposed boundary should only apply to land with suitable habitat; d) the RCZ boundary should be altered to ultimate reserve boundary and the IPO boundary.

8.8 Requests that Condition 4 of the PSP be deleted as there is no evidence of Kangaroos in the area or within the Werribee River Corridor.

8.9 Notes that due to land disturbance there is no habitat for spiny rice flower and therefore no compensation fee should be payable.

11 ALMEG - Verve Projects ( in relation to land at 1070 Sayers Road, Tarneit (91-NO-05)

11.1 Notes that the subject land is landlocked by RRL, conservation reserves and waterways. Requests that careful consideration be given to detailing future and timely access arrangements for the property.

11.6 Requests that the PSP clarify what shared path infrastructure is being delivered by a) The RRLA, b) the DCP, and c) developers.


11.7 Requests that a shared path be delivered under the Leakes Road grade separation at the crossing of the Davis Creek tributary.

11.8 Requests that any shared path infrastructure not being delivered by the RRLA be included in the DCP.

11.10 Requests a greater degree of co-ordination between the s96a staging plans, delivery of access to the subject site, and the delivery of community infrastructure.

11.11 Requests that connector road bridges over waterways be included in the DCP to allow for their timely delivery.

11.12 Submits that the s96a subdivision and staging plans do not adequately address requirements R45, 46, and R52 of the PSP. Requests that the staging plans be amended to outline a delivery mechanism for the connector road crossings of waterways.

11.13 Requests that a condition be included on all permits related to the delivery of connector roads to property boundaries - refer to submission for proposed wording.

11.14 Notes that the current staging of the YourLand application provides for a connector road to be provided no earlier than Stage 9. Requests that the connector road be delivered earlier than Stage 9 or the road be delivered to the edge of Stage 9 notwithstanding that Stage 9 is not actually developed.

11.15 Request that the native vegetation surveys provided in the submission (appendix 5) rather than the DEPI timestamping data be adopted in the NVPP.

11.16 Request that the Growling Grass Frog and Golden Sun Moth category 2 habitats shown on Plan 5 be removed from the subject land on the basis that it has been disturbed.

11.17 Notes that the footprint of the Sewells Road Spiny-Rice Flower reserve in the PSP is inconsistent with the BCS. Clarification sought on whether the footprint includes the 20 metre buffer required by DEPI.

12 Russell Crichton - 435 Davis Road

12.1 Objects to the location of the proposed passive open space on their land (P NO-01). Notes that landowner has already experienced compulsory acquisition through the RRL and questions the equity of having more land acquired. Submits that this process has resulted in emotional turmoil, lose of valuable grazing land and decrease in the value of the land.

13 Trukeel Pty Ltd - Taylors

13.1

Requests that the Riverdale major town centre be extended or relocated to address the intersection of Sewells and Sayers Road and allow for commercial development in the north-west corner of the subject land. It is submitted that this centralisation of the town centre would provide greater access to more residents with more homes within walking distance. Submits that as the delivery of the potential future station is uncertain this shouldn't be considered as a major driver for the town centre location.

13.2 It is submitted that applied zoning should make provision for non-residential uses along arterial road frontages.

13.4 Objects to the offset charges for the removal of Category 2 habitat for the Growling Grass Frog and the non-native vegetation as habitat for the Golden Sun Moth. Submits that offsets should be confined to the removal of native vegetation.

15 Golden Group Pty Ltd - Taylors

15.2 Objects to the offset charges for the removal of Category 2 habitat for the Growling Grass Frog and the non-native vegetation as habitat for the Golden Sun Moth. Submits that offsets should be confined to the removal of native vegetation.

Matters relating to Golden Group permit application:

15.4.1 Part 1 - Condition 1a - Slow traffic treatments relocate to FLP stage

15.4.4 Part 1 - Condition 6 - Stormwater Management Strategy - should be in Part 2 as part of Condition 12 & 13

15.4.6 Part 2 - Condition 17 - KMP condition should be replaced to ensure Kangaroos are not land-locked

15.4.7 Part 4 - Condition 34 - Include wording " the developer must contribute an apportionment to ensure" a)...

17 Maureen Pengelly - SBA Law (1122 Sayers Road)

17.1 Objects to the application of a Public Acquisition Overlay on the subject land. Submits that the landowner should be provided to with opportunity to explore the development of the subject land for residential purposes. Reserves right to make further submissions in the future.


18 Stockland Development Pty Ltd

18.1 Submits that Growling Grass Frog corridor width should be reduced to 100 metres on subject land consistent with neighbouring properties.

18.2 Submits that area shown as 'Werribee River township regional park - drainage' be reduced consistent with a revised flood model Stockland is preparing. Submits that Melbourne Water Development Services Scheme also be adjusted.

Further detailed comments on PSP included in separate table.

Matters relating to Stockland permit application:

18.4.1 Submits that it is not appropriate to include infrastructure items funded by the DCP as requirements in a condition of a planning permit. Further, considers it unreasonable for there to be uncertainty in whether Council will accept these projects as DCP 'Works In Kind'. Requests that any DCP projects delivered through development be fully offset against DCP liabilities.

18.4.7 Condition 20 - agreement to be on title pursuant to section 69 of CF&L Act, Stockland prefer s173 under P&E Act

18.4.9 Condition 36 - Construction of intersection at Davis & Sayers Rd. Stockland request a PAO as they do not own all the land.

18.4.11 Condition 42 - 50% of the cost of Davis Creek crossing to be made by Stockland. Stockland request 50% of bridge construction cost be funded by DCP or whole crossing be funded by Council.

19 YourLand Developments Pty Ltd

19.12 Submits that the implications of R82 for landowners with connector road bridges linking to neighbouring properties are unreasonable. Requests that these bridges be included in the DCP.

19.19 Matters relating to YourLand permit application:

19.24.1 Condition 8 - Requirement for two storey building envelopes for rear garages - unreasonable/unjustified and inflexible

19.24.2 Condition 8 - Requirement for all rear garages to use alternative rooflines - vague and unclear.

22 Satterley Property Group Pty Ltd

22.7 Clarification sought on the responsibility for implementation of the Kangaroo Management Plan outlined in C4. Submits that any KMP be implemented at a precinct level rather than property-by-property.

Matters relating to Satterley permit application:

22.16.3 Condition 2a - seek deferral of intersection of Davis and Sayers Rd from Stage 1.

22.16.6 Condition 4b - request that condition regarding rear loaded be removed.

22.16.10 Condition 23b - notes concerns regarding KMP

22.16.16 Condition 59c - culverts and provision for GGF - SPG want flexibility so request addition of "to be considered to the satisfaction of the RA"

25 Best Hooper on behalf of Faye Lorraine Craig & Casabene Family Nominees Pty Ltd

25.2 Objects to the obligation to offset non-native vegetation which is shown as Golden Sun Moth habitat or Category 2 Growling Grass Frog habitat on Plan 5.

28 Benneb Pty Ltd (1170 Sayers Rd) - Sweett Pty Ltd

28.2 Notes that Plan 5 of the PSP identifies non-native golden sun moth habitat and GGF Category 2 habitat on the land however the landowner suggests there is no Golden Sun Moth Habitat and no Category 2 GGF habitat on the land.

28.3 Requests that Condition 4 of the PSP be deleted as there is no evidence of Kangaroos in the area or within the Werribee River Corridor.

28.4 Notes that due to land disturbance there is no habitat for spiny rice flower and therefore no compensation fee should be payable.


30 Bicycle Network

30.1 Expressed concern that traffic modelling does take into account the potential for more walking and cycling. It is submitted that this has led to increases in the size of roads and intersection designs.

30.2 Submits that on-road bike lanes are inappropriate on high-speed roads and should be replaced by dedicated off-road paths.

31 Public Transport Victoria

31.2 Requests a review of all road cross-sections to ensure compliance with DOT's Public Transport Guidelines for Land Use and Development and the table C1 at Clause 56.06-7 of the Wyndham Planning Scheme.

31.20 Requests that the town centre design principles included in Appendix B are expanded to include additional guidance in relation to public transport - refer to submission for details.

32 Wyndham City Council

32.1 Requests the adoption a development sequencing strategy that limits the release of residential land to areas with a high-level of connectedness and accessibility to services and availability of transport capacity.

32.2 Requests the recognition of the master plan being prepared for Wyndham City's land holdings through the requirement of the preparation of a second structure plan for all land within at least 400 - 800 metres of the potential future station and core business area.


32.5 Requests that the indoor recreation facility be relocated to a site agreeable to Council.

32.6 Requests that the acceptance of concurrent planning permit applications (s96a applications) be discontinued.

32.7 Confirmation sought that road cross sections all provide sufficient space for services as well as the planting of canopy street trees.

32.8 Requests the adoption of the 'most appropriate' mechanism to ensure housing diversity (including housing with less than three bedrooms) in all subdivisions over 100 lots.


33 Frances Overmars

33.1 Notes that the area of encumbered open space at the confluence of the three Davis Creek tributaries does not encompass all of the native grasslands adjacent the waterways. Requests that the open space allocation - both encumbered and passive - be adjusted to take best advantage of the views from the area and protect of the remnant native as possible.

34 Andrew Booth

34.1 Submits that there is potential to include additional native grasslands along waterway corridors.

34.3 Requests that the Growling Grass Frog corridor along Davis Creek be expanded to a minimum width of 50 to 100 metres from each bank and wider where native grasslands exist.

34.4 Objects to the extent of constructed waterways. Requests that waterways be left in their natural condition as much as practical, especially where native vegetation exists along the corridor.

SUMMARY OF UNRESOLVED SUBMISSIONS – C175 – TRUGANINA PSP 15

AMENDMENT C175 - TRUGANINA PSP


Submission No.

Submission

5 Bicycle Network

5.1 Expressed concern that traffic modelling does take into account the potential for more walking and cycling. It is submitted that this has led to increases in the size of roads and intersection designs.

5.2 Submits that on-road bike lanes are inappropriate on high-speed roads and should be replaced by dedicated off-road paths.

5.3 Submits that several round-abouts should be removed form s96a plans to improve cyclist and pedestrian safety.

6A VicRoads

6A.2 Submitter does not support a roundabout as an interim intersection type for Derrimut & Dohertys Road (IN-89-10)

Matters relating to permit applications:

6A.7 VicRoads request that triggers be included as a condition on permit for when intersection upgrades are to be delivered.

7 Wyndham City Council

7.1 Requests the adoption a development sequencing strategy that limits the release of residential land to areas with a high-level of connectedness and accessibility to services and availability of transport capacity.

7.2 Requests that Council's share of road infrastructure costs and revenue flows are amended to be more equitably and practically aligned.


7.5 Requests that the acceptance of concurrent planning permit applications (s96a applications) be discontinued.

7.6 Confirmation sought that road cross sections all provide sufficient space for services as well as the planting of canopy street trees.

7.7 Requests the adoption of the 'most appropriate' mechanism to ensure housing diversity (including housing with less than three bedrooms) in all subdivisions over 100 lots.

7.10 Requests the development of a strategy that reviews the employment areas in the PSP and develops guidelines to optimise their effectiveness in attracting a range of businesses and jobs

7.11 Requests the development of an Urban Design Framework to guide planning of the employment buffer along Boundary Road and reinforces the above strategy


9 Frances Overmars

9.1 Requests that the heritage trail network be extended north along Skeleton Creek to site of former Wesleyan church and bluestone well.

9.2 Submits that two further sites along Woods Road (267 Woods Road and Swaby Ruin) be assessed for heritage value.

9.2 Requests that relevant plans identify additional dry-stone walls running along Skeleton Creek north of Dohertys Road.

9A Frances Overmars

9A.1 Requests that additional areas of native vegetation adjacent Skeleton Creek be identified for conservation. Suggests that the allocation of passive or active open space may be adjusted to conserve these areas.


9A.2 Requests that the heritage trail network be extended north along Skeleton Creek to site of former Wesleyan church and bluestone well.

9A.3 Requests that relevant plans identify additional dry-stone walls running along Skeleton Creek north of Dohertys Road and stockyard north of the Robertsons Farm complex.

9A.4 Requests that swamp on southern side of Boundary Road be retained as part of Forsyth Drain.

9A.5 Requests that Council undertake planning for grassland restoration.

9B Frances Overmars

9B.1 Submits that on-road bike lanes are inappropriate on high-speed roads and should be replaced by dedicated off-road paths.

10 Department of State Development, Business and Innovation

10.1 Notes that the northern boundary of the PSP abuts an Extractive Industry Interest Area (EIIA), which may be exploited at some point in the future. Requests that future residents be notified of the potential for future extractive industry which could cause elevated levels of noise, dust, and vibrations.

13 Evans family

13.1 Submits that the size of the active open space reserve on the submitter's property is too large.

13.2 Objects to proximity of active open space and passive open space together on one property.

13.4 Requests that drainage line be realigned to the eastern property boundary.

14 Dennis Family on behalf of Rose Grange Commercial Pty Ltd

14.5 Requests an additional pedestrian crossing of Leakes Road should be provided between Sunset Boulevard (east) and Derrimut Road (west) to provide a main street continuation between the Rose Grange and the Tarneit town centre.

14.6 Requests that the MPA along with VicRoads and Wyndham City investigate opportunities to reduce the width of the Leakes Road cross-section.

17 Norton Rose Fulbright on behalf of ID_Land Pty Ltd ID Southwest Pty Ltd

17.2 Considers the cost of connector road bridges to be an unreasonable expense for developers. Request that they be included in the DCP.

17.4 Considers the annotation of retail anchors on Figure 2 to be ambiguous. Requests plan clearly show anchor on eastern side of connector road.

17.5 Requests that the designation of commercial uses fronting Dohertys Road on Figure 2 be extended to Forsyth Drain.

17.7 Refer to separate worksheet for detailed submission.

18 Leakes Pty Ltd

Refer to separate worksheet for detailed submission.

20 Andrew Booth

20.2 Considers that the waterway corridors for Skeleton and Dry Creek are too narrow. Requests that they be expanded to 100 metres each side of the waterway (200 metres total).

20.3 Considers the Woods Road conservation area to be too small. Requests that it be expanded by 10 hectares.

20.4 Requests that utilities and bike paths be placed on the outer perimetre of waterway corridors.

21 Tony Bilaver

21.2 Considers the east side of Woods Road to be the most appropriate location for a 'major retail anchor'.

21.3 Considers the most appropriate form of development west of Woods Road to be a 'buffer of mixed uses between residential and town centre'.


22 Tarneit Development Project Pty Ltd (represented by Dacland Pty Ltd)

Refer to separate worksheet for detailed submission.

23 Mesh on behalf of Villawood Properties

23.1 Requests that the location of the school, active open space and community facilities be moved southwest to be more central to residential catchment.

23.2 Requests that Forsyth Road and the drainage corridor be realigned along the eastern boundary of the property.

23.4 Requests that the cross section for the east-west connector be flexible to enable it to be delivered on one side of the Melbourne Water easement if practical.

27 Western Melbourne Catchments Network

27.1 Notes that area of plains wetland south of Boundary Road has not be included in time stamp data.

27.2 Notes that PSP shows alignments of utilities through areas the NVPP identifies for retained vegetation.

27.3 Suggests that the buffer along 'the waterway' has been designed as an arbitrary '50' for the majority of the waterway. Requests that the design allow for expansions to protect native vegetation and that expanded areas be considered passive open space.

27.4 Expresses concern that the buffer around the Truganina Cemetery has been reduced. Requests that the buffer be expanded consistent with the original draft Biodiversity Conservation Strategy.

31 Public Transport Victoria

31.6 Adjust town centre design principles to encourage bus priority and support integration of the proposed future station site.

31.13 Requests a review of all road cross sections to ensure compliance with DOT's Public Transport Guidelines for Land Use and Development and the table C1 at Clause 56.06-7 of the Wyndham Planning Scheme - Review Cross Section 10 re central median.

31.16 Delete Cross Section 11 and 11a and replace with note specifying path to be constructed outside road reserve unless confirmed in writing by VicTrack.

31.24 Requests the inclusion of a requirement to provide fence adequate to prevent balls escaping into the rail corridor from nearby open space, and that visually transparent fencing is to be provided along rail reserve boundary.

31.27 DFC north and south 96A applications - confirmation of alignment of shared path abutting RRL is outside of the rail reserve.

31.31 Include condition that any bus capable road containing a central median is to have a 1m wide trafficable strip on edge of median.

PART B SUMMARY OF UNRESOLVED DETAILED REQUESTS FOR CHANGES

SUMMARY OF UNRESOLVED REQUESTS FOR DETAILED CHANGES – C177 – WYNDHAM NORTH DCP 19

AMENDMENT C177 - WYNDHAM NORTH DCP

C177 SUBMISSION 28 – WYNDHAM CITY

Item Reference Theme Comment Request by submitter

1 Page 5

Section 1.5 Population & dwelling totals

Draft DCP population of 108,366 & dwelling of 39,795. DCP population of 114,011 & dwelling of 41,115. This is a 7.75% & 8.5% increase respectively.

7.75% increase in population require more sporting infrastructure to meet minimum sport provision standards in Wyndham Social Infrastructure Planning Framework (2012 Update). An additional 2 AFL/Cricket Oval, 1 Hockey Field & 2 Tennis Courts are required. Provision of additional land to accommodate sporting requirement is needed.

4 Page 8

Section 2.1

Items not included in the

DCP

a) The second pedestrian bridge of the Werribee River location is not defined. b) Why Forsyth Road Bridge over RRL identified as State Infrastructure when VicRoads have not confirmed its future declaration.

a) Add to description: (opposite Davis Road) b) If VicRoads will not confirm the future declaration of Forsyth Road then the Forsyth Road bridge over RRL must be removed from this list as it needs to be a DCP item.

7 Page 10, Plan 3

Road & bridge projects

Missing DCP infrastructure: a) If VicRoads will not confirm the future declaration of Forsyth Road then the Forsyth Road bridge over RRL must be included as a DCP item. b) The interim traffic model shows that development west of Davis Road will generate the requirement to duplicate Sayers Road (Tarneit Road to Davis Road). Sayers Road duplication (Tarneit Road to Davis Road) must be included in this DCP. c) Connector Road bridge over Davis Creek between Sayers Road and Hogans Road. d) The shared path under Regional Rail Link along the Werribee River across VicTrack property is required to complete the path network. It also has to cross an Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Area. Cost of this project needs to be a DCP item.

Must include: a) Forsyth Road Bridge over RRL. b) Sayers Road duplication (Tarneit Road to Davis Road). c) Bridge over Davis Creek for the Bethany Road extension. d) Shared Path under Regional Rail Link along the Werribee River across VicTrack property.

9 Page 11, Table 3

Bridge projects

Missing DCP infrastructure: a) If VicRoads will not confirm the future declaration of Forsyth Road then the Forsyth Road bridge over RRL must be included as a DCP item. b) The interim traffic model shows that development west of Davis Road will generate the requirement to duplicate Sayers Road (Tarneit Road to Davis Road). Sayers Road duplication (Tarneit Road to Davis Road) must be included in this DCP. c) Connector Road bridge over Davis Creek between Sayers Road and Hogans Road. d) The shared path under Regional Rail Link along the Werribee River across VicTrack property is required to complete the path network. It also has to cross an Aboriginal

Must include: a) Add Forsyth Road Bridge over RRL. b) Sayers Road duplication (Tarneit Road to Davis Road). c) Bridge over Davis Creek for the Bethany Road extension. d) Shared Path under Regional Rail Link along the Werribee River across VicTrack property.


Cultural Heritage Area. Cost of this project needs to be a DCP item.

15

Page 21, Summary Land Use Budget

Active Open Space

Council requires a population based provision rate to active recreation open space due to the increasing densities and therefore population. SRV rate of 2ha / 1000 people is the desired standard of provision. Application of SRV rate will result in an additional 41.7ha of active open space being required, bringing the total Wyndham North’s provision to 227.94ha.

Supply 227.94ha of active open space as per SRV provision rates.

19 Page 22, item 3.2.2

Road Construction

and Intersection

Works

Please confirm that the costing for following has been taken into consideration: a) Telstra/Optical fibre relocation b) Power poles relocation c) Offsets of native grasses d) Offsets for the environment significant assets.

Costings should include the following: a) Telstra/Optical fibre relocation b) Power poles relocation c) Offsets of native grasses d) Offsets for the environment significant assets.

22 Pages 25 to

29 Table 9

Calculation of Costs

The intersection, road duplication and construction costs for service relocation must be reviewed across this DCP for the existing road network. Council has recently been quoted additional costs for relocating Telstra assets that are well in excess of the service relocation costs apportioned in the Truganina South Community DCP. For the intersection of Forsyth Road and Sayers Road the preliminary estimate from Telstra was ~$1.4M for assets plus ~$400,000 for the NBN relocation. Powercor relocation costed ~$600,000. Yet the DCP only had a total of $550,000 allocated for all services, despite being costed by two consultants, one engaged by the GAA and one by the Developers in this precinct.

The intersection, road duplication and construction costs for service relocation across this DCP must be reviewed with Council for the existing road network.

33 Pages 25 to

29 Table 9


Forsyth Road - If VicRoads will not confirm the future declaration of Forsyth Road then the Forsyth Road bridge over RRL must be included as a DCP item.

Add Forsyth Road Bridge over RRL.

35 Pages 25 to

29 Table 9


Morris Road and Sayers Road bridges BR-90-04 & BR-91-02: Should be identical bridges yet the costs vary by up to $3M. BR-90-06 is costed at only $5,137,974. These are nearly identical bridges spanning the same distance, yet the costs vary considerably. This needs to be reviewed.

Council also needs to review the construction costs of BR-90-04, BR-90-06 & BR-91-02 and is concerned at the cost difference between the three grade separations.

37 Pages 25 to

29 Table 9


Sayers Road duplication (Tarneit Road to Davis Road) must be included in this DCP.

Sayers Road duplication (Tarneit Road to Davis Road).

40 Page 33, Table 10

Infrastructure delivery priorities

Council is yet to determine what its infrastructure delivery priorities are for this DCP area. Further work is required to refine this list using Councils’ ‘Strategy for Managing Growth in Wyndham’ and draft capital works program.

Review with Council the infrastructure delivery priority infrastructure items and timing. A ‘Lot Release Strategy’ will be required.

SUMMARY OF UNRESOLVED REQUESTS FOR DETAILED CHANGES – C176 – RIVERDALE PSP 22

AMENDMENT C176 – RIVERDALE PSP

C176 SUBMISSION 18 – STOCKLAND DEVELOPMENT PTY LTD

Item Page number

Clause / condition

Issue / clarification Request by submitter

5 9 O6

Objective O6 requires connecting canopies. Stockland considers that it would be impractical to require trees to be connected by their canopies, especially as this would be difficult to comply with until trees had reached a significant growth stage.

Stockland submits that the word “connecting” should be removed from Objective O6.

7 9 - Stockland submits that an objective should be

included around achieving efficiency of land use and promoting affordability.

8 12 R10

Requirement R10 requires subdivision applications to include indicative layouts. The indicative layout should simply to give comfort to the Authority that a suitable layout can be achieved.

Stockland submits that the indicative should not be wholly binding, and that developers should only have to develop generally in accordance with any indicative layout. Clarify the intent in the condition

11 17 Figure 3

Stockland generally accepts the structure of the Davis Road South Local Town Centre. However, the legend is generally too prescriptive. For example, the plan nominates ‘community facility’ (private), but this may be a very discrete concept, which will unreasonably restrict the use of the town centre. The same can be said about the distinction between ‘commercial’ and ‘commercial and home office’.

Stockland submits that: - the plan and legend should be amended to provide increased flexibility about the proposed land uses; - the plan should delete reference to discrete uses that may be difficult to attract to the town centre; - more mixed use should be shown along the frontage to Davis Rd (as opposed to all commercial).

13 26 Figure 5 The status of Figure 5 AOS-91-02 parkland concept) is unclear as it is not mentioned in the text.

Stockland submits that the status of Figure 5 should be clarified.

14 28 Plan 5

Plan 5 shows the biodiversity and threatened species action plan.

Stockland submits that the extent of conservation area and growling grass frog habitat north of the Werribee River is excessive and should be reduced to a maximum 100m offset consistent with the offsets further to the west.

18 33 R44

Requirement R44 requires the standard cross-section to be applied for no more than 70% of the total number of local access level 1 streets. The lack of flexibility may result in a road layout that has implications on traffic flows. This requirement is onerous and it will be difficult for the Council and developers to quantify across the area of the whole Precinct.

Stockland submits that R44 should be amended to be a guideline, and not a requirement.

20 33 R50

Requirement R50 requires vehicle access to a lot that is 6 metres or less in width to be via a rear laneway. Stockland currently develops products that have frontages less than 6m but have vehicle access from the front. These products have been developed across all growth areas and are recognised as market leading in terms of affordability, efficiency and market acceptance. They also help to achieve higher densities around key amenities.

Stockland submits that R50 should be deleted, or alternatively converted to a guideline. As a Requirement, it would restrict proven products from being developed and limit new innovative products over the timeframe of the development of the Precinct.


21 36, 37 Plan 7 and

R55

Requirement R55 requires shared paths to be 3.0m in width.

Stockland submits that the width of shared paths should be reduced to 2.5 metres.

24 37 R57 Requirement R57 requires lighting to be installed along all major shared pedestrian and cycle paths. This requirement could be prohibitively expensive.

Stockland submits that the standard of lighting should be outlined and included in the DCP if required.

25 37 G37

Guideline G37 requires development proponents to construct formal pedestrian crossings of creeks and minor waterways at regular intervals of no greater than 400 metres. These crossings are not included in the exhibited Development Contributions Plan. Stockland expects that given the pedestrian bridges will link to existing development, the Council should have collected funds from previous developers for 50% share of the cost.

Stockland submits that: - the cost of these crossing should be included in the DCP; or - alternatively, each developer should be liable for not more than 50% of the cost of constructing the crossing; - the requirement should refer to “about every 400 metres” to provide some flexibility.

26 40 Plan 9

Plan 9 shows Utilities. Requirement R67 requires trunk services to be placed along the general alignments shown on Plan 9.

Stockland submits that this requirement should be more flexible as it would be unrealistic to expect trunk services to run though residential allotments/schools/town centres that cross the path of the alignments.

28 48 Plan 10

It does not appear that the land budget plan (which in relation to arterial roads is based on the SMEC road plans) considers earthworks/batters/vertical issues when setting the arterial road reserve boundaries.

Stockland submits that further modelling should be undertaken to more accurately assess road reservation and intersection widths to accurately inform the DCP, to ensure that sufficient land is set aside or alternatively to ensure that excessive land is not set aside.

30 Cross sections generally

The location/provision of shared paths along arterial roads is unclear and inconsistent: - where rear loaded product is proposed, the arterial cross road requires a shared path in a 5m strip outside of the nominated arterial road reserve - in other circumstances, these cross sections also show a possible shared path within the 5m verge entirely within the nominated road reserve.

Stockland submits that the following text should be deleted because it is inconsistent with the cross-sections: “where rear loaded product is proposed, the arterial cross road requires a shared path in a 5m strip outside of the nominated arterial road reserve”

31 63-65 Cross-

sections 2, 2a & 2b

It is unclear from the cross-section whether the shared paths are to be within the 34m road reserve or outside of it.

Stockland submits that this matter should be clarified.

36 82 Cross-section 7

Stockland submits that a possible alternative would be to accommodate the existing windbreaks on one side of the road reserve so that the median openings are not problematic.

35 85 Cross-

section 10

The requirement for a 3.5-4.0m nature strip between parking land and shared path seems excessive.

Stockland submits that the width of the nature strip should be reduced to 1.0-2.0m.



Item Ref. Theme Comment Request by submitter

26 Page 12, G9 Housing

“…substantially increased residential densities should also consider the need for any additional provision of public or communal open space and other relevant infrastructure…” What is the definition of “substantially” & how much once a “substantially increased population densities” is reached do the developers provide, and where?

This Guideline should be a Requirement, and more prescriptive. Open space provision should be 2ha / 1000 people @ 2.8 people per dwelling. Location should be incorporated into an existing active or passive open space or adjacent encumbered open space to form passive recreation node, to the satisfaction to the Relevant Authority

37 Page 16 Davis Road North Local Town Centre

First key design element: How will Council track this? (also first dot point p17).

Consider the implementation of this point, and include a statutory mechanism for enforcing.

43 Page 22, Plan

4

Indoor Recreation Facility

GAA have indicated the Indoor sporting facility is to be located on WCC’s land. WCC has already indicated its preferred to be 6ha on 1070 Sayers Rd (on the north-east corner of Sayers & Sewells Rd), but WCC will alternately also consider 6ha located on 1245 Sayers Rd, on the south-west corner of Sayers & Sewells Rd - south of the Town centre. Both these sites are adjacent WCC land and have the ability to then deliver a 10ha Municipal facility for Aquatics, Indoor Sport & Athletics.

Place the 6ha indoor sport land allocation on 1070 Sayers Rd (on the north-east corner of Sayers & Sewells Rd),or on 1245 Sayers Rd, on the south-west corner of Sayers & Sewells Rd - south of the Town centre

66 Page 45 Heritage No discussion of the Heritage sites is included Add section on Heritage and a description of the

two sites as per PSP90 for HO62 and HO78.

67 Page 47 Summary Land Budget

Wyndham City Council has determined that active open space provision to meet the future Wyndham communities sporting requirements needs to be in line with the Sport & Recreation Victoria’s recommendation of 2ha / 1000 people.

Provide the SRV recommended provision rate of land for sport. This will require an additional 26.76ha of Active Open Space within the Riverdale PSP area.

68 Page 47 Summary Land Budget

Notes: - Dwelling forecast has increased 8.5% and therefore population forecast has increased 7.75% from Agency Consultation/DCP documents to the Community Consultation document. - Even though sporting provision has been considered and placed accordingly across the entire Wyndham North Precinct, if Riverdale is any indication, sporting provision requirement will not fit within the AOS reserves currently indicated. - With the adjusted population, club viability considerations and reduced AOS allocation negotiated previously, Riverdale is already undersupplying by 4 x AFL/Cricket & 3 x Soccer Pitches for its community.

Provide the SRV recommended provision rate of land for sport as this is a population-derived calculation, and not developable land based which is not adjustable to increases in population.


UGZ schedule


95 Page 2,

Section 2.2 – Table 1

Applied Zone Provisions

Connector Roads are not given a Road Zone – Category 2 designation. This would allow a Car Wash to be a section 2 use as stated in Section 2.3. VicRoads arterials are Road Zone –Category 1 and some Council arterials are Road Zone – Category 2. This table must be amended to refer to specific future arterial roads only based on whether they are a VicRoads or Council responsibility

Amend accordingly.

96

Page 2, Clause 2.2 of the UGZ

1

Applied Zone Provisions

Land, or any lot wholly constrained within, 100 metres from an part of a local convenience centre – this is listed twice with both Residential Growth Zone 1 and Neighbourhood Residential Zone 1. Also, requirements for land in certain catchments to be zoned will create future lots in two zones.

Delete the erroneous zone. Amend the requirements to ensure that all lots will only be contained within one catchment.

97

Clause 2.3 of Schedule 11 to the UGZ

References to applied zones

This notation includes a reference that any applied zone referring to another zone (i.e. road zones) should be considered as applied zone. How does this work with other planning permit triggers that relate to road zones, for example, if a permit is required to create access to a road zone with the road authority as a referral, how is this captured with applied zones?

Include a permit trigger in the UGZ schedule for creation of access to road zones and the relevant referral.

99 Page 5,

Section 3.1

Subdivision –residential development

The paragraph requiring a TIAR to create or change access must be amended to include Sewells Road and Armstrong Road, as these will be future arterial roads as well.

Amend accordingly

101 Clause 3.3

of the UGZ11

Specific provisions - Riverdale MTC UDF

Requires that the UDF be amended, approved, waived to the satisfaction of both the GAA and WCC. The PSP makes reference to the GAA being consulted, while WCC is the approving authority. How will this governance arrangement work if the UDF is to the satisfaction of both parties? Do we support this?

Delete reference to the satisfaction of the GAA, or Include guidance as to how this arrangement works (e.g. lodged with and approved by WCC and referred to the GAA).

NVPP


1 Page 4, Map 2

Native Vegetation protected and removed

The Davis road spiny rice flower site is missing from the map. It is not shown as native vegetation at all.

Mark on the map the Davis Road spiny rice flower population (of at least 15 plants) as vegetation to be retained. Maps should be looked at again to ensure other sites with native vegetation or endangered species are not missing.

2 Page 4, Map 2

Native Vegetation protected and

The native vegetation along Sewells Road (patches 1008, 1009, 1010, 1011, 1012, 1013, 1014 and 1015) could be retained in a road reserve

Vegetation should be retained


removed

3 Page 4, Map 2


Many sections of grassland identified ‘to be removed’, particularly patches 806, 810,811,812,816,815,823,837,800-804,798 & 799, are located within or partially within/adjacent to encumbered land along Davis Creek. We question why these patches would be removed, only to be replaced with landscaped indigenous vegetation. Retaining these patches and enhancing them instead of replacing them would provide a much better ecological outcome and would be more cost-effective.

Retain all native vegetation along waterways or encumbered land.

4 Page 4, Map 2


Habitat Zone 946 is a potential offset site which may in future be covered by a section 173 agreement and must be retained. The applicant has not yet decided if the offset will be located on site.

Retain the offset site in HZ 946 as it must be protected in perpetuity.

It is also a site identified for retention in the Council adopted Landscape Context Guidelines for native vegetation and education opportunities. The offset site (wetland vegetation) and the adjacent native grassland patch should be retained

5 Page 4, Map 2

Native vegetation protected and removed

The native vegetation along Sewells Road, south of Sayers Road should be retained as a biodiversity corridor. The native vegetation could easily be retained with a road reserve.

Retain the vegetation along the entire length of Sewells road.

6 Page 4 , Map 2

Native vegetation protected and removed

I don’t understand why there is a gap between HZ 806 and HZ807. There is no reason that there would be a break between native grassland patches. In closer inspection, I wonder if the mapping has been captured incorrectly. Is HZ807 supposed to be adjoining the west side of the Creek and HZ806 supposed to be on the east side of the Creek?

Mapping of this area in particular needs to be looked at again.

7

Page 5, Section 4.0, Paragraph

1

The native vegetation to be protected

Change should to must Should instead state: The native vegetation to be protected is described in NVPP Tables 1 and 2 and shown on NVPP Map 2, 2a, 2b and 2c and must not be removed

8 Page 21, Table 6

Offset requirements for Scattered Trees which can be removed

Tree ID number 3 – species should be identified. Why can this tree not be retained, have the principles of avoid and minimise been demonstrated?

Identify Eucalyptus species and retain tree

SUMMARY OF UNRESOLVED REQUESTS FOR DETAILED CHANGES – C175 – TRUGANINA PSP 27

AMENDMENT C175 – TRUGANINA PSP



1 General

Adoption of a Logical Development Sequencing Strategy

There are significant concerns across the municipality regarding the staging of development in the growth corridors. The City and State infrastructure agencies face significant financial and community costs if growth continues across a number of growth fronts, in a fragmented manner as is currently showing clear signs of emergence. Council officers have flagged the need to examine means to fund timely delivery of road transport infrastructure in Wyndham’s north, based on the combination of a systematic lot release strategy designed to better align increases in traffic demand with road capacities and DCs.

We wish to note our objections and acknowledge that this has been identified as a higher-level issue and that the ultimate approach will be determined after the Panel process.

2 General

Active Open Space Provision

The PSP provides for four sporting reserves, totalling 45.4 hectares, or 7.95% of the Net Developable Residential Area. The future population of the PSP is estimated at 26,490 residents. This equates to 1.70 ha of open space per 1,000 residents. The assumed dwelling density is 16 dwellings per net developable residential hectare. This is below the recent Wyndham averages (16-17 per ha). This figure does not seem to cover for higher densities near the Town Centres and other core precincts. Council has called for at least 8% of the net developable area of residential land to be set aside for active open space in a number of policy decisions and submissions from 2008 onwards. This has been expressed as a “minimum of 2 hectares per 1,000 population.” This standard has been advocated by Sport and Recreation Victoria (SRV) and the Exercise, Recreation and Sport Survey (ERASS), in three Council adopted strategies. Based on Truganina’s estimated population, the PSP should require 54 hectares of active open space. The Truganina PSP proposes 45.4 hectares, which will result in a shortfall of 8.6 hectares across the precinct.


3 General

96a Applications

It is considered that in the development of the PSPs the predominant focus should be first on achieving the desired outcomes for land use and development, and ensuring that the PSPs provide for a sound planning framework. Given that there are still issues in the PSP that need to be resolved, the accompanying 96A applications are considered to be premature at this stage.


4 General Housing Diversity

We acknowledge that this is a complex issue and that there have been ongoing discussions

We wish to note our objections and acknowledge that this has been identified as a higher-level issue


between the GAA and Council officers with regard to achieving housing diversity across the PSPs in the City’s Urban Growth Zone, especially to achieve smaller dwellings, including less than 3 bedrooms. It has been established that there is a need to define what the City wants to achieve within the PSP. The PSP has provided examples of housing types by lot size, and a property specific land use budget, which provides guidance to both the developer and the officer assessing any permits as to types of density that should be achieved on individual sites. It is considered that this is a step in the right direction. However, officers are concerned that there is still little attention to diversity of housing size, and insufficient statutory weight given to the diversity requirements, impeding the ability of Council officers to enforce these requirements. Significantly, the five proposed subdivisions generally show little sign of inclusion of small units, although small lots are evident. Council’s Strategic Planning team is currently undertaking the preparation of a Housing Diversity Statement in conjunction with Planisphere Planning Consultants. This statement will establish what the City should be seeking in terms of housing diversity – including housing types, sizes and lot size, as well as what mechanisms can be used in the PSPs to implement these.

and that the ultimate approach will be determined after the Panel process.

56 Page 22, Page 24

Plan 4_open space & open space delivery guide

A 90-01 - Council indicated that 12.9ha was required to accommodate prescribed sporting provision. PSP has indicated only 11ha. This is a 1.9ha shortfall. Figure 5 (pg 26) indicated a concept that has the AFL run-off into encumbered open space and with the pathway network within it.

Increase AOS layout as per Council’s Wyndham North layout to enable the correct placement within unencumbered land of 2x AFL/Cricket ovals, 2x Rugby League fields and associated infrastructure.

A 90-02 - Council indicated that 13.2ha was required to accommodate prescribed sporting provision. PSP has indicated only 11.87ha. This is a 1.33ha shortfall.

Increase AOS layout as per Council’s Wyndham North layout to enable the correct placement within unencumbered land of 2x AFL/Cricket ovals, 3x Soccer fields and associated infrastructure.

A-90-03 - Council indicated that 12.5ha was required to accommodate prescribed sporting provision. PSP has indicated only 12.11ha. This is a 0.39ha shortfall.

Increase AOS layout as per Council’s Wyndham North layout to enable the correct placement within unencumbered land of 2x AFL/Cricket ovals, 8x Netball Courts, 12x Tennis Courts and associated infrastructure.

60 Page 24

Active Open Space Allocation

Council undertook a sporting provision planning exercise across Wyndham North and from that exercise the quantum of land to facilitate sporting provision on the not ideal fit-for-purpose locations the GAA had indicated within the draft Truganina PSP was 49ha. The GAA have indicated in the Truganina PSP only 45.4ha of active open space, and even though this is above the 7% NDAR by 5.42ha, the AOS shortfall in Riverdale PSP had been negotiated to be placed within Truganina in order to elevate active open space in that region due to historical under provision in the neighbouring areas. In fact Truganina’s AOS

Increase to Council’s quantum and layout land for A90-01, A90-02 & A90-03 so that sporting provision planned for those active open spaces can fit. (see more detailed comments above).


allocation has decreased by 0.48ha from the draft PSP to the PSP. Riverdale’s under provision equates to 11.76ha. With Truganina’s over provision of only 5.42ha, a balance of 6.34ha is still unaccounted for.

67 , R43

Biodiversity and natural systems

20 m buffer zone for the Truganina Cemetery. The Biodiversity Conservation strategy for Melbourne’s growth corridors (DEPI, May 2013) identifies the buffer to be as the previous version of PSP 90 and states that the buffer should be no less than 50m from the cemetery and up to 200m.

The buffer should be at LEAST 50m, but preferably 200m as per last version of the Truganina PSP.

89 Page 44, Table 7

Precinct Infrastructure Plan

a) Question why the Forsyth Road bridge over RRL is identified for State as the lead agency when VicRoads have not confirmed its future declaration. Issue also raised in DCP comments, further discussion required. b) All the Dohertys Road, bridge, culvert and intersection projects indicate that the ultimate is not DCP funded but the duplication is the ultimate and is proposed for DCP funding. c) Need to add Woods Road construction (see DCP comments). d) Forsyth and Morris Road RRL overpasses. e) The Derrimut Road bridge (VicRoads) and the pedestrian signals (Wyndham) over Dry Creek is not listed in this Table. f) The Skeleton Creek Pedestrian Signals across Leakes Road are not listed but shown on Plan 6. g) The Boundary Road intersections need to be checked against the DCP and previous discussions with Council. The idea that unsignalised ‘t’ intersections could be possible in the interim until the land in Melton is developed is not shown here.

a) If the State Government and VicRoads will not commit to this overpass, then it needs to be included in the DCP and amended to show Wyndham as the lead agency. b) Amend all the Dohertys Road, bridge, culvert and intersection projects to show the ultimate as a DCP funded item. c) Need to add Woods Road construction (see DCP comments). d) Add to the description for the Forsyth and Morris Road RRL overpasses the extra land required. e) Add the Derrimut Road bridge (VicRoads – lead agency)and the pedestrian signals (Wyndham – lead agency) over Dry Creek. f) Add the Skeleton Creek Pedestrian Signals across Leakes Road (Wyndham – lead agency). g) Discuss further with Wyndham and Melton Councils the appropriate interim Boundary Road intersections to be included in this PSP and the DCP.

UGZ Schedule

Item # Section Theme Comment Request by submitter

1.

UGZ Schedule

Application requirements

UGZ Schedule • Demolition trigger for heritage sites • A requirement for works to dry stone walls

being carried out by qualified dry stone wallers

• Documentation of all heritage sites prior to works (including demolition and relocation)

• Adherence to requirements of the WNHS and for such further work to occur prior to development/subdivision/hand over of land to Council


Application requirements: ‘Residential subdivision’: • To include a requirement for a site

survey/feature/reestablishment survey to identify heritage structures, including dry stone walls;

• Preparation of a report by qualified heritage consultant justifying proposed works, and that works be in line with the recommendations of the Wyndham North Heritage Strategy (2013).

• Dry stone wall management plan for walls identified in the PSP, and which adheres to recommendations of the WNHS

2.

Clause 3.1 UGZ 10

Subdivision – Residential Development

Discussion is ongoing with Engineering regarding whether they are happy with the requirements for applications – in particular the requirements for PIPs. We need to ensure that they don’t need anything else submitted at time of application.

To be advised

3.

Clause 3.6 of the UGZ10

Specific provisions - Riverdale MTC UDF

Requires that the UDF be amended, approved, waived to the satisfaction of both the GAA and WCC. The PSP makes reference to the GAA being consulted, while WCC is the approving authority. How will this governance arrangement work if the UDF is not to the satisfaction of both parties? Do we support this?

Delete reference to the satisfaction of the GAA, or Include guidance as to how this arrangement works (e.g. lodged with and approved by WCC and referred to the GAA).

NVPP

Item # Ref Theme Comment Request by submitter

1

Page 4, NVPP map 2

Native vegetation to be protected and removed

Why can’t habitat zones 656, 783, part of 787, 681,671, and part of 623 be retained within the Creek corridors?

These habitat zones should be retained and protected within the waterway corridor.

2

Page 4, NVPP map 2


Habitat zone 730 should be retained within the conservation buffer of Truganina Cemetery

Retain the habitat zone 730 on Woods Road

3

Page 4, NVPP map 2


Why can’t the habitat 712, 709b, 708b be retained within the conservation reserve on Leakes road

Retain these habitat zones as part of the conservation reserve.

4

Page 5, Section 4.1

General requirements for Native vegetation to be protected

Change ‘should’ to ‘must’ Should state: The native vegetation to be protected is described in NVPP tables 1 and 2 and shown on NVPP map 2 and must not be removed.


5

Page 15, NVPP Table 4

Scattered Trees to be removed, destroyed or lopped.

It states there are no scattered trees to be removed. Does this mean that all Victorian natives will be retained? TreeLogic’s Aboricultural report (July 2011) Appendix 1, identifies many indigenous species including River Red Gums and Grey box. These species should be retained

All high or above aboriculturally rated trees must be retained within the precinct. This is supported by the Wyndahm adopted Landscape Context Guidelines (March 2013) and City West Water’s, Greening the West strategy.


C175 SUBMISSION 17 – ID_LAND PTY LTD

Item Page number

Clause / condition

Issue / clarification Request by submitter

1 10 Plan 3

ID_Land holding includes a portion of “existing dry stone wall to be retained”. ID_Land submits that the portion of wall has very low heritage significance.

The wall is removed from Plan 3.

7 13 R12, R13

Many of the dry stone walls identified are low in historical value, in poor condition and provide no community benefit.

The PSP should be amended to allow dry stone walls to be assessed and removed on a case-by-case basis.

12 32 Plan 6 Pan 6 includes requirements for specified signalised intersections.

ID_Land reserves the right to objective to the provision of the intersection or the type of the intersection.

13 34 R58

R58 requires the planning permits for some specified landowners to either require construction of a bridge or enter into an s173 agreement to contribute to the construction of a bridge.

This requirement should be deleted and the bridges be included in the DCP.

96A Application WYP6210/12 - ID Land

Item Issue / clarification Request by submitter

3 Permit conditions Condition 5(g) should be deleted

4 Permit conditions Condition 5(i) should be deleted

9 Permit conditions Condition 1(g) should be deleted

10 Permit conditions Condition 3 should be deleted

11 Permit conditions Condition 5(e) should be deleted

12 Permit conditions Condition 5(h) should be deleted

13 Permit conditions Condition 5(j) should be amended

14 Permit conditions Condition 6(c) should be amended

16 Permit conditions Condition 16(c) should be amended

17 Permit conditions Condition 30 should be amended




C175 SUBMISSION 18 – LEAKES PTY LTD

Item Page No. Clause / Condition

Issue / Clarification Request by submitter

2 3 1.1

The Precinct Structure Plan (PSP) is structured to include objectives, plans, tables, requirements, guidelines and conditions as follows (refer page 3 - 4 of the PSP): “A planning application and a planning permit must implement the outcomes of the PSP. The outcomes are expressed as the Vision and Objectives. Each element of the precinct structure plan contains requirements, guidelines and conditions as relevant.

The interaction between the UGZ Schedule which requires any permit to not only be generally in accordance with the PSP but to also include any PSP conditions or requirements is a powerful statutory tool that allows PSPs to dictate detailed outcomes in each permit as relevant. However, such a unilateral power should be used judiciously. The Truganina PSP applies requirements too loosely, particularly given their mandatory nature.

3 6 Plan 2 Plan 2 is the Future Urban Structure Plan (FUSP).

The detailed rationale for each of the FUSP changes is set out in the main submission letter and are not repeated here.

5 7 Objectives

As drafted, objective 18 relating to integrated water management introduces risk and uncertainty into the rollout of development. Over time, the water authorities, together with the Council and drainage authorities may devise new approaches to managing the provision of water to new developments. At this stage, no such approaches are sufficiently progressed. It is submitted that the objective should be revised to recognise that this is a 'work in progress'. In any event, once the relevant authorities agree on a new approach this will be mandated for new developments as a matter of course.

Submission: That objective 18 be amended as follows: “Encourage exploration of an integrated approach to water management that reduces reliance on potable water.”

24 14 Figure 1

Leakes requests further discussions with the GAA regarding the plan, particularly in the context of the submissions in relation to Attachment 1: • There should be two signalised intersections

to Derrimut Road. • Bridge 2 across Skeleton Creek should be

deleted and Bridge 1 included in the DCP.

Submission: That further discussions occur between the GAA and Leakes to resolve the final form of Figure 1.

43 34 R58

Refer to earlier submission in relation to inclusion of the major bridges in the DCP. Leakes will further discuss this requirement with the GAA.

75 Cross

Section 11

Cross section 11 – Rail reserve interface. Cross section 11 proposes a 10.5m land take adjacent to the rail reserve boundary. Cross section 11a shows only a 4m land take if the shared path is located within the rail reservation. Leakes reserves its right to make further submissions on these cross sections in response to the noise management requirements as set out in condition 1 of the s96a planning permits.

Submission: That further discussions are held with the GAA once the noise management report is released by the GAA.


96A Application WYP6744/13 – Dennis Family Corporation North

Item Issue / Clarification Request by submitter

1 Permit conditions Release RRL Noise Impact Management Report, and GAA and applicant hold further

discussions on noise conditions.

5 Permit conditions Applicant and GAA further discuss and agree on the PIP conditions of permit.

8 Permit conditions Amend Condition 13 to remove requirement for RA consent to develop concurrent stages.

10 Permit conditions Amend Condition 15 to refer to recommendations of Cardno environmental site assessment

report.

23 Permit conditions Applicant and GAA top discuss intent of Condition 63 (land to be set aside for POS)

24 Permit conditions Applicant and GAA top discuss intent of Condition 64 (land to be set aside of road widening)

29 Permit conditions GAA to review CHMP in regard to area to be set aside for Aboriginal Cultural heritage adjacent

Skeleton Creek in this application and in PSP

30 Permit conditions Proposed changes to cyclist network

31 Permit conditions Remove northern road crossing of Skeleton Creek and down-grade east-west Local Access

Level 2 street.

96A Application WYP6216/12 – Dennis Family Corporation South

Item Issue / Clarification Request by submitter

1 Permit conditions Release RRL Noise Impact Management Report, and GAA and applicant hold further discussions

on noise conditions.

5 Permit conditions Applicant and GAA further discuss and agree on the PIP conditions of permit.

7 Permit conditions Amend Condition 13 to remove requirement for RA consent to develop concurrent stages.

8 Permit conditions Amend Condition 15 to refer to recommendations of Cardno environmental site assessment

report.

21 Permit conditions Applicant and GAA top discuss intent of Condition 63 (land to be set aside for POS)

22 Permit conditions Applicant and GAA top discuss intent of Condition 64 (land to be set aside of road widening)

27 Permit conditions Proposed changes to cyclist network


C175 SUBMISSION 22 – TARNEIT DEVELOPMENT PROJECT PTY LTD

Item Section* Request by submitter

7 2.1.1 G12 and Plan 3 – ‘Primary walking catchments’ appear arbitrary.

8 2.1.2 G11 & Table 1 – Dacland views these as superfluous. It should be left to the market and builders to deliver specific housing types.

10 2.2 Figure 1 & Plan 3 – Morton east land holding should not be included in the Urban Design Framework area and should not be required to be developed for high density housing.

12 2.3 R29 – Detailed decisions about open space provision should be left to the Responsible Authority.

14 2.3 Plan 4 – Open space shown straddling the boundary of the Morton East land holding is unnecessarily large and should be split into two smaller parks.

16 2.4 Condition C4 – The implementation of a KMP should be the role of DEPI.

20 2.5 R56 – The words ‘to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority’ should be added so it is clear how potential flexibility will be interpreted and managed.

25 2.6 Plan 8 – Legend for constructed waterways and retarding basins is misleading as it isn’t clear what land is required for channels and which is required for retardation.

35 2.7

G55 – It is unclear how adjoining land owners are to ensure adjacent developments integrate with each other. There is no guidance as to how developments proponents are to achieve this outcome nor how Council should interpret it.

37 2.7 Table 7 – Timing for Dohertys Road intersection, bridge, and upgrade projects should be consistent.

* Section refers to reference in Tarneit Development Projects submission letter.

96A Application WYP6211/12 – Dacland

Item Section* Request by submitter

7 Permit Condition 9(b) to be deleted.

9 Permit Question 'approved staging plan' referred to in Condition 13.

10 Permit Condition 25 and 32(b) are onerous

Panel Hearing, 25 November 2013 SUMMARY OF UNRESOLVED ... · Panel Hearing, 25 November 2013...

Documents

Transcript of Panel Hearing, 25 November 2013 SUMMARY OF UNRESOLVED ... · Panel Hearing, 25 November 2013...