//
[38]
austlii:vic/PPV/2025/59
General information, not legal advice.
PPV
2025-12-31
Original judgment source is linked above.
The Referral 41 Committee was requested to advise on whether there was sufficient information on the geotechnical and environmental risks stemming from the land's former uses as a quarry and landfill for the proposal to proceed to public exhibition as a draft amendment.
The Committee has considered all referred issues in written submissions made in response to the exhibition of the Amendment, observations from site visits, submissions, evidence and other material presented to it during the Hearing. All submissions and documents have been considered by the Committee in reaching its conclusions, regardless of whether they are specifically mentioned in the Report. The breadth of discussion in this report reflects the 20 business days specified in the Terms of Reference given to the Committee to prepare this report. A Panel is normally provided with 30 business days for a matter of this scale and nature.
This Report deals with the issues under the following headings:
This report refers to experts called by parties at the Hearing.
The Proponent provided an expert report on flora and fauna prepared by Aaron Organ of Ecology and Heritage Partners without calling Mr Organ at the Hearing.
Monash City Council (Council) called expert evidence on environmental matters from Andrew Green of WSP.
The Committee has only considered issues raised in submissions that were specified in the referral letter from the Minister for Planning. Matters not referred for independent advice include:
The subject land comprised pastoral land and was developed as a poultry farm and for market gardening including orchards and nurseries in the first half of the century
Subject land started being concurrently used as a municipal landfill
Talbot Park immediately south of the subject land was filled with refuse between 1977 and 1978
Subject land owner sought to rezone the subject land (Amendment C129)
Subject land owner made a second request to rezone the land after preparing technical reports responding to contamination and other issues identified by the Amendment C129 Panel
Council officers recommended the Amendment be exhibited but the motion lapsed
The Minister for Planning referred the geotechnical and contamination matters to the Committee
The Committee held a consultation session with Council and the owner's representatives
The Committee (Referral 41) concluded there was sufficient technical information for the draft Amendment to proceed to public exhibition
The Clayton Suburban Rail Loop East Draft Structure Plan was publicly released and included the subject land in the Planning Area
DTP undertook public consultation on draft Amendment C178mona
Council resolved to object to draft Amendment C178mona, consistent with Council officer recommendations
The Minister for Planning sent a letter to the Committee advising of her referral of the Amendment
Submissions and supporting documents were referred to the Committee
Address: 1221-1249 Centre Road, Oakleigh South (subject land) shown in Figure 1
Land use: Vacant land with waterbodies (former quarry and landfill)
Zones: General Residential Zone and Special Use Zone
South: Talbot Park, Centre Road, Residential area, school and childcare centre
Southwest: Employment area (south of Centre Road and west of Clarinda Road)
West: Huntingdale Road, Huntingdale Golf Course, Primary and secondary schools
Context: About 16 kilometres south-east of the Melbourne Central Business District
About 1.2 kilometres west of the Clayton Activity Centre including the Clayton Train Station (1.8 kilometre walking distance to train station)
About 1.2 kilometres south of the Huntingdale Neighbourhood Centre including the Huntingdale Train Station
Within the Monash National Employment and Innovation Cluster
Within the Suburban Rail Loop Authority Planning Areas Declaration for Clayton.
Monash Planning Scheme draft Amendment C178mona (the Amendment) seeks to introduce planning provisions to enable the subject land to be redeveloped from a former quarry to residential development. The proposal envisages up to 1,100 dwellings including 10 per cent as affordable housing.
Approval is sought for the proposed draft Development Plan (the Development Plan) which sets out the spatial land use and development outcomes sought to be achieved by the Amendment.
Residential Growth Zone Schedule 1 and Mixed Use Zone Schedule 3
The proposal includes a draft development plan (Development Plan) including the Development Plan layout shown in Figure 3.
The Amendment is informed and supported by the assessments set out in Table 3.
Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Due Diligence Assessment (Eco Logical Australia, 28 March 2021)
Affordable Housing Report (Urbanxchange, February 2025)
Drainage and Stormwater Management Strategy (Afflux Consulting and Verve)
Engagement Summary Report (Capire, May to September 2021)
Environmental Management Strategy (Tetra Tech Coffey, 30 October 2023)
Flora and Fauna Assessment (Ecology & Heritage Partners, September 2021)
Geotechnical Development Strategy Report (Coffey Services Australia)
Geotechnical Matters Report (Tetra Tech Coffey, 1 August 2024)
Integrated Transport Plan (Quantum Traffic, 13 November 2023)
Landscape Master Plan Report (Tract, 30 October 2023)
Settlement Predictions Report (Coffey, 31 October 2023)
Stormwater Management Plan (Verve, 23 October 2023)
Targeted Surveys for Growling Grass Frog (Ecology & Heritage Partners, February 2022)
The Committee directed the Proponent to circulate a Version 1 of the Amendment documentation before the Hearing started, and a final version with its closing submission. The Proponent circulated the following Amendment versions:
Version 1 incorporated changes in response to submissions. The final version incorporated further changes in response to matters raised during the Hearing.
The Committee's recommended planning provisions in Appendix E uses the exhibited version as the starting point.
The issue is whether landfill gas migration can be adequately managed and monitored to allow sensitive uses to be developed across the subject land.
The subject land was used as a sand quarry from the 1950s to the 1990s. From the 1970s, it was concurrently used as a municipal landfill. Progressive backfilling of the subject land occurred until 1992, using a mixture of materials including putrescible waste, rubble, soils and clay until 1992.
A large (existing) quarry void is present in the south-western portion of the subject land in Zone 4, which is partially filled with water. These historical uses have impacted the subject land's environmental and geotechnical condition.
For environmental purposes, the subject land is divided into five zones which relate to the locations of historical land uses and fill types:
Figure 4 Environmental zones across the subject land
Following the outcomes of Monash Amendment C129, an Environmental Audit report[1] was prepared pursuant to section 53X of the Environment Protection Act 1970 (EP Act) and Statements of Environmental Audit issued pursuant to section 53Z of the EP Act identifying the subject land as suitable for sensitive uses. Three Statements of Environmental Audit (SoEA) have been issued as part of this process - one for Zones 1 and 2a, a second for Zones 2, 3 and 5 and a third SoEA for Zones 4 and 4a (Document 32). An Environmental Management Strategy[2] (EMS) was prepared to implement the conditions contained in the SoEA's.
Geotechnical investigations were also undertaken following the SoEA's, leading to the preparation of a Geotechnical Development Strategy[3] (GDS) which predicts future settlement rates across the subject land and provides various geotechnical solutions.
The Referral 41 Committee concluded that the GDS and EMS should effectively mitigate risks to development provided the measures outlined in those documents are properly designed, constructed and maintained.
The Proponent called three experts regarding environmental and geotechnical issues: Mr Mival, Mr Pedler and Mr Fleming. Council called Mr Green on environmental and geotechnical matters.
Mr Mival, the author and auditor of the Environmental Audit and three Statements of Environmental Audit (SoEAs), provided landfill gas and environmental evidence. In his evidence, he stated:
Based on my original audit report and my subsequent reviews of ongoing monitoring at the site, and my experience from application of similar measures at other landfill and development sites, it is my opinion that, provided all the conditions included in the Statements attached to the Environmental Report are diligently applied and are verified by an environmental auditor, then the risk to future occupants at the site would be low and acceptable.
Mr Pedler stated that regarding preferential pathways for landfill gas and settlement impacts on geomembranes, the capping system and foundation systems will be designed to meet the Environmental Audit requirements.
Notwithstanding, Mr Green raised the following matters regarding landfill gas issues:
After circulating their expert reports, the environmental experts met to prepare a joint expert statement[6] which indicated the following landfill gas matters agreed between the experts:
All environmental experts agree that such measures can be implemented and that any final solutions will need to be verified by the environmental auditor. Mr Mival stated that verification of the landfill gas monitoring and mitigation measures will be at the time they are designed. He confirmed through a question from Mr Connor that for an environmental auditor to sign off the audit, all designs, buildings, footings, interactions with the subject land, landfill gas risks and measures to be implemented to reduce risks and how they will be monitored will need to be verified and signed off by the auditor/s.
The Environment Protection Authority (EPA) relied on the environmental audit system and that process to ensure the potential risks are adequately identified and managed. EPA submitted:
At the outset, EPA would like to take this opportunity to provide some background information on the environmental audit system. This information is being provided because, as a general rule, if an environmental auditor validates a technical document, EPA typically has no concerns. This is relevant to the Committee given the questions posed to EPA, many of which are addressed through the established procedures of the environmental audit system.
EPA administers the environmental audit system, which includes the appointment of environmental auditors.
In the context of land use planning, the environmental audit system provides the mechanism for planning and responsible authorities to obtain independent site-specific advice on site suitability and recommendations for controls on use and development. The environmental audit system is used by planning and responsible authorities, government agencies and the private sector[7].
All the environmental experts agreed that basements should only be allowed in Zone 4 (not 4A) and consideration could be given to basements in Zone 2A for the piled buildings but not if a rating of Characteristic Situation 4 still applies after preload works have occurred in Zone 1. Mr Mival stated only if the interception trenches are completed along the full length of Talbot Avenue to prevent further landfill gas entering the sandy soils below Zone 2A, along with vapour barriers under all buildings, including any basements.
The joint expert statement suggests that the wording on page 59 of the Development Plan should be amended so that basements are only be allowed in Zone 4 (excluding Zone 4A) and potentially Zone 2A subject to the following:
(a) Consideration could be given to basements in Zone 2A for piled buildings but if a CS4 level of risk continues to apply to this area following the Zone 1 preload then basements should be excluded from this area; and
(b) Only if the interception trenches are completed along the full length of Talbot Avenue to prevent further landfill gas entering the sandy soils below Zone 2A, along with vapour barriers under buildings including ay basements. This would require a change to Figure 44 of the Development Plan.
Mr Green referred to a location of the subject land (see below) that will have multiple overlapping infrastructure. This includes:
There were calls for this area to be developed by one developer due to the complexity.
All other environmental experts agreed with Mr Green on this matter and that an exact zone is to be confirmed which the experts expected to include Zones 1, 2A, 4A and any other areas where apartment/mixed use (4-6 storeys) is proposed.
The Proponent submitted that the GDS could be updated to include a requirement that the development of the central area should be well coordinated, preferably by one management entity, owner or developer and with one environmental auditor. There is likely to be numerous ways this requirement can be implemented, including by explanation and related obligations being included in the Development Plan. The Proponent recognised that this is a matter that will need to be addressed in the key documents so that it is successfully implemented.
The subject land's historic use as a quarry and landfill has contributed to the complexity of the environmental issues that need to be remediated to allow sensitive uses. The Committee acknowledges that the Proponent has been undertaking environmental works and monitoring over the past decade to determine the extent of landfill gas risk and other environmental matters to inform how the subject land might be developed for residential and mixed uses.
It is clear from Mr Mival's evidence that much of the subject land has a low risk of landfill gas migration due to:
The Committee accepts the analysis of characteristic situation across the subject land, as agreed to by the other environmental experts.
The issue is whether engineering solutions can be designed to ensure landfill gas migration does not occur offsite and is not a risk to future residents of the subject land. It is evident that the further work undertaken by the Proponent (as presented in Mr Pedler's evidence) and the agreement between the experts noted in the joint expert statement, suggests:
The Committee understands that the Environmental Audit and the Statement of Environmental Audits cannot be revised, however the conditions of these SoEAs will need to be addressed through the EMS required in Clause 4 of the DPO6. Notably, the EPA is satisfied with this process.
Vents are to be constructed sufficiently high above the building roof levels and will have facilities to install activated carbon on stacks if required to eliminate any risk of odour and the Committee finds this is a reasonable solution. The Development Plan will need to reflect vents being well above the roof levels.
Although the environmental experts did not provide an agreed adequate easement width, they agreed that if installation of gas mitigation measures (boundary venting) is required along the northern and eastern boundary of the subject land, a minimum three-metre easement will be required to implement such measures and ongoing maintenance. The details of such measures, including width of boundaries if they are required, will be determined at the detailed design stage. The Development Plan (at Figure 44) indicates an easement area in the event that the boundary venting measures are required. The updated EMS required at DPO6 Clause 4.0 specifies that such measures relating to the ongoing management and monitoring of the site conditions, relating to soil, groundwater and landfill gas during development and post-occupation be identified.
The Committee agrees with the environmental experts that basements could be allowed in Zone 4 (not 4A) only and that the Development Plan and possibly other documents such as the GDS and EMS will need to be updated to reflect this. It is too early to know if basements will be able to be built in Zone 2A until the results of future preloading works in Zone 1 are known. Once available, this information should be reflected in the updated EMS and the Development Plan.
It is important for the subject land's complex central area (which includes Zones 1, 2A, 4A and any other areas where apartment/mixed use (4-6 storeys) is proposed) to be appropriately managed if it is to be developed for sensitive uses. EPA confirms this complexity and need for a holistic approach to ongoing management of landfill gas risks across the subject land in its submission.
The Committee agrees with Mr Green and the other experts that much of the complex landfill gas and geotechnical issues are associated with the subject land's central zones and that ideally, one developer would oversee the environmental works and development across these areas to ensure the environmental works and monitoring is consistent.
The GDS should be revised to require the development of the central area to be well coordinated, preferably by one management entity, owner or developer and with one environmental auditor. This should be explained, along with related obligations, in the Development Plan. This degree of direction is needed to address this matter and ensure it is successfully implemented.
Revise the Environmental Management Strategy, Geotechnical Development Strategy and Development Plan to:
a) restrict the construction of basements to only Zone 4 (not 4A)
b) specify that easements be a minimum of three metres for boundary venting if they are required in the future
c) require vents to be higher than the building roof levels to minimise odour risk
d) reflect current information regarding monitoring, additional data and modelling in Mr Pedler's expert report (Document 26) and the agreed outcomes of the experts joint statement (Document 66)
e) seek a single entity to remediate and manage the development of the Central areas of the subject land.
The issue is whether the geotechnical issues can be adequately managed and monitored to allow sensitive uses to be developed across the subject land.
The subject land has had geotechnical and environmental investigations since 2004. These investigations have included hydrogeological and geotechnical work. A detailed geotechnical investigation was undertaken in 2013, followed by a two-stage investigation in 2020/2021 by Tetra Tech Coffey which analysed physical soil properties and included a three-dimensional ground model.
The GDS presents the design philosophy to address the key geotechnical issues to allow the mixed-use development of the subject land. The GDS draws upon the studies conducted by Tetra Tech Coffey and other consultants since 2004.
Figure 6 Geotechnical domains across the subject land
The GDS presents the subject land's history, the geotechnical investigations that have been carried out and results of the geotechnical assessment to develop suitable rehabilitation options and foundation systems. The GDS suggests that development will need to adopt appropriate mitigation design measures to limit the extent of differential settlement across the structures and infrastructure across the subject land.
The Proponent called Mr Pedler to provide geotechnical evidence.
The Proponent called Mr Fleming to provide expert evidence on whether the subject land could be adequately serviced to allow for residential and mixed uses. Mr Fleming considered how the services could be designed to take account of the potential issues associated with the former use and rehabilitation of the subject land, including, but not limited to settlement, differential settlement and migration of landfill gases and concluded that the land is able to be serviced for residential development.
Mr Green noted that Mr Fleming's expert report specifies that articulated gas for residential properties is no longer allowed for this development. He considered:
A joint expert witness statement[8] confirmed matters agreed regarding geotechnical and service infrastructure matters between the relevant experts are:
There was no dispute between the parties that the geotechnical issues that arise from the historical use of the subject land cannot be resolved through engineering and environmental works such as preloading fill. It was also mostly understood that detailed designs will be provided for verification to the environmental auditor or 'suitable qualified professional' at a later stage as part of the detailed development plans.
Given that further work has been undertaken by the Proponent that can better inform the engineering solutions, this work should be reflected in the applicable documents that are endorsed through DPO6. The Committee supports Mr Pedler's recommendation for DPO6 to require an Engineering Report which describes the subsidence mitigation measures that will be adopted for the subject land to be prepared by a suitably qualified consultant.
The Committee and Council raised questions about the need to understand the staging of environmental and geotechnical works across the subject land in relation to the proposed Development Plan. The indicative program provided by the Proponent:
Revise the Environmental Management Strategy, Geotechnical Development Strategy and Development Plan to:
a) update the Geotechnical Development Strategy to reflect the additional work undertaken by the Proponent to understand the geotechnical conditions and proposed solutions for the subject land
b) include the indicative staging plan
c) reflect that there is to be no reticulated gas to the subject land
d) update the stormwater management strategy to account for climate change.
Amend Development Plan Overlay Schedule 6, as shown in Appendix E, to revise Clause 3.0 to require an Engineering Report which describes the subsidence mitigation measures that will be adopted for the subject land to be prepared by suitably qualified consultant.
4.3 Adequacy of provisions to manage landfill gas and geotechnical risks
The GDS and EMS are key documents that guide the use and development of the subject land and inform the Development Plan.
DPO6 has been drafted to ensure that these, and other key documents with respect to geotechnical and environmental issues are required to be prepared:
(a) A development plan must include (amongst others);
(i) An Environmental Management Strategy which identifies how the conditions of the Statement of Environmental Audit will be implemented including measures to mitigate potential landfill gas risks and which demonstrates that:
Environmental risks at the site can be appropriately managed so that is it suitable for the proposed use or development;
Environmental management requirements for the former quarry and landfill have been or will be addressed to the extent appropriate before the land is developed for urban purpose.
The Environmental management measures include appropriate construction quality assurance and independent verification processes.
The requirements relating to the ongoing management and monitoring of the site conditions, relating to soil, groundwater and landfill gas during development and post- occupation.
(ii) A Geotechnical Development Strategy which outlines the proposed design response for site preparation works associated with the geotechnical ground improvements works required for the Site and geotechnical design solutions for future development;
(b) A planning permit application must include:
(i) A report by a qualified consultant confirming that:
- in accordance with the GDS, either the measured settlement demonstrates the application land is satisfying the predicted settlement criterion or that alternative ground improvement works have been carried out or will be carried out as part of the development of the Site; and
- the proposed foundations are in accordance with the GDS.
(ii) An independent peer review of the report, if required by the responsible authority.
(iii) A Construction Environmental Management Plan (or similar plan) approved by an Environmental Auditor;
(iv) Verification by an Environmental Auditor confirming that the proposed development is in accordance with the requirements of the Statements of Environmental Audit.
Should the Amendment documents reflect new information?
As described previously in this report, experts agreed that the EMS, GDS and the relevant section of the Development Plan should be updated to reflect the latest technical information and agreed outcomes since the PPSAC Referral 41 process.
Mr Green stated that Mr Mival and Mr Pedler's additional recommendations provided in their expert reports have not been recognised or incorporated in the current EMS and GDS.
In response, the Proponent proposed changes to DPO6 that clarifies the GDS and EMS referred in that schedule are the documents considered in this process.
Will the proposed planning provisions ensure development does not generate unreasonable offsite impacts or risk?
Mr Mival considered the DPO6 planning provisions to be acceptable and would allow suitable completion of the development provided that the conditions included in the Audit Statements are diligently applied during and after construction and occupation of the residences.
Which authority should enforce geotechnical and environmental matters?
EPA submitted the use of a section 173 agreement is consistent with Planning Practice Note 30 (Potentially Contaminated Land) which recommends a section 173 agreement "where there are recommendations on an environmental audit statement that require significant ongoing maintenance and/or monitoring".
Should the Amendment documents be revised to reflect new information?
Further testing and work including information in the expert reports have clearly resulted in a better understanding of the site conditions that will better inform future development. This further information needs to be reflected in the relevant Amendment documents, namely the GDS, EMS and draft Development Plan. Details of the changes are discussed in Chapters 4.1 and 4.2.
All experts agreed on this matter and the Committee accepts their advice.
Will the proposed planning provisions ensure that development does not generate unreasonable offsite impacts or risk?
The Committee considers that DPO6 (Final version) would allow for the assessment of unreasonable offsite amenity impacts and environmental or geotechnical risks as part of the permit application process. Their mechanisms include provisions for an environmental auditor or suitably qualified person to verify the detailed plans and designs put forward to manage the risks. This includes ensuring that the conditions included in the Audit Statements are diligently applied during and after construction and occupation of the residences.
Which authority should enforce geotechnical and environmental matters?
Given the complexity and history of the subject land, the Committee agrees with Council that the Minister for Planning should be the responsible authority approving planning permits and the Development Plan.
The proposed section 173 agreement (a draft was not provided as part of this process) should therefore also be between the Proponent and the Minister for Planning.
Amend the Clause 72.01 Schedule to designate the Minister for Planning as the responsible authority for planning permits at 1221-1249 Centre Road, Oakleigh South.
Amend Development Plan Overlay Schedule 6, as shown in Appendix E, to revise Clause 4.0 to identify:
a) Environmental Management Strategy prepared by Tetra Tech Coffey dated 30 October 2023) as the relevant strategy
b) Geotechnical Development Strategy prepared by Tetra Tech Coffey dated 9 November 2023 as the relevant strategy.
The issue is whether construction noise from the proposed development of the subject land will result in unreasonable offsite impacts.
There are no background documents assessing noise and vibration.
Appendix B of the Environmental Management Strategy contains a CEMP. The CEMP forms part of the Environmental Management Strategy for the subject land, and provides overarching framework and specific requirements for the implementation of environmental management measures during the proposed site redevelopment.
Mr Thomspon called Mr Dalmau as an expert on construction noise and Ms Westcott as an expert on audiology.
Through a question from the Committee, Ms Westcott confirmed the noise criteria referred to in her expert evidence are related to Occupational Health and Safety (Noise) Regulations 1992, not construction noise criteria under EPA Victoria guidelines.
Mr Dalmau undertook a detailed review of Appendix B of the Environmental Management Strategy[10] which is the CEMP. He stated:
Ms Collingwood referred Mr Dalmau to DPO6 (Version 1) which included a Noise and Vibration Management Plan at Clause 3.0 (permit requirements). Mr Dalmau agreed that it covered the matters he would like to see in a Noise and Vibration Management Plan.
Amenity issues such as noise from heavy machinery, vibration from large construction and earthworks and dust are issues that generally arise from construction activities on all sorts of sites. The initial application of preload fill works over a short period and then its subsequent removal at the end of the settlement period will cause some noise and vibration.
The Committee is satisfied that the matters raised by Mr Dalmau have been incorporated into DPO6 (Final version) which now proposes a NVMP as a permit requirement for the geotechnical ground improvement works. Noise can be adequately managed through this additional requirement.
Amend Development Plan Overlay Schedule 6, as shown in Appendix E, to revise Clause 3.0 to specify a permit condition that requires a Noise and Vibration Management Plan be prepared by a suitably qualified acoustic expert that includes specified information.
Amendment VC277, introduced on 18 December 2025, revised the car parking provisions throughout Victoria. These changes are unlikely to substantively impact the proposal because they categorise the subject land as part Category 1 and 2, neither of which apply maximum parking rates. The Committee's terms of reference restrictive timeframes did not enable these changes to be considers through its process.
The Development Plan includes the street hierarchy plan shown in Figure 7.
Figure 7 Proposed subject land internal road network
There were submissions which considered additional demand generated by future development on the subject land:
The Proponent relied on Mr Gnanakone's evidence which adopted slightly lower traffic generation rates than the Integrated Transport Plan based on the subject land's strong walkability, proximity to services and future accessibility by public transport.
Head, Transport for Victoria (Head TfV) agreed in principle to the left/right-in and left-out on Centre Road to access the subject land. It advised any future submitted plans would need to comply with the Department of Transport and Plannings' Road and Roadside Safety Policy and designs.
Mr Gnanakone recommended that right-turn movements be permitted at the Centre Road/Talbot Avenue intersection to provide more convenience to future residents. He considered it would be:
Mr Gnanakone stated there are right turns across the wider Centre Road corridor other than those immediately next to signalised intersections.
The Proponent submitted that Head TfV supports Mr Gnanakone's evidence to permit left-in/left-out/right-in movements at the Centre Road/Talbot Avenue intersection which:
Mr Gnanakone recommended mitigation works shown in Figure 8 which he considered:
Figure 8 Huntingdale Road/Centre Road intersection recommended works
Head TfV supported the mitigation works at this intersection and submitted:
The Committee considers there is enough capacity of the local road network to support additional traffic that will be generated by future development on the subject land. It makes this comment while noting the Huntingdale Road/Centre intersection is currently experiencing long queues of vehicles during peak times. Based on the proposed access points and conceptual road layout, the subject land is unlikely to result in unreasonable safety or amenity issues on local streets.
There are three factors which influence whether the Centre Road/Talbot Avenue intersection should enable right turns - safety, traffic disruption and the views of the responsible road manager.
From a safety perspective, the Committee considers it would be relatively safe for a driver to turn right from Talbot Avenue onto Centre Road during quieter times. The proposed intersection would be about 400 metres from the Huntingdale Road/Centre intersection with enough separation to enable safe turns.
However, a right turn onto Centre Road is likely to disrupt traffic during peak times. Traffic volume figures in Mr Gnanakone's expert report (after mitigation works are implemented for the Huntingdale Road/Centre intersection) suggest heavy traffic volumes and lengthy queues around an overly saturated intersection during these times. Right turns at the Centre Road/Talbot Avenue intersection should not be permitted during peak times to avoid exacerbating these conditions.
The Committee then turned to the third factor when considering whether there should be right turns outside of peak times. Head TfV is the responsible road manager for Centre Road and it does not agree with right turns at this future intersection. This support is fundamental to decisions associated with the future intersection. Accordingly, the Committee does not support right turns at the Centre Road/Talbot Avenue intersection.
Drivers not complying with the law or the inability to enforce traffic rules are not justified reasons to allow right turns at this intersection.
The Committee accepts Mr Gnanakone's evidence regarding the Huntingdale Road/Centre intersection, including the SIDRA analysis which found it would operate very poorly with the increase traffic generated from residents on the subject land. His recommended mitigation measures offer a sensible response to a partly existing issue which do not require land beyond the existing road reservation.
The Proponent, Head TfV and Council generally agree on the type of mitigation works needed for the Huntingdale Road/Centre intersection. Chapter 5.8 of this report discusses the appropriate planning provisions to implement these measures.
The issue is whether the current planning framework in the Planning Scheme is sufficient to consider potential parking impacts in response to demand generated by future residents and visitors on the subject land.
There were submissions that considered there would be insufficient on-site parking provided in the development, resulting in visitors parking in surrounding streets.
Mr Gnanakone gave evidence that the proposed development will provide enough parking for residents and visitors. He added:
The Proponent adopted Mr Gnanakone's evidence on parking.
Parking is a matter that will be considered through the planning permit process therefore it is premature to consider that degree of detail at this stage. Without detailed plans, any suggestion there will be insufficient car parking provided on the subject land is hypothetical. The subject land is able to accommodate car parking for visitors when required.
The Committee concludes the current planning framework in the Planning Scheme is sufficient to consider potential parking impacts in response to demand generated by future residents and visitors on the subject land.
The issue is whether future residents on the subject land will generate sufficient demand to justify the subject land developer paying for or providing a pedestrian crossing on Centre Road near Talbot Avenue.
Head TfV considered the Amendment should allow for the provision of pedestrian operated signals on Centre Road. It submitted:
Council also considered that pedestrian signals were required given the number of school children expected to use the crossing.
At the Hearing, Mr Gnanakone noted his evidence was based on the 100 pedestrians each hour and acknowledged the 50 pedestrians each hour for predominately school aged students.
The Committee agrees with Head TfV that having students with parents cross four lanes of traffic across a main road is precarious. This is the situation for those living north of Centre Road seeking to access Clarinda Primary School. It also agrees that having to walk 200 metres west or 350 metres east then backtrack to the school is likely to encourage students to cross at an uncontrolled section of Centre Road.
However, it is not possible to include any requirement through the Amendment because it is unclear:
The DTP Traffic Engineering Manual advises to consider such signals if the pedestrians are predominately school aged students. Head TfV estimated 50 students with accompanying parents. Assuming one parent with every two students, that equates to about 33 students which is well below the threshold for considering signals.
What is also unclear is what proportion should be fairly and proportionately attributed to the subject land developer. Head TfV was unable to confirm:
The Committee would have considered including a requirement to apportion some of the cost for this crossing to the developer if there was robust evidence to confirm:
It would be unfair and inappropriate to require the developer to pay the full cost of a signalised pedestrian crossing that is likely to be predominately used by students and parents beyond the subject land.
The Committee concludes it would be unfair and inappropriate to require the subject land developer to pay for a signalised pedestrian crossing on Centre Road when it is unclear:
The issue is whether there is a sufficient planning framework to achieve the degree of mode shift sought by planning policy regarding sustainable transport.
At the Hearing, Mr Gnanakone acknowledged the subject land was not in a 20-minute walkable neighbourhood. He added:
Council added that relying on buses, on-site commercial facilities and green streets will not bring about mode shift to supplement the mode shift the Suburban Rail Loop station will bring about.
DPO6 (Final version) required the Integrated Transport Report to include a Green Travel Plan.
The subject land is not within a 20-minute neighbourhood, though it is in the declared Suburban Rail Loop Planning Area for Clayton. The Clayton Train Station is not within walking distance to the subject land being a walk of about 1.8 kilometres or 25 minutes. The proposed convenience centre will encourage future residents on the subject land to walk to these shops to buy certain items. However, this does not represent the breadth of retail and services envisaged for a 20-minute neighbourhood.
The Committee agrees with Council that the subject land's reliance on buses, on-site commercial facilities and green streets is unlikely to achieve the sufficient mode shift to align with policy objectives and aspirations. There was no information to explain how a reasonable proportion of residents on the subject land would consider riding a bicycle rather than using their vehicle to reach the Clayton Activity Centre including its train station.
Reduced car parking rates can be considered in locations with suitable alternative and sustainable transport options. The subject land does not have those attributes because it is almost 2 kilometres from the Clayton Activity Centre including the existing and proposed train stations.
The subject land's circumstances present challenges to encouraging a shift to sustainable transport. However, this does not mean there should be no requirement to consider options. The dwelling densities proposed for the subject land need to be complimented with sustainable transport alternatives to align with planning policy objectives and the aspirations sought by the Suburban Rail Loop project.
The Committee agrees with Council that DPO6 should require a Green Travel Plan. DPO6 (Final version) includes such as an Integrated Transport Report requirement without specifying any broad outcomes to be achieved. There should be more care given to sustainable transport by investigating and specifying such outcomes in DPO6 to help guide future decisions. It is not the role of the Committee to identify these outcomes.
Amend Development Plan Overlay Schedule 6, as shown in Appendix E, to revise Clause 4.0 to require a Green Travel Plan as part of the Integrated Transport Report and to specify broad outcomes the plan should achieve.
The issue is whether future residents on the subject land will generate sufficient demand to justify the subject land developer paying or providing upgrades to bus stops at:
Head TfV considered the Amendment should allow for some infrastructure upgrades at two Scotsburn Avenue bus stops near Coonil Street to encourage patronage (see Figure 9). It also sought wayfinding signage throughout the subject land.
Upgrading the two Scotsburn Avenue bus stops to make them compliant with Disability Discrimination Act 1992 will help make the public transport system more inclusive. However, this is a different issue to whether there is a nexus between the future population expected on the subject land and the need for this infrastructure.
It would be inappropriate and unfair to require the developer to fully fund these upgrades for several reasons. The Committee is not persuaded such upgrades would encourage more commuters to use the bus service. The decision to use this service is more likely to be determined by its route, frequency and alignment with the train timetable. Conversely, someone without alternative transport options is unlikely to be discouraged from using the bus service with stops in their current form.
It may have been appropriate for the developer to fund the bus stop upgrades if it was clearly evident that a notable proportion of residents from the subject land would decide to use the bus service as a result of the upgrades. This is because the sustainable transport measures proposed for the subject land are unlikely to result in the degree of envisaged mode shift to public transport.
While the Committee supports making the stops more accessible, there is insufficient information to justify them from being funded by the developer. Of the small number of people they are likely to benefit from the upgrades, it is unclear how many will be from existing established areas compared with those from the subject land.
The issue is whether heavy vehicle movements during the subject land's construction phase will result in acceptable offsite outcomes.
Submissions considered that heavy vehicle movements would result in unacceptable amenity and safety issues during the subject land's construction phase.
Construction traffic can negatively affect the amenity and safety of an area if it is not appropriately managed. The Committee agrees with Mr Gnanakone that such traffic should be considered through the Construction Management Plan and Construction Traffic Management Plan that are generally required during the planning permit stage. DPO6 should require such plans during the planning permit stage.
The Committee concludes that heavy vehicle movements should be considered through a Construction Management Plan and Construction Traffic Management Plan during the planning permit stage to appropriately manage amenity and safety issues during the subject land's construction phase.
Amend Development Plan Overlay Schedule 6, as shown in Appendix E, to revise Clause 3.0 to require a Construction Management Plan and Construction Traffic Management Plan.
The issue is whether the proposed key pedestrian/cycle route identified in the Development Plan through private land (the Amara Estate) to the Clayton Activity Centre will result in unreasonable amenity impacts to residents.
Key pedestrian/cycle route shown as green dotted line
They explained that this will exacerbate existing issues such as vandalism, littering and trespassing, resulting affected residents having to pay more for maintenance.
The Proponent acknowledged the issue and proposed to remove the pedestrian route through the Amara Estate from the Development Plan.
There was discussion at the Hearing about the possibility of acquiring an existing property in one of the abutting eastern streets to add a more convenient east-west connection.
The Committee acknowledges the subject land will have restricted access to the existing eastern residential area through Coombs Avenue and Coonil Street about 600 metres away. This distance does not provide for convenience connectivity.
The proposal to identify a key pedestrian/cycle route through the Amara Estate shortens the distance to about 400 metres between the north and south connections between the subject land and eastern residential area. However, it creates new issues which outweigh the benefit of a modestly shorter walk. Having non-residents walk through privately owned land is likely to result in unreasonable amenity impacts.
It is premature and outside the scope of the Amendment to consider an alternative pedestrian route that requires the acquisition of a privately owned property. The Committee agrees with the Proponent that the Development Plan should remove the key pedestrian/cycle route through the privately owned Amara Estate.
The Committee concludes the proposed key pedestrian/cycle route identified in the Development Plan through private land (the Amara Estate) to the Clayton Activity Centre will result in unreasonable amenity impacts to residents.
Amend the Development Plan to remove the key pedestrian/cycle route through the Amara Estate comprising Groundcover Lane, Boobialla Land and Amara Circuit.
Council considered the traffic and access issues were properly dealt with from a statutory planning perspective but the analysis behind the transport strategy was not sufficiently robust.
Head TfV requested the relevant provisions in DPO6 include the following Integrated Transport Report requirements in Clause 4.0:
Identifies proposed mitigation works and intersection upgrades, to the satisfaction of Department of Transport and Planning, for:
Head TfV also sought to delete the fourth and fifth points in the Integrated Transport Report requirements.
DPO6 (Final version) did not include the Head TfV changes.
Regarding the Huntingdale Road/Centre Road intersection, Council submitted:
The Proponent added the following requirement in DPO6 (Final version):
For the first permit for development of dwellings in Stage 4, a condition requiring entry into a s173 Agreement with the Responsible Authority and Head TfV as a party to provide, to the satisfaction of Head TfV, for the delivery of:
The Committee finds the proposed DPO6 provisions are generally appropriate for informing future traffic related decisions regarding the subject land.
The Integrated Transport Report requirements in DPO6 should better guide future decisions by providing more direction. The exhibited requirements are mostly generic and could apply anywhere. The Committee supports Head TfV's request to add further direction that inform the future Integrated Transport Report to the extent of changes the Committee has supported elsewhere in this report. For example, the Committee was unable to find sufficient basis to support the developer paying for upgrades to the Scotsburn Avenue bus stop.
The Committee shares Council's concern regarding the uncertainty associated with the lack of planning provisions to deliver the Huntingdale Road/Centre Road intersection as specified in Mr Gnanakone's expert report. While the Committee supports the aspiration sought by the Proponent's section 173 agreement requirement proposed for DPO6 Clause 3.0, its drafting falls short of achieving the certainty sought by Council and the PE Act.
Without a specific timeframe for delivering the intersection mitigation works, it is unclear when or if it will eventuate. Consistent with good practice drafting, the requirement should include timing. The Proponent refers to the first permit for development of dwellings in Stage 4 therefore the first statement of compliance for subdivision in this area should not be issued until the mitigation works are completed.
Amend Development Plan Overlay Schedule 6, as shown in Appendix E, to:
a) revise Clause 3.0 to require a permit condition for a section 173 agreement that requires the landowner to deliver mitigation works at the Huntingdale Road and Centre Road intersection before the first statement of compliance is issued in the Stage 4 area
b) revise Clause 4.0 to provide more direction for the Integrated Transport Plan.
The issue is whether the open space proposed with development on the subject land is appropriate and justified.
A planning permit to subdivide the land should include a condition requiring a Section 173 Agreement to secure the provision and retention of publicly accessible open space on the land.
DPO6 Clause 4.0 requires the Development Plan to follow the Talbot Village vision and design principles which includes to:
Provide high-quality public realm, green open spaces, tree-lined streets, integrating and complementing the existing recreational and landscape qualities of the locality.
Create a network of open spaces providing a distinct urban character and varying recreation offers that support a healthy and active lifestyle for residents.
The Panel notes that the examples provided by Huntingdale of small children's play areas, BBQs and gym equipment provide a very localised benefit to residents of a dense strategic redevelopment site. This type of open space is materially different to public open space planned for and delivered at a municipal level and for which development is being asked to make a contribution.
There were varying views between parties about the calculation, extent, form and quality of open space proposed to be provided on the subject land.
Regarding its calculation, open space provision generally excludes encumbered land such as drainage. The 1.97 hectares proposed for wetlands should not be included in the open space calculation. There may be circumstances where it is appropriate to offset some of the unencumbered open space area because of the extent of proposed encumbered open space. That does not exist in this instance.
The Proponent seeks to specify no open space provision in the Clause 53.01 Schedule so it can provide public open space on the subject land to the extent and configuration that it prefers. This would also exempt future applications from having to consider Clause 19.02-6L.
Public open space proposed to be transferred to Council should be in a form that meets Council's specifications set out in its policy. These are set out in Planning Scheme Clause 19.02-6L which was informed by the adopted Monash Open Space Strategy. The proposed open spaces, particularly the smaller pocket parks, are generally not consistent with the specifications sought by this policy.
The pocket parks proposed on the subject land are not in the form which is sought by the Planning Scheme and broader Monash community. They do not have the function or serve the catchment sought through local policy. There is no issue in providing these open spaces in the future development, however they will predominantly serve residents on the subject land and should not be considered as part of the open space calculation.
Clause 19.02-6L recognises the municipality has areas that have open space within an accessible distance while others are undersupplied. It seeks to rebalance this distribution by seeking cash contributions in well served areas to help fund the provision of open space in undersupplied areas.
Regarding this local policy, future residents on the subject land will be within 400 metres to existing active and passive public open spaces (Davies Reserve and Talbot Park) so the developer would provide an equivalent cash payment for open space in an undersupplied area.
While policy in Clause 19.02-6L is not a mandatory requirement, it should be applied unless there is good reason not to. The Committee is not persuaded such a reason exists.
There will be no issue regarding the quality of the public open space transferred to Council if no public open space is required to be provided on the subject land, as proposed by DPO6 and supported by the Clause 53.01 Schedule open space requirement exemption.
Abandon open space changes proposed for the Clause 53.01 Schedule.
Ecology and Heritage Partners (EHP) undertook field work and prepared a Flora and Fauna assessment in 2021 which informed the Development Plan.
The Development Plan (at section 4.6) states that due to the significant earthworks required to improve the ground conditions at the subject land and stormwater drainage requirements for future development, all vegetation on the subject land is proposed to be removed. This would be approximately 0.256 hectares of native vegetation removal. The offset requirement for this native vegetation removal is 0.044 General Habitat Units and five Large Trees.
While most of trees are located around the subject land boundary, the GDS contemplates preloading of fill up to five metres from the site boundaries to ensure uniform settlement of ground within the former quarry pits. Trees will be required to be removed to enable these earthworks to take place.
Trees and vegetation within the quarry void in the south-western portion of the subject land will also be required to be removed to enable the backfilling of the quarry pit.
EHP prepared a Growling Grass Frog assessment in 2022.
Regarding potentially suitable habitat for Growling Grass Frog within the former quarry void (study area), Mr Organ stated:
The subject land is heavily disturbed and is surrounded by various urban land uses.
Through the assessments of EHP, the Proponent has determined there are minimal native vegetation issues to be considered with a native vegetation offset required of 0.044 General Habitat Units and five Large Trees.
No Growling Grass Frog was detected during the surveys on the subject land and there are barriers to the dispersal of the species from surrounding areas. Minimal connectivity is available.
DEECA seeks to apply the Growling Grass Frog Habitat Design Standards however the Committee agrees with Mr Organ that the subject land does not include Growling Grass Frog habitat and is not within the Melbourne Strategic Assessment area of which the Growling Grass Frog Habitat Design Standards apply.
DPO6 Clause 4.0 requires the Development Plan to include a Community Infrastructure Plan and Servicing and Infrastructure Plan.
There were submissions from the local community that considered the increased population resulting from developing the subject land would pressure to social and physical infrastructure and services including parks and open spaces, schools, hospitals and other essential infrastructure.
Mr Panozzo disagreed with Council's request to require the social infrastructure assessment before the Development Plan or planning permit stage. He added:
There is no available information to support claims that there will be insufficient social and physical infrastructure and services to support the future population. No relevant provider or authority made such a submission or appeared at the Hearing. No submitter qualified or demonstrated how there may be a capacity issue. The Committee does not recommend any change in response to these submissions.
The Committee agrees with Council regarding the need to have a timely mechanism to deliver social infrastructure. This is consistent with Mr Panozzo's evidence where he acknowledged there may be a need for a section 173 agreement to ensure an appropriate contribution is made after the outcomes of the Community Infrastructure Report are known. However, this prolonged approach will result in issues identified by Council.
The Social Infrastructure Assessment prepared as part of the Amendment clearly sets out potential demand from residents on the subject land and likely services including capacity that will be needed. Further work referred to by Mr Panozzo can occur without the need for a second community infrastructure report. The Committee agrees with Mr Panozzo that:
The absence of this work at this stage of the process has had flow on effects right through to the proposed planning provisions. This work was needed to support the Amendment and to inform the Development Plan. The Development Plan should have identified demand for, and proposed social infrastructure needed, to support the subject land's future population. Any community infrastructure considerations should apply to all the subject land, rather than just to the area relevant to the first permit. It will be difficult to secure social infrastructure contributions in the future without this foundational work and without an appropriate statutory mechanism.
To appropriately prepare the Amendment and Development Plan:
Before finalising the Development Plan, prepare a Community Infrastructure Report that:
a) analyses existing community and recreational infrastructure in the surrounding area
b) assesses new community and recreational infrastructure required to support the new community on the subject land.
Amend the Development Plan to include key findings and recommendations of the Community Infrastructure Report.
Amend Development Plan Overlay Schedule 6, as shown in Appendix E, to require a section 173 agreement requiring the landowner to provide the community infrastructure contributions specified in the Development Plan.
6.4 Drafting matters associated with the referred issues
A schedule must be read with other planning controls
A schedule adds to the parent control that it is derived from. It is essential to understand the parent control before writing a schedule. Reading a schedule in isolation, or reading other controls without reading a relevant schedule, will give an incomplete picture of the provisions of the scheme.
The local content in a schedule should be strategically justified
Local content in schedules can change the provisions in a scheme if the 'parent provision' enables this to happen and there is sufficient strategic justification.
The schedules can set out conditions and requirements that must be applied to all permits or
Throughout the Hearing process, parties proposed drafting changes to DPO6 planning provisions which related to both referred issues and issues outside the scope of the Committee's consideration.
Therefore, DPO6 may have drafting issues beyond those identified by the Committee.
The purpose of the Committee recommended DPO6 in Appendix E is to show the Committee's tracked recommended changes within the context of other provisions in that schedule.
The Committee identified serious drafting issues while considering the referral matters as outlined below.
The parent DPO provisions enable DPO6 Clause 3.0 (Conditions and requirements for permits) to specify mandatory permit conditions and requirements. Specifically it states a permit must include any conditions or requirements. This does not extend to application requirements.
The proposed application requirements should be translated into permit conditions and requirements or should be deleted.
Council submitted that DPO6 has drafting issues which may not make it fit-for-purpose. This includes mixing and confusing a 'must' with a 'should'. The Committee agrees.
The parent DPO states a permit must be generally in accordance with the development plan and include any specified conditions or requirements.
Applying 'should' to all permit conditions in DPO6 seeks to override the DPO parent provisions. There is no statutory ability to do this. Applying 'should' will affect the ability to properly implement the outcomes sought by the DPO6 provisions.
Any development plan and permit condition requirements should apply 'must' to align with the parent DPO provisions.
The Committee has recommended changes to these issues because the current drafting affects the ability to implement planning provisions related to the referred matters.
The Committee concludes that drafting changes are needed to Development Plan Overlay Schedule 6 and the Development Plan to effectively implement the recommendations related to the referred issues.
Review all proposed planning provisions to ensure consistency with drafting rules set out in the most current version of:
a) Practitioner's guide to Victoria's Planning Schemes, Department of Transport and Planning
b) Writing Planning Permits, Department of Transport and Planning for provisions specified in Clause 3.0 of Development Planning Overlay Schedule 6.
Amend Development Plan Overlay Schedule 6, as shown in Appendix E, 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 the Committee's changes recommended for Development Plan Overlay Schedule 6.
REFERRAL OF DRAFT PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C178MONA TALBOT VILLAGE TO THE PRIORITY PROJECTS STANDING ADVISORY COMMITTEE
I refer to draft Monash Planning Scheme Amendment C178mona, requested by Urbis on behalf of Sterling Global Pty Ltd, the proponent. I am considering whether to prepare, adopt and approve the draft amendment and the draft Talbot Village Development Plan. This would facilitate the development of 18.8 hectares of vacant land at 1221-1249 Centre Road, Oakleigh South.
The request also seeks approval for the Draft Talbot Village Development Plan, prepared by Hatch Roberts Day (January 2024). This proposes up to 1,100 dwellings including 10 per cent as affordable housing.
Consultation under section 20(5) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 was undertaken, resulting in 92 submissions to the draft amendment.
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 committee's advice on are:
I request that the 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 land is within the Suburban Rail Loop Authority Planning Areas Declaration for Clayton I request that the committee provide advice on any matters relating to this designation.
The draft amendment and development plan, including the supporting documents, and the submissions will be provided to the advisory committee. The cost of the committee process will be met by the proponent, Sterling Global Pty Ltd.
a) Clause 02.04 - Strategic Framework Plan
b) Clause 02.04 - Strategic Framework Plan (Compare)
c) Clause 15.01 - Built Environment
d) Clause 15.01 - Built Environment (Compare)
e) Mixed Use Zone Schedule 3
f) Development Plan Overlay Schedule 6
g) Clause 52.02 Schedule
h) Clause 52.02 Schedule (Compare)
j) Clause 53.01 Schedule (Compare)
k) Clause 72.01 Schedule
m) C178mona 001 Zone Map 19
n) C178mona 002 Development Plan Overlay Map 19
o) Explanatory Report
p) Instruction Sheet
a) Talbot Village Development Plan, Volume One (17 January 2024)
b) Planning Report (Urbis, March 2025)
c) Survey Plan, prepared by (Taylors)
d) Affordable Housing Report (Urban X Change, February 2025)
e) Due Diligence Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment (Eco Logical Australia, 28 March 2021)
f) Economic Benefit Snapshot (Urbis, March 2025)
g) Engagement Summary Report (Capire)
h) Environmental Management Strategy (Tetra Tech Coffey, 30 October 2023)
j) Targeted Surveys for Growling Grass Frog (Ecology and Heritage Partners Pty Ltd, February 2022)
k) Integrated Transport Plan (Quantum Traffic Pty Ltd, 13 November 2023)
m) Geotechnical Matters (Tetra Tech Coffey, 1 August 2024)
n) Letter - Response to PPSAC41 (Tetra Tech Coffey, 1 August 2024)
o) Servicing Report (Verve Projects Australia Pty Ltd, 24 October 2023)
p) Settlement Predictions Report (Coffey, 31 October 2023)
q) Social Infrastructure Assessment (ASR Research, 1 November 2023)
r) Stormwater Management Plan (Afflux Consulting, 23 October 2023)
s) Geotechnical Development Strategy (Coffey, 9 November 2023)
t) Arboricultural Assessment and Report (Tree Logic, 15 September 2021)
a) Certificates of Title including Covenant 1909682
b) Benefitting Owners Flowchart
c) Benefitting Owners Schedule
d) Panel Report - Monash Planning Scheme Amendment C129, Former Talbot Quarry and Landfill Redevelopment
e) Suburban Rail Loop Authority - Clayton Precinct, Structure Plan Boundary Map
Email advising that the EPA does not wish to participate, with attached advice:
a) Letter to DTP, 27 October 2021
b) Letter to Monash City Council, 30 March 2022
c) Letter to DTP dated 1 February 2024
d) EPA Submission to the Committee (Referral 41), 26 July 2024
Verve Memo - site infrastructure and servicing considerations (7 Feb 2025)
Letter from Lead Chair PPV to DTP seeking clarification of the scope of referred matters
Letter from DTP to Lead Chair PPV clarifying scope of referred matters
Committee Directions, Hearing Timetable and Distribution List (Version 1)
Committee Directions, Hearing Timetable and Distribution List (Version 2)
Letter from Council to Acting Head of State Planning regarding scope of referral (23 October 2025)
Email objecting to Mr Thompson calling acoustic evidence
Email regarding referral scope and acoustic evidence
Email to Monash City Council regarding referred matters
Auditor Verification of Landfill Gas Report Huntingdale, Ken Mival (9 July 2025)
2024-2025 Annual Landfill Gas Monitoring Report, Coffey (7 July 2025)
Audit Report Executive Summary (part c) - EHS Support
Talbot Village Servicing Report (Verve, 31 Oct 2025)
Talbot Village Servicing Report with Appendices (Verve, 31 Oct 2025)
Committee Directions and Hearing Timetable (Version 3)
Expert Statement - Robert Panozzo (social infrastructure and open space)
Committee Directions and Hearing Timetable (Version 4)
Email requesting Parties confirm objection or otherwise to recording the Hearing
a) Property title summary
b) Register Search Statement - Volume 3645 Folio 846
c) Register Search Statement - Volume 6313 Folio 437
d) Register Search Statement - Volume 8186 Folio 871
e) Register Search Statement - Volume 8343 Folio 532
f) Register Search Statement - Volume 9402 Folio 344
g) Register Search Statement - Volume 10378 Folio 210
Documents relating to Council land in Domain 6 and Talbot Park:
a) Council licence agreement - Talbot Park
b) TPA_50778 - Endorsed CEMP 21.01.20 - TPA_50778
c) TPA_50778 - Endorsed DPs 21.1.20 - TPA_50778
d) TPA_50778 - Permit (drainage works), 22 January 2020
e) EHS Support Risk Assessment regarding playground in Talbot Park, 8 Aug 2022
f) C129 Talbot Park AMP - AECOM, 6 September 2016
g) Talbot Park Closed Landfill Annual Report 2018-2019 (AECOM, October 2019)
EPA environmental action notice to Huntingdale Estate Nominees Pty Ltd (16 December 2024)
Council report supporting rezoning to Comprehensive Development Zone (29 August 2023)
Senversa letter of advice to Council (8 August 2023)
Senversa letter of advice to Council (9 January 2023)
Planning permit and related material authorising preloading within Domain 1 (TPA/53179):
a) Workplan for Zone 1 Temporary Boundary Venting Measures by Coffey (11 November 2021)
b) Auditor verification of Workplan for Zone 1 Temporary Boundary Venting Measures by EHS Support (11 November 2021)
c) Domain 1 Preload Design Report by Tetra Tech Coffey (12 November 2021)
d) Officer report including attachments (13 December 2022)
e) Valente v Monash CC [2023] VCAT 729 (28 June 2023)
f) Planning Permit TPA-53179 Extended (23 October 2025)
Geotechnical, environmental and services joint expert witness statement
a) Advertised Domain 4 Backfill Design Report (16 December 2022)
b) Reclamation Management Plan dated August 1994 and Workplan approved on 28 September 1998
c) Suburban Rail Loop East Draft Structure Plan (Clayton) Community Infrastructure Needs Assessment
d) Variation of Work Authority 389 dated 20 December 2001
e) Work Authority for quarry site dated 19 October 2000
f) Work Plan 1533_1 - Approved 28 September 1998
g) Work Plan 1533_3 - Approved 28 September 1998
Owners Corporation PS 501391P v Balcombe [2016] VSC 384
a) Video - Bulldozer
b) Video - Vibration in bedroom
Letter from Proponent to Council (19 November 2025)
DPO6 (Final version) tracked against exhibited version
The costs of the Advisory Committee will be met by each relevant proponent.
This schedule applies to No. 1221-1249 Centre Road, Oakleigh South (the former Talbot Quarry). The land comprises the following land parcels:
CT Vol 3645, Folio 846 (Lots 1-41 LP 12090),
CT Vol 8186, Folio 871 (Lot 1, LP 38793),
CT Vol 10378, Fol 210 (Lot 2, PS 409879V),
To facilitate urban development of the former quarry and landfill.
To provide for an integrated residential and mixed use development that fosters social interaction, walkability and creates a sense of place and a new local identity.
To provide a framework for urban uses and development that promotes high quality residential neighbourhoods providing diverse housing opportunities and densities.
To ensure new development does not unreasonably impact on the amenity of existing residential properties.
A permit may be granted to use or subdivide land, construct a building or construct or carry out works for the following, before a development plan has been prepared to the satisfaction of the responsible authority for the following (if a permit is required):
Before granting a permit the responsible authority must be satisfied that the permit will not prejudice the future use and development of the land in an integrated manner.
See Chapter 6.4. Translate Clause 3.0 into permit conditions and requirements only.
Delete application requirements because they are not enabled by the parent DPO.
An application for a permit for development of the land (other than an application for ground improvement works or remediation works) must be accompanied by:
A planning permit for residential development (or relevant stages of the development) should must include a requirement for an Affordable Housing Contribution, as follows:
The Ssection 173 Aagreement should also include an Affordable Housing Contribution plan and require compliance with that plan. The plan must specify where (in the case of a building contribution) and when (for all forms of contribution) the Affordable Housing Contribution is to be provided. The plan may be amended with the consent of the Minister for Planning.
A planning permit for the development of the land should must contain the following conditions, (except for planning permits for use or development allowed by Clause 2.0), as appropriate:
A condition requiring the land owner to enter into a section 173 agreement to provide the community infrastructure contributions specified in the Development Plan to the Council and/or for equivalent works in kind to be agreed with the Responsible Authority.
A condition on any permit for the geotechnical ground improvement works requiring a Noise and Vibration Management Plan (NVMP), prepared by a suitably qualified acoustic expert, that includes:
A planning permit to subdivide the land should include a condition requiring a Ssection 173 Aagreement to secure the provision and retention of any publicly accessible open space on the land.
A permit to subdivide the land for Stage 4 that creates residential lots must include a condition requiring the landowner to into an agreement with the responsible authority under section 173 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 to deliver, to the satisfaction of Head, Transport for Victoria to deliver the mitigation works at the Huntingdale and Centre Road intersection recommended in section 11.00-2 and Figure 31 of the expert report of Valentine Gnanakone (OneMileGrid) dated 17 November 2025 before the first statement of compliance is issued in the Stage 4 area.
A Development Plan should must be generally in accordance with Map 1 of this schedule and must address the following vision and design principles for the future use and development of the site, to the satisfaction of the responsible authority:
A development plan must include the following requirements:
[5] Denotes a high-risk level from hazardous ground gases such as methane and carbon dioxide