Planning and Environment Act 1987 Panel Report Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme Amendment C82 Former Caltex Terminal, South Kingsville 17 September 2012 Planning and Environment Act 1987 Panel Report pursuant to Sections 153 and 155 of the Act Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme Amendment C82 Former Caltex Terminal, South Kingsville Nick Wimbush, Chair Bob Evans, Member Stephen Hancock, Member Contents Page Summary and recommendation in chief ............................................................................... i 1 Background ................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 The Amendment ...................................................................................................... 1 1.2 The subject site ........................................................................................................ 3 1.3 What is proposed? .................................................................................................. 4 1.4 The Panel ................................................................................................................. 4 1.5 Hearings and inspections ........................................................................................ 4 1.6 Exhibition and submissions ..................................................................................... 5 1.7 Submissions ............................................................................................................. 5 1.8 Issues addressed in this report ................................................................................ 7 2 Planning context ......................................................................................................... 8 2.1 Policy and strategy .................................................................................................. 8 2.2 The statutory tools proposed ................................................................................ 12 2.3 Height and density ................................................................................................ 15 2.4 Ministerial Directions and Practice Notes ............................................................. 17 2.5 Overall conclusion and recommendations on planning context .......................... 17 3 Noise and vibration ................................................................................................... 18 3.1 The issue ................................................................................................................ 18 3.2 Evidence and submissions ..................................................................................... 18 3.3 Discussion .............................................................................................................. 24 3.4 Conclusion and recommendations ........................................................................ 27 4 Air emissions ............................................................................................................ 29 4.1 The issue ................................................................................................................ 29 4.2 Evidence and submissions ..................................................................................... 29 4.3 Discussion .............................................................................................................. 32 4.4 Conclusion and recommendations ........................................................................ 32 5 Traffic ....................................................................................................................... 33 5.1 The issue ................................................................................................................ 33 5.2 Evidence and submissions ..................................................................................... 33 5.3 Discussion and conclusions ................................................................................... 38 5.4 Recommendations ................................................................................................ 40 6 Environmental audit ................................................................................................. 42 6.1 The issue ................................................................................................................ 42 6.2 Evidence and submissions ..................................................................................... 42 6.3 Discussion .............................................................................................................. 47 6.4 Conclusion and recommendations ........................................................................ 49 7 Northern boundary development issues ................................................................... 50 7.1 Altona – Somerton pipeline risk ............................................................................ 50 7.2 Rail freight track widening .................................................................................... 53 Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme Amendment C82  Panel Report  17 September 2012 8 Stormwater management ......................................................................................... 55 8.1 The issue ................................................................................................................ 55 8.2 Conclusion and recommendation ......................................................................... 57 9 Summary of recommendations ................................................................................. 58 Appendix A Chronology of concept plans Appendix B Exhibited Design and Development Overlay Appendix C Panel’s recommended Design and Development Overlay Appendix D Notes from expert caucus on noise and vibration List of Tables Page Table 1 Possible development scenarios ............................................................................. 4 Table 2 Parties to the Hearing.............................................................................................. 5 Table 3 Submitters to the Amendment ............................................................................... 6 List of Figures Page Figure 1 Proposed Residential 1 Rezoning ............................................................................ 1 Figure 2 Proposed application of DDO10 .............................................................................. 2 Figure 3 Proposed Environmental Audit Overlay .................................................................. 2 Figure 4 Aerial photograph of site......................................................................................... 3 Figure 5 Environmental audit final condition plan .............................................................. 45 Figure 6 Pipeline location .................................................................................................... 51 Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme Amendment C82  Panel Report  17 September 2012 List of Abbreviations AAAC Association of Australian Acoustical Consultants AHD Australian Height Datum CAD Central Activities District CEMP Construction Environmental Management Plan DDO Design and Development Overlay DoT Department of Transport DPCD Department of Planning and Community Development DSE Department of Sustainability and Environment EA Environmental Auditor EAO Environmental Audit Overlay EP Act Environment Protection Act 1970 (Vic) EPA Environment Protection Authority Victoria HBCC Hobsons Bay City Council ILMS Industrial Land Use Management Strategy IN3Z Industrial 3 Zone LPPF Local Planning Policy Framework MAC Major Activity Centre MAR Managed Aquifer Recharge MMBW Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works MP Master Plan MSS Municipal Strategic Statement N North NAC Neighbourhood Activity Centre NE North East NFA Network Fit Assessment NFAR Network Fit Assessment Report NW North West PNR Pacific National Rail R1Z Residential 1 Zone Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme Amendment C82  Panel Report  17 September 2012 RING NSW draft Rail Infrastructure Noise Guidelines SEMP Site Environmental Management Plan SEPP N‐1 State Environment Protection Policy (Control of Noise from Commerce, Industry and Trade) No N‐1 SoEA Statement of Environmental Audit SMC Spotswood Locomotive Maintenance Centre SPPF State Planning Policy Framework UGB Urban Growth Boundary VDV Vibration Dose Value VPP Victoria Planning Provisions WSUD Water Sensitive Urban Design Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme Amendment C82  Panel Report  17 September 2012 Summary and recommendation in chief Amendment C82 to the Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme proposes to put in place a planning framework for the former Caltex fuel storage site on Blackshaws Road in South Kingsville to allow for change in use from industrial to residential. In seeking this change the Amendment has had to address a number of significant issues including site contamination associated with the former use, the proximity of a nationally significant rail locomotive maintenance centre, impacts on other surrounding residents and businesses, traffic and other issues. The particular planning approach proposed, to apply a Design and Development Overlay (DDO) over the land to control development, has in itself raised a number of issues related to the form of Amendment and the rights of third parties in future planning processes. In particular the lack of a specific development concept has proved somewhat problematic in trying to determine whether development on the site can be achieved whilst meeting requirements for amenity protection of new resident and protection of adjacent industry. When exhibited the Amendment attracted 15 submissions from local submitters and regulatory agencies, a number of which were objections related to the change in use and the development intensity foreshadowed by the Amendment. The Panel has concluded that whilst it has some reservations about the particular planning tools proposed, it is satisfied that the Amendment is strategically justified, and subject to the management of significant interface issues the Amendment and subsequent development of the site should be supported. The Panel has made a number of recommendations related to the specific form of the proposed DDO. Based on the reasons set out in this Report, the Panel recommends: Adopt Amendment C82 to the Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme as exhibited subject to the application of the revised Design and Development Overlay Schedule 10 shown in Appendix C and other recommendations in this report. Page i  Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme Amendment C82  Panel Report  17 September 2012 1 Background 1.1 The Amendment Amendment C82 to the Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme, as exhibited, proposes to:  Rezone the land at 38 to 48 Blackshaws Road, South Kingsville and part 561 to 569 Melbourne Road, South Kingsville from an IN3Z to Residential 1 Zone (R1Z);  Apply an Environmental Audit Overlay (EAO) over the land;  Apply Design and Development Overlay – Schedule 10: The Former Caltex Terminal (DDO10) over the land; and  Remove the schedule to Clause 66.06 and replace it with a new Schedule to Clause 66.06 which introduces the requirement to give notice to the pipeline regulator, pipeline owner and pipeline licensee as set out in the Pipelines Act 2008 and Pipeline Licence PP118. Changes to the maps in the planning scheme are shown in Figures 1 to 3. The planning authority is Hobsons Bay City Council (Council) and the Proponent is Newport Properties Vic Pty Ltd. Figure 1 Proposed Residential 1 Rezoning Page 1 of 59  Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme Amendment C82  Panel Report  17 September 2012 Figure 2 Proposed application of DDO10 Figure 3 Proposed Environmental Audit Overlay Page 2 of 59  Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme Amendment C82  Panel Report  17 September 2012 1.2 The subject site The site is 4.7ha in area and is approximately triangular. It is located about 11km west of the Melbourne CBD. The north east boundary is formed by a significant freight rail line that is part of the national freight network and an important petroleum pipeline corridor. Beyond this corridor is the Spotswood Maintenance Centre (SMC), a heavy rail workshop for servicing and repairing freight locomotives. The southern boundary of the site is formed by Blackshaws Road for about two thirds of the boundary length before diverting to the north then west around a small group of existing residential dwellings fronting Blackshaws Road and Sutton Street. The land south of Blackshaws Road is primarily a residential area with the exception of a small industrial business. The western edge of the site is formed by Sutton Street. Across Sutton Street is primarily industrial use with the exception of a childcare centre on the corner of Sutton Street and Blackshaws Road. The site was formerly a petroleum storage facility and as a result of that use, hydrocarbon contamination has occurred on site and site remediation has been ongoing for a number of years. The site is now cleared of buildings and infrastructure apart from an operating electrical substation. The site makes up approximately half of the area in Precinct 16 in Council’s Industrial Land Management Strategy (ILMS). The site and the balance of Precinct 16 are currently zoned Industrial 3 Zone (IN3Z). An aerial image of the site is shown in Figure 4. Figure 4 Aerial photograph of site1 1
Image taken from expert witness statement of Mr Antonopoulos (SLR Consulting) and originally courtesy of Google Maps. Page 3 of 59  Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme Amendment C82  Panel Report  17 September 2012 1.3 What is proposed? There was not a specific development proposal in front of the Panel. Rather, the Amendment, if approved, will facilitate a residential development outcome on the site which will be determined by a range of factors including economic viability, the environmental cleanup of the site, the need to consider impacts on neighbours and a range of other issues discussed in this report. Over the past few years however there have been a number of development concepts considered for the site and a list and copy of plans was provided to the Panel during the Hearing (list attached at Appendix A). The range of outcomes that have been considered is shown in Table 1. It is noted that none of these particular ones may come to pass. Table 1 Possible development scenarios Title
Prepared by
Date
Dwelling yield
Maximum height
Concept Master
Plan
Architectus
6 February 2009
154
4/5 storeys
Concept Master
Plan
Tract
7 April 2011
422
5.5 storeys
Concept Master
Plan
Zai Architects
October 2011
418
7.5 storeys
The lack of a clear proposal was criticised by some submitters (discussed in Section 2.3). In general the proposals include a mix of medium and high density development in townhouses and apartments. The eventual form if the Amendment is approved will be guided to a large extent by the requirements of the DDO10. 1.4 The Panel The Panel was appointed under delegation on the 17 January 2012 under Sections 153 and 155 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 to consider submissions to the Amendment. The Panel consisted of: 
Chairperson: Mr Nick Wimbush; 
Member: Mr Bob Evans; and 
Member: Mr Stephen Hancock. 1.5 Hearings and inspections A Directions Hearing was held on Thursday 23 February 2012 in the Council Chamber at Altona. Following a request to defer the Hearing from the Proponent, a further brief Directions Hearing was held during the site inspection on 3 April 2012. The main hearings were held from 18 to 22 June, 25 June and 26 July 2012 in the offices of Planning Panels Victoria. Page 4 of 59  Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme Amendment C82  Panel Report  17 September 2012 The Panel inspected the site and surrounding areas on an accompanied basis on 3 April 2012 and visited the following locations: 
A comprehensive guided tour of the Spotswood Locomotive Maintenance Centre; 
Blackshaws Road and surrounds; and 
Sutton Street and its interface with the site, the railway and businesses to the west. In addition the Panel undertook a number of unaccompanied inspections of the site and surrounding areas. 1.6 Exhibition and submissions The Amendment was exhibited between 13 October 2011 and 25 November 2011. Fifteen submissions were received by Council during the exhibition period and referred to the Panel. A late submission from VicRoads was also referred. 1.7 Submissions The Panel has considered all submissions and material presented to it in connection with this matter. The Panel heard the parties listed in Table 2 below. Table 2 Parties to the Hearing Submitter
Represented By
Hobsons Bay City Council
Mr Ragu Appudurai, Special Counsel,
Russell Kennedy, instructed by Ms Kathleen
McClusky and Ms Karmen Markis of Council
who called the following witnesses:
 Dr Kym Burgemeister, Acoustic
Engineering
 Ms Charmaine Dunstan, Traffic
Newport Properties P/L
Mr Peter O’Farrell, Barrister, instructed by
Mr Nick Sutton of Planning and Property
Partners, who called the following
witnesses:
 Mr Stuart McGurn, Town Planning
 Mr Andrew Clarke, Planning Controls
 Mr Jim Antonopoulos, Acoustic
Engineering
 Mr Robert Burton, Acoustic Engineering
 Mr Tim De Young, Traffic
 Mr Mark Sheppard, Urban Design
 Dr Terry Bellair, Dust and Odour
 Mr Darryl Strudwick, Environmental
Audit
 Ms Helen Weston, Social Impact
Page 5 of 59  Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme Amendment C82  Panel Report  17 September 2012 Submitter
Represented By
Asciano Limited
Ms Juliet Forsyth, Barrister, instructed by Mr
Peter Delaney of Clayton Utz who called the
following witnesses:
 Mr Robert Kelderman, Town Planning
 Mr Peter Fearnside, Acoustic
Engineering
 Mr Mark Fay, SMC Site Manager
VicRoads
Mr Frank Deserio
Ms S Wright
Mr M Xerri
Brymart P/L
Able Industries Engineering P/L
Mrs Charmaine Martyn
Mr Stephen Martyn
Mr Tim Hobson
A list of all written submissions to the Amendment is included in Table 3. Table 3 Submitters to the Amendment Submitter
Organisation (if any)
Mr Jim Konstanides
Mr Con Gantonas
Melbourne Water
Ms Tricia Lumsden
Department of Sustainability and Environment
Mr David Brown
Exxon Mobil
Mr Ben Leske
Australian Rail Track Corporation
Ms Sue Wright and Mr Colin Budich
Mr Stephen Martyn
Brymart Pty Ltd
Mr Dennis Ryan
Mr Craig and Ms Natasha Tonkin
Ms Charmaine Martyn
Mr Boris Murko
Mr Tom Angliss
Asciano
Mr Mark Curry
Department of Transport
Mr Bala Balendran
Energy Safe Victoria
Mr Joe Vassallo
City West Water
Mr Mario Xerri
Mr Daniel Zaslona
VicRoads
Page 6 of 59  Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme Amendment C82  Panel Report  17 September 2012 1.8 Issues addressed in this report The Panel has considered all written submissions, as well as submissions and evidence presented to it during the Hearing. In addressing the issues raised in those submissions, the Panel has been assisted by the information provided to it as well as its observations from inspections of the site, the Spotswood Maintenance Centre and the surrounding area. This Report deals with the issues under the following headings:  Planning context;  Noise and vibration;  Air emissions;  Traffic;  Environmental Audit;  Northern boundary development issues; and  Stormwater management. Page 7 of 59  Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme Amendment C82  Panel Report  17 September 2012 2 Planning context This section of the report outlines the strategic and statutory planning context of the Amendment and considers the approach being proposed for rezoning and eventual development. 2.1 Policy and strategy (i)
The State Planning Policy Framework The Explanatory Report for the Amendment identified a number of relevant clauses in the State Planning Policy Framework (SPPF). These are noted below with a Panel summary of the relevant elements:  Clause 11 (Settlement) – the site is no longer viable for industrial use as identified in the Hobsons Bay Industrial Land Management Strategy (ILMS) and is one of 10 such sites all of which will compete for resources and access to infrastructure. Residential development of these sites will provide more dwellings in an established area;  Clause 13 (Environmental risk) – the site has now been remediated to address industrial contamination and redevelopment of the site will need to address existing industrial neighbours;  Clause 15 (Built environment and heritage) – the site does not contain any heritage values and development can be designed to be sustainable;  Clause 16 (Housing) – redevelopment of the site should lead to increased housing diversity and choice and the provision of a percentage of affordable housing;  Clause 17 (Economic development) – development of Precinct 16 is to demonstrate how it will not impact the Spotswood Maintenance Centre and the Somerton to Altona Pipeline and the Amendment includes provisions to meet this criteria;  Clause 18 (Transport) – the site is close to existing train stations and the established road network and can be connected through improved pedestrian and cycle networks; and the redevelopment should not impact on the rail freight line as appropriate controls are being put in place; and  Clause 19 (Infrastructure) – the site can be served by physical infrastructure but may cause local stress in terms of schools, childcare and community services. This may be addressed by a community infrastructure levy. (ii)
The Local Planning Policy Framework The Explanatory report identified a number of relevant clauses in the Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS). The major ones are summarised below.  Clause 21.02 (Profile of Hobsons Bay) and Clause 21.03 (Hobsons Bay within the Region) – recognises the historical context of Hobsons Bay and the need to cater for increasing population with a diversity of housing types;  Clause 21.04 (Strategic Planning Context) – outlines nine thematic strategic directions addressed in subsequent clauses;  Clause 21.05 (The Vision) – promotes contemporary built form that respects existing neighbourhood character; Page 8 of 59  Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme Amendment C82  Panel Report  17 September 2012  Clause 21.06 (Residential) – supports residential redevelopment of the site at higher densities as a Strategic Redevelopment Area. The planning tools proposed will guide development and ensure that it provides preferred neighbourhood character, provides a range of dwelling types, and protects nearby industry and future residents from amenity issues at the interface;  Clause 21.09 (Industry) – the rezoning of this land to residential is not expected to impact detrimentally on Hobsons Bay industrial land supply;  Clause 21.10 (Transport and mobility) – vehicle and pedestrian linkages will need to be considered within and to/from the site as part of residential development of the site;  Clause 21.11 (Open Space, Environment and Conservation) – open space will need to be considered during development of the site; and  Clause 21.13 (Community Infrastructure) – development will increase demand on existing community infrastructure and additional infrastructure will need to be considered. The following main local policies were identified as relevant:  Clause 22.02 (Industry) – development of the site will need to recognise the State significance of the Spotswood Maintenance Centre (SMC) and the industry west of Sutton Street (which may ultimately relocate but this is not assured). The ILMS is a reference document in this clause; and  Clause 22.07 to Clause 22.10 (Hobsons Bay Neighbourhood Character Policy) – development on the site will generally need to comply with the clause at the planning permit stage. (iii)
The Industrial Land Management Strategy 2008 The ILMS was adopted by Council in 2008 and is a significant strategic input to the planning for Hobsons Bay industrial land in general and this Amendment in particular. The ILMS had as its objectives (amongst others):  To provide clear direction in relation to the future use and development of industrial land in Hobsons Bay over the next 15 years and to set the foundation for continued development beyond that point.  ...  To decide whether any land currently zoned industrial is better suited to achieve urban consolidation and provide for additional housing or commercial growth.  ... In the key findings, Precinct 16, of which the subject site occupies approximately half, was identified as being considered suitable for review for alternative land uses. The ILMS (at page 17‐18) made numerous comments in relation to the precinct. Some of the more relevant ones include: The SMC2 is of state and national importance and will remain within the area for the foreseeable future. The precinct currently acts as a buffer between the SMC site and the residential areas to the south, however it is not a required buffer. Any 2
Panel note: Spotswood Maintenance Centre – the locomotive workshop to the north east. Page 9 of 59  Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme Amendment C82  Panel Report  17 September 2012 redevelopment of this precinct must recognise the importance of SMC and ensure protection of SMC ongoing operation. ... Any development must demonstrate how it will not impact on the current or future operations of the SMC. ... The potential of this site for future industrial uses is limited by very poor access, particularly for larger transport vehicles and residential interface issues. Stephenson Street and Sutton Street, which are partly residential streets, do not have the capacity to accommodate the nature of traffic associated with a modern industrial estate. ... Retail or commercial uses are not considered prospects due to out of centre policy, the existence of nearby retail and commercial land, and the poor exposure and accessibility to the site. Therefore a residential land use could be considered appropriate and one that would be readily accepted by the market subject to any contamination issues associated with the previous uses of the site being resolved. ... The redevelopment of this site will need to provide for an appropriate buffer and noise and vibration attenuation measures, given the proximity of the United Group Rail Maintenance Facility to the north‐east. ... The land should be considered for rezoning from industrial to residential subject to a satisfactory resolution of the above issues. The ILMS addresses strategies for the Precinct at 3.16 (page 57) and these continue the general theme of considering residential development for the site whilst allowing the SMC to continue operating and ensuring that interfaces between residential and industrial use are managed appropriately. The ILMS was given effect in the planning scheme by Amendment C33 to the Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme. The Panel for that Amendment (at page 35) in commenting on Precinct 16 noted that: Based on the material presented to it, the panel formed the view that the final decision concerning the zoning of this Precinct will be challenging. The abuttal of the site to residential properties along Blackshaws Road and the access from Blackshaws Road to Melbourne Road, through a residential area, does support the residential use of the land. Also, there are many instances throughout the metropolitan area where residential sites are adjacent to railway reserves and main roads and these interfaces can generally be dealt with through building design. Page 10 of 59  Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme Amendment C82  Panel Report  17 September 2012 The proximity of the precinct to the SMC, an industry of national importance, presents a constraint that must be addressed if residential development is to be considered for even part of the site..... The Panel was not convinced on the evidence provided to it that a residential development of the type presented to it would overcome the interface issues associated with the freight line and the operations of the SMC. The Amendment was gazetted on 23 December 2008. Ms Forsyth for Asciano submitted in the Hearing that in some areas in Strategy 3.16 that the final ILMS did not take up the level of cautiousness that the Amendment C33 Panel had recommended in relation to Precinct 16. However as was pointed out by other submitters, the ILMS and the scheme ‘are as they are’ and the Panel must consider it at face value. (iv)
Evidence on policy The Proponent (through Mr McGurn) and Asciano (through Mr Kelderman) called evidence on the policy basis for the Amendment. They both undertook an assessment of relevant policy and identified that there are a number of policy tensions in the planning scheme in both State and local policy. They ultimately came to different conclusions, Mr McGurn that:  The site offers significant potential for residential development and the land is also recognised as being redundant for industrial purposes;  The metropolitan context of the site means it should be utilised for residential development; and  The DDO can be utilised to manage interface amenity issues. and Mr Kelderman that:  The Amendment requires a careful balancing act of conflicting planning scheme objectives;  The SMC site, which is of national and state significance must be protected and the uses thereon should not be constrained;  The onus is on the Proponent as agent of change to ensure the above can be achieved; and  The net community benefit balance in favour of the residential development has not been achieved. (v)
Panel discussion The Panel has reviewed a significant amount of policy material in submissions, evidence and the Amendment documentation. From this material the Panel considers that the following relatively simple points are clear:  The SMC facility is recognised in policy to be of National and/or State significance and its existing and proposed operations must be protected; and  The Amendment site, subject to the above point and the resolution of a number of detailed environmental and planning issues, has strong policy support for residential development at higher densities as a ‘strategic redevelopment area’. The fundamental question then is whether as discussed in the ILMS, the constraints to development have been overcome. The Panel notes that the Panel for Amendment C33 at Page 11 of 59  Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme Amendment C82  Panel Report  17 September 2012 that time was not satisfied that the issues related to protecting SMC had been satisfactorily addressed. This Panel has no issue with that conclusion at that time, but is now satisfied that the primary interface issue, noise (discussed in Chapter 3), can be satisfactorily managed through development. There are other interface and on‐site issues that need to be considered and managed, but again the Panel considers that these can be addressed and has considered them in detail in chapters in this report. Thus the Panel concludes that the strategic balance of protecting SMC and allowing residential development of the Amendment site can now be achieved. The Panel does have some concerns regarding the statutory approach that has been taken in developing the DDO and this is discussed in the following section. 2.2 The statutory tools proposed The strategic background to the Amendment has been considered in the previous section. This section looks at the statutory controls proposed in the Amendment. (i)
Zones The Residential 1 Zone (R1Z) is proposed over the whole site through the Amendment. In the previous section the Panel’s position on residential compared to commercial or industrial use was considered and the Panel noted that it accepted that a residential use is an appropriate way forward. Given this position the Panel accepts that the R1Z is the appropriate zone to apply for the residential (as opposed to commercial or mixed use) outcome sought. The Panel notes that [post‐hearing] the Minister for Planning has released a proposal for a new suite of residential zones. This issue was not discussed in the Hearing and parties have not been asked to make submissions on the proposals. This is something Council will need to consider as appropriate in future. (ii)
Overlays The Amendment proposes to apply the Environmental Audit Overlay (EAO) over the site. This issue is addressed in detail in Chapter 6. Whilst there is some question as to whether the EAO now needs to be applied, on balance the Panel is supporting its application and is of the view that it should be retained until development of the site is complete. The Amendment proposes to apply the Design and Development Overlay Schedule 10 (DDO10) to guide future development on the site. The exhibited DDO10 is shown in Appendix B. The choice of the DDO attracted considerable submissions and evidence in the Hearing. The key issues were:  Which is the appropriate overlay to use to achieve the outcomes sought; the DDO, the Development Plan Overlay (DPO) or the Incorporated Plan Overlay (IPO); and  Whichever tool is used; what is the appropriate level of concept planning to include in the Amendment. The Ministerial Authorisation for the Amendment (Number A02020) questioned why the DDO and not another tool such as the DPO was being used. The Minister’s delegate said: Page 12 of 59  Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme Amendment C82  Panel Report  17 September 2012 I do have concerns about the proposed use of the Design and Development Overlay (DDO). The proposed DDO10 schedule includes many items that fall outside of the scope of a Design and Development Overlay, that would be better addressed with the use of the Development Plan Overlay or Incorporated Plan Overlay. This has been discussed with Council officers and my understanding is that Council wishes to proceed to exhibition with a DDO. At the time of the first Directions Hearing, the Proponent had indicated some concern with use of a DPO as opposed to a DDO, but at the time of the Hearing supported Council in seeking to apply a DDO. Council’s rationale for the choice of a DDO as opposed to the DPO or indeed IPO was put clearly by Council in the Hearing at numerous points. For example in their closing submission (at paragraph 15) Mr Appudurai put it thus: The Council’s primary concern is that third party notice and review rights be maintained; an outcome clearly possible under a DDO, as opposed to the blanket prohibition of all such rights in the event that a DPO were introduced. The Panel’s attention was drawn to the Advisory Committee report for the Former Port Phillip Woollen Mills site in Williamstown (WMAC), and particularly Chapter 13 where the Committee undertook a comprehensive analysis of the different development control tools, and particularly the DDO compared to the DPO. The WMAC was assisted by evidence from a number of expert town planners. The WMAC in that case concluded that the DDO was the preferred approach for two major reasons:  The development concept for the site was far from settled and thus it was inappropriate to exclude third party rights at this stage of the process; and  The DDO as a tool is used in contemporary planning to control far more than just height or built form; and it is therefore appropriate to use it in a case where broader issues around development (for example access, landscaping, open space, environmental controls) need to be resolved through a later master planning process. Mr Clarke (who was also called in the Woollen Mills case) gave evidence to the Panel for the Proponent around the issue of which tool is appropriate to use. He suggested it would be ‘inappropriate and unfair’ to require the Proponent to use the IPO at this stage as it would require re‐exhibition of the Amendment. His preference was that the DPO is generally used for giving statutory effect to a master plan, but as Council was also seeking to control built form for acoustic reasons, in this case the DDO may also be appropriate. He noted: In my view either a single DPO or a DDO schedule can be drafted and applied to achieve all of the outcomes sought. In that regard the choice of tool does not really matter...... Mr Clarke also provided extensive advice in his evidence on what the key elements of the DDO and Master Plan should be. Ms Forsyth for Asciano in submissions commented extensively on the issue of which planning tool should be used. In relation to the WMAC commentary she noted that they had not considered the IPO in their deliberations; the circumstances for this Amendment are very different (in the Woollen Mills case the major portion of the land was already zoned Page 13 of 59  Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme Amendment C82  Panel Report  17 September 2012 R1Z); and noted that even if the DDO has been used inappropriately in the past then this does not mean it needs to be so misused now. She outlined, in paragraph 62 onwards, the approach to these tools in the manual for the Victoria Planning Provisions, and drew the Panel’s attention to the Practice Note for Applying the Special Use Zone (SUZ) which suggests that the IPO or DPO should be used to encourage master planning. Asciano called planning evidence from Mr Rob Kelderman and he also provided commentary on suggested improvements to the DDO schedule in his evidence. (iii)
Panel discussion on DDO Having considered the exhibited material, the Panel considers that the Minister’s delegate was right to question the use of the DDO in this Amendment as opposed to the DPO or IPO. The Panel, submitters and to some extent the experts (see Chapter 3 on Noise) have been hamstrung to a large degree by the lack of a settled, but not necessarily final, development concept. To the Panel, this site, particularly as it is being rezoned, would have been ideally suited to a DPO exhibited with a well developed draft development plan. Concerns about third party involvement at later stages would have been largely irrelevant as the opportunity to comment on the draft development plan would have provided third parties the chance to consider a well developed concept and actually have a degree of understanding of what might occur on the site. As it is a number of concept plans have been floated to date, none of which might actually bare any resemblance to the final development. The Panel finds this a less than satisfactory position to be confronted with, particularly in a situation where the potential development form (and its acoustic performance) on the site is so critical to the outcomes sought in protecting the operation of SMC next door and the amenity of eventual site residents. The Panel is given some comfort in that the acoustic expert witnesses in the Hearing all agreed that development of the site should be technically possible to meet the standards they have set, but it is not at all clear that the solutions will be economically feasible, leading to pressure to reduce the standards. How the Amendment came forward in this form is not the Panel’s domain, but it remains for the Panel to recommend whether in the end that the approach is acceptable, if not desirable. The Panel is cognisant that to recommend abandonment or even re‐exhibition on the basis of the proposed planning control would be a drastic step for a site that it has accepted is strategically suitable for rezoning. The Panel has given the matter much consideration and has decided to recommend that the approach go forward as it should be able to, with the changes we have recommended, be able to provide reasonable outcomes for the site itself and the protection of SMC. In doing this, the Panel has recommended changes to the DDO in Chapter 3 that require the preparation of a preferred development concept that is to be tested and independently verified for acoustic performance prior to the preparation of the Master Plan. The Panel Page 14 of 59  Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme Amendment C82  Panel Report  17 September 2012 thinks this a reasonable approach in the circumstances where there is no settled development concept at this time. The Panel notes the points made by Ms Forsyth in relation to the use of the DPO, DDO and IPO and their appropriate use in the planning system. It seems to the Panel that there is a level of convergence, at least with the DPO and DDO and that this may require a systemic review of the tools. If they are becoming interchangeable, the Panel questions why there a need for two distinct tools. The Panel has proposed a DDO schedule which it considers appropriate based on submissions, evidence and the ‘without prejudice’ discussion held at the end of the Hearing. This is attached in Appendix C. 2.3 Height and density As discussed in Section 1.3, the Panel has been presented with a range of possible building heights and dwelling densities, none of which are identified as a preferred or even likely development concept at this time. This level of uncertainty about what might be achieved on the site and the intensity of possible development was of concern to a number of submitters. Ms Wright and Mr Budich submitted: Specifically, we have great concern about having one of these complexes (Panel note: possible 5‐6 storey apartment complexes) right on our boundary due to overshadowing and loss of amenity. Another submitter, Mr Ryan, submitted: I strongly oppose the suggested multi‐storey developments of 6 storeys, as it is not in‐keeping with the surrounding community. The individual submitters generally opposed the scale of development being suggested in the concept plans rather than development per se. The objection was often on grounds of the proposals being out of character with the single storey nature of development south of Blackshaws Road and west of Sutton Street. There was considerable discussion in the Hearing as to whether maximum heights or dwelling densities (or both) should be included in the Amendment, possibly through some level of prescription in the DDO. The exhibited DDO establishes height limits only on the interfaces with existing residential areas (three to four storeys), and leaves the main area (Area C) with no notation at all in relation to density or height. The Proponent called Mr Mark Sheppard to give urban design evidence and he provided an overview of the site’s constraints and opportunities, the planning context and some suggestions for the drafting of the DDO. Mr Sheppard was recalled later in the Hearing to provide commentary on sketch plans tabled by the Proponent (Document 17). He made a number of detailed comments in relation to solar orientation, orientation of views (avoid views to SMC) and other matters but generally thought the proposals had merit. He also noted in relation to height that he Page 15 of 59  Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme Amendment C82  Panel Report  17 September 2012 thought some elements were a little high at six storeys and he thought that a maximum of five would be more appropriate on the site. Concerns were expressed that the northerly aspect (which is usually preferred for its access to sunlight) faces SMC and would be compromised by noise attenuation measures, that is blank walls and/or limited windows and balconies to the north would have a major impact on residential amenity. Mr Appudurai for Council in his closing comments noted that Council had not been seeking specific height controls as it recognised that relevant clauses of the planning scheme (such as clause 54 and 55)3 should largely dictate the design outcomes. Council’s main concern, he submitted, is that there is no indication in Area C that the critical acoustic and vibration issues/criteria can be addressed. Ms Forsyth in submissions also identified the lack of any height detail in Precinct C as ‘problematic’ as it does not specify any of the acoustic measures, buffer or built form that will protect SMC, that is, there is no ‘proof of concept’. She submitted that in the absence of such detail a maximum height of three storeys or a 10m acoustic wall should be specified. (i)
Panel discussion As identified in Section 1.3, the Panel has viewed a number of development concepts that range in yield from perhaps 130 dwellings at up to three storeys to perhaps 420 dwellings at up to six storeys, none of which may be the eventual preferred development concept and none of which have been assessed in a ‘proof of concept’ sense to show that they meet the critical noise and vibration criteria or other important urban design outcomes sought. Whilst instinctively the Panel is uncomfortable with such open height and density possibilities, it has no particular evidence before it or a firm development concept on which to base limits. The Panel notes that for the Woollen Mills WMAC recommended mandatory height controls but these were not accepted by the Minister for Planning. In addition that was a project responding to particular neighbourhood character (historic Williamstown) and particular risk and hazard issues associated with fuel storage tanks. At this site, the Panel notes the submissions in relation to inconsistency with existing residential character, but is satisfied that the nature of this site (general separation from existing residential south of Blackshaws Road and by the rail facilities to the north) supports the argument that it should be able to develop its own distinct character, rather than reflect that already in the vicinity. The Panel notes and supports the limits shown on the plan in the proposed DDO for residential interfaces. The Panel is also concerned that the size of the development (that is the total number of dwellings on the site) may require to be limited due to the cumulative impact of traffic that would be generated due to the development of the other sites identified in the Hobsons Bay 3
Or the Higher density residential design guidelines called up in clause 19.03 for development over four storeys. Page 16 of 59  Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme Amendment C82  Panel Report  17 September 2012 ILMS along the Blackshaws Road corridor and on the Newport/Williamstown peninsula. The traffic analysis (see Section 5 of this report) was based on 400 dwellings on the site but the Panel concludes, that based on demonstration concepts already prepared by the Proponent, a maximum development limit of 420 units would be appropriate, leaving some road traffic capacity for other future developments. Whilst the Panel considers the lack of guidance for Area C is less than desirable, it considers that the framework provided by the recommended DDO is the best response possible in the circumstances. That is a preferred development concept with assessment against critical noise, vibration and traffic criteria must come forward prior to the Master Plan being approved. 2.4 Ministerial Directions and Practice Notes Council in the Explanatory Report identified the following Ministerial Directions as relevant and submitted that the Amendment is consistent with them:  Ministers Direction on the Form and Content of Planning Schemes;  Ministers Direction 1: Potentially Contaminated Land; and  Ministers Direction 9: Metropolitan Strategy. The Panel has reviewed the Amendment in the context of these directions and is satisfied that they are complied with. The Panel also notes the relevance of the Practice Note for applying the DPO, DDO and IPO and this issue has been canvassed in Section 2.2 (ii) above. 2.5 Overall conclusion and recommendations on planning context The Panel is satisfied that the strategic planning context for the site supports its development for residential use subject to the protection of SMC and resolution of other site issues. Based on the evidence heard, and particularly that relating to noise, vibration and environmental audit, the Panel considers that a net community benefit can be achieved in providing additional urban infill whilst ensuring that a nationally significant rail maintenance centre can continue to operate now and into the future. The Panel has been critical of some elements of the planning process and planning tools to reach this point, but on balance considers that the planning framework to be put in place, and particularly the revised DDO, should provide the necessary safeguards to achieve the net community benefit outlined above. The Panel recommends: Adopt Amendment C82 to the Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme as exhibited subject to the application of the revised Design and Development Overlay Schedule 10 shown in Appendix C and other recommendations in this report. Page 17 of 59  Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme Amendment C82  Panel Report  17 September 2012 3 Noise and vibration 3.1 The issue The basic noise and vibration issues are to:  Protect the existing permitted railway, Spotswood Locomotive Maintenance Centre (SMC) and nearby industrial uses from ‘reverse sensitivity’ due to encroaching residential development, and therefore from the potential for future claims, complaints or other actions which could lead to restrictions of legitimate rail, workshop or industrial activities; and  Provide for reasonable acoustic amenity for future residential development that might occur on the site. 3.2 Evidence and submissions Expert evidence on noise and vibration was put to the Panel by:  Dr Kym Burgemeister, Arup Pty Ltd, for Hobsons Bay City Council;  Peter Fearnside, Marshall Day Acoustics, for Asciano;  Jim Antonopoulos, SLR Consulting Australia Pty Ltd, for the Proponent; and  Robert Burton, Burton Group, for the Proponent. On 1 March 2012, the Panel directed that: Experts in the fields of acoustics and vibration meet prior to the hearing and table an agreed statement (including areas of disagreement) signed by all parties to the meeting at the commencement of the Hearing. The meeting should canvass at least the following issues:  In relation to rail noise and vibration, the applicable standard to be used for residential development;  Understanding of methodology and assumptions in the assessments undertaken to date;  Appropriateness of methodology for the task;  The results obtained; and  Interpretation of results. In addition to the issues listed above the Panel also directed that the following matters relating to noise and vibration be addressed by the experts as appropriate:  Treatments to address noise from future (forecast) as well as existing rail operations;  The same issues for activities at the Spotswood Maintenance Centre (SMC); and  A response from Newport Properties to the review for Council by ARUP, including an assessment of vibration from rail operations, the report by Marshall Day Acoustics consultant for Asciano Ltd; and the submission by the Department of Transport and the Australian Rail Track Corporation. Page 18 of 59  Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme Amendment C82  Panel Report  17 September 2012 The experts listed above plus the following experts below met on 23 March 2012 and provided signed Minutes to inform the Panel of their deliberations (attached in Appendix D). The additional attendees were:  Christophe Delaire, Marshall Day Acoustics, for Asciano (who signed the minutes); and  Paul Mayer and Russell Smith, Department of Transport (who were not signatories). The Minutes were a most useful source document and clearly explained areas of agreement and other areas that required more discussion. As far as the technical work was concerned, there was minimal disagreement between the experts. These are highlighted and discussed below. Note that much of the following text has been extracted directly from the Minutes of the experts meeting. Key areas of agreement have been identified by the use of quotations (in italics). The experts agreed that: The primary concern of the project stakeholders is: a) to protect existing railway and industrial uses from ‘reverse sensitivity’ due to encroaching residential development, and therefore from the potential for future claims, complaints or other actions which could lead to restrictions of rail or industrial activities; and b) to provide for reasonable acoustic amenity for future residential development that might occur on the site. It is understood that the SMC facility is of ‘national significance’, and operates 24 hrs/day. The Department of Transport tabled a note explaining the existing and proposed future freight train use of the corridor between Tottenham and Newport and updated maps showing a planned railway corridor widening on the north‐eastern edge of the site. The experts accepted that presently there are up to 110 scheduled and unscheduled movements per week, with approximately 50% of these at ‘night’ (defined as 8pm – 9am). The busiest day includes up to 23 movements, i.e. approximately 10–12 trains at night. Future changes would include up to 18 new movements by 2015 and ultimately up to 60 shuttle trains per week using the corridor by 2040–2050 servicing a proposed Western Interstate Freight Terminal at Truganina. (i)
Airborne noise With respect to airborne noise the Experts agreed that: An indoor noise limit was appropriate for assessing the development of residential uses adjacent to existing industrial, rail and road uses. In the absence of any Victorian legislative requirements or guidelines, the following airborne railway noise limits were agreed as reasonable with all windows and ventilation openings closed:  55 dBLAmax in bedrooms,  60 dBLAmax in living areas Page 19 of 59  Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme Amendment C82  Panel Report  17 September 2012 These limits are based on previous VCAT decisions (Kilker v Stonnington CC, VCAT ref. P2470/2003) regarding the development of residential properties adjacent to predominantly passenger train operations. These noise levels would be measured internally near the centre of habitable rooms, with the windows closed. The measurements would be undertaken using a ‘fast’ meter time weighting, and must be achieved for 95% of train pass‐bys (i.e. 5%, 1 in 20 trains may exceed). It was accepted that if openable windows were provided, the noise internal level may be higher than this when the windows are open. It is suggested that alternative mechanical ventilation may be required to maintain thermal comfort while ensuring adequate sound insulation. It was noted that the Association of Australian Acoustical Consultants (AAAC) Guideline for Rail Noise and Vibration recommends 50 dBLAmax internally. This was seen as aspirational, but unlikely to be supportable given the existing VCAT decision. The Experts agreed that any noise from operations at the SMC, including railway shunting movements, would be considered as industrial noise, and needs to comply with SEPP N‐1 noise limits. No specific sleep‐disturbance criteria are proposed, since the experts agree that the limits given above will provide adequate protection from sleep disturbance impacts. (ii)
Ground‐borne noise With respect to ground‐borne noise it was agreed that in the absence of any Victorian legislative requirements or guidelines, the following internal ground‐borne noise limits would be reasonable: Daytime 40 dBLAmax, slow Night‐time 35 dBLAmax, slow It was noted that the night‐time limit (35 dB(A)) will be the critical limit, and drive the assessment. It was agreed that this is a reasonably conservative limit, but comparable to guidance used in NSW draft Rail Infrastructure Noise Guidelines (RING) and the AAAC railway noise guidance. In terms of compliance measurements, it was agreed that ground‐borne noise level would only be measured where it was dominant (i.e. that there was no contribution from airborne railway noise). (iii)
Vibration It was agreed that vibration from railway operations should: Comply with the requirements of Table 2, Annex A of AS2670.2‐1990. That is, vibration from operation of the railway should comply with the combined direction Curve 20, adjusted by the number of events ‘trade‐off’ given by Note 5 to the table based on the number of railway movements, but in any case, not lower than Curve 4. Page 20 of 59  Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme Amendment C82  Panel Report  17 September 2012 Again this was accepted as being a 95% compliance level (i.e. 5%, or 1 in 20 trains could exceed). Vibration would be measured in at least one‐third octave bands between 4–80 Hz using an accelerometer fixed to the floor near the centre of any habitable room of the residential development. It was agreed that a dose‐based measure (such as the Vibration Dose Value (VDV) provided in BS6472, and advocated in the NSW guidance) would be better able to account for the intermittent nature of railway vibration. However, as VDV is more difficult to measure in practice, and as AS2670.2 provisions would be more practical, the AS2670.2 guidance should therefore be used. Both Dr Burgemeister (for the Council) and Mr Antonopoulos (for the Proponent) adopted these criteria for their vibration assessment. Dr Burgemeister said (as a result of his testing against the agreed criteria): The only significant source of vibration on the site is from the freight rail movements which are an intermittent source, and The vibration levels associated with freight passbys were typically up to 0.5 to 5.0mm/s PPV. Vibration levels of this order will meet the vibration limits for intermittent activity during the day period (8.4 mm/s PPV) but will exceed the vibration limits for intermittent activity during the night period(2.8mm/s PPV) by 2.2 mm/s PPV for the highest recorded vibration levels. He concludes by saying: Vibration isolation is not commonly provided for residential buildings, since it results in significantly higher construction costs. It is therefore recommended that buildings be set back from the railway by at least 20m from the closest section of railway track. The developer should be required to show that the vibration criteria will be achieved at the residential sites within the development. Mr Antonopoulos’ assessment of vibration provided similar results to those of Dr Burgemeister. However, his conclusions are as follows: My investigations suggest the site can be developed and achieve appropriate internal train noise and vibration levels. The development would need to incorporate:  Appropriate buffer distances or provision of vibration isolating elements incorporated in the building structure for dwellings in close proximity to the northern boundary and  Appropriate building design and construction. (iv)
Industrial noise impacts It was agreed that industrial noise impacts on the site would: Be required to be measured and assessed in accordance with State Environment Protection Policy (Control of Noise from Commerce, Industry and Trade) No N‐1 (SEPP N‐1). Page 21 of 59  Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme Amendment C82  Panel Report  17 September 2012 The experts agreed that background noise level measurements used for determining the noise level should be undertaken using a representative location in accordance with the requirements of Schedule C1.2. Calculation of the zoning level should be undertaken based on the Caltex site being a R1Z zoning. It is noted that the railway zones for this project are considered to be Type 3 under SEPP N‐
1, in accordance with the specific requirements of SEPP N‐1 B2, 3(d) for railways enclosed by Hudsons Road, Hall Street, Melbourne Road, Blackshaws Road, and Stephenson Street in Spotswood. Where the nature of the development is such that it is not practical or reasonable to undertake an outdoor measurement of the resultant industrial noise level, then the measurement point for a noise sensitive area should be indoors in accordance with SEPP N‐1 Schedule A1, 4. The indoor adjustment (Schedule A2, 4, (d)) should not be greater than 15 dB. It was agreed that for the northern aspect of the site, the sound insulation for any residential building on the site which was required to achieve the industrial noise limits for SMC was likely to provide sufficient sound insulation to ensure that railway noise limits would also be met internally. (v)
Methodology and assumptions in assessments undertaken The experts discussed the methodology and assumptions in assessments undertaken to date. The primary acoustic study to date was undertaken for the Proponent by Vipac in March 2010. Arup has recently undertaken an additional acoustic assessment for the HBCC (see further on this under the Discussion heading below). The signed Minutes included the following statements which are discussed further later in this section. In assessing the proposed rezoning of the site, it was considered that the Proponent should provide a reasonably detailed development model (for example, potential building footprints, indicative setbacks, 3‐dimensional building outlines) to the Panel. The development plan should be accompanied by an Acoustic Scheme Design report which would demonstrate in greater detail the potential acceptability and constructability of buildings compatible with residential use (i.e. with the noise limits proposed in this document). SMC should be required to provide details and necessary input to the proponent, and make allowances for proponent to inspect and measure source levels, as necessary for the development of their site layout and building design. The experts agreed that it would be reasonable to undertake noise modelling for the scheme design assessment using the ISO 9613‐2 outdoor noise propagation model. Regarding the need for Ongoing Assessment, the experts agreed: The DDO should require ongoing acoustic and vibration assessment of any development on the site. These assessments would be required during the design, Page 22 of 59  Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme Amendment C82  Panel Report  17 September 2012 development, construction and commissioning any residential buildings on the development site. This should include the requirement for a peer review of development application documentation for compatibility with the acoustic design targets. The potential use of a ‘development bond’ or other mechanisms that could be used to offset risk of development not complying with the acoustic goals was discussed, but no agreement on an appropriate mechanism was made. It was suggested that planners would be more experienced with appropriate planning mechanisms that could be used in practice to drive compliance with the acoustic design goals. It was agreed that compliance measurements should be explicitly required in any development conditions, and that these measurements should be subject to independent measurement and/or peer review. (vi)
Constraints on future use On the matter of constraints on future use, the Experts considered the potential for future increases in noise emission from the SMC and other industrial sites and how that might affect compliance with acoustic design goals. While it may be possible to design any residential development on the site to achieve any noise design goals, this would necessarily constrain the extent of noise generating activities on adjacent industrial sites such that there could be minimal increase on existing noise emission levels. It was suggested that any changes to operations at the SMC are likely to be during the day or evening, and therefore no change to night‐time compliance would be expected. Also, the ‘worst case’ noise levels from the SMC site are likely to be the outdoor ‘Notch‐8’ locomotive tests (operation under high throttle). These are currently only undertaken during the day or evening for short periods – not at night. Nevertheless, the Proponent (and Council) understandably requires some certainty about future noise emission levels to be able to reasonably progress their building design, while nearby industrial sites would require minimal constraints on future development of their operations. It was not agreed how this issue could be effectively managed, but it could include the requirement for long‐term noise monitoring to characterise the existing industrial noise levels on the site, and enforcing a limit on the existing industrial sites to ensure that they do not increase noise emissions beyond present levels. In conclusion, the experts said:  We believe that the facts stated in these minutes are true and the opinions expressed are correct.  We confirm that we understand our duty to the Panel and have complied with that duty. On the matter relating to the expert caucus’ agreement that: In assessing the proposed rezoning of the site, it was considered that the Proponent should provide a reasonably detailed development model (for example, Page 23 of 59  Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme Amendment C82  Panel Report  17 September 2012 potential building footprints, indicative setbacks, 3‐dimensional building outlines) to the Panel. The Proponent was of the view that this was premature, given that the Master Plan would follow the rezoning and should not be pre‐empted at this early stage. The non‐Proponent members of the expert caucus stood by the contents of the signed agreed minutes. Their reason was that, in their view, it should be demonstrated that the proposed rezoning could proceed with confidence only if it could be clearly demonstrated that the issue of coping with noise likely to emanate from the SMC could be managed without detriment to Asciano, on the assumption that Asciano would comply with its existing permit conditions. As a result of these deliberations, the expert witnesses provided input to Clause 5.0 Noise and Vibration Attenuation in the draft DDO10 (see Appendix C). Each of the experts agreed that this clause adequately addresses the issues of noise and vibration and should be adopted. On the matter of methods and assumptions used in earlier reports, the Panel agrees with Mr Fearnside and Dr Burgemeister that recent data and assessment methods are more reliable than the preliminary assessment carried out by Vipac for the Proponent in 2010. The Panel also notes the agreement of the experts to utilise the more up‐to‐date data collected by Dr Burgemeister and Mr Antonopoulos and the models used by Mr Antonopoulos for the Proponent. The Vipac work has not therefore been considered in any detail by the Panel. Mr Antonopoulos produced a number of Noise Contour Calculation Plots showing likely noise contours 2m above ground to demonstrate the potential impact of noise generated by the highest noise levels currently generated by the SMC site. These included a ‘full throttle’ day‐time test on a diesel locomotive in the open just south‐east of the main maintenance building and diesel locomotive shunting at night. Clearly, these plots demonstrated a high degree of non‐compliance without any barrier and a reasonable level of compliance with a three storey construction (equivalent to a 10m barrier) along the edge of the development site. 3.3 Discussion The Panel relies upon the minutes of the expert meeting and the expert statements prepared Dr Burgemeister for the Council, Mr Antonopoulos and Mr Burton for the Proponent and Mr Fearnside for Asciano. These expert statements present information contained in their earlier reports and include additional assessments and conclusions. Because there is general agreement between the experts regarding the data collected, the analysis of this data, the application of the models used by the experts, the interpretation of these results and the general conclusions reached, the Panel finds that it is unnecessary to discuss these topics in any detail. These reports are ‘on‐the‐record’ to assist in any on‐going assessments that may be required. There are, however, a number of matters that require discussion. (i)
Preferred concept On the matter of the need for the Proponent to provide a ‘concept’ of the proposed development to be tested, the Panel supports the view of the experts as expressed in the minutes of their meeting (as discussed above) and is of the view that, desirably, a ‘preferred Page 24 of 59  Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme Amendment C82  Panel Report  17 September 2012 concept’ of the proposed development should have been tested. However, the Panel is aware that a point has been reached in the planning process where this is not possible without considerable redrafting and re‐exhibition of the Amendment. In order to address the above difficulty, the Panel is of the view that prior to finalising the required Master Plan, the Proponent should prepare a ‘preferred development concept’ showing building envelopes (including heights for all proposed built form) for the development and make this available for testing against the noise criteria. Following the testing by a qualified noise and vibration engineer, it should be made available to an independent expert appointed by the Planning Authority (likely to be the Council) for verification. The Master Plan can then be finalised in the knowledge that the noise criteria can be met and an appropriate Permit Application lodged. The Panel is of the view that when a permit application is made it should be generally in accordance with the preferred concept tested and verified by noise experts prior to finalisation of the Master Plan. Any major departures from the ‘preferred development concept’ at the permit application stage would require a further noise review and an independent assessment for the Council. The Panel agrees with the draft DDO10 that following construction and prior to occupation, the acoustic and vibration performance needs to be confirmed by suitably certified practitioners. Regarding the noise contour plots prepared by Mr Antonopoulos, the Panel requested additional plots showing noise contours for a range of options including noise levels at 4.5m above the ground (i.e. about midpoint or window/balcony level for a two storey apartment) with a 10m built form along the property boundary (10m being an approximate height to the top ceiling of a three level apartment block). These showed a likely minor degree of non‐
conformity during day time and a good degree of conformity at night. The additional plots also demonstrated that lesser barrier heights (i.e. 5 or 7m) would not protect residences, and that it is likely that the noise levels at higher levels i.e. 10m above ground with a 10m barrier would be unlikely to conform. However, each of the experts was of the view that with a 10m barrier and with suitable acoustic treatments to windows facing the railway and the SMC, the noise criteria can be met. (ii)
Building heights and potential noise impacts On the matter of building heights and potential noise impacts, the Panel was presented with a number of ‘sketch plan’ concepts by the Proponent to demonstrate how building layout and design could assist in minimising noise impacts. The techniques included using buildings with a continuous blank rear wall facing to the north, i.e. to the railway and the SMC, and also façade treatments including a ‘saw‐tooth’ plan concept to angle windows and balconies away from the noise source. The ‘continuous wall’ treatment has been used in other locations, e.g. at Glen Waverley backing onto the Monash Freeway east of Blackburn Road where the built form on the residential side of the wall is 3 to 4 storeys high. Treatments such as these may be a feasible way to reduce noise levels but there are concerns that sunlight penetration into the site may be compromised (as per comments in the Planning evidence). The Panel notes that noise testing should not be limited to the facades of buildings that front the railway and SMC to the north or to those directly facing Blackshaws Road, but to any Page 25 of 59  Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme Amendment C82  Panel Report  17 September 2012 building or portion of a building that may be exposed to noise by virtue of gaps between buildings that run along the northern and southern boundaries of the site. Dr Burgemeister is of the view that: It is anticipated that indicative development concepts may include buildings of up to 6 stories high. In this situation, noise barriers alone are unlikely to achieve the criteria as residences on higher levels will not benefit from the acoustic shielding. Indeed, a number of concept plans were tabled during the last few days of the hearing with heights up to 5.5 levels (assuming the base level was excavated to (say) 2m to provide a basement car park with 4 levels of apartments above). The yield on these plans varied from about 145 to 422 dwellings. The disposition of buildings of varying heights varied considerably with some having the higher rises near the railway. The Proponent was not forthcoming on the favoured or most likely outcome. Mr Sheppard (on behalf of the Proponent) when cross‐examined ‘recommended a five storey limit for mid‐site and 3 storeys on the edges’. Mr McGurn, also for the Proponent, when cross‐examined said there was no provision for significant towers on the site, and also said ‘there could be a location on the site for up to 6‐7 storeys’. Mr Kelderman, Planning expert for Asciano, recommended a 3 storey limit in Precinct C on Plan 1 of DDO10 to ensure residents were protected from noise from the SMC. He also advocated that a concept plan with building envelopes should be tested by the noise experts prior to finalising the wording of the DDO10. Mr Appudurai, for the Council, said in his closing submission that Council does not want prescriptive heights and that the development of the Master Plan will be informed by clauses 55 and 56 of the Planning Scheme and by the acoustic assessment. The Panel notes the diversity of views on this matter but is concerned that heights remain at a level that can adequately and economically ameliorate potential noise emanating from the SMC. It is also concerned that any development higher than the noise shield (wall or rear of buildings) may result in concerted complaints from residents to the detriment to the SMC even if SMC are working within their EPA agreed limits.4 Although the Panel is sympathetic to the notion of imposing a height limit as a result of the consideration of noise, the Panel is in agreement with the Council and the Proponent that the Planning Scheme includes measures to ensure building heights are reasonable. However, the Panel is concerned that in order to obtain a desirable design outcome that balances the need to comply with noise controls and to provide good residential amenity i.e. access to sunlight for as many units as possible (through windows and on patios etc), minimal overlooking, good street‐scapes, etc. a limit on the number of residential units is required. Although the provision of planning controls via clauses 55 and 56 will achieve this to some degree, the Panel is of the view that a limit would achieve a superior result. In Section 5 Traffic of this report, the Panel recommends a limit of 420 residential units on the site and is of the view that this limit would be appropriate in this situation. 4
Note height was also discussed in Section 2.3. Page 26 of 59  Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme Amendment C82  Panel Report  17 September 2012 That said, the Panel is very strongly of the view that concept testing against the agreed noise and vibration criteria be carried out as follows: 
Before the Master Plan is finalised; 
Any departure from the Master Plan must be re‐tested against the noise criteria; and 
Prior to occupation, the built form must be tested to ensure the noise criteria are met. Section 3.0 of the DDO10 (amended as per the following recommendations) and Section 5.0 include these requirements. Dr Burgemeister is also concerned that: Noise from traffic on Blackshaws Road is also predicted to exceed the internal noise limits. Depending upon the development proposals, building facades facing Blackshaws Road are likely to require upgrading. There was no detailed discussion on this matter but the Panel is of the view that this needs to be included as an aspect to be taken into consideration in DDO10. This can be catered for by including the words ‘industrial and traffic’ before the word ‘noise’ in the 3rd Design Objectives in part 2.0 of the proposed DDO10. The Panel is satisfied that traffic noise is properly addressed in part 5.0 of DDO10. On the matter of vibration, the Panel notes that the experts agreed on the assessment criteria and that both Dr Burgemeister and Mr. Antonopoulos indicated the possibility of solutions by either offsetting residential buildings from the railway and/or by the provision of vibration isolating elements incorporated within the building structure. The Panel is of the view that as the criteria are agreed as satisfactory, there is no need to be prescriptive on offsets or construction techniques – the fact that the vibration assessment criteria must be met is sufficient to ensure an appropriate outcome. 3.4 Conclusion and recommendations The Panel is generally satisfied that the proposed DDO10, subject to the following amendments, provides a reasonable process to properly consider the need to meet the required noise and vibration performance standards. The Panel recommends: Adopt the following amendments to the proposed DDO10 in relation to noise and vibration:  Part 2.0 Design Objectives:  third dot point: add the words ‘industrial and traffic’ before the word ‘noise’;  Part 3.0 Master Plan:  fourth major point (dealing with acoustics and vibration), commence with the words ‘Prior to adopting the Master Plan, the Proponent is to provide a ’preferred concept plan’ showing proposed building envelopes including heights and indicating acoustic and vibration treatments to all buildings and facades facing the SMC and Blackshaws Road and to carry out an assessment…..’ and conclude with the sentence ‘This assessment Page 27 of 59  Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme Amendment C82  Panel Report  17 September 2012 
is to be verified by a peer review by a specialist for the Planning Authority’. Add a dot point ‘Any permit application must be generally in accordance with the ‘preferred concept plan’. If not, the noise and vibration assessment in the above point must be repeated prior to the consideration of the permit application’. Page 28 of 59  Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme Amendment C82  Panel Report  17 September 2012 4 Air emissions 4.1 The issue Three basic issues were identified:  Odours which may be emitted from the ground of the previously contaminated site;  Dust and odours which may be emitted from adjacent or nearby industrial sites; and  Potential dust and odours from on‐site activities. 4.2 Evidence and submissions Expert evidence on air emissions and odours was put to the Panel by Dr Terry Bellair who appeared for the Proponent. His expert witness statement was dated 1 June 2012. Dr Bellair specifically addressed each of the above basic issues. (i)
Odours from the ground Regarding odours which may be emitted from the ground, Dr Bellair referred to the expert evidence of Mr Daryl Strudwick who presented details of the site history, its remediation, and the findings and recommendations of audits of the site. The major prior use of the site was as a fuel storage and terminal station from about 1928 to 1996, latterly by Caltex, the principle products being leaded and unleaded petrol, heating oil, diesel oil and kerosene. Dr Bellair summarised the contaminants found in the soil and groundwater, the site remediation, environmental audits and the outcomes of the audit process. The outcomes consisted of Statements of Environmental Audit (SoEA) for each part of the site, the Construction and Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) and the post‐development Site Environmental Management Plan (SEMP). Further details of these outcomes are discussed in Chapter 6. Dr Bellair agreed with the findings of Connolly Environmental (August 2011) Ltd and URS (October 2011) (reports prepared for Caltex Australia Pty) and stated that: Based on the odour checking and given the time period (six months to three years) between initial sampling and backfilling, fuel odours were unlikely to have remained in soil and therefore would not pose an unacceptable risk. Furthermore, my experience is that aerated soils act as a biofilter and are effective in removing a wide range of odorous compounds. (ii)
Dust and odour from nearby industrial sites Dr Bellair also discussed potential dust and odour emissions from nearby industrial sites. The Spotswood Locomotive Maintenance Centre (SMC) is operated by UGL Rail Limited for Pacific National Rail (PNR), a division of Asciano Limited. It is the primary diesel locomotive maintenance facility for the Australia‐wide Pacific Rail network (Perth to Brisbane via Adelaide, Melbourne and Sydney). The main source of emissions is the load test cell where diesel engines are operated at varying loads within an enclosed building. Emissions from the test cell were barely visible and odours barely apparent on the day of inspection by the Panel and other parties Including Dr Bellair. Other potentially significant emission sources Page 29 of 59  Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme Amendment C82  Panel Report  17 September 2012 comprise smoke and fumes from locomotives with a major mechanical fault (Asciano indicated this is unlikely to occur more than once a year), cold starts or rapid changes in locomotive throttle settings (unlikely to last more than 15 seconds), and diesel odours from idling locomotives (observed to be a faint odour under light wind conditions). Dr Bellair was satisfied that there are adequate planning controls to ensure emissions will be managed to protect a range of beneficial uses of the air environment. The City of Hobsons Bay issued Planning Permit No 6176 for the development and use of the Spotswood Maintenance Centre in February 1996. This included a condition that the facility must comply with EPA policies and guidelines including the SEPP (The Air Environment) to ensure ‘aesthetic enjoyment and local amenity’. Able Industries operate from a site in Sutton Street opposite the subject land. Able Industries are metal fabrication business and operate generally during normal business hours. They have operated at the site for 20 years. In their submission they made it clear that they have minimal complaints from abutting neighbours (including residential and a childcare centre) and are very proactive in addressing these as they appear. Dr Bellair did not suggest that this business would create a dust/odour problem for the proposed development. SMF Engineering operates a welding, reconditioning and rust removal (using abrasive blasting) business for a range of heavy plant, cars and other items. Dr Bellair concluded, ‘I do not consider that air emissions from the SMF operation are likely to have any significant adverse impact on future residents of the Site, nor require any special treatment of facades of the proposed buildings on Blackshaws Road’. (iii)
Air quality issues Dr Bellair discussed potential air quality issues. Firstly he pointed out that wind condition records (as measured at the EPA’s Paisley monitoring station (about 1.8km from the site) show that wind calms (winds <0.5km/hour, and which are the conditions most conducive to odours ‘hanging about’) occur less than 1% of the time. The predominant wind direction is from the NW/N/NE sector, i.e. about 30% of the time but less than 1/3 i.e. 9% is light to calm. Wind from this sector will pass from the Asciano site to cross the subject land. He did not see wind direction as a major issue. Given the above, Dr Bellair concluded that: Particulate emissions from nearby industries are unlikely to have any significant impact on the amenity of future residents on the site for the following reasons:  Normal operations at the SMC are unlikely to have significant impact on local amenity, recognising Asciano’s advice that significant smoke emissions from faulty locomotives occur infrequently and are restricted to no more than about one minute;  In any event, PNR, as the operator of the SMC, is specifically required by its Planning Permit to comply with EPA’s policies, which requires inter alia that generators of emissions manage their operations so as to protect “aesthetic enjoyment and local amenity” beyond its boundary; Page 30 of 59  Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme Amendment C82  Panel Report  17 September 2012  Able Industries’ operations must reflect the fact that its southern and western boundaries abut residential properties; and  The design objectives of DDO10 recognise the need to create a residential area which is responsive to its context, protects future residents from impacts associated with nearby industrial operations and does not unreasonably affect the amenity of adjoining residential properties. My experience with broadly comparable interface issues indicates that these design objectives are appropriate and achievable in this context. In response to a submission by Ms Wright (an abutting resident on Blackshaws Road) who complained that diesel fumes from SMC appeared about four times a year, Dr Bellair said this could be an issue for new residents on the site but this would be unlikely. With respect to odours from off‐site sources, Dr Bellair concluded that: The only potentially significant source of off‐site odours in the vicinity of the site is the SMC (involving diesel fumes from locomotives). However, I do not consider that such emissions are likely to have a significant adverse impact on the amenity of future residents of the site, based on my observations during the inspection of the SMC operation and recognising that it is required by its Planning Permit to comply with EPA policies. (iv)
Dust and odour from on‐site sources Regarding dust and odours from on‐site sources, Dr Bellair concluded that: Implementation of the CEMP and SEMP should avoid any significant amenity issues associated with dust or odours generated by on‐site activities. He also concluded that: Implementation of the CEMP and SEMP should avoid any off‐site amenity issues for nearby sensitive uses. As a result of the above, Dr Bellair supported that insertion of the following design objectives into DDO10:  To create a residential area that is responsive to its context and provides a transition in character at its interfaces with existing adjoining residential areas;  To ensure residential development provides an acceptable level of residential amenity for future occupiers of the site, including protecting future residents from the adverse impacts of noise, odour, dust, vibration and visual impact of the railway line and industrial development north‐east of the railway line;  To ensure development does not unreasonably affect the amenity of adjoining residential properties; and  To ensure residential development minimises its impact on the operation of the Spotswood Locomotive Maintenance Centre to the north‐east. (Note that the above objectives have been revised since Dr Bellair reproduced the above in his report. The revisions are discussed later in this report and reinforce the outcomes of this section on Air Quality). Page 31 of 59  Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme Amendment C82  Panel Report  17 September 2012 4.3 Discussion The Panel generally agrees with Dr Bellair’s findings. The Panel agrees that Planning Permit No 6176 for the development and use of the Spotswood Maintenance Centre (SMC) in February 1996 will ensure dust and odours from the SMC will have minimal impact on the site. This permit includes a condition that the facility must comply with EPA policies and guidelines including the SEPP (The Air Environment). In particular, the Panel agrees that the proposed DDO10 will ensure that the development of the site is designed to minimise potential impacts from PNR and that the proposed Master Plan will ensure that resulting permit gives due regard to meeting EPA standards and the site specific CEMP’s and SEMP’s. The Panel generally agrees with Dr Bellair’s support for the design objectives for DDO10 as proposed above, subject to a number of detailed changes as discussed later in this report. One matter relevant to air quality is that in DDO10, a specific reference to air emissions has been added to the seventh point of part 2.0 Master Plan as follows: ‘Design principles and built form measures for reasonable residential amenity and protection from sources of air emissions, noise and vibration from the railway line and nearby industry including the Spotswood Maintenance Centre’. This implies that actions such as sealed windows facing the SMC and mechanical ventilation will be required. The Panel endorses the principle of ‘reverse amenity’ which, in this case, means that as long as PNR comply with their planning permit, the redevelopment of the former Caltex site must take the measures necessary to protect future residents from any occasional short term ‘upset’ condition from the SMC. 4.4 Conclusion and recommendations The Panel is of the view that the planning permit already in place for the SMC and the proposed DDO10 (as attached) for the Proponent site both take reasonable account of the EPA requirement to ensure ‘aesthetic enjoyment and local amenity’ of the proposed development. As a result, no additional recommendations relating to air quality are made. Page 32 of 59  Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme Amendment C82  Panel Report  17 September 2012 5 Traffic 5.1 The issue The key traffic issue is whether or not the existing road network can cater for the traffic generated by the proposed development in a situation where other proposed or possible developments are likely to be initiated on other sites along Blackshaws Road (which passes the site) and on the Newport/Williamstown peninsula, all of which will focus traffic on the already congested (in peak hours) Melbourne Road. Other issues include:  The management of access to/egress from the site;  Pedestrian safety especially crossing Blackshaws Road;  The need for pedestrian and bicycle links through and adjacent to the site; and  The ongoing management of the planning process to ensure traffic related matters are given due consideration. 5.2 Evidence and submissions Traffic evidence was put to the Panel by:  VicRoads: submission 1 dated 16 December 2011 and a further statement by Mr Frank Deserio, Senior Structure Planning Engineer, Metropolitan North West Region, 19 June 2012, tabled document 9;  Council: expert witness statement by Ms Charmaine Dunstan of the Traffix Group dated 25 March 2012; and  Newport Properties Vic Pty Ltd (the Proponent): expert witness statement by Mr Tim De Young dated 1 June 2012. It should be noted that both the experts for the Council and the Proponent submitted earlier reports which have been updated following the earlier Directions Hearings. The expert witness reports referenced above cover the subject matter raised in the earlier reports and take account of Directions made. The earlier reports are not referenced in the following discussion. On 1 March 2012, the Panel directed that: Experts in the field of traffic engineering meet prior to the hearing and table an agreement statement (including areas of disagreement) signed by all parties at the meeting at the commencement of the Hearing. A representative of VicRoads should be invited to attend this meeting. The meeting should canvass at least the following issues:  Understanding of methodology and assumptions in the assessments undertaken to date;  Appropriateness of methodology for the task;  The results obtained; and  Interpretation of the results. The Panel also directed that a number of matters relating to traffic should be addressed by parties as relevant: Page 33 of 59  Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme Amendment C82  Panel Report  17 September 2012  The combined impact on traffic in the area from this and other developments (for example the Newport Flour Mill Site);  Details of traffic ingress and egress points on Blackshaws Road and the likelihood of ‘rat‐running’ through streets to the south;  The provision of updated traffic volumes and accident statistics data including the potential for increased generation rates from denser developments; and  Address all matters raised in the VicRoads submission not covered by the above points. The experts (Mr De Young, Ms Dunstan and Mr Glen Franklin of VicRoads) met on 5 April 2012. However, no formal and signed agreement was reached but a draft agreement was included with both the expert witness statements. However, the VicRoads submission highlights two particular areas that should be further addressed. These are:  The agreed outcome was to include the additional traffic that would be generated from nearby development sites (41‐49 Stephenson Street, South Kingsville; Precinct 15‐ Blackshaws Road, South Kingsville, and Precinct 21 –
Newport Flour Mill) into the calculations to determine traffic growth along Blackshaws Road for 10 plus scenarios; and  The issue of ongoing discussion between the Proponent, Council and VicRoads for the proposal to have two access points on Blackshaws Road ‐ 1 primary and 1 secondary. The VicRoads submission by Mr Deserio highlighted the relevant Planning and legislative framework and strategic context for the site. The submission referenced Clause 18 of the SPPF and the requirements of the Transport Integration Act 2010. VicRoads’ Smart Roads and Network Fit Assessment (NFA) was discussed and set out the following requirements for options to be addressed as part of the NFA:  Blackshaws Road/Sutton Street: all direction movements;  Blackshaws Road Primary Access west of Elizabeth Street ‐ all movements and Secondary access east of Elizabeth Street – left in and left out only;  Blackshaws Road, single access point east of Elizabeth Street – all movements. As a result it is necessary for the reference to the Master Plan requirement for a traffic report to specifically require a ‘Network Fit Assessment Report’ to the satisfaction of VicRoads which addresses the traffic impact of the proposed development and any necessary amelioration. VicRoads also requested the following addition as changes to the exhibited Schedule 10 to the Design and Development Overlay:  Plan 1 to note that the number and nature of access points to Blackshaws Road is yet to be determined;  Master Plan design Objectives to include two additional points: - To minimise the number of access points to Blackshaws Road; Page 34 of 59  Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme Amendment C82  Panel Report  17 September 2012 - To ensure that the development does not compromise the safe and efficient operation of Blackshaws Road and the surrounding local road network;  Include ‘Driveway access to lots fronting Blackshaws Road must be provided from local road or rear lanes only’. VicRoads concluded that it is generally supportive of the Amendment as exhibited and is supportive of the indicative plan and the location of the indicative access arrangements. VicRoads also supports the following recommendations of the Traffix Group report (for Council):  Blackshaws Road and Sutton Street intersection (unsignalised) is appropriate subject to a suitably designed intersection and the construction of Sutton Street;  Provision of a pedestrian path along the north side of Blackshaws Road;  Resident and visitor parking to be provided on the site in accordance with Clause 52 requirements of the Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme and to be applied to developments of 4 or more storeys;  The applicant to investigate potential impacts on the intersection of Melbourne Road/Blackshaws Road, including the Schutt Street/Ross Street deviation and identify and implement appropriate mitigation works;  Provision of a shared bicycle path as proposed along the north to east boundary of the site;  Investigation of an on‐road bicycle facility along Blackshaws Road between Millers Road and Melbourne Road;  Subject to satisfying the warrants, install a signalised pedestrian crossing on Blackshaws Road adjacent to the site. These matters should be investigated as part of the required ‘Network Fit Assessment’ and the outcomes should be included in the Section 173 agreement as appropriate. The expert witnesses Ms Dunstan (Traffix Group) on behalf of the Council and Mr De Young (GTA) on behalf of the Proponent generally agreed on most points relating to traffic and transport issues. It appears that the main (and relatively minor) difference related to Mr De Young’s apparent over‐estimate of the existing traffic generated by Hobsons Bay Precinct 15 (an industrial area earmarked for future rehabilitation and rezoning to Residential use to the west of the subject site along Blackshaws Road). Mr De Young made adjustments to his predictions which resulted in a minor reduction in existing traffic and the possibility of a small increase in additional traffic on Blackshaws Road passing the subject site with a slight increase in congestion at the intersection of Blackshaws Road and Sutton Street. The changed predictions were of no consequence to the conclusion that this intersection would operate at a reasonable level of service well under critical levels. As noted in the evidence of both consultants there is general agreement between the specialists and VicRoads on the basic assumptions used, the methodology, and the preliminary findings in the following subject areas: Page 35 of 59  Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme Amendment C82  Panel Report  17 September 2012 Assumptions:  Development and neighbouring/nearby site yields;  Access arrangements (minor differences as discussed in the following);  Traffic generation rates;  Traffic distributions to/from the site; and  Future traffic growth. Methodology:  Traffic impact scenarios. There was a considerable amount of data collected by both specialist consultants on the existing road network, traffic volumes across the immediate network, casualty crash history, public transport services, pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure, car parking conditions, and demographic data including resident car ownership and census journey to work data. Council transport related policies were also discussed. There was a high degree of consistency and agreement between the consultants on this information. Both consultants used similar methods and data to assess the likely impact of the development on the abutting and surrounding road network and both considered that the development of the site (as proposed) can be accommodated by the surrounding road network under immediate post‐development conditions and the site access arrangements can be expected to operate satisfactorily under the ultimate (plus 10 years) post‐
development conditions. The main access points to the site are the Sutton Street/Blackshaws Road intersection and a proposed intersection just west of the ‘T’ intersection of Elizabeth Street/Blackshaws Road. The Proponent also proposes a secondary intersection with Blackshaws Road to the east of the Elizabeth Street intersection. The two main intersections may require auxiliary left turn lanes and channelized right turn lanes to meet VicRoads warrants. The secondary intersection should be left turn ‘in’ and left turn ‘out’ only. The details of these intersections are to be resolved at the required ‘Network Fit Assessment’ process required by VicRoads. Regarding car parking, both specialists agree that the provision should be as per Clause 52.06‐5 (recently amended on 5 June 2012) for all dwellings (as per Table 1 to 52.06‐5). Visitor car parking may be appropriate on internal streets within the site. However, it is noted that VicRoads are opposed to kerb‐side parking on the Blackshaws Road frontage. It is possible that this may be a future on‐road bicycle route and the prospect of a kerb‐side lane must be preserved. Also, the pavement may need to be widened to include right‐turn slots into the site and/or Sutton Street. Mr De Young (for the Proponent) also recommended at least one resident bicycle space per five dwellings and one visitor space per ten dwellings. Ms Dunstan (for the Council) recommended a shared pedestrian bicycle path along the northeast edge of the site. This should ultimately extend to Stephenson Street (through property also owned by the Proponent) to link to Moresby Street and to the South Kingsville local shopping centre in Vernon Street. Ms Dunstan also proposed a safe crossing point on Blackshaws Road may be warranted given the likely traffic increases on Blackshaws Road due to the longer term development of Page 36 of 59  Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme Amendment C82  Panel Report  17 September 2012 precincts 15 and 16 further to the west. Given the majority of local schools are south of Blackshaws Road, there would be the need for a formal crossing especially at school times. This would also provide access to the Newport station and shopping centre and the Newport Lakes Park. The nearest bus stops are located 300‐350m west on Blackshaws Road and 400m east on Melbourne Road. The Blackshaws Road bus service passes the site and a bus stop near the proposed pedestrian crossing would be an appropriate outcome. Both consultants carried out extensive assessments of the possible impact of the development on the surrounding local and arterial road networks. This analysis took into account the cumulative impacts of this and other likely developments within the area and concluded that most intersections and segments of the road network would not be unduly impacted by the development. However, Ms Dunstan concluded that the right turn movement from Blackshaws Road to Schutt Street (providing the connection from Blackshaws Road to Melbourne Road) may need a right turn slot to overcome the limited sight distance due to the sweeping left turn. She was also concerned that Schutt and Ross Streets are local streets expected to act as arterial road links to the detriment of the local residents living on these streets. This would become more of a problem as traffic generated by proposed developments along Blackshaws Road came ‘on‐line’. The other connections between Melbourne Road and Blackshaws Road also required careful consideration due to tight curves and difficult geometric design. She acknowledged that these are matters to be addressed then considered by VicRoads as part of the NFA process. On the matter of the cumulative impact of traffic generated by this and other developments in the corridor, Ms Dunstan and Mr De Young generally agreed on estimates of future traffic on the network as a result of these developments. M. Dunstan calculated that Precincts 15, 16 and 21 along the Blackshaws Road corridor would generate a total of about 16,650 vehicle movements per day. These movements would add 6,370 to 8,385 vehicles per day to Blackshaws Road (more than double the current volume) and 4,110 to Melbourne Road north of Blackshaws Road. Ms Dunstan concludes that with mitigation works at key intersections Blackshaws Road (including Schutt Street/Ross Street/Melbourne Road), the traffic volume would be appropriate for an arterial Road. However, no such analysis has been done for Melbourne Road at its interchange with the Westgate Freeway. Ms Dunstan concludes that: Whilst the contributory impacts of the Amendment C82 on Melbourne Road should be considered in the application, the cumulative impact of new development and general traffic growth along Melbourne Road and freeway access is a much broader matter that needs to be investigated by VicRoads as the responsible road authority. Accordingly, the extent of impacts and strategies to deal with any traffic impacts are matters beyond this review of Amendment C82. Two local submissions were made verbally to the Panel. Mr Mario Xerri of Vernon Street was concerned that Vernon Street was already compromised as a local street by traffic using it as a ‘rat‐run’ (between Blackshaws Road and Melbourne Road (via Vernon Street, the Kernot Street level crossing and The Avenue) to Page 37 of 59  Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme Amendment C82  Panel Report  17 September 2012 access the West Gate Freeway interchange on Melbourne Road. This adds to the traffic accessing and parking at the South Kingsville local shopping centre on Vernon Street. Vernon Street is a typical residential and local shopping street and with kerbside parking, there is often limited opportunity to pass oncoming traffic. He is concerned that some traffic from the proposed development will back‐track to Vernon Street making the already difficult situation worse. Ms Sue Wright and Mr Colin Budich own one of the properties on Blackshaws Road backing onto the subject land. They own the rear laneway behind their property. They are concerned that the laneway is proposed to be used as access to units or apartments backing onto the laneway and they are adamant that they will retain ownership of their portion of the ‘former’ laneway; hence the laneway is not available for through traffic movements. They also see the need for a pedestrian crossing on Blackshaws Road as schools, ‘The Circle’ shopping centre and ‘The Newport Lakes Recreation Area’ are all to the south of Blackshaws Road requiring a safe crossing for residents of the proposed development to access these facilities. 5.3 Discussion and conclusions The Panel is satisfied that the expert witnesses have satisfactorily addressed the Panel’s directions regarding the traffic ‘caucus’. The Panel acknowledges that the experts have taken into account the cumulative impacts of a number of other possible developments of sites ‘ear‐marked’ by the Council along the Williamstown Road/Blackshaws Road corridor. The Panel also notes the General agreement on the details of traffic assessments undertaken by the expert witnesses and VicRoads and, as a result, these matters have not been discussed in any detail in the following. However, the Panel notes that some ‘fine‐tuning’ of the road network may be required to accommodate the additional traffic generated by this site as discussed in the following. With respect to the VicRoads submission, the Panel agrees with the recommendation that DDO10 and the imbedded Master Plan include a statement similar to the following: ‘Network Fit Assessment Report’ to the satisfaction of VicRoads which addresses the traffic impact of the proposed development and any necessary amelioration measures’. As noted above, VicRoads supported a number of detailed recommendations made by Ms Dunstan. While the Panel agrees in principle to these recommendations, it is of the opinion that the details of these matters should await the required traffic impact assessment, i.e. the NFA that VicRoads have requested, and do not need to be specifically included in the DDO10 Schedule. Other issues need to be addressed in the NFA, such as the need for a new bus stop on Blackshaws Road near Elizabeth Street and the need for a pedestrian crossing of Blackshaws Road. The Panel is of the view that a pedestrian crossing is required to assist in access to facilities to the south of Blackshaws Road. The form of this crossing should be resolved as part of the NFA assessment required by VicRoads. Also of some significance is the need to assess the connections of Blackshaws Road to Melbourne Road. Traffic from the west to the north must move through the local streets of Schutt Street and Ross Street in order to head north on Melbourne Road. These streets by Page 38 of 59  Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme Amendment C82  Panel Report  17 September 2012 their nature are not suited to carry arterial road traffic and pose a significant constraint on the network. Return traffic from north to west must negotiate the tight loop from Melbourne Road. The NFA must assess the need for improvements to these movements and the apportionment of costs to the various developers. As pointed out by Ms Dunstan, there are concerns that there will be very significant traffic growth on Blackshaws Road as a result of this proposal and others along Blackshaws Road (refer to Hobsons Bay ILMS). This cumulative impact must be taken into account in the NFA required by VicRoads. Given the information provided by Ms Dunstan (and agreed by Mr De Young) about the likely additional traffic on Melbourne Road as a result of development proposals and future possibilities in the Williamstown/Newport/Spotswood corridor, the Panel is most concerned that the already congested traffic conditions along Melbourne Road (particularly in peak periods) will worsen as developments in this corridor ‘come on line’. From past experience the Panel is aware that initial concepts for development tend to ‘grow’ as proposals are developed in detail in order to provide a reasonable return for the developers. This said, the Panel is concerned that the assessment of cumulative impacts carried out by the traffic experts may in fact be lower that what will ultimately occur. The Panel is of the view that there is a finite capability of the road network in the corridor, and that Melbourne Road and its interchange with the Westgate Freeway is a critical link in the system. It is urgent that VicRoads and the Council arrange an investigation into the capability of this critical link. With the above in mind, the Panel believes that there is a limit to the overall development potential for the corridor, and that this potential must be shared across the proposals and possibilities for the corridor. Without the necessary analysis of Melbourne Road by VicRoads and the Council, the Panel is of the view that a reasonable share of the development potential in the corridor that should be allocated to this development is 420 units. This is the approximate size currently proposed in the public arena by the Proponent forming the basis of much of its submission particularly in the traffic analysis but also in its planning evidence. A figure of 420 units provides a reasonable opportunity for other possible developments in the corridor to proceed as well. The Panel notes that a Section 173 Agreement may be needed to establish responsibilities for any improvements required external to the site as a result of the development. This should follow the outcome of the NFA. The Panel notes that the need for a section 173 agreement is already embodied in the draft DDO10. The Panel also agrees that parking for all parts of the development should be in accordance with the revised Clause 52.06, that is:  Townhouses: 2 resident spaces per dwelling;  Apartments: One and two bedroom apartments: 1 resident space per apartment; and Three bedroom plus: 2 resident spacers per apartment;  Visitors: 1 space per 5 dwellings. There should also be bicycle parking at the rate of 1 per 5 dwellings for residents and 1 per 10 dwellings for visitors. There is no need for the above provisions to be specifically mentioned in the DDO10 as these requirements are already imbedded in the Planning Scheme and must be complied with. Page 39 of 59  Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme Amendment C82  Panel Report  17 September 2012 VicRoads also requested the additional following changes to the exhibited Schedule 10 to the Design and Development Overlay:  Plan 1 to note that the number and nature of access points to Blackshaws Road is yet to be determined;  Master Plan design Objectives to include two additional points: - To minimise the number of access points to Blackshaws Road; - To ensure that the development does not compromise the safe and efficient operation of Blackshaws Road and the surrounding local road network;  Include ‘Driveway access to lots fronting Blackshaws Road must be provided from local road or rear lanes only’. The Panel supports this request as these matters have a specific impact on the design of the proposed development. In addition, the Panel supports the requirement for the inclusion of a shared pedestrian/bicycle path through the site linking the east corner of the site on Blackshaws Road to the north end of Sutton Street and eventually to Stephenson Street and on to Vernon Street (the local shopping centre) via Moresby Street. Finally, the Panel concludes that due to possible longer term cumulative impacts of traffic from other developments along Blackshaws Road and further south in Newport and Williamstown on Melbourne Road and the critical interchange between Melbourne Road and the West Gate Freeway, it is reasonable to limit any development on this site to no more than 420 residential units. This is the number slightly higher than the figure of 400 units used by the traffic experts in their assessments. It fits within the higher numbers (422) presented by the Proponent planning experts in the various concept plans tabled by them at the hearing, and has been the basis of the upper limit in all discussions at the Panel Hearing. 5.4 Recommendations The Panel recommends: Modify Plan 1 to Schedule 10 of the Design and Development Overlay to note:  The number of access points to Blackshaws Road is yet to be determined. Modify Master Plan Objectives (Part 2.0 of Schedule 10 of the Design and Development Overlay) to include:  To limit the total number of residential units on the site to 420 to ensure the cumulative impact of proposed developments along Blackshaws Road and within the Newport/Williamstown peninsula does not compromise the capability of the arterial road network and particularly Melbourne Road and that there is ample opportunity to provide a high quality of residential amenity;  To minimise the number of access points to Blackshaws Road;  To limit driveway access to lots fronting Blackshaws Road to local internal road or rear lanes only;  To ensure that the development does not compromise the safe and efficient operation of Blackshaws Road and the surrounding arterial and local road network; and  To include a shared pedestrian/bicycle path within the site linking the eastern corner of the development (on Blackshaws Road) and the north‐west corner of Page 40 of 59  Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme Amendment C82  Panel Report  17 September 2012 the site (Sutton Street) with the ultimate goal of extending the path to the Vernon Street neighbourhood shopping centre via Moresby Street. Modify the Master Plan requirements (part 3.0 of Schedule 10 of the Design and Development Overlay) to include (in the traffic section):  A ‘Network Fit Assessment Report’ (NFA) to the satisfaction of VicRoads which addresses…….’ and to include the following (in addition to the already draft dot points):  The Network Fit Assessment is to take into account the cumulative impact of other possible/proposed developments along Blackshaws Road and on the Newport and Williamstown Peninsula on the arterial Road network particularly Melbourne Road. The Panel also recommends: That Council work with VicRoads (separate to Schedule 10 of the Design and Development Overlay) to urgently assess the likely cumulative impact on Melbourne Road and, as a result, the constraint (upper limit) on development in the Williamstown‐Newport corridor; and to provide this as input to the Network Fit Assessment. Page 41 of 59  Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme Amendment C82  Panel Report  17 September 2012 6 Environmental audit 6.1 The issue The land comprising the former Caltex Terminal, 38 – 44 Blackshaws Road and Sutton Street, South Kingsville has been used at least in part for industrial purposes since the early 1900s. The uses have included:  the establishment of Grays Foundry towards the south east of the area in the early 1900s;  the progressive development of the site as a terminal for the storage and distribution of a variety of hydrocarbon products (petrol ‐ leaded and later unleaded ‐ heating oil, diesel and kerosene) from 1928 through until the closure of the site by Caltex in 1996;  the development of an electrical substation on the southern boundary of the site;  the use of at least parts of the site from 1996 until 2004 for the storage and maintenance of vehicles;  clean‐up/ contamination exposure mitigation of the environmental legacy of the past use of the site, including groundwater and soil contamination, between 1997 and 2010; and  Dedication of the northern boundary of the site for an ongoing petroleum pipeline. Such land would be construed under Ministerial Directive No 1 (2001) to be potentially contaminated land which should be subject to an Environmental Audit Overlay (EAO) to ensure that before any rezoning of the land to sensitive uses (defined as residential, child care centre, pre‐school or primary school) it would require site investigation and assessment followed by evaluation by an environmental audit undertaken by an Environmental Auditor (EA) appointed according to Part IXD of the Environment Protection Act 1970. Clearly, the historical use of the site and its environmental condition is then an issue with respect to the appropriateness or otherwise of rezoning the site from IN3Z to R1Z, and whether an EAO should be applied to ensure that the site is appropriately evaluated and certified as fit for residential use. 6.2 Evidence and submissions (i)
Environmental Auditor The principal and most important evidence received in relation to the environmental condition of the former Caltex Petrol Terminal was from Mr Strudwick, the EPA appointed EA who performed the environmental audit of the former Caltex Petroleum Terminal site, and from the three reports, which formed the basis of the statement of environmental audit he issued pursuant to Part IXD of the Environment Protection Act 1970. These reports with their attachments, plus the evidence presented by Mr Strudwick, documented an extensive Page 42 of 59  Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme Amendment C82  Panel Report  17 September 2012 field sampling and testing program. This program showed that both the groundwater and the soils of the site were contaminated. The contaminants in the soils and groundwater included hydrocarbon compounds as well as various heavy metal compounds. Occasional asbestos containing materials were also found to be present in the soils. These contaminants and vapours potentially deriving from the hydrocarbons were considered by the EA to represent a hazard to both potential residents’ through subsurface vapour and groundwater, as they might be exposed to them through rezoning of the site for residential use, and/or to the environment having continuity with the site. Following from the findings that the site had been materially contaminated by its past industrial use, the Panel was informed by Mr Strudwick that Caltex as the site owner commissioned extensive and intensive contamination removal. This involved the excavation and removal of some contaminated soils off site to licensed landfills; the degradation of other soils by onsite bio‐degradation until residual contamination levels were acceptable; and extensive groundwater remediation programs which were carried through to the point where further clean‐up was not considered as practicable. These clean‐up processes were followed by surficial remodelling of the site using remediated soil and imported clean fill to create a cover layer of sufficient thickness to render the site safe for certain forms of residential use. The latter condition was then affirmed as being acceptable within the Environmental Auditor (Contaminated Land), Guidelines for Issue of Certificates and Statements of Environmental Audit, EPA Pub No 759.1 September 2007. This affirmation then allows more environmentally sensitive uses to be permitted, such as some forms of residential use should the site be rezoned to permit such uses. However, the outcome of the clean‐up work described above is that some contamination levels still remain at depth on the site in what is described by Mr Strudwick as the ‘sub‐
cover’. These residuals, which are at some depth, represent a continuing constraint upon how the site may be redeveloped. The consequence of the above work in relation to rezoning the site for residential purposes is that development is constrained by the conditions set out in the three Statements of Environmental Audit (SoEA) issued by Mr Strudwick. The Statements cover defined land areas within the former Caltex Terminal land. (ii)
Other submissions Submissions were received from residents Mr Xerri and Ms Wright who commented that in their experience the former Caltex Terminal site clean‐up for redevelopment had at times been dusty and smelly but was welcomed by the residents. However, Mr Xerri queried whether the clean‐up of the contaminants on site had been to ‘world best standards’. The Panel notes that the reports by the EA confirm clean–up of both the surficial soils to various depths and clean‐up of the groundwater to the extent practicable, as being in compliance with the standards adopted by the EPA as guidance for EA. Ms Forsyth for Asciano made no specific comments about the environmental condition of the former Caltex site other than to note that the definitions of urban density used by Mr Strudwick were area related and did not convey any height or specific urban development number other than on a ground area basis. Page 43 of 59  Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme Amendment C82  Panel Report  17 September 2012 There appeared to be some misunderstanding of the significance of the EA’s view on urban density which was clearly stated by Mr Strudwick as being to minimise the likelihood of residents creating or being given the opportunities to be exposed to potential health risk deriving from the presence of contaminants in the subcover. This matter is addressed further in following sections of this report. (iii)
Statements of Environmental Audit Environmental Audits can be initiated in a number of ways including by the following:  Direction from the Environment Protection Authority issued under Part IXD of the Environment Protection Act 1970;  Requirement of an Environmental Audit Overlay issued by council under the requirements of Ministerial Direction No 1 – Potentially Contaminated Land and Section 12 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 and the State Planning Policy Framework;  Direct request of any person or company for such an audit as is again permitted under the Environment Protection Act 1970. In this case, the Panel was informed by Mr Strudwick that the environmental audit was initiated directly by Caltex Australia Petroleum Limited ‐ albeit that the process remains the same process and pursuit of the EPA guidelines. This is irrespective of how the process is initiated. The fact that the site in question has already undergone site assessment, clean up and has received a statement of environmental audit, raises the issue for the Panel as to whether or not the site requires the provision of an Environmental Audit Overlay (EAO) to permit rezoning and redevelopment for residential purposes. (iv)
Subdivisions of the Audit Statements The three SoEA permitting ongoing use of the site for various purposes, have been prepared by Mr Strudwick. These specifically cover the whole area of the former Caltex Terminal subdivided into four areas. These are shown on Figure 5 and can be described as the following:  Area 1 – incorporating the western portion of the site, north of Blackshaws Road, east of Sutton Street, adjacent to an existing residential area abutting the two roads and south of Area 3 (a small triangle at the north western corner of the site), south of the freight rail line which runs north west south east across the northern boundary of the former Caltex Terminal area.  Area 2 – covers the entire eastern portion of the former Caltex Terminal area north of Blackshaws Road, east of Area 1 and south of Area 4 (the Somerton – Altona Jet Fuel pipeline easement).  Area 3 ‐ is the small triangle at the north west corner of the former Caltex Terminal area which abuts Area 1 to the south the freight rail line to the north and the end of Area 4 to the east. Page 44 of 59  Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme Amendment C82  Panel Report  17 September 2012 
Figure 5 Area 4 – is a pipeline easement about 14 m wide which parallels the Freight Rail line from Blackshaws Road to the eastern boundary of Area 3 at the northwest of the former Caltex terminal. Environmental audit final condition plan The boundaries defining each of the above areas reflect in part the time and manner of use of these sites when the area was zoned as IN3Z. In particular the north ‐ south boundary between Areas 1 and 2 is aligned along the cadastral boundary between lots A – E to the west and lot F which covers the entire eastern area of the former Caltex Terminal area. Similarly, the west to east boundary defining areas 1 and 3 represent another cadastral boundary. These boundaries also dictated to a degree the siting of industries such as Grays Foundry which was located in the south eastern portion of Area 2 fronting to Blackshaws Road to the south. It was also the alignment of spoon drains which became the foci of some soil and groundwater contamination such as along the northern boundaries of Areas 1 and 2 and across the southern boundary of Area 3. The defined areas of the three SoEA are:  Areas 1 and 2 together;  Area 3; and  Area 4. The conditions regarding each statement are specific to future development within that Area. Each statement has been prepared on the basis of a large number of site assessment and contamination abatement reports. These included reports on extensive groundwater clean‐
Page 45 of 59  Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme Amendment C82  Panel Report  17 September 2012 up exercises and reports on the quality of the materials both selected and imported to replace contaminated soils which were removed for landfill disposal to licensed waste disposal sites offsite. The details of the site assessments of contamination and of the work and results deriving from the clean‐up of contamination on the site and of the contaminated groundwater identified are included in three comprehensive reports prepared by the EA. The reports were issued in three volumes, being for Areas 1 & 2 in Figure 5, Area 3 in Figure 5 and Area 4 in Figure 5.5 These reports also include details of verification testing undertaken at the EA’s discretion to confirm the findings of the site assessment teams. In addition the reports include Construction and Site Environmental Management Plans. These dictate how future land use is to be implemented under the conditions set out in the four individual statements of environmental audit which have been issued, signed off by the EPA accredited EA, and accepted by the EPA. (v)
Provisions of the Statements The conditions as derived from the statements of environmental audit are set out in detail in the Environmental Audit reports. The conditions are more or less generic and can be summarised as follows:  Areas shaded magenta (in Area 3 only) on Figure 5 indicate that low density urban development is permissible. However, the EA notes in his Area 3 Audit Report that ‘the soil below 1.5m is aesthetically unacceptable for low density residential use but that this use is acceptable if the 1.5m clean soil gap below the present ground surface is maintained’.  Areas shaded grey on Figure 5 is suitable for high density residential use, public open space and commercial uses so long as the cover layer which is 1.0m thick soil is maintained.  Areas shaded purple and yellow on Figure 5 are suitable for both medium6 and high density residential development as well as for public open space and for commercial purposes. They have a cover layer of at least 1.5m thickness.  Should the cover be penetrated during site development it should be reinstated as soon as possible. 5
6
EPA Reference: 55173 for 38‐48 Blackshaws Road Spotswood dated 11 November 2011. Medium density residential development was defined by Mr Strudwick in his evidence to the Panel on the basis of EPA Pub No 759.1 September 2007, at Appendix 4, as being between one dwelling per 200m2 and one dwelling per 300m2. High density development was defined as being greater than one dwelling per 200m2. The overriding intent of the exclusion of low density urban development was indicated by him to be to restrict the probability of the development of gardens and pondages extending to depths below the cover layer thickness as set out in Figure 5. This is because it could involve the exposure of the contaminated sub cover layer. Note these densities do not accord with standard usage of these terms in land use planning. Page 46 of 59  Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme Amendment C82  Panel Report  17 September 2012  Where buildings have basements or other facilities or structures which extend into the subcover layer, there will need to be vapour mitigation/ barriers systems designed and installed by suitably qualified professionals and accepted by an environmental auditor appointed under Part IXD of the Environment Protection Act 1970 and this acceptance advised in writing to the EPA.  Exposure to contaminated and aesthetically impacted soil beneath the cover layer during site redevelopment or during future residential use must be managed respectively in accordance with the Construction Environment Management Plan (CEMP) and the Site Environment Management Plan (SEMP) attached to the SoEA.  The Groundwater Quality Management Plan (GQMP) attached to the statement must be implemented, albeit this involves no action within the site for occupants or construction personnel other than a ban on the use of groundwater. Or, as advised by Mr Strudwick in verbal response to a question implementing water sensitive urban design features utilizing the saturated and unsaturated zones below the cover, any action which might create instability in the existing groundwater equilibrium.  In Area 4, the SoEA excludes any residential development, but is accepting of public open space and commercial and industrial uses so long as at least 0.5m thickness of cover is maintained and only shallow rooting plant species are used. All other restrictions of the statement are applicable.  Finally, in accordance with Section 53ZE of the Environment Protection Act 1970, the owner or occupier of the site must provide a copy of the statement pertaining to the site in which any person proposes to become an occupier. 6.3 Discussion The application of an EAO on former industrial land is at a generic level a consequence of the recognition of the potential for the land and / or groundwater to have been contaminated by past industrial practices and of the potential for any pollution to represent a health or aesthetic risk to future uses and users of the site, as well as of risks to the beneficial uses of the environment of adjacent sites. The application of the EAO is guided by Ministerial Direction No 1 ‐ Potentially Contaminated Land ‐ 2001 and the associated Practice Note. The State Environment Protection Policy – Prevention and Management of Contamination of Land in Victoria, 2002 (SEPP Land) is then mandatory for implementation by the Responsible Authority (RA) under Section 60(f) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 when considering whether to issue a planning permit. The outcome of the declaration of an EAO by an RA is intended to be the triggering of an environmental site assessment followed, as is necessary, by an environmental audit to be undertaken by an EA appointed by and subject to follow guidelines issued and administered by the EPA. Whilst the process of the environmental audit is entirely administered by the EPA, the objective is to provide reliable advice to the RA (in this case Hobsons Bay City Council) to permit informed rezoning to proceed and the permitting of such sensitive land uses as are found to be permissible by the environmental audit outcome. Page 47 of 59  Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme Amendment C82  Panel Report  17 September 2012 If an EA, after an acceptable process of contamination investigation, is able to issue a certificate of environmental audit, essentially the site is considered to be clean and any sensitive use can be permitted including all those defined within Ministerial Direction No. 1 ‐ Potentially Contaminated Land ‐ 2001. However if some contamination is found, then the EA is bound to produce a statement of environmental audit which says that the site is contaminated. Where an EA advises that a statement is likely to be issued, the landowner or the polluter has the right to undertake such clean‐up of the site as they may wish. Following clean‐up results coming to hand and being confirmed, the EA can then consider and determine which sensitive uses of the site can be pursued without having any residual contamination present unacceptable risks to the future uses or users of the site, or to the surrounding environment. In determining that other uses of the land are permissible, an EA has the responsibility of setting down the conditions which must be met to allow such uses to be undertaken. Under the requirements of the SEPP, these conditions are then advised to the Planning Authority through the issuance of a statement of environmental audit and an accompanying report which enables rezoning of the land under Section 12 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. This rezoning must be done taking into account the conditions set by the EA and the requirements of the SEPP Land Clause 14 (3(b)(iii)) which requires that any permit applicant satisfy the RA that the conditions applied by a SoEA will be complied with. Under Clause 26(3a) of the SEPP, the responsibility for implementing the conditions set out in a SoEA rests with the owner. Information in relation to this obligation can be achieved by their being mirrored in permit conditions issued under Section 62(2a) of the EP Act by the RA; or by the use of a Section 173 Agreement. It follows that since the conditions of a SoEA have ongoing force, it is essential that future land owners and occupiers must also be informed of the conditions which apply to their property be they direct or through such management structures as may apply, e.g. a Body Corporate. Provided the above information is conveyed to the owners or occupiers of the land subject to the statement of environmental audit, the RA then has the power to enforce compliance. Otherwise, enforcement would fall to the EPA who, Mr Strudwick advised; have neither the staff nor the knowledge to pursue enforcement. It is clear to the Panel that if the conditions of the statement of environmental audit is advised to the owners and to future owners through a 173 Agreement with the Council or some similar agreement which transfers a knowledge of the land condition and responsibilities of owners in the management of that land, then there may be no advantage in having an EAO applied across the site. In the General Practice Note issued in June 2005 by DSE in relation to Potentially Contaminated Land, under the heading When should an Environmental Audit Overlay be removed? It is stated in relation to land that is subject to a SoEA that ‘In some circumstances where a Statement of Environmental Audit is issued, it may also be possible to remove the EAO (for example, where there are minimum restrictions conditions on the use of the site or the conditions have been complied with). The timely removal of an EAO will avoid costly and time consuming requirements for all parties. Page 48 of 59  Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme Amendment C82  Panel Report  17 September 2012 This note is pertinent, in that while no EAO exists at present over the former Caltex Petrol Terminal land and an EAO is not required to give rise to an environmental audit of the site, rezoning of the land to the ‘more sensitive’ residential use would require permits and agreements to enforce compliance with the conditions provided in the three SoEA which cover the site, during the construction and redevelopment. Thereafter, with medium to high density residential development across the site, the ongoing need for an EAO would appear to serve no further useful purpose. It would only remain to maintain a process whereby residents or bodies corporate are kept aware of the conditions and of their responsibility to abide by these, should they be involved in building works which might disturb the full thickness of the cover layer. 6.4 Conclusion and recommendations With the above issues as a guide, the Panel is of the opinion that the imposition of an EAO across the site is desirable as part of any rezoning of the site from IN3Z to R1Z. This imposition is therefore recommended for at least the period until the site is completely redeveloped for residential and similar sensitive uses. The above recommendations should be incorporated into the design and development overlay (DDO) for the site development. The Panel recommends: Amend Schedule 10 to the Design and Development Overlay in accordance with that shown in Appendix C by including the following:  In clause 2.0 (Design objectives) add ‘To comply with the conditions relating to the urban density and construction constraints involved in the redevelopment of the site as set out in the statements of Environmental Audit issued under EP Act Part IXD by the environmental auditor in his reports dated October (Areas 3&4) and November 2011 (Areas 1&2)’.  In clause 3.0 (Master Plan) add to Paragraph 1, dot point 1 at the end of the first sentence ‘and the conditions set out in the three statements of Environmental Audit issued for the site and covering areas 1‐4 inclusive and the colour shadings shown on Plan 1.’ Page 49 of 59  Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme Amendment C82  Panel Report  17 September 2012 7 Northern boundary development issues The northern boundary of the former Caltex Terminal land was adjacent to the standard gauge rail freight line which connects Melbourne to the major freight terminals in the other states of Australia. In addition, this boundary includes the major Altona ‐ Somerton Aviation Fuel Pipeline which supplies Melbourne Airport, and a section of land which has been under acquisition negotiation for some time as a means of removing a ‘pinch point’ on the rail freight line. The removal of the latter would markedly improve the capacity of the rail freight line. These two issues were clearly of great importance to the Panel and are addressed below. 7.1 Altona – Somerton pipeline risk (i)
The issue The Altona‐Somerton Aviation Fuel Pipeline (Licensed Pipeline 118) is located in an easement extending 3m either side of the pipeline within the northern boundary of the former Caltex Terminal. This pipeline is the principal aviation fuel pipeline supporting the local and international aviation activities of Melbourne Airport. The pipeline alignment approximately parallels the rail freight line from the south eastern end to the north western end. Over this distance the southern edge of the 6m wide easement extends between 10m and 14m into the land proposed for development. However, approximately 146m from the north‐west corner of the site, the pipeline and easement swing north to meet the rail freight boundary about 82m from the north west boundary. The easement is thereafter only 3m within property boundary. Because of the critical importance of this pipeline it is important that its operation should not be disturbed by any activity associated with the development of the former Caltex Terminal land. (ii)
Evidence and submissions A pipeline risk assessment was completed in relation to the Altona–Somerton Pipeline in 2004 for the earlier C36 Panel Hearing which included consideration of this site. This work was undertaken by Kellogg Brown and Root (KBR) under instructions from Caltex. This document was available to the present Panel. The Council also commissioned a peer review document from Monarc Environmental Pty Ltd. This latter document brought the KBR report up to date. The Monarc letter was provided to the Panel as a hard copy submission. No verbal evidence was presented. A critical finding of this report was that the location of the pipeline was unmarked and was uncertain in respect to the areas subject to urban development. The Panel was advised by Exxon Mobil Aviation International–South Pacific (D Brown for the Somerton pipeline JV to HBCC – 18th April 2012) that the pipeline is owned by Exxon Mobil and that its position had now been agreed by Exxon Mobil and Aurecon based on survey point co‐ordinates provided by Chris Runting and Associates. This location is shown on Figure 6. Exxon Mobil Aviation further stated that they ‘understand that the property boundary for the new development will be off‐set from these co‐ordinates by a minimum Page 50 of 59  Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme Amendment C82  Panel Report  17 September 2012 distance of 3.18m’…..and that they ’no longer have any concerns regarding the safety of the pipeline in this area or about future maintenance access’. Figure 6 Pipeline location Page 51 of 59  Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme Amendment C82  Panel Report  17 September 2012 All parties to the Panel Hearing acknowledged the necessity for protection of the fuel pipeline. This was reflected in all the versions of the DDO as it was developed through the Hearing in Plan 1; in the Design Objectives and in the Master Plan items in the DDO. Notably, the pipeline easement is also the subject of a specific SoEA issued by Mr Strudwick. This was presented to the Panel in his specific Environmental Audit Report Area 4 – Former Caltex Petroleum Terminal 38 – 48 Blackshaws Road, Spotswood, Victoria EPA Ref 55173 (31 October 2011). He also commented upon this area in his submission before the Panel. Finally, it was apparent to the Panel from the submissions and draft urban development plans put forward on behalf of the Proponent and by the council that there was no longer any intention of any urban development elements being constructed over the pipeline easement, although cycle paths or other forms of public open space may be considered across some of this area. Any such construction near the pipeline would need to be consistent with planning permits issued under the Master Plan and with the specific constraints applying to work adjacent to pipelines licensed under the Pipelines Act 2005 administered by Energy Safe Victoria. Fundamentally, all these requirements are about ensuring the safe and uninterrupted operation of the pipeline whilst maintaining the reasonable needs for access by the pipeline owners and compliance with use and construction constraints established by the SoEA and any conditions imposed by the pipeline regulatory authority. (iii)
Discussion Mr Strudwick, the EPA appointed Environmental Auditor, in his report notes that Area 4 was used in the past for petroleum rail tank car filling and unloading station. He comments that the contamination in both natural soil and in historic fill ‘represent a potential for harm, detriment or risk to the beneficial uses for human health – residential (low and high density), open space and commercial/industrial use where accessible’. He notes that the historic fill within Area 4 remains uncovered and accessible at least to the south of the pipeline easement and he makes it a specific condition, amongst others in his statement, that: A physical barrier, such as 0.5m layer of fill (classified as “fill material” in accordance with EPA guidelines), asphalt or concrete pavement, must be installed and maintained over the historic fill along the Mobil Oil Australia pipeline right of way (approximately 6m wide) to prevent exposure of future users/occupants to historical fill at this location. Clearly, such work would entail operations within the pipeline easement. Such work should only be undertaken with the authorisation of the pipeline owner and only after approval is given by the pipeline administration. All pipelines in Victoria are licensed and regulated under the Pipelines Act 2005 and by the Pipelines Regulations 2007 issued under that Act. These are administered by the Department of Primary Industry. These regulations invoke AS 2885.3:2007 – Pipelines – Gas and Liquid Petroleum, Part 3 – Operation and Maintenance with regard to safety in operations. The regulations preclude any unauthorised work within 3m of any pipeline and require a safety management plan to be approved prior to any work. Page 52 of 59  Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme Amendment C82  Panel Report  17 September 2012 Monarc referred to the regulations and noted that whilst risks of damage to the pipeline from construction activity was largely precluded if an appropriate safety plan was established and implemented, it would be necessary for the location of the pipeline to be clearly marked. In addition, because of the potential for corrosion of the pipeline, it is important that a clear area for access is maintained over the easement. On the basis of the above, it is apparent that there is a clear process available for excluding the use of the pipeline easement into any urban development on the Former Caltex Terminal, even if it is only to ensure, as required by the EA, that the historic fill be isolated from human contact by the placement of not less than 0.5m of clean fill. (iv)
Conclusion and Recommendations The Panel is satisfied that, if the requirements of the EA and of the pipeline owner are met, the pipeline easement could be integrated into any proposed urban development as part of the public open space allowances. It is concluded by the Panel however that no excavation or penetration of historic fill or natural soils within the easement should be permitted unless under authorization by the pipeline regulator and with the approval of the pipeline owner. The Panel recommends: Amend Section 8.0 (Decision Guidelines) of Schedule 10 to the Design and Development Overlay to include a dot point as follows:  ‘Whether the design proposals for the site relating to the Altona – Somerton pipeline have received approval from both the pipeline owner Exxon Mobil Aviation and from the pipeline regulatory authority and takes into account any recommended conditions’. 7.2 Rail freight track widening (i)
The issue At the request of the Panel, the Department of Transport advised that ’In relation to the rail corridor width, the Department advises that provision for additional corridor width is required at this location for future rail freight capacity planning’. The present capacity is represented by one broad gauge and one standard gauge line carrying approximately 110 trains per week; but this traffic is anticipated to increase to 128 per week within the next 4 years and to 188 trains per week between 2040 and 2050 including longer and heavier trains. DoT further stated that: The ability to increase track capacity at this point in the corridor requires the widening of the corridor……….the rail track is currently being widened via the Government’s acquisition of a strip along the former Caltex boundary which will provide sufficient corridor width to enable the addition of a further two extra rail tracks, ie the ultimate provision of up to four tracks. This advice is consistent with earlier advice from Australian Rail Track Corporation Ltd (26 July 2010 to HBCC) which raises the question of increased rail noise over time along the northern boundary as well as loss of space on this boundary for development. Page 53 of 59  Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme Amendment C82  Panel Report  17 September 2012 (ii)
Evidence and Submissions No submissions were received in relation specifically to the increased rail traffic and noise other than from Ms Sullivan, a long term resident of Sutton Street, who stated that rail traffic noise was noticeable since the Caltex Terminal had been demolished. In respect to the land acquisition, the Panel was provided with advice from DoT to HBCC (31 October 2010) in which an exchange of 1370m2 of land from the Proponent along the northern boundary of the property north of the pipeline easement was under consideration for about 1300m2 of VicTrack land at the north west corner of the property. The Panel was led to believe that this option has been agreed to and will be implemented. (iii)
Discussion The land swap has very little impact upon the proposed urban development other than to shift the extent of development further south to the south side of the pipeline easement. This is necessary anyway due to the constraints imposed by the SoEA conditions and the other constraints applying to the easement. The increased rail traffic along the line is clearly an increased source of ambient noise and vibration which will have to be managed by the development form implemented under the DDO and Master Plan. Given that the more intense sources of noise are likely to arise from the operations of the SMC, it seems to the Panel that the design elements within the urban design implemented to mitigate these sources will also act to mitigate the increased noise and vibration likely to emerge from the increased rail traffic. (iv)
Conclusion The Panel understands that the arrangements for the land swap have been agreed and makes no further recommendations on this issue. The Panel notes that any mitigation areas needed for noise or vibration should be within the new boundary of the site as determined by the land swap. Page 54 of 59  Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme Amendment C82  Panel Report  17 September 2012 8 Stormwater management 8.1 The issue No evidence in relation to stormwater drainage was provided to the Panel at the hearings, however written submissions were received. In addition, the condition of the site in respect to stormwater was evident to the Panel at the time of the April site inspection. Stormwater is specifically addressed in the Architectus Report prepared for Caltex Australia Pty Ltd in June 2010 and again in the Infrastructure Report of Irwinconsult for Newport Properties Pty Ltd dated 31 May 2012. Further, the Environmental Auditor reports of Mr Strudwick presented survey plans of the site topography as it was at the completion of the site clean‐up and environmental audit process. Finally, comments were made by Mr Stephen Martyn of Able Engineering Pty Ltd as to the way in which water gathers along Sutton Street after heavy or prolonged periods of rain. It is apparent that the site presently is unconnected to any formal stormwater collection or discharge system. The topography of the site at the end of the contamination clean‐up (July 2011) is presented in Appendix 2 of the Connolly Environmental Construction Environment Management and Soil Environmental Management Plans for Areas 1 & 2 Report. These are attached to the SoEA. The same plan is also one of the three plans which attaches direct to the statement. This plan shows the highest elevation on the site to be just below 16.2m AHD at a point about 85m east of the south western extremity of the site on the Blackshaws Road boundary. The site slopes very gently to the north west, north east and east away from this point. The lowest points on the site are:  just below 16.0m AHD to the NNE;  14.2m. AHD adjacent to the north west corner with Sutton Street and the freight rail line; and  15.7m. AHD at the lowest point to the east along Blackshaws Road. An elevated pad of imported compacted crushed rock exists over the south east corner of the site. It extends across the site for about 77m from the south eastern corner of the site up both the rail freight line and Blackshaws Road boundaries. The pad is approximately 0.5m higher than the adjacent site area to the west. It served as a material load in / load out area during the site clean‐up. The surficial material of the pad is not aesthetically attractive and can be removed when it is determined that it has no further value for site engineering purposes. The very low gradients of the site and the presence of some low earth bunds along the rail freight line and the Somerton – Altona pipe easement prevent significant run off persisting to the north; rather, it is channelled to form pondages along the northern end of Sutton Street. Equally such run off as may persist to the north and east would presently pond on site. Page 55 of 59  Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme Amendment C82  Panel Report  17 September 2012 In the future, if the site is developed for medium and high density urban development, the largely sealed nature of the site can be expected to generate significant run off after high intensity or prolonged rain events. The report by Irwinconsult notes that there is existing Council and Melbourne Water infrastructure which is mostly capable of handling the average stormwater events without surcharge. These include the Schutt Estate Main Drain which lies to the north west along Moresby Street, from the northern end of Stephenson Street. The Council drains align along Schutt Street to the south of the site and eventually drain east to the Yarra River. The Schutt Street Main drain carries stormwater north beneath the rail freight line to discharge to Stony Creek. The Schutt Street Council stormwater infrastructure carries stormwater discharge south then east under the suburban rail line to discharge via the Melbourne Water main to the Yarra River. Melbourne Water and the Council advised Irwinconsult that the systems are prone to surcharge at times and are in need of upgrading. Some stormwater retention may therefore be required as part of the site development. With the site having very little significant topographic variation, within the limits imposed by the CEMP and SEMP, stormwater drainage can be engineered to discharge relatively easily to the north west or to the southeast in different proportions. Under clause 56 of the VPP the principles set out in Melbourne 2030 ‐ Planning for Sustainable Growth new residential developments are encouraged to adopt the principles of Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD). Specifically, this involves recognizing the resource value of stormwater and providing where practicable for its use in non‐drinking purposes while at the same time as managing stormwater quality issues so as to protect down stream catchments and stream courses. Specifically, in Policy 7.4 of Melbourne 2030 (Reduce the impact of stormwater on bays and catchments), urban design is promoted which includes the treatment of streetscapes and public open space:  to reduce contaminant loads in stormwater;  to delay stormwater discharges; and  by making stormwater available for urban use. Irwinconsult addressed some of the above options and noted that Melbourne Water advised that they had no objection to receiving the stormwater from the site so long as the water received some limited treatment to reduce suspended sediment in advance. Similarly, HBCC believed the need for some on site detention of stormwater was necessary in order for their systems to be able to operate effectively, especially for discharges to the east. The means of achieving on site detention and pre‐treatment of stormwater before discharge can be many and varied. Policy 7.4 of Melbourne 2030 envisages approaches which increase the permeability of roads, pavement and drains along with features such as wetlands, grass and vegetated swales amongst others. For the former Caltex Terminal site these sorts of features may be possible, but only in so far as they do not destabilise the residual contamination within the underlying hydrogeological environment. This environment is linked to the area which is the subject of a Pollution Abatement Notice on Caltex relating to a hydrocarbon contaminant plume within the groundwater to the south of the site. Page 56 of 59  Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme Amendment C82  Panel Report  17 September 2012 Mr Strudwick, in responding to a question from the Panel about the potential for use of Managed Aquifer Recharge (MAR) as an element in WSUD for the site, stated he felt that this would be inadvisable, because of the potential for the mobilization of contaminants both in the basalt aquifer above the water table, along with contamination within the saturated zone at depths between 11m and 12m below the present surface of the area. Although MAR may not be possible, other techniques would seem to be possible and could be implemented as is necessary, so long as the construction and operation of facilities such as wet lands and the like respect fastidiously the demands of the CEMP and SEMP as required by the SoEA. 8.2 Conclusion and recommendation The Panel concludes that the necessary provision for stormwater discharge for urban development on the site does not pose any particular or unusual problems for urban development of the site. The development simply needs to ensure that the techniques used for achieving acceptable discharges are responsive to the context of the facilities operating in the area, and that they are constructed and applied in manners consistent with the SoEA. If these requirements are met, and the rates and a quality of stormwater are managed to be acceptable to the existing system of stormwater drains which abut the site; then the development should not unreasonably affect the amenity of adjoining residential or industrial properties. The Panel recommends: Amend the Master Plan section of Schedule 10 to the Design and Development Overlay dot point 7, in the sub dot points, by a new dot point stating:  ‘The details of facilities to be installed as part of water sensitive urban design to ensure that the capacity of the existing or upgraded stormwater systems within the surrounding area are not exceeded in respect to volumetric capacity or water quality parameters as a consequence of the urban development to be implemented.’ Page 57 of 59  Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme Amendment C82  Panel Report  17 September 2012 9 Summary of recommendations For the reasons set out in this report, the Panel makes the following recommendations: 1. Adopt Amendment C82 to the Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme as exhibited subject to the application of the revised Design and Development Overlay Schedule 10 shown in Appendix C and other recommendations in this report. 2. Adopt the following amendments to the proposed DDO10 in relation to noise and vibration:  Part 2.0 Design Objectives:  third dot point: add the words ‘industrial and traffic’ before the word ‘noise’;  Part 3.0 Master Plan:  fourth major point (dealing with acoustics and vibration), commence with the words ‘Prior to adopting the Master Plan, the Proponent is to provide a ’preferred concept plan’ showing proposed building envelopes including heights and indicating acoustic and vibration treatments to all buildings and facades facing the SMC and Blackshaws Road and to carry out an assessment…..’ and conclude with the sentence ‘This assessment is to be verified by a peer review by a specialist for the Planning Authority’.  Add a dot point ‘Any permit application must be generally in accordance with the ‘preferred concept plan’. If not, the noise and vibration assessment in the above point must be repeated prior to the consideration of the permit application’. 3. Modify Plan 1 to Schedule 10 of the Design and Development Overlay to note:  The number of access points to Blackshaws Road is yet to be determined. 4. Modify Master Plan Objectives (Part 2.0 of Schedule 10 of the Design and Development Overlay) to include:  To limit the total number of residential units on the site to 420 to ensure the cumulative impact of proposed developments along Blackshaws Road and within the Newport/Williamstown peninsula does not compromise the capability of the arterial road network and particularly Melbourne Road and that there is ample opportunity to provide a high quality of residential amenity;  To minimise the number of access points to Blackshaws Road;  To limit driveway access to lots fronting Blackshaws Road to local internal road or rear lanes only;  To ensure that the development does not compromise the safe and efficient operation of Blackshaws Road and the surrounding arterial and local road network; and  To include a shared pedestrian/bicycle path within the site linking the eastern corner of the development (on Blackshaws Road) and the north‐west corner of the site (Sutton Street) with the ultimate goal of extending the path to the Vernon Street neighbourhood shopping centre via Moresby Street. Page 58 of 59  Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme Amendment C82  Panel Report  17 September 2012 5. Modify the Master Plan requirements (part 3.0 of Schedule 10 of the Design and Development Overlay) to include (in the traffic section):  A ‘Network Fit Assessment Report’ (NFA) to the satisfaction of VicRoads which addresses…….’ and to include the following (in addition to the already draft dot points):  The Network Fit Assessment is to take into account the cumulative impact of other possible/proposed developments along Blackshaws Road and on the Newport and Williamstown Peninsula on the arterial Road network particularly Melbourne Road. 6. That Council work with VicRoads (separate to Schedule 10 of the Design and Development Overlay) to urgently assess the likely cumulative impact on Melbourne Road and, as a result, the constraint (upper limit) on development in the Williamstown‐Newport corridor; and to provide this as input to the Network Fit Assessment. 7. Amend Schedule 10 to the Design and Development Overlay in accordance with that shown in Appendix C by including the following:  In clause 2.0 (Design objectives) add ‘To comply with the conditions relating to the urban density and construction constraints involved in the redevelopment of the site as set out in the statements of Environmental Audit issued under EP Act Part IXD by the environmental auditor in his reports dated October (Areas 3&4) and November 2011 (Areas 1&2)’.  In clause 3.0 (Master Plan) add to Paragraph 1, dot point 1 at the end of the first sentence ‘and the conditions set out in the three statements of Environmental Audit issued for the site and covering areas 1‐4 inclusive and the colour shadings shown on Plan 1.’ 8. Amend Section 8.0 (Decision Guidelines) of Schedule 10 to the Design and Development Overlay to include a dot point as follows:  ‘Whether the design proposals for the site relating to the Altona – Somerton pipeline have received approval from both the pipeline owner Exxon Mobil Aviation and from the pipeline regulatory authority and takes into account any recommended conditions’. 9. Amend the Master Plan section of Schedule 10 to the Design and Development Overlay dot point 7, in the sub dot points, by a new dot point stating:  ‘The details of facilities to be installed as part of water sensitive urban design to ensure that the capacity of the existing or upgraded stormwater systems within the surrounding area are not exceeded in respect to volumetric capacity or water quality parameters as a consequence of the urban development to be implemented.’ Page 59 of 59  Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme Amendment C82  Panel Report  17 September 2012 Appendix A Chronology of concept plans Appendices 1 of 29 Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme Amendment C82  Panel Report  17 September 2012 Appendices 2 of 29 Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme Amendment C82  Panel Report  17 September 2012 Appendices 3 of 29 Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme Amendment C82  Panel Report  17 September 2012 Appendix B Exhibited Design and Development Overlay Appendices 4 of 29 Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme Amendment C82  Panel Report  17 September 2012 Appendices 5 of 29 Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme Amendment C82  Panel Report  17 September 2012 Appendices 6 of 29 Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme Amendment C82  Panel Report  17 September 2012 Appendices 7 of 29 Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme Amendment C82  Panel Report  17 September 2012 Appendices 8 of 29 Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme Amendment C82  Panel Report  17 September 2012 Appendices 9 of 29 Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme Amendment C82  Panel Report  17 September 2012 Appendices 10 of 29 Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme Amendment C82  Panel Report  17 September 2012 Appendix C Panel’s recommended Design and Development Overlay Appendices 11 of 29 Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme Amendment C82  Panel Report  17 September 2012 ‐‐/‐‐/20‐‐ SCHEDULE 10 TO THE DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY
Shown on the planning scheme map as DDO10
THE FORMER CALTEX TERMINAL
Former Caltex Terminal, Blackshaws Road and Sutton Street, South Kingsville.
1.0
Plan 1
The Panel recommends the following changes to Plan 1:
 In legend add to Built form to limit public views towards north east and to provide acoustic and vibration protection from the railway and the SMC.  In legend add ***The number of access points to Blackshaws Road is yet to be determined. Appendices 12 of 29 Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme Amendment C82  Panel Report  17 September 2012 2.0
‐‐/‐‐/20‐‐ Design objectives
The design objectives for the area are:








To encourage urban renewal which delivers increased housing affordability, diversity and
density within the site.
To create a residential area that is responsive to its context and provides a transition in character
at its interfaces with existing adjoining residential areas and industrial operations.
To ensure residential development provides a reasonable level of amenity for future occupiers of
the site, including but not limited to protecting future residents from the adverse impacts of
industrial and traffic noise, odour, dust, vibration and the visual impact of the railway line and
industrial development north-east of the railway line.
To ensure development does not unreasonably affect the amenity of adjoining residential
properties.
To protect the operations of the state and nationally significant Spotswood Locomotive
Maintenance Centre located to the north-east (including normal operations, upset and worst case
conditions and reasonably foreseen planned future operations) from any potentially adverse
effects of residential encroachment.
To encourage development which achieves site responsive high-quality architectural and urban
design outcomes.
To create a new and attractive streetscape character in Blackshaws Road and Sutton Street.
To ensure that development does not adversely impact the continued operation and maintenance
of the Somerton to Altona Licensed Pipeline.

To ensure that any additional social and community infrastructure required by reason of the
proposed development is provided.

To minimise the number of access points from the site to Blackshaws Road.

To ensure that the development does not compromise the safe and efficient operation of
Blackshaws Road and the surrounding local road network.

To ensure that driveway access to lots fronting Blackshaws Road is provided from a local road
or rear lanes only.

To limit the total number of residential dwellings on the site to 420 to ensure the cumulative
impact of proposed developments along Blackshaws Road and within the
Newport/Williamstown peninsula does not compromise the capability of the arterial road
network and particularly Melbourne Road and that there is ample opportunity to provide a high
quality of residential amenity.

To include a shared pedestrian/bicycle path within the site linking the eastern corner of the
development on Blackshaws Road and the north-west corner of the site at Sutton Street with the
ultimate goal of extending the path to the Vernon Street neighbourhood shopping centre via
Moresby Street.

To comply with the conditions relating to the urban density and construction constraints
involved in the redevelopment of the site as set out in the three statements of Environmental
Audit issued under the Environment Protection Act 1970 Part IXD by the environmental auditor
in his reports dated October (Areas 3 & 4) and November 2011 (areas 1& 2).
Appendices 13 of 29 Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme Amendment C82  Panel Report  17 September 2012 3.0
‐‐/‐‐/20‐‐ C82 Master Plan
A permit must not be granted to subdivide land, construct a building or construct or carry out works
until a Master Plan has been prepared and approved to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.
The purpose of the Master Plan is to guide and inform future development of the site.
The Master Plan must be generally in accordance with Plan 1 and must include:
 A detailed analysis of the features of the land and its context, including existing conditions.
 A detailed design response, including:







The location of new streets within the site.
The location of new public open space within the site.
Design principles for new built form within Precincts A1 and A2.
Design principles for new built form within Precinct B.
Design principles for new built form within Precinct C.
The location and height of building envelopes.
Design principles and built form measures for reasonable residential amenity and protection
from sources of air emissions, noise and vibration from the railway line, nearby industry
including the Spotswood Maintenance Centre and Blackshaws Road.
 The staging of development and details of an appropriate built form/sound-barrier(s) to be
provided along the whole of the north-east boundary of the site as part of Stage 1.
 The detailed resolution of the northern interface having regard to the bicycle path, pipeline,
acoustic and built form issues.
 To give effect to "**NB" on Plan 1.
 Domestic waste management principles.
 Prior to the responsible authority adopting the Master Plan, the proponent is to provide a
’preferred concept plan’ showing proposed building envelopes including heights and indicating
acoustic and vibration treatments to all buildings and facades facing the Spotswood Maintenance
Centre and Blackshaws Road and to carry out a peer-reviewed assessment of potential acoustic
and vibration effects and their amelioration, consistent with the requirements of clause 5.0,
including the staging (if any) of development and details of an appropriate sound barrier (s) to be
provided along the north-east boundary of the site as part of stage 1. The report must be prepared
on the basis of, among other things, a comprehensive assessment of the activities – both worst
case current and planned future activities – of the Spotswood Maintenance Centre generally in
accordance with the SLR report dated 18 May 2012 and must specify the built form measures
required to meet clause 5.0.
Any permit application must be generally in accordance with the ‘preferred concept plan’. If not,
the noise and vibration assessment in the above point must be repeated prior to the consideration
of the permit application
 A Network Fit Assessment Report (NFA) to the satisfaction of VicRoads which addresses:





Details of existing conditions surrounding the site.
Details of the parking demand likely to be generated by the development.
Details of the traffic generation characteristics of the development.
Proposed access arrangements for the site.
The impact of the development on the existing traffic arrangements (including roads,
intersections, traffic situations, pedestrian and cycle paths) including reference to safety.
 Details of whether any works or upgrades will be required as a result of the development.
 Timing and construction responsibility of any required works and upgrades.
Appendices 14 of 29 Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme Amendment C82  Panel Report  17 September 2012  The NFA is to take into account the cumulative impact of other possible/proposed
developments along Blackshaws Road and on the Newport and Williamstown Peninsula on
the arterial road network particularly Melbourne Road.
 A report which provides an assessment of the adequacy of existing social and community
infrastructure, and details any additional social infrastructure or affordable housing to be
provided.
 A report which provides an assessment of the adequacy of physical infrastructure (water supply,
sewerage, electricity supply, gas supply, stormwater drainage, telecommunications and road
infrastructure) and any necessary amelioration or upgrading required as a result of the proposed
development, which must include:
 Details of the existing infrastructure capacity.
 Details of the impacts the proposed development will have on existing infrastructure.
 Identification of any upgrades required.
 Timing and construction responsibility of any required works and upgrades.
 Details of facilities to be installed as part of water sensitive urban design to ensure that the
capacity of the existing or upgraded stormwater systems within the surrounding area are not
exceeded in respect of the volumetric capacity or water quality parameters as a consequence of
the urban development to be implemented.
 The impact of the proposed development during construction and post-construction on the
Somerton to Altona Licensed Pipeline, in the context of a pipeline risk assessment, and any
measures required to ensure its ongoing maintenance and operation.
 A landscaping and public infrastructure plan, including details of street lighting and furniture and
bicycle and footpaths.
 A report which certifies that the proposed development is consistent with any statements of
environmental audit which relate to the site and demonstrates compliance with the conditions set
out in the statements of Environmental Audit.
 A report identifying the Environmentally Sustainable Design (ESD) features of the proposed
development.
The Master Plan may be amended at any time upon application to, and the satisfaction of, the
responsible authority provided it complies with the requirements of this clause.
Notice of application for approval of Master Plan
The responsible authority must give notice of an application for approval of a Master Plan, or
approval of an amendment of an approved Master Plan, submitted to it under this overlay to:
 the licensee and operator (from time to time) authorised under pipeline licence No PL118
(Somerton to Altona Licensed Pipeline), Energy Safe Victoria and the Minister with responsibility
for administering the Pipelines Act 2005;
 owners of properties fronting Blackshaws Road between Schutt Street and Johnston Street South
Kingsville;
 owners of properties fronting Sutton Street South Kingsville;
 the owner and operator of the Spotswood Locomotive Maintenance Centre;
 The owner and operator of the adjacent freight railway line and
Appendices 15 of 29 Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme Amendment C82  Panel Report  17 September 2012  VicRoads.
The responsible authority must, prior to approving any Master Plan (or amendment of a Master Plan),
consider any written responses, provided that such responses are received within 21 days after service
of such notice.
Agreement under s 173 of the Act
The responsible authority must not approve a Master Plan until an agreement, made under s 173 of
the Act, has been recorded on the titles of the land contained within the area the subject of this
schedule under which the owner of that land is required to:
 provide, or pay for, works services or facilities that the responsible authority considers on, or to,
the land or other land as a result of the approval of the Master Plan.
 give notice of any relevant statement of environmental audit to prospective purchasers of all, or
any part, of that land.
 include a statement to the following effect and require the owner include such statement in any
contract of sale for any part of the land.
‘This land is in close proximity to nearby industrial land in Sutton Street, South Kingsville and
the State and nationally significant Spotswood Locomotive Maintenance Centre located to the
north east. Consequentially, the land may be affected by noise or other amenity impacts
associated with the operations and activities conducted in those areas. The purchaser should be
aware of these industrial uses and potential amenity impacts.’
Provision must be made for this aspect of the Section 173 Agreement to end when the industrial
use of each of the above sites ceases.
The Section 173 Agreement once made is to be registered on the title of the land pursuant to section
181 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.
4.0
Buildings and works
‐‐/‐‐/20‐‐ Buildings and works must be generally in accordance with the approved Master Plan.
A permit must not be granted for buildings and works not generally in accordance with the
requirements of this schedule.
5.0
Noise and Vibration Attenuation
Any development that will accommodate residential or other noise-sensitive uses must be designed
and constructed to include noise attenuation measures. These noise attenuation measures must ensure
that:
 Industrial noise received at new residential or other noise-sensitive uses complies with the
requirements of State Environment Protection Policy (Control of Noise from Commerce, Industry
and Trade) No N-1 (SEPP N-1). Where the nature of the development is such that it is not
practical or reasonable to undertake an outdoor measurement of the industrial noise level, the
measurement point for a noise sensitive area must be indoors in accordance with SEPP N-1
Schedule A1, 4. The indoor adjustment (Schedule A2, 4, (d)) should not be greater than 15 dB.
The assessment of noise emanating from the Spotswood Maintenance Centre must include a
comprehensive assessment of the activities – both current and reasonably foreseen planned future
activities (and address worst case and upset conditions) – of the Spotswood Maintenance Centre
generally in accordance with the SLR report dated 18 May 2012.
 Train airborne noise received at new residential or other noise sensitive uses is attenuated to
achieve a noise level of 55 dBA, Lmax in bedrooms and a noise level of 60 dBA, Lmax in living
areas. These noise levels are to be measured internally near the centre of habitable rooms, with
Appendices 16 of 29 Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme Amendment C82  Panel Report  17 September 2012 the doors, windows and ventilation closed. The measurements should be undertaken using a ‘fast’
meter time weighting, and must be achieved for 95% of train pass-bys (i.e. 5%, 1 in 20 trains may
exceed).
 Train ground borne noise received at new residential or other noise sensitive uses is attenuated to
achieve a noise level of 35 dBA, Lmax, slow, in bedrooms and 40 dBA, Lmax, slow, in living
areas. These noise levels are to be measured internally near the centre of habitable rooms. The
measurements should be undertaken using a ‘slow’ meter time weighting, and must be achieved
for 95% of train pass-bys (i.e. 5%, 1 in 20 trains may exceed). This assessment of train ground
borne noise is only to be applied for new residential or other noise sensitive uses where train
ground borne noise is the dominant source of noise (i.e. higher than the train airborne noise).
 Road traffic noise received at new residential or other noise sensitive uses is attenuated to achieve
the recommended design sound levels provided in Australian / New Zealand Standard AS/NZS
2107:2000 Acoustics – Recommended design sound levels and reverberation times for building
interiors. These noise levels are to be measured internally near the centre of habitable rooms,
with the doors, windows and ventilation closed.
 Truck pass-by noise received at new residential or other noise sensitive uses is attenuated to
achieve an internal maximum noise level of 55 dBA Lmax, in bedrooms, during the night. These
noise levels are to be measured internally near the centre of the room, with the doors, windows
and ventilation closed.
Any development that will accommodate residential or other vibration-sensitive uses must be
designed and constructed to include vibration attenuation measures. These vibration attenuation
measures must ensure that:
 Train vibration received at new residential or other vibration-sensitive uses complies with the
requirements of Table 2, Annex A of Australian Standard AS2670.2-1990 Evaluation of human
exposure to whole-body vibration, Part 2: Continuous and shock-induced vibration in buildings
(1 to 80 Hz). Train vibration received at new residential or other vibration-sensitive uses should
comply with the combined direction Curve 20, adjusted by the number of events ‘trade-off’ given
by Note 5 to the Table based on the number of railway movements, but not in any case, lower
than Curve 4. Train vibration is to be measured between 4–80 Hz using an accelerometer fixed to
the floor near the centre of any habitable room.
The responsible authority must include in any permit granted a condition in the following terms:
“Prior to the occupation of any building, a report prepared by a suitably qualified acoustic and
vibration consultant which certifies compliance with the noise and vibration attenuation criteria
set out in clause 5.0 of Schedule 10 to the Design and Development Overlay must be provided to
the satisfaction of the responsible authority.”
6.0
‐‐/‐‐/20‐‐ Subdivision
A permit must not be granted to allow a subdivision which is not generally in accordance with the
approved Master Plan.
7.0
Notice of permit application
‐‐/‐‐/20‐‐ In accordance with section 52(1)(c) of the Act, notice of an application for a permit under this overlay
must be given to the:
 licensee and operator (from time to time) authorised under pipeline licence No PL118 (Somerton
to Altona Licensed Pipeline), Energy Safe Victoria and the Minister with responsibility for
administering the Pipelines Act 2005; and
 owner and operator of the Spotswood Locomotive Maintenance Centre.
Appendices 17 of 29 Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme Amendment C82  Panel Report  17 September 2012 8.0
Decision guidelines
‐‐/‐‐/20‐‐ Before deciding on an application for a permit, in addition to the decision guidelines in Clause 65, the
responsible authority must consider:
 The design objectives in Clause 2.0 of this schedule.
 Whether the proposal complies with the approved Master Plan required in Clause 3.0 of this
schedule.
 The Guidelines for Higher Density Residential Development and clauses 55.02-1 and 55.02-5 of
the scheme.
 Improved Housing Choices for Residents on Low Incomes (Affordable Housing) Policy Statement
(8 February 2011, as amended from time to time).
 Preparing Social Impact Assessments Applicant Guidelines (22 March 2011, as amended from
time to time).
Appendices 18 of 29 Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme Amendment C82  Panel Report  17 September 2012 Appendix D Notes from expert caucus on noise and vibration Appendices 19 of 29 Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme Amendment C82  Panel Report  17 September 2012 Appendices 20 of 29 Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme Amendment C82  Panel Report  17 September 2012 Appendices 21 of 29 Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme Amendment C82  Panel Report  17 September 2012 Appendices 22 of 29 Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme Amendment C82  Panel Report  17 September 2012 Appendices 23 of 29 Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme Amendment C82  Panel Report  17 September 2012 Appendices 24 of 29 Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme Amendment C82  Panel Report  17 September 2012 Appendices 25 of 29 Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme Amendment C82  Panel Report  17 September 2012 Appendices 26 of 29 Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme Amendment C82  Panel Report  17 September 2012 Appendices 27 of 29 Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme Amendment C82  Panel Report  17 September 2012 Appendices 28 of 29 Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme Amendment C82  Panel Report  17 September 2012 Appendices 29 of 29 Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme Amendment C82  Panel Report  17 September 2012