AMENDMENT CXX TO THE XX PLANNING SCHEME - XX PSP …€¦ · AMENDMENT CXX TO THE XX PLANNING...

AMENDMENT CXX TO THE XX PLANNING SCHEME - XX PSP Submitter List

Sub No. Title First Name Last Name Organisation Legal Firm Representative details Street Address Suburb P. Code State Email Comment

1 Mr John Smith Growth Developments C/ ABC Lawyers ATT: Ben Williams, Partner Po Box 1 Melbourne 3000 VIC [email protected] Owners of 1 Boundary Road - Objector

2 Mrs Susan Robbins Leave blank if NA Leave blank if NA Leave blank if NA 2 Boundary Road Growth Area 3200 VIC [email protected] Owner of 2 Boundary Road - Objector

1 Mr Les Kretzschmar Tarneit [email protected] No address supplied

2 Ms Rachel Carney

Department of Environment and

Primary Industries (Earth

Resources) GPO Box 4440 Melbourne 3001 VIC

3 Mr Dean Tighe

Department of Education and

Ealry Childhood GPO Box 4367 Melbourne 3001 VIC

4 Ms Meagan Evans

Australian Energy Market

Operator meagan.evans.aemo.com.au

5 Mr Steven Elder Catholic Education Office PO Box 3 East Melbourne 8002 VIC

6 Delfire Investments C/ AMEX Corporation Cameron Shephard Suite 5, Level 1, 437 Roberts RoadSubiaco 6008 WA

7 Leakes Pty Ltd C/ Dennis Family Corporation ATT: Mr Greg Bursill 211 Waverly Road East Malvern 3145 VIC

8 Stockland Developments Pty Ltd C/ Norton Rose Fulbright ATT: Ms Claire Somerville GPO Box 4592 Melbourne 3001 VIC [email protected]

9 Ms Nicki Hirsh Melbourne Water PO Box 4342 Melbourne 3001 VIC

10 ID_Land C/ Norton Rose Fulbright ATT: Ms Claire Somerville GPO Box 4592 Melbourne 3001 VIC [email protected]

11 Dacland Pty Ltd C/ Urbis Pty Ltd ATT: Mr Cameron Dash Level12, 120 Collins Street Melbourne 3000 VIC [email protected]

12 Trukeel Pty Ltd C/ Taylors ATT: Mr Ross Lamont 8/270 Ferntree Gully Road Notting Hill 3168 VIC [email protected]

13 Golden Group Pty Ltd C/ Taylors ATT: Mr Ross Lamont 8/270 Ferntree Gully Road Notting Hill 3168 VIC [email protected]

14 TCG (RM) Pty Ltd C/ Taylors ATT: Mr Ross Lamont 8/270 Ferntree Gully Road Notting Hill 3168 VIC [email protected]

15 Peet No 87 Pty LTd C/ Peet Pty Ltd Tony Gallagher Level 3, 492 St Kilda Road Melbourne 3004 VIC [email protected]

16 ALMEG Development Pty Ltd C/ Verve Projects ATT: Mr Andrew Jones Ground Floor, 1601 Malvern RoadGlen Iris 3146 VIC [email protected]

17

Melbourne Chevra Kadisha and

York Developments Pty Ltd C/ Reeds Consulting ATT: Sarah North GPO Box 2240 Melbourne 3001 VIC [email protected]

18 Ms Amanda Driver C/ Sweett Group ATT: Gerard Gilfedder Level 2, 179 Queen Street Melbourne 3000 VIC [email protected]

19 Mr Colin Mason APA Group 180 Greend Road Melbourne 3175 VIC [email protected]

20 Ms Heidi Wilson Yourland 68-72 York Street South Melbourne 3205 VIC

21 Ms Laura-Jo Mellan Melton City Council PO Box 21 Melton 3337 VIC

22

Faye Lorraine Craig and

Casabene Family Nominees Pty

Ltd C/ Best Hooper ATT: John Cicero 563 Little Lonsdale Street Melbourne 3000 VIC [email protected]

22A Ferrior Hodgson

23 Mr Rob Ingram Citipower/Powercor [email protected]

24 Muthu Muthukaruppan City West Water Locked Bag 350 Sunshine 3020 VIC

25 Mr Paul Noisette VicRoads Private Bag 4000 Sunshine 3020 VIC

26 RK Hospitality C/ Tract Consultants Pty LtdATT: Mr Greg Wood PO Box 181 Richmond 3121 VIC [email protected]

27 Mr Gerard Gilfedder Swett [email protected]

28 Mr John Moore Wyndham City Council PO Box 197 Werribee 3030 VIC

29 Mr Mark Burton Public Transport Victoria PO Box 4724 Melbourne 3001 VIC

30 Ms Leah Wittingslow Mesh Planning Level 1, 6 Riverside Quay Southbank 3006 VIC [email protected]

31 Julian Hill Satterley Property Group PO Box 33244 Domain LPO Melbourne 3004 VIC [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]


















Page 2 of 12

AMENDMENT C177 - WYNDHAM NORTH DCPSubmissions summary & MPA response

Version: Prepared for Panel Hearing on 25 November 2013

Submission No. Submission

Is a change to the

amendment

requested?

MPA responseAction under Section

23Status

LEGEND

Refer to panel

Change the amendment

No action

1 Les Kretzschmar

1.1 Requests the construction of Morris Rd from Dohertys to Leakes Rd be listed as a 0-5 year project in Table 10 YesPriority projects and staging requirements to be reviewed with

Council and updated as required.Refer to panel

Unresolved

Refer to panel

2 Department of Primary Industries

2.1 Notes gas pipeline within the Oakbank PSP. No comments in relation to the DCP. No Noted No action Resolved

3 Department of Education, and Early Childhood Development

3.1 No comments in relation to the DCP No Noted No action Resolved

4 Australian Energy Market Operator

4.1 No comments in relation to the DCP No Noted No action Resolved

5 Catholic Education Office

5.1

Requests that the land budget be amended to reflect the standard site size requirements of the Catholic

Education Office where non-government school sites have been strategically justified as future Catholic school

sites.

YesThe MPA agreed to adjust the relevant school sites to be consistent

with the CEO's guidelines for school sizes.

Change the

amendmentResolved

6 AMEX Corporation Pty Ltd

6.1 Offers general support for the DCP No Noted No action Resolved

6.2Submits that the building and intersection construction costs included in the DCP are high compared to recent

precedence. Requests greater justification for the costing of items included in the DCP.Yes

The MPA have engaged SKM to undertake a full review of concept

designs and cost estimates included in the DCP.Refer to panel

Unresolved

Refer to panel

6.3Submits that Section 5 and Table 10 of the DCP are too rigid. Requests that they be amended to improve

flexibility and allow the DCP to better respond to the real demand of development.Yes Refer to 1.1 Refer to panel

Unresolved

Refer to panel

6.4

Submits that the anticipated project timing is inconsistent with Wyndham City's Growth Management Strategy.

Requests that a consistent approach to delivery priorities be used through all policies to reduce difficulties in

implementation.

No Noted Refer to panelUnresolved

Refer to panel

7 Leakes Pty Ltd

7.1 Supports the strategic approach to prepare a single DCP for the four PSP areas. No Noted No action Resolved

7.2

Submits that the demand level in the interim traffic model is too high which has resulted in the excessive size of

road infrastructure. Requests that the model be amended with the assumption that 66-75% of area is

developed and that there is at least one crossing of the Werribee River in place.

Yes

Disagree

Modelling is considered to be robust and appropriate. It is also noted

that the modelling only influenced the design of a few intersections

within the DCP due to the application of a template approach to

intersections. Template approach has the support of Council and

VicRoads. Do not support changes to the modelling

Refer to panelUnresolved

Refer to panel

7.3

Submits that duplication of arterial roads is inconsistent with the Draft Arterial Roads Planning Protocol.

Requests that the funding of second carriageways on Leakes, Dohertys, and Davis Roads be removed from

the DCP.

Yes

Disagree

The road works included in the DCP are required to service the traffic

that will be generated by development within the Wyndham North

area and are consistent with the draft Arterial Road Protocol.


Refer to panel

7.4Requests that the collection of GAIC from the DCP area should be built into the funding formula for DCP

projects.Yes

Disagree

No change to the DCP is supported. State infrastructure items are

already inherent in the DCP and PSP PIP tables. It is not possible to

allocate specific GAIC funding to identified State projects.


Refer to panel

7.5Requests that the collection of Council rates from the DCP area should be built into the funding formula for

DCP projects.Yes

Disagree

Following further discussions with the submitter in relation to this

matter the submitter has formally withdrawn this element of their

submission.

No action Resolved

7.6 Requests that regional shared paths be delivered by Council or be included in the DCP. YesFollowing discussions with the submitter this element of their

submission has been withdrawnNo action Resolved

7.7 Requests that any costly bridge on the local road network shown in a PSP be included in the DCP. YesA review of all bridge crossings will be undertaken to assess whether

they are to be developer works or included in the DCP.Refer to panel

Unresolved

Refer to panel

7.8Submits that the scope of arterial road infrastructure is too great. Requests that it be managed through a

reduction in the width of road corridors.Yes

Disagree

Standard arterial road cross sections have been applied across the

arterial road network within the DCP area.


Refer to panel

7.9Submits that the land valuation methodology should be generally consistent with the Land Acquisition and

Compensation Act 1986 .Yes

A review of the land valuation methodology has been undertaken on

behalf of the MPA. The results of this review will be reflected in the

DCP


Refer to panel

7.10 Requests that alternative contingency values be adopted for each type of project. Yes

Disagree

20% rate applied is considered appropriate and is consistent with

previous DCP's.


Refer to panel

7.11 Submits that the costs for grade separations included in the DCP are inadequate and should be revised. Yes

Agree


designs and cost estimates included in the DCP.


Refer to panel

7.12Submits that the 50% apportionment of projects on Leakes Road are impractical and lead to delays in delivery.

Request that the designs of infrastructure be reviewed and the apportionment increased to 100%.Yes

Agree

Following further discussion with Council about what funding will

come from existing DCPs for these projects the apportionment values

have been adjusted accordingly ensuring these projects are fully

funded.

Change to the

amendmentResolved

7.13Requests review of the priority projects listed in Table 10 of the DCP. Further, objects to Section 4.1.3 in

limiting Works In Kind agreements to these projects.Yes Refer to 1.1 Refer to panel

Unresolved

Refer to panel

7.14 Submits that all state infrastructure should be excluded from the DCP. NoAgree, PSP PIP specifies what projects are State infrastructure

projects.No action Resolved

7.15Requests that more detail is provided on the facilities included within active reserve and community facilities to

be delivered by the DCP.Yes

Specifically done to simplify the costing of items and provide Council

with more flexibility in provision of recreation infrastructure desired by

the community. Need to better explain approach adopted to costing

of recreation and community projects.


Refer to panel

7.16 Requests the addition of 'anti scope creep' measures for DCP projects. Yes

Not required. DCPO requires that any permit must be consistent with

the DCP. The adoption of the intersection template approach is

expected to reduce scope creep in relation to intersections


Refer to panel

7.17 Requests various text changes to the DCP - refer to submission for details. Yes Proposed text changes were not provided by Leakes Pty Ltd. Refer to panelUnresolved

Refer to panel

7.18 Requests that any project along Boundary Road be included with a 50% apportionment. Yes

MPA to discuss details of delivery of Boundary Rd with Melton and

Wyndham Councils. DCP to be updated to reflect outcomes of this

discussion


Refer to panel

Page 3 of 12


Is a change to the

amendment

requested?


23Status

7.19 The cost of Morris Rd has been entered incorrectly in the DCP spreadsheet and should be corrected. Yes Will review and update as requiredChange to the

amendmentResolved

7.20Requests the addition of a second signalised intersection on Derrimut Rd between Dohertys Rd and the

Regional Rail Link.Yes VicRoads does not support Refer to panel

Unresolved

Refer to panel

7.21 Requests that Derrimut Rd land acquisition be excluded from the DCP. YesIntersections include the land but the land for the road not included in

the DCP. PAO would be required for the land.No action Resolved

7.22Requests that the cost of relocating or undergrounding of existing & future 66kv power lines along arterial

roads should be included in the relevant DCP project cost.Yes

Agree

The relevant arterial road projects currently make allowance for the

relocation of 66kv lines. The DCP will also be amended to include

any required funding for the provision of underground conduits.

No action Resolved

7.23Requests that the intersection of Leakes & Forsyth Rd should be excluded from the DCP as already funded by

other means.Yes

DCP is not collecting funds for this project and makes it clear that

funds are provided by other DCP's. No change required.No action Resolved

8 Norton Rose Fulbright on behalf of Stockland Pty Ltd

8.1Notes that the limited information about and strategic justification for DCP projects across PSP areas that are

yet to be exhibited has made a full assessment of the DCP difficult.Yes

DCP already provides a high level of justification and detail about

projects. Refer to panel

Unresolved

Refer to panel

8.2

Submits that PSP areas 1088, 1089, and 1091 are subsidising the level of infrastructure required in PSP area

1090 due to the flat DCP charge. Considers that it would be more equitable to land owners in the other three

precincts to have four separate charge areas. Notes that in the interest of progressing the amendment that

Stockland will accept the 'global' approach.

No Noted No action Resolved

8..3Submits that bridge projects associated with the Regional Rail Link are state infrastructure. Requests that all

projects be removed from the DCP.Yes

All bridges included in the DCP have a direct nexus to demand

generated by development.Refer to panel

Unresolved

Refer to panel

8.4Supports the addition of introduction of a 'GAIC funded infrastructure plan' to detail the funding and delivery of

state infrastructure items.Yes Refer to 7.4 Refer to panel

Unresolved

Refer to panel

8.5

Submits that there is an inconsistent approach to the apportionment of projects on the DCP area boundary.

Requests that as communities outside the DCP area will benefit from these projects, all items on the boundary

should be 50% apportioned.

YesThe approach to apportionment of projects on the DCP area

boundary has been reviewed and updated as necessary. See 7.2Refer to panel

Unresolved

Refer to panel

8.6

Submits that it is not appropriate to include infrastructure items funded by the DCP as requirements in a

condition of a planning permit. Further, considers it unreasonable for there to be uncertainty in whether Council

will accept these projects as DCP 'Works In Kind'. Requests that any DCP projects delivered through

development be fully offset against DCP liabilities.

NoRelates to planning permit conditions included in draft s96A permit.

Permit conditions are required to provide timely access to the site.No action Resolved

8.7 Requests that all interim intersection designs be amended to match interim road designs. YesVicRoads design standards for intersections have resulted in the

scope and design of most intersections within the DCPRefer to panel

Unresolved

Refer to panel

8.8Requests that the pedestrian and cyclist crossing of Davis Creek required through Condition 41 of the relevant

planning permit be included in the DCP.Yes Refer response to Item 8.10. Refer to panel

Unresolved

Refer to panel

8.9Requests that landscaping and rail development along Davis Creek and the Werribee River should be included

in the DCP with 50% apportioned to Tarneit West.Yes Refer to MPA submission to panel hearing. Refer to panel

Unresolved

Refer to panel

8.10 Requests the Bethany Road bridge across Davis Creek should be funded by Council or included in the DCP Yes

Connector roads and all associated infrastructure are considered to

be developer works. This is the standard approach adopted by all

PSPs unless there is a specific reason to do otherwise, such as

highly fragmented land ownership.


Refer to panel

8.11Submits that the provision of public open space through the DCP and associated PSPs is excessive and

inconsistent with previous amendments.Yes Submitter has withdrawn their submission in regards to this matter No action Resolved

8.12

Requests that more detail is provided on the facilities included within active recreation to allow for an

assessment of the appropriateness of the costs included within the DCP. Considers there to be a need for

provisions to prevent developers from being required to deliver works that are above and beyond the

construction allowance in the DCP for active reserves through conditions on permit.

Yes Refer to MPA submission to panel hearing. Refer to panelUnresolved

Refer to panel

8.13Submits that the passive open space on the subject land exceeds the requirements of Clause 52.01 and the

PSP and DCP provide no information on equalisation measures.

Based on advice from Norton Rose Fulbright on 22/11/13 this issue

has been resolvedNo action Resolved

8.14

Submits that the areas shown for Growling Grass Frog conservation and flooding encumbrance are excessive.

Requests that if any improvements of these areas are required that they be included in the DCP and be 50%

apportioned to residents of Tarneit West who are likely to benefit from the additional amenity.

Yes

Conservation area and GGF Corridor are required under the

Biodiversity Conservation Strategy (BCS). Any funding is specified as

part of the BCS.


Refer to panel

8.15 Requests that all other shared paths (in addition to those along waterways) also be included in the DCP. Yes See 8.10. Refer to panelUnresolved

Refer to panel

8.16Submits that the DCP is silent on who is responsible for the acquisition and improvement of land set aside for

regional open space (Werribee Township Regional Park). Yes

Agree

Regional park to be added to Section 2.1 - Items not included in the

DCP.

Change the

amendmentResolved

8.17 Submits that projects RD-91-01 and RD-91-02 have the same description and are not consistent with the FLPs. Yes MPA to amend document as necessary.Change the

amendmentResolved

8.18Submits that traffic modelling includes SIDRA analysis for only three intersections in Riverdale. Requests that

all interim and ultimate intersections are modelled.Submitter has withdrawn their submission in regards to this matter No action Resolved

8.19Requests that a consistent funding mechanism be used for both pedestrian bridges across the Werribee River

(currently one is included in the DCP and the other is to be delivered by the state). Yes Submitter has withdrawn their submission in regards to this matter No action Resolved

8.20 Requests that intersection designs show existing pavement to be retained where applicable. Yes

Disagree

Advice from Council and engineers is that the existing pavement will

be removed as part of any design upgrade because it is the most

cost effective way of delivering a new intersection.


Refer to panel

8.21 Submits that the FLP for the intersection of Davis and Sayers does not consider earthworks. Yes

The FLPs have been designed to advise of land take requirements

for future arterial roads. At the intersection of Sayers and Davis this

has included the preparation of a drainage solution and associated

earthworks. The MPA is currently working with Melbourne Water,

DEPI, and Stockland on finalising the appropriate design and

changes to the FLP may be necessary.

Change the

amendment

Unresolved

Refer to panel

Page 4 of 12


Is a change to the

amendment

requested?


23Status

8.22 Submits that the intersection of Sayers, Sewells, and Hogans is operationally impractical and unsafe. Yes Submitter has withdrawn their submission in regards to this matter No action Resolved

8.23 Requests that the pedestrian crossing of Hogans Road at Davis Creek be included in the DCP. Yes

Agree

Pedestrian signals on the shared path network will be included in the

DCP.

Change the

amendmentResolved

8.24 Requests that the methodology for the valuation of land be revisited. Yes

Agree

The MPA has commissioned a peer review of the land valuations and

related methodology. That review has recommended adjustments

that the MPA plans to adopt.


Refer to panel

9 Melbourne Water

9.1Requests that inconsistencies between Melbourne Water Development Services Scheme and DCP be

resolved - refer to submission for details.Yes Agree to resolve

Change to the

amendmentResolved

9.2

Notes that the land valuation methodology used in the DCP is inconsistent with the method used by Melbourne

Water in preparation of Development Services Schemes. Also notes that Melbourne Water is considering

adopting the same land values used in DCPs.

No Related to DSS process No action Resolved

9.3Notes that the DCP lists only Wyndham City as collecting agency. Also notes that Melbourne Water is

considering whether it should be listed as a collecting agency in DCPs.No

MW are not a collecting agency under the DCP, does not limit their

role and function in relation to DSSNo action Resolved

10 Norton Rose Fulbright on behalf of ID Land Pty Ltd

10.1 Supports the strategic approach to prepare a single DCP for the four PSP areas. No Noted No action Resolved

10.2Submits that the land valuation methodology should be generally consistent with the Land Acquisition and

Compensation Act 1986 .Yes Refer to 7.9 Refer to panel

Unresolved

Refer to panel

10.3Submits that the demand level in the interim traffic model is too high which has resulted in the excessive size of

road infrastructure. Requests that the model be amended to adopt a lower demand level.Yes Refer to 7.2 Refer to panel

Unresolved

Refer to panel

10.4

Submits that there is an inconsistent approach to the apportionment of projects on the DCP area boundary.

Requests that as communities outside the DCP area will benefit from these projects, all items on the boundary

should be 50% apportioned.

Yes Refer to 8.6 Refer to panelUnresolved

Refer to panel

10.5

Submits that duplication of arterial roads is inconsistent with the Draft Arterial Roads Planning Protocol.

Requests that the funding of second carriageways on Leakes, Dohertys, and Davis Roads be removed from

the DCP.


Refer to panel

10.6Submits that bridge projects associated with the Regional Rail Link are state infrastructure. Requests that all

projects be removed from the DCP.Yes Refer to 8.5 Refer to panel

Unresolved

Refer to panel

10.7Requests that any bridge on the local road network shown in a PSP be included in the DCP to assist with

timely and orderly development.Yes Refer to 7.7 Refer to panel

Unresolved

Refer to panel

10.8 Submits that there is no strategic justification for the 10% open space requirement outlined through the DCP. NoOpen space provision is in line with PSP Guidelines, 7% active and

3% passive, total = 10%No action Resolved

10.9Submits that there is no mechanism provided in the DCP to deal with the equalisation of open space provision

across developments.No

DCP compensates for land provided as active open space. PSP and

Clause 52.01 manages passive open spaceNo action Resolved

10.10Requests that more detail is provided on the facilities included within active recreation to allow for an

assessment of the appropriateness of the costs included within the DCP.Yes Refer to 7.16 Refer to panel

Unresolved

Refer to panel

10.11Requests that the collection of GAIC from the DCP area should be built into the funding formula for DCP

projects.Yes Refer to 7.4 Refer to panel

Unresolved

Refer to panel

10.12Requests that the collection of Council rates from the DCP area should be built into the funding formula for

DCP projects.Yes Refer to 7.5 Refer to panel

Unresolved

Refer to panel

10.13Submits that the level of shared path infrastructure required through PSPs is inequitable. Requests that it be

included in the DCP.Yes

Following discussions with the submitter this element of their

submission has been withdrawnNo action Resolved

10.14Submits that the scope of arterial road infrastructure is too great. Requests that it be managed through a

reduction in the width of road corridors.Yes Refer to 7.8 Refer to panel

Unresolved

Refer to panel

10.15 Requests that alternative contingency values be adopted for road and bridge projects. Yes Refer to 7.10 Refer to panelUnresolved

Refer to panel

10.16Requests that a detailed valuation process be undertaken with greater detail on individual site valuations in

order to arrive at a more equitable flat rate charge.Yes Refer to 7.9 Refer to panel

Unresolved

Refer to panel

10.17 Requests review of the priority projects listed in Table 10 of the DCP. Yes Refer to 7.13 Refer to panelUnresolved

Refer to panel

10.18 Requests the addition of 'anti scope creep' measures for DCP projects. Yes Refer to 7.17 Refer to panelUnresolved

Refer to panel

11 Urbis - Tarneit Development Project Pty Ltd, Tarneit West Development Project Pty Ltd

11.1Notes the absence of property-specific land budgets for PSP 1089 and PSP 1090 (at the time of exhibition)

have made it difficult to make a full assessment of the impact the DCP will have on the subject land.No Refer to 8.2 No action Resolved

11.2Requests a mechanism be developed for the apportionment of costs of non-DCP items that benefit the wider

community such as connector road crossings of waterways.Yes

Based on advice received from Urbis on 15/11/13 this issue has

been resolvedNo action Resolved

11.3Submits that in relation to the cost estimates for interim intersections, the cost of full depth asphalt should be

$130 per m2 not $180 per m2.Yes



11.4 Submits that cost estimates for interim instructions do not make sufficient allowance for service relocation. YesBased on advice received from Urbis on 15/11/13 this issue has


11.5Submits that insufficient allowance has been made for separation between road pavement and shared paths in

Functional Layout Plans.Yes



11.6 Concerned about the rounded average land value adopted by the DCP. Yes Refer to 7.9 Refer to panelUnresolved

Refer to panel

11.7Submits there is no nexus between development in Wyndham North and bridges across the Regional Rail Link.

Requests that they are removed from the DCP.Yes



11.8 Notes support for the infrastructure delivery priorities included in Table 10. No Noted No action Resolved

11.9

Submits that the land take for intersection IN-89-15 cannot be determined in the absence of a property-specific

land budget. Assuming the intersection is on the subject land, it is requested that it be downgraded to a local

access street and confirmation is sought on who will be responsible for the 50% of costs not included in the

DCP.

Yes

MPA would accept the road behind downgraded to a local access so

long as a cycle path is provided to the pedestrian overpass of the

RRL. The MPA confirms there is no expectation that the developer

would be responsible for funding the additional 50% of costs. This

would be the responsibility of Wyndham City.


Refer to panel

11.10Submits that there is no strategic rationale for a pedestrian crossing (BR-89-04) of the Regional Rail Link on

the subject land. Requests it be removed from the DCP.Yes



Page 5 of 12


Is a change to the

amendment

requested?


23Status

11.11Seek confirmation that a Public Acquisition Overlay would be applied to land required for east-west connector

served by IN-89-12No



11.12Notes concern about the proximity of IN-90-09 & BR-90-02. Requests that the connector road north of IN-90-09

be included in the DCP.No

Disagree

Connector roads are standard developer works. The layout of the

retarding basin was initially proposed by the developer so the MPA

does not see why this should lead to the road being included in the

DCP.


Refer to panel

11.13 Notes concern about the exclusion of turn lanes from IN-90-08 & IN-90-09. YesBased on advice received from Urbis on 15/11/13 this issue has


12 Taylors - Trukeel Pty Ltd

12.1 Requests that road and pedestrian bridges over the RRL be excluded from the DCP Yes Refer to 8.5 Refer to panelUnresolved

Refer to panel

12.2Concerned about the broad hectare land valuation of $500,000 per hectare. Requests a mechanism for land

owners to provide an alternative valuation.Yes Refer to 7.9 Refer to panel

Unresolved

Refer to panel

13 Taylors - Golden Group


Refer to panel



Unresolved

Refer to panel

14 Taylors - TCG (RM) Pty Ltd


Refer to panel



Unresolved

Refer to panel

15 PEET Pty Ltd

15.1 Support the approach of having a global DCP No Noted No action Resolved

15.2

Objects to Section 5.3 & Table 10 on the grounds that it would make development in the Tarneit North precinct

economically unfeasible. Suggests that the mechanism as proposed is staging 'by stealth' and should be dealt

with in a more transparent manner.

Yes

Disagree (Refer to 1.1)

The MPA believes it is important to provide certainty to developers

and also Council on the priority for infrastructure delivery across the

DCP area. Without this information it becomes difficult for Council to

collect sufficient funds to deliver capital intensive projects that are

required early. The MPA rejects the notion that this is 'staging by

stealth' and notes that the DCP does not in any manner set

development staging. There is no mechanism stopping development

occurring in areas not associated with a priority project.


Refer to panel

15.3 Requests that DCP includes clear timelines for project delivery. YesPIP tables included in each relevant PSP provides indicative

timelines. Contradicts with the first point raised by submitter. Refer to panel

Unresolved

Refer to panel

15.4Requests that the DCP be subject to regular review including adjustment as necessary of project costs but not

increase in the scope of works.Yes Any review would be subject to its own statutory process Refer to panel

Unresolved

Refer to panel

15.5Request Section 3.2 be amended to provide that there will be no increase to the scope of works for projects

funded by the DCPYes Refer to 7.17 Refer to panel

Unresolved

Refer to panel

15.6

Requests that more detail is provided about the location and facilities included within active recreation and

community facility projects as well as clarification of how money collected for works in active reserves will be

distributed.


Refer to panel

15.7 Requests the inclusion of an assessment of apportionment & equity of the DCP YesDCP has been prepared in line with Ministerial Direction and DCP

GuidelinesRefer to panel

Unresolved

Refer to panel

15.8Requests the deletion of reference in the DCP to CIL being payable up to any amended cap amount & clearly

provide that CIL is capped at $900 per lot.Yes

Do not support. This does not set the CIL cap simply flags that if the

CIL rate is changed in the Act then the levy maybe increased for

balance of houses within the DCP area.


Refer to panel

15.9 Requestions to deletion of "tendering" from bullet point 3 of section 4.1.3. YesAgree

This dot point has been deleted from the DCP

Change the

amendmentResolved

15.10

Requests section 4.1.3 be amended to ensure that credit for works are to the amount specified in the DCP

Specifically request the following change 'the credit for the works…" to provide for the credit to equal the

amount identified in the WNDCP.

Yes

Agree

Section 4.1.3 will be updated to ensure credit is equal to the amount

specified in the DCP

Change the

amendmentResolved

15.11Requests additional information about the land valuation methodology used in the DCP and submits that an

alternative valuation approach should be adopted.Yes Refer to 7.9 Refer to panel

Unresolved

Refer to panel

15.12Requests bridge crossings of the RRL, duplication of Dohertys bridge & interim intersections that match

ultimate layouts should be deleted Yes Refer to 8.8 Refer to panel

Unresolved

Refer to panel

16 Verve Projects

16.1Seek clarification of who is responsible for the delivery & funding of the required components of the shared trail

networkNo MPA to clarify through PSPs and DCP No action Resolved

16.2 Concerned that the DCP does not provide any effective mechanism for timely delivery of community facilities. Yes Refer to PSP submission response to Verve Refer to panelUnresolved

Refer to panel

16.3 Request that the connector road bridges linking to the subject land are included in the DCP. Yes Refer to PSP submission response to Verve Refer to panelUnresolved

Refer to panel

16.4PSP 1091 and DCP fail to provide mechanism to deliver access to clients land & in turn the community facilities

proposed on it.Yes Refer to PSP submission response to Verve Refer to panel

Unresolved

Refer to panel

16.5Propose that the connector roads & bridges providing access to clients land be included in the DCP as option

to ensure timely access to the land.Yes Refer to PSP submission response to Verve Refer to panel

Unresolved

Refer to panel

16.6 Believes the broad hectare rate adopted for the DCP is low Yes Refer to 7.9 Refer to panelUnresolved

Refer to panel

17 REEDS Consulting

17.1 Seeks confirmation of the alignment and location of any widening for Davis and Dohertys Road. Yes MPA provided confirmation of road widening plans to submitter. No action Resolved

17.2Seeks clarification about who will be responsible for constructing Davis Road and intersection IN-88-06 and the

associated funds will be allocated.Yes

Davis Road is a DCP project and Wyndham City will be both the

collecting and delivery agency for this project. At the discretion of

Wyndham City, a developer may deliver the project as part of a

Works In Kind agreement.

No action Resolved

17.3 Requests that any PAO for arterial roads includes splays & deceleration lands No No PAOs are proposed on the subject land. No action Resolved

17.5 Request that land for acquisition through the DCP be revalued at the time the relevant PSP is gazetted. YesThe DCP includes mechanism for the revaluation of land on an

annual or bi-annual basis. No action Resolved

17.6Questions the need for an additional DCP in Tarneit North as described in Section 1.6 of the DCP. Submits that

this would be unnecessarily burdensome.Yes

The MPA does not intend to prepare an additional DCP that would

impact on the subject land. Additional DCPs will be prepared for the

delivery of local infrastructure (connector roads, shared paths, and

passive open space) in areas of highly fragmented land ownership.

No action Resolved

18 SWEETT on behalf of Ms Amanda Driver

Page 6 of 12


Is a change to the

amendment

requested?


23Status

18.1

Seeks clarification of why 1.1039ha for rail corridors is included in the land budget for property 91-SO-20.

Notes that all RRL acquisitions have now been finalised. Requests that any additional acquisitions related to

the RRL occur through the same process.

NoAgree

MPA notes the mistake and will update land budget as necessary.

Change the

amendmentResolved

18.2Seek the 3.8ha of active reserve on subject land be reduced to 3.0ha due to its proximity to the 2.4ha town

parkYes

Disagree

Size of active reserve determined by size of facilities. Passive and

active contributions are not interchangeable. MPA has discussed this

matter with the submitter and understands this submission is now

withdrawn

No action Resolved

18.3Submit that part of the required 1.2ha water quality basin should be included in the Growling Grass Frog

conservation area along the Werribee River to avoid further reducing developable land.Yes

MPA currently working with Melbourne Water and DEPI on this

matterRefer to panel

Unresolved

Refer to panel

19 APA Group

19.1 Notes gas pipeline within the Oakbank PSP. No comments in relation to the DCP. No Noted No action Resolved

20 YourLand Developments

20.1 Notes that DCPs should not cover the full cost of infrastructure provision. No Agree No action Resolved

20.2Clarification sought on what 'alternative sources' will be used to fund the outstanding cost of any projects with a

50% apportionment.Yes

Funding will be provided predominantly via other either existing or

future DCPs.No action Resolved

20.3Submits that the Regional Rail Link and any associated infrastructure is state infrastructure and removed from

the DCP.Yes Refer to 8.5 Refer to panel

Unresolved

Refer to panel

20.4 Requests that the DCP be amended to include a list of potential GAIC WIK projects. Yes Refer to 7.4 Refer to panelUnresolved

Refer to panel

20.5 Submits that any road widening of declared (state) roads should be funded by the state. YesAgree

There is no funding for the widening of declared arterials in the DCP.No action Resolved

20.6Submits that land acquisition or works associated with Werribee Township Regional Park (regional open

space) should not be in the DCP.No

Agree

Funding for regional open space is not included in the DCPNo action Resolved

20.7Requests additional information be provided on the justification for an increase in active open space provision

to 7% as well as proposed facilities within each reserve.Yes Submitter has withdrawn this element of their submission No action Resolved

20.8 Requests that connector road bridges over waterways be funded by the DCP. Yes Refer to 7.7 Refer to panelUnresolved

Refer to panel

20.9Requests a review of the land valuations prepared for the DCP to ensure they are within 5% of market

expectations.Yes

The MPA commissioned Urbis to undertake a full review land

valuations. Urbis confirmed they were 'generally satisfied' with the

valuations used.

No action Resolved

20.10Notes a 20% contingency on infrastructure projects is high. Requests the DCP clarify how these contingency

funds will be redistributed to developers in the event they are not spent.Yes

Refer to 7.10 - 20% is standard amount applied. Act and DCP

already provide information on redistribution.Refer to panel

Unresolved

Refer to panel

21 Melton City Council

21.1

Notes that the DCP suggests the first and second carriageways of Boundary Road will be funded through

DCPs and any future widening the responsibility of the state. Submits that this is not consistent with the

description in table 1 and requests clarity.

Yes

MPA met with Melton and Wyndham City on 7 October to discuss the

delivery of Boundary Road in more detail. It was clarified that the

Wyndham North DCP deliver an interim carriageway and any road

widening south of the existing reserve. The responsibility for

reservation widening and the delivery of the second carriageway

would be changed to undetermined, reflecting that the PSPs in

Melton have not yet been prepared.

Change the

amendmentResolved

21.2

Requests that additional information is provided to Melton confirming where widening is proposed to take

place, the constraints to widening posed by dry stone walls, and the interim design of carriageways and

intersections as well as their proposed funding mechanism.

NoThis additional information was provided to Melton in a joint meeting

with Wyndham City on the 7 October.No action Resolved

22 Best Hooper on behalf of Faye Craig & Casabene Family

22.1Requests that the bridge over Davis Creek on Hogans Rd & reconstruction of Hogans Rd (RD-91-05 & BR-91-

04) should be given a priority of 0-5 years in Table 10.Yes Agree

Change the

amendmentResolved

22A Ferrier Hodgson

22A.1Requests that bridge across Davis Creek along Hogans Road should only be a culvert crossing rather than

'clear span' and this item then re-costed.Yes

Item is subject to design and cost estimate review. MPA will revise

designs and costs as necessary.Refer to panel

Unresolved

Refer to panel

23 Citipower/Powercor

23.1 Suggest at page 22 3.2.2 "where required an allowance…. Manholes etc)" to include words "and future". Yes3.2.2 refers to costs associated with adjusting or relocating existing

services. Cannot adjust or relocate "future's services. No action Resolved

24 City West Water

24.1Requests that scope of active recreation projects within the DCP be expanded to include localised stormwater

harvesting.Yes

Council will have flexibility about how money collected for AOS can

be allocated to AOS facilities. Should stormwater harvesting be

required as part of an irrigation strategy for active reserves it could be

considered an appropriate use of DCP money.

No action Resolved

25 VicRoads

25.1

Submits that Forsyth Road is considered to be a secondary arterial an is unlikely to become a declared road.

Requests that at minimum land acquisition associated with the road and grade separation be included in the

DCP and ideally a funding mechanism identified for the full road with responsibility shared between Wyndham

and Melton.

Yes

DCP includes land for the crossing, given location of the crossing

relative to the DCP area there is no need to deliver the crossing to

service future traffic generated within the DCP area. VicRoads has

withdrawn their submission on this matter.

No action Resolved

25.2Noted that PTV had previously requested identification of pedestrian crossings on arterial roads. VicRoads

would be happy to work with the MPA and PTV to resolve any concerns and determine locations.Yes Refer to 29.6.

Change the

amendmentResolved

25.3Requests road project RD-88-05 (Leakes Rd) be extended to fund acquisition of land and construction of the

road from Ison Road to the OMR PAO. Yes

Agree

DCP to be amended to fund land. Construction of road should take

place as part of OMR process

Change the

amendmentResolved

25.4Seeks clarification of whether the DCP is funding the duplication of Dohertys Road or the upgrade of the

existing carriageway.Yes

Agree

Project descriptions to be amended as necessary to better define the

project.

Change the

amendmentResolved

25.5 Requests that any signalised pedestrian crossings on arterial roads be included in the DCP. Yes Refer to 25.6Change the

amendmentResolved

25.6

Clarification sought on whether RRL project has included acquisition of land for ultimate bridge infrastructure or

whether additional land for duplicated grade separations will be required in future. Should additional land be

required it is submitted that it should be funded by the DCP.

No Land has been acquired by the RRLA. No action Resolved

25.7 Clarification sought on whether land for two bridges projects (BR-90-04 & BR-91-02) is included in the DCP. No

Land has been included in all bridge projects funded by the DCP.

Project descriptions will be updated as necessary to better reflect

this.

Change the

amendmentResolved

25.8Clarification sought on who is responsible for the additional funding where the DCP has only provided for 50%

of anticipated project costs.No Refer to 7.12 and 7.20 - advise VicRoads No action Resolved

26 TRACT on behalf of RK Hospitality

26.1Submits that the land valuation methodology is inequitable and not consistent with previous PSPs or the Land

acquisition and compensation act 1986 .Yes Refer to 7.9 Refer to panel

Unresolved

Refer to panel

26.2

Submits that the anticipated project timing is inconsistent with Wyndham City's Growth Management Strategy.

Requests that a consistent approach to delivery priorities be used through all policies to reduce difficulties in

implementation.


Refer to panel

27 SWEETT on behalf of Benneb Pty Ltd

Page 7 of 12


Is a change to the

amendment

requested?


23Status

27.1Submits that the broad hectare land valuation adopted by the DCP is too low and does not reflect the intended

use of the subject land for a major town centre.Yes Refer to 7.9 Refer to panel

Unresolved

Refer to panel

27.2

Submits that Wyndham City's growth management concerns could be alleviated by promoting the delivery of

the Sayers Road - Armstrong Road link across the Werribee River for the purposes of increasing network

capacity.


Refer to panel

28 Wyndham City

28.1Requests that Council's share of road infrastructure costs and revenue flows are amended to be more

equitably and practically aligned.Yes Disagree Refer to panel

Unresolved

Refer to panel

28.2Requests that the DCP provide adequate funding for the duplication of local arterial roads and overpasses

where warranted.Yes Disagree Refer to panel

Unresolved

Refer to panel

28.3 Requests the addition of a 'infrastructure and land release' strategy. YesWithdrawn - No longer requests the inclusion of the infrastructure

and land release strategy.No action Resolved

28.4Requests that the priority of road projects is adjusted to ensure that duplication of local arterials is given equal

consideration to the duplication of future declared arterials.Yes Disagree Refer to panel

Unresolved

Refer to panel

28.5 Requests the addition of an agreed funding model for Boundary Road. Yes AgreeChange the

amendmentResolved

28.6 Requests that apportionment of road projects is adjusted to reflect external traffic impacts. Yes Do not support Refer to panelUnresolved

Refer to panel

28.7Requests that local charge areas are included to address the funding and delivery of local infrastructure items

(connector streets, shared trails, and passive open space).Yes MPA is working with Council to resolve this issue

Change the

amendmentResolved

28.8 Submits that the concept designs and cost estimates should be reviewed with Council staff. Yes This process has occurredChange the

amendmentResolved

28.9 Submits that recreation and community infrastructure costs and land areas should be reviewed. Yes This process has occurredChange the

amendmentResolved

28.10 Requests that active open space is provided at a ratio of two hectares per 1,000 people instead of 7% of NDA. Yes Do not support - provision rates are in line with PSP Guidelines Refer to panelUnresolved

Refer to panel

28.11 Requests amendments to the administrative elements of the DCP - refer to submission for details. Yes MPA is working with Council to resolve this issueChange the

amendmentResolved

28.12 Requests that Council's plan checking and supervision fees should be included in the DCP Yes These fees are already included in the DCP No action Resolved

28.13Requests that the DCP area be amended to include an agreed residential parcel previously in the Truganina

Employment precinct.Yes Agree

Change the

amendmentResolved

28.14 Requests the addition of funding for playgrounds. YesPlaygrounds would be included local charge areas - MPA is working

with Council to resolve this issue

Change the

amendmentResolved

29 Public Transport Victoria (PTV)

29.1

Confirmation sought that the land identified in the DCP as "existing railway reserves" and not included in the

Net Developable Area within the DCP, includes all parcels of land acquired as part of the delivery of the

Regional Rail Link (RRL) project including land acquired for three potential stations.

No

Confirmed.

No action Resolved

29.2 Request adjustments to DCPO Map to exclude the railway reserve (including proposed station land). Yes

AgreeChange to the

amendmentResolved

29.3 Requests DCP be amended to include land for road and pedestrian crossings of the railway line. Yes

Agree

The MPA notes that all land required for the crossings is already

included in the DCP. For improved clarity the item description will be

amended to specifically state this.

Change to the

amendmentResolved

29.4 Requests further information to enable technical review of the functional designs. Potential

Agree

Information to be supplied to PTV. Change to the

amendmentResolved

29.5Submits that cost estimates in the DCP for railway crossings appear low. Request that a review be undertaken

to ensure that the funds in the DCP are sufficient to pay the full costs of any new infrastructure.Potential

Agree

SKM have been engaged by the MPA to undertake a full review of

cost estimates.Change to the

amendmentResolved

29.6Requests a review of the need for safe pedestrian and cycle crossings of arterial roads. Further requests that if

that review identifies the need for pedestrian crossings that the cost of these are included in the DCP.Potential

Agree

MPA to review shared path and arterial road network and confirm

locations of any crossings for PTV. All signalised crossings will be

included in the DCP.

Change to the

amendmentResolved

29.7Requests that the list of 'items not included in the DCP' (Page 8) be amended to clarify that the shared path

across the Werribee River adjacent the RRL is not being delivered by the RRLA.Yes

Agree

Change the document as requested.

Change to the

amendmentResolved

29.8 Requests that the grade separation of Forsyth Road over the railway line be included in the DCP. Yes

There is limited nexus between this project and the Wyndham North

development area. The road will ultimately serve a regional function

and only traverses the eastern edge of the precinct for two

kilometres. The crossing of the RRL is also not needed to make the

local road network function. The Wyndham North DCP will contribute

to the overall cost of the project by acquiring the land required for the

grade separation and associated batters.


Refer to panel

29.9 Provide pedestrian/cyclist bridge crossing of Skeleton Creek immediately north of RRL. Yes

There will be two crossings of Skeleton Creek a short distance from

the RRL - one to the north (connector road crossing) and one to the

south (Leakes Road crossing). On this basis, MPA cannot justify

including an additional pedestrian/cyclist bridge crossing of Skeleton

Creek in the DCP. There will be a path under the RRL crossing of

Skeleton Creek linking the paths along the creek to the paths along

the connector road and Leakes Road. The section of path beneath

the RRL will be included in the DCP, whereas the remainder of the

paths along the waterway will be delivered as developer works.


Refer to panel

30 Mesh Planning

30.1 No objection to the DCP but wants to be kept informed of any changes proposed through the Panel process No Noted No action Resolved

31 Satterley Property Group

31.1Strongly of the view that RRL bridges should be removed from the DCP and be fully funded by the State

through GAIC contributions.Yes

Refer to 8.3


Refer to panel

Page 8 of 12


Is a change to the

amendment

requested?


23Status

31.2Road infrastructure item RD-91-01 requires clarification. Davis Road has already been upgraded on SPG's

eastern boundary to what is understood to be the interim treatment standard.

Agree

MPA will update item to only extend interim treatment of Davis Road

from existing extent of worksChange to the

amendmentResolved

31.3

Number of comments in relation to intersection IN-91-07:

- Intersection should be 100% apportioned tot eh Wyndham North DCP

- Breese Pitt Dixon has calculated its cost at approximately $200,000 more than DCP excluding 7,425m2 of

land required to build the intersection. The cost of this item needs to be reviewed.

Yes


designs and cost estimates included in the DCP.


Refer to panel

31.4 Requests listing of Melbourne Water assets. No Noted No action Resolved

SUBMISSION 28 - Wyndham City Council: Response to request for detailed Wyndham North DCP changes

Version: Prepared for Panel Hearing on 25 November

Comment

Number

Page/Sectio

nTheme Comment Recommendation MPA Response Status

1Page 5

Section 1.5

Population &

dwelling

totals

Draft DCP population of 108,366 & dwelling

of 39,795. DCP population of 114,011 &

dwelling of 41,115. This is a 7.75% & 8.5%

increase respectively.

7.75% increase in population require more

sporting infrastructure to meet minimum

sport provision standards in Wyndham

Social Infrastructure Planning Framework

(2012 Update). An additional 2 AFL/Cricket

Oval, 1 Hockey Field & 2 Tennis Courts are

required. Provision of additional land to

accommodate sporting requirement is

needed.

Disagree

Active open space is provided at 7% of

NDA.

Unresolved

Refer to panel

2Page 6

Plan 2

Charge

Areas

Property boundaries must be used as the

divide between Employment and

Residential.

Increase the employment area to the west

of Davis Road and between Skeleton Creek

and Woods Road to the southern

boundaries of the properties abutting

Boundary Road.

MPA is working with Council to resolve this

issue.

Resolved

3Page 8

Section 2.1

Items not

included in

the DCP

a) The second pedestrian bridge of the

Werribee River location is not defined.

b) Why Forsyth Road Bridge over RRL

identified as State Infrastructure when

VicRoads have not confirmed its future

declaration.

a) Add to description: (opposite Davis

Road)

b) If VicRoads will not confirm the future

declaration of Forsyth Road then the

Forsyth Road bridge over RRL must be

removed from this list as it needs to be a

DCP item.

a) Agree. - Change to the Amendment

B) Disagree.

Unresolved

Refer to panel

4Page 8

Section 2.1

RRL project

items

The RRL shared path bridge over the

Werribee River is not being constructed as

part of this project. It is required to be

provided by State Government in the future

as part of the Principle Bicycle Network.

Relocate this dot point to the previous

column in the section of State Government

items not included in the DCP.

Agree. - Change to the Amendment

Resolved

5Pages 9 &

11, Table 3

Road

projects

a) RD-89-01: The required width of Tarneit

Road between Leakes Road and the

Electricity Easement needs to be reviewed.

Barwon Water placed their water main in an

easement based on an ultimate width of 40

metres for Tarneit Road. Regional Rail Link

has since shifted the water main easement

along some sections. This infrastructure

could impact on the road cross section in

this area and may require a wider road

reserve.

b) RD-89-05 & 90-05: May need to break

this into the relevant sections for the land

component. Some of the land for the

widening of Boundary Road is located in

Melton and not part of this DCP.

c) RD-90-01: Error in Project Description.

d) RD-91-06: Error in Project Description.

e) RD-91-08: Error in Project Description.

a) RD-89-01: Review with Council the

required ultimate width of the Tarneit Road

between Leakes Road and the east-west

Electricity Easement to ensure the Barwon

Water pipe location does not compromise

the location of proposed street trees and

infrastructure in the standard 34m cross

section for a four lane arterial road.

b) RD-89-05 & 90-05: Must separate these

two into land and construction components

to ensure that only the land widening within

Wyndham is included in the DCP.

c) RD-90-01: Replace ‘widen’ with ‘create’

as this is a new road reserve.

d) RD-91-06: Replace ‘widen’ with ‘create’


e) RD-91-08: Replace ‘widen’ with ‘create’


Agree - Change to the Amendment

Resolved

6Page 10,

Plan 3

Road &

bridge

projects

Missing DCP infrastructure:

a) If VicRoads will not confirm the future



included as a DCP item.

b) The interim traffic model shows that

development west of Davis Road will

generate the requirement to duplicate

Sayers Road (Tarneit Road to Davis Road).

Sayers Road duplication (Tarneit Road to

Davis Road) must be included in this DCP.

c) Connector Road bridge over Davis Creek

between Sayers Road and Hogans Road.

d) The shared path under Regional Rail

Link along the Werribee River across

VicTrack property is required to complete

the path network. It also has to cross an

Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Area. Cost of

this project needs to be a DCP item.

Must include:

a) Forsyth Road Bridge over RRL.

b) Sayers Road duplication (Tarneit Road

to Davis Road).

c) Bridge over Davis Creek for the Bethany

Road extension.

d) Shared Path under Regional Rail Link

along the Werribee River across VicTrack

property.

a) Disagree.

b) Disagree.

c) Disagree

d) Agree.- Change to the Amendment

Unresolved

Refer to panel

7Page 10,

Plan 3

Mapping Edits:

a) BR-89-C1 is labelled on the Davis Road

culvert (not Leakes Road as list in Table 3,

page 11) & BR-89-C2 is labelled on both

the Boundary Road culvert and the Leakes

Road culvert.

b) BR-90-C1 is labelled on both the

Boundary Road culvert and the Dohertys

Road culvert (east of Derrimut Road).

c) Missing label BR-90-C3 from Leakes

Road crossing of Dohertys Creek (west of

Forsyth Road). This item is listed in Table 3,

page 11 as being for 2x standard culverts

but only one shown on this plan.

Mapping Edits:

a) Amend plan to show BR-89-C1(Davis

Road), BR-89-C2 (Boundary Road)& BR-

89-C3 (Leakes Road).

b) Renumber the Dohertys Road culvert

(east of Derrimut Road).

c) Add BR-90-C3 to the plan where Leakes

Road crosses Dohertys Creek (west of

Forsyth Road).


Resolved

AMENDMENT C177 - WYNDHAM NORTH DCP

8Page 11,

Table 3

Bridge

projects

Missing DCP infrastructure:

a) If VicRoads will not confirm the future




b) The interim traffic model shows that

development west of Davis Road will

generate the requirement to duplicate

Sayers Road (Tarneit Road to Davis Road).



c) Connector Road bridge over Davis Creek

between Sayers Road and Hogans Road.

d) The shared path under Regional Rail

Link along the Werribee River across

VicTrack property is required to complete

the path network. It also has to cross an

Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Area. Cost of

this project needs to be a DCP item.

Must include:

a) Add Forsyth Road Bridge over RRL.

b) Sayers Road duplication (Tarneit Road

to Davis Road).

c) Bridge over Davis Creek for the Bethany

Road extension.

d) Shared Path under Regional Rail Link

along the Werribee River across VicTrack

property.

Refer to Item 6 (same issues)

Resolved

9Page 11,

Table 3

Bridge

projects

Table Edits:

a) BR-89-C1 is labelled on the Davis Road

culvert on Plan 3. BR-89-C2 is labelled on

both the Boundary Road culvert and the

Leakes Road culvert on Plan 3.

b) BR-90-C1 is labelled on both the

Boundary Road culvert and the Dohertys

Road culvert (east of Derrimut Road).

c) BR-90-04 & BR-91-02 project

descriptions are missing the extra land take

required for the overpass embankments.

Table Edits:

a) Amend table to show BR-89-C1(Davis

Road), BR-89-C2 (Boundary Road)& BR-

89-C3 (Leakes Road).

b) Add DCP project number for the

Dohertys Road culvert (east of Derrimut

Road).

c) Amend project descriptions for BR-90-04

& BR-91-02 to include, ‘and the purchase of

land required for overpass construction.’


Resolved

10Page 12

Plan 4Intersections

There were pedestrian signals proposed

across Leakes Road at Skeleton Creek in

the Agency Consultation draft.

Need to confirm the shared path along

Skeleton Creek has sufficient clearance

under the proposed bridge. If not, then the

pedestrian signals need to be included in

this DCP.


Signals to be included in DCP

Resolved

11Page 14 &

15Intersections

Has the Environment team been consulted

regarding the areas of environment

significance? Specifically-IN90-02, BR90-

01, RD90-03, IN90-18, RD88-02, IN88-

06RD88-06, IN88-04.

Council’s Environment Team has gone

through an ocular inspection of these

intersections/roads and bridges and found

areas of environmental significance. A more

detailed survey is required. Costs for offsets

should be considered in the construction

costs set out in the Wyndham North DCP.


issue.

Resolved

12Page 15

Table 4

Intersection

projects

IN-91-07 costings include the culvert

required over Davis Creek.

Amend project description for IN-91-07 to

include the culvert.


Resolved

13

Page 21,

Summary

Land Use

Budget

Active Open

Space

Totals add up to 186.24ha not 186.23 Correct addition error. Agree - Change to the Amendment

Resolved

14

Page 21,

Summary

Land Use

Budget

Active Open

Space

Council requires a population based

provision rate to active recreation open

space due to the increasing densities and

therefore population. SRV rate of 2ha /

1000 people is the desired standard of

provision. Application of SRV rate will result

in an additional 41.7ha of active open

space being required, bringing the total

Wyndham North’s provision to 227.94ha.

Supply 227.94ha of active open space as

per SRV provision rates.

Refer to Item 1

Unresolved

Refer to panel

15

Page 21,

Summary

Land Use

Budget

Passive

Open Space

3% RNDA of 2,661ha = 79.83ha

2% ENDA of 331ha = 6.62ha

Total Passive Open Space required for

Wyndham North is 86.45ha. DCP document

indicated 85.88ha is being supplied. 0.57ha

in addition is required to meet passive open

space MPA Guidelines provision.

Supply 86.45ha of Passive Open Space

according to MPA Guidelines Provision

Agree - Land use budget to be updated to

reflect correct percentages

Resolved

16

Page 21,

Summary

Land Use

Budget

Indoor Sport

Indoor Sport provision rate is 5ha / 60,000

people. Wyndham North’s projected

population is 114,011 and therefore 9.5ha

is required to meet this populations Indoor

Sport requirement. Within the DCP

document, 9ha is being supplied. An

additional 0.5ha of land is required to meet

indoor sport provision rate.

Supply 9.5ha of Indoor Sport Land

according to MPA Guidelines Provision


Resolved

17Page 22,

item 3.2.2

Road

Construction

and

Intersection

Works

What basis was the service relocation

required warranted?

Confirmation is required whether the

service relocation is required.

Forms part of the MPA review of costs.

MPA will confirm whether this service

relocation is required. MPA is working with

Council on this matter

Resolved

18Page 22,

item 3.2.2

Road

Construction

and

Intersection

Works

Please confirm that the costing for following

has been taken into consideration:

a) Telstra/Optical fibre relocation

b) Power poles relocation

c) Offsets of native grasses

d) Offsets for the environment significant

assets.

Costings should include the following:

a) Telstra/Optical fibre relocation

b) Power poles relocation

c) Offsets of native grasses

d) Offsets for the environment significant

assets.

Service relocation forms part of the MPA

review of costs. Offset costs will nto be

included

Unresolved

Refer to panel

19

Page 22

Section

3.2.2

Road

Construction

and

Intersection

Works

a) The cost of constructing these roads and

intersections must include a cost

component for any required offsets for

native vegetation that exists in the road

reserve. There are definitely offsets

required for Davis Road and Leakes Road.

b) The statement about ‘Most difficulties

along the alignment having been dealt with’

is unlikely to be the case as many of these

are currently rural roads only.

c) The use of natural terrain may not be

possible in some areas and the DCP cost

will need to reflect this.

The scope of these works needs to:

a) Acknowledge that native vegetation

offsets will be required in some locations."

b) Remove the statement that most

difficulties along the alignment have been

dealt with.

c) Review the use of natural terrain and the

requirement for extra earthworks to inform

the cost of delivering this infrastructure.


issue.

Resolved

20

Page 23

Section

3.3.1

Charge

Areas

There will need to be localised charge

areas for some infrastructure items to

ensure equity, nexus and need principles

are met. This must be provided for in this

DCP for items in PSP1090 and PSP1091.

Review with Council infrastructure items

requiring localised charge areas:

a) Woods Road

b) Davis Road (south of Hogans Road)

c) Sewells Road (remnant sections

between Leakes Road and Werribee River)


issue.

Resolved

21

Pages 25 to

29

Table 9

Calculation

of Costs

The intersection, road duplication and

construction costs for service relocation

must be reviewed across this DCP for the

existing road network. Council has recently

been quoted additional costs for relocating

Telstra assets that are well in excess of the

service relocation costs apportioned in the

Truganina South Community DCP. For the

intersection of Forsyth Road and Sayers

Road the preliminary estimate from Telstra

was ~$1.4M for assets plus ~$400,000 for

the NBN relocation. Powercor relocation

costed ~$600,000. Yet the DCP only had a

total of $550,000 allocated for all services,

despite being costed by two consultants,

one engaged by the MPA and one by the

Developers in this precinct.

The intersection, road duplication and

construction costs for service relocation

across this DCP must be reviewed with

Council for the existing road network.


issue.

Resolved

22

Pages 25 to

29

Table 9

Calculation

of Costs

Boundary Road - RD-89-05 & RD-90-05:

Need to separate the land and construction

components. Some of the land for the


Melton and not part of this DCP. As

discussed in Section 3.2.2 (column 2), the

first carriageway is to be funded by the

DCP. The apportionment is 100% to this

DCP area not 50%.

Need to separate the land and construction

components and change the apportionment

to 100%


Resolved

23

Pages 25 to

29

Table 9

Calculation

of Costs

Boundary Road intersection IN-88-01:

Davis Road is currently a 4-way

intersection. Land for the intersection is

required from the Melton side and not part

of this DCP.

IN-88-01 – The interim intersection will

need to be modified as Boundary Road will

not be realigned to the north-west until the

OMR is constructed. Therefore the interim

intersection will need to address the current

road layout and may require land from

Melton to construct it.

Withdrawn

Resolved

24

Pages 25 to

29

Table 9

Calculation

of Costs

Boundary Road intersection IN-89-02:

Tarneit Road is currently a ‘T’ intersection.

IN-90-02 & IN-90-03 Morris Road and

Forsyth Road extensions will only form a ‘T’

intersection with Boundary Road in the

interim.

IN-89-02; IN-90-02 & IN-90-03 – The

interim intersection may not be able to be

constructed and a ‘T’ intersection is only

required until the PSPs are prepared for the

land in Melton.

Withdrawn

Resolved

25

Pages 25 to

29

Table 9

Calculation

of Costs

Boundary Road intersections: Need to

separate the land and construction

components. Some of the land for the


Melton and not part of this DCP. Need to

check what is required to serve these PSPs

in the interim until the land in Melton

develops.

DCP interim intersections are designed to

avoid any road widening north of the

existing reserve.

Resolved

26

Pages 25 to

29

Table 9

Calculation

of Costs

Forsyth Road RD-90-01: The cost of

constructing the first carriageway from

Leakes Road to Dohertys Road is in the

Truganina Employment Precinct DCP.

RD-90-01 – Amend project description to

read (from Dohertys Road to Boundary

Road) and apportion at 100%.


Resolved

27

Pages 25 to

29

Table 9

Calculation

of Costs

Boundary Road intersection IN-89-04: This

intersection will be required to be

constructed prior to a DCP being completed

for land in Melton. The apportionment in this

DCP must be 100%.

IN-89-04 Change apportionment to 100%. Agree - Change to the Amendment

Resolved

28

Pages 25 to

29

Table 9

Calculation

of Costs

Leakes Road intersections IN-89-13, IN-89-

15, IN-90-15, IN-90-17 & IN-91-07: These

intersections were apportioned at 50% in

the Wyndham North Concept Plan Area.

However, this was for a two lane road only

and Council has/is planning to construct the

road pavement through these intersections.

This DCP also proposes to duplicate

Leakes Road and a section of Davis Road.

The costings and apportionment must be

reviewed and any new works, over and

above what has been costed into or

constructed from the Wyndham North

Concept Plan Area must be fully charged to

this DCP.

Review with Council the apportionment to

the DCP of IN-89-13, IN-89-15, IN-90-15,

IN-90-17 & IN-91-07.

Any new works, over and above what has

been costed into or constructed from the

Wyndham North Concept Plan Area must

be fully charged to this DCP.


Resolved

29

Pages 25 to

29

Table 9

Calculation

of Costs

Leakes Road intersections IN-89-14; IN-89-

16 & IN-90-16: These signalised

intersections have already been funded and

constructed from the Wyndham North

Concept Plan Area. The apportionment in

this DCP must be 100%.

IN-89-14; IN-89-16 & IN-90-16 Change

apportionment to 100%.


Resolved

30

Pages 25 to

29

Table 9

Calculation

of Costs

Forsyth Road intersection IN-90-07: This

intersection is only costed into the

Truganina Employment Precinct DCP at

40% internal use. The apportionment in this

DCP must be 60%.


Resolved

31

Pages 25 to

29

Table 9

Calculation

of Costs

Davis Road intersection IN-91-03 This

intersection has not been partially funded

from the Wyndham North Concept Plan

Area. The apportionment in this DCP must

be 100%.


Resolved

32

Pages 25 to

29

Table 9

Calculation

of Costs

Forsyth Road - If VicRoads will not confirm

the future declaration of Forsyth Road then

the Forsyth Road bridge over RRL must be


Add Forsyth Road Bridge over RRL. Disagree

There is limited nexus between this project

and the Wyndham North development area. Unresolved

Refer to panel

33

Pages 25 to

29

Table 9

Calculation

of Costs

Morris Road bridge BR-90-04: Construction

cost in the DCP is $7,310,478 but the

costing sheet states $11,554,610.63.

The construction cost in the DCP for BR-90-

04 is $7,310,478 but the costing sheet

states $11,554,610.63. Which is the correct

cost?

Update DCP to correct this inconsisency

Resolved

34

Pages 25 to

29

Table 9

Calculation

of Costs

Morris Road and Sayers Road bridges BR-

90-04 & BR-91-02: Should be identical

bridges yet the costs vary by up to $3M. BR-

90-06 is costed at only $5,137,974. These

are nearly identical bridges spanning the

same distance, yet the costs vary

considerably. This needs to be reviewed.

Council also needs to review the

construction costs of BR-90-04, BR-90-06 &

BR-91-02 and is concerned at the cost

difference between the three grade

separations.

Forms part of the MPA review of costs.

Unresolved

Refer to panel

35

Pages 25 to

29

Table 9

Calculation

of Costs

Werribee River bridges BR-91-03 & BR-91-

05: The construction costs provided for

these structures still needs to be reviewed

by Council.

Council needs to review the construction

costs of BR-91-03 & BR-91-05.

Noted

Resolved

36

Pages 25 to

29

Table 9

Calculation

of Costs




Davis Road).

Disagree

Project outside of the DCP area Unresolved

Refer to panel

37Page 27 &

28

Calculation

of Costs

Who will be the collecting agency for

bridges and culverts? Some drainage

assets are also covered under MW

Drainage services scheme. Is there a

potential to have a double dip?

Confirmation is required on these issues. Agree

The MPA with Melbourne Water have

completed a review all culvert crossings to

esnure there is no overlap of projects within

the WN DCP & Melbourne Water DSS

scheme

Resolved

38 Page 29

Pavilions in

AOS

reserves

Estimated cost of Community Infrastructure

within active open spaces is calculated to

be in the range of $73,000,000. The DCP

has apportioned $45,000,000 for the

construction of these facilities. This will

result in a $28,000,000 shortfall against

Council.

The Community Infrastructure Levy needs

to be increased to adequately pay for this

infrastructure, so as not to place significant

financial burden on Council.

Withdrawn

Resolved

39Page 33,

Table 10

Infrastructur

e delivery

priorities

Council is yet to determine what its

infrastructure delivery priorities are for this

DCP area. Further work is required to refine

this list using Councils’ ‘Strategy for

Managing Growth in Wyndham’ and draft

capital works program.

Review with Council the infrastructure

delivery priority infrastructure items and

timing. A ‘Lot Release Strategy’ will be

required.

A process of review of priority projects has

been commenced with Council.

Lot Release Strategy request has been

withdrawn by Council Unresolved

Refer to panel

40

Calculation

sheets

online

Has Guard rail been accounted for the

overhead poles?


issue. Resolved

41

Calculation

sheets

online

The fees for Council/Vic roads in the

intersections are 3.25%. The survey is 5%

and project management is 10%. Council

project management of 1% is not included.


issue.

Resolved

42

Calculation

sheets

online

The survey and project management

accounts for 15% which is up and above

industry standard. If we draft our WIK

process to say reimbursed at DCP amount,

we may end up giving much more than it

should be.


issue.

Resolved

43

Werribee

River

Shared

Trail/RRL

Costs for access under the RRL should be

a shared DC item between PSP 1089 and

PSP 1091. Cost should include both access

under RRL and also connections to access

under the Bridge (access to section under

RRL is likely to be complicated). The

maintenance track under the RRL bridge is

now not going to be constructed by RRL

due to cultural heritage concerns on either

side of the river.

Clarification of access is needed from RRL.

Add as an item to the DCP.

Agree

Consistent with the Wyndham West DCP

Resolved

Date post:	14-Apr-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	18 times
Download:	0 times

AMENDMENT CXX TO THE XX PLANNING SCHEME - XX PSP …€¦ · AMENDMENT CXX TO THE XX PLANNING...

Documents