Você está na página 1de 102

PlanningandEnvironmentAct1987

PanelReport

CaseyPlanningScheme
AmendmentC50
New Municipal Strategic Statement and replacement of Local Planning
Policies.

3April2014

PlanningandEnvironmentAct1987
PanelReportpursuanttoSection25oftheAct
AmendmentC50totheCaseyPlanningScheme


SuePorter,Chair PeterNewman,Member

AmendmentC50totheCaseyPlanningSchemePanelReport3April2014
Page1of100
Contents
Page
1 Introduction................................................................................................................4
1.1 TheAmendment......................................................................................................4
1.2 Exhibition.................................................................................................................4
1.3 ThePanel.................................................................................................................4
1.4 Hearingsandinspections........................................................................................4
1.5 Requestforfurtherinformation.............................................................................4
1.6 Submissions.............................................................................................................5
2 BackgroundtotheAmendment..................................................................................6
2.1 Panelcomments......................................................................................................6
3 RevisedMSSStructure................................................................................................8
4 StrategicPlanningContext........................................................................................10
4.1 Policyframework...................................................................................................10
4.2 PlanningSchemeProvisions..................................................................................10
4.3 MinisterialDirectionsandPracticeNotes.............................................................10
5 Agencysubmissions..................................................................................................11
5.1 DepartmentofPrimaryIndustries........................................................................11
5.2 SouthEastWaterLimited......................................................................................14
5.3 VicRoads................................................................................................................14
5.4 DepartmentofSustainabilityandEnvironment...................................................15
5.5 MelbourneWater..................................................................................................17
5.6 CardiniaShireCouncil............................................................................................23
6 CranbourneEastNeighbourhoodActivityCentre......................................................26
7 HuntClubNeighbourhoodActivityCentre................................................................28
8 ErnstWankeRoadActivityCentre............................................................................32
9 MintaFarm...............................................................................................................33
10 860BallartoRoad,BotanicRidge/JunctionVillage....................................................37
11 3945CyrilBeecheyLane(formerlyStevensonsRoad),Cranbourne..........................40
12 DevelopmentopportunitiesintheGreenWedge......................................................44
13 110GricesRoad,Berwick..........................................................................................48
14 Designationoffloodaffectedland............................................................................49
15 RoyalBotanicGardensCranbournemappinganomalies...........................................51
16 PEETsubmission.......................................................................................................52
17 1010ThompsonsRoad,CranbourneWest................................................................66
AmendmentC50totheCaseyPlanningSchemePanelReport3April2014
Page2of100
18 ChangesbetweentheexhibitedandrevisedAmendmentdocumentation...............68
18.1 PolicyneutraltranslationoftheRevisedAmendmentdocumentation...............74
19 IssuesidentifiedbythePanel...................................................................................75
19.1 Consistency between the Strategic Framework Plan and the Local Area
Maps......................................................................................................................75
20 ConclusionsandRecommendations..........................................................................76

AppendixA PanellettertoCouncil,2January2014
AppendixB CouncillettertoPanel,7February2014
AppendixC Listofsubmitters
AppendixD Listofdocumentssubmittedatthehearing

ListofTables
Page
Table1 PartiestothePanelHearing....................................................................................5

AmendmentC50totheCaseyPlanningSchemePanelReport3April2014
Page3of100
ListofAbbreviations
C21
CHMP
DPCD
DPI
CaseyC21Strategy
CulturalHeritageManagementPlan
DepartmentofPlanningandCommunityDevelopment
DepartmentofPrimaryIndustries
DSE DepartmentofSustainabilityandEnvironment
DTPLI DepartmentofTransport,PlanningandLocalInfrastructure
EPA
ESO
EnvironmentProtectionAuthority
EnvironmentalSignificanceOverlay
EVC EcologicalVegetationClass
GAA GrowthAreasAuthority
GWMP
LAM
GreenWedgeManagementPlan
LocalAreaMap
LPPF
LSIO
LocalPlanningPolicyFramework
LandSubjecttoInundationOverlay
MAC MajorActivityCentre
MPA MetropolitanPlanningAuthority
MSS
MW
MunicipalStrategicStatement
MelbourneWater
NAC
PCRZ
PPRZ
PSP
PUZ
RBGC
SEWL
NeighbourhoodActivityCentre
PublicConservationandResourceZone
PublicParkandRecreationZone
PrecinctStructurePlan
PublicUseZone
RoyalBotanicGardensCranbourne
SouthEastWaterLimited
SPPF
UFZ
StatePlanningPolicyFramework
UrbanFloodwayZone
UGB UrbanGrowthBoundary
VPP VictoriaPlanningProvisions
AmendmentC50totheCaseyPlanningSchemePanelReport3April2014
Page4of100
1 Introduction
1.1 TheAmendment
AmendmentC50totheCaseyPlanningSchemeproposesto:
IntroduceanewMunicipalStrategicStatement(MSS)whichlinkswiththestrategicland
use objectives and actions articulated in Casey C21 A vision for our future and
introduces17LocalAreaMaps(LAMs);
Introduce a new Clause 22 which rationalises the number of policies, updates existing
policyandmakesminortextandformattingchanges;and
Makes consequential changes to three overlay schedules, being the Significant
LandscapeOverlaySchedule1(CaseyFoothills),DevelopmentPlanOverlaySchedule
16(HeathertonRoadMixedUsePrecinct)andDevelopmentPlanOverlaySchedule17
(CommercialDevelopment55KanganDrive,Berwick).
1.2 Exhibition
AmendmentC50wasexhibitedduringFebruaryMarch2011.
A total of 24 submissions were received in response to the exhibition, with two of these
beinglatesubmissions.
The decision to refer submissions to a Panel was made by Council on 18 September 2012
(andatasubsequentmeetinginrespectofthetwolatesubmissions).
1.3 ThePanel
ThePanelcomprisingSuePorter(Chair)andPeterNewman(Member)wasappointedunder
delegation from the Minister for Planning on the 11 September 2013 pursuant to Sections
153and155ofthePlanningandEnvironmentAct1987.
1.4 Hearingsandinspections
A Directions Hearing was held on 9 October 2013. Following the Directions Hearing, the
Panelundertookaninspectionofthesitesreferredtoinsubmissionsandtheirsurrounds.
The Panel Hearing was held at Councils Narre Warren Community Learning Centre on 18
and19November2013andattheofficesofPlanningPanelsVictoriaon2December2013.
1.5 Requestforfurtherinformation
Subsequent to the Hearing, the Panel identified a number of differences between the
exhibited Amendment documentation and the revised Amendment documentation which
hadnotbeenbroughttothePanelsattention.
Byletterdated2January2014,thePanelwrotetoCouncilseekingacomprehensivelistofall
suchchanges,alongwithanexplanationofwhyeachchangehadbeenmade.Acopyofthis
letterisincludedatAppendixA.
TheCouncilrespondedtothePanelsrequestbywayofletterdated7February2014,acopy
ofwhichisincludedatAppendixB.
Thesechangeswillbediscussedlaterinthisreport.
AmendmentC50totheCaseyPlanningSchemePanelReport3April2014
Page5of100
1.6 Submissions
ThePanelhasconsideredallwrittenandoralsubmissionsandthematerialpresentedtoitin
connectionwiththismatter.AlistofallsubmittersisincludedatAppendixC.
The Panel heard the parties listed in Table 1, while a list of all the documents submitted at
theHearingisincludedatAppendixD.
Table1 PartiestothePanelHearing
Submitter Representedby
CityofCasey Mr Michael Pollard, Planning Scheme
Amendment Coordinator supported by
MrTomAnderson
HuntClubCommercialPtyLtd Mr Mark Bartley, Barrister, HWL
EbsworthLawyers
MaclawNo10PtyLtd Mr Tom Callander, Barrister, Rigby
CookeLawyers
DuranInvestmentsPtyLtdaka860BallartoRoadPtyLtd Mr Tom Callander, Barrister, Rigby
CookeLawyers
Noel&KathBroatch MrTimBroatch
MarshallBaillieu(theMintaFarmlandowners) MsJulietForsyth,Barrister,whocalled
JustinGanly,ManagingDirector,Deep
EndServicesPtyLtd,topresentexpert
economicevidence
ARequesttoHeardwasreceivedfromMrGarryPage,however,attheHearinghedeclined
theopportunitytobeheard.
ThePanelnotesnosubmissionshavebeenmadeinrelationtotheLocalPolicies(otherthan
Retail Policy and deletion of the Extractive Industry Policy) or the amended overlays. On
thatbasis,thePanelhasmadenocommentontheseaspectsoftheAmendment.
In reaching its conclusions and recommendations, the Panel has read and considered the
submissions and other material referred to it. This includes written submissions, evidence
andverbalpresentations.
Thefollowingchaptersofthisreportdiscusstheissuesraisedinsubmissionsrelatingtothe
Amendment,withthePanelsconsolidatedrecommendationsprovidedinChapter20.
AmendmentC50totheCaseyPlanningSchemePanelReport3April2014
Page6of100
2 BackgroundtotheAmendment
TheCaseyC21Strategy(C21),whichAmendmentC50seekstogiveeffectto,ismorethana
land use or development strategy, it seeks to provide community leadership to achieve a
future for Casey and its residents that is more ecologically sustainable, liveable and
economically prosperous; and it seeks to outline a vision that will shape the future of the
municipality for the next 5, 25, 50 to 100 years ahead. C21 is intended to be an inter
generational strategy and seeks to provide a holistic framework to guide the future
developmentofCasey.Thespatialcomponentofhowthisistobeachievedisonlyonepart
ofthisstrategy.
Preparation of C21 commenced in 1998 and it was finally adopted by Council on 3
September2002.DevelopmentoftheStrategyinvolvedextensivecommunityengagement.
AlthoughCouncilresolvedtoprepareandexhibitAmendmentC50in2004,theAmendment
was not exhibited until 2011. Council emphasised the delay in getting the Amendment to
that point was not due to a lack of Council or community support, but rather a range of
otherunavoidableexternalfactors,including:
The requirement for Council to obtain the Authorisation of the Minister to prepare the
amendment (not given until 14 October 2009), and the need to comply with the
Ministersconditionsforauthorisation.
ThedevelopmentoftheCaseyCardiniaGrowthAreaFrameworkPlanandmorerecently
theSouthEastGrowthCorridorPlan.
The release of both Melbourne 2030 and the subsequent release of Melbourne @ 5
million(December2008)whichupdatedtheMelbourne2030strategy.
The tasking of the Growth Area Authority (GAA), now the Metropolitan Planning
Authority (MPA) to coordinate the planning, infrastructure and service provision in the
CaseyCardiniagrowthareasthroughthePrecinctStructurePlanning(PSP)process.
TheneedtorestructuretheexistingMSStomakeitconsistentwiththerevisedthematic
format of the SPPF introduced by Amendment VC71 approved on 20 September 2010;
and
The need to further revise the proposed MSS to ensure consistency with other
amendments(StateandLocal)approvedintheinterveningyears.
Giventhesedelays,inordertokeepC21current,Counciladoptedashortenedandrefreshed
versionoftheStrategytitledCaseyC21BuildingaGreatCityin2011. ThisStrategywas
notthesubjectofacommunityconsultationprocess.
As an intergenerational strategy, it is not intended C21 will be reviewed every 35 years;
rather it is understood the strategy which will be comprehensively reviewed every 1015
years,recognisingoccasionaltweakingmayberequired.
2.1 Panelcomments
The Panel recognise Casey is a challenging planning environment given the municipalitys
rapid growth rate; and accepts that for this reason Council has chosen to develop a more
aspirational strategy to guide the future development of the municipality, rather than a
morespecificlandusestrategy.
AmendmentC50totheCaseyPlanningSchemePanelReport3April2014
Page7of100
Concern has been raised that this Amendment is based on out of date strategic work,
however these concerns have largely been raised in relation to the specific sites and the
Retail Policy rather than C21 or the overall approach itself. In fact, no submissions were
received which challenged the overall direction of the Amendment, the adoption of an
intergenerational approach or the introduction of Local Area Plans through this
Amendment.
Whilst Council submitted it has updated C21, the Panel notes this update has not been the
subjectoffurthercommunityconsultationtotestwhetherthedirectionsoftherevisedC21
are still valid and supported by the community. For this reason the Panel does not place
muchweightonthisrevisedversioninconsideringsubmissionstothisAmendment.Having
said that, the Panel recognises there does not appear to be any fundamental change in
directionbetweenthetwoversions.
Whilst C21 is intended to be aspirational, the Amendment seeks to introduce specific
direction about future land use and development through the inclusion of a Strategic
FrameworkPlan(Clause21.024)and17LocalAreaPoliciesandMaps(Clause21.04)which
arebasedontheoriginalC21Plan.ThePanelnotestheStrategicFrameworkPlanandLAMs
havebeenamendedtoreflectstrategicworkundertakensincethecompletionofCaseyC21,
and are therefore quite different to the C21 Plan. The Panel considers it is appropriate to
amendtheStrategicFrameworkPlantoreflectthefinalisedstrategicwork.
GiventheaspirationalnatureofC21andthetimeithastakentogettothispoint,thePanel
considers this Amendment is the starting point for a wide range of planning future
initiatives.ItisthereforeimportanttheMSSandlocalpoliciesaresoundenoughtoprovide
sufficientfuturedirection,whilstbeingflexibleenoughtorespondtoissuesastheyarisein
responsetomorerecentdata.
The Panel considers the limited number of submissions is indicative of widespread
acceptance for the general intent of the Amendment, however notes some submissions
have been very detailed in relation in certain aspects of the Amendment which warrant
furtherconsideration.
AmendmentC50totheCaseyPlanningSchemePanelReport3April2014
Page8of100
3 RevisedMSSStructure
Prior to considering submissions to the Amendment, the Panel considers it is important to
first address the issue of the revised Amendment documentation, particularly the revised
MSSstructure,asthishasasignificantbearingontherecommendationsofthisreportgoing
forward.
As outlined in Chapter 1.5, following the Hearing the Panel identified a number of
differences between the exhibited and revised Amendment documentation, which had not
beenbroughttothePanelsattention.
It had been the Panels understanding the differences between the two versions were
limited to structural changes to Clauses 21.01 21.03 to accord with the State Planning
Policy Framework (SPPF), to reflect material introduced through other Amendments
approved after the exhibition of Amendment C50, changes to the Amendment in response
tosubmissions,aswellassomeminoreditorialmatters.ThePanelwasoftheunderstanding
all changes were policy neutral, or strategically justified. Upon review, it became evident
there were other differences between the exhibited and revised documentation which had
not be brought to the Panels attention, which the Panel considered may not be policy
neutral.
In response to the Panels request for further information, Council responded stating the
changesweremadeatthesuggestionofthe(then)DepartmentofPlanningandCommunity
Development (DPCD) to provide better linkages with the SPPF themes. The Panel was
advised the revised version is policy neutral with the intent of making it more succinct,
removing superfluous content, including updated factual content, as well as to align more
closely with the Planning Practice Note 4 Writing a Municipal Strategic Statement. The
Amendment had also been revised to take into account strategic work which has been
completed,particularlyPrecinctStructurePlans(PSPs).
The Panel has not attempted to undertake a detailed comparison of the MSS/local policies
between the exhibited and revised versions to determine whether the revised version is in
factpolicyneutral,asthisnottheroleofthePanel.ThePanelhas,however,identifiedsome
specific differences between the exhibited and revised documentation and these will be
discussedlaterinthisreport.
Onthisbasis,andinanattempttoassistwiththeprogressionofthisAmendment,thePanel
has been very specific about what changes it recommends in response to submissions, and
will refer to the numbering adopted in the revised Amendment documentation to assist
(unlessstatedotherwise).
In terms ofthe revisedstructure, the Panel agreesthis isan improvement on the exhibited
versionandsupportsit.ThePanelhasanumberofspecificcommentsinrelationtothenew
structure,theseare:
The discussion of the thematic approach adopted in Clause 21.023 Caseys Municipal
StrategicStatementissuperfluous.
AmendmentC50totheCaseyPlanningSchemePanelReport3April2014
Page9of100
Clause21.03ThematicApproachwouldbebetterstructuredasindividualclausesfor
each theme, rather than all grouped under this head clause, to achieve greater
consistencywiththeSPPFandthePracticeNote.
Clause 21.04 Local Area Approach would be better structured if each local area plan
wasincludedunderthisheadclause,ratherthananindividualclause.
The relevant Reference Documents would be more appropriately located at the end of
eachtheme,ratherthanoneentirelisttoenablereaderstounderstandwhatReference
Documentshavehelpedinformthepolicy.
TheFurtherStrategicWorksectionsthroughouttheAmendmentshouldspecificallyrefer
towhatworkisproposed,ratherthanreferencetoC21.
These comments are made as Panel observations only and are not necessarily included as
recommendationsofthisreport.
AmendmentC50totheCaseyPlanningSchemePanelReport3April2014
Page10of100
4 StrategicPlanningContext
ThePanelhasreviewedthepolicycontextoftheAmendmentandmadeabriefappraisalof
therelevantpolicyframeworkandMinisterialDirectionsandPracticeNotes.
4.1 Policyframework
As this Amendment seeks to rewrite the MSS and rationalise the number of local policies,
theentireStateandLocalPlanningPolicyFrameworksarerelevanttothisAmendment.
4.2 PlanningSchemeProvisions
ThemunicipalwideAmendmentsdonotaffectzones,overlays(otherthanthosewhichare
the subject of this Amendment) or general provisions in the Schemes. Where Particular
Provisionsarerelevant,theseareidentified.
4.3 MinisterialDirectionsandPracticeNotes
ThefollowingMinisterialDirectionsandPracticeNotesarerelevanttothisAmendment:
MinisterialDirections
MinisterialDirectionTheFormandContentofPlanningSchemes
MinisterialDirection11StrategicAssessmentofAmendments
PracticeNotes
PlanningPracticeNote4WritingandMunicipalStrategicStatement
PlanningPracticeNote8WritingaLocalPolicy
PlanningPracticeNote13Incorporatedandreferencedocuments
PlanningPracticeNote46StrategicAssessmentGuidelines
ThePanelhasconsideredthesedirectionsandpracticenotesandconsidertheAmendments
are generally consistent with them. Specific issues relevant to the directions and practice
notesareconsideredinspecificsectionsbelow,wherenecessary.
AmendmentC50totheCaseyPlanningSchemePanelReport3April2014
Page11of100
5 Agencysubmissions
Submissions were received from a number of agencies. Whilst none of the agencies
opposedtheAmendment,theysoughtspecificchangestotheAmendmentdocumentation.
Where other submissions relate to these comments, they will also be discussed in this
Section.
5.1 DepartmentofPrimaryIndustries
(i) Issue
WhethertheMSSprovidessufficientrecognitionoftheneedforbuffersbetweenextractive
industriesandothersensitiveuses;andwhetherthereisaneedtorecognisetheextractive
industryuseat950BallartoRoadwillcontinueforthelifeoftheresource.
(ii) Submissions
WhilsttheDepartmentofPrimaryIndustries(DPI)(Submission1)acceptsthedeletionofthe
Extractive Industry local policy on the basis that these matters are sufficiently dealt with in
the SPPF, concern was raised the new MSS has omitted reference to the potential conflict
between extractive industry and urban development, which was included in the old MSS.
DPIrecommendedchangestothewordingofClause21.017toinclude:
There is also the presence of a number of extractive industries, such as clay,
sand and rock. It is important to maintain appropriate separation distances
between these industries and other sensitive uses to help protect residential
amenityandensurethatvaluableresourcesarenotsterilised.
DPI also submitted that Clause 21.074 (not 21.09 as stated in the submission) makes
reference to the need for further strategic work to identify future land use and develop a
rehabilitationplanfortheextractiveindustryat950BallartoRoad.Howeveritneedstobe
recognisedthisisanapprovedcurrentlandusewithanapprovedrehabilitationplanandthe
futureuseofthissitewillbedeterminedby,amongstotherthings,thelifeoftheresource.
Inresponsetothefirstpoint,CouncilsubmitteditagreeswiththeDPIsubmission,however,
instead of including this reference in Clause 21.017 (exhibited version), this wording has
been added as a strategy in the Clause 21.033 Theme 3:Economic Development(revised
version).
In response to the second point, Council responded by agreeing with this submission and
advisingchangeshavebeenmadeinthetextandtheLAMtobetteracknowledgethestatus
ofthisextractiveindustrysite.
MrPage(Submission11)raisedconcernaboutthedeletionoftheExtractiveIndustrypolicy
submitting it should be retained because of the requirement for a 500 metre buffer and
otherprotections.
In response to Mr Pages submission, Council noted DPI support for deletion of the policy
andsubmittedthesemattersarealreadyadequatelyaddressedintheexistingprovisionsof
theCaseyPlanningScheme,theSPPFandtheParticularProvisionsatClause52.09.Council
did accept, however, that it would be appropriate to strengthen the MSS to reflect the
AmendmentC50totheCaseyPlanningSchemePanelReport3April2014
Page12of100
buffer requirements of the policy as they relate to the Hallam Road landfill/batching plant
and Taylors Road Landfill in Dandenong South. Accordingly, Council recommended the
inclusionofarrowsdepictingthebuffersontherespectiveLocalAreaMaps(LAM).
(iii) Discussion
In relation to the proposed wording by DPI, the Panel notes and supports the inclusion of
thiswordingintherevisedversion.
In relation to 950 Ballarto Road, the Panel has considered the wording included within the
revised amendment and is satisfied this addresses the issues raised by DPI. The Panel,
however, consider the reference to the existing quarrying operation should be further
qualified by the addition of the word approved (i.e. so the reference reads approved
extractiveindustry).
In relation to the deletion of the policy, the Panel agrees with DPI and Council that these
issuesareadequatelydealtwithintheexistingSPPFandParticularProvisionsandtherefore
thereisnoneedtoretaintheexistinglocalpolicy.ThePanelalsoagreeswithCouncilthatit
is appropriate to show where these buffers apply on the Strategic Framework Plan and the
relevantLAMs.
The Panel also notes Mr Page questioned whether similar buffers should be shown on the
BerwicklandfillsiteinQuarryRoad.MrPollardrepliedthatlandfillisaformerbasaltquarry
anddoesnotpresentthesameissueswithrespecttomethanemigrationasoccurredatthe
StevensonsRoadquarry.ThePanelacceptsCouncilsubmission.
(iv) Recommendations
ThePanelrecommends:
1 AmendClause21.074BotanicRidge/JunctionVillage:
a) Implementation Further Strategic Work to include the following
Undertaking a detailed strategic review of the triangular area south of
Ballarto Road and west of the Royal Botanic Gardens Cranbourne to identify
future land use opportunities following the expiration of the existing
approvedquarryingoperationsat950BallartoRoad.
b) LAM to show the arrow pointing to 950 Ballarto Road and the notation to
readInvestigatefuturelanduseopportunitiesfollowingthecessationofthe
existing approved extractive industry operation through a detailed strategic
review.
2 Include the following strategy in Clause 21.033 Theme 3: Economic
developmentObjective2Maintainappropriateseparationdistancesbetween
extractive industries and any sensitive uses to protect residential amenity and
ensurevaluableresourcesarenotsterilised.
3 AmendClause21.18HamptonPark:
a) Objectives to include the following additional objective To recognise
amenityconstraintsassociatedwithexistingindustrialuses.
AmendmentC50totheCaseyPlanningSchemePanelReport3April2014
Page13of100
b) Strategies include the following additional Strategy Discourage the
establishmentofsensitiveuseswithin500metresoftheHallamRoadLandfill
andwithin100metresoftheadjoiningconcretebatchingplant.
c) LAMtoshow:
- TheinclusionofBuffertoSensitiveUsearrowsaroundthelandfill
siteandconcretebatchingplant.
- An annotation which states Discourage the establishment of
sensitive uses within 500 metres of the Hallam Road landfill and
within100metresoftheadjoiningconcretebatchingplant.
4 AmendClause21.19Lynbrook/Lyndhurst:
a) Objectives to include the following additional objective To recognise
amenityconstraintsassociatedwithexistingindustrialuses.
b) Strategies to include the following additional Strategy Discourage the
establishmentofsensitiveuseswithin500metresoftheHallamRoadLandfill
andwithin1kilometreoftheTaylorsRoadLandfillinDandenongSouth.
c) LAMtoshow:
- TheinclusionofBuffertoSensitiveUsearrowsaroundtheHallam
andTaylorsRoadslandfillsites.
- An annotation which states Discourage the establishment of
sensitive uses within 500 metres of the Hallam Road landfill and
within1kmoftheTaylorsRoadLandfill.
5 AmendClause21.21NarreWarrenSouth:
a) Objectives to include the following additional objective To recognise
amenityconstraintsassociatedwithexistingindustrialuses.
b) Strategies to include the following additional Strategy Discourage the
establishment of sensitive uses within 500 metres of the Hallam Road
Landfill.
c) LAMtoshow:
- theinclusionofBuffertoSensitiveUsearrowsaroundthelandfill
site.
- an annotation which states Discourage the establishment of
sensitiveuseswithin500metresoftheHallamRoadlandfill.
AmendmentC50totheCaseyPlanningSchemePanelReport3April2014
Page14of100
5.2 SouthEastWaterLimited
(i) Issue
Whetherchangesarerequiredtoplacegreateremphasisonreticulatedsewerage.
(ii) Submission
South East Water Limited (SEWL) (Submission 2) submitted that all new development
created as a result of this Amendment will be provided with reticulated sewerage services,
and any shortfall in capacity in the existing system, as determined by SEWL, needs to be
upgradedbythedeveloper.
Councilsrespondedthesearematterswhichwouldbeincludedinapermitandnochangeis
neededtotheAmendment.
(iii) Discussion
The Panel note that SEWL were not seeking changes to the Amendment and this
commentarywasprovidedinformationpurposesonly.
ThePanelagreeswithCouncilthesematterswillbeappropriatelydealtwithattheplanning
permit application stage and that no change to the Amendment is required in response to
thissubmission.
(iv) Conclusion
NochangeisrequiredtotheAmendmentinresponsetothissubmission.
5.3 VicRoads
(i) Issue
WhethertheMSSshouldbeamendedtoreinforcetheroleofarterialroads.
(ii) Submissions
VicRoads(Submission3)submittedthewordingofClause21.035Theme5:MakingCasey
anaccessiblecityStrategiesdotpoint1undertheheadingDevelopanarterialgridthat
maximises roadbased transport accessibility throughout Casey should be amended to
includeareferencetomayratherthancan.
VicRoadsalsosubmittedanadditionalstrategyshouldbeaddedwhichreads:
Facilitate safe and efficient movement of people and goods with integrated
solutionsspanningthevarioustransportnodes:
o Plannetworkstoprovideprioritytospecifictransportmodesonarterial
roads in accordance with VicRoads SmartRoads Network Operating
Plans.
o Develop capacity of key arterial roads in growing suburbs and identify
and secure reservations for future transport corridors aligned with land
useplans.
o Maintain the safe and efficient operation of arterial roads by ensuring
that access to these roads is planned in accordance with VicRoads
AccessManagementPolicies.
AmendmentC50totheCaseyPlanningSchemePanelReport3April2014
Page15of100
Councils responded that this is addressed in the revised Clause 21.034 Theme 4:
Transport.
In relation to the use of may rather than can, Council submitted can is grammatically
correctinthiscontext.
(iii) Discussion
The Panel has reviewed the SPPF and the revised MSS, and whilst it is agreed the general
principlessuggestedbyVicRoadsaretouchedonbytheSPPFandtherevisedClause21.034,
thesedonotprovidethelevelofspecificitysuggestedbyVicRoads.Giventhisisasignificant
growtharea,thePanelconsidersthereisvalueinincludingthisadditionalstrategy.
Inrelationtothetermsmayandcan,thePanelacceptsCouncilsubmissionsandsupports
theretentionofcan.
(iv) Recommendation
ThePanelrecommends:
6. Include an additional strategy in the Clause 21.03 Theme 4: Transport
StrategiesTransportSystemwhichreads:
1.7 Facilitatesafeandefficientmovementofpeopleandgoodswithintegrated
solutionsspanningthevarioustransportnodes:
Plannetworkstoprovideprioritytospecifictransportmodesonarterial
roads in accordance with VicRoads SmartRoads Network Operating
Plans.
Develop capacity of key arterial roads in growing suburbs and identify
andsecurereservationsforfuturetransportcorridorsalignedwithland
useplans.
Maintain the safe and efficient operation of arterial roads by ensuring
that access to these roads is planned in accordance with VicRoads
AccessManagementPolicies.
5.4 DepartmentofSustainabilityandEnvironment
(i) Issue
Whether the Clause 21.08 Casey Coast LAM should be amended to recognise future
environmentalrisks.Inaddition,whethersometermsusedshouldbeamended.
(ii) Submissions
The Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE) (Submission 4) submitted the
followingchangesshouldbemadetoClause21.08:
AmendObjectivedotpoint6torefertonaturalresourceratherthanresource.
Includeastrategyrequiringa10metredesigndevelopmentsetbackfromthePublicPark
andRecreationZone(PPRZ)orPublicConservationandResourceZone(PCRZ);
Amendtheimplementationmeasurestoincludeacoastalerosionmanagementoverlay.
Amend Other action: dot point 3 to refer to locally indigenous coastal vegetation,
ratherthanindigenous.
AmendmentC50totheCaseyPlanningSchemePanelReport3April2014
Page16of100
Council responded that it supports the first suggested amendment and has accordingly
amendedthisobjective.
Inrelationtothesecondmatter,Councilrespondedbyadvisingthatit isbeingproactivein
terms of reviewing predicted flood plains and planning controls in the coastal areas in
conjunctionwithMelbourneWater,andtheimportanceofthisisemphasisedintherevised
MSS in theClause 21.032 Theme 2:Environment. Council submitted the DSE submission
takes this to the next level and this something more appropriately addressed in the Casey
CoastalStrategy.
In relation to the third matter, Council submitted physical mapping of the coastal area sea
level rise hazard and shoreline erosion risk areas is required before planning tools like
ErosionManagementOverlaysareappliedornewplanningtoolsdeveloped,inlinewiththe
Ministers response to the Coastal Climate Change Advisory Committee report. Further,
Council advised it has been working with Melbourne Water with a view to extending the
Land Subject to Inundation Overlay (LSIO) to reflect sea level rises along the Western Port
coastline.Asaconsequence,nochangestotheamendmentareproposedbyCouncil.
InrelationtothelastmatterCouncilhadnoobjectiontosuggestedwordchanges.
(iii) Discussion
Inrelationtothesuggestedwordingchanges,thePanelagreeswiththesuggestedchanges
supportedbyCouncil.
In relation to the suggested 10m setback, the Panel notes DSE provided no explanation or
justification for the suggested 10m setback and what this figure was based on. Whilst
Council has interpreted this as being climate change related, the Panel considers this has
potentialwiderimplications.Withoutaclearunderstandingoftherationaleorjustification
forthissuggestion,thePaneldoesnotconsideritisappropriatetorecommendinclusionof
thisadditionalstrategyatthistime.
In relation to the suggested reference to a coastal erosion zone overlay, the Panel concur
with Council that it is essential these matters are considered in a coordinated manner
throughtheCoastalStrategy,andthatitwouldbeprematuretoincludespecificreferenceto
theapplicationofthisoverlayuntilthisworkhasbeencompleted.ThePanelnotestheMSS
identifies reviewing the Casey Coast Strategy and the Land Subject to Inundation Overlay
and other relevant planning provisions to reflect the vulnerability of coastal areas to the
impactsofclimatechangeasFurtherstrategicwork.ThePanelissatisfiedtheopportunity
to explore this option once further strategic work is completed is sufficiently addressed in
theMSSandnofurtherchangeisrequired.
(iv) Recommendations
ThePanelrecommends:
7. AmendClause21.08CaseyCoast:
a) ObjectivesDotpoint6torefertonaturalresourceinsteadofresource.
b) ImplementationOtheractionsDotpoint3torefertolocallyindigenous
insteadofindigenous.
AmendmentC50totheCaseyPlanningSchemePanelReport3April2014
Page17of100
5.5 MelbourneWater
(i) Issue
Whether the vision, objectives and strategies in the MSS should be amended to provide
greater clarity in terms of waterways, stormwater quality and enhancement of the natural
environment.
(ii) Submissions
Melbourne Water (MW) (Submission 5) welcomes the emphasis on waterways and
stormwater quality in the MSS and the overlay schedules and has made detailed
recommendations regarding suggested text modifications to local area policies. The
recommendations have been made with regard to a memorandum of understanding
enteredintobetweenMelbourneWaterandtheCityofCaseyinJanuary2011.Melbourne
Watersrecommendationsare:
1. Clause21.0106EnvironmentalcontextshouldbeamendedtoreadThemajor
waterways of the City include Cardinia, Dandenong, Eumemmerring and Troups
Creek, the Hallam Valley Main Drain and Western Port itself. There is a need to
prevent and reduce stormwater impacts on waterways, while opportunities exist to
develop a series of green corridors and recreational linkages along them. These
objectivesaresupportedbytherequirementsofclause22.05.
2. Clause 21.06 Berwick Southern Area LAM should show a continuous open space
corridor along Cardinia Creek (i.e. for the section of Cardinia Creek that falls within
the Clyde North PSP area and not just the section that falls within the C21 Business
Park PSP area). The Panel notes this issue was also raised by the Cardinia Shire
Council.
3. Clause 21.07 Botanic Ridge / Junction Village the strategy of developing wildlife
corridors that incorporate stormwater management functions should be altered to
provideforthiswherepossible.
4. Clause 21.10 Casey Foothills equestrian trail objectives and strategies relating to
waterways should be qualified by the use of words if appropriate and where
feasible. This applied to Clause 21.1002 Objectives dot point 7, Clause 21.1003
StrategiesGeneraldotpoint5,Clause21.1003Harkawaydotpoint2.
5. Clause 21.13 Cranbourne North the strategy of developing the Hallam Valley
Floodplain (Casey Valley Parklands) as passive parkland accessible by the public be
modified to reflect the need for further investigation of opportunities and
consultation with Melbourne Water, and with respect for its primary function as a
floodplain,andrecommendedthefollowingwordingbeadopted:
Explore, with relevant public land owners and managers, opportunities to
develop the Hallam Valley Floodplain (Casey Valley Parklands) as passive
parkland accessible by the public while respecting its primary function as a
floodplain.
MW also recommended the annotations on the accompanying maps should be
changedaccordingly.
6. Clause 21.15 Doveton/Eumemmerring Strategy dot point 15, which relates to
enhancing Eumemmerring Creek should be modified to reflect this needs to be in
AmendmentC50totheCaseyPlanningSchemePanelReport3April2014
Page18of100
consultation with relevant public land owners and managers. MW aIso
recommendedtheannotationsontheaccompanyingmapshouldbechangedinline
withthesuggestedchangeinthewordingofthestrategy.Similarly,Clause21.154
Otheractionsdotpoint3whichrelatestoundertakingrevegetationprogramsshould
includeInconsultationwithrelevantpubliclandownersandmanagers,
7. Clause 21.16 Endeavour Hills strategy dot point 6 should be amended to include
reference to In consultation with relevant public land owners and managers In
addition, Clause 21.164 Further Strategic Work dot point 3 should be amended to
includereferencetoMWandthePortPhillipandWesternportCatchmentAuthority.
AlsoClause21.164OtheractionsshouldincludereferencetoInconsultationwith
therelevantpubliclandownersandmanagersMWalsocalledforgreaterclarity
astowhethertheareaalongEumemmerringCreekshownasfutureopenspacewill
alsoretainitspublicutilityfunctionaswellasopenspace.
8. Clause 21.17 Hallam Strategy dot point 7 should include reference to In
consultation with relevant public land owners and land managers at its
commencement.
9. Clause 21.18 Hampton Park Objective dot point 5 should include reference to In
consultation with relevant public land owners and land managers at its
commencement.Inaddition,Strategiesdotpoints5and6shouldincludereference
to while respecting its primary function as a floodplain at their completion. MW
also called for Implementation Other actions dot point 2 to include In
consultation with relevant public land owners and land managers at its
commencement.
10. Clause 21.20 Narre Warren Objectives dot points 7 and 8 and Strategies dot
points 15 and 16 to include reference to In consultation with relevant public land
owners and land managers at its commencement and while respecting its
primary function as a floodplain at their completion. This should also be reflected
ontheLAM.
11. Clause 21.21 Narre Warren South Objectives dot point 6 and Strategies dot
point8shouldincludereferencetoInconsultationwithrelevantpubliclandowners
and land managers at its commencement and while respecting its primary
function as a floodplain at their completion. This should also be reflected on the
LAM.
12. Clause22.09NonagriculturalusesinGreenWedgeAreasPolicyalargeretarding
basiniscurrentlybeingproposedforanareaofagriculturallandandthisisamatter
which should be identified in the MSS. MW expressed concern the wording of the
MSS does not appear compatible with the use of the land as a retarding basin and
MWwouldliketodiscussthismatterfurther.
13. Clause 21.22 Reference documents should cite the Melbourne Water Regional
RiverHealthStrategy.
14. All Local Area Policies should include best practice stormwater management as a
strategyforenhancinglocalopenspace,waterways,andenvironmentaloutcomes.
15. Clause22.051StormwaterPolicyPolicybasisparagraph2shouldbeamendedto
readThesevaluesaredependent,andinsomeinstances,arelargelydependent
onthenatureofthewaterpassingthroughthem.
AmendmentC50totheCaseyPlanningSchemePanelReport3April2014
Page19of100
Council responded that it supports the vast majority of these changes, however, it did not
supportthefollowingsuggestedchangesforthereasonsnoted:
1. Whilst the amended wording was supported, it is not appropriate to refer to Clause
22.05 Stormwater Policy in the Environmental Context as this provides context
only.
3. Although Council submitted it agreed with the submission, it deleted this strategy
fromtherevisedamendmentinresponsetothesubmissionbyPEET(Submission15).
5. Inadditiontothesechanges,CouncilhasappliedanewFloodplaindesignationtoall
floodplainareasthroughthemunicipalityincludedinUrbanFloodwayZoneorPublic
UseZoneunderthecontrolsofMelbourneWater.
15. InclusionofreferencetobestpracticeStormwatermanagementisnotsupportedas
Council considers this is adequately addressed in Clause 21.032 Environment
Catchmentmanagementwhichappliesacrossthemunicipality.
(iii) Discussion
The Panel agrees with the recommended wording changes where agreement is reached
betweenMWandCouncil.
Inrelationtotheareasofdisagreement,thePanelmakesthefollowingcomments:
1. The Panel agree with Council that it is not appropriate to cross reference the
StormwaterPolicyintheEnvironmentalContextasthisisunnecessary.
3. Whilst Council submitted it agrees with the submission yet no change is required
because this strategy has been deleted in response to a submission from PEET
(Submission 15), the Panel does not agree it is appropriate to delete this strategy.
This strategy directly corresponds to land shown within the Botanic Ridge PSP as
Waterway on Plan 2 Future Urban Structure Plan and Precinct Open Space
Network (Planted with indigenous & native species to maximise habitat values and
potential)onPlan4Image&Character,andincludesanassociatedobjective3.1.1
which reads To reestablish local environmental elements after construction. On
thisbasis,thePanelconsiderstheoriginalstrategyisconsistentwiththeintentofthe
PSPinthislocationandshouldberetained,howeverthewordingshouldbeamended
as suggested by MW. The Panel considers this should only apply to those areas
identified in the relevant PSPs that will serve that function and the associated LAM
should be amended to correspond with the PSP. The Panel also notes there is a
discrepancy between the strategy and the notation on the local area plan as one
referstoDevonRoadwhereastheotherreferstoCraigRoad.
15. The Panel agrees withCouncil that it is not appropriate to includereference to best
practiceinallLocalAreapolicies,asthisisamunicipalwideissue,howeverthePanel
doesnotconsiderthisissueissufficientlyaddressedintherevisedClause21.032as
submitted by Council. Whilst this Clause certainly makes reference to a range of
issuesrelatingtostormwatermanagement,itdoesnotemphasisetheseshouldbein
accordance with best practice. Given the development to occur within the
municipality, the Panel considers this is an appropriate aspiration and is consistent
with the C21 vision. On that basis, the Panel considers this reference should be
includedwithintheClause21.032Theme2Environment.
AmendmentC50totheCaseyPlanningSchemePanelReport3April2014
Page20of100
The Panel notes Council did not respond to Issue 9 which seeks to include a notation for
further consultation in the objectives for Clause 21.18. The Panel does not consider this is
an appropriate reference in an objective and note the requirement for consultation is
adequatelyaddressedinthestrategies.Thesamecommentsapplytosuggestedchangesto
Clauses21.20and21.212.
Similarly, the Panel notes Council did not respond to Issue 12, which seeks to identify the
need for a potential regional retarding basin in the Green Wedge area in MSS. The Panel
agrees this is an important issue that should be identified, however the Panel does not
consider Clause 22.09 Nonagricultural uses in Green Wedges Policy is the appropriate
Clause for such a reference, rather it should be identified as Further strategic work and
otheractionsinClause21.032Implementation.
(iv) Recommendations
ThePanelrecommends:
8. Amend Clause 21.0106 Environmental context to read The major
waterways of the City include Cardinia, Dandenong, Eumemmerring and Troups
Creek,theHallamValleyMainDrainandWesternPortitself.Thereisaneedto
preventandreducestormwaterimpactsonwaterways,whileopportunitiesexist
todevelopaseriesofgreencorridorsandrecreationallinkagesalongthem.
9. AmendClause21.032Theme2:Environment:
a) Objective2StrategiesCatchmentManagementtoincludeanadditional
strategy which reads Enhance local open space, waterways and
environmental outcomes by adopting best practice stormwater
managementpractices.
b) Implementation Further strategic work and other actions to include the
following Investigate the need and appropriate location for a regional
retardingbasininconsultationwithMelbourneWater.
10. Amend Clause 21.06 Berwick Southern Area LAM to show a continuous open
spacecorridoralongCardiniaCreek.
11. AmendClause21.07BotanicRidge/JunctionVillage:
a) Strategies to reinstate the following Develop wildlife corridors that
incorporate stormwater management function, linking the Royal Botanical
GardensCranbournewithotherareasincludingtheextractiveindustrysiteon
DevonRoad,wherepossible.
b) LAM to reinstate the following annotation Develop a wildlife corridor
linking the Royal Botanical Gardens Cranbourne with the extractive industry
siteinDevonorCraig(tobeconfirmed)Road,wherepossible.
12. AmendClause21.10CaseyFoothills:
a) Objective dot point 7 to read To upgrade public spaces and community
facilities to meet changing needs and, where possible, link them with a
networkoftrailsreflectingthestrongequestrianheritageofthearea.
AmendmentC50totheCaseyPlanningSchemePanelReport3April2014
Page21of100
b) Strategies General dot point 5 to read Facilitate the creation of publicly
accessible links along waterway reserves and trails that link public land and
formpartofawidertrailnetwork,wherepossible.
c) Harkawaydotpoint2toreadRecognisethekeyroleofequestrianlinksin
thearea,includingonroadlinksandalongwaterwayswherepossible,aspart
oftheCaseyTrailNetwork.
13. AmendClause21.13CranbourneNorth:
a) Strategy dot point 7 to read Explore opportunities to develop the Hallam
Valley Floodplain (Casey Valley Parkland) as passive parkland accessible to
the public, whilst respecting its primary function as a floodplain in
consultationwiththerelevantpubliclandmanagers.
b) LAM annotation to read Explore opportunities to develop the Hallam
Valley Floodplain as passive open space to form part of the future Casey
ValleyParklands,whilstrespectingitsprimaryfunctionasafloodplain.
14. AmendClause21.15Doveton/Eumemmerring:
a) Strategy dot point 15 to read Enhance the Eumemmerring Creek waterway
to highlight its parkland attributes and to take full advantage of the
environmental and recreational opportunities it offers, in consultation with
relevantpubiclandmanagers.
b) Implementation Other actions dot point 3 to read Undertaking local
revegetation programs, particularly along the Dandenong and
EumemmerringCreeksinconsultationwithrelevantlandmanagers.
c) LAM annotation to read In consultation with relevant public land owners
and other managers, enhance the Eumemmerring Creek to highlight its
parklandattributesandenvironmental/recreationalopportunities.
15. AmendClause21.16EndeavourHills:
a) Strategydotpoint6toreadDevelopEumemmerringCreekandenvironsas
a community, environmental and recreation resource in consultation with
relevantpubliclandmanagers.
b) Further strategic work to read Developing a strategy, in conjunction with
Parks Victoria, Melbourne Water and the City of Greater Dandenong, for the
enhancement of Dandenong Creek as an active and passive community
recreationarea.
c) Other actions to read Undertaking local revegetation programs,
particularly along Dandenong and Eumemmerring Creeks, in consultation
withrelevantpubliclandmanagers.
d) LAM to include an annotation which reads Developing Eumemmerring
Creek and environs as a major community environmental and recreation
resource,whilstretainingitspublicutilityfunction.

AmendmentC50totheCaseyPlanningSchemePanelReport3April2014
Page22of100
16. AmendClause21.17Hallam:
a) Strategy dot point 7 to read Enhance the Eumemmerring Creek water to
highlight its parkland attributes and to take full advantage of the
environmental and recreational opportunities it offers, in consultation with
relevantpubliclandmanagers.
b) Implementation dot point 2 to read Undertaking local revegetation
programs, particularly along the Eumemmerring Creek in consultation with
relevantpubliclandmanagers.
c) LAM annotation to read Enhance the Eumemmerring Creek waterway to
highlight its parkland attributes and to the take full advantage of the
environmental and recreational opportunities it offers, in consultation with
relevantpubliclandownersandmanagers.
17. AmendClause21.18HamptonPark:
a) Strategydotpoint6toreadEstablishRiverGumCreekasextensivepassive
parkland extending from Hallam Road to the future Hampton Park Hills
Parkland (Currently the Hallam Road Landfill) and the Oakgrove Community
Centre,inconsultationwiththerelevantpubliclandmanagers.
b) Strategy dot point 7 to read Maintain and enhance the Hallam Valley
Floodplain (Casey Valley Parklands) as an interurban break between
Hampton Park and Hallam and progressively develop it as passive parkland
accessiblebythepublic,whilerespectingitsprimaryfunctionasafloodplain,
inconsultationwiththerelevantpubliclandmanagers.
c) Implementation dot point 2 to read Undertaking a local revegetation
programalongtheRiverGumCreekinconsultationwithrelevantpublicland
owners/managers.
18. AmendClause21.20NarreWarren:
a) Strategy dot point 15 to include . accessible by the public whilst
respecting its primary function as a floodplain, in consultation with the
relevantpubliclandowner/manager.attheend.
b) Strategy dot point 16 to include and Hallam, in consultation with the
relevantpubliclandowners/managers.attheend
19. AmendClause21.213NarreWarrenSouth:
a) Strategy dot point 9 to include . accessible by the public whilst respecting
its primary function as a floodplain, in consultation with the relevant public
landowner/manager.attheend.
b) Strategydotpoint11toinclude.CommunityCentre,inconsultationwith
therelevantpubliclandowner/manager.attheend.
20. AmendClause21.22 ReferenceDocuments toincludereferencetothePort
Phillip and Western Port Regional River Health Strategy, Melbourne Water
Corporation,2007.
AmendmentC50totheCaseyPlanningSchemePanelReport3April2014
Page23of100
21. AmendClause22.051StormwaterPolicyPolicybasisparagraph1toread
Cultural significance. These values are dependent and, in some instances
largely dependent, on the nature of the water passing through them.
Whiletherehavebeen.
5.6 CardiniaShireCouncil
(i) Issue
WhethertheAmendmentsufficientlyrecognisestheenvironmentalvaluesofCardiniaCreek
and surrounding areas; and the importance of Casey Farm as Green Wedge and for food
production. In addition, whether the Amendment sufficiently recognises important
connectionsandlinksbetweenthemunicipalities.
(ii) Submission
CardiniaShireCouncil(Submission7)submittedtherearecloselinkagesbetweentheCasey
and Cardinia municipalities and it is important these are recognised in this Amendment.
Specifically, Cardinia Creek is an important open space of high environmental significance
andtheAmendmentneedstoprovideadditionalstrategicdirectiontoensuredevelopment
does not compromise the environmental values of the area, specifically the creation and
maintenanceofhabitatlinks.ThismatterwasaddressedinChapter5.5.
Inaddition,CouncilalsorecommendedthefollowingspecificchangestotheAmendment:
1. Clause21.01MunicipalProfileRegionalContextMaptoshow:
a) thecontinuationofthePrincesHighwayintoCardiniaShire;and
b) theexistingandproposedactivitycentresandOfficer.
2. Clause 21.013 Environmental context make reference in the municipality to
threatenedspeciesincluding(butnotlimitedto)theSouthernBrownBandicootand
Dwarf Galaxias and the important role creeks and biolink corridors play for the
movementofplantandanimalspecies.
3. Clause 21.02 Vision should show the extension of Thompson Road and Grices /
GlasscocksRoadintoCardinia.
4. Clause21.03(revisedTheme2:Environment)includethefollowingstrategyWhere
creekcorridorsandbiolinksexists,extendandimprovetheseenvironmentalhabitats
throughencouragingregenerationandrevegetationusingindigenousvegetation.
5. Clause21.03Thematicapproach(revisedTheme4:Transport)needstorecognise
theimportanceoflinkstotheeast,bothexistingandproposed,whicharecriticalto
the establishment of the Cardinia Employment Corridor and implementation of the
CaseyCardiniaGrowthAreaFrameworkPlan.
6. Clause21.05BerwickNorthernAreaand21.03BerwickSouthernArearecognise
theeconomic,recreationandtrafficlinksbetweenBeaconsfieldandBerwick.
7. Clause 21.09 Casey Farm should recognise agricultural land within Casey could
have a greater role to play in future food production which is being investigated as
partoftheWesternPortGreenWedgeStrategyandtheBunyipFoodBeltprojectin
conjunctionwithnearbymunicipalitiesandagencies.
In response, Council submitted it agrees with the majority of these comments and
recommended changes and has amended the revised Amendment documentation
AmendmentC50totheCaseyPlanningSchemePanelReport3April2014
Page24of100
accordingly,howeversomehavebeenadequatelycoveredandthereforenofurtherchange
isrequired,theseincludematters4,5and7above.
(iii) Discussion
The Panel supports the recommended changes where agreement has been reached
betweentheparties,butnotestheagreedchangein1(b)hasnotbeenmade.
ThePaneldoesnotagree,however,withthepositionadoptedbyCouncilinrelationtoItems
4,5and7.
Item 1(b) the Regional Context Map has not been amended to show the existing and
proposed activity centres including Officer as suggested, and does not identify the Cardinia
Employment Area which is a significant employment focus for both municipalities. The
Panel considers these are worth identifying. The Panel also notes the legend has been
deletedbetweentheexhibitedandtherevisedversions.
Item 4 whilst Council submitted this strategy is adequately dealt with elsewhere in the
PlanningScheme,thePanelisnotconvincedtheemphasisofthecitedClausesisthesame,
as this proposed strategy focuses not only on extension and improvement of corridors and
linkages, but also encourages their regeneration and revegetation with indigenous species.
ThePanelagreeswiththesubmissionofCardiniaShireCouncilandsupportstheinclusionof
thissuggestedstrategy.
Item 5 whilst the Panel agrees this is largely addressed in the Amendment, the Panel
considersthereismeritinrecognisingthelinkageswiththeCardiniaEmploymentCorridorin
additiontoGippsland.
Item 6 the Panel considers this is sufficiently covered by the Municipal Profile with the
amendmentssuggestedinItem5above.
Item 7 Whilst Council submitted this is adequately covered, the Panel does not consider
the potential of the Green Wedge for future food production is adequately covered the
Amendment. The Panel considers this is an important issue which should be explored
further through the Green Wedge Management Strategy and included in the planning
schemeviaaseparateAmendmentatalaterdate.
(iv) Recommendations
ThePanelrecommends:
22. AmendClause21.01MunicipalProfile:
a) RegionalContextMaptoshow:
- thecontinuationofthePrincesHighwayintoCardiniaShire;
- the existing and proposed activity centres, including Officer and
theCardiniaEmploymentCorridor;and
- reinstatementofthelegend.
b) paragraph 5 to include the following It is expected the role of these two
centres in providing highlevel regional services will increase over the next
decade as links with the Cardinia Employment Corridor and Gippsland along
thetwohighwaycorridorscontinuetogrow.
AmendmentC50totheCaseyPlanningSchemePanelReport3April2014
Page25of100
c) Environmentalcontextparagraph5toincludereferencetoOfparticular
importance is the protection and enhancement of biolink corridors that
provide critical linkages for the survival of threatened species in Casey, such
astheSouthernBrownBandicootandtheDwarfGalaxias.
23. AmendClause21.024CaseysStrategicFrameworkPlantoshowtheextension
ofThompsonRoadandGrices/GlasscocksRoadintoCardinia.
24. Amend Clause 21.032 Theme 2: Environment Objective 1 Biodiversity to
include the following additional strategy Where creek corridors and biolinks
exist, extend and improve these environmental habitats through encouraging
regenerationandrevegetationusingindigenousvegetation.
AmendmentC50totheCaseyPlanningSchemePanelReport3April2014
Page26of100
6 CranbourneEastNeighbourhoodActivityCentre
(i) Issue
Whether the MSS should provide clearer definition of the role of the Cranbourne East
NeighbourhoodActivityCentre.
(ii) Submissions
GrahamDicksonPartnersPtyLtd,onbehalfofFederationCentres,madeasubmissionwhich
supportsthefollowingaspectsoftheAmendment:
The Local Approach in Clause 21.04 and in particular its expression in Clause 21.12 for
CranbourneEast.
Thepolicyobjectivesforretaildevelopment,includingtheretailhierarchy.
ThedesignationofNeighbourhoodActivityCentres(NAC)forthosecentresaroundthe
Cranbourne Principal Activity Centre which are supermarketbased and serving only the
daytodayandweeklyshoppingneedsoflocalresidents,includingCranbourneEastand
CranbourneWest.
Theuseofastructureplanningprocesstoachievefloorspaceallocationthatachievesa
net community benefit, and in particular to ensure centres serve their intended role in
thehierarchy,anddonotprejudicetherolethatothercentresaredesignedtoachieve.
The establishment of performance standards for development proposals that may not
meet the designated hierarchy, and identification of specific net community benefit
considerations.
The thrust of Clause 21.12 Cranbourne East which provides for strong links to
Cranbournewithafocusonthetowncentre.
In respect of the Cranbourne East strategies at Clause 21.123, Federation Centres has
requestedthewordingofthestrategyrelatingtothenewNACberewordedtomakeitclear
thiscentreistoprovideadiverserangeofgoodsandserviceswhichmeetsthedaytoday
andweeklyshoppingneedsofthelocalcommunity.
Federation Centres also sought confirmation whether the recently adopted Activity Centres
Strategy would be implemented as a reference document through this Amendment, noting
theexistingActivityCentresStrategyreferredtoisoutdated.
Council responded submitting it does not support the requested change of wording to the
strategy onthe basis that the MSSonly seeks to articulatea highlevelstrategic framework
for activity centres, with the Retail Policy at Clause 22.01 being the means by which this
framework will be implemented. To this end, Council submits the Retail Policy clearly
articulates the role of all activity centres within the retail hierarchy, including NACs, and
states Neighbourhood centres provide attractive locations to meet the daytoday needs
and most weekly shopping functions of households at locations that are convenient and
provide easy access to the community Therefore the policy already provides the surety
FederationCentresisseekingandthisdoesnotneedtoberepeatedintheMSS.
AmendmentC50totheCaseyPlanningSchemePanelReport3April2014
Page27of100
(iii) Discussion
ThePanelagreeswithCouncilthattheroleofNACsisadequatelyspelledoutatintheRetail
Policy and it is unnecessary to further describe their role in the strategies relating to
particular LAMs. The Panel also notes the role of particular activity centres has been dealt
with in Amendment C157 and further refinement of the roles of particular activity centres
maybeamatterforfuturestrategicwork.
In regards to the request for clarification about which Activity Centres Strategy is to be
implemented as a reference document in the scheme (which was not responded to by
Council),thePanelnotesthePolicyreferstotheexistingActivityCentreStrategy.The2012
adoptedstrategywillneedtobeintroducedintotheschemebywayofafutureamendment.
(iv) Conclusion
NochangeisrequiredtotheAmendmentasaresultofthissubmission.
AmendmentC50totheCaseyPlanningSchemePanelReport3April2014
Page28of100
7 HuntClubNeighbourhoodActivityCentre
(i) Issues
FiveissueswereraisedonbehalfoftheDennisFamilyCorporation,theseareasfollows:
The strategic work required to properly support the Amendment has not been
undertaken.
TheMSSdocumentationisnotuptodate,containserrorsandtheretailpolicyrelieson
outdatedstrategicwork.
The Amendment as it relates to the Hunt Club fails to have regard to the approved
development plan that applies to it and is not sufficiently flexible to service anticipated
futuredemand.
The Amendment as it relates to the Hunt Club is overly restrictive and includes detail
thatiscurrentlyandbetterincludedinaDevelopmentPlan.
There is an over reliance on the Cranbourne Town Centre (CTC) to provide a regional
retailroleandnoregardgiventotheconstraintsthatimpactthatcentre.
(ii) Submissions
TheHuntClub(submission17)wasrepresentedattheHearingbyMarkBartley.MrBartley
submittedtheAmendmenthasanumberofdeficienciesinsofarasitrelatestoretailingand
theHuntClubland.
TheHuntClubandtheCranbourneTownCentre
MrBartleyoutlinedtheimportantroletheHuntClubwillplayintermsofsupplementingthe
retailfloorspaceprovisionoftheCTC,whichhenotesfacessignificantphysicalconstraints.
HesubmitteditiscriticalthatthefloorspaceregimetobeimplementedbythisAmendment
adequatelyaccountsforbothcurrentandfuturelevelsofdemandforretail,commercialand
community facilities at a regional level, and that attempts to constrain or limit retail
expansionwithoutanyrecentretailjustificationshouldnotbeallowed.Itisimperative,he
submitted, that nothing in this Amendment should serve, either directly or indirectly, to
prevent or hinder the Hunt Club responding to future population growth and the resulting
retaildemandinthefuture.
Deficienciesinpreparationoftheamendment
MrBartleysubmittedthatinpreparingtheAmendmentCouncilhasfailedtoundertakethe
strategicworkrequiredtoproperlysupporttheamendment,includingthefurthereconomic
work (assessment of future retail and commercial floor space needs based on population
growth) Council told the Panel in Amendment C157
1
it would carry out. Specifically, he
arguedtheAmendmentreliesonreportsknowntobeoutofdateincludingtheCityofCasey

1
Amendment C157 proposes to implement the strategies, objectives and guidelines of the adopted Cranbourne Town
CentrePlan(August2011).Amongotherthings,itintroducestheActivityCentreZoneintotheSchemeandappliesthis
to the Cranbourne Park Shopping Centre with scheduled requirements (Schedule 1 to the ACZ). It also deletes the
Development Plan Overlay from the shopping centre land. The Panel report for C157 was submitted to Council on 3
June2013.
AmendmentC50totheCaseyPlanningSchemePanelReport3April2014
Page29of100
Activity Centres Strategy 2006
2
and the Activity Areas and Nonresidential Uses Strategy
2012 (which relies on the 2006 report), and that C21 contains a section which deals with
Cranbourne East but does not reflect the scale of the Hunt Club Centre based on the
approvedDevelopmentPlan.MrBartleysubmittedtheAmendmentshouldbeamendedto
address these shortcomings, or alternatively it should be abandoned on the premise that it
bereexhibitedoncetheappropriatebackgroundworkhasbeencarriedout.
DevelopmentPlan/FloorSpaceRequirements
MrBartleysubmittedthatashortcomingoftheMSSisthatitgiveseffecttoarigidhierarchy
whenthereisaneedforflexibility,includingtheneedtoacknowledgetheflexibilityinherent
intheDevelopmentPlanapprovedfortheHuntClub.Hesubmitteditisnotappropriatefor
theMSStoincludespecificprovisionsofthekindfoundinaDevelopmentPlan,andthatthe
inclusionofsuchprovisionsinthecaseoftheHuntClubmightbeusedbyCounciltoargueit
isrestrictedorpreventedfromconsideringanychangestotheHuntClubDevelopmentPlan
whichmightbesaidtobeinconflictwithit.
Mr Bartley submitted that to the extent the policy vision includes the development of
activity centres which (among other things) are capable of evolving to accommodate
changing needs, a key consideration is whether the amendment makes adequate provision
togiveeffecttothis.Inthisregard,hesubmittedtheMSSasitrelatestotheHuntClubdoes
notacknowledgetheopportunityforadiscountdepartmentstoredespitethisbeingallowed
for under the Design and Development Overlay and incorporated plan, and he noted the
HuntClubhastheabilitytoaccommodatefurtherincreasesinretailfloorspacethatcannot
easilybeaccommodatedattheCranbourneTownCentre(formerlyCentro)site.
Mr Bartley's submission included a schedule setting out the proposed alterations which
shouldbemadetotheAmendmenttoaddresstheconcernsraisedbytheHuntClub:
Clause21.024Casey'sStrategicFrameworkPlanbeamendedtoremovethedistinction
between Principal, Major and Neighbourhood Activity centres, to ensure there is
sufficient flexibility for the Hunt Club, and other centres, to respond to anticipated
populationandretailgrowth.
Clause21.037Implementationtheimplementationmeasure"UsingtheRetailPolicy
at Clause 22.01 to consolidate the role of the Fountain GateNarre Warren CBD and
CranbourneTownCentreasPrincipalActivitycentresandthehierarchicaldevelopmentof
all other designated activity centres is outdated, and this clause should go further and
notethesignificanceofcentreslocatedoutsidetheCTCwhichhavethecapacitytohave
afluidroleintheretailhierarchytorespondtodemand.
Clause 21.123 Cranbourne East Strategy dot point 2 be amended to read "Provide
for the development of a new activity centre (Cranbourne East) on the southeastern
corneroftheintersectionofNarreWarrenCranbourneRoadandLinsellBoulevard".
Clause21.124ImplementationSeconddotpointbedeletedandreplacedwith"Use
the appropriate retail policy following the review and updating of the policy regime as
proposed by Council"; and under the heading Application of zones and overlays, change

2
WhichhasbeensupersededbytheActivityAreasNonResidentialUsesStrategy.
AmendmentC50totheCaseyPlanningSchemePanelReport3April2014
Page30of100
the reference to Business 1 to Commercial 1 and delete the reference to
'Neighbourhood'.
Clause 22.013 Retail classifications flexibility should be incorporated into these
definitions, particularly for the lower order centres to allow them to be dynamic and
respondtodemand.
Clause 22.014 Retail Policy dot point 2 reference to 'floorspace' (as in floor space
caps)bedeleted,anddotpoints4and5bedeleted.
Clause 22.016 Policy references delete references to C21 and the Activity Centres
Strategy.
Council submitted that as far as issues relating to the future role of the CTC are concerned
(intermsofitsrelationshipwiththeHuntClub),thesemattershavealreadybeendealtwith
by the C157 Panel, and are therefore matters which are not open to be revisited by this
Panel.
Astotheadequacyofthestrategicworkunderlyingthisamendment,MrPollardsubmitted
there was a need to draw the line as far as further strategic work is concerned. He
submittedCouncilacceptstheRetailPolicyneedstobereviewed,andiscommittedtodoing
this. However for the purpose of Amendment C50, the proposed Retail Policy is a neutral
translation of the existing policy. In response to any suggestion the amendment should be
setasideuntilthe2006ActivityCentresStrategyisupdated,hesubmittedthiswouldsimply
meanthestatusquowouldbemaintainedanyway.Hesubmittedthatanyfuturereviewof
thecurrentpolicywouldneedtobesubjecttothesamerigorousprocessthecurrentpolicy
hadbeensubjectedto.
In terms of the detail included in the Cranbourne East Local area policy with respect to the
HuntClub,MrPollardseesnoreasonwhyguidingprinciplesshouldnotbeincludedinthe
MSStoassist,andconsidersthisbetterthanjusthavingtheminaDevelopmentPlanwhich
can be amended (at any time). He noted similar guiding principles are included in the
clausesrelatingtoalltheothercentres,andthatCouncilhasbeenconsistentinthisregard.
The guiding principles guide the development of Development Plans, but the Development
Plansthemselvescanincludemoredetail.
As faras any consideration of floor spacerequirementsis concerned,Mr Pollard submitted
that the designations will need to be changed anyway due to Plan Melbourne (expected to
be approved early in 2014). However there is nothing to prevent Council from having a
hierarchyofcentresinplaceinordertoprovideclarity.
(i) Discussion
The Panel accepts Mr Bartleys submission that significant change has occurred in Casey in
terms of population growth and as a result there is a need for further economic work to
assess the future retail and commercial floor space requirements (as identified in
AmendmentC157);andthereforetheRetailPolicyisoutofdateandinneedofreview.
The Panel also notes that Council has committed to undertake thereview on the basis of a
recognitionthattheRetailPolicyandActivityCentreStrategyareoutdated,butacceptsMr
Pollards submission that Council has had to draw the line as far as the strategic work that
couldbecompletedpriortoexhibitionofthisAmendment.
AmendmentC50totheCaseyPlanningSchemePanelReport3April2014
Page31of100
The Panel agrees with Council the appropriate way forward is therefore to include the
existing policy (as a policy neutral translation) in this Amendment, recognizing it will be
subjecttoreview.
The Panel is satisfied there is nothing in this Amendment which will serve to prevent or
hinder theHunt Club from fulfilling an appropriate retail and community role in the future,
andconsiderthefactthatDevelopmentPlanshavebeenapprovedwhichprovideforalevel
of development over and above what might be expected according to a centre's
classification under the Retail Policy is evidence the system is sufficiently flexible to
accommodatetherealitiesofrapidbutplannedchangeasreflectedinPSPs.
In relation to the new Commercial Zones (introduced as part of Amendment VC100
approved on 15/07/2013), the Panel notes these have been introduced since the revised
Amendment and that floor space limitations imposed through the PSPs can be scheduled
into the Commercial 1 Zone and complement the classifications and policy directions of a
futureRetailPolicy.
The Panel does not recommend any change to the Amendment in response to the
submission, however consider Clause 21.033 Economic Development Further Strategic
Work should be amended to specifically identify the need to review the Activity Centre
StrategyandtheRetailPolicy.ThePanelalsoconsiderstheClause21.124Implementation
shouldbeamendedtorefertotheCommercial1Zone.
(ii) Recommendations
ThePanelrecommends:
25. Include the following action in Clause 21.033 Economic Development
FurtherStrategicWorkReviewtheClause22.01RetailPolicy.
26. Replace reference to Business 1 Zone with Commercial 1 Zone in Clause
21.124Implementation.
AmendmentC50totheCaseyPlanningSchemePanelReport3April2014
Page32of100
8 ErnstWankeRoadActivityCentre
(i) Issue
WhethertheErnstWankeRoadActivityCentreshouldbeaConvenienceActivityCentreora
NAC;andwhetherthispotentialchangeinstatuscanbeaffectedbythisAmendment.
(ii) Submission
Environmental Resources Management Australia Pty Ltd (ERM) (Submission 19) made a
submissiononbehalfofColesGroup,theowneroflandatthecornerofErnstWankeRoad
andNarreWarrenNorthRoad,NarreWarren.The siteis identifiedinClause22.01Retail
PolicyasaConvenienceActivityCentre.
ERMproposethestatusofthecentrebeupgradedtoaNAC,butacknowledgethiswouldbe
moreappropriatelydealtwiththroughthereviewofCouncilsActivityCentresStrategyand
asubsequentplanningschemeamendmentprocess.
ERMhasnoobjectiontoAmendmentC50ontheunderstandingthattheRetailPolicywillbe
furtherrevisedaspartoftheActivityCentresreview.
Council submitted the designation of the Ernst Wanke Centre was considered in the
development of the new Activity Areas and NonResidential Uses Strategy adopted by
Council on 18 December 2012. In the new strategy, the centre has been designated as a
Proposed Medium NAC. A separate planning scheme amendment will be prepared by
Council with a view to revising the existing Retail Policy and any associated components of
theLPPFtogiveeffecttothenewstrategy.
(iii) Discussion
The Panel concurs with Council that change to the status of the Ernst Wanke Road Activity
CentreintheRetailPolicyisnotamatterforthisamendment.
(iv) Conclusion
NochangeisrequiredtotheAmendmentasaresultofthissubmission.
AmendmentC50totheCaseyPlanningSchemePanelReport3April2014
Page33of100
9 MintaFarm
(i) Theissue
Whether Minta Farm should be developed solely for business/industrial purposes or a
combinationofbusiness/industrialandresidential.Therearealsoseveraleditorialissues.
(ii) EvidenceandSubmissions
Ms Forsyth represented the Minta Farm Landowners (Submission 14) and submitted the
ownersareconcernedtheAmendmentdoesnotreflectthefurthersignificantstrategicwork
that has taken place, and is ongoing, in relation to the CaseyCardinia Growth Area. She
submittedthefutureofthesiteshouldbeacombinationofresidentialandbusiness.
In her submission, Ms Forsyth (at para 11) summarised the reasons the designation of the
landsolelyasabusinessparkisinappropriatearethatit:
doesnotappropriatelyrespondtotheopportunitiesandconstraintsofthesite;
isnotsupportedbytheavailableeconomicevidence;
is inconsistent with the strategic work undertaken since C21 was adopted by Council
over10yearsago;
isinconsistentwiththeSouthEastGrowthCorridorPlan,whichhasbeenadoptedbythe
MPA and is highly likely to become a reference or incorporated document in the
planningschemeinthenearfuture;and
unreasonablypreemptstheoutcomeofthePSPprocessforMintaFarm.
MsForsythacknowledgedPlanMelbournedesignatesMintaFarm,alongwiththeadjoining
OfficerPakenham Industrial precinct as State Significant Industrial Precinct Future,
however,submittedthisdesignationinsofarasitaffectsMintaFarmappearstobeanerror.
Leaving aside Plan Melbourne, the landowners submission as far as Amendment C50 is
concernedissummedupinpara39ofMsForsythssubmission:
39. The Minta Farm owners submission is simple: the amendment is
inconsistent with the strategic work that has been undertaken since
the amendment was drafted, thus failing to satisfy the objective for
planning scheme amendments that proposals be strategically
justified. The result is that the proposal fails to result in a net
communitybenefit.
Ms Forsyth notes the PSP process is informed by both the State and Local planning policy
framework,andtheMintaFarmownersareconcernedCouncilmayusethebusinesspark
tag as a reason to oppose residential development through the PSP process. The various
changes to the Amendment that have been requested by Ms Forsyth seek to facilitate the
futuredevelopmentofMintaFarmasanintegratedbusinessandresidentialprecinct.
Economic evidence was called from Mr Ganly of Deep End Services. His report set out a
chronology of the strategic work undertaken since the preparation of the C21 in 2002. His
analysis of that work led to him to conclude that Amendment C50 should be amended to
show Minta Farm designated as Business with Residential, rather than as Minta Farm
BusinessParkasproposed.
AmendmentC50totheCaseyPlanningSchemePanelReport3April2014
Page34of100
Mr Ganly notes the C21 recommendation that Minta Farm be set aside for employment
purposes was not informed by market testing or consideration of the topography, and that
subsequent strategic work,
3
with the exception of Plan Melbourne, has acknowledged the
importance of residential development at Minta Farm to support the future business and
employmentrole.
Accordingly, Ms Forsyth submitted the following changes should be made to the
Amendmentdocumentation:
1. The Strategic Framework Plan should show Minta Farm as Future Urban only and
deletereferencetoKeyEmploymentPrecinctFuture.
2. Undertake a number of amendments to the objectives and strategies in Clauses
21.03 Thematic Approach and Clause 21.06 Berwick Southern Area Local Area
Plan to recognise and identify Minta Farmas high amenityintegrated business and
residentialprecinct.
In response, Mr Pollard submitted the Minta Farm Business Park designation is entirely
consistentwithPlanMelbournewhichdesignatesitasStateSignificantIndustrialPrecinct
Future and being within an Investment and Employment Opportunity area. Mr Pollard
accepted that whilst Plan Melbourne was not yet approved, it is seriously entertained and
nearfinalisation,andtoincludethissitewithin anyotherdesignationwouldbecontraryto
futureStateplanningpolicy.
MrPollardacceptedthathistoricallyMintaFarmhasbeenconsistentlyrecognisedinvarious
strategic documents as a site which has both business and residential development
potential,howevertheemphasishasbeenonbusinesswithsomeresidential,notresidential
withsomebusiness.HesubmittedCouncilisnotopposedtoaresidentialcomponent,andis
not using the Business Park tag to oppose residential as this has always been seen by
Council as an essential component of an integrated development. He submitted the
Amendment, however, seeks to designate the land primarily for employment purposes
basedonPlanMelbourneandtodootherwisecouldmeanthesignificanceoftheareaasan
employmentprecinctandanareaofStatesignificanceisnotbeobvious,andpeoplecould
beexcusedforthinkingtheareacoulddevelopedforresidentialpurposesalone.
In terms of the future development of the land and the quantum of business v residential,
MrPollardsubmitteditisnotforCounciltopreempttheStateoutcomeandthismatterwill
bedeterminedthroughthePSPprocess.
In response to concerns the data upon which the Amendment is based is outdated, Mr
Pollard submitted C21 Strategy was always intended to be an intergenerational strategy,
andthereforethedataisnotoutdated.
Intermsofthesuggestedamendments,MrPollardadvisedCouncilhasagreedtochangethe
designationfromC21BusinessParktoMintaFarmBusinessPark.Furthermore,Councilis
agreeable to the fourth objective at proposed Clause 21.062 being changed to read To

3
CaseyCorridorGrowthArea,EconomicDevelopmentandEmploymentAnalysis,DraftReport,24July2009
(CorridorReport);EmploymentPlanningforC21BusinessPark,EconomicInputtoPrecinctStructurePlan,
27August2010(C21EmploymentReport);andtheSouthEastCorridorPlan,GAA,June2012.
AmendmentC50totheCaseyPlanningSchemePanelReport3April2014
Page35of100
createanewkeyemploymentprecinctthatcontributestowardsthecreationofajobrich
urbanenvironment.
MrPollardsubmittedtheAmendmentisconsistentwiththerequirementsofSection12A(3)
ofthePlanningandEnvironmentAct1987whichrequireaMSStoachievetheobjectivesof
planning and to be of benefit to the wider community. In this regard, Council has clear
objectivesofsustainableemploymentfornowandintothefuture.Theobjectivessetoutin
theAmendmentarethePlanning Authoritysplanningobjectives,andtheyhaveastrategic
basis.
(iii) Discussion
The Panel accepts that historically Minta Farm has been recognised in various strategic
documents as a site that will have a combination of both employment and residential
development;andthatnoneofthepartiesattheHearingdisputethat.
Yet, the Panel accepts Mr Pollards argument that Plan Melbourne has changed the game.
Plan Melbourne clearly identifies all of Minta Farm as a future StateSignificant Industrial
PrecinctFuture,andmakesnoreferencetoanypossibleresidentialdevelopment.
The Panel accepts that at the time of writing this report, Plan Melbourne has not been
adopted and the current strategic position identifies Minta Farm has having a combined
business/residential future. However, the Panel understands that the adoption of Plan
Melbourne is imminent. The policy position for this site in Plan Melbourne is clear and
unambiguous. Plan Melbourne is the latest metropolitan strategy which is to guide
metropolitan development to 2050 and has been several years in preparation. Given its
imminent adoption, the Panel considers that to ignore Plan Melbourne on the basis that it
hasnotbeenadoptedwouldnotbegoodplanning.
WhilstMsForsythsubmittedtheidentificationofMintaFarminPlanMelbourneasafuture
industrialprecinctwasanerror,noevidencewaspresentedthePaneltodemonstratethis.
ThePanelacceptstheevidenceofMrGanlythatthedatareliedupontoprepareC21isold
and outdated. The Panel, however, is not satisfied this evidence is sufficient to warrant a
changeinthedesignationandconsidersthattheseissueswillbebestfleshedoutduringthe
preparationofaPSP,whichwillrequiretheconsiderationofmorerecentdata.
ThePanelnotesthatoncePlanMelbourneisapproved,itmaybeappropriatetochangethe
underlying designation as shown on the Strategic Framework Plan for Minta Farm from
Future Urban Areas to something that more accurately reflects the final outcomes of Plan
Melbourne.
The Panel supports the changes to the Amendment agreed by the Council, but does not
supporttheadditionalchangesrequestedbytheMintaParklandowners.
AmendmentC50totheCaseyPlanningSchemePanelReport3April2014
Page36of100
(iv) Recommendations
ThePanelrecommends:
27. Amend the Clause 21.024 Strategic Framework Plan to remove the Future
Urban Areas designation and replace it with a designation which more
accuratelyreflectstheoutcomesofPlanMelbourne,whenadopted.
28. Amend Clause 21.032 Theme 3: Economic Development Objective 1
Strategy 1.4 to read Facilitate the development of the Minta Farm Business
Park in Berwick as a high amenity, integrated business park that incorporates
office,research,manufacturingandlearningprecincts.
29. AmendClause21.06BerwickSouthernArea:
a) Objective to retain dot point 4 which reads To create a new key
employmentprecinctthatcreatesajobrichurbanenvironment.
b) Strategiesdotpoint5toreadDeveloptheMintaFarmBusinessParkas
an integrated and diverse employment precinct for the Berwick region,
incorporatingafutureneighbourhoodactivitycentre.
c) ImplementationFurtherStrategicWorkdotpoint4toreadPreparinga
precinctstructureplanfortheproposedMintaFarmBusinessPark.
d) LAMto:
- include the following annotation Develop the Minta Farm
Business Park as an integrated and diverse employment precinct
includinganewneighbourhoodactivitycentre.
- removetheFutureUrbanAreasdesignationandreplaceitwitha
designation which more accurately reflects the outcomes of Plan
Melbourne,whenadopted.
AmendmentC50totheCaseyPlanningSchemePanelReport3April2014
Page37of100
10 860BallartoRoad,BotanicRidge/JunctionVillage
(i) Theissue
Whether 860 Ballarto Road should be identified as Future Urban or whether it should be
Extractive Industry/Rural; and whether it should be identified as a site which requires
furtherstrategicwork.
(ii) Submissions
Duran Investments Pty Ltd (Submission 13) is the owner of the subject land and was
representedattheHearingbyMrTomCallander.
Mr Callander submitted that neither the Extractive Industry as exhibited or the revised
Rurallandusedesignationsareappropriateforthissite,andthatbothareatoddswiththe
Future Urban Area Designation as shown in the Strategic Framework Plan (exhibited and
revised).Hesubmittedthesitehasneverbeenused,norisitintendedevertobeusedfor
extractive industry purposes, and that investigations and discussions had been underway
with the GAA (now MPA) with a view to developing the land for urban purposes; and
importantly, the site was identified in the Botanic Ridge PSP as being Stage 4 Possible
Future. Mr Callander emphasised that whilst the site was once covered by a Work
Authority,thishadbeenrelinquishedforthissite.
Whilst Mr Callander recognised there are some issues to be resolved in relation to buffers
with existing and potential future surrounding land uses, he submitted these can be
managedandallinvestigationsundertakensofarhaveindicatedthelandwouldbesuitable
for future urban purposes. He submitted there is no need for the site to be identified as
beingsubjecttofurtherstrategicreviewasthisworkhasbeenundertaken.
On this basis, Mr Callander submitted the revised designation as Rural was not strategic
planningandemphasiseditiscontrarytothelandusedesignationofFutureUrbanAreaas
shownintheStrategicFrameworkPlan.
TheoriginalKLMsubmissiononbehalfofDuranInvestmentscalledforthedeletionofClause
21.074BotanicRidge/JunctionVillageFurtherStrategicworkdotpoint4(shouldbe2)
which calls for a further strategic review. It also called for deletion of the Extractive
IndustrylandusedesignationfromtheLAMandalterationstoterminology.
Councils responded that whilst it is recognized discussions have been underway with the
GAA,theGAAhadidentifiedtherewereanumberofissuesthatwouldneedtobeaddressed
before the site would be considered for inclusion within the Urban Growth Zone. On that
basis,MrPollardsubmitteditisappropriatetoidentifyaneedforfurtherstrategicreviewof
thissite,butinthemeantimesupportedthechangeoflandusedesignationintheLAMfrom
Extractive Industry, however proposed a Rural land use designation to reflect its current
Farming Zone and the nature of the surrounding uses. Council also supported the
suggestedterminologychanges.
AmendmentC50totheCaseyPlanningSchemePanelReport3April2014
Page38of100
(iii) Discussion
The Panel recognises there are a number of issues associated with this site still to be
resolved, primarily around potential contamination, the need for buffers to specific
surroundinglandusesandmanagingtheinterfacewiththeStevensonsRoadlandfillandits
gasmitigationmeasures,beforeanydecisionsaremadeabouttheappropriatefutureuseof
thisland.
Havingsaidthat,thePanelalsorecognisesthesiteiswithintheUrbanGrowthBoundaryand
has been identified in the Botanic Ridge PSP as a possible future investigation area. In
addition,theStrategicFrameworkPlanidentifiesthelandasaFutureUrbanAreaandland
tothenorthandsouthisdesignatedasurban.Theseareallfactorsthatsuggestthelandhas
the potential to be considered for future urban purposes, provided the outstanding issues
identifiedbytheGAA(nowMPA)canberesolved.
Forthesereasons,thePanelagreewithbothMrCallanderandCouncilthatitisappropriate
toamendthelandusedesignationintheLAMfromExtractiveIndustrial.Buttowhat?The
Panel do not consider Rural is an appropriate land use designation. Certainly the land is
zonedFarmingZone,howevertherehasbeennosubmissionstothePaneltosuggestrural
or farming uses are the most appropriate long term use for this land. It appears this rural
designationisaholdingzone,ratherthananindicationofwhattheappropriatefutureuse
ofthislandshouldbe.ThePanelisalsoconcerneditisatoddswiththeStrategicFramework
PlanwhichclearlyidentifiesthislandasFutureUrban.YetthePanelalsodoesnotconsider
itisappropriatetoidentifythelandassuitableforurbanpurposesatthisstage,asthereare
issuesstilltoberesolved.
The Panel does not think there is a classification in the legend which can adequately deal
with this site. The Panel considers a new designation should be included which is Possible
FutureUrbanSubjecttofurtherinvestigation.Thiswouldbeconsistentwiththeapproach
adoptedinthePSP.
In terms of the recommendation by Mr Callander and KLM that reference to subject to a
detailed strategic review should be deleted, as stated the Panel recognise further
investigation is still required, however consider the recommended designation should
adequatelyaddressthisissue.
ThePanelacceptstheagreedchangesintermsofterminology.
(iv) Recommendation
ThePanelrecommends:
30. AmendtheClause21.02StrategicFrameworkPlanto:
a) introduce a new land use designation of Potential Future Urban subject
tofurtherinvestigation.
b) include 860 Ballarto Road within the new Potential Future Urban subject
tofurtherinvestigation.landusedesignation.

AmendmentC50totheCaseyPlanningSchemePanelReport3April2014
Page39of100
31. AmendClause21.074BotanicRidge/JunctionVillage:
a) Implementation Further strategic dot point 2 to read Undertake
further investigations to determine the suitability of 860 Ballarto Road for
futureurbanpurposes.
b) LAMto:
- introduceanewlandusedesignationofPotentialFutureUrban
subjecttofurtherinvestigation.
- include860BallartoRoadwithinthenewPotentialFutureUrban
subjecttofurtherinvestigation.landusedesignation.
- amend the annotation in relation to 860 Ballarto Road to read
Investigatethepotentialofthissiteforfutureurbanpurposes.
AmendmentC50totheCaseyPlanningSchemePanelReport3April2014
Page40of100
11 3945 Cyril Beechey Lane (formerly Stevensons
Road),Cranbourne
(i) Theissue
WhatlandusedesignationshouldbeappliedtothissitegivenitisshownasaFutureUrban
AreaintheStrategicFrameworkPlan;andwhethertheindicationofbuffersarerequiredto
addresstheexistingandprevioussurroundinglanduses,particularlytheceasedStevensons
Roadlandfillandmunicipaltransferstation.
(ii) Submissions
KLM Spatial made a submission (Submission 12) on behalf of Maclaw No 10 Pty Ltd, the
ownerofthesubjectland,andwererepresentedbyMrTomCallander.
Mr Callander submitted the lack of land use designation in the exhibited Amendment
unfairly sterilises the Land, however the Rural designation as proposed by Council is
without any clear and proper strategic basis given the size of the Land and its proximity to
establishedareas.andisbeingappliedasaholdingzoneratherthananindicationofthe
landssuitabilityforagriculturalpurposes.Inrelationtothebuffers,MrCallandersubmitted
the application of buffers for uses which no longer exist suggests an unfair attempt by
Council to shift responsibility for managing contamination issues on Council land onto
adjoininglandowners.
Mr Callander submitted the LAM should be amended to show the site as Future Urban in
line with the exhibited Strategic Framework Plan to facilitate residential development, and
referencetobuffersandthearearequiringfurtherstrategicreviewshouldberemoved.The
justificationsputforwardforthispropositionare:
Thelandisstrategicallylocatedforfutureurbanpurposes.
TheStevensonsRoadLandfillceasedoperationsinJune2005,andongoingrehabilitation
worksandremediationhaveoccurredsincethen.
Methanemonitoringshowsareductionovertime,andafurther1224monthswillhave
itundergreatercontrol.
Council intends to develop the land on the west side of Stevensons Road and to the
southofthesubjectlandforpublicopenspace.
The Transfer Station closed last year and therefore inclusion of the land in a buffer to
sensitiveusesisnowunnecessary.
ThepurposeoftheStrategicFrameworkPlansistoidentifylocationswherespecificland
useoutcomeswillbesupportedandpromoted(i.e.implyingitisnotappropriatesimply
toshowthelandasRural).
Council has already undertaken a strategic review of the subject land and the area
betweenitandBallartoRoad.
The subject land should be shown as Residential and Existing Urban Areas as per the
C21StrategyandtheproposedClause21.024CaseysStrategicFrameworkPlan.
The land is already in a Farming Zone and a rezoning, with associated investigations,
wouldberequiredbeforeanyresidentialdevelopmentcouldbeundertaken.
AmendmentC50totheCaseyPlanningSchemePanelReport3April2014
Page41of100
MrCallanderconcludedtheMSSisastrategicframeworkplanandrecognitionofthelands
suitability for future urban development is the first of many steps in a process which will
determinewhetherthelandissuitableforresidentialpurposes.Hesubmittedtherewillbe
manyopportunitiesinthesubsequentstagestoensuremitigationmeasuresandprotections
for future residents are in place before the land is developed. He also submitted the
environmental issues associated with the former Stevensons Road landfill are being
proactively managed by Council and there is no strategic justification for perpetuating the
useofthislandasabuffertosensitiveuses.
Councildidnotsupportthesesubmissions,althoughitacknowledgedalandusedesignation
wouldbeappropriateandproposesRural.
In response to submissions the land is identified as a Future Urban Area in the proposed
StrategicFrameworkPlan,CouncilsubmittedthatdepictingthelandasFutureUrbandoes
not necessarily mean that it will be developed for residential purposes; rather, that it forms
part of theurban areawhich is made up of a variety of different landuses. and submitted
nochangetotheStrategicFrameworkPlanwasrecommended.
Council also submitted the application of the Rural Land use is consistent with the
Cranbourne Development Plan which identifies this property as Rural (Buffer to transfer
station/landfill).
In response to suggestions the land not be identified as an Area Subject to Strategic
Review,MrPollardrespondedthisdesignationshouldberetainedbecause:
TheStevensonsRoadprecinctisessentiallyaninfillprecinctsituatedbetween
astandardresidentialareatothewest,alowerdensityresidentialareatothe
northandCranbourneTrainingComplextotheeast,withadesignatedhorse
stabling area to the south. As it comprises a number of landholdings, the
futurelanduseoftheprecinctmustberesponsiblyplanned,havingregardto
a range of factors given the nature of surrounding land uses and any
potential amenity impacts arising from the former landfill site and the
existingquarryoperationtothesouthonBallartoRoad.
(iii) Discussion
The Panelagrees withMr Callander andCouncil that it is not appropriate fora site to have
nolandusedesignationintheLAMasthisineffectprovidesnostrategicguidanceaboutthe
appropriatefuture use of this land. So what is the most appropriate land use designation?
In considering this, the Panel recognises the Strategic Framework Plan identifies this as a
FutureUrbanAreaandcanseethismakessensegiventhesitesproximitytoCranbourne.
However,thereareanumberofsignificantchallengesinthislocationparticularlyrelatingto
theStevensonsRoadLandfillandthemanagementofsubsurfacelandfillgas,whichwillhave
asignificantbearingonthefutureofthissite.
ButthepurposeofthisAmendmentisnottorezonethelandortoidentifyitassuitablefor
residential development, it is to establish the strategic framework that will guide future
planning and decision making. Accepting Councils submission that urban does not
automatically mean residential, decisions about whether this land is in fact suitable for
AmendmentC50totheCaseyPlanningSchemePanelReport3April2014
Page42of100
residential development will require more detailed investigation, taking into consideration
thechallengesthatexistinthislocation.
ThePanelconcurwithMrCallandertherehavebeennosubmissionswhichsuggestthisland
should be used for agricultural purposes in the longer term, and if there were the Panel
would be concerned that these would be contrary to the Strategic Framework Plan.
Therefore the Panel does not accept Councils submission the land should be Rural in
accordance with the Cranbourne Development Plan to provide buffers to the transfer
station/landfill as these no longer exist, although the Panel recognise the continuing issues
relatingtothegasfromtheformerlandfill.
Based on the Strategic Framework Plan, and particularly given Councils continued support
forit,thePanelconsidersthelikelyfutureusewouldbeurban.YetthePanelalsodoesnot
consideritisappropriatetoidentifythelandassuitableforurbanpurposesatthisstage,as
there are a number of significant issues still to be resolved, particularly in relation to the
StevensonsRoadlandfill.
The Panel does not think there is a classification in the legend which can adequately deal
with this site. The Panel considers a new designation should be included which is Possible
Future Urban Subject to further investigation. The Panel do not consider this would
transformtheAmendmentasthelandisalreadyidentifiedasFutureUrbanintheStrategic
FrameworkPlan.
The Panel notes the proposed Rural designation has also been applied to the land
immediately to the east and considers that this should also be reviewed, however as no
submissionsweremadeinrelationtothisland,thisisnotaspecificrecommendationofthis
report.
In relation to the identification of buffers, the Panel considers the cautious approach
adopted by Council is wise under the circumstances, and the necessity of maintaining the
buffersissomethingthatcouldbeconsideredthroughfurtherinvestigationsandremoved,if
appropriate, at the same time as any rezoning. In addition, the Panel considers that given
thecontroversialnatureoftheStevensonsRoadlandfill,theremovalofthesebufferscould
be a cause of concern to some residents and could transform the Amendment. For this
reasonthePanelisnotpreparedtosupporttheremovalofthesebuffersatthistime.
In terms of the recommendation by Mr Callander and KLM that reference to subject to a
detailedstrategicreviewbedeleted,thePanelconsidersthereareissuesstilltoberesolved
and therefore further investigation required, however this is not necessarily a strategic
review.ThePanelconsidersthenewdesignationwouldadequatelyaddressthisissue.
(iv) Recommendation
ThePanelrecommends:
32. AmendtheClause21.02StrategicFrameworkPlanto:
a) introduce a new land use designation of Potential Future Urban subject
tofurtherinvestigation.
b) include 3945 Cyril Beechey Lane within the new Potential Future Urban
subjecttofurtherinvestigationlandusedesignation.
AmendmentC50totheCaseyPlanningSchemePanelReport3April2014
Page43of100
33. AmendtheClause21.115CranbourneLAMto:
a) introduce a new land use designation of Potential Future Urban subject
tofurtherinvestigation.
b) include 3945 Cyril Beechey Lane, Cranbourne in the new Potential Future
Urbansubjecttofurtherinvestigationlandusedesignation.
c) delete 3945 Cyril Beechey Lane, Cranbourne from the Area subject to
StrategicReviewdesignation.
AmendmentC50totheCaseyPlanningSchemePanelReport3April2014
Page44of100
12 DevelopmentopportunitiesintheGreenWedge
(i) Theissue
Whether there should be greater subdivisional and development opportunity on land
outsidetheUrbanGrowthBoundary.
(ii) Submissions
Ratio Consultants Pty Ltd (Submission 18) made a submission on behalf of Mr and Mrs
Broatch who are the owners of 260 Middle Road, Pearcedale. Mr Broatch made a
submissionattheHearing.
Mr Broatch submitted insufficient strategic work has been undertaken in relation to
Pearcedale and there is a need to plan for the future growth of this township, as well as
considering further development and rural living opportunities in the surrounding area. In
support,MrBroatchsubmittedthemajorityofpropertieswithintheGreenWedgeareused
forhobbyfarmpurposesandagricultureisneithertheprimaryuseorsourceofincomefor
peopleontheseproperties,citingseverallocalexamples.
Tract Consultants (Submission 22) made a submission on behalf of Laemmie Properties Pty
Ltd, owner of land at 121 Craig Road, Cranbourne South. Tract submitted that a variety of
agricultural uses have been undertaken on this property, however all have proved to be
marginal. Whilst attempts were made to include this land within the UGB as a logical
inclusion,thiswasnotsupportedbyeitherCouncilortheGrowthAreaAuthority(GAA)and
therequestwaswithdrawn.
TractsubmitteddiscussionswithCouncilhadindicatedpotentialexistedtoconsideraform
ofdevelopmentwhichmayincorporatelowdensity/equestrian/ruralresidentialonthesite,
howeverconcernwasraisedthiswasnotcontemplatedbythisAmendment.
Concern was also raised the Amendment does not adequately recognise the fragmented
natureoftheland,itsruralresidentialnatureandthatitisnownotwellsuitedtolongterm
agriculture. Further, the Amendment provides no strategy for low viability agricultural
businesses that cannot be economically sustainable because of their location to nearby
urban and rural residential development. Tract submitted these issues were better dealt
with in the Westernport Green Wedge Management Plan Draft Discussion Paper and that
thisAmendmentshouldbedraftedtoaddressthefindingsofthisreport.
In addition to these more general submissions, Tract also made some specific
recommendations in relation to the drafting of the Amendment and these are outlined
below:
1. Clause 21.031 Theme 1: Planning Caseys communities delete strategies which
seek to discourage rural residential development between Casey and surrounding
ruralareas.
2. Clause21.037Implementationincludeastatementwhichidentifiesappropriate
zonesforfuture,smallerandruralresidentiallotdevelopment.
AmendmentC50totheCaseyPlanningSchemePanelReport3April2014
Page45of100
3. Clause21.093Casey FarmStrategiesGeneral&DevonMeadowsdeletedot
points which place a blanket prohibition on or discourage rural residential
development.
4. Clause 21.095 Casey Farm LAM delete the note which prohibits/discourages
rural residential development in general and more specifically in Devon Meadows.
Inaddition,moreclearlydelineateboundariesbetweenlocalareas.
5. Clause22.09NonAgriculturalUsesinGreenWedgeAreasPolicyclarifywhether
the policy discourages the conversion of agricultural land to rural residential
development under any circumstances and bona fide applications for Dwellings on
existing low density and rural residential lots in the Green Wedge Zone and Green
WedgeAZone.
Tractconcludedbystatingthissiteiswellsuitedtoavarietyoflowdensityoutcomesdueto
its proximity to existing services, accessibility to employment and lack of environmental
constraints.
Further to the Tract submission, an additional submission was received from Ms Lisa Lark
seekingthedeferraloftheAmendmentuntilthefinalisationofPlanMelbourne.
In response to Mr Broatch and Ratios submissions, Mr Pollard submitted the need for a
strategy plan for Pearcedale is identified as part of this Amendment (Clause 21.094), but
that it should be based on the outcomes of the Western Port Green Wedge Management
Planwhichiscurrentlybeingfinalised.
Mr Pollard also submitted Council does not support submissions for greater low density
developmentbecause:
Theinclusionofruralresidentialtransitionareas,orbuffers,wouldundermine
a fundamental land use objective of the Casey C21 Strategy and the revised
MSS; namely, the maintenance of defined urban edges by limiting rural
residential buffers. These buffer areas often result in creep of urban
expansion into viable agricultural areas and/or areas of environmental
significance.
In response to Tracts submissions, Mr Pollard submitted the objective does not represent
newpolicyasitexistsinthecurrentPlanningSchemeinnumerouslocations(Clauses21.07,
22.06and22.21)andonlyallowssmalllotexcisionsifanyidentifiedfarming,environmental
orlandscapevaluesarenotcompromised.
MrPollardsubmittedCouncildoesnotsupportthebroadersubmissionsmadeforthesame
reasons as specified in the response to Mr Broatchs submission. In addition, Mr Pollard
submittednoadditionalsupportforthistypeofdevelopmentshouldbeprovidedintheMSS
asthispreemptstheoutcomesoftheGreenWedgeManagementPlan,whichisexamining
these issues in more detail. Mr Pollard emphasised part of the reason why this land was
considered unsuitable for inclusion with the UGB was because this may compromise the
Bunyip Food Belt Project, the Southern Brown Bandicoot biolink and more broadly the
Western Port Green Wedge Management Plan; and the land is constrained by potential
drainageimpactsontheRamsarsiteinWesternPortBay,trafficcapacityissuesandthelack
ofaccesstopublictransport.
AmendmentC50totheCaseyPlanningSchemePanelReport3April2014
Page46of100
Despite this, Mr Pollard submitted Council is prepared to include an additional dot point in
Clause 21.094 Casey Farm Further Strategic Work which the states Investigate
opportunitiesforruralresidentialdevelopmentinareaswithidentifiedmarginalagricultural
viability.
(iii) Discussion
In relation to the future development of Pearcedale, the Panel accepts Council has
recognised the need for a Pearcedale strategy and have accordingly identified this as
Further strategic work. The Panel considers this will support the preparation of this work
and an appropriate response to this submission. The Panel does not consider any further
changetotheAmendmentisrequired.
In relation to the broader issue of development within the Green Wedge, the submissions
made by Mr Broatch, Ratio and Tract all deal with the same issue which is whether it is
appropriate to allow for greater low density development opportunities, whether they be
ruralresidentialorruralliving;andifso,howisthatreflectedinthePlanningScheme.
The Panel agrees with Council there is long established policy within the Casey Planning
Scheme which seeks to protect land within green wedges from encroaching urban
development,foravarietyofreasonswhetheritberighttofarm,protectionofagricultural
landandenvironmentalvalues,scenicvalues,etc.TheseparcelsoflandareoutsidetheUGB
and the Pearcedale township and are within a Green Wedge Zone, and therefore they are
notintendedtoplayalargeroleinaccommodatingurbandevelopment.
ThePanelagreeswithCouncilitwouldbeprematuretoincludeanyadditionalreferencesto
facilitating or allowing low density development in the green wedge areas prior to the
completionoftheGreenWedgeManagementPlanshouldtherebeanyfurtherlowdensity
development the Panel considers this should only be provided for following the proper
consideration of all the relevant issues. This requires a considered and well thought out
approachtothegreenwedgeinordertoprovidecertainty.Forthesereasons,thePanelis
notpreparedtorecommendanyofthechangessuggestedbyTract.
ThePanelnotesthatCouncilhasrecommendedtheinclusionofadditionalfurtherstrategic
work which seeks to Investigate opportunities for rural residential development in areas
with identified marginal agricultural viability. The Panel has concern with this for two
reasons:
The first general strategy in Clause 21.093 seeks to Assist productive farming by
ensuring noncompatible land uses (such as ruralresidential housing and urbantype
uses) do not establish. (Our emphasis) This strategy is very specific in saying rural
residentialdevelopmentisnottoestablish,notthatitwillbediscouraged,thisineffect
seekstopreventthistypeoflandusewithinCaseyFarm.Giventhisemphasis,thePanel
considers it is inappropriate to identify the need to investigate opportunities for a use
which it specifically seeks to prevent. Whilst Council has submitted this is consistent
with previous policy, the Panel do not agree and consider the emphasis has been
elevated to almost prohibit rather than discourage which is the term which has been
usedpreviously,andisofconcerntothePanel.
Secondly, the Panel hasconcern with investigating opportunities within areas thathave
marginal agricultural viability. This refers to viability of the agricultural enterprise
AmendmentC50totheCaseyPlanningSchemePanelReport3April2014
Page47of100
itself, not as to the quality of the land or whether it could be used for any other
legitimate use within Green Wedges. Viability is a very subjective term and what is
considered viable to one agricultural producer may not be considered viable to
another. Viability can be defined by a range of factors such as commodity prices,
international trade agreements, debt levels, weather conditions, as well as personal
aspirations. The Panel considers that if there is to be any additional rural residential
development, then this should be considered as one of the issues as part of the Green
WedgeManagementPlan,andnotagriculturalviabilityalone.
For these reasons, the Panel do not support the inclusion of this suggestion for further
strategic work and consider this matter can be adequately considered as part of the Green
WedgeManagementPlanwhichisidentifiedasfurtherstrategicwork.
In response to Ms Larks submission that the Amendment should be deferred, the Panel
doesnotagree.ToputthisAmendmentonholdyetagainwouldnotbeintheinterestsof
goodplanning.ThePanelacceptstherewillbeaneedtoreviewtheAmendmentinlightof
the recommendations of Plan Melbourne, but the Panel is confident that this can be
achievedwithouthavingtodefertheAmendment.
(iv) Recommendations
ThePanelrecommends:
34. Delete dot point 5 from Clause 21.094 Casey Farm Implementation
Further Strategic work which reads Investigate opportunities for rural
residential development in areas with identified marginal agricultural
viability,aswellasanyothersuchreferences.
AmendmentC50totheCaseyPlanningSchemePanelReport3April2014
Page48of100
13 110GricesRoad,Berwick
(i) Issue
Whether this site should be identified as Lifestyle Living (Existing/Future) in the Berwick
SouthernLAMorResidential(Existing/Future)?
(ii) Submission
ReedsConsulting(Submission10)madeasubmissiononbehalfofOrchardViewVillagePty
Ltd stating that when C21 was prepared, Casey was on the metropolitan fringe and rural
residential development was an appropriate use of the subject land. Since that time,
however, there has been substantial growth in Casey and the preparation of a significant
numberofPSPswhichseektofocusmoredevelopmentinthearea.Thedesignationofland
for rural residential purposes in this location is therefore no longer considered appropriate
andthelandshouldbeidentifiedforfutureresidentialpurposes.
Councilindicateditagreeswiththesubmissionandhavemadechangestothiseffect.
(iii) Discussion
Given the designation of the surrounding land as Residential (Existing/Future) and Future
UrbanthePanelagreeswithReedsConsultingandCouncilthatitmakesnosensetoretain
this small pocket of Lifestyle Living in this location. The Panel agrees with the suggested
amendments.
(iv) Recommendations
ThePanelrecommends:
35. Amend Clause 21.02 Strategic Framework Plan and Clause 21.065 Berwick
Southern Area LAM to include 110 Grices Road, Berwick within the Residential
(existing/Future)designation.
AmendmentC50totheCaseyPlanningSchemePanelReport3April2014
Page49of100
14 Designationoffloodaffectedland
(i) Theissue
Whether the designation of privately owned flood affected land as future public open
spacedeprivestheownersofdevelopmentpotential.
(ii) Submissions
Messrs Muedini (Submission 9) have objected to their land at 1929 Shrives Road, Narre
Warren being designated Future Public Park and Recreation on the Narre Warren LAM
(proposed clause 21.205). They submit this will make it virtually impossible for them to
developthelandfortheirownpurposes.IntheabsenceofanyPublicAcquisitionOverlayor
proposal by Council to acquire the property they say this imposes an unacceptable
restrictionontheiruseoftheland.
Melbourne Water (Submission 5) has expressed concern that designation on the LAMs of
land within the Hallam Valley Floodplain and other floodplain areas as future public open
space(CaseyValleyParklands)doesntreflecttheprimarydrainagefunctionoftheland.
Mr and Mrs Bradbury (Submission 8) submitted there should be a 1:500 year flood areas
should be identified with floodways designated so that the potential to flood houses is
reduced.
InresponsetotheMuedinissubmission,MrPollardrespondedthelandisincludedwithina
Public Use Zone 1, is wholly affected by a Land Subject to Inundation Overlay (LSIO) and is
within the Hallam Valley Floodplain and the future Casey Valley Parklands, for which a
masterplanisbeingdevelopedbyMelbourneWater.
Mr Pollard submitted the development potential of the land is already restricted by the
currentzone(whichMrPollardacceptedisanomalousgiventhelandisprivatelyowned)and
the overlay, rather than this Amendment which seeks to include a policy framework in the
PlanningSchemeforconsideration,ratherthanaspecificzone.
Inaddition,MrPollardemphasisedtheNarreWarrenLAMhadbeenamendedtorecognise
theunderlyinglanduseisFloodplain,whilsttheoverlyingdesignationwastobeamended
toFutureOpenSpacetoachieveconsistencywithothermaps.
In response to Mr and Mrs Bradburys submission, Mr Pollard submitted the Planning
Schemealreadyrecogniseslandwhichissubjecttofloodingthroughtheuseofseveralzones
andoverlays,whichisregularlyreviewedwithMelbourneWaterandthereforenochangeto
theAmendmentwasrecommended.
CouncilsresponsetoMelbourneWatersubmissionisoutlinedinChapter5.5.
(iii) Discussion
The Panel can understand the concerns raised by Messers Muedini given the anomalous
natureofthecurrentzoning,howeveritisclearthisislandwhichhaslongbeenrecognised
ashavingdevelopmentlimitationsduetoflooding,whichisrecognisedbythecurrentLSIO.
AmendmentC50totheCaseyPlanningSchemePanelReport3April2014
Page50of100
Whilst the Panel recognises this land may have some future open space potential, it is not
solelybecauseofthisthatthedevelopmentpotentialofthelandislimited,itisthefactthat
this land is liable to flooding. As has been raised by Melbourne Water, the primary role of
this land as a floodway should be recognised above its secondary role, that of being
potentialfutureopenspace.
IntermsofthesuggestedchangestotheNarreWarrenLAM,thePanelnotesthisissuealso
appliestotheEndeavourHills,Hallam,HamptonParkandLynbrook/LyndhurstLAMs.
In response to the Melbourne Water submission, Council has agreed to modify the Narre
Warren LAM by changing the designation of the land comprising the Hallam Valley
Floodplain area from Future Public Park and Recreation to Future Open Space and
Floodplain.ThischangeaffectslandintheUrbanFloodwayZone(UFZ)orPublicUseZone1
(PUZ1) under the control of Melbourne Water. The change in designation will therefore
affecttheMuediniownedlandat1929ShrivesRoad.
Having said that, the Panel is aware Melbourne Water is preparing a master plan for the
CaseyValleyParklandwhichislikelytoshedfurtherlightonwhatthefutureroleofthissite
willbeandwhatitsdevelopmentpotentialisforeitherprivateorpublicpurposes.Itwould
be appropriate for Council to reassess the current zoning of this site following the
completionofthiswork.
ThePanelsupportsthechangesasproposedbyCouncil.
InresponsetothecommentsmadebyMrandMrsBradbury,thePanelconcurwithCouncil
that this issue is already appropriately dealt with through the existing provisions of the
planningscheme.
(iv) Recommendations
ThePanelrecommends:
36. AmendClause21.205NarreWarrenLAM:
a) LegendfromPublicandRecreation,FuturePublicParkandRecreationand
Public Utility as exhibited, to read Open Space, Future Open Space and
Floodplain.ThisshouldalsoapplytotheEndeavourHills,Hallam,Hampton
ParkandLynbrook/LyndhurstLAMs.
b) Notation to read Maintain and enhance the Hallam Valley Floodplain as an
intersuburbanbreakandprogressivelydevelopitforpassiveparkland,while
respectingitsprimaryfunctionasafloodplain.
AmendmentC50totheCaseyPlanningSchemePanelReport3April2014
Page51of100
15 Royal Botanic Gardens, Cranbourne mapping
anomalies
(i) Theissue
VariousboundaryanomalieshavebeenidentifiedwithrespecttotheRoyalBotanicGardens
Cranbourne (RBGC) which require corrections to the LAMs for Cranbourne (Clause 21.115)
andtheBotanicRidge/JunctionVillage(Clause21.075).
(ii) Submissions
The RBGC (Submission 20) submitted the Botanic Ridge/Junction Village and Cranbourne
LAMs do not include all of the land under its management, being land formerly within the
BallartoRoadalignment,nolongergazettedasaroadreservewhichnowformspartofthe
RBGC.
TheRBGChasalsoidentifiedanumberofzoningandoverlaymappingerrorsinthePlanning
Scheme.
Council supports the changes and has revised both LAMs accordingly. It has also changed
the boundary of the Botanic Ridge/Junction Village and Cranbourne LAMs so that all of the
RBGC land is now shown on the Botanic Ridge/Junction Village LAM. The plan at Clause
21.042 showing the breakdown of the Casey municipality into the various LAMs has also
beenrevised.
In relation to mapping errors on the zone/overlay maps, Council advised these errors have
beencorrectedbywayofaseparateamendmentapprovedin2012.
(iii) Discussion
ThePanelnotesthechangeswhichhavebeenmadeandsupportsthese.
(iv) Recommendations
ThePanelrecommends:
37. AmendtheClause21.042LocalAreasPlanattoreflecttheRBGCownership.
38. Amend the Clause 21.075 Botanic Ridge/Junction Village LAM so that all the
land under the management of the RBGC is contained within this map. Also
make the necessary consequential changes to the Clause 21.115 Cranbourne
LAM.
AmendmentC50totheCaseyPlanningSchemePanelReport3April2014
Page52of100
16 PEETsubmission
(i) Theissue
WhethertheAmendmentappropriatelyrespondstorecentStatePlanningPolicyinrelation
to the UGB and gazetted PSPs; and whether it is appropriate for the MSS to extend the
recognition, protection and enhancement of areas of biodiversity significance within the
Royal Botanical Gardens Cranbourne to surrounding areas. There are also a number of
editorialmatters.
(ii) Submissions
PEET Pty Ltd (submission 15) raised concern that the LAMs have not been amended to
reflect the 2010 revised UGB, which now includes 4048 Craig Road, Devon Meadows.
Similarly, concern was also raised the LAMs need to be amended to reflect approved PSPs,
particularlytheCranbourneEastandCranbourneWestPSPs.
PEET also raised concern the MSS seeks to recognise, protect and enhance the areas of
biodiversitysignificancewithintheRBGCandsurroundsandthatthiscancreateuncertainty
regarding expectations for the protection and enhancement within the Botanic Ridge PSP
area and more specifically two PEET and PEET Syndicate owned parcels at 51A Craig Road
and 5365 Craig Road, Botanic Ridge which do not have high biodiversity or conservation
significance. PEET submitted the strategies that seek to create a biodiversity outcome that
currentlydoesnotexistoutsidetheRBGCwillleadtoincreasedhousingcostsintheBotanic
RidgePSParea.Itrequestssuchstrategiesberemoved.
PEET requested changes to the following (numbering as per the exhibited amendment).
Giventhenumberofsuggestedchanges,thePanelwillconsiderthebothPEETandCouncils
submissionsconcurrentlyandgiveitsrecommendationtogetherforeaseofreading.
Submissiona)
Clause 21.012 Historical Context (as exhibited) requires clarity around what is
consideredheritageandhowthisistobedealtwith.
Councilresponse
This section of the MSS was deleted as a result of the restructure. Despite that the
principlesofheritageconservationareclearlyarticulatedintheSPPFandtheVPPtoolsand
thereisnoneedtoduplicatethese.
Paneldiscussionandrecommendation
ThePanelagreeswithCouncilthatthismatterissufficientlyaddressedintheSPPFandVPPs
andthereforenochangesarerequiredtotheAmendment.
AmendmentC50totheCaseyPlanningSchemePanelReport3April2014
Page53of100
Submissionb)
Clause 21.0614 Environmental Context (as exhibited) requests removal of reference to
all remnant vegetation as this is not consistent with legislative or planning scheme
requirements.
Councilresponse
Councilagreeswiththissubmissionandhasamendedthewordingaccordingly.
Paneldiscussionandrecommendation
ThePanelagreeswithbothPEETandCouncilssubmissionsandsupportsthechangestothe
Amendment.
Submissionc)
Clause21.024StrategicFrameworkPlanremoveAreasofEnvironmentalSensitivityas
itappliestotheBotanicRidgePSPassurveyworkundertakenat51Aand5365CraigRoad
foundnoareasofenvironmentalsensitivityorfaunahabitat.
Councilresponse
Council does not agree with this submission, however Amendment C133 (approved March
2013) introduced the Botanic Ridge PSP which removed the Environmental Significance
Overlay from the PSP area and therefore it is appropriate to remove the Areas of
Environmental Sensitivity designation from the Strategic Framework Plan and the Botanic
Ridge/JunctionVillageLAM.
Paneldiscussionandrecommendation
The Panel concurs with both PEET and Council that given the detailed survey work
undertaken as part of the Botanic Ridge PSP did not find any areas of environmental
significance or fauna habitat it is no longer appropriate to identify these on the relevant
maps.ThePanelsupportstherecommendedchange.
Submissiond)
Clause 21.032 Restoring and enhancing Caseys environment Objective 1 Strategy 5
deletereferencetoCreateandmaintainandreplacethemwithSeekfundingtosecurein
ordertoprovideclarityabouthowthisistobeachieved.
Councilresponse
Councilsubmittedtheoriginalreferencehasnowbeenrewordedaspartoftherestructure
andnowincludesreferencetotheCaseyRevegetationStrategywhichprovidesguidanceas
to where such links are preferred and why they are important to create and maintain. In
terms of funding, it talks about open space contributions and agreements with landowners
andthatnotallwillbesecuredviaexternalfundingsources.
AmendmentC50totheCaseyPlanningSchemePanelReport3April2014
Page54of100
Paneldiscussionandrecommendation
The Panel considers the exhibited strategy which seeks to Create and maintain is
appropriatewiththeintentofcreatingstrategichabitatlinks,andisnotjustabouthowthey
are funded. In terms of the additional wording included by Council, the Panel supports
reference to strategic links, however is concerned the revised strategy seeks to rely on a
ReferenceDocumentfortheidentificationofstrategichabitatlinks.
InaccordancewithPlanningPracticeNote:No13IncorporatedandReferenceDocuments
October 2013 Reference documents are intended to provide background information only
and are not to be relied upon in decision making. By including reference to the Casey
Revegetation Strategy, this strategy seeks to rely upon this strategy as a de facto statutory
tool, which the Panel does not support. The Panel considers that if there are important
strategiclinksthentheseshouldbeidentifiedintherelevantlocalareamaps,howeverthis
wouldneedtobeundertakenviaaseparateAmendment.
The Panel recommends the strategy as exhibited should be retained, with the inclusion of
thetermstrategic.
Submissione)
Clause21.032RestoringandenhancingCaseysenvironmentStrategydeletereference
toandimmediatesurroundsonthebasisthatlandsurroundingtheRBGCwasnotfoundto
haveanyenvironmentalsensitivityorfaunahabitatduringinvestigationsaspartofthePSP
andthisleadstouncertainty.
Councilresponse
Council did not support this submission on the basis that Council has had a long standing
commitmenttotherecognition,protectionandenhancementofthebiodiversityofthearea
in and around the RBGC, which is reflected through C21 and the various ESOs in the area.
FurthertheSPPFdoesnotdistinguishbetweenlandwithinandoutsidetheUGB.
Paneldiscussionandrecommendation
The Panel concurs with Council that protection of biodiversity around the RBGC is an
important issue. This strategy will relate to a broader area than that included within the
Botanic Ridge PSP and therefore it is appropriate to retain references to and immediate
surrounds.TheBotanicRidgePSPhasbeenthroughthedetailedplanningprocessandthe
ESO3 was removed via Amendment C133, therefore the Panel considers the PSP has
addressedthisissueandprovidedthecertaintyasrequired.
Submissionf)
Clause 21.036: Theme 6: Creating a Casey identity Strategy 2 include where it can be
demonstrated that a net community benefit can be achieved. to ensure properties
identifiedforretentionachieveanetcommunitybenefit.
AmendmentC50totheCaseyPlanningSchemePanelReport3April2014
Page55of100
Councilresponse
Councildidnotsupportthissubmissiononthebasisthatitisintrinsictothestrategythata
community benefit will be derive from the retention and maintenance of heritage places,
and that net community benefit is not necessary to encourage the retention and
maintenanceofheritageplaces.
Paneldiscussionandrecommendation
ThePanelconcurswithCouncilandnotethatnetcommunitybenefitisoneoftheguiding
principlesforbalancingcompetingpolicyobjectivesasoutlinedinClause10.04Integrated
Decision Making of the VPPs. The Panel considers there is no need to repeat this. The
Panelconcludethereisnoneedtochangethestrategyasexhibited.
Submissiong)
Clause 21.036 Theme 6: Creating a Casey identity Strategies include an additional
strategythatacknowledgesabalancemustbestruckbetweenachievingacountryfeeland
protectingtheremainingruralland.
Councilresponse
CounciladvisesthisstrategyhasbeendeletedasaresultoftherestructureoftheMSSasit
wasconsideredsubjectiveandopentointerpretation.Inaddition,therelevantstrategyhas
amended the words country feel to existing neighbourhood character as this reflects the
essence of the policy intent better, and is easier to define. Council does not support the
inclusionoftheadditionalstrategyonthebasisthattheuniquecharacteristicsoftheurban
area, including neighbourhood character, should not be undermined at the expense of
maximisingdevelopment.
Paneldiscussionandrecommendation
The Panel notes the strategy has been deleted, however can find no reference to the
amendedversionwhichmakesreferencetoneighbourhoodcharacter.ThePanelalsonotes
an additional strategy has been included which seeks to undertake neighbourhood
character studies , however this is not a strategy and should be identified as Further
StrategicWork.Further,exhibitedstrategieshavebeendeleted.
The Panel is unclear about how Council has addressed this issue. The Panel supports the
changed emphasis from country feel to neighbourhood character, however considers
further work is required to clarify how this has been achieved in the revised Amendment
documentation. In the meantime, the Panel considers the original strategy as exhibited
should be retained until this matter is clarified. The Panel also recommends the new
strategybeincludedafurtherstrategicwork.
Submissionh)
Clause 21.036 Theme 6: Creating a Casey identity Strategy 3 should be deleted as it
duplicates existing planning scheme requirements which relate to Aboriginal heritage
managementrequirements.
AmendmentC50totheCaseyPlanningSchemePanelReport3April2014
Page56of100
Councilresponse
Council acknowledged the SPPF deals with matters which require a Cultural Heritage
Management Plan (CHMP), however this strategy provides the strategic support for the
requirement for a Community Heritage Assessments by the local Aboriginal community
(Clause22.06)incertaincircumstancewhereaCHMPisnotrequired.
Paneldiscussionandrecommendation
ThePanelacceptstheCouncilsubmissionandsupportstheretentionofthisstrategy.
Submissioni)
Clause 21.037 Theme 6: Creating a Casey identity Implementation delete the use of
policy which requires offsets be provided in accordance with the State Native Vegetation
Management Framework on the basis that it duplicates the requirements of the Planning
Scheme.
Councilresponse
Councildidnotsupportthesubmissionstatingthiscomplementsratherthanduplicatesthe
Native Vegetation Management Framework, which affords a degree of discretion to
Councils,especiallyinregardtothelocationoflowersignificancevegetation.
Paneldiscussionandrecommendation
The Panel considers it is appropriate for Council to state a preference for what offset
vegetationshouldbeandwhereitshouldbelocated,recognisingthatitisapreferenceonly.
The Panel, however, considers this implementation measure as written is a strategy more
thanapolicyguidelineforimplementation,andshouldbeincludedassuch.
Submissionj)
Clause21.042LocalAreasPlanshouldbeamendedtoshowtheareaofDevonMeadows
includedwithintheUGBincludedwithintheBotanicRidge/JunctionVillageLAM,alongwith
correspondingchangestotext.
Councilresponse
Council did not support this submission stating that whilst the land is within the UGB,
planning for the area has not been finalised and until such time as it is, it would be
premature make the changes as suggested. Council submitted this should be dealt with
through a separate Amendment. In the meantime, it should remain in Casey Farm,
recognising its future development potential, but allowing farming to continue until
transitionoccurs.
Paneldiscussionandrecommendation
The Panel considers Councils approach is reasonable and appropriate and supports it. No
changerecommended.
AmendmentC50totheCaseyPlanningSchemePanelReport3April2014
Page57of100
Submissionk)
Clause 21.072 Botanic Ridge/Junction Village Objective 2 creates an unreasonable
expectation given there are currently no identified ecological values on most of the land
surrounding the RBGC and should be reworded to read To establish a green living
environmentbyextendingthelandscapethemesthatexistintheRBGC.
Councilresponse
Council did not support this submission stating the ecological values of the RBGC are well
known,andplanningseekstoextendthesevaluesintothesurroundingareasthroughmore
than landscaping, including recognition of the potential impacts of development on the
RBGCintermsofvisualintrusion,introductionofferalanimalsandpestplantsandtheneed
forappropriatehabitatlinkages.
Paneldiscussionandrecommendation
The Panel agrees with Council that the objective goes further than just landscaping. Given
the significance of the RBGC the Panel considers this is an appropriate objective and
supportsitsretention.Nochangerecommended.
Submissionl)
Clause 21.072 Botanic Ridge/Junction Village Objective 3 the objective is unclear and
could be onerous and expensive if provided on unencumbered land, accordingly it was
suggestedonotherwiseencumberedlandshouldbeaddedattheendoftheobjective.
Councilresponse
Councildidnotsupportthissubmissionstatingthereareopportunitiestodeveloparangeof
recreational and habitat networks that would be of benefit to the community and these
should not be limited to encumbered land, and the costs would be equitably distributed
throughtheDevelopmentContributionPlans.
Paneldiscussionandrecommendation
ThePanelagreeswithCouncilandnochangeisrecommended.
Submissionm)
Clause21.073BotanicRidge/JunctionVillageStrategiesseekstheremovalofreference
toandsurroundsfromtheobjectiveonthebasisthatdetailedsurveyworkundertakenas
part of the PSP found no environmental sensitivity or fauna habitat, and this is therefore
unreasonable.
Councilresponse
CouncildidnotsupportthissubmissionstatinglandsurroundingtheRBGCispartlyincluded
withinESOsinrecognition oftheimpactsdevelopmentcanhaveon theecologicalintegrity
oftheRBGC.
AmendmentC50totheCaseyPlanningSchemePanelReport3April2014
Page58of100
Paneldiscussionandrecommendation
The Panel agrees with Council and notes that whilst the ESO relating to the Botanic Ridge
PSPhasbeenremoved,therearebroaderareaswherethisstrategyisrelevant.Nochange
recommended.
Submissionn)
Clause21.073BotanicRidge/JunctionVillageStrategydotpoint3isinappropriateasit
extends an ecological influence into surrounding areas beyond an integrated landscape
response and can impact on developable land, increasing the cost of housing. It was
suggestedbyintegratingthelandscapeoutcomesshouldbeaddedtoendofthestrategy.
Councilresponse
Councilsubmitteditdoesnotsupportthissubmissionforthesamereasonsasoutlinedink).
Paneldiscussionandrecommendation
Similarly,thePanelagreeswithCouncilanddoesnotrecommendanychange.
Submissiono)
Clause21.072BotanicRidge/JunctionVillageStrategydotpoint4shouldbedeletedas
it seeks to create wildlife corridors on private land without a clear acquisition and
managementstrategywhichisinappropriate.
Councilresponse
Council agrees with this submission as the creation of biolinks through the area and
surrounding the RBGC was problematic through the PSP process and the focus has now
shifted to protecting and enhancing the habitat of the Southern Brown Bandicoot.
Accordingly, the exhibited strategy has been deleted and replaced with a revised strategy
whichhastherevisedfocus.CouncilalsoadvisedtherelevantLAMhasalsobeenamended.
Paneldiscussionandrecommendation
GiventhesemattershavebeenexploredanddeterminedthroughthePSPprocess,thePanel
considers it is appropriate to delete this strategy and to replace it with the revised more
focussedstrategy.
InrelationtotheLAM,thePanelhasalreadymadearecommendationinChapter5.5there
should be some recognition of the pathway identified in the PSP on the LAM, so the Panel
doesnotsupportsitscompletedeletion.
Submissionp)
Clause21.073BotanicRidge/JunctionVillageStrategydotpoint5shouldbedeletedor
a map should be provided which shows how this is to be achieved on public land, because
creation of links on private land without a clear acquisition or management strategy is
inappropriateandwillsignificantlyincreasethecostofhousing.
AmendmentC50totheCaseyPlanningSchemePanelReport3April2014
Page59of100
Councilresponse
Council did not support this submission and stated this strategy lies within C21 and is
reinforced in the Casey Revegetation Strategy and seeks to improve connectivity between
largeremnantareasbyidentifyingexistingandpotentialhabitatlinks.Itwassubmittedthis
could be achieved incrementally on both public and private land, through subdivisional
processesoragreement.
Paneldiscussionandrecommendation
The Panel concurs with Councils submission and agrees this is an important strategy that
shouldberetained.ThePaneldo,however,considerthereismeritinmappingtheseareas
and including them within the MSS (possibly a theme based map) which is then translated
onto the LAM to clearly identify these areas. As stated previously, it is not appropriate to
rely on a Reference Document to identify these areas as Reference Documents have no
statutory weight. Having said that, such a map would need to be introduced into the
planningschemeviaaseparateamendment.
Submissionq)
Clause21.073BotanicRidge/JunctionVillageStrategydotpoint12theoutcomeofthe
strategyneedstobeclarified;andtoachieveanintegratedlandscapeoutcomeshouldbe
addedattheend.
Councilresponse
Councilagreeswiththissubmissionstatingthisstrategyhasbeencommonlyappliedtogive
effecttotheCityofCaseyArterialRoadsTreeStrategy,howeveritwouldbeappropriateto
recognise the unique qualities of the Botanic Gardens/Junction Village local area and its
synergies with the RBGC. Accordingly Council has made the changes suggested and added
referencetothestrategyabove.
Paneldiscussionandrecommendation
ThePanelagreeswiththesubmissionsandsupportsthechangesasproposed,howeverthe
Panel has concerns whether reference to the Strategy is simply for reference purposes
(background information only) or whether it intended to rely on this for some strategic or
statutory guidance. As stated previously, the Panel has concerns with the reliance on
Reference Documents as a de facto statutory tool. The Panel supports the change without
thereferencetothestrategy.
Submissionr)
Clause21.073BotanicRidge/JunctionVillageStrategydotpoint15shouldbereplaced
with a more general Strategy about access onto South Gippsland Highway in order to
provide a better understanding of the impacts on PSPs and associated funding
arrangements.
AmendmentC50totheCaseyPlanningSchemePanelReport3April2014
Page60of100
Councilresponse
Council does not support the deletion of this strategy as it is consistent with the Botanic
Ridge PSP recently introduced through Amendment C133, and land has already been
acquired by Council for this purpose. Council accepts, however, that the wording could be
simplified by changing reference to the proposed northsouthern arterial road to Casey
Fields Boulevard. Additional reference to Development Contribution Plan Overlays
addressestheissueoffunding,howeverthishasbeenrefinedbytheinclusionofreference
todelivery.
Paneldiscussionandrecommendation
ThePanelagreeswithCouncilsubmissionandthechangesrecommended.
Submissions)
Clause 21.074 Botanic Ridge/Junction Village Implementation Application of Zones and
Overlaysdotpoint4shouldbeamendedtodeletereferencetoandsurroundingasno
areasofenvironmentalsensitivityorfaunahabitatwerefoundthroughthePSPsurveywork.
Councilresponse
CouncildonotsupportthesubmissiononthebasisthatCounciliscommittedtoprotecting
the environmental values of the RBGC as previously stated, and whilst an ESO has been
removedoverthePSParea,otherESOsremainintact.
Paneldiscussionandrecommendation
ThePanelacceptsCouncilssubmissionandnochangetotheAmendmentisrecommended.
Submissiont)
Clause 21.093 Casey Farm Strategies do not recognise the future residential
development to occur within Devon Meadows given it is within the UGB. An additional
strategy should be included which seeks to Encourage the integration of future residential
developmentinDevonMeadowsandBotanicRidge.
Councilresponse
Councilsubmitteditdoesnotsupportthissubmissionforthereasonsoutlinedinrelationto
pointj).
Paneldiscussionandrecommendation
ThePanelagreewithCouncilsubmission.Nochangerecommended.
Submissionu)
Clause21.095CaseyFarmLocalAreaMapremovethatpartofDevonMeadowswithin
theUrbanGrowthBoundaryfromCaseyFarmandamendtheplanandtextaccordingly.
AmendmentC50totheCaseyPlanningSchemePanelReport3April2014
Page61of100
Councilresponse
Councilsubmitteditdoesnotsupportthissubmissionforthereasonsoutlinedinrelationto
pointj).
Paneldiscussionandrecommendation
ThePanelagreewithCouncilsubmission.Nochangerecommended.
Submissionv)
Clause21.093CaseyFarmLAMthelandshownasExtractiveIndustryabuttingCraig
Road is no longer owned by the quarry operator and therefore buffers are no longer
required.TheMapshouldbeamendedtoremovesuchreferences.
Councilresponse
Council submitted it supports the submission, acknowledging the site has been sold and is
no longer being operated as quarry having been largely rehabilitated. Council advised the
Casey Farm LAM has been amended to remove Extractive Industry and the associated
buffersandthislandhasnowbeenshownasFutureUrbanconsistentwiththesurrounding
landuse.Additionallythelegendhasalsobeenchanged.
Paneldiscussionandrecommendation
WhilstCouncilsubmitschangeshavebeenmadetothereviseddocumentation,areviewof
therevisedLAMdoesnotreflectthis.ThePanelagreeswiththesuggestedchanges.
Submissionw)
Clause 21.113 Cranbourne Strategy dot point 11 should be amended to delete
referencetoandsurroundsasthisleadstouncertaintyinplanningfortheareaaroundthe
RBGC.
Councilresponse
Council submitted it does not support the submission for the same reasons as outlined in
points e), m) and s), however accepted that as no part of the RBGC is located within this
Local Area, the wording of the strategy has been changed to refer to land within the
surrounds of the RBGC only, and as such an annotation has also been removed from the
relevantLAM.
Paneldiscussionandrecommendation
ThePanelsupportstheCouncilsubmissionandtherecommendedchanges.
Submissionx)
Clause 21.114 Cranbourne Implementation Application of Zones and Overlays dot
point 5 needs to clarify where the ESO will apply, however it is unnecessary for land
abuttingtheRBGCasthiswillbeaddressedbythePSP.
AmendmentC50totheCaseyPlanningSchemePanelReport3April2014
Page62of100
Councilresponse
Councildoesnotsupportthissubmissionforthesamereasonsoutlinedine),m)ands).
Paneldiscussionandrecommendation
ThePanelagreewithCouncilssubmission.Nochangerecommended.
Submissiony)
Clause21.114CranbourneLAMasdiscussedinw)above,associatedreferenceshould
bedeletedfromtheLAM.
Councilresponse
Council submitted this matter has been addressed through w) and no further change
required.
Paneldiscussionandrecommendation
ThePanelsupportsCouncilssubmissionandnofurtherchangerecommended.
Submissionz)
Clause22.013RetailPolicythelistofNACsshouldbeamendedtomakereferencetothe
proposedBotanicRidgeCraigRoadNAC.
Councilresponse
Council advised the new Retail Policy at Clause 22.01 is a policy neutral translation of the
current retail policy at Clause 22.07 and on that basis this Amendment does not seek to
amendthedirectionscontainedwithinthispolicy.
Council submitted the Botanic Ridge PSP, introduced by Amendment C133 in March 2013,
providesforanewNAConCraigRoad,howeveritdidnotseektomakeanychangestothe
Retail Policy. Council advised a separate planning scheme amendment will be initiated to
revise the Retail Policy and this will be informed by the new Activities Areas and Non
Residential Strategy and other strategic work such as the Botanic Ridge PSP, including
amendingtheretailclassificationstoaddanynewlyidentifiedactivitycentres.
Inrespectoftheneedtopreparestructureplanstoguidethedevelopmentoflargeractivity
centres, Council submits this is a core component of the current Retail Policy and this
Amendmentdoesnotseektochangethis.
Paneldiscussionandrecommendation
ThePanelnotesthesubmissionandagreeswithCouncilthatgiventhenewRetailPolicyisa
policy neutral translation of the existing policy, recognition of additional activity centres
through this Amendment is inappropriate as this would constitute a transformation of this
Amendment. The Panel concurs that recognition of the Craig Road (Botanic Ridge) NAC is
notamatterforthisamendment.
NochangeisrequiredtotheAmendmentasaresultofthissubmission.
AmendmentC50totheCaseyPlanningSchemePanelReport3April2014
Page63of100
Submissionaa)
Clause22.014RetailPolicyreferencetotheneedforstructureplansforactivitycentres
isonerousandinconsistentwiththePSPguidelinesandshouldbedeleted.
Councilresponse
Councildoesnotsupportthissubmissionstatingthepreparationofstructureplanstoguide
thedevelopmentoflargestactivitycentresisacorecomponentoftheRetailPolicyandthe
underlying City of Casey Activity Centres Strategy, which is a reference document to the
policy, and this Amendment does not seek to change this. Council submitted the term
structure plan can include a development plan or urban design framework, depending on
thestatusofthecentre,whichisarticulatedinthenewActivitiesAreasandNonResidential
UsesStrategyadoptedin2012whichwillinformrevisionstotheRetailPolicyviaaseparate
amendment.
Paneldiscussionandrecommendation
The Panel is aware the Retail Policy in this Amendment is a policy neutral translation and
thereforethisAmendmentdoesnotseektochangethispolicy.ThePanelisalsoawarethat
the Policy will be updated through a separate Amendment and that this issue can be
addressedthroughthatprocess.Nochangerecommended.
Submissionbb)
Clause 22.014 Retail Policy reference to the need for development plans for activity
centresisinconsistentwithcurrentlanduseplanningterminologyandshouldbedeleted.
Councilresponse
Councilreiterateditssubmissiontoaa)above.
Paneldiscussionandrecommendation
SimilarlythePanelreiteratesitscomments.Nofurtherchangerecommended.
Submissioncc)
Clause 21.01 Existing & Proposed Activity Centre System Map does not show the
designation of the proposed Botanic Ridge NAC and the map should be amended
accordingly.
Councilresponse
Councilsubmitteditdoesnotsupportthissubmissionforthereasonsoutlinedinz).
Paneldiscussionandrecommendation
Similarly,thePanelreiteratesitscommentsonthatmatter.Nofurtherchangerequired.
AmendmentC50totheCaseyPlanningSchemePanelReport3April2014
Page64of100
(iii) Recommendations
ThePanelrecommends:
39. Amend Clause 21.013 Environmental Context paragraph 5 to read The
managementofremnantvegetationandfaunathroughouttheCityisimportant
to achieve a net gain in the extent and quality of native vegetation, and to
protectandconservebiodiversity.
40. AmendClause21.024StrategicFrameworkPlantoremove51Aand5365Craig
RoadfromtheAreasofEnvironmentalSensitivity.
41. RetainClause21.032Theme2:Environment:
a) Objective 1 Strategy 1.5 to read Create and maintain strategic habitat
links.
b) to Include the following Implementation measure as a strategy under the
same Clause Ensure offset planting required under the State Native
VegetationManagementFrameworkisofthesameorsimilarvegetationtype
andisprovideinCaseyincloseproximitytothesiteofvegetationloss,asfar
aspracticable.
42. AmendClause21.035Theme5:BuiltEnvironment:
a) Objective 1 Strategies to reinstate Strengthen the country feel in Caseys
suburbanandnonsuburbancommunities.
b) Implementation Further Strategic Work to include Undertake
neighbourhood character studies to recognise and value and the intrinsic
characteristicsofdifferentareaswithinCasey.
43. AmendClause21.07BotanicRidge/JunctionVillage:
a) to delete the following Strategy Develop wildlife corridors that incorporate
stormwater management function, linking the Royal Botanic Gardens with
otherareasincludingtheextractiveindustrysiteonDevonRoad.andreplace
itwiththefollowingProtectandenhancethehabitatoftheSouthernBrown
Bandicoot, which is listed as nationally endangered under the Environment
Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, within and beyond the
RoyalBotanicGardensCranbourne,includingprovidinghabitatlinkageswith
thesurroundingareawherepracticable.
b) Strategies dot point 12 to read Provide extensive boulevard planting
alongthemainroadnetworktoachieveanintegratedlandscapeoutcome.
c) to replace Strategies dot point 15 with the following Provide for the
duplication of Craig Road (north of Browns Road) to an arterial road
standard, and for the deviation of Craig Road to South Gippsland Highway
south of Junction Village to provide a direct vehicular link to the proposed
Casey Fields Boulevard extending north from South Gippsland Highway to
GlasscocksRoad.
AmendmentC50totheCaseyPlanningSchemePanelReport3April2014
Page65of100
d) Application of Zones and Overlays dot point 6 to read Applying the
DevelopmentContributionsPlanOverlaytofutureanddevelopingresidential
areas to facilitate the timely delivery of appropriate transport, physical and
communityinfrastructure.
44. AmendtheClause21.095CaseyFarmLAMtodeleteExtractiveIndustryand
associated Buffers to sensitive uses for the land fronting Craig Road. These
designationsaretoremaininthelegend.
45. AmendClause21.113Cranbourne:
a) Strategies dot point 11 to read Recognise, protect and enhance any areas
ofbiodiversitysignificancewithinthesurroundsoftheRoyalBotanicGardens
Cranbourne.
b) LAMtodeletethefollowingannotationRecognise,protectandenhance
the areas of biodiversity significance within the Royal Botanic Gardens
Cranbourneandthesurrounds.
46. Review the Amendment to ensure it does not place an elevated emphasis on
Reference Documents, other than as documents which provide background
information.
AmendmentC50totheCaseyPlanningSchemePanelReport3April2014
Page66of100
17 1010ThompsonsRoad,CranbourneWest
(i) Theissue
Whether the Cranbourne West Local Area Policy should recognise an existing poultry farm
andassociatedbuffers.
(ii) Submissions
Focus Creative Development Solutions (Submission 21) made a submission on behalf of J &
GPPtyLtdinrelationtoanexistingpoultryfarmat1010ThompsonRoad,CranbourneWest.
The submission emphasised that a poultry processing plant has been operating on this site
since1970underexistinguserights,althoughitisadiscretionaryuseunderthezone.Itwas
submittedthereareplanstoupgradetheplanttoimproveitsefficiency,visualcharacterand
environmental performance with the operation expected to continue in the long run. The
current investment in the plant makes relocation prohibitive and commercially unviable. It
wassubmittedtheplantisrecognisedintheCranbourneWestStructurePlanbyvirtueofa
500m buffer around the plant, which identifies this and other poultry related uses in the
areaasbuffergeneratinguses.
FocusCreativeDevelopmentSolutionssubmittedthisuseanditsrequirementforbuffersis
recognisedintheobjectivesandstrategiesoftheCranbourneWestLocalAreapolicyandif
this plant is not afforded protection in the planning scheme, it could be lost which would
havesignificantemploymentandeconomicimplicationsfortheareaandlocalemployees.It
was submitted that netcommunitybenefit would be achieved throughthe recognition and
protectionofthissignificantlabourintensivebusiness.
Focus Creative Development Solutions specifically suggested an additional objective and
strategybeincludedinthisLocalAreapolicy,theseare:
Objective To protect the amenity of residents maintaining appropriate buffers
aroundexistingindustries.
StrategyMaintainthebuffersaroundexistingindustriesasshownonthePrecinct
StructurePlan.
In response, Council submitted buffers are shown in the Cranbourne West LAM (Clause
21.145) around sensitive uses in this location acknowledging they are present and
recognisingtheymayhaveadverseamenityimpacts,howeverthisdoesnottranslatetothe
need for a policy statement seeking to protect these uses in the future as this would
contradict the policy direction of the Cranbourne West PSP, which identifies this site as
formingpartofafutureBusinessPark.MrPollardsubmittedthePSPdoesnotidentifyor
protecttheexistingpoultrybusinessesinthearea,otherthanshowingthedefaultEPAand
broiler farm buffers for information purposes and to for the MSS to entrench an activity
thatisinconflictwithanapprovedPrecinctStructurePlanwouldbeinappropriate.
AmendmentC50totheCaseyPlanningSchemePanelReport3April2014
Page67of100
(iii) Discussion
The Panel concurs with the Councils position on this matter. The Cranbourne West PSP
provides the detailed planning for this precinct and it clearly identifies this site is located
withinafutureBusinessPark.
(iv) Conclusion
The Panel concludes that no change is required to the Amendment in response to this
submission.
AmendmentC50totheCaseyPlanningSchemePanelReport3April2014
Page68of100
18 Changes between the exhibited and revised
Amendmentdocumentation
In addition to the structural changes made to the Amendment documentation following
exhibition as discussed in Chapter 3, the Panel identified a number of specific differences
betweentheexhibitedandrevisedAmendmentdocumentation.
It had been the Panels understanding the differences between the two versions of the
Amendment documentation were limited to the restructure and material introduced
through other Amendments approved after the exhibition of Amendment C50, changes to
the Amendment in response to the submissions, as well as some minor editorial matters.
The Panel,however, also identified a number of other Amendments and requested Council
to provide a full list of all changes made post exhibition. A copy of Councils response is
attachedasAppendixD.
ThePanelhasnotattemptedtoundertakeacomprehensivecomparisonofbothversionsof
theAmendment,andhasonlyfocusseditsattentiontorespondingtoissuesinsubmissions.
ThefollowingisanoutlineoftheissuesidentifiedbyCouncil.
(i) ChangestoClause21.07BotanicRidge/JunctionVillage
Natureofchange
Deletion of reference to wildlife corridors. The Area of Environmental Significance has
beenintroducedoverthesouthwesterncorneroftheMap.
Councilsexplanation
MrPollardsubmittedreferencetowildlifecorridorswasdeletedinresponsetosubmission
15(o), although omitted from the Stage 4 version presented to the Panel. The Area of
Environmental Sensitivity mirrors that of ESO5 (applied through Amendment C66 in May
2004). Mr Pollard submitted this was accidentally omitted in the exhibited version, but
reinstatedintherevisedversion.
Panelcomment
ThismatterhasbeenaddressedinChapter17inrelationtoissue15o).
(ii) ChangestoClause21.09CaseyFarm
Natureofchange
DeletionofAreaofEnvironmentalSignificancealongBallartoandManksRoads,Clydeand
inclusion of additional direction which seeks to enhance the landscape character of rural
landnorthofPattersonsRoad.
AmendmentC50totheCaseyPlanningSchemePanelReport3April2014
Page69of100
Councilsexplanation
Mr Pollard advised deletion of the Area of Environmental Sensitivity along Ballarto and
Manks Roads, Clyde was a mapping error. Similarly, inclusion of the additional direction is
alsoanerror.
Panelcomment
Based on Councils response, the Panel considers these areas should be reinstated as
exhibited,andtheadditionaldirectiondeleted.
ThePanelalsonotesthecolournotationforResidentialinthelegendhasbeenomitted.
Recommendations
ThePanelrecommends:
47. AmendtheClause21.095CaseyFarmLAMto:
a) reinstate the Areas of Environmental Sensitivity along Ballarto Road and
ManksRoads,inasexhibited.
b) delete the reference to Enhance the landscape character of the rural land
north of Pattersons Road and reinstate the original reference as exhibited
which reads Enhance the natural environmental values of the Cardinia
Creek.
c) correctthelegendtoreinstatethecolourforResidential.
(iii) ChangestoClause21.13CranbourneNorth
Natureofchange
The change in the status for the Casey Central Town Centre from a Future Convenience
ActivityCentretoaFutureMajorActivityCentre.
Councilsexplanation
MrPollardadvisedthestatusofthecentrehasnotbeenelevated,ratherthepoorqualityof
the original mapping resulted it being misread, and this was corrected post exhibition. He
submitted the Centre was and is intended to be a Future Major Activity Centre as
designatedintheRetailPolicyatClause22.01.
Panelcomment
In considering this, the Panel notes the exhibited and revised Strategic Framework Plan
identifytheCaseyCentralTownCentreasMajorActivityCentreasdoestheexhibitedRetail
Policy(althoughbothappeartorefertotheActivityCentreonthenorthsideofGlasscocks
Road, not the south), whereas the exhibited LAM refers to it as a Future Convenience
ActivityCentreandtherevisedLAMreferstoitasaFutureMajorActivityCentre.
In an attempt to clarify this situation, the Panel referred to the existing Retail Policy and
notesthereisadiscrepancytherealso.InthetextitreferstotheCaseyCentralTownCentre
as a Major Activity Centre (existing/proposed), whereas the mapping shows it as a
AmendmentC50totheCaseyPlanningSchemePanelReport3April2014
Page70of100
ConvenienceActivityCentre.Similarly,thisappearstorelatetolandtonorthofGlasscocks
Roadandnotthesouth.
So which one is it? Given the various nominations and the fact this was not identified by
Council at the Hearing, giving parties an opportunity to comment, the Panel does not
consider this is an issue that it can resolve and considers further work is required to clarify
this situation and to make the position clear. In the meantime, to ensure there is at least
somedirection,thePanelconsiderstheexistingpolicyshouldprevail.
This highlights a major concern the Panel has with this Amendment which relates to the
consistency between the Strategic Framework Plan, the policies and the LAMs, as will be
discussedinChapter19.
Inaddition,thePanelnotestherevisedLAMextendstheFutureMajorActivityCentretoan
additional site opposite the northwest corner of the Casey Central Town Centre. This site
was recognised as being Mixed Use (Existing/Future) on the exhibited version, and the
Panel considers this status should be reinstated. Should Council consider the status of the
ActivityCentreshouldbeextendedfurthertotheeast,thiswouldneedtobeundertakenas
aseparateAmendment.
In addition, the Panel also notes differing annotations are used throughout the LAMs to
identifyFutureMajorActivityCentre;andthecolourshownontheCranbourneNorthLAM
forthelandonthecornerofThompsonsRoad andBerwick/CranbourneRoadisnotshown
inthelegendtothismap,althoughitisaccepteditisintendedtobefutureopenspace.The
Panelconsidersthereisvalueinmakingthisclearer.
Recommendations
ThePanelrecommends:
48. ReviewtheActivityCentrestatusoftheCaseyCentralTownCentre.
49. DeletetheidentificationoflandoppositethenortheasterncorneroftheCasey
Central Town Centre as Future Major Activity Centre as shown on the Clause
21.135 Cranbourne North LAM and retain its identification as Mixed Use
(Existing/Future)asexhibited.
(iv) ChangestoClause21.14CranbourneWest
Natureofchange
AnadditionalpieceofFurtherStrategicWorkhasbeenintroduceswhichreadsInvestigate
opportunitiesforruralresidentialusesinareaswithidentifiedmarginalviability.
Councilsexplanation
CounciladvisedthischangewasmadeinresponsetoSubmission22c,howeveritshouldonly
have been added to the corresponding subclause in Clause 21.09 Casey Farm, and
thereforeitsinclusioninClause21.14isanerror.
AmendmentC50totheCaseyPlanningSchemePanelReport3April2014
Page71of100
Panelcomment
BasedonCouncilcomments(andhavingregardalsotothePanelscommentsinchapter14),
thePanelrecommendsthisbedeletedfromthisClause.
Recommendations
ThePanelrecommends:
50. DeletereferencetoInvestigateopportunitiesforruralresidentialusesinareas
with identified marginal agricultural viability. from Clause 21.144
CranbourneWestFurtherStrategicWork.
(v) ChangestoClause21.16EndeavourHills
Natureofchange
Introduces reference to Developing Eumemmerring Creek and environs as a major
community environmental and recreation resource, which is to retain its public utility
function.ontheLAM.
Councilsexplanation
Counciladvisedthisreferencewasaddedinerror.
Panelcomment
Deletethisreference.
Recommendations
ThePanelrecommends:
51. Delete reference to Developing Eumemmerring Creek and environs as a major
community environmental and recreation resource, which is retain its public
utilityfunction.fromClause21.165EndeavourHills(UrbanArea)LAM.
(vi) ChangestoClause21.18HamptonPark
Natureofchange
ReferencetoidentifyingtheHallamRoadLandfillasFutureOpenSpacehasbeendeleted.
Councilexplanation
MrPollardadviseddeletionofFutureOpenSpaceisanerrorandshouldbereinstated.
Panelcomment
ThePanelrecommendsthisannotationbereinstatedasexhibited.
AmendmentC50totheCaseyPlanningSchemePanelReport3April2014
Page72of100
Recommendations
ThePanelrecommends:
52. Amend the Clause 21.015 Hampton Park LAM to show the Hallam Road
LandfillasFutureOpenSpaceasexhibited.
(vii) ChangestoClause21.19Lynbrook/Lyndhurst
Natureofchange
Introduces reference to the Mixed Uses (Existing/Future) now being subject to strategic
review.
Councilsexplanation
Counciladvisedthisreferenceisanerrorandshouldberemoved,addingthatthefutureuse
ofthislandwillbeguidedbytheCranbourneWestPSP.
Panelcomment
ThePanelrecommendsthisannotationbedeleted.
Recommendations
ThePanelrecommends:
53. DeletereferencetothesubjecttostrategicreviewfromtheFuturemixeduse
precinct adjacent to the railway station annotation as shown on the Clause
21.195Lynbrook/LyndhurstLAMandtheassociatedsymbol.
(viii) ChangestoClause21.22ReferenceDocuments
Natureofchange
Clause21.22ReferenceDocumentsdeletessomeReferenceDocumentsandaddsothers.
Councilsexplanation
Council advised the list of Reference Documents was updated to refer to those documents
that informed the preparation of the MSS and are not documents that will directly inform
decisionmaking.
Panelcomment
ThePanelacceptsthesereferenceshaveinformedthepreparationofthenewMSSanditis
appropriateforClause22.22tobeamendedtoincludethese.
AmendmentC50totheCaseyPlanningSchemePanelReport3April2014
Page73of100
Recommendations
ThePanelrecommends:
54. Include the following references in the list of reference Documents at Clause
21.22:
CaseyC21:BuildingaGreatCity,CityofCasey,2011.
CaseyImageStrategy,CityofCasey,2005.
CaseyPopulationandHousingForecasts,CityofCasey,inassociationwith.id
consulting,2010.
CaseyRevegetationStrategy,CityofCasey,2009.
Port Phillip and Western Port Regional River Health Strategy, Melbourne
WaterCorporation,2007.
SitesofgeologicalandGeomorphologicalSignificanceintheWesternportBay
Catchment, N J Rosengren et al, Department of Conservation Forests and
Lands,1984.
WasteManagementStrategy,20102014,CityofCasey,2010.
Replace the South Eastern Regional Waste Management Group Waste
Management Plan (1999) with the Metropolitan Waste and Resource
RecoveryStrategicPlan(2009).
ReplacetheCityofCaseyWasteManagementStrategy(2000)withtheWaste
ManagementStrategy20102014(2010).
(ix) ChangestotheMapatClause22.01RetailPolicy
Natureofchange
Clause 22.01 Retail Policy nowincludes amap whichinaccuratelyshows the location of
ActivityCentre13.
Councilsexplanation
Counciladvisedtheissuewasamappingerror.
Panelcomment
The Panel notes no Map to Clause 22.016 was included in the exhibited Amendment,
howeveronewasreferredtointhePolicyandthereforethisisanomission.ThePanelnotes
theMapshowsthelocationofthevariousexistingandfutureactivitycentresandisadirect
translationofthetextinthepolicy.Onthatbasis,thePanelacceptstheintroductionofthe
map is a correction andassists in understanding the policy. The Panelalso accepts Activity
Centre13isincorrectlylocatedandneedstobecorrected.
Recommendations
ThePanelrecommends:
55. Include the Map to Clause 22.01 Retail Policy ensuring it shows the correct
locationofActivityCentre13.
AmendmentC50totheCaseyPlanningSchemePanelReport3April2014
Page74of100
18.1 PolicyneutraltranslationoftheRevisedAmendmentdocumentation
ManyofthePanelscommentsonthisAmendmenthaverelatedtothetranslationbetween
theexhibitedandrevisedversionsoftheAmendment.
ThePanelconsiderstherestructureofthisAmendmentshouldhaveundertakenbeenprior
totheexhibitionandnotafterwards,evenifthishadextendedthetimeframealittlefurther,
inordertoavoidanyissueswithtranslationwhichmaybeseenaspotentiallytransforming
thisAmendment,whichthenrequirefurtherworktofixup.Havingsaidthis,giventhetime
ithastakentogettothispointandrecognisingthecomplexities,thePanelhasattemptedto
identify areas where changes are required without transforming the Amendment in an
attempttoprogressthisAmendment.
The Panel considers, however, there is merit is reviewing both the exhibited and revised
Amendmentdocumentationtoensurethetranslationisinfactpolicyneutral.
(i) Recommendation
ThePanelrecommends:
56. Review the exhibited and revised Amendment documentation to ensure the
translationhasbeenpolicyneutral,unlessotherwisejustified.
AmendmentC50totheCaseyPlanningSchemePanelReport3April2014
Page75of100
19 IssuesidentifiedbythePanel
19.1 ConsistencybetweentheStrategicFrameworkPlanandtheLocalArea
Maps
At the Hearing, it became clear to the Panel there were numerous discrepancies between
theStrategicFrameworkPlanandsomeoftheLocalpoliciesandLAMs.WhilstthePanelhas
attempted to identify where these occur and how they can be addressed without
transforming the Amendment, there may still be other discrepancies which have not been
identifiedbyeitherthePanelorCouncil.
This issue was discussed at the Hearing and Mr Pollard submitted the Strategic Framework
Plan provides broad direction and need not be directly translated to the LAMs, which
provideanotherlevelofdetail.
The Panel concur with Mr Pollard that the level of detail contained in the Strategic
FrameworkPlanisofabroadnatureandthattheLAMswilldrilldowntothedetail,however
there needs to be consistency between the directions contained within each. They should
notbeatoddswitheachotherandthereareseveralexamplesofwherethishasoccurredin
this Amendment. This leads to confusion for applicants trying to understand the policy
framework that applies to their land, and for Council in trying to administer the Planning
Scheme. This confusion often ends up at VCAT or Planning Panels and is costly and time
consumingforbothapplicantsandCouncil.
The Panel considers Council should review the Strategic Framework Plan and the LAMs to
ensureconsistencyintermsofthebroadstrategicdirections.
(i) Recommendation
ThePanelrecommends:
57. ReviewtheStrategicFrameworkPlanandLAMstoensureconsistency.
AmendmentC50totheCaseyPlanningSchemePanelReport3April2014
Page76of100
20 Consolidatedrecommendations
Forthereasonsoutlinedinthisreport,thePanelrecommends:
That Amendment C50 to the Casey Planning Scheme should be adopted subject to the
followingrecommendations:
1 AmendClause21.074BotanicRidge/JunctionVillage:
a) Implementation Further Strategic Work to include the following
Undertaking a detailed strategic review of the triangular area south of
Ballarto Road and west of the Royal Botanic Gardens Cranbourne to identify
futurelanduseopportunitiesfollowingtheexpirationoftheexistingapproved
quarryingoperationsat950BallartoRoad.
b) LAM to show the arrow pointing to 950 Ballarto Road and the notation to
read Investigate future land use opportunities following the cessation of the
existing approved extractive industry operation through a detailed strategic
review.
2 IncludethefollowingstrategyinClause21.033Theme3:Economicdevelopment
Objective 2 Maintain appropriate separation distances between extractive
industries and any sensitive uses to protect residential amenity and ensure valuable
resourcesarenotsterilised.
3 AmendClause21.18HamptonPark:
a) Objectives to include the following additional objective To recognise
amenityconstraintsassociatedwithexistingindustrialuses.
b) Strategies include the following additional Strategy Discourage the
establishment of sensitive uses within 500 metres of the Hallam Road Landfill
andwithin100metresoftheadjoiningconcretebatchingplant.
c) LAMtoshow:
- TheinclusionofBuffertoSensitiveUsearrowsaroundthelandfill
siteandconcretebatchingplant.
- An annotation which states Discourage the establishment of
sensitive uses within 500 metres of the Hallam Road landfill and
within100metresoftheadjoiningconcretebatchingplant.
4 AmendClause21.19Lynbrook/Lyndhurst:
a) Objectives to include the following additional objective To recognise
amenityconstraintsassociatedwithexistingindustrialuses.
b) Strategies to include the following additional Strategy Discourage the
establishment of sensitive uses within 500 metres of the Hallam Road Landfill
andwithin1kilometreoftheTaylorsRoadLandfillinDandenongSouth.
c) LAMtoshow:
- TheinclusionofBuffertoSensitiveUsearrowsaroundtheHallam
andTaylorsRoadslandfillsites.
AmendmentC50totheCaseyPlanningSchemePanelReport3April2014
Page77of100
- An annotation which states Discourage the establishment of
sensitive uses within 500 metres of the Hallam Road landfill and
within1kmoftheTaylorsRoadLandfill.
5 AmendClause21.21NarreWarrenSouth:
a) Objectives to include the following additional objective To recognise
amenityconstraintsassociatedwithexistingindustrialuses.
b) Strategies to include the following additional Strategy Discourage the
establishmentofsensitiveuseswithin500metresoftheHallamRoadLandfill.
c) LAMtoshow:
- theinclusionofBuffertoSensitiveUsearrowsaroundthelandfill
site.
- an annotation which states Discourage the establishment of
sensitiveuseswithin500metresoftheHallamRoadlandfill.
6. IncludeanadditionalstrategyintheClause21.03Theme4:TransportStrategies
TransportSystemwhichreads:
1.7 Facilitate safe and efficient movement of people and goods with integrated
solutionsspanningthevarioustransportnodes:
Plannetworkstoprovideprioritytospecifictransportmodesonarterialroads
inaccordancewithVicRoadsSmartRoadsNetworkOperatingPlans.
Develop capacity of key arterial roads in growing suburbs and identify and
securereservationsforfuturetransportcorridorsalignedwithlanduseplans.
Maintain the safe and efficient operation of arterial roads by ensuring that
access to these roads is planned in accordance with VicRoads Access
ManagementPolicies.
7. AmendClause21.08CaseyCoast:
a) ObjectivesDotpoint6torefertonaturalresourceinsteadofresource.
b) ImplementationOtheractionsDotpoint3torefertolocallyindigenous
insteadofindigenous.
8. AmendClause21.0106EnvironmentalcontexttoreadThemajorwaterwaysof
the City include Cardinia, Dandenong, Eumemmerring and Troups Creek, the Hallam
Valley Main Drain and Western Port itself. There is a need to prevent and reduce
stormwater impacts on waterways, while opportunities exist to develop a series of
greencorridorsandrecreationallinkagesalongthem.
9. AmendClause21.032Theme2:Environment:
a) Objective 2 Strategies Catchment Management to include an additional
strategywhichreadsEnhancelocalopenspace,waterwaysandenvironmental
outcomesbyadoptingbestpracticestormwatermanagementpractices.
b) Implementation Further strategic work and other actions to include the
following Investigate the need and appropriate location for a regional
retardingbasininconsultationwithMelbourneWater.
AmendmentC50totheCaseyPlanningSchemePanelReport3April2014
Page78of100
10. AmendClause21.06BerwickSouthernAreaLAMtoshowacontinuousopenspace
corridoralongCardiniaCreek.
11. AmendClause21.07BotanicRidge/JunctionVillage:
a) Strategies to reinstate the following Develop wildlife corridors that
incorporate stormwater management function, linking the Royal Botanical
Gardens Cranbourne with other areas including the extractive industry site on
DevonRoad,wherepossible.
b) LAMtoreinstatethefollowingannotationDevelopawildlifecorridorlinking
the Royal Botanical Gardens Cranbourne with the extractive industry site in
DevonorCraig(tobeconfirmed)Road,wherepossible.
12. AmendClause21.10CaseyFoothills:
a) Objective dot point 7 to read To upgrade public spaces and community
facilitiestomeetchangingneedsand,wherepossible,linkthemwithanetwork
oftrailsreflectingthestrongequestrianheritageofthearea.
b) Strategies General dot point 5 to read Facilitate the creation of publicly
accessible links along waterway reserves and trails that link public land and
formpartofawidertrailnetwork,wherepossible.
c) Harkaway dot point 2 to read Recognise the key role of equestrian links in
thearea,includingonroadlinksandalongwaterwayswherepossible,aspart
oftheCaseyTrailNetwork.
13. AmendClause21.13CranbourneNorth:
a) Strategy dot point 7 to read Explore opportunities to develop the Hallam
Valley Floodplain (Casey Valley Parkland) as passive parkland accessible to
thepublic,whilstrespectingitsprimaryfunctionasafloodplaininconsultation
withtherelevantpubliclandmanagers.
b) LAMannotationtoreadExploreopportunitiestodeveloptheHallamValley
Floodplain as passive open space to form part of the future Casey Valley
Parklands,whilstrespectingitsprimaryfunctionasafloodplain.
14. AmendClause21.15Doveton/Eumemmerring:
a) Strategydotpoint15toreadEnhancetheEumemmerringCreekwaterwayto
highlight its parkland attributes and to take full advantage of the
environmental and recreational opportunities it offers, in consultation with
relevantpubiclandmanagers.
b) Implementation Other actions dot point 3 to read Undertaking local
revegetation programs, particularly along the Dandenong and Eumemmerring
Creeksinconsultationwithrelevantlandmanagers.
c) LAMannotationtoreadInconsultationwithrelevantpubliclandownersand
other managers, enhance the Eumemmerring Creek to highlight its parkland
attributesandenvironmental/recreationalopportunities.
AmendmentC50totheCaseyPlanningSchemePanelReport3April2014
Page79of100
15. AmendClause21.16EndeavourHills:
a) Strategydotpoint6toreadDevelopEumemmerringCreekandenvironsasa
community, environmental and recreation resource in consultation with
relevantpubliclandmanagers.
b) Further strategic work to read Developing a strategy, in conjunction with
Parks Victoria, Melbourne Water and the City of Greater Dandenong, for the
enhancement of Dandenong Creek as an active and passive community
recreationarea.
c) OtheractionstoreadUndertakinglocalrevegetationprograms,particularly
along Dandenong and Eumemmerring Creeks, in consultation with relevant
publiclandmanagers.
d) LAMtoincludeanannotationwhichreadsDevelopingEumemmerringCreek
and environs as a major community environmental and recreation resource,
whilstretainingitspublicutilityfunction.
16. AmendClause21.17Hallam:
a) Strategy dot point 7 to read Enhance the Eumemmerring Creek water to
highlight its parkland attributes and to take full advantage of the
environmental and recreational opportunities it offers, in consultation with
relevantpubliclandmanagers.
b) Implementation dot point 2 to read Undertaking local revegetation
programs, particularly along the Eumemmerring Creek in consultation with
relevantpubliclandmanagers.
c) LAM annotation to read Enhance the Eumemmerring Creek waterway to
highlight its parkland attributes and to the take full advantage of the
environmental and recreational opportunities it offers, in consultation with
relevantpubliclandownersandmanagers.
17. AmendClause21.18HamptonPark:
a) Strategydotpoint6toreadEstablishRiverGumCreekasextensivepassive
parkland extending from Hallam Road to the future Hampton Park Hills
Parkland (Currently the Hallam Road Landfill) and the Oakgrove Community
Centre,inconsultationwiththerelevantpubliclandmanagers.
b) Strategy dot point 7 to read Maintain and enhance the Hallam Valley
Floodplain (Casey Valley Parklands) as an interurban break between
Hampton Park and Hallam and progressively develop it as passive parkland
accessiblebythepublic,whilerespectingitsprimaryfunctionasafloodplain,in
consultationwiththerelevantpubliclandmanagers.
c) Implementation dot point 2 to read Undertaking a local revegetation
program along the River Gum Creek in consultation with relevant public land
owners/managers.

AmendmentC50totheCaseyPlanningSchemePanelReport3April2014
Page80of100
18. AmendClause21.20NarreWarren:
a) Strategydotpoint15toinclude.accessiblebythepublicwhilstrespecting
its primary function as a floodplain, in consultation with the relevant public
landowner/manager.attheend.
b) Strategy dot point 16 to include and Hallam, in consultation with the
relevantpubliclandowners/managers.attheend
19. AmendClause21.213NarreWarrenSouth:
a) Strategydotpoint9toinclude.accessiblebythepublicwhilstrespectingits
primary function as a floodplain, in consultation with the relevant public land
owner/manager.attheend.
b) Strategy dot point 11 to include .Community Centre, in consultation with
therelevantpubliclandowner/manager.attheend.
20. Amend Clause 21.22 Reference Documents to include reference to the Port
Phillip and Western Port Regional River Health Strategy, Melbourne Water
Corporation,2007.
21. Amend Clause 22.051 Stormwater Policy Policy basis paragraph 1 to read
Cultural significance. These values are dependent and, in some instances largely
dependent, on the nature of the water passing through them. While there have
been.
22. AmendClause21.01MunicipalProfile:
a) RegionalContextMaptoshow:
- thecontinuationofthePrincesHighwayintoCardiniaShire;
- the existing and proposed activity centres, including Officer and the
CardiniaEmploymentCorridor;and
- reinstatementofthelegend.
b) paragraph 5 to include the following It is expected the role of these two
centres in providing highlevel regional services will increase over the next
decade as links with the Cardinia Employment Corridor and Gippsland along
thetwohighwaycorridorscontinuetogrow.
c) Environmental context paragraph 5 to include reference to Of particular
importanceistheprotectionandenhancementofbiolinkcorridorsthatprovide
critical linkages for the survival of threatened species in Casey, such as the
SouthernBrownBandicootandtheDwarfGalaxias.
23. Amend Clause 21.024 Caseys Strategic Framework Plan to show the extension of
ThompsonRoadandGrices/GlasscocksRoadintoCardinia.
24. AmendClause21.032Theme2:EnvironmentObjective1Biodiversitytoinclude
the following additional strategy Where creek corridors and biolinks exist, extend
and improve these environmental habitats through encouraging regeneration and
revegetationusingindigenousvegetation.
AmendmentC50totheCaseyPlanningSchemePanelReport3April2014
Page81of100
25. Include the following action in Clause 21.033 Economic Development Further
StrategicWorkReviewtheClause22.01RetailPolicy.
26. Replace reference to Business 1 Zone with Commercial1 Zone in Clause 21.124
Implementation.
27. AmendtheClause21.024StrategicFrameworkPlantoremovetheFutureUrban
Areas designation and replace it with a designation which more accurately reflects
theoutcomesofPlanMelbourne,whenadopted.
28. Amend Clause 21.032 Theme 3: Economic Development Objective 1 Strategy
1.4 to read Facilitate the development of the Minta Farm Business Park in
Berwick as a high amenity, integrated business park that incorporates office,
research,manufacturingandlearningprecincts.
29. AmendClause21.06BerwickSouthernArea:
a) Objective to retain dot point 4 which reads To create a new key
employmentprecinctthatcreatesajobrichurbanenvironment.
b) Strategies dot point 5 to read Develop the Minta Farm Business Park as
an integrated and diverse employment precinct for the Berwick region,
incorporatingafutureneighbourhoodactivitycentre.
c) Implementation Further Strategic Work dot point 4 to read Preparing a
precinctstructureplanfortheproposedMintaFarmBusinessPark.
d) LAMto:
- include the following annotation Develop the Minta Farm Business
Park as an integrated and diverse employment precinct including a
newneighbourhoodactivitycentre.
- remove the Future Urban Areas designation and replace it with a
designation which more accurately reflects the outcomes of Plan
Melbourne,whenadopted.
30. AmendtheClause21.02StrategicFrameworkPlanto:
a) introduce a new land use designation of Potential Future Urban subject to
furtherinvestigation.
b) include 860 Ballarto Road within the new Potential Future Urban subject to
furtherinvestigation.landusedesignation.
31. AmendClause21.074BotanicRidge/JunctionVillage:
a) Implementation Further strategic dot point 2 to read Undertake further
investigationstodeterminethesuitabilityof860BallartoRoadforfutureurban
purposes.
b) LAMto:
- introduce a new land use designation of Potential Future Urban
subjecttofurtherinvestigation.
- include 860 Ballarto Road within the new Potential Future Urban
subjecttofurtherinvestigation.landusedesignation.
AmendmentC50totheCaseyPlanningSchemePanelReport3April2014
Page82of100
- amend the annotation in relation to 860 Ballarto Road to read
Investigatethepotentialofthissiteforfutureurbanpurposes.
32. AmendtheClause21.02StrategicFrameworkPlanto:
a) introduce a new land use designation of Potential Future Urban subject to
furtherinvestigation.
b) include 3945 Cyril Beechey Lane within the new Potential Future Urban
subjecttofurtherinvestigationlandusedesignation.
33. AmendtheClause21.115CranbourneLAMto:
a) introduce a new land use designation of Potential Future Urban subject to
furtherinvestigation.
b) include 3945 Cyril Beechey Lane, Cranbourne in the new Potential Future
Urbansubjecttofurtherinvestigationlandusedesignation.
c) delete 3945 Cyril Beechey Lane, Cranbourne from the Area subject to
StrategicReviewdesignation.
34. Delete dot point 5 from Clause 21.094 Casey Farm Implementation Further
Strategic work which reads Investigate opportunities for rural residential
development in areas with identified marginal agricultural viability, as well as any
othersuchreferences.
35. Amend Clause 21.02 Strategic Framework Plan and Clause 21.065 Berwick
Southern Area LAM to include 110 Grices Road, Berwick within the Residential
(existing/Future)designation.
36. AmendClause21.205NarreWarrenLAM:
a) LegendfromPublicandRecreation,FuturePublicParkandRecreationand
Public Utility as exhibited, to read Open Space, Future Open Space and
Floodplain.ThisshouldalsoapplytotheEndeavourHills,Hallam,Hampton
ParkandLynbrook/LyndhurstLAMs.
b) Notation to read Maintain and enhance the Hallam Valley Floodplain as an
intersuburbanbreakandprogressivelydevelopitforpassiveparkland,while
respectingitsprimaryfunctionasafloodplain.
37. AmendtheClause21.042LocalAreasPlanattoreflecttheRBGCownership.
38. Amend the Clause 21.075 Botanic Ridge/Junction Village LAM so that all the land
under the management of the RBGC is contained within this map. Also make the
necessaryconsequentialchangestotheClause21.115CranbourneLAM.
39. Amend Clause 21.013 Environmental Context paragraph 5 to read The
management of remnant vegetation and fauna throughout the City is important to
achieveanetgainintheextentandqualityofnativevegetation,andtoprotectand
conservebiodiversity.
40. Amend Clause 21.024 Strategic Framework Plan to remove 51A and 5365 Craig
RoadfromtheAreasofEnvironmentalSensitivity.

AmendmentC50totheCaseyPlanningSchemePanelReport3April2014
Page83of100
41. RetainClause21.032Theme2:Environment:
a) Objective 1 Strategy 1.5 to read Create and maintain strategic habitat
links.
b) toIncludethefollowingImplementationmeasureasastrategyunderthesame
Clause Ensure offset planting required under the State Native Vegetation
Management Framework is of the same or similar vegetation type and is
provide in Casey in close proximity to the site of vegetation loss, as far as
practicable.
42. AmendClause21.035Theme5:BuiltEnvironment:
a) Objective 1 Strategies to reinstate Strengthen the country feel in Caseys
suburbanandnonsuburbancommunities.
b) Implementation Further Strategic Work to include Undertake
neighbourhood character studies to recognise and value and the intrinsic
characteristicsofdifferentareaswithinCasey.
43. AmendClause21.07BotanicRidge/JunctionVillage:
a) to delete the following Strategy Develop wildlife corridors that incorporate
stormwater management function, linking the Royal Botanic Gardens with
otherareasincludingtheextractiveindustrysiteonDevonRoad.andreplace
it with the following Protect and enhance the habitat of the Southern Brown
Bandicoot, which is listed as nationally endangered under the Environment
Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, within and beyond the
Royal Botanic Gardens Cranbourne, including providing habitat linkages with
thesurroundingareawherepracticable.
b) Strategiesdotpoint12toreadProvideextensiveboulevardplantingalong
themainroadnetworktoachieveanintegratedlandscapeoutcome.
c) to replace Strategies dot point 15 with the following Provide for the
duplicationofCraigRoad(northofBrownsRoad)toanarterialroadstandard,
and for the deviation of Craig Road to South Gippsland Highway south of
Junction Village to provide a direct vehicular link to the proposed Casey Fields
BoulevardextendingnorthfromSouthGippslandHighwaytoGlasscocksRoad.
d) Application of Zones and Overlays dot point 6 to read Applying the
Development Contributions Plan Overlay to future and developing residential
areas to facilitate the timely delivery of appropriate transport, physical and
communityinfrastructure.
44. Amend the Clause 21.095 Casey Farm LAM to delete Extractive Industry and
associated Buffers to sensitive uses for the land fronting Craig Road. These
designationsaretoremaininthelegend.

AmendmentC50totheCaseyPlanningSchemePanelReport3April2014
Page84of100
45. AmendClause21.113Cranbourne:
a) Strategiesdotpoint11toreadRecognise,protectandenhanceanyareasof
biodiversity significance within the surrounds of the Royal Botanic Gardens
Cranbourne.
b) LAM to delete the following annotation Recognise, protect and enhance
the areas of biodiversity significance within the Royal Botanic Gardens
Cranbourneandthesurrounds.
46. Review the Amendment to ensure it does not place an elevated emphasis on
Reference Documents, other than as documents which provide background
information.
47. AmendtheClause21.095CaseyFarmLAMto:
a) reinstate the Areas of Environmental Sensitivity along Ballarto Road and
ManksRoads,inasexhibited.
b) delete the reference to Enhance the landscape character of the rural land
north of Pattersons Road and reinstate the original reference as exhibited
whichreadsEnhancethenaturalenvironmentalvaluesoftheCardiniaCreek.
c) correctthelegendtoreinstatethecolourforResidential.
48. ReviewtheActivityCentrestatusoftheCaseyCentralTownCentre.
49. Delete the identification of land opposite the northeastern corner of the Casey
CentralTownCentreasFutureMajorActivityCentreasshownontheClause21.13
5 Cranbourne North LAM and retain its identification as Mixed Use
(Existing/Future)asexhibited.
50. DeletereferencetoInvestigateopportunitiesforruralresidentialusesinareaswith
identified marginal agricultural viability. from Clause 21.144 Cranbourne West
FurtherStrategicWork.
51. Delete reference to Developing Eumemmerring Creek and environs as a major
community environmental and recreation resource, which is retain its public utility
function.fromClause21.165EndeavourHills(UrbanArea)LAM.
52. AmendtheClause21.015HamptonParkLAMtoshowtheHallamRoadLandfillas
FutureOpenSpaceasexhibited.
53. Delete reference to the subject to strategic review from the Future mixed use
precinctadjacenttotherailwaystationannotationasshownontheClause21.195
Lynbrook/LyndhurstLAMandtheassociatedsymbol.
54. IncludethefollowingreferencesinthelistofreferenceDocumentsatClause21.22:
CaseyC21:BuildingaGreatCity,CityofCasey,2011.
CaseyImageStrategy,CityofCasey,2005.
Casey Population and Housing Forecasts, City of Casey, in association with .id
consulting,2010.
CaseyRevegetationStrategy,CityofCasey,2009.
AmendmentC50totheCaseyPlanningSchemePanelReport3April2014
Page85of100
PortPhillipandWesternPortRegionalRiverHealthStrategy,MelbourneWater
Corporation,2007.
Sites of geological and Geomorphological Significance in the Westernport Bay
Catchment, N J Rosengren et al, Department of Conservation Forests and
Lands,1984.
WasteManagementStrategy,20102014,CityofCasey,2010.
Replace the South Eastern Regional Waste Management Group Waste
ManagementPlan(1999)withtheMetropolitanWasteandResourceRecovery
StrategicPlan(2009).
Replace the City of Casey Waste Management Strategy (2000) with the Waste
ManagementStrategy20102014(2010).
55. Include the Map to Clause 22.01 Retail Policy ensuring it shows the correct
locationofActivityCentre13.
56. Review the exhibited and revised Amendment documentation to ensure the
translationhasbeenpolicyneutral,unlessotherwisejustified.
57. ReviewtheStrategicFrameworkPlanandLAMstoensureconsistency.

AmendmentC50totheCaseyPlanningSchemePanelReport3April2014
Page86of100
AppendixA PanellettertoCouncil,2January2014
Planning Panels Victoria
Department of Transport. Planning and Local Infrastructure
2 January 2014
Mr M Pollard
Planning Scheme Amendment Coordinator
Casey City Council
PO Box 1000
NARRE WARREN VIC 3805
Dear Mr Pollard,
AMENDMENT C50 TO THE CASEY PLANNING SCHEME
J Spring Street
Melbourne Victoria 3000
GPO Box 2392
Melbourne, Victoria 3001
Telephone (03) 8392 6397
Facsi mi le (03) 8392 6381
During consideration of submissions to this Amendment, the Panel has identified a number of
differences between the exhibited Amendment documentation and the revised Amendment
documentation, in addition to the revisions identified by Council.
The Panel understands that given the time that elapsed between the preparation of this
Amendment and the Panel Hearing, a significant amount of strategic work has been undertaken
within the City of Casey, and to ensure the Amendment is up to date and reflects this work Council
has updated the Amendment accordingly. In doing so, however, it was the Panel's understanding
the difference between the two versions of the Amendment was limited to the introduction of
material that had been introduced through other Amendments approved after the exhibition of
Amendment CSO, as well as some minor editorial matters.
The Panel notes, however, there are also a number of other revisions which have also been made for
which no explanation has been provided (by way of track changes commentary) and which were not
brought to the attention of the Panel at the Hearing. The Panel has identified the following
examples of such changes:
1. Clause 21.01- Municipal Profile - has been restructured and the content amended.
2. Clause 21.02 - Vision - has been restructured and the content amended.
3. Clause 21.03 - Thematic Approach - has been restructured and the content amended. This
has included the introduction of two new objectives and revision of others. In addition, there
appear to have been revision of various strategies.
4. Clause 21.07 - Botanic Ridge/Junction Vii/age - deletion of reference to wildlife corridors. The
'Area of Environmental Significance' has been introduced over the south-western corner of
the Map.
5. Clause 21.09-5 - Casey Farm Local Area Map - deletes 'Area of Environmental Significance'
along Ballarto and Manks Roads, Clyde. Additional direction has been provided about
enhancing the landscape character of rural land north of Pattersons Road.
6. Clause 21.13 - Cranbourne North Local Area Map - elevates the status of the Casey Central
Town Centre from a 'Future Convenience Activity Centre' to a 'Future Major Activity Centre.'
7. Clause 21.14 - Cranbourne West - Further Strategic Work - introduces "Investigate
opportunities for rural residential uses in areas with identified marginal viability."
8. Clause 21.16-5 - Endeavour Hills (Urban Area) Local Area Map - introduces reference to
"Developing Eumemmerring Creek and environs as a major community environmental and
recreation resource, which is to retain its public utility function."
9. Clause 21.18-5 - Hampton Park Local Area Plan - deletes identification of the Hallam Road
Landfi ll as ' Future Open Space'.
10. Clause 21.19-5 - Lynbrook/Lyndhurst Local Area Map - introduces a reference to the 'Mixed
Uses (Existing/Future), now being "subject to strategic review".
11. Clause 21.22 - Reference Documents - deletes some Reference Documents and adds others.
12. Clause 22.01 - Retail Policy - includes a Map which shows the location of the existing and
proposed activity centres referred to in the policy. It is noted that Activity Centre 13 is
inaccurately reflected on this plan.
The Panel has not undertaken an exhaustive comparison of the exhibited and revised amendments
and it may well be that there are other changes apart from those identified above.
As some of these revisions may be relevant to issues raised by submitters, the Panel considers it is
important to understand why these amendments have been made, whether they are policy neutral
and what the relevant strategic justification is.
Accordingly, the Panel requests Council to provide a comprehensive list of all changes (which have
not already been identified in the track change version) that have been made to the exhibited
Amendment documentation, along with an explanation of why each change has been made. Please
provide this information within 2 months of the date of this letter.
Once this information is received, the Panel will consider whether the revisions raise any new issues
and whether there is a need to seek further public comment on the Amendment documentation. If
the Panel considers these revision do raise issues which the submitters and the broader community
have not had the opportunity to consider, the Panel may direct that further consultation be
undertaken or that the Panel reconvene to consider these issues further.
If you have any inquiries about this matter, please contact the office of Planning Panels Victoria on
(03) 8392 6397 or planning.panels@dtpli .vic.gov.au.
Yours sincerely
~
Sue Porter
Chair - Casey CSO Amendment Panel
CC - All submitters
Page 2
AmendmentC50totheCaseyPlanningSchemePanelReport3April2014
Page89of100
AppendixB CouncillettertoPanel,7February2014
71-1-4-1C50
MP/TA
7 February 2014
Ms Sue Porter
Planning Panels Victoria
GPO Box 2392
MELBOURNE VIC 3001
Dear Ms Porter
eJr\. U ~ c l to Pev-U0l
11/2.
City of
Casey
Amendment CSO to the Casey Planning Scheme
I refer to your letter of 2 January 2014 seeking further information regarding Amendment
C50 to the Casey Planning Scheme. In particular, some differences the Panel has
identified between the exhibited Amendment documentation and the revised
Amendment documentation, as provided by Council for the Panel's consideration.
Council officers have reviewed the inconsistencies identified by the Panel and offer the
following comments:
1. Clause 21.01 - Municipal Profile was restructured at the suggestion of Department
of Planning and Community Development officers. These changes were made
post-exhibition, as suggested by DPCD officers, and were policy neutral, with the
intention to make the clause more succinct and to remove superfluous content
(e.g. Historical Context). Further, the revisions were made to align Clause 21.01
more closely with Planning Practice Note 4 - Writing a MuniCipal Strategic
Statement (the MSS Practice Note).
It is acknowledged that while reference was made to the advice of DPCD in
Council's submission, the extent of the changes were not provided to the Panel at
the hearing. Attachment 1, which is a summary of Council changes made to
Amendment C50, was provided to the Panel as part of Council's submission.
2. The restructuring of Clause 21.02 - Vision is similar in nature to that of Clause
21.01 - Municipal Profile. The changes were made post-exhibition in response to
advice from DPCD officers. It is noted that the 'Key Issues' in Clause 21.02-1
replaced 'Casey's Council Plan', as it was understood that there was no
requirement to include reference to the Council Plan outside of Clause 21.22 -
Reference Documents. Further, the revisions are policy neutral, and are of a
factual basis. While DPCD officers suggested that the 'Key Issues' be included in
Clause 21 .01, Council officers considered them better placed in Clause 21.02
where they would link better with the various strategies to address these issues.
Revisions in relation to the Casey C21 - Building a Great City document and its
relationship to the Casey C21 - A Vision for Our Future strategy were addressed
in Council's Panel submission (p.9).
Vi ctor ia' s Largest an d Most Vibrant Mu nicip al it y
Magi d Drive
PO Box 1000
Narre Warren Vic 3805
Telephone 03 9705 5200
Facsi mile 03 9704 9544
Ausdoc DX 30460 Berv/i ck
Email caseycc@casey.vic.gov.au
Website wVIfIN.ctl sey. vic.gov.au
ABN 43 320 295 742
6 February 2014 -2- 71-1-4-1CSO
3. Changes to Clause 21.03 - Thematic Approach are considered by Council officers to be as per
Council 's Panel submission, which noted that Clause 21.03 was restructured at the request of
DPCD officers to better link with the SPPF themes and thereby be more consistent with the
MSS Practice Note. These changes were a policy neutral translation, and part of a transparent,
staged process well documented by Council and discussed during its Panel submission at page
21 .
It is noted that Council provided a table illustrating the changes to Clause 21.03 that occurred
post-exhibition on page 23 of its Panel submission.
In brief, Clause 21 .03 was subject to the following stages changes post-exhibition:
a. Stage 1 - Changes made to align Clause 21 .03 with a new SPPF structure following a
'cut-and-paste', best-fit approach
b. Stage 2 - Refining Stage 1 changes to remove repetition and inconsistencies, and to
improve readability.
c. Stage 3 - Changes made to the restructured Clause 21 .03 (i.e. Stage 2 version) in
response to submissions.
4. The reference to 'wildlife corridors' was deleted in response to Submission 1S(0) from Peet,
although this was not shown in the Stage 4 version of Clause 21 .07 presented to Panel.
(Following on from Stages 1-3, Stage 4 updates relevant clauses of the MSS to accord with
gazetted amendments since the exhibition of Amendment CSO).
The 'Area of Environmental Sensitivity' on the Local Area Map mirrors that of ESOS (applied via
Amendment C66 in May 2004). The Clause 21 .02-4 Strategic Framework Plan also notes the
land as an 'Area of Environmental Sensitivity'. This is consistent from the exhibited documents
through to the Stage 4 revisions. It is suggested that the exhibited version of Clause 21 .07-4
omitted the 'Area of Environmental Sensiti vity' accidentally, and that the Stage 4 changes
reinstated it (i n line with Clause 21.02-4) but were not noted.
S. The deletion of the 'Area of Environmental Sensitivity' along Ballarto and Manks Roads, Clyde
is considered to be a mapping error carried over when Council officers converted the maps
from one file format to another post-exhibition.
It is noted that the additional direction provided in relation to land north of Patterson's Road is
an error added during the revision of the Local Area Maps between Stage 3 and Stage 4. It is
suggested that the annotation as per the exhibited version be retained.
6. The status of the Casey Central Town Centre has not been elevated from 'Future Convenience
Activity Centre' to ' Future Major Activity Centre', rather the mapping symbology on the exhibited
version was poor, resulting in it being mis-read as 'Future Convenience Activity Centre'.
Therefore officers amended it post-exhibition to improve legibility, but did not make a note of
this in the documentation provided to the Panel. The Casey Central Town Centre was, and still
is, identified as being a 'Future Major Activity Centre', being designated as such in the Retail
Policy at Clause 22.01 .
7. The change to Clause 21.14 - Cranbourne West, which introduced the statement "Investigate
opportunities for rural residential uses in areas with identified marginal viability," under ' Further
Strategic Work', was made in response to Submission 22(c). However, it should only have
been added to the corresponding sub-clause in Clause 21.09 - Casey Farm, such that its
inclusion in Clause 21 .14 is an error.
-/2
5 February 2014 -3- 71-1-4-1C50
8. In Clause 21.16-5 - Endeavour Hills, the introduction of an annotation to "Developing
Eumemmerring Creek and environs ... " has been added in error. It is noted that this repeats
the adjacent annotation, but adds text consistent with Council's response to Submission 5(g).
9. In Clause 21 .18-5 - Hampton Park, the deletion of the Hallam Road Landfill as 'Future Open
Space' is an error and should be reinstated. As the land is private land, it was initially
considered that it would be pre-emptive to identify it for a purpose without any strategic
review. However, it is recognised that this would be inconsistent with other references in the
MSS to the future 'Hampton Park Hill Parklands'.
10. In Clause 21.19-5 - Lynbrook/Lyndhurst the reference to the area designated 'Mixed Uses
(Existing/Future) now being "subject to strategic review" is an error and should be removed.
The future use of this land will be guided by the Cranbourne West Precinct Structure Plan.
11 . In Clause 21 .22 - Reference Documents it is noted that there have been a number of
reference documents added and deleted post-exhibition in response to these documents
being updated or superseded. Attachment 1, as provided to the Panel by CounCil, has been
amended to include changes made to Clause 21 .22. Attachment 2 highlights the changes to
) Clause 21 .22. These reference documents informed the preparation of the MSS, and are not
considered to be documents that directly inform decision making.
12. It is acknowledged that Activity Centre 13 in Clause 22.01 - Retail Policy is inaccurately
reflected on the associated map. This was brought to Council's and the Panel's attention by
Mr Gary Page during the hearing and acknowledged by Council as an error.
Should the Panel direct, Council officers can provide a complete suite of 'compared' documents
which show all the changes to every clause. This would also include minor grammatical changes,
and those made to improve legibility.
Council officers have made further assessments of the documentation provided to Panel and are
confident that there are no further changes made by Council officers post-exhibition. It is
considered that the changes made do not impact on the submissions received in response to
Amendment C50, are generally policy neutral in manner, and where relevant, made with
appropriate strategic justification.
Should you have any further queries regarding this matter, please contact Tom Anderson on
(03) 9705 5869 or tanderson@casey.vic.gov.au ,
Yours faithfully,
Michael Pollard
Team Leader - Planning Scheme Implementation
)
,
Attachment 1 . C50 Summary of Council Changes (Revised February 2014)
WHA T IS AMENDMENT C50, AND HOW DOES IT WORK?
Amendment C50 is a significant amendment as it revises and updates the Municipal Strategic
Statement (MSS) at Clause 21 and the local planning policies at Clause 22 of the Casey
Planning Scheme.
The revised MSS adopts both a 'thematic' and 'local area' approach to articulate Council's
vision and strategic objectives for the City of Casey. These are drawn from the various
themes and community areas identified in the Casey C21 Strategy. The combination of
approaches is based on the Casey C21 Strategy and is not dissimilar to the current MSS;
however, more emphasis is now placed on local area planning than in the current MSS.
BACKGROUND
The new MSS is based on the Casey C21 Strategy, and was updated and refreshed via a
companion strategy; Casey C21 - Building a Great City, which was adopted by Council in
July 2011 . The revised strategy was not intended to replace the original C21 Strategy, but to
be read in conjunction with it.
The Casey C21 Strategy and its companion strategy Casey C21 - Building a Great City
provide a policy basis for the building and strengthening of communities in terms of physical
planning and community development. The strategies are intended to provide for a 'whole-of-
community' approach incorporating social, economic and environmental needs, and
encouraging community participation. The framework of Clause 21 of the MSS reflects the
Casey C21 Strategy framework by incorporating both a 'Thematic Approach' as well as a
'Local Area Approach'.
In summary, Amendment C50 comprises the following major components:
Clause 21 (MSS)
A Thematic Approach' based on the development of strategic responses to
key development and land use planning issues
Five identified economic, social , and environmental themes underpinning
policy development and implementation
A Strategic Framework Plan to illustrate key strategic directions for the whole
municipality
A Local Area Approach based on the Casey C21 Strategy that identified 24
discrete community areas, rational ising these into 17 'local areas'
17 Local Area Plans illustrating strategic directions for each identified local
area.
Clause 22 (Local Planning Policies)
10 local planning policies for land use and development matters common to
multiple local areas.
The 'Thematic Approach' is based on the development of strategic responses to key
development and land use planning issues. These are derived from those identified in the
Casey C21 Strategy, with intended broader outcomes relating to employment, equal
opportunity and access, prosperity, youth, and the environment.
The review of Clause 22 has resulted in the deletion of obsolete policies and' the retention of
some existing policies, which have been revised where necessary to be consistent with the
Casey C21 Strategy, the new MSS and its 'Local Area Approach'. This has resulted in 12 of
the 20 existing policies being removed from the LPPF, with the strategic intent of the policies
being incorporated directly into the Clause 21 provisions, or the policy provisions having
become largely redundant through State policy initiatives. The revised Clause 22 now
presents policies which are broad-based, municipal-wide, and are not tied to particular
geographic areas.
The 'Local Area Approach' is based on the Casey C21 Strategy that identified 24 discrete
community areas, rationalising these into 17 'local areas' identified for the new MSS. The 17
local areas enable Council 's broad strategic intent to be expressed in a localcontext that is
more relevant and meaningful to local communities. These local areas essentially provide a
'snapshot' of the strategic intent for each local community.
Council resolved to exhibit Amendment C50 to the Casey Planning Scheme at its Planning
Committee meeting on 21 December 2004. However, the processing of Amendment C50 has
been delayed by the concurrent introduction of numerous significant changes to the planning
system, particularly impacting on planning in growth areas. These initiatives required
alterations to the proposed content of the revised Local Planning Policy Framework (LPPF).
As a result, there has been an extended period between the initial preparation of this
amendment and the resolution of submissions post-exhibition.
Over the course of this extended timeframe, a number of major planning initiatives have
occurred. These include:
The requirement for Council to obtain the authorisation of the Minister to prepare the
amendment, and to comply with the Minister's conditions for authorisation, which was
given on 14 October 2009 to exhibit Amendment C50
The establishment of the Growth Areas Authority to coordinate the planning,
infrastructure and service provision of the Casey-Cardinia growth area
Input into the Precinct Structure Planning process for growth areas
The review and update of the Casey C21 Strategy, namely, Casey C21 - Building a
Great City
A State-wide amendment revising the SPPF in all planning schemes, and a
subsequent requirement from the Department of Planning and Community
Development that the new MSS be consistent with the thematic format of the SPPF
A number of approved State (VC) and local (C) amendments in the intervening years
required changes to the format of Amendment C50, to ensure consistency with the
Planning Scheme.
Council received authorisation to prepare and exhibit Amendment C50 on 14 October 2009.
The Minister for Planning placed conditions on this authorisation that required Council make
changes (as detailed below) to the amendment prior to exhibition commencing. Further, in
order to align the exhibited documents with the revised Practice Note 4 - Writing a Municipal
Strategic Statement (September 2010) , post-exhibition changes were made to the
Amendment as per the Minister for Planning's request. These changes are discussed below.
The exhibition period ran from 10 February to 25 March 2011 . Twenty-three submissions
were received.
SUBMiSSIONS AND SUBSEQUENT CHANGES IN RESPONSE
The majority of submissions requested some manner of change to the MSS andlor local
planning policies. The submissions covered a number of issues, including:
Hallam Valley Floodplain
Extractive Industry Pol icy
Botanic Ridge
Rural Residential Development
As a result , a number of changes have been made to the amendment in response to these
submissions. These changes fall into the following categories:
2
o A restructured Thematic Approach section consistent with the revised SPPF
o A revised municipal profile, as suggested by the Department of Planning and
Community Development
o Revised Local Area Maps to include the amended Urban Growth Boundary and
approved Precinct Structure Plans
o Various changes to text and Local Area Maps where necessary to incorporate
recently approved planning scheme amendments
o Various changes to text and Local Area Maps arising from the consideration of
submissions
o Various changes to text and Local Area Maps arising from changes to State planning
policy, including the new South East Growth Corridor Plan and the introduction of
revised residential, commercial and rural zones.
HOW HAS COUNCIL RESPONDED TO THE CHANGES TO AMENDMENT C50?
Given the time difference between authorisation, exhibition, and the review of submissions, it
is Council's intent to present to Panel a series of logical stages that show how Amendment
C5a has evolved. This is in response to ongoing strategic work reflected by the current Casey
Planning Scheme and is detailed below.
Council has undertaken a rigorous method of documenting the ongoing changes required to
be made to the amendment documents over the course of the project. To simplify this for the
benefit of the Panel, Council intends to present the changes as a series of staged changes
Council has made post-exhibition in order to give complete clarity to the process. These
stages build upon each previous stage to show a gradual progression of changes made over
the course of the amendment. These are noted below:
o Stage 1 - Restructure of the Thematic Approach section to better fit within the State
Planning Policy Framework style, as required by a condition of the Minister's
authorisation. This was a pure 'cut and paste' exercise of the exhibited document that
sought to group all objectives and strategies under revised headings as a 'best fit' .
o Stage 2 - Streamlining of Stage 1 documents to improve relevance and readability
o Stage 3 - Revisions to exhibited/Stage 2 documents in response to submissions
received during exhibition of Amendment C5a
o Stage 4 - Procedural changes to exhibited/Stage 3 documents to reflect all
. amendments approved since exhibition, as well as minor procedural and formatting
changes.
HOW DO THE STAGES WORK?
Each stage of changes builds on and refiects particular, policy neutral updates to the content
of Amendment C5a, without altering the strategic intent of the amendment. All changes have
been carefully considered by Council officers in response to emerging issues, higher level
policy changes, submissions to Amendment C5a, and other amendments previously gazetted
over the course of Amendment C5a.
Council officers have also made other minor edits that correct small grammatical, syntax,
and/or readability. It is considered that these changes do not in any way change the strategic
intent of the amendment, but rather seek to use plain English to increase readability of the
document.
Further, it is considered that while changes have been made to the amendment
documentation, these changes do not amount to a transformation of the amendment. The
most significant changes have been made in response to submissions in accordance with
Section 23(1 )(a) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.
3
The diagram below illustrates which clauses have undergone changes at each particular
stage.
Exhibited C21 .01 C21.02 C21 .03 C21. 04 C21 .22
C22
Stage 1 C21 .03
Align wi th
SPPF structure
\
Stage 2
C21 .01 C21 .02
C21.03 C21 .22
Refine changes
from Stage 1

Stage 3
U
C21 .02 C21 .03 C21 .04
LJu
Response to
submissions
Stage 4
1
Gazetted
C21 .01 C21 .02 C21.04
amendments Formatt UGB Multiple
Formatting ing changes
Stage 1
Stage 1 changes restructured the Thematic Approach section (Clause 21 .03) to fit within the
State Planning Policy Framework style in response to Practice Note 4 - Writing a Municipal
Strategic Statement (September 2010). As noted above this was purely a 'cut and paste'
exercise of the exhibited documentation. This was done to group all objecti ves and strategies
in line with the revised SPPF.
Stage 2
In relation to Clause 21 .03, Stage 2 changes sought to streamline the basic 'cut and paste'
changes made in Stage 1. These changes reinforced the intent of the exhibited
documentation, removed duplication, and enhanced the readability of the text.
The changes made in Stages 1 and 2, including to Clause 21.01, Clause 21.02, and Clause
21.22 are in response to matters raised by DPCD officers following the authorisation of the
amendment, and also to increase readability. They have not in any way altered the strategic
intent of the exhibited amendment.
Stage 3
Stage 3 changes were made in response to submissions received during the exhibition of
Amendment CSO. These changes have been clearly documented and made directed to the
exhibited documentation and to the restructured Clause 21 .03 (Stage 2 version) . It is noted
that Council officers have not agreed to all changes as requested by submissions.
Stage 4
Stage 4 changes have been made in response to all other amendments to the Casey
Planning Scheme that have been gazetted post-exhibition of Amendment CSO. These
changes have been highlighted in the Stage 4 documentation. Stage 4 changes also include
minor textural changes to correct small grammatical and syntax errors.
The changes made in Stages 3 and 4 have been made in response to submissions and in
response to gazetted amendments to the Casey Planning Scheme. Minor changes have also
been made to increase readability.
4
)
21 .22
[Date]
CSO
CASEY PLANNING SCHEME
Attachment 2 - Clause 21 .22 annotated
REFERENCE DOCUMENTS
Growth Area Framework Plan, Department of Sustainability and
nvironment, _ _____ _ _ _ ________ __ _ _ _______________ ___ _ __ _
Casey C2l: A vision/or our fUture, City of Casey, 2002.
Kaser C21. Building a Great City, City of Casey, 20 I I J
if: " . 8 C' - q; J6'6" I tlSe} i.e; tl8ge40wtegy , $jtlSe) , . __ ___________ ______ _______ _
ICasey Heritage Study (post European Can tacO, City of Casey. in association with Context
______________ __ ___________ __ ___ __ ___________ _
Casey Housing Strategy, City of Casey, 2005 .
[Casey Image Strategy, City of Casey. 2005 J ___ _ _ _ _____ __ ______ _ ________ _ _ -
!casev Population and Housing Forecasts, City of Casey. in association with jd consulting.
2010) ____ ________ _______________ ___ ___ ________ _________ _ --
ICasey Revegetation Strategy. City of Casey, 2009J
Census 2006, Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2006.
ICity of Berwick Heritage Conservation Study, City of Ga5e;':Berwick, in association wi th
Comment {m1]: Casey-Cardin/a
Growth Area Framnwrk Plan included as
not specifically referenced in SPPF (likely
need to be replaced by South East Gro1l1h
COrrIdor Plan at adoption).
Comment [m2): Adds update to Casey
C2l Strategy.
Comment [MP3]: COlTttts title to
Heritage Strategy and fe-orders .
Comment [MP4] : Corrects title
Comment [MPS]: Adds strategy
previously overlooked fOI exhibition.
Comment [MP6] : Supmedes ell) of
Casey Population Forecastmg ReJ'lew.
Comment [MP7]: Adds strategy
previously overlooked for exhibition
Context Pty Ltd, 1993L _ _________ _ _ _____ ____________ __ _ ___ _ _ _ _ __ -- -{ Comment [MP8] : Corrects title.
City 0/ Casey Activity Centres Strategy, City of Casey, in association with Ratio
Consultants Pty Ltd, 2006.
City a/Casey Arterial Roads Tree Strategy, City of Casey, 2003.
City o/Casey Biodiversity Enhancement Strategy, Ecology Australia Pty Ltd, 2003,
City 0/ Casey Conservation Strategy, City of Casey, in association with Environment Link
Ply Ltd, 2002.
rCity a/Casey Knox) Heritage Study. City of Casey. 1998 i _ ____ _________ - -{ Comment [MP9]: Corrects title
PI} 8./ Ga:sej Caltllei! Ph;} r 20()9 lOJ3. Cit) a/Getie)', .. _ _ -
---------- - --- -- - --
City o/Casey Greenhouse Strategy - Local Action Plan, City of Casey, 2002,
10., a/Getst, 11'8:'i"( MtmageJllCill St ategj , Cir; e/G8:5E) . lOlJ!g.L ___ _____________ .- .- '-
Comment [MPIO] : Corrects title to
Council Plan 2009-2013 and re-orders.
Comment [MPll]: Superseded by
Waste Management Strategy 2010-2014
ICity of Cas!!)' Open Space Strategy Technical Report, City of Casey, in association with
EDAW (Aust.) Pty Ltd, 2001Qt ______ _ _ ____ _____ __ __ _ __ _ _____ ______ __ -{ Comment [MP12]: Corrects title.
[G' C G n I ' k " R - G' C b . .. ' ./ R '
10
7
085L) I , Q,ec.fJSddg j etle I , yr; 6ja:se), lJl essaela04a! ltd .41:,0
CthlSttlla,,;'s, 2g6' 7t ____ _______________ _ _____ ______________ ___ .- __
City 0/ Casey Storm water Management Plan, City of Casey, in associati on with Kellogg
Brown & Root Pty Ltd, 2004.
ICol/neil Plan 2009-20J 3. City of Casey. 2009J
!G 'J, J - C. E - f, J H G tJ r p ' () - W
l>il edlfes .Iffi,ll Ii $,lme,r e. ?40mageHfefll: 8 e 0 j , ae:te(. ttHlhtfSte I ale>
Afallege,lIe II, BFA Vieteria, 2QQ8L ___________ __ _ __ ___ _ _______ _____ .- __
l;1eritage of the City 0/ Casey - Historic Sites in the former Cranbourne Shire, City of
Comment [MP13] : C'it)'ofCasey
PopulatIOn Forecastmg Re-.; ell superseded
by .id consult ing report (Casey Population
and Housmg Forecasts) .
Comment [MP14] : C'orrects title from
elly oj Case)' Council Plan 2009-J013.
Comment [m15]: Code of Praetice
already referenced in SPPF.
Casey. in association with Graeme Butler & Associates. 1996L ___ __ __ __ __ _____ __ -1 Comment [MP16] : Corrects title,
V-Ieritage Slrategy. City of Casey. 2001 J
2030: A PiaJl,li,rg ()pdele Helhal .. ,ye @ 5 Af.illiad, Def'laFlH'leHt sf Planning
aBEl CSH'lHlI:IHit) De', elef'lment 2(..)Q8L ___ __ ___ ____ ______ _ _________ ___ ___ _
Comment (MP17]: Conects title fiom
Case)' Hentage Strategy.
Comment [ MP18] : Melbourne 2030
update already referenced in SPPF.
MUNICLPAL STRATEGIC STATEMENT - CLAUSE 2 1.22 PAGE10F2
CASEY PLANNING SCHEME
ile 2()3(): gfflwffl)., Depaftmsl'1t efIRfrasa:uetsfe, 2Q(Ut ___ -
Port Philfip and Western Port Native Vegetation Plan, Port Phillip and Westernport
Catchment Management Authority ..2006l _ __ _ _ ____ ____ __ _ __________ _ __ _ _ -
(port Phillip and Western Pori Regional Catchment Strategy 2004-2009, Port Phillip and
Westernport Catc1unent Management Authority, ____________________ __ _ _ -
[sites orCeological and Geomorphological Significance in the Westernport Bay Catchment,
N.J. Rosengren et al. Department of Conservation Forests and Lands, 1984J ________ _
easte .. , Regia.lal Waspe Ma,lageme It G aup Waste MSilagement ,a-lilli, Ssuts
Bastem RegisHal 1Naste MaHagement Gftlul'l, ________ _ ___ _ __________ _ _ -
VielB. ia 5 Nati ,e Vegetation Ma'lttg<, lie II: .1 F (} a 0 fo .letia'l, bleflaftmeAt sf
Ressurees aBa eA' ifSAlfleflt, ;!QQ2L ___________________________ _ _
[Wasre Management Strategy 20/0-20/ 4, City of Casey, 20 10J _ __________ __ _ __ _
2939: ..... Planning UJ3aat e @ 5 Hill ieR, De)3aFlFFleRt ef PlaHHiRg
aRB Csmffiliflit) De elSl'ltneRi. 299g t ____________________________ ___ _ _
MUNI CIPAL STRATEGlC STATEMENT - CLAUSE 21 .22 PAGE20F2
Comment [MP19] : Melbourne 2030
already referenced in SPPF.
Comment [m20] : PPWPNVP mc\uded
as not specifically refelcnced in SPPF
Comment [m21]: PPWPRCS included
as not specifically referenced in SPPF
Comment [m22]: Adds study
preVIOusly overlooked for exhibitIOn.
Comment [m23] : Supmeded by
Metropolitan Waste and Resource RecovelY
Strategic Ptall , which IS already referenced
in SPPF
Comment [m24]: Native Veget!ltion
Framework already referenced in SPPF
Comment [MP25] : Supersedes Cit) of
Casey WaSte Management SlIalegy.
Comment [MP26] : Melbourne 203rJ
update allcady referenced in SPPF
(dupl icate entry).
AmendmentC50totheCaseyPlanningSchemePanelReport3April2014
Page99of100
AppendixC Listofsubmitters

No. Submitter
1 DepartmentofPrimaryIndustries
2 SouthEastWater
3 VicRoads
4 DepartmentofSustainabilityandEnvironment
5 MelbourneWater
6 APAGroup
7 CardiniaShireCouncil
8 CharlesBradbury&CarlynneBradbury
9 Dasnor&IlsonMuedini
10 OrchardViewVillagePtyLtd
11 GarryPage
12 MaclawNo10PtyLtd,
13 DuranInvestmentsPtyLtd
14 MarshallBaillieu
15 PeetLtd
16 KLMSpatial
17 TheDennisFamilyCorporation
18 TBroatch,
19 ColesGroup,Property(Coles)
20 RoyalBotanicGardensCranbourne
21 J&GPPtyLtd(formerlyCrystalPoultry
22 LaemmiePropertiesPtyLtd
23 FederationCentres
Late
submission
LisaLark

AmendmentC50totheCaseyPlanningSchemePanelReport3April2014
Page100of100
AppendixD List of documents submitted at the
hearing

DOC
No.
DESCRIPTION PRESENTEDBY
1 Councilsubmission,includesAppendix1Councilsresponseto
submitters
MichaelPollard
2 NortonRoseFulbrightMemo JulietForsyth
3 260 Middle Road, Pearcedale Rescheduling GWZ land
Robinsons Road between Pearcedale Road and Western Port
Highway
TimBroatch
4 SubmissiontoPanelonbehalfofHuntClubCommercialPtyLtd MarkBartley
5 CranbourneEastDevelopmentPlan,CityofCasey,July2012 MarkBartley
6 Activities Areas and NonResidential Uses Strategy, Vol. 1
AmendedDecember2012(CityofCasey)
MarkBartley
7 Submission on behalf of Duran Investments Pty Ltd and 860
BallartoRoadPtyLtd
TomCallander
8 SubmissiononbehalfofMaclawNo10PtyLtd TomCallander
9 Stevensons Road Closed Landfill Deep Wall Fact Sheet, City of
Casey,19April2009
TomCallander
10 SubmissiononbehalfofMrBaillieu(theMintaFarmowners) JulietForsyth
11 ListofattachmentsandUSBstick JulietForsyth