Submissions raised concerns about the proposed development including:

• it was of a metropolitan Melbourne scale and density
• it provided for an excessive number of lots, would impact on the amenity and larger lot character of the area and create an isolated island of GRZ1
• the density proposed was not necessary to meet housing targets
• it did not support a 20-minute neighbourhood or social housing or affordable outcomes because of the distance to services and lack of public transport and would entrench car ownership and use
• the proposed lots were not appropriately orientated
• the size of lots was insufficient to:
  • - provide appropriate areas for play or relaxation
  • - plant canopy trees
  • - store caravans or boats
• the density of lots would result in traffic congestion within the subdivision and impact emergency vehicle access
• impacts from the development and location of the medium density 'super lots'
• impacts from the school including from playing field lighting and balls over fences
• had not considered the impact on existing service including health and community services.

Several submissions suggested that the subdivision should be redesigned to provide a high quality residential area with embedded energy efficiency design principles (including sustainable housing, passive solar access and achieve carbon neutrality), use of recycled water, larger lots and additional open space. Two submissions suggested the superlots could be better used for community uses such as childcare, aged care, social housing or a community hub.

Ms Rigo considered the proposed subdivision layout was an appropriate response to its context including the South Growth Area to the west along Clarkes Lane and the Farming Zone to the south that was more closely characterised as a rural living area. She considered the provision of medium density housing lots (at around 17 dwellings/hectare) would be consistent with the emerging character of the area and provided opportunity for diversification.

Mr Hunter advised that there were significant issues with providing third-pipe infrastructure for recycled water into the subdivision including the relatively small area that would be serviced by it.

• the Permit land was within the existing urban area of Wangaratta City
• the size of lots in the LDRZ reflected the need to accommodate onsite septic systems rather than protect character
• there were no character or other built form overlays that applied to the Permit land or other strategic work that identified any character constraints for the land and there was no apparent character consistency in the area
• the location of the permit land as an 'island' or infill area would enable it to create its own character without adversely affecting other land.

Council submitted that while the proposed lot sizes would result in a character change from the current LDRZ, the average density was consistent with the South Growth Area.

The subdivision proposal provides a range of lot sizes in each of the proposed stages. The majority of lots are within the 500-650 square metre range, with nine larger lots over 700 square meters and seven smaller lots mostly on corner locations.

The Panel acknowledges these lot sizes are in some cases slightly smaller than the established lots in the adjoining Milnes Creek Road area or along Wenhams Lane and substantially smaller than the LDRZ lots to the west of One Mile Creek or the lot sizes to the south of Clarkes Lane. However as identified in Chapter 2 the Permit land is effectively an infill area within the established urban area of Wangaratta and close to existing open space, open space linkages, a school and major transport routes. In this context an urban subdivision form should be anticipated which enables an emerging character to develop. While the Permit land may be more than a 20 minute walk to the Wangaratta Central Activities Area this is not a reason to refuse the Amendment or permit. The land remains close (and walkable) to other facilities and services, and like adjoining residential areas, will benefit in time from improved public transport services that will follow urban growth in the area.

The Panel is satisfied the proposed mix of lot sizes is appropriate and provides for a diversity of housing outcomes along with the three superlots. The mix proposed will offer additional housing choice within Wangaratta.

The identification of superlots to provide for medium density housing is an appropriate way to support a more integrated approach to providing this housing form, noting that overall yield of this area will be modest, as it is limited by the capacity of the WWTF. The location of the superlots are suitably positioned near areas of open space.

The subdivision provides for lots to be setback from One Mile Creek which provides a clear visual break between the subdivision and adjoining LDRZ subdivision to the west. An urban edge to the school is appropriate and consistent with school-residential interfaces in established residential neighbourhoods. The proposed southern treatment of the subdivision to include areas of open space or internal streets provides a suitable urban-rural living interface treatment along Clarkes Lane.

In terms of the subdivision design response to the arrangement and orientation of lots, open space provision, landscaping or environmental sustainability outcomes, it is not the role of the Panel nor the planning process to provide for ideal or exemplar planning outcomes. Rather the question for the Panel is whether, on balance, the development appropriately responds to the policy framework and decision guidelines of the Planning Scheme. The Panel is of the view it does.

In the absence of any local policy seeking specific environmentally sustainable outcomes, third-pipe infrastructure, design or built form outcomes for residential subdivision, it is not appropriate to apply higher standards on a case by case basis. The Panel is broadly satisfied that the subdivision response is consistent with the objectives and standards of ResCode (Clause 56), including for lot design. It follows a detailed assessment of the relevant subdivision design provisions in the Planning Report and evidence of Ms Rigo, which was not disputed by Council or any other evidence.

The Panel observes that the proposed Residential Guidelines permit condition includes guidance for fencing, building materials and setback treatments, location of services and stormwater reuse which will support the character of the residential areas to the north being reflected in future lot development.

There are likely to be some amenity impacts on future residents from proximity to the school from existing lighting or wayward balls and noise. These impacts are to be expected in urban settings and are not unreasonable. The Day 1 draft Permit includes conditions for higher fencing along the common boundary. Any additional future school lighting is a matter to be managed if proposed.

Overall, the subdivision layout ensures the Permit land is integrated into the neighbourhood and existing movement and open space networks and provides for a suitable mix of lot sizes.

• The subdivision layout, lot size and density are appropriate and will not have a detrimental impact on the character of the area.
• Overall, the Amendment and draft Permit strike an appropriate balance between housing supply yield and a transition to adjoining residential and low density/rural living areas.

• would result in an unacceptable loss of public open space
• should instead be located within the Permit land.

In terms of the capacity of existing sewerage infrastructure to support growth, Mr Hunter's evidence identified:

There are constraints on North East Water Corporation's (NEWC) sewerage infrastructure, namely the lack of transfer capacity from the urban area to the Wangaratta North Treatment Plant. Because of the flat topography of Wangaratta, there are several sewage pump stations around the city, which transfer sewage to the main transfer pump stations. This lack of capacity in the main sewers results in the spillage from sewers during significant rainfall events. I am advised that this lack of capacity in the network is limiting the availability of developable land in Wangaratta.

NEWC has implemented short and long term plans to address this problem. Long term plans include major upgrades of pump stations, transfer mains. Short term plans include sewage detention tanks in some areas, to reduce localised sewage spills. The spillages from the sewerage system are also influenced by the infiltration of ground water into the sewerage network through old pipes and illegal connections of stormwater from properties, when rainfall events occur. The infiltration prolongs the excess flows in the sewerage network. By removing sewage from the existing network during wet events, capacity is created in the network, as less sewage is flowing to the pump stations. NEWC advised that they will require any solution to be able to detain sewage for 18 days to allow for infiltration to abate.

NEWC strategic plans called for innovative servicing solutions to address the problem in the short and long term.

combines sewage treatment and detention of the treated water and recycling of Class A water, to address wastewater infrastructure capacity and facilitate irrigation of open space for net community benefit. This solution also provides a long term alternate water resource to replace ground water and potable water.

In addition to providing sewerage services for the Clarkes Lane land, the system also has capacity to take sewage from an adjoining sewerage network (the Wenhams Lane Pump Station) to add further detention during rain events and support irrigation supply through "sewer mining", i.e. sewage is taken from the sewer in wet events and treated to create capacity in the network. (Access to this pump station also provides additional water for irrigation.) Having access to the Wenhams Lane system, allows additional lots to be released in another catchment, to support Council's request to support release of 100 lots in the Wangaratta South Growth Area. The system will serve an equivalent population of 1,225 from 350 lots.

Mr Hunter's evidence (written, verbal and in response to cross-examination):

• identified the footprint of the WWTF plant was less than shown on the draft Concept Plans but that the area previously identified for storage tanks would be used to accommodate solar panels to offset the operation's greenhouse emissions
• identified Class A treated water would be directed to sewer or stored in a 5 megalitre open storage facility and in tank storages on Targoora Park and Cathedral College for irrigation purposes. The water storage facility would be fenced and sized to accommodate an equivalent 18 days of treated materials to account for peak wet weather flows in the sewerage system
• a small wetland (as yet not designed) was to be established to provide an educative function for NEW
• provided capacity subject to separate EPA licensing approval for treated water (with additional treatment) to discharge to One Mile Creek
• indicated the WWTF would be owned and operated by NEW
• included a graphic of the linking of WWTF components (reproduced in Figure 6).

Figure 6 Wastewater treatment facility schematic

To reduce the electronic size of this document, Figure 6 has been removed from this version of the report. Contact Planning Panels Victoria to obtain a complete copy of the report.

Submissions raised concerns about the WWTF including:

• the lack of detail about its location
• the associated loss of open space
• the effective 'gifting' of public land
• that it was a 'band aid' solution and instead a financial contribution should be made to enable sewerage to be piped to NEWs primary treatment facility to the north-east of Wangaratta
• that it should be located underground or within the Permit land.

The rezoning of the land to PUZ to accommodate the WWTF was not supported by several submitters.

Mr Hunter was of the view that the location of the WWTF was appropriate as it was central to the sewer infrastructure to be accessed and the areas to be irrigated.

• there was nothing unusual or inconsistent about placing public infrastructure in a park
• the WWTF compound footprint was approximately 1,200 square metres (equivalent to two house lots) and occupied only 0.67 per cent of open space
• none of the WWTF components (including gravel access track, storage dam and wetland) would detract from the amenity and functionality of the open space
• the open spaces' primary functions were as a managed native vegetation offset site (Wenhams Reserve) and baseball playing fields (Targoora Park) - these functions were not impacted by the facility
• the loss of open space would be offset by the 2.46 hectares of unencumbered open space provided on the Permit land (double the contribution required by Clause 53.01)
• the development would provide for a balanced outcome, that supported water recycling and housing growth and maintains a net positive open space result.

Council confirmed that its Targoora Park storage tank would be located within the PUZ1 extent.

Development of all components of the WWTF will result in a reduction of public open space within Targoora Park by up to 1.9 hectares based on Council's closing submission advice. While this represents only a small portion of the park it is not an insignificant loss. The Panel also understands that WWTF may not be a temporary solution to the wider sewerage network challenges given its design and secondary role to provide Class A water for irrigation of open space and nearby school on an ongoing basis.

There are however several factors that offset or ameliorate against this loss of passive public open space:

• the WWTF and associated storage dam will provide the capacity to reliably and sustainably irrigate the Targoora Park playing facilities and wider park area without relying on reticulated water or the uncertainties of ongoing access to bore water
• it is not uncommon to accommodate servicing or other public infrastructure within public open space areas associated with its management or delivery of other community functions
• the area removed from passive open space use is an area furthest away from adjacent residential areas, does not impact on pedestrian/cyclist connectivity through the park or create fragmented or unusable pockets of open space, or impact on the playing fields
• the WWTF design can be designed with appropriate vegetation screening to minimise the visual impact on the park
• the area lost will be partially offset through the provision of open space in the Permit land including extending the linear link along One Mile Creek.

The Panel accepts the advice of Mr Hunter that the proposed location of the WWTF is the appropriate location based on access to the existing sewer main and the areas to receive the treated water for irrigation.

On balance the Panel considers the location of the WWTF within Targoora Park (and therefore the basis for applying the PUZ1) is appropriate and will have a net positive open space result. It will be up to Council as current land owner and NEW to work together to ensure the final design of the WWTF creates the most efficient footprint and minimises the visual and operational impacts on the park.

It is not within the Panel's scope to comment on NEWs longer term servicing strategy or whether the WWTF should be a temporary or longer term piece of infrastructure in Targoora Park, or to make recommendations for alternative sewerage solutions beyond that negotiated with and supported by NEW as the relevant servicing authority. The proposed condition providing for rehabilitation of the WWTF site in the event of its decommissioning remains appropriate while NEW and Council continue to work towards a longer term serving strategy that will also be important for the development of the existing growth areas and longer term growth area. This strategic work will be important to provide developer and community certainty.

• The proposed location of the WWTF will not result in an unacceptable loss of open space with the proposed development likely to provide a net positive open space outcome.

4.1 Amenity impacts from wastewater management facility

The issue is whether the WWTF will have an unacceptable amenity impact on nearby residents and open space uses through the production of odour or noise.

The Permit application was supported by the Integrated Water Management and Sewage Detention - A Sewerage Servicing Strategy and later augmented by:

• further WWTF design documentation
• an Odour Assessment by Astute Environmental Consulting.

Mr Hunter identified that the WWTF plant components and process included (refer Figure 7):

• sewerage receiving tanks and screening located in a building which is fully enclosed (concrete block structure and flat roofed structure approximately 3 metres tall and which includes an acoustically insulated office, lab and control systems). Extracted air from the building uses activated carbon filters to remove odours
• solids removed, compressed and stored in enclosed bins pending regular removal
• wastewater pumped to an open anoxic tank and mixed with activated sludge and chemicals (stored separately in enclosed structures and bunded area) wastewater being passed into the open aerobic tank with chemicals added to balance pH and assist further breakdown and cleaning
• water pumped through a membrane bio reactor to filter remaining particles, bacteria and pathogens with additional chemical treatment, with waste sludge discharged to sewer and Class A treated water stored in a tank and discharged to the dam and tanks.

Figure 7 Wastewater treatment facility components

To reduce the electronic size of this document, Figure 7 has been removed from this version of the report. Contact Planning Panels Victoria to obtain a complete copy of the report.

Submissions were concerned about the potential for the operation of the WWTF to impact on the amenity of nearby residents and users of the adjacent open space areas including the playing fields during sporting events and training periods. Submissions considered any odour even if of a low level would be unwelcome and should not be introduced so close to homes and public open space.

Several submissions raised concerns about odour or risk resulting from:

• the potential for system failure
• chemical spills.

In relation to odour, the evidence of Dr Shepherd was that there was a medium risk of odour impacts for the nearest residents and a low risk for the nearest recreation areas based on his Level 2 assessment under EPA Publications 1883 Guidance for Assessing Odour, 2022 (EPA 1883) and 1881 Guidance for field odour surveys, 2021. This was, however, a very conservative analysis given the scale of the wastewater facility and its design.

Dr Shepherd's evidence identified his application of EPA Publication 1949 Separation distance guideline, 2024 (Separation guideline) to the WWTF (as a mechanical/biological wastewater plant) confirmed the separation distance for the plant was 107 metres consistent with Astute Environmental Consulting's 2024 Odour Assessment. The closest existing and proposed dwellings and Cathedral College (sensitive receptors) were at or beyond this distance. The passive open space areas (informal open space) adjacent to the WWTF were clearly within this distance although the use of this area would be transient and short term, where any odour present would be experienced differently to those at home or in schools.

Informed by his odour observations of a recycled water plant in Sunbury that used similar plant and processes and the proposed WWTF, Dr Shepherd concluded:

I therefore do not expect any of the odour I observed from these processes at the Sunbury facility to be released to the ambient air environment at the Proposed WWTP. Any faint residual odour emitted from the carbon filter vent would be subject to a degree of dilution prior to dispersing to ground level, such that odour would be unlikely to be observed in proximity to the Proposed WWTP.

I understand that there will be no overflow tank and that given the low odour potential of the anoxic, aerobic and membrane filter tanks, these will be open to air, but unlikely to be source of odour.

In response to cross-examination and questions from the Panel, Dr Shepherd said:

• some odour may be experienced at 107 metres from the WWTF, but it would not be at the same level as adjacent to the facility given dispersal in the air and from wind mixing
• the 107 metre separation distance is based on a facility without mitigation controls. In this instance the main odour source was from the vent which included odour treatment, and the tanks would have little to no odour based on their design and type
• while the use of playing fields may extend for several hours at a time this was still considered a transient use
• while vegetation does not absorb odour it assists with wind turbulence and is a 'good to have'
• odour was not likely to be detected beyond a short distance of the plant.

Mr Hunter's evidence (written, verbal and in response to cross-examination) in response to amenity concerns associated with the operation of the WWTF including in the event of power outages, plant failure or chemical leakages was:

• maintaining oxygen levels in the wastewater in the anoxic and aerobic tanks prevented odour from these system components
• automated processes were built in which included use of a standby generator in the event of a power outage to enable the plant to continue operation
• system failure would not result in the discharge of untreated sewer material to storage tanks
• if there was a failure of the WWTF plant sewage from the subject land would be diverted to sewer
• chemical delivery by truck would occur approximately monthly with solid waste removed at 7-10 day intervals by a typical waste delivery vehicle
• chemical storage, loading and transfer area storage were located within bunded concrete areas which discharged to sewer
• noise attenuation was incorporated into the project design
• fencing of the plant and storage dam would provide appropriate site security and safety
• landscaping of the plant area would assist to ameliorate any visual impacts.

Mr Hunter also confirmed the final designed WWTF would require an EPA Development Licence under the Environment Protection Act 2017.

The EPA's advice of 19 September 2024 (D5b) outlined its review of the Odour Assessment and identified:

• the surrounding residential properties were located beyond the 107 metre separation distance
• Targoora Park adjacent to the plant as an informal outdoor recreation site did not meet the separation distance and required a Level 2 Assessment to vary the separation distance
• noted the inlet works have odour control, screenings were fully enclosed, recycled water will be at discharge quality and odour free with water storage having a low risk and activated sludge would be discharged to sewer and not stored on site
• a variation of the separation distance for odour to the reserve was appropriate based on the Separation Guideline and EPA 1883
• it had no further concerns about the Amendment and WWTF.

The WWTF does not require a planning permit, and its development is not therefore before the Panel. Notwithstanding this, its provision is a direct consequence of the need to service the subdivision and is a requirement of the development by way of permit conditions.

The Panel is satisfied that the WWTF, sited in the location shown in the plans, can be developed in a way that achieves acceptable amenity outcomes, if designed and managed appropriately. Mr Hunter and Dr Shepherd's evidence shows this is the case, supported by the EPA's advice.

The Panel considers that the Permit application is supported by a sufficiently rigorous odour analysis consistent with Clause 13.07-1S and the Separation Guideline with two Level 2 odour assessments confirming that:

• residential and school sensitive receptors are outside the required separation distance
• odour risk within adjacent informal open space areas will be low
• overall, odour risk will be low, dispersed by atmospheric conditions and distance and managed through WWTF odour control design.

• the final design and operation of the WWTF will require an EPA development licence which would consider both odour and noise impacts
• the WWTF will be owned and operated by NEW, an authority familiar with operating such facilities.

• The WWTF will not result in an unreasonable amenity impact on nearby residents and open space uses through the production of odour or noise

• the proposed subdivision will have an acceptable impact on traffic volumes and traffic movement on the surrounding streets
• the proposed traffic works and intersection treatments are appropriate.

Key traffic and transport movement features of the proposed subdivision include:

• vehicle access by:
  • - a new intersection to Wangaratta-Whitfield Road including realignment of Laceby-Targoora Road in the vicinity of the Wangaratta-Whitfield Road intersection
  • - Clarkes Lane, including new left and right turn lanes on Clarkes Lane
  • - the extension of Milnes Creek Drive
• an upgrade to the Wangaratta-Whitfield Road/Site Access intersection to provide left and right turn lanes on Wangaratta-Whitfield Road
• allowance for the widening of Clarkes Lane if required in the future by the provision of an eight metre setback from Clarkes Lane to the edge of development and internalisation of all property access within the Permit land
• a new network of 'internal' streets
• a network of shared paths along Clarkes Lane, One Mile Creek and between One Mile Creek and Targoora Park.

The Amendment and draft Permit application was supported by a Traffic Report, the key findings of which included:

• The design of the proposed subdivision is generally in accordance with Clause 56 requirements of the Wangaratta Planning Scheme and the Infrastructure Design Manual.
• The proposed internal road network and connections to Clarkes Lane are expected to be suitable to accommodate the proposed development traffic generation;
• The configuration of Clarkes Lane has been developed in conjunction with Council's future plan;
• The ultimate cross section of Clarkes Lane (which will be delivered by others) has been allowed for within the proposed subdivision design;
• The proposed Wangaratta-Whitfield Road intersection arrangement is considered appropriate in accommodating the traffic generation of the proposed development and any future traffic growth in the future;
• Up to 80 lots can be delivered prior to the upgrade works at the Wangaratta-Whitfield Road intersection; and
• The proposed Laceby-Targoora Road / Clarkes Lane intersection arrangement is considered appropriate in the ultimate configuration.

A key traffic issue for Council was the impact of the proposed development on the potential of Clarkes Lane to provide for a freight bypass route option as identified in its Wangaratta Freight and Land Use Strategy, 2016. The potential for a freight route along Clarkes Lane was considered as part of the Amendment and draft Permit, notwithstanding that the Strategy has no status from a planning perspective under the Planning Scheme, and that the proposed route is one of several options.

Head, Transport for Victoria (DTP-Transport) was a referral authority for the Amendment and Permit application. Prior to exhibition of the Amendment, DTP-Transport provided a written response advising it generally supported the Amendment and draft Permit but raised a number of matters for consideration:

• The realignment of Clarkes Lane through the subject site to intersect with Wangaratta-Whitfield Road is proposed to allow for Clarkes Lane to function as a major Council Road in the future.
• The intersection of the realigned Clarkes Lane & Laceby-Targoora Road must be as far as practical from Wangaratta-Whitfield Road.
• Desirably access to/from individual residential properties would be via an internal road network rather than directly from Clarkes Lane, especially in the vicinity of Laceby-Targoora Road and Wangaratta-Whitfield Road.
• lf, and when, Clarkes Lane is upgraded to be the proposed southern Wangaratta Bypass, an appropriate control for the intersection of Wangaratta-Whitfield Road & Laceby- Targoora Road must be to the satisfaction of and at no cost to the Head, Transport for Victoria.
• The proposal to limit bus access from the subdivision and nominate Clarks Lane is not supported. A bus-capable north/south central connection should be retained through the provision of a road that meets the design criteria required for bus access (see Guidelines for land-use development | Department of Transport and Planning (dtp.vic.gov.au). This is consistent with the policy contained in Clause 18.01 of the Wangaratta Planning Scheme.

Included in its response were conditions to be included in the draft Permit including:

• plans to show the realignment of Clarkes Lane to provide a direct connection to Wangaratta-Whitfield Road
• the realignment of Laceby-Targoora Road to provide a T-intersection at Clarkes Lane.

It is unclear however why DTP-Transport's drafting was not exactly replicated in the exhibited draft Permit.

Several submissions were concerned about the impact of the Amendment and development proposal on traffic and parking. These included concerns about:

• road capacity and road network impacts (including the design of the reconfigured Wangaratta-Whitfield Road intersection and the potential for further traffic delays at the reconfigured intersection)
• further intensification of school related traffic from future residents
• impacts to the existing residential area to the north of the subject site as a result of connecting Miles Creek Drive to the development
• on street parking impacts (including impacts to emergency vehicles access)
• safety impacts including pedestrian access along Clarkes Lane, and access for the Murray to Mountains Rail Trail users.

In response to these issues, additional post exhibition advice was prepared by One Mile Grid to address some of these concerns. This additional advice confirmed, amongst a range of matters, that:

• the traffic counts undertaken as part of the original assessment were robust and fit for purpose
• Wangaratta-Whitfield Road will continue to operate under excellent conditions during peak periods after the development is complete with no congestion issues expected
• there was no need to upgrade of the Greta Road/Clarkes Lane intersection as a result of the proposal although it noted road upgrades are being contemplated further afield as part of the overall South Growth Area planning
• while there may be some increase in traffic through Milnes Creek Drive, the analysis indicates the intersection with Wenhams Lane will continue to operate satisfactorily
• Milnes Creek Drive is not expected to become a 'rat run' for traffic seeking to avoid the school speed zone for Cathedral College as there will be little demand for traffic movements between the north and south-west of the Permit land
• the proposed entry/exit points will not lead to unsafe traffic conditions at Wangaratta- Whitfield and Laceby-Targoora Road intersection
• the layout of the subdivision and interface treatment to Clarkes Lane have been appropriately designed to ensure that the road reserve will have capacity to accommodate a future upgrade. This includes setting lots back from Clarkes Lane to allow for any potential road widening
• there will be adequate room for on-street parking and circulation of emergency vehicles in the internal road network
• there is opportunity for bus access along Clarkes Lane and one of the internal roads.

Council submitted that the draft Permit included DTP-Transport's conditions (although as noted by the Panel above, the exhibited conditions differ to those included in the DTP-Transport's 21 February 2024 response). It identified the Proponent had made no changes to the proposed road layout or traffic treatments in response to the submitter concerns.

The Proponent relied on the traffic evidence of Mr Furness in relation to traffic matters. Mr Furness undertook a review of the traffic work that had been undertaken by OneMileGrid, the traffic concerns of the submitters and the requirements of DTP-Transport advising:

a) The development traffic can be accommodated by all surrounding roads and intersections, with all intersections expected to operate at Level of Service A (Excellent) in all time periods).

b) The proposed turn lanes to be provided at the Wangaratta-Whitfield Road/Site Access Road/Laceby-Targoora Road intersection provide an appropriate treatment to safely and efficiently accommodate the development traffic. However, I recommend that:

1. The crossing point of the shared path should be revisited, to bring it closer to the intersection where visibility is better and to cross the median island, which would provide a pedestrian refuge.
2. The shared path be further offset from the road carriageway on the south side of the intersection (minimum 1.8m separation).

1. The FLP prepared by OMG for the Wangaratta-Whitfield Road/Site Access Road intersection is showing CHR and AUL turn lane treatments, which are higher standard treatments than required by Austroads Guidelines. These upgrade treatments have been included in the conditions required by DTP. I do not have a concern with implementing the higher treatment, however:
   1. The future traffic volumes are well short of the higher treatment standard under an Austroads warrants assessment, and in this context these works are more than necessary.
   2. These works are potentially redundant if a roundabout is constructed by Council as part of the upgrade of Clarkes Road a bypass.

d) The reorientation of the Laceby-Targoora Road to connect to the site access road is an acceptable outcome.

e) Laceby-Targoora Road (between Wangaratta-Whitfield Road and Clarkes Lane) will require an upgrade to provide a 6.2m sealed pavement to accommodate the additional traffic (noting it is already operating beyond capacity for its constructed cross section). This is consistent with a Rural Collector Road cross section in the IDM.

f) The DTP condition requiring the realignment of Clarkes Lane to connect directly to Wangaratta-Whitfield Road is not necessary as a result of this development, with the nexus for these works being with Council, if Council proceeds with upgrading Clarkes Lane to a Bypass.

g) The location of the site access point to Clarkes Lane is acceptable, with the detailed design of the turning lanes determined at the post-permit stage via a Functional Layout Plan. However, the Austroads guidelines indicate that only a Basic Left and Right Turn Lane treatment is warranted at this location.

h) The widening of the Clarkes Lane road reserve, provision of an off-road shared path and prohibition of direct vehicle access from private lots to Clarkes Lane means that:

1. Clarkes Lane would provide an appropriate configuration to operate as a Collector Road, with no changes to the main carriageway.

2. Clarkes Lane can readily be upgraded to higher order road/Freight Bypass route by Council at a later date, as the design is not encumbered by needing to accommodate additional access points and direct property access.

1. Local internal roads provide cross sections that accord with the objectives of both Clause 56.06 of the Planning Scheme and Council's IDM and can accommodate the daily traffic expected within the site.

j) The Development Plans contain a variety of shared path and footpath connections, providing a connective network that promotes walking/cycling for local trips.

k) Clarkes Lane provides an appropriate and efficient option for a future bus service and all new lots are within walking distance of this potential future bus route.

1. The internal road network has been designed to ensure all properties can be adequately serviced by Council waste collection and emergency services.

m) Having reviewed the relevant background material, I am satisfied that there are no reasons why the proposed amendment should not proceed, subject to appropriate conditions.

On the 21 May 2025, during the Panel Hearing, DTP-Transport through the Proponent provided a further response to the proposal informed by Mr Furness' evidence (D31). The DTP-Transport response addressed each of the draft conditions it had previously requested for inclusion on the planning permit in February 2024 and advised that it supported:

• The realignment of Laceby-Targoora Road to intersect with the Proposed Access Road (future Clarkes Lane).
• The Proposed Access Road (Future Clarkes Lane) directly intersecting with Wangaratta-Whitfield Road.
• The provision of land within the subject site for the future realignment of Clarkes Lane (to connect to the Proposed Access Road).
• The provision of a CHR(s) and BAL in-lieu of the originally proposed CHR and AUL turn treatments at the Wangaratta-Whitfield Road intersection.

Wangaratta-Whitfield Road and Laceby Targoora Road intersection

The most recent DTP-Transport response in relation to this intersection clarified that it does not require 'realignment of Clarkes Lane to provide a direct connection to Wangaratta-Whitfield Road' as part of this combined amendment and application. It does however require is

• the realignment of Laceby-Targoora Road to intersect with the proposed subdivision's 'Proposed Access Road', which will, if the freight route is developed, act as an extension of Clarkes Lane)
• the ability to provide for the realignment of Clarkes Lane to connect with Wangaratta-Whitfield Road if that is required in the future.

This response appeared to be a point of confusion with Council on the final day of the Hearing, with Council interpreting DTP-Transport's advice as requiring provision of the direct connection now. However, the Panel considers it is clear DTP-Transport's latest advice is to ensure there is adequate reservation space allowed if the realignment of Clarkes Lane is required in the future and not to require these works now. The Panel's recommended permit conditions reflects its and the Proponent's understanding of DTP-Transport's advice.

In terms of the intersection arrangement shown on the Concept Development Plan Version 17, and assessed in Mr Furness' evidence, the Panel is satisfied that the configuration of the Wangaratta-Whitfield Road and Laceby-Targoora Road intersection as proposed is appropriate. This includes prioritising the new 'Proposed Access Road' to the subdivision over Laceby-Targoora Road (where normally the higher order road, being Laceby-Targoora Road, would be prioritised).

In addition, the Panel supports the recommendations of Mr Furness in relation to the shared path crossings at the intersection (where he recommends minor changes to the crossing alignments to provide a safer crossing environment) and his recommendations in relation to the right and left turn treatments to be provided at that intersection. These include a 'downgrade' of the treatments originally proposed by OneMileGrid at the intersection to instead provide a Channelised Right Turn Lane (Short) and Basic left turn lane, changes which DTP-Transport did not contest in its most recent referral response. The Panel's recommendations in this regard are captured in the Panel recommended Planning Permit in Appendix D.

Finally, the Panel supports the requirement for Laceby-Targoora Road to be sealed to a width of 6.2 metres to meet current Infrastructure Development Manual requirements for a rural collector road, noting that it is already operating beyond capacity for its constructed cross-section, as raised by submitters and Mr Furness.

Clarkes Lane (including consideration of the potential freight bypass and access to the subdivision)

The Panel considers that appropriate allowance has been made for the widening and upgrade of Clarkes Lane to a Collector Road, if required in the future. This includes the provision of an eight metres setback from the Clarkes Lane road reserve, the provision of a shared path along the north side of Clarkes Lane and the provision of internal accessways for the subdivision so there is no direct access to the Clarkes Lane other than via the single vehicular access point located shown on the Concept Development Plan (Version 17) and shown in Figure 8.

To reduce the electronic size of this document, Figure 8 has been removed from this version of the report. Contact Planning Panels Victoria to obtain a complete copy of the report.

The Panel also supports the traffic treatment at the proposed central access point to the subdivision from Clarkes Lane as recommended by Mr Furness. This involves the provision of Basic Left and Right turn lanes, where OneMileGrid originally proposed higher standard treatments. The Panel accepts the evidence of Mr Furness that the higher order treatment suggested by OneMileGrid will only be required if Clarkes Lane is upgraded to a higher order road/freight bypass and should not be a requirement or expectation of the proposed subdivision to deliver.

In addition, Mr Furness's evidence provides a discussion of what would need to happen at the Wangaratta-Whitfield Road and Clarkes Lane intersection if Clarkes Lane is upgraded to function as a freight bypass. Whilst the intersection detail of a potential future upgrade is not a matter for this Panel (other than considering whether there is flexibility for such an upgrade if required - as discussed above) the Panel highlights Mr Furness' observations as something the Road Authority could consider if the upgrade does occur at some point in the future.

Finally, the Panel does not consider there is any nexus between the proposed subdivision and the need for an upgrade to the Greta Road/Clarkes Lane intersection given the low volumes of traffic from the proposed subdivision that are predicted to use this intersection, as outlined in the OneMileGrid response to submissions. Accordingly, the Panel does not support the need for works to that intersection as suggested in submissions.

Impacts to surrounding local streets from the Permit application

The Panel acknowledges the concerns of the local community about potential impacts to the local road network, both in terms of the possibility of through traffic utilising the existing local road network as well as the potential exacerbation of any safety issues particularly around Cathedral College at peak times. The concerns about access for emergency services are also acknowledged.

The Panel firstly notes that it accepts the findings of OneMileGrid and Mr Furness that the existing road network surrounding the site generally has capacity in terms of traffic volumes and surveyed intersections including at peak hour. Multiple surveys of existing conditions have been undertaken, and careful consideration given to anticipated future traffic volumes and anticipated movements and traffic flow.

Based on this work, the Panel is satisfied that the road network can readily accommodate the additional traffic the proposal will generate at all times (including at peak times for Cathedral College) without material delays to road users, including emergency services.

The Panel is also satisfied that the extension of Milnes Creek Drive into the proposed subdivision represents an acceptable traffic outcome. Whilst this change will result in additional traffic in Milnes Creek Drive, the Panel is satisfied that the extent of additional traffic is not unreasonable and sits well within the capacity for which the road was designed. The subdivision layout appropriately responds to the movement network strategies of Clause 18.02.

Public transport access and pedestrian/cycling access/safety

The Panel acknowledges that, as it often the case in regional towns, there is limited access to public transport in this part of Wangaratta. However, the Panel is satisfied that there is the potential for better access to be provided via the provision of a bus route and bus stop along Clarkes Lane. This is not a matter that is within the control of either the Proponent or the Council, however, the additional population that the proposal will generate should provide further support for the provision of public transport services to the area.

In relation to pedestrian and cycling access and the safety issues that have been raised the Panel considers the proposal should assist in alleviating some of these issues. The Permit application includes:

• a new cycling lane along Clarkes Lane (where there is currently no dedicated pedestrian or cycling access) and along One Mile Creek
• a shared path crossing at the intersection of Wangaratta-Whitfield and Laceby-Targoora roads designed to utilise the proposed median and provide a safer crossing environment for pedestrians and cyclists.

Accordingly, the Panel is satisfied that the proposal will not result in an unsafe environment for pedestrians or cyclists and that the subdivision design appropriately responds to the movement network strategies of Clause 18.02.

Street layout and accessibility of the proposed subdivision

Mr Furness undertook an assessment of the proposal against the relevant requirements of Clause 56 of the Planning Scheme as well as the requirements of the Infrastructure Design Manual. He confirmed that the proposal satisfied the objectives of both provisions and will result in an appropriate road layout that can accommodate the predicted daily traffic (including on-street parking) within the site and the access and turning movements of emergency vehicles and garbage trucks.

The proposed street layout and accessibility of the subdivision is considered acceptable.

• The proposal will not result in unacceptable impacts on traffic volumes and traffic movement on the surrounding streets.
• The traffic works and intersection treatments that are proposed are appropriate, subject to the inclusion of appropriate permit conditions changes consistent with the Panel's recommended planning permit in Appendix D.

The issue is whether the proposed impacts to biodiversity are acceptable.

The Amendment and draft Permit were supported by the exhibited:

• Biodiversity Assessment which included a Native Vegetation Removal Report
• Arborist Report.

Both documents were updated post exhibition. The updated Biodiversity Assessment identified seven patches of remnant native vegetation within the study area (the Amendment and Permit land and adjacent public open space) (refer Figure 9). Patch 5 is identified as representative of Ecological Vegetation Class EVC68: Creekline Grassy Woodland with the remaining patches representative of EVC55: Plains Grassy Woodland. The patches are of moderate quality and located as follows:

• Patch 1, in the south-eastern portion of the study area and include a portion of the Clarkes Lane and Laceby-Targoora Road road reserve.
• Patch 2, within the Laceby-Targoora Road road reserve in the eastern portion of the study area
• Patches 3 and 4 comprising small groups of trees located near the southern boundary of the study area
• Patch 5 riparian vegetation associated with One Mile Creek
• Patch 6 the northern-most patch
• Patch 7 south of Patch 6 separated by a pedestrian track.

The Biodiversity Assessment noted the presence of eleven scattered indigenous trees, of which six were dead.

The Biodiversity Assessment outlined the vegetation to be removed to facilitate the proposed development (noting that no vegetation removal is required for the WWTP) including:

• some losses in Patch 1 for the creation of the entrance into the estate from Wangaratta-Whitfield Road
• the loss of Patch 2, due to the proposed lots and fencing extending close to Wangaratta-Whitfield Road
• some losses in Patch 3 including the loss of a Large Tree
• small impacts to Patch 4, however the Large Tree is to be retained
• three dead scattered trees (Trees AV, AW and AX)
• scattered Trees 17 and 18 due to the works required to upgrade Clarkes Lane.

Concept Development Plan Version 17 now proposes to retain Trees 24 and 28 (to the rear of Lots 211 to 214 within a building exclusion zone.

The proposed vegetation removal comprises 0.467 hectares in total (including three scattered trees). The identified offset requirement is for 0.19 General Habitat Units with a Minimum Strategic Biodiversity Score of 0.406, and a total of six large trees.

The Biodiversity Assessment noted that habitats for native wildlife were generally highly modified, aside from the areas of remnant vegetation. While the open exotic grasslands provided limited fauna habitat, they did provide foraging habitat for a range of birds. Higher quality habitats included the areas of remnant vegetation that supported mature trees, which were generally located within the south-eastern portion of the study area, One Mile Creek, and as scattered trees including within the road reserves.

Fifteen fauna species were recorded within the study area including species such as Striated Pardalote and the Red-rumped Parrot_._ One Mile Creek formed a contiguous habitat corridor, which extends beyond the study area which provided opportunities for fauna to move across the landscape. Fish and frog species were likely to utilise the aquatic habitats located along One Mile Creek, although none were recorded during the assessment. Potential fauna impacts in relation to One Mile Creek are discussed further in Chapter 4.4.

Several submissions raised concerns about the impacts to biodiversity on the site including loss of native vegetation and impacts to a range of species including within One Mile Creek.

DEECA provided a written response to the proposal in relation to biodiversity matters on 14 May 2024 which identified that:

DEECA has assessed the application (in its current form), the proposed development doesn't appear to have significant impact on the biodiversity values and efforts have been made to design a development sympathetic to the natural values.

DEECA supports the planning permit application and the "draft" planning permit conditions with the inclusion of the recommendations identified in the Biodiversity Assessment, Clarkes Lane, Wangaratta (Ecolink February 2024) including those that seek to protect and enhance existing natural values in the development area and the adjoining One Mile Creek Reserve, Wenham's Lane Reserve and permit conditions provided below.

Included in DEECA's submission were also a number of conditions which it requested to have included on any planning permit. Council advised that subsequent to DEECA's initial advice it was provided with the updated Biodiversity Assessment and Arborist Report. As a result, DEECA provided updated permit conditions which Council included in its Day 1 version of the draft Permit.

In relation to flora and fauna matters the Proponent advised:

The Site is predominantly cleared grazing land, with small patches of native vegetation and native scattered trees. As a starting point, this provides an opportunity for building homes without causing significant ecological impacts. Notwithstanding, consistent with the avoid-minimise principles in the Planning Scheme, the subdivision design and WWTP siting have been laid out to avoid native vegetation removal so far as practicable. For instance, reserves have been located in areas containing clusters of native vegetation, and a 30m setback has been provided to One Mile Creek, avoiding impacts to this environment entirely. Similarly, the WWTP has been sited to avoid any native vegetation removal. In the circumstances, the Proposal has very low ecological impact and has acceptably responded to the avoid-minimise requirements of the Planning Scheme. Permit conditions as drafted by DEECA and Council will ensure appropriate tree protection measures, weed control, fauna management and offsets are secured during development.

The Panel considers that the requirements of the Planning Scheme at Clause 52.17 to 'avoid, minimise and offset' have been appropriately addressed through the proposed development response. The Permit land is highly modified with only limited native vegetation currently present. The subdivision layout has been designed to retain trees and native vegetation where possible in open space reserves.

In addition, the Concept Development Plan Version 17 includes building exclusion zones and tree protection zones to further ensure that those trees or areas of native vegetation to be retained as are protected when development of the site occurs. It is also noted that the WWTF has been sited to ensure that no native vegetation removal is required.

Having considered the Biodiversity and Arborist Reports, the advice of DEECA, the policy provisions of Clause 12.01 and decision making guidelines of Clause 52.17, the Panel is satisfied that the proposed development will not result in unacceptable impacts to biodiversity, subject to appropriate conditions to manage native vegetation impacts and impacts on fauna impacted by tree removal. This includes the Day 1 proposed:

• DEECA conditions including for offsets
• Council's proposed conditions for wildlife protection associated with any tree removal
• Council's proposed Construction and Environmental Management Plan conditions and other related conditions providing for tree protection zones
• amended plans condition to identify a wildlife corridor as identified in the updated Biodiversity Report and associated condition for a detailed landscaping plan providing for supplementary planting of this area.

Potential impacts on the environmental values of One Mile Creek are discussed below.

• The development proposal will not result in unacceptable impacts to biodiversity subject to the inclusion of appropriate permit conditions including DEECA's proposed conditions.

The issue is whether the proposal will result in unacceptable impacts to the water quality of One Mile Creek or habitat values of the creek.

The exhibited Integrated Water Management and Sewage Detention - A Sewerage Servicing Strategy identified the potential, subject to EPA approval, for Class A treated water from the WWTF to be discharged to One Mile Creek, during wet periods.

A draft Targoora Park WWTP Recycled Water Discharge - Environmental Risk Assessment report was subsequently prepared by Water Technology in May 2025 to consider the proposed discharge of excess recycled water (Class A) into One Mile Creek. The Environmental Risk Assessment was prepared to support the WWTF proposal in accordance with EPA Guideline 1287 and was included as an Appendix to Mr McAlister's evidence statement.

The Environmental Risk Assessment includes a biodiversity assessment of fauna in One Mile Creek and identifies six species as having a high likelihood of inhabiting One Mile Creek. These species comprise the Common Froglet, Plains Froglet, Sloane's froglet, Southern Bell Frog, Rakali (Australian Water Rat) and Platypus. The Environmental Risk Assessment identified a medium level of risk to local frog species (including under existing conditions without any discharge from the project) and seasonal medium risk during autumn and winter. To manage any potential impacts a 5 year monitoring program was recommended, along with investigation of species-specific toxicity thresholds and discharge suspension protocols.

The stormwater management of the Permit land has been designed to provide for all stormwater to flow to a proposed bioretention basin in the western portion of the site, abutting One Mile Creek. From the bioretention basin the stormwater will then be released into One Mile Creek via a single discharge point.

The exhibited Stormwater Management Strategy outlines the specific site requirements for the stormwater quantity management through the site, covering runoff volumes generated, permissible site discharge and the on-site detention requirements.

The potential impacts to One Mile Creek from the discharge of Class A treated water or the flow of stormwater from the bioretention basin, was raised in several submissions. A key concern was the potential for these flows to impact creek fauna, particularly the platypus.

One submitter also raised concerns in relation to erosion impacts to One Mile Creek. The submitter highlighted that the section of One Mile Creek abutting the site is upstream of Wangaratta where it flows through the town and into the Three Mile Creek. The submission noted that there was a risk of sediment running into the waterways during construction, and from the subdivision on an ongoing basis which could exacerbate the existing environmental conditions of the creek.

Other submissions identified potential concerns from flooding on any infrastructure constructed within flood prone areas, safety around the bioretention basin or pedestrian access to the creek (on private property).

Council's Part B submission responded to these concerns as follows:

• ...a Stormwater Management Plan was exhibited with the amendment deals with quality and quantity. Exhibited draft permit conditions also deal with legal point of discharge to ensure flood impacts minimise flood risk.
• During the exhibition period NECMA made a submission to the amendment. NECMA has responsibilities relating to floodplain management and the special water supply catchment. NECMA submitted conditions to be added to the exhibited draft permit to address floodplain management.
• Officers have made updates in response to NECMAs submission. The relevant permit conditions are contained in the Day 1 Document - Draft Permit Conditions at paragraph 81 and permit notes.
• ... the exhibited Biodiversity Report refers to isolated records of platypus sighting and the One Mile Creek may provide habitat for such species.

The Proponent also provided a response to the concerns raised, submitting:

First, the Proposal does not include works on One Mile Creek, other than the outfall from the detention basin which is a very minor work, so will not have direct impacts on the Creek.

Second, it is observed that residential lots abut One Mile Creek for several kilometres as it passes through urban Wangaratta, which is an expected and common condition where waterways traverse urban areas.

Third, the future residential use of the Land can be expected to have neutral if not lesser impacts than the current grazing use. This is because the proposed onsite stormwater detention and treatment systems will treat water quality to best practice standards. This can be contrasted with agricultural use which has no such control and is often a source of sediment and nitrogen loads on waterways.

Concerns about the ecological health of the creek were also addressed by Mr McAlister's evidence who confirmed:

• all the stormwater from the proposal will go the bio-retention basin and will be released to One Mile Creek at a controlled rate, to ensure no impact to downstream flooding
• the use of the bio-retention basin was a best practice "tried and tested technique"
• there will be no unacceptable water quality or environmental impacts associated with the potential release of water from the WWTF, as any water discharged would be dechlorinated and require EPA approval
• there will be no adverse impacts on the water quality or ecological health of One Mile Creek
• that notwithstanding the above, once the proposal has started and operation the operation of the WWTF commenced, a data collection program should be undertaken to confirm there are no adverse impacts.

When asked under cross-examination about potential impacts to the platypus from the release of Class A water from the WWTF, Mr McAlister stated that having reviewed the proposal from a water quality perspective, and noting that he is an engineer rather than an ecologist, he expected there would be 'none whatsoever'.

As identified earlier in this report the WWTF does not require planning approval. While the Permit can and does have conditions requiring to its provision by stage 1 it cannot include specific conditions about its operation and design including any water discharged from it to One Mile Creek. This is a matter of further detailed design approval by NEW and the EPA under other legislation. The Panel anticipates that any EPA approval would likely include a requirement for data collection and monitoring as recommended by Mr McAlister.

Broader issues relating to impacts on One Mile Creek directly relating to the proposed subdivision (including habitat impacts, flooding and erosion) are however relevant considerations.

The Panel understands the concerns of the local community in relation to the potential for impacts to One Mile Creek and any fauna in the creek. The Panel notes that both the Biodiversity Assessment and the Environmental Risk Assessment report identified the potential for there to be fauna in the Creek, although only the Environmental Risk Assessment recorded the presence of any fauna.

Notwithstanding the above, the Panel is persuaded by the evidence of Mr McAlister and considers that the proposed subdivision development will not result in unacceptable impacts to the creek and its role as potential habitat for the platypus and other fauna. In coming to this conclusion, the Panel highlights that:

• the existing creek environment as it extends through Wangaratta is urban in nature, thus the environment that will be created here is not an unusual circumstance however managing the interface to the creek during and post construction will be important
• stormwater run-off from the proposed development is expected to represent an improvement to what occurs currently in terms of the quality of the water that is released. This is due to the use of the bio-retention basin and the implementation of best practice techniques - as compared to the existing conditions of the site where there is no treatment of water before it flows into the creek
• the two referral authorities with a particular interest in stormwater quality and management - MGW and NECMA, advised they did not object to the development and their nominated conditions have been included in the Day 1 version.

In relation to the erosion concerns that were raised, the Panel does not expect that the proposal will result in a worsening of conditions along the creek line - noting that the subject site does not include the creek itself.

The exhibited Landscape Master Plan shows an open space reserve, bike path and landscaping on the land abutting the creek corridor. The Panel expects that landscaping of this area may well assist in improving the ecological conditions of the creek, as will the improved quality of the stormwater discussed above.

The Panel is satisfied the draft Permit conditions provide for drainage areas to be constructed in such a way to ensure public safety whether that be through batter angles or fencing.

The Panel notes the advice of Council that there are no lots proposed within the existing LSIO and any paths and other infrastructure within the LSIO can be appropriately designed to minimise damage or impede flood water.

Further, any potential impacts from construction are able to be managed by a Construction Environmental Management Plan condition requirement as proposed in the exhibited draft Permit. The Day 1 version of draft Permit includes a number of conditions that will assist in managing impacts on One Mile Creek from stormwater or erosion including:

• Residential Design Guidelines providing for stormwater re-use
• relevant Detailed landscaping plans to provide for native vegetation restoration and additional plantings along the creek reserve
• conditions for on-site detention and water sensitive urban design
• amending the Construction and Environmental Management Plan condition to include specific measure for works adjacent to the creek.

However, the landscaping conditions should be amended to provide for fencing treatments along the creek edge property boundary to restrict pedestrian access to the creek to minimise erosion) and to delineate private property.

With the inclusion of these updated conditions the Panel does not expect the proposal to result in further erosion of One Mile Creek or detrimental impacts to water quality consistent with the policy considerations of Clause 12.03.

• The proposed subdivision development will not result in unacceptable impacts to the water quality of One Mile Creek or habitat values of the creek from stormwater or erosion subject to the inclusion of appropriate conditions on the draft Permit to manage potential impacts.

The issue is whether the location and extent of open space provided as part of the proposed subdivision is appropriate.

The open space areas as shown on Concept Development Plan Version 17 comprise:

• a linear open space reserve of 5,247 square metre, which also incorporates a shared path, along the north side of the subdivision, connecting Targoora Park to One Mile Creek
• a second linear reserve of 4,292 square metres, along One Mile Creek, also with a shared path, that extends along the western boundary of the site, incorporates the bio-retention basin and connects to Clarkes Lane to the south
• an open space reserve abutting Clarkes Lane of 3,372 square metres that also abuts one of the three medium density housing superlots
• an open space reserve of 1.172 hectares in the south east corner of the site, which will be truncated if Clarkes Lane is upgraded to be used as a freight route.

There were a number of submissions concerned about the open space provision. Submitters noted its importance from both a mental health and environmental perspective and highlighted that there was no provision of a playground area or place for informal recreation to play ball sports.

Council responded to these concerns in its Part B submission and highlighted that the required amount of open space is provided (from a Planning Scheme perspective) noting that the open space is provided as open space links rather than traditional playground type space. Council also noted that the Proponent had advised that the proposal would continue to exceed the open space requirements even if open space is lost in the future as a result of the re-alignment of Clarkes Lane.

2.46 hectares of unencumbered open space (equivalent to 10% of the total site area, excluding flood prone land) is proposed to be provided, with proposed open space areas linked to existing public open space reserves and integrated with encumbered land (One Mile Creek reserve) that is accessible for public recreation (Clause 56.05-2 / Standard C13).

The proposed open space provision on the Permit land has considered several factors:

• linkages to existing open space areas and bicycle/pedestrian paths
• retention of indigenous trees in open space reserves
• co-location of open space reserves with the medium density housing superlots
• the presence of significant regional level open space in proximity to the site in the form of Targoora Park and its baseball and softball sports facilities, along with the additional dog off-leash area and the Wenhams Reserve interface.

The proposed location and extent of open space represents an acceptable planning outcome and is consistent with the requirements of Clause 53.10, the urban landscape standards and policy objectives and strategies of Clause 19.02. The proposed open space linkages along the western and northern sides of the subdivision, and the connections that are provided both to Targoora Park to the north and Clarkes Lane to the south will result in an accessible and permeable open space network.

In terms of the open space areas located in the south east of the site, while they are not centrally located on the site, their locations are broadly appropriate given the presence of existing trees to be retained as well as the accessibility of the northern portion of the site to Targoora Park and Wenhams Reserve.

However, the Panel considers improved surveillance is required in relation the open space reserve located in the south east of the site, abutting the medium density housing superlot 172. With this in mind, the Panel supports the proposed condition put forward by the Proponent requiring the Residential Guidelines for the subdivision to include:

Principles to promote passive surveillance from a future development of lot 172 (future medium density housing) to the public open space south of lot 172, including through measures relating to outlook from dwellings, fence height and permeability.

In relation to access to active open space areas and sporting facilities, the Panel is satisfied that with the proximity of the site to Targoora Park, and the access that is provided by the linear open space and shared paths shown on Concept Development Plan Version 17, that there is no need for additional active open spaces to be provided beyond those shown. It is also considered acceptable that there are no areas of active open space proposed as part of the subdivision given the presence of extensive sporting facilities at Targoora Park, and the connections provided to the park via the shared path network.

In relation to submitter concerns regarding the lack of a playground area or play equipment, the Panel notes that the draft planning permit that was exhibited as part of the Amendment included a condition requiring the landscape master plan to include the 'detailed design and the exact location of the playground to be provided in Stage 1 - South East reserve' and 'paths, paved areas, playgrounds, play items, structures, and street furniture'.

• The location and extent of open space proposed as part of the proposed subdivision development is appropriate.

Table 7 sets out the relevant Planning permit application considerations in the Wangaratta Planning Scheme.

Table 7 Wangaratta Planning Scheme Planning Permit considerations

Clause 32.08-14 Decision guidelines (general and Subdivision)

Clause 44.04-8 Decision guidelines including views of the floodplain management authority

Clause 52.17-4 Decision guidelines including the Guidelines for the removal, destruction or lopping of native vegetation (Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning, 2017)

Clause 52.29-6 Decision guidelines including views of the road authority

Schedule to Clause 53.01 Subdivision and public open space contribution of 5 per cent of land or land value

Seeks to discourage reticulated gas connections to new residential subdivisions (includes mandatory condition)

Assessment required against stormwater management and objectives with identified objectives to be met and standards which should be met

• - the Planning Policy Framework
• - the purpose of the zone, overlay or other provision
• - the orderly planning of the area
• - the effect on the amenity of the area
• - factors likely to cause or contribute to land degradation, salinity or reduce water quality
• - the extent and character of native vegetation, the likelihood of its destruction, and whether it can be protected, planted or allowed to regenerate
• - the degree of flood, erosion or fire hazard associated with the location of the land and the use, development or management of the land so as to minimise any such hazard

Clause 66.01-1 Mandatory conditions for subdivision permits

To take an integrated approach, and to balance competing objectives in favour of net community benefit and sustainable development

• objections
• responses of determining and recommending referral authorities comments and decisions of referral authorities
• other matters a Responsible Authority must and may take into account under section 60 of the PE Act, including the Victorian planning objectives and the economic, social and environmental impacts of the proposed use and development
• adopted government policy.

The draft Permit included 60 conditions including for:

• Amended plans
• Cultural heritage works
• Mandatory conditions relating to telecommunications, reticulated services, easements
• Integrated Wastewater Management Facility
• s173 Agreements under the PE Act
• Residential Design Guidelines
• Construction Site and Environmental Management Plan
• On-site detention and water sensitive urban design
• DTP - Transport conditions.

Other permit conditions related to transformers and substations, construction plans and works, fencing, shared pathway, landscape plans (including construction, maintenance and weed control), Sustainable Infrastructure Guidelines, civil infrastructure construction and asset transfer, earthworks, drainage, levels, road design and intersections, staged and temporary works, plan checking, tree protection native vegetation removal (and offsets) and wildlife management.

The Panel is satisfied that the proposed subdivision development is consistent with the relevant policies of the Municipal Planning Strategy and Planning Policy Framework.

As discussed in Chapter 3 the proposed subdivision layout, lot size and density are appropriate for the Permit land, taking into account both the policy context of the Planning Scheme and the locational and physical attributes of the site and its surrounds. The Panel also considers that the proposed provision of public open space and the new shared paths proposed as part of the subdivision will provide appropriate interfaces and connections to existing surrounding development.

As discussed in Chapter 4, the Panel is satisfied that potential impacts on the environment (including existing vegetation and potential impacts to the habitat of One Mile Creek) have been appropriately considered as part of the planning permit application, as has potential traffic impacts. These impacts can all be managed through proposed or further amended conditions on the Permit.

During the Hearing there was further discussion about the approaches to:

• the Cultural Heritage Management Plan (CHMP) approved under the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 based on changes to the concept plans forming part of it consistent with the considerations of Clause 15.03-2S
• managing bushfire threat consistent with Clause 13.02-1S.

Planning Practice Note 45: The Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 and the Planning Permit Process (PPN45) identifies the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 requires permit applicants to prepare a CHMP if all or part of the activity is a listed high impact activity, resulting in significant ground disturbance, and if all or part of the activity area is an area of cultural heritage sensitivity, which has not been subject to significant ground disturbance. Where required (as it is here) the responsible authority cannot issue a planning permit until it receives a copy of the approved CHMP under section 52(1) of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 Act.

The Panel asked questions of the Proponent about whether the approved CHMP appropriately reflected either version 15 or 17 of the Concept Development Plan Version 17, and whether this was of consequence.

The Proponent noted that the current proposed layout of the northern portion of the site, comprising the area of the WWTP, was not reflected in the 'activity area' included in the CHMP, but highlighted that the residential subdivision area did 'match' that shown in the CHMP. The Proponent also advised that if the subdivision and WWTP were considered as two different projects then the WWTP would not actually have required a CHMP as it was not within an area of cultural heritage sensitivity (determined by proximity to the One Mile Creek).

The CHMP identified there were no Aboriginal cultural heritage places or material identified within the Permit land activity area.

The Panel is of the view that the CHMP clearly identifies the Permit land and proposed subdivision layout within the activity area map and does not need to be amended prior to the issue of the Permit. However, whether the CHMP needs to be amended prior to the development of the WWTF is a matter for further investigation by Council and the Proponent.

A condition regarding compliance with the CHMP is not required as a condition of permit as it repeats a requirement of other legislation. It was deleted in the Day 1 version.

The exhibited amendment was referred to the CFA however no response was received. After further follow up from Council, the CFA advised that FRV was the appropriate authority.

As no submission was received from the FRV prior to or during the Panel Hearing, consideration was given to the recommendations included in the exhibited Bushfire Report. Council and the Proponent were directed by the Panel to consider whether any recommendations of that report needed to be implemented via conditions of the planning permit and, if so, to prepare draft conditions.

The Final Day version of the permit was subsequently amended to include a number of conditions addressing the recommendations of the Bushfire Report in addition to Clause 56 provisions for fire hydrants.

The Panel advised it would receive further correspondence from the FRV during or shortly after the conclusion of the Hearing, noting Council was also able to add any late FRV advice before considering approval of the Amendment and draft Permit.

FRV on 10 June 2025 advised Council (who had provided it with Council's Final Day version of the draft Permit) that it had read the Bushfire Report and identified:

The water supply, hydrant and roads conditions contained within the Bushfire Planning Report (once endorsed as part of the Permit) would satisfy FRV conditions...

Table 8 summarises the Panel's consideration of the draft Permit against the relevant zone and overlay provisions and particular provisions of the Planning Scheme.

As noted elsewhere in this Report while the WWTF is required to service the proposed subdivision, and its provision is appropriately required as a condition of the draft Permit it does not require a planning permit and has not been assessed by the Panel.

Table 8 Zone, overlay and particular provisions planning permit considerations

Refer Chapter 3 and 4.1. The proposed pattern of subdivision is consistent with the purpose of the zone and the 'General' and 'Subdivision' decision guidelines and the objectives and standards of Clause 56.

Refer Chapter 4.4. The permit application has appropriately considered the potential flood impacts from One Mile Creek with all residential lots outside the LSIO. The Day 1 version of the draft Permit includes the conditions of the floodplain management authority. The draft permit (as amended) is consistent with the clause decision guidelines.

Refer Chapter 4.3. The assessment of native vegetation impacts have been appropriately assessed consistent with the decision guidelines, the Native Vegetation Guidelines and consistent with the position of DEECA and identified conditions including for vegetation offsets in the Day 1 version of the draft Permit. The draft permit (as amended) is consistent with the clause decision guidelines.

The permit application has appropriately sought the views of AusNet as the affected party to remove the easement (E-1) with AusNet's conditions included on the Day 1 version of the draft Permit in relation to the location of electricity supply assets. The draft permit (as amended) is consistent with the clause decision guidelines.

Refer Chapter 4.2. The permit application has appropriately sought the views of DTP-Transport and included their conditions (amended generally consistent with their further written advice) in the Day 1 version of the draft Permit. These conditions subject to minor changes are supported.

Refer Chapter 4.5. The proposed subdivision provides more than the 5 per cent contribution required in the clause Schedule.

The Day 1 draft Permit includes a condition prohibiting reticulated gas connections to residential lots.

Refer Chapter 4.5. The Day 1 draft Permit contains conditions relating to stormwater detention and Assessment required against stormwater management and objectives with identified objectives to be met and standards which should be met

The draft Permit application was supported by a detailed analysis of the objectives, requirements and standards of Clause 56 (contained in the Planning Report) and confirmed in Ms Rigo's evidence statement. The Panel is satisfied that the subdivision layout (subject to amendments to draft Day 1 Permit conditions) achieves the objectives and standards including:

• - the size of lots and identification of medium density lots
• - street orientation
• - providing connectivity to existing pedestrian and open space and street networks and future bus routes
• - appropriately integrating into the surrounding environment including One Mile Creek and the rural residential character south of Clarkes Lane
• - stormwater management
• - site management during construction

The mandatory conditions for subdivision permits have been included in the Day 1 version of the draft Permit in addition to the conditions of DEECA, NECMA, NEW, GMW and AusNet.

On balance, the Panel considers that the draft Permit application is an appropriate response to the site's setting and residential context and provides for an innovative response to a significant infrastructure constraint. The subdivision layout is consistent with the orderly and proper planning of the area and will result in a net community benefit. A permit should be granted subject to further changes to conditions as discussed below.

As discussion in Chapter 1.3, Council's Day 1 version of the draft Permit made numerous changes to the exhibited version including the addition of the referral authority conditions.

Council and the Proponent provided Final Day changes to Council's Day 1 version of the draft Permit. The changes proposed by Council and the Proponent are summarised in Table 9 which includes a summary of the Panel's position. Minor drafting corrections are not identified. Changes that have been supported by the Panel have been included in its recommended version in Appendix D. This includes several minor changes to remove unnecessary abbreviations, note condition numbering changes for cross referenced conditions and other changes to add clarity about lot numbering.

• - refer to concept plan version 17
• - deleted)
• - amend e), f) and g) for clarity
• - include conditions relating to the freight bypass markings, staging and easement E-1

Amend condition b) to clarify potential freight bypass.

Add 3 additional conditions relating to identifying trees to be removed, kiosk and REFCL locations, fire hydrants and defendable spaces

Support Council changes subject to the change to b) consistent with the Proponent's suggested change relating to the freight bypass and the additional suggested conditions which address drafting errors, and support conditions relating to bushfire protection measures

Agree duplicates requirements under Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act 2006.

Add Proponent's suggested change including c) related to building exclusion areas and other minor changes and delete k) and l)

Support Council changes which include appropriate minor amendments to assist with clarity and delete unnecessary provisions. Agree with Proponent that m) should be deleted with the Panel identifying changes in its recommended version which refer to the endorsed plan numbering of lots

Include Proponent's suggested changes to residential Design Guidelines with the provision of the requirement for written consent to vary requirements

Include alternative wording for guideline variation and requirement for passive surveillance to adjoining public open space for medium density housing outcomes on lot 172

Support Council's changes with the Proponent's alternative wording for new k) and l). The guidelines should build in a process for considering variations to provide a more consistent approach to variations. The requirement for passive surveillance will result in an improved interface of medium density superlot 172 with the adjoining public open space area

Minor changes to ensure clarity about timing of entry feature construction

Support - this improves clarity and aligns its provision with the relevant development stage

Amend to refer to plans to be submitted for REFCL and kiosk locations

Amend g) to address works adjacent to One Mile Creek

Add new condition n) regarding management of grassland fuel conditions

Support - provides for consideration of Creek interface when designing site management responses to minimise runoff and erosion during construction, and the appropriate management of fire risk of areas not under development

Amend c) to remove 'comply with' the Infrastructure Design Manual to refer to achieving 'best practice'.

Amend d) iv. To remove reference to medium density housing lots

Alternative wording of c) to replace 'comply with' with 'having regard to'

Support - this is an appropriate response to the Bushfire Planning Report and provisions of Clause 13.02-1S

Amend c) to include planting to be consistent with to the Bushfire Planning Report.

Amend g) to add clarity about references to the updated Biodiversity report.

Delete reference to certification as a requirement of the detailed landscape plan.

Support changes to c), g) and adding o) as these are appropriate responses to the Bushfire Planning Report and provisions of Clause 13.02-1S, and the updated Biodiversity report.

Because a Master landscape plan is approved prior to the certification of Stage 1 it is not necessary to require detailed landscape plans to be approved prior to certification of the relevant stage

Amend to enable flexible timing and b) to refer to a two summer maintenance period and make minor changes to c)

Support Council's changes with retention of a 24 month timeframe including two summers

Amend a) for the TIA to refer to the Traffix Report forming part of Mr Furness' evidence

Support as this document formed the basis of DTP-Transport updated advice and sets the base for the analysis required by the TIA without the cost of reproducing it

Amend a), add new b) for intersection treatment and c) alternative wording for Laceby-Targoora Road treatment

Delete a) and amend b) to identify standard of Laceby-Targoora Road

Support Proponent's changes- refer Chapter 4.2 regarding the Wangaratta-Whitfield and Laceby-Targoora Road intersection

Support - Consistent with the Bushfire Report recommendations, Clause 56 and FRV advice supporting the proposed conditions

Support - this change adds clarity to the extent of any impactful works

Amend to correct reference to 0.19 General habitat Units.

Support - retains intent of condition while adding greater clarity

Amend i. and ii. Amend iii. to provide for Basic Left Turn treatment.

Adding new conditions b) for safety audit and c) staging plan and d) for bus route cross sections as per DTP-Planning referral conditions

Delete i. and ii and delete d) as per traffic evidence and DTP-Transport advice in response

Support Proponent changes which reflect the traffic evidence and later DTP-Transport advice. Refer discussion in Chapter 4.2 regarding DTP-Transport conditions

Support only relevant additional works should be those identified in the road safety audit in 58b)

Amend DTP-Transport Note at b) and d) consistent as per traffic advice and DTP-Transport advice in response

While the Panel does not support the inclusion of notes on the permit, it understands this is a typical approach for many Councils and used to identify other approvals required. If they are to be retained, they should be amended where any related conditions have been amended

• That a permit should be granted subject to further changes to conditions to broadly reflect Council's Final Day version of the draft Permit with additional changes consistent with the Panel's recommended version in Appendix D.

Issue planning permit PlnApp24/005 for the staged multi-lot subdivision (233 lots), removal of native vegetation, removal of an easement and construction of access to a road within a Transport 2 Zone subject to the permit conditions contained in Appendix D.

Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action

Errol and Audrey Cotton Stapleton and Ors (10 signatories)

Report to Council meeting on 13 December 2022 to prepare Amendment seek authorisation

Authorisation letter from DTP dated 12 December 2023

1. Explanatory Report
2. instruction sheet
3. Zone map sheets
4. Draft Planning Permit

1. Planning Report
2. Traffic report
3. Arboricultural Report
4. Biodiversity Assessment
5. Odour Assessment
6. Design documentation
7. Bushfire Assessment
8. Sewerage Servicing Strategy
9. Servicing Report
10. Stormwater Management Plan
11. Native vegetation removal report
12. draft Planning Permit
13. Concept Development Plans
14. Landscape Masterplan
15. Movement Network Plan and Road details
16. Stormwater plans
17. updated Traffic Engineering advice
18. Level 2 Odour Assessment
19. updated Arboricultural Report
20. updated Biodiversity Assessment
21. updated Planning Report

1. design documentation for Targoora Park Integrated Water Management Treatment Plant

1. Goulburn Murray Water
   1. Environment Protection Authority (including addendum submission)
   2. North East Water
   3. Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Change
   4. SP Ausnet
   5. North East Central Catchment Management Authority

Report to Council meeting on 10 Dec 2024 considering submissions and their referral to a Panel

Cultural Heritage Management Plan 18582, Red-Gum Environmental Consulting, 8/7/22

Residential Land and Housing Demand in the Rural City of Wangaratta, Gary Nash & Co, 21 September 2022

Letter to Council from Environmental Protection Authority, 19 September 2024

1. AusNet email 13 January 2025
2. Rapid Earth Fault Current Limiter (REFCL) Industry Briefing March 202 - Isolating Transformers in New Estates 2020
3. Wangaratta Area GIS 1 to 5000

CFA email advising forwarding PPV letter to Fire Rescue Victoria

Clarification of exhibited and post-exhibition documents - Statement of changes (Tract)

DTP - Transport response to traffic evidence and Proponent's transport related condition changes

1. PowerPoint presentation slides
2. Videos
3. Letter of support The Cape

1. Submission addendum
2. Slides
3. Plan for Victoria

Panel directions relating to circulation of Council's closing submission, Council and Proponent Final Day changes to the draft Permit and dates for any drafting comments

Proponent's drafting comments to Council's Final version of draft Permit

Advice to Council from FRV about draft Permit conditions

Council and the Proponent submitted that the Amendment supported and implemented the objectives of planning in Victoria set out in section 4 of the PE Act as follows:

• To provide for the fair, orderly, economic and sustainable use and development of land, by:
  • Allowing for the residential development of land within the existing urban boundary of Wangaratta Regional City in response to forecast population growth.
  • Facilitating the development of new housing land which has been identified as a location for residential development and housing growth in the Wangaratta Housing and Population Strategy (2013) and the Hume Regional Growth Plan (2014).
  • Preventing the underdevelopment of land which is capable of providing for higher density housing.
• To provide for the protection of natural and man-made resources and the maintenance of ecological processes and genetic diversity by:

Facilitating the efficient and appropriate use of established urban land, thereby reducing pressure on land outside Wangaratta Regional City urban area.

• To secure a pleasant, efficient and safe working, living and recreational environment for all Victorians and visitors to Victoria by:
  • Ensuring the scale, form and quantity of residential development responds appropriately to the surrounding context of Wangaratta and optimises access to existing jobs, services, schools and public transport infrastructure.
  • Facilitating the development of a secure and provide a pleasant, amenable, and safe living environment.
• To protect public utilities and other assets and enable the orderly provision and coordination of public utilities and other facilities for the benefit of the community, by:
  • Applying the Public Use Zone to land that will be developed for a wastewater treatment plant and associated assess ways and recycled water storage.
  • Facilitating the development of the land in a coordinated manner in accordance with a services strategy.
• To facilitate development in accordance with the objectives set out in paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e), by:

Facilitating the residential development of the land in a coordinated manner.

• To balance the present and future interest of all Victorians, by:

Providing increased housing supply in an appropriate and strategically supported location and in a form and scale which will be consistent with the existing neighbourhood character of Wangaratta Regional City.

Council's adopted Wangaratta Population and Housing Strategy 2013 (2013 Housing Strategy) includes as its purposes to:

• Define different types of population and housing growth to be planned for the Rural City.
• Retain consistency with the current and future regional direction/s for residential land and housing.
• Examine existing and future regional and local conditions (physical, environmental and social) that may affect the delivery of residential land and housing in the Rural City.
• Establish a charter to guide housing sustainability initiatives within the Rural City.
• Identify key information gaps that will affect local planning for residential land and housing directions and delivery of infrastructure.
• Develop short, medium and long term priorities for residential land and housing.
• Identify delivery priorities and actions to initiate those priorities.

The 2013 Housing Strategy sets out low, medium and high population growth scenarios. The high growth scenario forecasts a population of 29,840 in 2021.

Council and the Proponent submitted the Amendment is consistent with the 2013 Housing Strategy which identifies:

• the subject land as a location for "residential subdivision and development of undeveloped residential zoned land in the southern growth corridor" (refer Figure 10)
• housing density targets of 10 dwellings per net developable hectare
• opportunities for planning controls to guide the layout/form and delivery of greenfield housing and combat housing affordability through a provision of housing types.

Figure 10 Wangaratta Population and Housing Strategy directions

Wangaratta Population and Housing Strategy - Section of Wangaratta City Strategic Framework Plan

1. Wangaratta Low Density and Rural Residential Strategy

The draft Wangaratta Low Density and Rural Residential Strategy (2020) has been prepared by Council to:

• identify the future need for low density and rural living zoned land
• provide a strategy to meet the identified needs need and provide a diverse range of housing options.

The draft Strategy recommends land on the southern side of Clarkes Road (opposite the subject land) to be rezoned to the Low Density Residential Zone and Rural Residential Zone. Council adopted the Strategy on 14 December 2021, except for the elements relating to Wangaratta pending further strategic work. Council has subsequently adopted the Low Density and Rural Residential Strategy (Wangaratta) Draft Additional Investigations Report Oct 2023, which identifies the land to the immediate south of the subject land on the south side of Clarks Road as forming part of the 'Wangaratta W-1C (South) Precinct' for further consideration for rezoning to LDRZ and RLZ, subject to the preparation of a Precinct Plan.

A common zone and overlay purpose is to implement the Municipal Planning Strategy and the Planning Policy Framework. Table 10 includes the relevant zone and overlay provisions (as summarised from the Practitioner's Guide).

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:

• change the permit requirement for a dwelling (based on lot size)
• specify a higher mandatory maximum building height
• set local requirements for specified clause 54 and clause 55 standards.

GRZ1 does not include additional design objectives or variations to clause 54 and clause 55 requirements or set maximum building height requirements.

This zone is applied to areas on the fringe of urban settlements and townships with reticulated sewerage (0.2 ha minimum) or without reticulated sewerage (0.4 ha minimum) to ensure lots remain large enough to treat and retain all wastewater but are small enough to be maintained without the need for agricultural techniques or equipment.

LDRZ1 applies 1 hectare minimum lot size for land not connected to reticulated sewerage.

This zone recognises the use of land for a public purpose and prescribes a number of categories of public use which can be shown on the planning scheme map. This is the main zone for public land used for utility or community service provision. A schedule allows specified uses or managers of public land to be exempted from specified requirements. Alternative sign categories may be specified if required.

This is the main zone for public open space and public recreation areas. A schedule allows specified uses or managers of public land to be exempted from specified requirements. It also allows an exemption for buildings and works specified in an incorporated plan.

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 overlay is principally intended to implement requirements based on a demonstrated need to control built form and the built environment. The intended built form outcome, and the way in which the imposed requirements will bring this about, must be clearly stated. where possible, performance-based requirements should be used rather than prescriptive requirements.

DDO6 applies to the Wangaratta aerodrome Obstacle Height Areas 1, 2 and 3 and seeks to protect the Airport's approaches and avoid aircraft flight hazards by ensuring buildings and works are not within specified height limits. The subject land is located within Obstacle Height Area 3. A Permit is required under DDO6 for a building that exceeds 196 metres Australian Height Datum in Obstacle Height Area 3. No permit is triggered by under DDO6 by the Planning Permit application.

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.

The LSIO applies to a small section of the site along the western lot boundary, adjoining One Mile Creek. A Permit is required for buildings and works and to subdivide land affected by the LSIO. No residential lots are proposed within the LSIO.

• C:4 Ministerial Directions and Planning Practice Notes

The Explanatory Report discusses how the Amendment meets the relevant requirements of Ministerial Direction 11 (Strategic Assessment of Amendments) and Planning Practice Note 46: Strategic Assessment Guidelines, August 2018 (PPN46). That discussion is not repeated here.

Council and the Proponent submitted that the Amendment has been assessed against the requirements of Ministerial Direction 1: Potentially Contaminated Land. Given that the current and previous use of land the land has been limited to pasture for the grazing of livestock, the land has not been subject to contaminating activities that would lead the subject land to be potentially contaminated under Planning Practice Note 30 (Potentially Contaminated Land). Therefor the Amendment was considered to comply with the relevant requirements of Ministerial Direction 1.

The Amendment was referred to the EPA prior to the authorisation of the Amendment in accordance with Ministerial Direction No 19: Environmental Protection Authority. In response to comments received from the EPA the Amendment documentation was revised to include an assessment against Ministerial Direction 1 and NEW provided written confirmation that it would be the owner and operator of the WWTF.

Planning Practice Note 90: Planning for housing (PPN90)

Planning Practice Note 90 provides guidance on "how to plan for housing growth and protect neighbourhood character to ensure a balanced approach to managing residential development in planning schemes." It sets out the recommended approach to identifying minimal, incremental, and substantial housing change areas. Council identified that the area was a substantial change area based on its proximity to jobs, services, schools and public open space; and has the scale to provide a diversity of housing types and result in a new built form and neighbourhood character.

Planning Practice Note 91: Using the residential zones

Planning Practice Note 91 provides guidance on the use of the residential zones to implement strategic work with the residential zones and make use of the key features of the residential zones. The General Residential Zone is to be applied to areas where housing development of three storeys exists or is planned for in locations offering good access to services and transport and for areas identified for incremental and substantial housing change areas. The application of the Neighbourhood Residential Zone to substantial change areas is not supported in the Practice Note.

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:

• the assessment of impacts from removing native vegetation on biodiversity and other values
• how offsets are calculated an established to compensate for the loss in biodiversity value from the removal of native vegetation.

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:

• Avoid the removal, destruction or lopping of native vegetation.
• Minimise impacts from the removal, destruction or lopping of native vegetation that cannot be avoided.
• Provide an offset to compensate for the biodiversity impact from the removal, destruction or lopping of native vegetation.

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:

• protect the community from human health and amenity risks associated with unintended offsite odour and dust generated by industry/activity
• protect industry/activities from inappropriate land use and development nearby that may constrain its operations.

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:

• providing a risk assessment that details the factors and risks associated with the odour source
• proposing an alternative separation distance based on the findings of the risk assessment
• demonstrating the proposed separation distance poses a low risk of odour impact.

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:

• the intended outcome is within scope of the objectives and power of the PE Act and has a sound basis in strategic planning policy
• a provision is necessary and proportional to the intended outcome and applies the Victoria Planning Provisions in a proper manner
• a provision is clear, unambiguous and effective in achieving the intended outcome.

The Panel recommended version is based on Council's Day 1 version of the draft Permit (Document 24)

DRAFT PLANNING PERMIT GRANTED UNDER SECTION 96J OF THE

PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT ACT 1987

Create/ alter access to a road within the Transport 2 Zone.

1. Prior to the commencement of works or certification of the first stage of the plan of subdivision, amended plans to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the plans will be endorsed and then form part of the permit. The plans must be drawn to scale with dimensions. The plans must generally be in accordance with the post exhibitioned plans ref:M6801 Ver 15 17 but modified to show and/or include:

a) Lot 211 reduced in size to create a greater setback from the future by-pass road reserve on the sites south eastern interface. > > a) The nomination of building envelopes for Lots 103 & 104 to demonstrate the capability of these lots to accommodate a future dwellings along with 25% of each lot designed and designated as garden area. > > b) An entry in the legend to clarify that the white lines shown solid and dashed along Clarkes Lane connecting to Wangaratta-Whitfield Road indicate a potential future freight bypass, the outer dashed lines being a 30m wide road reserve. > > c) The area of land on the subject site covered by the white lines referred to in (b) above (i.e., the freight bypass), except land shown as a public open space reserve, to be labelled as 'road reserve'. > > d) The proposed road reserve to accommodate a potential future freight by-pass route, clearly defined within a proposed road easement. > > d) Nomination of a the proposed wildlife corridor in the northern most open space reserve (i.e between the reserve north of lots 103-117) between the Targoora Park Reserve and the One Mile Creek reserve including supplementary plantings outlined in the post-exhibition Biodiversity Assessment report by Ecolink Consulting, July 2024, version G. > > e) The final location and design, including urban design treatments, associated with of the facilities and features required under conditions 1618 and 1719 [Panel Note: check condition numbering to reflect amended condition numbering] of this permit. Include an annotation that the kiosk and Rapid Earth Fault Current Limiter locations are indicative and subject to detailed design and final location approval by the relevant electricity authority. > > f) Finalised Ssite and elevation plans of the Integrated Waste Water Management Facility, including the location and size of ponds/tanks. > > g) Staging boundaries as per the exhibited plans ref:M5801 Ver 15. > > h) The black dashed lines which cross the south-eastern portion of the subject site to be marked 'electricity supply easement E-1 on PS 744661D to be removed'.

1. Show the five trees shown to be removed in the south-west corner of the subject site, being the four trees touching lots 38-40 and the tree in the shared path south of lot 38, as per the exhibited V15 version of the subdivision plans.

j) Fire hydrants in accordance with standard C29 at clause 56.09-3 of the Planning Scheme. > > k) Defendable space as per Figure 3 in the bushfire report by Nature Advisory February 2024.

1. The layout of the subdivision and removal of native vegetation must not be altered from the layout on the approved and endorsed plans without the written consent of the responsible authority.

Compliance with documents approved under this permit

1. At all times what the permit allows must be carried out in accordance with the requirements of any document approved under this permit to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

1. All works and activities must be undertaken in accordance with the approved cultural heritage management plan (CHMP number 18582 dated 25 May 2022).

1. The subdivision must proceed in the order of stages as shown on the approved and endorsed plan. The responsible authority may consent in writing to vary this requirement.

65. The owner of the land must enter into an agreement with:

a) a telecommunications network or service provider for the provision of telecommunication services to each lot shown on the endorsed plan in accordance with the provider's requirements and relevant legislation at the time; and

b) a suitably qualified person for the provision of fibre ready telecommunication facilities to each lot shown on the endorsed plan in accordance with any industry specifications or any standards set by the Australian Communications and Media Authority, unless the applicant can demonstrate that the land is in an area where the National Broadband Network (NBN) will not be provided by optical fibre.

1. Before the issue of a Statement of Compliance for any stage of the subdivision under the Subdivision Act 1988, the owner of the land must provide written confirmation from:

a) a telecommunications network or service provider that all lots are connected to or are ready for connection to telecommunications services in accordance with the provider's requirements and relevant legislation at the item; and > > b) a suitably qualified person that fibre ready telecommunications facilities have been provided in accordance with any industry specifications or any standards set by the Australian Communications and Media Authority, unless the applicant can demonstrate that the land is in an area where the National Broadband Network will not be provided by optical fibre.

2. The owner of the land must enter into agreements with the relevant authorities for the provision of water supply, drainage, sewerage facilities, and electricity to each lot shown on the endorsed plan in accordance with the authorities' requirements and relevant legislation at the time.
3. All existing and proposed easements and sites for existing and required utility services and roads on the land must be set aside in favour of the relevant authority for which the easement or site is to be created on the plan of subdivision submitted for certification under the Subdivision Act 1988.
4. Any lot shown on the endorsed plan must not be connected to a reticulated gas service (within the meaning of Clause 53.03 of the Wangaratta Planning Scheme). This does not apply to:

)a) A lot that will not be used for, or include, a dwelling; or

)b) A lot that contains an existing dwelling or apartment; or

)c) A lot where a permit has been granted for a dwelling or apartment on the land in the lot.

This condition continues to have force and effect after a statement of compliance under the Subdivision Act 1988 has been issued and the subdivision authorised by this permit has been completed.

1. Land identified on the endorsed plans for drainage, roads, footpaths & shared paths, open space / reserves must be transferred to or vested in the relevant Authority at no cost to the receiving agency.

Integrated Waste Water Management Facility - Targoora Park

1210. Prior to the issue of a Statement of Compliance for Stage 1, the permit holder must:

a) Obtain a development licence from the Environmental Protection Authority.

b) Provide Council with proof, to Councils satisfaction, that it has made appropriate arrangements with North East Water Corporation for the funding, construction and ongoing servicing of the Integrated Waste Water Management facility and that these arrangements have been secured by legal agreement.

c) Construct and commission the Integrated Waste Water Management facility located in Targoora Park, including any landscaping works, pedestrian and vehicular access / maintenance tracks in accordance with the requirements of the Development Licence, endorsed plans and to the satisfaction of the owner of the land.

1. Prior to Certification of the plan of subdivision for Stage 1, the permit holder must procure North East Water Corporation to enter into an agreement with the Rural City of Wangaratta executed in a suitable legal mechanism to the satisfaction of the Rural City of Wangaratta and North East Water Corporation. The agreement must clearly outline the ownership and operation of the Integrated Waste Water Management Facility to be located in Targoora Park including:

a) That North East Water Corporation assumes full ownership and operation of the facility within the PUZ1 zoned and leased area of Targoora Park. > > b) The Rural City of Wangaratta assumes no liability for the operation of the facility and will make no financial contribution to the establishment, running and on-going maintenance of the facility including at its end of life for the removal of the facility and rehabilitation of the park to its pre- development state. > > c) EPA development licence - Council assumes no liability for compliance with any conditions or up-grading of the facility if required etc > > d) At the end of life of the facility North East Water Corporation will remove the facility in its entirety, including storage ponds, and re-establish Targoora Park to its pre-development state to the satisfaction of the Rural City of Wangaratta. > > e) That North East Water Corporation at the end of life for the facility, will engage an Environmental Auditor to oversee testing of the land for any contamination and remediate the land to the required standards at no cost to and to the satisfaction of the Rural City of Wangaratta.

2. Prior to the issue of a Statement of Compliance for Stage 1, the owner of the land must enter into an agreement with the responsible authority under section 173 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. The agreement must provide the following:

a) Lots 49, 57 and 172 (as identified in the endorsed plans forming part of this permit) are reserved for the future development of medium density housing development, subject to further planning consent. These lots must be approved for and constructed for medium density housing prior to any further subdivision of the those lots the land. > > b) Any dwelling and associated buildings must be designed and constructed within the building lots envelopes registered on the title for Lots 103 & 104 (as identified in the endorsed plans forming part of this permit) and not within the designated garden area. > > c) Any dwelling and associated buildings must be designed and constructed wholly outside of the building exclusion areas on Lots 211-214 (inclusive as identified in the endorsed plans forming part of this permit). > > d) All dwellings and associated outbuildings must be constructed in accordance with the approved design guidelines under condition 14 [Panel Note: check numbering to reflect amended condition numbering] for this estate and attached to this agreement. > > e) Vehicular access to Lot 211 (as identified in the endorsed plans forming part of this permit) must only be created along the sites South-West property boundary to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. > > f) The finished site level of all building lots within the subdivision have been constructed to a minimum of 300mm above the 1% AEP event rainfall and flood event from the nearby waterway. Therefore, excavation of the site below this level other than for the purpose of establishing footings foundations and services is not allowed without the written consent of the Responsible Authority. > > g) Any excavation below this level for the purpose of a habitable building, must ensure that the finished floor levels of this habitable building is constructed to a minimum of 300mm above the 1% AEP flood or rainfall event as confirmed by a licensed land surveyor. > > h) Once all roads are vested in the Council, following the subdivision of the Subject Land, all roadside (nature strip) assets, including street trees, grassed verges, landscaping and drainage infrastructure are Council Infrastructure.

1. The Owner will maintain and protect all roadside assets during any construction works on adjoining parts of the Subject Land.

j) The Owner acknowledges that any damages to roadside assets reasonably attributable to the owner of that part of the Subject Land adjoining the damaged roadside assets, including damages caused by third parties engaged by the landowner (such as builders and tradespeople) are the sole responsibility of that adjoining owner of that part of the Subject Land, and the Council, at its sole discretion, may:

. direct that any attributable remediation works to roadside assets are to be undertaken by the Owner adjoining the damage; or

. the Council may otherwise charge the landowner the reasonable costs of undertaking such attributable remediation works, noting that where such remediation works require the replacement planting of street trees those costs shall be calculated based on the Rural City of Wangaratta Tree Management Plan 2018-2022 (or as updated from time to time) and all remediation works approved to be undertaken by the landowner must be completed to the satisfaction of and at no cost to the Responsible Authority unless otherwise agreed with the written consent of the Responsible Authority (Council).

k) The Owner covenants and agrees to allow the Council and its officers, employees, contractors or agents or any of them, to enter the Land (at any reasonable time) to assess compliance with this Agreement.

k) The Owner covenants to indemnify and keep the Council, its officers, employees, agents, workmen and contractors indemnified from and against all costs, expenses, losses or damages which they or any of them may sustain incur or suffer or be or become liable for or in respect of any suit action proceeding judgement or claim brought by any person arising from or referrable to this Agreement or any non-compliance with this Agreement.

1. The owner must pay the costs of the preparing, lodging and registering the agreement and any subsequent amendment, removal or other dealing associated with the agreement.

m) In the event that this permit or the endorsed plans are amended in a manner that alters the approved lot numbers, the owner of the land must make application to amend or replace the Section 173 Agreement applicable to the balance land and any future stages in a manner that ensures requirements and obligations retain their original intent, including the land to which they apply.

1. Prior to the issue of a statement of compliance the permit holder must pay the full costs of preparing, executing, and registering the Agreement, and provide the Authority with written confirmation that the Agreement has been lodged according to Section 181 of the Act.

1. Prior to the issue of a Statement of Compliance for Stage 1, residential design guidelines are to be drafted and approved by to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and include:

a) Garages or carports of any dwelling must be setback no less than six (6) metres from the lot boundary to which vehicle access is to be attained (crossover location). > > b) For the purpose of determining a setback under this clause, the setback for: > > 1. garages is measured from the front wall or door of the garage and excludes eaves and other like allowable encroachments; and > 2. carports this setback is measured from that part of the carport roof closest to the boundary.

1. A dwelling that is constructed on a corner lot forming part of the Subject Land must be designed to address both street frontages via the use of appropriate design features and materials ensuring façade treatments wrap around the secondary frontage, for a minimum extent of three (3) metres;

d) With the exception of metering devices, any ground or wall mounted domestic services (such as hot water services, reverse-cycle air conditioning compressors and water tanks) must be sited within fenced sections of side and rear yards so as to not be readily visible from streets or public land; and > > e) With the exception of photovoltaic solar panels and solar hot water collection panels or tubes, any roof mounted domestic services (such as evaporative air conditioners, reverse-cycle air conditioning compressors and swimming pool solar heating mats) must be located on those parts of the roof not visually prominent when viewed from streets or public land; unless otherwise agreed with the written consent of the Responsible Authority (Council). > > f) The materials and colours selected and used in the design and construction of roofs for all habitable and non-habitable buildings must: > > 1. Achieve a solar absorption rate of either 'light' or 'medium' as classified by the Building Code of Australia, with the exception of facia boards and guttering which may achieve a 'dark' classification. > 2. Not be of either Zincalume or Galvanized material. > > g) Any fencing (including side and boundary fencing) or wall within four (4) metres of the front of a lot must not exceed 1.2m in height above natural ground level. > > h) For dwellings on a corner, any side boundary fences located along the secondary frontage, with a height greater than 1.2m, must commence no closer than 3 metres behind the front building line (so that the dwellings secondary/side frontage and façade treatment remains visible from the street) unless otherwise agreed with the written consent of the Responsible Authority (Council).

1. Any front fencing must be of a predominantly open style (e.g. picket, slat, paling, tubular, wire or pool style being at least 40% transparent.

j) That all dwellings are designed and constructed to incorporate stormwater re-use within the dwelling, including for toilet flushing etc. > > k) Principles to promote passive surveillance from a future development of lot 172 (future medium density housing) to the public open space south of lot 172, including through measures relating to outlook from dwellings, fence height and permeability

1. Procedures for approval of variations to any requirements in the guidelines, including variations from the above listed matters, by design review panel, Council approval or any other mechanism specified in the design guidelines.

1. Prior to the issue of a Statement of Compliance under the Subdivision Act 1988, any fencing shown on the endorsed landscape plan as abutting a municipal reserve must be constructed at no cost to, and to the satisfaction of, the Responsible Authority.

1. Prior to the commencement of works associated with the relevant stage of the subdivision for which the entry feature is to be constructed, designs for any estate entry feature(s) must be submitted to, and approved by, the Responsible Authority. The siting of any feature must not cause any hazard or impediment to road users including through the obstruction of sight lines. Any entry features must be designed and constructed of robust low maintenance materials and finishes. Associated landscaping and lighting must be detailed in respective landscaping plans.

Rapid Earth Fault Current Limiter (REFCL) isolating transformers, service substations and kiosks

1. Any above ground REFCL isolating transformers, service substation, transformer, kiosk site or the like must be located outside of areas set aside for drainage infrastructure or public open space unless these assets are being transferred to Councils ownership (management). These facilities must be designed, appropriately screened and landscaped to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority in accordance with plans submitted to and approved by the responsible authority prior to a statement of compliance being issued for the relevant stage of subdivision.

Construction site & environmental management plan (CEMP)

1. Before the development or any site works (including demolition and excavation) start, a Construction, Site and Environmental Management Plan must be approved and endorsed by the responsible authority. The plan must be submitted in electronic form and demonstrate effective measures to:

a) Secure occupational health and safety; and > > b) Locate any existing underground services; and > > c) Implement effective traffic management and environmental controls; and > > d) Establish and maintain safe construction vehicle access to the site; and > > e) Maintain vehicle and machinery hygiene; and > > f) Avoid the spread of soil-borne pathogens and weeds; and > > g) Minimise erosion, sedimentation, and contamination with specific measures identified for any works adjacent to One Mile Creek; and > > h) Reduce the impact of noise, dust, and other emissions; and

1. Prevent mud, dirt, sand, soil, clay, or stones from entering the drainage system; and

j) Avoid having such materials deposited on public land by construction vehicles; and > > k) Address the recommendations of an approved Cultural Heritage Management Plan; and

1. Establish and maintain all recommended Tree Protection Zones.

m) Any requirements of Condition 55 [Panel Note: update condition number to reflect amended condition numbering]. > > n) Undeveloped grassland within the subject site abutting each stage of the subdivision (i.e., grassland next to subdivision stages as development progresses) managed in a low fuel condition through periodic slashing to mitigate threats to workers and early residents.

2. No excavated or construction materials may be placed or stored outside the site area or on adjoining road reserves or nature strips, unless the materials are for road or footpath construction works in these reserves required as part of this permit.
3. No tree may be removed, aside from trees clearly designated for removal in the approved plans, except with the prior written agreement of the Responsible Authority.
4. Prior to the issue of a statement of compliance for each stage, all areas, Council assets and underground services disturbed in the course of works must be restored to their original condition, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and reserve areas must be tidied, levelled, and trimmed to a standard capable of being maintained by a small tractor and slasher. The site management plan must include photos/videos and other supporting evidence of the state of Council assets at the time of lodgement of the plan.

1. Prior to any works associated with the subdivision commencing on the land, detailed construction plans prepared by a suitable qualified and/or registered Engineer must be approved and endorsed by the responsible authority. The construction plans must:

a) be prepared to the satisfaction of the responsible authority. > > b) be drawn to scale with dimensions and submitted electronically. > > c) comply with be developed having regard to the current edition of the Local Government Infrastructure Design Association's Infrastructure Design Manual (IDM) and drawn in AutoCAD or equivalent. > > d) Include the following: > > 1. fully sealed pavement with kerb and channel, metres back to back > 2. concrete footpaths > 3. underground drains > 4. vehicular crossings to each lot, except for the medium density housing lots (lots 49, 57 and 172 as identified on the endorsed plans forming part of this permit). > > e) The responsible authority may consent in writing to vary any of the details of these requirements.

Any modifications to the detailed construction plans agreed to by the responsible authority must be shown on an amended plan that is endorsed by the responsible authority.

1. Prior to the issue of a Statement of Compliance for any stage of the subdivision under the Subdivision Act 1988, the following works, as relevant to the stage in question, must be provided on or to the land to the satisfaction of the responsible authority:

a) all road and drainage works shown on approved detailed construction plans > > b) stormwater management system in accordance with approved stormwater management plan > > c) landscaping in accordance with the landscape plan approved under this permit > > d) footpath and shared pathways. > > e) street trees > > f) street lighting > > g) fencing on the boundaries of any Council reserve.;

The responsible authority may consent in writing to vary these requirements.

1. Prior to the issue of a Statement of Compliance for Stage 5, the permit holder must design and construct at their its expense the shared pathway north of Lot 117 and proposed to link the subdivision to Targoora Park central shared pathway network to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. Prior to the certification of Stage 1 and before the commencement of any works, a Landscape Master Plan must be submitted to and approved by the responsible authority. The plan must show:

a) The landscaping theme and graphical concepts applicable to the development. > > b) The species of street trees to be planted in various stages of the development. > > c) The steps taken to minimise the impact of street trees on adjacent services. > > d) The location and proposed treatment of open space and drainage reserves including fencing. > > e) The areas which will be available for landscaping. > > f) The proposed entrance treatments. > > g) The designation of any cool routes to encourage active movement and alleviate the heat island affect. > > h) Areas of planting consistent with providing defendable space from bushfire risk, consistent with the defendable space areas shown on the endorsed plans under condition 1.

1. Prior to certification and construction commencing for each stage, a detailed landscape plan, consistent with the endorsed Landscape Master Plan, must be prepared by a person qualified or experienced in landscape design and approved by the responsible authority. The plan must show the layout of landscaping and planting within all municipal reserves (open spaces) and road reserves of the subject land, including:

a) a survey (including botanical names) of all existing vegetation to be retained and/or removed > > b) buildings and trees (including botanical names) on neighbouring properties within three metres of the boundary > > c) A detailed planting schedule of all proposed trees, shrubs and ground-covers, including botanical names, pot sizes, sizes at maturity, and quantities of each plant to be provided that take into account the challenges of drought and climate change. Proposed planting should be consistent with the bushfire vegetation management recommendations at Appendix 3 of the Bushfire Planning Report (Nature Advisory, dated February 2024). > > d) construction layout drawings, including site contours > > e) Any changes to existing levels, including elements such as retaining walls; and > > f) Certified structural designs or building forms where required > > g) The supplementary planting referenced within the post exhibition Biodiversity report by Ecolink Consulting dated 24 July 2024 for the Wildlife corridor in the northern most open space reserve (i.e between the reserve north of lots 103-117 as shown in the endorsed plans forming part of this permit) corridor along the northern permitter of the subdivision connecting Targoora Park to the One Mile Creek Reserve. > > h) Native vegetation restoration and additional plantings along the One Mile Creek reserve and associated fencing.

1. The creation of cool routes with increased levels of canopy plantings to support active transport within the subdivision.

j) Paths, paved areas, playgrounds, play items, structures, and street furniture > > k) Irrigation for reserve areas.

1. Removal of existing infrastructure or stockpiles and weed eradication.

m) details of how the project responds to water sensitive urban design (WSUD) principles, including how storm water will be mitigated, captured, cleaned , including any WSUD facilities like rain water gardens and tree outstands within the roadways. > > n) Detailed design and the exact location of the playground to be provided in Stage 1 - South East reserve. > > o) Landscaping of the defendable space areas shown in the endorsed plans under condition 1 in accordance with Table 6 of Clause 53.02 of the Wangaratta Planning Scheme.

The responsible authority may consent in writing to vary any of these requirements.

1. Prior to the issue of a statement of compliance for each stage or at any other time as agreed in writing by the responsible authority, the permit holder must:

a) Complete the landscaping shown on the endorsed landscape plan to the satisfaction of Council. > > b) Provide Council with a landscaping maintenance bond equal to 5% of the approved landscaping costs for the current stage. This bond will be held by Council until any and all defects reported before or during the landscaping defects liability period (which shall be 24 months including two complete summers) have been made good to the satisfaction of Council. > > c) Enter an agreement with Council to that eEnsures that all landscape elements, including vegetation integral to WSUD devices, created by the development, and passing into Council ownership, must be are maintained by the permit holder in good condition and repair for a period of at least 24 months, including two complete summers, from practical completion. During this period, any dead, diseased, or damaged plants and/or landscaped areas must be repaired or replaced as soon as reasonably possible, rather than upon completion of the maintenance period. Any landscaping elements replaced during the defects period will be subject to a new 24-month maintenance period.

1. All vehicles, earth-moving equipment and other machinery must be cleaned of soil and plant material before entering and leaving the site to prevent the spread of weeds and pathogens to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

1. Prior to the commencement of works, the permit holder must submit a completed Sustainability Checklist (in accordance with Appendix B of the Sustainable Infrastructure Guidelines) demonstrating that the objectives of the Guidelines have been considered and implemented, to the Satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

Civil infrastructure, construction and transfer to Council

1. Prior to the issue of a statement of compliance for each stage, the permit holder must:

a) Complete construction of all new access ways, roads, footpaths, drainage, on-site detention and any related infrastructure identified within this permit or shown on the endorsed plans. All works must conform to plans and specifications approved by the Responsible Authority. > > b) Submit an itemised statement of the civil construction costs for the current stage, excluding GST to be approved by Council. > > c) Provide Council with a civil works maintenance bond equal to 5% of the approved civil construction costs for the current stage. This bond will be held by Council until all defects reported before or during the maintenance and defects liability period have been made good to the satisfaction of Council. > > d) Enter an agreement with Council to eEnsure that all civil infrastructure, other than landscape elements, created by the development and passing into Council ownership are maintained by the permit holder in good condition and repair for a period of three months following practical completion of the works. Any subsequent defects must be corrected as they become evident for a further period of nine months.

1. Prior to the issue of a statement of compliance for each stage the permit holder must satisfy the Responsible Authority that:

a) Where an existing dam, basin or other water body will be filled, the area has been drained and desilted to IDM standards before filling begins. > > b) Any fill required to meet drainage, building, parking and/or access requirements has been selected, placed, and compacted in layers according to IDM standards. > > c) Any batters or retaining walls whose individual or cumulative height above or below the adjacent ground level exceeds one metre, and/or any soil stabilisation measures, have been designed and constructed to IDM standards under the supervision of a qualified civil engineer.

1. Prior to the certification of each stage of the subdivision or before the commencement of any works, drainage and on-site detention plans and computations, prepared according to IDM procedures and criteria, must be submitted to the Responsible Authority for approval.
2. Prior to the issue of a statement of compliance for each stage the permit holder must satisfy the Responsible Authority that:

a) A legal point of discharge has been established within the boundary of each lot and connected to the external drainage network according to IDM standards without reducing the flow capacity or structural integrity of the external network. > > b) All stormwater runoff originating from or transferred through each Lot in a 18% Annual Exceedance Probability (AEP) rainfall event will be collected and conveyed by underground pipes to a legal point of discharge. In a 1% AEP rainfall event all stormwater runoff will be collected and conveyed to a satisfactory destination, without adversely affecting any person, infrastructure, or natural features in or beyond the Lot > > c) Any in-ground on-site detention will provide blockage protection for the outflow control device and provide an overflow path should blockage occur. > > d) When permission has been granted for stormwater from all or part of the subject property to be discharged directly to an adjacent waterway, effective measures must be taken to prevent backflow from the waterway during a 1% AEP flood event. > > e) Any easements required to facilitate future connection to, and maintenance of, drainage infrastructure serving more than one Lot or property have been created.

1. Prior to the issue of a statement of compliance for each stage the permit holder must, to the satisfaction of the responsible authority:

a) Engage a licenced Surveyor to confirm that the finished surface levels of all building envelopes are constructed to a minimum finished level of 300mm above the peak water level in nearby waterways, floodways or water bodies in a 1% AEP rainfall or flood event. And; > > b) Ensure that all fencing installed between the Lots and an adjacent waterway or area subject to inundation is of open construction and does not obstruct natural surface flows.

1. Prior to the certification of each state of the subdivision or before the commencement of any works, the permit holder must satisfy the Responsible Authority that:

a) Sufficient on-site detention will be provided to limit the peak discharge from the developed site in a 18% and 1% AEP rainfall event to the corresponding / 18% AEP pre-development level, unless otherwise agreed by the responsible authority. > > b) Any in-ground infrastructure used for on-site detention will provide blockage protection for the outflow control device so far as reasonably practicable, and an alternative overland flow path should blockage occur. > > c) All on-site detention serving multiple lots and passing into Council ownership will be located in a drainage reserve passing into Council ownership at the earliest stage as practical.

1. Prior to the commencement of works on site, the permit holder must satisfy the Responsible Authority that appropriate measures will be taken to enhance the quality of stormwater discharged from the developed site, according to the procedures and criteria outlined in the Water Sensitive Urban Design Guidelines for the Rural City of Wangaratta and IDM Clause 20.
2. Prior to the certification of stage 1 of the subdivision, a functional design needs to be submitted to and approved by the responsible authority that includes the following as a minimum:

a) WSUD to include a sedimentation basin prior to on-site detention basin. > > b) WSUD to include wetlands or similar treatment prior to on-site detention basin. > > c) Concrete access track to be installed around the perimeter of the basin footprint for maintenance and into the sedimentation basin. > > d) A sufficient drying area has been provided on site for sediment to dry after maintenance works have been conducted. > > e) Any inlet and outfall structures, their configurations, and any appropriate erosion control measure. > > f) Overland flow path for controlled overflow and appropriate erosion control measures.

1. Before construction begins or plan certification for stage 1, whichever comes first, the permit holder must:

a) Engage a qualified engineer to prepare a Traffic Impact Assessment Report and submit the report and recommendations to the Authority for approval. The report must be generally in accordance with the report by Traffix Group dated 9 May 2025, reference no. G36529A-01A. > > b) Submit designs prepared by a qualified engineer for roads and intersections serving the development, including any required upgrades to existing public roads, according to IDM standards, and the recommendations of the Traffic Impact Assessment Report.

2. Prior to the issue of a statement of compliance for Stage 3, the permit holder must undertake to the satisfaction of the responsible authority that:

a) Clarkes Lane has been upgraded to IDM SD605 from Laceby-Targoora Road to the One Mile Creek and aligned to avoid the removal of additional native vegetation. > > b) Laceby-Targoora Road has been upgraded to a sealed width of 6.2 metres to provide a carriageway in accordance with the IDM standard requirements for a rural Collector Level 1 Road between Clarkes Lane and Wangaratta-Whitfield Road.

3. Prior to the issue of a statement of compliance for each stage the permit holder must satisfy the responsible authority that:

a) All roads and intersections have been constructed according to the approved designs. > > b) SM2 M kerb-and-channel, with appropriate underground drainage, has been constructed to IDM standards on both sides of every new road within the development. > > c) B2 kerb-and-channel, with appropriate underground drainage, has been constructed to IDM standards on every new road with a reserve frontage within the development and on all collector roads. > > d) Kerb-and-channel matching the existing profile, with appropriate underground drainage, has been constructed to IDM standards at the interface of Milnes Creek Drive adjoining the development. > > e) A concrete footpath and/or shared path has been constructed to IDM standards along both sides of every road within the development. > > f) All existing or proposed roads and footpaths within the subject property have appropriate high- efficiency street lighting according to IDM standards and Australian Standard 1158. > > g) Road designs to incorporate appropriately sized areas for canopy tree planting, in particular along established cool routes to support active transport.

1. Before the issue of a Statement of Compliance for any stage of the subdivision under the Subdivision Act 1988, operable hydrants must be provided either above or below ground, with a maximum distance between hydrants and the rear of all building envelopes / the rear of lots (as applicable) of 120m, be no more than 200m apart and comply with Vehicle Access and Water Supply Requirements in Residential Developments (Country Fire Authority, August 2022, version 1.0 or as updated), to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. Prior to the issue of a statement of compliance for each stage the permit holder must satisfy the responsible authority that a vehicle crossing providing safe and convenient access to and from a suitable public road has been designed, constructed, sealed and drained to IDM standards for all lots and reserves being accessed behind a B2 kerb profile.

1. Where the development will be completed in stages, plans and specifications for each stage, including any temporary works required, must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority before construction begins.
2. Prior to the issue of a statement of compliance for each stage:

a) When any drainage infrastructure serving completed stages is located outside the boundary of those stages, the permit holder must create temporary easements, so the Authority has appropriate legal access to the infrastructure in question. > > b) A temporary court bowl must be designed and constructed to IDM standards (Clause 12.3.4) at the end of any road that ends without a permanent court bowl. Arrangements must be made to ensure that adjacent permanent sealed road surfaces are not damaged. > > c) The permit holder must lodge a bond with Authority equal to 150% of the full cost of upgrading any temporary works to IDM-compliant permanent infrastructure. This amount must include any necessary land acquisition.

3. Within two years following the issue of a statement of compliance for each stage, the permit holder must upgrade any temporary court bowls / turning heads to IDM-compliant permanent court bowls, to the satisfaction of the Authority, unless development of the following stage has commenced.

1. Prior to the issue of a statement of compliance for each stage the permit holder must:

a) Pay to Council plan checking fees equal to 0.75%, and site supervision fees equal to 2.5% of the approved civil construction costs for the current stage > > b) Arrange CCTV verification of all underground drainage assets to be handed over to Council at the conclusion of the current stage and supply the results of that verification to Council in the format specified in the IDM.

2. Prior to the issue of a statement of compliance, as-constructed drawings covering all civil construction works for the current stage must be submitted to Council in A-SPEC and DWG or DXF format, geo-referenced to Zone 55, GDA 2020, to the satisfaction of Council, unless otherwise agreed by Council.

1. Any pruning that is required to be done to the canopy of any tree to be retained must be completed by a qualified arborist to Australian Standard - Pruning of Amenity Trees AS4373-1996, to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

Any pruning of the root system within the Tree Protection Zone calculated according to AS4970 of any tree to be retained must be completed by hand by a qualified arborist, to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

1. Prior to the removal of the approved vegetation, an arborist and a wildlife consultant/carer must be present to supervise the lopping and felling of any tree containing, or potentially containing, tree hollows, unless the tree hollows have been physically inspected and verified as being empty by an arborist.

Those parts of a tree containing hollows must be gently lowered to the ground (by rope, crane or other gentle and effective means).

1. Any native wildlife impacted by the tree removal must be considered, cared for and protected in accordance with the Wildlife Act 1975, including the collection and translocation by a wildlife consultant/carer for after care and release to a suitable location.

Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action (DEECA)

Native vegetation permitted to be removed, destroyed or lopped

1. The native vegetation permitted to be removed, destroyed or lopped under this permit is 0.467 hectares of native vegetation, identified in the Native Vegetation Removal Report associated with this permit: 368_20240702_EP0.

1. To offset the removal of 0.467 hectares of native vegetation, the permit holder must secure the following native vegetation offset in accordance with Guidelines for the removal, destruction or lopping of native vegetation (DELWP 2017):.

a) A general offset of 0.019 General Habitat Units: > > 1. located within the North East Catchment Management Authority boundary or Wangaratta Council municipal area; and > 2. with a minimum strategic biodiversity value of at least 0.406 > 3. The offset(s) must also protect 6 large trees.

1. Before any native vegetation is removed, evidence that the offset required by this permit has been secured, must be provided to the satisfaction of the responsible authority. This evidence must be one or both of the following (a and/or b):

a) an established first party offset site including a security agreement signed by both parties, and a management plan detailing the 10-year management actions and ongoing management of the site and/or > > b) credit extract(s) allocated to the permit from the Native Vegetation Credit Register. > > c) A copy of the offset evidence will be endorsed by the responsible authority and form part of this permit. Within 30 days of endorsement of the offset evidence by the responsible authority, a copy of the offset evidence must be provided to the Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action. > > d) Within six (6) months of the completion of the permitted clearing of native vegetation under this permit, the offset requirements can be reconciled with the written agreement of the responsible authority and the Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action.

1. Before any works start, the permit holder must advise all persons undertaking the vegetation removal or works on site of all relevant permit conditions and associated statutory requirements or approvals.

Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP)

1. Before any works start, including removal of native vegetation, a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) must be prepared to the satisfaction of the responsible authority and submitted to and approved by the responsible authority. When approved, the CEMP will form part of this permit.

a) A detailed description of the measures to be implemented to protect the native vegetation to be retained during construction works, and the person/s responsible for implementation and compliance. These measures must include the erection of a native vegetation protection fence around all native vegetation to be retained on site, to the satisfaction of the responsible authority, including the tree protection zones of all native trees to be retained. All tree protection zones must comply with AS 4970-2009 Protection of Trees on Development Sites, to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

b) A site plan, drawn to scale with dimensions and georeferences (such as VicGrid94 co-ordinates), that clearly shows:

1. The location and identification of the land affected by this permit, including standard parcel identifiers for freehold land
2. The location and area of all native vegetation present, including scattered trees, that are permitted to be removed under this permit
3. All areas of native vegetation to be retained

1. Recommendations for impact minimisation provided in the Biodiversity Assessment, Clarkes Land, Wangaratta (Ecolink July 2024)

d) Recommendations (Section 5. General Recommendations) as provided in the Lot 2 Clarkes Lane Wangaratta, Preliminary Arboricultural Report (Oldmeadow Arboriculture July 2024).

All persons undertaking works on site must be fully briefed on all aspects and requirements of the endorsed CEMP. All works constructed or carried out must be in accordance with the endorsed CEMP, to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

1. Before works start, native vegetation protection fencing must be erected around native vegetation to be retained on and in the direct vicinity of the work site/footprint. This fencing must be erected in accordance with the AS 4970-2009 Protection of Trees on Development Sites. The fence must be constructed of highly visible, durable materials to the satisfaction of the responsible authority. The protective fence must remain in place until all works are completed to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.
2. Except with the written consent of the responsible authority, within the areas of native vegetation to be retained and any tree or vegetation protection zone associated with the permitted development and/or use, the following is prohibited:

a) vehicular and machinery access, including turning/manoeuvring; > > b) trenching or soil excavation; > > c) storage or dumping of any soils, materials, equipment, vehicles, machinery or waste products; > > d) or any other actions or activities that may result in adverse impacts to retained native vegetation.

5957.No direct access will be permitted from lots created on the subject land to the Wangaratta-Whitfield Road.

6058. Prior to the certification of the plan of subdivision for any stage:

a) A Functional Layout Plan must be submitted to and approved by the Head, Transport for Victoria consistent with Revision 15 of the Plan of Subdivision. When approved by the Head, Transport for Victoria, the plans must be endorsed by the Responsible Authority and will then form part of the permit. The plans must show:

1. Realignment of the connection of Laceby-Targoora Road with Wangaratta-Whitfield Road.
2. The intersection of Laceby-Targoora Road to serve as a rural collector road and the new internal roadway.
3. Channelised right turn lane (CHR) on Wangaratta-Whitfield Road at Laceby-Targoora Road
4. Basic Auxiliary Left Turn (BAUL) Treatment on Wangaratta-Whitfield Road at Laceby-Targoora Road
5. A swept path analysis for the appropriate design vehicle for all movements at the intersection of Wangaratta-Whitfield Road & Laceby-Targoora Road
6. Street lighting Category V3

b) A functional layout stage road safety audit must be submitted to and approved by the Head, Transport for Victoria. The road safety audit must be undertaken by a suitably qualified road safety auditor.

c) A staging plan must be submitted for approval by the Head, Transport for Victoria and the Responsible Authority. Once approved, by the Head, Transport for Victoria, the plans must be endorsed by the Responsible Authority and will then form part of the permit.

d) Road-cross sections for streets nominated as bus route/bus capable.

1. Prior to the issue of a Statement of Compliance for any stage, the following works must be completed to the satisfaction of and at no cost to the Head, Transport for Victoria:
   1. Channelised Right Turn (CHR) Treatment on Wangaratta-Whitfield Road at Laceby-Targoora Road
   2. Basic Auxiliary Left Turn (ABUL) Treatment on Wangaratta-Whitfield Road at Laceby-Targoora Road
   3. Street lighting Category V3.
   4. Any works identified in the functional layout stage road safety audit.

1. The owner of the subject land (or applicant in anticipation of becoming the owner) is required to enter into a legal agreement with North East Water detailing the works to be constructed, and other requirements to be met, necessary for the provision of reticulated water supply to each of the lots and proposed dwellings, within the development, at the owners cost, to the satisfaction of North East Water, provided:
   1. where the development is staged, a number of agreements may be required for separate stages; and
   2. each agreement must be in accordance with North East Water policy and requirements applying at the time of entry into the relevant agreement.

6361.The owner of the subject land (or applicant in anticipation of becoming the owner) is required to enter into a legal agreement with North East Water detailing the works to be constructed and other requirements to be met, necessary for the provision of reticulated sewerage services to each of the lots and proposed dwellings, within the development, at the owners cost, to the satisfaction of North East Water, provided:

a) where the development is staged, a number of agreements may be required for separate stages; and

b) each agreement must be in accordance with North East Water policy and requirements applying at the time of entry into the relevant agreement.

1. Where the development (including any subdivision) occurs in stages the availability of water supply and sewerage services may be delayed having regard to NEW system capacity, conditions in relation to which shall be detailed in the relevant agreement for water supply and/or sewerage services.
2. The works required to be constructed for the provision of water supply and sewerage services must include, where so required by and to the satisfaction of, North East Water:

a) works external to the subject land to allow connection to the North East Water water supply and sewerage systems; > > b) the vesting at no cost of such of those works required by North East Water, to North East Water ("Developer Works"); and > > c) works to ensure compatibility with and allowance for, other developments being served through existing and future North East Water infrastructure, including the Developer Works > > d) internal or private works within the development, in accordance with applicable plumbing standards and providing adequate pressure and service levels.

3. Any modification to the development approved under this permit, including an increase or decrease in the number of dwellings or lots (or both) or the inclusion of additional land, requires the further consent of and may be subject to modified conditions, to the satisfaction of, North East Water.
4. Prior to the issues of a Statement of Compliance, a Negotiated Servicing Agreement will be executed between the applicant and North East Water for the provision of sewerage services and water supply to the subdivision, together with the provision of the Integrated Water Management wastewater treatment plant and associated plant and equipment, recycled water storage, access and required services.
5. Prior to the issue of a Statement of Compliance for the release of the 150th lot, the applicant must have applied for and obtained a Development Licence from the EPA to discharge treated recycled water to One Mile Creek.
6. The applicant must create easements to the satisfaction of and in favour of North East Water, over all existing and proposed sewerage facilities within the proposed subdivision.
7. The applicant must ensure that private water services do not traverse property boundaries and are independently supplied from a point of supply approved by North East Water.
8. The applicant must provide easements through other land, to the satisfaction of North East Water, if such easements are considered necessary for the efficient and economic servicing of the subject land.
9. Where the subject land is developed in stages, the North East Water conditions will apply to any subsequent stage of the subdivision.
10. Where an easement created in favour of North East Water is located within a proposed road reserve in a future stage, prior to the certification of the plan of subdivision for that stage, the applicant must formally remove the easement from the title to the land.
11. North East Water's consent to the issue of a Statement of Compliance under the Subdivision Act 1988 is conditional upon completion of all works, and meeting all requirements set out in this permit and any relevant agreement with, North East Water.
12. The plan of subdivision for certification must be referred to North East Water in accordance with Section 8 of the Subdivision Act 1988.
13. North East Water's consent to the issue of a Statement of Compliance under the Subdivision Act 1988 is conditional upon commissioning of North East Water Integrated Water Management wastewater treatment plant.

1. Any Plan of Subdivision lodged for certification must be referred to Goulburn-Murray Rural Water Corporation pursuant to Section 8(1)(a) of the Subdivision Act.
2. The plan of subdivision submitted for Certification must show a building exclusion zone to prevent future buildings being located within 30m of any One Mile Creek, where relevant.
3. An EPA Development Licence in accordance with Section 69(2) of the Environment Protection Act 2017 (Act) and Regulation 22(1)(d) of the Environment Protection Regulations 2021 (Regulations) must be obtained for the sewerage servicing strategy proposal, to the satisfaction of the EPA.
4. Stormwater from the site must be discharged to a legal point as nominated by the Responsible Authority. All infrastructure and works to manage stormwater must be in accordance with the requirements of the Responsible Authority.

North East Catchment Management Authority (NECMA)

1. The extent of fill associated with the perimeter road along the western boundary of the site should be minimized to avoid impact on flood prone land, as represented by the LSIO. Should earthworks be proposed on any part of the site below 1% AEP flood level, resulting in a loss of floodplain storage, then compensatory earthworks below 1% AEP flood level must be designed to compensate any loss of flood storage by a factor of 1.3 (the volume of cut below 1% AEP level shall exceed the volume of fill below 1% AEP level by 30%). Excavations to deliver this storage must:

a) Ensure that existing overland flow paths and floodplain features are retained. > > b) Be self-draining. > > c) Be within the development site. > > d) Provide for the equivalent hydraulic capacity. > > e) Be compliant with any other Authority conditions.

Prior to the commencement of works, design plans and earthwork volume calculations demonstrating compliance with the above must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority and the Authority. When approved, the calculations will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. Earthworks carried out on site must accord with the calculations.

a) Enter in an agreement with AUSNET ELECTRICITY SERVICES PTY LTD for supply of electricity to each lot on the endorsed plan. > > b) Enter into an agreement with AUSNET ELECTRICITY SERVICES PTY LTD for the rearrangement of the existing electricity supply system. > > c) Enter into an agreement with AUSNET ELECTRICITY SERVICES PTY LTD for rearrangement of the points of supply to any existing installations affected by any private electric power line which would cross a boundary created by the subdivision, or by such means as may be agreed by AUSNET ELECTRICITY SERVICES PTY LTD. > > d) Provide easements satisfactory to AUSNET ELECTRICITY SERVICES PTY LTD for the purpose of "Power Line" in the favour of "AUSNET ELECTRICITY SERVICES PTY LTD" pursuant to Section 88 of the Electricity Industry Act 2000, where easements have not been otherwise provided, for all existing AUSNET ELECTRICITY SERVICES PTY LTD electric power lines and for any new power lines required to service the lots on the endorsed plan and/or abutting land. > > e) Obtain for the use of AUSNET ELECTRICITY SERVICES PTY LTD any other easement required to service the lots. > > f) Adjust the position of any existing AUSNET ELECTRICITY SERVICES PTY LTD easement to accord with the position of the electricity line(s) as determined by survey. > > g) Set aside on the plan of subdivision Reserves for the use of AUSNET ELECTRICITY SERVICES PTY LTD for electric substations. > > h) Provide survey plans for any electric substations required by AUSNET ELECTRICITY SERVICES PTY LTD and for associated power lines and cables and executes leases for a period of 30 years, at a nominal rental with a right to extend the lease for a further 30 years. AUSNET ELECTRICITY SERVICES PTY LTD requires that such leases are to be noted on the title by way of a caveat or a notification under Section 88 (2) of the Transfer of Land Act prior to the registration of the plan of subdivision.

1. Provide to AUSNET ELECTRICITY SERVICES PTY LTD a copy of the plan of subdivision submitted for certification that shows any amendments that have been required.

j) Agree to provide alternative electricity supply to lot owners and/or each lot until such time as permanent supply is available to the development by AUSNET ELECTRICITY SERVICES PTY LTD. Individual generators must be provided at each supply point. The generator for temporary supply must be installed in such a manner as to comply with the Electricity Safety Act 1998. > > k) Ensure that all necessary auditing is completed to the satisfaction of AUSNET ELECTRICITY SERVICES PTY LTD to allow the new network assets to be safely connected to the distribution network.

1. This permit as it relates to development (subdivision) will expire if one of the following circumstances applies:

a) The plan of subdivision for the first stage has not been certified under the Subdivision Act 1988 within 2 years of the issued date of this permit. > > b) The subsequent stage of the subdivision has not been certified within two years of the previous certification date. > > c) A statement of compliance is not issued within 5 years of the date of certification of a particular stage of subdivision.

In accordance with Section 69 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, an application may be submitted to the responsible authority for an extension of the periods referred to in this condition.

• Before undertaking any works that cross onto Council land or roads, the permit holder must obtain a Consent to Work within a Road Reserve permit.
• Before undertaking any works that cross onto other public land or roads, the permit holder may need to obtain approval from the relevant authority.

Department of Transport and Planning (Transport)

Separate consent for works within the road reserve and the specifications of these works is required under the Road Management Act 2004. For the purposes of this application the works will include provision of:

a) Channelised Right Turn (CHR) Treatment

b) Basic Auxiliary Left Turn (ABUL) Treatment

c) Street lighting Category V3.

d) Any other works required as identified in the functional layout stage road safety audit.

Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action (DEECA)

• In the event any protected flora is to be removed, and before the removal of any protected flora, as part of the permitted removal or impact of native vegetation on public land, a permit to take protected flora under the Flora and Fauna Guarantee (FFG) Act 1988 is required. To obtain a permit to take protected flora or for further information, please contact a Natural Environment Program officer at a Hume regional office of the Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action. https://www.deeca.vic.gov.au/communities-and-regions/regions-and-locations.
• The approval to remove native vegetation does not exempt the development from requirements under any other Commonwealth and State legislation or policy, including the Wildlife Act 1975. Where works may impact on habitat used by native fauna, the applicant/project staff are obligated to ensure that measures are implemented, and to act in a manner that does not harm, injure or kill wildlife.

The applicant must contact the North East Catchment Management Authority to determine if a Works on a Waterway permit is required for the nominated stormwater discharge point at One Mile Creek.

North East Catchment Management Authority (NECMA)

One Mile Creek is gazetted by the Authority to be a designated waterway under the Water Act 1989. A Works on Waterways permit must be obtained from the Authority in accordance with By-Law No 2024/01 Waterways Protection prior to commencing any works in, on or over designated waterways (such as landscaping, access crossings, storm water outlets, etc). Further information and an application form can be obtained from the Authority at: http://www.necma.vic.gov.au/About-Us/Programs-Initiatives/Undertake-Works-on-Waterways.

[1] Increased to 1.9 hectares in the updated Planning Report, Tract Consultants, 6 August 2024 (D4u)