amendment c58, c60, c61, c62, c63 and c63 submissions … · amendment c58, c60, c61, c62, c63 and...

Amendment C58, C60, C61, C62, C63 and C63 Submissions Received and Council’s Response

6 October 2015

Page 1 of 21

Submission to Amendments C58, C60, C61, C62, C63 and C64 Submissions Received and Council’s Response

No. Submitter Amendment submitted to Issues raised Councils response

1 Environment Protection Authority Victoria

C58 Supports the amendment but provides the following comments

Reiterates the importance of ensuring that there is an adequate separation distance between new residential development and farming or other commercial activity to reduce potential land use conflicts.

Separation distances have been accommodated within the Master Plan for the SWDP design. No change is required.

Requested a reference to Clause 52.10 within Section 1.1 of the DPO schedule – uses with adverse potential and EPA Publication 1518 – Recommended Separation Distance for Industrial Residual Air Emissions should be included in Schedule 6 to the Development Plan Overlay (DPO).

The schedule to the DPO was amended to include this requirement. Changes included in the schedules to the DPO for Amendments C60, C61, C62, C63 and C64 prior to exhibition.

Requested the above requirement to be included to Section 1.3 for single dwelling exemption.

Single dwelling exemption in Clause 1.3 in Schedule 6 to the DPO requires conditions in Clause 3.1.5 to be satisfied - which requires Preliminary Environmental Audit of land. Included additional statement, as required by EPA, in relation to separation requirements at Clause 1.3. The schedule to the DPO was amended to include this requirement. Changes were included in the schedules to the DPO for Amendments C60, C61, C62, C63 and C64 prior to exhibition.

Raised concern in relation to use of the land at No. 7 Dead Horse Lane and its impacts on future developments within SWDP. Requires consideration to be given to hours of operation, dust and noise impacts. Recommends Council apply Clause 52.10 and EPA Publication 1518 requirements to No. 7 Dead Horse Lane. Also suggested the inclusion of a 20 metre buffer be provided around the site.

Restrictions to future uses at No. 7 Dead Horse Lane can be addressed at the time of assessing planning permits for the land. No change is proposed. A buffer has been provided within the Master Plan for the SWDP design. No change is required.

Requires the wording on Clause 3.1.5 of Schedule 6 to DPO should be amended to include the requirement of a Certificate of Environment Audit to be provided as part of the Environmental Auditing and should be submitted to the relevant authority to demonstrate that the site is suitable for its intended use.

Requirement for a Certificate of Environment Audit can be included to Schedule 6 to the DPO; however the need to refer the Certificate to relevant authority will be determined by Council (Planning Department) at the time of the assessment of application depending on the finding of the Environment Audit. The schedule to the DPO was amended to include this requirement. Changes were included in the schedules to the DPO for Amendments C60, C61, C62, C63 and C64 prior to exhibition.

Requires Clause 3.1.6 – Environment Management Plan - to include reference to EPA’s separation requirements as discussed above.

This is an unnecessary requirement. No change is proposed.


6 October 2015

Page 2 of 21

Comments on the use of s173 agreement as it should not be considered as a ‘full-proof’.

A s173 agreement is a tool available within the planning system to use for the purposes it has been used in the DPO schedules. No change is proposed.

Comments on the 2000sqm lots and recommends controls to ensure location of dwellings to have necessary separation from farming activities.

The DPO schedule can be amended to ensure dwellings are located on the eastern half of the site along Dead Horse Lane and Northern half of the site along Werril Street to be away from farming activities. The schedule to the DPO was amended to include this requirement. Changes were included in the schedules to the DPO for Amendments C60, C61, C62, C63 and C64 prior to exhibition.

Raises concerns about the location of the Lower Murray Water pump station and potential odour issues.

It’s an indicative location only. A note can be included to ensure this issue is addressed. Concerns about odour can be addressed at the detailed design stage. The Master Plan has been amended.

Requires residential areas to be connected to reticulated sewer prior to endorsing the amendment.

This can be achieved through the subdivision process prior to issuing Statement of Compliance for future subdivisions. It does not need to be addressed before endorsing the amendment. No change is proposed.

Reminds the requirement for a preliminary site audits as per the General Practice Note for Potentially Contaminated Land (Department of Sustainability and Environment, June 2005) for any sites may be the subject of site contamination

This requirement is already included in Schedule 6 to the DPO (Clause 3.1.5 – additional wording can be included to accommodate this requirement). The schedule to the DPO was amended to include this requirement.

C60, C61, C62, C63, C64 Supports the amendment and has no concerns with the information provided

No change required

2 Lower Murray Water C58, C60, C61, C62, C63, C64 No objection No change required Confirms the land is within its Urban Water District No change required Potable Water can be supplied through extension of its water infrastructure

These requirements will be addressed during the assessment of subdivision application stage. No change required.

Extension should be through Developer Design and Construct agreement with the Corporation including the payment of all associated fees and charges.


Confirms the land is located inside the Corporation’s Sewerage District. These requirements will be addressed during the assessment of subdivision application stage. No change required.

Gravity sewerage infrastructure will be required to be installed to service the land.



6 October 2015

Page 3 of 21

Installation of sewerage infrastructure to service the land will be through Developer Design and Construct agreement with the Corporation including the payment of all associated fees and charges


3 VicRoads C58, C60, C61, C62, C63, C64 No objection to the amendment subject to the following: No direct vehicular access will be permitted from Sea Lake – Swan Hill Road to the land except either by providing:

a. Provision of a new intersection on Sea Lake – Swan Hill Road allowing only left in and left out or,

b. Provision of a one-way service road located entirely on the subject land with a new access road intersecting with and terminating onto the one way service road.

There are no approved documents at VicRoads to make this restriction. These requirements will be addressed during the assessment of subdivision application stage. This matter will also be discussed at the Panel Hearing. No change required.

Requires all stages for the SWDP are requested to be referred to VicRoads under the relevant sections of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 and the Subdivision Act 1988

Not all the stages within the SWDP will need to be referred to VicRoads. Referral of future stages of development will be in accordance with the requirements of the Swan Hill Planning Scheme and the Planning and Environment Act 1987 and the Subdivision Act 1988. No change required.

Requires a Traffic Impact Assessment Report (TIA) to be prepared for the entire SWDP to determent the extent and timing of mitigation works that may be required, particularly on the arterial road network.

TIA has been prepared for the entire SWDP and the SWDP Contributions to Infrastructure (3 March 2015). Both documents outline upgrade requirements. These requirements have been included in respective schedules to the DPO. VicRoads could include permit conditions on future development applications that require VicRoads referral, if VicRoads justifies further upgrades. No change required.

4 Department of Economic Development, Jobs, Transport and Resources

C58, C60, C61, C62, C63, C64 Welcomes the commencement of the amendment as it recognises the identification of the SWDP as a residential growth area for Swan Hill in the Loddon Mallee North Regional Growth Plan.

No change required.

Supports the inclusion of integrated land use and transport principles and aspirations in the amendment including the requirements to consider active transport models, future public transport routes, and appropriate residential densities and transport infrastructure needs.

No change required.

No changes required, but would like to continue involvement in future planning scheme amendment, development planning and implementation of the SWDP.

The Department will receive notification of future amendments for the SWDP. Referral of future development applications will be as per the requirements of the Swan Hill Planning Scheme and the Planning and Environment Act 1987. No change required.

5 Goulburn Murray Water C58 No objection No change required. Requires development proposals do not impact detrimentally on the flow and quality of surface water and ground water.

The schedule to the DPO was amended to include this requirement. Changes included in the schedules to the DPO for Amendments C60, C61, C62, C63 and C64 prior to exhibition.

Requests that water sources are made available from approved sources. As part of future subdivision approvals, development will be required to


6 October 2015

Page 4 of 21

connect to urban reticulated water supply prior to issue the Statement of Compliance. No change required.

Advises GMW’s intention to decommission the channel system, but necessary agreements have not been made with all the affected landowners at the time of the response.

Amendment to DPO schedule will be made, as necessary, if there are any changes required as a result of GMW decommissioning of the channel (such as inclusion or removal of a Bridge within DPO Schedule 10). A note has also been included in the Master Plan. An open discussion is currently underway with GMW and Council to explore opportunities for the use of the decommissioned channel area. No change proposed at this stage

C60, C61, C62, C63, C64 No objection to the Amendment Advised the future status of the GMW infrastructure has not been confirmed.

The Master Plan notes that GMW plans to decommission the channel. It is understood that there is a process to confirm this and that the works are subject to the responsible authority negotiations. An open discussion is currently underway with GMW and Council to explore opportunities for the use of the decommissioned channel area. No change proposed.

Advised that, should GMW infrastructure be decommissioned and /or relocated at the time of any future development the applicant may be required to:

• Reach agreement with GMW regarding any monetary consideration payable for the relinquishment of any interest GMW may have in the land by way of easement, reserve or freehold land.

• • For urban development/subdivision of property holding delivery

shares the applicant must either:

a. make application to G-MW pursuant to sections 224 and 229 of the Water Act 1989 to: terminate the delivery shares in relation to the property; make a declaration that the property cease to be a serviced property (to effect excision from the district); and trade or transfer any Water Share in relation to the property; or alternatively

b. Demonstrate to G-MW's reasonable satisfaction the means by which a G-MW water supply will be metered and delivered to the lots created by the subdivision, bearing in mind requirements for water use licences and annual use limits.

• Comply with any legal agreement or business case reached with

GMW or as part of the GMW connections program for: the decommissioning of any GMW channel(s) and associated infrastructure and/or the relocation of any GMW channel(s) or associated infrastructure.

These requirements will be addressed during the assessment of subdivision application stage. Landowners that require rural water from GMW may negotiate provision of rural water to their property directly with the relevant water authority. No change proposed.


6 October 2015

Page 5 of 21

• Obtain a ‘Construction and Use of Private Works Licence’ from

GMW should any works be carried out on GMW freehold land, easement or reserves.

Note that the above requirements are only an indication of GMW requirements and may be subject to change depending on the proposal and status of GMW infrastructure at the time of any future development. Should GMW infrastructure remain any future development adjacent would need to adhere with the following building setbacks:

• No buildings or works may be erected or carried out within 30 metres of any Goulburn-Murray Water surface infrastructure (including open irrigation channels and drains), 10 metres from any other structure (such as culverts, drainage inlets, subways, syphons), or 5 metres from any below surface infrastructure (including pipelines), located on any G-MW freehold, easements or reserves.

Section 3.0 of the schedules to the DPO is to be amended to include the setback requirement. The schedules to the DPO are to be amended to include this requirement.

Noted advice is based on the understanding that any future development will be connected to reticulated services.

These requirements will be addressed during the assessment of subdivision application stage. No change proposed

6 Department of Environment Land Water and Planning

C58 Supports the amendment Acknowledges that Dead Horse Lanes is outside the scope of the Master

Plan. However it refers to the investigation required for Dead Horse Lane as a bypass and alerts the evident of native vegetation on Dead Horse Lane and requires further investigation [in the future] will need to consider the impacts on the native vegetation.

The Master was amended to include a note requiring the need to consider the impacts on native vegetation in any future bypass investigations for Dead Horse Lane. The change was made to the revised version of the Master Plan for Amendments C60, C61, C62, C63 and C64 prior to exhibition. The revised Master Plan for the SWDP (Version 7) was exhibited as a background document with these amendments.

C60,C61,C62, C63, C64 Supports the amendment No change required


6 October 2015

Page 6 of 21

7 Housing Industry Association Ltd C58 Does not have any objection in principle to the amendment, but objects

Provides overview of the organisation and their mission Not relevant. No change required Notes the amendment lacking strategic justification, and

The background documents, in particular the Explanatory Report and the Planning Report, specifies the strategic justification from the Review of the Swan Hill Residential Strategy 2006-2030 (2013), current MSS and the LMN Regional Growth Plan. No change proposed

States that the amendment lacks of details as to how diverse range of housing stock will be provided to addressing affordable housing.

The Schedule to DPO6 specifically requires a mix of lot sizes to offer choices and affordable housing options (Clause 3.1.1 of the DPO schedule). No change proposed

Incorrectly quoting the number of lots to be rezoned in initial stage amendments (six amendments), and incorrectly stating the status of the residential strategy.

The schedules to the DPO require and encourage diverse lot sizes and small lots along the proposed public transport routes. No change proposed

Asks to learn more about the residential strategy. No change required. C60,C61,C62, C63, C64 Does not have any objection in principle to the amendment, but in

principle objects to infrastructure/developer contributions

Provides overview of the organisation and their mission No change required. Notes that HIA have an “in principle objection to infrastructure/developer contributions and refers to the current government thinking in relation to developer/infrastructure contributions or whether it would be a disincentive to development.

Noted that HIA has an in principle objection to the application of infrastructure/developer contributions. The approach taken is consistent with the Governments approach to developer contributions. No change proposed

Asks to learn more about the Council’s method of collecting development/infrastructure fees particularly in light of the Planning and Environment Amendment (Infrastructure Contributions) Bill 2015 and the current State Government review work “Reforming Infrastructure Contributions”.

It is noted that the Government is undertaking an Infrastructure contributions reform. It proposes to introduce a new simple, standardised and transparent infrastructure contributions system for levying development contributions towards the provision of infrastructure in growth and strategic development areas across Victoria. The new system is to be introduced in early 2016 and in the first instance will be applied in Greenfield growth areas and strategic development areas. This matter cannot be considered until the Government completes its review. No change proposed

Asks to learn more about the residential strategy. No change required.


6 October 2015

Page 7 of 21

James Golsworthy Consulting C58 and C60 Fundamentally supports the amendment. On behalf of the owners being represented an in principle and high level support for the method of implementing the SWDP through Amendment C58.

No change proposed.

Raises two main concerns: 1. Content of the s173 agreement; and

Contents of all three s173 agreements are in the DPO schedules and the details of s173 agreement for the infrastructure cost sharing is provided in Appendix B in the South West Development Precinct Contributions to Infrastructure (3 March 2015). Given that the development of the SWDP is likely to occur over the next 30 years. The s173 agreements are to be prepared once the landowners are ready to develop their land. No change proposed.

2. Lack of per hector rate for cash contributions/infrastructure works.

The infrastructure costs at this stage of the amendment have been estimated by Council. The remaining costs are dependent upon various factors including requirements service providers, size and layout of future developments, which also determines the size of drainage retarding basins and length of local streets, kerbs footpaths and so on. Council cannot estimate these costs. The landowners can estimate these cost if they wish. No change proposed.

Notes it is difficult to ascertain what the liability for each landowner for the total cost of development as required through DPO6.

Known cost of the identified infrastructure are provided in the South West Development Precinct Contributions to Infrastructure (3 March 2015 and its Appendix B). However, other cost of future development, as discussed above is dependent upon various factors. Council cannot estimate these costs. All other infrastructure costs within individual amendment areas are to be determined by the landowners including the cost sharing between landowners. No change proposed.

Refers to their understanding a DCP would be prepared. When the single s173 arrangement with all the landowners within the SWDP was unsuccessful, Council progressed an individual s173 agreement option which will be only between respective landowners within each amendment area and Council. In addition, the landowners whose land is within the initial areas being rezoned agreed for a s173 agreement option. A s173 agreement approach will provide an extended timeframe over which development of this area is likely to occur, reducing costs to Council and ensuring that the relevant design standards and costs are applied at the time of development.


6 October 2015

Page 8 of 21

No change proposed. Refers to the old s173 agreement and landowners’ comments and asking Council’s response to landowners’ comments.

Refer to comment above. No change proposed.

Notes it is difficult to ascertain what the liability for each landowner for the total cost of development as required through DPO6.

Known cost of the identified infrastructure are provided in the South West Development Precinct Contributions to Infrastructure (3 March 2015 and its Appendix B). However, other cost of future development, as discussed above is upon various factors. Council cannot estimate these costs at this stage. All other infrastructure costs within the sub precinct are to be determined by the landowners including the cost sharing between landowners. In relation to the infrastructure provision this has been clearly documented in the DPO schedules. There are no open ended provisions for infrastructure. No change proposed.

Refers to the stormwater retarding basins being different to what’s in the drainage strategy. And they are oversized and will result in wasted development potential.

The Swan Hill South West Development Precinct Drainage Strategy was amended to rectify the inconsistency. The amended Swan Hill South West Development Precinct Drainage Strategy (July 2015) was exhibited as part of Amendments C60, C61, C62, C63 and C64. Locations shown on the Master Plan are indicative only and not to scale. These are the most suitable locations as per the Swan Hill South West Development Precinct Drainage Strategy. However, DPO schedules require a detail drainage plan to be prepared for each amendment area. The basins do not have to be built to full size immediately. It is expected that the construction of the basins will be staged. It will be important to set aside sufficient land for the full development of the basins at stage 1 of any development. No change proposed.

Refers to their being no public open space proposed, other than the Ken Harrison Reserve.

The Master Plan proposes Ken Harrison Reserve be used as a public open space for the SWDP. The approved Swan Hill Reserves Master Plans 2007 recognises Ken Harrison Reserves will, in the medium to long term, become a key open space and recreational precinct for a larger residential population that will emerge in the SWDP of Swan Hill to 2050. No change proposed.

Supports direct access to Sea Lake - Swan Hill Road (relevant to only Amendment C58).

VicRoads have a requested a conditional/ limited access requirement to Sea Lake - Swan Hill Road.


6 October 2015

Page 9 of 21

No change required.

Questions the minimum lot sizes (1000 sq. metres) (Amendment C60) and the retention of Farming Zone land as separation distance from industrial area (Amendment C58). Suggests land in close proximity to industrial and farming areas be setback through a provision within the schedule to the DPO. Also suggests removal of the term’ adverse amenity potential’ from the DPO schedule.

The minimum lot sizes provide a transition between the LDRZ and GRZ. Of the variation of lot sizes will also add to the diversity of lot sizes, consistent with the SPPF requirements for housing. Landowners were asked to undertake an audit of existing industrial activities and to provide justification for the appropriate setback as per Clause 52.10. Respective landowners came up with a maximum need for a 50m setback (if there is no industrial uses as listed under Clause 52.10 their justification should be zero setback requirement). The minimum setback requirement within Clause 52.10 is 100m and Council has applied this to land in close proximity to an Industrial Zone. The land is within close proximity to Industrial zoned land. It is possible that a use could be considered and approved prior to the Amendment being finalised which may result in adverse amenity considerations being in accordance with Clause 52.10 needing to be considered No change proposed.

Suggests the Farming Zone area to be rezoned for a suitable zone (relevant to only Amendment C58).

Landowners were provided the opportunity to come up with and justify an alternative zone, no alternative option was suggested. However, this area should not be rezoned to a residential zone, as it would create unnecessary contradiction with Clause 52.10 requirements and planning issues in the future that should be avoided. If in the future request for an appropriate zone is received Council may consider the request. No change proposed.

Mentions “there may be specific projects included in the amendment that the landowners may object to” but does not specify anything.

Cannot respond to this comment as it does not specify what they are objecting to. No change required.

C60 Notes a number of recommendations in relation to the content of the DPO and Master Plan, including: 1. Many of the items included in DPO7 are detailed and items that

would normally considered/required at the time of a planning permit application being made or detailed designs being prepared for a development of the land.

2. The description of the land subject to DPO7 is incorrect.

Noted the comments, responses as follows: 1. The Master Plan provides the overarching detail for the SWDP,

therefore the individual development plans require further detail to be provided. Further, it removes ambiguity and provides consistency with the approach to each of the amendment areas within the SWDP. No change proposed.

2. The description is consistent with the lot details registered at Council. No change is proposed at this stage. Can be changed


6 October 2015

Page 10 of 21

3. Collector streets are not identified on the Master Plan 4. The need for a s173 agreement for a gravel turning circle (table 1,

DPO7) is unnecessary and cumbersome in achieving the desired outcome.

5. The 20m landscaped buffer will be redundant before it becomes

effective due to the staging of future rezoning and associated development.

6. The requirements of the Development Plan in DPO7 are very detailed and in some cases calls for detailed design. The Development Plan should be an overarching document similar to the 2008 Outline Development Plan prepared for the SWP by Council

7. Seeks clarification of the other recreational, community and social infrastructure items being considered in DPO7 at 3.0.

8. Seeks a response to the submission to the Master Plan and items

remain outstanding as it relates to the amendment. 9. Requests clarification of how access to Ken Harrison Reserve north

of the C1Z land is proposed. 10. Requests clarification as to why the Catchment Management

Authority would require approval for works in the SWDP. 11. Requests reconsideration of the inclusion of an environmental audit

on the land as it is not consistent with the Ministerial Direction and Practice Note for Potentially Contaminated Land.

12. Questions how the documents in General requirements section in the DPO can be reconciled between Amendment C58 and C60 (are there tracked changed versions available).

13. Highlights the inconsistencies in the cash contributions payable in the contributions report compared to the appendix which have an impact of some $19,000 in contributions.

if a recent copy of the title is provided showing different description.

3. The main collector roads are identified on the Master Plan. Lower level collector streets have not been identified to allow developers flexibility with the subdivision design. No change proposed.

4. The inclusion of the turning circle was for the benefit of the developer – to reduce costs and enable staged development of the individual properties; it also ensures access for service and emergency vehicles and safe accessibility within the development. No change proposed.

5. There is no 20 metre buffer requirement within Amendment C60. No change is proposed.

6. The Master Plan provides the overarching detail for the SWDP,

therefore the individual development plans require further detail to be provided. Further, it removes ambiguity and provides consistency with the approach to each of the development areas within the SWDP. No change proposed.

7. The Master Plan encourages childcare, medical centres and aged care facilities. A Commercial 1 Zone is also included in the Master Plan for a neighbourhood activity area. Other recreational, community and social infrastructure proposed by landowners at the time of development can be accommodated as per the requirements of zones. No change is proposed.

8. Post exhibition of the Amendments the submitter has had discussions with senior officers at Council regarding the submission. Outstanding issues can be discussed at the Panel Hearing. No change required.

9. The DPO Schedule 7, 8 and 9 include specific requirements for the provision of linear access to Ken Harrison Reserve Further, the preliminary design for Ken Harrison Reserve identifies the opportunity to connect to the new residential area in the south west corner of the Reserves Master Plan. No change proposed.

10. The reference to the North Central Catchment Management Authority is an error. The DPO schedule will be amended.

11. Historical use of the land and the EPA request warrant for an environmental audit. As such initially a preliminary assessment must be undertaken and if required a full Environmental Audit will be needed. No change proposed.

12. Revised versions of the background documents were exhibited as part of Amendments C60, C61, C62, C63 and C64. No change is required.

13. The information contained within Appendix B is correct. No change is proposed.

9 North Central Catchment Management Authority

C60, C61, C62, C63, C64 No objection No change required.


6 October 2015

Page 11 of 21

10 Mr Simon Slater and Dr Mary Slater C60, C61, C62, C63, C64 Objection – due to the impact of residential development on runways 04, 15, 22 and 33

Noted

Notes that although a small arc of the Existing (emphasis intended) Airport Environs Overlay and Design and Development Plan, we do not consider that increased residential development adjacent to and under flight paths of an existing airport will allow the long term viability of the Swan Hill airport (YSWH) for light general aviation aircraft.

Noted the concerns about the location of the proposed residential development. The area covered by the AEO is not included within these Amendments. This area may be developed at a future stage. The proposal to develop the SWDP for residential purposes has been a long standing proposal and has been included within the Swan Hill Rural City Planning Scheme since 1999. No change proposed.

Considers the close proximity of residential areas to the flight path of aircraft taking off from existing runways 04 or 33, when noise emitted by the aircraft is at a maximum, leaves the door open to future complaints about noise. Similarly, concerns are raised that aircraft landing on existing runways 15 or 22 could incur noise complaints in the future. Noting that operating under Daytime Visual Flight Rules, can be airborne not long after first light until just before last light. These times overlap with times when residents are most often resting or relaxing, rather than out working, again not compatible with avoiding intentionally creating a situation which has a high expectation of complaints.

Historically the SWDP has been noted for residential development since 1999 (the introduction of the new format planning scheme). Further the location of future residential growth for Swan Hill has been considered through a number of processes since, such as the more recent strategic reviews that include:

• The Loddon Mallee North Regional Growth; and • Review of the Swan Hill Residential Development Strategy

2006-2030 (2013). During these reviews consideration was given to existing land uses (farming, commercial, industrial) to determine a suitable location. Engineering Department’s advice regarding runway 33 and 15 (which flies over the SWDP) is as follows:

• Both are grass runways with aircraft weight limits below the current noise overlay; and

• All Operations of aircraft are limited to daytime operations due to no pilot lighting provided on grass runways.

No change is proposed.

Referenced the situation at Coldstream airport (included background information about when it was established (1962), sealed the runway (2014) and key user groups and due to the residential rezoning is now required to comply with nonstandard operating procedures. Asks whether the Council wants to limit itself to less than best aviation procedures into the future. Advises that runways 04, 15, 22 and 33 allow operations for light aircraft in any wind conditions where it is safe to fly. This is due to the lower crosswind component of lighter aircraft for takeoff and landing, means that the main runway 08/26 cannot be used in strong winds from the north or south. An example is given that would impact on tourists flying up to Swan Hill for a weekend of golf, fishing, Food & Wine Festival and the impact on their trip if the aircraft could not take off. Potentially resulting in tourist complaints.

The Council are supportive of the continued use of the airport and its role in tourism and economic development for the region. The airport receives limited use and the residential land to be rezoned should not affect the continued operation and use of the airport. Council’s aerodrome management have considered the points raised by this objection. Council believes that the South West Development (SWD) will have no effect on current or future aerodrome operations. Australian Standard AS 2021 used to set the existing noise limit overlays were revised recently in 2015. Engineering Department’s response is given below:


6 October 2015

Page 12 of 21

Potential for the residential development to limit tourism in Swan Hill. For example, limiting access for those who own (or a share) in an aircraft travelling up from Melbourne. Similarly, the Amendments could impact Private pilots who do not own their own aircraft will still hire one for a week away from their local flying club or flying school coming to Swan Hill. Raising questions about whether the Council fully utilising its airport assets with respect to tourism. Notes that the airport is essential to rapid and diverse growth in commerce. Big business is more likely to use charter aircraft (which would use the main runway), but of smaller businesses that own, share or hire light general aviation aircraft would be restricted. The pilots are prepared for the weather, but the cross strips at Swan Hill make this location more lucrative. Notes that while general aviation flight training has been allowed to lapse in Swan Hill, there is still active Recreation Aviation Australia flight training. These weight restricted aircraft have even. Smaller tolerances for crosswind operations, making these cross strips of great importance to the last vestige of flying training we have here. Much private training is conducted on weekends. When the wind moves to the north or south, training operations would then be close to these proposed residential areas. Questions the value of establishing the RPT service in Swan Hill and question the support of Council for the ongoing future of the airport. Suggesting that Council is prepared to open the door for business opportunities to move elsewhere.

• Runway 33 and 15 flies over the SWDP: o Both are grass runways with aircraft weight limits below

the current noise overlay; and o Operations of aircraft are limited to daytime operations

due to no pilot lighting provided on grass runways. • Operation of Runway 04/22 and 15/33 are not affected; • The promotion of tourism, business, flight training and decision

at Coldstream YCEM are not affect operations. No change is proposed.


6 October 2015

Page 13 of 21

Suggests that an industrial area would have been better located close to the airport, rather than a residential area.

Historically the SWDP has been noted for residential development since 1999 (the introduction of the new format planning scheme). Further the location of future residential growth for Swan Hill has been considered through a number of processes since. The existing land uses surrounding the township of Swan Hill present constraints to the sitting of residential development (main airport runway, flooding, farming and industrial land uses). The SWDP was considered the appropriate location to provide for residential growth for the following reasons:

• the long standing proposal to develop the SWDP; • the existing site constraints to the north (flooding, farming and

industrial uses) and south east (farming use and main airport runway) of Swan Hill; and

• the policy to protect farming areas and to limit urban sprawl around Swan Hill.

The other main site for potential residential growth would be south of the township back from the Murray Valley Highway, however this site would be more greatly affected by and potentially heighten the risk of the airport having restrictions than developing the SWDP. No change proposed.

11 Phil Joyce C60 and C63 No objections and supports the amendment No change required. 12 Provincial matters on behalf of the

Rosaia Family C64 Fundamentally supports the amendment, however requests changes be

made to the drafting of the DPO 11. No change required.

Suggest that the DPO as redrafted could be streamlined to: a. remove requirements that are repetitive of other provisions and

Acts, or not relevant to the DPO area. b. ensure that the requirements of a subdivision planning permit

application, or permit conditions, are dealt with at that stage, rather than through any Development Plan.

Noted and discussed in the following sections.

Indicates that the schedule, as drafted, shifts the onus of detailed work to the Development Plan stage, rather than as part of any condition of a planning permit for subdivision or development. This is considered unreasonable and unnecessary. It also may restrict Council and any developer to solutions which may not be the best of the day at the time of the actual development occurring, given that future subdivision and development of this land may occur over many years. The expert reports already undertaken by Council which accompany the amendment provide ample evidence that, for example drainage and engineering solutions can be achieved for the area. The exact detail of these solutions is better resolved through a condition on permit, and prior to a certificate of compliance being issued

The Master Plan provides the overarching detail for the SWDP, therefore the individual development plans require further detail to be provided. Further, it removes ambiguity and provides consistency with the approach to each of the development areas within the SWDP. No change proposed.


6 October 2015

Page 14 of 21

for any subdivision. Considers the infrastructure and drainage Overlay provisions excessive. Suggesting that the initial Drainage Strategy has been prepared as part of the Amendment and Development Plan package demonstrates the ability to comply and that detailed drainage and engineering solutions should be a condition of any planning permit for subdivision not the Development Plan (specifically the level of detail requested in 3.1.3 for a Drainage Management Plan). Suggesting the Development Plan Overlay be amended to include a section: “Conditions and Requirements for Permits

• Prior to the certification a report outlining the provision, staging and timing of drainage infrastructure serving the land identified in this Schedule and as per the requirements of the South West Development Precinct Drainage Strategy be submitted to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

• Prior to the certification a report outlining the provision, staging and timing of service infrastructure for the land identified in this Schedule be submitted to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

The above would allow for these matters to be addressed within the subdivision and ensure detailed drainage and engineering solutions are appropriate to the time the land is developed.

The Master Plan provides the overarching detail for the SWDP, therefore the individual development plans require further detail to be provided. Further, it removes ambiguity and provides consistency with the approach to each of the development areas within the SWDP. No change proposed.

Considers that the DPO requires reports that are either repetitive of other Acts or requirements of the Planning Scheme or not triggered under any relevant Acts or the Planning Scheme and therefore are unnecessary, as follows:

• Point 3.1.5 seems to require an Environment Audit, which is an onerous and expensive undertaking. Clarification for the requirement is sought from Council.

It is suggested that a preliminary assessment may be more appropriate which would then identify if a full audit is necessary at a later stage in the planning process and request that the reference to the requirement for an audit be removed from the DPO schedule.

• Point 3.1.7 requires a note to be included on any permit relating to Cultural Heritage. This provision is also repetitive of the requirement of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 and therefore is not required to be included in the Schedule or as a note on any future permit.

As the site is not subject to Cultural Heritage Sensitivity the need for this requirement is questioned. It is suggest that the DPO11 Schedule remove the repetitive requirements and be amended at 1.1 to state:

• A detailed development plan for the entire area identified above

EPA requested the environmental audit. Subject to the EPAs advice this could be revised to refer to a preliminary assessment – which dependant on the result may require a full audit. The inclusion of the note was a requirement of Aboriginal Affairs Victoria. No change proposed.


6 October 2015

Page 15 of 21

in this schedule must be prepared as per the requirements outlined in this schedule and approved by the Responsible Authority. The following plans and documents, for the entire land identified in this Schedule must be submitted to and approved as part of the above development plan:

o Site analysis and subdivision layout as specified in Clause 3.1.1 of this Schedule.

o Infrastructure Plan as specified in Clause 3.1.2 of this Schedule.

o Traffic Impact Assessment as specified in Clause 3.1.4 of this Schedule.

o A conceptual infrastructure and drainage plan. Other matters include:

1. Query the reference to ‘adverse amenity potential’ at point 3. The Draft Master Plan for the SWDP, it is considered that these considerations do not apply to the area affected by DPO11.

2. Point 3.1.1 determines a minimum lot size and building envelope locations that, taken together, will not result in reasonable development outcomes. Suggesting a requirement for a large lot range, or an average lot size of 2000m2 would be more appropriate. We also query the reasoning for a dwelling setback so far away from the main access road to these lots.

1. The property is within 1.5 km of Industrial zoned land. It is

possible that a use could be considered and approved prior to the Amendment being finalised which may result in adverse amenity considerations needing to be considered in accordance with Clause 52.10.

2. The Council propose to retain the larger lot sizes and setbacks for properties fronting the Farming Zone and the building envelope is to ensure high-amenity areas of future buildings are located away from Farming Zone (EPA asked for and supported this requirement during consultation).

No change proposed.


6 October 2015

Page 16 of 21

Master Plan for South West Development Precinct Submissions and Councils response

Submission Number

Submitter Issues Raised Council’s Response

1 Environment Protection Authority Victoria

Not objecting but provides the following comments.

Reiterates the importance of ensuring that there is an adequate separation distance between new residential development and farming or other commercial activity to reduce potential land use conflicts.

Separation distances have been accommodated within the Master Plan for the SWDP design. No change is required.

Requires reference to Clause 52.10 – Uses with adverse potential and EPA Publication 1518 – Recommended Separation Distance for Industrial Residual Air Emissions should be included in Schedule 6 to the DPO.

The schedules to the DPO were amended to include this requirement. Changes included in the schedules to the DPO for Amendments C60, C61, C62, C63 and C64 prior to exhibition.

Requires the above Separation Distance requirement to be included to Section 1.3 for single dwelling exemption.

Single dwelling exemption in Clause 1.3 in Schedule 6 to DPO requires conditions in Clause 3.1.5 to be satisfied - which requires Preliminary Environmental Audit of land. Additional statement, as required by EPA, in relation to separation requirements can be included to Clause 1.3. The schedule to the DPO was amended to include this requirement. Changes included in the schedules to the DPO for Amendments C60, C61, C62, C63 and C64 prior to exhibition.

Raised concern in relation to use of the land at No. 7 Dead Horse Lane and its impacts on future developments within SWDP. Requires consideration to be given to hours of operation, dust and noise impacts. And recommends Council to apply Clause 52.10 and EPA Publication 1518 requirements to No. 7 Dead Horse Lane. Suggested the inclusion of a 20 metre buffer be provided around the site.

Restrictions to future uses at No. 7 Dead Horse Lane can be addressed at the time of assessing planning permits for the land. No change is proposed. A buffer has been provided within the Master Plan for the SWDP design. No change is required.

Requires the wording on Clause 3.1.5 of Schedule 6 to DPO should be amended to include the requirement of a Certificate of Environment Audit to be provided as part of the Environmental Auditing and should be submitted to the relevant authority to demonstrate that the site is suitable for its intended use.

Requirement for a Certificate of Environment Audit has been included to Schedule 6 to DPO. However, the need to refer the Certificate to relevant authority will be determined by Council (Planning Department) at the time of the assessment of application depending on the finding of the Environment Audit. The schedule to the DPO has been amended to include this requirement.

Requires Clause 3.1.6 – Environment Management Plan? - to include reference to EPA’s separation requirements as discussed above.

Council believes requirements within the DPO schedules is sufficient and this is an unnecessary requirement. No change is proposed.

Comments on the use of s173 agreement as it should not be considered as a ‘full-proof’. It is unclear whichs173 agreement EPA refers in its comment (there are three separate s173 agreement requirements in Schedule 6 to DPO). A s173 agreement is a tool available within the planning system to use for the purposes it has been used in this DPO schedule.


6 October 2015

Page 17 of 21

No change is proposed to the DPO schedule.

Comments on the 2000sqm lots and recommends controls to ensure location of dwellings to have necessary separation from farming activities.

The DPO schedule can be amended to ensure dwellings are located on the eastern half of the site along Dead Horse Lane and Northern half of the site along Werril Street to be away from farming activities. The schedules to the DPO have been amended to include this requirement.

Raises concerns about the location of the Lower Murray Water pump station and potential odour issues.

It’s an indicative location only. A note can be included to ensure this issue is addressed. Concerns about amenity/odour can be addressed at the detailed design stage. The Master Plan has been amended to ensure that this issue is addressed.

Requires residential areas to be connected to reticulated sewer prior to endorsing the amendment.

This can be achieved through the subdivision process prior to issuing Statement of Compliance for future subdivisions. It does not need to be addressed before endorsing the amendment. No change is proposed to the DPO schedules.

Reminds the requirement for a preliminary site audits as per the General Practice Note for Potentially Contaminated Land (Department of Sustainability and Environment, June 2005) for any sites may be the subject of site contamination

This requirement is already included in Schedule 6 to DPO (Clause 3.1.5 – additional wording can be included to accommodate this requirement). The schedule to the DPO was amended to include this requirement.

2 Lower Murray Water Provides comments Advises the location of its pump station shown on the Master Plan is indicative only and a

detailed design will be required to determine the exact location for its pump station.

A note can be included on the Master Plan. The Master Plan has been amended.

Comments on the small public open space identified in the previous versions of the Master Plan which has been removed from the consulted version (version 6), the authority believes if a Sewer Pump Station (SPS) is to be constructed in that location it would provide a route for the major outfall rising main without the need to traverse private property.

The small open space was removed to eliminate complications in cost sharing across the SWDP. Similar size area could be allocated within Ken Harrison Reserve. The reserve should be connected via a street where pipelines can be linked to the SPS from Ken Harrison Reserve. This option was discussed with LMW and the authority is satisfied with the approach. A location has been included in the Master Plan. The Master Plan has been amended.

Comments on the reduction in size of the Strom Water Retarding Basin (SRB) within the SWDP (opposed to previously land at No. 75 Yanna Street was considered the SRB for SDWP). It notes that the authority needs to assess the available capacity in Harrison Crescent sewer catchment area to determine the capacity in the existing system to accommodate the additional loading.

These requirements will be addressed during the assessment of subdivision application stage. No change proposed. LMW is currently undertaking a modelling of the sewer capacity of the existing Harrison Crescent system. The Master Plan has been amended to include this requirement.


6 October 2015

Page 18 of 21

3 VicRoads Comment that the draft Master Plan does not reflect their views raised by VicRoads at the last meeting in January 2015.

Do not object to the Master Plan, but requires the plan to be amended as discussed at the aforementioned meeting in relation to access to Sea Lake – Swan Hill Road. Allow for a proposed new mid-block intersection from the development onto the Sea Lake – Swan Hill Road provided: The proposed access is modified to show only left turn in and left turn out by providing either:

• A raised median on the Sea Lake – Swan Hill Road across the proposed new intersection, and also showing the creation of a safe U-Turn facility on the arterial road at or near Dead Horse Lane, OR

• A one-way service road (parallel to the arterial road) located entirely on the subject land with a new access road intersecting with and terminating onto the one way service road.

There are no approved documents at VicRoads to make this restriction. These requirements will be addressed during the assessment of subdivision application stage. This issue will also be discussed at the Panel Hearing for Amendment C58. No change required.

Requires the note on the Master Plan about “Reduced speed limit (subject to VicRoads approval)” along Sea Lake – Swan Hill Road to be removed.

The Master Plan has been amended.

4 Department of Education and Training The Department contacted the Swan Hill Primary School and the Swan Hill SDS prior to sending its comments and collate schools’ comments in its response. Accordingly the Department advises that:

Swan Hill PS

1. concerns about the possible increase in future enrolments which the Department advises that it will resolve when it arises.

2. Other issues are in relation to increased traffic flow, width of roads, provision of pathways, bicycle trails and proposed bus routes.

Issues in relation to increased traffic within the local street network will be addressed by Council as part of its general traffic monitoring and management role. Further, upgrades requirements to existing road network are identified by the Traffic Impact Assessment and incorporated in respective schedules to DPO applied to SWDP. No change proposed.

Swan Hill SDS 1. The Department mentions that Swan Hill SDS was pleased with the additional

road with Wattie Street extension as it will alleviate traffic congestion on Yanna Street where special school (and primary school) is.

2. The Department notes that the School is concerns where trucks may still use Yanna Street and Gray Street which are both wide enough for trucks and they regularly travel past both Specialist School and the Primary School.

3. The Department requires whether there will be alternative solutions provided? And will the width of these roads be wide enough to accommodate increased use by trucks?

No additional street width is proposed to Waitte Street, the Department may refer to the current street width. Any future upgrades to local streets will be as per Councils street upgrades programs. In relation to trucks on Yanna and Gray Streets, these streets are Road Zone Category 2 streets and are wide enough and capable to cater truck movements. This is an existing situation and not triggered by SWDP. Future developments within SWDP will be predominantly residential in nature and are not expected to attract additional volume of truck movements. No change proposed.


6 October 2015

Page 19 of 21

5 Swan Hill Primary School In favour of the development and sees many advantages for the school. But raises the following concerns.

1. Potential for increased student numbers and the need for additional infrastructure (for school), and safety of the children when walking to schools and being dropped off.

Additional infrastructure for the school will be attended by the Department of Education and Training. Road safety (and safety of children) has to be managed by Council as part of its role of managing local street network and safety. In addition as mentioned above upgrades requirements to existing road network are identified by the Traffic Impact Assessment and incorporated in respective schedules to DPO applied to SWDP. No change proposed.

2. Also requires wide enough roads, bike paths, pathways and cater for buses and trucks.

3. Also asking question whether Council has considered traffic flow and if so how will this be managed?

As mentioned above the upgrades to local street networks and intersections have been incorporated in respective schedules to DPO as identified by the Traffic Impact Assessment. How traffic flow will be managed by necessary upgrades where required to local streets and intersections and by Council at the time on completion of developments. No change proposed.

6 James Golsworthy Consulting Less details than that had it in the previous draft ODP The Master Plan shows the details that are to be shown on the plan, for rest of the

information Council’s specification are outlined in respective schedules to DPO as necessary. Any information beyond these will be matter for landowners and respective authorities. Landowner’s are to prepare detail plans at the time. No change proposed.

Questions the statutory weights of the Master Plan The Master Plan is included within respective DPO schedules of the Swan Hill Planning Scheme and as such will have statutory weight. No change required.

Areas and locations of the stormwater basins. Oversized for a long period of time until Stage 2 is developed.

The basins do not have to be built to full size immediately. It is expected that the construction of the basins will be staged. It will be important to set aside sufficient land for the full development of the basins at stage 1 of any development. No change proposed.

Drainage within River Street Investments Pty Ltd Will be shared only by the adjacent land at No 70 Yanna Street (both are in Amendment C62) No change proposed.

No additional Public Open Space is proposed As mentioned in various consultation meetings and as identified in the Master Plan and discussed above Ken Harrison Reserve will be used as a public open space for the development SWDP. The approved Swan Hill Reserves Master Plans 2007 recognises and recommends this. The Swan Hill Reserves Master Plans 2007 recognises Ken Harrison Reserves will, in the medium to long term, become a key open space and recreational precinct for a larger residential population that will emerge in the SWDP of Swan Hill to 2050. No change proposed.

Questions the statutory effect of the Master Plan. The Master Plan will be included within the respective DPO schedules of the Swan


6 October 2015

Page 20 of 21

Hill Planning Scheme and as such will have statutory weight. No change required.

Questions the size of the retail area and area for car parking. If needed more can be rezoned in the future when it’s strategically justified for the need. This is the same size of a C1Z for a similar catchment within the Swan Hill Township. This C1Z area also includes land for angle parking along the road reserve in front of retail area. These should be considered when preparing detail design /subdivision for the respective amendment area. No change proposed.

Questions the retention of land in FZ. Landowners were asked to undertaken an auditing of existing industrial activities and to provide justification for the appropriate setback as per Clause 52.10. Respective landowners came up with a maximum need for a 50m setback (if there is no industrial uses as listed under Clause 52.10 their justification should be zero setback requirement). The minimum setback requirement within Clause 52.10 is 100m and Council has applied this to land in close proximity to an Industrial Zone. No change proposed.

Questions why not considering the use of land within the buffer area. Landowners were asked to undertaken an auditing of existing industrial activities and to provide justification for the appropriate setback as per Clause 52.10. Respective landowners came up with a maximum need for a 50m setback (if there is no industrial uses as listed under Clause 52.10 their justification should be zero setback requirement). The minimum setback requirement within Clause 52.10 is 100m and Council has applied this to land in close proximity to an Industrial Zone. No change proposed.

Questions the need for 1000sqm lot size at the interface between FZ and LDRZ land and the proposed land to be rezoned.

This requirement is temporary between FZ and proposed GRZ until the FZ land are developed. Between GRZ and LDRZ. It is required to maintain the amenity of the existing LDRZ especially not to have many backyards backing onto single LDRZ property. No change proposed.

Questions the extension of Feldtmann Lane. Extension of Feldtmann Lane will be depending upon the subdivision layout of the land (Feldtmann Reserve). No change proposed.

Location of LMW SPS This location was selected by LMW and subject to further detailed design by the authority. Landowners could negotiate it with LMW. No change proposed.

Acknowledges and agrees with the direct access to Sea Lake- Swan Hill Road Note the VicRoads comments above regarding access to Sea Lake- Swan Hill Road. No change required.

Questions the location of road intersection south of Stage 1 and requires flexibility to allow more developable land.

The site is within the future development stage of the Master Plan. Detail engineering drawings are required to determine alternative location for this intersection.


6 October 2015

Page 21 of 21

The new location should be determined without compromising the direction and purpose of these access roads and the overall outcome of the Master Plan. When detail plans are drawn by landowners at the time of development they should negotiate it with Council’s Engineering and Planning Departments. This can be addressed during the detailed design phase. No change proposed.

7 Department of Environment Land Water and Planning

Supports the amendment

Refers to the investigation required for Dead Horse Lane as a bypass and alerts the evident of native vegetation on Dead Horse Lane and requires further investigation [in the future] will need to consider the impacts on the native vegetation.

Current amendment does not propose any exit nor upgrades to Dead Horse Lane that could result in removal of native vegetation. However, future bypass investigation will have to consider native vegetation. Native vegetation issues within SWDP and along Dead Horse Lane were discussed with the former Department of Environment and Primary Industries. The authority was satisfied that the removal of any native vegetation (if needed) should be subject to the requirement of the Swan Hill Planning Scheme. The Master was amended to include a note requiring the need to consider the impacts on native vegetation in any future bypass investigations for Dead Horse Lane. The change was made to the Master Plan for Amendments C60, C61, C62, C63 and C64 prior to exhibition.

8 Department of Economic Development, Jobs, Transport and Resources

The department welcomes Council's commencement of planning for the South West Development Precinct, recognising it's identification as a residential growth area for Swan Hill in the Loddon Mallee North Regional Growth Plan.

No change required.

The department supports the inclusion of integrated land use and transport principles and aspirations in the amendment documentation. This includes support for the requirements on future development to consider active transport modes, future public transport routes, appropriate residential densities and transport infrastructure needs.

No change required.

We have no suggested changes to the amendment documentation. However, the department would welcome continued involvement in future planning scheme amendments, detailed development planning and implementation of the South West Development Precinct to assist in the consideration and implementation of the plan's transport principles.

Other The Department will receive notification of future amendments for the SWDP will also be notified to the Department. Referral of future development applications will be as per the requirements of the Swan Hill Planning Scheme and the Planning and Environment Act 1987. No change required.

amendment c58, c60, c61, c62, c63 and c63 submissions … · amendment c58, c60, c61, c62, c63 and...

Documents