//
[944]
austlii:vic/PPV/2025/21
General information, not legal advice.
PPV
2025-05-19
Original judgment source is linked above.
For the reasons set out in this report, the Committee concludes that the draft Amendment:
Prepare and approve draft Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C296case with the changes recommended in this Report.
Relevant to the referred Table 1 land use issues the Day 1 PSP includes:
The main PSP Day 1 land use related changes to the exhibited PSP include (refer Appendix F:1):
Figure 11 Day 1 PSP Plan 6 Employment and Activity Centre
To reduce the electronic size of this document, Figure 11 has been removed from this version of the report. Contact Planning Panels Victoria to obtain a complete copy of the report.
SUZ8 includes provisions for the use and development of the utilities easement.
The main Day 1 ordinance changes (refer Appendix F:4) include:
Table 4 lists the land use planning and buffer evidence called by parties.
During the Hearing, Melbourne Water advised that its discussions with AusNet had identified that it was proposing a third transmission line with towers to the south of the existing high voltage line assets at a similar spacing (D72). Melbourne Water indicated this would require changes to its DSS and associated land area to avoid the future transmission towers, and an alternate VDP crossing point (refer Chapter 5).
The Committee discusses each of these issues separately in the following sub-chapters.
4.2.2 Balance of industry and commercial employment areas
Submissions from most parties considered the balance of industry and commercial employment areas broadly appropriate but the land area (referred to also as 'land take') associated with the DSS should be reduced in favour of NDA.
Melbourne Water said its changes to the DSS from Revision A to Revision C resulted in a significant 19.8 hectares decrease in land required for its assets.
The VPA identified its Day 1 changes from reduced DSS land area and other changes would result in an additional NDA of 21.7 hectares, mostly for employment land with a slight reduction in residential land. This increased the precinct's total employment land NDA to 164.3 hectares and 7,000 potential jobs).
Mr Clake supported the designation of the Cranbourne 1450 land as 'Business' rather than 'Commercial/Office' as proposed in the Day 1 version of Plan 2 and 6. He considered the site's inclusion in the PSP as an employment area reflected its intended use, arterial road frontage and influence of the abattoir buffers.
Mr Glossop considered the mix of commercial and industrial uses appropriately reflected MICLUP's designation of it as a regionally significant commercial areas, noting such areas have a primary role for economic and employment purposes. The land use designations supported the SEEC's identification for a medium term predominance of industrial activity moving towards innovation and higher order employment uses.
Mr Granger considered that significant policy support existed for a predominantly employment focused PSP and that he was comfortable with the PSP's layout of the employment and residential areas including Day 1 changes which:
As discussed in Chapter 10, Mr Granger advocated for further opportunities to maximise commercial NDA by reducing areas of unencumbered open space. The VPA did not support this proposal.
Following the Day 1 changes to the PSP, parties and planning experts were broadly comfortable that the industry and commercial land use mix struck the right balance and was consistent with the MICLUP. Allocating over 80 per cent of the precinct's NDA for employment uses in the Day 1 version is consistent with MICLUP directions that regionally significant commercial precincts:
... should have a primary role for economic and employment purposes with no less than 50 per cent of the land in each precinct being allocated for these purposes. [Committee's emphasis]
The introduction of a progressive certainty note (as discussed in Chapter 4.2.3) provides further opportunity for additional employment NDA.
The inclusion of the Cranbourne land in the PSP as business, which is currently zoned for residential purposes, further supports MICLUP and makes appropriate usage of arterial road frontages and the PFN and relationship with established commercial uses to the west.
The Day 1 proposal to change the 'commercial/office' and 'mixed use' land use designations to business is appropriate. While it is likely over time some commercial and office activities will locate along the arterial road frontage to maximise exposure it is appropriate that a high level strategic direction does not force this outcome, particularly when access to Thompsons Road as a PFN should be maximised for industrial and other activities requiring access to strategic road networks.
The Day 1 PSP reconfigured the eastern 10 hectare retail node along Berwick-Cranbourne Road as shown in Figure 5 (rather than extending further westward along the proposed east-west connector road) in response to the Galileo submission. The Committee supports this change considering it logical and a superior planning outcome which maximises arterial road frontages and proximity of other retail activities to the east and reduces potential interface conflicts with industry uses. While this change was shown in the Final Day changes to Plan 2 it was not reflected in Plan 6. This should be corrected in the final version of the PSP.
The Committee is comfortable that the Day 1 PSP strikes an appropriate balance (and spatial allocation) of commercial (more appropriately expressed as business in the context of Day 1 changes) and industry. It reflects:
**Submissions sought changes to the provisions of the PSP and UGZ16 to ensure it would deliver appropriate employment outcomes.
Mr Glossop considered the C2Z, as the applied zone for business land, was logical and appropriate as the zone facilitates a range of industrial and commercial activities. This provided flexibility to allow development to respond to forecast demand, the SEEC vision and MICLUP which recognises that service and higher order industries form part of the commercial land mix.
Mr Clarke agreed, considering the C2Z supported a number of employment uses 'as of right' (without the need for a permit). He supported the removal of the MUZ from the southern edge of the Cranbourne 1450 land considering the VPA's Day 1 change sensible avoiding potential land use conflict and reflected the intention of Cranbourne 1450 to develop the site entirely for employment purposes.
Submissions supported the concept that land not required for drainage assets following more detailed design and DSS finalisation should revert to the applied zone for adjacent land but pointed to issues with the mechanism to affect this.
MAB said it was not sufficient or legally effective to only address 'reversion' in the PSP's Progressive certainty note. A suitable mechanism was required in the UGZ16. MAB submitted this could be best addressed to avoid uncertainty by identifying the applied zone for all drainage land to be the same as the applied zone for adjoining land rather than the PCRZ. This position was supported in the submissions of Fouz Group and Galileo. Spring Lodge identified similar changes to add greater certainty to this outcome being 'generally in accordance' with the PSP.
The VPA's Final Day UGZ16 sought to address these concerns by removing the application of the PCRZ to DSS assets in the applied zone provisions in Table 1, amending it as follows:
Post-drafting submissions from Wagstaff, Spring Lodge, Galileo and Foz Group sought further changes including that Table 1:
Use of utilities easement and provisions of SUZ8
Several submissions (supported by evidence) sought greater acknowledgement and support for using the utilities easement for employment uses and development in the:
While supporting the application of the SUZ8 to the utilities easement which occupied some 10.5 hectares of its land, Galileo sought greater direction about the role and expectations for its employment use in the PSP and SUZ8. Mr Granger also supported the application of the SUZ8 in a manner consistent with SUZ4. He supported the VPA Day 1 changes to include:
MAB also sought more explicit guidance in the PSP and SUZ that supported the use of the easement for appropriate commercial and industrial purposes. It supported Mr Glossop's recommendation that the SUZ8 and PSP be updated consistent with SUZ4 providing a marked up version of:
The VPA's Final version included changes identified in its Memo 6 (D138) to:
The VPA did not support further changes to the SUZ8 including to the purpose or Table of uses. It submitted that SUZ4 and the associated Thompsons Road PSP was over 10 years old and did not capture the VDP assets in the wider easement. It said making the SUZ more explicit in terms of uses was a flawed approach which set up erroneous expectations.
As discussed in Chapter 5, submissions supported the VPA's Day 1 PSP version's introduction of a progressive certainty note into the PSP enabling surplus DSS land to be used and developed in accordance with the applied zoning.
Council proposed that the General Notes (including the progressive certainty note) are moved to a more prominent location and not standing on their own.
Mr Glossop recommended several changes to the Day 1 PSP to accommodate the intended medium and longer term outcomes precinct including to:
Mr Granger did not support Objective O13 which sought to support night-time economy in appropriate locations. He considered it was unclear what constituted appropriate locations and there were no supporting requirements or guidelines. VPA did not support the change.
The planning experts all agreed the applied zones for business (C2Z) and industry (IN3Z) were appropriate. The Committee considers that these zones are the appropriate applied zones and will support the mix of activities sought in the PSP's vision, objectives and Table 9 character outcomes.
UGZ16 Table 1 however does not account for credited open space, and the 'all other land' catchall under residential (GRZ1) is considered problematic.
The Committee observes that recently approved UGZ schedules identify applied zones in several ways - at a high level as proposed here or more descriptive to pick up credited open space (as PPRZ) and non-arterial roads in the Transport Zone. In this instance, applying an applied zone to connector roads is complicated (given they typically abut more than one land use type) or the appropriate zone is not yet clear based on the road hierarchy. It is not unusual for local parks and open space to be located within the same zoning as adjoining land. Once the open space reserves are created and in public ownership they can be rezoned appropriately.
Noting the Committee's recommendations in Chapter 4.3 to amend the residential designation north of the utilities easement to business, it would be clearer to amend the 'All other land' descriptor to 'All other land south of the utilities easement' [Committee's emphasis]. This would clarify the applied zoning of the culturally sensitive area and uncredited open space south of the easement and how the connector roads are treated north of the easement.
Use of utilities easement and provisions of SUZ8
The Committee supports the ability for the utilities easement to be used for a range of employment uses, but this should not compromise its primary role and asset protection function. Given the likelihood of a third transmission line in the easement, challenges of crossing the VDP easement and restrictions on building under a transmission line its use will be limited.
The application of the SUZ to the utilities easement is appropriate and reflects the approach taken to PSPs to the east of the precinct. It would be desirable to not keep creating new schedules to the SUZ to achieve largely the same outcome along its length. However as identified by the VPA, the SUZ4 applying to the Thompsons Road PSP is over 10 years old and the VDP assets were not a consideration at the time. The relationship between land uses north and south of the utilities easement in that PSP are also quite different to this precinct.
The Committee does not support widening the range of Section 1 and 2 uses. The exhibited version of SUZ8 has few prohibited uses thereby allowing for a wide range of uses to be considered. It also provides exemption from notice and review. No party suggested the prohibited uses should be permitted. A limited range of Section 1 uses is appropriate given the range of considerations and asset operators. Other than updating the final PSP reference, no further changes are required to the Day 1 version of the UGZ8.
The Committee supports the VPA's Final Day changes to Guideline G10 and Plan 5 in relation to the use of the utilities easement.
The Committee supports the inclusion of a progressive certainty note in the PSP and considers it will provide the opportunity for additional employment NDA land subject to further detailed design and the approval of Melbourne Water. Drafting of the note is discussed in Chapter 5.2.
The Committee supports moving all General Notes from the front of the document to Chapter 2 'PSP Outcomes' so they are more prominently embedded in the PSP and follow the Context chapter.
The VPA's Day 1 and Final Day PSP employment related changes to requirements and guidelines including Plans and Tables responded to many of the submissions and planning evidence suggestions. The Committee has sought to capture these in Table 5 below with its position and recommendations on those changes noting the reference to requirement and guideline numbers reflects the Day 1 numbering. Minor corrections and changes where not identified in Table 5 are supported.
Table 5 Committee response to VPA Final Day changes to Day 1 PSP version for employment outcomes
Amend 2nd sentence of 2nd para to: The PSP will play a key role in supporting local employment aspirations and the types of businesses that locate in the precinct are expected to commence with appropriate manufacturing, light industrial, retail and service uses that will gradually transition towards higher order office and commercial uses over time within designated areas along key frontage roads.
Further changes to the vision are not necessary to further emphasise the role of industry - this is because the MICLUP identifies the area as a commercial precinct and the term commercial has been applied in a generic way to include 'business' and 'industry' which are also explicitly referred to in the first PSP purpose.
Remove legend entry 'other uncredited open space (waterway)' and associated hatching from the plan
Differentiate between the high voltage electricity easement and the Melbourne Water pipe track easement in the plan legend/colours by:
The high voltage electricity easement may accommodate permitted commercial or industrial uses that do not interfere with the Victorian Desalination Project assets/easement or relevant electrical transmission easement authority assets
Amend to: Subdivision and development of employment land must be generally in accordance with Plan 6 Employment and activity centre and Table 9 Employment Area Planned Character Outcomes to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.
Support inclusion of 'development' to ensure the character outcomes can be achieved. The Table 9 outcomes are sufficiently detailed to support the requirement despite being expressed as 'should'.
Amend second dot point to: provide a diversity of lot sizes at subdivision to meet the needs of a range of commercial business and industries while ensuring that large lots are provided to facilitate larger footprint economic and employment uses and protect opportunities for future higher order redevelopment.
Support subject to the third dot point being amended for clarity to:
Break up car parking areas by providing tree islands at a rate of at least one island per six spaces where feasible.
Amend to: Development within business and industry areas must provide a transition to any existing or future adjacent residential uses or heritage buildings. Transition may be achieved through the use of landscaping, differences in building height, setbacks and materials or other methods to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.
Amend the first sentence to: Subdivision and development of employment land should:
Amend to: Land within the high voltage electricity easement should be utilised for ancillary permitted commercial and industrial uses, compatible with the utilities easement
Support although noting the word 'permitted' is not necessary as prohibited uses cannot be approved in the SUZ8
Amend the first sentence to: The Business area is located along key arterial, and local or connector entry streets, and within the heart of the precinct set back from the arterial road frontages.
Add a new sentence stating: Uses located along arterial roads, including Thompsons Road and Casey-Fields Boulevard, should evoke a gateway character.
Amend third dot point to state: Encourage multi-storey buildings to locate on arterial frontages, and adjacent to key local or connector entry street frontages and waterways and drainage areas.
The Industry area is envisaged as supporting a range of small scale appropriate industrial based services uses with limited sensitive use impacts. Uses with the industry area are expected to integrate well with the surrounding commercial business and mixed use residential areas.
"Provide medium and large scale lots along arterial frontages"
The second to last dot point relating to tree islands and sun shade devices is unclear and should be rewritten to its clarify intent and application.
In relation to the submission issues not addressed in the VPA Final Day PSP, the Committee recommends further changes as identified in Table 6 below.
Table 6 Committee's additional recommended changes to VPA Final Day PSP version for employment outcomes
This guideline is unclear about what is intended to be achieved through a "finer grain of buildings". There are other potential forms of design response which could achieve suitable transition outcomes.
Delete "by encouraging finer grain style of building" or include additional explanation of the built form outcomes sought.
A guideline should not refer to secondary design documents that have no Planning Scheme status. The Committee was presented with no information about the content of these documents, why they are particularly relevant to this precinct or in a high level strategic document.
Amend the Croskell (Employment) Precinct Structure Plan consistent with the VPA Final Day version (Document 169) with further changes that:
Amend Urban Growth Zone Schedule 16 consistent with Committee preferred version in Appendix I to amend 'Table 1: Applied zone provisions' to replace 'Any other land' with 'All other land south of the utilities easement' and correct the reference to General Residential 1 Zone.
Amend Special Use Zone Schedule 8 consistent with the VPA Final Day version (Document 176d).
The Committee discusses each of these issues separately in the following sub-chapters. The referral issue matters did not extend to providing advice on what buffers or separation distances should be applied to the Wagstaff abattoir in particular. However, this was a key issue in the referred submissions of Wagstaff and Spring Lodge and central to the question of how to manage sensitive uses within the odour buffers of a large and long established abattoir operation including the location of residential areas within the PSP and the applied zoning and application requirements for sensitive uses in the SUZ16. The Committee has therefore considered submissions and evidence regarding the designation of abattoir buffers for the purposes of informing its consideration of the referral issues.
Wagstaff said its abattoir operations had operated at 1500 Thompsons Road since the early 1900s supplying beef (calves), lamb and goats to domestic and international markets and was one of the largest meat processors in Australia. It continues to steadily increase production through processing efficiencies and new plant and equipment.
The EPA supported the application of a 1,000 metre odour separation distance for sensitive uses from the abattoir's activity boundary (abattoir building, livestock holding area and pond area) based on the Separation Guideline [Committee's emphasis]. It identified the 1,000 metre distance was based on an abattoir of more than 10,000 standard animal units (SAU) each day and the findings of the LCA.
EPA said it was important to address land use compatibility early in the land use planning process to avoid potential future conflicts and impacts on amenity and human health. It said the VPA as the 'agent of change' should have undertaken a risk assessment to inform any separation distance variation and to mitigate potential impacts and it was not appropriate to now defer this process to the permit stage.
The EPA's addendum submission (D144) advised that the SAU for sheep be calculated as a weight proportion of a 600 kilogram cow (Standard Cattle Unit) based on the draft Animal production separation distance requirements, Department of Energy, Environment, May 2023 (Agriculture Victoria guidelines) (D148e) and Agriculture Victoria advice. Based on this advice a meat sheep (or goat) of 60 kilograms had an SAU of 0.1. This rate would then be applied based on the maximum daily throughput to determine the recommended separation distance [Committee's emphasis].
The EPA acknowledged that the evidence identified that the 1,000 metre buffer was conservative but noted the inconsistent SAU assumptions used.
It advised separation distances should be measured from an activity boundary, with the Separation Guideline identifying:
The activity boundary is the area that includes all current and proposed industrial activities (including plants, buildings and other sources) that may produce odour or dust emissions.
A risk assessment prepared to vary a recommended separation distance could establish a different activity boundary.
Mr Ramsay's evidence set out the key features of the site including the large primary processing building, livestock holding areas and wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) including a mechanically aerated lagoon, a covered anerobic lagoon and storage lagoon (pending discharge to sewer under a Trade Waste Agreement) (Figure 12).
To reduce the electronic size of this document, Figure 12 has been removed from this version of the report. Contact Planning Panels Victoria to obtain a complete copy of the report.
Mr Ramsay agreed with the EPA that the relevant document for determining the separation buffer was the Separation Guideline which recommended the following separation distances (using the Urban Method) for Abattoir (and noting SAU was not defined):
Source: Separation Guidelines, Table 2 Page 23 (D148i)
Mr Ramsay considered a second separation distance should also apply from the WWTP (as a separate odour source) based on equations in Appendix B of the Separation Guideline. The separation distance accounts for the technology used and scale of plant in terms of population served.
From the abattoir, Mr Ramsay concluded a separation distance of 500 metres was required. This was based on:
one head of cattle or 5 of any other kind of mammal.
For the WWTP, Mr Ramsay concluded the separation distance was 707 metres based on Wagstaff data and wastewater samples by Sample Science which identified flow rates, typical biological oxygen demand (BOD) loads and equivalent population of 20,000.
He recommended (refer Figure 13) the separation distances be measured:
Figure 13 Ramsay recommended abattoir separation distance
To reduce the electronic size of this document, Figure 13 has been removed from this version of the report. Contact Planning Panels Victoria to obtain a complete copy of the report.
Mr Ramsay did not support reduced separation distances without an odour risk assessment noting the scale of the abattoir, and potential risks arising from:
Both Dr Shepherd and Dr Cowan were critical of the LCA considering it had overestimated the separation distances required including the calculation of SAU, the BOD levels, and not considered the abattoir's low risk profile, lack of complaints and existing residential areas already within the buffer. Both experts relied on the Separation Guideline and Guidance for assessing odour, Publication 1883, June 2022 (EPA 1883) which they set out in detail including the three levels of odour assessment.
Dr Cowan undertook a Level 1 odour assessment and concluded based on the Separation Guideline, historical planning approvals, Wagstaff operational information, wind profiles and the low risk profile based on the lack of recorded odour complaints from existing sensitive receptors that:
Dr Shepherd's evidence was based on a more detailed odour risk assessment of the abattoir and WWTP using the guidance in EPA 1883 (which he set out in detail). His assessment was informed by 10 field odour survey observations (intensity, character and presence) and assessment of wind conditions based on Bureau of Meteorology's Frankston (Ballam Park) data.
Dr Shepherd recommended a 500 metre buffer for the abattoir because:
Wagstaff adopted the separation distances recommended by Mr Ramsay. It observed that the abattoir had been protected by buffers (including 500 metre buffer) implemented through intentional zoning decisions over the years through the location of the residential zoning boundary to the west and other provisions applied to the PSP areas to the north of Thompsons Road. Further it said the abattoir was not fixed in time (including processing numbers, location of holding areas or waste production) and had "good opportunity for optimisation and expansion" with the benefit of access to a strategic freight connection. In this context, it was appropriate to protect the existing buffers already in in place.
Wagstaff was critical about the assessment undertaken by Dr Shepherd considering it had been limited by time (both to conduct the surveys over different seasons but also undertaking observations outside of daylight hours). Dr Cowan had only conducted a Level 1 assessment which was an incorrect application of EPA 1883 which identified a level 3 assessment was required to reduce buffers where there were multiple sources of odour. It said he had misapplied the Separation Guideline in his approach to calculating BOD levels for the aerobic pond, while his wind modelling had not been appropriately calibrated.
Spring Lodge said the abattoir buffers should be determined within a broader context which include:
Spring Lodge said there was no defensible basis for applying a 1,000 metre separation distance to the abattoir as proposed in the Day 1 PSP. Its submission included a table identifying that using the most conservative SAU estimate would require 50,000 sheep to be received/day to reach a 1,000 metre separation distance.
Spring Lodge adopted the separation distances identified by Dr Cowan and said the evidence of both Dr Cowan and Dr Shepherd supported further reduction southwest of the abattoir based on the absence of odour detected in the proposed residential area, low odour risk and wind conditions. On this basis it proposed:
Figure 14 Spring Lodge proposed abattoir buffer change (purple dashed line)
To reduce the electronic size of this document, Figure 14 has been removed from this version of the report. Contact Planning Panels Victoria to obtain a complete copy of the report.
The VPA considered the identification of buffers in the Day 1 PSP was consistent with the Separation Guideline. In closing, it submitted, based on the evidence, a 500 metre abattoir separation distance was acceptable (identifying this in its Final Day version of Plan 2).
The protection of industry buffers and the separation of sensitive uses from the potential impacts on amenity and health through emissions are well established tenets of planning policy including Clauses 13.6-1S, 13.07-1S and 17.03-2S and the objectives of planning in Victoria.
Buffers are critical to separating or managing incompatible land uses and to avoid land use conflict and to support the operation of established industry. As identified in PPN92:
Although buffers are not a substitute for best practice management of off-site impacts by industry, it is recognised that even 'state of the art' facilities are not always able to eliminate the potential for unintended off-site impacts. Buffers are often still needed to protect sensitive uses from these impacts and provide certainty for industry operators.
PPN92 and the Separation Guideline identify the importance of avoiding potential land use conflicts in the first instance through the strategic planning process. PPN92 highlights this:
This involves understanding where existing industry and other uses with potential off-site impacts are and ensuring current zoning appropriately protects operators and surrounding communities. It also means making sure that sensitive uses and future urban growth are directed away from areas that could be affected by off-site impacts. Strategic planning around uses with potential off-site impacts should consider the capacity or need for future expansion of that use or expected changes to operations. Planning approaches might differ depending on the strategic planning scenario.
The Wagstaff abattoir is a long established, substantial operation that employs a significant number of people. Wagstaff submitted that its operations were not constricted by planning permits or licences in terms of animal type or throughput and that it had no plans to relocate its operations and continues to invest in plant and equipment. It is located central to the precinct's employment area and industry node, and on the PFN.
The PSP does not identify that the abattoir is incompatible to the longer term vision for the precinct. While the PSP seeks to transition employment uses over time it does not articulate a position that the abattoir, will or is encouraged, to relocate. It is clearly identified in the PSP and the road network aligned (in the Day 1 version) to accommodate its operation. The PSP and UGZ16 include specific provisions to acknowledge and manage the sensitive use buffer (or separation distances).
The PSP and UGZ16 provide opportunity for an alternative employment use of the site or accommodation of sensitive uses in the buffer if the abattoir no longer operates. However, the abattoir in the medium term is likely to be the largest employment generating activity in the precinct and will potentially support a range of allied uses establishing in the precinct.
In this context, the identification of appropriate buffers is an important part of the PSP exercise noting that some form of buffer has been an established and consistent feature of the precinct's planning for several decades. The Separation Guideline is the recognised document to establish a buffer as identified in Clause 17.03-2S.
While the odour experts undertook different levels of analysis, they agreed:
It is perplexing (and unhelpful) that the Separation Guidelines establishes a metric (SAU) that is not defined. As a result, the EPA and experts must rely on other sources for a suitable definition. This does not aid consistent application of the Guidelines or provide certainty. Rather than rely on the draft Agriculture Victoria guidelines it seems more logical to apply the EPR definition as Mr Ramsay did.
Ultimately, all the experts agreed that the SAU factor ranged between 0.1 and 0.2. This meant that a significantly larger volume of sheep (or goats or calves) would need to be received and processed to require a 1,000 metre separation distance for the abattoir. However, an abattoir buffer of less than 500 metres in the manner contemplated by Dr Cowan would be a poor planning outcome. It would not reflect the historical buffer applied and the capacity for the existing abattoir to expand elements of its operations and throughput with or without a permit.
The Committee is satisfied that the appropriate separation distance for the abattoir is 500 metres from its activity boundary which includes the elements identified in Mr Ramsay's evidence (refer Figure 13) and largely aligns with the VPA's Final Day version of Plan 2 (D172b).
While the Separation Guideline provides a process for reducing separation distances to support the incursion of sensitive uses, the Committee is not satisfied that the assessment of Dr Shepherd was sufficient to support Spring Lodge's reduction of the buffer to the west over the residential area given:
While noting the EPA view that a single separation distance applies to the abattoir's activity area (including WWTP) this was inconsistent with the position of the odour experts. The Committee supports the position of Mr Ramsay and Dr Shepherd that a separate buffer applies to the WWTP based on the different odour source from the abattoir and the Separation Guideline provisions. The Committee is satisfied that the WWTP separation distance under the Separation Guideline is 707 metres based on BOD analysis, measured from the aerobic pond only. While more detailed assessment may reveal that this buffer is larger than it needs to be, the Committee is not satisfied that Dr Shepherd's 560 metres is appropriate to designate in the PSP at this time. This is because of the risk of uncertainties that remain regarding the extent of calms and the influence of topography during calms to the south.
Amend the Croskell (Employment) Precinct Structure Plan to amend 'Plan 2 Place based plan' consistent with the VPA's Final Day version (D172b) to identify the sensitive use buffers for:
Mr Clarke's evidence set out the strategic planning background relating to current precinct's Farming Zone and GRZ boundaries and the planning provisions applied to the north of Thompsons Road. While he deferred to the odour experts in terms of what the abattoir buffers should be, he observed that the abattoir was a long established and continuing major employer of land, there was a clear strategic basis for:
Mr Clarke recommended the following applied zones to the three areas identified as 'residential' within the abattoir and aerobic pond buffers within Wagstaff's marked up version of Plan 2 from the day 1 PSP as areas A, B and C (Figure 15):
Figure 15 Wagstaff marked up Day 1 PSP Plan 2 showing areas A, B and C
To reduce the electronic size of this document, Figure 15 has been removed from this version of the report. Contact Planning Panels Victoria to obtain a complete copy of the report.
Mr Clarke said the buffer should do its job to maintain separation between potentially conflicting uses and sensitive uses should not be permitted within the buffer. Allowing the UGZ16 to permit sensitive uses within the buffer even with an Odour Risk Assessment did not provide sufficient certainty. It could also result in poor decisions, the consequences of which could be catastrophic for industry protection and residential amenity. Mr Clarke recommended amending UGZ16 to prevent sensitive uses in the abattoir buffer while it continued to operate.
Mr Woodland's evidence provided a useful overview of the buffer planning history applying to the precinct. He supported the following approach to provide for greater certainty and orderly planning which delineated:
Mr Woodland relied on the technical assessments and evidence of Dr Cowan and Dr Shepherd. Based on their evidence he supported the inclusion of sensitive uses within identified buffers subject to mandatory Odour Risk Assessment. He said this reflected:
The EPA's position was that sensitive uses be prohibited within the recommended separation distance. It said this was consistent with the Separation Guideline.
Consistent with Mr Clarke's evidence, Wagstaff proposed:
This approach avoided land use conflicts at the strategic planning stage rather than dealing with them at the permit stage.
Alternatively, if this position was not supported, Areas A and B should be subject to the 'soft buffer' approach in the Day 1 UGZ16 but with additional changes (D153a) including:
Wagstaff said the protection of its identified buffers and UGZ16 changes were consistent with the principles of avoiding land use was a fundamental planning objective enshrined in planning practice notes, guidelines and policy provisions including:
Council said Areas B and C should be retained in their proposed residential applied zone so as to avoid amenity impacts associated with commercial land use and traffic. The planning permit application processes would ensure potential amenity impacts within the buffer are addressed.
The VPA said prohibiting sensitive uses in the buffer and to apply a non-residential zoning across the entire buffer would sterilise potential residential land and be a strategic failure. Rather it was appropriate to take a holistic, longer term view of the precinct and the existence of established development outside the PSP. Allowing consideration of sensitive uses in buffers to an industry that was not of state significance where supported by a risk assessment provided appropriate safeguards. It was consistent with the approach adopted by other PSPs (Arden, Fishermans Bend, Officer South cited).
The VPA considered the inclusion of a small amount of residential land within Area A avoided creating an island of residential to the west and which could access LP-01 and adjacent heritage property. It supported shifting the residential/industrial zoning split in this area further west consistent with the Spring Lodge submission. If the Committee were to support the Wagstaff position, it considered the C2Z was more appropriate for that land.
The VPA did not support designating an applied Farming Zone to Area B or applied C2Z/IN3Z to Area C, because:
Applying appropriate zones within buffer areas is the primary planning tool to ensure their integrity from the impacts of, and on, sensitive uses, in addition to achieving the land use outcomes for the precinct. As identified by the Committee the abattoir is a large established operation that is not sought to be transitioned out of the precinct by the PSP.
Using Wagstaff's identification of areas A, B and C (Figure 15) the Committee considers the following underlying zones are appropriate.
Area A is the area closest to the abattoir and is in the separation distance of both the abattoir and aerobic pond. As identified in Chapter 4.3.2 the Committee is not satisfied that the assessment undertaken by Dr Shepherd sufficiently acknowledges the potential risks of odour being experienced in this area. The absence of complaints and the existing adjacent residential development in this buffer is not a sound basis for allowing further residential activity in this area while the abattoir remains operating. Additionally, in an area identified as a regionally significant commercial area securing this outcome from a policy and strategic perspective is of greater importance than delivering a relatively small area of housing.
As identified in Chapter 4.2, the appropriate underlying zones for the employment areas are C2Z and IN3Z. In this context, the C2Z is considered the most appropriate zone for Area A given:
This outcome does not isolate the existing residential land to the west - it is still connected to the rest of the precinct through the movement network and utilities easement. Narre Warren-Cranbourne Road connects the area to nearby residential areas opposite and to the south as well as the Springhill Shopping Centre. While the outcome will retain a curvilinear precinct edge, this interface can be managed through the location of streets, open space and subdivision design and is not a basis for compromising the buffer.
Applying the Committee's recommended separation distances does not impact Area C. While the entirety of Area B is outside the abattoir buffer, its western half would remain in the aerobic pond buffer. The question for the Committee is how Area B should be used and zoned.
Area B cannot readily be used for business or industry given the limited opportunities to access them across the utilities easement and VDP assets and the potential amenity impacts associated with introducing these uses adjacent to existing residential areas. To retain the existing Farming Zone serves little purpose given agricultural use would be constrained by its parcel size and proximity to residential areas. Applying that Farming Zone would effectively sterilise the parcel and not readily enable it to be integrated into the precinct including if it were in the C2Z or IN3Z. This would be a poor planning outcome.
The use of Area B for residential is likely to be the most appropriate outcome subject to on odour risk assessment. Distinct from Area A, Area B enjoys a significant separation from the abattoir operations through the utilities easement and drainage assets in addition to future industries to the north of the easement.
A residential designation would still require the careful consideration of sensitive use proposals in Area B. This provides the appropriate balance between achieving the longer term vision and objectives of the precinct while appropriately acknowledging and responding to existing industries that are part of the precinct.
Designating Area B as residential does not mean that it will all be used for sensitive uses. Through the PSP and UGZ16 provisions the permit stage will enable a considered response to odour assessments including through the location and design of streets, open space and lots rather than leaving the land underutilised.
There is no definition of 'Sensitive use' in the Planning Scheme. The strategies of Clause 13.06-1S refer to "sensitive land uses (residential use, child care centre, school, education centre, residential aged care centre or hospital)" and identify the Separation Guidelines as a policy document.
The Separation Guidelines identifies in its Appendix D 'Table 7: Land use' that a sensitive land use in the context of odour and dust emissions [Committee's emphasis]:
Any land use that requires a focus on protecting human health and wellbeing, local amenity and aesthetic enjoyment.
Examples of such sensitive land uses include, but are not limited to:
Sensitive uses are land uses considered to be sensitive to emissions from industry and other uses due to their impact on amenity, human health and safety. Sensitive uses will differ depending on the type of industry or other use.
Examples of sensitive uses include, but are not limited to a:
In this context, the Separation Guideline provides the most extensive list of potentially sensitive uses although it is not exhaustive.
Sensitive uses should not be prohibited in the abattoir and aerobic pond because it would potentially compromise the vision and objectives of the PSP.
In Area A and other business and industry areas within the buffer where accommodation is largely prohibited, some potentially sensitive uses could be anticipated including medical centres, education centre, leisure and recreation or places of assembly. These uses should not be prohibited outright as they have the potential to support the mix of employment uses sought by the PSP. Similarly, the effective delivery and logical location of public open space as a sensitive use should not be compromised by an automatic prohibition.
The Committee is not satisfied the assessments provided through evidence to support a reduction of the aerobic pond buffer at this time. Notwithstanding this, the evidence did not create the impression that it was immovable if rigorously assessed consistent with EPA 1883. In this context, allowing sensitive uses to be considered within identified buffers is appropriate where supported by rigorous odour assessment that identifies a low risk.
UGZ16 appropriately seeks to condition 'as of right' sensitive uses in the applied zones to Section 2 (permit required) uses and allows for the consideration of sensitive uses within buffers subject to the approval of an odour assessment. This strikes the right balance and appropriately applies the Separation Guideline in tandem with the recommended buffers and applied zones. This position is consistent with the approach adopted for buffers in other PSPs although noting that comparisons are not always useful if the planning context is different (infill or Greenfields) and different odour or noise sources are being considered.
The application requirements within the sensitive use buffer provides a rigorous approach to assessment against the relevant EPA publications to the satisfaction of the responsible authority and EPA.
The Day 1 drafting of the 'Applications within Sensitive Use Buffer - Abattoir application requirement included the following:
If the responsible authority determines that there are likely to be odour levels arising from the abattoir which would have detrimental impact on the amenity of the sensitive use, the land must not be developed for sensitive uses.
This was appropriately deleted from the Final Day 1 version as it reads as a requirement or outcome that must be met as opposed to an application requirement for information. While the Committee sees some merit in Wagstaff's suggestion to include a similar provision as a specific provision, a low risk of offensive odour should be the outcome of an odour risk assessment prepared under EPA 1883. While there may be a range of options to reinforce this outcome in the UGZ16 including a condition for Section 2 uses, the Committee considers the decision guidelines should ensure the same outcome.
That said, there may be some benefit in identifying the outcome as a requirement in the PSP along with the list of targeted sensitive uses and noting the UGZ header provisions will require consideration of the PSP.
The Committee is not convinced that a definition of Sensitive Use is required to be included in UGZ16 given the reference to the term in PPN92, the Separation Guideline and Planning Scheme are not expressed in an inclusive manner. Relying on a definition offered by submitters gives rise to potential unforeseen circumstances if it were adopted by the Committee. That said, it was unclear to the Committee why the VPA opposed the idea. The Committee is not opposed to including a definition if an appropriate one can be determined in discussion with the EPA. Another alternative is including a definition or list of targeted sensitive uses in the PSP or as a requirement.
The Committee considers the following wording may be appropriate for a new requirement:
While the land at 1500 Thompsons Road, Cranbourne East is used for the purpose of an abattoir, land must not be used for a sensitive use within the abattoir and abattoir aerobic pond sensitive use buffers in Plan 2 unless the responsible authority is satisfied that there is a low risk of offensive odour from the abattoir and abattoir aerobic pond to the sensitive use.
The Committee considers sufficient guidance exists for the responsible authority to properly assess the risk of impacts on sensitive uses in the buffer. Accordingly notice and review provisions for sensitive uses in buffer areas are not necessary or appropriate.
While the requirement for an odour assessment for each dwelling in Area B is potentially a timely and costly task for individual purchasers and impacts the practical application of the Small Lot Housing Code provisions, the changes proposed by Spring Lodge to the Section 1 use conditions are not supported. The VPA should consider including appropriate wording that allows a dwelling to be permitted as of right where the offensive odour risk is low given the enabling subdivision will have undertaken this assessment.
The Committee acknowledges that drafting improvements could be made, and the VPA Final Day changes to the UGZ16 have advanced the clarity and workability of the provisions. The Committee identifies its position to those changes in Table 7 below, with its recommended changes included in its preferred version in Appendix I.
Table 7 Committee response to Final Day changes Day 1 version documents for managing sensitive uses
Amend Plan 2 to reflect Committee recommended buffers and land use designations.
Amend Plans 3 - 13 to reflect Committee recommended Plan 2 changes
Support. Plan should reflect Committee recommended buffers and land use designations.
Amend Use of land - Section 1 table to change conditions relating to sensitive use buffers to include 'Aerobic Pond'
Support subject to replacing references to the PSP to Plan 1 in the Schedule.
Amend 'Applications within Sensitive Use Buffer - Abattoir' to include reference to any further updated publications and delete decision guideline, include reference to aerobic ponds and delete references to 'existing' and 'future'
... of offensive odour from potential adverse amenity impacts of the abattoir and aerobic pond on the proposed sensitive use of the land.
Amend decision guidelines for Sensitive use Buffers to differentiate between the Concrete Batching Plant and Abattoir decision guidelines and make other corrections
Support subject to minor changes for consistency in buffer references as identified by Wagstaff.
Amend the Croskell (Employment) Precinct Structure Plan consistent with the VPA Final Day version (Document 172) subject to changes that:
'While the land at 1500 Thompsons Road, Cranbourne East is used for the purpose of an abattoir, land must not be used for a sensitive use within the abattoir and abattoir aerobic pond sensitive use buffers in Plan 2 unless the responsible authority is satisfied that there is a low risk of offensive odour from the abattoir and abattoir aerobic pond to the sensitive use.
Amend Urban Growth Zone Schedule 16 consistent with the Committee recommended version in Appendix I.
The EPA's hearing submission advised the VPA's Day 1 changes (refer Appendix F:4) had appropriately responded to its concerns regarding the application of the EAO only to land with a 'high' potential for contamination. This included amending the application requirements provisions to make a PRSA mandatory by removing the ability for the responsible authority to waive the requirement. It was satisfied the approach adopted by the VPA had appropriately responded to MD1 and PPN30.
Fouz Group did not support the mandatory requirement for a PRSA for subdivisions which enable sensitive uses on identified sites in UGZ16 Table 2 (which included 80S Linsell Boulevard, otherwise known as Parcel 26 and which fronts Tangamere Way). Fouz Group submitted the requirement appeared to have been applied based on the LAC which identified Parcel 26 as having 'medium' potential for contamination based on the identification of "dumped hard waste including industrial waste, chemicals and building materials".
In submitting the mandatory requirement should not apply, Fouz Group relied on the evidence of Rory McPhillips (D60) who, informed by MD1, PPN30, a review of historical images between 2006-2024 and a site inspection, considered:
The VPA considered its approach to managing areas of high and medium potential for contamination was appropriate where sensitive uses are permitted. The VPA submitted a precautionary approach was warranted in relation to Parcel 26 identifying:
... there is evidence that illegal dumping has occurred over years and the nature of what was dumped cannot be known. The aerial imagery that was discussed both highlighted the fact that illegal dumping has occurred and also raised the question of what additional dumping may have occurred that was not captured in aerial imagery.
The VPA's Final Day version of UGZ16 proposed to further refine:
The Committee supports the position taken by the VPA (and ultimately supported by the EPA) to:
This approach is consistent with MD1 and the application of PPN30.
The Committee acknowledges the LAC informing the application of the EAO (noting it already applies to Parcels 20, 21, 22, 23 and 24) and the use of PRSAs and PSIs was a desktop assessment. Mr McPhillips' evidence adds to what is known about the extent of potential contamination of Parcel 26. While the Committee is broadly satisfied that his assessment supports a view that the risk of contamination of the site is likely to be low and the observed (via historic aerial images or on-ground analysis) materials where they still exist are typical of illegal dumping and development activity.
The Committee is reluctant to make a finding on just one of the 13 sites identified as having a high or medium potential for contamination and unpick the LCA risk assessment methodology particularly for sites identified for a residential future. The Committee does not have the benefit of the EPA's view on the evidence of Mr McPhillips.
Rather than removing Parcel 26 from Table 2, the application requirements should retain a level of flexibility for the responsible authority to waive or vary the requirement. While supporting the other Final Day changes relating to the PRSA requirement, the Committee it is not convinced that removing discretion to waive or reduce the requirement is justified or reasonable.
Amend the Urban Growth Zone Schedule 16 consistent with the Committee recommended version in Appendix I to remove from the '3.0 Application Requirements' introductory paragraph the words: 'except for a Preliminary Risk Screen Amendment'.
With respect to flood protection, stormwater management and water quality, the Day 1 PSP includes:
Figure 16 Day 1 PSP Plan 7 Public Realm and Water
To reduce the electronic size of this document, Figure 16 has been removed from this version of the report. Contact Planning Panels Victoria to obtain a complete copy of the report.
The main PSP Day 1 drainage related changes include (refer also Appendix F:1):
Figure 17 Day 1 PSP Plan 11 Infrastructure and development staging
To reduce the electronic size of this document, Figure 17 has been removed from this version of the report. Contact Planning Panels Victoria to obtain a complete copy of the report.
Table 8 Day 1 PSP Development Services Scheme assets
7, 8, 9, 10 (from C3 to drainage outfall (existing Thompsons Road culverts)
10 (from C3 to drainage outfall (existing Thompsons Road culverts))
15R (from C1 to drainage outfall (existing Thompsons Road culverts))
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 15E (from C3 to drainage outfall (existing Thompsons Road culverts))
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 (from C3 to drainage outfall (existing Thompsons Road culverts))
12, 13E (from C2 to drainage outfall (existing Thompsons Road culverts))
19, 20 (from C1 to drainage outfall (existing Thompsons Road culverts))
Drainage matters have been referred, as described above. However, the VPA requests the Committee focus its consideration on the discrete strategic planning aspects of drainage in Table 1 instead of detailed technical matters as the final drainage outcomes will be determined through Melbourne Water's Development Services Scheme. Drainage, which is not usually part of an ICP, has been included in the PSP for spatial planning purposes and not to fetter Melbourne Water's decision making discretion.
Matters relating to crossings of the Victorian Desalination Pipeline (VDP) have been referred as described in Table 1. The VPA notes there is 'in principle' cross-government agreement for the proposed crossings as shown in the PSP, and final approval of crossings is subject to technical assessment at the permit stage. Similarly to drainage, the VDP crossings have been included in the PSP for spatial planning purposes and not for detailed technical review.
Table 9 lists the expert hydrology, drainage and stormwater evidence called by parties.
Table 9 Hydrology, drainage and stormwater experts
* Expert written evidence statement circulated but was not called in response to VPA day 1 changes
The Day 1 PSP Plan 7 and Plan 11 are based on Melbourne Waters' Ti Tree Creek Development Services Scheme Revision C (DSS-C). The DSS-C is described in the DSCD-C and depicted in the Optimised Drainage Concept Design Report Rev C Layout Map (Figure 18).
To reduce the electronic size of this document, Figure 18 has been removed from this version of the report. Contact Planning Panels Victoria to obtain a complete copy of the report.
The Table 1 referred issue is whether the location and size of drainage areas, as shown in the PSP, is an appropriate envelope within which to subsequently resolve the detailed design of required infrastructure.
The significant Final Day changes with respect to drainage included:
The VPA submitted that the technical design requirements of the DSS are outside the scope of the draft Amendment and there are no technical design requirements before the Committee. The VPA stated, that the draft Amendment does require the proposed land area and a mechanism to respond to any potential changes in land area for the DSS that may result in more or less NDA. It noted that drainage assets are not included in the ICP as the precinct is located within the DSS and the development and implementation of the DSS including appeal processes are governed by a separate process outside the PE Act.
The VPA referred to the Officer South (Employment) Planning Panel report which the VPA supported the approach taken by the VPA and Melbourne Water in relation to the drainage strategy for that PSP. It submitted that this Committee should adopt a similar approach.
The VPA opposed any reduction in land area to that identified in the Day 1 Plan 7 for the DSS. It submitted that any reduction could seriously affect the delivery of the DSS and adversely affect the ability of Melbourne Water to respond to change. It identified AusNet's most recent advice that it was adding a third transmission tower into the utilities easement as an example of the need to allow for such events.
As identified in Chapter 4.2.3 the VPA's Day 1 PSP included a progressive certainty note. Submissions sought further changes to the note to add clarity or provide more certainty about its outcomes or that any changes would constitute 'generally in accordance with'. The VPA's Final Day PSP (refer Table 11) included further changes to the progressive certainty note which responded to many submission concerns.
Several parties offered further post-hearing drafting comments on how the progressive certainty note should further amended to add greater certainty including by:
In closing, the VPA submitted that the changes it proposed in Memo 7 (D141) and agreed in its Part B submissions together with the well understood principle of 'generally in accordance' explicitly included in Requirement R33 were appropriate and that no further change was required to the Final Day documents.
Melbourne Water said it had not taken a forensic, detail by detail approach to the expert evidence. It initial position on many items of evidence was that they were matters to be resolved at the detailed design stage.
Melbourne Water noted that the DSS-C design embodies feedback from submitters and has been optimised to reduce land area by 18.9 hectares (down from 44.8 to 25.9 hectares) compared to the Revision A design. It accepted that the process of detailed site investigations and subdivision design may lead to further refinement of land area but said that DSS-C is appropriate for the PSP stage in that it identifies an appropriate land area for drainage assets.
Melbourne Water noted none of the five experts asserted DSS-C was not a competent or workable drainage design but rather sought changes to aspects of the design.
Melbourne Water supported the intent of the Final Day 'Progressive certainty' but requested a change to the second dot point as follows:
VPA accepted the change requested by Melbourne Water, as reflected in the post-hearing drafting version of the PSP (D207).
Melbourne Water advised that it had received a 'possible modifications' document from Water4Good which identified refinements to the DSS-C necessitated by:
It submitted in closing that in the form advanced to the Committee, the PSP and ICP provided a framework that:
Melbourne Water said the Committee should recommend that planning for the precinct proceed based on the DSS-C design which will enable a suitable footprint for it to finalise the DSS after gazettal of the PSP. Melbourne Water advised that after the Hearing, it will proceed with preparing DSS Revision D design incorporating changes in respect of the new transmission towers proposed by AusNet and the VDP crossing. It would also undertake formal consultation on revised DSS plans and consider further potential changes as required by the Water Act 1989.
With respect to site specific detailed design, Melbourne Water noted that irrespective of how much design work is undertaken at the strategic stage, the statutory planning and development process will require further design work by proponents who may or may not be the current parties to this Hearing. The progression from concept to function and then detailed design inherently refines the DSS designs because the detailed design process captures further design information.
Melbourne Water said it did not oppose the position on applied zoning put by the VPA and the final PSP drafting should allow:
Council said the Day 1 changes had resolved its concerns and supported the DSS land requirements.
Galileo, and Spring Lodge sought changes to the location and size of specific DSS assets and consequent changes to the relevant PSP Plans supported by the evidence of Ms Barich summarised in Table 10 along with Melbourne Water's responses.
Ms Barich's overarching conclusion was the PSP provided an optimised drainage strategy but this strategy contains errors associated with modelling and design resulting in excessive drainage areas being nominated for some of the drainage assets. She noted that assets included 'buffers' for climate change, shallow groundwater and potential limitations and considered these buffers could be reduced in size because the drainage strategy now accounted for climate change. She considered the assets had been set at levels required to match existing controls and to facilitate pipe drainage outfalls. Therefore any clashes with groundwater would require an engineering solution because the levels of the drainage infrastructure cannot be altered.
Galileo submitted the location and size of the drainage areas shown in the Day 1 PSP should be refined now before undesirable locations and unnecessary sizes are introduced into the Planning Scheme through the PSP. It said the evidence of Ms Barich established the assets were still too generous and the buffers identified were not required anymore given the level of available detail.
Fouz Group noted that Melbourne Water did not challenge the evidence of Ms Barich or suggest any of her assumptions were incorrect or the outcomes of her analysis flawed.
Fouz Group said Requirements R31, R32 and R33 sent the message that delivered drainage assets will be generally in accordance with what is depicted on PSP Plan 7 and that is inconsistent with the 'flexibility' that Melbourne Water said would exist at the time of permit applications. It proposed that additional wording be added to each requirement to clarify it was anticipated drainage locations/areas may change or, alternatively, there be a cross-reference to the 'Progressive certainty' note for these requirements.
The locations and areas of the assets are expected to change when detailed design is undertaken in support of planning permit applications
Spring Lodge submitted the Committee should seek to resolve the size and location of the drainage assets based on the evidence before it and amend the PSP to provide that:
Table 10 Summary of PSP changes recommended by Nina Barich and Melbourne Water response
Not appropriate to reduce the size of Asset K based on information known now.
In response to further information from AusNet, an alternative eastern swale and crossing of the VDP asset at the existing farm drain to be investigated.
Increase pipe in size to 1500mm diameter or larger to provide capacity required for conveyance of 20% AEP design flow and realign the pipe to match Incitus design for eastern swale
Reduce the waterway corridor for Ti Tree Creek between the VDP crossing and the water main crossing north of the utilities easement to from 75 to 60 metres
Reduce the waterway corridor for Ti Tree Creek between the VDP crossing and the water main crossing north of the utilities easement to from 75 to 60 metres
Retain 75 metres width because of uncertainty regarding the final heights at the VDP crossing and the supply pipe crossing at C3. This will be determined through approval of function design by Melbourne Water, DEECA and Aquasure
Rationale for size of Asset J including the buffer is the South East Water assets. Retain Asset J footprint until South East Water asset issue is better resolved.
Reduce the size of the drainage area to 0.54 Ha (down from 2.1 Ha) by removing the buffer
Land flood prone and within LSIO. Buffer may be important for flood storage and/or treatment function. Resolve at later design stage
Western diversion pipe should be sized to convey 2100 1% AEP design flow
Western swale not required as plenty of engineering solutions to convey peak flows generated by the catchment through future development layout
Asset F required to ensure that extreme flow events not diverted east by Asset D (pipe) are conveyed away from development south of the utilities easement. Resolve at functional design stage when development specific design information will be available.
Reduce waterway width for Ti Tree Creek between Asset J and the existing water main crossing south of the utilities easement to 45 metres
Rationale for size of Asset J including the buffer is the South East Water assets. Retain Asset J footprint until South East Water asset issue is better resolved.
MAB disagreed that the technical design requirements of the DSS were outside the scope of the Committee's considerations because the technical design requirements were inextricably linked to the land area proposed in the PSP and ICP and that "at a minimum, it is necessary for the SAC to be satisfied that the technical design requirements of the DSS are sufficiently understood and strategically justified, in order to conclude that the proposed land take is acceptable."
MAB submitted that given Melbourne Water's submission took a flexible approach, there was no basis for it to resist more explicit recognition in the PSP that alternative and interim approaches to drainage are permissible. Based on the 'lived experience' of Ms Barich and Mr Beardshaw about the difficulties in seeking approval of an alternative or interim drainage measure which is not expressly provided for. It submitted a more directive approach to flexibility "... will assist permit applicants, the responsible authority and Melbourne Water to avoid any "overly zealous" application of what can only be considered high-level drainage design set out in the draft PSP."
MAB said there was no justification for the responsible authority being able to conclude that a revised DSS asset was not 'generally in accordance' with the PSP where Melbourne Water had approved the revised asset.
Cranbourne 1450 broadly accepted that interim stormwater measures for retarding flows and water quality were necessary for the development of the precinct. In theory the words in Requirement R34 allowed for flexibility but, in practice, a common experience of developers was that it could be difficult to persuade Melbourne Water to allow measures that are not expressly provided in the PSP.
AVA noted that Melbourne Water advised the swales and VDP crossing (Assets L2, L3 and L4) may change as a result of the design revisions necessitated by AusNet requirements. It said this outcome broadly aligned with the recommendation of Ms Barich and AVA's requested change.
AVA supported the alternative location of the outfall to the west in the location of the existing farm drain and requested consideration of additional storage to negate the requirement for the delivery of DSS Asset K to be delivered before development of its land (Parcel 23) could proceed.
Galileo's drafting response proposed PSP Plans 7 and 11 be amended to reduce the area of DSS Asset K to 2.44 hectares and the eastern swale (Asset L4) be relocated in accordance with Ms Barich's evidence and resized to 0.37 hectares.
Spring Lodge's drafting response sought the progressive certainty note be updated by:
The VPA did not accept the changes proposed by Galileo, Fouz Group, Spring Lodge or MAB.
The threshold issue before the Committee is whether the drainage scheme shown in the PSP is strategically suitable to facilitate development of the precinct based on DSS-C. No evidence or submission put to the Committee questioned the overall Revision C design or its workability and whether the overall DSS is appropriately depicted in the PSP.
What was questioned was whether the location and size of specific assets provided appropriate envelopes for these drainage assets within which to subsequently resolve the detailed design of required infrastructure. The submissions made by several parties was that some assets were oversized or in some cases not needed. The evidence was detailed and was technically sound and merits further examination at the appropriate time by Melbourne Water.
As noted by the VPA, this is a planning scheme amendment process and not a detailed drainage scheme design process. The role of the Committee is not to determine the detailed design of individual assets. As reported by previous panels and advisory committees, the final design of the DSS and individual assets is a matter for Melbourne Water under the Water Act 1989.
There will inevitably be changes to the design and location of drainage assets as the DSS is finalised and assets go the through the functional and detailed design processes as part of a planning application proposing to subdivide or develop the PSP's land parcels. What is central to the Committee's considerations is whether the plans and provisions of the PSP provide sufficient guidance and, in particular, sufficient flexibility for alternative designs for drainage assets to be considered at the planning application stage. This includes whether an alternative asset size or location can be approved by Melbourne Water and the responsible authority as being 'generally in accordance' with the PSP. A further consideration is whether the PSP provides a mechanism for land to be released for development should it not ultimately be required for drainage purposes.
The Committee notes the evidence of Ms Barich and other experts about their experience with Melbourne Water's approach to determining what is 'generally in accordance' with a PSP During the Hearing, Melbourne Water stated on several occasions that it applied a flexible and 'liberal' approach in applying the 'generally in accordance' with principle. The Committee considers this is the appropriate practice to be adopted.
Throughout the Hearing, there have been significant revisions and additions to the PSP plans and requirements (Plan 7, Requirements R34, R38 and new Guideline G31), including the general note on 'Progressive certainty', to provide more flexibility for the staged delivery of drainage assets and the use of interim assets. Importantly, the changes to the 'Progressive certainty' note clearly state upfront that if approved by Melbourne Water, any change to the size, type, staging or location of DSS assets may be considered by the responsible authority to be generally in accordance with the PSP. A further change to the 'Progressive certainty' note makes it clear that land surplus to drainage requirements after the PSP is gazetted may be developed in accordance with the applied zoning of that land specified in UGZ16.
These changes are incorporated in the Final Day PSP. With a small but significant change to the progressive certainty note the Committee considers that the Final Day PSP with respect to drainage matters should be adopted.
The Committee agrees with submissions that the outcomes sought by the progressive certainty note should provide greater certainty by amending the first dot point as follows:
... may will considered by the responsible authority as being generally in accordance with this PSP in respect of drainage matters'.
This is considered a reasonable and sensible change. The Committee supports amending the second dot point to refer to the "written consent of Melbourne Water".
Further changes to the DSS will be required because of AusNet's proposal to construct a third transmission line. This will likely result in changes with respect to drainage assets within the utilities easement, including L2, L3, L4 and a realignment of the waterway (C3). The Committee notes that these changes will probably align with the changes requested by Galileo and AVA. Melbourne Water advised that this re-design work will be done as part of further refinement of the DSS (Revision D). It is unclear how long it will take to complete DSS Revision D. Ideally, Revision D and the re-design should accommodate the AusNet request before the PSP is finalised so that the changes can be incorporated. Alternatively, the VPA should consider an amendment to PSP Plans 7 and 11 so that significant subsequent changes to the DSS are deemed to be in accordance with the PSP post its gazettal.
In undertaking Revision D of the DSS, Melbourne Water should take the opportunity to review in detail the evidence of Ms Barich. The Committee does not recommend changes to the DSS assets based on her evidence for the reasons set out above, that is a matter for Melbourne Water. Ms Barich has put forward a thorough analysis of possible refinements to some of the DSS assets which the Committee considers worthy of further consideration.
The VPA's Day 1 and Final Day PSP changes to requirements and guidelines including Plans and UGZ16 application requirements responded to many of the submissions and planning evidence suggestions. The Committee has sought to capture these in Table 11 below with its position and recommendations on those changes noting the reference to requirement and guideline numbers reflects the Day 1 numbering. The Committee supports minor corrections and changes minor changes to the wording of Requirements R19, R20, R31, R32 and R33 not identified in Table 11.
Table 11 Committee response to VPA Final Day changes to Day 1 verison documents for drainage assets
The Croskell (Employment) PSP includes land set aside for development services scheme assets.
"with the written consent of Melbourne Water" before 'post gazettal' in the second dot point
Note: Relocate note to Chapter 2 of the PSP consistent with the Committee's recommendations
Remove stormwater pipe identified in PSP for Parcel 14
Legend referring to 'Stormwater pipe' on Parcel 14 reworded to: 'major overland flow path'
Any change to the size, type, staging or location of DSS assets, may be considered by the responsible authority if those DSS assets achieve the intended performance standards and are approved by Melbourne Water.
Amend to R30 and replace the dot point: "Stormwater volume reduction and infiltration targets in Melbourne Water's Healthy Waterway Strategy (2018), which are applicable to the PSP." with:
The quantitative performance objectives relating to the mean annual runoff of stormwater stated in EPA Publication 1739.1 (June 2021), which are applicable to the PSP.
Drainage waterways must be designed in accordance with the relevant Development Services Scheme and generally in accordance with Plan 7 Public realm and water. Waterways must be delivered to:
to the satisfaction of Melbourne Water and the responsible authority
Proposals for the staged delivery of the assets identified for that PSP parcel, interim drainage solutions, or the delivery of the assets identified for that PSP parcel at a later stage, may be considered by the responsible authority and Melbourne Water, provided this is submitted in writing and demonstrates:
Amend 'Stormwater Management Strategy' application requirement as follows:
Amend the Croskell (Employment) Precinct Structure Plan consistent with the VPA Final Day version (Document 169) subject to the changes in Table 11 of this Report to the 'Progressive certainty note'.
Amend Urban Growth Zone Schedule 16 consistent with Committee preferred version in Appendix I to revise 'Table 1: Applied zone provisions' to amend the 'Stormwater Management Strategy' application requirement.
5.3 Delivery of Drainage Services Scheme assets
The Table 1 referred issues are whether it is appropriate to:
Relevant key changes made in the Final Day PSP were:
The VPA submitted that the Final Day PSP included appropriate changes to identify parcels that must deliver DSS assets before a Statement of Compliance is issued for the first stage of development and to recognise the need for interim DSS assets where appropriate.
Melbourne Water set out its position on staging of the delivery of DSS assets in a memo (D72) which states:
Melbourne Water stated in oral submissions that "Melbourne Water will entertain interim assets to allow development of a parcel to 'get away'". The revised Requirement R34 (R37 in the Final Day version) appropriately set out the preferred outcome (delivery of each asset up front to the ultimate standard) while allowing for detailed consideration of a different option at the application stage.
Mr Bishop concluded that the PSP staging Plan 11 and supporting Tables 19 and 20, with appropriate modifications, provided guidance on future requirements for the development of PSP parcels. He considered it important that appropriate flexibility was provided to allow for deviations from these requirements where appropriate in the future. Mr Bishop said in this view the revised Requirement R34 provided flexibility in the staging of development.
Melbourne Water supported the amended drafting of Requirement R34 because:
Melbourne Water supported the deletion of Table 19 and several changes to Table 20 (Table 19 in the Final Day version) as follows:
The asset is located partly on Melbourne Water land and partly on private land. Table 20 Properties 10 and 13E can be linked to ultimate standard of Asset J within Melbourne Water land only (parcel 25) by amending Table 20:
A, D, C3, E (from C3 to drainage outfall (existing Thompsons Road culverts))), J (at a minimum, the part of asset J within parcel 25)
13E B, C2, C3, E (from C2 to drainage outfall (existing Thompsons Road culverts)), J (at a minimum, the part of asset J within parcel 25)
Spring Lodge requested modifications to PSP Plan 11 and Table 20 so that DSS assets are separately mapped. Melbourne Water agreed and proposed that Table 20 be updated:
D, E (from C3 to drainage outfall (existing Thompsons Road culverts))
F, C1, C2, C3, E (from C1 to drainage outfall (existing Thompsons Road culverts))
Melbourne Water accepted the evidence of Mr Bishop that property 15E does not rely on assets C1 and F and proposed that Table 20 be updated:
D, E (from C3 to drainage outfall (existing Thompsons Road culverts))
Melbourne Water accepted the evidence of Mr Bishop that properties 20 (east), 21, 22, 23 and 24 should be linked to asset K and proposed that Table 20 be updated:
Melbourne Water proposed to remove properties 11 and 18 from Table 20 on the basis that this land is owned by Melbourne Water and will only be used for drainage purposes.
...the keys to the timely provision of stormwater assets under a PSP that operates in conjunction with a DSS scheme are on the one hand, to allow sufficient flexibility in the way that drainage infrastructure is rolled out by developers, including the ability to provide interim assets for a time, and to also balance the need to ensure that the ultimate assets are also delivered at some point as part of development.
Council noted that while it agreed the Requirement R34 consent mechanism allowed for the delivery of interim assets, this seems implicit rather than explicit. It submitted that an amended Requirement R34 that more explicitly recognises that interim assets may be required would provide more clarity for developers and the more efficient implementation of the PSP.
Council requested the following amendments to Requirement R34:
Prior to the issue of a statement of compliance for any stage of the subdivision of a PSP parcel or the commencement of development of a PSP parcel, all Development Services Scheme (DSS) assets identified for that PSP parcel within the:
• Table 20 Infrastructure coordination requirements - parcels -
Where it can be demonstrated that this is not possible, development proposals must demonstrate how any interim solution adequately manages flow rates, treats stormwater generated from the development (without causing adverse impacts to the other properties within or outside the precinct, the environment, cultural heritage, or other infrastructure), to the satisfaction of Melbourne Water and the responsible authority. (Council changes underlined)
AVA requested that the staging in Table 20 not link asset K to Parcel 23. It submitted that with the additional storage proposed under its alternative drainage concept, Parcel 23 could develop independently without the requirement to wait for considerable drainage infrastructure (Asset J) by others downstream of its land.
MAB noted that Table 20 did not assign responsibility for delivering drainage assets to particular landowners or require a particular sequence or staging of delivery. MAB said Asset J was not on its land (Parcel 10) but would have to rely on Melbourne Water and the owner of Parcel 16 for the delivery of asset J.
Mr Beardshaw concluded there was limited nexus between Parcel 10 and Asset J. He noted Asset J provides partial treatment and flood attenuation for the entire western catchment of the PSP. He observed that given Asset J is located upstream of Parcel 10 and some storage is proposed at Asset A (SBRB2), the link to Asset J is limited in the early stages of development.
MAB said there no basis to constrain development of Parcel 10 until Asset J is fully delivered, noting Mr Beardshaw's evidence that around 100 hectares of land in Catchment 1A was likely to be developable before there was any need for the waterway and Thompsons Road outfall to connect to Asset J. MAB noted that Mr Bishop agreed that Asset C3 should be deleted from Table 20 in respect of Parcel 10 and for the inclusion of words of "J or part thereof" in Table 20 for Parcel 10. MAB submitted that drafting should clarify that:
For Galileo, Ms Barich stated that as all the DSS assets for the eastern catchment are within Parcel 14, it was not unrealistic for Parcel 14 to construct the DSS assets however the construction of the DSS assets was not required for Stage 1 development. She considered "... it is not reasonable to request that all of the DSS assets for the eastern catchment are constructed prior to the issue of a Statement of Compliance for any stage of a subdivision of a PSP parcel or commencement of development of a PSP parcel."
Galileo supported the introduction of clearer provisions for flexibility in the delivery of drainage assets and to recognise that interim assets may be appropriate and should be considered. It noted the evidence of Ms Barich that development of parcels 20 (east) to 24 did not require Asset K to constructed. Galileo submitted that position should be reflected in Table 20 of the PSP.
Fouz Group supported the introduction of clearer provisions for flexibility in delivering drainage assets and allowing interim asset where appropriate. It supported Ms Barich's evidence and the Galileo position relating to Asset K. It submitted that Asset J should not apply to Parcel 26.
The requirements for relevant parcels to deliver some DSS assets before a Statement of Compliance is issued for any stage of subdivision or development and for parcel specific liability for delivering assets was generally accepted by most if not all parties. What was in dispute was the specifics of requirements with respect to certain parcels. For example, whether all of a drainage asset must be delivered up front and which assets should be 'tied' to which parcel.
Significant revisions were made during the Hearing in response to submissions including deleting Table 19 and changes to Table 20 and providing for the staging of the delivery of assets and allowing for interim assets with the approval of Melbourne Water to be generally in accordance with the PSP. The Committee supports these changes.
While the Committee notes not all the requested changes to Table 20 (now Table 19) were adopted by the VPA, significant changes were made, for example with respect to Asset J. On other assets, the evidence was not entirely consistent. For example, Mr Bishop recommended that properties 20 (east), 21, 22, 23 and 24 should be linked to asset K but Ms Barich gave evidence to the contrary. The Committee agrees with the advice of Melbourne Water with respect to Table 20.
The Committee notes also that changes to Requirement R34 (amended to R38) now allow with the consent of Melbourne Water and the responsible authority for a development to rely on staged delivery of assets, interim drainage solutions, and the delivery of assets at a later stage of subdivision or development. In the view of the Committee, this provides considerable flexibility for developers to meet the requirements of the amended Requirement R38 and Table 20 and are supported.
The Committee's recommendations in response to the VPA Final Day changes to the PSP in relation to DSS asset delivery are set out in Table 12 below.
Table 12 Committee response to VPA Final Day PSP changes to Day 1 PSP version for delivery of DDS assets
Prior to the issue of a statement of compliance for the first stage of the subdivision of a PSP parcel or completion of the first stage of the development of a PSP parcel, all Development Services Scheme (DSS) assets identified for that PSP parcel within the Plan 11 Infrastructure and development staging; Table XX Infrastructure coordination requirements - parcels must be delivered. Where it can be demonstrated that this is not reasonably practicable, with the written consent of the responsible authority and Melbourne Water, a development may rely on:
An interim solution will not be considered for drainage crossings of the VDP infrastructure and water supply pipe track. These assets must be delivered in their ultimate form.
Delete sub-precinct column, delete assets to be delivered by Parcel 18. Table parcel-specific asset references updated in consultation with Melbourne Water.
Amend the Croskell (Employment) Precinct Structure Plan consistent with the VPA Final Day version (Document 169) as identified in Table 12 of this Report.
The VPA's Day 1 zone map changes (Document 177b) proposed to apply the PUZ1 to land owned by Melbourne Water rather than include it in the UGZ or retain it in the Urban Floodway Zone. There were no opposing drafting submissions to this change. The Committee supports the change.
The VPA's Final Day version of the draft Amendment proposed to include an amended Clause 66.04 (Referral of permit applications under local provisions) to identify Melbourne Water Corporation as a determining referral authority for:
An application to construct a building or carry out works (where the value of those works is in excess of $1,000,000) on land identified on Plan 1 to Schedule 16 of Clause 37.07 as 'Industry', 'Retail' or 'Business'.
An application to construct a building or carry out works (where the value of those works is in excess of $1,000,000).
Melbourne Water said this change was necessary given elements of the PSP contemplate development without subdivision. The amended Clause 66.04 would ensure developments are referred to it in the same way subdivision applications were referred to it under Clause 66.01. There were no opposing drafting submissions to this change. The Committee supports the change to Clause 66.04 being introduced through this draft Amendment.
Relevant to transport and movement, the Day 1 PSP includes:
To reduce the electronic size of this document, Figure 19 has been removed from this version of the report. Contact Planning Panels Victoria to obtain a complete copy of the report.
The main PSP Day 1 movement network changes to the PSP include (refer to Appendix F:1):
Figure 20 Day 1 PSP Plan 12 Precinct infrastructure plan
To reduce the electronic size of this document, Figure 20 has been removed from this version of the report. Contact Planning Panels Victoria to obtain a complete copy of the report.
Table 13 lists the expert traffic and transport evidence called by parties.
* Expert report circulated but was not called following VPA Final Day changes to PSP Plan 4
6.2.1 Left-in/Left-out access to Berwick-Cranbourne Road
The exhibited PSP Plan 4 depicted a LILO access from Berwick-Cranbourne Road to Council's Active Open Space (SR-02) just to the south of the high voltage electricity easement. This access was removed from the Day 1 version and no further change was made to the Plan 4 Final Day version.
Galileo submitted its site was faced with unique circumstances. A substantial portion of its land was covered by the utilities easement with limited certainty of accessing that portion of its land across the VDP easement. It would be inappropriate for there to be no legal access point to its land resulting in it being effectively 'severed' from being used and 'land-locked'.
Galileo noted with the removal of the LILO from Plan 4, Requirement R9 made it clear that the preference for access from Berwick-Cranbourne Road is for an arrangement other than left in/left out access. Leaving the consideration of an access point to Berwick-Cranbourne Road to the permit stage provided no certainty that an access would be considered 'generally in accordance' the PSP.
Galileo submitted that I was therefore " imperative that there is some marking on the PSP Plan 4, that conveys how ongoing and longer-term access to the Galileo transmission line easement land will be provided."
During cross examination, Ms Dunstan conceded that she had not assessed traffic volumes, but she had explored land uses that would generate low traffic volumes and therefore in her view, there would be no impacts on other intersections along Berwick-Cranbourne Road. She agreed that a short deceleration lane would be required.
Ms Dunstan in re-examination, considered there would be no harm in showing left in/left out access on Plan 4 as any proposed access would still require the usual assessment process.
Galileo submitted that the evidence of Ms Dunstan should be accepted as clear and compelling evidence as to why left in/left out access should be shown on Plan 4 and her evidence withstood extensive cross-examination.
Galileo requested Plan 4 be amended (refer Figure 21) as follows:
Figure 21 Galileo proposed Berwick-Cranbourne Road access point investigation area
To reduce the electronic size of this document, Figure 15 has been removed from this version of the report. Contact Planning Panels Victoria to obtain a complete copy of the report.
Galileo proposed that Requirement R9 be amended as follows:
Vehicular access to commercial/industrial properties fronting Thompsons Road, Berwick-Cranbourne Road and Narre Warren-Cranbourne Road must be from connector streets, internal loop roads or rear laneways, unless it is within the transmission line easement or unless otherwise approved by the responsible authority and the Department of Transport.
The VPA submitted did not support Galileo's change at this time as the ultimate land use and subdivision design has not been prepared and no detailed traffic analysis was provided by Ms Dunstan. Ms Dunstan acknowledged the potential use of the easement land was not known and potential uses could generate higher traffic volumes than a lower impact activity such as car park. The VPA submitted:
it is premature to show left in/left out access and this time and pre-supposes permission without allowing the normal planning permit application process to be followed and the necessary Road Safety/Safe System Assessment to occur at the time of subdivision, a detailed assessment can be provided to the responsible authority and the road authority. Ms Dunstan's verbal evidence acknowledged the many unknowns at this stage.
The VPA explained there are two existing access points that will remain. It added:
To suggest that just because something may be refused at the permit application stage is not a reason to show a LILO on Plan 4 Movement Plan as this would pre-determine the suitability of the LILO where there is insufficient information before the Committee in relation to the easement land.
The oral closing submissions, the VPA said no analysis on potential impacts of LILO on the broader road network had been submitted by Galileo. It did not support Galileo's approach and urged the Committee "not to pre-suppose a particular access treatment when there is no supporting traffic date and analysis."
Council said it is agnostic as to whether or not the PSP identifies a LILO to SR-02. It did not support Galileo's changes but if access was to be shown, the southern access option (at the location of the pathway between SR-02 and the electricity easement) was the most appropriate as it would serve both the SR-02 and Galileo's land. Council submitted no change was required to Requirement R9 as a secondary consent mechanism was already included in it.
The Committee notes that no submissions were made or evidence presented that raised issues as to the suitability of the overall road network or in the context of Day 1 changes to adjust the alignment of the east-west connector in response to submissions. The submissions and evidence were specifically about LILO onto Berwick-Cranbourne Road.
The Committee observes that it is not usually the case that LILO access from arterial roads to abutting properties is shown on the relevant PSP plan. An assessment of such access is normally left to a planning permit application stage and often in relation to temporary access arrangements.
The circumstances in this case of access to both the Galileo easement land and the Council's Sports Reserve (SR-02) are somewhat different in that it is unlikely (but not impossible) that access could be achieved by an additional vehicular crossing of the VDP asset. Access through a service road or loop road given the relatively short frontages of the two properties to Berwick-Cranbourne Road would be all but impossible. Relying on access to SR-02 or the easement land though residential streets dependent on use and volumes have amenity and movement impact.
This leaves the only practical access option being a LILO to each property or a combined LILO at a suitable location. The question then is should LILO access points (or combined point) be shown on Plan 4 or be deferred to the planning application stage. The Committee accepts a concern is genuinely held by Galileo that an application for a LILO access at the permit application stage may be refused as not being 'generally in accordance' with the PSP or Requirement R9 (R10) notwithstanding that alternative access arrangements (which presumably could include LILO) could be approved by the responsible authority and the DTP.
Ms Dunstan put the view that a LILO could be achieved without any impacts on the operation of Berwick-Cranbourne Road. That may well be the case but the difficulty for the Committee is that her assessment was not based on a traffic impact assessment and the Committee does not have a detailed analysis before it to be confident that, for example, any required deceleration lane could be implemented, and that U-turns could be accommodated without impacting traffic operations on Berwick-Cranbourne Road. Further, while future land use on the Galileo land is likely to generate low levels of traffic given the constraints of development on the easement land, that cannot be said now for the future SR-02 which could generate significant volumes of traffic during peak usage times. The impact on Berwick-Cranbourne Road can only be determined with any certainty at a permit application stage when more detail is available on land use and a traffic impact assessment could be done.
LILO access points should not be shown on the Plan 4 at this time. To provide more certainty to Galileo (and Council) that, subject to a traffic impact assessment a LILO arrangement could be considered to be 'generally in accordance' with the PSP, showing a LILO 'investigation area' on PSP Plan 4 is an appropriate forward. While not overly concerned about showing the existing access points on Plan 4, it is not clear to the Committee what purpose would be achieved showing them. An indicative LILO access point on Plan 4 should not be identified. The location of any future LILO access point or points should be subject to investigation, detailed design and a traffic impact assessment at the planning permit application stage.
The Committee does not support the further changes to Requirement R9 (R10) proposed by Galileo. It questions the efficacy of the additional words and agrees with Council that the requirement already includes a 'secondary' consent mechanism.
Amend the Croskell (Employment) Precinct Structure Plan consistent with the VPA Final Day version (Document 169) with the following additional change:
The Table 1 referred issue is whether the road network alignment is suitable, specifically if the alignment of IN-01 can be shifted so as to avoid bisecting the existing abattoir buildings.
Final Day PSP included an addition to the Plan 4 to show a box around IN-01 and a new legend entry: 'alternative intersection alignment investigation area' with the following note:
*The alignment of IN-01 may shift with the written approval of the responsible authority, having regard to the existing abattoir operations and any approved future expansions.
Wagstaff submitted that IN-01 should be modified to avoid its current abattoir buildings. It submitted that a design that achieves this is contained in Mr Hardingham's evidence statement.
Mr Hardingham considered the Beverage Williams alternative design for IN-01 introduced significant safety concerns due to the amended alignment of the intersection resulting in differing angles of approaches and without providing a straight line clear of other traffic lanes and islands. He proposed an amended design for IN-01.
Mr Hardingham provided an addendum (D75) to his expert evidence to consider the impact of planning permit PInA00543/03 that allows for the construction of buildings and facilities to the west of the existing abattoir buildings on the Wagstaff land. He concluded development of the approved buildings would likely result in the need to relocate the proposed north-south connector road (between Thompsons Road and the proposed east-west connector road 400 metres to the south) approximately 200 metres to the west to the boundary of the Wagstaff land.
The effect of this permit and the alignment of IN-01 is that it would require an increase in the road curve leading to IN-01 or complete realignment so that it does not connect with Medley Drive to the north.
The VPA added that while the straight alignment of IN-01 was the optimal design, it proposed to add a new appendix to the PSP showing the alternative "kinked" alignment with the intention of identifying the VPA's preferred alignment of the connector road and the location of IN-01 while also recognising an alternative arrangement. This would all Wagstaff seek to extend planning permit PInA00543/03 without the PSP being a barrier to the permit extension.
The VPA noted that there may be additional costs in delivering an alternative alignment and a reduction in NDA but in its view, whether the alternative IN-01 is delivered is ultimately a commercial decision for Wagstaff and any additional cost cannot be included fairly in the ICP nor warrant an adjustment to the land budget.
In closing submissions, the VPA advised that following further discussion, it had agreed with Wagstaff changes to the Day 1 version of Plan 4 to insert an investigation area and corresponding change to the Plan 4 as follows:
Wagstaff confirmed at the Hearing and in its drafting submissions response to VPA Final Day changes that it had agreed to those changes.
The Committee agrees with the VPA that in road network and road safety terms, a straight alignment of the north-south connector road and location of the IN-01 intersection as shown on the Day 1 version of Plan 4 is the 'optimal' design. It is apparent that on the evidence of Mr Hardingham, this alignment is problematic given the existing Wagstaff abattoir buildings and the existing planning permit which would allow the expansion of the abattoir buildings to the west.
More design work will be required on any realignment of the connector road and intersection design to establish acceptability in terms of road safety and to confirm land area and cost. The VPA's proposed Final Day changes to the PSP will allow for any changes to the connector road alignment and location of IN-01 to be 'generally in accordance' with the PSP and to avoid the existing abattoir buildings and further expansion should Wagstaff decide to act on the existing permit or seek a permit extension. The Committee considers these changes to be a reasonable and workable outcome.
Amend the Croskell (Employment) Precinct Structure Plan consistent with the VPA Final Day version (Document 169) to amend 'Plan 4 Movement network and public transport' in relation to the alignment of IN-01.
There are three unresolved issues with respect to Shared User Paths (SUPs). These are whether:
The first and second of these issues are discussed in Chapter 9.3.
Fouz Group submitted any relocation of the SUP westwards was illogical given that there are two pedestrian crossings proposed along the SUP alignment within the utilities easement to cross the VDP underground pipe asset and the drainage culvert. It noted that Galileo proposed to retain these crossings as part of the pedestrian network but the relocation of the SUP to the west would require an additional VDP crossing which Fouz Group understood would be in conflict with the request by Aquasure (the VDP asset owner) that crossings of the VPD should be avoided or minimised. Fouz Group said the current location of the SUP was logical in its alignment, being part way between SR-01 and SR-02, which provided a direct connection from Thompsons Road to the areas of active open space.
The VPA did not support relocating the SUP and VDP crossing to the west as the current alignment provided access to the future SR-02. It added that so as not to prejudice development outcomes north of the east-west connector street, it would amend the SUP connection to the north to show an arrow identifying that an SUP connection to Thompsons Road be delivered but leaving the exact means of implementation to be determined as part of subdivision. The VPA submitted that these changes utilise the VDP crossing at the point closest to SR-02 and allows flexibility for active transport connection to Thompsons Road to be provided via local roads.
The Committee does not support the relocation of the SUP to the west as proposed by Galileo. It agrees with the VPA and Fouz Group that the current alignment of the SUP and the consequent location of the VDP crossing is logical in that it provides direct access from the north to SR-02. The current alignment should be preferred over the more westerly alignment.
The change proposed by the VPA to show the SUP as an arrow to the north of the east-west connector street is in the Committee's view a reasonable and practical compromise. It will allow flexibility in the alignment of the SUP north through the Galileo land thereby providing Galileo with flexibility in the subdivision layout of its land. The Committee supports the change as shown on the Final Day version of Plan 4.
Amend the Croskell (Employment) Precinct Structure Plan consistent with the VPA Final Day version (Document 169) to include in 'Plan 4 Movement network and public transport' additional notations relating to the north-south Shared User Path.
Pedestrian crossing PED-01 is a proposed signalised crossing of Narre Warren-Cranbourne Road outside the PSP area to the west on the alignment of the east-west SUP along the utilities easement.
The issue is whether pedestrian crossing PED-01 should be deleted from the PSP Plan 4 Movement Network.
Spring Lodge submitted that PED-01 should be deleted because it is insufficiently justified. An existing signalised crossing was located a short distance to the north at Kingdom Drive and another crossing further to the north at Majestic Drive. This would result in a situation where there was less than 200 metres between crossings, an outcome which was not supported by government policy. Spring Lodge noted that VicRoads' Guidance for Planning Road Networks in Growth Areas states that "... consideration should be given to providing pedestrian crossing facilities on arterial roads no closer than 200m apart, to try and minimise disruption and retain the intended mobility and access of arterial roads."
Spring Lodge submitted that PED-01 is problematic because:
If PED-01 was to be retained, Spring Lodge supported the recommendation of Council that it be delivered by the Department of Transport and Planning (DTP) because the works are on an arterial road and would normally be funded by the road management authority.
Council submitted that given the Narre Warren-Cranbourne Road has already been triplicated, the DTP should deliver PED-01. It stated that it would enter an agreement with the DTP to provide funding for the works to be carried out.
The VPA submitted that PED-01 is required as there is strategic merit in facilitating an east-west active travel corridor through the utilities easement. The VPA did not support Spring Lodge's submission that PED-01 should be removed from the ICP or alternatively delivered by DTP. Its position was Council is the most appropriate lead agency for the project. The VPA added that Council had indicated to the VPA that Council sees the SUP within the utility easement as a long-term aspiration. The VPA therefore submitted that there is strategic merit in ensuring the delivery of PED-01 through the PSP and ICP.
The Committee agrees with the VPA that PED-01 should be retained in the PSP and ICP. This pedestrian crossing will in the future provide a key crossing point on Narre Warren-Cranbourne Road to ensure continuity of the east-west SUP on the utilities easement both within the PSP area and ultimately further to the west outside the PSP. Notwithstanding that the staging of PED-01 in the ICP is listed as short term (S), it may not be delivered for some time given Narre Warren- Cranbourne Road has already been upgraded. This is not a reason to remove it from the PSP and ICP. The timing of its delivery will be a matter for Council in consultation with the road authority.
For the reasons discussed in Chapter 9.5 below, the Committee considers that Council should be the lead agency for PED-01 notwithstanding its delivery will require the approval of DTP as the road authority.
There is some merit in Spring Lodge's position regarding apportionment because PED-01 is outside the PSP area and there will be some benefit to the wider community from its delivery. The difficulty though is how much of the cost should be apportioned to demand external to the PSP and what landowners should meet any externally apportioned cost. There is no prospect of apportionment to another ICP as the area to the west of the PSP area is already developed. The only option would be to apportion some of the cost to Council. This would place an unfair financial burden on Council. There is no dispute over the costing of PED-01 and the Committee considers that on balance it should be fully funded through the ICP.
Other proposed Final Day changes to the PSP relating to transport network matters in response to submissions and evidence and the Committee's position on them in Table 14 below. The Committee supports the changes considering they are logical and add.
Table 14 Committee response to VPA Final Day PSP changes to Day 1 version documents for transport matters
Amend the Victorian Desalination Project assets note to:
All north-south crossings shown over the Victorian Desalination Project (VDP) assets within the PSP are indicative and subject to a whole of government resolution process review by DEECA at subdivision. Each crossing will also require contractual arrangements to be entered into with DEECA to regulate its delivery.
Support. Include in final version noting recommendation to relocate General Notes to the PSP Outcomes chapter.
Amended to add: The design and delivery of all sections of Casey Fields Boulevard must be undertaken in consultation with the responsible authority.
Previously part of R9 the following is proposed as a new Requirement (R11):
If vehicular access to commercial/industrial properties fronting Thompsons Road, Berwick Cranbourne Road and Narre Warren-Cranbourne Road is provided via a service road, the proponent must demonstrate how the service road will not prejudice either:
Roads must be designed and constructed to property boundaries where inter-parcel connections are required:
Amend the Croskell (Employment) Precinct Structure Plan consistent with the VPA Final Day version (Document 169) as identified in Table 14 of this Report.
The PSP land is located on Bunurong Country. The Bunurong Council Aboriginal Corporation (BLCAC) is the Registered Aboriginal Party for the Bunurong people. The Bunurong people are recognised as the Traditional Owners of their lands and waters across metropolitan Melbourne, the Mornington Peninsula, the Bass Coast and West Gippsland.
The VPA explained its approach to Aboriginal cultural values for Parcel 20 was informed through consultation with BLCAC and by the:
The CVIS contained three recommendations for 37 Brocker Street, Clyde North:
The VPA explained it instructed its consultant, Unearthed Heritage, to work with BLCAC and First People's State Relations to merge the two previously existing Registered Places as recommended (forming Aboriginal Place Donohue Street Dune AS 7921-1989). It noted that while the new Aboriginal Place encompasses the entirety of the 5.41 hectare native vegetation patch (with a total area of 10.054 hectares), it does not include reference to a Cultural Place component referring to these trees. It was registered in recognition of the high potential for tangible artifacts associated with the sandy dune.
The draft PSP at section 1.5 states:
The BLCAC identified a patch of 5.41ha of vegetation in the south eastern portion of the precinct along Donohue Street that is culturally significant to the Bunurong peoples. This vegetation should be retained in recognition of its significance. The vegetation sits within the largest of several Aboriginal Places in the precinct. These Aboriginal Places are registered under the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 and must be managed in line with the Act - Cultural Heritage Management Plans (CHMPs) must be prepared with the BLCAC as required.
The Day 1 PSP proposed an alternative approach for Parcel 20 to:
To reduce the electronic size of this document, Figure 22 has been removed from this version of the report. Contact Planning Panels Victoria to obtain a complete copy of the report.
The Day 1 PSP includes further proposed changes to the following requirements and guidelines:
The retention, enhancement and integration of the existing natural environment, landscape features, registered Aboriginal Places or any areas of tangible or intangible Aboriginal cultural significance determined identified via a Cultural Heritage Management Plan must be considered managed through subdivision design, and, where applicable, building design. Where possible, harm should be avoided and/or minimised to any identified Aboriginal cultural heritage values.
Integrated water management systems should be designed to:
Subdivision design and, where applicable, building design should demonstrate how it has considered and - where possible and appropriate - responded to the principles outlined under Section 5 - interpretation strategy of the Cultural Values Interpretation Strategy Summary Report (Feb 2024).
The VPA explained it had discussed the Day 1 approach with the BLCAC who confirmed by email, dated 19 February 2025, that it will rely on a sensitive use designation as now proposed in the Day 1 PSP and any future CHMP undertaken in line with Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 requirements.
The issue is whether the designation of a portion of Parcel 20 as encumbered open space is an appropriate mechanism for retaining and protecting cultural values in this circumstance and if not, what the most appropriate mechanism would be to achieve this purpose.
Council did not object to the VPA's amended approach. It submitted:
Fouz Group submitted the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 (AH Act) and Aboriginal Heritage Regulations 2018 (Vic) (AH Regulations) are the primary legislative tools that do, and should, govern matters of Aboriginal cultural heritage. It said it would be undesirable for the Planning Scheme, and the planning system more generally, to introduce regulation that conflicts with, or is inconsistent with, the role and outcomes that Aboriginal heritage laws have and would permit.
... is the statute most effective to protect and manage Aboriginal cultural heritage at PSP Parcel 20 (part Lot 1 PS706792C) and no additional statutory instrument under the planning scheme is necessary to ensure appropriate protection or management.
Mr Grainger noted the Day 1 PSP does not provide any explicit guidance for Parcel 20 other than to identify the land as uncredited open space. Mr Grainger considered the Day 1 approach confusing. He said it was unclear whether the PSP was directing the land to be:
Mr Grainger recommended Parcel 20 not be shown as a 'culturally sensitive area' because the AH Act and the requirements and guidelines within section 3.4 of the PSP already provided an adequate framework for the protection of Aboriginal cultural heritage within the precinct.
Fouz Group acknowledged that Parcel 20 is presently covered by a Registered Place under the AH Act and that any high impact activity would trigger the need for a mandatory CHMP. It was not until that process has occurred that the development future of much of Parcel 20 (not just the area shown as a 'culturally sensitive area') would be known. Fouz Group said the proposed designation does not do what the CVIS recommended (for example show the land as a public reserve).
Fouz Group submitted there were two options that could be considered for Parcel 20 to avoid confusion and inconsistent outcomes between what is permitted by a future CHMP and what is considered 'generally in accordance' with the PSP:
Fouz Group said the PSP should not assume Parcel 20 is not developable until proven otherwise, the underlying zone should remain as residential, the area should be moved out of the open space categories in Tables 22 and 23 and other references to cultural heritage should be reviewed to ensure they do not conflict with the above guidance for Parcel 20.
Fouz Group did not support UGZ16 including a Land Management Plan requirement. It considered it inappropriate and too specific when a CHMP process has not been undertaken. It submitted the detail of ongoing management actions will depend on the terms of a CHMP.
The VPA said the identification of the culturally sensitive area on Parcel 20 in the PSP works with the AH Act and is reflective of the PSP's strategic role. It ought to be distinguished from other culturally sensitive areas within the precinct because it has particular significance to the BLCAC, in addition to the values identified in VAHR 7921-1989. The VPA said Dr Cupper in oral evidence confirmed this held significant weight.
The VPA considered the term 'public reserve' used in the CVIS was done so in a non-technical sense and the intention was that the vegetation patch be retained for the public and not destroyed through development. BLCAC had not suggested any planning mechanisms to advance the retention of the vegetation patch, only that it was significant and ought to be retained.
The VPA referred to the lack of current planning protection for the vegetation patch under the Metropolitan Strategic Assessment (MSA). It said that without a designation in the PSP a future landowner might be unaware of its significance and at risk committing an offense under the AH Act. It proposed additional reference in the PSP and the Clause 52.17 Schedule to ensure landowners would be aware of this. Council supported this approach.
Regarding LP-03, the Fouz Group proposed it be shown as a rectangular parcel at the eastern end of the 'culturally sensitive area' adjacent to SR-01.
Council did not support Fouz Group's proposed location of LP-03. It submitted:
The VPA acknowledged the unusual context of Parcel 20 where it includes a portion of land identified as having cultural sensitivity and has sought to deliver flexibility to the landowner by permitting the location of LP-03 to be confirmed upon a CHMP at the appropriate time.
The VPA said it had refined its approach throughout the Hearing process as documented in Memos 3 (D96) and 4 (D124). It acknowledged cultural heritage provisions were spread throughout the PSP but noted this resulted from the thematic grouping of the PSP template and that any consideration of a permit application would require a holistic review of the PSP. The VPA did not support Fouz Group's changes but proposed further changes in its the Final Day PSP and UGZ16:
The VPA said the final Amendment would include a definition for the culturally sensitive area and include a mechanism to convert the area shown as encumbered open space in the Land Use Budget to NDA if required.
The Committee commends the VPA's early engagement with the Bunurong people as the Traditional Owners of the Croskell (Employment) precinct land. It is appropriate, and consistent with the PE Act, to provide opportunities for meaningful engagement and to incorporate outcomes from this engagement in strategic planning documents such as PSPs.
The key issue put to the Committee in relation to cultural heritage is whether the designation of a portion of Parcel 20 as encumbered open space is an appropriate mechanism for retaining and protecting cultural values in this circumstance. The Committee considers there are several questions that require consideration to determine whether this is the appropriate mechanism:
The Committee agrees the primary legislative tools to govern matters of Aboriginal cultural heritage are the AH Act and AH Regulations. It does not consider what is proposed through the draft Amendment would conflict with this legislation. While the Committee agrees with Dr Cupper that no additional statutory instrument is required to protect Aboriginal cultural heritage, identification of the vegetation patch in the PSP provides strategic planning context for future planning of the precinct and alerts users of the PSP to the presence of a site that has been clearly identified by the BLCAC, through the CVIS, as 'particularly significant'.
It is understood that Aboriginal Place registration AS 7921-1989 is in recognition of the high potential for tangible artifacts associated with the sandy dune and does not include a Cultural Place component referring to the trees. Therefore, it is appropriate to identify the vegetation patch separately to AS 7921-1989 and differently to other areas in the precinct designated as having cultural heritage sensitivity.
It is particularly important to identify the area in situations where other legislation could lead to different outcomes for the site, for example the removal of vegetation without a permit under the MSA. Therefore, reference to the site and the application of different requirements for retention of the vegetation under the AH Act on Plan 8 are supported.
The VPA proposed the following words for the note on Plan 8:
The culturally sensitive area may have potential constraints to development as highlighted within the Cultural Values Interpretation Strategy Summary Report February 2024.
While the vegetation present on this site is designated as "native vegetation that may be removed" - the removal of this vegetation prior to the completion of a Cultural Heritage Management Plan may amount to an offence under the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006.
The first sentence is considered unnecessary as the second part of the note explains the potential conflict. The first sentence also repeats content in the General Notes. The second sentence should be reworded to define the site being referenced.
The Committee supports referencing Plan 8 in the Clause 52.17 Schedule. It does not consider the reference removes the ability to remove vegetation in the MSA without a permit. The Schedule would state "This does not apply to native vegetation, habitat or scattered trees identified as to be retained or reinstated in ... Plan 8". Plan 8 does not specify any native vegetation to be retained, but it will draw the attention of future users to the requirements of the AH Act.
The Committee agrees the land should be included in the PSP as encumbered land. It has been clearly identified by the BLCAC as culturally significant and should not be included within the NDA unless the CHMP finds that the land (or part of the land) is suitable for development. The Committee agrees with the VPA that a mechanism to convert the land to NDA if required be included in the PSP.
Whether the land will ultimately have an open space function is a more complex question. Until a CHMP has been prepared the potential for such an outcome is unknown. The VPA advised that while the BLCAC may not have used the term 'public reserve' in a technical sense the intention is the vegetation patch be retained for the public and not destroyed through development. The Committee is unclear about what this means for the future of the land.
The PSP proposes to introduce a new term for the vegetation patch, 'culturally sensitive area'. The Committee understands this term is intended to indicate a specific significance for this land in the PSP. The VPA proposed the inclusion of a definition of the term in the final version of the PSP however the Committee is unclear whether this is intended to be captured by the first paragraph under the Cultural heritage section of the General Notes or elsewhere. It is not included in the Glossary of terms in Appendix 6. It is also very similar to the existing term 'areas of cultural heritage sensitivity' defined in the AH Regulations. This is likely to cause confusion. It would be prudent to review the proposed term to avoid future confusion and to include a clear definition in the PSP's Glossary of terms.
At present, the Committee understands there is no separate category in the PSP template for this type of land in the Land Use Budget tables. While the Committee agrees the land should not be part of the NDA unless a CHMP permits development, the land is not the same as other uncredited open space. It is unknown whether it will become a future public reserve, or other reserve or easement in favour of an agency separate to a private landowner. Nor can it be included as credited open space, again because its future is yet unknown. It is likely that in future, more land will be identified in a similar way and there is a need for a separate category for land which has been identified as having Aboriginal cultural significance but for which its future function and management is subject to processes under the AH Act. This land should be shown in a separate category in the Land Use Budget and should not be included as part of the NDA. As noted above, a mechanism should be included in the PSP to convert the land to NDA if required in the future.
In summary, while the Committee supports the general approach for the vegetation patch on Parcel 20 in the draft Amendment, including identification of the patch on all plans with the PSP, it considers the terminology used for the vegetation patch should be reviewed and it should be included in a separate category in the Land Use Budget.
The Committee supports the UGZ16 including a Land Management requirement, noting this will only apply if the land is moved into public ownership.
Regarding LP-03, the Committee supports the approach to identifying an alternative location in Appendix 5, with a linking provision, as it provides the landowner flexibility pending the outcomes of a future CHMP. It does not support showing the LP-03 on any land identified as culturally significant as this is encumbered land and cannot be included as credited open space.
Table 15 below summarises the Committee's response to the Final Day PSP and UGZ changes.
Table 15 Committee response to VPA Final Day changes to Day 1 version documents for cultural heritage
The "culturally sensitive area" identified on parcel 20 may have potential constraints to development as highlighted within the Cultural Values Interpretation Strategy Summary Report February 2024. Developers are encouraged to engage early with the Registered Aboriginal Party (RAP) to address cultural heritage considerations.
Any development in this area must comply with the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 (Vic) and all relevant statutory requirements. While the vegetation present on this site is designated as "native vegetation that may be removed" on Plan 8 - Native Vegetation Retention and Removal and is therefore removable without a planning permit under the Metropolitan Strategic Assessment - the removal of this vegetation prior to the completion of a Cultural Heritage Management Plan may amount to an offense under the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006.
Refer also to Committee's recommendation relating to the location of the General Note.
Amend 8th paragraph under 'Precinct features' to includes the words:
The BLCAC identified a patch of 5.41ha of vegetation in the south eastern portion of the precinct along Donohue Street that is significant to the Bunurong peoples. This vegetation might require retention in recognition of its significance
The design of any subdivision containing a lot within the culturally sensitive area shown on Plan 3 Housing must be consistent with any Cultural Heritage Management Plan approved under the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006.
Unless there is an agreement in writing between affected landowners and the responsible authority, all local parks must:
The responsible authority may request an alternate location for LP-03 within Parcel 20, having regard to any approved Cultural Heritage Management Plan for the land and Plan 14 - 'Alternative LP-03 Location.
The culturally sensitive area may have potential constraints to development as highlighted within the Cultural Values Interpretation Strategy Summary Report February 2024.
While the vegetation present on this site is designated as "native vegetation that may be removed" - the removal of this vegetation prior to the completion of a Cultural Heritage Management Plan may amount to an offence under the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006.
Update legend on Plans 3 and 4 to add 'culturally Sensitive Area'.
Support legend updates and amend note to delete first sentence and amend second to:
The vegetation present on Parcel 20 is designated as "native vegetation that may be removed" - the removal of this vegetation prior to the completion of a Cultural Heritage Management Plan may amount to an offence under the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006.
This alternative option for LP-03 is indicative only and provided for the purpose of guiding discussions between the responsible authority, landowner and relevant Registered Aboriginal Party - noting that any alternative location considered must remain wholly within parcel 20.
Any alterations to the location of LP-03 will not increase the Local Network Park (ICP land) or Local Sports Reserve Credited (ICP Land) amounts shown in Table 17 of the Croskell Infrastructure Contributions Plan or other relevant ICP tables.
Retain reference to PSP Plan 8 and correct reference to UGZ16.
Amend the Croskell (Employment) Precinct Structure Plan consistent with the VPA Final Day version (document 169) subject to the following changes:
Amend Urban Growth Zone Schedule 16 consistent with the Committee's preferred version in Appendix I to include a Land Management condition.
Amend the table in Clause 52.17 Schedule consistent with the VPA Final Day version (Document 182b) to refer to Plan 8 in the incorporated Croskell (Employment) Precinct Structure Plan and correct the reference to UGZ16.
Relevant to bushfire management, the following provisions were included in the Day 1 version:
The Bushfire Development Report, by Terramatrix, July 2024 (D3u) informed the draft provisions.
The Day 1 PSP (refer Appendix F:1) included bushfire provisions that proposed to :
Development adjoining bushfire hazards shown on Plan 10 Bushfire must be setback in accordance with Table 16 Bushfire hazard vegetation management and setback requirements unless the bushfire hazard has been removed to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.
A lesser setback may be considered subject to a site-specific assessment of bushfire risk, vegetation classifications and setbacks to the satisfaction of the responsible authority and relevant fire authority
Table 16 lists the expert bushfire evidence called by parties.
To reduce the electronic size of this document, Figure 23 has been removed from this version of the report. Contact Planning Panels Victoria to obtain a complete copy of the report.
The referred Table 1 issue is whether it is appropriate to consider the bushfire risk of potential vegetation in drainage assets and other open space as opposed to existing conditions.
The VPA explained it sought the advice of Fire Rescue Victoria (FRV), and consulted with Melbourne Water and Council, in responding to submissions on the draft Amendment. The CFA advised it was the not appropriate Authority given the precinct only has a small sliver of land along the eastern precinct within the CFA area.
Several submissions opposed the approach to bushfire management in the Day 1 draft Amendment documents, submitting:
The VPA explained it took a conservative approach to bushfire management based on Clause 13.02-1S of the Planning Scheme which requires:
Ensuring the bushfire risk to existing and future residents, property and community infrastructure will not increase as a result of future land use and development.
The VPA said where a hazard is introduced, bushfire setbacks including development setbacks, must not increase the risk and, if possible, reduce it through setbacks, building construction standards, perimeter roads, water supply for firefighting and access for residents and emergency services.
The VPA submitted the Day 1 version of the PSP went some way to resolving the issues of setbacks to potential vegetation and it would be inappropriate for the VPA to fail to consider the high likelihood of vegetation change in drainage asset and waterway areas. It said the Day 1 PSP provided an appropriate balance between facilitating vegetation and waterway health outcomes sought by Melbourne Water and managing the bushfire risk from revegetation.
Mr Allen generally supported the Day 1 PSP proposal but said further clarification was required about the extent and location of proposed setbacks from vegetation and the rationale for applying tailored setbacks.
Melbourne Water provided the VPA with details of proposed vegetation for the drainage asset and waterway areas.
Mr Potter expressed concern that the proposed draft Amendment had not been assessed against all the strategies within Clause 13.02-1S. There was potential for the introduction of high-risk vegetation that would result in increased bushfire risk, and this would not be consistent with Clause 13.02-1S.
In response to written evidence, the VPA suggested further revisions to bushfire provisions in the PSP as outlined in Memo 2 (D95). The following changes were proposed:
Bushfire hazard areas shown on Plan 10 Bushfire must be managed to a level that ensures they do not result in an AS 3959 vegetation class greater than that specified for that area in Plan 10, unless otherwise agreed to in writing by the fire authority and responsible authority.
Subdivision adjoining a bushfire hazard area in Plan 10 Bushfire should include a publicly accessible road as a perimeter road to separate the hazard from development and assist in firefighting
Where a setback is required from a bushfire hazard, the setback should be provided on public land (excluding drainage reserve land unless otherwise agreed to in writing by Melbourne Water), where practical
To reduce the electronic size of this document, Figure 24 has been removed from this version of the report. Contact Planning Panels Victoria to obtain a complete copy of the report.
This revised position was put to experts through oral evidence. Mr Hazell agreed it provided further clarity but was unnecessarily complex and could generally be managed by a perimeter road (except for the existing vegetation on Parcel 20).
Melbourne Water responded to VPA's Memo 2 proposal by suggesting further amendments to bushfire provisions in the PSP, having considered drafting proposed by MAB and Spring Lodge (D181d). Melbourne Water submitted:
The VPA sought the advice of FRV on Melbourne Water's proposed drafting, with FRV confirming it considered the intent of the Memo 2 position to be clear and did not suggest additional changes other than to:
Council did not support the proposed reference to AS 3959 in the proposed new requirement and said Australian Standards are not generally or freely accessible to the public or to many organisations, including Council, and in referring to AS 3959 what is required remains unclear. Certain landowners would not be in a position to understand what their obligation comprises, and the provision should be drafted to make this clear.
The term 'riparian (re)vegetation' is not in AS 3959 and so in that sense, is not consistent with the standard. However, the Forest and Scrub (and others including Grassland and Shrubland) terms are vegetation groups defined by AS 3959, so I think the 'Forest/Scrub' nomenclature in brackets beside 'Riparian revegetation' in the legend, provides enough linkage to and consistency with AS 3959 ;2018.
With this latest version of Plan 10, I think the nomenclature in the legend is clear and a reasonable response to what are 'anticipated' hazards, rather than existing hazard areas. In my view, the notation on the plan provides the needed transparency about how the hazards, and appropriate development responses, have been determined, if the areas do not meet the AS 3959:2018 criteria for exclusion as low threat (non-hazardous) vegetation. It also provides flexibility to address any uncertainty and future changes, by providing for variations subject to fire authority agreement. In my mind this is similar to, and consistent with, the process for performance solutions, which is built into our planning and building system where the ability to vary or tailor a deemed-to-satisfy solution is provided for. Doc 184a.
The key issue for the Committee is whether it is appropriate to consider the bushfire risk of potential vegetation in drainage assets and other open spaces as opposed to existing conditions.
As part of any land use planning exercise in a Bushfire Prone Area (such as the Croskell precinct), it is appropriate to take a comprehensive approach to bushfire management planning in recognition of the Planning Scheme's direction to prioritise the protection of human life over all other policy considerations (Clause 13.02-1S).
While some submissions sought minimal direction for bushfire planning by the inclusion of only a plan to identify bushfire hazards, generally parties accepted it was appropriate to include strategic policy to address bushfire risk in the PSP. The Planning Scheme clearly seeks to ensure strategic planning documents properly assess bushfire risk and include appropriate protection measures (Committee's emphasis).
Clause 13.02-1S does not explicitly state that a planning authority must consider the bushfire risk from a potential future bushfire hazard. In identifying bushfire hazards and assessing risks, strategies at Clause 13.02-1S include as relevant (summarised):
It is sensible and appropriate to consider information about the likely future use and development of a site, including proposed landscaping and planting where this information is available and consistent with established practice and outcomes and, in this instance, Melbourne Water policy.
That said, settlement planning policy at Clause 13.02-1S also seeks to ensure bushfire risk to residents, property and community infrastructure will not increase as a result of future land use and development. Introducing vegetation to the extent that it would create a major bushfire risk would appear contrary to this direction. For this reason, the Committee finds it necessary to interrogate the provisions relating to the introduction of new vegetation as part of its consideration of the key issue. This relates to both the type of vegetation proposed (through proposed classifications) and recommended mitigation measures (including setbacks and ongoing vegetation management).
There was considerable disagreement between parties about the vegetation classifications proposed for the drainage and waterway areas. All experts agreed that at a landscape scale, and using current conditions, the landscape bushfire risk for the precinct was very low and existing risks were primarily from grassland across the precinct and the scrub forming the vegetation patch over part of Parcel 20.
The Committee acknowledges Mr Potter's view that revegetation of large areas to strictly accord with EVC classifications of Forest and Scrub as referenced in AS 3959 would be inconsistent with State policy. The Committee understands this is not the intent as clarified by Melbourne Water and notes the proposed revised wording for the classifications in regard to proposed setbacks as Riparian revegetation (Forest) and Riparian revegetation (Scrub). While the Committee understands the adoption of these classifications is based on the type of vegetation that will be planted and not the density of planting, and the proposal to include reference to 'riparian vegetation' is an attempt to make this distinction clearer, it finds their use confusing. It is concerned that in the absence of a definition in the PSP, and with reference to AS 3959 on Plan 10, future users would look to the definitions in the AS 3959 and planning conditions could be imposed in this context.
The Committee does not support referring to future drainage and waterway areas as 'forest', 'scrub' or 'shrubland' and recommends they be shown as 'riparian revegetation' only, or a similar alternative if the future planting areas need to be distinguished from one another. The Committee is unclear though why this would be the case if the tailored setback for all revegetation areas is now proposed to be 19 metres. The Committee considers the term 'riparian revegetation' provides greater clarity as to the nature of the hazards rather than the more generic term 'bushfire hazard areas' sought by some submissions. There should be a clear definition of 'riparian vegetation' in the PSP. The classifications of 'grassland' and 'scrub' for existing vegetation are appropriate.
The Committee shares Council's concern about referencing AS 3959 when it is not a freely accessible document and considers this unfortunate. The Committee notes Clause 13.02-1S already references AS 3959 numerous times and considers an applicant would need to seek appropriate advice in any case.
Both Mr Allen and Mr Hazell supported the inclusion of setbacks from bushfire hazards in the PSP, with Mr Hazell suggesting a perimeter road would suffice as an appropriate bushfire mitigation measure (except from the existing vegetation on Parcel 20). The Committee supports the use of setbacks as proposed bushfire mitigation for new development from bushfire hazard areas. It also supports the proposed Day 1 PSP provision to allow reduced setbacks subject to a site-specific assessment and with the approval of Council and the relevant fire authority. No party objected to this addition.
It is not necessary to specify separate, but numerically the same, setbacks for riparian revegetation in Table 16 or on Plan 10 because it unnecessarily complicates the matter. This would also negate the need for dot points one and two in the proposed note on Plan 10:
Dot point 2 explains the justification in coming up with the tailored setback but does not need to be specified on Plan 10.
Regarding future vegetation management, the Committee does not support the introduction of new Requirement R36 that refers to managing vegetation to a level that will not result in an AS 3959 vegetation class greater than specified for that area in Plan 10. This is because:
For the same reason, the final dot point under Bushfire Management Plan in the UGZ16 should also be deleted.
The Committee has no issue with the Guidelines (G25 and G26 Final Day versions) proposed to manage vegetation within bushfire hazard setback areas or outside of bushfire hazard areas and supports their inclusion. The Committee supports the re-introduction of a landscape design guideline for waterway and drainage areas.
The Committee supports the ability to consider site features alternative to a perimeter road to manage the bushfire hazard interface in commercial and industrial areas where it is practicable and publicly accessible. The proposal was supported by Mr Hazell and there was no other reason provided as to why it should not be supported other than FRV did not consider additional changes to the provisions were required.
The Committee does not support submissions seeking to amend Guideline G29 to include additional wording stating that bushfire hazard interface may be provided on private land. It considers this unnecessary and considers the guideline already provides this flexibility.
Table 17 below summarises the Committee's response to the Final Day PSP and UGZ changes to the Day 1 version.
Table 17 Committee response to VPA Final Day changes to Day 1 version documents for bushfire
Update in line with Bushfire Memo 2 circulated on 7 March 2025
Bushfire hazard areas shown on Plan 10 Bushfire must be managed to a level that ensures they do not result in an AS 3959 vegetation class greater than that specified for that area in Plan 10', unless otherwise agreed to in writing by the fire authority and responsible authority
Subdivision adjoining a bushfire hazard area in Plan 10 Bushfire should include a road as a perimeter road to separate the hazard from development and assist in fire fighting
Where a setback is required from a bushfire hazard, the setback should be provided on public land (excluding drainage reserve land unless otherwise agreed to in writing by Melbourne Water), where practical.
GX: The landscape design and plant selection in waterways and drainage land should be consistent with the level of bushfire protection provided by the bushfire hazard interface identified on Plan 10.
Table 16 - Bushfire hazard areas and applicable setbacks for BAL-12.5 development
refer to potential bushfire hazard areas in drainage assets and along waterways as 'riparian revegetation' with a 19 metre setback.
Amend Bushfire Management Plan application requirement to:
Amend the Clause 4.0 Condition 'Management of bushfire risk during subdivision works' to Include reference to 'any approved Bushfire Management Plan'
Amend the Croskell (Employment) Precinct Structure Plan consistent with the VPA Final Day version (Document 172) subject to the following changes:
Amend Urban Growth Zone Schedule 16 consistent with the Committee preferred version in Appendix I to delete of the final dot point in the Bushfire Management Plan application requirement.
The draft Amendment proposes to incorporate the ICP into the Planning Scheme by applying Infrastructure Contributions Plan Overlay Schedule 4 (ICPO4) to the Precinct.
A number of changes were made to the ICP after the consultation period. These changes are incorporated in the Day 1 version of the ICP and are summarised in Appendix E:2. The major changes relate to updated ICP costings to reflect DSS-C, higher costs for intersections and VicRoads fees and other scope changes.
The Table 1 referred issue is whether the proposed ICP costings are appropriate, specifically whether benchmark costings provide sufficient contingency for cost increases on account of 'up-scoping' infrastructure for State Arterial Roads and costing for IN-04 is accurate.
Cranbourne 1450's original submission raised issues with ICP costings of intersections, specifically IN-04. In response to the Committee's Direction 15, Cranbourne 1450 advised in its letter to the Committee (Document 15d) that it intended to call an expert witness on civil engineering/infrastructure costing as it considered that the intersection benchmark costings for IN-04 were unresolved as costings did not allow for IN-04's location on a state arterial road with respect to:
In submissions at the Hearing, Cranborne advised that its issues with respect to infrastructure costings had been resolved. Cranbourne 1450 did not call evidence on infrastructure costings.
The VPA advised that it had amended the costings of IN-04 with changes incorporated in the Day 1 version of the ICP. Because Cranbourne 1450 did not call its costing expert, it assumed the costings of IN-04 were now acceptable to Cranbourne 1450. The VPA submitted in closing submissions that the Final Day ICP appropriately captured the costs of infrastructure projects within the precinct.
The Committee considers this issue to be resolved. It notes that the parties held discussions during the Hearing and no submissions from Cranbourne 1450 were made at the Hearing nor any expert evidence lead about costings relating to IN-04.
Amend the Croskell (Employment) Infrastructure Contributions Plan consistent with the VPA Final Day version (Document 173) to make costings related changes.
A network of SUPs is shown on PSP Plan 4. SUPs along the Melbourne Water pipe track (SUP-01), within the drainage asset abutting Thompsons Road (SUP-02) and two crossings (SUP-3 and SUP-4) over the VPD asset in the utilities easement are included in the ICP. Other SUPs on Plan 4 are to be delivered as developer works.
9.3.1 Shared user path within the utilities easement
Galileo requested that the SUP running along the southern edge of the utilities easement in its land (Parcel 14) be relocated south into the Council reserve land because it would have a broader network function and should more sensibly be on public land. Galileo submitted that if the SUP stays on its land, it should be an ICP item. It considered it unreasonable to expect Galileo to construct and fund the SUP which had a role beyond its land. Galileo noted that the other SUPs within the waterway area are ICP items and all SUPs in the PSP should be treated equally.
The VPA did not support the inclusion of the SUPs on private land as an ICP cost. It submitted the SUPs proposed within the utilities easement (except for SUP-03 and SUP-4) are developer works as this land, while constrained, is otherwise developable. SUP-02 and SUP-03 over the VDP assets are appropriately included in the ICP because of their high cost.
The utilities easement SUP to the west of the Galileo land also extends over private land (MAB and Spring Lodge) other than for drainage asset crossings. Neither MAB nor Spring Lodge made submissions that the SUP should be an ICP item.
The Committee agrees with the VPA that the SUP on the Galileo land should remain as developer works and not be an ICP item. This is consistent with the funding treatment in the PSP for other SUPs on private land. The Committee notes that there are sections of SUPs included in the ICP where a section of an SUP abuts a waterway (with no obvious developer to deliver the infrastructure), is on land otherwise undevelopable (within DSS asset boundaries) or where the SUP crosses the major VDP asset. These circumstances do not apply in the case of the east-west SUP on the Galileo land although the Committee does acknowledge that development of the Galileo land is already somewhat constrained because it is within the utilities easement.
As to the possible relocation of the SUP onto the Council's land, the Committee does not consider that just because a SUP has a broader network function it should be located on public land. Neither the VPA nor Council made submissions with respect to relocating the SUP onto the Council reserve as requested by Galileo. It is unclear whether this arrangement would compromise the delivery of the SUP or impact on the usability of Council land. The Committee considers therefore that at this stage the SUP should stay within the Galileo land as shown on PSP Plan 4.
The Committee concludes the utilities easement SUP:
9.3.2 Shared user path adjoining Thompsons Road
The VPA submitted providing the SUP on private land along Thompsons Road was intended to facilitate east-west active transport movements in an interim manner until Thompsons Road is triplicated. It was reasonable to expect PSP development to provide for active transport movements until the ultimate upgrade of Thompsons Road and the eventual delivery of dedicated active transport infrastructure within the state arterial road.
The VPA acknowledged that the two-way off road bike path (within the triplicated Thompsons Road cross-section) could be replaced by a shared user path within the road reserve. It proposed, in recognition of the interim nature of the proposed SUP and its likely ultimate designation as a footpath once Thompsons Road is triplicated and the off-road bike path provided, that PSP Requirement R14 be amended to state:
to the satisfaction of the responsible authority. (VPA emphasis)
The VPA noted that this change would reduce the SUP from 3 to 2 metres in width which it said met the minimum width for a SUP recommended in the AustRoads Guide to Road Design Part 6A: Paths for Walking and Cycling (Feb 2021) and generally aligned with the suggested minimum width of 1.8 metres for fully DDA compliant footpath under the guide.
Mr Beardall stated that, notwithstanding apparent inconsistences with the SMEG intersection designs, he assumed that the PSP requires on the south side of Thompsons Road a two-way cycle path within the road reserve and a shared path adjacent to the property boundary and outside the road reserve. He concluded that:
He considered that based on active transport provision for Thompsons Road and the Primary Arterial Roads discussed in his evidence, the PSP requirement was not consistent with several sources of guidance with respect to contemporary active transport planning.
Mr Clarke's evidence concluded that the shared footway along Thompsons Road should be provided in the road reserve and its construction funded by the State or alternatively its provision and construction should be included as an ICP item. He was not satisfied that a satisfactory landscaped frontage setback may eventuate if that setback is also required to satisfy active transport requirements. He suggested for example that the need to maintain safe cycling sight distances may impact landscaping that impedes those sight distances.
MAB noted the opinion of Mr Beardall that there is no strategic justification to require landowners along an arterial road to provide a SUP including in circumstances where that provision would be piecemeal and uncertain. MAB submitted that there are obvious delivery and maintenance issues with the proposed SUP and it was inconsistent with the reality of active transport paths delivered along Thompsons Road where the standard approach of DTP has been and will be to deliver a SUP within the road reserve rather than a two-way bike path.
MAB referred to the VPA's Part B submission that the SUP is meant to facilitate east-west active transport movements in an interim manner until Thompsons Road is triplicated. This made it more certain that the provision of the SUP and loss of NDA was inappropriate because:
MAB submitted that Requirement R14 required landowners fronting Thompsons Road provide a five (or even a four) metre setback to include an interim SUP was "inequitable, pointless, and without justification." It submitted that Requirement R14 should be amended to require only a two-metre setback for landscaping and the draft PSP maps amended to delete references to a two-way bike path along Thompsons Road and replaced it with a SUP within the road reserve. MAB said the relocation of the SUP and changes to Requirement R14, would require the deletion of SUP-02 and adjustment of ICP costings.
Galileo supported the position put by MAB that the SUP along Thompsons Road should be deleted from private land. It submitted that the proposed SUP would result in unnecessary duplication of movement networks and would be inconsistent with how movement networks along Thompsons Road have been provided in the vicinity of the PSP. Further it would be undesirable to have a SUP along Thompsons Road provided by different developers in a piecemeal fashion. It submitted it is preferable that the appropriate paths are provided within the Thompsons Road road reserve.
Cranbourne 1450 submitted the requirement was ill-conceived and would result in poor outcomes:
Cranbourne 1450 said the justification for landowners to provide land and construct a component of state infrastructure was "slim at best" and, where provided for an interim purpose only, the justification "evaporates entirely". While vesting the land in Council may resolve the maintenance issue it would still remove NDA without compensation or adequate justification. Cranbourne 1450 concluded the Committee should recommend deletion of the SUP or that it be an ICP item.
The VPA did not agree that the ICP should fund delivery of the SUP within the PSP adjacent to the Thompsons Road road reserve on otherwise developable land, noting that certain elements of SUP infrastructure had been included in the ICP where:
In closing, the VPA submitted that in residential precincts, the standard arrangement is a for a cycle path in the road reserve plus a footpath to serve dwellings. It noted, the precinct was in a built out urban area and required a bespoke place-specific response to avoid interim gaps in the active path network until triplication of Thompsons Road and to respond to the non-residential nature of development adjoining the partially constructed Thompsons Road. The VPA considered "the fear of a piecemeal delivery is not a reason in itself to assume that it (the SUP) should be an ICP cost and deliverable by a developer as one project."
In response to questions from the Committee, the VPA confirmed that the Thompsons Road SUP would be an allowable item under the Ministerial Direction on the Preparation and Content of infrastructure Plans. It expressed caution about blanket inclusion of the SUP as an ICP item. It was not unreasonable to expect developers to provide active transport along their frontages. While it acknowledged the SUP could be delivered within the state road reserve this would have implementation issues. This included the relocation of existing infrastructure and design along the entire length of Thompsons Road to ensure that the SUP and associated works are costed appropriately and would not be redundant when Thompsons Road is triplicated.
There are positives and negatives for all these options, and in the Committee's view, none stand out as the most appropriate approach.
The VPA option to reduce the width of the SUP on developer land does reduce the land area but it would still need to be delivered overtime by several developers or potentially not delivered within for an extended time frame in the case of the Wagstaff land. This option does not overcome the fundamental flaw that the SUP would be a fragmented, non-contiguous SUP probably for many years. While meeting AustRoads guidelines though at the lower end of the AustRoads recommended width, the narrow path two-metre wide path proposed by the VPA is a suboptimal outcome and likely provide a poor level of service for cyclists and pedestrians.
The second option of funding the SUP as an ICP item would still require its delivery by developers (probably by works in kind) when their land is developed. Again, this would not overcome the problem of the SUP being delivered in a piecemeal way as the various land parcels are developed overtime. Including the SUP on private land in the ICP would also be inconsistent with the treatment of the other SUPs in the PSP. The Committee considers that would be inequitable.
The third option of relocating the SUP onto the Thompsons Road reserve could result in uncertainty about the timeframe for its delivery pending the Thompsons Road triplication (the timing or funding of which is unknown) or create potential 'sacrificial works' and unknown costs if funded through the ICP.
Relocating the SUP onto the south side of the Thompsons Road within the road reserve would be consistent with the path network along the other arterial roads in the area including on the north side of Thompsons Road. It would, however, probably mean that a SUP on the south side of Thompsons Road would not be delivered for some time, indeed in reality for many years, irrespective of the source of funds for its delivery.
Though not ideal, the Committee considers a later delivery of the SUP along Thompsons Road acceptable. None of the options would result in a contiguous SUP along the south side of Thompsons Road in the short to medium term. A gap for even some considerable time in the SUP network on the arterial network in the area is not, in the Committee's view, an unacceptable outcome considering the circumstances in the PSP. The SUP network in the PSP includes a SUP along the utilities easement which will provide an east-west link to existing off-road shared paths along Berwick-Cranbourne Road and Narre Warren-Cranbourne Road and the existing shared path on the north side of Thompsons Road already provides an existing alternative east-west link. The proposed off-road 2-way bike paths within precinct connector streets provides additional connectivity to Thompsons Road.
On balance, the Committee considers that the better outcome would be to relocate the SUP onto the road reserve to replace the off-road bike path along the south side of Thompsons Road and for the relocated SUP to be funded and delivered as part of the State project to triplicate Thompsons Road.
With this change, it is arguable that SUP-02 (and CU-3) as shown on Plan 12 would duplicate the SUP on the road reserve and should be deleted from the PSP and ICP. If the relocation of the SUP is accepted and the PSP amended accordingly, the VPA should review the need for SUP-02 and CU-03 and related changes to the ICP costings and ICO4 levies.
The Committee considers that with a relocated SUP, a reduced setback of two metres to allow for landscaping between the road and buildings is a reasonable requirement and Requirement R14 should be amended as identified in the Committee's position on the related Final VPA Day changes in Table 18 below.
Table 18 Committee response to VPA Final Day changes to Day 1 PSP version for Shared User Paths
Change SUP north of the east-west connector to a shared user path arrow pointing northwards towards Thompsons Road
Locate car parking along the side or at the rear of the site with the exception of disabled and short stay car parking which can be provided closer to the main entrance of the building
Amend the Croskell (Employment) Precinct Structure Plan consistent with the VPA Final Day version (Document 169) and changes to:
Amend the Croskell (Employment) Infrastructure Contributions Plan consistent with the VPA Final Day version (Document 173) with additional changes to reflect the Committee's recommendations regarding the Shared User Path along Thompsons Road and SUP-02.
Infrastructure Contributions Overlay Schedule 4
Amend Infrastructure Contributions Overlay consistent with the VPA Final Day version (Document 176g) with additional changes to reflect the Committee's recommendations regarding the Shared User Path along Thompsons Road and SUP-02.
The referred Table 1 issue is whether Council should be specified as the Development agency for intersection and pedestrian signal projects on declared State Arterial Roads.
In its submission to the draft Amendment, Council did not agree that it be identified as the development agency in the ICP for seven transport projects.
At the Hearing, Council indicated that it had modified its position and would now accept nomination as development agency for the seven projects, but it did not accept responsibility for itself to provide any of the intersection projects.
Council noted that the only obligation under the PE Act is for it to apply the ICP funds only to projects for which the funds are raised. Council stated that its experience in delivering ICP projects has resulted in it no longer delivering transport projects on arterial roads either because of among other reasons scope creep and the associated costs and timeframes associated with obtaining design approval from DTP. It submitted that these projects must be delivered either as works in kind by a relevant developer or by DTP as the relevant road manager for the arterial roads affected by the works.
Council noted that under section 63 of the Road Management Act 2004 there were penalties for interference with a road without the consent of the coordinating road authority. It submitted that the effect of this provision is that the DTP and not Council is the ultimate approvals authority for any works on an arterial road. Therefore, as the authority responsible for signing off the projects on arterial roads, DTP is and should be identified in the PSP Table 21 as the lead agency for the seven transport projects. Unlike the 'development agency' moniker in the ICP, there is no statutory provision that requires Council to be identified as the 'lead agency' for a project which a different authority is responsible for consenting to the works to deliver that project.
The VPA submitted section 46GH of the PE Act was unequivocal and if the ICP is to be gazetted and incorporated into the Planning Scheme, Council cannot refuse to be the Development Agency. It added that "whether Council is able to deliver the ICP projects is an implementation matter for Council to resolve at the appropriate time."
The VPA did not agree to the change to PSP Table 21 requested by Council. It submitted that 'lead agency' is not a defined term in the PE Act but was consistently used in PSP vernacular to describe the agency responsible for coordinating the approvals process for a project. It submitted that where an application is made to a council that includes works on an arterial road, that council manages the referral process including to the DTP as the determining referral authority.
The VPA submitted that the PSP appropriately identifies Council as the Development Agency and the Lead Agency in Table 21 of the PSP for all ICP items.
Council accepted that under the PE Act it must be the designated Development Agency. The issue then is whether Council or DTP should be the designated Lead Agency.
Council expressed concern over DTP being the agency responsible for consenting to works on arterial roads. However, Council through its current practice of not itself delivering projects on arterial roads is mitigating any exposures it may have (such as cost over runs) by DTP being the approval agency.
The Committee agrees with the VPA that 'lead agency' is a term used in PSPs to identify an agency responsible for coordinating the approval of projects. As the works on the arterial roads will be triggered by applications for development of the PSP by the land owners, it is most likely the projects will be delivered by 'works in kind' by developers. Council has in effect stated that to be the case.
Council's role will be to consider planning applications proposing to develop or subdivide land within the PSP. Part of its role will be to refer applications to relevant referral authorities including the DTP where proposed development includes works affecting arterial roads. Referral to DTP would be no different to Council referring applications to other referral authorities. That is what in practice a 'lead agency' does. The Committee sees no reason in determining a 'lead agency' to distinguish between projects where the DTP may be a referral authority and where there may be other referral agencies. The Committee considers therefore that Council is the appropriate 'lead agency' for the transport projects.
The draft PSP identified three local parks to be provided as credited open space in addition to the two uncredited active open space areas to the south-east of the precinct (SR-01 and SR-02):
The Day 1 PSP Plan 7 and Table 13 Open space delivery propose:
The issue is whether the provision of local parks is appropriate.
Several submissions supported the reduction or deletion of specific local parks because:
The following summarises the evidence and submissions relating to specific local parks, noting Cranbourne 1450 did not oppose the changes to the location of LP-01.
Mr Granger's evidence proposed LP-02 (and other employment area open spaces, LP-04 and LP-05) be deleted. He considered total open space provision within the precinct (including uncredited encumbered open space) was high and that the PSP guideline two per cent target for local employment parks should be prudently applied to achieve a more balanced outcome that resulted in an additional 1.7 hectares of employment land. He said passive open space opportunities were present throughout the precinct including within the central waterway and utilities easement.
The VPA submitted its location was appropriate and along with LP-01, LP-04 and LP-05 play an important role in contributing to the amenity of the employment area and were consistent with the PSP guidelines for open space provision in employment areas.
Mr Granger's evidence was LP-03 should be deleted given it:
As discussed in Chapter 7, the Fouz Group supported the relocation of LP-03 if it were to be required to an area adjacent to SR-01. It did not support an alternative whereby it would be identified around the 'culturally sensitive area' on Parcel 20.
The VPA and Council submitted that LP-03 at 1.04 hectares is required and appropriately sized in order to meet the 3-5 percent target in the PSP Guidelines for open space in residential areas. The VPA said:
... based on the projected residential population of approximately 2,120 residents,
LP-03 is the appropriate size and is appropriately located as it can be positioned either surrounding the culturally sensitive area to provide a regularised boundary or it can be located proximate to the DSS land. Either location is appropriate as both leverage off the different locational attributes of both places.
... the unusual context of parcel 20 where it includes a portion of the land that has been identified as having cultural sensitivity. As a consequence, the VPA has sought to deliver flexibility to Fouz in relation to the location of LP-03 that can be confirmed upon a Cultural Heritage Management Plan at the appropriate time.
The VPA's Final Day PSP version of Requirement R24 relating to LP-03 included additional wording in response to Council's submission that the Day 1 version lacked a trigger for actioning the alternate location identified in Appendix 5 Plan 14:
Unless there is an agreement in writing between affected landowners and the responsible authority, all local parks must:
The responsible authority may request an alternate location for LP-03 within Parcel 20, having regard to any approved Cultural Heritage Management Plan for the land and Plan 14 - 'Alternative LP-03 Location.
Galileo supported the evidence of Mr Granger that LP-04 should be deleted. It submitted the park would be isolated with surveillance limited to local streets and would be of limited benefit to workers because of its location and size. If it were to be provided, it should be relocated onto Parcel 13E (Fouz Group land) at a more central location at the intersection of the two connector roads where it could be accessed from an off-road bicycle path (and a potential relocated SUP) and contribute to a 'sense of space'.
Fouz Group did not support the relocation of LP-04 considering it a further encumbrance to its land and preferred it be removed entirely for similar reasons to Galileo.
Council did not support the deletion of LP-04, submitting this would leave a large area devoid of a local park. While it did not support relocating the park to the Fouz land Council was amenable to shifting it but ultimately considered the Day 1's central location was appropriate.
The VPA did not support the removal of LP-04 but acknowledged the Galileo suggested relocation was an improvement. It proposed an alternative location south of DSS asset K to service the east quadrant of the employment area and retail node. It said this location could leverage off the asset and landscaping to provide improved amenity and locationally provide a benefit to the retail area in addition to workers in the business area.
Council did not support the Galileo alternate location although was open to a more centrally located position (including the VPA's suggested alternative) noting the final location and dimensions could be left to the permit process and 'generally in accordance with' the UGZ16 provisions.
The location and need for LP-05 was opposed by Spring Lodge and not supported by Mr Woodland on the basis that: it is not required to address open space access deficiencies within walkable catchments given proximity to LP-01 and LP-02
Council observed that the park aligned with a SUP between the east-west employment area connector and the utilities easement SUP.
The VPA submitted LP-05 has a different function to the other employment local parks as it performs both a buffer function between the industry and residential areas and a linkage function due to its co-location with the western shared user path connection over the VDP assets. It submitted:
LP-05 is justified, especially as LP-05 is the only north south active transport linkage between Narre Warren Cranbourne Road and Casey Fields Boulevard - a distance of approximately 1.6km.
If the Committee support the extension of Industry land to the west on Spring Lodge land (as identified above), the VPA submits that LP-05 would also be moved further to the west and that this will further enhance the linkage to LP-01. The VPA would retain the VDP crossing at the same location so as to keep the crossing within the PSP area but kink the SUP to the west to align with the relocated LP-05
Mr Granger considered the extent of land required for SR-01 on Parcel 21 (Council owned land) should be reviewed on account of the reduced resident population within the precinct based on Day 1 changes.
There is a clear benefit in (and strategic support in Clause 19.02-6S for) the providing a diversity of high quality, accessible public open spaces which provide for a range of open space needs for the community (residents and workers). This includes creating a sense of identity, providing for amenity, social cohesiveness, liveability, health and wellbeing and reducing the heat island effect. It is acknowledged that within employment areas, the use of open space will be different to the function and design of open spaces in residential areas. This is recognised in the provisions of Clause 19.02-6S the PSP guidelines open space target (T11):
Waterways and large utility easements can provide secondary opportunities for integrating with and contributing to the connectivity of open space networks and place-making, but this is not their primary function. The design of waterways will necessarily focus on delivering drainage, flood management, retention, habitat and water quality functions ahead of open space functionality. This is particularly so when all drainage experts supported opportunities to reduce the extent of drainage land area in favour of NDA opportunities.
It is apparent that the utilities easement will be augmented with another high voltage powerline and while the easement is proposed to be used to enhance pedestrian and cycling connectivity through the precinct it will not be a visually appealing open space environment for residents or workers for more passive purposes.
In this context, the provision of unencumbered local parks within the precinct's employment areas aiming for a 2 per cent NDA target (1.9 per cent proposed) is supported where they are appropriately located, form part of a logical open space network and flexibility exists for their final delivery form.
The amended location and size of LP-01 is appropriate. It services the western portion of the employment area and has an interface with the heritage property, Springmont. Cranbourne 1450 accepted its relocated position in the Day 1 PSP.
The general location and size of LP-02 is appropriate. It is aligned with the utilities easement, provides the opportunity for more active recreation and services the lower central section of the industry land. MAB did not oppose its position and location. The Committee notes Guideline G23 provides flexibility for the location and configuration of all local parks.
The Committee supports the provision, location and dimensions of LP-03 proposed in the Day 1 PSP. It is located central to proposed and existing residential areas.
The alternative location of LP-03 adjacent to the culturally significant area on Parcel 20 through the Final Day version of Requirement R24 and Plan 14 provides additional flexibility for the provision of LP-03 if it responds appropriately to the outcomes of the CHMP and is broadly supported as an alternative.
The Committee supports the provision of LP-04 (including its size) which will allow for a mix of passive and active open space needs with a design cognisant of its employment area setting. The park could be more centrally located within the Galileo site but should not be located to the intersection of industrial/employment collector roads as proposed by Galileo. This location is not ideal from an amenity perspective given potential traffic volumes. It is of a size that will not achieve any meaningful public-realm or place-making outcomes in Galileo's proposed location.
VPA's suggested relocation adjacent to DSS asset K is an improvement. It builds on an interface with that asset and proximity to the retail precinct while still being walkable from employment areas to the west. Further, it should not overlap with the retail precinct as it has the potential to reduce retail floor space. A location to the immediate west of DSS asset K, noting the flexibility built into Guideline G23 and 'generally in accordance with' provisions of the UGZ16, is preferred.
The Committee agrees with the VPA and Council that LP-05 serves an important open space linkage, contributes to the variety of open space offered in the employment area, supports the SUP and provides amenity benefits to pedestrian and cyclists. It is sufficiently wide to accommodate a SUP and serve a linear park role. Its position also aligns with the existing subdivision design (including that anticipated by Spring Lodge south of the utilities easement) of the western most north-south road.
The Committee acknowledges that if located between residential and industrial land, it would provide some amenity and visual buffer benefit although this could equally be achieved through a mix of zoning, built form guidance and location of roads. Using open space in this way is not unique. Based on the Committee's recommendations about Spring Lodge's land north of the utilities easement being employment land (C2Z) however, this secondary benefit will not be achieved. As discussed above Guideline G23 provides capacity for a different configuration if this results in a better open space outcome. This could mean, for example, that north of the VDP crossing the alignment could be changed to follow the western PSP edge or align with LP-01 if this assisted in managing the transition to the western residential area outside the PSP.
Reducing the size of SR-01 is a matter for Council as the landowner and its planning for the delivery of open space services. The alternative location of LP-03 could enable this active open space area to be expanded westwards and this could be accommodated within the 'generally in accordance' provisions.
Amend the Croskell (Employment) Precinct Structure Plan consistent with the VPA Final Day version (Document 169) subject to the following changes:
In response to submissions, the VPA's Day 1 changes removed the 'amenity areas' designation from the PSP which supported higher densities including through the MUZ.
AVA sought the reintroduction and expansion of the amenity areas to Parcel 26 and/or target densities of 30 dwellings/hectare. This it said:
The VPA said the housing density target for GRZ land is appropriate for the precinct's context and does not preclude Council considering proposals for greater densities. In response to the evidence of Mr Granger, the Final Day version PSP proposed changes to:
Several submissions questioned the basis of applying Guideline (G2) which the Day 1 version proposed:
Residential subdivision and development that contributes to meeting the 11% affordable housing target is encouraged.
Mr Granger's evidence was the 11 percent appeared to have been set with no underpinning analysis or justification, that Guideline G2 should be deleted, and that the analysis falls well short of what is expected under section 3AA of the PE Act. He considered Objective O3 should be simplified.
Fouz Group submitted the 11 per cent figure was derived from an in-house VPA report using methodology prepared by SGS (based on VPA Memo 5) (D137) and which was an internal document that was not intended to be released and could not be tested. On this basis alone, it considered the guideline should be deleted or amended to remove references to percentage targets.
Fouz Group considered the City of Casey Affordable Housing Strategy, 2020 (Affordable Housing Strategy) while adopted by Council, is not referred to in the Casey Planning Scheme or been subject to a process of 'public testing'. The Affordable Housing Strategy:
... does not itself provide for an 'affordable housing target' to be referred to in the Planning Scheme. It includes a statement that a minimum of 12% of all new dwellings built would need to be affordable housing to meet the total future estimated affordable housing need by 2041, including the current and future need based on population growth.
But this is a different thing to asserting that all new housing developments should be responsible for providing that 12%, or providing a 'target' of 12%. It refers to the need for 12% affordable housing, and then outlines a range of measures and further considerations that need to occur in order to build upon the Strategy. Ultimately, it provides (emphasis added):
The Strategy will provide the operational and policy foundation for Council to commerce working towards a minimum of 12 percent of all new dwellings built to be affordable housing by 2041 through observing an increase in the proportion of affordable housing in Casey.
The VPA submitted it was committed to delivering the PSP Guidelines including target T4 which identifies a PSP needs to:
Set a minimum target for provision of affordable housing in accordance with affordable housing policy, evidence, and guidance.
The VPA's Final Day changes proposed the following preferred wording for Guideline G2:
Residential subdivision and development that contributes to meeting the 12% affordable housing target as set out in the City of Casey Affordable Housing Strategy 2020 (or subsequent revision) is encouraged.
Residential subdivision and development that contributes to works towards meeting the long term aspiration of Casey City Council of 12% affordable housing target as set out in the City of Casey Affordable Housing Strategy 2020 (or subsequent revision) is encouraged.
An average target housing density in GRZ areas of 20 dwellings/hectare through a range of housing typologies is considered appropriate for the context of the proposed residential areas. While there is opportunity to leverage off proposed open space areas and proximity to future employment and retail services, the existing residential character of the area and street network, proximity of industrial operations and high voltage powerlines does not support significantly higher densities across the board. It is not an appropriate strategy to reintroduce the amenity area designation to just one residential parcel south of the utilities easement as proposed by AVA.
As identified by the VPA, discretion remains for the responsible authority to consider site specific higher density outcomes. Requirement R1 further requires the delivery of a minimum number of Table 3 typologies and target densities [Committee's emphasis]. The PSP provisions provide suitable flexibility for a range of typologies and higher densities to be considered through a more detailed design process through the permit application process.
The Committee supports the VPA's Final Day changes to PSP Requirement R1 and Guideline G4 because they appropriately respond to removing amenity areas from the PSP.
While the VPA supported the provision of affordable housing, there is no legal obligation on a developer to deliver affordable housing, or to deliver a particular amount of such housing on the PSP land. There is no policy direction as to what level of provision should be made, or the manner in which it should be made. The Affordable Housing Strategy which is referenced in Objective O3 and the VPA's Final Day or alternate Guideline G2 wording has no status in the Casey Planning Scheme at this time.
Nonetheless, State and local policy (in a general way at Clause 21.03-3) raise the expectation that provision of affordable housing is now inherent in the development of land for residential purposes. The PSP Guidelines also identify that a PSP should include affordability targets. However, in this instance beyond broader strategic objectives, the underpinning basis for a specific rate is limited to:
While it is acknowledged Requirement G2 only has the status of a guideline, it (and Objective O3) should not refer to a specific rate of contribution or the Housing Affordability Strategy. An appropriate guideline still has utility to support the related objective.
Amend the Croskell (Employment) Precinct Structure Plan consistent with the VPA Final Day version (Document 169) and subject to the following changes:
The issue is whether the draft Amendment appropriately guides retention of native vegetation across the precinct.
Most of the precinct falls within the Melbourne Strategic Assessment (MSA) area. Under the MSA, none of the vegetation within the precinct is deemed critical for retention (although this does not consider the retention of vegetation considered culturally significant as discussed in Chapter 7). Levies paid by developers for clearing native vegetation in the MSA are allocated to other conservation projects.
Approximately 45.6 hectares of land within the precinct is outside the MSA area with the NVPP prepared to assess biodiversity in this area. The NVPP did not identify any threatened species habitat or conservation areas within the precinct although it did identify several small patches of endangered native vegetation.
The exhibited NVPP included five patches of vegetation to be retained. In response to submissions, the NVPP was updated to identify that all vegetation identified within the NVPP area can be removed.
Several submissions sought to retain native vegetation across the precinct, particularly vegetation with a BioEVC status of endangered.
Other submissions opposed requirements and guidelines in the PSP which sought to retain native vegetation or trees identified as significant, particularly as shown on Plan 8 of the draft PSP.
The VPA explained it commissioned a review of the NVPP in response to submissions. The review acknowledged that while ecological recommendations should always be to retain as much native vegetation and habitat as practicable, all native vegetation within the NVPP area are low quality, small and isolated occurrences and do not necessarily warrant protection in the NVPP.
Based on this recommendation, the VPA no longer sought to retain any vegetation within the NVPP and key changes proposed in the Day 1 PSP included:
The NVPP was also revised to state that no native vegetation is required to be retained:
The VPA submitted that the PSP guidelines would ensure where possible the retention of existing vegetation through subdivision layout as determined through the planning permit application process.
MAB sought further refinements to provisions relying on the written evidence of Mr Harvey of Biosis. These refinements were agreed by the VPA and included in its Final Day documents including amending Requirement R21 as follows:
The removal of native vegetation on land to which the Croskell (Employment) Native Vegetation Precinct Plan April 2025 (NVPP) applies must be generally in accordance with the NVPP. Retention and removal of native vegetation must be generally in accordance with the Croskell (Employment) Native Vegetation Precinct Plan June 2024 or Plan 8 Native vegetation retention and removal.
In closing, the VPA submitted "all matters in relation to the NVPP and native vegetation have been resolved during the hearing, with the following change agreed and consequential changes made in the Final Day Documents, where necessary".
It is important to encourage the retention of significant trees and existing native vegetation in the precinct where the vegetation makes a positive contribution to the character, amenity, cultural or ecological values of a place.
Notwithstanding this, the Committee accepts that much of the precinct falls within the MSA area and that none of the vegetation in the precinct has been deemed critical for retention. The findings expressed in the NVPP that native vegetation outside the MSA area is generally low quality and contained in small and isolated occurrences that do not necessarily warrant protection.
On this basis, the Committee supports revised provisions in the Final Day versions of the PSP and NVPP.
Amend the Croskell (Employment) Precinct Structure Plan consistent with the VPA Final Day version (Document 169) relating to native vegetation.
Amend the Croskell (Employment) Precinct Structure Plan consistent with the VPA Final Day version (Document 175) relating to native vegetation.
The issue is whether a PSP guideline should be included to consider Commonwealth telecommunications policy.
Council sought the addition of a new guideline to the PSP:
At subdivision and or development design stage, as part of telecommunications utility planning and provision, developers will need to have regard to the requirements for mobile telecommunications infrastructure outlined within the 2024 Commonwealth Telecommunications in New Developments (TIND) Policy.
The Commonwealth Telecommunications in New Developments Policy contained requirements for mobile telecommunications infrastructure for residential development greater than 50 lots to ensure reliable mobile access (system capacity and coverage). Council identified that its suggested wording was the same as that identified in the PSP Background Report at section 4.8.2.
The VPA's Final day version included the guideline requested.
The Committee considers that it is unnecessary for a PSP to seek to implement a Commonwealth government policy. The PSP Guidelines provide no guidance on the need to plan for or manage the provision of telecommunications infrastructure at the PSP level. Council did not identify that there are major mobile phone capacity or coverage limitations within the precinct that require this PSP to include specific guidelines or that the need was supported by a local planning policy. The Committee considers this is a matter for the development stage and not the PSP.
MAB's submission noted there were inconsistent use of defined terms throughout the PSP including references to the PSP, DSS, VDP, RAP and BLCAC.
The Committee agrees that the final PSP would benefit from a check to ensure that defined terms are applied consistently in addition to any document cross-referencing.
The Committee is comfortable with the use of the term 'hallmark' in the context of the 20-minute neighbourhood. The term is used in Plan Melbourne which identifies six associated hallmarks and the PSP Guidelines which identify seven. The Final Day version identifies that five of the PSP Guideline hallmarks form the basis of PSP implementation chapters. The Committee is broadly satisfied the Final Day PSP's 'Context' chapter relating to implementation objectives, implementation, place-based requirements and guidelines has adequately addressed many of MAB's drafting concerns. The place-based guidelines would be more clearly expressed as [Committee's emphasis]:
The PSP Guidelines identify matters that should be addressed by a permit application, and guide how discretion will be exercised by the responsible authority in respect of those matters. The responsible authority may consider an alternative to a guideline if it is satisfied that an application for an alternative achieves the objectives. A guideline may include or reference a plan, table or figure in the PSP.
The Committee has not cross-checked to see if all the relevant PSP changes are reflected in the Final Day versions of draft Amendment documents or if the changes to the ICP are reflected in IC04. As identified in Chapter 1, it has not reviewed the draft Amendment documents in their entirety and has focused its discussions, conclusions and recommendation on the elements that were subject to submissions and evidence.
The VPA should undertake a final check of all draft Amendment documents to ensure they reflect its PSP and ICP changes, and changes associated with the Committee's recommendations for document changes. It should also check to ensure drafting of the UGZ is consistent with the advice in the Practitioner's Guide. For example, using 'before a Statement of Compliance is issued' rather than 'prior to the issue of...'.
Amend the Croskell (Employment) Precinct Structure Plan consistent with the VPA Final Day version (Document 169) to amend the 'Place-based guidelines' description to:
'The PSP Guidelines identify matters that should be addressed by a permit application, and guide how discretion will be exercised by the responsible authority in respect of those matters. The responsible authority may consider an alternative to a guideline if it is satisfied that an application for an alternative achieves the objectives. A guideline may include or reference a plan, table or figure in the PSP.'
The VPA undertake a final check of all Amendment documents to ensure they reflect the final Croskell (Employment) Precinct Structure Plan and Croskell (Employment) Contributions Plan and the Committee's recommendations for document changes.
To reduce the electronic size of this document, Appendix A has been removed from this version of the report. Contact Planning Panels Victoria to obtain a complete copy of the report.
To reduce the electronic size of this document, Appendix B has been removed from this version of the report. Contact Planning Panels Victoria to obtain a complete copy of the report.
Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action (Planning and Environment Assessment)
Urban Development Institute of Australia (Victoria)
Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action (Victorian Desalination Project)
Fouz Superannuation Pty Ltd, Yusuf Property Pty Ltd and Fouz Investments Pty Ltd
Department of Transport and Planning (for Head, Transport for Victoria)
James Lofting assisted by Sonia Turnbull of Russell Kennedy and Richard Overall of the VPA who called evidence from Hamish Allan of Terramatrix on Bushfire
Terry Montebello and Amelia Hunter (at Directions Hearing) of Maddocks
Greg Tobin assisted by Aaron Shrimpton of Harwood Andrews who called evidence from Warick Bishop of Water Technology on drainage
Fouz Superannuation Pty Ltd, Yusuf Property Pty Ltd and Fouz Investments Pty Ltd
Emma Peppler of Counsel instructed by Eliza Minney of Best Hooper, who called evidence from:
Tim Peggie of Ethos Urban appeared for Galileo in relation to LP-04 and the north-south shared use path on Parcel 14
Peter O'Farrell KC and Sean McArdle of Counsel instructed by Eliza Minney of Best Hooper, who called evidence from:
Nick Tweedie SC (Tom Ellicott of Counsel at Directions Hearing) and Jordan Wright instructed by Rhodie Anderson of Rigby Cooke Lawyers, who called evidence from:
Susan Brennan SC and Rupert Watters of Counsel instructed by Ellen Tarasenko of Polis Legal, who called evidence from:
Paul Chiappi of Counsel instructed by Marshal Melbourne Pty Ltd (Clydie Brewer at Directions Hearing) who called evidence from:
The Committee's Terms of Reference provide [Committee's emphasis]:
The referral letter of 23 December 2024 identified the following [Committee's emphasis]:
In accordance with clause 12 of the terms of reference for the Committee (July 2020) and delegation provided to the VPA, I am writing to refer unresolved submissions relating to the Croskell (Employment) PSP, Croskell (Employment) Infrastructure Contributions Plan and draft Amendment for advice.
I enclose all submissions received in relation to the draft Amendment and a submissions summary table, which provides an analysis and current status of all issues raised (resolved or unresolved) by each submission. The Committee's advice is only requested in relation to the issues in Table 1.
In accordance with clause 4 of the terms of reference, the VPA has identified key issues it is seeking the Committee to focus its advice on to assist with streamlining the Committee's assessment and hearing process:
In relation to unresolved submissions the referral letter identified:
The VPA will continue to seek to resolve matters with submitters, including the submissions that are not contained in Table 1, and will advise the Committee and any parties if further matters are resolved, prior to and during the Hearing.
All submissions were referred to the Committee along with a spreadsheet which summarised submissions, included a VPA response, issue status ('resolved', 'unresolved', 'pending') and identified submissions to be referred to the Committee.
On 23 January 2025 the Committee sought clarification from the VPA (D4) regarding:
On 23 January 2025 the VPA advised (D5) and later confirmed at the Directions Hearing that the Committee to limit its advice to the key matters identified in Table 1.
In relation to the status of submissions the VPA advised:
The Committee's draft directions proposed that VPA provide a Day 1 version of draft Amendment documents by 24 February 2025. At the Directions Hearing Spring Lodge Farms P/L (Spring Lodge) requested that the Day 1 documents be produced earlier. The VPA advised that it was unable to produce the Day 1 documents earlier in part because some issues were still being resolved and further information was anticipated from Melbourne Water and the CFA. The VPA was not opposed to providing a consolidated table of proposed changes earlier.
The Committee acknowledges that under its Terms of Reference the referral letter can limit the matters to be considered by the Committee. The referral letter however includes a contradiction between the paragraphs limiting the Committee's advice to Table 1 matters and the earlier paragraph which refers all unresolved submissions to the Committee for its advice.
The Committee observes that there were many unresolved submission issues not included in the Table 1 issues. The Committee was concerned that excluding consideration of issues outside those in Table 1 given this contradiction could give rise to issues of procedural fairness and natural justice. It is also unclear whether some issues identified by the VPA as 'resolved' have actually been resolved (that is withdrawn or resolution confirmed by a submitter) or a resolved change has resulted in an issue for another landowner or submitter.
In response to these concerns the Committee advised parties that it would conduct the Hearing and provide its advice to VPA in a manner which:
Given this focus the Committee considered it necessary for submissions and evidence dealing with matters outside the Table 1 issues structured to deal with the Table 1 issues and then 'other issues'.
In relation to Day 1 documentation the Committee considered it important that parties have a clear understanding of the VPAs initial proposed changes early to enable decisions to be made on whether to call experts and determine what issues remained unresolved. The Committee identified several drafting issues with the draft UGZ16, ICO4 and SUZ8 that could be reviewed as part of the Day 1 document versions.
The Committee issued the following directions for the VPA to provide:
includes any changes in response to a review of the documents, including against the initial drafting issues identified by the Committee at the Directions Hearing and consideration against the Practitioner's Guide to Victorian Planning Schemes and the Ministerial Direction on Form and Content of Planning Schemes.
VPA must file its Part A (Background and context) submission by 12 noon on Wednesday, 19 February 2025 that includes:
e) a summary of the issues raised in submissions, including an explanation of which (if any) of those issues have been resolved and how.
e) Identifies the status of any unresolved or pending submissions
The Committee issued the following direction to parties:
Written submissions must be structured in a manner that:
sets out the position in relation to the relevant Table 1 issue theme
sets out the position in response to 'Other' matters that relate to an issue theme but do not clearly fall within the focus elements of that theme
includes an 'Other issues' section dealing with submission issues outside the Table 1 issues
clearly sets out document changes sought.
Oral submission presentations are to focus on the referral Table 1 issues and briefly summarise positions in relation to 'Other issues'. The Committee will take the written submission content on these issues as read and will ask for clarification on matters that are unclear.
Evidence-in-chief should be no longer than 30 minutes for evidence related to the referral Theme issues. It should focus on opinions relating to the relevant themes and not on issues outside those themes. The Committee will ask for clarification where the evidence on other matters is unclear. For evidence not directly related to the referral Table 1 issue themes evidence-in-chief should be limited to 10 minutes.
For referral Table 1 issues a party, advocate and the Committee may question an expert witness. Cross examination must focus on the Table 1 issues and be conducted in an efficient manner. For evidence on matters outside the referral Table 1 issue there will be no cross examination, and questions will be limited to clarification of opinions.Table 19 summarises the unresolved issues for the parties.
Table 19 Party unresolved issues at the commencement of the Hearing
MAB, AVA, Spring Lodge, Melbourne Water, Wagstaff, Galileo
Galileo, Fouz Group, Spring Lodge, Wagstaff, Galileo
Galileo, Melbourne Water, Spring Lodge, Fouz Group, MAB
The Committee has been asked for specific advice in relation to a site (Parcel 20) with identified cultural heritage values. While the Committee understands that the Bunurong Land Council Aboriginal Corporation (BLCAC) has been involved in the preparation of informative Aboriginal cultural heritage investigative work, it did not make a submission. The Committee therefore does not have the benefit of their view about the adequacy of the proposed planning mechanism to recognise areas of Aboriginal cultural heritage.
Committee asked VPA to confirm any discussions with the Corporation including potential involvement in the hearing.
the VPA consulted early with the Bunurong Land Council Aboriginal Corporation (Corporation), Bunurong elders and representatives and has sought to encourage the participation of the Corporation and elders in the amendment process, but has been unsuccessful. The VPA will rely on the background documents to the Amendment to support its submissions on cultural heritage and will provide an outline of its consultation with the Corporation and its position in its Part A submissions. The VPA continues to engage with the Corporation and has advised it of the upcoming hearing dates as recommended by PPV.
On 5 February 2025 the Committee wrote to BLCAC inviting them to participate in the Hearing. The Committee further directed the VPA's opening submission include an update on any further discussions with the Bunurong Land Council Aboriginal Corporation particularly in relation to the outcomes proposed by the draft Amendment.
BLCAC did not take up the Committee's invitation to participate in the Hearing.
At the Directions Hearing the VPA and Melbourne Water advised that:
the Proposed Drainage Strategy Optimised Concept Design Changes Report, 9 December 2024 had been prepared post-submissions and was to be updated with a Version 3 which would be provided to the parties
Melbourne Water and VPA further advised that they were shortly meeting to further resolve outstanding drainage issues. The Committee was of the view that it was critical for parties to advised of the latest drainage scheme and extent of Melbourne Water's outstanding drainage issues before the Hearing commences and drainage evidence was called.
The VPA must provide the following information by 12 noon on 7 February 2025:
Proposed Drainage Strategy Optimised Concept Design Changes Report, 9 December 2024 (The Committee notes this version will be superseded by a Revision C of the Drainage Services Scheme to be provided by Melbourne Water)
The VPA in conjunction with Melbourne Water must provide a summary of resolved and unresolved drainage issues by 12 noon on 24 February 2025 and any additional Drainage Strategy Optimised Concept Design Changes.
These documents were provided and circulated to parties.
The VPA's response to submissions table provided to the Committee identified that:
The VPA is finalising its approach to bushfire planning with other government agencies and will provide a definitive position prior to the Direction's Hearing in February 2025 - including the assumptions around re-vegetation characteristics in drainage assets.
At the Directions Hearing the VPA advised that it was waiting further bushfire advice and continuing discussions with Fire Services Victoria.
The Committee directed that the VPA provide an update on any changes to the PSP bushfire requirements and guidelines as part of its opening submission following discussions with Fire Services Victoria.
Spring Lodge on 29 January 2025 requested the Committee direct Wagstaff Cranbourne P/L (Wagstaff) to provide 15 documents and sets of abattoir operational information it said were necessary for it to undertake odour and buffer assessments and for the Committee to fully consider buffer issues. It also requested the deferral of the consideration of odour buffer issues for two months from the receipt of this material. The request for deferral was not supported by the VPA or Wagstaff at the Directions Hearing and the request for documents was broadly opposed by Wagstaff for a range of reasons.
A panel may require a planning authority or other body or person to produce any documents relating to any matter being considered by the panel under this Act which it reasonably requires.
This section also applies to an advisory committee (s152).
The Committee noted advice at the Hearing that some of these documents were in the process of being obtained from either Council or the EPA. The Committee accepted that some of the information sought from Wagstaff may contain information that is commercial in confidence or otherwise of a sensitive nature. It further noted that Wagstaff indicated at the Directions Hearing they were not opposed to providing some operational information to be identified through direct discussions with Spring Lodge. The Committee was not satisfied that the material sought was documentation that would assist it in its task or would restrict the ability for Spring Lodge to make submissions or provide evidence in relation to buffer and sensitive use issues to the Committee. The Committee did not support deferral of odour issues to a later date given the VPAs position on buffers was known to Spring Lodge in December 2024.
Spring Lodge on the 11 February 2025 made a further request for the Committee to direct the provision of documents from Wagstaff on the basis this material was required as a matter of procedural fairness to undertake an assessment of the appropriate buffers.
On 12 February 2025 the Committee directed that by 12pm on 14 February 2025:
Spring Lodge's response identified documents it has now obtained from its Appendix A list and identified a narrowed list of operational information and a single document it said were required at a minimum to undertake an odour assessment. It further identified that if the Committee were not mindful to support its request that it sought to call an additional odour witness.
Wagstaff advised by 21 February 2025 it would "provide some information by that will hopefully provide some assistance to Spring Lodge". It further noted the (post-exhibition) separation distance assessments provided in the GHD report that accompanied Wagstaff submission and the LCA reports commissioned by the VPA which support the VPA's proposed separation distances for the Wagstaff site:
The Committee confirmed its earlier position that it does not require the full range of documents identified by Spring Lodge in its Appendix A in order to consider the strategic buffer and sensitive use issues before it. It did acknowledge that there were some operational details (that were not sensitive) which may be of assistance to Spring Lodge in presenting evidence or submissions to the Committee to respond to the VPA's proposed amended buffer approach. The Committee accommodated Spring Lodge's request to call an additional expert and extended the time for circulation of odour evidence accordingly.
While the Committee did not direct Wagstaff to provide the requested information or documents, it encouraged Wagstaff to provide the operational information it undertook to provide to Spring Lodge.
Wagstaff provided operational information on 28 February 2025 (D66) and usefully set out the sequence of communications regarding information requests between Spring Lodge, Wagstaff and the Committee. The Committee extended an opportunity for buffer and planning related evidence to be circulated on a later date and for Spring Lodge to call an additional expert.
Neither the VPA or Wagstaff supported an odour expert conclave. The Committee considered there was little utility in an odour expert conclave where:
The EPA was subsequently invited by the Committee after presenting its Hearing submission to provide a written response to the odour evidence and requested to advise how SUAs were to be calculated and from where the WWTP separation distance should be measured (D120). The EPA's response (D144) was circulated to the parties before the odour buffer experts were called.
The VPA advised the Committee that BLCAC did not support the release of these documents on a restricted or confidential basis.
The Committee considered that to the degree these documents inform the PSP approach to dealing with land Parcel 20, being unable to view the full version of the Cultural Values Interpretation Strategy makes it difficult to attach significant weight to the Strategy and for the landowner to reasonably respond to the issue.
On 5 February 2025 the Committee wrote to BLCAC requesting the documents be provided to the Committee and landowner advocate and their cultural heritage expert only on a confidential basis and identifying a number of ways in which the information in these culturally sensitive documents could be managed.
BLCAC did not respond to the Committee's request. The VPA subsequently advised the Committee it had been contact by BLCAC who advised:
The VPA provided via the author a less redacted version of the Impact Assessment (D73). The Committee agreed to this being provided to Fouz Group and Council.
The Committee advised parties that it intended to undertake its site inspection unaccompanied and from the public realm but invited parties to nominate sites to be included in the inspection. Several parties identified sites which were included in the inspection itinerary.
On 11 February 2025 Wagstaff invited the Committee to inspect the Wagstaff abattoir land at 1500 Thompsons Road, Cranbourne. The Committee advised parties on the 13 February 2025 that including an accompanied inspection of the site as part of its wider precinct unaccompanied inspection would be of value to the Committee's understanding of buffer issues. Given the operational and safety logistics identified by Wagstaff the Committee's inspection was limited to two representatives each of:
The accompanied portion of the inspection was conducted on 18 February 2025. No parties made submissions to the Committee about the merits of the draft Amendment and PSP or about submission issues. Parties were only permitted to point out matters of fact and answer the Committee's questions with factual responses.
SR-01 expanded westwards.
The Croskell (Employment) PSP includes land set aside for development services scheme assets. Should the land required for the delivery of these assets be reduced post-gazettal of this PSP - that land area will then convert to the underlying applied zone of the adjoining land under Schedule 16 of the Urban Growth Zone and the responsible authority will determine the developability of this land. Any increases in NDHA are subject to Section 4.2 of the Croskell (Employment) Infrastructure Contributions Plan - which sets out the process for changes to the land use budget.
After 5th paragraph insert: 'The PSP area sits within the broader Ti-Tree Creek Development Services Scheme Area (DSS). The DSS area discharges generally in a north-easterly and then north-westerly direction into Greaves Road Retarding Basin before entering Hallam Valley Contour Drain. The PSP relies upon, and will assist in the implementation of, the DSS.'
Inclusion of arborist assessed significant trees from Plan 8.
The proponent delivering Casey Fields Boulevard over the high voltage transmission utilities easement and Victorian Desalination Project (VDP) infrastructure must:
to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.
Changes to NDA with job numbers to be updated in collaboration with Geografia post-hearing.
to the satisfaction of South East Water, Melbourne Water and the responsible authority."
"The final layout, boundaries and design of drainage, flood protection, stormwater quality treatment infrastructure, and associated paths, boardwalks, bridges, and planting must:
to the satisfaction of Melbourne Water and the responsible authority".
"Stormwater conveyance, storage and treatment must be designed in accordance with the relevant Development Services Scheme and generally in accordance with Plan 7 Public realm and water, such that:
to the satisfaction of Melbourne Water and the responsible authority."
(R25): "The proponent delivering any drainage infrastructure over the Victorian Desalination Project (VDP) infrastructure within the high voltage electricity easement must:
(R26): "The proponent delivering any drainage, transport or other infrastructure over the water supply pipe track shown in Plan 5 Utility Easement must:
Updated to amend size of LP-03 and add LP-04 and LP-05
Updated to reflect Optimised DSS Rev C and reduced indicative setbacks as agreed with Melbourne Water and FRV.
Updated following the DSS Staging workshop on 5 February 2025.
Updated to reflect the Optimised DSS Rev C February 2025.
Plan 12 updated extent of SUP-02, deleted old SUP-04 and re-named previous SUP-05 as SUP-04.
New Appendix including Plan 14 showing alternative LP-03 location
Remove MW land/DSS asset under residential charge areas
Deleted SUP-03 (VDP crossing, shared user path) and re-named SUP-05 to SUP-04
For the purposes of this ICP, if the net developable area for any specific parcel ID as set out in Table xx is increased as a result of changes to the PSP design and/or land use variation - the responsible authority may require the land owner to enter into an agreement under section 173 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 for payment of the Monetary Component for the additional net developable area at the ICP rates applicable at the time of any permit application.
Amend to include correct Department name - 'Department of Families, Fairness and Housing (DFFH)'.
PED-01 extended westwards to link in with existing North-South footpath west of Narre Warren Cranbourne Road.
Amend date of document from 'September 2024' to 'January 2025'
Revise Table of contents updated to reflect updated NVPP
Amend 'Table 2 - Assessment pathway and reason for the assessment pathway' to reflect change in extent of vegetation considered and updated NVRR
Amend paragraph identifying that no patches of native vegetation or scattered trees are identified for retention.
Amend 'Table 3 Native vegetation to be removed' to reflect additional patches of vegetation to be removed.
Amend 'Table 4 Table 4 Total offset requirements for NVPP area' to reflect change in vegetation to be retained/removed following updated Biodiversity Report and revised classification of native vegetation.
Amend paragraph on offset statement to reflect change to in vegetation to be retained/removed following updated NVRR and reclassification of native vegetation.
Delete section (inclusive of Table 5 - Native vegetation to be retained' to reflect no native vegetation is proposed to be retained in response to submissions and support from DEECA and Council.
Amend paragraph relating to management responsibilities to reflect that no native vegetation is to be retained outside MSA areas and to outline obligations under Catchment and Land Protection Act 1994.
Updated Plan 2 - Existing Conditions and Plan 3 Native Vegetation Retention and Removal to reflect vegetation considered under this NVPP and that no native vegetation is proposed to be retained.
Amend documents date from 'September 2024' to 'February 2025'
Update Plan 1 to Schedule 16 of Clause 37.07 (Place Based Plan (PBP)) updated to be consistent with PSP plan set.
Amend schedule to delete redundant reference 'incorporated' where referring to 'incorporated Croskell (Employment) Precinct Structure Plan (PSP)'.
Amend specific provision 'Dwellings on a lot less than 300 square metres ' to reflect updated SHLC provisions gazetted under GC206.
Amend HO137 to reflect updated Statement of Significance: "Springmont" date to 'November 2024'
Updated supplementary levy to align with updated ICP.
Updated ICP land contribution percentage to align with updated ICP.
Update map to change land owned by Melbourne Water as PUZ1.
Revised to remove reference to dead/removed trees and windmill
The VPA submitted that the draft Amendment is supported by relevant planning policy and strategies in the Planning Policy Framework, which the Committee has summarised below.
Victorian planning objectives and infrastructure contributions
The Explanatory Report details how the draft Amendment will assist in implementing the following objectives in section 4 of the PE Act:
(a) to provide for the fair, orderly, economic and sustainable use, and development of land
(b) to provide for the protection of natural and man-made resources and the maintenance of ecological processes and genetic diversity
(c) to secure a pleasant, efficient and safe working, living and recreational environment for all Victorians and visitors to Victoria
(d) to conserve and enhance those buildings, areas or other places which are of scientific, aesthetic, architectural or historical interest, or otherwise of special cultural value
(e) to protect public utilities and other assets and enable the orderly provision and co‑ordination of public utilities and other facilities for the benefit of the community
(f) to balance the present and future interests of all Victorians.
Part 3AB of the PE Act addresses Infrastructure Contributions and includes:
Without limiting section 6, a planning scheme may include one or more infrastructure contributions plans for the purposes of imposing infrastructure contributions to fund -
(a) the provision of works, services and facilities
(i) in the ICP plan area; and
(ii) outside of the ICP plan area, if the works, services or facilities are essential to, and the need for which is generated by, the development of land in the ICP plan area;
(b) the provision of works, services and facilities
(i) in the ICP plan area; and
(ii) outside of the ICP plan area that is essential to, and the need for which is generated by, the development of land in the ICP plan area; and
(c) the reasonable costs and expenses incurred by the planning authority in preparing the infrastructure plan and the related precinct structure plan relating or strategic plan.
Table 20 provides an overview of relevant Planning Policy Framework and Local Planning Policy Framework based on the draft Amendment Explanatory Report.
Table 20 State and Local Planning Policy Framework
Planning is to anticipate and respond to the needs of communities by providing zoned land and infrastructure for housing, employment, and amenities, while promoting sustainability, health, diversity, climate adaptation, and preventing environmental and land use conflicts.
The PSP plans for orderly and coordinated urban growth by providing residential and industrial land with access to existing and planned amenities, services and infrastructure, including the planning for a local town centre within the network of existing and planned centres in the region.
12.01-2S (Native vegetation management): To ensure that there is no net loss to biodiversity as a result of the removal, destruction or lopping of native vegetation.
The PSP identifies vegetation to be retained and areas of vegetation that are appropriate for removal to accommodate development. The draft amendment will streamline the process for native vegetation removal provided it is in accordance with the PSP and Native vegetation Precinct Plan. The NVPP applies to approximately 45.6 hectares of land in the precinct. The remainder of the precinct, which comprises approximately 271.6 hectares, is inside the Melbourne Strategic Assessment and not subject to this NVPP.
The PSP has responded to the requirements of Clause 13.02 (Bushfire) of the Planning Policy Framework through a combination of defendable space at the development edge and construction management requirements as described earlier in this report.
The Amendment responds to this clause through the application of the EAO and provisions in the UGZ16.
Separation Guidelines identified as a relevant policy document.
Separation Guidelines identified as a relevant policy document.
The PSP provides for the consideration of noise and air quality impacts from existing sources, such as arterial roads, by requiring proponents to demonstrate the appropriateness of a proposed use relative to noise and air quality impacts that may be experienced on-site. Decision guidelines are also included to allow due consideration of these issues as part of permit applications for future development.
Planning should promote housing diversity, sustainability and affordable housing by ensuring infrastructure is provided and encouraging access to services, walkability, and proximity to public transport, schools and public open space.
The PSP plans for residential land of varying densities, with access to services, employment opportunities, community infrastructure and open spaces.
Planning should provide land and resolve land use conflicts to support economic growth.
The PSP will also provide for up to 6,500 jobs in the long term within commercial and industrial areas that will contribute to an employment hub for the southeast that is conveniently served by major arterial roads.
The PSP plans for an employment precinct which collectively contribute to the local services and employment opportunities available to future and existing residents.
The PSP plans for a transport network that is well-integrated with the existing surrounding network. This includes a north-south connector road network that provides for an efficient movement network across the precinct, shared paths and bicycle and pedestrian paths.
The Amendment will implement a Infrastructure Contributions Plan (ICP) collect developer contributions to fund infrastructure through the PSP.
The PSP will facilitate the development of the land for residential purposes and promote a range of typologies to suit varying household types and lifecycle needs. Community facilities and an active open space area are also planned to provide future residential communities an opportunity to participate in leisure activities.
The Amendment supports the protection, conservation and enhancement of the natural environment.
The PSP seeks to improve Casey's competitive edges through the creation of a commercial and industrial precinct which will provide further employment opportunities for residents of Casey.
To develop a highly accessible city structure that ensures people and businesses have easy access to goods, services, jobs and facilities.
The PSP provides a high degree of accessibility to goods, services, jobs and facilities. The PSP also identifies higher-order roads needed to allow for the efficient movement of people and goods through the precincts and include guidance on local road typologies and design to provide for sustainable transport.
Provides strategic direction for land within the Cranbourne East Local Area Plan.
The PSP will enable the development of an employment precinct supported by new residential community.
Plan Melbourne 2017-2050 aims to promote the sustainable growth of Melbourne and regional Victoria. Plan Melbourne is structured around seven Outcomes, which set out the aims of the plan. The Outcomes are supported by Directions and Policies, which outline how the Outcomes will be achieved.
The draft Amendment Explanatory Report provided the following summary of the relevant Plan Melbourne Outcomes, Directions and Policies:
Outcome 1: Melbourne is a productive city that attracts investment, supports innovation and creates jobs
The draft amendment seeks to enable the development of the Croskell (Employment) precinct for commercial development, consistent with its designation in the MICLUP as containing a regionally significant commercial area. The precinct is highly suitable for future commercial development due to its proximity to the principal freight network and existing urban areas.
The PSP provides land designated for commercial and industrial development and a total projection of approximately 6,500 jobs. These commercial and industrial areas are located to be generally consistent with MICLUP.
Outcome 2: Melbourne provides housing choice in locations close to jobs and services.
A range of housing densities have been planned across the Croskell (Employment) precinct as guided by the PSP, including higher densities in walkable catchments.
The PSP includes objectives that seek to ensure subdivision and development occurs in a sequenced and staged approach and requires that each lot be appropriately serviced.
In general, and as intended by the PSP process, the draft amendment will streamline the process for applications generally in accordance with the approved PSP. The UGZ16 facilitates use of the 'Small Lot Housing Code' (SLHC), which streamlines the process for development of single dwellings on lots less than 300 square metres in size by removing the need for a planning permit.
Outcome 3: Melbourne has an integrated transport system that connects people to jobs and services and goods to market.
The PSP facilitates an employment precinct adjacent Thompsons Road, which forms part of Melbourne's Principal Freight Network. The development provides for bus capable roads and higher density residential development to enable the creation of public transport routes in the future.
Outcome 4: Melbourne is a distinctive and liveable city with quality design and amenity.
Cultural Heritage Management Plans to protect values are required prior to subdivision permits being issued in in an area of cultural heritage sensitivity, as defined by the Aboriginal Heritage Regulations 2007.
An Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment and Aboriginal Cultural Values Assessment has been prepared for the precinct, which has informed the preparation of the PSP. The Aboriginal Cultural Values Assessment was prepared by the Bunurong Land Council as the Registered Aboriginal Party for the area.
Outcome 5: Melbourne is a city of inclusive, vibrant and healthy neighbourhoods and liveable city with quality design and amenity.
The place-based plan identifies a large employment precinct supported by residential and mixed use precincts. Collectively these will create neighbourhoods with varying densities and a mix of uses.
The PSP identifies a range of social infrastructure to be delivered across government agencies to support the new and existing residential communities.
Providing for new population growth and employment growth in Croskell will add to the economic well-being of the community and provide further employment opportunities to existing residents of nearby suburbs. The provision of new goods and services and an increase in demand can help facilitate local jobs and economic activity.
Additional opportunities for recreation and social groups will also emerge as a result of the provision of new public open space and recreation facilities.
The draft amendment sets aside approximately 127 hectares of open space including 12 hectares of local sports reserve. The PSP also sets aside 3.5 hectares of local parks. Local parks and active open space are located within reasonable walking distance of all planned residential areas, and well-located throughout the future employment precinct.
Outcome 6: Melbourne is a sustainable and resilient city
An integrated water management strategy is being developed that will manage urban development flows across the PSP area.
The integrated water management strategy will manage urban development flows across the PSP area, and clearly define constructed and existing storm-water management assets.
The PSP provides an integrated and accessible public open space network offering attractive active and passive recreation that will cater to future residents and employees.
The integrated water management strategy will manage urban development flows across the PSP in accordance with the applicable water management standards and regulations.
The Growth Corridor Plans were released by the Minister for Planning in June 2012. The plans seek to accommodate a substantial amount of Melbourne's future housing and employment land supply over the next 30 to 40 years by providing a framework to guide the planning of new communities in each corridor.
The Croskell (Employment) PSP area is located in the SEGCP, which includes land in the municipalities of Casey and Cardinia. When drafted the SEGCP area was projected to accommodate a population of approximately 230,000 people and has the capacity to provide between 86,000 jobs.
The SEGCP is a policy reference document in the Casey Planning Scheme and provides broad direction for directing Melbourne's Southeastern metropolitan region's growth through land use and development. The SEGCP identifies the Croskell (Employment) PSP area as predominantly 'business with residential'.
The SEGCP identifies the following broad features within and immediately surrounding the Croskell (Employment) PSP area:
Melbourne Industrial and Commercial Land Use Plan
The MICLUP is a policy reference in the Casey Planning Scheme. It provides an overview of current and future needs for industrial and commercial land across metropolitan Melbourne and puts in place a planning framework to support state and local government to plan for future employment and industry needs more effectively, and better inform future strategic directions.
The MICLUP outlines that growth area "business and residential" precincts identified in the Growth Corridor Plans are considered to have regional significance and have the capacity to provide for a range of employment opportunities.
The MICLUP identified that there is about 0.55 million square metres estimated additional commercial floor space required in the Southern region from 2016 to 2031 to support population and jobs growth in this growth area.
The MICLUP sets out a framework for identifying future industrial and commercial land development. For regionally significant commercial areas:
These include commercial areas and places identified in Plan Melbourne as major activity centres as well as growth area business with residential precincts identified in Growth Corridor Plans. They should provide for and support access to a wide range of goods and services, including office and retail development, and provide for a wide range of employment opportunities. They are expected to deliver more intensive forms of employment uses including office and commercial activity.
Growth area business and residential precincts are identified in Growth Corridor Plans and are considered as places of regional significance able to provide for a wide range of employment opportunities. These areas are expected to deliver more intensive forms of employment uses including service industries, office and commercial activity, research and development and some large format retailing. The precincts may also include residential, cultural, recreational and civic uses as part of a broader mix of activities supporting the overall employment activities. These precincts should have a primary role for economic and employment purposes with no less than 50 per cent of the land in each precinct being allocated for these purposes.
The subject land is located within the Plan's Southern region as one of two 'Regionally Significant Commercial Areas - Future Growth Area Business with Residential Precinct'.
Victoria's Housing Statement: The Decade Ahead 2024-2034 (Department of Premier and Cabinet, 2023)
Victoria's Housing Statement: The Decade Ahead 2024-2034 plans to increase housing supply and affordability in Victoria, with a view to building 800,000 homes over the next decade. It includes reforms to streamline development approvals and promote affordable housing near key infrastructure. The Croskell (Employment) PSP is identified as one of twenty-one priority planning projects (industrial) to contribute towards the sustainable supply of greenfield land.
This plan outlines the long-term vision for the community, aiming to create a more connected, bold, and resilient community. It focuses on collaboration with the community, stakeholders, and other levels of government.
Casey Council Economic Development Strategy 2021-25 (2021)
This strategy provides an insight into the current and emerging conditions of economic development in Casey, strategic opportunities, and risks. Casey's current economy is reliant on a few dominant sectors, mainly driven by population serving industries, such as Health and Social Assistance, Retail Trade, Construction, and Education and Training. The Strategy is a policy document in the Casey Planning Scheme.
The Housing Strategy (Version 5, City of Casey, updated 2019) identifies that the City of Casey is one of the fastest growing regions in Australia with approximately 313,521 (as at 2016 Census) and forecast to increase to approximately 549,190 residents by 2041.
The Housing Strategy focuses on housing types that support the changing and growing community, whilst also seeking to ensure that new dwellings are appropriately.
Casey will offer a diversity of housing to meet the needs of its community, now and in the future. Residents will be able to find housing that suits their current and future needs in terms of type, tenure, size and cost. More diverse housing such as townhouses, units and apartments will be located with convenient access to shops, services, transport and open space, where it is easy to walk or cycle. Housing diversity will create a more self-sufficient city so that residents do not have to move outside Casey to find the housing they want.
The City of Casey's Housing Strategy identifies locations suitable for different rates of housing change (minimal, incremental and substantial change). The Strategy directs more intensive development (substantial change) into areas with easy access to existing services and high frequency transport options, and in-centre areas. It encourages moderate development (incremental change) in areas with good access to activity centres and close to strategic transport routes.
The Housing Strategy contains objectives, strategies and actions to assist in achieving the vision building on the foundation of the Municipal Strategic Statement, the Council Plan and key State Government strategies, policies and directions, such as Plan Melbourne: 2017-2050.
The residential areas identified within the PSP area align with the incremental change areas (GRZ1) identified in the Housing Strategy.
A common zone and overlay purpose is to implement the Planning Policy Framework and Local Planning Policy Framework. Table 21 includes the relevant zone and overlay provisions (as summarised from the Practitioner's Guide).
This zone is applied to areas suitable for a mixed-use function, including a range of residential, commercial, industrial and other uses. It is suitable for areas identified for residential development at increased densities including urban renewal and strategic redevelopment sites. A schedule to the zone may specify a maximum building height and local requirements for specified clause 54 and clause 55 standards.
This zone is applied to areas where housing development of three storeys exists or is planned for in locations offering good access to services and transport.
A mandatory maximum building height of 11 metres and three storeys applies to a dwelling or residential building. A schedule to the zone can be used to:
This zone is designed to be applied as a buffer between the Industrial 1 Zone or Industrial 2 Zone and residential areas, if necessary. It may also be applied to industrial areas where special consideration is required because of industrial traffic using residential roads, unusual noise or other emission impacts, or to avoid inter-industry conflict. A schedule to the zone allows the maximum floor space to be limited for office use.
The zone provides for some retailing, including convenience shops, small-scale supermarkets and associated shops in appropriate locations.
This zone encourages offices and associated business and commercial services together with appropriate industry and retailing. A small-scale supermarket (up to 1800 square metres) is allowed without a permit on land located within the City of Greater Geelong or within an urban growth boundary in metropolitan Melbourne. Any supermarket in a rural area requires a permit to ensure the protection of established centres in regional towns. A supermarket and any associated shops must adjoin or have access to a main road
This zone encourages the retention of productive agricultural land and encourages the retention of employment and population to support rural communities. The zone provides a minimum lot size of 40 hectares unless an alternative is specified in a schedule to the zone. The creation of smaller lots is allowed under particular circumstances.
This zone identifies land in the transport system. State-managed transport infrastructure is designated Transport Zone 1. A road declared under the Road Management Act 2004 is designated Transport Zone 2 and significant municipal roads are designated Transport Zone 3. Other transport infrastructure is designated Transport Zone 4.
This zone provides for the use of land for specific purposes. The purposes and the land use requirements are specified in a schedule to the zone. This allows detailed land use requirements to be prescribed for a particular site. Development conditions (where they are necessary) are still set out in a permit rather than the planning scheme. Exemptions from notification and review can be provided in the zone if desired. The Ministerial Direction Form and Content of Planning Schemes includes some specific requirements for this zone. Planning Practice Note 3 - Applying the Special Use Zone explains the operation of this zone in more detail.
This zone is applied to urban land where the primary function of the land is to carry or store floodwater. It applies to high hazard areas with high flow velocities, where impediment of floodwater can cause significant changes in flood flows and adversely affect flooding in other areas. Where land is subject only to inundation and low velocities, the Land Subject to Inundation Overlay can be used. The views and flooding information of the relevant floodplain management authority must be considered when applying this zone.
This zone sets out the requirements for the development of new residential and employment precincts on previously undeveloped land. It requires the establishment of a precinct structure plan before a growth area can be developed and subdivided. The zone includes provisions to ensure that any new use and development does not prejudice the future urban use and development of the land where a precinct structure plan is yet to be applied.
Where a precinct structure plan is in place, the zone provides for specific zone provisions to be applied by way of a schedule.
Any heritage place with a recognised citation should be included in the schedule to this overlay. In addition, any heritage place identified in local heritage studies can also be included, provided the significance of the place can be shown to justify application of the overlay.
The documentation for each place must include a statement of significance that establishes the importance of the place. The statement of significance must form part of an incorporated document and be specified in the schedule to the Heritage Overlay. Relevant guidance is included in PPN01.
This overlay is used where the form of development is appropriately controlled by a plan that satisfies the responsible authority as there is no public approval process for the plan. A planning scheme amendment is not required to amend a plan established by a Development Plan Overlay.
This overlay applies to either rural or urban land in riverine areas that are subject to inundation but are not part of the primary floodway. The overlay is also applied to areas subject to coastal flooding, including areas where the flood risk will increase as a result of climate change. The identification of these areas should be established in consultation with the relevant floodplain management authority.
This overlay is applied to land identified, known or reasonably suspected of being contaminated for which certain obligations under the EP Act have not been met. Refer to MD1 and PPN30 for further direction on how the overlay is applied.
This overlay identifies areas where a development contributions plan is in place. The schedule to the overlay summarises the development contributions required. A more detailed incorporated document and local content within the Planning Policy Framework will usually be associated with the overlay.
This overlay identifies the area where an infrastructure contributions plan applies for the purpose of imposing contributions for the provision of infrastructure. The schedule to the overlay summarises the development contributions required. A more detailed incorporated document will be associated with the overlay. The Infrastructure Contributions Overlay is used to implement any new infrastructure contributions plan into a planning scheme.
Ministerial Direction on the Form and Content of Planning Schemes
The Ministerial Direction sets out the layout and mandatory information that must be included in a planning scheme and also applies to amendments to planning schemes.
Ministerial Direction 1: Potentially Contaminated Land
MD1 applies to potentially contaminated land and seeks to ensure the land is suitable for a use which is proposed to be allowed under a planning scheme amendment and which could be significantly adversely affected by contamination. It includes a definition of potentially contaminated land and requirements that must be met in preparing a planning scheme amendment for potentially contaminated land.
For sensitive land uses, including residential use or use of land as a playground or secondary school, MD1 contains requirements for planning scheme amendments which allow land to be used for a sensitive use, including residential, childcare centre, kindergarten, pre-school centre or primary school, even if ancillary to another use. In preparing the planning scheme amendment the planning authority must comply with one of the following:
It also contains requirements for planning scheme amendments which allow land to be used for agriculture or public open space. Where these uses are allowed on potentially contaminated land, the planning authority must satisfy itself that the land is or will be suitable for that use.
Ministerial Direction 9: Metropolitan Planning Strategy
The Ministerial Direction requires the responsible authority to ensure that planning scheme amendments have regard to the Metropolitan Planning Strategy by setting out necessary requirements.
Ministerial Direction 11: Strategic Assessment of Amendments
The Ministerial Direction requires the responsible authority to ensure a comprehensive strategic evaluation of a planning scheme amendment and the outcomes it produces.
The Ministerial Direction is to manage the provision of sustainable and coordinated urban development in growth areas.
Ministerial Direction 19: Amendments that may result in impacts of the environment, amenity and human health
The Ministerial Direction recognises the preventative value of EPA's early involvement in strategic land use planning and requires planning authorities to seek the views of the EPA in the preparation of planning scheme reviews and amendments that could results in use of development of land that may result in significant impacts on the environment, amenity and human health due to pollution and waste.
Ministerial Direction on the preparation and content of infrastructure contributions plans and Ministerial reporting requirements for infrastructure contributions plans
The Ministerial Direction is to direct planning authorities in relation to the preparation and content of infrastructure contributions plans and to set out the requirements of the Minister in relation to reports prepared by collecting agencies and development agencies in respect of infrastructure contributions plans.
Planning Practice Note 30: Potentially Contaminated Land
PPN30 identifies the recommended assessment mechanism for a planning proposal (see Figure 25).
Planning Practice Note 46: Strategic Assessment Guidelines, September 2022
Provides a consistent framework for preparing and evaluating a proposed planning scheme amendment.
Planning Practice Note 92: Managing buffers for land use compatibility (PPN92)
PPN92 identifies the importance of strategic planning in the management of buffers:
As reflected in the Planning Policy Framework, the priority when planning land use and development is avoiding land use conflict in the first place. This involves understanding where existing industry and other uses with potential off-site impacts are and ensuring current zoning appropriately protects operators and surrounding communities. It also means making sure that sensitive uses and future urban growth are directed away from areas that could be affected by off-site impacts. Strategic planning around uses with potential off-site impacts should consider the capacity or need for future expansion of that use or expected changes to operations. Planning approaches might differ depending on the strategic planning scenario.
In relation to avoiding land use conflicts in greenfield areas it identifies:
Industries and other uses with potential off-site impacts should be clearly identified so they can be considered early in strategic planning processes and in the development of precinct structure plans.
Where incompatible land uses are forecast to be transitioned out of an area, implementation should be staged to ensure land use conflict can be effectively managed before transition has finished. This should be outlined in precinct structure plans.
In relation to avoiding land use conflicts in urban renewal areas it identifies:
Understanding the nature of potential off-site impacts, whether noise, dust, odour or other impacts, can help determine what type of controls should be applied...
Land within identified buffers or separation distances should be assessed to determine whether sensitive uses can be supported, including recommendations about managing future development.
The extent of these buffers should be reviewed by the relevant expert agency, based on all available evidence.
Figure 25 Recommended approach to assessing potentially contaminated land
The PSP Guidelines launched by the Victorian Planning Authority in October 2021 provide the framework for preparing Precinct Structure Plans (PSPs). They provide guidance on the following topics:
The Guidelines deal with various technical aspects of preparing PSP, including land use planning, infrastructure provision, and staging of development.
The ICP Guidelines provide that an ICP can impose infrastructure contributions on the development land to:
A standard levy can only be used to fund standard levy allowable items specified in the Ministerial Direction. A standard levy may also be used to fund supplementary levy allowable items if:
A supplementary levy is an additional levy that may be used to fund Ministerial Direction allowable 'non-standard' infrastructure or costs.
The ICP Guidelines set out ICP requirements including for:
The guidelines for the removal, destruction or lopping of native vegetation are incorporated into the Victorian Planning Provisions and all planning schemes in Victoria.
The guidelines set out, and describe the application of Victoria's statewide policy in relation to assessing and compensating for the removal of native vegetation. This includes:
To ensure that there is no net loss to biodiversity as a result of the removal, destruction or lopping of native vegetation. This is achieved through the following three-step approach, in accordance with the Guidelines:
This guideline provides advice on recommended separation distances between industrial land uses that emit odour and/or dust, and sensitive land uses.
Separating incompatible land uses is important. It protects the community from industries and activities that pose health, safety and amenity risks. It also protects industries from incompatible land use and development. Separation distances are often used as a planning tool to manage and mitigate these risks by keeping conflicting land uses apart.
The purpose of this guideline is to support land use and development decisions that:
The decision-making process for considering a separation distance between an odour or dust emitter and sensitive land use is categorised into 3 stages. The guidelines contain a flow chart which describes the decision making process for Stages 1 (Does a recommended separation distance apply?) and 2 (Is the recommended separation distance met?).
The guidelines states that if a proponent wishes to seek a variation of a recommended separation distance for odour from a decision maker a risk assessment should be completed. This entails the proponent:
A Practitioner's Guide to Victorian Planning Schemes Version 1.5, April 2022 (Practitioner's Guide) sets out key guidance to assist practitioners when preparing planning scheme provisions. The guidance seeks to ensure:
a) Croskell (Employment) PSP, September 2024
b) Croskell (Employment) Infrastructure Contributions Plan, September 2024
c) Croskell (Employment) Infrastructure Contributions Plan Cost Estimates, September 2024
d) Infrastructure Contributions Plan Appendix 3, September 2024
e) Croskell (Employment) Precinct Structure Plan and ICP Concept Design and Costs, September-2024
f) Croskell (Employment) Native Vegetation Precinct Plan
g) Amendment schedules, Planning Scheme maps and Statement of Significance (HO137)
h) Croskell (Employment) Precinct Structure Plan Background Report, September 2024
j) Commercial and Industrial Land Needs Assessment and Implementation Plan, Geografia, July 2023
k) Commercial and Industrial Land Needs Assess Addendum, Geografia, July 2024
m) Post Contact Heritage Assessment, EHP, August 2024
n) Integrated Transport Assessment Report, M&P, August 2024
o) Cultural Values Interpretation Strategy, Summary Report, BLCAC, February2024
p) Utility Services Assessment, Part 1, Kleinfelder, April 2024
q) Utility Services Assessment, Part 2, Kleinfelder, April 2024
r) Utility Services Assessment, Part 3, Kleinfelder, April 2024
s) Arboriculture Assessment, ENSPEC, January 2023
t) Biodiversity Assessment, WSP, January 2024
u) Bushfire Development Report, Terramatrix, August 2024
w) Integrated Water Management Plan, ARUP, March 2024
y) Landscape Character Assessment, Part 2, Spiire, December 2022
z) Public Consultation Report
aa) Exhibited Clause 37.01s8 (SUZ8)
bb) Exhibited Clause 37.07s16 (UGZ16)
dd) Exhibited Clause 45.11s4 (ICO4)
ee) Exhibited Clause 52.16 (Native vegetation precinct plan)
ff) Exhibited Clause 52.17 (Native Vegetation)
gg) Exhibited Clause 72.03
hh) Exhibited Clause 72.04
jj) Exhibited Map 11 and 12 UGZ
kk) Exhibited Map 11 and 12 ICO
mm) Exhibited Map 11 D-DCPO
nn) Exhibited Map 11 D-DPO
oo) Explanatory Report
pp) Instruction Sheet
Letter to VPA seeking clarification of referred submissions and other hearing matters including discussions with the Bunurong Land Council Aboriginal Corporation
VPA response to Committee's questions regarding referred submissions
Committee letter to Bunurong Land Council Aboriginal Corporation
Proposed Drainage Strategy Optimised Concept Design Changes Report, 9 December 2024 (Revision B)
Spring Lodge Farm Pty Ltd second submission to VPA, 6 December 2024
Proposed Drainage Strategy Optimised Concept Design Changes Report, 3 February 2025 (Revision C)
Proposed Drainage Strategy Optimised Concept Design Revision C - Layout Map
Email - summary of proposed amendment changes to the PSP, ICP, NVPP, Zone and Overlays, enclosing attachments:
a) Strategic Document changes log, February 2025
b) Plan 2 - Place Based Plan
c) Plan 4 - Movement Network
d) Plan 7 - Public Realm and Water
Land Capability Assessment Report, 30 January 2025 (Revision 8)
a) EPA
b) Casey City Council
c) MAB Property Developments Pty Ltd
d) Cranbourne 1450 Holdings Pty Ltd
e) VPA
f) AVA Faltaous-Kyrelos
g) Melbourne Water
h) Spring Lodge Farms Pty Ltd including request for direction for provision of documents
Email - information request from Polis Legal, with attachment:
a) Land Capability Assessment - Wagstaff Facilities Update, 19 November 2024
Letter to Parties regarding site inspection at Wagstaff
Committee site inspection map and itinerary, with attachments:
a) Submitter map (for Committee only)
b) Submitter list (for Committee only)
Response to Committee's letter dated 12 February 2025 (D19)
Response to Committee's letter dated 12 February 2025 (D19)
Response to Committee's letter dated 12 (D19) and 13 (D21) February 2025
Letter to Parties regarding requests for documents, odour evidence and witness arrangements
Appendix 1 - Summary of submissions and VPA Responses
Day 1 Precinct Structure Plan (updated 26 Feb 2025)
Day 1 Precinct Structure Plan - Plan set documents:
a) Plan 1 - Precinct Features
b) Plan 2 - Place Based Plan
c) Plan 3 - Housing
d) Plan 4 - Movement Network
e) Plan 5 - Utility Easement
f) Plan 6 - Employment and Activity Centre
g) Plan 7 - Public Realm and Water
h) Plan 8 - Native Vegetation Retention and Removal
j) Plan 10 - Bushfire
k) Plan 11 - Infrastructure and Development Staging
m) Plan 13 - Land Use Budget
n) Plan 14 - Alternative LP-03 Location (added 26 Feb 2025)
Day 1 Infrastructure Contributions Plan - Plan Set documents:
a) Plan 1 - Plan Area and Classes of Development
b) Plan 2 - Standard and Supplementary Levy Transport Construction Projects
c) Plan 3 - Standard Levy Community & Recreation Construction Projects
d) Plan 4 - Public Land Provision
e) Plan 5 - Public Land Provision
a) Explanatory report
b) Instruction Sheet
c) Clause 37.01s8
d) Clause 37.07s16
e) Clause 43.01s
f) Clause 45.11s4
g) Clause 52.16s
h) Clause 52.17s
j) Clause 72.04s
k) HO137 Statement of Significance
a) HO Map 11
b) Zone Maps 11 and 12
c) IC04 Maps 11 and 12
d) EAO Maps 11 and 12
e) D-dcpo Map 11
f) D-dpo Map 11
Day 1 Plan 10 Assumptions - Terramatrix, with email correspondence:
a) Email 17 February 2025
b) Email 29 January 2025 and attachment
c) Email 30 January 2025 and attachments
Optimised Drainage Design Report Rev C Layout Map W4G
Committee Directions and Hearing Timetable (version 2)
Expert Statement - Warwick Bishop of Water Technology (Drainage)
Letter - to Committee regarding discrepancies in VPA Day 1 Documents
Email - response regarding discrepancies in Day 1 Documents and notification of new versions being uploaded
Expert Statement - Hamish Allan of Terramatrix (Bushfire)
Expert Statement - Simon Beardall of Eukai (Transport)
Expert Statement - John Glossop of Glossop Town Planning (Planning)
Expert Statement - Kevin Hazell of KH Planning Services Pty Ltd (Bushfire)
Expert Statement - Chris Beardshaw of Afflux Consulting (Drainage)
Expert Statement - Terry Hardingham of O'Brien Traffic (Traffic) (Corrected to include Appendix A, 27 February 2025)
Expert Statement - Andrew Clarke of UPco (Planning)
Expert Statement - Jamie Tainton of Water Studio (Drainage)
Expert Statement - Charmaine Dunstan of Traffix Group (Traffic)
Expert Statement - Evan Granger of Urbis (Planning)
Expert Statement - Nina Barich of Incitus (Drainage)
Expert Statement - Mark Potter of Fire Risk Consultants (Bushfire)
Expert Statement - Nina Barich of Incitus (Drainage)
Fouz Superannuation Pty Ltd Yusuf Property Pty Ltd and Fouz Investments Pty Ltd (Fouz Group)
Expert Statement - Evan Granger of Urbis (Planning)
Expert Statement - Rory McPhillips of Atma Environmental (Environmental matters)
Expert Statement - Matt Cupper of Landskape (Aboriginal Cultural Heritage)
Expert Statement - Nina Barich of Incitus (Drainage)
Expert Statement - Mark Potter of Fire Risk Consultants (Bushfire)
Expert Statement - Aaron Harvey of Biosis (Ecology)
Committee Directions and Hearing Timetable (version 3)
Letter - to Committee outlining operational information concerning Wagstaff abattoir
Croskell Employment PSP Post Contact Heritage Assessment, November 2024
Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment - fewer redactions
Confidential for Committee, Council, Fouz and Galileo Group only
Email - to Committee outlining changes to Background documents in its opening statement
Addendum to expert statement of Terry Hardingham of O'Brien (Traffic)
Emails between Melbourne Water and AusNet dated 25 Feb 2025, enclosing attachments:
a) Optimised Design Rev C Layout Map W4G
b) AusNet meeting 25 Feb 2025 appendix
Hamish Allan of Terramatrix - notes on other bushfire expert statements
Croskell Employment PSP Post Contact Heritage Assessment, November 2024 (track change)
Integrated Transport Assessment, January 2025 (tracked change)
Biodiversity Assessment Update, February 2025 (tracked change)
Confidential for Committee, Fouz/Galileo and Council only
a) Officer South VPASAC Hearing Doc 228 Melbourne Water - Examples of asset resizing post PSP gazettal
b) Drainage Strategy Concept Design AusNet and SEW possible modifications
Summary of evidence - Evan Granger of Urbis (Planning)
Expert Statement - Peter Ramsay of Peter Ramsay and Associates (Buffers)
Expert Statement - Dr Iain Cowan of Zephyr Environmental (Buffers), enclosing:
Expert Statement - Mark Woodland of Echelon (Planning)
Planning Permit for residential subdivision at 280 Narre Warren Road
Endorsed odour assessment dated 25 July 2018 for 280 Narre Warren Road
Memo 1 - VPA response to Granger evidence (planning)
Memo 2 - VPA response to Granger evidence (Bushfire)
Memo 3 - Granger evidence (Culturally Sensitive Area)
Cranbourne East Precinct Structure Plan, May 2010
Cranbourne East Development Contributions Plan, May 2010, Amended December 2023
Cranbourne North Development Contributions Plan, Stage 1 January 2007, Part 1 of 2
Cranbourne North Development Contributions Plan, Stage 1 Appendix 3, January 2007, Part 2 of 2
Cranbourne North Service Business Precinct Development Plan Version 11, Strategic Development
Response to Committee requests made during the Hearing
Officer South (Employment) Precinct Structure Plan (VPA, November 2024)
VPA Projects SAC Referral 8 Officer South Employment Precinct Structure Plan [2024] PPV
Officer South Employment PSP Bushfire Development Report, Terramatrix, February 2023
Memo 4 - Response to SAC re Culturally sensitive area
Letter - to Committee, enclosing Telecommunications in new developments policy, February 2024
South-East Economic Corridor Employment precinct dashboards, October 2020
South-East Economic Corridor Strategic Context Report to 2060, January 2022
Revised drafting of section 3.5 of the PSP - Bushfire management
Design Guidelines for Settlement Planning at the Bushfire
Amended section 3.5 of the PSP - Bushfire management
Thompsons Road verge plan - referred to by Andrew Clarke during his evidence statement
Incitus Stormwater Memorandum 585 Berwick Cranbourne Rd AusNet
Incitus Stormwater Memorandum 1660 Thompsons Rd AusNet
MWA1160871 365391 Beattys Road Fraser Rise Melbourne Water Response
Memo 5 - VPA response to SAC on Guideline G2 and Affordable Housing
Memo 7 - VPA response on applied zones and infrastructure coordination
Submission - in relation to location of Park and removal of shared user path on Parcel 14
Proposed drafting changes to Amendment documentation
a) Casey C77 Panel Report, February 2006
b) Cardinia C232 Panel Report, February 2019
c) Cranbourne East Development Plan, version 9.3, October 2024
d) Cranbourne North Development Plan, version 2.1, August 2018
e) Animal production separation distance requirements, May 2023, DEECA (draft consultation)
f) Guidance for assessing odour, EPA publication 1833, June 2022
g) Guidance for field odour surveillance, EPA publication 1881, May 2021
h) Recommended Separation Distance for Industrial Residual Air Emissions, EPA publication 1518, March 2013
j) Extract of Environment Protection Regulations 2021 - Definition of Animal Unit
k) Permit Pln A00543.03 Endorsed Development Plans - Freezer
m) Plan i - Spring Lodge Land on the Day 1 Place Based Plan
n) Plan ii - Closest Existing Residential Development to Wagstaff
o) Plan iii - Spring Lodge Land Existing Subdivision Approvals
p) Plan iv - Shepherd Survey Results over Cowan Risk Zones
q) Plan v - Distances from Odour Sources to Furthest Odour Experienced (Shepherd)
r) Plan vi - Spring Lodge Revised Buffer Plan
s) PPN92 Managing Buffers and Land Use Compatibility February 2025
Email - confirmation of matters affecting Galileo and Fouz, with attachment:
Tarneit Projects Pty Ltd - Wyndham CC [2017] VCAT
a) Changes to VPA Day 1 UGZ16
b) RMIT Student project report
c) City of Nunawading v Harrington [1985] VicRp 64; [1985] VR 641
a) Supplementary submission to PSP
b) Emails to and from VPA
c) Letter to Committee - 29 January 2025
d) Letter to Best Hooper for Wagstaff - 31 January 2025
e) Committee Directions
f) Letter to Best Hooper for Wagstaff - 7 February 2025
EPA Publication - Sampling and Analysis of Waters, Wastewaters, Soils and Wastes
EPA - Waste Saving Fact Sheet: Managing waste in abattoirs and meat processing facilities
Email - Peter Ramsay's site inspection notes dated 26 February 2025
Sample science letter - clarifying details of wastewater sampling conducted at 1500 Cranbourne-Thompsons Road
Email - Confirmation of sampling location at 1500 Cranbourne-Thompsons Road
Email - to Committee request to provide a response to Wagstaff information
Email - to Parties with directions in response to Spring Lodge request
a) Plan 1 Precinct Features
b) Plan 2 Place Based Plan
c) Plan 3 Housing
d) Plan 4 Movement Network
e) Plan 5 Utility Easement
f) Plan 6 Employment and Activity Centre
g) Plan 7 Public Realm and Water
h) Plan 8 Native Vegetation Retention and Removal Plan
j) Plan 10 Bushfire
k) Plan 11 Infrastructure and Development Staging
m) Plan 13 Land Use Budget
n) Plan 14 Alternative LP-03 Location
a) Plan 1 Plan Area and Classes of Development
b) Plan 2 Standard and Supplementary Levy Transport Construction Projects
c) Plan 3 Standard Levy Community & Recreation Construction Projects
d) Plan 4 Public Land Provision
e) Plan 5 Land Use Budget
a) Explanatory Report - Day 1 Version
b) HO137 - Statement of Significance
c) Instruction Sheet
d) Clause 37.01s8
e) Clause 37.07s16
f) Clause 43.01s
g) Clause 45.11s4
h) Clause 52.16s
a) HO Map 11
b) Zone Maps 11 and 12
c) IC04 Maps 11 and 12
d) EAO Maps 11 and 12
e) D-dcpo Map 11
f) D-dpo Map 11
Letter - to Committee relating to document 162 from Spring Lodge
Letter - to Committee with request to vary its requested UGZ16 drafting
Letter - to Wagstaff Cranbourne regarding drafting amendments to UGZ16
Fire Rescue Victoria correspondence in relation to Bushfire:
a) Email 1 of 2
b) Email 2 of 2
c) Attachment to Email 1 of 2 - 01. MAB Property Developments Pty Ltd - Submissions
d) Attachment to Email 2 of 2 - MW Bushfire position 27 March
e) Attachment to Email 1 of 2 - Section 3.5 Bushfire management - 19 March
f) Attachment to Email 1 of 2 - Spring Lodge - Submissions 24 March
Email - to Committee to provide clarification in relation to Amendment Plan A and Casey Affordable Housing Strategy, with attachments:
a) Plan 8 Amended
b) Amended Final Day PSP 52_17s
Email - to Committee with responses to further directions on drafting, with attachments:
a) Further information in relation to riparian revegetation (shrub/forest) and AS 3959
b) The Explanatory Report - Amendment Final Day version
c) Instructions Sheet - Amended Final Day version
d) Part C - Major Changes log (version 2)
e) PSP - 66_04s - Amended Final Day Version
Letter - to Committee with response to Tabled Document 162
Letter - to Committee with response to Spring Lodge letter dated 4 April (D185)
Letter - to Committee with response to final day documents (D172 - D177)
a) Plan 1 Precinct Features
b) Plan 6 Employment and Activity Centres
a) Explanatory Report
b) HO137 Report
c) Instruction Sheet
d) Clause 37_01s8
e) Clause 37_07s16
f) Clause 43_01s
g) Clause 45_011s4
h) Clause 52_16s
a) 002hoMap11
b) 003znMaps 11 &12
c) 004icoMaps 11 & 12
d) 005eaoMaps 11 & 12
e) 006d-dcpoMap11
f) 007d-dpoMap11
a) Casey Council
b) Fouz Group
c) Galileo
d) MAB
e) Melbourne Water
f) Spring Lodge
g) Wagstaff
h) AVA
Appendix I Committee recommended version of the Urban Growth Zone Schedule 16
This Committee preferred version of the UGZ16 shows recommendations based on the VPA's Final Day 1 version (Document 176e).
Plan 1 shows the future urban structure proposed in the Croskell (Employment) Precinct Structure Plan.
Committee Note: Insert new plan based on land use chapter recommendations
The use and development provisions specified in this schedule apply to the land within the 'precinct boundary' on Plan 1 and shown as UGZ16 on the planning scheme maps. This schedule must be read in conjunction with the Croskell (Employment) Precinct Structure Plan (PSP).
Note: If land shown on Plan 1 is not zoned UGZ16, the provisions of this schedule do not apply.
Table 1 allocates the land use/development shown on Plan 1 of this schedule with a corresponding zone from this scheme.
Where the use/development in the left column is carried out or proposed generally in accordance with the Croskell (Employment) Precinct Structure Plan, the use, subdivision, construction of a building and construction and carrying out of works provisions of the corresponding zone in the right column apply.
A reference to a planning scheme zone in an applied zone must be read as if it were a reference to an applied zone under this schedule.
Note: e.g. The General Residential Zone specifies 'Place of worship' as a Section 1 Use with the condition, 'The site must adjoin, or have access to, a road in a Transport Zone.' In this instance the condition should be read as, 'The site must adjoin, or have access to, a road in a Transport Zone or an applied Transport Zone in the Urban Growth Zone schedule applying to the land'.
Other uncredited open space north of utilities easement
Shop (other than Adult sex product shop) where the applied zone is Commercial 2 Zone
The combined leasable floor area of all shops in the precinct does not exceed:
10,000 square metres for land shown as Business in the Croskell (Employment) Precinct Structure Plan.
25,000 square metres for land shown as Retail in the Croskell (Employment) Precinct Structure Plan.
Must not be on land shown within the Abattoir, Aerobic Pond and Concrete Batching Plant sensitive use buffers in the Croskell (Employment) Precinct Structure Plan.
Must not be on land shown within the Abattoir, Aerobic Pond and Concrete Batching Plant sensitive use buffers in the Croskell (Employment) Precinct Structure Plan.
Must not be on land shown within the Abattoir, Aerobic Pond and Concrete Batching Plant sensitive use buffers in the Croskell (Employment) Precinct Structure Plan.
Place of worship where the applied zone is General Residential Zone
Must not be on land shown within the Abattoir Aerobic Pond and Concrete Batching Plant sensitive use buffers in the Croskell (Employment) Precinct Structure Plan_._
Cinema or Cinema-based entertainment facility where the applied zone is Commercial 2 Zone
Any other use not in Section 1 or 3 in the Table of uses in the applicable applied zone
Any use listed in Section 3 in the Table of uses of the applicable applied zone
Buildings and works for future local parks and community facilities
A permit is not required to construct a building or construct or carry out works for a local park, sport reserve or community facility provided the use or development is carried out generally in accordance with the Croskell (Employment) Precinct Structure Plan and with the prior written consent of Casey City Council.
A permit is not required to construct or extend one dwelling on a lot of less than 300 square metres, if either of the following apply:
The following application requirements apply to an application for a permit under Clause 37.07, in addition to those specified in Clause 37.07 and elsewhere in the scheme and must accompany an application, as appropriate, to the satisfaction of the responsible authority. If in the opinion of the responsible authority an application requirement listed below is not relevant to the assessment of an application, except for a Preliminary Risk Screen Assessment, the responsible authority may waive or reduce the requirement.
In addition to the requirements listed under general subdivision and those requirements of Clause 56.01-2, a subdivision design response for subdivision of 10 lots or more must be accompanied by the information listed below.
An application for the construction of 10 or more dwellings on a lot must be accompanied by the same information:
An application to subdivide land, or to construct a building or construct and carry out works on land must be accompanied by a public infrastructure plan which addresses the following:
A public infrastructure plan must be consistent with any Integrated Traffic and Transport Management Plan approved under this schedule.
An application that proposes to create or change access to a primary or secondary arterial road must be accompanied by a Traffic Impact Assessment Report (TIAR). The TIAR, including functional layout plans and a feasibility and/or concept road safety audit, must be to the satisfaction of the relevant road management authority, as required.
An application to use land for a Shop where the combined leasable floor area of all shops exceeds the figure shown in the land use table at 2.3 of this schedule must be accompanied by a retail economic impact assessment prepared by a suitably qualified professional.
Any application to use or subdivide land, or to construct a building or construct and carry out works on land for Accommodation, Education centre (other than Tertiary institution and Employment training centre) or Hospital, must be accompanied by an acoustic assessment report prepared by a qualified acoustic engineer or other suitably skilled person to the satisfaction of the responsible authority which:
This requirement does not apply if the permit applicant provides, to the satisfaction of the responsible authority, a statement in writing, supported by verifiable evidence, from a qualified acoustic engineer or other suitably skilled person to the satisfaction of the responsible authority that, having regard to Clause 13.05, the proposed development is not prejudiced and community amenity and human health is not adversely impacted by noise emissions, and that no noise attenuation measures are required.
An application to subdivide land adjacent to a Bushfire Hazard Area shown on Plan 10 Bushfire Management of the Croskell (Employment) Precinct Structure Plan must be accompanied by a Bushfire Management Plan that demonstrates how the application will address bushfire risk at the site. The plan must be prepared in accordance with the relevant requirements and guidelines of the Croskell (Employment) Precinct Structure Plan, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Responsible Authority and relevant fire authority. The plan must include:
The responsible authority and fire authority may waive this requirement if a plan has been approved for the land.
An application to use or subdivide land, or to construct a building or construct and carry out works on land containing an identified heritage place(s) must:
Applications within Sensitive Use Buffer - Concrete Batching Plant
While land at the Concrete Batching Plants at 1550 and 1575 Thompsons Road, Cranbourne East are used for the purpose of a concrete batching plant continue to operate, an application to use or subdivide land, or to construct a building or construct and carry out works on land for a sensitive use (including accommodation, education centre, place of assembly or public open space) located within the 'sensitive use buffer - concrete batching plant' buffer as shown on Plan 1 of this Schedule must be accompanied by an assessment prepared by a suitably experienced and qualified environmental consultant, which demonstrates that a variation to the Recommended separation distance for industrial residual air emissions (EPA Separation Distance Guideline August 2024) is justified and provides sufficient confidence that land can be appropriately developed for sensitive uses.
Applications within Sensitive Use Buffer - Abattoir and Aerobic Pond
While land at the abattoir at 1500 Thompsons Road, Cranbourne East is used for the purpose of an Abattoir continues to operate, an application to use or subdivide land, or to construct a building or construct and carry out works on land for a sensitive use (including accommodation, education centre place of assembly or public open space) located within the abattoir and abattoir aerobic pond sensitive use buffers 'sensitive use buffer - abattoir buffer' and 'sensitive use buffer - aerobic pond' identified on Plan 1 of this Schedule and Plan 2 - Place Based Plan in the Croskell (Employment) Precinct Structure Plan must be accompanied by an Odour Environmental Risk Assessment prepared by a suitably experienced and qualified person to the satisfaction of the responsible authority, in consultation with the Environment Protection Authority. The Odour Environmental Risk Assessment must be prepared in accordance with EPA Publication 1883 Guidance for assessing odour (June 2022) and EPA Publication 1881 Guidance for field odour surveillance (May 2021) (or any updated versions of these publications) and acknowledge abattoir operations and assess the risk of offensive odour from potential adverse amenity impacts of the abattoir and aerobic pond on the proposed sensitive use of the land.
Subdivide, use or develop land for a sensitive purpose - Preliminary Risk Screen Assessment
An application to subdivide land (or, in the case of a staged subdivision, the plan of subdivision or masterplan which implements the first stage of the subdivision) or to use land for a sensitive use (residential use, childcare centre, kindergarten, pre-school centre, primary school, even if ancillary to another use) or children's playground or secondary school, or construct or carry out buildings and works associated with these uses, and where identified as having a medium potential for contamination on Plan 1 of the Croskell (Employment) Precinct Structure Plan and described in Table 2 must be accompanied by either:
If an environmental audit statement under Part 8.3 of the Environment Protection Act 2017 has been issued stating that the land is suitable for the proposal, a condition must be included on the planning permit consistent with section 4.0 of this schedule.
Where a Preliminary Risk Screen Assessment (or environmental audit) has already been undertaken for the land, a further Preliminary Risk Screen Assessment (or environmental audit) may not be required, if the previous Preliminary Risk Screen Assessment (or environmental audit) has considered the relevant land uses.
This requirement does not apply to the construction or carrying out of buildings and works if:
This application requirement does not apply to any lot where the Environmental Audit Overlay applies.
An application to use, subdivide land (or, in the case of a staged subdivision, the plan of subdivision or masterplan which implements the first stage of the subdivision), or to construct a building or construct and carry out works on land associated with the new or existing use of the land for minor sports and recreation facility, retail premises, office, agriculture, industry or warehouse and described in Table 3, must be accompanied by a Preliminary Site Investigation (PSI) prepared by a suitably qualified environmental consultant in accordance with National Environment Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination) Measure (National Environment Protection Council, 1999) to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.
An application to subdivide land, or to construct a building or construct and carry out works on land and described in Table 4, must be accompanied by an arboricultural report identifying all trees on the site and a tree retention plan identifying how the application responds to tree protection requirements and guidelines within the Croskell (Employment) Precinct Structure Plan.
The following conditions and requirements apply to a permit issued pursuant to this schedule, as appropriate, to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.
If in the opinion of the responsible authority (or for any condition or requirement expressed as requiring approval / endorsement by, or being required to the satisfaction of an agency, in the opinion of that agency and the responsible authority) a condition or requirement listed below, other than condition relating to Environmental Audit requirements, is not required, the responsible authority may waive or reduce the condition or requirement.
Conditions - Subdivision permits that allow for the creation of a lot of less than 300 square metres
A permit issued before 31 December 2026 which allows for the subdivision of land to create a lot of less than 300 square metres, must include the following condition:
A permit issued on or after 31 December 2026, other than an amendment of a permit issued before 31 December 2026 under section 72 of the Act, which allows for the subdivision of land to create a lot of less than 300 square metres, must include the following condition:
Conditions - Management of bushfire risk during subdivision works
Prior to the commencement of works in an area adjacent to a Bushfire Hazard Area shown on Plan 10 of the Croskell (Employment) Precinct Structure Plan, a Site Management Plan prepared by a suitably qualified professional that addresses bushfire risk during, and where necessary, after construction must be approved by the Responsible Authority. The plan must specify:
All to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
Unless otherwise agreed by Head, Transport for Victoria, prior to the issue of before a Statement of Compliance is issued for any subdivision stage, bus stop hard stands with direct and safe pedestrian access to a pedestrian path must be constructed:
Any permit for subdivision or buildings and works requiring road widening must contain the following conditions:
Conditions - Subdivision or buildings and works permits where land is required for community facilities, public open space, or road widening
A permit for subdivision or buildings and works, where land is required for community facilities, public open space or road widening must include the following conditions:
Any permit for subdivision must contain the following conditions:
Any permit to subdivide land (or, in the case of a staged subdivision, the plan of subdivision or masterplan which implements the first stage of the subdivision) or to use land for a sensitive use (residential use, childcare centre, kindergarten, pre-school centre, primary school, even if ancillary to another use) or children's playground or secondary school, or to construct or carry out buildings and works associated with these uses, and where an environmental audit statement under Part 8.3 of the Environment Protection Act 2017 has been issued stating that the land is suitable for the use or proposed use subject to recommendations:
Where recommendations of the Environmental Audit Statement require significant ongoing maintenance and/or monitoring, the applicant must enter into an agreement with the responsible authority under Section 173 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. The Section 173 Agreement must be executed on the title of the relevant land prior the grant of a permit to develop the land, unless otherwise agreed to by the responsible authority. The applicant must meet all costs associated with drafting and execution of the Agreement, including those incurred by the responsible authority.
A permit to subdivide land, or to construct a building or construct and carry out works on land must include the following condition:
Unless otherwise agreed by the Responsible Authority and Melbourne Water, before certification of the plan of subdivision or the commencement of development the Stormwater Management Plan must be approved by Melbourne Water and endorsed by the Responsible Authority.
A permit to develop land identified in Plan 1 of this schedule as 'Culturally Sensitive Area' must include the following conditions if the City of Casey or any other public agency agree in writing to become the acquiring authority for the land:
Unless otherwise agreed by the Responsible Authority, prior to the certification of a plan of subdivision, or, the commencement of development, a Land Management Plan for the Culturally Sensitive Area identified in Plan 1 of this schedule must be prepared by a suitably qualified professional to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The Land Management Plan must detail ongoing vegetation and weed management actions and be to the satisfaction of the Bunurong Land Council Aboriginal Corporation.
Once approved the Land Management Plan will be endorsed and form part of the permit.
Unless otherwise agreed by the Responsible Authority, before prior to the issue of a statement of compliance for a plan of subdivision is issued, or, the occupation of development, the owner must enter into an agreement with the Responsible Authority under Section 173 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. The agreement must provide for:
The owner and/or developer must pay the Responsible Authority's reasonable costs for the preparation, review, execution and registration of the Section 173 Agreement.
Any permit to use or subdivide land, or to construct a building or construct and carry out works on land where an acoustic assessment report has identified that mitigation from noise sources is required, must implement any recommendations of the acoustic assessment report submitted with the application and include any conditions necessary, in the opinion of the responsible authority, to implement noise attenuation measurers.
All to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.
The following decision guidelines apply to an application for a permit under Clause 37.07, in addition to those specified in Clause 37.07 and elsewhere in the scheme which must be considered, as appropriate, by the responsible authority:
Before deciding on an application to develop or subdivide land for dwellings, the responsible authority must consider, as appropriate:
Before deciding on a permit application under this schedule the responsible authority must consider, as appropriate:
Before deciding on an application to create Shop floorspace above the square metres permitted 'as of right' for the Business, and Retail land shown on Plan 1 of this schedule, the responsible authority must consider, as appropriate:
Before deciding on an application for a sensitive use, or development associated with a sensitive use, within the 'sensitive use buffer - concrete batching plant' buffer shown on Plan 1 of this Schedule, in addition to the decision guidelines in Clause 37.07-14 and Clause 65, the responsible authority must consider, as appropriate:
Sensitive Use Buffer - Abattoir Abbatoir and Aerobic Pond
Before deciding on an application for a sensitive use, or development associated with a sensitive use, within the abattoir and abattoir aerobic pond sensitive use buffers 'sensitive use buffer - abattoir' and 'sensitive use buffer - aerobic pond' shown on Plan 1 of this Schedule, in addition to the decision guidelines in Clause 37.07-14 and Clause 65, the responsible authority must consider, as appropriate:
[1] A less redacted version of the Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment was provided to the Committee on 5 March 2025 (D82)