• Increased cost of works
  • - concern that increased built form and design expectations may raise establishment costs for medical centres.
• Accessibility in residential areas
  • - locating medical centres in residential areas is essential for accessibility. Restricting them to main roads or activity centres is unjustified.
• Built form strategies and guidelines
  • - design requirements for facades with varied materials and "visual interest" are subjective, costly, and prone to becoming outdated
  • - policy guidelines requiring designs to "complement surrounding built form" are unnecessary and could result in unattractive designs
  • - front setback requirements add costs and limit flexibility in urban design. Allowing flexibility in setbacks would enable better land use and design variety.
• Parking design
  • - requiring parking in basements or under crofts for larger centres or those in activity centres is costly and could make projects unviable
  • - a better approach would be reducing parking requirements for centres near public transport stops.

• Increased costs - the changes should not lead to increased costs and are comparable to other uses that Council has a specific policy for, such as childcare centres.
• Residential areas - not all residential areas are appropriate for these uses such as culs-de-sac and areas isolated form public transport. The policy does not prohibit medical centres from residential areas but does favour some locations over others.
• Built form - the Amendment introduces new discretionary strategies to give localised design guidance. The policy does not impose uniform setback requirements but does:
  • - reinforce the urban character of activity centres, where built-to-boundary outcomes are appropriate
  • - maintain the residential character of neighbourhoods, where front setbacks are more typical.
• Parking and design - the policy encourages the landscape screening of parking within a front setback, 'under croft' parking would only be required for larger medical centres, and the possibility of reduced parking rates is already managed by Clause 52.06 of the planning scheme so there is no need to duplicate this provision.

Council and the Panel did not have the opportunity to discuss the concerns with the submitter. Council attempted to contact the submitter on several occasions to no avail. The issues raised seem to come from a misreading of the policy and how it must be read in conjunction with other parts of the planning scheme. For instance, a reduction in parking must be supported by the context of the proposal and is dealt with under other provisions of the scheme.

The Panel considers the policy changes clearly define a locational preference for larger medical centres in either or near a commercial area and smaller community-based centres in some, not all, residential areas. The Panel finds that the proposed changes provide an appropriate discretion and policy in either a residential or commercial setting.

The Panel supports the exhibited version of the Medical Centres local policy.

The issue is whether the policy appropriately recognises an existing use in an area where they are proposed to be discouraged.

Heidelberg Materials, a submitter, was generally supportive of the Amendment but, as a provider of recycling infrastructure, noted one of its facilities is located on Green Wedge land which the policy proposes to avoid.

Council acknowledged this and proposed to change that part of the policy to (underline added):

• On Green Wedge land (other than in a State waste and resource recovery hub).

The submitter provided a submission to the Panel (Document 4) that firstly acknowledged the support of Council but added:

Since the original submission, the Statewide Waste and Resource Recovery Infrastructure Plan has been formally superseded by the Victorian Recycling Infrastructure Plan (Recycling Victoria, 2024) (VRIP). The VRIP no longer makes reference to 'hubs' and instead continues to recognise the Wollert Landfill and Quarry as a 'key Port Phillip Landfill' and otherwise comments on its capacity, importance to the state, and need for ongoing protection from encroachment.

Thus, while the above changes as agreed by Council appear to adequately address the original concern, the use of the terminology 'State waste and resource recovery hub' will soon become unclear and potentially leave the Wollert Landfill and Quarry in a position where planning strategy of the Whittlesea Planning Scheme inadvertently discourages its ongoing and future use, particularly as it adapts and responds to the evolving circular economy, changes to the waste and resource industry, and the VRIP.

It is therefore requested that the Panel considers the most appropriate manner in which to correctly identify and exclude the existing Wollert Landfill and Quarry from inadvertent discouragement of materials recycling use - the position agreed and supported by Council - and ensure future clarity and orderly planning. It is suggested this may be achieved by explicitly referring to the 'Heidelberg Materials Wollert Landfill and Quarry located at Bridge Inn Road' or an equivalently specific wording.

• The proposed change relates to terminology due to state level policy changes.
• The intent of the carve-out remains consistent with the original position agreed by Council.
• The proposed wording shifts from a reference to a recognised hub to the specific name and location of the facility.
• Submitter 5 has indicated that an equivalent wording to that proposed would be acceptable.

Council did not support the proposed change as it[4]:

... does not align with best practice drafting principles outlined in the Planning Practitioners Guide (2024), particularly in relation to clarity, longevity, and the intent of local policy. These are outlined as follows:

• Rule 7 and Rule 8 stress that provisions must be clear, unambiguous, and avoid undefined or subjective references. The guide also stresses the importance of drafting policies that are clear, concise, and avoid ambiguity. It notes that specificity (which can include a business name) can create interpretation risks, tie policy to one-off situations, and reduce adaptability (page 28-29).
• The guide advises where possible, to draft provisions to endure without the need for regular amendments (page 64). It is further advised to avoid naming external documents that are frequently updated and references that date quickly, which could include private business names. We note that submission 5 was originally submitted on behalf of Hanson Construction Materials Pty Ltd (Hanson) and has since changed to Heidelberg Materials Wollert Landfill and Quarry. This illustrates an issue with naming a specific business within the Scheme.
• Site-specific provisions should only be used in exceptional circumstances and typically through a Specific Controls Overlay (page 55).

Council supported the more neutral reference (underlined) that is consistent with the previously agreed change:

• On Green Wedge land (other than those facilities already lawfully operating in accordance with the Scheme).

The Panel requested Council to confirm whether an objective should be included in the policy. Council explained the reason for this was that the preceding state policy contained an appropriate objective and there was no need for an objective specific to Whittlesea's context.

Submitter 2 considered materials recycling centres should have prominent signage. Council considered signage guidance was not required as this matter was covered in other areas of the planning scheme.

The Panel acknowledges the substantial level of agreement between Council and Heidelberg Materials. The Panel agrees with Council that specific reference to business names, or its entity can only lead to ambiguity as these often change over time. The change from Hanson Construction Materials to Heidelberg Materials is a case in point.

The intent is to recognise existing uses in policy where it may otherwise be discouraged. The Panel considers the neutral reference as suggested by Council achieves this and accommodates business name or industry changes in the future.

The Panel agrees with Council the local policy does not require:

• an objective as the preceding state policy contains an appropriate objective
• signage provisions as this covered by other parts of the planning scheme.

1. Amend Clause 19.03-5L (Materials Recycling Centres - City of Whittlesea) as shown in Appendix B to add "(other than those facilities already lawfully operating in accordance with the Planning Scheme)" after "on Green Wedge land".

Appendix B Panel preferred version of Clause 19.03-5L (Materials Recycling local policy)

Materials recycling centres - City of Whittlesea

This policy applies to the use and development of land for materials recycling centres.

Support materials recycling centres to locate in the core of industrial areas or in an identified State waste and resource recovery hub.

• In close proximity to activity centres and commercial areas.
• On Green Wedge land (other than those facilities already lawfully operating in accordance with the Planning Scheme).
• On arterial roads and roads with high public exposure. Discourage vehicular access to the site from residential streets.

Site materials recycling centres on land that is of sufficient size to cater for adequate on-site car parking, pedestrian access, and landscaping.

• The impact of visual intrusion of material recycling centres on the key industrial gateways of Cooper Street, High Street, Mahoneys Road, Dalton Road, and Settlement Road.

Minimise adverse impacts from materials recycling facilities on the amenity of surrounding areas, including by mitigating and managing:

• Noise from the site.
• Air quality, including dust suppression management.
• Traffic and parking.
• Visual appearance and site maintenance.
• Hours of operation.

Provide landscaping to enhance the visual appearance of the site and to screen the development from sensitive uses.

Provide a landscaped setback along to street frontages.

The use of sealed car parking facilities and internal roads to minimise dust and noise, unless other measures to reduce the spread of mud and dust by vehicles are utilised.

Undertake all loading and unloading of materials on-site.

Avoid the storage and stacking of materials along the frontage of the site. Encourage the containment of materials treatment and processing within buildings. Encourage the use of new technologies that reduce emissions.

Encourage ongoing monitoring of dust suppression, stormwater management and soil leaching.

• The ability to minimise environmental and health risks.
  • Appropriate buffers from significant environmental features, such as waterways to minimise adverse offsite impacts.
  • The following amenity management documents (as relevant):
    • Management and storage of combustible recyclable and waste materials - guideline (Publication 1667.3, Environment Protection Authority, July 2021).
    • Noise limit and assessment protocol for the control of noise from commercial, industrial and trade premises and entertainment venues (Publication 1826.4 Environment Protection Authority, May 2021).