Amend Development Plan Overlay Schedule 16, as shown in Appendix D, to:

a) revise Clause 2.0 to clarify that contamination of land includes landfill gas

b) require the Environmental Management Plan to include provisions for workers operating in any area at risk of landfill gas

c) replace the Environmental Assessments requirements with Landfill Gas Protection Measures

d) introduce requirements for Landfill Gas Protection Measures for buildings and works in confined spaces

e) revise the Environmental Audit Implementation to require a section 173 agreement if the environmental audit recommends requiring ongoing maintenance and/or monitoring.

The issue is whether the Amendment has appropriately considered and responded to odour impact on the subject land from the Knox Materials Recovery Centre.

The Knox Materials Recovery Centre is located at 251 George Street, Wantirna South.

The Amendment was informed by the Odour Assessment and proposes to apply BAO1 to the part of the subject land shown in Figure 3. The Odour Assessment found the risk ratings summarised in Table 6 and mapped the 350-metre contour (moderate risk area) as shown in Figure 4.

BAO1 requires an assessment of potential odour amenity impacts and seeks:

• To ensure that new land uses are compatible with the potential off-site odour impacts of the Materials Recovery Centre.
• To enable a range of uses subject to a planning permit and related odour assessments.

• The Odour Assessment appears to follow the methodology outlined in EPA's Guidance for Assessing Odour (Publication 1883), however:
  • - odour surveillance data was collected in 2020-2021 so is outdated
  • - meteorological inputs are based on 2020-2022 data, with additional historical Bureau of Meteorology data used to demonstrate consistency in prevailing conditions.
• Sensitive land uses should be prohibited in the 300-500 metre buffer area subject to further assessment.
• The modelling should be updated with the last five years of meteorological data as outlined in EPA's Guidance for Air Pollution Modelling (Publication 1957).
• The Amendment does not demonstrate how applying the Buffer Area Overlay has been supported by an adequate level of information.
• Planning Practice Note 92 (Managing buffers for land use compatibility) provides criteria to be met to provide a clearer strategic basis for applying the Buffer Area Overlay.
• The Odour Assessment has been completed but does not appear to have been prepared specifically to inform the Buffer Area Overlay.
• Buffer Area Overlay Schedule 1:
  • - requires a permit for sensitive land uses but does not prohibit them
  • - should be revised to remove the requirement to seek the views of EPA from the decision guideline at Clause 8.0 because EPA has already provided its position regarding risks associated with this interface.

• The only potential for negative odour is from the Knox Waste Transfer Station and Knox Materials Recovery Centre.
• The Amendment is supported by the Odour Assessment and Separation Distance Assessment.
• The Odour Assessment:
  • - categorised odours that are sometimes detected outside the Knox Materials Recovery Centre
  • - records the detailed modelling and field surveillance data.
• The 350-metre separation distance:
  • - is measured from the southern boundary of the Knox Materials Recovery Centre, where the low level risk reaches its greatest extent
  • - has informed the planning provisions that support the Amendment.
• MUZ3 and Buffer Area Overlay Schedule 1 are proposed to be applied in the odour risk area.
• The supplementary memorandum prepared by Mr Dawson (Separation Distance Assessment author) states:
  • - the field odour surveys completed in 2020 and 2021 were before the EPA Publication 1881 - Guidance for Field Odour Surveillance, and EPA Publication 1883 - Guidance for Assessing Odour
  • - the odour assessment is suitable to inform the Buffer Area Overlay and there is no reason to update it because meteorological conditions have not changed.

• The Buffer Area Overlay will:
  • - appropriately manage potential odours
  • - require a permit to use and develop land for sensitive land uses
  • - require a permit application to be accompanied by an Adverse Amenity Impact Assessment and to detail the layout and design measures to ensure the Materials Recovery Centre will not unreasonably impact the amenity of future occupants
  • - give effect to the air quality outcomes sought by Clauses 13.06-1S and 13.07-1S.
• MUZ3 will enable a greater range of non-sensitive uses if sensitive uses such as dwellings were potentially adversely affected by odours from the Knox Materials Recovery Centre north of Blind Creek.

The Proponent provided Buffer Area Overlay Schedule 1 (Version 1) which deleted the decision guideline seeking the views of the Environment Protection Authority.

The Committee has critically reviewed the approach to odour impact to determine whether it is based on relevant guidance, a sound methodology and will achieve the outcomes sought by EPA.

The Amendment is supported by a sound approach for investigating and responding to the odour issues, including the Odour Assessment. The Assessment's risk assessment methodology and matrix helped to determine that any sensitive land use within 350 metres of the odour source is likely to experience an offensive odour. The data observed over three years (2020-2022) resulted in a generally consistent 350-metre contour. This provides confidence, consistent with Mr Dawson's view, that further modelling is not needed to account for meteorological conditions since this data was collected.

The Odour Assessment shows most of the 350-metre moderate risk area outside of the subject land with a smaller portion in the north-east corner of the subject land. Buffer Area Overlay Schedule 1 has been mapped to conservatively follow the associated contour. This approach justifies the overlay's proposed mapping. While this may not follow the methodology sought by EPA, the Committee considers it will achieve the intended outcomes regarding compatibility between land uses.

The Committee acknowledges EPA's submission that Buffer Area Overlay Schedule 1 does not prohibit sensitive land uses. As acknowledged in the overlay's Statement of Risk, permitting a sensitive land use within 350 metres of the odour source may have a moderate impact on amenity. While this may not impact safety or human health, it may affect the ability to meet the overlay's objective to "ensure that new land uses are compatible with the potential off-site odour impacts of the Materials Recovery Centre".

However, Buffer Area Overlay Schedule 1 should be flexible enough to consider changing circumstances. For example, the Materials Recovery Centre may be redesigned or introduce new technology which reduces lowers the risk in parts of the odour buffer area.

In current circumstances, Buffer Area Overlay Schedule 1 includes suitable provisions to ensure that potential odour impacts are assessed before deciding whether it is appropriate to enable a certain sensitive land use within 350 metres of the odour buffer area.

The Committee agrees with EPA's request to remove the decision guideline "The views of the Environment Protection Authority". Of note, the Practitioner's Guide states:

Decision guidelines must not include informal referral requirements. Only referral comments required under section 55 of the Act may be included as a decision guideline.

The Amendment does not propose to revise Clause 66.04 Schedule to specify EPA as a referral authority for BAO1.

• The Amendment has appropriately considered and responded to odour impact on the subject land from the Knox Materials Recovery Centre.
• The Buffer Area Overlay Schedule 1 mapping is justified by being aligned beyond the 350- metre area where there is moderate risk of an offensive odour.

Amend Buffer Area Overlay Schedule 1 to not require the views of the Environment Protection Authority in the decision guidelines (Clause 8.0).

The issue is whether the Amendment has appropriately considered and responded to geotechnical issues.

The subject land includes two quarry pits. The quarrying activities have been completed in the north-west pit and is 90 per cent remediated with fill for the proposed development. Quarrying is still occurring in the south-east pit under a lease which enables the subject land to be used as a quarry for brick production until 2027.

The Amendment was informed by the Geotechnical Strategy. DPO16 requires the following condition be applied to any permit:

A Geotechnical Assessment prepared by a suitably qualified professional to the satisfaction of the responsible authority. The assessment must be endorsed prior to the commencement of works.

• Relied on the Geotechnical Strategy Document prepared by Golder Associates Pty Ltd dated 8 May 2024 (Geotechnical Strategy).
• The Geotechnical Strategy includes the relevant geotechnical specifications for the earthworks depending on the nature of the proposed construction.
• For example, the specifications for areas to be developed for residential and associated road and civil infrastructure differ from those for areas to be developed for open space.
• Further advice was sought from Mr Colls of WSP on matters raised in Council's submission relating to:
  • - the Geotechnical Strategy needing to be certified a qualified professional before works start
  • - potential underground gas migration matters as this may have the effect of impacting compaction conditions.

Mr Colls provided further advice in a memorandum dated 10 October 2025 stating:

• The Geotechnical Assessment will be undertaken in accordance with Australian Standard AS3798 - Guidelines for Earthworks for Commercial and Residential Developments.
• The Standard includes a process for approval using the nomenclature of a 'statement of compliance'.
• There is no need to cross-reference Australian Standard AS3798 in DPO16 as it is sufficient that the Geotechnical Assessment is prepared to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority as part of any planning permit that allows subdivision or buildings and works.
• In practice, when considering a subdivision permit the responsible authority, can consider whether the Geotechnical Assessment confirms that the remediation is suitable for the proposed use and whether permit conditions are necessary for further works as required or recommended by the Geotechnical Assessment.

• Having commissioned Tonkin & Taylor to independently assess the Geotechnical Strategy, it supported the Geotechnical Strategy that has been prepared for the purposes of the Amendment.
• Consistent with other similar sites, it sought to ensure that, geotechnical issues are addressed comprehensively and that robust settlement performance criteria are in place, before there are buildings and works for urban development.
• Based on similar matters, the approach includes:
  • the preparation of a background geotechnical study or report, which provides a sound methodology explaining the approach, filling specifications, fill process, monitoring, reporting and survey requirements and the like;
  • a mechanism, through the relevant planning control, which requires:
    • - a Geotechnical Report, as a clause 4.0 requirement of a development plan, outlining the proposed design response to geotechnical issues affecting the development plan area (similar to Ms Ring's recommendation in her expert evidence statement);
    • - a Geotechnical Assessment, as a clause 3.0 condition of a permit, which confirms the suitability of the filled area for the anticipated uses (similar to what the Proponent has included in its 'Day 1' DPO16, at clause 3.0); and
    • - a section 173 agreement regarding the performance of the filled land, particularly in circumstances where filled land is proposed to be transferred to the Council as community infrastructure (as is the case here, in respect of the Active Open Space land, as well as potentially future local parks).
• Accepted Mr Colls' explanation in his memorandum (10 October 2025) of the relevant terminology in Australian Standard AS3798 referring to 'Statement of Compliance' not 'certification'.
• Accepted the revised wording in DPO16 (Version 1) which refers to a Geotechnical Assessment which "confirms the suitability of the filled area for the anticipated uses".

The DPO16 requirements for the Geotechnical Assessment to confirm the suitability of the filled area for the anticipated uses are appropriate and sufficient. They will ensure that the appropriate technical assessment occurs so that the subject land is filled to the appropriate standard for the intended use of those areas.

• appropriate to use the wording in Australian Standard AS3798 - Guidelines for Earthworks for Commercial and Residential Developments referring to 'Statement of Compliance' not 'certification'
• there is no need to cross-reference Australian Standard AS3798 in DPO16 as it is sufficient that the Geotechnical Assessment is prepared to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority as part of any planning permit that allows subdivision or buildings and works.

• The Development Plan Overlay Schedule 16 provisions that require the Geotechnical Assessment to confirm the suitability of the filled area for the anticipated uses are appropriate and sufficient.
• There is no need to refer to Australian Standard AS3798 in Development Plan Overlay Schedule 16 because Clause 3.0 includes 'Statement of Compliance' rather than 'Certification' for consistency with that standard.

Amend Development Plan Overlay Schedule 16, as shown in Appendix D to:

a) require a Geotechnical Assessment in Clause 3.0 for any areas that have previously been filled to confirm suitability for the anticipated uses

b) include new 'Geotechnical works and Council infrastructure' requirements in Clause 3.0.

The issue is whether the Amendment has appropriately considered and responded to fire risk.

The subject land is in a declared Bushfire Prone Area. The Bushfire Management Overlay does not apply to the subject land. Planning Scheme Clause 13.02-1S (Bushfire planning) seeks:

To strengthen the resilience of settlements and communities to bushfire through risk-based planning that prioritises the protection of human life.

• a Bushfire Management Plan that address matters related to:
  • - permanent and interim bushfire hazards
  • - subdivision design and approach to lot layout
  • - land outside the residential development area with a permanent bushfire hazard adjoining the development
• the Construction Management Plan to address the requirements of the Bushfire Management Plan, if applicable
• the Site Context Analysis and Design Response Report to consider bushfire requirements in its landscape design approach.

• Bushfire risks can be adequately managed when developing the subject land.
• DPO16 Clause 3.0 requires a subdivision application to include a Bushfire Management Plan.
• The Bushfire Management Plan recognises the subject land's intended staged development by including requirements on an interim and ultimate basis.
• The Amendment is supported by the Landscape Masterplan that explains:
  • - areas of existing and proposed vegetation in the Parklands will need to be subject to ongoing management
  • - bushfire management setbacks range from 19 metres to 48 metres in response to bushfire risk.

• Agreed with the Landscape Risk Assessment, being Type 2, and the broader bushfire risk assessments presented in the Bushfire Report.
• A fire from the broader landscape and from within the Dandenong Valley Parklands landscape is possible and would likely impact the subject land with ember attack and radiant heat.

• Clause 13.02-1S seeks that proposals demonstrate access to low fuel areas, including appropriate access.
• The Bushfire Report indicates that policy can be met, relying on the existing road network that is well established and can provide the safe movement of vehicles.
• The proposed road layout demonstrates an ability to connect to the existing road network, providing the safe movement and access of vehicles needed during an emergency.
• Attempts have been made to seek a southern aspect access route.
• A southern access route would benefit traffic movement during an emergency, and would be supported by the Country Fire Authority.
• Revegetation and vegetation management along the road network must not increase the risk of bushfire impacts due to elevated fuel loads.
• Residential roadside parking has caused issues in new subdivisions when firefighting appliances have had difficulty responding to structure fires.
• Road and parking should be designed to cater for the increasing number of resident vehicles.
• Perimeter roads need to be provided within the subject land between identified hazard vegetation and future development.
• The road width of the suggested perimeter roads need to be clarified because some perimeter roads shown in the development design images on the western edge of the residential interface are not as wide as other perimeter roads.

• Clause 13.02-1S requires radiant heat benchmarks to be achieved at the subject land.
• The Bushfire Report suggests that development can occur to achieve radiant heat benchmarks of no greater than 12.5kW per square metre.
• The Country Fire Authority supported the recommendation for setbacks, provision of defendable space and bushfire protection measures.
• Vegetation creep into the setback areas impacts on the Bushfire Assessment Level of the concerned properties and reduces the defendability determined during planning.
• Clear and visible ongoing marking of the defendable space area was recommended to prevent any future vegetation creep.
• Native vegetation and integration of parklands to the urban edge need to be balanced with intensification of the fuel loads and bushfire risk to the community.
• These areas need to be managed and maintained so that bushfire risk does not increase over time.
• There needs to be early discussion and development of vegetation planting and management plans because the greatest opportunities for bushfire safety outcomes occur with plant species selection and landscaping layout at the earliest stages of subdivision and lot design.
• The Country Fire Authority and Council have the power to manage revegetation in setbacks to resolve any bushfire hazard issues.

• Vulnerable community infrastructure (child care, residential aged care) needs to be in areas with low bushfire risk and easy access.

DEECA submission - the Development Plan Stage 1 should ensure defendable space is located outside future Crown land through bushfire management updates in section 5.

• The first paragraph under 'Bushfire Management Plan' in DPO16 Clause 3.0 should be replaced with:

A permit for residential subdivision or buildings and works must contain a permit condition that, prior to the commencement of the subdivision or buildings and works, the landowner must prepare and submit for the responsible authority's approval a bushfire management plan. The bushfire management plan must contain the following requirements to the satisfaction of the responsible authority:

• The area is bushfire prone but no provision has been made for evacuation routes, places of last resort or a clear emergency evacuation plan.
• There may be thousands of cars seeking to flee along a blocked Nortons Lane.
• There is risk in upgrading Nortons Lane because it is in a bushfire prone setting.

• The Bushfire Report has effectively assessed all strategies listed in the Clause 13.02-1S policy.
• When completed, development will include large areas with a Bushfire Attack Level Low rating (12.5 kW/m2).
• Some risk will be present within 100 metres, and this is managed through setbacks and the requirement to construct the dwellings to meet Australian Standard AS3959:2018.
• The DPO16 bushfire mitigation measures and Landscape Masterplan setback requirements are suitable.
• The Bushfire Prone Area footprint will reduce when development responds to reduced bushfire hazard.
• The management of bushfire risk is effective and will provide options for the future occupants to shelter on the subject land or leave early along the new and existing roads.

The Proponent relied on Mr Potter's evidence. It provided DPO16 (Version 2) which revised the Landscape Masterplan requirements so that details on how landscaping responds to bushfire management include using the vegetation descriptions set out in Australian Standard AS3959: 2018.

The declared Bushfire Prone Area applies to most of Victoria including the subject land. At the strategic planning phase, there needs to be assurance through risk-based planning that the Amendment will enable development that prioritises human life when new residents arrive. More detailed considerations will be relevant during the permit application stage.

Future development needs to respond to the subject land's context - its location next to the Dandenong Valley Parklands and its limited access points.

The Committee accepts Mr Potter's evidence on this matter. The Bushfire Report has effectively assessed strategies in Clause 13.02-1S to demonstrate that a Bushfire Attack Level Low rating (12.5 kW/m2) can be achieved in the future settlement area. The report's findings and direction have been faithfully translated into DPO16 and the Development Plan to help guide future applications and decisions regarding bushfire management. For example, Figures 31 and 32 in the Development Plan identify vegetation such as forest, woodland, scrub and grassland to be avoided at different distances within the setbacks. The ultimate perimeter road alignment and widths can be determined during the detailed design stage of the process.

The Bushfire Report and Mr Potter's evidence did not identify scenarios that resembled those raised in submissions from members of the community. Scenarios raised in submissions were more akin to a major industrial explosion or conditions in areas during Black Saturday which do not exist here. The suite of existing and proposed bushfire provisions and assessments will ensure that matters such as evacuation, setback and vegetation are appropriately considered, planned and implemented. It is more likely:

• these measures will help to avoid (or minimise the extent) a bushfire from entering the residential area
• residents on the subject land and surrounds would have sufficient notice to evacuate over time, if needed.

The Committee prefers Council's wording for the Bushfire Management Plan requirements in DPO16 Clause 3.0. This clause is for specifying conditions and requirements for permits. The exhibited and subsequent versions of DPO16 includes permit application requirements which are not enabled by the parent DPO provisions. Council's drafting enables the bushfire requirements to be retained as a permit condition rather than deleting them from DPO16.

Requiring the Landscape Masterplan to include vegetation descriptions set out in Australian Standard AS3959:2018 would help simply future processes. As advised in Planning Practice Note 64, this standard "uses vegetation type and the slope of the land to determine minimum distances between a bushfire hazard and new development".

In line with the Proponent's submission, the Committee considers that bushfire risk can be adequately managed when developing the subject land.

• The Amendment has appropriately considered and responded to bushfire risk.
• Development Plan Overlay Schedule 16 would benefit from requiring the Landscape Masterplan to use descriptions set out in Australian Standard AS3959:2018.

Amend Development Plan Overlay Schedule 16, as shown in Appendix D, to:

a) revise 'Bushfire Management Plan' in Clause 3.0 to translate the application requirement into a permit condition requirement

b) require the Landscape Masterplan in Clause 4.0 to refer to vegetation descriptions set out in Australian Standard AS3959:2018.

The issue is whether the exhibited Integrated Water Management Plan requirements proposed for DPO16 are appropriate.

• The Proponent relied on the evidence of Ms Barich who opined that 'the site meets the stormwater targets required for development'.

• Melbourne Water generally supports Amendment C194knox and the 'Day 1' version of DPO16 includes many improvements to the consideration of flood risk and Blind Creek impacts.

The Committee considers that the requirements for the Integrated Water Management Plan in DPO16 appropriately provide for an assessment of the impact of the development on waterway health. No party submitted that the development with its planned wetlands and waterway improvements is likely to adversely impact on waterway health.

The Committee concludes that the requirements for the Integrated Water Management Plan in Development Plan Overlay Schedule 16 are appropriate.

The issue is whether the Amendment has appropriately considered and responded to flooding risk.

The Amendment was informed by the Floodplain Assessment. DPO16 requires an integrated water management plan.

• The Land Subject to Inundation Overlay should remain in the development pad areas.
• There is concern about impact on existing and altered flooding extent from two Dandenong Creek and Blind Creek.
• A large part of the subject land is currently subject to high depths of flooding.
• The previous quarry extraction works could have altered the floodplain which needs to be considered when running new flood modelling.
• Waterway crossings are to comply with Melbourne Water guidelines:

Pedestrian bridges unable to be located above the 10 per cent annual exceedance probability (AEP) level must have safety measures, such as a flood response plan, boom gates and signage.

• - Road crossings require the underside of the bridge beam to be at least 600 millimetres above the 1 per cent Average Recurrence Interval (ARI).
• - Sewer and water mains with the relevant guidelines.

• Melbourne Water will not be responsible for wetlands and waterbodies which service catchments less than 60 hectares.
• Requested inclusion of two additional dot points in the requirements for the Integrated Transport Management Plan in Clause 4.0 of DPO16 as follows:
  • - all pedestrian and cycle shared path network within the floodplain must comply with the 'Shared Pathways Guidelines' (Melbourne Water, 2009)
  • - all road, pedestrian and cycle shared paths that cross over Blind Creek must comply with the 'Constructing Waterway Crossings' (Melbourne Water, May 2011) and the 'Shared Pathways Guidelines' (Melbourne Water, 2009)
• Requested that Melbourne Water's view be sought in preparing the Construction Management Plan referred to in Clause 3.0 of DPO16.

• Drainage and flooding have been appropriately resolved, relying on the evidence of Ms Barich that:
  • - The developable areas of the subject land will be set above the 1 per cent AEP flood levels, with safe access provided via Nortons Lane and George Street.
  • - The proposed development is not subject to any flooding risk.
  • - The development of the subject land will not have any noticeable increases to the peak flows or volumes in a 1% AEP storm event in the Dandenong Creek downstream of the subject land.
  • - There is no need for retardation of flows from the North-West Residential Area.
  • - Floodplain storage will increase by 45,600m3 as a result of bulk earthworks.
• Did not accept Melbourne Water's dot point that "all pedestrian and cycle shared path network within the floodplain must comply with the 'Shared Pathways Guidelines' (Melbourne Water, 2009)" as the only paths within the floodplain are those to be provided in the additional Dandenong Valley Parklands which are not subject to DPO16.

The Committee is satisfied that drainage and flooding issues have been appropriately resolved and that Melbourne Water's issues can be adequately resolved at detailed planning and approvals stages. The Committee supports reference in DPO16 that Melbourne Water's views be sought on the Construction Management Plan and for the Integrated Transport Management Plan and to require road, pedestrian and cycle shared paths that cross over Blind Creek to comply with the relevant Melbourne Water Guidelines. The Committee accepts the Proponent's submission that there is no need to include reference to the Guidelines for areas that are not included in DPO16.

The Committee concludes the Amendment, including requirements for the Integrated Water Management Plan in Development Plan Overlay Schedule 16 appropriately consider and respond to drainage and flooding issues.

Amend Development Plan Overlay Schedule 16, as shown in Appendix D, to:

a) include in the Construction Management Plan requirements in Clause 3.0 that in preparing the Construction Management Plan the views of Melbourne Water must be sought

b) require the Construction Management Plan to include the anticipated location of:

• all internal access tracks and machinery/plant locations including distances from any waterway
• spoil stockpiling and laydown areas including distances from any waterway

1. require the Integrated Transport Management Plan requirements in Clause 4.0 to include the road crossover for Blind Creek and how regard has been had to the 'Constructing Waterway Crossings' (Melbourne Water, May 2011) and the 'Shared Pathways Guidelines' (Melbourne Water, 2009) in its design, unless otherwise agreed in writing by Melbourne Water.

The Amendment was informed by the Traffic Assessment.

• An ITMP that includes:
  • - an assessment of the expected traffic impact generated by the development on the existing and future road network and any required reasonable mitigation measures
  • - a statement explaining how the integrated transport network addresses the strategic directions in the Knox Liveable Streets Plan 2012-2022
  • - an indicative road, bicycle, and pedestrian network plan
• a traffic assessment that includes traffic linked / network modelling of future conditions predicated on a distribution analysis of generated traffic. It must have regard to, among other things:
  • - the ITMP
  • - the nature and breakup of residential trip purposes
  • - the current surrounding network
  • - the impact on nearby intersections
• the Master Plan to note the land use intensity must not be inconsistent with the ITMP.

The issue is whether the modelling for the High Street Road and Nortons Lane intersection signalisation is appropriate.

• Signalising the High Street Road and Nortons Lane intersection as part of the staged development is supported.
• The modelling has not allowed for the traffic generation from the Jenkins Orchard site (located on the north side of High Street Road which has an active planning application for residential subdivision) or any traffic growth on High Street Road.
• The SIDRA analysis is compromised by showing 100 per cent use of the westbound left / through lane, as:
  • - this reduces the capacity for adjacent lanes
  • - there will be a substantially higher degree of saturation for the traffic conditions identified with Stage 1 and the ultimate development than what is reflected in the SIDRA results.
• The Integrated Transport Management Plan (ITMP) shows:
  • - traffic conditions for Stage 1 revised to include traffic generated by the Jenkins Orchard development and account for traffic growth along High Street Road - the intersection needs to perform satisfactorily for at least 10 years from the development completion of Stage 1
  • - revised SIDRA models to account for the westbound left / through lane reduced use
  • - the 'ultimate conditions' SIDRA models revised so there is adequate land for the 'ultimate' intersection.

• Supported the Amendment subject to:
  • - network modelling to show the impact of increased traffic on High Street Road resulting from the development on the safe and efficient operation of the EastLink/High Street Road interchange
  • - traffic linked/network microsimulation modelling should be undertaken before the Development Plan is approved - not at the planning permit stage as included in DPO16.

• All experts agreed that:
  • - the road network does not have an existing road safety issue
  • - traffic generation and distribution assumptions are reasonable
  • - traffic distribution assumptions would be revised through Development Plan controls
  • - SIDRA network modelling is an appropriate tool and that Head, TfV will decide on the appropriate tool at the time the modelling is done
  • - detailed modelling is appropriate to be done at the Development Plan stage.
• Mr Sellars noted that the distribution of traffic on High Street Road could be explored further at the Development Plan stage with the Development Plan control as proposed by Head, TfV.
• Mr Walley agreed with the traffic distribution splits adopted by Mr Walsh and Head, TfV.
• Mr Walley stated the network, and linked model should include High Street Road between George Street, the EastLink interchange and Cathies Lane.

• The traffic modelling required for the Development Plan must be robust and appropriately scoped.
• Relied on Mr Walley's evidence.
• The George Street High Street Road intersection must be assessed as part of a linked / network model that includes the EastLink Interchange and Cathies Lane intersections given the proximity of these intersections, observed queue interactions and the coordination of signals along High Street Road.
• This modelling may be deferred to a subsequent development plan stage as upgrades by others (Jenkins orchard and state basketball centre) are in train and will inform the network baseline.
• The experts agreed that the Nortons Lane/High Street Road intersection does not need to be included in the linked model.
• Head, TfV in the traffic joint expert report reiterated its view that the network model ought to include Nortons Lane.
  • Endorsed Mr Walley's opinion that ITMP provisions in DPO16 (Version 1) should be amended to include the 'and local road network' after 'the arterial network' as shown underlined below, noting that Mr Walsh had no issue with the suggested change:

An assessment of the expected impact of traffic generated by the development on the existing and future road network and any reasonable mitigation measures required to address identified issues, any traffic implications of staging of development as contemplated in the Development Plan, including triggers of provision of connections to the arterial network and local road network and implementation of any mitigation works to the satisfaction of the road authority and the responsible authority.

• Agreed with Mr Walley that "[t]o limit future traffic volumes on Nortons Lane to those expected for a connector street, connection to George Street should be required at the time of, or before, delivery of the 700th dwelling within the Amendment area".
• This will avoid placing any undue strain on the singular access point to the North West Development Area, whether that be Nortons Lane or an alternate route.

• Supported the Proponent's wording of DPO16 which requires:

traffic linked/network modelling using industry recognised traffic modelling software to the satisfaction of the responsible authority and the Head Transport for Victoria.

• Modelling to include the Eastlink Interchange in a network with George Street.
• The extent of the future modelling should be determined with Head TfV at the Development Plan stage.

• Relied on Mr Walsh's evidence.
• Did not oppose revising the Clause 4.0 requirement to reference the EastLink / High Street Road Interchange modelling.

Like the traffic experts, the Committee agrees that the traffic generation and distribution assumptions are reasonable, that SIDRA network modelling is an appropriate tool and that Head, TfV will decide on the appropriate tool at the time the modelling is done. There is the opportunity for the distribution of traffic and traffic distribution assumptions on High Street Road to be explored further through the proposed Development Plan provisions. This detailed modelling is appropriate to be done at the Development Plan stage.

The Committee agrees with the traffic experts that Nortons Lane/High Street Road intersection can be modelled as a 'stand-alone' intersection and does not need to be included in the network model relating to the George Street/High Street Road intersection and the High Street Road/EastLink Interchange. As a minimum, the network modelling should include George Street / High Street Road intersection and the EastLink / High Street Road Interchange. Whether Cathies Lane / High Street Road intersection is to be included in the network model is a matter to be determined by Head, TfV. The Committee accepts the drafting of DPO16 to include "any other intersections reasonably required to the satisfaction of the responsible authority and the Head, Transport for Victoria."

• It is appropriate to undertake detailed traffic modelling at the Development Plan stage, with the Head, Transport for Victoria to decide the appropriate network modelling tool.
• Nortons Lane/High Street Road intersection can be modelled as a 'stand-alone' intersection and does not need to be included in the network model relating to the George Street/High Street Road intersection and the High Street Road/EastLink Interchange.
• Head, Transport for Victoria should determine the intersections to be included in the modelling of the George Street/High Street Road intersection and the High Street Road/EastLink Interchange.

Amend Development Plan Overlay Schedule 16, as shown in Appendix D, to:

a) revise the traffic assessment requirements for the North-West Development Area and other development areas in Clause 3.0

b) revise the Integrated Transport Management Plan requirements in Clause 4.0

c) require any other intersections to the satisfaction of the responsible authority and the Head, Transport for Victoria.

5.3 EastLink/High Street Road interchange and George Street intersection

The issue is whether the extent and timing of the modelling for the George Street/High Street Road intersection and the EastLink/High Street Road interchange (the Interchange) is appropriate.

• The current performance of the Interchange is acceptable.
• Introducing traffic generated from the proposed development, coupled with anticipated growth generated from other developments including, Jenkins Orchard and the State Basketball Centre, will result in significant queuing to the Interchange on High Street Road.
• The extent of this impact cannot be determined without a network model.
• Supported the Amendment subject to network modelling to show the impact of increased traffic on High Street Road resulting from the development on the safe and efficient operation of the Interchange.

• All experts agreed:
  • - the Proponent is responsible for upgrading the George Street/High Street Road intersection, not the Interchange
  • - modelling needs to define the extent of the required intersection upgrade at George Street
  • - the level of works will be determined at the Development Plan stage
  • - the Nortons Lane/High Street Road intersection does not need to be part of a network model.

• Mr Walsh stated:
  • - the network and linked model should include High Street Road between George Street and the EastLink interchange (as a minimum)
  • - SIDRA cycle times at George Street/High Street Road intersection will be a refinement of the modelling at the Development Plan stage.
• Mr Sellars stated:
  • - SIDRA cycle times at George Street/High Street Road intersection are matters to be resolved at the Development Plan stage
  • - he agreed with Head, TfV regarding cycle times and the need to include the pedestrian crossing on the east approach
  • - the network model should include High Street Road/George St signalised intersection and EastLink interchange (as a minimum)
  • - it would be helpful if Cathies Lane was included in the modelling but will defer to Head, TfV
  • - modelling for the George Street/High Street Road intersection needs to appropriately consider the downstream impacts from the High Street Road /George St signalised intersection towards EastLink
  • - the Proponent is not responsible for works to deliver a third lane on High Street Road through the intersection.
• Mr Walley stated the network, and linked model should include High Street Road between George Street, the Interchange and Cathies Lane.

• Relied on Mr Walley's evidence and the traffic joint expert report.
• The George Street / High Street Road intersection must be assessed as part of a linked / network model that includes the Interchange and Cathies Lane intersections, given the proximity of these intersections, observed queue interactions, and the coordinated operation of signals along High Street Road.
• This modelling may be deferred to a subsequent Development Plan stage, as upgrades by others (Jenkins Orchard and State Basketball Centre) are in train and will inform the network baseline.
• Acknowledged that experts agree that the Nortons Lane / High Street Road intersection does not need to be included in the linked model due to its distance from the George Street signal and the absence of coordinated operation.
• Acknowledged the Department of Transport and Planning (DTP), in the traffic joint expert report, has reiterated its view that the network model ought to include Nortons Lane.

• Relied on Mr Walsh's evidence, noting that developing the subject land will require only a partial change to the George Street / High Street Road intersection as the intersection is planned to be upgraded by the Jenkins Orchard development the precise nature of the upgrade is not certain at this time.
• Network modelling should only be required when a specific development plan provides for access to a particular intersection.
• The North West Development Area will not provide access to George Street so network modelling of the George Street intersection should not be required until access is proposed to George Street.

Modelling of the George Street / High Street Road intersection and the Interchange is necessary to assess the impact of the development on these intersections. It is appropriate for the Head, TfV to determine the appropriate modelling tool and the scope of the modelling at the time of the assessment, based on the Transport Modelling Guidelines applicable at the time.

It is reasonable that network modelling is not required until a specific development plan is proposing access to a particular intersection.

The George Street / High Street Road intersection is to be upgraded as part of the State Basketball Centre and the Jenkins Orchard development north of High Street Road. The extent of works required by the proposed development needs to be assessed after the current planned upgrades of the intersection are complete. Access from the development to George Street is not proposed until development of the South East Development Area starts.

• Modelling of the George Street / High Street Road intersection and the EastLink / High Street Road interchange is necessary to determine the impact of development on these intersections.
• Modelling should be done when planning development of the South East Development Area and consider existing and proposed upgrades to the George Street / High Street Road intersection due to the State Basketball Centre and the Jenkins Orchard development north of High Street Road.
• Head, Transport for Victoria should determine the appropriate modelling tool and the scope of the modelling at the time of the assessment.

Amend the Development Plan Overlay Schedule 16, as shown in Appendix D, to revise the 'Integrated Transport Management Plan' requirements in Clause 4.0.

5.4 Nortons Lane and High Street Road intersection

The issue is whether the Nortons Lane and High Street Road intersection is appropriately planned for the traffic projected to be generated by the proposed development.

• The ITMP indicates over 700 vehicles accessing this lane in the morning peak and the west bound bus stop at this location may affect the efficiency and safety of the operation of the arterial road.
• Providing a pedestrian crossing only along the west approach:
  • - will require users from the Stage 1 Development area to cross three signalised pedestrian crossings to access the existing bus stop for east bound services
  • - may induce some pedestrians to cross on the eastern side without signals.
• A pedestrian crossing to the eastern side of the intersection should be considered.
• To address concerns and enhance intersection performance, the intersection layout included in the ITMP should be revised, subject to further SIDRA analysis, to:
  • - include an additional pedestrian crossing on the east approach (High Street Road)
  • - extend the westbound kerbside shared/through lane, potentially up to 250 metres
  • - relocate the westbound bus stop to the departure side of the intersection.

• All experts agreed that:
  • - Nortons Lane/High Street Road intersection does not need to be part of a network model
  • - the new concept plan has pedestrian crossings on all legs of the intersection.
  • - the intersection can accommodate the projected traffic
  • - the intersection design requires some refinements to provide for relocation of the bus stop to the western side of Nortons Lane
  • - the intersection design can be addressed at the planning permit stage
  • - the intersection will be required to be signalised before the statement of compliance for Stage 1 of the North West Development Area and the ultimate upgrade would be delivered (no staging of works).
• Mr Walsh did not agree that the eastern crossing needs to be a shared path.
• Mr de Waard shared the Head, TfV's position that the westbound bus stop will need to move to the departure side and indented.
• The length of third lane will need to be reviewed on both approach and departure (including lane use).
• The length of the Bushy Park turn lanes will need to be reviewed at Development Plan stage.
• Mr Sellars noted that the latest modelling now showed pedestrian crossings on all approaches and was satisfied that Head, TfV's concerns regarding design changes to the intersection had been addressed.

ConnectEast relied on Mr Sellars' evidence in which he queried the 100 per cent use of the third westbound (through and left turn) lane and expressed concerns that the original ITMP removed the pedestrian crossing.

• Relied on Mr Walley's evidence.
• Supported the joint traffic experts' and Head, TfV position that the intersection should be completed before the first statement of compliance for the North West Development Area is issued.
• Modelling of the High Street Road / Nortons Lane intersection needs to be reviewed with respect to matters such as tapering, the length of left and right-turn lanes, bus stop locations, shared path connections and signal phasing.
• Further modelling may show the need to extend the departure lane to the west, potentially extending works into the embankment area to the south of High Street Road.
• The Nortons Lane / High Street Road intersection should be signalised before Statement of Compliance for Stage 1 of development in the North West Development Area.

• Relied on Mr Walsh's evidence.
• In response to the joint traffic expert report, the upgrade of the Nortons Lane/High Street Road intersection should be completed before the first dwelling is occupied.
• The Nortons Lane / High Street Road intersection can operate at a satisfactory level, having regard to the conservative assumptions that underpin his Ultimate Model.
• Agreed with Head, TfV's recommended changes to the intersection design to align with the layout shown in the exhibited Traffic Impact Assessment.
• The intersection upgrade to occur before any dwelling in the North West Development Area is occupied.
• The Nortons Lane/ High Street Road intersection has been appropriately planned, and further refinements may be made (or required) at the permit application stage.

The Committee agrees with the traffic experts that the Nortons Lane/High Street Road intersection does not need to be included in the network model relating to the George Street/High Street Road intersection and the High Street Road/EastLink Interchange as it is sufficiently distant to not depend on the operation of these intersections to the east.

The Committee agrees with the Proponent that the Nortons Road/High Street Road intersection should be constructed before the first dwelling in the North West Development Area is occupied. This is because there can be considerable time (up to 18 months) between when the statement of compliance for the subdivision is issued and when the first dwelling is occupied. It would be unreasonable to require the intersection to be constructed so far in advance of it being required.

The Committee concludes the Nortons Lane/High Street Road intersection:

• can accommodate the traffic estimated to be generated by the development
• can have its design refined during the planning permit stage
• needs to be completed before the first dwelling in the North West Development Area is occupied.

Amend Development Plan Overlay Schedule 16, as shown in Appendix D, to include the following Integrated Transport Management Plan requirement in Clause 4.0:

For any development plan in the North-West Development Area as shown on Figure 1 to this Schedule, the upgrade of the intersection of Nortons Lane and High Street Road before the first dwelling in the North-West Development Area in occupied.

• whether Nortons Lane can safely manage future traffic volumes
• whether there should be pedestrian access on both sides of Nortons Lane.

Nortons Lane is shown on the Development Plan as providing the sole access to the North West Development Area until there is a connection to the South East Development Area.

Nortons Lane is currently a formed unsealed road providing access to Nortons Park which is part of the Dandenong Valley Parklands, St Pauls Retreat, Riding for Disabled, rural and rural residential properties.

The Traffic Assessment states the Nortons Lane road reserve:

• is 20 metres wide, less than a typical Connector Road in a greenfields area
• can accommodate:
  • - a single carriageway seven metres in width to provide a single traffic lane in each direction (the same as VPA guidelines).
  • - either:
    • - a 1.5-metre-wide footpath, or
    • - a minimum 2.4-metre-wide shared path on one side of the road (if a cycling connection is warranted, given the alternative off-road facilities available).
  • - approximately 10 metres for a nature strip, to be distributed as required to both sides of the carriageway to maximise vegetation retention
• does not need a shared path/footpath on both sides of the road given the low intensity of abutting land uses
• the shared path and the main carriageway could be aligned (including appropriate curves) to maximise vegetation retention.

• Mr Walsh and Mr Walley agreed:
  • - Nortons Lane can accommodate the forecast traffic from the development
  • - a 7-metre carriageway is sufficient
  • - Nortons Lane will provide adequate capacity to accommodate daily traffic
  • - on-street parking is not required for the section of Nortons Lane north of the Blind Creek Trail to High Street Road
  • - a shared path should be provided, if possible, but they disagreed on its need.
• Mr Walley explained he was instructed that the Council's preference is for raised, bus-friendly treatments of pedestrian crossings and considered that these could be accommodated without increasing the width of the road carriageway as proposed.
• Mr Walsh considered this to be a matter of detailed design, noting it has no impact on the overall width of the road.
• Mr Sellars and Mr de Waard did no comment on the above points.
• Mr de Waard stated the design should consider potential future bus stops on Nortons Lane.
• Mr Walsh:
  • - the shared path is not needed if the vegetation impact is too great
  • - was satisfied the horizontal alignment is a consideration of the final design that can be resolved at the permit application stage
  • - the current concept design is to inform potential vegetation impacts, and is not a final design.

• Nortons Lane should be bus capable.
• Given typical bus stop spacing, it is reasonable to consider that a bus stop mid-block may be provided at a future time.
• The design of the road is responding to and informing vegetation impacts and should therefore consider future potential bus stops.

• There needs to be further resolution of the horizontal alignment of the concept plan (Version 1).
• Agnostic on when the review should occur, noting this could normally happen during the permit stage.
• The review might be during the Development Plan stage for the vegetation impacts (not his area of expertise).

Mr Sellars did not comment on the Norton Road design.

• A development plan which showed an alternative access to the North-West Residential Area would not be generally in accordance with an Overall Development Plan that showed Nortons Lane as the sole access road.
• A planning scheme amendment would be needed to vary the Overall Development Plan in DPO16.

• Council's requirement for a 2.5 metre shared path relies on the Knox Cycling Action Plan (KCAP) formally adopted by the Council on 26 August 2024.
• The Council adopted Plan showed no cycling infrastructure on Nortons Lane.
• The Committee should give no weight to a subsequent map published on the Council website showing a shared path on Nortons Lane as it was not adopted by the Council.
• Mr Walley considered that shared paths are provided as standard practice along connector roads in a greenfields context but did not observe that Nortons Lane road reserve is 20 metres wide, not 25 metres wide as is typically provided in greenfields development.
• The footpath should not be widened to 2.5 metres as the shared path does not lead to any other cycling infrastructure and that existing north south cycle routes along EastLink and the Dandenong Valley parklands provide north south connections and can connect to any future cycle paths along High Street Road.

• Accepted that a 2.5 metre shared path is difficult to achieve in the context of the constraints of the Nortons Lane road reserve.
• Considered that a shared path ought to be capable of being provided but the Proponent has traded the shared path off for retaining as much vegetation as possible.

• All potential access options were assessed in detail including the use of part of Crown Allotment 13D Parish of Scoresby (Lot 13D).
• Lot 13D:
  • - was partly subject to leasing rights until 2026 with a further 5-year option
  • - is not considered surplus to requirements by DEECA.
• DEECA (Land Management) therefore could not confirm or support Lot 13D for an access road.
• Alternative access is outside the scope of the referred matters to the Committee on the basis that the Minister for Planning has requested the Committee's advice on "Access and traffic movement on Nortons Lane and the adjoining road network".
• If the Committee was required to consider alternative access, the Referral Letter would have specifically requested the Committee's advice on alternative access.

• The Proponent has relied on correspondence from DEECA in 2020 and 2023 where DEECA did not support using Crown Land or advocated for an access point that did not require the use of Crown Land.
• DEECA has completed assessing Lot 13D (Strategic Crown Land Assessment) as an alternative access route, which found the 40-metre strip along the east of the land had 'Low' public land values.
• The Proponent has not formally applied to acquire the land.
• Lot 13D is still a potentially feasible access option for Nortons Lane and can be further assessed in accordance with relevant crown land policies and guidelines.
• If Lot 13D is found to be suitable for an alternative purpose, it may take 18 months to make the land available.
• In 2023, DEECA advised Lot 13D was not considered surplus to public requirements in the context of the land being temporarily reserved for other purposes until 2026.
• DEECA (Land Management) would not support a request to use Crown land at Nortons Park next to Nortons Lane to widen the road to accommodate projected traffic.

• Accessing Nortons Lane as the sole road to the North West Development Area without any flexibility is:
  • - against proper and orderly planning
  • - premature without detailed design of the road
  • - potentially futile as further approvals are required to remove vegetation, for the development and to develop the road.
• There should be flexibility in providing for alternative access through Crown Allotment 13D.
• Disagreed with the Proponent that the alternative access option is outside the Committee's terms of reference.
• Council proposed changes to DPO16 provisions including Figure 1 to allow flexibility in the location of the northern access point.
• The Proponent declined to work with the Council on its suggested changes.

• The Committee has not been presented with evidence that a 2.5-metre shared path can be accommodated on Nortons Lane.
• Mr Walley's evidence, where he relied on the Knox Cycling Action Plan, should be given no weight as the Council adopted plan shows no cycle infrastructure on Nortons Lane.
• The proposed 1.5-metre-wide footpath should not be required to be widened to a 2.5-metre shared path, as a shared path in this location does not lead to any other cycling infrastructure.
• Putting the question of need aside, if the Proponent does not provide a 2.5-metre shared path, the Nortons Lane road design will not preclude the Council from constructing a 2.5-metre shared path in the future.
• The Council will have to contend with protecting vegetation when providing a 2.5-metre shared path.
• Pedestrian safety issues can be resolved as part of future detailed design.

The Committee used functional layout plans for discussion purposes noting they do not form part of the Amendment. While the two-dimensional functional layout plans do not show the likely impact of excavation and other impacts of constructing Nortons Lane, the Committee is satisfied that they are sufficient to determine whether provisions proposed by the Amendment are robust enough to inform future planning decisions.

The full impact of road alignment in response to things such as vegetation protection, paths, sightlines will be determined at the detail design stage. Road design including safety form part of road standards that future designs need to align with so are not needed to be duplicated in DPO16.

A connector road of this nature should include a shared pedestrian/cycle path based on the Victorian Planning Authority guidelines. Both Mr Walsh and Mr Walley agreed that in an ideal situation, Nortons Lane would be constructed as a straight connector road with a 2.5-metre-wide shared path. The road reserve width of 20 metres rather than the standard 25 metres and the need to preserve vegetation make a 2.5-metre-wide shared path difficult to achieve.

It is not mandatory to provide a shared path on a connector road, however it is good planning practice to provide one that connects to existing and future paths and to Nortons Park. The design work to date demonstrates there may be an opportunity to accommodate a seven-metre-wide carriageway and a 2.5-metre shared path within the 20-metre-wide Nortons Lane road reserve when considering the vegetation constraints.

The Committee does not agree with the Proponent that it provide a 1.5-metre-wide pedestrian path and that Council widen it to a 2.5-metre shared path if it so desires in the future. Further, it does not agree that a shared path should not be built simply because it does not presently connect to an existing cycle network. A network connection may occur in the future and surrounding land may be developed to create new destinations.

The current Overall Development Plan shows Nortons Lane as the only access to the external road network for the North West Development Area until the South East Development Area is developed. The Committee agrees with Ms Ring that when considering whether a Development Plan is generally in accordance with an Overall Development Plan that shows Nortons Lane as the access road to the site from the north, a Development Plan that shows an alternative access arrangement would:

• not be generally in accordance with the Overall Development Plan
• require a further planning scheme amendment.

If Nortons Lane is not approved as the northern access point, requiring a further planning scheme amendment to enable alternative access would result in process delays and unnecessary resources. It would be prudent to provide some flexibility by showing at least one alternative alignment on the Overall Development Plan.

• The Nortons Lane road reservation and part of Crown Allotment 13D Parish of Scoresby should be considered as alignment options for a future connector road.
• Development Plan Overlay Schedule 16, including Figure 1, should be revised to provide flexibility to consider both alignment options.
• The future connector road should include a shared pedestrian and cyclist path which is designed to be consistent with the Victorian Planning Authority's Precinct Structure Planning Guidelines: New Communities in Victoria, October 2021 and forms part of the pedestrian and cycle shared path network that is sought to be identified in the Integrated Transport Management Plan.

Amend Development Plan Overlay Schedule 16, as shown in Appendix D, to show an alternative access through part of Crown Allotment 13D Parish of Scoresby in addition to Nortons Lane between High Street Road and the Blind Creek Trail for the North Western Development Area.

The issue is whether the internal road layout for the North West Development Residential Development Area is appropriate.

• Mr Walsh and Mr Walley agreed that the overall internal road layout is appropriate. Mr Sellars and Mr de Waard did not comment.
• Mr Walsh was comfortable with Mr Walley 's recommendation that all bicycle paths be shared paths. Mr Sellars and Mr de Waard did not comment.
• Mr Walley expressed concern that the cross section of Road Section A does not comply with DTP guidelines for a bus capable road. The road reserve width is acceptable but cross section elements to be reviewed to resolve. Mr Walsh stated that this can be resolved at the permit stage, there is adequate road reserve available to address this.
• Mr Walley expressed a view that for Road Section K the 2.5 metre shared path within the 6.0 metre wide paper road should be 3.5 metres for emergency access.
• Mr Walsh was not opposed to this recommendation but considered that 3 metres would be sufficient.

Council and the Proponent did not make submissions regarding the internal road layout.

The Stage 1 Development Plan includes the internal road layout and typical road cross-sections. The details of the internal road layout are outside the matters referred to the Committee for its advice to the Minister for Planning. The Committee makes no recommendation on the internal road layout, however the Planning Authority should consider:

• revising the cross section of Road Section A to comply with the DTP guidelines for a bus capable road
• increasing the width of the shared path for Road Section K within the 6-metre-wide paper roads to 3.5 metres for emergency access based on the minimum required road width for fire appliances for residential driveways.

The Committee concludes that the internal road layout is appropriate but would benefit from:

• revising the cross section of Road Section A to comply with the Department of Transport and Planning guidelines for a bus capable road
• increasing the width of the shared path for Road Section K within the 6-metre-wide paper roads to 3.5 metres for emergency access based on the minimum required road width for fire appliances for residential driveways.

• remove ESO2 from parts of the subject land and apply it to another two small areas
• delete VPO1 from the subject land
• require through DPO16:
  • - a kangaroo management plan
  • - an environmental management plan.

The Amendment is supported by the Existing Ecological Conditions: Planning Scheme Amendment - 191 George Street, Wantirna South, Victoria prepared by Ecology Heritage Partners, September 2024 (Ecology Report).

• whether the Amendment has appropriately considered and responded to flora and fauna impacts
• whether the proposed remediation measures are adequate.

To ensure that there is no net loss to biodiversity as a result of the removal, destruction or lopping of native vegetation. This is achieved by applying the following three step approach in accordance with the Guidelines for the removal, destruction or lopping of native vegetation (Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action, 2025) (the Guidelines):

1. Avoid the removal, destruction or lopping of native vegetation.
2. Minimise impacts from the removal, destruction or lopping of native vegetation that cannot be avoided.
3. Provide an offset to compensate for the biodiversity impact if a permit is granted to remove, destroy or lop native vegetation.

To manage the removal, destruction or lopping of native vegetation to minimise land and water degradation.

• If the proposal is not consistent with current approvals then any native vegetation subject to impacts will need to be assessed in accordance with Clause 52.17 and the Biodiversity Assessment Guidelines for DEECA consideration.
• DPO16 should require an updated flora and fauna assessment, including a native vegetation retention and removal plan be prepared in consultation with DEECA.
• The Ecology Report should be revised to:
  • - assess all native vegetation proposed to be removed including for rehabilitation, and clarification regarding consistency with current approvals
  • - include results of on-ground verification of the 2021 vegetation condition scores and extent in the DPO16 area by an accredited assessor
  • - acknowledge the State significant Powerful Owl's reliance on habitat in the study area for foraging, breeding and refuge purposes.
  • - further exploration opportunities to avoid and minimise native vegetation removal.
• Further exploration regarding native vegetation should be in accordance with the three step approach outlined in the Guidelines for the removal, destruction or lopping of native vegetation (Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning, December 2017) including:
  • - retaining native vegetation and Powerful Owl habitat along Nortons Lane
  • - establishing a local pocket park in the south-east corner of DPO16 to retain large old trees B89-94 and associated Valley Heathy Forest
  • - overlaying the latest cut and fill extent plan with native vegetation retention and removal.

• The impacts of the proposal on biodiversity and native vegetation have not been adequately identified or addressed.
• There should be careful consideration on:
  • - the development's impact on the broader biodiversity values of the subject land and its surrounds
  • - whether the Amendment and Development Plan have met the statutory obligations to avoid and minimise ecological harm.
• When considering a permit application to remove native vegetation under Clause 52.17, it is necessary to firstly consider whether strategic planning processes have appropriately avoided and minimised impacts on native vegetation.
• Current information which informed the Amendment and Development Plan does not:
  • - provide enough assurance or clarity about the extent of native vegetation removal associated with the Nortons Lane upgrade
  • - establish that such removal will be acceptable
  • - demonstrate native vegetation for the Nortons Road upgrade can be reasonably avoided and minimised.
• It urged the Committee to advise the Minister for Planning that more work needs to be done before the Amendment and Development Plan are approved.

At the Hearing, the Proponent provided a supplementary memorandum of native vegetation implications prepared by Shannon LeBel of Ecology & Heritage Partners. The Proponent submitted the memorandum advises:

• Work Authority 67 does not authorise the removal of native vegetation outside the final contours of the approved rehabilitation plan for Work Authority 67
• the extent of native vegetation contemplated to be lost has to be recalculated
• 4.849 hectares of native vegetation will be lost rather than 4.671 hectares, resulting in an offset of 2.164 general units and 31 large trees, which can be easily secured.

Ecology experts, Dr Lorimer and Mr Gibson met to determine points of agreement or disagreement. In their joint expert report, they agreed:

• There is a significant difference between the Ecology Report and the Biodiversity Sites Criteria.
• Yarra Gums:
  • - The Yarra Gums on the subject land are of National Significance and the most important assets on the land.
  • - It should be clarified whether vegetation on the southern edge of the northwest pit will be retained - It will in part affect offset calculations.
  • - There is missing information about Yarra Gums B34-B36, B48, B49, B51a, B52, B56, B58-B62, B65, B66, B68, B69, B71.

• The Ecology Report cannot be relied on to determine the degree and extent of the development's impacts on flora and fauna because it:
  • - it has omissions
  • - frequently understates the significance of identified impacts
  • - in most respects, does not differentiate between the plant species that would be destroyed under different development options so does adequately demonstrate it has avoided and minimised ecological impacts.
• Existing additional information sources are inadequate to correct the Ecology Report's deficiencies.

• The proposed development has been designed to avoid and minimise impacts to ecological values on the subject land.
• The impact to native vegetation and habitat is likely to be minor, in the context of the extent of residential areas to be created.
• The proposed transfer of 68 hectares of land to include in the Dandenong Valley Parklands will help enhance the ecological values of the parkland.
• Was generally satisfied with the Ecology Report's level of rigour to inform the Amendment and development plan process.
• There are some minor shortcomings related to satisfying the information requirements of ESO2 which need attention.
• Yarra Gum - A high priority has been given to avoid impacts to Yarra Gum, as is appropriate for a critically endangered species.

• The subject land itself is not of biological significance.
• The Amendment does not propose provisions that authorise vegetation removal.
• Clause 52.17 applies to all the subject land and all the Nortons Lane road reserve, and ESO2 will continue to apply to parts of the Nortons Lane road reserve.
• A planning permit will be required to remove vegetation, and assessed against the Clause 52.17 and ESO2 provisions.
• It relied on Mr Gibson's evidence regarding ecological matters.

• The peer review of the Ecology Report undertaken by Dr Lorimer (Biosphere) as part of Council's submission presented GPS tracking data for two Powerful Owls (a male and a female) undertaken by Deakin University.
• It is unlikely that including the tracking data would have changed the existing conditions and impact assessment.
• The Ecology Report considered the species highly likely to occur, and there are numerous previous records along the Dandenong Creek, where the tracking studies confirm the species activity is concentrated.

Dr Lorimer's evidence appended his peer review which states:

• The Ecology Report has omissions and misleading information about the Powerful Owl.
• The neglect of lighting and traffic along Nortons Lane is important.
• The appropriate source for Powerful Owls records is Deakin University's researchers - their radio tracking of a male and a female in the area in question shows the pair spends most of their time in the parkland abutting the Boral land but also make excursions into the Boral land.

Dr Lorimer and Mr Gibson agreed that Latham's Snipe habitat exist on the subject land.

• The Ecology Report did not assess the likely occurrence of Lathan's Snipe.
• They are likely to occasionally forage during summer on part of the subject land where there is suitable habitat.
• Marginal areas of wetlands associated with Blind Creek may provide habitat for Latham's Snipe when there is sufficient water.

• The Ecology Report has omissions and misleading information about Latham's Snipe.
• Was surprised the Ecology Report showed only two Latham's Snipe records because he often saw these specifies foraging when he worked on that floodplain.

• Agreed with the Ecology Report that habitat enhancement works, including the new wetlands, is likely to benefit the Great Egret, Little Egret and Hardhead.
• The habitat requirements for these species should be considered when designing any new wetlands so that a diverse range of habitats are created.

Mr Gibson's evidence regarding 'significance' assessment:

• Agreed with the Ecology Report assigning 'local significance' to the subject land because two State significant species are present.
• This is different to BioSite 58 (Dandenong Valley Parklands), which has been identified as Nationally significant by Lorimer (2025), and protected through ESO2.
• The Biological Sites Criteria used by Lorimer (2025) are not designed to consider significance of parts of a site, or to be used in a legislative context such as impact assessment.

Mr Gibson's evidence regarding ESO2 - The following information is required for the ESO2 area to be deleted and for the ESO2 area impacted along Nortons Lane:

• Species lists, including population estimates and conservation significance.
• Separate map figures showing patches of native vegetation and scattered trees to be impacted.
• A summary of the impacts of removing the habitat to threatened and non-threatened fauna.

• The Ecology Report does not indicate if the plants are in the area covered by ESO2, or how many (or what area) of the plants are impacted by the proposed works along Nortons Lane.
• There may be scope to modify the design to avoid and minimise impacts to Veined Spear-grass.

• There are no Trees B48 or B49 in this location
• Trees B46, B47, B50 and B51 are in the final contours of the approved rehabilitation plan for Work Authority 67, and may be regarded as lost, however they do not appear to be identified for removal and can be retained.

• Could not find an explanation why it is not possible to avoid removing Trees B46-B51.
• These Yarra Gums are of National Significance under the Biological Sites Criteria, and three of them qualify as 'large trees'.

Dr Lorimer and Mr Gibson agreed the southeast patch including trees B89-B94 should be protected from removal. Mr Gibson agreed, while noting if it is possible.

• One or more of the large trees may be Yarra Gums (Critically Endangered globally) because some were recorded in 2003, 100-150 metres away.
• Even if the trees are of common species, this small corner should not be cleared because they qualify as 'large trees' and they are part of the endangered 'Valley Heathy Forest'.

The Proponent proposed the following requirement in DPO16 Clause 4.0:

A detailed assessment of trees B89-94 and associated Valley Heathy Forest within the south-east corner of the DPO16 area and whether any of these trees can be retained.

• The road reserve has ecological values but the alleged negative impact on its values has been exaggerated.
• At the site inspection, it was observed that at least one tree was cut down in Nortons Lane, perhaps by the relevant electricity company enabled by the Electricity Safety Act 1998.
• Tree 16 was removed recently, which provides the potential to straighten the road alignment without further impacts to trees and vegetation.
• The changing nature of the Nortons Road reserve demonstrates why it is not desirable to lock in a final design or prepare detailed construction plans at this stage.
• Along Nortons Lane, no Yarra Gums will be lost and other trees likely to be lost are in poor health, immature and not endangered.

DEECA subsequently advised the Biological Sites Criteria is not relied on by DEECA for current planning scheme, planning permit or biodiversity decision making.

Dr Lorimer and Mr Gibson agreed the alternative route through part Crown Allotment 13D/ PP 3478 (1180 High Street Road Wantirna South) would have a significantly lower ecological impact than the Nortons Lane route. Mr Gibson was not sure it would be feasible.

At the Hearing, the Proponent provided draft versions of Flora Assessment of the Stage 1 Development Plan[2] and Flora Values Assessment for Nortons Lane[3] prepared by Biosis.

• Mr Gibson acknowledged they were incomplete, in response to questions at the Hearing
• Council submitted the documents:
  • - refer to but omit mapping of the values which have been assessed
  • - do not include substantive analysis regarding the location, extent and precise impacts of the Nortons Lane upgrade on those values
  • - exclude any form of mapping
• The Proponent acknowledged the need to prepare a revised flora and fauna assessment, as part of DPO16.

Council requested the Site Context Analysis and Design Response Report in DPO16 Clause 4.0 include:

If it is proposed to utilise Nortons Lane for access to the North-West Development Area shown on Figure 1 to this Schedule, a flora and fauna inventory and biodiversity values assessment of the Nortons Lane road reserve, how it is proposed to maintain the inventory and biodiversity values and, if not possible to maintain the inventory and biodiversity values, how it is proposed to minimise the loss of the flora and fauna and biodiversity values.

The Proponent agreed to this change and included it in DPO16 (Version 3). The Proponent also proposed to include the following Masterplan requirement in Clause 4.0:

In relation to the North-West Development Area as shown on Figure 1 to this Schedule, any proposed upgrade of the road within the Nortons Lane road reserve must preserve Trees 45 and 46 (as shown at Figure 3a, Supplementary Memorandum of Native Vegetation Implications for Planning Scheme Amendment C194 to the Knox Planning Scheme prepared by Ecology & Heritage Partners Pty Ltd dated 9 October 2025).

The Committee is considering draft documents that will form part of a future Amendment. This includes whether existing and future Planning Scheme provisions such as DPO16 will create an appropriate planning framework to ensure flora and fauna issues have been appropriately considered and that responsible fit-for-purpose measures are in place. Where flora and fauna matters have to be resolved at this stage of the process, there should be provisions in place to ensure certain use and development does not start until they are.

Among other relevant Planning Scheme planning provisions, Clause 51.17 requires a planning permit for any proposal seeking to remove native vegetation from the subject land. The purpose of this clause refers to the three step approach (avoid, minimise, offset) in accordance with the Guidelines for the removal, destruction or lopping of native vegetation (Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning, 2017).

• trees originally thought to be significant enough to retain were later found to be in poor health, immature or missing altogether
• the area of native vegetation to be removed was greater than originally calculated.

The continuous changing information regarding vegetation along Nortons Lane demonstrated two things. Firstly, it supported Council's view that the extent of native vegetation to be removed was unclear when the Amendment and development plan were prepared. Secondly, it would be premature to identify many of the trees for retention at this stage of the process. This does not mean that native vegetation will not be appropriately considered before substantive permits are granted.

The exhibited DPO16 broadly referenced protection measures for flora and fauna in the Environmental Management Plan requirements. However, this plan is a requirement for a planning permit (not the development plan) and is intended to manage issues during construction.

What was notably absent is the requirement for a flora and fauna assessment, as requested by DEECA. There should be some guiding provisions based on known information rather than the broad provision proposed in DPO16 (Version 1).

The Committee prefers the flora and fauna provisions in DPO16 (Version 3) that:

• include specific measures in the Environmental Management Plan regarding the Powerful Owl and preventing exotic flora and fauna species
• include guidance about preserving Trees 45 and 46 in the Nortons Lane road reserve
• require a flora and fauna assessment that must be prepared in consultation with DEECA and include a detailed assessment of Trees B89-94 in the south-east corner of the DPO16 area
• require the Site Context Analysis and Design Response Report to include a flora and fauna inventory if Nortons Lane is to be used to access the North-East Development Area.

The flora and fauna assessment will identify relevant species including Lathan's Snipe that both ecology experts agreed had a habitat on the subject land.

The DPO16 (Version 3) provisions combined with existing Planning Scheme provisions will provide an appropriate planning framework to ensure that flora and fauna are appropriately considered before substantive permits are granted.

For clarity, the relevant Victorian and federal legislation should be relied on when assigning significance without referencing the redundant Biodiversity Sites Criteria.

• The exhibited Development Plan Overlay Schedule 16 provisions were not sufficient to guide future flora and fauna considerations.
• Development Plan Overlay Schedule 16 (Version 3) combined with existing Planning Scheme provisions will provide an appropriate planning framework to ensure that flora and fauna are appropriately considered before substantive permits are granted.

Amend Development Plan Overlay Schedule 16, as shown in Appendix D, to:

a) expand flora and fauna considerations as part of the Environmental Management Plan in Clause 3.0

b) require a flora and fauna assessment in Clause 4.0

c) require the Site Context Analysis and Design Response Report to include a flora and fauna inventory and biodiversity values assessment and associated requirements if the Nortons Lane road reserve is used to access the North-West Development Area

d) require the Masterplan to preserve the Yarra Gums (Trees 45 and 46) in the Nortons Lane road reserve.

The issue is whether DPO16 should include requirements to manage kangaroos.

• The Stage 1 Development Plan should acknowledge that kangaroos are present.
• Development staging should minimise the risk of landlocking kangaroos.

The Proponent agreed with DEECA that staging should consider kangaroo movements across the subject land. Council preferred the Kangaroo Management Plan be prepared as part of the Development Plan process and implemented through permit conditions rather than deferring to the planning permit stage.

DEECA, Council and the Proponent proposed kangaroo management provisions for DPO16 Clauses 3.0 (Conditions and requirements for permits) and 4.0 (Requirements for development plan).

Table 7 shows the changes proposed by DEECA, Council and the Proponent and includes the DPO16 (Version 3). DEECA and Council agreed with the Proponent's Clauses 3.0 and 4.0 provisions shown in Table 7.

Table 7 Preferred DPO16 kangaroo management provisions

A permit to subdivide land must include a condition for the preparation of a Kangaroo Management Plan, in accordance with the Guidance Note for managing kangaroos in Victoria's growth areas (DEECA September 2024), to be submitted to and approved by the responsible authority. Once approved the Kangaroo Management Plan will form part of the permit and must be implemented to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

A permit granted for buildings and works or subdivision of land must include such permit conditions as required to implement the Kangaroo Management Plan approved and endorsed by the responsible authority in accordance with this schedule.

A Kangaroo Management Plan must be prepared to the satisfaction of and approved by the Secretary to the Department of Energy, Environment, and Climate Action Once approved by the Secretary to the Department of Energy, Environment, and Climate Action, the Kangaroo Management Plan be endorsed by the responsible authority to form part of the development plan.

A permit granted for buildings and works or subdivision of land must include a condition requiring, as appropriate:

• - Before the certification of the plan of subdivision, a Kangaroo Management Plan, in accordance with the Guidance Note for managing kangaroos in Victoria's growth areas (DEECA, September 2024) must be approved by the responsible authority.
• - The approved plan will form part of the permit and must be implemented to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

• - Details of the likely staging of land use and development which includes consideration of movement of kangaroos across the site to minimise the risk of kangaroos becoming landlocked.

The Committee considers it appropriate to include kangaroo management provisions in DPO16. DEECA, Council and the Proponent all agreed to them, though they originally had different perspectives on how they should be drafted and implemented. All three parties ultimately agreed to the drafting of the Clauses 3.0 and 4.0 provisions. The Committee has no issue with these provisions.

• Development Plan Overlay Schedule 16 should include requirements in Clauses 3.0 and 4.0 to require a kangaroo management plan and to avoid landlocking kangaroos.

Amend Development Plan Overlay Schedule 16, as shown in Appendix D, to:

a) revise the Kangaroo Management Plan requirements in Clause 3.0

b) revise the Masterplan requirements to require details of the likely staging of land use and development to avoid landlocking kangaroos.

The issue is whether the exhibited Environmental Management Plan requirements proposed for DPO16 are appropriate.

• The DPO16 Environmental Management Plan requirements in Clause 3.0 should:
  • - delete "with appropriate measures incorporated to prevent the potential for the introduction of exotic flora and fauna species"
  • - add "Detail mitigations to be implemented to protect threatened Powerful Owl."
  • - add "Appropriate measures to prevent the persistence, spread and potential introduction of exotic flora and fauna species."

• The DPO16 Environmental Management Plan requirements in Clause 3.0 should include additions (shown as underlined):

A permit granted for subdivision of land or buildings and works must include conditions requiring that an Environmental Management Plan addressing the construction activities proposed on the land be prepared to the satisfaction of the responsible authority and approved and endorsed by the responsible authority prior to the commencement of works or the certification of the first stage of subdivision (as the case may be). In preparing the Environment Management Plan, the views of the relevant authorities (Melbourne Water, Parks Victoria, Department of Transport and Planning, and Department of Energy, Environment, and Climate Change) must be sought:

Once endorsed, the Environment Management Plan shall form part of the permit.

• Provisions relating to soil erosion and sediment control to protect existing local stormwater infrastructure, Blind Creek and associated wetlands from erosion and sediment transport by minimising erosion of lands during the construction of the buildings and/or the construction or carrying out of the works.

• Measures to suppress noise and dust during works to minimise noise and dust impact.

DPO16 (Version 1) included changes sought by DEECA and Council, except for the reference to noise. Council maintained that referencing both noise and dust emissions would protect the amenity of the surrounds during construction activities. DPO16 (Version 2) included reference to noise.

DPO16 (Version 2) includes Environmental Management Plan provisions, generally agreed to by DEECA, Council and the Proponent. The plan should be to the satisfaction of the responsible authority, consistent with other plans that will be required through planning permit conditions.

The Environmental Management Plan should include measures to supress noise and dust during works to minimise impact. The Committee agrees with Council that the plan should include measures which seek to protect the amenity of the surrounding area during construction. This includes supressing noise and dust during works.

The provisions relating to soil erosion and sediment control should be extended to apply also to the construction of buildings.

The Committee concludes that the Environmental Management Plan requirements in Clause 3.0 of Development Plan Overlay Schedule 16 should:

• require the plan to be prepared to the satisfaction of the responsible authority
• include measures to suppress noise during works to minimise noise impact
• extend the provisions relating to soil erosion and sediment control to apply to construction of buildings.
• be redrafted to explain the endorsed plans will form part of the permit.

Amend Development Plan Overlay Schedule 16, as shown in Appendix D, to revise the Environmental Management Plan requirements in Clause 3.0.

6.5 Environmental Significance Overlay Schedule 2

The issue is whether it is appropriate and justified for the Amendment to remove the proposed extent of ESO2.

• To implement the Municipal Planning Strategy and the Planning Policy Framework.
• To identify areas where the development of land may be affected by environmental constraints.
• To ensure that development is compatible with identified environmental values.

ESO2 (Sites of biological significance) applies to a notable proportion of the subject land including areas which have had years of quarrying. Its statement of environmental significance states:

The area covered by this schedule includes a range of sites of biological significance identified in Sites of Biological Significance in Knox - 2nd Edition, 2010. Their protection and appropriate management is of particular importance for the maintenance of both Knox's and Victoria's biodiversity, as well as for liveability and the health and wellbeing of the community. The area covered by this overlay is 26.42 square kilometres or 23.12 per cent of the Knox municipality.

Figure 5 Areas where the Amendment proposes to delete ESO2

• ESO2 should be retained in the south-east corner of the subject land because there is insufficient justification in the supporting documents to remove it.
• The south-east corner includes Trees B89-94 and associated Valley Heathy Forest.

• It was always intended the Amendment would:
  • - remove ESO2 from the residential development area where there has been quarrying
  • - retain it on the additional Dandenong Valley Parkland area where there has been less disturbance and where they may be revegetation
• The Clause 52.17 and DPO16 provisions are appropriate to manage the protection, removal and enhancement of native vegetation in the residential development area.

The purpose of ESO is to identify areas where the development of land may be affected by environmental constraints, and to ensure that development is compatible with identified environmental values.

It is acknowledged that ESO2 has been applied throughout Knox to identify shared biodiversity values. This includes smaller open spaces such as the one sought to accommodate Trees B89-94.

It would not be appropriate to retain ESO2 within the developable area.

The absence of ESO2 on the south-east corner of the subject land does not mean that other planning provisions should not be applied if further investigation finds this vegetation should be protected. The DPO16 provisions and other Planning Scheme provisions such as Clause 52.17 can appropriately guide planning around Trees B89-B94. Specific DPO16 provisions regarding these trees and whether they should be accommodated on open space are discussed in Chapter 6.6.

The Committee concludes that it is appropriate and justified for the Amendment to remove the proposed extent of Environmental Significance Overlay Schedule 2.

The issue is whether a local pocket pack should be established in the south-east corner of the DPO16 area to retain Trees B89-B94 and associated Valley Heathy Forest.

DEECA submission - The establishment of a local pocket park in the south-east corner of DPO16 should be investigated to retain Trees B89-B94 and associated Valley Heathy Forest.

• Tree B89 is a Yarra Gum, and only 1 per cent of the tree is alive.
• Tree B91 is about seven metres tall, has a split form, and is at a high risk of splitting out.
• Tree B94 is Stag with large branches in upper crown down that stick out from rest of canopy.

• Trees B89-B94 need to be considered collectively within the context of the Valley Heathy Forest which they formed part of.
• He originally overlooked the trees because they were mapped in the Ecology Report but not included in the trees table.
• Further information has confirmed the cluster includes a mature Yarra Gum and it is unknown if it has dropped any seedlings.
• Acknowledged there is only one Yarra Gum in the south-east corner that is almost dead but this did not change his option regarding Trees B89-B94.

• Relied on the health recommendation of the arborist - if found to be of moderate or better condition then retention would be good.

• Agreed with DEECA, and proposed to include in DPO16:

• A detailed assessment of trees B89-94 and associated Valley Heathy Forest within the south-east corner of the DPO16 area and whether these trees can be integrated into future council reserves.

DEECA agreed with the Proponent's change subject to identifying a pocket park in the south-east corner of DPO16.

The Committee agrees with Dr Lorimer that Trees B89-B94 should be considered collectively as part of the Valley Heathy Forest. This can be achieved through the Proponent's proposed Masterplan requirement for a detailed assessment of these trees and consideration of whether they can be integrated into a future council reserve.

The Committee concludes Development Plan Overlay Schedule 16 should require through the Masterplan process, a detailed assessment of Trees B89-B94 and associated Valley Heathy Forest and consideration of a council reserve to accommodate them.

Amend Development Plan Overlay Schedule 16, as shown in Appendix D, to require the Development Plan in Clause 4.0 to be supported by a flora and fauna assessment that must assess Trees B89-B94 consider whether any should be retained.

The issue is whether the affordable housing contribution requirements proposed in DPO16 are appropriate.

• includes a planning objective "to facilitate the provision of affordable housing in Victoria"
• defines affordable housing as housing, including social housing, that is appropriate for the needs of very low income, low income and moderate income households
• enables a responsible authority to "enter into an agreement with an owner of land for the development or provision of land in relation to affordable housing".

The Development Facilitation Program webpage refers to the Victorian government seeking 10 percent of affordable housing delivered by one of three options. Regarding Option 1, it advises:

• 10% of all dwellings sold at a 30% discount to a Registered Housing Agency (RHA) or Homes Victoria for operation as social and/or affordable housing, or
• 3% of dwellings gifted to a RHA or Homes Victoria.
• an alternative percentage of dwellings or alternative discount rates may be considered where the total value is equivalent to the 3% contribution in option 2.
• the applicant should provide evidence of an agreement that confirms support of the RHA.

The Knox Affordable Housing Action Plan (2015) recommends that 5 per cent of all new dwellings be provided as affordable housing.

DPO16 includes a development plan requirement for a section 173 agreement for affordable housing contribution in the form of:

• at least 10 per cent of all dwellings in the development provided as affordable housing for sale or lease to a registered housing agency or to Homes Victoria, or
• an alternative contribution towards providing affordable housing to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

• During the preliminary assessment process, officers negotiated and resolved numerous issues with the Proponent in good faith, including a social and affordable housing contribution.
• An increase in the affordable housing contribution from 5 per cent to 10 per cent of the total number of dwellings in the development is supported.
• It is unclear if Council will be the Responsible Authority for issuing the initial permit that will contain the affordable housing condition or how the contribution is proposed to be staged throughout the development.
• Given this uncertainty, DPO16 should require any cash contribution paid in lieu to be expended in the Knox municipality.
• Knox has a significant and growing need for affordable housing within the community so it would be unreasonable for any cash contribution collected in Knox to be expended outside the municipality.
• Any opportunity for a cash contribution should include an appropriate methodology to calculate the cash equivalent value for each dwelling.

Council included a version of DPO16 which tracked its requested changes.

• A portion of the proposed housing should be social housing.
• There should be a certain portion of public housing rather than just social housing operated by a non-profit organisation to balance the market and reduce the housing crisis.

• The 10 per cent affordable housing contribution is suitable and significant.
• From experience, it is usual for affordable housing provision to embed flexibility in how it is delivered.

The Proponent provided DPO16 (Version 1) which included a new set of 'Section 173 Agreement for Affordable Housing Contribution' requirements which, among other things:

• revised the trigger for the agreement:
  • - from a permit to use or develop (excluding certain works)
  • - to a permit for the first subject land subdivision to create residential lots
• specified the contribution be equal to three per cent of the development cost or equivalent to alternative options
• specified alternative options as:
  • - a cash contribution to be paid to a Registered Housing Agency or any other housing provider or trust that is approved by the responsible authority
  • - gifting of dwellings or lots to a Registered Housing Agency or any other housing provider or trust that is approved by the responsible authority, or
  • - sale of dwellings or lots at a discount to market value to a Registered Housing Agency or any other housing provider or trust that is approved by the responsible authority or
  • - a combination of the above options
• defined 'development cost' and 'subject land'
• required the agreement to specify the timing for delivering the affordable housing contribution and a mechanism for reporting the outcome to the responsible authority.

• It ensured an affordable housing contribution of at least 10 per cent.
• The Proponent will develop subdivided lots for sale but will not be developing dwellings except for medium density housing.
• The post-exhibition proposal to require a cash contribution equivalent to three per cent of the development cost incorporates a recognised pathway, as one of the three options guided by the Development Facilitation Program.

The Proponent revised DPO16 (Versions 2 and 3) so that the 'Section 173 agreement for Affordable Housing Contribution' requirements required the section 173 agreement for affordable housing contribution to be registered on title before the first statement of compliance in the North-West Development Area is issued rather than when development starts. Council agreed to this change.

There is general agreement between the Proponent and Council on the affording housing provisions in DPO16 (Version 3) and are more practical and suitable than the exhibited version. The Committee agrees with Ms Ring that these are suitable provisions for delivering affordable housing because they:

• recognise the Proponent will not be developing the lower density houses when it sells the subdivided lots to individual purchasers
• align with one of the recognised Victorian government pathway options
• will deliver an equivalent to 10 per cent affordable housing
• seek implementation through a section 173 agreement, which is an appropriate mechanism for affordable housing contributions
• are generally consistent with the approach in other DPO schedules in other Planning Schemes such as Merri-Bek (DPO5) and Yarra (DPO5 and DPO15).

The Committee concludes the affordable housing contribution requirements proposed in Development Plan Overlay Schedule 16 (Version 3) are appropriate.

Amend Development Plan Overlay Schedule 16, as shown in Appendix D, to revise the 'Section 173 Agreement for Affordable Housing Contribution' requirements.

The issue relates to the impact the future population enabled by the Amendment will have on existing recreational uses and facilities including Saint Paul's Retreat Centre.

Saint Paul's Retreat Centre is at Nortons Lane, Wantirna South, west of the subject land, east of the Dandenong Valley Parklands, and south of Nortons Park.

• Developing Norton's Lane as a primary access point to the proposed development will destroy the current character of the environment.
• The proposed development:
  • - will negatively impact St Paul's Retreat through traffic, noise, pollution, dust, urbanisation, and loss of privacy
  • - is incompatible with St Paul's Retreat and will negatively impact its current rural activities.
• Property access from Nortons Lane should be retained during and after its upgrade.

• Constructing Nortons Lane and a new residential community in the north-west corner of the subject land will change the lane's character, but it will not limit or constrain existing development or activities along the lane.
• There will be some impact on existing recreational uses and facilities including St Paul's Missionary College and Retreat, however they will be acceptable.
• Nortons Park's popularity use and enjoyment is not expected to be impacted by the changed appearance and character of Nortons Lane.
• St Paul's Retreat will have no constraints in using the site as a place of worship and retreat, and can find off-site parking for any demand generated by its events from time-to-time.
• There will be no unreasonable impact on Riding for the Disabled facility which normally operates one day each week on its spacious site in the Dandenong Creek environment.
• The change in rustic/rural character of Nortons Lane and grassed paddocks to the south and reduced peace and quiet is one of the Amendment's disbenefits that will be outweighed by its extensive benefits including new housing including affordable housing, and the transfer of 68 hectares of land for public recreation and conservation at no cost.[4]
• The proposal implements significant planning policy outcomes in the Knox Planning Scheme related to urban renewal, infill development, urban consolidation in existing urban areas, already well located to urban services and infrastructure, affordable housing in established urban areas.

The Proponent relied on Ms Ring's evidence regarding this issue.

The Committee agrees with Ms Ring's evidence on the issue of recreational uses and facilities.

The public and private recreational uses and facilities need to be understood within their different contexts. The private land including St Paul's Retreat Centre, Riding for the Disabled facility, and private residents are on land in the Farming Zone.

The Farming Zone is anomalous because it is a rural zone that should only be applied outside Melbourne's Urban Growth Boundary. This zone may have been applied because this land is almost entirely surrounded by the Public Park and Recreation Zone which forms part of the regionally-scaled Dandenong Valley Parklands. The Parklands north of the subject land towards the Knox Regional Sports Park along George Street.

Nortons Lane which binds these properties has an unmade road surface except for the first 100 metres south of High Street Road. It terminates next to the St Paul's Retreat Centre, resulting in few vehicles needing to use the road. These factors collectively present the Nortons Lane surrounds in a rural setting. One could forget they are in an urban area about 20 kilometres southeast of Melbourne's Central City and about three kilometres from the Glen Waverley and Knox activity centres.

The existing recreational uses and facilities have benefitted from this rural style setting. They will continue to benefit from their properties being mostly surrounded by Dandenong Valley Parklands. The question is whether the proposed Nortons Lane upgrade, increased traffic volumes and new urban interface will result in an acceptable impact on existing recreational uses and facilities.

The Committee was not presented with information to demonstrate there would be an unacceptable impact on existing recreational uses and facilities. No indicative or concept plan proposed to block access to any property. The Committee has already found the expected peak period traffic volumes will be relatively low.

The proposal seeks to transform a former industrial use (quarry and brickworks) into a new residential area. A dwelling is considered to be a sensitive land use that emits little noise. The General Residential Zone proposed to be applied to the subject land is one of the most harmonious zones to interface with the parklands and lower density properties around Nortons Lane.

The Committee agrees with Ms Ring that the existing recreational uses and facilities are on large scale sites that can help buffer them from the future nearby houses. From a reverse amenity perspective, the large sites enable these uses and facilities to accommodate their activities on-site without the need to encroach beyond their property boundary.

Nortons Lane area will evolve when the road is upgraded and the proposed development is completed. There was no information or policy objectives that sought to retain Nortons Lane as an unmade road. Its existing condition is most likely due to insufficient demand to justify its upgrade. Even after its upgrade, it will retain a proportion of its character because it will continue to be surrounded by mostly parklands and recreational uses and facilities in the Public Park and Recreation Zone and Farming Zone. Only a small portion to its southern end will interface with the General Residential Zone.

If current residents, members and visitors to the area currently enjoy a peaceful environment, then it agrees with Ms Ring that increased activity will impact them, though it will be an acceptable impact. However, no submission clearly explained what they currently experience because they did not refer to previous and current impacts resulting from an active quarry, and subsequent works to fill the land since its operations ended. Both instances involve heavy machinery and truck movements.

This information would have enabled the Committee to compare the difference between future activity comprising relatively quiet light vehicles, cyclists and pedestrians with years of noise and activity associated with the neighbouring quarrying and brick manufacturing uses. The Committee is therefore unable to conclusively conclude the future activity will be a disbenefit when compared to existing and historic circumstances.

When considering future activity alone, the Nortons Lane upgrade and future development on the subject land will result in an acceptable outcome on existing recreational uses and facilities.

In either case, the Committee agrees with Ms Ring that the net community benefit of achieving state and local policy objectives related to housing and urban consolidation outweigh any disbenefit to the existing recreational uses and facilities.

The Committee concludes the proposed planning provisions will establish an appropriate planning framework to guide future development on the subject land so that potential impact on existing surrounding recreational uses and facilities including Saint Paul's Retreat Centre can be managed or mitigated.

7.3 Drafting matters associated with the referred issues

Throughout the Hearing process, parties proposed drafting changes to DPO16 planning provisions which related to referred issues and issues outside the scope of the Committee's consideration. The Committee has:

• reviewed and included only drafting changes that affect the clarity and operation of the referred issues, as reflected in the Committee recommended DPO16 in Appendix D
• formed no view on drafting changes proposed by parties that did not relate to referred issues.

The purpose of the Committee recommended DPO16 in Appendix D is to show the Committee's tracked recommended changes within the context of other provisions in that schedule.

Amend Development Plan Overlay Schedule 16, as shown in Appendix D, to make drafting changes that will improve the clarity and operation of planning provisions related to referred issues.

Amend the Development Plan to make it consistent with changes recommended for Development Plan Overlay Schedule 16.

REFERRAL OF DRAFT PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C194knox TO THE PRIORITY PROJECTS STANDING ADVISORY COMMITTEE - 191 GEORGE STREET, WANTIRNA SOUTH

I refer to draft Knox Planning Scheme Amendment C194knox. I am considering whether to prepare, adopt and approve the draft amendment and the draft Wantirna South North-West Residential Area Development Plan (Stage 1 Development Plan).

The draft amendment seeks to enable redevelopment of the 171-hectare Boral Quarry site at 191 George Street, Wantirna South, and 1257 Ferntree Gully Road, Scoresby. The land was previously used for clay extraction and brick manufacturing. The redevelopment will facilitate a new residential and mixed-use community with a projected yield of 1,750 dwellings including areas of public open space, community infrastructure, a network of paths and trails and a 10 per cent affordable housing contribution. It is also proposed as part of the draft amendment to transfer 68 hectares of future parkland to the state as an extension to the adjoining Dandenong Valley Parklands.

• Rezone part of the land from Special Use Zone Schedule 2 (SUZ2) to General Residential Zone Schedule 1 (GRZ1) and Mixed Use Zone Schedule 2 (MUZ2) and Schedule 3 (MUZ3).
• Introduce the Development Plan Overlay Schedule 16 (DPO16) and apply the DPO16 to the part of the land to be zoned General Residential Zone and Mixed Use Zone.
• Remove the Environmental Significance Overlay Schedule 2 (ESO2) from the part of the land to be rezoned and also apply the ESO2 to the part of the Dandenong Valley Parkland extension not already covered by the ESO2.
• Remove the Public Acquisition Overlay Schedule 2 (PAO2) from the part of the land to be rezoned.
• Remove the Vegetation Protection Overlay Schedule 1 (VPO1) from part of the land.
• Apply the Environmental Audit Overlay (EAO) to defined areas of the site.
• Introduce Schedule 1 to the Buffer Area Overlay (BAO1) and apply the BAO1 to part of the land.
• Amend the Schedule to Clause 72.01 to make the Minister for Planning the responsible authority for the approval or amendment of the Stage 1 Development Plan under the DPO16 and for the section 173 agreement relating to the delivery of the Dandenong Valley Parklands extension.
• Amend the Schedule to Clause 72.03 to include reference to the new planning scheme map for the BAO1.

The request also seeks approval for the Draft North-West Residential Area Development Plan (Stage 1). Stage 1 is located in the north-west of the site, proposing approximately 320 residences and the provision of a large active open space reserve with a pavilion and playground, a series of smaller open spaces and a network of paths and trails. It will also establish a primary, direct access route to High Street Road through Nortons Lane (located outside of the development site), requiring upgrades to Nortons Lane.

Consultation under section 20(5) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 was undertaken between in May and June 2025. There were 98 public submissions to the draft amendment, as well as submissions from Knox City Council and several government agencies.

I have decided to refer all submissions to the Priority Projects Standing Advisory Committee under section 151 of the Act for advice on the draft amendment and draft development plan.

The issues arising from submissions that I seek the advisory committee's advice on are:

• Access and traffic movement on Nortons Lane and the adjoining road network.
• Flora and fauna impacts, including the adequacy of proposed remediation measures.
• Impact on existing recreational uses and facilities, including St Paul's Retreat.
• Environmental risks and risks to infrastructure, including potential contamination, landfill gas migration, off-site odour, geotechnical, fire and flooding risks (excluding acoustic impacts from East Link).
• Suitability of the affordable housing contribution.

I request that the advisory committee's advice be confined to the matters outlined above. To the extent that the referred submissions raise issues beyond the matters outlined above, the committee is not required to consider or report on those issues.

The draft amendment and development plan documentation, including the supporting documents, and the submissions will be provided to the committee. The cost of the committee process will be met by the proponent, Mirvac.

a) Strategic Assessment Planning Report

b) 53V Environmental Audit 191 George Street, Wantirna South

c) 53V Environmental Audit 191 George Street, Wantirna South - Appendix B

d) 53V Environmental Audit 191 George Street, Wantirna South - Appendix C

e) Approved Cultural Heritage Management Plan (No 16890) - Part 1

f) Approved Cultural Heritage Management Plan (No 16890) - Part 2

g) Bushfire Development Report

h) Community Infrastructure Assessment

j) Ecology Report

k) Engineering Services Report

m) Floodplain Assessment Report with Appendix

n) Geotechnical Strategy Report

o) Non-Residential Land Use Opportunities Assessment

p) Odour Report

q) Preliminary Site Investigation

r) Section 173 Draft Agreement - Dandenong Valley Parklands

s) Separation Distance Assessment

t) Traffic Assessment

u) Traffic Noise Assessment

1. Engineering Services Report Appendices C, E, F, G

y) Stage 1 Development Plan (Wantirna South Development Plan - North-West Residential Area)

z) Stage 1 Development Plan Appendices Part 1

aa) Stage 1 Development Plan Appendices Part 2

Summary of intended amendments to the exhibited documents

a) Preliminary advice potentially contaminated land 5 June 2020

b) Further advice potentially contaminated land and separation distance assessment, 24 July 2020

c) Advice on noise, dust and odour, 2 July 2021

d) Advice on draft provisions, 24 March 2024

e) Response to odour risk, 11 August 2022

f) Assessment of previous advice and current views, 1 July 2024

g) Advice on potentially contaminated land and odour, 30 June 2025

Expert report - Jason Sellars (traffic and transport engineering)

Expert report - Aaron Walley (traffic and transport)

Version 1 - Development Plan Overlay Schedule 16 (DPO16)

Version 1 - Proposed drafting changes to provisions

Version 1 - North West Residential Area Development Plan

North West Residential Area Development Plan Statement of Changes

Supplementary memorandum - Stuart Colls (geotechnical)

Supplementary memorandum - Matthew Gibson (ecology)

Supplementary memorandum - Rob Galbraith (arboriculture)

Draft Flora and Fauna Assessment (Biosis, 12 October 2025)

Draft Nortons Lane Assessment (Biosis, 12 October 2025)

Signed statement of agreed opinions and fact (ecology)

a) Yarra Ranges Planning Scheme Comprehensive Development Zone Schedule 1

b) Sites of biological significance in Knox (Second edition)

c) Sites of biological significance in Knox (Third edition)

d) Standard criteria for sites of biological significance

e) Whittlesea Planning Scheme Development Plan Overlay Schedule 40

Email to the EPA - invitation to participate at the Hearing

a) Blind Creek-Lewis Park improvements webpage

b) Constructing waterway crossings - A guide on building road crossings across Melbourne Water's waterways and drains

c) Healthy Waterways - Dandenong Catchment

d) Ministerial Direction 1 - Potentially contaminated land

e) DPO16 (Melbourne Water version)

f) Planning Practice Note 11 (Applying for a planning permit)

g) Planning Practice Note 12 (Applying the Flood Provisions)

h) Planning Practice Note 30 (Potentially contaminated land)

1. Shared pathways guidelines (Melbourne Water 2009)

a) DEECA response letter dated 16 June 2025

b) Summary table - DEECA position and response to Proponent

Council meeting agenda - 26 August 2024 regarding Knox Cycling Action Plan

Council meeting minutes - 26 August 2024 regarding Knox Cycling Action Plan

a) Draft DPO16

b) Letter to DTP, 26 June 2025

c) Land titles of land adjacent to 191 George Street

Planning Permit P/2024/6360 for 1166 High Street Road, Wantirna South

Supporting documents for permit P/2024/6360 Badminton centre plans

Supporting document for permit P/2024/6360 - Arboriculture Report

Exhibited DPO16 and Proponent's DPO16 Version 2 (Comparison)

Exhibited DPO16 and Proponent's DPO16 (Version 3) - (comparison)

Letter - comments on Proponent's DPO16 version 3 and outstanding matters

Appendix D Panel recommended version of Development Plan Overlay Schedule 16

The Committee recommended changes are based on the exhibited version of the provisions and are shown as: Tracked Added Tracked Deleted

Only tracked changes within the scope of matters referred to the Committee are shown.

SCHEDULE 16 TO CLAUSE 43.04 DEVELOPMENT PLAN OVERLAY

To encourage sustainable development and high-quality urban design within the residential area which complements the future extension of the Dandenong Valley Parklands into the site.

To provide housing choice within Knox with the development of a variety of lot sizes and housing types.

To provide local amenity with the delivery of a variety of open spaces, including active open space, as well as community facilities and retail within a small Neighbourhood Activity Centre.

To establish open space networks, landscaping and walking/cycling trails which integrate the residential development with the future Dandenong Valley Parklands extension and connect to the wider transport network.

To provide for physical and social infrastructure and the orderly staging of the development.

A permit may be granted before a development plan has been prepared to the satisfaction of the responsible authority to:

• Subdivide or consolidate land which does not prejudice the preparation and approval of a Development Plan.
• Construct or carry out works relating to:
  • any works required to obtain, undertake, or satisfy an Environmental Audit Statement prepared under Part 8.3 of the Environment Protection Act 2017.
  • any works required to undertake or satisfy rehabilitation of the land under a Work Authority issued under the Mineral Resources (Sustainable Development) Act 1990 or its successor legislation.
  • the management of flooding constraints to facilitate staged removal of the Land Subject to Inundation Overlay (LSIO).
• Construct or display a sign.
• Remove, vary, or create an easement.

A permit for the subdivision, use or development of land prior tobefore the development plan being prepared to the satisfaction of the responsible authority must ensure that any residual contamination of the land (including landfill gas) is managed by:

• Ensuring the permit aligns with the list of suitable land uses on any Preliminary Risk Screen Assessment Statement or Environmental Audit Statement issued under part 8.3 of the Environment Protection Act 2017.;
• Ensuring the recommendations contained in any Environmental Audit Statement are, where relevant to the proposed permit, translated into a condition on that permit.,

Any application for a permit lodged before a development plan has been approved must be accompanied by a report demonstrating that approval will not prejudice the long-term future of the land as set out in this schedule. This applies to an application under existing use provisions.

The following conditions and/or requirements apply to any permits, including a permit granted under this schedule:

• A permit granted for buildings and works or subdivision must include conditions requiring for, as appropriate:
  • A Construction Management Plan and an Environmental Management Plan generally in accordance with this Scheduleschedule must be prepared to the satisfaction of the responsible authority and endorsed prior to the commencement ofbefore any building or works start to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.
  • The provisions, recommendations, and requirements of the endorsed Construction Management Plan and Environmental Management Plan must be implemented and complied with to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.
  • A Geotechnical AssessmentWhere the permit relates to a previously quarried area that has been subject to filling, a Geotechnical Assessment confirming the suitability of the filled area for the anticipated uses and development. The Geotechnical Assessment is to be prepared by a suitably qualified professional to the satisfaction of the responsible authority. The assessment must be endorsed prior tobefore the commencement of works.issue of a statement of compliance or commencement of works, as appropriate. This permit requirement will not apply to an application for buildings and works if a Geotechnical Assessment has already been prepared to the satisfaction of the responsible authority at the subdivision stage.

The following conditions and/or requirements only apply to a permit granted after a development plan has been approved to give effect to the development plan to the satisfaction of the responsible authority:

A permit granted for subdivision that creates land to contain community infrastructure in former quarry pit areas, including open space, must include a condition that requires the owner to provide evidence that any Council infrastructure has been designed to accommodate the maximum anticipated ground movement established in the geotechnical remediation design and any adjustments based on actual settlement monitoring during and after the geotechnical remediation works.

Section 173 Agreement for Affordable Housing Contribution

The responsible authority must include the following condition in deciding to grant a permit:

• Before the use or development of the land begins, excluding demolition, excavation, piling, site preparation works, and works to remediate contaminated land, the owner of the land must enter into an agreement with the responsible authority under section 173 of the Act, in a form to the satisfaction of the responsible authority, that provides for a contribution towards affordable housing (affordable housing contribution) in the following manner:
  • At least 10 per cent of the total number of dwellings in the development must be provided as affordable housing for sale or lease to a registered housing agency or to Homes Victoria. The details of when and how the affordable housing will be delivered and the total value of the affordable housing contribution must be set out in the agreement. The affordable housing dwellings provided should be representative of the approved dwelling mix to the satisfaction of the responsible authority; or
  • An alternative contribution towards the provision of affordable housing must be provided to the satisfaction of the responsible authority. The details of when and how the alternative contribution is made and the total value of the affordable housing contribution must be set out in the agreement.

Unless otherwise agreed to by the responsible authority, a permit for the first subdivision of the Subject Land that creates residential lots must include a condition requiring the landowner to enter into an agreement with the responsible authority under section 173 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 to deliver affordable housing (as defined by the Planning and Environment Act 1987) in respect of the whole of the Subject Land. The agreement must be in a form to the satisfaction of the responsible authority and registered upon the title to the Subject Land before the first statement of compliance is issued in the North-West Development Area.

The agreement must provide for the provision of an affordable housing contribution equal to 3% of the Development Cost (Primary Obligation) or equivalent to be delivered as:

• a cash contribution to be paid to a Registered Housing Agency or any other housing provider or trust that is approved by the responsible authority;
• gifting of dwellings or lots to a Registered Housing Agency or any other housing provider or trust that is approved by the responsible authority; or
• sale of dwellings or lots at a discount to market value to a Registered Housing Agency or any other housing provider or trust that is approved by the responsible authority; or
• a combination of the above options,

provided the total value of the affordable housing contribution is equivalent to the value determined as the Primary Obligation.

Development Cost means the estimated construction cost of the subdivision works for the delivery of the residential land allotments across the Subject Land, being the provision of roads, sewerage, drainage, water supply, power, telephone and National Broadband Network, but excluding any costs associated with the remediation of the land relating to former quarrying activities, to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

Subject Land means that land identified as 'Residential Development Area' on Figure 1 of this schedule.

The agreement must specify the timing of the delivery of the affordable housing contribution and a mechanism for the reporting of the outcome to the responsible authority.

The landowner must pay the responsible authority's and Knox City Council's reasonablefor all costs of preparing, executing, amending, and registering the agreement on the certificate of title to the land.

Section 173 Agreement for Development Contributions

A planning permit granted for the subdivision of the land that creates residential lots, the use or development of the land, must if required by the responsible authority and Knox City Council,, include a condition that requires prior the issue of a statement of compliance or such other date agreed with the responsible authority and Knox City Council, to the commencement of development (excluding demolition, bulk excavation and site preparation works) or other date agreed to the responsible authority, the landowner to enter into an Agreement with the responsible authority and Knox City Council pursuant to Ssection 173 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 which provides for the following matters:

• Provision of a minimum 8.5 per cent of total land to be subdivided for public open space
• Construction of an active open space reserve with a pavilion.
• Construction of a multi-purpose community space in or adjoining the small Neighbourhood Activity Centre.
• Construction of a road crossing over Blind Creek; and.
• Construction of pedestrian trails within the development area.

all generally in accordance with Figure 1 of this Schedule.

The agreement must be in a form to the satisfaction of the responsible authority and Knox City Council.

The landowner must pay responsible authority's and Knox City Council's reasonablefor all costs of preparing, executing, amending, and registering the agreement on the certificate of title to the land.

A permit granted for use or development of the land must, if required by the responsible authority, include conditions, as appropriate, for the preparation and endorsement of plans, and the implementation of the endorsed plans related to:

• The construction of or improvement to intersections for vehicle and pedestrian access to the site as indicated in Figure 1. These intersection works will need tomust be undertaken in accordance with the requirements of, and to the satisfaction of, the relevant road authority and at the cost of the landowner.
• All other road and pathways network and intersection upgrades, mitigation works, and reinstatement of existing assets as outlined in the approved Integrated Transport Management Plan and at the cost of the landowner.
• All stormwater infrastructure works within the site at the cost of the land owner.
• The design of the piped stormwater network servicing the development to have a capacity to cater for the 1 in 10 years ARI rainfall event.
• Acoustic attenuation measures required to be provided which comply with VicRoads' Traffic Noise Reduction Policy (or any subsequent publication) and the ConnectEast Concession Deed (or as updated), at the landowner's cost.
• The creation of reserve and required agreement for future maintenance by ConnectEast for any acoustic attenuation measures not located within the Freeway reserve to the satisfaction of ConnectEast and the Responsible Authority prior to the Certification ofbefore a Plan of Subdivision is certified.

A permit granted for buildings and works or subdivision of land must include a condition requiring that prior tobefore:

• the commencement of works; or
• certification of the first stage of subdivision,

any restrictions on the plan of subdivision including relevant "Design Guidelines" and / or Memorandum of Common Provisions must be submitted to the responsible authority for approval and recorded on title for all relevant lots to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

Prior to the certification ofBefore the Plan of Subdivision is certified for each stage of subdivision, a building envelope plan for each lot (between 250-500smq) must be submitted to and endorsed by the Responsible Authority. The approved building envelopes must be applied as a restriction on the plan of subdivision or be applied through an agreement with the responsible authority under Ssection 173 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 that is recorded on the title to the land. The restriction or the agreement must provide for:

• The building envelope to apply to each relevant lot.
• All buildings to conform to the building envelope on the relevant lot.
• The building envelope to apply to each relevant lot.
• All buildings to conform to the building envelope on the relevant lot.
• The construction of a building outside of a building envelope only with the consent of the responsible authority.
• A building envelope to cease to apply to any building on the lot affected by the envelope after the issue of a certificate of occupancy for the whole of a dwelling on the land.
• Where the building envelope is to be applied to the land through an agreement with the responsible authority under Ssection 173 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, the building envelope plan may be approved after the plan of subdivision is certified.

A permit granted for buildings and works or subdivision of land must include a condition requiring for, as appropriate:

• Before the plan of subdivision is certified, a Kangaroo Management Plan, in accordance with the Guidance Note for managing kangaroos in Victoria's growth areas (DEECA, September 2024) must be approved by the responsible authority.
• The approved plan will form part of the permit and must be implemented to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.
• A Kangaroo Management Plan must be approved by the Secretary to the Department of Energy, Environment, and Climate Action prior to the certification of the Plan of Subdivision.
• Once approved by the Secretary to the Department of Energy, Environment, and Climate Action, the Kangaroo Management Plan be endorsed by the responsible authority to form part of the permit.
• Prior to the commencement of any works the provisions, recommendations, and requirements of the endorsed Kangaroo Management Plan must be implemented and complied with.

A permit granted for subdivision of land or buildings and works must include conditions requiring that an Environmental Management Plan addressing the construction activities proposed on the land be prepared to the satisfaction of the responsible authority and approved and endorsed by the responsible authority prior tobefore the commencement of works or the certification of the first stage of subdivision. The (as the case may be). In preparing the Environment Management Plan, the views of the relevant authorities (Melbourne Water, Parks Victoria, Department of Transport and Planning, and Department of Energy, Environment, and Climate Change) must be sought.

Once and the Plan must be prepared to the satisfaction of the responsible authority and, once endorsed, the Environmental Management Plan shall form part of the permit.

endorsed, implemented prior to commencement of any works.

• Provisions relating to soil erosion and sediment control to protect existing local stormwater infrastructure, Blind Creek and associated wetlands from erosion and sediment transport by minimising erosion of lands during work.the construction of the buildings and/or the construction or carrying out of the work.
• Provisions requiring protection measures for construction and maintenance workers (associated with sub-surface services) operating in the protection measure any area at risk of landfill gas. Protection measures must include the adoption of appropriate confined space protocols to adequately address potential hazardous atmosphere present within service trenches.
• Provisions to protect the floodplain, manage water quality and quantity, and protect the habitat value of Blind Creek and Dandenong Creek (measures used should include the installation of a fencing to protect the Blind Creek waterway prior tobefore the commencement of works start).
• Protection measures to ensure that disturbance to native flora and fauna habitat is avoided in the first instance and, minimised where avoidance is not possible with appropriate measures incorporated to prevent the potential for the introduction of exotic flora and fauna species..
• Detail mitigations to be implemented to protect threatened Powerful Owl.
• Appropriate measures to prevent the persistence, spread and potential introduction of exotic flora and fauna species.
• Measures to suppress noise and dust during works to minimise noise and dust impact.
• Measures to prevent construction fill encroaching on or being placed within the EastLink Freeway reserve or adjoining land.
• Measures to address risk associated with landfill gas during construction.

A permit granted for residential subdivision of land or buildings and works must include Conditions requiring that a Construction Management Plan be prepared to the satisfaction of the responsible authority prior tobefore the commencement of works start or the certification of the first stage of subdivision is certified, and, once endorsed, implemented prior to commencement ofbefore any startworks. In preparing the Construction Management Plan, the views of Melbourne Water must be sought.

The Construction Management Plan must include as relevant:

• Staging requirements of road upgrade works as identified in the Integrated Transport Management Plan.
• A Traffic Management Plan for the site identifying the location of the proposed vehicle access point(s) and detailing the measures to ensure amenity of the adjoining areas is not impacted by the movement of vehicles (cars, trucks and construction machinery) associated with construction activities on the site.
• AddressThe steps to address the recommendations and requirements specified in the approved Kangaroo Management Plan, if applicable.
• AddressThe steps to address the requirements of the Bushfire Management Plan, if applicable.
• Anticipated location of all internal access tracks and machinery/plant locations including distances from any waterway.
• Anticipated location of spoil stockpiling and laydown areas including distances from any waterway.
• Occupation health and safety, and induction of contractors working on the site.

Unless otherwise agreed to by the responsible authority, a permit must not be granted to subdivide land, construct a building or construct or carry out works within the 'Protection

Measure Area' as identified on Figure 1 of this Schedule (except for a permit issued in accordance with Clause 2.0 of the Schedule) until an agreement under section 173 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 has been entered into between the owner of the land and the responsible authority which provides for the following:

• Provide for protection measures to be implemented that are consistent with Section 7.2 of BSI 2015 including the BSI 2015 recommendation that a 'site which is impacted by migratory gases from an off-site source should be protected by pathway intervention measures'.
• Require the detailed design of the protection measures to be independently verified by an Environmental Auditor (appointed under Part 8.3 of the Environment Protection Act 2017).
• Require the installation of the protection measures to be verified by an Environmental Auditor during the installation and post installation phases.
• Provide for the ongoing maintenance of the protection measures.
• Be registered on the title of the land on which the protection measures are to be installed.
• Include a mechanism for the section 173 agreement to come to an end if an Environmental Auditor verifies that the protection measures are no longer required as land within the 'Protection Measure Area' is no longer subject to risk from landfill gas migration.

Unless otherwise agreed to by the responsible authority and Knox City Council (where Council is not otherwise the responsible authority), a permit to subdivide land, construct a building or construct or carry out works within the 'Protection Measure Area' as identified on Figure 1 of this Schedule (except for a permit issued in accordance with Clause 2.0 of the Schedule) must contain a condition that the landowner enter into an agreement under section 173 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 which provides for the following:

• Protection measures to be implemented that are consistent with Section 7.2 of British Standards Institution 2015 including without limitation the British Standards Institution 2015 recommendation that a 'site which is impacted by migratory gases from an off-site source should be protected by pathway intervention measures' and which if successfully validated could also remove the need for further protection. Such protection measures are to include protection for construction and maintenance workers associated with the services as well as to prevent the likelihood of a service trench acting as a preferential pathway. This does not apply if an environmental audit statement under Part 8.3 of the Environment Protection Act 2017 is issued after the approval date of C194knox stating that the land is suitable for the use or proposed use without the need for pathway intervention measures, in which case the section 173 agreement must provide for any alternative protection measures and ongoing management measures recommended in that audit.
• Require the detailed design of any protection measures to be independently verified by an Environmental Auditor (appointed under Part 8.3 of the Environment Protection Act 2017).
• Require the installation of any protection measures to be verified by an Environmental Auditor appointed under Part 8.3 of the Environment Protection Act 2017 during the installation and post installation phases.
• Provide for the ongoing maintenance of any protection measures to be undertaken in a sustainable, verifiable and practical manner.
• Identify the legal entity or entities that will be responsible for ensuring that any protection measures are in place and implemented and responsible for the ongoing maintenance of the measures.
• Be registered on the title of the land on which any protection measures are to be installed.

Include a mechanism for the section 173 agreement to come to an end if an Environmental Auditor verifies that protection measures are no longer required as land within the 'Protection Measure Area' is no longer subject to risk from landfill gas migration.

The following requirements apply to all permits, as determined as appropriate to the application by the responsible authority:

Landfill Gas Protection Measures - Buildings and Works in Confined Spaces

Unless otherwise agreed to by the responsible authority and Knox City Council (where Council is not otherwise the responsible authority), a permit to subdivide land within the 'Protection Measure Area' as identified on Figure 1 of this Schedule (except for a permit issued in accordance with Clause 2.0 of the Schedule) must contain a condition that a statement of compliance is issued, the landowner must enter into an agreement under section 173 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 which provides that all buildings or works containing confined spaces proposed within the landfill gas 'Protection Measure Area' must have gas protection measures designed and constructed, in accordance with the following:

A legal entity must have the ongoing responsibility and capability for the installation, operation and maintenance of the gas protection measure(s). Where this cannot be met, to protect low to medium density residential development, a boundary interception trench is acceptable. The design requires Auditor verification and construction quality assurance to be conducted.

• Before development, protection measures must designed be in accordance with the Code of Practice for the design of protective measures for methane and carbon dioxide ground gases for new buildings (British Standards 8485:2015+A1:2019 or subsequent amendments and editions) and be carried out by a qualified and experienced professional.
• The design must be verified by an accredited Environmental Auditor before any buildings or confined space are constructed on the site.
• Construction quality assurance must be carried out during installation of the gas protection measures in accordance with good practice on the testing and verification of protection systems for buildings against hazardous ground gases.
• A construction quality assurance report must be prepared on completion of the installation of the gas protection system and be verified by an Environment Protection Authority appointed Auditor before being submitted to the responsible authority.

• Acknowledge the existence of the former landfill and the potential for impact and other real and perceived amenity impacts.
• Require the owner to disclose to any intended purchaser, transferee, assignee, mortgagee, lessee, tenant or occupier the existence and nature of the agreement.

Provide that where an Auditor identifies gas protection measures as having ongoing requirements for monitoring, reporting and/or maintenance, the owner of the lot or lots the subject of the gas protection measures is/are required to undertake the monitoring, reporting and maintenance (as the case may be) at the landowner's cost.

A permit for the subdivision, use or development of land must ensure that any contamination of the land (including landfill gas) is managed by:

• Ensuring the permit aligns with the list of suitable land uses on any Preliminary Risk Screen Assessment Statement or Environmental Audit Statement issued under part 8.3 of the Environment Protection Act 2017.
• Ensuring the recommendations contained in any Environmental Audit Statement are, where relevant to the proposed permit, translated into a condition on that permit.

Where recommendations of an Environmental Audit require ongoing maintenance and/or monitoring, the applicant must enter into an agreement with the responsible authority and Knox City Council (where Council is not otherwise the responsible authority) under section 173 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. The section 173 agreement must identify the legal entity or entities that will be responsible for ensuring that any ongoing maintenance and/or monitoring measures are in place and implemented, and give effect to the ongoing maintenance and/or monitoring recommendations of the Environmental Audit. The section 173 agreement must be executed on the title of the relevant land. The applicant must meet all costs associated with the drafting and execution of the agreement, including those incurred by the responsible authority and Knox City Council.

An application for residential subdivision, use or development for a sensitive use within in the development area east of Blind Creek, must be accompanied by a plan to identify the location of the acoustic attenuation measures which considers the indicative location set out in the Traffic Noise Assessment (Marshall Day, June 2023) and designed to enable predicted compliance with the target noise objective at all ground floor locations within the development as set out in the Traffic Noise Assessment prepared by Marshall Day (June 2023).

The Plan should also outline any building design requirements for the housing (if required) to achieve compliance.

An application for residential subdivision or buildings and works must be accompanied by a bushfire management plan that achieves a bushfire resilient development during staging of the development and for the completed development by addressing the following requirements, which must demonstrate:

A permit for residential subdivision or buildings and works must contain a permit condition that, before the subdivision or buildings and works start, the landowner must prepare and submit for the responsible authority's approval a bushfire management plan. The bushfire management plan must contain the following requirements to the satisfaction of the responsible authority:

• A perimeter road or other access for emergency service vehicles on all interfaces with a permanent bushfire hazard.
• A building exclusion zone adjoining all permanent hazardous vegetation as identified by AS 3959-2018 (or subsequent amendments and editions) methodology such that radiant heat flux does not exceed 12.5 kilowatts/square metre. The building exclusion zone must comprise non-vegetated areas or low threat vegetation as defined in AS 3959-2018 Construction of buildings in bushfire prone areas (or subsequent amendments and editions) achieved by management of vegetation to the vegetation management requirements listed at Table 6 to Clause 53.02 or meets the exclusion criteria of Table 2.2.3.2 to AS 3959-2018 (or subsequent amendments and editions).
• A subdivision design and approach to lot layout that:
  • Provides for the setback of dwellings beyond the building exclusion zone with the building exclusion zone to be made up of any combination of non-vegetated area, land managed in a permanently low threat state or internal setback of dwellings within lots.
  • Provides for adequate setback of defined building envelopes beyond the building exclusion zone within lots adjoining a permanent bushfire hazard showing that a dwelling will not be constructed within the building exclusion zone.
  • Provides building envelopes on any lot lots adjoining a permanent bushfire hazard showing that a dwelling will not be constructed within the building exclusion zone.
  • Provides assurance that vegetation is managed within the building exclusion zone within lots to the vegetation management requirements listed at Table 6 to Clause 53.02.

• The management of the interim bushfire hazard (other than the identified permanent bushfire hazard) in a low threat state as defined in AS 3959-2018 (or subsequent amendments and editions) within the distance specified in Column A in Table 2 to Clause 53.02 or 30 metres, whichever is the greater as measured from the elevation of the dwelling, to ensure that at no time will a dwelling be exposed to a radiant heat flux of more than 12.5 kilowatts/square metre.
• The mechanism to be used (for example, a Ssection 173 Agreement or other control) to ensure that the required vegetation management is implemented and in place at all times during the declared fire danger period for the City of Knox.
• Ensure that the location, design and construction of development incorporates and implements bushfire protection measures in accordance with the Building Regulations and published guidance from the relevant fire authority.
• Identify areas where the bushfire hazard requires any other specific interim bushfire management measures (such as, but not limited to, access, means of evacuation and provision of bushfire safety information to people on site) for subdivision and building works to be implemented.

For land outside of the residential development area containing a permanent bushfire hazard adjoining the development:

• The mechanism to be used (for example, a Ssection 173 Agreement or other control) to ensure that any identified permanent bushfire hazard within the distances defined in Column A to Clause 53.02 for that vegetation type as defined in Australian Standard AS 3959-2018 (or subsequent amendments and editions) does not alter in structure or increase in fuel load such that the distances of the applicable building exclusion zone as measured from the elevations of the nearest dwellings are exceeded.

Traffic Assessment - North-West Development Area

If required by the Responsible Authority and the Head Transport for Victoria, an application for residential subdivision within the North-West Development Area as shown on Figure 1 to this Schedule must include a traffic assessment of the expected impact of traffic generated by the development on Nortons Lane and the intersection of Nortons Lane and High Street Road. The traffic assessment must have regard to the Integrated Transport Management Plan included in the relevant development plan.

If required by the Responsible Authority and the Head Transport for Victoria, an application for residential subdivision (except for an application to subdivide land within the North-West Development Area as shown on Figure 1 to this Schedule) must include a traffic assessment of the expected impact of traffic generated by the development on the existing and future road network including the impact on nearby intersections (George Street and High Street Road, and EastLink and High Street Road). The traffic assessment must have regard to the Integrated Transport Management Plan included in the relevant development plan.

Unless otherwise agreed with the Responsible Authority an application for residential subdivision must include traffic linked / network modelling of future conditions predicated on a distribution analysis of generated traffic having regard to:

• The Integrated Transport Management Plan.
• The nature and breakup of residential trip purposes.
• The current surrounding network.
• the impact on nearby intersections (George Street and High Street Road and Nortons Lane and High Street Road).
• the likely origin and destination of trips based on:
  • residential precincts with the site
  • connections to the arterial network
  • location of nearby services and facilities
  • journey to work data.

A development plan must be generally in accordance with the Overall Development Plan (Figure 1) of this schedule. A dDevelopment pPlan may be prepared in stages.

A development plan must include the following as relevant, all to the satisfaction of the responsible authority:

Preparation of an updated Flora and Fauna Assessment, including a native vegetation retention and removal plan in consultation with DEECA.

Any development plan relating to the South-East Development Area as shown on Figure 1 to this Schedule must include a detailed assessment of trees B89-94 and associated Valley Heathy Forest within the south-east corner of the DPO16 area and whether any of these trees may be retained.

Site Context Analysis and Design Response Report

An assessment of the site context and design response including:

• The urban context and existing conditions showing topography, the surrounding land uses, buildings, access points, adjoining roads, cycle and pedestrian network and public transport.
• The holistic stormwater management for the site and those water-related interfaces beyond the site.
• The proposed built form edge and interface treatments to the future Dandenong Valley Parklands extension, and adjacent properties.
• How the acoustic treatments respond to the residential interfaces and any direct residential properties.
• How the design proposal responds to the requirements of this Schedule and relevant local planning policy in the Knox Planning Scheme.
• If it is proposed to use Nortons Lane for access to the North-West Development Area shown on Figure 1 to this Schedule, a flora and fauna inventory and biodiversity values assessment of the Nortons Lane road reserve, how it is proposed to maintain the inventory and biodiversity values and, if not possible to maintain the inventory and biodiversity values, how it is proposed to minimise the loss of the flora and fauna and biodiversity values.
• Finished ground level to Australian Height Datum (AHD).
• The key land uses and the location of these uses in each stage.
• The landscape design approach for the site including key streetscapes and public open space (active and passive recreation areas, natural areas, other public realm) and the interface with the future Dandenong Valley Parklands, including the consideration of bushfire requirements.
• The proposed access arrangement into and through the site, including public transport and active transport modes.
• Urban design principles for the small Neighbourhood Activity Centre covering the following matters:
  • provision of active edges and landscaped responses to interface with the future Dandenong Valley Parklands extension;
  • provision of a town/urban plaza with solar exposure, design to active and passive surveillance;
  • integration of public transport connections into the centre; and
  • a description of the building height and massing principles across the Mixed Use Zone and a transition of building height to the General Residential zoned land.

• The distribution of land uses and development throughout the site including public open space, generally in accordance with Figure 1.
• In relation to the North-West Development Area as shown on Figure 1 to this Schedule, any proposed upgrade of the road within the Nortons Lane road reserve must preserve Trees 45 and 46 (as shown at Figure 3a, Supplementary Memorandum of Native Vegetation Implications for Planning Scheme Amendment C194 to the Knox Planning Scheme prepared by Ecology & Heritage Partners Pty Ltd dated 9 October 2025).
• A description of the indicative composition and siting of the small Neighbourhood Activity Centre (envisaged to be up to 1500sqm of retail space) including its interface with the future Dandenong Valley Parklands extension.
• Detail reflecting public open space, infrastructure and other elements consistent with any agreement entered into with the responsible authority.
• A description of the indicative siting, lot configuration and land uses within the mixed use precinct.
• A provision of diverse housing types in terms of size, design and access.
• The location principles relating to the provision of affordable housing.
• A hierarchy of public open spaces including an indication on functionality of parks and opportunities for public art.
• Details of the relationship/interface between housing, site boundaries and public open spaces.
• Sustainability measures/initiatives to be included in the development.
• Transport connections and access points generally in accordance with Figure 1.
• Details of the likely staging of land use and development which includes consideration of movement of kangaroos across the site to minimise the risk of kangaroos becoming landlocked.
• A notation that the intensity of land uses must not be inconsistent with the Integrated Transport Management Plan required under this Schedule, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the responsible authority.
• Detail on how any required noise attenuation measures will meet the noise level objectives in VicRoads Traffic Noise Reduction Policy (2005, or any subsequent publication) and the Traffic Noise Criteria set out in the EastLink Concession Deed (which specifies performance criteria in relation to traffic noise) or as updated at the boundary of the EastLink Freeway reserve to the satisfaction of ConnectEast. All noise attenuation measures required to satisfy these objectives must be met by the relevant landowner/developer. All noise attenuation measures must have a design life of 40 years and any planning permit issued should make provision for a maintenance bond to be provided to ConnectEast for a 10-year maintenance period for the acoustic barrier.
• A notation that dwellings adjacent to the EastLink Freeway reserve achieve compliance with the internal noise levels specified in AS/NZS2107 at all upper level.
• Details of fencing on the boundary of the EastLink Freeway reserve in locations agreed to with ConnectEast. Fencing to mitigate traffic noise from the EastLink Freeway reserve must complement the urban design treatment and landscaping of the EastLink corridor (or within the development depending on final location), restrict access to the EastLink Freeway, prevent unauthoriszed dumping of materials or rubbish blowing onto the EastLink Freeway reserve and prevent or minimise graffiti and vandalism.
• A notation that buildings are setback a minimum of 2 metres from the EastLink boundary to allow for the construction and maintenance of buildings on the land and a notation that access to the EastLink Freeway reserve will not be permitted to be used for construction and maintenance works.
• A notation that no major promotion signs are permitted to be constructed on the land adjacent to the EastLink Freeway.

• A statement explaining how landscape design addresses the strategic directions within the Knox Open Space Plan 2012-2022 (or as amended).
• A statement explaining how landscape design addresses the strategic directions within the Knox Liveable Streets Plan 2012-2022 (or as amended).
• A statement outlining the key landscape design principles and details relating to species selected throughout road reserves, along the site's key external interfaces, and within public open space. A Plan which identifies how the species selection will enhance habitat creation, prioritise indigenous trees/shrubs/grasses recogniszing the location of the residential development adjoining the Dandenong Valley Parklands extension.
• Details of how the landscaping responds to the need for management of fire risk including any buffer areas in both the public and private realms, using the vegetation descriptions set out in Australian Standard AS3959:2018.
• Details of any landscaping relating to noise mitigation measures such as bunds or noise walls and the landscaping treatment along the residential interfaces to screen the acoustic structure.
• Details of the open space elements and how they create functional play areas for a range of activities.
• A planting theme that enhances local habitat values and demonstrates compatibility with the inclusion of water sensitive urban design objectives. The planting theme on the eastern boundary must respond to the landscaping of EastLink.
• Details of the removal/retention of vegetation.

The Integrated Transport Management Plan must include:

• An assessment of the expected impact of traffic generated by the development on the existing and future road network and any reasonable mitigation measures required to address identified issues, any traffic implications of staging of development as contemplated in the Development Plan, including triggers for the provision of connections to the arterial network and local road network and implementation of any mitigation works to the satisfaction of the road authorityHead Transport for Victoria and the responsible authority.
• For any development plan in the North-West Development Area as shown on Figure 1 to this Schedule, the upgrade of the intersection of Nortons Lane and High Street Road before the first dwelling in the North-West Development Area in occupied.
• Excluding any development plan for the North-West Development Area as shown on Figure 1 to this Schedule, traffic linked/network modelling using industry recognised traffic modelling software to the satisfaction of the responsible authority and the Head, Transport for Victoria of base case and future conditions predicated on a distribution analysis of generated traffic having regard to:
  • The nature and breakup of residential trip purposes
  • The current surrounding network
  • The impacts on the following nearby intersections:
    • - EastLink/High Street Road northbound and southbound signalised intersections;
    • - High Street Road/George Street intersection; and
    • - Any other intersections reasonably required to the satisfaction of the responsible authority and the Head, Transport for Victoria.
• A statement explaining how the integrated transport network addresses the strategic directions within the Knox Liveable Streets Plan 2012-2022 (or as amended).
• An indicative road, bicycle, and pedestrian network plan showing:
  • vehicular access to the proposed internal road network;
  • pedestrian and bicycle access from surrounding areas, including both on- street and dedicated off-street facilities connecting to existing linkages to nearby residential areas;
  • a street network that makes provision for a vehicular link between High Street Road and George St but which discourages non-local through- traffic;
  • layout of internal roads, including a hierarchy of the roads that specifies the purpose, function, cross sections, and widths of the road reserves for each road type;
  • provision for bus movement through the site;
  • provision of safe, well-lit and direct pedestrian connections from the bus capable through road;
  • provision of emergency services and waste collection services through the site;
  • a pedestrian and cycle shared path network, both throughout the site and to the existing network at Knox Regional Sports Centre, Jells Park, Blind Creek and the EastLink Trail;
  • a connected footpath network both throughout the site and to the external network; and
  • the road crossover for Blind Creek and how regard has been had to the 'Constructing Waterway Crossings' (Melbourne Water, May 2011) and the 'Shared Pathways Guidelines' (Melbourne Water, 2009) in its design, unless otherwise agreed in writing by Melbourne Water; and
  • provision for large maintenance vehicle access to the Ausnet pylons

Construction and Environmental Management Concept Plan

A Construction and Environmental Management Concept Plan to address works in proximity to transmission lines, the landfill gas risk assessment, environmental audits and analysis of staging requirements of traffic works identified in the Integrated Transport Management Plan.

• Detailed information on how stormwater will be managed in a holistic manner.
• An assessment of the pre-development and expected post-development stormwater conditions.
• Details of how stormwater can be efficiently filtered, infiltrated and harvested on site to limit off-site discharge and meet all relevant State Government water quality targets, including:
  • Total Suspended Solids (TSS)
  • Total Nitrogen (TN)
  • Total Phosphorus (TP)
  • Total flows.
• Details of how the proposed development will either maintain or increase overall floodplain storage capacity of the site.
• Details of how the proposed development will limit avulsion to minimise the risk of:
  • erosion of the creek channel or floodplain;
  • transportation of sediment downstream;
  • damage to or destruction of natural habitat and stream ecology;
  • damage to or destruction of built assets; and
  • changes in the course of the Blind Creek.
• Details of remediation works within the wetlands and along the riparian zone of the Blind Creek to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.
• Details of any proposed modifications to the Blind Creek, and how these modifications will improve water quality and protect and enhance stream ecology.
• Details of any naturalizsation elements (addition of ponds and riffles, revegetation) to Blind Creek to improve its overall amenity and accessibility to it without materially changing its current course.
• Details of how the proposed development will accommodate a 1 in 100 year ARI flood level inclusive of climate change.
• Details of how any existing drainage infrastructure will be modified and how modifications will maintain or enhance hydraulic performance and flood protection of the local area.
• Necessary site control measures during the construction of any drainage works.
• Details of wetlands and stormwater maintenance works.
• A statement that:
  • All surface water (up to the 1 in 100 year ARI storm event) and underground drainage will be directed away from the EastLink Freeway reserve.
  • Any works and earthworks on the site must have no detrimental effect on the flood levels and drainage paths in and around the EastLink Freeway reserve.
  • All surface water runoff must connect to an existing Council or drainage authority water or piped asset prior tobefore entering the EastLink Freeway reserve.
  • Notation of the requirement for a Wetlands Maintenance and Operation Plan, to the satisfaction of the responsible authority, prior tobefore hand over to the public land manager of the ownership and management of stormwater infrastructure.
  • Arrangements for handover to the public land manager of the ownership and management of stormwater infrastructure subsequent to the maintenance period.

1. The Minister for Planning or delegate will refer projects by letter to the Committee for advice on whether the project achieves acceptable planning outcomes.
2. The referral letter must specify:
   1. the specific issues the Minister for Planning seeks advice about
   2. the mechanism of intervention being considered
   3. whether, or which previously collected, submissions are to be considered by the Committee
   4. how the costs of the Committee will be met.
3. The letter of referral will be a public document.
4. In making a referral, the Minister for Planning or delegate must, either:
   1. be satisfied that any proposed planning controls for the land make proper use of the Victoria Planning Provisions and are prepared and presented in accordance with the Ministerial Direction on the Form and Content of Planning Schemes, or
   2. seek advice from the Committee on the drafting of the planning controls or permit conditions.
5. The Committee may inform itself in any way it sees fit, but must consider:
   1. The referral letter from the Minister for Planning
   2. referred submissions
   3. the comments of any referral authority
   4. the views of the project proponent
   5. the views of the relevant Council and
   6. the relevant planning scheme.
6. The Committee is not expected to carry out additional public notification or referral but may seek the views of any relevant referral authority, responsible authority or government agency.
7. The Department of Transport and Planning (DTP) will be responsible for any further notification required. New submissions, if required, will be collected by DTP.
8. The Committee may seek advice from other experts, including legal counsel where it considers this is necessary.
9. The Committee is not expected to carry out a public hearing but may do so if it is deemed necessary and meets its quorum.
10. The Committee may:
    1. assess any matter 'on the papers'
    2. conduct discussions, forums, or video conferences when there is a quorum of:
       1. a Chair or Deputy Chair, and
       2. at least one other member.
11. The Committee may apply to vary these Terms of Reference in any way it sees fit.

1. The Committee must retain a library of any written submissions or other supporting documentation provided to it directly to it in respect of a referred project until a decision has been made on its report or five years has passed from the time of the referral.
2. Any written submissions or other supporting documentation provided to the Committee must be available for public inspection until the submission of its report, unless the Committee specifically directs that the material is to remain confidential. A document may be made available for public inspection electronically.

1. The Committee must produce a concise written report to the Minister for Planning providing the following:
   1. a short description of the project
   2. a short summary and assessment of issues raised in submissions
   3. a draft planning permit including relevant conditions from Section 55 referral authorities, or draft planning scheme control depending on the nature of the referral
   4. any other relevant matters raised during the Committee process
   5. its recommendations and reasons for its recommendations.
   6. a list of persons or authorities/agencies who made submissions considered by the Committee and
   7. a list of persons consulted or heard, including via video conference.
2. Following completion of a report, the Committee may deliver an oral briefing to the Minister for Planning and/or DELWP. The briefing may be by video conference or telephone.

1. The Committee is required to submit its reports in writing as soon as practicable, depending upon the complexity of the referred project between 10 and 20 business days from either:
   1. the date of receipt of referral, if no further submission or information are to be sought, or
   2. receipt of the final submission of material or final day of any public process in respect of a referral.

1. The fee for the Committee will be set at the current rate for a Panel appointed under Part 8 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.

The costs of the Advisory Committee will be met by each relevant proponent.

[1] Mr Potter was not called to present at the Hearing after the Committee and parties indicated they had no questions