LOGICAL INCLUSIONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT NO. 3

Transcription

Planning and Environment Act 1987 LOGICAL INCLUSIONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT NO. 3: NORTH GROWTH AREA Report of the Advisory Committee Pursuant to Section 151 of the Act 11 November 2011 Logical Inclusions Advisory Committee
Report No 3: North Growth Area: 11 November 2011
Logical Inclusions Advisory Committee: Kathryn Mitchell, Chair Lester Townsend, Deputy Chair Rodger Eade, Member Brett Davis, Member Jodi Kennedy, Member David Mitchell, Member William O’Neil, Member 11 November 2011 Page i
Logical Inclusions Advisory Committee
TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE NO. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS................................................. 1
1.
INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 4
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
2.
THE NORTH GROWTH AREA .................................................................................... 4
THE NORTH ASSESSMENT AREA............................................................................... 5
SUBMISSIONS AND HEARINGS ................................................................................... 6
ISSUES PARTICULAR TO HUME, MITCHELL AND WHITTLESEA ................................ 9
CITY OF HUME .......................................................................................................... 10
2.1 OVERVIEW ............................................................................................................... 10
2.2 LOCAL POLICY CONTEXT ........................................................................................ 11
2.3 PARTICULAR ISSUES................................................................................................. 13
3.
HUME AREA 1: ATTWOOD EMPLOYMENT AREA ........................................ 14
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
4.
HUME AREA 2: GREENVALE WEST.................................................................... 23
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
5.
OVERVIEW ............................................................................................................... 23
POSITION OF AGENCIES ........................................................................................... 25
STANDARDS AND DECISION CRITERIA ................................................................... 27
COMMENTARY ......................................................................................................... 29
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................... 31
HUME AREA 3: MERRIFIELD ................................................................................ 33
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
6.
OVERVIEW ............................................................................................................... 14
COMMENTARY ......................................................................................................... 19
OVERVIEW ............................................................................................................... 33
COMMENTARY ......................................................................................................... 38
HUME AREA 4: OLD SYDNEY ROAD ................................................................. 41
6.1 OVERVIEW ............................................................................................................... 41
6.2 POSITION OF AGENCIES ........................................................................................... 43
Page ii
6.3 STANDARDS AND DECISION CRITERIA ................................................................... 44
6.4 COMMENTARY ......................................................................................................... 45
6.5 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................... 47
7.
MITCHELL SHIRE ..................................................................................................... 48
7.1 OVERVIEW ............................................................................................................... 48
7.2 LOCAL POLICY CONTEXT ........................................................................................ 49
7.3 PARTICULAR ISSUES................................................................................................. 50
8.
MITCHELL AREA 1: WEST OF WALLAN............................................................ 51
8.1
8.2
8.3
8.4
9.
MITCHELL AREA 2: WALLAN............................................................................... 57
9.1
9.2
9.3
9.4
9.5
10.
OVERVIEW ............................................................................................................... 51
COMMENTARY ......................................................................................................... 55
OVERVIEW ............................................................................................................... 57
COMMENTARY ......................................................................................................... 63
CITY OF WHITTLESEA ............................................................................................ 66
10.1OVERVIEW ............................................................................................................... 66
10.2LOCAL POLICY CONTEXT ........................................................................................ 67
10.3KEY INFLUENCES ..................................................................................................... 67
11.
WHITTLESEA AREA 1: KILMORE–MERRIANG ROAD................................. 69
11.1OVERVIEW ............................................................................................................... 69
11.2POSITION OF AGENCIES ........................................................................................... 71
11.3STANDARDS AND DECISION CRITERIA ................................................................... 72
11.4COMMENTARY ......................................................................................................... 74
11.5FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................... 76
12.
WHITTLESEA AREA 2 – EPPING ROAD, WOODSTOCK .............................. 77
12.1OVERVIEW ............................................................................................................... 77
12.4COMMENTARY ......................................................................................................... 81
Page iii
13.
WHITTLESEA AREA 3: QUARRY HILLS............................................................. 84
13.1OVERVIEW ............................................................................................................... 84
13.4COMMENTARY ......................................................................................................... 89
14.
WHITTLESEA AREA 4: YAN YEAN ...................................................................... 95
14.1OVERVIEW ............................................................................................................... 95
14.4COMMENTARY ....................................................................................................... 100
14.5FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................... 102
APPENDIX 1: LIST OF SUBMITTORS APPENDIX 2: TABLED DOCUMENTS Page iv
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ANEF – Australian Noise Exposure Forecast DMNSC – Delivering Melbourne’s Newest Sustainable Communities DoT – Department of Transport DPCD – Department of Planning and Community Development DSE – Department of Sustainability and Environment EPBC Act – Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, 1999 EVC – Ecological Vegetation Class FFG Act ‐ Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act, 1988 GAA – Growth Areas Authority GAIC ‐ Growth Area Infrastructure Charge LPPF – Local Planning Policy Framework MAEO – Melbourne Airport Environs Overlay MSS – Municipal Strategic Statement NASAG – National Airports Safeguarding Advisory Group OMR – Outer Metropolitan Ring/E6 Transport Corridor PAC – Principal Activity Centre PPTN – Principal Public Transport Network PSP – Precinct Structure Plan SPPF – State Planning Policy Framework UGB – Urban Growth Boundary UGZ – Urban Growth Zone VPPs – Victoria Planning Provisions Page v
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS This is Report No. 3 of the Logical Inclusions Advisory Committee. It contains the Committee’s assessment of the North Growth Area. This Area includes land within the municipalities of Hume, Mitchell and Whittlesea which are broadly north of the Melbourne CBD and cover two growth corridors. The first is through Craigieburn, north to Wallan just south of the foothills of the Great Dividing Range, which is a natural barrier to growth in this direction. The second is through Epping, out to Mernda and Doreen to just south of the Yan Yean Reservoir catchment. The Craigieburn to Wallan growth front will be a major Growth Area for Melbourne for the next couple of decades. It has the advantages of good freeway access, train access via the Melbourne – Sydney rail corridor, existing major employment nodes around the Melbourne Airport and Cooper Street, and a significant amount of readily developable land. Major infrastructure provision to accommodate significant population growth will nevertheless be required. The Outer Metropolitan Ring/E6 Transport Corridor is being planned to accommodate freeway, high speed commuter rail and freight rail functions. It will be a major transport asset in this rapidly growing region. The area does however have some significant biodiversity and other constraints in some parts of the areas proposed for future urban development. The Epping Mernda Doreen growth front has less land for future urban development. In a number of areas within this growth front, Whittlesea Council sought to reinforce or ‘overlock’ the Urban Growth Boundary as an enduring urban boundary. Whittlesea Council sought to ensure that development that occurs in such areas is designed to interface appropriately with the non‐urban land which it abuts. The Growth Areas Authority grouped the submissions made in these three municipalities into ten assessment areas, four in Hume, two in Mitchell and four in Whittlesea. In its assessment report, the Growth Areas Authority proposed that an extra 3,187ha of land be brought into the Urban Growth Boundary as a result of the Logical Inclusions Review Process. This is in addition to 21,500ha brought into the Urban Growth Boundary in 2010 of which 7,400ha was included in the Urban Growth Zone. This report should be read in conjunction with Report No. 1: Overall Summary which provides greater detail of the context and philosophy of this review. Page 1
Overall, the Logical Inclusions Advisory Committee recommends that five areas should be included in the Urban Growth Boundary as a Logical Inclusion, six areas should be subject to further review and five areas should not be included in the Urban Growth Boundary. The recommendations of the Advisory Committee for the North Growth Area are as follows: Recommendation 1 – Logical Inclusions 1. Land within the following areas should be included in the Urban Growth Boundary through an Amendment process under Section 20(4) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987: (a) Hume Area 2B south of Dunhelen Lane: • Locating the Urban Growth Boundary so that a 500 metre buffer to the property boundary of the existing quarry remains outside the Urban Growth Boundary but has controls applied so that it can be used as open space as part of the adjoining development, and • Applying the Farming Zone within the Urban Growth Boundary. (b) Hume Area 2C, applying the Urban Growth Zone. (c) Hume Area 3, applying the Farming Zone to the western section and Rural Living Zone incorporating relevant provisions of the existing Green Wedge A Zone to the eastern section. (d) Mitchell Area 2, applying the existing zones. (e) The part of Whittlesea Area 3 identified as 1 Skyline Drive, South Morang, applying the Urban Growth Zone. Recommendation 2 – Possible future review 2. Land within the following areas should not be included in the Urban Growth Boundary as part of this process, but may merit further consideration as part of a later review: (a) Hume Area 1, following a planning study led by the Department of Planning and Community Development to identify and consider the potential development and land use conflicts though a detailed planning process in consultation with City of Hume, Australia Pacific Airports (Melbourne) Pty Ltd and the local community. (b) Hume Area 2A. (c) Hume Area 2B, north of Dunhelen Lane. Page 2
(d) Whittlesea Area 1A and Whittlesea 1C, following development of plans for the Inter‐Modal Freight Terminal. (e) Whittlesea Area 2, following finalisation of the Grassy Eucalypt Woodland Reserve. (f) The part of Whittlesea Area 3 identified as 180 Bindts Road Wollert, following further work to determine an appropriate boundary in this location and to propose appropriate land uses for an expanded Urban Growth Boundary in this area. Recommendation 3 – Do not include 3. Land within the following areas should not be included in the Urban Growth Boundary: (a) Hume Area 4. (b) Mitchell Area 1. (c) Whittlesea Area 1B. (d) Whittlesea Area 3 (apart from land at 1 Skyline Drive, South Morang and 180 Bindts Road Wollert). (e) Whittlesea Area 4A, 4B and 4C. Other Recommendations (a) Amend the “Statement of Underlying Provisions” to show the ‘underlying’ Urban Growth Boundary aligned to Mickleham Road in Hume Area 3. (b) Land identified as the Whittlesea Exclusion Area should remain in the Urban Growth Boundary until a decision on any further review is undertaken. Page 3
1.
INTRODUCTION 1.1
The North Growth Area The North Growth Area includes land located within the City of Hume, City of Whittlesea and Mitchell Shire. To date, the growth in this Area has been concentrated in the Cities of Hume and Whittlesea as an extension of the existing urban area. Mitchell Shire was included within the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) in 2010. Melbourne Airport is located within the City of Hume along with some of Victoria’s prime industrial and employment areas. The Growth Areas Authority (GAA) submitted that: Hume will continue to play a key role in contributing to the national economy and Australiaʹs global position, with an expectation that employment will grow to between 90,000 and 95,000 jobs. The GAA is currently managing the preparation of Growth Corridor Plans and Precinct Structure Plans (PSP) across the Growth Area. According to the GAA, as at September 2011 the program status of PSPs is as follows: •
Seven have been completed (Aurora, Craigieburn R2, Epping North East, Folkstone Employment Area, Greenvale North (R1), Greenvale West (R3) and Merrifield Central Employment (E1)); •
None are at Planning Scheme Amendment Stage; •
None are under Preparation; and •
Three are at Pre‐Planning Stage (Greenvale Central, Mickleham Employment Area North (E2) and Mickleham Employment Area South (E3)). The GAA have reported that indicative estimates put the supply of land in the UGB in Whittlesea at around 20 years, with six to seven years supply of PSP approved land. In Hume the overall supply in the UGB is estimated to be is excess of 20 years with six to seven years supply of PSP approved land. Estimates in Mitchell are more difficult because it has not until recently been in metropolitan Melbourne and therefore not part of the Urban Development Program. The impact of the land proposed to be included in the UGB as part of this process on the amount of Green Wedge Zoned land is relatively small. Hume has over 21,700ha of Green Wedge Zone land currently with about 1,300 ha of land proposed for Page 4
inclusion in the UGB as part of this process. Land to be included in Whittlesea is Rural Conservation Zone and comparatively smaller in total size. From the analysis of State Policy (refer Report No. 1: Overview and Summary, Chapter 3) and Local Policy, as well as the various submissions made, the Committee considers key issues facing this Growth Area largely involve the management of land uses surrounding Melbourne Airport, significant environmental constraints associated with the proposed grasslands in Whittlesea, (including the proposed inclusion of land as part of the Quarry Hills Bushland Park proposal) and managing expectations regarding land suitability for urban development in Mitchell Area 2 – Wallan. In addition, landscape values of ridgelines, topography and the role of low‐density rural living lots are key considerations in the Committee’s deliberations. 1.2
The North Assessment Area The Committee advised at the opening of the Hearings that it would adopt the Assessment Areas as provided by the GAA for its considerations. For the North Growth Area, these Assessment Areas are: •
Hume Area 1: Attwood Employment Area •
Hume Area 2: Greenvale West •
Hume Area 3: Merrifield •
Hume Area 4: Old Sydney Road •
Mitchell Area 1: West of Wallan •
Mitchell Area 2: Wallan •
Whittlesea Area 1: Merriang Road •
Whittlesea Area 2: Epping Road, Woodstock •
Whittlesea Area 3: Quarry Hills •
Whittlesea Area 4: Yan Yean •
Whittlesea Exclusion Area At the commencement of the Hearing process, the GAA advised that submissions 6009, 6011, 6020, 6030, 6031, 6033, 6034, sub 3587, sub 3860, sub 6081, sub 7138, sub 8001, and sub 8253 were withdrawn. The Committee has not considered these. A list of the referred submissions and the affected parties as provided by the GAA and considered by the Committee is provided in Appendix 1. Page 5
1.3
Submissions and Hearings The GAA referred its Preliminary Assessment Report – North to the Committee on 22 August 2011. On September 2, an updated Assessment Report was released clarifying the specific land proposed for inclusion in the UGB in Whittlesea Area 4A. As part of its considerations, the Committee heard from the GAA, the Hume Mitchell and Whittlesea Councils, six Agencies, Australia Pacific Airports Corporation (which is a referral authority but a private sector entity operating Melbourne Airport on Commonwealth owned land), and a number of land holder and affected party submittors on 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 14, 15, and 20 September and 3 October 2011 generally in the following order: Submittor: Represented By: Growth Areas Authority Paul Byrne (Director Economic Planning and Development), and Anthony Calthorpe (Senior Planner, DPCD on secondment) City of Whittlesea Terry Montebello of Maddocks Lawyers, with Aiden O’Neil (Team Leader Strategic Projects and Policy) of Council City of Hume Aaron Chiles (Acting Manager Strategic Planning) and Michael Sharp (Acting Manager Statutory Planning) Mitchell Shire Stacey Gardiner (Manager Strategic Planning) and Kerrie Birtwistle (Director Sustainable Development) and Tim Long, (Strategic Planner) Yarra Valley Water Paul Curtis (Urban Development Manager) Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE) Michelle McHugh (Project Leader, Precinct Planning, Biodiversity) and Clare White (Precinct Planning Project Officer) Australia Pacific Airports (Melbourne) Pty Ltd Adrian Finanzio of Counsel, instructed by Corrs Chambers Westgarth, who tabled planning evidence from Trent Kneebush of Kneebush Planning and John Glossop of Glossop Town Planning Department of Transport (DoT) Terry Montebello of Maddocks with Marianne Richards (Acting Director, Freight Policy and Planning), Mark Burton (Senior Transport Planner), and Rebecca Jenkins (Senior Transport Planner) Melbourne Water Graham Daff (Principal, Developer Works, Waterways Group) and Deborah Riley (Town Planner, Waterways Group) VicRoads Simon Lanza (Team leader Planning North Central, Regional Planning Section) and Lisa Kogios (Network Strategy Coordinator) Central North East Development Sydney Craythorn of Taylors Development Strategists Hamish McDonnell Julie Katz of The Planning Group Vellcorp Pty Ltd Lloyd Elliott of Urbis Page 6
Submittor: Represented By: Brian Ruschmeyer Liz Hamila, Sarah Auld and Leigh Holmes of CPG Australia and Jarryn Rapsey of Dacland Management Aziz Kehir Ofer Fridberg of HMF – Cityplan Parks Victoria Alex McLeod (Strategic Planner) Beveridge Pastoral Company Chris Townshend SC of Counsel and Emily Porter instructed by Rigby Cooke Lawyers who tabled planning evidence from Marco Negri of Contour Consultants and services evidence from Ken Breese of Breese Pit Dixon Merrifield Corporation (Old Sydney Road and Lindum Vale) Ian Pitt, Best Hooper who tabled planning evidence from Andrew Rodda of Contour Consultants Davies, Green and Charlewood Nominees Chris Townshend SC instructed by Gadens Lawyers who tabled planning evidence from with Brendan Rogers of Urbis Mason, Di Tella, Olivetto and Di Giandomenico Rick Olivetto Allison Crouch Havenmeade Pty Ltd Anna Borthwick of BMDA Brookfield Multiplex Greenvale Pty Ltd and Hay/Urbex John Cicero and Teresa Bisucci of Best Hooper and Ben Rowe of Brookfield Multiplex who tabled planning evidence from Greg Wood of Tract Consultants Mary and Peter Skocic Peter Skocic James J Webster Wendy Morris of Ecologically Sustainable Design John McKerrow Victoree Pty Ltd John Cicero of Best Hooper Lucy Zajec David Cleland Megan Lessio David Cleland Georgia Vellucci David Cleland Stephen and Olga Miritis David Cleland Tony and Joan Mizzi Jodi Barkho David and Gail Cleland David Cleland Steve and Aydon Friebe Charles Grech Helen Jackson Judy and Kate Rothacker Emily Porter of Counsel instructed by Rigby Cooke Lawyers Peter Chiavaroli Luke Chamberlain of Tract Consultants Jacobus Jansen Gary Jungwirth Catherine and Patricia Alston Alex Guild of Norton Rose Holcim Australia Alex Guild of Norton Rose Richard Bergami, Lisa Lawrence Page 7
Submittor: Represented By: and Helen Angus David and Elizabeth Trenerry Lend Lease Peter O’Farrell of Counsel instructed by Kate Henderson of Norton Rose Australia who tabled planning evidence from Nevan Wadeson of Tract and ecological evidence from Brett Lane or Brett Lane and Associates Crystal Creek Properties Simon Merrigan and Mike Jordan of Miller Merrigan, Neil Craigie of Neil Craigie and Associates and Celina Mott of the Crystal Creek Properties Merristock Pty Ltd and Rekool Pty Ltd Prudence and David Boyd, Catherine Looker, Dr Gwynedd Hunter‐Payne and Scott Barrow Merri Creek Management Committee Luisa Macmillan Delma Investments Greg Wood of Tract Consultants Conundrum Holding Frank Perry of Perry and Associates and Mark Wagner of Conundrum Holdings Mesh Chris De Silva and Beth Johnson Rosario Lazzaro Green Wedge Coalition Rosemary West Rasco Pty Ltd, Mr Mimmo and ARM Hewitts Stuart Morris QC instructed by Spade Consultants who tabled planning evidence from David Crowder of Ratio Consultants, acoustic evidence from Christophe Delaire of Marshall Day and economic evidence from John Henshall of Essential Economics Mario and Dianne Zanetti Geoff Underwood of Spade Consultants Kim‐Maree Taylor Two affected parties who requested to be heard did not appear. As well as the above listed parties, many others attended the Hearings to assist particular people or as interested observers to the process. The Committee thanks all parties for the way in which they contributed to this process. The Committee has considered all relevant submissions made to the North process, including written submissions and presentations made to the Committee at the Hearings. Page 8
1.4
Issues Particular to Hume, Mitchell and Whittlesea Hume Council has the Melbourne Airport located within its boundaries. Such a use requires important land use planning principles to be applied to ensure development does not compromise the optimal use of Melbourne Airport. Threshold issues relating to the Melbourne Airport are discussed in Chapter 6 of Report No. 1: Overview and Summary. Mitchell Shire has only recently been identified as being part of Metropolitan Melbourne, and consequently its level of planning for future growth is not as advanced as other identified growth corridors. The Victorian Government proposes to locate one of three major Inter‐Modal Freight Terminals being planned for metropolitan Melbourne on some 1,000ha of land in Beveridge. This is outlined in the policy document, Freight Futures: Victorian Freight Network Strategy, 2010. Planning for this terminal is at a very early stage. However its location and the planning for ancillary uses both within the terminal complex and on adjacent land will have a significant impact on the planning for future land use in the vicinity of the terminal. It was submitted by the Department of Transport (DoT) that detailed planning for land use and the application of appropriate zones and other planning tools could be some five to eight years away and that deciding the urban future of land in the vicinity of the proposed terminal at this stage would be premature. Page 9
2.
CITY OF HUME 2.1
Overview The City of Hume is one of Melbourne’s key gateways, providing a vital transport network with links to Australia’s eastern seaboard. Land uses in the City are diverse, comprising established and new residential development, major industrial, commercial centres and substantial tracts of rural land. The population as counted in the 2006 Census was 147,568, and is currently growing at a rate of around 2.4 per cent per year. The most common form of housing in Hume is the single detached dwelling, and is likely to remain so for some years, even though the size and type of households is gradually changing. One of the challenges for Hume Council is to increase the range of housing types available to meet the changing accommodation and lifestyle needs of the community. The amount of medium density development and site redevelopment is considerably less than that of inner metropolitan areas, but the issue of protecting areas of unique urban character and streetscape value from inappropriate medium density development remains. Hume Council has a strong employment base that is largely based on industry and airport related activity. It is important to create a sustainable employment sector to support the growing population. This will be achieved by attracting a diverse range of businesses and regional offices, enhancing employment opportunities, encouraging investment, and enhancing existing industrial and business precincts. There is significant rural land in the City (72 per cent of the area) and Hume Council wish to maintain this. Hume Council contains a diverse environment with a wide range of native flora and fauna habitats. The basalt plains and topographical features require careful management. Much of the area has already been cleared, increasing the importance of remaining areas of biodiversity significance which are vulnerable and under threat from rural activities, urban growth and neglect. Implications of rapid development in the region are: •
strong demand for State and Federal funding toward major infrastructure items to keep pace with population growth; •
increased competition for the attraction of major employers and industry; and •
changing land use patterns at municipal borders. Page 10
2.2
Local Policy Context The relevant parts of the Hume Planning Scheme Local Planning Policy Framework (LPPF) include: •
Clause 21.01 Municipal Profile – Hume City Council -
•
Clause 21.02 Community Wellbeing -
•
Clause 21.01‐2 Key Influences Clause 21.02‐1 Housing Clause 21.03 Economy -
Clause 21.03‐1 Employment -
Clause 21.03‐3 Agriculture -
Clause 21.03‐4 Melbourne Airport The relevant objective and associated strategies for Hume Area 1 at Clause 21.03 are: To ensure that development and effective curfew‐free operation of Melbourne Airport are protected. Strategies Ensure that development does not occur in the environs of Melbourne Airport that might prejudice its continuing role as one of Victoria’s key economic assets. Continue to support the use of the Melbourne Airport Environs Overlays and land uses that ensure Melbourne Airport remains curfew free to ensure sustained economic benefits for Hume City, Melbourne and Victoria. •
Clause 21.04 Infrastructure -
•
Clause 21.05 Natural Environment and Built Environment -
•
Clause 21.04‐1 Infrastructure Provision Clause 21.05‐1 Biodiversity Clause 21.06 Local Areas -
Clause 21.06‐2 Craigieburn and Roxburgh Park Neighbourhood Strategies relevant to Hume Area 3 are: A permanent landscape and non‐urban buffer, known as the ‘inter‐urban break’, between Craigieburn and any additional urban development which may occur further to the north in the Merri (Hume) Growth corridor. The inter‐urban break will provide a high quality rural living environment that is relatively self‐sufficient in terms of servicing and effluent disposal, and will contain substantial conservation and open space areas. Page 11
-
21.06‐5 Greenvale, Attwood and Westmeadows Neighbourhood. Key Influences In reviewing the above, the Committee consider the key influences on urban development within the City of Hume are: •
Urban growth: Residential and employment growth must meet the demand of the population, and remains a major factor in influencing Hume Council’s land use policy. •
Infrastructure: the provision of an adequate level of physical and social infrastructure is one of the major issues facing the Hume Council over the coming decades. The timely provision of infrastructure is necessary to foster economic development, ensure well‐being of the community and protect the environment. •
Transport: sustainable modes of transport, including cycling and walking, should be developed to ensure future community has access to a number of travel options, within and out of the City. •
Environment: the built environment encompassing character, urban design, heritage and signage; and, the natural environment encompassing floodplains, water catchment areas and native vegetation. •
Rural/Agricultural Land: maintaining the productive use of rural land is considered achievable and a desirable strategy. One of the challenges for Council is to encourage the productive use of the City’s rural areas without diminishing the high landscape qualities of those areas. •
Employment: it is necessary to expand the employment base to attract and retain residents within Hume’s economy. •
Melbourne Airport: the Melbourne Airport is located in the City of Hume, therefore planning in its environs have implications for Hume Council. The Airport not only provides air passenger and freight services to Victoria, it provides significant employment for Hume residents and associated economic activity including accommodation, storage and transport industries and other industries that rely upon air freight services, many of which choose to locate close to the Airport. Page 12
2.3
Particular Issues The City of Hume is located within the southern section of the North Growth Area and has been identified as having good transport access and connectivity (road, rail and public transport). In particular the alignment of the Outer Metropolitan Ring/E6 Transport Corridor (OMR) will provide increased accessibility to metropolitan Melbourne for those who choose to live and/or work in Hume. Melbourne Airport is located within the municipality of Hume, and provides significant investment into the local, state and national economies. The Committee heard from a number of submittors regarding the importance of Melbourne Airport both from a transport and economic perspective. Whilst submittors had differing views regarding what type of development could occur in and around the Airport and under its flight paths, they all agreed that land use planning must ensure it does not compromise the optimum usage of Melbourne Airport, in particular its 24‐hour curfew free status. Therefore the implications regarding the potential impact of urban development, (including employment uses) on the operations of the Airport is an important consideration. The Committee has discussed this issue in Chapter 6 of the Committee’s Report No: 1: Overview and Summary. The route of the proposed OMR impacts Hume and is proposed by Hume Council as the ultimate western UGB of the corridor north of the Airport. In Hume Area 2 in particular the OMR and the northern flight paths from the airport will play a significant role in determining what urban development can occur and where. Page 13
3.
HUME AREA 1: ATTWOOD EMPLOYMENT AREA 3.1
Overview The land in Hume Area 1 (375ha) is generally referred to as the Attwood site. It includes land on both the east and west sides of Mickleham Road approximately 15km from the Melbourne CBD. It is currently included within the Green Wedge Zone, and affected by a number of overlays including Schedule 2 to the Environmental Significance Overlay and Melbourne Airport Environs Overlays (MAEO1 and MAEO2). Figure 1: Hume Area 1 Page 14
Land to the west of Mickleham Road includes the Department of Primary Industries Animal Sciences facility. To the north and west, the site abuts the Woodlands Historic Park. To the south is Cambridge Gardens residential estate and a Melbourne Water retarding basin. Melbourne Airport is located approximately 1.4km west of Hume Area 1. Land to the east of Mickleham Road is predominately vacant land with some agricultural uses occurring on site. Part of the site is leased for use as a firewood depot. It is located between the suburbs of Greenvale and Attwood with its eastern boundary abutting Broadmeadows Valley Park. Mr Morris QC presented a submission supporting inclusion of Hume Area 1 into the UGB for employment purposes on behalf of the major landholders within the proposed Attwood Employment Precinct which included Rasco Pty Ltd, Mr Mimmo of AMR Hewitts, and a further eleven allotments that formed part of submission sub3072 submitted by Sandy Tortoni on behalf of the landowners. Hume Council reaffirmed its vision that Hume Area 1 be developed as a high‐tech employment precinct. It also submitted that land within the Area should be used to facilitate the delivery of a possible east‐west link from the Hume Growth Area to Melbourne Airport (extension of Aitken Boulevard – E14). The GAA submitted that the development of Hume Area 1, even for employment purposes needs to be considered in a broader policy context to ensure any future development of this land does not prejudice the operations of the Melbourne Airport including its curfew‐free status. There were 53 affected party submissions including a petition of 385 people. All bar one objected to the inclusion of Hume Area 1 into the UGB to facilitate possible employment use of the land. The Committee heard from 12 affected parties during the course of the Hearings. The grounds for opposing the inclusion of Hume Area 1 into the UGB can be summarised as loss of lifestyle, amenity, noise, pollution, traffic congestion on Mickleham Road and there is sufficient supply of employment land already in Hume. Of those opposing the inclusion of Hume Area 1, were Australia Pacific Airports (Melbourne) (APAM), the lessee of the Airport, the Commonwealth Department of Infrastructure and Transport and Qantas. APAM was represented by Mr Finanzio. The key concerns raised by Mr Finanzio was the impact that development of Hume Area 1 could have on the operations of the Melbourne Airport, in particular its 24‐
hour curfew free status, and the importance of Melbourne Airport to the Victorian economy. Page 15
3.2
Position of Agencies (i)
GAA The GAA did not recommend Hume Area 1 for inclusion into the UGB advising that the issue of employment development under flight paths should be considered within a broader Government policy setting. While the principle of allowing land directly under the flight path of Melbourne Airport to be used for employment purposes does not automatically contradict the State Planning Policy Framework (SPPF), there are many factors to be considered. Given the significance of the Airport to Melbourne, the GAA considered that there are too many issues associated with the management of airport flight paths for Hume Area 1 to be adequately and appropriately considered within the scope of this review. The GAA suggested that further work is required to provide clarity on this issue as the proposal for employment land has long been put forward for this Area and desirably should be investigated in greater detail than it considered possible in this Logical Inclusions Review Process. The GAA recognised that there have been a significant number of submissions and petitions from local residents strongly opposing the development of the site for employment purposes. It argued that these are important considerations that would need to be addressed in detail; however they are issues that would only be considered after a Government decision on whether land within the flight paths should be considered for some form of development. (ii)
Hume Council Hume Council submitted that the site has few if any known constraints to its inclusion inside the UGB. As is expected in an area of this size, particular constraints or concerns may be identified as detailed planning is undertaken, however in Council’s view, are unlikely to be fatal to its ultimate development. Council argued that the land is extremely well located to support employment related uses and new transport links. The land provides opportunities for employment, community, open space and transport connections, new airport related business, appropriate buffers to adjoining residential areas, and as an interface to the Woodlands Park and Moonee Ponds Creek. Hume Council submitted that the greatest perceived constraint on Hume Area 1 is the impact on airport flight paths. While acknowledging that this brings particular Page 16
challenges and requirements to the development of the land, Hume Council considered that it does not preclude its incorporation into the UGB. It was Hume Council’s view that the land should be referred for consideration as part of the proposed Biennial Review of the UGB during which time the preferred or best alignment of the UGB can be determined and more work can be done with the community and other stakeholders so that the nature and impact of what is proposed is better understood. This would allow any specific tools or controls that may be required to manage development of the land to be developed collaboratively. Hume Council submitted that this should be undertaken independently and outside of the Growth Corridor Plan and PSP processes which are unsuited to this Committee process. (iii)
Other Agencies DoT did not support the inclusion of Hume Area 1 within the UGB, due to outstanding strategic planning issues associated with the Melbourne Airport. VicRoads were in agreement with DoT, indicating that the development of the Area will require major transport infrastructure to be provided. DSE recommended Hume Area 1 not be included, but supported review at a later stage, providing biodiversity is addressed at subsequent detailed planning phases. Melbourne Water commented that if development were to occur, buffers would be required along all waterways, responding to flood conveyance and waterway management issues, topography and biodiversity values. As Hume Area 1 drains southward toward established development in Attwood, significant local retarding basins would be required to prevent increased runoff from new urban development creating flood risks downstream. Further, Yarra Valley Water noted that there are sewer capacity issues in Hume Area 1. 3.3
Standards and Decision Criteria Hume Area 1 meets the Standards, being within a Growth Area municipality, abutting the existing UGB and being proposed for residential and/or employment development. Hume Area 1 is undulating and quite elevated to the north with some agricultural uses. As indicated in the GAA submission the land is generally unconstrained with the exception of the MAEO which impacts on the majority of the Area. The implications regarding the potential impact development of this land may have on the operations of the Melbourne Airport is an important consideration for this Committee. Page 17
Hume Council identified Hume Area 1 for employment purposes and stated this would provide the opportunity to create an east‐west link road connecting the Melbourne Airport to Aitken Boulevard. The Environmental Significance Overlay and the Urban Floodway Zone affect the site. These overlays affect relatively small sections of Hume Area 1. Having noted the above, the key threshold Decision Criteria for Hume Area 1 as identified by the Committee include transport, biodiversity and drainage. These are now discussed. (i)
Transport VicRoads indicated that if Hume Area 1 were to be included in the UGB then it would require major transport upgrades that would need to be considered as part of any Growth Corridor Plan and PSP process. Hume Council indicated that the site is strategically located and if developed could “provide strategic transport links to support the expanding growth corridor to the north”. DoT indicated that the significant transport issue for Hume Area 1 is the protection of Melbourne Airport operations. (ii)
Biodiversity Hume Area 1 has been primarily used for grazing and agricultural purposes. DSE identified that Hume Area 1 retains small sections “of native vegetation along the creek and drainage lines including Grassy Woodland, Hills Herb‐rich Woodland, and Stream Bank Shrubland”. In addition Biosite 5185, Tullamarine Retarding Basin, Wright St, (Regional Significance) is located on the sites western boundary along Moonee Pond Creek. However DSE considered these constraints can be addressed as part of any Growth Corridor Plan and PSP process and would require provision of appropriate buffers along creek and drainage lines. (iii)
Drainage Hume Area 1 falls across three catchments, Moonee Ponds Creek, Yuroke Creek and Attwood Creek. Urban development of Hume Area 1 would require some significant drainage infrastructure as the Area drains southward. To protect the established areas (Attwood), Melbourne Water has identified that “significant local retarding basins would be required to prevent increased runoff from new urban development creating flood risks downstream”. This in turn has the potential to impact on the operations of the Airport as wetlands have the potential to attract large birds, resulting in any wetlands having to “respond to the Australian Transport Safety Bureau Page 18
bird strike guidelines”. Any planning for Hume Area 1 would need to consider these limitations of the site. 3.4
Commentary As part of its submission to the Committee, Hume Council emphasised its long held view that the Area “should be developed for airport related employment purposes having regard to its location and aircraft noise exposure”. This position is articulated in the Hume Planning Scheme Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS) and has been reflected in its submissions made to Government regarding Melbourne 2030, the Hume Smart Growth planning process, Melbourne@5Million and Delivering Melbourne’s Newest Sustainable Communities (DMNSC). Hume Council argued that the Area is relatively unconstrained and suitable for development for employment purposes, which can be managed to ensure it does not impact on the operations and 24‐hour curfew‐free status of Melbourne Airport. It was put to the Committee by Mr Morris representing major landholders in the Attwood area including Rasco Pty Ltd and AMR Hewitts Pty Ltd (submissions 3075, sub7221 and sub3076) that the development of Hume Area 1 for employment purposes “is consistent with the overall objectives of the State Planning Policy Framework” having referenced sections of Clause 17 – Economic Development. Further the economic benefits of including this land for urban purposes was argued by Mr Henshall in his evidence where he stated: In my view the subject land represents an excellent opportunity (allowing for planning, environmental and other considerations to be positively addressed) to bring into production a large area of vacant and undeveloped land for the purposes of employment uses that respect the site as well as airport flight path considerations. The Committee notes that planning has a key role in balancing competing policy objectives to achieve a suitable outcome, and this is highlighted when reviewing the relevant State Policies within the Hume Planning Scheme. As noted by Melbourne Water Clause 11.04‐6 Green Wedges, states that one of its strategies for the Green Wedge Zone is “to plan and protect major transport facilities that serve the wider Victorian community, such as airports and ports”. The GAA considers the Green Wedge Zone a suitable tool to protect Melbourne Airport and its environs. The Committee agrees with the GAA, that the Green Wedge Zone plays an important role in protecting Melbourne Airport from unsuitable development that would potentially compromise its optimal usage. The Committee was provided with evidence from a number of expert witnesses regarding the role of the MAEO and the Australian Noise Exposure Forecast (ANEF) Page 19
system which informs the MAEO. The Committee’s Report No. 1: Overview and Summary Report at Chapter 6 discusses this in more detail. The key point to make is that in its submission to the Committee, APAM made it very clear that it considers the ANEF to have significant shortcomings in protecting the Airport from developments that would impact on its operations. As stated by Mr Finanzio: … decision makers have mistakenly assumed that the … contours on a map clearly demarcate between those areas which are appropriate for development because of noise levels will not be too high, those which may be developed subject to conditions and those which are constrained because noise levels will be unreasonably high. The Committee concurs with Mr Finanzio that the ANEF, and in particular the MAEO have been used, albeit with good intent, inappropriately when considering urban development within close proximity to the Airport. The Committee was informed that the Commonwealth Government has established the National Airports Safeguarding Advisory Group (NASAG) to review the ANEF system and in particular develop a national land‐use planning approach near airports and under flight paths. There was no clear timeframe presented to the Committee regarding when NASAG would make is recommendations public. The Committee agrees with the position put forward by Mr Byrne in his closing statement for the GAA, that any review of planning policy and tools to protect Melbourne Airport, needs to be informed by, but does not have to wait for the NASAG review to be completed. This is based on a number of submissions informing the Committee that given the NASAG review is for all airports within Australia, it will potentially be very general in its findings and what is required for Attwood is site specific planning tools to determine what form of employment development could be development without compromising the optimum usage of Melbourne Airport. Mr Morris argued that the Attwood land is not seeking to be developed for residential or other sensitive purposes and questioned the intent of APAM in its opposition to the Attwood land being included in the UGB for employment purposes. It was put to the Committee that APAM was attempting to protect its own Business Park from competition as part of its opposition to inclusion of Hume Area 1 into the UGB for employment purposes (refer to Report No. 1: Overview and Summary, Chapter 6, for further discussion regarding this matter). When questioned by the Committee regarding the difference between land at Attwood and its own Business Park south of the south‐west runway (and affected by the ANEF), APAM argued that the land tenure arrangements ensure that if development within its Business Park does impact on its operation, it can manage the tenancies accordingly. Page 20
In response Mr Morris stated: There is no difference between the term of a long term lease, and the time that many freehold properties change hands … APAM are happy to develop its own land close to the north south main runway, but seek to blight the Attwood land – which is generally less affected by aircraft noise 99 per cent of the time. When questioned by the Committee regarding why this land is more desirable than other industrial land within Hume (i.e. Merrifield), Mr Henshall directed the Committee to his evidence, which states: Particular locational attributes support this economic advantage, especially the land’s accessibility to metropolitan Melbourne and the airport via main road links; the availability of such a large area of undeveloped land (235ha); and the anticipated continuing demand for land for employment purposes, especially in this part of metropolitan Melbourne. Having heard from Hume Council, APAM and submissions on behalf of a number of landowners, the Committee acknowledges that the Area contains suitable attributes for employment uses. This was reinforced by Mr Henshall when questioned regarding the current vacant industrial land within Hume. Mr Henshall indicated that it is the sites locational attributes more than a supply issue that makes this land desirable for employment purposes. As he stated there is approximately “862ha of vacant net developable land zoned for industrial and commercial uses … virtually all of this vacant land in Hume is located in the North Industrial Region”. Hume has an average annual consumption of 52.9 hectares per year for commercial and industrial land (approximately 16 years supply). The Committee heard from a number of affected party submittors and received 53 affected party submissions including one petition with over 385 signatures, all of whom objected to the inclusion of Hume Area 1 into the Urban Growth Boundary. The affected party submissions were generally concerned with the impact development of Area 1 would have on their properties from a traffic, noise and pollution perspective. Further a number of affected parties indicated they had purchased their properties on the understanding that no development would occur on green wedge land. Whilst the Committee agrees that the Area is largely unconstrained (with exception of the MAEO) and has many attributes that make it suitable for employment uses, the Committee supports the position of the GAA, which did not recommend inclusion of Hume Area 1 into the UGB: … as it is considered that the issue of appropriate employment development under flight paths is one that should be considered as part of a broader examination within a Government policy setting. Page 21
The Committee agrees that further detailed work is required to determine how much of Hume Area 1 can be developed for employment purposes. 3.5
Findings and Recommendations The Committee finds that the land in Hume Area 1 cannot be considered a Logical Inclusion in the UGB. The Committee supports the position of the GAA that the Green Wedge Zone is a suitable zone to protect major transport facilities. However the Committee has not been convinced that parts of Hume Area 1 would not be suitable for some employment development. Melbourne Airport is significant both in terms of transport infrastructure, and its contribution to the Victorian economy, and must be protected. On the basis that the Committee is not convinced that there is a short‐term need for more employment land within Hume, the Committee is of the view that considerable work is required to determine the future development opportunities for Hume Area 1. The Committee concludes that a planning study led by DPCD be undertaken to identify and consider potential development and land use conflicts through a detailed planning process in consultation with Hume Council, APAM and the local community. Recommendation Land within Hume Area 1 should not be included in the Urban Growth Boundary as part of this process, but may merit further consideration as part of a later review following a planning study led by the Department of Planning and Community Development to identify and consider the potential development and land use conflicts though a detailed planning process in consultation with City of Hume, Australia Pacific Airports (Melbourne) Pty Ltd and the local community. Page 22
4.
HUME AREA 2: GREENVALE WEST 4.1
Overview The large parcel of land identified as Hume Area 2 (1,954ha) is located west of Mickleham Road at Yuroke/Greenvale West. It is primarily undulating rural and rural living land, largely cleared with some remnant vegetation. It has been divided into three sections by the GAA for assessment purposes. These areas include Hume Area 2A (978ha) identified as Yuroke Area, north of Craigieburn Road. Hume Area 2B (960ha) identified as Greenvale West, located south of Craigieburn Road, and Hume Area 2C (16ha) at 800‐820 Somerton Road, described as an Anomaly by the GAA. Figure 2: Hume Area 2 Page 23
The land is currently in the Green Wedge Zone and adjoins the approved Greenvale West PSP 23, in the south‐east corner. To the east of Mickleham Road are a number of completed and still to be completed PSPs. To the south of Hume Area 2 is the Greenvale Central PSP 21 that is currently being prepared. Hume Area 2 impacts on two major drainage corridors being the start of Moonee Ponds Creek and Deep Creek. The land is affected on its western boundary by the Holcim Oaklands Junction Quarry which is estimated to continue operation for a further 50 years. A section of land just north of the Holcim Quarry and adjoining the OMR alignment within Hume Area 2B is affected by the MAEO2. This limitation will need to be considered in any future planning of the Area. Mr Cicero represented the major landholder submitters in Hume Area 2B, including Brookfield and Hay/Urbex which relates to approximately 500ha known as Greenvale West (submissions 3091, 3092 and sub5552). In his submission, Mr Cicero tabled planning evidence and other supporting reports. Mr and Mrs Webster who own 111ha at 115 Dunhelen Lane, Greenvale (submission 3026) were represented by Ms Morris. Both Mr Cicero and Ms Morris submitted that their clients’ land was suitable for urban development and should be included in the UGB. Area 2A had one submittor (in addition to Hume Council’s submission), Mr Skocic (submission sub1022) requesting land be including in the UGB. The Committee received submissions from the owners, P & B Kerr for land in Hume Area 2C (submissions 3077, 3098 and sub6118). Their grounds for inclusion in the UGB were that they considered its current zoning to be an anomaly. The Hume Council requested all the land in Hume Areas 2A, 2B and 2C be included in the UGB on the basis that further detailed planning could occur at a later stage. Both the GAA and Hume Council considered Hume Area 2 to be well located in terms of transport and connectivity to surrounding urban development. However the GAA had a different view to Hume Council which was addressed by Mr Byrne in his closing submissions where he indicated that strategically important sites (such as Hume Area 2) should be considered in an integrated manner before being brought into the UGB. The Committee received 19 affected party submissions with 15 in support, requesting that their land also be considered for inclusion in the UGB. Those in support indicated it was on the basis that the OMR will provide a natural boundary to urban growth, and that the Area can meet strong housing need due to its accessibility and connectivity to transport and employment precincts. The four opposing submissions were generally objecting on the grounds of loss of green wedge land, impact on existing rural businesses, congestion and lack of public Page 24
transport and the need to provide adequate buffers to the existing quarry located on the western boundary of Hume Area 2B. 4.2
GAA The GAA did not recommend the inclusion of Hume Area 2 as part of the Logical Inclusions Review Process, with the exception of the anomaly Area 2C in Somerton Road which the GAA recommended should be included. The GAA considered that given the Area’s large size, strategic location and issues requiring further investigation, it is more appropriate to be considered in detail as part of the proposed Biennial Review of the UGB. There are a number of significant issues that need to be considered when assessing the suitably of Hume Area 2 for urban development. Issues identified include environmental and biodiversity issues on site and within the Deep Creek and Moonee Ponds Creek catchments, significant infrastructure servicing issues, quarry buffers and transportation issues. The GAA consider Hume Area 2 needs to be looked at as a whole to enable far greater efficiencies in scale for population catchments, infrastructure design, and service provision in this general Greenvale area, using Mickleham Road as a key central north‐south spine, as well as key east‐
west links such as Craigieburn Road that will link to the OMR. The GAA considered that the land to the west of Mickleham Road is strategically positioned within metropolitan Melbourne and the North Growth Corridor, and that Hume Area 2 should ultimately be available for future urban development. The GAA recommended that the OMR will in the longer term, form an appropriate western UGB in this Area. (ii)
Hume Council Hume Council considered that the whole of Hume Area 2 should be included within the UGB as a Logical Inclusion. Council argued that the Mickleham West Precinct provides the potential to deliver primarily housing, and some employment and other land use opportunities that would eventually support existing urban areas to the east and south that are either already developed or currently under development. It is strategically located within reasonable proximity of Melbourne Airport and the Broadmeadows Central Activities Area, both of which are anticipated to grow and expand in the future. Page 25
Hume Council considered the OMR and natural ridgelines are an obvious and logical boundary for development in Hume Area 2. Council acknowledged some constraints that would need to be overcome through planning investigations. These include the delivery of public transport and utility infrastructure to service the proposed and existing areas. (iii)
Other Agencies DoT did not support the inclusion of this land due to strategic planning issues and remoteness from public transport. It made the exception of the anomaly Area 2C in Somerton Road which should be included. Hume Area 2C was previously excluded, however the Heritage Overlays have recently been found to be redundant. Moreover, it suggested the land rounds off the UGB and augments the future local bus catchment. Melbourne Water did not object to inclusion of any of Hume Area 2 within the UGB, but recommended a zoning on the eastern, subdivided portions that reflects the existing low density residential use. Melbourne Water highlighted the need for installation of drainage infrastructure to facilitate urban development of Hume Area 2. Yarra Valley Water commented that this is a large and significant area, which would require the development of servicing strategies. Sewage servicing is a significant issue as the downstream system does not have capacity to accommodate additional development of this size without “multi million dollar upgrades”. Yarra Valley Water suggested a new plant may be developed for Hume Area 2. It noted that the small increase associated with Area 2C can be accommodated. DSE gave in principle support to inclusion of all of Hume Area 2 in the UGB, providing biodiversity is addressed in subsequent detailed planning phases. VicRoads agreed with GAA’s recommendation that only the small area at 800 and 820 Somerton Road, known as Hume Area 2C be included in the UGB. VicRoads indicated that the development of Hume Areas 2A and 2B will require major transport infrastructure to be provided and therefore it considered inclusion in the UGB to be premature until further detailed investigation has occurred. Page 26
4.3
Standards and Decision Criteria Hume Area 2 meets the Standards, being within a Growth Area municipality, abutting the existing UGB and being proposed for residential and/or employment development. Hume Area 2 is significant in size and the three Assessment Areas identified by the GAA have different characteristics and issues that need to be considered. Land is predominantly used for agricultural activities. A number of areas have been identified as having high environmental and biodiversity significance. Hume Area 2 impacts on two major drainage corridors being the start of the Moonee Ponds Creek and Deep Creek. There is a significant quarry to the west of Hume Area 2B that requires buffer treatments if this Area were to be included in the UGB. How this buffer is treated in the long term will need to be considered given the quarry will continue to operate for approximately the next 50 years. Having noted the above, the key threshold Decision Criteria for Hume Area 2 as identified by the Committee include: Biodiversity, Heritage, Transport and Trunk services. These are now discussed. (i)
Biodiversity Hume Area 2 has experienced significant land disturbance through agricultural activities. DSE submitted that the Area contains some significant vegetation and habitat for threatened species that need to be protected. Both Hume Area 2A and 2B contain large patches of Plains Grassy Woodland Ecological Vegetation Class (EVC) and Grassy Eucalypt Woodland of the Victorian Volcanic Plains. Area 2B contains large numbers of records for Golden Sun Moth throughout the Area. DSE considered that environmental features of significance within Hume Areas 2A and 2B can be appropriately managed through Growth Corridor Planning and any subsequent PSP process. This finding is supported by the assessment undertaken by Ecology and Heritage Partners, commissioned by submittors Brookfield and Hay/Urbex (submissions 3091, 3092 and sub5552). Ecology and Heritage Partners recorded evidence of the Golden Sun Moth during its targeted survey and stated in its report that “the targeted surveys over several seasons indicate the study area supports a large population of the species”. With regard to both flora and fauna species, Ecology and Heritage Partners indicated that these matters could be addressed as part of any future planning process for Hume Area 2. Page 27
(ii)
Heritage A number of sites within Hume Area 2 are affected by a Heritage Overlay, which will require further consideration and assessment as part of any future development of the Area. Ecology and Heritage Partners undertook a desktop study of the land known as Greenvale West and identified potential Aboriginal heritage sensitivity as the landholding is located within 200m of Moonee Ponds Creek. Within Hume Area 2, there are two post‐contact heritage sites listed on the Hume Council Heritage Overlay known as HO274 Oaklands (Sherwood) Hunt Club, and HO277 Ballater Park. It is considered that all sites of heritage significance can be addressed through future processes such as the preparation of a PSP. (iii)
Transport Transportation issues are a key consideration for the future development of Hume Area 2. The GAA identified Hume Area 2 as being strategically located, however requires further detailed investigation to integrate its development into surrounding areas particularly to the east. Both VicRoads and DoT submitted that if Hume Area 2 were to be included in the UGB, then significant infrastructure planning and investment would be required to ensure the Area integrates with surrounding developments and the planned OMR. VicRoads stated that Hume Area 2 “will require major transport infrastructure. Consideration is premature until further detailed investigation”. Given the size of Hume Area 2, DoT identified that it will require new regional arterial road networks to be planned, which it considers is beyond the scope of this review. (iv)
Trunk services Yarra Valley Water identified that the significant size of Hume Area 2 will require substantial infrastructure upgrades to service the land for urban purposes. As stated by Yarra Valley Water: Sewage servicing is a significant issue as the downstream system does not have capacity to accommodate additional development of this size without multi million dollar upgrades. Yarra Water indicated that Hume Areas 2A and 2B will require significant detailed planning to determine the opportunity for upgrades and the requirement for additional infrastructure to facilitate the Area being developed for urban purposes. Yarra Valley Water considered this to be beyond the scope the Logical Inclusions Review Process. Page 28
Melbourne Water stated: If development were to occur, buffers would also be required along all waterways, responding to flood conveyance and waterway management issues, topography and biodiversity values. It indicated that to date it had not undertaken any flood mapping for Hume Area 2. Further Melbourne Water indicated that: Providing urban drainage infrastructure for higher density re‐development within the existing low density subdivisions in the northern and eastern edge of area 2a, generally between Dunhelen and Mickleham Rds, and north of Mt Ridley Rd, would be considerably more complex and costly than is the case in less fragmented areas. Based on the submissions of Agencies, the planning and delivery of major infrastructure to facilitate the development of Hume Area 2 will require detailed planning and co‐ordination to ensure efficient and cost effective outcomes are achieved. 4.4
Commentary The Committee agrees with the position of the GAA, Council, Agency and land owner submittors that Hume Area 2C is an anomaly and should be included within the UGB and rezoned UGZ. Previously identified constraints have been further assessed with the Heritage Overlay now being removed and DSE, Hume Council and the GAA all agreed that environmental values can be addressed through appropriate planning and site controls. The GAA indicated that it “supports Hume Council’s view that the OMR should form an appropriate western Urban Growth Boundary for this area”. The site inspection by members of the Committee was instructive in assisting it reach its conclusions for Areas 2A and 2B. The Committee agrees that an enduring boundary may be the Quarry boundary in the west and the OMR to the north‐west, however efficient servicing of Hume Area 2A and 2B from both a transport and infrastructure perspective remain as key issues to resolve. Hume Council argued that all of Hume Area 2 should be included in the UGB now: ..to ensure holistic and comprehensive planning by all involved in planning growth areas. It has clearly been Council’s experience that only land included in the UGB is given due consideration in the long term strategic, transport and infrastructure planning of an area. Page 29
The GAA indicated it wanted Hume Area 2 to be addressed as a whole to enable “far greater efficiencies in scale for population catchments, infrastructure design, and service provision”. However it considered that land of such strategic importance should be planned first before being included within the UGB. The Committee sought clarification from the GAA in its closing submissions regarding when was it suitable to include land in the UGB and then do additional planning work, versus having to do the planning work and then determine a suitable boundary for the UGB. The GAA advised that where the limitations of the land were known, then it was reasonable to consider the land for inclusion in the UGB with further detailed planning work to follow. Where there has been little investigation/s and the constraints of the land are unknown, then the GAA considers that the strategic planning work needs to occur first to ensure a suitable boundary is set. The Committee considers the view of the GAA is reasonable, and that as part of this process the relevant servicing authorities have been made aware of areas that will seriously be considered in the future for inclusion in the UGB. As stated by the GAA Hume Area 2 “should be taken into regard in the current preparation of the North Growth Corridor Plan and similarly within the planning for various PSPs in this area to ensure an overall long term coordinated and integrated approach”. Mr Cicero representing Brookfield and Hay/ Urbex made a strong case that his client has undertaken all the planning work required for land identified as Greenvale West. This land comprises approximately 500ha generally west of Mickleham Road, north of Somerton Road and south of Dunhelen Lane, and bounded to the west by a quarry. Mr Cicero argued that Greenvale West is a Logical Inclusion because of: ·
its direct continuity with existing urban development. ·
its own drainage catchment along the Moonee Ponds Creek. ·
distinct physical boundaries. The Committee is cognisant of the concerns raised by Yarra Valley Water with respect to downstream sewerage capacity. Yarra Valley Water suggested alternative solutions, including a detention facility or further recycling capacity. It acknowledged that with time, solutions could be developed. It is on this basis that the Committee considers it appropriate to bring part of Area 2B into the UGB at this stage, albeit in the Farming Zone. Mr Cicero emphasised Greenvale West can be included now without impacting on the future planning for the remainder of Hume Area 2. He submitted that “there is a clear distinction between Greenvale West and the balance of Area 2 which, it is said, has not been sufficiently investigated”. Based on the evidence submitted, the Committee concurs with Mr Cicero and supports the inclusion of land identified as Greenvale West in the UGB with the Farming Zone applied. The Committee is cognisant of Mr Page 30
Byrne’s comments that the work undertaken has not been integrated and treated in a holistic manner, but on balance believes that this land should be included in the UGB as a Logical Inclusion. Ms Morris representing Mr Webster indicated that her client’s land forms part of the Brookfield submission. Ms Morris submitted that her clients consider that the UGB should be extended to the OMR but only land south of Dunhelen Land should be included in the UGZ to reflect the “very different conditions and development timescales applying in the Greenvale West area compared to the Craigieburn Road West Area”. The Committee supports the inclusion of land south of Dunhelen Lane in Hume Area 2B within the UGB and but to be placed in the Farming Zone. However the Committee considers the remainder of this Area north of Dunhelen Lane as well as Hume Area 2A requires further investigation, particularly regarding transport planning and provision of trunk services infrastructure before it can be adequately considered for urban development and included within the UGB. Ms Morris argued that the mapping included in the GAA submission is incorrect (drawn approximately 200m from the western edge of her clients land). She submitted that the boundary of Hume Area 2B should align with the western boundary of her client’s property which abuts land owned and operated by Holcim Quarry. Ms Morris argued that the relevant planning provisions at Clause 14.03‐2 Stone Resources and Particular Provisions Clause 52.09 provide clear guidance regarding buffer distances to the quarry. In her submission Ms Morris stated that “Clause 14.03‐2 outlines the principles for determining appropriate buffer distances whilst Clause 52.09 signals that any proposals for residential development within 500m of a Works Authorities boundary must be referred” to the DPI. Based on this evidence, Ms Morris argued that the buffer distance from the Holcim Quarry to any residential development should be determined as part of the PSP process. The Committee does not support the position put forward by Ms Morris. While it is important not to sterilise land in the quarry buffer, it is also important to ensure that the buffer is given strong protection. The PSP process should identify suitable uses for land required for a buffer to the quarry with consideration given to its role when the quarry ceases operations, albeit that is likely to be many decades in the future. 4.5
Findings and Recommendations The Committee finds that land south of Dunhelen Lane in Hume Area 2B and land in Hume Area 2C can be considered a Logical Inclusion in the UGB. It recommends that Area 2C be zoned UGZ, however the part of Hume Area 2B to be included should be placed in the Farming Zone. The Committee considers that Page 31
the UGB should be applied so that a 500 metre buffer to the property boundary of the existing quarry remains outside the UGB but has controls applied so that it can be used as open space as part of the adjoining development. The Committee is of the view that the PSP process will address heritage, biodiversity, infrastructure, and buffer issues as identified and build on the work undertaken by Brookfield and Hay/Urbex. The Committee finds that land north of Dunhelen Lane in Hume Area 2A and Hume Area 2B cannot be considered a Logical Inclusion in the UGB. These Areas warrants further consideration in future planning processes, following detailed investigation and resolution to resolve major transport and trunk infrastructure required to facilitate urban development. Recommendation Land within Hume Area 2A should not be included in the Urban Growth Boundary as part of this process, but may merit further consideration as part of a later review. Land in Hume Area 2B south of Dunhelen Lane should be included in the Urban Growth Boundary through an Amendment process under Section 20(4) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987: •
Locating the Urban Growth Boundary so that a 500 metre buffer to the property boundary of the existing quarry remains outside the Urban Growth Boundary but has controls applied so that it can be used as open space as part of the adjoining development, and •
Applying the Farming Zone within the Urban Growth Boundary. Land within Hume Area 2B north of Dunhelen Lane should not be included in the Urban Growth Boundary as part of this process, but may merit further consideration as part of a later review. Land within Hume Area 2C should be included in the Urban Growth Boundary through an Amendment process under Section 20(4) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 applying the Urban Growth Zone. Page 32
5.
HUME AREA 3: MERRIFIELD 5.1
Overview Land in Hume Area 3 (393ha) is located east of Mickleham Road, north of Mt Ridley Road and abuts the UGB to the north and an existing rural residential area to the east. It is currently used for grazing purposes and is zoned Green Wedge A Zone. A Development Plan Overlay applies to the Area, and an Environmental Significance Overlay applies to a significant portion of the site. Heritage Overlay (HO35) applies to a single allotment at 1960 Mickleham Road. Figure 3: Hume Area 3 Page 33
Land to the south of Hume Area 3 is included in Craigieburn West PSP 1068 and land to the north is within Merrifield West PSP 1064. Both of these PSPs are in the process of being completed. A Growth Corridor Plan is also being prepared for the wider area. Hume Council proposed the inclusion of all of Hume Area 3 into the UGB including the area to the east that has already been developed for rural residential purposes. Mr Pitt SC of Best Hooper represented Merrifield Corporation (submissions 3073 and sub8679) who own Lindum Vale, which comprises approximately 142ha in the western section of Hume Area 3. In his submission Mr Pitt argued that the land should be included in the UGB now and that a separate process will determine the suitable zoning for this land. It is noted that the Merrifield Corporation submissions also relates to land within Hume Area 4. Merrifield informed the Committee that there is a current Planning Permit (P8748) for an 88 lot rural residential development for their land in the western portion of Hume Area 3. Mr Pitt argued, “including Lindum Vale within the UGB will facilitate the orderly and proper planning not only of Lindum Vale but of lands to both the north and south”. The GAA supports this position on the basis that the areas of environmental importance need to be identified and managed accordingly. Hume Council advised the Committee that it considered Hume Area 3 should be extended west to the OMR to include parts of Hume Area 2A and should be included in the Rural Living Zone to provide an Inter Urban Break. Hume Council stated that: … the inter‐urban break is a concept that dates back to the former Shire of Bulla and has formed part of a strategic vision for Craigieburn since at least 1993 as part of the Craigieburn Strategy Plan. In addition Hume Council stated that: … since the time of the Craigieburn Strategy Plan 1993, the vision for the inter urban break has been reflected in the Hume City council Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS). Hume Council remained supportive of this policy position and considered Hume Area 3 will facilitate the delivery of a north‐south vehicular connection to service and integrate developments to the north and south of Mount Ridley Road. There were seven affected party submissions with one in support of inclusion into the UGB, and the remaining six opposing its inclusion on the grounds that it would Page 34
impact on landscape values and loss of open space character (peace and quiet). Essentially these affected parties want the current rural residential nature of Hume Area 3 maintained. 5.2
GAA The GAA recommended Hume Area 3 for inclusion in the UGB, to provide greater consistency in dealing with the general areas along Mount Ridley Road. It noted, however, the Area’s inclusion in the UGB should specifically recognise the differences within the Assessment Area between the existing rural residential area in the eastern section, and the undeveloped areas in the west. For the existing rural residential areas in the eastern section, the GAA recommended that zoning should reflect the rural residential area, and it should be rezoned to an appropriate form of Rural Living Zone that matches the relevant provisions of the Green Wedge A Zone that currently covers the land and the neighbouring rural residential development. The GAA noted that for the western section of Hume Area 3 the key issue is to ensure that the areas of environmental importance are identified and managed appropriately. This should initially be facilitated through rezoning Hume Area 3 to Farming Zone, which allows the more detailed investigations to commence as appropriate. This approach was adopted for land to the south of Mount Ridley Road, which was identified as having environmental importance. This approach enables the significant biodiversity issues to be investigated in detail to enable the key areas of value to be identified and protected through the investigations, and the subsequent Growth Corridor Plan and PSP process. The GAA concluded the inclusion of Hume Area 3 will better enable the orderly and proper planning of the whole area to the east of Mickleham Rd, and provide a closer coordination in the planning for the new areas to the north and south that are within the UGB. The GAA stated that this should provide the processes and mechanisms for protecting and managing any important environmentally significant areas and the rural residential areas. Page 35
(ii)
Hume Council Hume Council considered that Hume Area 3 should be included within the UGB. Hume Council agreed with the GAA that: For the existing rural residential areas in the eastern section, it is recommended that the area’s zoning should reflect this rural residential area, and it should be rezoned to an appropriate form of Rural Living Zone that matches to the relevant provisions of the Green Wedge A zone that currently covers the land. Hume Council generally agreed with the GAA that “for the western area, the key issue is to ensure that the areas of environmental importance are identified and managed appropriately.” Hume Council recommended that Hume Area 3 be extended to the west to the OMR to maintain the intent of the inter‐urban break, while allowing for some lower density residential outcomes. The specific detail of this could be determined as part of the detailed planning for Hume Area 3. Constraints that would need to be overcome through planning investigations are acknowledged, including the delivery of a north south vehicular connection to service Hume Area 3 and to integrate the communities to the north and south of Mount Ridley Road. The provision of utility infrastructure to any proposed urban areas would need to be investigated. Hume Council cited the necessity for a more detailed assessment of the biodiversity values in Hume Area 3 and how these can be best incorporated into the design response for the subdivision of this Area. (iii)
Other Agencies Melbourne Water did not object to inclusion of Hume Area 3 in the UGB, but recommended a zoning on the eastern, subdivided portion that reflects its existing low density residential use. It highlighted the necessity to provide appropriate drainage infrastructure, and noted the difficulty of this task due to the fragmented nature of the land. VicRoads were in agreement, but added that the development of Hume Area 3 will require major transport infrastructure to be provided. Yarra Valley Water noted that it had no issue with the inclusion of the land as a Rural Living Zone. DoT supported the inclusion of Hume Area 3 on the basis that the undeveloped land is to be developed for conventional urban density of a minimum 15 dwellings per hectare contiguous with the proposed residential land to the north to support the Page 36
delivery of public transport services. Further, it suggested that the inclusion provides an opportunity to plan and implement the north‐south road connection required to connect the land to the south and to the north that is currently within the UGB. DSE gave in principle support to the inclusion of Hume Area 3 within the UGB providing biodiversity issues are addressed at subsequent detailed planning phases. 5.3
Standards and Decision Criteria Hume Area 3 meets the Standards, being within a Growth Area municipality, abutting the existing UGB and being proposed for residential and/or employment development. Hume Area 3 is relatively flat with a number of scattered and grouped trees and is currently used for grazing. The land has been identified as having biodiversity values, with a significant portion of the site covered by an Environmental Significance Overlay (Schedule 5 and 11). The land has access to Mickleham Road and will be surrounded by urban development on at least three boundaries in the future. Mr Rodda in his evidence submitted for Merrifield, identified the current lack of north‐south connections within the Hume Corridor. Hume Council identified this issue in its submission. The land in the east section of Hume Area 3 has some drainage issues that would suggest it remain at a low‐density type of development to address stormwater runoff from urban development. Having noted the above, the key threshold Decision Criteria for Hume Area 3 as identified by the Committee include: Biodiversity, Drainage and Transport. These are now discussed. (i)
Biodiversity Environmental Significance Overlays (Schedule 5 and 11), which relate to Mount Ridley Grasslands and Woodland and River Red Gum and Grassy Woodlands respectively, affect a significant proportion of Hume Area 3. DSE indicated that while the site is constrained by large areas of native vegetation and habitat for threatened species, it did not oppose the inclusion of Hume Area 3 into the UGB “provided biodiversity is addressed at subsequent detailed planning phases including Growth Corridor Plans and Precinct Structure Plans”. In its submission the GAA considered biodiversity values of Hume Area 3 could be appropriately identified and managed. It recommended that the western section of Hume Area 3 (land that forms part of Page 37
submissions 3073 and sub8679) should be included in the UGB and rezoned to a Farming Zone “which allows the more detailed investigations to commence as appropriate”. (ii)
Drainage Melbourne Water indicated that it did not oppose the inclusion of Hume Area 3 into the UGB, but considered provision of urban drainage infrastructure for a development at a higher density in the eastern section of Hume Area 3 would be considerably more complex and costly. Therefore it recommended that this portion of Hume Area 3 be zoned to reflect its existing low‐density character. (iii)
Transport Hume Area 3 has good access to Mickleham Road and Mount Ridley Road, a key east‐west connection in the Hume Growth Area. However Hume Council, DoT and the GAA submitted that there is a need for greater north‐south connectivity. The inclusion of Hume Area 3 into the UGB provides an opportunity to provide an additional road connection which as stated by Mr Rodda would “assist in providing a sustainable transport network with connections to the south and north”. VicRoads identified that whilst major infrastructure will be required it considers this can be addressed as part of the Growth Corridor Plan and PSP process to determine transport requirements. 5.4
Commentary Hume Area 3 is bounded on three sides by the UGB and its inclusion into the UGB is supported by Hume Council, the GAA and the relevant servicing authorities. The Committee considers that the key issue to be addressed as part of any future planning for Hume Area 3 is to determine the appropriate form of urban development. As stated by Mr Pitt on behalf of Merrifield “the question as to the appropriate future zoning on this land once within the UGB is a matter for a different process”. The affected party submissions that opposed inclusion of Hume Area 3 into the UGB were primarily concerned with preserving the biodiversity values of the site, as well as the impact more intense urban development would have on the existing rural residential areas. In noting the above, the Committee supports the inclusion of Hume Area 3 into the UGB. It agrees with the GAA that “inclusion of this area will better enable the orderly and proper planning of the whole area to the east of Mickleham Road”. Page 38
The Committee considers Hume Area 3 should be integrated through the current PSP process for developments to its north (PSP 1064) and south (PSP 1068). This would provide the opportunity to integrate the development of a north‐south vehicular connection having regard to biodiversity and landscape values of Hume Area 3. This would enable improvements in road connectivity in the area. The Committee acknowledges Mr Pitt’s submission that “the existing rural residential development at the east has not made provision for connection to the Subject Land”. The GAA recommended the inclusion of the existing rural living area in the eastern section into the UGB applying an appropriate Rural Living Zone that reflects the provisions of the existing Green Wedge A Zone. This is supported by Melbourne Water because of drainage infrastructure limitations. The Committee support the application of the Farm Zone at this time as a holding zone within the UGB to provide the opportunity for further planning work to define and protect areas of biodiversity values as well as identify those areas suitable for urban development. In reaching this position the Committee accepts that the western portion of Hume Area 3 will have a greater connection to the adjoining developments to its north and south than the rural‐residential development to its east. The Hume Council position for an inter‐urban break at this location (given the amount of development already being planned for in this Growth Area) is considered inappropriate and does not support the policy position of the Government to deliver urban developments of 15 lots per developable hectare for land within the UGB. Altering the UGB in this Area raises issues with respect to compensation of a small area of land within the Public Acquisition Overlay for the OMR. An incorporated document in the Hume Planning Scheme, the “Statement of Underlying Provisions”, sets out where the UGB would have been if it did not follow the OMR in certain locations. In some cases the area of land within the UGB has been reduced to align with the OMR, in others, the UGB has been expanded to avoid a small area of green wedge land between the UGB and OMR. This has implications for land compensation. VicRoads submitted that: … where relevant, the Advisory Committee makes recommendations regarding any consequential changes to the current “Statement of Underlying Provisions”. Members of the Committee inspected this Area and do not consider that a strong case has been made to justify extending Hume Area 3 west of Mickleham Road to the OMR at this point in time. Mickleham Road provides a defined urban boundary, and as noted in Chapter 2 of this Report, Hume Area 2A is not recommended for inclusion into the UGB on the basis that considerable further work is required to determine its capability for urban development. Page 39
5.5
Findings and Recommendations The Committee finds that the land in Hume Area 3 can be considered a Logical Inclusion in the UGB. This recommendation is made on the condition that the existing rural residential development in the eastern section is rezoned to Rural Living Zone incorporating relevant provisions of the existing Green Wedge A Zone. Issues including a new north‐south vehicle connection and protection of areas with biodiversity values in the western section still need to be resolved. For these reasons, the Committee considers it appropriate to apply the Farming Zone to land in the western section of Hume Area 3 and incorporate it into existing PSPs to the south and north of the Area. No authorities objected to inclusion of this Area into the UGB. The Committee agrees with the GAA and Hume Council that constraints such as the protection of areas with biodiversity values and determination of the suitable alignment for a north‐south vehicle connection can be resolved during the Growth Corridor Plan and PSP process. The Committee notes that in the longer term Hume Area 3 may extend westerly to the OMR, but is reliant on further detailed planning work to be undertaken in respect of Hume Area 2A. In relation to the “Statement of Underlying Provisions”, the Committee considers that Mickleham Road would be the boundary of the UGB if it did not follow the OMR for a small part of Hume Area 3. Recommendation Land within Hume Area 3 should be included in the Urban Growth Boundary through an Amendment process under Section 20(4) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 applying the Farming Zone to the western section and Rural Living Zone incorporating relevant provisions of the existing Green Wedge A Zone to the eastern section. Amend the “Statement of Underlying Provisions” to show the ‘underlying’ UGB aligned to Mickleham Road in Hume Area 3. Page 40
6.
HUME AREA 4: OLD SYDNEY ROAD 6.1
Overview Land in Hume Area 4 (292ha) is located west of the proposed OMR alignment to Mickleham/Old Sydney Road with Gunns Gully Road at its northern boundary and Donnybrook Road in the south. This is referred to by some parties as Old Sydney Road land. The land is currently used for rural and rural residential uses. The OMR alignment forms the current UGB. Land to the east of the OMR is located within the UGB and is primarily included in PSP 1064 – Merrifield North, which is still to be completed. Figure 4: Hume Area 4 Page 41
The land is currently in the Green Wedge Zone and parts are affected by the Schedule 2 to the Public Acquisition Overlay. It has been identified by the GAA as ‘a strip’ of land due to the long narrow nature of the site (majority less that 1km wide). The GAA submitted that the narrowness of the land and the location of the OMR alignment to the east of the Area will pose access, servicing and development constraints. In its submission, Hume Council indicated that it would like to see the OMR realigned to a ridgeline that occurs along Old Sydney Road. The Committee made it clear that the alignment of the OMR is not a consideration of this Committee. Consequently, Hume Council submitted that Hume Area 4 should still be included in the UGB but for rural living development due to a number of issues regarding access and servicing. Merrifield Corporation (submission 3073 and sub8679), were represented by Mr Pitt. In its submission it was argued that due to the location of the OMR in Hume Area 4 its land: … will not be capable of any form of viable non‐urban use having regard to the restrictive nature of the Green Wedge zone provisions …. Therefore the urban future of these lands should be recognised by including them within the UGB facilitating an examination of the most appropriate urban zones for the developable parts of these lands. This submission is reflective of the issues raised by Mr and Ms Zanetti, represented by Mr Underwood (submission sub7899). In his written submission, Mr Fusca (submission sub7902) supported the views of his adjoining neighbours Mr and Ms Zanetti. Mr and Ms Plunkett (submission sub3826) and Mr Rizzo (submission sub4024) raised concerns regarding the Growth Area Infrastructure Charge (GAIC) and how this would impact on them. The GAA received three supporting affected party submissions that all sought inclusion within the UGB and raised issues regarding the impact the OMR has had by splitting their landholding/s. The GAA received one affected party submission from Ms Taylor who did not support inclusion of Hume Area 3 and 4 into the UGB. Page 42
6.2
GAA The GAA did not recommend Hume Area 4 for inclusion within the UGB. The long narrow nature of the site and the significant east west access limitations presented by the OMR corridor present a number of major constraints in terms of being able to successfully integrate Hume Area 4 with the urban areas planned to the east of the OMR. The significant size and odd shape of Hume Area 4 presents a number of issues in terms of efficient and effective service delivery and the ability to create well structured urban development patterns – compounded by the difficulties in accessing across and integrating with the urban development east of the OMR. (ii)
Hume Council Hume Council considered that Hume Area 4 should be included on the basis that a more appropriate alignment of the UGB is the natural boundary west of the OMR where a ridgeline occurs along Old Sydney Road. This provides a more distinct edge to growth within Hume Area 4, and would allow proper planning of the interface with the OMR and connections to Aitken Boulevard (E14) and potential urban areas to the north. Hume Council submitted that the current alignment of the UGB would make Hume Area 4 essentially land locked and reliant on connections to Donnybrook Road or Gunns Gully Road for access to the adjoining areas to the east. Hume Council’s preliminary analysis suggested that the current UGB alignment does not allow for the development of sufficient catchments to provide the range of services required to support a stand alone urban community that would be created to the north west of the OMR, if the OMR were not realigned. Quite clearly this narrow, long and potentially isolated strip of land will have access constraints as a result of the OMR. This relative isolation and poor configuration poses a number of constraints on the ability to efficiently and effectively service this land. The capacity of the land to adequately support community infrastructure in any meaningful way is a significant constraint. Hume Council suggested that re‐
alignment of the OMR to bring more land within the UGB that would be contiguous with the urban areas currently proposed to the east of the OMR would be the most effective means of overcoming these constraints. Page 43
(iii)
Other Agencies Melbourne Water did not object to inclusion of Hume Area 4 in the UGB, however, suggested the Biennial Review process would allow for a more detailed assessment of drainage requirements in the context of any other land capability constraints that may exist. Yarra Valley Water noted that Hume Area 4 may be serviced, provided the infrastructure is sized to accommodate this Area. DoT however, did not support the inclusion of Hume Area 4 due to remoteness from public transport and separation from other urban form by the OMR. Likewise, DSE recommended Hume Area 4 not be included, but supported review at a later stage, providing biodiversity is addressed at subsequent detailed planning phases. VicRoads were in agreement, indicating that the development of Hume Area 4 will require major transport infrastructure to be provided. 6.3
Standards and Decision Criteria Hume Area 4 meets the Standards, being within a Growth Area municipality, abutting the existing UGB and being proposed for residential and/or employment development. Areas used for grazing within Hume Area 4 are relatively cleared of vegetation. However there are some significant stands of native vegetation on the ridgeline and along property boundaries that would need to be further assessed and managed for their environmental, landscape and biodiversity values should further development of the land be contemplated. Melbourne Water identified a number of drainage issues that could be resolved, but require further investigation to ensure it can service urban development in a cost effective manner. A key issue for consideration by the Committee is the location of the Area in relation to the OMR alignment. Hume Area 4 has approximately 5km frontage to Old Sydney Road, which if included in the UGB would require extension of services across the OMR alignment. Having noted the above, the key threshold Decision Criteria for Hume Area 4 as identified by the Committee include: Biodiversity, Drainage and Transport. These are now discussed. Page 44
(i)
Biodiversity DSE stated that Hume Area 4 is “constrained in some areas by native vegetation and habitat for threatened species”. There has been little investigation in this Area, however DSE considered that this constraint could be addressed through future Growth Corridor Planning and PSP processes. (ii)
Drainage As identified by Melbourne Water, a land capability assessment is required given the steep slopes and dispersive soils, before the urban development potential of the Area can be resolved. In its submission Melbourne Water indicated that if urban development did occur in the future, there would be a need for additional drainage infrastructure to mitigate and manage stormwater flows under the OMR and this type of infrastructure is yet to be costed. (iii)
Transport Access to existing and proposed transport infrastructure in Hume Area 4 is a significant issue for consideration by the Committee. In its submission DoT indicated that Hume Area 4 is “disconnected from future urban land as the OMR provides a clear boundary for urban development”. Further DoT indicated that the ”location and shape” of the Area creates issues from a servicing perspective. 6.4
Commentary Whilst the majority of the servicing authorities did not support the inclusion of Hume Area 4 as part of the Logical Inclusions Review Process, they did not rule out the possibility of it being included as part of any future review on the basis that further work is required to determine the suitability of Hume Area 4 for urban development. The Committee considers that a key issue for Hume Area 4 is the level of urban development that can be achieved. Hume Council argued for the realignment of the OMR to facilitate urban development of Hume Area 4. However as stated earlier in this report, the OMR alignment is not for consideration by this Committee. Hume Council highlighted the uncertainty of Hume Area 4 being able to support urban development in its submission, which stated: The possibility of being able to adequately service this land if the OMR alignment was to remain unaltered is highly unlikely because of these constraints. Page 45
Subsequently Hume Council suggested that if the OMR cannot be realigned, then a rural living form of development is considered appropriate for Hume Area 4. Mr Rodda on behalf of Merrifield, stated that “I am confident that in the absence of the OMR reservation, the OSR land would be included in the UGB and predominantly within the Urban Growth Zone”. This may have been the case but the fact is that the OMR alignment is now in place and must therefore be part of the Committee’s deliberations regarding whether Hume Area 4 can be considered a Logical Inclusion into the UGB. Mr Rodda queried whether “the land is better managed within the UGB and therefore able to be used for purposes that reflect its location adjacent to an urban area and arterial road”. A similar position was put forward by Mr Underwood representing Mr and Ms Zanetti who stated that “…the land be brought into the UGB and for later detailed planning processes to sort out the manner of development”. This is an issue the Committee has been asked by many submittors to consider – whether land should be included and then planned, or whether there is a need for further planning work before it can be considered for inclusion into the UGB. The Committee questioned the GAA on this issue in a number of the closing submissions for the various Growth Areas. The Committee considers the GAA addressed this issue in full in its closing submission for the Sunbury – Diggers Rest Growth Area where Mr Byrne stated “if we are not sure about land uses and the need for land, how can we be confident where the UGB should be?” The Committee supports this view in relation to Hume Area 4 – where development yield (urban verses rural living), infrastructure and accessibility issues are still to be resolved. Ms Taylor queried why Rigg Hill and Old Sydney Road were being reviewed again, given that previous government reports including DMNSC, Statement of Underlying Provisions 2010, Background Technical Report 4 – Landscape Values, identified that: Rigg Hill and Old Sydney Road have been recognized for its High Landscape Value and retaining the ridgeline and its inter‐relationship to Bald Hill and framing the valley floor. Ms Taylor strongly objected to any development of Rigg Hill and Old Sydney Road, and was concerned that Merrifield Corporation was again pursing urban development outcomes for the land despite the land being determined in previous investigations as having high landscape values. The landscape value of Hume Area 4 was identified by a number of submittors who supported further large lot subdivision to provide rural living opportunities on the Page 46
basis that such an outcome would be suitable and complementary to Merrifield West PSP (1064), east of the OMR alignment. The Committee is of the view that rural living developments should not be encouraged within the UGB, as it is government policy to achieve on average an urban density of 15 dwellings per developable hectare. In its submission, Hume Council argued that this is not unlike Hume Area 3 where the GAA supports the inclusion of land in the eastern section within the UGB and within a Rural Living Zone. The Committee argues that this is not the same scenario as Hume Area 3, which is addressing an existing rural living development that already exists on the ground. In contrast Hume Council is proposing to include Hume Area 4, land that is relatively undeveloped into the UGB but within a Rural Living Zone. The Committee considers that this not consistent with existing Government policy. The role of the Rural Living Zone within the UGB is discussed in the Logical Inclusions Advisory Committee Report No. 1: Overview and Summary, Chapter 8. 6.5
Findings and Recommendations The Committee finds that the land in Hume Area 4 cannot be considered a Logical Inclusion in the UGB. The Committee supports the findings of the GAA that the servicing and integration of the Area with urban areas to the east of the OMR alignment will be difficult. The Area contains significant landscapes that should not be compromised. Residential development at urban densities is unlikely to achieve yields that will enable the creation of viable and sustainable communities west of the OMR alignment. The intent to have the Area considered for low‐density or rural living forms of development may be appropriate, but is a matter for the green Wedge Management Plan. Recommendation Land within Hume Area 4 should not be included in the Urban Growth Boundary. Page 47
7.
MITCHELL SHIRE 7.1
Overview Mitchell Shire is a rural municipality extending from the northern outskirts of Melbourne to Seymour. The part of Mitchell Shire within the UGB was first defined as part of metropolitan Melbourne in 2010. In 2006, the Shire’s population was approximately 31,000 with a median age of 35. The population is growing at an average rate of 2.5 per cent per year. The Growth Area is generally serviced by the Hume Freeway. This broad corridor houses about 75 per cent of the Shire’s population. The Hume transport corridor strongly influences the growth and development of the Shire. The Shire offers a rural setting and lifestyle with access to urban services and facilities. It is a major underpinning of the Shire’s strategic planning that future development maintains the urban‐rural mix and the integrity and character of the Shire’s towns. The northern areas of the Shire have remained fairly constant in population, while the southern section which is closer to Melbourne has grown rapidly. Mitchell has an attractive living environment due the cost of land, the availability of rural residential allotments and the portrayed lifestyle associated with the areas which have experienced the highest rates of growth. In responding to market demands and the preferences of the population, a variety of housing types have been developed throughout the Shire. The Shire predicts that there will be an increasing demand for rural residential allotments in the future and has identified a need to maintain tight control on expansion of residential developments in its rural areas. At the 2006 Census, 49.1 per cent of the Shire’s employed residents worked within Mitchell. A large percentage of workers are employed in manufacturing and construction industries, as well as in retail trade and health services. Council is actively seeking to build the employment and service base of the Shire’s towns and to promote and develop business opportunities based on the Shire’s proximity to Melbourne. It also seeks to ensure that productive agricultural land is protected from urban encroachment. Mitchell Shire has considerable transport and infrastructure resources. It is well served by road and rail, and this is leading to increased population growth pressure. Comprehensive water supply and sewerage systems are provided to larger townships, but there is a necessity to provide appropriate infrastructure to newly developing residential settlements. Page 48
The rural areas of the Shire are valued by the community as providing a quality landscape and environment setting. There is strong demand for rural residential development and lifestyle farming in these areas, which has adverse impacts on neighbouring agriculture, pest and weed control and the ability of the Shire to provide services. The Shire mostly lies in the upper catchment of the Goulburn River system – one of the State’s most significant and part of Australia’s most important river basin system, the Murray‐Darling. Land management and the protection of water catchments remains a priority of the Shire. 7.2
Local Policy Context The relevant parts of the Mitchell Planning Scheme LPPF include: •
Clause 21.05 Objectives and Strategies •
Clause 21.05‐1 Natural Resources and the Environment •
Clause 21.05‐3 Settlement Under Clause 21.05‐3, a relevant Strategy states: The overall settlement strategy for the Mitchell Shire is to support continuing residential growth based on the areas which can be serviced with reticulated water and sewer and which are well served by the road infrastructure and planned community services and facilities. This will mean that residential growth will continue to be focussed on the traditional towns of Seymour, Kilmore, Broadford and Wallan and on the settlements of Wandong‐Heathcote Junction and a new privately serviced residential area to the west of Beveridge. All these towns and settlements lie within the ‘Hume Growth Corridor’ served by the Hume Freeway and the national rail corridor. A further Strategy of relevance in the policy is: What scale of development, if any, is allowed between the existing urban centres of Craigieburn, Mt Ridley, Kal Kallo, Beveridge and Wallan. The key issues from a review of the LPPF therefore are: •
Economic development: the Shire has a diverse employment base, but extensive commuting to employment outside of the Shire should be addressed by supporting the growth of local communities and providing opportunities for local job creation. •
Environment: The Shire’s natural resource base is strong. There are large areas of agriculturally productive land, and extensive areas of forest. Natural resources management is an essential component in the overall planning of the Shire, and protecting these against development is an imperative. Page 49
7.3
•
Population growth: has mainly occurred in small towns and rural areas, at a rate higher than the Shire average. Residential development that can be supported with services and infrastructure will be supported. Growth should therefore be centred around existing townships, particularly within the Hume Freeway Growth Corridor. •
Transport and Infrastructure: strong attention must be paid to providing sufficient services to existing and growing communities, particularly in rural residential areas. The growth created by the Hume Freeway should be harnessed to create further employment opportunities. An enhanced fast train service is desirable, providing sustainable access to metropolitan areas. Particular Issues The southern part of the Mitchell Shire was only brought within metropolitan Melbourne as part of Amendment VC68 in 2010. Because of this, less work has been undertaken in Mitchell Shire to prepare for urban development than in the other Growth Areas. Extensive background work on the other Growth Areas was undertaken in the mid 2000s as part of the Smart Growth processes and follow up background technical reports were prepared for DMNSC. This did not occur to the same extent in Mitchell Shire. For this reason less is known about development potential around Beveridge and Wallan than most parts of the City of Hume to the south. Nevertheless there is significant development pressure on Wallan because of its proximity to the current UGB, and pressure to bring it into the UGB but without the same background information available as in some other areas. Page 50
8.
MITCHELL AREA 1: WEST OF WALLAN 8.1
Overview Mitchell Area 1 comprises 306ha of land in single ownership west of Old Sydney Road. The frontage to Old Sydney Road is in excess of 7km. The land extends to Deep Creek west of the north‐south ridgeline. It is land below a particular contour line east of the ridge which is being proposed as a Logical Inclusion. Land above that line is proposed to be made available for public parklands when suitable ownership and management arrangements for a park can be determined. Figure 5 Mitchell Area 1 The Mitchell Council supported inclusion of Mitchell Area 1, while the GAA did not. Submissions were received from Tract consultants on behalf of the owner Robert Scanlon (submissions 5018 and sub7257). Supporting material was received from Lend Lease Communities. Expert planning evidence was received from Mr Page 51
Wadeson of Tract Consultants and a due diligence assessment of cultural heritage issues from Ms Nicholson of Ecology and Heritage Partners, and a road network assessment from Cardno were tabled. Mr Wadeson submitted that the proposed creation of open space parkland in this Area and its proposed transfer into public ownership is similar to the approach to that being used in Quarry Hills in Whittlesea. Two affected party submissions were received, both objecting to the inclusion of the land in the UGB. The submission from the Merri Creek Management Committee objected to inclusion of the land in the UGB because of soil capability issues which led to the Erosion Management Overlay being placed over the land. The Wallan Environment Group objected to the inclusion of Mitchell Area 1 on similar grounds to those listed by the GAA, that is the prominent ridgeline, salinity and erosion issues and that Old Sydney Road forms a well defined boundary. The land is currently in the Farming Zone and is covered by both an Erosion Management Overlay and a Salinity Management Overlay. Some of the abutting land on the eastern side of Old Sydney Road is in the Rural Conservation Zone. This land has an eastern boundary, the logic for which the Mitchell Council was not able to explain as it is irregular and does not appear to follow topographical features or a particular contour line. The future use of this Rural Conservation Zone land east of Old Sydney Road will impact on the possible future use of the subject land. (i)
GAA The GAA has not recommended Mitchell Area 1 for inclusion in the UGB. The long, elevated area is a visually prominent landscape feature, and nearby land within the UGB that is designated within a Rural Conservation Zone has a relationship to this landscape form. The sloping topography together with the Erosion Management Overlay are important factors that impact on the suitability of this land for urban development. The very long, narrow configuration of the land, over 7km long and only around 400 to 450 metres deep, presents a number of significant issues in terms of efficient and effective service delivery and urban development, as well as the challenge of integrating development to the east of Old Sydney Road. In Mitchell Area 1, north of Gunns Gully Road, the GAA considered that the existing UGB along Old Sydney Road forms an appropriate boundary under the current planning for the Corridor. It noted that Old Sydney Road is being considered as the appropriate boundary associated with Wallan (Mitchell Area 2) as well. Page 52
(ii)
Mitchell Council Mitchell Council submitted that the inclusion of Mitchell Area 1 would allow for additional residential development to extend to the natural boundaries of the ridgeline and provide opportunities for development on both sides of Old Sydney Road, which is expected to become a key north‐south transport route in the future. Council did not provide any details of strategic work that had been done to support the case for this inclusion nor did it identify any local planning policy support for the inclusion. Mitchell Council noted that the land is currently within one ownership. It argued that this would assist in facilitating opportunities to provide housing diversity and a range of housing outcomes suitable for the landscape, the creation and delivery of the open space and protection of the ridgeline. It expected that land west of the ridgeline extending to Deep Creek would provide for rural living opportunities and the creation of a buffer between that and farming land further to the west. In addition, Mitchell Council anticipate that the ridgeline could form part of a regional metropolitan open space link and would create a natural and distinct boundary to the extent of westerly urban growth of the subject land. It provides an opportunity to create potential open space opportunities at the regional scale similar to those which have been preserved within other Growth Area municipalities. Mitchell Council presented no clear position or commitment at this stage to the management and ownership of the park. (iii)
Other Agencies Melbourne Water recommended that a Biennial Review process would allow for a more detailed assessment of flooding and drainage requirements in the context of any other land capability constraints that may exist for Mitchell Area 1. Yarra Valley Water noted that the east side of the ridge may be serviced, provided that the infrastructure is sized to accommodate this Area. Sewer pump stations would be required to service the west side of the ridge if development was to occur. The DoT did not support this inclusion, for reasons of remoteness from public transport and topography constraints. Viable public transport would be difficult to provide. VicRoads agreed, indicating that the development of Mitchell Area 1 will require major transport infrastructure to be provided. DSE supported the inclusion in principle, on the condition that any biodiversity issues can be addressed in the subsequent detailed planning phases. Parks Victoria expressed no views on the provision of the ridgeline parklands. It is noted that in Page 53
Whittlesea, it supported Council endeavours to develop the Quarry Hills Bushland Park. 8.2
Standards and Decision Criteria Mitchell Area 1 meets the Standards, being within a Growth Area municipality, abutting the existing UGB and being proposed for residential and/or employment development. The subject land has been extensively grazed although it is considered by the GAA to be of marginal agricultural value. The extensive grazing has had an impact on the biodiversity values of the land. DSE identified small and potentially significant remnant patches of Grassy Dry Forest, Grassy Woodland and Valley Grassy Forest. DSE do not object to the inclusion of Mitchell Area 1 noting that environment and biodiversity values can be managed via the PSP process. Ecology and Heritage Partners have undertaken some work for the proponent and have not identified any significant issues related to possible cultural and heritage sites on the land. Having noted the above, the key threshold Decision Criteria for Mitchell Area 1 as identified by the Committee include: Landscape features and Soil capability. These are now discussed. (i)
Landscape features There is a prominent north south ridgeline to the east of the subject site that landholder proposed as parkland to be transferred into public ownership should an urban development outcome for the remainder of the land be achieved. This ridgeline is more prominent in the north and as the Committee observed during a site inspection, although planted in part as a windrow, it is far less prominent in the southern portion of the property. Given the length of the frontage to Old Sydney Road it is not surprising that the prominence of this ridgeline varies along its length. (ii)
Soil capability The GAA submitted that the land is covered by an Erosion Management Overlay and this is in place both because of the slopes in some parts of the subject site and dispersive soils present on the site. The Merri Creek Management Committee made reference to the Mitchell Land Capability Study undertaken as part of DMNSC, which it submitted had identified the dispersive soils in Mitchell Area 1. No evidence was led to suggest that this is not a problem on the subject site. Page 54
8.3
Commentary As indicated in Chapter 5.7 of Report No. 1: Overview and Summary, the Committee considers that for an Area to be considered as a Logical Inclusion that a reasonable proportion of the land must be developable for urban purposes. Whilst there might be some debate about what constitutes a reasonable proportion, this will vary site by site depending on other characteristics of the land and its surrounding area and infrastructure. The slope of at least some of the land within Mitchell Area 1 both observed by the Committee during a site inspection and as evidenced from available topographical maps, together with concerns about dispersive soils indicate to the Committee that considerably more work needs to be undertaken before there can be any useful judgements about the development capacity of Mitchell Area 1. Mr O’Farrell for Mr Scanlon and Lend Lease Communities submitted that residential development at about 10‐12 lots per hectare is proposed. It is not clear to the Committee what proportion of the land might be developable at this density. The site inspection led the Committee to the view that apart from other constraints, at least some parts of the land will be significantly constrained by the slope of the land. There can be little debate that some parts of the subject site would make attractive residential development, but the appropriate density of development is a matter for further investigation. If the constraints on the site are such that it is only suitable for relative low density development the Committee’s view, as indicated in Chapter 8 of Report No. 1: Overview and Summary, is the development, if appropriate, could occur outside the UGB. This is not a matter for resolution through this Logical Inclusions Review Process. It is clear to the Committee that there is inadequate knowledge about what development can and should occur in the Rural Conservation Zone land to the eastern side of Old Sydney Road or even that the Rural Conservation Zone is the appropriate zoning for all of this land. The Committee is of the view that the planning for the future of this land needs to be resolved before detailed consideration can be given to a possible urban future for Mitchell Area 1. The Committee notes that the development of the park concept as proposed by Mr Wadeson appears to be at very early stages in a number of respects. The suitability of the land along the ridgeline for a park is not clear to the Committee and there does not appear to have been detailed work undertaken on this at this stage. Mr Wadeson provided pictorial evidence of the significance of the landscape features from a range of vantage points. Unlike the Quarry Hills Bushland Park in Whittlesea (which Mr Wadeson compared this opportunity with), the development of a park in this location does not have the Page 55
same strong strategic basis. Neither is there obvious connectivity to other parklands in the vicinity as such strategic work has not been undertaken. This may be developed as the planning for the land east of Old Sydney Road progresses. Mr Wadeson suggested some ownership and management options that could facilitate the development of this parkland in order to protect this significant landscape but he did acknowledge that they are in their infancy. The Committee notes that Mitchell Council have made no commitment to it having any role in such a park. Even if the issues listed above had been resolved, the question remains as to whether a ‘land swap’ that would bring the land proposed for a park into public ownership as part of an agreement to allow some land to be developed qualifies as a Logical Inclusion. Consistent with the approach taken with respect to the Whittlesea Council’s proposed inclusions, the Committee is of the view that this is a legitimate strategy to pursue, but that it does not constitute reason enough to consider the land as a Logical Inclusion. The Committee is not convinced of any urgency to determine a possible urban future of Mitchell Area 1. No information has been provided that there are urgent land supply issues in this Area that would lead to a decision to include Mitchell Area 1 in UGB. 8.4
Findings and Recommendations The Committee finds that Mitchell Area 1 cannot be considered a Logical Inclusion in the UGB. There is no doubt that some parts of Mitchell Area 1 would be attractive residential land but because of significant constraints, there is not enough known about development capacity of the land. Further investigation needs to occur to determine density of development and it is considered that if it is to be low density residential, this is best to occur in the context of an appropriate zoning outside the UGB. There is little known at this stage about the need for the proposed parkland in this Area and how it might be connected with other proposed open space, and how it might be owned and managed. Recommendation Land within Mitchell Area 1 should not be included in the Urban Growth Boundary. Page 56
9.
MITCHELL AREA 2: WALLAN 9.1
Overview Mitchell Area 2 covers an extensive 2,768ha of land, encompassing the Wallan Township. Wallan and Beveridge are the southern most townships of Mitchell Shire. The Area extends approximately 2km north of the existing UGB. It is approximately 44km north of the Melbourne CBD. The Wallan Township has grown from 4,970 people in 2001 to about 7,100 at the time of the 2006 Census, and that rapid growth has continued since then. The foothills of the Great Dividing Range are immediately to the north of Wallan and are likely to form a natural barrier to further growth in that direction. Figure 6 Mitchell Area 2 Page 57
The rapid growth and continuing growth pressures in Wallan are a clear indication that it is now seen by the market as an integral part of the Melbourne metropolitan area and an extension of the growth which is being experienced in the northern Growth Area south of Wallan. Both the GAA and Mitchell Council support inclusion of Mitchell Area 2. Two submissions from Crystal Creek Properties, (submissions sub5921 and sub7113) were in support of inclusion of land known as Inverlochy. In addition there were ten affected party submissions, eight supporting the inclusion and two objecting. The affected parties supporting inclusion were generally other land owners and included Mesh Liveable Communities and Conundrum Holdings, the lessee of the prospective quarry area abutting the UGB to the south of Mitchell Area 2. The objecting parties were the Merri Creek Management Committee (which did not object to all the land being included) and the Wallan Environment Group. Mitchell Area 2 is covered by a number of the zones with the majority of the land in a Residential 1 Zone. Outside the township, there is 1,367ha currently in the Farming Zone. There is a significant parcel of land in the Mixed Use Zone. There are a number of overlays in the Planning Scheme which cover all or part of Mitchell Area 2. These include: •
Development Plan Overlay which covers significant parcels of land north, south and west of the Wallan township; •
Land Subject to Inundation Overlay covering a significant part of the land east of the township, particularly in the south east; •
Salinity Management Overlay covers all of the Mitchell Area 2 with the exception of the Wallan township; •
Vegetation Protection Overlay which covers the Merri Creek riparian strip and possibly a small section of the land in the Rural Conservation Zone to the west of the Mitchell 2 Area; and •
Erosion Management Overlay which covers a small area in the west. In 2010, Amendment VC68 extended the UGB to its current location, about 2km south of the Wallan Township. This has exacerbated the development pressures in the township itself. The GAA proposed that the land in Mitchell Area 2 be brought within the UGB but that the existing zoning be retained. In its closing submission, Mitchell Council acknowledged that it was appropriate to retain some land within a Farming Zone at this time to enable further detailed planning to occur. Not all submittors agree with a staged zoning approach and Crystal Creek Properties, in particular, argued for their land to be rezoned to the UGZ immediately. Page 58
9.2
GAA Mitchell Area 2 is recommended by the GAA for inclusion into the UGB. It submitted that Wallan is effectively already part of Melbourne’s northern Growth Area and the broader Wallan area is experiencing significant residential growth pressures. The GAA argued that the township needs to be planned in a coordinated manner as an integrated part of the North Growth Area. This will enable an equitable delivery of infrastructure and services and ensure the housing market and infrastructure provision between Wallan and Beveridge is not distorted by its exclusion from the UGB. There are a number of issues and areas that require further detailed investigation to determine exactly which areas are well suited for urban development. These include addressing any drainage, flooding, biodiversity, buffers, transport network and servicing issues. The GAA submitted that most issues can be dealt with through the PSP process. Given the number of issues to be investigated and plans to be prepared for this Area, the GAA proposed the current zonings of the land within Mitchell Area 2 remain unchanged until such studies and planning is undertaken. The GAA recommended that any future rezoning of land within the Wallan Township is primarily related to land currently in the Farming Zone, and that at a future stage as part of Growth Corridor Plan and PSP process, that Farming Zone land is reviewed to determine which parts of it should be rezoned to UGZ. (ii)
Mitchell Council Mitchell Council raised concerns that the current UGB alignment will create isolation and disconnection between the new urban growth area to the south of Wallan and the existing Wallan Township. Wallan is expected to come under additional growth pressure to provide the level of services to support the significant increase in population that will develop to the south. In their planning, Mitchell Council deemed it necessary to consider the impact that the current UGB will have on Wallan, as well as the location of the Inter‐Modal Freight Terminal and likely supporting employment uses in the areas surrounding the terminal including uses which will locate in Wallan. There are a number of natural boundaries surrounding Wallan, including the Great Dividing Range to the north, hilltops and landscape features to the east and Page 59
vegetated hilltops and a ridgeline to the west. Mitchell Council submitted that these features provide logical boundaries to the UGB, providing opportunities to plan more holistically for the future growth within the confines of natural boundaries and a clearly defined alignment of the UGB. Mitchell Council therefore considered that Mitchell Area 2 should be included to facilitate planning for the entire Wallan area, and provide a definitive UGB by use of natural alignments. (iii)
Other Agencies Melbourne Water did not object to the inclusion of Mitchell Area 2 in the UGB, as long as further detailed investigation and planning work occurs to determine whether any of the Merri floodplain area may be developable, and if so, the extent of the developable area. The area to the east of Wallan and the southern part of that segment are of particular concern to Melbourne Water. Melbourne Water indicated that the northern part of this eastern part of Mitchell Area 2 would be easier to drain. It suggested that including the entire floodplain area in the UGB at this stage may be beneficial even though much of it may not be developable, as it could provide for a comprehensive analysis and planning process that addresses the entire floodplain. Yarra Valley Water noted that the further development of Wallan relies on the expansion of the Wallan Sewerage Treatment Plant. It foreshadowed an increase in the buffer around the plant to 1km. DoT supported the inclusion of Mitchell Area 2, providing a number of conditions are met. These generally relate to the strategic planning currently underway for Wallan. It recommended making provision for the upgrade of Wallan Station, the provision of bus services, grade separation of the current rail crossings and any additional crossings of the railway line as part of the PSP. At the Hearing, DoT indicated that it expected at least part of these costs would be included in relevant DCPs. DSE gave in principle support to the inclusion of Mitchell Area 2. It noted a number of biodiversity issues of concern but believe these can be adequately managed in the Growth Corridor Plan and PSP process. VicRoads had no objection to the GAA recommendation to include Mitchell Area 2, and recommended that the existing zoning should be retained until further investigations have been undertaken. Page 60
9.3
Standards and Decision Criteria Mitchell Area 2 meets the Standards, being within a Growth Area municipality, abutting the existing UGB and being proposed for residential and/or employment development. Mitchell Area 2, with the exception of the Wallan Township, is used for a range of rural purposes and uses often found close to semi‐rural townships. The existing Farming Zone in much of the Area reflects the dominant use. As previously indicated Mitchell Area 2 was until recently defined in the Planning Scheme as outside the Melbourne metropolitan area. Despite the background work undertaken by some developers, the GAA considered that there is still a significant amount of strategic planning work to do in this Area. Having noted the above, the key threshold Decision Criteria for Mitchell Area 2 as identified by the Committee include Biodiversity, Drainage corridors, Extractive industry and Trunk services. These are now discussed. (i)
Biodiversity DSE indicated that Mitchell Area 2 contains large patches of native vegetation on its western side consisting of Grassy Dry Forest, Herb‐rich Foothill Forest and Swampy Riparian Complex. Part of the nationally significant Hernes Swamp is located in the eastern part of Mitchell Area 2. A number of listed flora and fauna species are known to be present or are assessed by DSE as likely to be present. Work undertaken by WSP Environment and Energy for Wallan Pastoral confirmed some of the biodiversity issues relevant to their land east of the Melbourne‐Sydney Railway line. The Merri Creek Management Committee highlighted the issues raised by DSE. Whilst it did not oppose the whole of Mitchell Area 2 being included in the UGB, Merri Creek Management Committee identified the land in what it have termed ‘east east Wallan’ as land having biodiversity values such that it should not be included. (ii)
Drainage corridors Melbourne Water identified the land east of the Melbourne‐Sydney Railway line, particularly the southern part of that land broadly adjacent to the existing sewerage treatment plant west of the railway line as having significant drainage challenges. It recommended further detailed work, and submitted: Further detailed investigation and planning work is required to determine whether any of the Merri floodplain area may be developable, and if so, the extent of the Page 61
developable area. However including the entire floodplain area in the UGB may be beneficial even though much of it will not be developable, as it could provide a comprehensive analysis and planning process that addresses the entire floodplain. Mr Craigie provided evidence on behalf of Crystal Creek Properties, demonstrating how the land could be drained. Both Mesh and Miller Merrigan presented concept plans for development of the land owned by their respective clients, showing how a significant part of the land could be drained and therefore developed for residential purposes. Mr Merrigan submitted that plans being developed by Melbourne Water since it assumed responsibility for this Area, are using a similar approach to that proposed by Mr Craigie. (iii)
Extractive industry An area within the existing UGB but directly abutting Mitchell Area 2 has been identified for future extractive industry. The land is owned by Crystal Creek Properties which also owns land in Mitchell 2 immediately to its north. Protection of the quarry and future residential properties will need to occur through subsequent planning processes. Crystal Creek Properties recognised the need for a buffer to the quarry within its development north of the existing UGB. The adequacy of that buffer and land uses which might be located within that buffer area will need to be determined in later stages in the planning processes. (iv)
Trunk services Melbourne Water and Yarra Valley Water supported the inclusion of Mitchell Area 2 within the UGB, but both indicated considerably more infrastructure planning needs to be done. Yarra Valley Water indicated that it had been anticipating the expansion of Wallan for some time. The major issue of concern to it is the need to significantly increase the capacity of the existing treatment plant in the south east part of the Mitchell Area 2 and a subsequent increase to one kilometre of the buffer around the treatment plant. As discussed in the Agency submissions, significant road and public transport planning work remains to be undertaken. Page 62
9.4
Commentary The Committee understands and agrees with the core arguments made by the GAA, Mitchell Council, Agencies and developers for inclusion of Mitchell Area 2 within the UGB. Wallan Township will continue to be under growth pressure and it is important that this is recognised by placing it within the UGB so that orderly planning and development can occur. This will mean that when rezoning to the UGZ occurs, that GAIC can be collected to underpin appropriate infrastructure development in Wallan, so that there are no distortions in infrastructure provision between Wallan and Beveridge. In saying this, the Committee recognises that as an essentially rural council with a small population base, Mitchell Council does not have the same capacity to fund infrastructure that some larger metropolitan Growth Area Councils have. This is further reason to bring Wallan within the UGB so that future planning can occur with the assistance of the GAA. The Committee accepts that the timing is right for the inclusion of Wallan Township as part of the Logical Inclusions Review Process, despite considerable further work being required at least in some parts of Mitchell Area 2 before development can occur. In saying this the Committee is cognisant that in other areas considered as part of this process the GAA has argued, and the Committee has accepted, that further work needs to be undertaken before the land can be considered for inclusion in the UGB as part of a Biennial Review. It is clear to the Committee that further work needs to be completed regarding transport and physical service infrastructure provision, environmental, landscape and biodiversity asset protection. The outcomes of these investigations will assist in the determination of specific land use and development outcomes and associated planning controls. Both the GAA and Mitchell Council have either argued for or acknowledged that existing zonings should be retained until further planning occurs. This is not the position adopted by Crystal Creek Properties who submitted that its support for Mitchell Area 2 being included in the UGB is contingent on its property being rezoned to the UGZ immediately. Crystal Creek Properties recognise the GAIC liability that this would trigger. It submitted that it has well advanced development plans which are consistent with the treatment of its land under a Draft Wallan Structure Plan, which the Committee notes appears to have no formal status in the Planning Scheme. While the Committee understands the position that Crystal Creek Properties, the Committee is firmly of the view that land brought within the UGB in Mitchell Area 2 should remain under its existing zoning at this stage. No evidence was put before the Committee that the work done by Crystal Creek Properties was so well Page 63
developed and/or the land supply issues being faced in Wallan were so severe that the land should be excluded from participation in future Precinct Structure Plan and Development Contribution planning for the wider area. The Committee considers that it is important that planning for Inverlochy should be integrated with planning for surrounding land uses. The Committee considers that the drainage and flooding issue in the eastern part of Mitchell Area 2, particularly the south east is a significant issue that needs to be resolved via detailed investigation. Melbourne Water submitted that for this reason this land should not be rezoned to the UGZ at this stage. The Committee accepts this and regards it as a further reason to retain the existing zonings in the Area at this time. At the close of the Hearing the Committee observed that the boundary of Mitchell Area 2 in north east of the Wallan Township is described differently by the GAA and Mitchell Council. Following consultation there is agreement that the section of land north of William Street and east of the Northern Highway within the Low Density Residential Zone (surrounded by Hidden Valley) should remain outside the UGB. The Committee concurs. In Chapter 8 of Report No. 1: Overview and Summary, the Committee acknowledges that while some low density residential uses may be located within the UGB, there appears little reason to include existing developed land. The Committee concludes that William Street is the appropriate UGB in this location. The Committee is not entirely convinced of Melbourne Water’s argument to bring the whole of the floodplain into the UGB. This should not be necessary to facilitate appropriate planning by Melbourne Water. However the Committee accepts the pragmatic aspect of this proposal in that not enough information about the flooding issue is known at this stage to propose a boundary other than the one proposed by the GAA and Mitchell Council. As part of the process for preparing for the Logical Inclusions Review Process, Mitchell Council notified some but not all land owners and occupiers in Wallan. Those in the existing Township in particular were not directly notified. Those in the existing Farming Zone were notified. However general advertising and publicity about the process was available to those in the Township. This is relevant as the issue arises as to whether an Amendment to include Wallan in the UGB can be undertaken as a Section 20(4) process, that is without further notification. At the request of the Committee, the GAA has sought advice from DPCD as to whether it considers that the conditions have been met for a Section 20(4) Amendment. The preliminary advice received from DPCD and tabled by the GAA as part of its closing submission was that it would appear that at least the first requirement for Page 64
Amendment without further notice has been met. Weight is given to the argument by the fact that no change in zoning is proposed at this stage, and it appears that as such, no landholder should be materially affected. The Committee supports a Section 20(4) amendment to bring Mitchell Area 2 into the UGB subject to confirmation of DPCD’s preliminary advice to the GAA. 9.5
Findings and Recommendations The Committee finds that Mitchell Area 2 can be considered as a Logical Inclusion in the UGB. The Committee considers that not including Mitchell Area 2 in the UGB runs the risk of distorting the development pattern and infrastructure provision in the area surrounding the Wallan Township. While less is known about some aspects of this Area than other areas which have been part of the UGB for a longer period, the Committee believes that the constraints and opportunities are well enough understood to conclude that the Area should be planned as part of the adjoining land in the UGB. The Committee finds that the existing zoning of land should be maintained until further strategic work is undertaken. Recommendation Land within Mitchell Area 2 should be included in the Urban Growth Boundary through an Amendment process under Section 20(4) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 applying the existing zones. Page 65
10.
CITY OF WHITTLESEA 10.1 Overview The City of Whittlesea has for many years experienced very high rates of population growth and continues to be a significant residential Growth Area. The City also includes significant employment areas and activity centres, residential communities, farming activities, and educational and other community uses. There are a number of historical and rural township communities in the municipality. At the 2006 Census, the population was approximately 125,000, with a strong cohort of young families, and significant diversity in cultural background. Housing is almost entirely comprised of separate dwellings, with considerable variation in size and character across the municipality. The major higher order activity centres are focused on City’s core retail shopping centres which incorporate a variety of commercial and community facilities. In some instances the activity centres support surrounding employment areas. The City’s business base is well represented in manufacturing, warehousing and distribution activities with a number of companies currently involved in the manufacture of car components, building, furniture, clothing and footwear products. There are large tracts of land designated for future employment development. Whittlesea’s convenient access to central Melbourne and other employment centres, and its major transportation corridors such as the Hume Highway, represent key strategic advantages which contribute to the attractiveness of the municipality as a location for residential and employment development. The City does however have infrastructure challenges. The road network has varying levels of connectivity, and many of the arterial roads are operating at or near capacity. Public transport is provided by heavy rail which extends to Epping connecting the municipality to Melbourne, limited light rail, and a series of private bus lines. These services provide a disjointed level of public transport and a constrained ability to move from east to west and vice versa across the municipality. The Yan Yean and Toorourrong reservoirs and water supply catchment areas occupy significant land in the northern part of the municipality. These areas, apart from supplying much of Melbourne with water, incorporate sites of flora and fauna significance. In conjunction with the Kinglake National Park and Plenty Gorge Parklands they provide significant tourism resources where controlled visitor access is possible. Quarry Hills Bushland Park is being developed as a major open space and conservation area by Whittlesea Council. State forests, national parks, Page 66
grasslands of national significance, recreation areas, water catchments, extensive rural areas, red gum woodlands and a network of rivers, creeks and drainage lines extend into the urban areas which provide the municipality with a distinctive character. 10.2 Local Policy Context The relevant parts of the Whittlesea Planning Scheme LPPF for managing growth include: •
Clause 21.02 A Snapshot of the City of Whittlesea -
•
Clause 21.02‐2 The City of Whittlesea – Its Land Uses Clause 21.04 Vision -
Clause 21.04‐2 Land Use Planning Objectives, which states: Managing Urban Growth To effectively manage urban growth in a manner that maximises beneficial relationships between compatible uses and which avoids inappropriate incursions into non‐urban or environmentally sensitive areas. Infrastructure Provision To actively pursue resolution of provision of key strategic items of physical infrastructure for unserviced growth areas and plan for and identify means to fund the establishment and maintenance of social and physical infrastructure to meet the needs of existing and future residents in a timely and efficient manner. •
Clause 21.05 Growth Areas Framework •
Clause 21.06 Objectives, Strategies and Actions •
-
Clause 21.06‐1 Residential Growth Areas -
Clause 21.06‐2 Managing Urban Growth Clause 21.06‐4 Employment and Economic Development 10.3 Key influences Upon consideration of the MSS and LPPF above, the Committee considers the key issues Whittlesea Council faces are: •
Transport: convenient access, both private and public, to the remainder of metropolitan Melbourne will enhance the long‐term attractiveness of the City of Whittlesea as a housing, employment and recreation destination. •
Urban Growth: the housing needs of a diverse cross section of the population need be planned for, and will occur primarily in greenfield sites. Provision of Page 67
physical and social infrastructure in a cost effective and timely manner to meet demand is paramount. •
Employment: long‐term employment growth within a diversity of sectors must be sustained by progressively upgrade the appearance of employment centres and increase the choice and location of land available for employment generating activities. •
Environment: the retention of landscape character in urban development is important to the City. Maintaining and protecting valuable non‐urban land in the face of urban pressures is a major challenge. •
Infrastructure: The provision of physical infrastructure, particularly sewerage, optical fibres and drainage, is the key strategic issue in relation to the location and timing of future urban development in the City of Whittlesea. Page 68
11.
WHITTLESEA AREA 1: KILMORE–MERRIANG ROAD 11.1 Overview Submissions in Whittlesea Area 1 cover some 787ha of land and have been split by the GAA into three Areas as follows: •
Whittlesea Area 1A – 277ha •
Whittlesea Area 1B – 69ha •
Whittlesea Area 1C – 441ha The land generally has a frontage to the Kilmore–Merriang Road and backs onto the Merri Creek which is the current UGB in this location. The site of the proposed Inter‐Modal Freight Terminal is to the west of the Merri Creek. Figure 7: Whittlesea Area 1 Page 69
The land is used mainly for grazing and there are differing views on the suitability of the land for agricultural purposes, with one submittor indicating a limited number of high value agricultural pursuits in the vicinity. The GAA indicated that the soil capability is generally of poor quality and susceptible to water logging and that this and the high cost of land limits its development for agricultural purposes. The major issue affecting this land is the location of the proposed Inter‐Modal Freight Terminal at Beveridge generally west and south‐west of the subject land. This is one of three major Inter‐Modal Freight Terminals being planned for Melbourne as proposed in the Government document Freight Futures: Victorian Freight Network Strategy, 2010. These are intended to significantly replace the activities of the major freight hub around the Port of Melbourne and the Dynon rail yards. The Inter‐Modal Freight Terminal is tentatively proposed to occupy some 1,000ha. Planning for this terminal is at a very early stage and construction appears likely to be 20 or more years away. The lack of detail and planning for this proposal is considered to be a major constraint on bringing the land in Whittlesea Area 1 into the UGB at this time. The largest landholder in Whittlesea Area 1 is the Beveridge Pastoral Company which has made a number of submissions to the recent processes, with those submissions referring to a range of parcels of land of differing sizes. Beveridge Pastoral own or control in excess of 2,000ha of land. CPG made submissions on behalf Beveridge Pastoral for Whittlesea Area 1A (submissions 5016 and sub5526) and Whittlesea Area 1B (submission 6035). Scott and Robin Barrow made a submission for Whittlesea Area 1B, (submission 6012). For this Logical Inclusions Review Process, Beveridge Pastoral has not pursued its submissions for Whittlesea Area 1B, as the Area is flood prone. For Whittlesea Area 1C, submissions were received from Beveridge Pastoral (submissions 6035 and sub5526), Merristock Pty Ltd and Rekool Nominees Pty Ltd, (submission 6014) and the Olivetti family, (submission sub5933). There were five affected party submissions, four in support of the inclusion of the land inside the UGB. This included two submissions from Delma Investments Pty Ltd represented by Mr Wood of Tract, who own land on the east side of Kilmore‐
Merriang Road and which does not abut the UGB. This site therefore would only be eligible for consideration if the Beveridge Pastoral Company land was to be included in the UGB. Neither the GAA nor Whittlesea Council have supported any part of Whittlesea Area 1 to be included in the UGB. All of the land in Whittlesea Area 1 is currently in the Green Wedge Zone. Environmental Significance Overlays (Schedule 3 and 4) follow the Merri Creek and Page 70
a Rural Floodway Overlay covers Whittlesea Areas 1A and 1B. Heritage Overlay (Schedule 2) applies to a specific site within Whittlesea Area 1A. 11.2 Position of Agencies (i)
GAA The GAA did not recommend the inclusion of Whittlesea Area 1 in the UGB. It did submit that Whittlesea Area 1A should be seriously considered for ultimate inclusion in the UGB through a Biennial Review as it could connect to the land to the west of Merri Creek, and has limited constraints. Until the future of the Beveridge Inter‐Modal Freight Terminal is better understood, the GAA recommend that the land not be included within the UGB. It also argued that the future planning of Whittlesea Area 1A needs to be coordinated with the Areas to the north that are within the Mitchell Area 2 and are recommended for inclusion in the UGB. GAA consider Whittlesea Area 1B is affected by ecological and floodway constraints that would severely limit any development potential of the land. The GAA considered the current alignment of the UGB is appropriate in this location given the site’s relatively small area and constraints. Whittlesea Area 1C is affected by topographical constraints, and is generally undulating land with a prominent hill top and drainage lines in various directions. The GAA highlighted that no submittor provided any information to indicate how much of the land might be capable of development. It concluded that the future location of the OMR may present some opportunities in terms of accessibility. (ii)
Whittlesea Council Whittlesea Council did not support the inclusion of Whittlesea Area 1 within the UGB. It submitted that a hasty conversion of this land for urban development purposes is potentially detrimental to the planning for the establishment of the Inter‐
Modal Freight Terminal. Whittlesea Council submitted that because the area of land required for the freight terminal is not clearly known nor the area required for supporting the ancillary uses, the required buffer and interface issues can not be effectively addressed at this time. For this reason, Whittlesea Council argued that Whittlesea Area 1 should stay in its existing zone. It submitted: Given the range of propositions which have been presented in the document (Melbourne Freight Futures), it is considered of utmost importance that that the Logical Inclusions process does not discount or constrain the range of futures identified by the government. Page 71
(iii)
Other Agencies Melbourne Water submitted that most of Whittlesea Area 1 falls within the Merri Creek catchment, and a small section in the south falls in the Darebin catchment. Melbourne Water contended that a significant waterway buffer would be required along the Merri Creek frontage if development were to occur, responding to biodiversity and waterway management issues, potential cultural heritage values, and flood conveyance requirements. It did not support its inclusion in the UGB as part of the current process, suggesting that review as part of a Biennial Review process would allow for further detailed analysis. Yarra Valley Water noted that Whittlesea Area 1 may be serviced, provided that the infrastructure is sized to accommodate this Growth Area. DoT supported the GAA recommendation to not include Whittlesea Area 1 due to separation from future urban development, constraints and distance from planned local public transport services. It did not, however, support its consideration in a Biennial Review until the planning for the Inter‐Modal Freight Terminal is resolved. DSE gave in‐principle support to the inclusion of the land in the UGB on the understanding that biodiversity issues are addressed and resolved as part of the later planning processes. 11.3 Standards and Decision Criteria Whittlesea Area 1 meets the Standards, being within a Growth Area municipality, abutting the existing UGB and being proposed for residential and/or employment development. Having noted the above, the key threshold Decision Criteria for Whittlesea Area 1 as identified by the Committee include Biodiversity, Drainage, Agricultural Activities, Soil Capability and in the view of the Committee most importantly, Transport. These are now discussed. (i)
Transport Each of the three areas in Whittlesea Area 1 are close to the Melbourne‐Sydney rail line, the proposed OMR and the Hume Freeway, and as such have good potential road and rail freight links. VicRoads however assessed the impact of the inclusion of these three Areas as moderate, in that they would require major transport infrastructure if they were brought into the UGB. This is presumably because of both arterial road upgrades and links to the existing and proposed major road infrastructure. Page 72
DoT submitted that the “land is disconnected from future urban land as Area 1 is separated by the clear boundary of the Merri Creek. This will limit the potential for the contiguous development of public transport”. It is however, the proximity to the proposed Inter‐Modal Freight Terminal which is a key issue. Freight Futures details an extensive planning process for the Inter‐Modal Freight Terminal, which is not well advanced at this stage. At the Hearing, DoT indicated that it could be five years or more before more detailed land requirements of the Inter‐Modal Freight Terminal become clear, and it is only after that time that the planning controls for the terminal and the surrounding land uses can be put in place. Prior to that occurring, governance structures facilitating the Stage 1 terminal network including Somerton, to the south of this proposed site needs to be undertaken before the planning for the Stage 2 options, including Beveridge will occur. (ii)
Agriculture The land is generally used for grazing. In Whittlesea Area 1B, the land is susceptible to water logging, according to the assessment by the GAA. No submittor indicated the viability of the agricultural uses on the land but one affected party whose family has farmed land to the east of Whittlesea Area 1 for generations indicated that there are a range of viable agricultural activities in the Area. The GAA indicated that high land values in Whittlesea Area 1 have restricted farm expansion. No evidence was provided that this is high value agricultural land which should be retained in agricultural use. (iii)
Biodiversity In its assessment report, the GAA submitted that there are areas of significant biodiversity values along the Merri Creek. DSE identified biosites 4858 (Hernes Swamp) and 3610 (Bald Hill) as covering parts of areas Whittlesea 1A and 1B respectively. DSE identified small patches of a number of EVCs including Plains Grassland, Grassy Woodland, and Swampy Riparian Complex being located in each of the three Whittlesea 1 Areas. It identified Whittlesea Area 1 as containing habitat for a number of vulnerable, endangered and critically endangered species. However DSE indicated in principle support to the inclusion of each of the Areas within the UGB, provided the biodiversity issues are addressed through the Growth Corridor Plan and PSP processes. A detailed ecological assessment undertaken for the proponent for Whittlesea Area 1A, the Beveridge Pastoral Company, in 2008 by ERM, identified the conservation significance of indigenous vegetation within the Area and considered it is high to Page 73
very high value. However ERM assessed the overall conservation value of the site to be medium because of the abundance of weed species and general habitat modification. ERM identified a number of areas that should be retained, and others for which offsets should apply. They have recognised that further targeted surveys should occur in later planning stages. (iv)
Drainage corridors The land in Whittlesea Area 1A and 1B drains to the Merri Creek. However in Whittlesea Area 1C, Melbourne Water identified the land as draining in a number of directions. Whittlesea Area 1B is substantially covered by a Floodway Overlay. The GAA assessment indicated that the land is susceptible to water logging. No material has been put forward that substantially contradicts this, although the submission on behalf of Beveridge Pastoral Company did claim that the land has no significant development constraints. (v)
Soil capability The DMNSC Background Technical Report 1 indicates that Whittlesea Areas 1A and 1C have moderate to low soil capability issues. It identified Whittlesea Area 1B as having some “swamp deposit” and therefore a significant level of constraint. Ms Looker of Merristock for Whittlesea Area 1C submitted that the capacity of some parts of Whittlesea 1C the land capability for Whittlesea Area 1C for high density residential are ‘questionable’ because the Silurian Hills, of which this Area forms part, are highly erodible once disturbance occurs. 11.4 Commentary Based on the assessment against the Decision Criteria set out above, the Committee agrees with the GAA that Whittlesea Area 1A should be considered for ultimate inclusion within the UGB. The Committee agrees with the GAA and Agencies there are limited constraints on the land. DSE indicated that the biodiversity constraints can be dealt with in the context of preparing the Growth Corridor Plans and PSPs. The Merri Creek Management Committee disagreed with the DSE and argued that the biodiversity values of the Merri Creek would be seriously compromised if both sides of the creek were devoted to freight and logistics and other urban activity. Ms Looker submitted that significant public funds had been utilised by private land owners for work on the Merri Creek riparian zone in recent years. The Committee agrees that ultimately Whittlesea Area 1A could be included in the UGB and finds that little firm evidence has been presented against the ultimate inclusion of Whittlesea Area 1A. Page 74
However the Committee considers that there are two issues with respect to the inclusion of Whittlesea Area 1A within the UGB through this Logical Inclusions Review Process, namely the timing of the inclusion of the land, and the ultimate eastern extent of the UGB in this location. With respect to the timing of any movement of the UGB further east from its current location along the Merri Creek, the Committee considers that the planning for the future Inter‐Modal Freight Terminal is the key issue. There are far too many unknowns in the Inter‐Modal Freight Terminal planning at this stage to have any clear idea of what the land in Whittlesea Area 1A might ultimately be used for, and what buffer and interface issues will need to be addressed. The Committee notes that the landholder acknowledges aspects of this, having initially proposed residential development but now recognising employment generating development may be more appropriate. Because of the uncertainty about the ultimate land uses in Whittlesea Area 1A the Committee sees no urgency to move the UGB in this location at this time. Mr Townshend for Beveridge Pastoral submitted that the “planning horizon for the Inter‐modal Freight Terminal is now and that major users are already seeking sites in the vicinity of the Inter‐modal Freight Terminal”. This may well be the case, but it is not possible to know the likely land uses within Whittlesea Area 1 occupied by the Inter‐
Modal Freight Terminal west of the creek or indeed supporting or ancillary uses in the surrounding areas, including Whittlesea Area 1A. Planning for the amount of land required for the Inter‐Modal Freight Terminal and employment related land uses surrounding it, needs to be much further advanced than it currently is, so that appropriate zonings can be put in place over the entire area, rather than this being done in a piecemeal fashion. For this reason, the Committee is of the view that the UGB should remain in its current location until the planning for the Inter‐Modal Freight Terminal is much further advanced. Mr Townshend submitted that Merriang Road makes just as logical a boundary to urban development as does the Merri Creek in this vicinity. The Committee accepts that there is little logic to the Merri Creek being the ultimate UGB in this vicinity. However the Committee can see no greater logic in Merriang Road being the ultimate boundary of the urban development in this location. The ultimate UGB might just as well be in some other yet to be determined location based on, for example, a landscape feature. When the planning for the Inter‐Modal Freight Terminal is progressed to a stage that future land uses in Whittlesea 1A are clearer, and the amount of land needed for uses ancillary to the Inter‐Modal Freight Terminal is known, that in the Committee’s view is the appropriate time to determine the eastern boundary of the UGB in this location. Page 75
With respect to Whittlesea Area 1B, the Committee considers this land to be significantly encumbered, particularly with respect to potential flooding. It is a relatively small parcel of land of some 69ha and as such would be difficult to develop in a sustainable way, particularly as it is not well connected to other possible urban land north and south of it. Whilst written submissions supported the inclusion of this land, no landholder appeared before the Committee to support its inclusion. The inclusion of Whittlesea Area 1B is not supported by either the GAA or Whittlesea Council. For the reasons outlined above the Committee does not support Whittlesea Area 1B being brought in the UGB. A number of the comments made by the Committee with respect to Area 1A are relevant to Whittlesea Area 1C. There are a range of other issues to be resolved before serious consideration could be given to bringing the land within the UGB. These include the ability to drain the land effectively and the soil capability. The proximity to the proposed Inter‐Modal Freight Terminal is an issue with respect to this land and any consideration of its future use for urban purposes should occur no earlier than consideration of Whittlesea Area 1A. 11.5 Findings and Recommendations The Committee finds that land in Whittlesea Area 1 cannot be considered a Logical Inclusion in the UGB. Whittlesea Area 1A appears suitable for urban development but should not be brought into the UGB until land uses related to the Inter‐Modal Freight Terminal can be planned for with greater levels of certainly than currently exist. The Committee finds that land in Whittlesea Area 1B appears unlikely to be suitable for urban development. The Committee finds that the land in Whittlesea Area 1C appears to have other constraints which may limit its potential for urban development, but if it is found to be suitable as a result of further work it should not be considered for inclusion within the UGB until at least the land in Whittlesea Area 1A is further considered for inclusion. Recommendation Land within Whittlesea Area 1A and Whittlesea 1C should not be included in the Urban Growth Boundary as part of this process, but may merit further consideration as part of a later review following development of plans for the Inter‐Modal Freight Terminal. Land within Whittlesea Area 1B should not be included in the Urban Growth Boundary. Page 76
12.
WHITTLESEA AREA 2 – EPPING ROAD, WOODSTOCK 12.1 Overview Whittlesea Area 2 is located on western side Epping Road, Woodstock south of Donnybrook Road. It comprises some 708ha of land of which 328ha or slightly less than half of the Area is the subject of submissions to the Logical Inclusions Review Process. The Area is bounded by Epping Road to the east and abuts the existing UGB on its, northern, western and southern boundaries. The site is slightly undulating and is traversed through one part by Darebin Creek. The reservation for the OMR is located just east of Epping Road and runs in a north south direction at this point. A site inspection revealed that some parts of the site are scattered with small exposed rocks. Figure 8 Whittlesea Area 2 Page 77
There were five submissions made with respect to Whittlesea Area 2, Mr E Draper (submission 6015), Mr Draper (submissions 6016 and sub5935), Mr Russo (submission sub3230), Mr and Ms Cotchin (submission sub7058) and from Gadens Lawyers on behalf of Davies, Green and Charlewood Nominees Pty Ltd (submission sub10499). The last of those listed was heard by the Committee. Their submission referred to 218ha of land in Woodstock which they submit should be included in the UGB and developed for residential purposes. Mr Townshend for the submittor provided planning evidence from Mr Rogers of Urbis. As part of his evidence, Mr Rogers provided a concept plan demonstrating how the land owned by his client could be developed, avoiding the areas of highest environmental significance. This concept plan did not extend to other parts of Whittlesea Area 2 but showed linkages through to abutting land. There were ten affected parties who made submissions. Of these nine were nearby landholders who supported the inclusion of the land of the submittors and in most cases their own land, within the UGB. One supporting affected party was heard by the Committee, Ms Crouch of Summerhill Road. Ms Crouch submitted that her property was suitable for urban development and should be included in the UGB. The one affected party opposing the inclusion of the land within the UGB was the Merri Creek Management Committee. It submitted that Whittlesea Area 2 should not be included within the UGB because of its environmental significance and that it is proposed to form part of the proposed Grassy Eucalypt Woodland Reserve. Land in Whittlesea Area 2 is currently in the Green Wedge Zone and is subject to an Environmental Significance Overlay. The GAA listed four PSPs to the north, west and south of the site, being PSP 1067, PSP 1069, PSP 1070 and PSP 1096, none of which are currently under preparation. The adjoining areas are still subject to the Growth Corridor Planning process, indicating that urban development in this Area is likely to be some time away. 12.2 Position of Agencies (i)
GAA The GAA did not recommend Whittlesea Area 2 for inclusion. It submitted that the environmental attributes of the land are of State and National significance. The protection of the Grassy Eucalypt Woodland in the North Growth Area is a major land use planning strategy to protect and enhance features of known biodiversity, conservation and ecological value. Further, it submitted that Whittlesea Area 2 is related to a larger region proposed for a major 1,200ha Grassy Eucalypt Woodland reserve. Page 78
(ii)
Whittlesea Council Whittlesea Council opposed the inclusion of Whittlesea Area 2 within the UGB, mainly on environmental grounds. Whittlesea Council noted that the Area was originally in the 2009 investigation area but was ultimately excluded because of the environmental significance of the Area. The Council advised that a number of the sites proposed for inclusion fall within the buffers to existing or proposed quarries. Whittlesea Council seeks to protect such areas from development to protect the long term supply of stone and other resources for the developing areas of the north. It noted that the protection of such resources is consistent with Clause 14.03, Stone and Mineral Resources, in the Planning Scheme. (iii)
Other Agencies DSE opposed the inclusion of Whittlesea Area 2 within the UGB. It noted that the majority of the Area consists of Plains Grassy Woodlands EVC and that large sections of this vegetation are identified as EPBC Act, listed Grassy Eucalypt Woodland of the Victorian Volcanic Plains. DSE noted that 300ha of Whittlesea Area 2 is to form a core part of the proposed 1,200ha Grassy Eucalypt Woodland conservation reserve. The State Government has committed to secure the proposed reserve by 2020, as part of the Melbourne Strategic Assessment. The proposed reserve which will provide for offsets for land cleared within the UGB was discussed in the DMNSC Program Report, 2009. As a result of the submission made by a key landholder in Whittlesea Area 2, further information on the proposed reserve and its relationship to the OMR was subsequently sought from and provided by DSE and is discussed below. Schedule 5 to the Environmental Significance Overlay was placed over the land as a result of Amendment VC68. Melbourne Water submitted that if the land that comprises Whittlesea Area 2 is to be considered for inclusion in the UGB, a single, contiguous area should be included. A Biennial Review of the UGB would allow for investigation and planning for the broader catchment to be undertaken, enabling planning for flooding and drainage in a regional context. Yarra Valley Water noted that Whittlesea Area 2 may be serviced, provided that the infrastructure is sized to accommodate this Area. It advised that a sewer pumping station is probably required. DoT recommended that Whittlesea Area 2 not be included due to significant environmental constraints, which in turn impact on the likely density of development that could be achieved. It noted that it is uncertain that a residential density of 15 dwellings per hectare can be achieved and therefore a viable public transport service would be difficult to provide. It acknowledged that Whittlesea Area 2 abuts a proposed Principal Public Transport Network (PPTN) bus route, but that the Area is some 4km from the nearest railway station. Further, VicRoads Page 79
commented that Whittlesea Area 2 will need major transport infrastructure and recommend that the Area should not be included in the UGB. 12.3 Standards and Decision Criteria Whittlesea Area 2 meets the Standards, being within a Growth Area municipality, abutting the existing UGB and being proposed for residential and/or employment development. Whittlesea Area 2 is substantially used for grazing and has been for many years. However no evidence was provided that the land has particular value as agricultural land. The land appears to have significant surface stone in some parts. In his evidence, Mr Rogers addressed each of the relevant Decision Criteria. Apart from the acknowledged biodiversity issues he found no reason not to include the land in the UGB. The GAA did not address the Decision Criteria in detail as it considered that the biodiversity issue alone was sufficient to exclude the land from consideration. In its submission, Whittlesea Council made reference to the proximity to the quarry and the need to protect that resource. Having noted the above, the key threshold Decision Criteria for Whittlesea Area 2 as identified by the Committee include: Biodiversity and Transport. These are now discussed. (i)
Biodiversity All of Whittlesea Area 2 is covered by two Environmental Significance Overlays (Schedules 1 and 5). DSE’s position with respect to Whittlesea Area 2 has been previously outlined. In response to the request from the Committee to DSE for further information about the specific need for the land in Whittlesea Area 2 as part of the proposed Grassy Eucalypt Woodland Reserve, it quoted from the Strategic Impact Assessment Report which at page 5 states in part: An area of around 314ha of Grassy Eucalypt Woodland within the Melbourne North Investigation Area has been excluded from the Urban Growth Boundary altogether. The DSE response made reference to the need to remove additional areas of Grassy Eucalypt Woodland as a result of the construction of the OMR at some time in the future. The proposed reserve will provide for offsets for that removal. The assessment of biodiversity values by DSE at this stage are high level only. Mr Lane on behalf of Davies, Green and Charlewood has undertaken limited field work in the Area. His conclusions are discussed in Chapter 12.4 of this report. Page 80
(ii)
Transport DoT submitted that as a result of the high biodiversity values placed on at least part of Whittlesea Area 2 the density of development is likely to be significantly below the GAA’s desired average of 15 dwellings per hectare. For this reason DoT noted that it is uncertain that Whittlesea Area 2 can be efficiently serviced by public transport. It is 4km from the nearest station and is not currently part of the suburban rail network. Despite being adjacent to the OMR, VicRoads have assessed the transport impact as moderate, that is, development would require significant upgrade to transport infrastructure. 12.4 Commentary The Committee considers that the issue of the proposed Grassy Eucalypt Woodland Reserve is key to the immediate potential urban future for the land in Whittlesea Area 2. The Committee is cognisant of the comment by Mr Townshend that there is no funding commitment by the State to acquire the land for this reserve. The Committee notes however that the agreement to acquire to land to establish the reserve has a target date of 2020. As such, the Committee believes that it is not altogether surprising that there is no funding commitment in place at this stage. Mr Townshend acknowledged that the land has environmental constraints but he submitted that these are not such as to preclude development on the less constrained parts of his client’s land. In support of this, he tabled expert evidence from Mr Lane of Brett Lane and Associates. Mr Lane and his staff had undertaken some field work on the site over a two day period in August 2011. Mr Lane acknowledged the limitations that the winter field assessment presented and indicated that further detailed assessment would be required at a later date. Mr Lane’s work identified seven threatened fauna species that were likely to occur but indicated that no Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 (FFG), or EPBC Act listed flora species are likely to exist. He did however identify a significant number of scattered trees and remnant patches of significant native vegetation. In a written response to later questions from the Committee and based on the timing of the field survey, DSE were critical of some of the conclusions drawn by Mr Lane. The Committee notes that Mr Lane was aware of the constraints arising as a result of the timing of his field work. The other related issues of concern to the Committee is whether the land in Whittlesea Area 2 and west of the OMR reserve is needed for the 1200ha reserve, given the apparent extensive area outside the UGB and east of the OMR. This is particularly an issue because there is not enough land within Whittlesea Area 2 for the full extent of the proposed reserve to be located west of the OMR, and so if any of Whittlesea Area 2 is included in the proposed reserve, the reserve will of necessity Page 81
be bisected by the OMR. The Committee observes that this will create connectivity issues. DSE informed the Committee that further work is being undertaken to define the precise boundaries of the proposed reserve. However at this stage it is neither clear what those boundaries will be, nor whether the entire reserve could be accommodated east of the OMR. In its further information DSE cautioned that decisions taken now which could undermine the proposed reserve carry the risk of undermining the agreement that has been reached between the Commonwealth and the State. This is a commitment underpinning DMNSC and the Melbourne Strategic Assessment. Mr Townshend made reference to the concept plan for residential development that had been prepared by Mr Rogers, but protecting the areas of highest biodiversity value. Mr Townshend compared what was proposed to the nearby Laurimar Estate and tabled photos of residential development based around areas of environmental significance. The Committee notes that the concept plan produced by Mr Rogers, whilst very preliminary, appears to show residential development covering only about 50 per cent of the land on his client’s site. In its closing submission, the GAA submitted: The highly constrained area was around 50 per cent of the site – which effectively halves the overall density of urban form that could be achieved, with lower yields and resultant increases in distances to services which require threshold catchment levels. The Committee visited the Laurimar Estate and notes that whilst the integration of areas of environmental significance into residential development is attractive, the proportion of the land available for residential development at Laurimar appears higher than that which the Committee considers to likely be available in Whittlesea Area 2. It is acknowledged that the final development outline would require far more work and that the proportion of developable land both on this site and on all of Whittlesea Area 2 may be higher or lower than this figure. The Committee notes DSE’s concern about the connectivity desired between these areas of high biodiversity value and the significant length of ‘edge’, subject to the impact of adjacent urban development of the proposed concept plan. The Committee is of the view there is no compelling evidence that the whole of Whittlesea Area 2 has a reasonable proportion of developable land and certainly not enough for it to be considered as a Logical Inclusion in the UGB as part of this process. Page 82
12.5 Findings and Recommendations The Committee finds that Whittlesea Area 2 cannot be considered a Logical Inclusion in the UGB. There are two main reasons underpinning this finding. Firstly that the agreement between the State and the Commonwealth with respect to the proposed Grassy Eucalypt Woodland Reserve means that all or part of this land may be required for that reserve. The Committee is of the view that the agreements reached between the Commonwealth and the State which have allowed the 2010 extensions to the UGB to occur and for the growth of Melbourne to be accommodated should not be put at risk. The Committee notes that while the current UGB could appear anomalous with respect to Whittlesea Area 2 it is cognisant of the view that with further incursions into areas of environmental significance, the areas that remain have become even more significant. Secondly the biodiversity constraints on the land are such that it is not clear to the Committee that a ‘reasonable proportion’ of the entire Whittlesea Area 2 is developable in such a way that it can be serviced viably, particularly by public transport. If it is determined at some stage in the future that the Grassy Eucalypt Woodland Reserve can be accommodated to the west of the proposed OMR, further investigation could be undertaken to determine the proportion of the whole of the Whittlesea Area 2 which is free from constraints and therefore developable, and its urban future could be reconsidered at that time. Recommendation Land within Whittlesea Area 2 should not be included in the Urban Growth Boundary as part of this process, but may merit further consideration as part of a later review following finalisation of the Grassy Eucalypt Woodland Reserve. Page 83
13.
WHITTLESEA AREA 3: QUARRY HILLS 13.1 Overview Whittlesea Area 3 is based around Quarry Hills, a series of ridgelines between the Epping North, South Morang and Mernda–Doreen Growth Areas. A regional park is being progressively developed that includes the ridgelines in its eastern portion, and land running down to and including the Darebin Creek in its western portion. Figure 9: Whittlesea Area 3 All the submissions made to the Committee in respect of Whittlesea Area 3 argued that land should be included in the UGB. Submissions generally acknowledge Whittlesea Council’s aspirations to secure land for the proposed Quarry Hills Bushland Park (the Park) but raise a number of issues about the appropriate Page 84
alignment of the boundary and the approach being taken to establish the Park. Whittlesea Council has produced a Master Plan for the Park entitled Quarry Hills Bushland Park, 2008. The current UGB follows the Park boundary. The Park will potentially see 1,100ha of land brought into a regional park. The boundary of the Park does not follow title boundaries, but is based on the 185m to 195m contour to the east and the Darebin Creek, the proposed OMR arterial or quarry operation to the west. The Park has been identified in a range of strategic documents: •
Delivering Melbourne’s Newest Sustainable Communities; •
Whittlesea Growth Area Plan; and •
Linking People and Spaces, A strategy for Melbourne’s open space network. The current UGB/Park boundary was adopted following submissions by Whittlesea Council to Melbourne@5Million to allow for some developable land on lots identified for inclusion in the Park on the basis that the balance of land was transferred to Council. Ten submissions were referred to the Committee including one from Whittlesea Council which initially proposed three sites be included in the UGB. At the close of the Hearing, Whittlesea Council was pursuing only two of those, being: •
1 Skyline Drive, South Morang. •
180 Bindts Road, Wollert. Whittlesea Council was no longer pursuing land at 75 Hunters Road for inclusion. Of the nine submissions from landholders, these related to eight parcels of land and five were heard by the Committee. The submissions were: •
125 Regent Street: Rod and Anne Pollock (submission 6019). •
280 Bridge Inn Road: Vellcorp Pty Ltd (submissions 6024 and sub5615). •
300‐305 Bridge Inn Road: Hamish and Margaret McDonnell (submission 6036). •
360 Masons Road: Estate of Lady McArthur (submissions 6037 and sub8252). •
240 Bindts Road: Aziz Kehir (submission sub7125). •
235 Bridge Inn Road and 280 Masons Road Central North East Development Pty Ltd. (submission sub8269). •
90 Bindts Road: Jane Edwards and Bruce Birthisel (submission sub3148). •
10 Bindts Road: Boral (submission sub8272). Page 85
The common theme running through most of the submissions is that the landholders are trying to increase the amount of land that they can develop in return for the land which they are providing free of charge to the Council to become part of the Park. In addition there were five affected party submissions, all which supported the inclusions. One of these was from the owner of the property at 1 Skyline Drive, South Morang supporting the Whittlesea Council proposal to include that property within the UGB. Whittlesea Council proposed one small area for exclusion from the UGB. The land in Whittlesea Area 3 is predominantly in the Green Wedge Zone or the Rural Conservation Zone. 13.2 Position of Agencies (i)
GAA The GAA did not recommend that any major new land areas in Whittlesea Area 3 be included in the UGB as part of the Logical Inclusions Review Process. The one area it did support is a small anomaly at 1 Skyline Drive, South Morang that would align the UGB to the 185m contour, consistent with adjoining properties. The GAA noted that the proposed inclusions would not significantly contribute to the supply of housing or employment land or correct anomalies to the alignment of the UGB. The land at 180 Bindts Road, Wollert being proposed is small and impacted by the OMR alignment, and its future may more likely relate to the service role for the Park, rather than housing development. The GAA did not support 75 Hunters Road, South Morang as it would not be reasonably contiguous or integrated with the nearby residential development. (ii)
Whittlesea Council Whittlesea Council intends to acquire the appropriate land for the Park by allowing development on the portion of lots within the UGB, subject to the transfer to Council of land outside the UGB to Council. A number of such agreements have been made and the Committee understands that large sections of the Park will be transferred to Council at no cost. In his closing submission to the Committee, Mr Montebello emphasised that the development of the Park was, from Whittlesea Council’s point of view, a strategic Page 86
development and that the Council was identifying properties to be included in whole or in part in the Park to the extent that they fitted with the Master Plan. Where this could be achieved by allowing development on some part of the land, this would be pursued. However he emphasised that the approach was not based on ensuring that land not required for the Park was available in commercially viable amounts. The Committee understands this approach and discusses it further below. Whittlesea Council did not support any of the other inclusions proposed by land owners. The basis for Council’s lack of support for inclusion varies between properties. Whittlesea Council proposed one small area at 95 McArthurs Road, South Morang, for exclusion from the UGB. (iii)
Other Agencies Melbourne Water did not support inclusion of Whittlesea Area 3 in its current form within the UGB, with the exception of 1 Skyline Drive. Melbourne Water noted that if these somewhat fragmented areas are to be considered for inclusion in future, a more detailed assessment of each catchment, and land capability including flooding and drainage constraints, should be undertaken. Yarra Valley Water noted that this is a significant area for inclusion which will require the development of a servicing strategy. Both water and sewage servicing will have significant issues. DoT agreed that only land at 1 Skyline Drive, South Morang should be included due to environmental constraints affecting other land that would constrain the intensity of urban development. Further, VicRoads commented that the Whittlesea Area 3 will need major transport infrastructure and recommended that the Area, apart from 1 Skyline Drive, not be included in the UGB. DSE opposed the inclusion within the UGB of any of land proposed in submissions, including Whittlesea Council’s submission, with the exception of the land at 1 Skyline Drive. In its submission DSE listed a range of threatened flora and fauna and EVCs. DSE made clear its support for the work of the Whittlesea Council in creating the Park as it believed that the transfer of this land to public ownership will help protect and manage a range of endangered species and vegetation. Parks Victoria noted the commitment to the development of the Park by Whittlesea Council and it supported the on‐going development of the Park. It noted that the Park is a part of the open space network in the region as outlined in government strategy document, Linking People and Spaces. Parks Victoria had no current role with respect to the development of the Park although Mr Montebello did foreshadow a Page 87
potential long term management role in his submission on behalf of Whittlesea Council. 13.3 Standards and Decision Criteria Whittlesea Area 3 meets the Standards, being within a Growth Area municipality, abutting the existing UGB and being proposed for residential and/or employment development. Having noted the above, the key threshold Decision Criteria for Whittlesea Area 3 as identified by the Committee include Landscape features, Biodiversity and Extractive industry. These are now discussed. (i)
Landscape features The development of the Park has strong strategic underpinnings in the work undertaken by Whittlesea Council. This is supported by key Agencies including the GAA, DSE and Parks Victoria. The creation of this Park will not only protect prominent landscape features such as hilltops and other land generally above the 185m to 195m contour lines from development, but will have the added benefits of helping to protect endangered flora and fauna species documented as existing in the Area. (ii)
Biodiversity In its submission, DSE listed scattered patches of EVCs existing in Whittlesea Area 3, including Plains Grassy Woodland, Grassy Woodland, Creekline Grassy Woodland, Grassy Dry Forest, Plains Grassy Wetland and Granitic Hills Woodland. DSE has listed a number of endangered fauna species for which there are observed sightings in the Area or that habitat exists which makes their presence likely. The creation of the Park in line with the Whittlesea Council Master Plan will clearly help support and preserve these biodiversity values. (iii)
Extractive industry There are two quarries in Whittlesea Area 3. These are outside the UGB and need to be protected from encroachment by inappropriate development in the buffer area surrounding them. These are critical to minimising the transport cost for stone resources needed in the still developing residential areas in this Growth Area both to the east and west of the quarry sites. Most submissions made to the Committee do not appear to encroach on the buffer areas for these quarries. Page 88
13.4 Commentary The Committee makes some general comments and then comments on groups of proposals that have been made for inclusions in the UGB. (i)
General issues Submissions have raised a number of concerns: •
the degree to which the planning or design of proposed the Park should influence the location of the UGB; •
the logic of the Park boundary; •
the consistency with which the contours (the purported logic for the boundary of the Park) have been used; and •
the degree to which the desire to acquire land at no cost should influence the location of the UGB. Mr Montebello for Whittlesea Council submitted that Council’s approach was to ‘overlock’ the UGB by managing the detailed location of the boundary and the Committee has some sympathy with this view. The Committee accepts that some types of interface between parks and urban development are better than other types of interface, and urban development that is designed up to a contour will result in a better boundary on the ground than simply using title boundaries. In this regard the design of the Park and the design of the adjoining residential development need to be considered together and this implies that the UGB will be influenced by the design of the Park. However land should not be brought into the UGB as part of the Logical Inclusions Review Process if it fails to meet the Decision Criteria specified, even if it does assist the further development of the Park. The location of the UGB to facilitate the development of the Park is a legitimate activity for Whittlesea Council but it is not a key driver for the Committee. It is worth noting that the current eastern boundary of the Park has resulted from Whittlesea Council’s submissions to Melbourne @ 5 Million and Council has clearly been active in ensuring that urban development abuts the Park in a well resolved fashion, and that street layouts and the like allow for all the land in the UGB to be developed. Whittlesea Council provided a plan of the proposed Park. The boundary has been determined on its east side by selecting the 185m to 195m contour. Page 89
The Park contains features that are clearly desirable for inclusion within the Park being the ridgeline of the Quarry Hills and the Darebin Creek and the associated riparian strip. Other land that is undevelopable because of the engineering difficulty, cost of servicing or dealing with issues of slope, may also be appropriate for inclusion. Between the ridgeline and the Darebin Creek is land that has been included to create a coherent Park. Land to the west has been included to take the Park out to a physical boundary, being the OMR. The Committee notes that Whittlesea Council has been active in setting the boundaries of the Park so that a sensible park/urban development interface is created and that there is incentive for landowners to grant land to Whittlesea Council. This approach has met with some success, but it may well be that at some point land will need to be acquired. It was submitted that there was land below the 195m contour that could be developed and that Whittlesea Council has been inconsistent in setting the Park boundary and hence the UGB, because other land below this contour has been included in the Park area. The 185m or 195m contour has been selected for the eastern boundary of the Park. The Park slopes down to the Darebin Creek and so land to the west of the ridges is below the 195m contour. Development on land between 195m contour and the Darebin Creek would fragment the Park. The Park will adjoin areas outside the UGB. A review of the UGB in other parts of Melbourne shows that open space areas on the UGB are typically placed outside the UGB. The Committee does not see the community benefit of including proposed parkland areas within the UGB if they are not intended to have any future for urban development. In fact bringing them inside the UGB can raise expectations of development. The land has landscape and environmental features that connect it to the green wedge and distinguish it from adjoining land identified for development. The Committee is concerned about the proposed changes to the UGB that are based on a desire to avoid compensation costs, rather than to settle a sensible long term boundary for the Park or urban development. It is modern practice to provide public open space as part of a development and so otherwise developable land is left for open space; no one disputes that this is a good approach. The issue is at what point is the open space requirement too much, and where is compensation required for the open space. Requiring 80 per cent of a site might make sense from a Park planning and design point of view, but it is not clear Page 90
to the Committee whether trying to secure this land at no cost is inherently fair. However this is essentially a matter beyond the Terms of Reference of the Committee. Having said this, the Committee recognises that Whittlesea Council has taken a long term strategic approach to securing the Park and has reached agreements with a number of land owners. Clearly the current approach is yielding some success. For larger developers the prospect of a large regional park in close proximity to their estates may make the estate relatively more desirable, and so the cost of transfer of land to the Park is recovered wholly, or in part, by increased prices or quicker sales within the development. The Committee recognises that if it were not for Whittlesea Council’s proactive approach it might well be that the UGB would not have been moved in 2010 and none of the land would be within the UGB. There is clearly no legal obligation on Whittlesea Council to progress rezoning of land to allow for development, and it submitted that it has not placed any kind of compulsion upon landowners to enter in to an agreement for a land swap. Certainly pragmatic considerations cannot be ignored, but the Committee considers further comments on this issue falls outside its Terms of Reference. (ii)
Comments on submissions In commenting on the particular submissions, the Committee groups these as those in the north and the south of Whittlesea Area 3, and the specific proposals put forward by Whittlesea Council. A number of the submissions indicated that certain parcels of land within the proposed Park were developable and could be coordinated with development on adjoining land. Many of these proposals were early concept plans and no overall concept for a revised development pattern was produced. It is not clear to the Committee that a coherent revised proposal for development on part of the proposed the Park is possible and such a concept was not presented. Apart from the practical difficulties which remain unresolved, the Committee does not see a convincing reason to depart from the concept set out by Whittlesea Council in the Park Master Plan. The fact that some of the land outside the UGB could be developed, does not imply that a better outcome will be achieved by developing it, rather than creating the Park as currently intended. Submissions put to the Committee that a reasonable open space outcome could be achieved while allowing Page 91
for some development did not progress beyond vague and sometimes contradictory suggestions, and these are not supported by the Committee. The two submissions relating to land in the south are for the Boral Quarry at 10 Bindts Road and Ms Edwards and Mr Birthisel at 90 Bindts Road. In 2009 Boral proposed that its quarry site at Bindts Road be included in the UGB, to both facilitate some urban development on its land and the transfer of part of its site to Whittlesea Council for parkland. No clear detail is available to the Committee and it considers that this issue is best dealt with by Whittlesea Council in the context of the on‐going planning for the Park. Similarly the submission from the owners of 90 Bindts Road provides little detail and is best dealt with by Whittlesea Council in the context of the development of the Park. Three areas were suggested for inclusion by Whittlesea Council based on what Mr Montebello termed “pragmatic” inclusions. In the case of 180 Bindts Road, the Committee understands that the land has been illegally filled, is infested with gorse and Whittlesea Council argued that allowing some development will allow the land to be remediated and brought into public ownership. The resultant park boundary that would result from Whittlesea Council’s proposal does not appear any less logical that the existing boundary which in the west follows cadastral boundaries rather than other natural features such as contour lines. However the Committee is not convinced that the boundary that would result from including 180 Bindts Road in the UGB is appropriate and considers that further work needs to be undertaken to determine an appropriate boundary in this location. The Committee recognises that the land does not have a viable use in its current state. Whittlesea Council submitted that: The land is a the subject of a VCAT Enforcement Order which requires restoration of the western portion of the land and the Darebin Creek relating to a significant contravention relating to the illegal dumping of waste. The Committee understands that the cost of the clean up exceeds the current value of the land. The Committee can see the benefit that could flow from an adjustment to the UGB. In the case of 75 Hunters Road, as noted above Whittlesea Council changed its position during the course of the Hearing. The Committee is not convinced that the UGB can be moved without compromising the interface between the Park and urban development, including conservation areas within the adjoining development. The GAA does not support the inclusion of 75 Hunters Road as it would not be reasonably contiguous or integrated with the nearby residential development. The Committee concurs. Page 92
With respect to 1 Skyline Drive, South Morang the proposed inclusion would align the UGB to the 185m contour, consistent with adjoining properties. This appears reasonable and is supported by the Committee. 13.5 Findings and Recommendations The Committee finds that with the exception of land at 1 Skyline Drive, South Morang, land in Whittlesea Area 3 cannot be considered a Logical Inclusion in the UGB. The Committee finds that no convincing case has been made for the inclusion within the UGB of any of the properties considered as part of part of Whittlesea Area 3 as part of this Logical Inclusions Review Process, with the exception of 1 Skyline Drive, South Morang. The Committee recognises the extensive work that has been undertaken by Whittlesea Council to bring land for the Quarry Hills Bushland Park into public ownership and supports Council in its continuing endeavours in this regard. With respect to 180 Bindts Road, the Committee finds that the proposal to bring the land inside the UGB at this time is premature in that the UGB proposed by Whittlesea Council is not in the Committee’s view, ‘logical’ with respect to the existing UGB, the whole of the property at 180 Bindts Road and adjacent land. This site could be brought into the UGB at a later time after further detailed work is undertaken to determine an appropriate boundary in this location and to propose appropriate land uses for an expanded UGB in this vicinity of 180 Bindts Road. Whittlesea Council sought a small exclusion site at 95 McArthurs Road, South Morang. The GAA is of the view that any such exclusions are more appropriately dealt with as part of the Biennial Review given that the exclusion wasn’t specifically dealt with through the affected party notification as these processes were primarily addressing ‘inclusions’. Recommendations The part of Whittlesea Area 3 identified as 1 Skyline Drive, South Morang should be included in the Urban Growth Boundary through an Amendment process under Section 20(4) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, applying the Urban Growth Zone. The part of Whittlesea Area 3 identified as 180 Bindts Road Wollert should not be included in the Urban Growth Boundary as part of this process, but may merit further consideration as part of a later review following further work to Page 93
determine an appropriate boundary in this location and to propose appropriate land uses for an expanded UGB in this area. Land within Whittlesea Area 3 (apart from land at 1 Skyline Drive, South Morang and 180 Bindts Road Wollert) should not be included in the Urban Growth Boundary. Land identified as the Whittlesea Exclusion Area should remain in the Urban Growth Boundary until a decision on any further review is undertaken. Page 94
14.
WHITTLESEA AREA 4: YAN YEAN 14.1 Overview Whittlesea Area 4 has been considered by the GAA as three discrete areas: Area 4A, 51ha (of which about 8ha is proposed for urban development); Area 4B (6.6ha) and Area 4C (1.5ha). Whittlesea Area 4A is known as 60 Watts Road Doreen and Whittlesea Areas 4B and 4C are known as 1655‐1657 Arthurs Creek Road and Woods Road Doreen. Figure 10: Whittlesea Area 4 Page 95
Whilst relatively close together and some 25km north of the Melbourne Central Business District, the issues associated with Whittlesea Area 4A are considered by the Committee as different to those impacting Whittlesea Area 4B and 4C, and in this report they are discussed as two distinct Areas. Whittlesea Area 4A is adjacent to the Laurimar development and is about 1km from the Laurimar town centre. From this perspective it is well located from an urban development point of view. The estate immediately to the east of the proposed inclusion appears to have been designed to be the eastern ‘edge’ of development and is separated from that development by the Yan Yean pipe track which carries water from the Yan Yean Reservoir to the north towards other parts of metropolitan Melbourne. The street grid in this vicinity would allow for connectivity through to the proposed residential development west of the pipe track. Part of the land to the west which is proposed for inclusion is subject to flooding and photos tabled by resident objectors indicated that this is an issue. In at least some parts of the interface between the existing residential area and the proposed inclusion there appears to be a small but distinct fall between existing residential development and the land to the west. It is unknown whether this is as a result of fill. There was some confusion between the GAA and the Whittlesea Council during the Hearing and in submissions in the understanding of what constituted Whittlesea Areas 4B and 4C. This has been partially clarified subsequent to the Hearing although the GAA and Whittlesea Council are still using different descriptors. Resolution of this issue is not critical but for the discussion here the Whittlesea Council description is adopted with Whittlesea Areas 4B and 4C referring to the two adjoining parcels which were referred to in the Hearing as the left and right ‘rabbit ears’. However only part of Whittlesea Area 4B is now proposed for inclusion. Whittlesea Council subsequently confirmed by way of a map which part of Whittlesea Area 4B it proposed for inclusion, but no area has been clearly specified. Whittlesea Council initially proposed that both Whittlesea Areas 4B and 4C be included in the UGB but subsequently amended its position prior the Hearing after discussions with the landowner. Only part of Whittlesea Area 4B is now proposed to be included in the UGB. Whittlesea Areas 4B and 4C, whilst relatively close to Whittlesea Area 4A, are essentially rural in nature and have been used for agricultural purposes, mainly horse breeding and cropping. The land is relatively flat to the south but does rise to the north towards Arthurs Creek Road which in turn abuts the Yan Yean Reservoir Page 96
which is relatively close to Arthurs Creek Road at this point. It does not appear that any or much of the subject sites drains towards the reservoir. The proposal to allow urban development on at least part of Whittlesea Areas 4B and 4C has been initiated in each case by Whittlesea Council. The intention is to agree to development on a part of the land in return for bringing other land into Council ownership for proposed parkland. In Whittlesea Area 4A it is the area known as Brennans Forest that the Whittlesea Council wishes to have transferred to it so that it can be developed as public parkland. Mr Montebello for Whittlesea Council pointed out in the closing submission that the resident objectors mistakenly referred to this and the subject site as parkland when it is currently in private ownership. No agreement is yet in place for this transfer. In the case of Whittlesea Area 4B the Whittlesea Council wish to have land above a defined contour line transferred to Council ownership. The exact contour line and the amount of land likely to be available for urban development is unclear and was not clearly articulated. Whittlesea Council referred to an area of somewhere between 8ha and 16ha in its initial submission and whilst a map was provided subsequent to the Hearing the amount of land involved is still not clear to the Committee. Consequently, no agreement is in place for this transfer either. One landholder submission was received in respect of Area 4A from Dacland Management Pty Ltd. on behalf of the owner Mr Ruschmeyer, (submission sub7244). There were six affected party submissions with respect to Whittlesea Area 4A, with one in support of further land west of the Plenty River with a frontage to Hazel Glen Road being included in the UGB. There was however significant concern expressed by other residents. In response to the Council submission with respect to their land Ms J and Ms K Rothacker made an affected party submission with respect to Whittlesea Areas 4B and 4C. All of Whittlesea Area 4 is currently in the Rural Conservation Zone. At least some of the land proposed for urban development in Whittlesea Area 4A is covered by a Land Subject to Inundation Overlay. Page 97
14.2 Position of Agencies (i)
GAA The GAA recommended the inclusion of only part of 60 Watts Rd, Doreen (approximately 8ha) being that land proposed by Whittlesea Council in its supplementary information (8 July 2011). The larger balance of the area of 60 Watts Rd is not recommended for inclusion in the UGB, as it is proposed for a conservation reserve (approximately 39ha) under public ownership. On September 2 the GAA released an updated Assessment Report clarifying the land in Area 4A that it supported for inclusion. The GAA considered that the small nominated area of approximately 8ha in 60 Watts Road can create a reasonably contiguous residential development integrated with the Laurimar area, and take advantage of the Yan Yean Pipe Track open space area. The GAA did not recommend the land in Whittlesea Areas 4B or 4C be included in the UGB as part of the Logical Inclusions Review Process. The GAA considered that further investigations be carried out in relation to Whittlesea Areas 4B and 4C, and believed that any further consideration of these Areas is more appropriately dealt with as part of the Biennial Review, particularly if the primary objective is to establish new parkland areas. (ii)
Whittlesea Council Whittlesea Council initiated the inclusion of each of the Areas Whittlesea Area 4 in the UGB and initially proposed each of Whittlesea 4A, 4B and 4C be included. However as a result of discussions with the landowners, only part of Whittlesea Area 4B was proposed to be included in the UGB. The Council also clarified at the commencement of the Hearing that only about 8ha of Area 4A was proposed to be included and not the entire 51ha of the site. As indicated above, in each case support by Whittlesea Council for these inclusions is contingent upon part of the subject site being vested in Council ownership to develop public parklands. As noted above no agreement for these land transfers is in place. Page 98
(iii)
Other Agencies Melbourne Water did not object to inclusion of Whittlesea Area 4 in the UGB as urban development is not envisaged to negatively affect stormwater or drinking water in the Area. Yarra Valley Water noted that there would be servicing issues for both water and sewer, but the land at Whittlesea Area 4A can be accommodated due to its small size. DoT supported the inclusion of Whittlesea Area 4A, as it forms a contiguous urban development and is close to an existing public transport route. DSE did not support the inclusion of any of Whittlesea Area 4 with the exception of the small 8 hectare parcel at 60 Watts Road, Doreen (Whittlesea Area 4A), where it believed any biodiversity issues can be addressed at later stages of planning. With respect to Whittlesea 4B and 4C, DSE indicated that the land currently acts as a buffer to the biodiversity values associated with the Yan Yean Reservoir which is immediately to the north. VicRoads supported the inclusion of Whittlesea Area 4B only, but indicated the need to undergo a PSP process to determine transport requirements. It noted that it is possible that the land can be connected to existing subdivisional roads. 14.3 Standards and Decision Criteria Whittlesea Area 4 meets the Standards, being within a Growth Area municipality, abutting the existing UGB and being proposed for residential and/or employment development. From the perspective of both Whittlesea Council and the GAA, further work needs to be undertaken in respect to each of the Areas proposed for inclusion to determine issues related to drainage, salinity soil capability and aboriginal heritage in respect of Whittlesea Area 4A, and wildfire, drainage, salinity and soil capability with respect to Whittlesea Area 4B. Whilst the landowner of Whittlesea Area 4A acknowledged that development will require some cut and fill to achieve their desired development outcome, they acknowledged that further drainage work needs to be undertaken. The need for this was highlighted for the Committee by photos taken after recent rain events and tabled by affected parties Mr Bergani, Ms Lawrence and Ms Angus at the Hearing. Having noted the above, the key threshold Decision Criteria for Whittlesea Area 4 as identified by the Committee include Biodiversity and Landscape features. These are now discussed. Page 99
(i)
Biodiversity With respect to the balance of Whittlesea Area 4A (i.e. that not proposed for urban development), DSE identified a number of significant biodiversity issues. It submitted that the majority of the Area includes native vegetation including the land known as Brennans Forest. In its submission it detailed other relevant fauna records, plus noted that the Area provides a suitable habitat for a number of species, including the Growling Grass Frog. DSE identified significant biodiversity issues with respect to Whittlesea Area 4B and 4C. It identified small patches of Plains Grassy Woodland EVC along the western boundary. This vegetation provides connectivity between the Plenty River and the Yan Yean Reservoir reserve. It identified two bio‐sites in the Area as well as drainage lines which are likely to provide habitat for the listed Growling Grass Frog. Whittlesea Council commissioned a study of the Brennans Forest area by Brett Lane and Associates as part of their strategic work to underpin its proposal to include the 8ha for urban development in return to bringing Brennans Forest into public ownership. (ii)
Landscape features Whittlesea Area 4A is commented upon by the residents as having significant landscape features, an attribute which they submitted attracted many of them to purchase in that location, particularly those who have a direct view over the existing rural outlook. Having undertaken a site visit to Area 4A, the Committee understands the high value that the residents place upon this landscape, regardless of the fact that it is in private ownership. 14.4 Commentary As indicated in the commentary with respect to Whittlesea Area 3, whilst the Committee understands approach being taken by the Whittlesea Council to acquire land for future parks at no cost to the Council, the Committee does not regard this as reason enough to consider the Areas as a Logical Inclusion as part of this process. The Committee reiterates here that for land to be included, it should meet the Decision Criteria being applied in this process. With respect to Whittlesea Area 4A, the Committee acknowledges the strong case that has been made for inclusion. The Area is adjacent to an area which is partly developed and the northern parts of which are undergoing residential construction now. Area 4A can be linked to this area by street connectivity and the services required do not appear to pose a major challenge. Whittlesea Area 4A is only a short Page 100
distance from the Laurimar town centre. The Committee acknowledges that the inclusion of Whittlesea Area 4A is supported by both the Whittlesea Council and the GAA, together with a number of the Agencies. However the Committee does not believe that Whittlesea Area 4A constitutes a Logical Inclusion. As Mr Montebello observed with respect to some of the proposals put by the Whittlesea Council, they are as much in the category of ‘pragmatic inclusions’. There are two main reasons why the Committee does not believe that Whittlesea Area 4A is a Logical Inclusion. Firstly, the existing boundary which is the Yan Yean pipe track in this vicinity appears to provide a clear boundary as it is a significant break between the existing residential development and the Area to the west. In addition, despite the fact that street connectivity can be achieved between the existing development and the area to the west, that development has been undertaken with the western boundary being the ‘edge’ of development in this Area. This is certainly what the residents submitted that they understood to be the case. It is a common argument that the ‘last in’ have an expectation of no new additional development, this expectation in this case appears to be founded. Extending the boundary to encompass a small area west of this would appear to the Committee to be an arbitrary extension of the boundary in just one small section of this land. The Committee is of the view that the existing UGB as proposed in Whittlesea Area 4A will compromise the existing significant landscape which the residents place significant value on. Secondly, there is much which both the Whittlesea Council and the GAA acknowledge that is not known about this site including drainage, soil capability, salinity and aboriginal heritage. The Committee acknowledges that some case could be put that the land should be included in the UGB and this work undertaken as part of later planning processes. This may be so, but the Committee considers that it is a further factor which influences the recommendation that it is making. It is not clear to the Committee what these later planning processes might be as this is clearly not an area large enough to justify a stand alone PSP. Neither the Whittlesea Council nor the GAA indicated what planning processes they considered should be followed, particularly with respect to the acknowledged unknowns. With respect to Whittlesea Area 4B the Committee has concerns about its inclusion because of the biodiversity issues raised by DSE. It submitted that this land should not be considered for inclusion at any stage. The Committee understands the significance of connectivity between areas of high biodiversity value. Page 101
The Committee is aware of the urgency expressed by Whittlesea Council to resolve this issue because of the proposal for residential subdivision immediately to the south of Whittlesea Area 4B. Whether or not Whittlesea Area 4B is likely to be included in the UGB now or at some stage in the future will impact on the need for street connectivity from the proposed subdivision in the south through to Whittlesea Area 4B. However the Committee is of the view that it is important to get the planning for this broad area right. In the view of the Committee the lack of support from the landowner and subsequently by the Whittlesea Council for the inclusion of Whittlesea Area 4B leaves the inclusion of Area 4B constituting an arbitrary extension to the UGB. Including a part of Whittlesea Area 4B but not having any firm proposal for the eastern parcel does not constitute good planning for the Area. If it was subsequently included in the UGB the planning for Whittlesea Area 4B would face the same issues as are being faced in the area to the south Whittlesea Area 4B, that is what future connectivity should be planned between Whittlesea Areas 4B and 4C. The issues of the land swap aside, the Committee is firmly of the view that the inclusion of Whittlesea Area 4B is at best premature. The Committee makes this comment on the basis that DSE opposed inclusion of this land at any stage. The current UGB based on a cadastral boundary may not be a viable long term boundary but it is not clear what better boundary might exist in this location. 14.5 Findings and Recommendations The Committee finds that land in Whittlesea Area 4 cannot be considered a Logical Inclusion in the UGB. It considers that an adequate case has not been made for the inclusion of any part of Whittlesea Area 4 in the UGB. In each case the proposed extension of the boundary is considered to be arbitrary. In the case of Whittlesea Area 4A, the existing boundary along the Yan Yean pipe track has some logic to it and extending the boundary beyond that pipe track would compromise a significant rural landscape. In the case of Whittlesea Area 4B biodiversity issues are a significant consideration and a lack of clear planning outcomes for the entire precinct has influenced the Committee’s recommendation. The Committee agrees with all parties that Whittlesea Area 4C is not a Logical Inclusion. Recommendation Land within Whittlesea Area 4A, 4B and 4C should not be included in the Urban Growth Boundary. Page 102
APPENDIX 1: LIST OF SUBMITTORS The material in these tables was provided by the Growth Areas Authority. 1. Landowner Submissions Hume Council Submission No. (Round 1) Submission No. (Round 2) Submitter Details 3075 AMR Hewitts Pty Ltd and Whittenbury Homes Pty Ltd sub3076 Attwood landowners sub7221 Rasco Pty Ltd sub7987 The Planning Group 3023 Steve Hay 3026 J J Webster 3091, 3092 sub5552 Brookfield Multiplex and Hay/ Urbex sub1022 Tanja Skocic sub2049 John A. McKerrow sub6003 Len Karmel 3077 & 3098 sub6118 Peter and Barbara Kerr 3073 sub8679 Merrifield Corporation Pty Ltd sub3826 Kevin John & Dorothy Lynette Plunkett sub4024 Francesco Rizzo sub7899 Mario & Dianne Zanetti sub7902 P Fusca n/a n/a Hume Council Submission No. (Round 1) Submission No. (Round 2) Submitter Details 5018 sub7257 Robert Scanlon sub5921 & sub7113 Crystal Creek Properties Pty Ltd n/a n/a Mitchell Council Mitchell Council Page 103
Whittlesea Council Submission No. (Round 1) Submission No. (Round 2) Submitter Details 6012 Scott and Robin Barrow 6035 Beveridge Pastoral Company 6014 Merristock Pty Ltd and Rekool Nominees sub5933 Olivetti Family 6015 E E E Draper 6016 Sub5935 Neil Draper sub3230 Tony Russo sub7058 Peter and Kath Cotchin sub10499 Gadens Lawyers 6019 Rod and Anee Pollock 6024 sub5615 Vellcorp Pty Ltd 6036 Pitamara Pty Ltd 6037 Estate of Lady McArthur sub3148 Jane Edwards and Bruce Birthisel sub7125 Aziz Kehir sub8252 Integrated Development sub8269 Central North East Development Pty Ltd sub8272 Boral sub7244 Brian Ruschmeyer n/a n/a Whittlesea Council Page 104
2. Affected Party Submissions Hume Area 1 Support Object Transpacific Industries Pty Ltd Antunes, Ana Paula Dos Santos Arslan, Orhan Asciak, H Barbosa, Ilidio & Justine Barkho, William & Michael, Andrea Cambridge Gardens Estate, Alanbrae Estate & Attwood & Greenvale Residents Ceddia, Michael & Josephine Cera, Wayne Cheney, Victor Cleland, David Livingstone & Gail Patricia Coffano, Giacomo & Joe Collins, Mark & Lawrence, Marina Comito, Annalisa Conte, Giuseppe & Fay D’Cruz, Anna & Bryan Daly, Joseph Patrick & Susan Kay Darby, Robert & Maria Davey, Neil Demirtel, Marco Di Noto, Amanda Rose Di Sauro, Alberta & Fia Digby, Michael & Ellis, Julie Elia, David & Juiliana Friebe, Steven & Aydin Haddad, Michael Hasan, Zalihe & Osman Hatzimanolis, Con, Freda & George Hudaverdi, Cem & Ebru Jansen, Jack Keil, Michael & June Keplar, Thomas La Terra, Rose Lessio, Megan & Darren Luciani, Bianca & Singh, Diljinder Page 105
Support Object Malins, Graham & Susan Menay, Berdan Micallef, Frank & Martina Miritis, Stephen & Olga Motti, John & Josephine Mrdak, Mike (also in Hume Area 2, Hume Area 5, Melton Area 6 and Melton Area 7) Nesci, Nick & Carmel Papathanasiou, L & P Perta, Gino & Carmel Phillips, Jason & Maria Pickard, Craig & Soraya Radimisis, Cassandra & Peter Scherma, Marianna Stavrakis, Con & Angela Tavoletti, Anthony & Melissa Tymms, Lillian Valastro, M & M Vellucci, Georgia & Damian Weaver, Andrew & Pauline Wilkie, Caroline (also in Hume Area 2, Hume Area 5, Melton Area 6 and Melton Area 7)
Hume Area 2 Support Object Agnesi Holdings Pty Ltd Costa, Antonio & Genoveffa Alston, Patricia Margaret Sally & Catherine Alice de Pledge Dell’Universita, Sebastiano & Concetta Grech, Charles & Anne Inturrisi, Gildo & Debbie Holcim Pty Ltd, Cheetarra Pty Ltd & Alston, Catherine Alice de Pledge & Patricia Margaret Sally Jackson, James Peter & Helen Jennings, Terence Michael & Elizabeth Jungwirth, Gary & Anne Lazzarro, Rosario Levine, Robert Lyle, Joanne & Paul Warren Manzie, Maxwell Trevor & Gloria Annette McEwen, David & Helen Mrdak, Mike (also in Hume Area 1, Hume Area 5, Melton Area 6 and Melton Area 7) Wilkie, Caroline (also in Hume Area 1, Hume Area 5, Melton Area 6 and Melton Area 7)
Marcon, Umberto & Beverly Marr, Marilyn Millar, Mavis Annie & Joan Mary Schofield, George Hector Scuteri, Vincent Joseph & Giovanna Page 106
Smith, Bruce Victor & Lynette Adrienne Stephens, John & Maureen Hume Area 3 Support Object Ricart Enterprises Far East Co Ltd (also in Hume Area 4 and Mitchell Area 2) Brincat, Michael & Vincenza Eagle, Beverly Louise & Ivancic, Eddie Gomes, Carlos & Sirillas, Evdoxia McGrotty, Adrian & Nicole Merri Creek Management Committee (MCMC) (also in Mitchell Area 1, Mitchell Area 2, Whittlesea Area 1 and Whittlesea Area 2) Taylor, Kim‐Maree (Also in Hume Area 4) Zajec, Lucy & Paul, Peter (25 Canowindra Close, Mickleham) Zajec, Lucy & Paul, Peter (35 Canowindra Close, Mickleham)
Hume Area 4 Support Object Chiavaroli, Peter Taylor, Kim‐Maree (Also in Hume Area 3) Ricart Enterprises Far East Co Ltd (also in Hume Area 3 and Mitchell Area 2) Rizzo, Francesco & Francesca Hume Area 5 Support Object Wilson, Brian & Patricia Mrdak, Mike (also in Hume Area 1, Hume Area 2, Melton Area 6 and Melton Area 7) Wilson, Brian & Patricia Wilkie, Caroline (also in Hume Area 1, Hume Area 2, Melton Area 6 and Melton Area 7) Mitchell Area 1 Support Object Nil Merri Creek Management Committee (MCMC) (also in Hume Area 3, Mitchell Area 2, Whittlesea Area 1 and Whittlesea Area 2) Wallan Environment Group Page 107
Mitchell Area 2 Support Object Brickworks Limited Gordon, Robert Conundrum Holdings Pty Ltd Merri Creek Management Committee (MCMC) (also in Hume Area 3, Mitchell Area 1, Whittlesea Area 1 and Whittlesea Area 2) Havenmead Pty Ltd MRG Equities Ricart Enterprises Far East Co Ltd (also in Hume Area 3 and Hume Area 4) Sheen, Veronica Steele, David Slattey Pty Ltd Wallan Environment Group (also in Mitchell Area 1) Yarra Valley Water Tsoutsoulis, John & Athena Victoree Pty Ltd Whittlesea Area 1 Support Object Delma Investments Filin, Kocho & Alexia (also in Whittlesea Area 2) Merri Creek Management Committee (MCMC) also in Hume Area 3, Mitchell Area 1, Mitchell Area 2 and Whittlesea Area 2) Lord, Len & Pauline (also in Whittlesea Area 2) Whittlesea Area 2 Support Object Cesario, F & M Merri Creek Management Committee (MCMC) (also in Hume Area 3, Mitchell Area 1, Mitchell Area 2 and Whittlesea Area 1) Crouch, Allison June Filin, Kocho & Alexia (also in Whittlesea Area 1) Lord, Len & Pauline (also in Whittlesea Area 1) Nicolaou, Gavriel D & Christine Palumbieri, Guiseppe & Rina; and Alfarano Starwood Pty Ltd Walsh, Bernard Martin & Muriel Edith Yann, Kenneth Page 108
Whittlesea Area 3 Support Object Hauffe, Nevil Nil Junor, R.J. Kehir, Aziz Leisos, Alex & Effie Pitamara Pty Ltd Whittlesea Area 4 Support Object Chiodo, Gabriel & Jenny Angus, Helen & Bergami, Richard Elovaris, Con Fitzgerald, Scott Rothacker, Judy & Kate Stevens, Vesna Summers, Alexandra Summers, Elliot North All Support Object Nil Qantas Group West, Rosemary Page 109
APPENDIX 2: TABLED DOCUMENTS No. Date Description Presented by Volume N1.1 05/09 GAA Preliminary Assessment Report updated 2/9/11 Paul Byrne 1 N1.2 “ GAA Map Book, North Region “ 1 N1.3 “ City of Whittlesea Submission Terry Montebello 1 N1.4 “ Extracts from Delivering Melbourne’s “ Newest Sustainable Communities 1 N1.5 “ Aerial photo and plans for 60 Watts Road “ 1 N1.6 “ Plan of 1655‐1657 Arthurs Creek “ 1 N2.1 06/09 GAA Individual Submissions Area Maps, North Region Paul Byrne 1 N2.2 “ Hume Council Submission Aaron Chiles 1 N2.3 “ Mitchell Shire Submission Stacey Gardiner 1 N3.1 6/9 Woodings Submission Sydney Craythorn 1 N3.2 “ McDonell Submission Julie Katz 1 N3.3 “ McDonnell Attachments “ 1 N3.4 “ CD of N3.2 and N3.3 “ 1 N3.5 “ Draft Section 173 Agreement for Quarry Hills Precinct, 7 July 2009 “ 1 N3.6 “ Vellcorp Submission Vellcorp 1 N3.7 “ Dacland Management Submission CPG 1 N3.8 “ Kehir Submission Hellier‐
McFarland Cityplan 1 N4.1 07/09 Melbourne Airport Masterplan, pp51‐52 Aaron Chiles 2 N4.1 “ Yarra Valley Water Submission Paul Curtis 2 N4.3 “ DSE Submission Michelle McHugh 2 N4.4 “ Australia Pacific Airports Submission Adrian Finanzio 2 N4.5 “ VCAT Decision, P1024/2007, United “ Paintball vs Hume CC 2 N4.6 “ Sydney Airport Thematic Map, YSSY Complaints July 2010 – June 2011 “ 2 N4.7 “ 5 VPR “ 2 Page 110
No. Date Description Presented by Volume N4.8 “ 28 VPR “ 2 N4.9 “ Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, Safeguards for airports and the communities around them, Discussion Paper “ 2 N4.10 “ Correspondence from Virgin Australia, BARA and ATEC “ 2 N4.11 “ VicRoads Submission Simon Lanza 2 N4.12 “ Department of Transport Submission Terry Montebello 2 N4.13 “ North Corridor Existing Public Transport Plan “ 2 N4.14 “ Extracts from Freight Futures pp32 – 38 “ 2 N5.1 08/09 Parks Vic Submission Alex McLeod 2 N5.2 “ Beveridge Pastoral Company Submission Chris Townsend 2 N5.3 “ Melbourne Water Submission Melbourne Water 2 N6.1 09/09 Merrifield Corporation Submission Ian Pitt 2 N6.2 “ Davies, Green and Charlewood Nominees Submission Chris Townsend 2 N6.3 “ Olivetto Submission Rick Olivetto 2 N6.4 “ Havenmead Submission BMDA 2 N6.5 “ Crouch Submission June Crouch 2 N7.1 14/09 Brookfield Multiplex and Hay/Urbex Submission John Cicero 2 N7.2 “ Brookfield Multiplex and Hay/Urbex Annexure “ 2 N73 “ Green Corp. Developments Australia Submission “ 2 N7.4 “ Greenvale Gardens Concept Plan, 12 August 2011 “ 2 N7.5 “ Webster Submission (PowerPoint) Wendy Morris 2 N7.6 “ Wallara Waters Proposed Subdivision ‐ Phase One, 5 May 2010 John Cicero 2 N7.7 “ Wallara Waters Proposed Subdivision, 18 August 2011 “ 2 N7.8 “ Mitchell Planning Scheme, Zones, Map No 25 and 26 “ 2 N7.9 “ Victoree Submission “ 2 Page 111
No. Date Description Presented by Volume N8.1 15/09 Greenvale and Attwood Residents Submission David Cleland 3 N8.2 “ Friebe Submission Steven Friebe 3 N83 “ Grech PowerPoint Charles Grech 3 N8.4 “ Rothacker Submission Emily Porter 3 N8.5 “ Rothacker Plan “ 3 N8.6 “ Rothacker Plan “ 3 N8.7 “ Jackson Submission Helen Jackson 3 N8.8 “ Mental Health issue at local school “ 3 N8.9 “ Medical issue at local school “ 3 N8.10 “ Chiavaroli Submission Luke Chamberlain 3 N8.11a “ Chiavaroli Photographs “ 3 N8.11b “ Chiavaroli Photographs “ 3 N8.12 “ Jansen Submission (PowerPoint ) Jack Jansen 3 N8.13 “ Cheetarra Submission Alexandra Guild 3 N8.14 “ Holcim Australia Submission “ 3 N8.15 “ Mernda and Doreen Residents Submission Angus, Lawrence & Bergami 3 N8.16 “ Trenerry Submission: David and Elizabeth Trenerry 3 N9.1 20/09 Lend Lease Submission Peter O’Farrell 4 N9.2 “ 565 Old Sydney Road PowerPoint “ 4 N9.3 “ Ecology Heritage and Partners, Cultural Heritage Report, 19 September 2011 “ 4 N9.4 “ Cardno, Road Infrastructure Network Review “ 4 N9.5 “ Crystal Creek Properties Submission Millar Merrigan 4 N9.6 “ Neil Craigie, Surface Water Management Strategy, 4 March 2005 “ 4 N9.7 “ Wallan Sewerage Infrastructure Plan “ 4 N9.8 20/09 Merrisock and Rekool Nominees Submission Boyd and Looker 3 N9.9 “ Merri Creek Management Committee Submission L Macmillan 3 N9.10 “ Merri Creek and Environs Strategy, 2009‐2014, May 2009 “ 3 Page 112
No. Date Description Presented by Volume N9.11a “ Delmar Investments Submission Greg Wood 3 N9.11b “ Delmar Investments Map “ 3 N9.12 “ Delmar Investments Submission “ 3 N9.13 “ Map 4 Distribution of farmland by property size “ 3 N9.14 “ Conundrum Holdings Submission Frank Perry 3 N9.15 “ Conundrum Holdings Work Authority Location Plan “ 3 N9.16 “ Wallan Pastoral Submission Chris De Silva 3 N9.17 “ Green Wedges Coalition Submission Rosemary West 3 N9.18 “ Tsoutsoulis Submission Tom Tsoutsoulis 3 N9.19 “ Lazzaro Submission Rosario Lazzaro 3 N10.1 03/10 Attwood Land Owners Submission Stuart Morris 4 N10.2 “ Attwood Land Aerial “ 4 N10.3 “ Series of photographs “ 4 N10.4 “ Extract from Brisbane Airport Master Plan, Chapter 11, Aircraft Noise “ 4 N10.5 “ Aerial of Melbourne, Perth, Brisbane Airports with ANEF “ 4 N10.6 “ Melbourne Airport Aerial “ 4 N10.7 “ Zanetti Submission Geoff Underwood 4 N10.8 “ Old Sydney Road Urban Structure Plan “ 4 N10.9 “ Extract from Statement of Underlying “ Provisions for the OMR and the E6 transport corridor, pg 23 4 N10.10 “ Taylor Submission Kim‐Maree Taylor 4 N10.11a “ Whittlesea Closing Submission Terry Montebello 4 N10.12 “ Quarry Hills Bushland Park, South Morang. May 2008 “ 4 N10.13 “ Quarry Hills East Gross Land Budget, April 2011 “ 4 N10.14 “ Quarry Hills Plans “ 4 N10.15 “ Hume Closing Submission Mr Sharp 4 N10.16 “ Mitchell Shire Closing Submission Mitchell Shire 4 N10.17 “ GAA Closing Submission Paul Byrne 4 Page 113

LOGICAL INCLUSIONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT NO. 3

Transcription

Similar documents

Life@Mason Point Brochure - Gibson Property Corporation

poster here.

Untitled - Hume Christian Camps

Lot 17 Altivole Drive, Edenbrook Estate, Norville

Sustainable Housing.indd

With Hume Public School

Quality of Care Report 2015 - Plenty Valley Community Health

REAL ESTATE RATE CARD