1. Amended plans being 0710/SD02A, 0710/SD03A, 0710/SD04A, 0710/MP02 and LS2A are substituted for the application plans (0710/SD01 remains unchanged).
2. The decision of the Responsible Authority is set aside. In permit application P406/08 a permit is granted and directed to be issued for the land at 254-260 Hallam Road, Hampton Park. The permit will allow:
   • Subdivision of the land at 254 - 260 Hallam Road, Hampton Park (Lots 1 and 2 on LP:200736) into 24 lots and alteration to access to a road In a Road Zone Category 1

in accordance with the endorsed plans and subject to the permit conditions set out in the Appendix.

Mr Nick Tweedie, Barrister by direct brief. Expert written and oral evidence provided by:

• Mr Sarah Opperman, Town Planner of Urbis Pty Ltd.
• Mr Wajahat Bajwa, Environmental Engineer of GHD Pty Ltd.
• Mr Tim Pollock, Odour Impact Assessment Consultant of GHD Pty Ltd.
• Mr Paul Clarey, Environmental Risk Consultant.

Mr Jim Higgs, Traffic Engineer of TTM Consulting (Vic) Pty Ltd provided written comments and attended to answer questions about his comments on proposed permit conditions.

Mr Graeme Peake, Barrister instructed by Maddocks Lawyers. Expert written and oral evidence provided by:

• Dr Graeme Lorimer, Air Pollution, Meteorology, Modelling and Impact Assessment Consultant.
• Mr Robert Burton, Acoustic Consultant.

No appearance but by letter responded to comments made by Mr Higgs.

Subdivision of the land into 24 lots and alteration/creation of access to a road in a Road Zone Category 1.

Section 77 Planning and Environment Act 1987.

Cl. 52.29 (Create or alter access to a road in a Road Zone Category 1).

Clauses 11, 12, 14, 15.04, 15.05, 18.10, 19.01, 21.03, 21.05, 21.09, 22.05, 22.13, 22.14. 22.15.22.17, 56 and 65.

We inspected the site and locality in September 2009 prior to the last day of hearing.

The site is located on the eastern side of Hallam Road and comprises two lots with a combined area of 2.99 hectares. It is remnant grazing land and contains 2 dwellings located close to the Hallam Road frontage. The review site and an adjoining parcel of land to the north are the only remaining areas of open 'farmland'. Over the past 20 or so years, Hampton Park has been the focus of considerable urban growth and is now almost fully developed with residential estates. Land on the west side of Hallam Road opposite the review site and to the north and north east of the adjoining farmland form part of these residential areas.

The review site and the land to the north are on the edge of a very large area of Special Use Zone 1 occupied primarily by an extensive SITA Landfill. The landfill is separated from the review site by a concrete batching plant located on land along the eastern boundary and a landscape and garden supplies business on land along the southern boundary.

Hallam Road outside the review site is a rural style road which has been widened in places with turning lanes and painted medians. The long term intention is for the road to be reconstructed as a six lane divided road.

The review site is in outer suburbia and in that context has reasonable access to shopping and other urban facilities with a larger shopping centre around 2 kilometres to the north along Hallam Road.

1. Seventeen years ago, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth 11, told the world that

1992 is not a year on which I shall look back with undiluted pleasure. In the words of one of my more sympathetic correspondents, it has turned out to be an Annus Horribilis.

1. Although the residents of Brookland Greens Estate, the City of Casey, and the Victorian Government and its agencies may have described 2008 in a different way, we do not doubt that events surrounding methane gas migration from the Stevensons Road landfill have caused a significant shift in attitudes to land use planning and management around existing and former landfill sites in Victoria.
2. The subdivision application we are reviewing involves an undeveloped parcel of Residential 1 zoned land situated very close to a regional landfill on the eastern side of Hallam Road in Hampton Park. The landfill is separated from the review site by two industrial/commercial type uses which, although providing a transition or buffer between the landfill and the residential land, are themselves potential sources of conflict with future residential development. As we later discuss, it is the adjoining concrete batching plant to the east that has the greatest potential to adversely affect the review site rather than the landfill or the landscape and garden supplies business to the south east and south. But before discussing those issues we deal firstly with gas migration; an issue that has caused so much angst in recent times.

1. The simple answer is no. We can well understand why Casey City Council has adopted a very cautious approach to this proposal for a residential subdivision in proximity to the SITA landfill site to the south east because of the well publicised impacts of methane gas migration from a landfill in Stevensons Road on dwellings within the adjoining Brookland Greens Estate. As a consequence of that event, the EPA has undertaken an assessment of the potential for methane gas migration from 260 operating and former landfill sites across Victoria. The results of those assessments are set out in Publication 1270, released in February 2009.[1] Of those 260 sites only 8 were identified as having a methane concentration above 1% at the landfill boundary and the nearby SITA site was not one of those eight.
2. A more recent audit of the SITA landfill dated 30 June 2009 concluded:
   1. Methane gas migration was occurring until October or November 2008;
   2. Methane gas migration has not occurred since the gas collection system was upgraded in late 2008;
   3. The greatest risk for methane gas migration is cell 1A as it has only a compacted clay liner;
   4. The proper installation, operation and maintenance of the gas collection system should limit off-site methane gas emissions to within the EPA investigation trigger level;
   5. A number of improvements should be made to monitor and minimise the risk of methane gas migration;
   6. Buildings on the site should be monitored for methane gas on a weekly basis for 12 months;
   7. There is no need to monitor existing dwellings off site.
3. On our inspection of the landfill site, we were able to observe the location of the above ground gas collection system and the small power station operated using collected gas. We have also had the benefit of reading the Ombudsman's report on the Brookland Greens Estate[2] which was released after the last day of hearing, and of understanding the circumstances surrounding that particular site and subsequent events. Although Council maintained its objection to the proposed subdivision of the review site because of the risks of landfill gas migration, we are satisfied that the SITA landfill site involves a different set of circumstances to those at Stevensons Road, and that the 2009 audit confirms that nearby land will not be affected by gas migration in the way that the Brookland Greens Estate was affected.

Will the site be adversely affected by the SITA landfill?

1. On page 18 of his submission Mr Peake identified three issues raised in this appeal. The first concerns the proximity of the review site to a major regional landfill facility and waste transfer station. Council refused this application on four grounds all of which, to different degrees of specificity, made reference to the potential for residential conflict with the landfill/waste management facility, and of the need to maintain appropriate buffer distances.
2. In one sense the facts seem quite straightforward. The landfill is a regional facility and caters for approximately one third of Melbourne's municipal waste. It receives somewhere in the order of 360,000 tonnes of waste per year of which between 60 and 80 % is municipal waste. It operates from 6 am each morning and generates approximately 400 truck movements per day. The landfill site is divided into cells and is being progressively filled from the north west corner to the south boundary, along the southern boundary and then northward toward the centre of the site. Cell 8 located near the southern boundary is being filled during 2009-2011 (the active tipping face) and Cells 9-16 will be filled in order up until 2024. Based on the material presented by Dr Lorimer, all tipping cells with the exception of Cell 16 are located more than 500 metres from the nearest residential lot on the review site. At its closest point Dr Lorimer suggests that Cell 16 will be 220 metres from the nearest residence on the review site and that the tipping face will be 305 metres away while Mr Pollock suggested a distance in excess of 320 metres. At the hearing there was considerable discussion about this distance including the actual physical position of the northwest corner of Cell 16. On our inspection we observed a number of facilities located in and around the north western corner of Cell 16, including the gas power plant. It is easy to get transfixed by numbers and to approve or reject something because it meets or doesn't meet a specified figure. However to satisfy ourselves as to what the distance might be we have made our own calculation using the SITA landfill plan dated 3rd January 2009 and have calculated the distance at approximately 360 metres.
3. The operation of the landfill is guided by the two key documents - the Waste Management Policy (Siting, Design and Management of Landfills) (WMP - Landfills) and Publication 788 Best Practice Environmental Management - Siting, Design, Operation and Rehabilitation of Landfills (2001) (BPEM). The BPEM provides recommended buffer distances based on the type of wastes received. The SITA landfill is classified as a Type 2 facility and the recommended buffer distance is 500 metres. As noted the northwest corner of Cell 16 does not meet the recommended buffer distance.
4. The key question then is does the lesser distance matter in terms of creating conflict with the proposed residential lots? In considering this question we emphasise that the 500 metre recommended buffer distance is only offended when filling takes place in the north western corner of Cell 16. But even if we accept that the 500 metre buffer should be adopted for the whole of Cell 16, is there anything about future waste management that could justify accepting a reduced separation distance when the north west corner of Cell 16 is being filled in about 2023 - 2024?
5. In addition to the landfill, SITA also operates a waste transfer and recovery centre south of the main entrance road and over 300 metres from the nearest residential lot on the review site. We note that Dr Lorimer considers that this provides adequate separation distance and we do not find this a point of potential conflict with the proposed residential lots, or something that we need to deal with in greater depth.
6. Of much greater impact on how the landfill will operate in the future, and hence on potential off site impacts, is the recent approval of a SITA Advanced Waste Treatment (SAWT) facility. The SAWT will divide incoming municipal solid waste into two streams - recoverable solid waste and green waste/putrescibles waste. Recoverable wastes will be transported off site while the green waste and putrescibles waste will be composted in the SAWT facility. The facility has a proposed input capacity of 180,000 tonnes per annum and the intention is that 50% of the incoming Municipal Solid Waste will go to the SAWT and only 50% to landfill. Although the SAWT also has the potential to create adverse off site impacts, we note that it is located south of the landfill cells and is therefore nearly 1000 metres from the nearest residential lot on the review site.
7. Central to Mr Pollock's' support for a reduced separation distance to Cell 16 is his thesis that the introduction of the SAWT facility will have a significant impact on the type of material being sent to landfill. We accept that the SAWT facility is subject to EPA Composting Guidelines (see page 11 of Mr Pollock's evidence statement) and that buffer distances for that facility are a function of throughput, feedstock accepted and composting processes used. Although the SITA landfill is subject to the BPEM which adopts rigid distances depending on type (Type 2 has a 500 metre buffer, Type 3 a 200 metre buffer), logically we accept his proposition that the linear relationship applying to the SAWT facility has considerable merit. If the Composting Guidelines approach was applied to the landfill it would take into account volumes, type of material being received and processes used, has considerable merit. It seems illogical to try and apply the same buffer distance to all Type 2 landfills, irrespective of the size, types of materials being received, and management practices. That is particularly the case when encouragement is being given to change the way waste is managed in the future. Based on Mr Pollock's linear scale which takes into account a much reduced Municipal Solid Waste stream going to the landfill, a minimum buffer distance of 320 metres would be acceptable.
8. Based on the material that has been presented to us we are satisfied that the SITA landfill will not adversely impact on the proposed residential lots. At worst it is only towards the north western corner of Cell 16 is being filled that the 500 metre buffer is breached, and we accept Mr Pollock's evidence that changes to the waste stream by that time will result in the need for smaller separation distances than has been the case in the past.

Will the site be adversely affected by the concrete batching plant?

1. The second issue is the proximity of the review site to a concrete batching plant. We consider this to be the major constraint on the creation of residential lots as proposed and it involves two components - dust and noise.
2. Mr Clarey and Dr Lorimer gave evidence on potential dust emissions from the concrete batching plant. Both accepted that the 100 metre buffer provides adequate separation but support in both cases was 'conditional' in the sense that the plant could cause a nuisance in certain circumstances. Mr Clarey submitted that:

The Concrete Batching Plant, if maintained and operated correctly, is unlikely to generate justifiable dust complaints beyond 100 m from the active parts of the plant.

Taken in isolation from other sources of dust and odours in the vicinity, I believe the 100m separation between the mini-mix plant and the proposed lots provides adequate buffer.

1. Dr Lorimer then went on to comment that buffer distances are not necessarily adequate when multiple sources may emit dust (or odour) close together and at the same time. He particularly noted the potential for simultaneous, additive impacts during times of southerly and south easterly winds but concluded that that he has confidence that the 100m EPA buffer distance guideline for concrete batching plants provides reasonable protection against adverse air quality impacts. However we have no data to support this contention about the impact of dust from multiple sources although we do know from Mr Pollock's evidence that south to south easterly winds occur about 26% of the time but are more common in summer than at other times of the year.
2. Based on this expert evidence, we have concluded that the proposed eastern lots are on the cusp of being acceptable/unacceptable in terms of whether or not they may be adversely affected by dust from the concrete batching plant. In an ideal world the concrete batching plant will always be well maintained and operated correctly and the winds will not blow in a certain direction on a certain day. But the reality is different. We agree with Mr Tweedie that if the concrete batching plant operations were to cause unreasonable impacts then it would be reasonable to expect the operator to take necessary steps to reduce those impacts. But if the eastern lots are right on the cusp of what is deemed a reasonable buffer distance then it is likely that those unreasonable impacts will occur more frequently than if, for example, the nearest lots were 125 or 150 metres away.
3. Having regard to the evidence of Mr Clarey and Dr Lorimer we are not prepared to approve a situation where complaints and conflict are likely to occur with unacceptable frequency. The fact that neighbours might complain may not necessarily mean that the plant is being poorly operated. Rather it could be climatic conditions or just the simple fact that the lots are fundamentally too close at around 100 metres separation distance.
4. Although as we next discuss, acoustic impacts are not insurmountable and not a reason to modify or refused the subdivision, achievement of the essential acoustic treatments recommended by Mr Burton has caused us to hesitate in approving the entire subdivision shown on the substituted plans. In our view the eastern most lots, and the dwellings on them and the residents living there, should not be approved at this stage. We discuss this timing or staging approach later in our reasons.
5. We now turn to the noise impacts of the concrete batching plant. Mr Burton was the only witness to give evidence on this issue and we found his material very helpful in deciding, as stated on the second day of the hearing, that noise from the batching plant was not an issue that would cause us to refuse the application. That does not mean that noise is within acceptable levels, but rather that acoustic barriers and/or other treatments can reduce noise impacts to an acceptable level. In the absence of a table in Mr Burton's evidence summarising the specific noise impact on each lot, we have attempted to compile our own summary from his evidence as follows:

1. Based on our observations it is apparent that the main noise of potential concern is that periodically noise is generated by the banging of front end loader buckets onto concrete flooring of sand or screening stockpiles, or on the sides of truck trays. Other noises are of a more constant background type.
2. It is evident in reviewing this table that provision of appropriate acoustic barriers and treatments is an essential prerequisite for residential development on these lots. Achieving acceptable noise levels is highly dependent on construction of an appropriate barrier on top of the embankment separating the review site from the concrete batching plant or acoustic treatments to future dwellings. Of the two options we favour the construction of a barrier as it reduces noise levels for the whole area of each lot not just within dwellings. Given that these are relatively small lots we consider it desirable that future residents can be outside or can open windows without suffering unreasonable noise impacts. Acoustic attenuation to the dwellings alone would not provide this flexibility or what we consider to be a reasonable level of residential amenity.
3. Unfortunately the embankment is outside the review site and any barrier will need to be constructed by, and with agreement of, the owners/operators of the concrete batching plant. We agree with Mr Tweedie that it is reasonable that the permit applicant contribute to the cost of such a barrier but we cannot require it as part of this approval. It is critical that it be built before subdivision takes place for Lots 9 to 23. At present we have no guarantees or certainty about how or when the barrier will be constructed and therefore we are not prepared to approve the lots at the eastern end of the subdivision until such time as a suitable barrier has been constructed and noise levels reduced to an acceptable level.

Will the site be adversely affected by the landscape and garden supplies centre?

1. The final issue identified by Mr Peake concerns the proximity of the review site to the landscape and garden supplies centre abutting the southern boundary. Mr Peake acknowledged at the outset that this was of 'lesser extent' and it became evident during the hearing that the operation of the landscape and garden centre would not generate unacceptable impacts for future residents living on the northern half of the review site. Our inspection confirmed the basic layout of the landscape and garden centre and its relationship with the review site. We also note that Mr Burton, who was called as a witness for Council, was not concerned about noise emissions although he did acknowledge that he had not inspected the site or recorded noise measurements. But even so, he did comment that:

Due to the limited scale of the operations at the Garden Centre and the improved setbacks shown on the Amended Application, potential noise emissions from this source are not seen as being significant. Should any noise source become apparent in the future, noise control by close-up screening or enclosure would be relatively easy.

1. The other potential sources of conflict are dust and odour. Dr Lorimer made the point that the original subdivision plans did not pay adequate regard to the landscape and garden centre but that the revised plans represent a substantial improvement. He still expects there will be occasions when dust or odour could cause a nuisance to residents although he also notes that there are no official guidelines for buffer distances to such facilities. We agree with him that the revised plans provide a much greater separation distance and that they represent a significant improvement. We also agree with him that there may be occasions when nuisance could be caused by dust and/or odour although we also accept the proposition put by Mr Tweedie that if the landscape and garden centre is causing a nuisance then it needs to take steps to limit dust or odour so that it is not causing a nuisance to its neighbours. We have no evidence that dust and odour are at present causing nuisance to residential neighbours on the western side of Hallam Road. Those neighbours are closer to the centre than the proposed lots although affected by winds from a different direction (north east through south east rather than south). We therefore would not refuse this application because of proximity to the landscape and garden centre to the south.

Access to Hallam Road and the internal 'north-south' road

1. Access to Hallam Road was not initially identified as a point of contention between the permit applicant and VicRoads. A letter dated 28 July 2009 from VicRoads to the Tribunal suggested that VicRoads was supportive of the proposal on the basis that the permit applicant accepted proposed draft permit conditions. The letter also indicated that VicRoads staff and the permit applicant's traffic engineer (Mr Jim Higgs) had been in discussions and that VicRoads was confident that a mutually agreeable solution could be reached. The letter also indicated that VicRoads would not be represented at the hearing.
2. During the course of the first 3 days of hearing it became apparent that agreement had not been reached. Mr Higgs produced a response to a number of the proposed conditions, including commentary on the width of the internal 'north-south' road. On the last day of hearing he was asked questions about his opinions but we felt uncomfortable forming an opinion on the matters he raised without further input from VicRoads. We therefore asked VicRoads to provide a written response and that was received by the Tribunal on the 23 October 2009.
3. The traffic related issues can be distilled to the following:
   1. Should the new intersection with Hallam Road be based on an eventual 4 or 6 lane configuration in Hallam Road?
   2. Should a 12 metre wide road reserve be provided along the Hallam Road frontage?
   3. Should a 16 metre wide road reserve be provided for both legs of the internal road?
4. There appears to be no dispute that the Hallam Road road reserve should be increased from its existing 20 metre width to 40 metres. The substituted plans show a 20 metre wide road reserve across the front of the review site. Such a width accords with Table 7.2.2 of the Hampton Park Development Plan which includes the following arterial road design requirements for Hallam Road:

A service road should be provided for all abutting development except at locations where it is not physically achievable or desirable (e.g. in proximity to major intersections or railway lines). Where a service road is not provided, a 12 m tree reserve is required in its place. The location of tree reserves will be resolved upon determination of access point(s) to each subdivision.

1. The Hampton Park Development Plan also notes that Hallam Road will ultimately be a 4 lane divided road with parking. While we accept that the reference to 4 lanes is quite specific, the reference to parking would also suggest a 6 lane road, with 2 set aside for parking. This may or may not be the ultimate outcome but we consider it prudent to plan for 6 lanes. Although Mr Higgs is unambiguous in his statement But 6 lanes will never be built', we are also mindful that VicRoads has told us that VicRoads is currently preparing a business case for the duplication of Hallam Road and that the plans cater for ultimate construction of three through lanes in each direction. This seems to be beyond what is set out in the Hampton Park Development Plan but we accept that road planning and construction is evolutionary and must respond to changing circumstances including increased traffic volumes. Given VicRoads responsibilities we are not prepared to support a design which does not accord with the plans of the road authority.
2. The Hampton Park Development Plan is quite clear about the width of land required for reserves along Hallam Road. The additional 20 metres is not in dispute but the 12 metre wide service road/tree reserve is not supported by Mr Higgs. He notes that it has not been imposed on subdivisions along Hallam Road and is not required for traffic engineering purposes. VicRoads on the other hand state that an additional 3.5 metre widening is required to accommodate left turn treatments. The subdivision plans include a 4 metre wide strip between Lot 1 and the road reserve which although not identified as such, would provide room for a left hand turn treatment plus a strip of tree reserve. We agree with Mr Higgs that there is no evidence that a 12 metre wide road reserve has been imposed on other subdivisions although there is evidence of a narrower tree reserve being provided of around 2 metres in width.
3. We agree with Mr Higgs that a 12 metre wide reserve is unnecessary but do support the provision of a 4 metre wide reserve as indicatively shown on the subdivision plans. We therefore support Council's proposed condition 1 (b) but with a figure of 4 metres not 12 metres. We also support the provision of a shared path of 2.5 metres width.
4. We lastly turn to the width of the internal roads. We agree with Mr Higgs and Council that a 16 metre wide road reserve is appropriate for the east-west leg. The subdivision plans show a north-south road reserve of 14 metres. In principle we agree with Mr Higgs that there is no need for a wide verge and footpath on the eastern side for traffic or circulation reasons. However it will be clear from our earlier discussion about the concrete batching plant that maintaining adequate separation distances and providing appropriate acoustic barriers is critical to our support for the creation of lots at the eastern end of the site. We therefore support Council's proposed condition 1 (d)(i) concerning the actual width of the road reserve but with a modification deleting any requirement for a footpath on the eastern side of the north-south leg.

On balance we support a residential subdivision of this land

1. Council readily concedes that if it were not for potential conflicts arising from nearby uses, the review site is eminently suited to residential development because of its proximity to other residentially developed land, its ability to be fully serviced and accessibility to many existing urban services and facilities. It is also acknowledged that residential development is consistent with the Casey Strategic Framework Plan at Clause 21.03 of the Planning Scheme and the Hampton Park Development Plan adopted by Council in January 2001 in accordance with the provisions of the Development Plan Overlay. The Hampton Park Development Plan identifies the review site as residential and shows an indicative road connection through the review site linking Hallam Road with the residential area to the north. In principle we therefore support the proposed 24 lot subdivision of the review site. We also have no reservations about the lot sizes and observe that the smaller lots are acceptable within a residential neighbourhood such as this. We also support the use of building envelopes as required by Council's draft conditions.
2. However it will be clear from the earlier discussion about the concrete batching plant that we remain unconvinced about allowing the full subdivision as it is shown on the substituted plans. We consider that the concrete batching plant has the potential to cause unacceptable impacts on the amenity of future residents living in dwellings on the eastern lots. It is absolutely critical that the acoustic barrier is constructed before residential development occurs, but we have no confidence as to how and when the barrier will be provided. We are not prepared to 'wing it' on the basis of good intentions.
3. In essence there are two options or courses of action available to deal with this issue.
   • The first is to approve the subdivision as proposed but with permit conditions preventing subdivision certificates being issued until construction of a noise barrier to satisfy all noise limits.
   • The second option is to only approve the western lots unaffected by noise (Lots 1 to 8) and delete the remaining lots because of unsatisfactory noise impacts. If at some future time an appropriate noise barrier is provided (or the concrete batching plant ceases operation) then another application can be lodged for the eastern lots based on the circumstances applying at that time.
4. Having regard to all the material presented to us we have come to the conclusion that the subdivision should be approved but that certification of Lots 9-23 should not occur until a suitable acoustic barrier is constructed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and have included a permit condition to that effect. We stress that if such a condition could not be included then we would have only approved a subdivision comprising Lots 1 to 8. Although it may seem unnecessary given our decision concerning construction of an acoustic barrier, we will also include a condition requiring future dwellings to achieve relevant acoustic standards. This may seem a 'belts and braces' approach but it ensures that future residents amenity is protected.

1. In assessing Council's draft permit conditions we have made a number of changes to reflect submissions and discussion about them at the hearing, including specific changes already discussed in our reasons. We have deleted the 'notes' as these can be included as an attachment or covering letter to the permit. We have also made some minor changes to replace the word 'shall' with the word 'must' in order to give some consistency in the way conditions are worded.

1. Decision making requires a balancing of often competing objectives and policies. Although there is strong emphasis in policy on providing additional dwellings in established and fully serviced urban areas, policy and the planning scheme also requires development assessments to take into account a very wide range of matters including impacts from nearby land uses. In this case we are satisfied that the proposal to subdivide this land does achieve a net community benefit in the terms set out in Clause 11 of the Casey Planning Scheme.

1. Having regard to the above we will direct that a permit issue subject to the conditions set out in the Appendix.

1. Before the plan of subdivision is certified under the Subdivision Act 1988, amended plans to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the plans will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The plans must be drawn to scale with dimensions and three copies must be provided to the Responsible Authority for its approval. The plans must be generally in accordance with the amended plans dated 26 June 2009 and submitted on 30 June 2009 (described as '0710 SD03 A; Proposed Subdivision Plan' and '0710 SD04 A; Building Envelopes For Lots Less Than 500m2'), but modified to show:
   • (a) Deletion of 30.1m deep rectangle west of proposed lot 14;
   • (b) Provision of a 4 wide tree reserve along the site frontage to Hallam Road with provision for a 2.5 metre wide shared path;
   • (c) As necessary, a reconfiguration of lots sizes and respective building envelopes on affected residential lots, access to Hallam Road and internal road design as a result of condition 1(b) above;
   • (d) Road reserves footpaths and shared paths in accordance with Council's standard drawings. In particular:
     • (i) 16m wide internal road reserves including footpaths on each side of the road (other than the eastern side of the north-south road) in accordance with Council's standard drawing number S-100V1;
     • (ii) A temporary vehicle turning circle at the eastern end of the site;
     • (iii) Access arrangements including left and right turn lanes to Hallam Road to the satisfaction of Vic Roads and the Responsible Authority.
2. The layout of the subdivision as shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered or modified (whether or not in order to comply with any statute, statutory rule or Local Law, or for any other reason) without the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority
3. No certificates or statements of compliance incorporating Lots 9 to 23 of the subdivision under the Subdivision Act 1988, must be issued until an acoustic barrier has been constructed so that noise levels from the concrete batching plant and received at the proposed lots achieve the following noise limits to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority (55 dB (A) day period, 49 dB (A) evening period and 44 dB (A) night period).
4. The plan of subdivision submitted for certification under the Subdivision Act 1988 must be referred to the following authorities under Section 8 of that Act:
   • (a) Melbourne Water;
   • (b) South East Water;
   • (c) SP AusNet;
   • (d) Telstra;
   • (e) Country Fire Authority.
5. Before the start of any works for the subdivision, a detailed landscape plan and plant schedule prepared by a person suitably qualified or experienced in landscape design to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The plan must show the proposed landscape and plant schedule for all public open space areas, including streetscapes, parkland water retention areas, buffer zones, service corridors and community uses. When approved, the plan will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The plan must be drawn to scale with dimensions and three copies must be provided. The landscaping plan must be generally in accordance with the landscape master plan dated June 2009 prepared by ERM, except that the plan must show:
   • (a) Common and botanical names, height and canopy width of existing vegetation that is to be retained;
   • (b) New plantings including their layout to be provided in all road, open space, plantation and municipal reserves;
   • (c) A detailed plant schedule including all proposed tree, shrub, groundcover and climbing plant species;
   • (d) The proposed location and final set out of paths, areas of pavement, playgrounds, play items, structures and street furniture;
   • (e) Detailed planting and construction drawings including site contours and any proposed changes to existing levels including any structural elements such as retaining walls;
   • (f) Additional supporting information, such as certified structural designs or building forms;
   • (g) All changes required by condition 1 of the permit;
   • (h) The 'Section AA Typical Streetscape' to indicate pedestrian paths on both sides of the internal road reservation;
   • (i) Reference to public open space near entry to be deleted;

all to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The lots must be landscaped in accordance with the approved landscape plan.

1. Before the plan of subdivision is certified under the Subdivision Act 1988 the owner must carry out and complete the landscaping works shown on the endorsed plans in accordance with the approved landscape plan to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
2. The land shown on the endorsed plans must be drained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
3. Prior to the issue of a Statement of Compliance, outfall drainage must be constructed to provide a legal point of stormwater discharge for each allotment.
4. All existing and proposed easements and sites for existing and required utility services and roads on the land must be set aside in favour of the relevant authority for which the easement or site is to be created on the plan of subdivision submitted for certification under the Subdivision Act 1988.
5. Reticulated water supply, drainage, sewerage facilities and underground electricity, gas, telecommunication services and fibre optic cable conduits must be provided to each lot shown on the endorsed plan.
6. Storm water must not be discharged from the site other than by means of an underground pipe drain discharged to an approved outlet to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
7. The plans submitted for certification must be in accordance with the endorsed plans but modified to show to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and the relevant servicing authorities:
   • (a) All easements required by the servicing authorities;
   • (b) Road reserve and court head dimensions in accordance with Casey's standard drawings;
   • (c) All bearings, distances, levels, street names, lot numbers, lot sizes, reserves and easements;
   • (d) The creation of restrictions on nominated lots (particularly between 300m2 and 500m2) to control the construction of dwellings to locations defined by building envelopes to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The restrictions must also provide for garages to occupy no more than 40% of the width of the lot frontage and be no closer to the frontage of the lot than the dwelling or 6.0 metres whichever is the greater.
8. Before any road/drainage works associated with the subdivision start, detailed construction plans to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the plans will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The plans must be drawn to scale with dimensions and three copies must be provided to the Responsible Authority. The plans must include:
   • (a) Roads, including traffic management devices, footpaths, shared foot/cycle paths and vehicular crossings to each lot;
   • (b) Underground drains incorporating features to prevent litter, sediment and oils from entering the drainage system and/or cut-of drains to intercept stormwater run-off from adjoining properties;
   • (c) Details of any cut and fill;
   • (d) The location of tree protection fencing;

1. Before the issue of a Statement of Compliance for the subdivision under the Subdivision Act 1988, the developer must construct all:
   • (a) Roads, including traffic management devices, footpaths, shared foot/cycle paths and vehicular crossings to each lot;
   • (b) Drainage;
   • (c) Permanent survey marks, levelled to the Australian Height Datum and coordinated to the Australian Map Grid;

in accordance with the approved construction plan/s and to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority:

1. Streets must be named to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
2. The applicant must identify all lots by marking the street number for each lot on the kerb in front of each lot to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
3. The developer must construct and paint or suitably finish all fences along the common boundary between any plantation reserves and the abutting lots to the requirements and satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
4. The developer must pay a contribution to the Responsible Authority for half the cost of fencing where lots abut a tree reserve.
5. Before the start of any works for the subdivision a site specific Environmental Management Plan (Site EMP) must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The Site EMP must be prepared in accordance with the Responsible Authority's 'Site EMP Kit' to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. No alterations to the Site EMP may occur without the consent of the Responsible Authority.
6. All construction and post construction activities must be conducted in accordance with the Environmental Management Plan approved under this permit.
7. All construction activities associated with the subdivision must be managed by the applicant so as to limit any inconvenience to existing residents in the vicinity of the works to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The matters to be considered include but are not limited to site access, times of operation, dust, vibration, stormwater runoff etc.
8. Before a Statement of Compliance is issued under the Subdivision Act 1988, the applicant must provide fencing, street trees, road works, drainage, landscaping to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. A development infrastructure levy must be paid to the Responsible Authority in accordance with the provisions of the approved Hampton Park Development Contributions Plan (Schedule 2) within the following specified time, namely after Certification of the relevant plan of subdivision and not more than 21 days prior to the issue of a Statement of Compliance in respect of that plan.

1. Before the Statement of Compliance is issued under the Subdivision Act 1988, the applicant or owner must pay to the Responsible Authority a cash payment equivalent to 8% of the site value of all land in the subdivision in lieu of the provision of land for public open space.

1. Appropriate sediment control measures must be undertaken during construction to ensure that the development site is adequately managed in such a way that no mud, dirt, sand, soil, clay or stones are washed into or allowed to enter the stormwater drainage system.
2. Construction and post construction activities must be conducted in accordance with an approved Environment Management Plan.

1. Before the plan of subdivision is certified under the Subdivision Act 1988, the owner must enter into an agreement with the Responsible Authority made pursuant to Section 173 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 and must make application to the Registrar of Titles to have the agreement registered on the title to the land under Section 181 of the Act, which;
   • (a) includes an acknowledgement by the owners of the land that:
     • (i) the property is located within a putrescible landfill and concrete batching plant buffer area;
     • (ii) the landfill and concrete batching plant uses are entitled to continue operating provided they are in accordance with the relevant approvals and permits as well as the relevant Environment Protection Authority standards and policies;
     • (iii) the landfill and concrete batching plant uses are intended to continue into the future;
     • (iv) all dwellings within the subdivision must be designed and constructed to achieve compliance with AS/NZS 2107:2000 Acoustics - Recommended Design Sound Levels And Reverberation Items For Building Interiors.

The owner must pay the Responsible Authority's costs of the preparation, negotiation, execution and registration of the Section 173 agreement required by this condition.

1. The recommendations contained at Section 4.4 within the approved Cultural Heritage Management Plan 10244 and dated 28 May 2008 must be followed.
2. Works must cease immediately upon the discovery of any Aboriginal cultural material and Aboriginal Affairs Victoria must be notified immediately of any such discovery.
3. If any suspected human remains are found, work in the area must cease. Victoria Police and the State Coroner's Office must be informed of the discovery without delay. If there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the remains are Aboriginal, the discovery should also be reported to the Department of Sustainability and Environment's Emergency Co-ordination Centre.
4. Officers of Aboriginal Affairs Victoria must be given access to the site at any reasonable time for the purpose of monitoring adherence to conditions above.

1. Prior to the issue of a Statement of Compliance for the subdivision, the Owner must enter into and comply with an agreement with Melbourne Water Corporation for the acceptance of surface and storm water from the subject land directly or indirectly into Melbourne Water's drainage systems and waterways, the provision of drainage works and other matters in accordance with the statutory powers of Melbourne Water Corporation.
2. No polluted and/or sediment laden runoff is to be discharged directly or indirectly into Melbourne Water's drains or watercourses. Engineering plans of the subdivision (in electronic format) are to be forwarded to Melbourne Water for comment/approval. A Certified Survey Plan may be required following comments on the engineering drawings. Prior to Certification of the Plan of Subdivision, Melbourne Water requires that the applicant submit a detailed Drainage and Stormwater Management Strategy to the satisfaction of Melbourne Water. As a minimum, the strategy must demonstrate how stormwater runoff from the subdivision will achieve State Environmental Protection Policy (Waters of Victoria) objectives for environmental management of stormwater.
3. Temporary/permanent outfall is to be arranged to the satisfaction of Melbourne Water, Council and the affected downstream property owner(s). All outfall arrangements must be confirmed and agreed upon in writing by all parties, or otherwise agreed, prior to Statement of Compliance.
4. All new lots must achieve appropriate freeboard in relation to local overland flow path to Council satisfaction.
5. As least 21 days prior to commencement of works, a Site Management Plan detailing pollution and sediment control measures, must be submitted to Melbourne Water.

1. Prior to the commencement of works, an ultimate six lane configuration functional layout plan for Hallam Road must be submitted to VicRoads and the responsible Authority for approval. The ultimate functional layout plan is to be generally in accordance with the functional layout 5876103 - Issue A, prepared by TTM Consulting Pty Ltd, but modified to show:
   • (a) An intersection in Hallam Road at the proposed access incorporating left and right turn auxiliary lanes into Livingstone Rise and the subject site, with a sufficient stagger of the 'T' intersection to provide a central splitter island accommodating appropriate swept paths.
2. Prior to the commencement of works, an interim functional layout plan for Hallam Road, based on the approved ultimate functional layout plan, must be submitted to VicRoads and the Responsible Authority for approval. The interim functional layout plan is to be generally in accordance with the functional layout 5876104 - Issue A, prepared by TTM Consulting Pty Ltd but modified to show:
   • (a) Right and left turn auxiliary lanes and a painted central median, accommodating appropriate swept paths.
3. Prior to the commencement of works, a public lighting layout must be submitted to VicRoads for approval.
4. Subsequent to the approval of the interim functional layout plan, and public lighting layout a detailed engineering plan for the interim layout, based on drawing 5876104 must be submitted to VicRoads for approval. When the detailed engineering layouts are approved, an additional copy must be submitted to VicRoads for surveillance purposes.
5. Prior to the commencement of roadworks, the developer must contact Team Leader - VicRoads Improvement Projects Department for the following requirements:
   • (a) Provide a bank guarantee, without a termination date, in favour of VicRoads for a sum equal to the estimated cost of roadworks associated with the Hallam Road access road;
   • (b) Provide evidence that the Contractor has a public liability insurance policy for at least $10 million, effective for the duration of the works;
   • (c) Provide VicRoads with the name, address, business and out-of-hours telephone numbers of the principal roadworks contractor.
6. Prior to the commencement of any roadworks in, on, under or over the Hallam Road reservation the applicant must have first applied for and received written consent from VicRoads for those works in accordance with Section 63 of the Road Management Act 2004.
7. Prior to the commencement of any roadworks along Hallam Road authorised by this permit the applicant must provide a payment to VicRoads of the pre-estimated certification audit fee.
8. The applicant must engage an approved VicRoads contractor (pre-qualified at the appropriate level or as otherwise approved) to undertake required roadworks along Hallam Road.
9. Where the roadworks, footpath and structure lie outside of the road reserve, a widening of the road reserve will be required, at no cost to VicRoads or the Responsible Authority. A licensed surveyor must be engaged to prepare a Plan of Subdivision showing the affected land labelled 'ROAD', vesting in the Roads Corporation without any encumbrances to the satisfaction of VicRoads. Subsequent to the registration of the plan, the applicant must ensure that the original Certificates of Title that issue in the name of the Roads Corporation must be forwarded via registered post to VicRoads - Property Services Department.
10. The developer must pay the full cost of all roadworks, drainage, road safety devices, service relocations, civil works, public lighting, traffic signals and any associated costs i.e. all works to be complete at no cost to VicRoads.

1. The Plan of Subdivision submitted for certification must be referred to SPI Electricity Pty Ltd in accordance with Section 8 of the Subdivision Act 1988.
2. The owner must enter into an agreement with SPI Electricity Pty Ltd for:
   • (a) Supply of electricity to each lot on the endorsed plan;
   • (b) The rearrangement of the existing electricity supply system;
   • (c) Rearrangement of the points of supply to any existing installations affected by any private electric power line which would cross a boundary created by the subdivision, or by such means as may be agreed by SPI Electricity Pty Ltd.
3. The owner must:
   • (a) Provide easements satisfactory to SPI Electricity Pty Ltd for the purpose of "Power Line" in the favour of "Electricity Corporation" pursuant to Section 88 of the Electricity Industry Act 2000, where easements have not been otherwise provided, for all existing SPI Electricity Pty Ltd electric power lines and for any new power lines required to service the lots on the endorsed plan and/or abutting land;
   • (b) Obtain for the use of SPI Electricity Pty Ltd any other easement required to service the lots;
   • (c) Adjust the position of any existing SPI Electricity Pty Ltd easement to accord with the position of the electricity line(s) as determined by survey;
   • (d) Set aside on the plan of subdivision Reserves for the use of SPI Electricity Pty Ltd for electric substations;
   • (e) Provide survey plans for any electric substations required by SPI Electricity Pty Ltd and for associated power lines and cables and execute leases for a period of 30 years, at a nominal rental with a right to extend the lease for a further 30 years. SPI Electricity Pty Ltd requires that such leases are to be noted on the title by way of a caveat or a notification under Section 88 (2) of the Transfer of Land Act prior to the registration of the plan of subdivision;
   • (f) Provide to SPI Electricity Pty Ltd a copy of the plan of subdivision submitted for certification that shows any amendments that have been required;
   • (g) Agree to provide alternative electricity supply to lot owners and/or each lot until such time as permanent supply is available to the development by SPI Electricity Pty Ltd. Individual generators must be provided at each supply point. The generator for temporary supply must be installed in such a manner as to comply with the Electricity Safety Act 1998;
   • (h) Ensure that all necessary auditing is completed to the satisfaction of SPI Electricity Pty Ltd to allow the new network assets to be safely connected to the distribution network.

1. The owner of the subject land must enter into an agreement with South East Water for the provision of sewerage and water supply and fulfil all requirements to its satisfaction.

1. Water Supply and Access Requirement. CFA requires that:
   • (a) Operable below ground hydrants meeting the requirements of Australian Standard 3952 water supply-spring hydrant valve for waterworks purposes, must be provided to the satisfaction of CFA;
   • (b) The fire hydrants must be installed to the satisfaction of CFA and should be located within 120 metres of the furthest edge of every building envelope (or in the absence of the building envelope, the rear of the lots) and must be no more than 200m apart;
   • (c) Three copies of water reticulation drawings must be provided to CFA for approval;
   • (d) Fire hydrants must be clearly identified as specified in the Fire Services Guideline 'Identification of Street Hydrants for Firefighting Purposes';
   • (e) Emergency vehicle access must be provided to each of the allotments meeting the design requirements of the October 2006 version of the CFA guideline "Requirements for Water Supplies and Access, for Subdivisions in Residential 1 and 2 and Township Zones";
   • (f) The amount and location of parking facilities should not impede access of emergency vehicles (off street parking is therefore encouraged where possible).

1. Development and use of the subdivision must not commence until land that is contained within WA170 and is within 200 metres of any proposed sensitive use is either excised from WA170 or WA170 is surrendered; OR

A buffer of at least 200 metres is created between any proposed sensitive use and the boundary of the WA170 area containing an existing extractive industry; OR

The proponent must demonstrate that the potential dust impacts upon the subject site that may be emitted from WA170 can meet current EPA recommended buffer distances for residual Air Emissions contained in the publication AQ2/86.

1. This permit will expire if:
   • (a) The plan of subdivision is not certified within two years of the date of this permit; or
   • (b) The registration of the subdivision is not completed within five years from the date of certification of the plan of subdivision.

The Responsible Authority may extend the time if a request is made in writing before the permit expires or within three months afterwards.

[1] Environment Report Assessment of the Potential for Methane Gas Movement from Victorian Landfills, February 2009.

[2] Brookland Greens Estate - Investigation into methane gas leaks, October 2009