1. This matter relates to the Council's position and submissions that the proposed subdivision does not adequately respond to the TNPSP and planning policy framework objectives with respect to the provision of high and higher density housing in proximity to the proposed train station and town centre.

1. The parties refer to the following TNPSP requirements and guidelines with respect to the disputed matters:

REQUIREMENTS

R5 - Residential subdivisions must deliver a broad range of lot sizes capable of accommodating a variety of housing types.

R6 - Residential subdivision applications must demonstrate how they will contribute to the satisfaction of minimum housing yields in broad town centre catchments as described on Plan 3 and Table 2.

R7 - Development must appropriately respond to the existing railway station, potential future railway station sites, and future Principle [sic] Public Transport Network (PPTN) through the creation of opportunities for high density residential development.

R8 - Lots must front or side:

• Waterways and public open space.
• Conservation areas.
• Connector roads.
• The railway line.
• Arterial roads.

R9 - Subdivision applications must include indicative concept layouts for any lots identified for the future development of medium density, high-density, or integrated housing that suitably demonstrate:

• Active interfaces with adjacent streets, open space and waterways.
• Safe and effective vehicle and pedestrian access and internal circulation, as appropriate.

GUIDELINES

G8 - Residential subdivisions should provide across each neighbourhood a broad range of lot sizes capable of accommodating a variety of housing types as described in Table 1.

G9 - Subdivision of land within a walkable distance of town centres, train stations, potential future station sites, and designated public transport routes should create a range of lot sizes suitable for the delivery of medium and higher density housing types.

1. Tables 1 and 2 are reproduced below.[31]

1. The Council refers to the permit application as an under-development of the subject land having regard to the site's unique qualities and opportunity to advance access to shopping, employment and services, housing diversity, housing affordability, walkability, public transport and heat island effect policies. It submits the proposal fails to respond to the planning policy framework and the vision, objectives and requirements of the TNPSP with regard to the delivery of housing diversity, lot yield and dwelling yield.
2. It accepts the proposal meets the TNPSP numerical measures; these are a guide and 'not some form of de facto deemed to comply requirement'. The site's attributes should not be ignored or under-used just because a target that has been articulated across the whole precinct is on track for being met.
3. Of the 414 residential lots, only 4% are set aside as medium density lots. They all exceed 600m2 and on that measure they fall within the size identified in Table 1 of the Tarneit North PSP as an "example" of lots that can accommodate "Stacked housing (including apartments and walk-up flats)". Mr Rantino emphasises that suitability for higher density apartments includes the consideration of lot location, lot shape, lot depth and lot width; not just lot size. Those closest to the proposed train station and to the proposed town centre should be looking at accommodating four and five storey residential development. The four lots in excess of 1,000m2 on the road that runs along the rail reserve only have a depth of between 35 and 41 metres. None are on a corner. While not arguing that the largest four lots are not capable of accommodating four or five storey apartment developments, the Council submits there are too few and they are not sized and configured to maximise the opportunities of the subject land for such development.
4. Further, none of the other medium density lots in excess of 600m2 are on a corner. They are generally triangular in shape and abut single dwelling lots. The Council submits there is little opportunity for sharing of vehicle access, car parking and other infrastructure. It will be exceedingly difficult, the Council says, to accommodate three and four storey apartment developments on those lots while at the same time responding to the internal amenity aspirations and external amenity impacts.
5. The Council has presented some diagrams to show ways in which greater yields might be achieved by changing lots, although there is not material explaining or underpinning these and associated density/yield estimates, as Mr Tweedie has emphasised.
6. The applicant disagrees with these and related submissions made by the Council. Scheme policy objectives are implemented through the structure planning process, and the guidance provided by related density targets. The applicant submits the proposal implements urban consolidation policy by exceeding the targets contained in the TNPSP. It says there is no planning basis to require greater housing density. Requiring higher densities will have flow-on effects such as with respect to assumptions upon which development contributions have been formulated.
7. The applicant emphasises that the proposal exceeds every density measure contained in the scheme, delivers genuine housing diversity and complies with the TNPSP requirements including:[32]
   • The proposal incorporates a range of lot sizes with variable widths and depths. The lot mix is diverse, a proposition endorsed by the Council officer who assessed the proposal.
   • The proposal exceeds the housing yield requirements of Plan 3 and Table 2 of the PSP; and
   • The proposal responds to the planned rail station by locating the most sizable superlots, suitable for higher density development, directly opposite the planned rail station.
8. The applicant refers to the officer's support in this regard. I observe the officer's report refers to Council officer discussions with the permit applicant over an extended period of time, with the Council specifically seeking greater housing density and diversity associated with the railway station.[33] This process included pre-application discussions, as well as following a permit application being lodged, and having regard to internal referral advice. The plans were modified until such time that the applicant was recorded in the officer's report as advising that:[34]

...no further changes can be made to the plans due to the lack of market for apartment/stacked housing outcomes in growth areas currently and that the application meets the requirements of the Tarneit North Precinct Structure Plan concerning residential outcomes in this location.

1. The applicant submits the four large lots to the immediate south of the station can provide the opportunity for increased residential densities in a higher density development concept that would be subject to future planning approval. This might include a stacked arrangement, which would be consistent with Table 1. The applicant relies on advice from Urbis including several concept plans for three- and four-storey apartments on the four largest lots and townhouses on several other medium density lots.[35]
2. The quoted density of 19.13 dwellings per net developable hectare attributes one dwelling to the four largest lots. Relying on these 'realistic concept scenarios' the applicant refers to outcomes as:
   • Conservative standard development - additional 34 dwellings (20.7 dwellings per net developable hectare);
   • Moderate density within a three-level apartment development - additional 103 dwellings (23.89 dwellings per net developable hectare); and
   • Increased density within a four-level apartment development - additional 131 dwellings (25.18 dwellings per net developable hectare).

1. There is clearly strong policy support and direction for increased densities associated with activity centres and transport infrastructure such as train stations.[36] This is evident in the TNPSP, such as through objective 9 and requirement R7. It is also evident in the most recent State Government Precinct Structure Planning Guidelines, 2021, targets[37] although these are not the same guidelines under which the TNPSP was formulated.
2. The objective of clause 56.04-1 is:
   • To achieve housing densities that support compact and walkable neighbourhoods and the efficient provision of public transport services.
   • To provide higher housing densities within walking distance of activity centres.
   • To achieve increased housing densities in designated growth areas.
   • To provide a range of lot sizes to suit a variety of dwelling and household types.
3. Standard C7 includes:

A subdivision should implement any relevant housing strategy, plan or policy for the area set out in this scheme.

Lot sizes and mix should achieve the average net residential density specified in any zone or overlay that applies to the land or in any relevant policy for the area set out in this scheme.

...

1. On the information provided by the applicant including through expert evidence, the development of the TNPSP will meet and exceed the targets and indices in TNPSP objective O20, TNPSP Table 2,[38] and will exceed the average overall minimum residential density of 15 dwellings per net developable hectare at 11.03-2S.
2. These outcomes are relevant as is the fact that the proposed subdivision layout offers different of lot sizes and opportunities for higher density developments closer to the train station.
3. I accept the four largest lots should be able to achieve 'stacked' housing such as apartments, although the lot layout might need or benefit from consolidation and/or re-division to achieve more efficient buildings and viability sooner as Mr Campbell stated in evidence. I note Mr Campbell's view that these formats can work even with small lots to their immediate south, in terms of potential amenity impacts such as overshadowing.[39]
4. I have doubts about the capacity of the irregularly-shaped medium density lots that are realistically dual occupancy or three-four unit sites rather than multi-level apartments. The Urbis concepts show examples, which Mr Campbell has accepted.[40] I am less persuaded to accept Mr Negri's evidence in this regard about their ability to be developed with apartments (rather than townhouses) given the lot sizes/shapes and locations.
5. The TNPSP is close to a decade old and is the basis for a decision in this proceeding. I observe that a precinct structure plan formulated today, framed within the current VPA guidelines, may see more ambitious targets, including to capitalise on, to a greater degree, the significant public investment in the RRL and new railway station.
6. Clause 16.01-1L seeks to encourage 'medium density housing, especially within close walking distance of existing and planned fixed rail stations, defined activity centres, bus routes and employment areas' (emphasis added). This policy can be contrasted with the TNPSP objective O9 'Build high density and transit-oriented neighbourhoods focussed on railway stations and proposed future railway station sites' (emphasis added).
7. Given that numerical minima and indices are met by this permit application, can more be asked for? I accept requirements R5 and R6 are met. I note R6 emphasises achieving minima but there are no specific concerns in the TNPSP about exceeding minima, and there is no cap. I find there is a legitimate issue raised by the Council's grounds that the proposal does not meet requirement R7. This is the case notwithstanding guidelines G8 and G9 refer to a range of lot sizes suitable for the delivery of medium and higher density housing types. The proposal provides a range of housing, however, it does not satisfy several objectives and requirements guiding a stronger representation of higher and high density housing opportunities.
8. The subject land abuts and fronts the new railway station that is part of the RRL. This is very important infrastructure serving a large growing community and other parts of the State. Requirement R7 says 'Development must appropriately respond to the existing railway station, potential future railway station sites, and future Principal Public Transport Network (PPTN) through the creation of opportunities for high density residential development' (emphasis added). Mr Negri accepted in oral evidence that the requirement has 'more work to do' given the presence of the new station.
9. The majority (around 60%) of all lots are more than 300m2 where one house could be built without a planning permit.
10. The proposal has four large lots which have the potential to make a contribution, although boundary revision may be needed and there is nothing in the proposal that would ensure such an outcome (for example, there being no proposed restrictions). Even with the applicant's estimates, the overall yield is within the definition of medium density housing, based on the precinct structure planning guidelines that applied at the time,[41] rather than high density which is defined as an average density of more than 30 dwellings per net developable hectare.[42]
11. I note market issues that the applicant cites, although there is limited evidence or data on these matters. The whole of the subject land is within the walkable catchment and the land directly abuts the Transport Zone 1 for the new railway station.[43] The subdivision offers diversity but, given the site's attributes, proposes limited opportunities for high density development. It is a valuable opportunity to capitalise on important infrastructure assets.
12. Changes to the subdivision plan would be required to provide more opportunities for high density residential development particularly close to the new railway station. It is not readily apparent how this would be achieved to enable it to occur through a permit condition.

Street tree planting associated with lots with a frontage of less than 8.5 metres

1. This matter relates to the Council's position and submissions that the proposed subdivision does not make adequate provision for canopy vegetation through the streets of the proposed subdivision.

1. The parties refer to the following TNPSP requirements and guidelines with respect to the disputed matters:

REQUIREMENTS

Street trees must be provided on both sides of all roads and streets (excluding laneways) at regular intervals appropriate to tree size at maturity and not exceeding the average intervals below unless otherwise agreed by the responsible authority:

R1 -

• Suitable for local conditions; and
• Planted in modified and improved soil as required to support tree longevity.

R3 - Street tree planting must use locally appropriate species and be consistent with the Wyndham City Street Tree Policy, Subdivision Landscape Works Standards and Specifications Manual and any guidance provided on the relevant cross section within this Precinct Structure Plan.

R40 - Configuration of vehicle access to lots from a public street must ensure that there is sufficient separation between crossovers to allow for a minimum of one on-street car park for every two residential lots.

R41 - Where a lot that is six metres or less in width, vehicle access must be via rear laneway, unless otherwise approved by the responsible authority.

GUIDELINES

G1 - Street networks within subdivisions should be designed to maximise the number of connections and direct views to waterways, open space and town centres.

G5 - Street trees should be used consistently across neighbourhoods to reinforce movement hierarchy and individual neighbourhood character.

G7 - Trees in streets and parks should be larger species wherever space allows (to facilitate continuous canopy cover).

1. The Council submits there is a lack of street tree planting opportunities having regard to the number of lots with a frontage of 8.5 metres or less. This is relevant to TNPSP image, amenity and heat island objectives.
2. The Council's position is based on internal referral advice that lots that are less than 8.5 metres wide have insufficient space to provide a crossover, service connections and allow for the planting of street trees in accordance with Wyndham's Tree and Urban Forest Policy 2021. The required clearance (offsets) cannot be achieved between the trees/driveways and service connections.
3. Mr Rantino noted that the officer's assessment recommended that this concern be addressed by a permit condition by requiring the applicant to 'demonstrate that crossovers, service connections and street trees can be provided and where unable to be demonstrated, to increase the lot widths to 8.5 metres minimum.' However, the Council's submission is that this is too important an issue to leave for a permit condition. Particularly a permit condition with an unknown outcome - it may be for example that, when the applicant submits plans, they will require a material reconfiguration of the subdivision in order to demonstrate compliance.
4. The Council refers to the large number of lots involved. It says the outcome might be acceptable if there were only five or 10 lots that had frontages of less than 8.5 metres, but the subdivision proposes in the order of 80 lots (approximately 20% of the lots) of such frontage. The Council submits a significant number are located along the important streets fronting the park and along the north-south linkage through the subject land. This needs to be reviewed as part of the assessment of the proposed subdivision, not left for a permit condition. Further, the Council relies on photographs demonstrating, by way of examples, the type of outcome that Council seeks to avoid.
5. In response, the applicant submits that the tree interval requirements ought to be applied with a degree of flexibility, provided the outcome achieves high amenity streetscapes. Having said that, if necessary, the subdivision plan can be easily amended to increase frontage widths in some instances, but these modifications come at the cost of diversity and density. A permit condition that allows a degree of flexibility is appropriate and will enable the applicant the opportunity to further refine the provision of street trees and lot arrangements with the responsible authority to meet the requirements of the TNPSP in a more tailored manner while having regard to other requirements.
6. The applicant relies on Mr Campbell's evidence that the outcome shown in the subdivision plan is acceptable. Mr Tweedie submits the internal referral erroneously relied on Council's 2021 Tree and Urban Forest Policy. Requirement R3 refers to the Wyndham City Street Tree Policy, Subdivision Landscape Works Standards and Specifications Manual.
7. The applicant says the strict application of the tree interval requirements is unlikely to be necessary for the lots with a direct outlook to the park or waterway. Mr Campbell explains that lots of less than 8.5 metres opposite parks and in the connector road will benefit from street trees in the public realm and hence these lots do not need to be modified. There are a smaller number of other lots that are not opposite parks and the connector road for which an acceptable outcome can be achieved through detailed design.
8. Mr Campbell comments on the examples to which the Council refers, in their broader context, which I do not recite but have considered.
9. Mr Negri's written evidence supports the Council's proposed condition that:

For front loaded lots with a frontage less than 8.5 metres, functional layout plans must sufficiently show the provision of crossovers, canopy trees and service connections to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Where this cannot be shown, the lot frontage will need to be increased to 8.5 metres.

1. Mr Negri adds it should also require that the plan demonstrate compliance with requirement R40 (ensure sufficient separation between crossovers to allow for a minimum of one on-street car space for every two residential lots). His written evidence is that subject to this condition, the subdivision will accommodate sufficient canopy tree planting within the proposed public realm. Mr Negri further states that the proposal does not meet requirement R41 as there are lots with a width of 6 metres that do not have rear access. In his opinion, the allotments should be increased in width or should be rearranged to have access to a rear lane to satisfy the requirement. His evidence that refinements such as these are expected and can be addressed by permit conditions, as the officer's report states.
2. The applicant states that it does not oppose a related condition provided it affords to it the opportunity to resolve the issue with the Council in a refined manner. It is likely that rear access will not be required for lots with a direct outlook to the park or waterway. Those streetscapes accommodate residential development on one side of the road only, providing a degree of flexibility in terms of the location of street trees. The strict application of Standard C21 in clause 56 would result in a reduction in housing diversity and density by reducing the number of 6 metre wide lots.

1. Policy at clauses 15.01-3L and 15.01-1L-01 seeks to ensure that there is adequate space for canopy tree planting in private properties and within street reservations. It is relevant that the TNPSP adopts a different metric to Standard C21 in clause 56.05 which is 'Vehicle access to lots of 300 square metres or less in area and lots with a frontage of 7.5 metres or less should be provided via rear or side access lanes, places or streets'. The TNPSP expressly refers to the Wyndham City Street Tree Policy, Subdivision Landscape Works Standards and Specifications Manual. The 2021 Tree and Urban Forest Policy is an adopted Council document and is not cited in the 2022 amended TNPSP.
2. It is relevant that the responsible authority does not agree with the alternative approach being advanced by the applicant in relation to requirement R1. This is not determinative but carries significant weight.
3. The land budget[44] shows 97 lots are less than 8.5 metres wide:
   • 48 x terrace 21 metre deep lots with a width of 6-8 metres;
   • 13 x terrace 26 metre deep lots at 6 metres wide;
   • 15 x 13 terrace 25 metre deep lots at 6 metres wide;
   • 13 x terrace 26 metre deep lots at 8 metres wide;
   • 8 x terrace 28 metre deep lots at 6.5 metres wide.
4. This quantum is around 23% of all lots. Of those 97, over one quarter (26 lots) are not opposite a park or along the connector road. It is correct, as Mr Campbell observes, that these lots are opposite lots with wider frontages, however I am not satisfied that this will ensure relevant requirements and objectives are met.
5. Based on Mr Negri's evidence, there is a need for variations to the plan to achieve requirements R40 and R41.
6. I am not persuaded on the material presented that the relevant requirements are met with respect to the achievement of street tree requirements or that the alternative is properly known. With multiple changes required, there are uncertainties about the outcome when also having regard to other findings to which I refer in these reasons.

1. This matter arises from a 'without prejudice' permit condition that the 14.5 metre road abutting the local park be modified to 16 metres in width.

1. The relevant cross-section within the TNPSP for the local road network is the Local Access Street Level 1 (16m), which is cross-section 7.[45]

R48 - Design of all streets and arterial roads must give priority to the requirements of pedestrians and cyclists by providing:

• Footpaths of at least 1.5 metres on both sides of all streets and roads unless otherwise specified by the PSP.
• Shared paths or bicycle paths where shown on Plan 7 or specified by another requirement in the PSP.
• Safe and convenient crossing points of connector roads and local streets at all intersections and on key desire lines.
• ...

All to the satisfaction of the coordinating roads authority and the responsible authority.

R68 - Open space delivery

All public open space (where not otherwise provided via the DCP) must be finished to a standard that satisfies the requirements of the responsible authority prior to the transfer of the public open space to council, including but not limited to:

• ...
• Trees and other plantings (drought tolerant unless otherwise approved by Council)
• ...
• Construction of minimum 1.5m wide pedestrian paths around the perimeter of the reserve connecting and linking into any other surrounding paths or points of interest, except where shown as a shared path on Plan 7.

The road abutting the local park is 14.5 metres wide which results in the street footpath encumbering the open space and reducing the usable area by 1.5 metres for the entire length of the park. This is not consistent with Council position as parks must be unencumbered land as they are credited as part of the public open space contribution payments. This should be amended on the plans.

1. The applicant disagrees. It submits the subdivision implements a slow-speed and permeable road network that provides for connectivity to the planned rail station in accordance with the requirements of the TNPSP and integrates with adjoining land.
2. The applicant states that increasing the road width adjacent to the park is unnecessary. Ms Marshall references the relevant 16 metre TNPSP cross-section and highlights the accompanying notes, which expressly provide for a reduction in verge width where a road abuts open space.
3. Ms Marshall's evidence is that the practice of reducing the cross-section by the width of the 1.5 metre footpath is common practice throughout growth areas including Wyndham. The reduction in width does not compromise pedestrian connectivity or access to the open space, as paths will be provided within the park, connecting to local roads. It is preferable to locate paths of variable width within the open space rather than providing a linear footpath of 1.5 metres along the kerb. There are also no detrimental traffic or parking issues arising from the reduction in width.
4. Mr Negri comments in his written evidence about the Council officer's concern that the local park will likely be encumbered by the footpath of the neighbouring street given the proposed width of this street (14.5 metres). He states that the imposition of such a path will not compromise the amenity and useability of the open space.
5. The applicant has not challenged the point made in the officer's report with respect to encumbered land and public open space contributions.

1. While there may be various ways an acceptable layout can be achieved, it is relevant that the responsible authority does not accept the applicant's proposal and submissions and it is not satisfied on this aspect of the proposal. This carries significant weight having regard to the Note to the cross-section referring to Council consent, and requirement R48.
2. Despite the benefits of a wider shared pathway which are provided for in locations shown on Plan 7 of the TNPSP, the provision of a 1.5 metre wide path within the park is part of requirement R68. This type of layout can be observed around Tarneit.
3. Examples cited in evidence where 14.5 metres has been implemented include nearby in Style Way. Mr Rantino also drew attention to a different example where a Ministerial approval involved a 16 metre cross-section opposite open space. I note the examples are of differently configured open spaces compared with the proposal in this case where the park is elongated.
4. Objective O6 is to 'Establish a landscape of connecting canopies along streets, parks and waterways'. On the material presented, I accept the Council's position in this matter. The subdivision would require modifications to address it. However, with necessary changes to address other findings in these reasons, a different solution may be possible.

1. This matter arises in the context of discussions about the following 'without prejudice' permit condition with respect to the width of the waterway/ corridor.
2. The Council's position is that the waterway/corridor should be 50 metres wide:

Dimensioned constructed waterway outside of Railway Corridor to be 50m wide and include a maximum 3m wide shared pathway to each side. Demonstrate canopy tree planting to both sides within the waterway with 1.5m offset from the shared pathway and outside the hydraulic width.

1. The applicant relies on expert evidence in support of its position that 45 metres is sufficient and acceptable whereas the Council seeks 50 metres as set out in TNPSP Table 7 to which I refer below.

1. The parties refer to the following requirements and guideline:

REQUIREMENTS

R26 - Design and layout of waterway corridors and other encumbered open space must maximise the potential for the integration of recreation uses, utility infrastructure and stormwater quality treatment assets, where this does not conflict with the primary function of the land.

R54 - Development must meet or exceed best practice stormwater quality treatment standards prior to discharge to receiving waterways as outlined on Plan 8, unless otherwise approved by Melbourne Water and the responsible authority.

R55 - Where a waterway is shown as 'natural' on Plan 8, development works must:

• Not encroach past the waterway corridor defined in this PSP, unless otherwise agreed by the responsible authority and Melbourne Water.
• Minimise earthworks and impact on the existing landform of the waterway.
• Retain existing vegetation as part of waterway landscaping.

All to the satisfaction of Melbourne Water and the responsible authority.

R56 - Final design and boundary of constructed waterways, waterway corridors, retarding basins, stormwater quality treatment infrastructure and associated paths, boardwalks, bridges, and planting must be to the satisfaction of Melbourne Water and the responsible authority.

GUIDELINE

G36 - Streets should be the primary interface between development and waterways. Public open space and lots with a direct frontage may be provided as a minor component of the waterway interface. Where lots with direct frontage are provided, they should be set back up to 5.0 metres from the waterway corridor to provide pedestrian and service vehicle access to the satisfaction of Melbourne Water and the responsible authority

1. A 0.5 ha park is proposed adjacent to a waterway/drainage corridor. The Council seeks a 50 metre waterway corridor/reserve as set out in Table 7.
2. The applicant submits the proposed integrated water management design meets the requirements of the TNPSP and will ensure the delivery of a high amenity landscape asset to the local community.
3. The applicant relies on the evidence of Mr Holmes in relation to the proposal. Based on my questions at the hearing, Mr Holmes said the combined waterway/drainage corridor width is 45 metres.[46] As I understand it, broadly, the corridor allows for the waterway hydraulic width being the 1% AEP, plus 1.5 metre wide paths on either side and an extra 3 metres for plantings. Thus, the applicant says the outcomes sought for the waterway and corridor will be achieved.
4. Melbourne Water's referral response does not object to the permit and includes 16 permit conditions.[47] I do not recite them all. They include nos. 2 and 16 as follows:

Prior to the Certification of any stage of the estate, the Plan of Subdivision must show sufficiently sized easements and/or reserves to be created over any proposed Melbourne Water asset to our satisfaction. This may require submission of an appropriate functional design to the satisfaction of the traditional landowner(s), Melbourne Water and Council.

Prior to the endorsement of the Development Plan, any lot or design changes as recommended or required by the final Stormwater Management Strategy must be made to the proposed Development Plan to the written satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and Melbourne Water. While Melbourne Water offers in principal [sic] support for the Development Plan, it is expected that alterations will be required to be made to the proposed Development Plan to accommodate for the findings of the Stormwater Melbourne Water Management Strategy. Melbourne Water reserves the right to enforce these amendments as part of this condition of permit.

1. I note Mr Negri's evidence with respect to G36, for some lots on the east side of the waterway/drainage corridor.[48]

1. It is relevant that the responsible authority does not agree with the proposal being advanced by the applicant. This is not determinative but carries weight.
2. While a 45 metre wide corridor may provide an alternative to CW6, I am not satisfied the relevant requirement is met and changes would be required to the subdivision plan. This would not be a minor adjustment when also addressing other findings in these reasons.
3. Melbourne Water's condition 16, in my view, describes its in-principle position but gives rise to uncertainties and a lack of clarity as to expected alterations. The uncertainties may, or may not, have implications for the delivery of a waterway and corridor sought by the TNPSP. It is unclear if a wider corridor will be required at any point along the length of the reserve and the impact of any changes when combined with increased road reserves from the proposed width of 14.5 metres to 16 metres, as discussed above.

1. This matter arises through the Head, Transport for Victoria and its submission that there are too many crossovers that will interfere with the efficient movement of buses.

1. Concepts of the safe and efficient operation of emergency vehicles on all streets as well as buses on connector streets are within the TNPSP.[49]

1. The Head, Transport for Victoria, is concerned that the proposed road network will compromise the achievement of policy objectives relating to public transport, including in particular the objective of clause 18.02-3S relating to increasing the proportion of trips made by public transport. This is because the proposed layout contemplates the establishment of access points for 27 dwellings directly on the connector road. The authority states that there is a real risk that will interfere with the efficient movement of buses along the connector road and undermine the overall efficiency of the public transport network in this area.
2. Further, the authority says that it is not aware of any other new subdivision proposals of this scale which permit this number of direct access points between dwellings and a bus capable connector road which directly accesses a train station within the public transport network.
3. The applicant says the submissions lack any analysis or justification. There are no supporting documents and no analysis. The applicant further challenges the submissions through Ms Marshall's evidence. Ms Marshall refers to the short length of the connector road, its width and verges. She describes her expectations with respect to vehicle movement into and out of properties, taking into account her understanding that a bike path would be on the west side of the connector road. Her evidence is that delays or significant delays are unlikely given estimated vehicle movements as described in oral evidence at the hearing.
4. Ms Marshall also refers to other connector roads in the TNPSP where property access has been allowed.

1. Clause 56.06 - Public transport network detail objectives - are:

To provide for the safe, efficient operation of public transport and the comfort and convenience of public transport users.

To provide public transport stops that are accessible to people with disabilities.

Road alignment and geometry along bus routes should provide for the efficient, unimpeded movement of buses and the safety and comfort of passengers.

1. Clause 18.02-3S is a further policy referred to in submissions.
2. I note in passing that clauses 52.06-9 and 55.03-9 address (in part) vehicle access to roads in the TZ3, although neither is triggered in the current case.
3. There is no specific submission that the proposed cross-section is not bus capable. I accept the points made through expert evidence about vehicle crossings on connector roads in the TNPSP. The difference here is that the connector road leads to the new railway station including a four-way bus interchange. The connector road will have a role in this regard, although it is not an arterial road and the location of the bus interchange is not confirmed in any design that has been shown. The connector road has an applied zone of TZ3.
4. The Head, Transport for Victoria has proposed further negotiations on this matter as a permit condition. That is appropriate in association with modifications to address other matters identified in these reasons, by a fresh permit application.

1. The TNPSP provides a rail corridor and location for a future railway station. As indicated, the new railway station is now committed, funded and to be delivered within three years.

1. The Head, Transport for Victoria expresses concern that assumptions made in the traffic evidence about the future railway station may be wrong but there is no public concept plan and the design is not resolved. Mr Watters states that this warrants a precautionary approach.
2. The applicant says the submissions lack any analysis or justification. There are no supporting documents and no analysis. The applicant relies on the material presented through Ms Marshall's evidence, including that the proposed four bus stop interchange will likely be located on the northern side of the rail station in conjunction with the circular connector road around the proposed activity centre.
3. The timing of this permit application and confirmation that the railway station will proceed provide an opportunity to ensure that the development of the subject land and the new railway station can and will work in an orderly manner. Given my findings that the subdivision plan requires revisions and modifications to meet the requirements of the TNPSP, this may provide an opportunity for future co-ordination in planning and design.

1. This 20 metre wide corridor of land is addressed in Mr Campbell's evidence. He explains that proposed lots back onto the site's eastern boundary abutting the linear VicTrack land. He says this land is associated with the delivery of the future train station, for construction and:[50]

While this arrangement of lots backing onto this VicTrack reserve is acceptable, it will ultimately result in an awkward and unfortunate legacy resulting from the delivery of the future Train Station.

I understand that once the station has been developed, that VicTrack will dispose of the reserve, enabling the two 14.5m wide (east-west) aligned local streets to connect through to the neighbouring development and the rest of the reserve repurposed.

... I consider the provision of both Style Way and Friend Way to be sufficient to facilitate connection between these neighbourhoods.

...

In general, I find the provision of the 20m wide VicTrack reserve, to facilitate construction of future Train stations within growth areas (in a timely fashion) a necessary precaution, but one that has interim and legacy spatial imposts on the development of adjacent land, should the surrounding neighbourhood develop prior to the delivery of the Train station. In instances (such as this) where if the adjacent land seeks to develop in advance of the public transport infrastructure, I would advocate that the access to and construction of the station should occur via the established street network. This would enable the more seamless absorption of the VicTrack reserve into the layout of the new neighbourhood and a more efficient and integrated outcome. Avoiding any potential obvious legacies within the ultimate subdivision layout and street network.

I believe there are opportunities for both the applicant and the Department of Transport and Planning to collaborate and potentially enter into a land swap arrangement (in respect of the VicTrack reserve) and revise the layout of the eastern portion of the subdivision to a mutually beneficial outcome, now that there is a State Government commitment to deliver the new Train station in the near future.

1. Mr Campbell does not consider this to be an impediment to a permit issuing. He also states the overall subdivision layout is well conceived and appropriately responds to the site's various interfaces.
2. The matters raised in the evidence present an opportunity that could and should be explored, given my earlier findings that the subdivision plan requires revisions and modifications to meet the requirements of the TNPSP. Such an approach could potentially facilitate a more orderly outcome without legacy issues.

1. Even if I accepted requirement R7 is met, there are multiple matters that do not meet other TNPSP requirements. While a number might be addressed by refinements or adjustments through permit conditions, the cumulative outcome is uncertainty as to the final design and layout. Overlaid with my acceptance of the Council's submission that R7 is not met and cannot be resolved by conditions, no permit is granted.
2. As indicated, a review of the proposal including the subdivision layout will provide an opportunity to pursue co-ordination in the planning of the subject land and new Tarneit West/Davis Road railway station.

[1] Section 4(2)(d) of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 states a failure to make a decision is deemed to be a decision to refuse to make the decision.

[2] The submissions and evidence of the parties, supporting exhibits given at the hearing, and statements of grounds filed have all been considered in the determination of the proceeding. In accordance with the Tribunal's practice, not all of this material will be cited or referred to in these reasons. This includes submissions about a limited number of conditions filed with my leave after the hearing by the Council and applicant.

[3] Tribunal Book page reference (TB) TB565. The subject land is outlined in a red dashed line. The northern portion of the land is outlined in blue.

[4] The Tarneit North Precinct Structure Plan September 2014, amended May 2022.

[6] Extract from the plan at TB342. The red line is the boundary of DDO10 (not DPO10 as cited in the legend to the plan). The orange line depicts a sewer line.

[8] Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1987.

[9] Letter dated 16 November 2022, TB786.

[10] Section 98(1)(c) of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998.

[11] The election was on 26 November 2022.

[12] Section (98)(1)(c) of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998.

[13] Relevant scheme clauses are listed in the 'Information' section of these reasons.

[20] TB137, with additional aspects of the vision in section 2.1 of the TNPSP.

[21] Proposed Amendment C265 seeks to change this, as I refer to in these reasons.

[22] There are also new Precinct Structure Planning Guidelines, VPA, dating from October 2021.

[23] Such as the Town Centres & Employment Figure 1, TN144.

[24] TB584-585, Wyndham North Precinct Structure Plans Background Report June 2013.

[25] Wyndham North Precinct Structure Plans Background Report June 2013, section 3.3.2, page 12.

[26] Extract, Future Urban Structure Plan 2, TB136. The subject land is notionally outlined in red.

[28] Extract from Plan 7, with my arrow identifying the potential future station.

[30] I note that this is not shown or specified in the application plans.

[31] My highlight added to the extract from Table 2.

[32] Applicant's submission, paragraph 44, footnotes excluded.

[35] TB348. As the Council notes, some concepts show apartments straddling proposed lot boundaries.

[36] Such as through clauses 02.03-6, 11.01-1L, 11.03-1S, 16.01-1S, 16.01-1L and 18.02-3S.

1. [37] Under the heading PSP targets, T1 is - The PSP should facilitate increased densities with an average of 30 dwellings or more per Net Developable Hectare (NDHA) within: • 400m walkable catchment of an activity centre or train station • 50m of open space, (both credited and encumbered open space), boulevards and major public transport routes, including but not limited to the Principal Public Transport Network (PPTN) or similar.

[38] Such as using the appendix to Mr Negri's evidence, TB599. Mr Campbell's evidence is that this material should be relied on rather than other estimates by his firm - TB663-664.

[39] Although the three storey option includes a large expanse of surface parking, as Mr Rantino observes.

[40] I note Urbis is the author of a planning report that accompanied the permit application (4 March 2022) but this material does not appear to have formed part of the permit application. It is unclear to me whether R9 was met with respect to relevant information. I further note the planning report, in addressing R7, does not refer to the railway station.

[42] The Wyndham North Development Contributions Plan adopts the same metrics for medium and high density housing, at page 51. These are higher than 'conventional' housing which is defined as 'Housing with an average density of 10 to 15 dwellings per net developable hectare'.

[46] This dimension is not stated in the application plans. I note that cross-sections included in Mr Holmes' evidence (Appendix 3, TB751) are not drawn on a perpendicular alignment as discussed at the hearing, so that they variously depict different corridor widths.

[48] TB639 with respect to the width of the rear access to one group of lots. The Council and Melbourne Water do not appear to have taken any issue with the proposed 4.0 metre setback. This is, however, another dimension which is not marked on the plans.