Melbourne Airport Environs Safeguarding Standing Advisory Committee
Expert Planning Statement of Sandra Rigo Instructed by Rigby Cooke Lawyers
23 December 2020
Urban Planning I Urban Design I Landscape Architecture
© Hansen Partnership 2020.
This document has been published by Hansen Partnership Pty Ltd.
Hansen Partnership
Level 4 136 Exhibition St Melbourne VIC 3000 T 03 9654 8844 E [email protected] W hansenpartnership.com.au
ABN 20 079 864 716
This document is copyright. Apart from any use as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, no part may be reproduced by any person or process without the prior written permission of Hansen Partnership.
Melbourne Airport Environs Safeguarding I Standing Advisory Committee
Contents
1. Introduction ...... 3 2. Subject Land and Environs ...... 5 2.1.1. Subject Land ...... 5 2.1.2. Environs ...... 12 3. The Planning Context ...... 14 3.1. Planning Policy Framework (PPF)...... 14 3.2. Land Use Zones ...... 15 3.3. Overlays ...... 17 3.4. Relevant Amendments ...... 23 3.5. Strategies and Policy Documents ...... 23 3.5.1. National Airports Safeguarding Framework (NSAF) ...... 23 3.5.2. Australian Noise Exposure Forecast (ANEF)...... 24 3.5.3. Melbourne Airport Master Plan 2018 ...... 24 3.5.4. Melbourne Airport Environs Strategy Plan 2003 ...... 25 3.5.5. Plan Melbourne 2017-2050 ...... 26 3.5.6. Brimbank Housing Strategy, Home and Housed (2014) ...... 26 4. Key Strategic Planning Considerations...... 27 4.1. What does strategic planning policy say in relation to planning for use and development within airport environs? ...... 27 4.2. Is there a strategic need to focus residential development within the subject land? ...... 29 4.2.1. Sunshine National Employment and Innovation Cluster (NEIC)...... 29 4.2.2. Housing Need in Brimbank ...... 30 4.3. How does the MAEO manage use and development within the Melbourne Airport Environs? . 33 4.4. Is the density requirement of the MAEO2 appropriate? ...... 35 4.5. Would a noise attenuation approach to the MAEO2 affect the operational requirements of the Melbourne Airport and impact upon its curfew-free status? ...... 37 5. Conclusion ...... 40
Hansen Partnership Pty Ltd 1
Melbourne Airport Environs Safeguarding I Standing Advisory Committee
Figures
Figure 1: Subject site aerial ...... 6 Figure 2: Recently extended River Valley Boulevard (north of roundabout with Halong Drive) ...... 7 Figure 3: Looking towards Maribyrnong River environs (south) from new stage of subdivision near roundabout 7 Figure 4: Looking south from new lots created off extended River Valley Boulevard ...... 8 Figure 5: View north from upper road west of extended River Valley Boulevard ...... 8 Figure 6: View towards 71 Penna Avenue (north) from edge of existing subdivision ...... 9 Figure 7: Medium density development along Duke Street ...... 9 Figure 8: Old quarry lake ...... 10 Figure 9: View towards city over 71 Penna Avenue ...... 10 Figure 10: Maribyrnong River environs adjoining Halong Drive ...... 11 Figure 11: Typical development within the estate adjacent to Maribyrnong River environs ...... 11 Figure 12: Environs aerial ...... 13 Figure 13: Zoning Map ...... 16 Figure 14: Melbourne Airport Environs Overlay – Schedule 2 (MAEO2) map ...... 19 Figure 15: Development Plan Overlay - Schedule 3 (DPO3) ...... 21 Figure 16: River Valley Estate Staging Plan ...... 22 Figure 17: River Valley Estate Development Plan ...... 22 Figure 18: AS2021 Building Site Acceptability Based on ANEF Zones ...... 24 Figure 19: ANEF for Melbourne Airport, 2018 Melbourne Airport Master Plan, page 111 ...... 25 Figure 20: 2018 Melbourne Airport Master Plan 20 ANEF across the subject site, YouLand Developments’ submission (Tract) ...... 25 Figure 21: Sunshine National Employment and Innovation Cluster, Plan Melbourne 2017-2050 ...... 30 Figure 22: Strategic Framework, Clause 21.04 (Strategic Land Use Vision) ...... 32
Appendices
Appendix 1 Response to Planning Panels Victoria Expert Witnesses Guide and CV
Hansen Partnership Pty Ltd 2
Melbourne Airport Environs Safeguarding I Standing Advisory Committee
1. Introduction
1. The Melbourne Airport Environs Safeguarding Standing Advisory Committee has been appointed by the Minister for Planning pursuant to Section 151 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 to provide advice on planning provision improvements to safeguard the Melbourne Airport, its curfew-free status, and its environs. As Victoria’s primary gateway for freight and passenger aircraft, the Melbourne Airport is a vital and critically important infrastructure asset that supports the State’s social and economic prosperity.
2. The purpose of the Committee as outlined within the Terms of Reference is in two parts:
▪ To advise on planning proposals of strategic importance and which may impact on the airports operations within the Melbourne Airport Environs Area, approved Melbourne Airport Master Plan noise contours, or Melbourne Airport Environs Overlay (MEAO). This is identified as Part A.
▪ To review the planning provisions safeguarding the Melbourne Airport and environs and to advise on improvements to zones, overlays, the Planning Policy Framework, guidance material, and other related mechanisms, tools, and processes. This is identified as Part B.
3. The Committee has been appointed by the Minister for Planning under Part B of its Terms of Reference, and will consider:
▪ The Planning Policy Framework, zones, overlays and any other related planning provisions; and
▪ Relevant guidance material and any complementary safeguarding tools and processes.
4. I have been engaged by YourLand Developments who is the representative of Maribyrnong Riverside Developments Pty Ltd and Atlantic Link Pty Ltd, the owners of land at 14A Halong Drive and 71 Penna Avenue, Sunshine North (the subject land).
5. I have been instructed by Rigby Cooke Lawyers to review the submission made by YourLand Developments and the relevant planning provisions that are the subject of the Committee and to formulate my own opinion, with a focus on the matters raised within the submission.
6. The subject land forms part of the River Valley Estate located west of the Maribyrnong River in Sunshine North. The Melbourne Airport Environs Overlay – Schedule 2 (MAEO2) currently affects the northern and eastern sections of the land.
7. It is the submission of YourLand Developments that adequate safeguarding of the Melbourne Airport can be achieved through planning controls and provisions that require minimum noise attenuation measures for new development within the airport environs rather than dwelling density limitations as currently required by the MAEO2.
Hansen Partnership Pty Ltd 3
Melbourne Airport Environs Safeguarding I Standing Advisory Committee
8. My response to the Panel’s Guide to Expert Witnesses is contained in Appendix 1 of this Statement together with my CV.
9. Having regard to the submission made by YourLand Developments, the Terms of Reference, the documents I have reviewed, my observations of the site and surrounds and the planning context, it is my opinion that the submission should be supported for the following reasons:
▪ As a state significant transport gateway with significant economic and strategic advantages, the Melbourne Airport and its curfew-free status needs to be protected for the competitive advantage it provides to Melbourne and Victoria. Accordingly, planning decisions made on land within the Airport environs must include appropriate provisions to safeguard the operations of the Airport;
▪ The implications of aircraft noise on sensitive uses are of significant importance when planning for land around airports and within the Melbourne Airport Environs as this can lead to land use conflict and complaints from residents that can undermine the successful and long term operations of the Airport;
▪ It is important that an integrated and balanced approach is taken when planning for land surrounding airports and in areas exposed to aircraft noise that allows for the balancing of other important strategic planning outcomes such as providing housing and achieving urban consolidation outcomes supported in Plan Melbourne;
▪ The subject land is identified as a strategic development site within the Sunshine National Innovation and Employment Cluster (NEIC) in Plan Melbourne;
▪ The subject land will play an important role in ensuring Brimbank meets its housing targets in responding to the changing needs of its community by increasing the diversity and affordability of housing within a State significant location for employment and transport access;
▪ The density provision of Schedule 2 to the MAEO is a blunt and unsophisticated tool to manage the use and development of land within the Melbourne Airport Environs that does not allow for the consideration of strategic planning policies that support increased housing densities on sites that provide other desirable strategic outcomes such as urban consolidation. The application of MAEO2 makes no distinction between different strategic planning contexts of land that it affects; and
▪ A more sophisticated approach to regulating use and development within the area of the MAEO2 that relies on noise attenuation requirements in new development is a more appropriate tool, together with enhanced awareness of the Airport’s operations and potential impacts for people making the choice to live in the environs of the Airport. This could be in the form of additional provisions in the MAEO2 or a separate schedule to the MAEO that identifies land where there is a strategic imperative to develop such as the NEIC, activity centres and identified strategic development sites.
10. These reasons and justification contained in my Statement underpin my support for the submission.
Hansen Partnership Pty Ltd 4
Melbourne Airport Environs Safeguarding I Standing Advisory Committee
2. Subject Land and Environs 2.1.1. Subject Land
11. The subject land is located at 14A Halong Drive and 71 Penna Avenue, Sunshine North. The land is located directly west of the Maribyrnong River, north of Surrey Street, south of the freight railway line, and east of existing industrial land.
12. The land forms part of the River Valley Estate which encompasses an approximate area of 129ha.
13. The southern half of the estate is already predominantly developed with a range of residential development in the form of detached single dwellings and medium density residential development east of Duke Street.
14. A Section 173 Agreement has been placed on new lot Titles which amongst other things, alert prospective purchasers of the proximity of Melbourne Airport and associated aircraft noise.
15. The northern section, which includes land at 14A Halong Drive, is less developed with a range of approved planning permits and active planning applications for the subdivision and development of the land for residential use. Part of the land at 14A Halong Drive has recently been subdivided and the residential lots are currently on the market for sale.
16. No. 71 Penna Street comprises vacant industrial land. As outlined within the next section of my Statement, it is proposed to incorporate this land within the River Valley Estate through a proposed rezoning for residential development.
17. Natural features such as the old quarry depression and Maribyrnong River interface are being incorporated into the estate through the provision of landscaped open space, linear reserves, water features, and trails.
Hansen Partnership Pty Ltd 5
Melbourne Airport Environs Safeguarding I Standing Advisory Committee
Figure 1: Subject site aerial
Hansen Partnership Pty Ltd 6
Melbourne Airport Environs Safeguarding I Standing Advisory Committee
Figure 2: Recently extended River Valley Boulevard (north of roundabout with Halong Drive)
Figure 3: Looking towards Maribyrnong River environs (south) from new stage of subdivision near roundabout
Hansen Partnership Pty Ltd 7
Melbourne Airport Environs Safeguarding I Standing Advisory Committee
Figure 4: Looking south from new lots created off extended River Valley Boulevard
Figure 5: View north from upper road west of extended River Valley Boulevard
Hansen Partnership Pty Ltd 8
Melbourne Airport Environs Safeguarding I Standing Advisory Committee
Figure 6: View towards 71 Penna Avenue (north) from edge of existing subdivision
Figure 7: Medium density development along Duke Street
Hansen Partnership Pty Ltd 9
Melbourne Airport Environs Safeguarding I Standing Advisory Committee
Figure 8: Old quarry lake
Figure 9: View towards city over 71 Penna Avenue
Hansen Partnership Pty Ltd 10
Melbourne Airport Environs Safeguarding I Standing Advisory Committee
Figure 10: Maribyrnong River environs adjoining Halong Drive
Figure 11: Typical development within the estate adjacent to Maribyrnong River environs
Hansen Partnership Pty Ltd 11
Melbourne Airport Environs Safeguarding I Standing Advisory Committee
2.1.2. Environs
18. The site is located in Sunshine North, approximately 11km north west of the Melbourne CBD. The Western Ring Road is located just north of the site. The Melbourne Airport is located approximately 7km north.
19. The Sunshine Metropolitan Activity Centre is located approximately 2km southwest of the site. It is a major centre of the region providing a diverse range of regional commercial, retail, entertainment, and community facilities. The significant location of the Sunshine Train Station at the intersection of a number of train lines, including the location of the future Suburban Rail Loop and Airport Rail Link, underpins the centre’s future significant role for further growth and development. This is also recognised by the area’s location within a National Employment and Innovation Cluster (NEIC) as outlined in later sections of this Statement.
20. Sunshine North is notable within the municipality for its large area of industrial land in the north east of the suburb.
21. The subject land represents one of the largest areas of underdeveloped land within Sunshine and Sunshine North.
22. A local activity centre is located directly to the south of the River Valley Estate in the neighbouring municipality of Maribyrnong, along Ballarat Road.
23. The surrounds are characterised by the areas meeting point of the Maribyrnong River and industrial and residential land uses. Residential development typically consists of traditional single detached dwellings from the post war and more contemporary eras. There is also a range of infill development with a number of townhouses scattered throughout the residential surrounds.
Hansen Partnership Pty Ltd 12
Melbourne Airport Environs Safeguarding I Standing Advisory Committee
Figure 12: Environs aerial
Hansen Partnership Pty Ltd 13
Melbourne Airport Environs Safeguarding I Standing Advisory Committee
3. The Planning Context
24. The following section outlines a range of planning policies and provisions that I have relied upon in forming my opinion regarding the subject land and the considerations of the Standing Advisory Committee. These policies and provisions relate to both the subject land and Melbourne Airport.
3.1. Planning Policy Framework (PPF)
25. The key relevant provisions of the Planning Policy Framework (PPF) include:
▪ Clause 11: Settlement
– Clause 11.01: Victoria
▪ Clause 11.01-1S: Settlement
▪ Clause 11.01-14R: Settlement – Metropolitan Melbourne
– Clause 11.02: Managing Growth
▪ Clause 11.02-1S: Supply of Urban Land
▪ Clause 13: Environmental Risks and Amenity
– Clause 13.05: Noise
▪ Clause 13.05-1S: Noise Abatement
▪ Clause 16: Housing
– Clause 16.01: Residential Development
▪ Clause 16.01-1S: Housing Supply
▪ Clause 16.01-1R: Housing supply – Metropolitan Melbourne
▪ Clause 16.01-3S: Housing Affordability
▪ Clause 18: Transport
– Clause 18.04: Airports
▪ Clause 18.04-1S: Planning for Airports and Airfields
▪ Clause 18.01-1R: Melbourne Airport
26. The key relevant provisions of the Local Planning Policy Framework include:
▪ Clause 21.01: Brimbank Municipal Profile
Hansen Partnership Pty Ltd 14
Melbourne Airport Environs Safeguarding I Standing Advisory Committee
▪ Clause 21.02: Key Land Use Issues
▪ Clause 21.04: Strategic Land Use Vision
▪ Clause 21.07: Housing
– Clause 21.07-1: Residential Growth
– Clause 21.07-2: Housing Diversity
▪ Clause 21.08: Retailing and Activity Centres
▪ Clause 21.09: Industrial Land Use 3.2. Land Use Zones
27. The subject land is located within the following zones:
▪ General Residential Zone (GRZ1): the majority of the River Valley Estate is located within the GRZ1.
▪ Industrial 3 Zone (IN3Z): nearly all of 71 Penna Avenue is located within the IN3Z.
▪ Public Park and Recreation Zone: the northern tip of 71 Penna Avenue is located within the PPRZ.
28. The remainder of River Valley Estate is located within the GRZ1 and the following zones:
▪ Neighbourhood Residential Zone (NRZ2): a portion of the estate east of Rivervalley Boulevard is located within the NRZ2. Schedule 2 varies a number of ResCode standards. No minimum subdivision area is specified.
▪ Commercial 1 Zone (C1Z): the land on the corner of Surrey Street and Duke Street that will accommodate the future local activity centre is located within the C1Z.
29. The Melbourne Airport is located on Commonwealth land and as such does not come under the purview of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.
Hansen Partnership Pty Ltd 15
Melbourne Airport Environs Safeguarding I Standing Advisory Committee
Figure 13: Zoning Map
Hansen Partnership Pty Ltd 16
Melbourne Airport Environs Safeguarding I Standing Advisory Committee
3.3. Overlays
30. I consider the following overlays to be relevant.
Melbourne Airport Environs Overlay – Schedule 2 (MAEO2)
31. The northern and eastern sections of the site are affected by the Melbourne Airport Environs Overlay – Schedule 2 (MAEO2).
32. In addition to implementing the Municipal Planning Strategy and Planning Policy Framework, the purpose of the MAEO is:
▪ To ensure that land use and development are compatible with the operation of Melbourne Airport in accordance with the relevant airport strategy or master plan and with safe air navigation for aircraft approaching and departing the airfield.
▪ To assist in shielding people from the impact of aircraft noise by requiring appropriate noise attenuation measures in dwellings and other noise sensitive buildings.
▪ To provide for appropriate levels of noise attenuation depending on the level of forecasted noise exposure.
33. Buildings that trigger a planning permit under the overlay must be constructed in compliance with any noise attenuation measures required by Section 3 of Australian Standard AS 2021-2015, Acoustics - Aircraft Noise Intrusion - Building Siting and Construction, issued by Standards Australia Limited.
34. The MAEO contains two schedules with Schedule 2 applying to the subject site. The MAEO boundaries are based on the recommendations of AS2021 and the 2003 Ultimate Capacity ANEF boundaries outlined within the 2003 Melbourne Airport Master Plan. Schedule 1 is the more restrictive of the two schedules, the extent of which is based on the 25 ANEF contour.
35. The purpose of Schedule 2 is:
▪ To identify areas that are or will be subject to moderate levels of aircraft noise based on the 20-25 Australian Noise Exposure Forecast (ANEF) contours and to limit use and development to that which is appropriate to that level of exposure.
36. A permit is required under the MAEO2 to use the land for a Dwelling (Part 1.1) as well as a range of other uses (Part 1.2). The schedule defines a mandatory density requirement of one dwelling per 300sqm.
37. Uses nested under Accommodation require a planning permit but do not have a density requirement associated with them under Part 1.2 of MAEO2.
Hansen Partnership Pty Ltd 17
Melbourne Airport Environs Safeguarding I Standing Advisory Committee
38. A permit is required to subdivide land. Each lot must be at least 300sqm. A permit may be granted to create smaller lots where the land will not be used for accommodation or provided the average area of all lots is not less than 300sqm.
Hansen Partnership Pty Ltd 18
Melbourne Airport Environs Safeguarding I Standing Advisory Committee
Figure 14: Melbourne Airport Environs Overlay – Schedule 2 (MAEO2) map
Hansen Partnership Pty Ltd 19
Melbourne Airport Environs Safeguarding I Standing Advisory Committee
Development Plan Overlay – Schedule 3 (DPO3)
39. 14A Halong Drive along with the rest of the River Valley Estate is affected by the Development Plan Overlay – Schedule 3 (DPO3).
40. In addition to implementing the Municipal Planning Strategy and Planning Policy Framework, the purpose of the DPO is:
▪ To identify areas which require the form and conditions of future use and development to be shown on a development plan before a permit can be granted to use or develop the land.
▪ To exempt an application from notice and review if a development plan has been prepared to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.
41. The DPO requires the preparation of a Development Plan before any use, development or subdivision of land can occur, unless specified otherwise within a schedule to the overlay.
42. Schedule 3 relates to the River Valley Estate. A Development Plan was prepared in accordance with Schedule 3 to the satisfaction of Brimbank City Council in 2002.
43. In addition to the land already developed as part of the estate, the Development Plan provides for further residential development including a mixture of medium density residential development and detached single dwellings, a local service centre at the corner of Surrey Street and Duke Street (Stage 5A), and a hotel.
44. The estimated dwelling yield of the estate as outlined within the Development Plan is 1,142 dwellings, or 10.6 dwellings per hectare. This is in the form of detached single dwellings, row houses and villas, and apartments.
Hansen Partnership Pty Ltd 20
Melbourne Airport Environs Safeguarding I Standing Advisory Committee
Figure 15: Development Plan Overlay - Schedule 3 (DPO3)
Hansen Partnership Pty Ltd 21
Melbourne Airport Environs Safeguarding I Standing Advisory Committee
Figure 17: River Valley Estate Development Plan
Figure 16: River Valley Estate Staging Plan
Other Overlays
45. The land is also affected by the following overlays:
▪ Design and Development Overlay – Schedule 1 (DDO1)
▪ Development Contributions Plan Overlay – Schedule 2 (DPCO2)
▪ Environmental Significance Overlay – Schedule 3 (ESO3)
▪ Land Subject to Inundation Overlay (LSIO)
Hansen Partnership Pty Ltd 22
Melbourne Airport Environs Safeguarding I Standing Advisory Committee
3.4. Relevant Amendments
46. I am aware of two relevant amendments associated with the subject land:
▪ Amendment C204: 71 Penna Avenue (Stage 9) is currently the subject of Amendment C204 to the Brimbank Planning Scheme which is seeking to rezone the Industrial 3 Zone (IN3Z) land to part General Residential Zone (GRZ) and part Public Conservation and Resource Zone (PCRZ).
▪ Stages 6 and 8 of the River Valley Estate are the subject of a planning scheme amendment to rezone the land from GRZ to part Mixed Use Zone (MUZ) and part Residential Growth Zone (RGZ). An amendment number has not yet been allocated. 3.5. Strategies and Policy Documents
47. I have had regard to a range of strategy and policy documents as outlined within this section.
3.5.1. National Airports Safeguarding Framework (NSAF)
48. The National Airports Safeguarding Framework (NASF) seeks to enhance the safety, viability and growth of aviation operations within Australia. It provides guidance on assessing developments that may affect aviation operations in respect of safety and noise requirements. It is a nationwide land-use planning framework that affects planning and development around airports. It seeks to improve community amenity by minimising noise sensitive development near airports through noise metrics and increase public safety.
49. It is underpinned by nine principles and guidelines related to the management of:
▪ Aircraft noise (Guideline A)
▪ Building generated windshear and turbulence (Guideline B)
▪ Wildlife strikes (Guideline C)
▪ Wind turbine farms (Guideline D)
▪ Lighting within the vicinity of an airport (Guideline E)
▪ Intrusions within protected operational airspace (Guideline F)
▪ On and off-airport Communication, Navigation and Surveillance equipment (Guideline G)
▪ Important helicopter landing sites (Guideline H)
▪ Public safety areas at the end of runways (Guideline I)
50. The NASF recognises the use of Australian Noise Exposure Forecast (ANEF) System and the Australian Standard AS 2021-2015 Acoustics – Aircraft Noise Intrusion – Building Siting and Construction (AS2021) for
Hansen Partnership Pty Ltd 23
Melbourne Airport Environs Safeguarding I Standing Advisory Committee
guidance on land use planning and establishing compatibility with sensitive uses. It is referenced at Clause 18.04-1S (Planning for Airports and Airfields) of the Brimbank Planning Scheme.
3.5.2. Australian Noise Exposure Forecast (ANEF)
51. The ANEF is the standard measurement for determining the level of exposure to aircraft noise within the vicinity of airports. It models a forecast of aircraft noise exposure for a future year based on a number of scenarios. ANEFs are shown as contours on maps with higher numbers representing larger cumulative amounts of aircraft noise over an average one year period.
52. The system underpins Australian Standard AS2021 ‘Acoustics – Aircraft noise intrusion – Building siting and construction’. As identified within the below figure, anything greater than 25 ANEF is considered to be unacceptable for the use of land as a dwelling. Land within 20 to 25 ANEF is conditionally acceptable and requires regulating for residential use. AS2021 does not require noise attenuation measures for residential use located on land under 20 ANEF.
Figure 18: AS2021 Building Site Acceptability Based on ANEF Zones
3.5.3. Melbourne Airport Master Plan 2018
53. The Melbourne Airport Master Plan 2018 outlines a plan for the development of the Melbourne Airport over a five year period and is underpinned by a 20 year strategic vision. It is a requirement of the Airports Act 1996 and replaced the previous 2013 master plan.
54. The master plan defines new ANEF contours that are larger than the 2003 contours. Forecast to 2043, the new ANEF contours are based on a composite of development assumptions regarding runway development including the scenario where there are four operational runways at the airport.
Hansen Partnership Pty Ltd 24
Melbourne Airport Environs Safeguarding I Standing Advisory Committee
55. The figure below shows the 20 ANEF implications for the subject site as outlined in the Master Plan.
Figure 19: ANEF for Melbourne Airport, 2018 Melbourne Airport Figure 20: 2018 Melbourne Airport Master Plan 20 ANEF across the subject Master Plan, page 111 site, YouLand Developments’ submission (Tract)
3.5.4. Melbourne Airport Environs Strategy Plan 2003
56. The purpose of the Melbourne Airport Environs Strategy Plan 2003 is to provide guidance on planning controls and initiatives to manage the interests of the Melbourne Airport and land located within the airport environs. Amongst other things, the Environs Strategy Plan recommended:
▪ The introduction of the MAEO into the Victorian Planning Provisions (VPP);
▪ Defining the boundaries of the MAEO by the ultimate capacity ANEF contours with no control applied below 20 ANEF;
▪ Clarification around the two different schedules that were used under the previous AEO for the airport; and
▪ The preparation of ‘deemed to comply’ construction standards for noise attenuation in Schedule 2 that does not require a full assessment of noise exposure and attenuation assessment.
57. The Victorian Government has committed to review the strategy plan.
Hansen Partnership Pty Ltd 25
Melbourne Airport Environs Safeguarding I Standing Advisory Committee
3.5.5. Plan Melbourne 2017-2050
58. Plan Melbourne 2017-2050 outlines the key strategic plan to manage growth and development in Metropolitan Melbourne through a long-term integrated land use, infrastructure and transport plan. Melbourne Airport is recognised as a state significant transport gateway, responsible for a third of Australia’s air freight and 14,300 jobs. Its curfew-free status is highlighted as a competitive advantage that must be protected. Sunshine is identified as one of seven National Employment and Innovation Clusters (NEIC).
3.5.6. Brimbank Housing Strategy, Home and Housed (2014)
59. The Brimbank Housing Strategy, Home and Housed (2014) is Council’s key strategy document for guiding the location, type and form of housing within the municipality to meet the demand of a growing population with changing needs. A focus is placed on ensuring housing is affordable, accessible and adaptable into the future.
Hansen Partnership Pty Ltd 26
Melbourne Airport Environs Safeguarding I Standing Advisory Committee
4. Key Strategic Planning Considerations
60. Having regard to my observations of the subject land and surrounds, the Terms of Reference of the Standing Advisory Committee, the relevant provisions of the Brimbank Planning Scheme, and other strategic and policy documents, it is my opinion that the key planning considerations and questions that should be considered by the Committee in relation to this matter are:
▪ What does strategic policy say in relation to planning for use and development within airport environs?
▪ Is there a need to focus residential development within the subject land?
▪ How does the MAEO manage use and development within the Melbourne Airport Environs?
▪ Is the density requirement of the MAEO2 appropriate?
▪ Would a noise attenuation approach to the MAEO2 affect the operational requirements of the Melbourne Airport and impact upon its curfew-free status?
61. I have addressed these key considerations in turn below.
4.1. What does strategic planning policy say in relation to planning for use and development within airport environs?
62. There is a range of strategic planning policy relevant to the protection of airports and managing use and development within airport environs.
63. As a State significant transport gateway with significant economic and strategic advantages, Plan Melbourne recognises the need to protect the curfew-free status of Melbourne Airport for the competitive advantage it provides to the city and State. Transport gateways are to be protected from incompatible land uses and provide for complementary employment generating uses.
64. Clause 18.04 (Airports) of the Planning Scheme outlines the key State planning policy for airports and airfields. It acknowledges Victoria’s airports and airfields as significant transport infrastructure and the important role they play in supporting the State’s economy. It highlights the need to facilitate their “siting and expansion and protect their ongoing operation”.
65. Key strategies at Clause 18.04-1S (Planning for Airports) seek to protect airports from incompatible land uses. When planning for airports, it is important that “land use decisions are integrated, appropriate land use buffers are in place and provision is made for associated businesses that service airports”.
Hansen Partnership Pty Ltd 27
Melbourne Airport Environs Safeguarding I Standing Advisory Committee
66. Clause 18.04-1R (Melbourne Airport) seeks to protect the curfew free status of the Melbourne Airport and ensure that new use and development does not prejudice its operation and optimum usage.
67. At a local level, the municipality’s high accessibility to Melbourne Airport is highlighted as a competitive advantage for its industrial areas (Clause 21.02). Objective 2 of Clause 21.07-1 (Housing) seeks to protect the operations of Melbourne Airport by limiting “residential development within the Melbourne Airport Environs Overlay areas and apply the Neighbourhood Residential Zone”.
68. Based on planning policy, of particular relevance to the subject land is the consideration of the effects of aircraft noise on its use and development. Other considerations outlined at Clause 18.04-1S relate to the safety and efficiency of the Airport and its potential future expansion are less relevant for the subject land due to the separation from the Airport.
69. Clause 18.04-1S references the National Airports Safeguarding Framework. The National Airports Safeguarding Framework (NASF) provides guidance on assessing developments that may affect aviation operations in respect of safety and noise requirements.
70. I regard Guideline A: Measures for Managing Impacts of Aircraft Noise to be the most relevant to the subject land and its relationship with the Melbourne Airport. It outlines guidelines for considering the rezoning of new greenfield areas, rezoning brownfield areas, and new development within existing areas and the implications for noise sensitive uses and aircraft noise around airports based on noise modelling.
71. In relation to the effects of noise, the NASF notes that:
“Over the long term, inappropriate development around airports can result in unnecessary constraints on airport operations and negative impacts on community amenity due to the effects of aircraft noise.”
72. Relevant land use planning policy relating to airports and the land surrounding airports therefore clearly emphasises the importance of protecting and ensuring that inappropriate uses and development do not undermine or prejudice airport operations, both now and in the future.
73. The implications of aircraft noise on sensitive uses is of significant importance when planning for land around airports as this can lead to land use conflict and complaints from residents that can undermine the successful and long term operations of an airport. This is of particular significance for maintaining the curfew free status of Melbourne Airport.
74. However, it is important that an integrated and balanced approach is taken when planning for land surrounding airports and in areas exposed to aircraft noise. This is acknowledged within the NSAF which
Hansen Partnership Pty Ltd 28
Melbourne Airport Environs Safeguarding I Standing Advisory Committee
highlights the sometimes competing demands of locating new development and increased residential densities within areas that are exposed to aircraft noise. As the NASF notes, “there is a need to balance the need to provide housing, economic growth and strategic planning outcomes against the operational needs of the airports”.
75. In relation to increasing densities around airports, the NASF highlights that this should only be considered where other benefits such as urban consolidation outcomes will be achieved:
“Whilst it would not be appropriate to allow for development that would impact on the operational safety of an airport, increasing densities or new developments in existing areas exposed to aircraft noise may be acceptable where the site provides other desirable outcomes such as providing housing near transport or meeting urban consolidation targets.”
76. A key question for consideration is therefore whether the subject land is identified as a desirable and strategic location for increased housing growth that would have urban consolidation benefits.
4.2. Is there a strategic need to focus residential development within the subject land?
77. Sunshine, and its surrounds, is a strategically significant urban location that will see significant investment and growth in the near future. It is centrally located between the growth areas of the west and Melbourne’s CBD. The accessibility of the middle suburb at the intersection of multiple train routes will only be enhanced by the completion of the Metro Tunnel, Melbourne Airport Rail Link, and the Suburban Rail Loop. This places Sunshine and its surrounds in a strategically important location for building on the strengths provided by the growing western suburbs and increasing the provision of commercial, retail, community and cultural facilities, as well as residential development.
4.2.1. Sunshine National Employment and Innovation Cluster (NEIC)
78. A key direction of Plan Melbourne 2017-2050 is ensuring the city is provided with a structure that strengthens its competitive edge for investment and jobs creation. In addition to focusing growth within the CBD, Plan Melbourne also outlines policies of decentralisation to increase jobs closer to where people live; something most strongly emphasised by the State Government’s flagship infrastructure project of the Suburban Rail Loop through Melbourne’s middle ring suburbs (Clause 11.01-1R).
79. Underpinning this is a key policy for facilitating the development of National Employment and Innovation Clusters (NEIC) to increase investment in locations outside the CBD. NEICs are to be the focus of knowledge-
Hansen Partnership Pty Ltd 29
Melbourne Airport Environs Safeguarding I Standing Advisory Committee
based industries, and distributed throughout Melbourne along high-capacity transport networks to ensure the greatest accessibility to high-productive jobs. NEICs are recognised at Clause 11.01-1R of the Planning Scheme as places of State significance for investment and growth.
80. Sunshine is identified as one of seven NEICs. Sunshine’s unique offering is considered to have the Subject site potential to attract a broader range of businesses, health and education facilities, retail services and entertainment, as well as, residential development. The Sunshine NEIC occupies a large portion of the municipality with the subject land located along the eastern boundary
of the northern industrial precinct Figure 21: Sunshine National Employment and Innovation Cluster, Plan Melbourne 2017- identified within the cluster. 2050
81. The importance of Sunshine for economic development and growth is furthered within local planning policy. The Sunshine NEIC is acknowledged at Clause 21.02 (Key Land Use Issues) where its role for “retailing, employment and residential growth and is of regional and metropolitan significance” is highlighted. Sunshine is also identified at Clause 21.08 (Retailing and Activity Centres) as a Principal Activity Centre.
82. Other NEICs such as Monash and Latrobe include residential development at high densities, such as 6 to 10 storey buildings within the Latrobe NEIC.
83. This strategic context underpins the importance of ensuring housing is located within and close to this State significant location for economic development and growth to facilitate urban consolidation objectives.
4.2.2. Housing Need in Brimbank
84. At the heart of housing policy within the PPF is the need to increase the supply and diversity of housing in well located places close to where people work and near supporting infrastructure and services.
85. Clause 16.01-1R (Housing Supply – Metropolitan Melbourne) identifies locations where increased housing supply and diversity is encouraged to meet population growth and create a sustainable city. In addition to urban renewal precincts, of note is the clear strategy to locate housing in areas designated as National
Hansen Partnership Pty Ltd 30
Melbourne Airport Environs Safeguarding I Standing Advisory Committee
Employment and Innovation Clusters. This facilitates the creation of 20-minute neighbourhoods and increases access to services, jobs, and public transport in creating a more compact urban form.
86. The importance played by underutilised land within established urban areas is highlighted as a key way to limit housing growth at the fringe and increase a more consolidated and environmentally sustainable urban form. Clause 16.01-1S seeks to “increase the proportion of housing in designated locations in established urban areas (including under-utilised urban land)” as well as to, “encourage higher density housing development on sites that are well located in relation to jobs, services and public transport”.
87. At a local level, Clause 21.07-1 of the Planning Scheme highlights the need to “accommodate appropriate residential growth in identified locations”. The policy notes that Brimbank will need to accommodate in excess of 19,138 households by 2051. Limitations to accommodating this increased supply are highlighted such as the lack of large scale greenfield sites across the municipality to locate substantial residential development. It notes “any future development is likely to be located in key strategic development sites, surplus industrial areas, and within in activity centres” . The subject land is identified as a key strategic development site.
88. In addition, housing diversity policy at Clause 21.07-2 finds that the current supply of housing within Brimbank is dominated by detached dwellings consisting of three or more bedrooms. This is not matching current community need which is driven by decreasing household sizes and an ageing population. Strategies at Clause 21.07-2 also note the need to increase the provision of affordable housing within the municipality, particularly on large scale residential development sites. Ensuring that there is a sufficient supply and diversity of affordable housing types is therefore a major issue for the municipality.
89. Underpinning this drive for housing diversity is the push for further medium density housing within the municipality. Clause 21.07-2 notes the need to “encourage new multi-unit residential developments to incorporate a diversity of housing types to meet the needs of different households”. The Brimbank Housing Strategy notes that only 12.5% of housing within the municipality is medium density housing, a drop of 4.9% since 2006. This figure compares unfavourably with the metropolitan Melbourne medium density housing share of 22.9% (id Profile) and similar municipalities such as Darebin (35.6%), Hobsons Bay (32.4%), and Moreland (35.1%).
90. The Brimbank Housing Strategy (2014) notes the strategic shift of housing growth in Metropolitan Melbourne towards the west. Responding to this growth pressure is at the heart of the strategy. The Housing Strategy locates the subject land within a ‘limited change’ area where housing in the form of one and two storey detached dwellings and limited dual occupancy, villa units and townhouse development is expected (page
Hansen Partnership Pty Ltd 31
Melbourne Airport Environs Safeguarding I Standing Advisory Committee
21). No minimum subdivision size is recommended in these locations. While the housing strategy highlights the need to focus residential development away from flight paths, a strong focus is also placed on utilising strategic development sites, such as old industrial land, for new residential development.
91. The Strategic Land Use Vision outlined at Clause 21.04 identifies the subject land as a strategic development site within the municipality. Strategic development sites are defined as areas that:
“Due to their size, location, environment or current and past use have the potential for development, redevelopment and rehabilitation to facilitate large scale industrial, commercial and Subject site residential developments, increase local employment and economic development”.
92. Limits on the density of housing, particularly medium density housing, would work to undermine the key housing imperative at the heart of housing policy within the Brimbank Planning Scheme. This is particularly the case for strategic development
sites where the majority of all Figure 22: Strategic Framework, Clause 21.04 (Strategic Land Use Vision) residential growth within the municipality will be located over coming years.
93. Although located within the Melbourne Airport Environs, the subject land represents one of only a few important strategic development sites close to the CBD and in the Sunshine NEIC. The development of the land will facilitate urban consolidation objectives and increase the supply and diversity of housing in such a well-positioned middle suburban location. The form and affordability of the housing that would be provided by the development of the land would not be available in many, if any, similarly positioned locations across metropolitan Melbourne.
Hansen Partnership Pty Ltd 32
Melbourne Airport Environs Safeguarding I Standing Advisory Committee
94. The subject land is designated to play an important role in ensuring Brimbank meets its housing targets in responding to the changing needs of its community by increasing the affordability and diversity of housing on offer in the municipality. Any control or policy that seeks to undermine these important strategic objectives needs to be carefully considered and appropriately balanced.
4.3. How does the MAEO manage use and development within the Melbourne Airport Environs?
95. While I highlight that the subject land is an appropriate location to increase the supply of housing within the Melbourne Airport Environs, I turn now to the question of what is the most appropriate way to ensure a balanced approach is taken that manages the sometimes conflicting needs of protecting the operations of an airport and increasing residential development within strategically important areas affected by aircraft noise, while also ensuring acceptable level of amenity for residents.
96. On this question, I take guidance from Guideline A of the NASF which, in relation to development on brownfield sites, notes that:
“Consideration should be given to measures to manage the implications. This could include conditions that require development to be undertaken in a manner that physically reduces noise impacts (e.g. through appropriate construction techniques) and requirements for disclosure processes that ensure future residents are made aware of these impacts prior to purchase.”
97. Similarly, in relation to development on land already zoned for urban development in areas affected by aircraft noise, it notes:
“In some circumstances, redevelopment of sites already exposed to aircraft noise can result in a better outcome through better design and construction responses.”
98. The NASF acknowledges that there are circumstances on land within airport environs, where development could take place because of other strategic reasons.
99. This highlights the important role played by appropriate construction techniques and noise attenuation in new development for mitigating and reducing the impacts of aircraft noise. According to the NASF, development should be undertaken in a way that can reduce noise impacts through construction techniques that adhere to AS2021. The NASF also identifies the importance of disclosure processes to ensure new residents are aware of the impacts prior to purchasing land.
Hansen Partnership Pty Ltd 33
Melbourne Airport Environs Safeguarding I Standing Advisory Committee
100. The MAEO is the main planning tool within the Victorian Planning Provisions (VPP) to regulate use and development within the Melbourne Airport Environs. The MAEO regulates both the use and development of land for a dwelling (as well as a range of limited uses).
101. The MAEO was first introduced into the VPPs in 2007 (Amendment VC30) and was based on the 2003 ANEF Contours outlined in the 2003 Master Plan for the Melbourne Airport. Prior to this time, the standard Airport Environs Overlay (AEO) was applied to the environs from its introduction in 1996 (and was based on the 1996 ANEF contours). I understand that the extent of the overlay and the ordinance has remained unchanged since 2007.
102. The current boundaries of the MAEO are based on the long term ANEF contours of the 2003 Melbourne Airport Masterplan and the recommendations of AS2021. The boundary of Schedule 1 to the MAEO is defined by the 25 ANEF contour and Schedule 2 is defined by the 20 ANEF contour. Schedule 1 is more restrictive than Schedule 2 where some sensitive uses such as a hospital and education centre may be permitted.
103. The 2003 Melbourne Airport Environs Strategy Plan recommended creating a distinction between the purpose of Schedule 1 and 2 of the MAEO. This was due to the uncertainties with the previous schedules under the AEO that applied to the Melbourne Airport Environs, whereby the original intent of the schedules was being undermined in practice. The original intention of having two levels of planning control through the schedules was to ensure that uses that may limit the operation of an airport would be restricted in Schedule 1, “while sensitive uses could occur within Schedule 2 areas provided that noise attenuation measures be applied where appropriate” (page 12). The uncertainty stemmed from the purpose of the parent provision which sought to “limit the number of people residing in the area or likely to be subject to significant levels of aircraft noise” which in practice was being applied to both schedules despite the original intent of the distinction between the two schedules which would only see the number of people and sensitive uses restricted in Schedule 1.
104. As I note in Section 3.3, the subject site is located within Schedule 2. The MAEO2 regulates the development of dwellings in two key ways:
▪ Requiring a planning permit for a dwelling and restricting the development of a dwelling to no more than one dwelling per 300sqm (this density provision extends to subdivision); and
▪ Requiring any new building to be constructed in compliance with any noise attenuation measures required by Section 3 of Australian Standard AS 2021-2015, Acoustics - Aircraft Noise Intrusion - Building Siting and Construction (under the MAEO however, this control does not specify that it cannot be varied with a permit).
Hansen Partnership Pty Ltd 34
Melbourne Airport Environs Safeguarding I Standing Advisory Committee
105. As I explain below, I am of the opinion that given the strategic imperatives in Sunshine (particularly the subject land) and the commentary in the NASF which acknowledges that there may be good reasons for land within an airport environs to be developed, the density requirement in the MAEO2 is a blunt planning control that makes no distinction between different strategic objectives for land it affects nor address the key issue of noise attenuation in an explicit way.
4.4. Is the density requirement of the MAEO2 appropriate?
106. I am of the opinion that the density provision of Schedule 2 to the MAEO is a blunt and unsophisticated tool to manage the use and development of land within the Melbourne Airport Environs. Counter to the NASF it does not allow for the consideration of increased housing densities on sites that provide other desirable strategic outcomes such as urban consolidation.
107. The density control does not provide for sufficient variation to allow for the consideration of local conditions and balancing other strategic considerations related to significant development sites within the environs. Such a control does not recognise the important role played by strategic development sites within the Melbourne Airport Environs, such as the subject land, for contributing towards housing growth, diversity, and consolidation within the municipality. For example, the same density provision applies to land adjoining the subject land on the east side of the Maribyrnong River which is in an established residential area as well as the land on the west side of the River (the subject land) which is undeveloped and in the NEIC and designated strategic development site in the strategic land use framework plan in the Brimbank Planning Scheme. These two areas have significantly different strategic planning contexts.
108. By limiting development to one dwelling per 300sqm, the overlay unreasonably restricts the appropriate consideration of increased residential densities, such as medium density development, on strategic development sites. This type of housing is of critical importance for increasing diversity and affordability, particularly in Brimbank, where there is already a limited diversity of housing and available land to increase supply, and where there is clear strategic policy at both State and local level, for housing growth and consolidation of urban development.
109. The density limitation is also counter to the original intent of Schedule 2, which was to allow for sensitive uses provided appropriate noise attenuation measures were incorporated.
110. A blanket approach that seeks to apply a density limit across a large area of land regardless of variations across the airport environs and the strategic locational advantages of some land is a blunt tool and goes against the performance-based approach to planning schemes and provisions in Victoria. In my opinion, a
Hansen Partnership Pty Ltd 35
Melbourne Airport Environs Safeguarding I Standing Advisory Committee
more sophisticated performance-based approach to the development of land affected by Schedule 2 and within the 20 to 25 ANEF contours should be taken.
111. Such an approach should consider the need for a local policy to guide the assessment of applications for use and development, and create a nexus between the safeguarding of the airport and strategic imperatives for increased development in certain areas to ensure a balanced outcome is reached and the amenity of future residents is reasonably protected. This approach should also consider the appropriateness of requiring subdivision to include advice to future land owners of the potential impact of noise from the airport, consistent with recommendations in the masterplan for Melbourne Airport and the NASF regarding community education and the dissemination of noise based information to the community.
Hansen Partnership Pty Ltd 36
Melbourne Airport Environs Safeguarding I Standing Advisory Committee
4.5. Would a noise attenuation approach to the MAEO2 affect the operational requirements of the Melbourne Airport and impact upon its curfew-free status?
112. As guided by the NASF, the most appropriate way to regulate development on already existing urban land or brownfield sites that are exposed to aircraft noise is through construction techniques that physically reduce noise impacts.
113. Attenuation requirements are a common approach to mitigating and minimising the effects of noise exposure on sensitive uses throughout planning schemes in Victoria. The purpose of such provisions is to ensure the amenity of future residents is reasonably protected where there are negative externalities associated with surrounding land uses such as industrial activity or transport corridors. It is a relevant consideration when developing land within built up areas, particularly brownfield sites, where a range of complex planning considerations are required to manage various uses that have differing amenity expectations.
114. In relation to airports, ensuring the reasonable protection of residential amenity for future residents located within the airport environs is important for limiting potential noise complaints. This can have long term implications on the operational capacity of an airport.
115. Examples of provisions other than the AEO and MAEO that address noise impacts through measurable and quantifiable noise attenuation requirements, include:
▪ DDO3, Melton Planning Scheme: applies to land along section 2 of the Regional Rail Link. It triggers a permit for buildings and works associated with sensitive uses such as accommodation. Where a building includes a bedroom, the overlay requires all works to be constructed in a way that ensures bedroom noise levels will not exceed 65 dB LAmax and 40 dB LAeq,8h for night time between 10pm and 6am. The requirement also applies to subdivision where a restriction on title is to be included;
▪ DDO10, Wyndham Planning Scheme: applies to the Regional Rail Link and is similar to DDO3 in Melton;
▪ DDO12, Melbourne Planning Scheme: applies to land within Docklands within the vicinity of the Docklands Major Sports and Recreation Facility. Triggers a permit for buildings and works associated with a new or refurbished development for accommodation. The overlay requires noise attenuation measures that can achieve a maximum noise level of 45 dB in habitable rooms and external glazing, doors and air ventilation systems designed by a recognised acoustic consultant;
▪ DDO26, Melbourne Planning Scheme: applies to land in the vicinity of the Laurens Street, North Melbourne Industrial Area and in the vicinity of industrial operations in the Arden-Macaulay urban renewal area. Any building that will accommodate new residential or noise-sensitive uses must be designed and constructed with noise attenuation measures that achieve a maximum noise level of 35dB(A)Leq in habitable rooms and include external glazing, doors and air ventilation systems designed by a recognised acoustic consultant;
Hansen Partnership Pty Ltd 37
Melbourne Airport Environs Safeguarding I Standing Advisory Committee
▪ Clause 58.04-3 (Noise Impacts Objectives): requires apartment buildings within noise influence areas, such as 300m from industrial uses and freeways and 80m from a passenger railway, to be constructed with acoustic attenuation measures that achieve noise levels no greater than 35dB(A) for bedrooms, assessed as an LAeq,8h from 10pm to 6am and 40dB(A) for living areas, assessed a an LAeq,16h from 6am to 10pm; and
▪ Clause 53.06 (Live Music Entertainment Venues): requires live music venues to be designed, constructed, and managed to minimise noise emissions and to provide acoustic attenuation measures that would protect sensitive residential uses within 50m in accordance with State Environment Protection Policy (Control of Music Noise from Public Premises) No. N-2 (SEPP N2) for indoors live music and below 45dB(A), assessed as an Leq over 15 minutes for outdoor music.
116. These attenuation requirements are often used in locations where noise is of a significant and persistent level, such as along freight railway lines, for extended periods of time. In all cases, noise attenuation measures are considered appropriate for reducing noise impacts and achieving appropriate amenity outcomes for future residents without the need for density limitations.
117. On the question of whether noise attenuation measures are sufficient for reducing the number of noise complaints associated with an airport, particularly when considering such measures cannot reduce noise effects external to a building, such as in backyards and communal spaces. I note that the NASF highlights that ANEF contours are limited and do not capture the full noise spread of aircraft noise and all noise affected areas around an airport. Noise does not stop at the contour line. The NASF notes that experience shows that the majority of all complaints are received from properties outside the 20 ANEF contour. This may be due to these residents receiving minimal information regarding aircraft noise or expectations that they will experience little or no aircraft noise.
118. This highlights the importance of information and ensuring existing and new residents are aware of the noise implications of living within the Melbourne Airport Environs. The planning system can play an important role in disseminating information by requiring Section 173 agreements on new development to ensure that new purchasers have notice of the property’s location within the Melbourne Airport Environs and the presence of the associated aircraft noise. In a similar way to locations near train lines or freeways, this ensures prospective residents are aware of the different amenity expectations of the environs, and will make a choice based on this information (in addition to other reasons) for moving to the area. However, what is important is to ensure that the dwellings they move in to are constructed with sufficient noise attenuation to ensure a reasonable level of amenity is achieved, and in particular, night time noise is appropriately managed.
119. The limitations of ANEF contours for defining where noise implications start also highlights the need to ensure a balanced approach is taken to any overlay applying to the environs, particularly at the outer extent of the 20 ANEF contours and on strategic development sites. Blunt density provisions for one property along a street
Hansen Partnership Pty Ltd 38
Melbourne Airport Environs Safeguarding I Standing Advisory Committee
within the airport environs compared to one that is not subject to the same restrictions on the same street, will do less for increasing residential amenity than ensuring noise attenuation measures are included within the construction of dwellings located within the defined airport environs. This is particularly important at night-time when noise attenuation measures are vital for protecting residents from aircraft taking advantage of Melbourne Airport’s curfew-free status. The Airport itself, in its 2018 masterplan, indicates it will seek to utilise the northern and western approaches to and from the airport, where there is less developed urban land.
120. In my opinion, the MAEO2 should be amended to provide for specific noise attenuation requirements for all new dwellings instead of a blunt density requirement. The requirements should be explicitly stated in the schedule rather than a reference to an Australian Standard in the parent part of the overlay. Such requirements ought to be framed in a way that is easily understood, for example, with reference to specific decibels rather than the ANEF contours.
121. Whilst the examples provided above are based on specific provisions or the Design and Development Overlay, I am of the opinion that these are not necessary because the basis for the MAEO remains relevant and justified. The MAEO already includes requirements for ‘Buildings and works’.
122. To assist in balancing the strategic imperatives of safeguarding the operations of the Airport, and in particular its curfew free status, consideration should be given to implementing a local policy to provide guidance on how applications for use and development of land within the MAEO should be considered. In particular, such a policy can distinguish between different parts of the overlay with regard to the strategic context, giving preference for development in the NEIC, strategic development sites and activity centres, as designated in the Planning Scheme over other areas where the strategic objectives are for limited change. It would assist to ‘connect’ the different strategic directions in the PPF (and Plan Melbourne) and the balance needed between these policies.
123. This policy would be complemented by specific noise attenuation requirements in the MAEO2 for new development.
124. I support a community education and awareness program, as sought in the NASF. With regards to how that may be accommodated in the Planning Scheme, or if the Planning Scheme has a role in advancing such an awareness, a local policy and/or amended MAEO could address this through requiring a Section 173 Agreement to be registered on all new Titles created by new development of land.
Hansen Partnership Pty Ltd 39
Melbourne Airport Environs Safeguarding I Standing Advisory Committee
5. Conclusion
125. In my opinion, the submission made by YourLand Developments that adequate safeguarding of the Melbourne Airport can be achieved through planning controls and provisions that require minimum noise attenuation measures for new development within the airport environs rather than dwelling density limitations as currently required by the MAEO2, has strategic support. The current density limitation is a blunt tool in restricting the use and development of land within the Melbourne Airport Environs but is counter to the NASF and State planning policy (in Plan Melbourne) and local policies as it does not allow for the consideration of increased housing densities on sites that provide other desirable strategic outcomes such as urban consolidation.
126. I have made all the inquiries that I believe are desirable and appropriate and no matters of significant which I regard as relevant have to my knowledge been withheld from the Committee.
Sandra Rigo BPD (Hons) PIA Fellow
Hansen Partnership Pty Ltd 40
Appendix 1 Response to Planning Panels Victoria Expert Witnesses Guide and CV Response to Planning Panels Victoria Expert Witnesses Guide April 2019
This statement of evidence has been prepared in accordance with the Planning Panels Victoria Guide for Expert Witnesses April 2019.
Expert’s particulars
My name is Sandra Rigo and I am a Director of Hansen Partnership Pty Ltd, Urban Planning, Urban Design and Landscape Architecture, Level 4, 136 Exhibition Street Melbourne.
Qualifications and experience I hold a Bachelor of Planning and Design (Honours) from the University of Melbourne.
I have practiced as a town planner for over 25 years. I have worked in both local government and in the private sector. My areas of expertise cover the statutory planning approvals process across a broad range of land use and development proposals, including in rural areas, coastal and landscape sensitive areas, as well as strategic planning for local government clients. I have appeared before the Tribunal and Panels on numerous occasions.
I have been employed at Hansen Partnership Pty Ltd since 1999 and became a Director of the firm in 2003 and a Fellow of PIA in 2019. A copy of my CV is included at Appendix 1 of this Statement.
Details of any other significant contributors to the statement I have been assisted by Mr Joel Schmetzer, Senior Town Planner at Hansen Partnership Pty Ltd.
Instructions that define the scope of the statement I have been engaged by YourLand Developments, representative of Maribyrnong Riverside Development Pty Ltd and Atlantic Link Pty Ltd, the owners of land at 14A Halong Drive and 71 Penna Avenue Sunshine North.
I have been instructed by Rigby Cooke Lawyers in writing on the 27 November 2020. My instructions were to:
Hansen Partnership Pty Ltd 1
“review our client’s submission and confirm whether you can support the submission on planning grounds.
Subject to your preliminary opinion, we will instruct you to prepare a witness statement within the scope of your expertise, and express your opinion as to whether the proposal is appropriate having regard to:
. Any regulatory framework applicable to the proposal which is within your expertise to examine and comment on; . Your own judgement and experience; and . Any other matter which you regard as relevant to the formulation of your opinion, stating clearly the basis of your views.”
Facts, matters and assumptions relied on in preparing the statement
In preparing this Statement I have:
. Inspected some of the area comprising 14A Halong Drive and viewed the land comprising 71 Penna Avenue from the existing industrial area adjoining the west side of the railway, as well as adjoining residential areas (around Halong Drive);
. Reviewed the current planning controls and policies relating to Melbourne Airport and the subject land in the Brimbank Planning Scheme, including Plan Melbourne 2017-2050;
. Reviewed the approved River Valley Estate Development Plan 2002, the Melbourne Airport Environs Strategy Plan 2003, the Brimbank Housing Strategy (Home and Housed) 2014, Melbourne Airport Master Plan 2018, The National Airports Safeguarding Framework (Principles, Guideline A);
. Researched planning provisions in other Planning Schemes relating to noise attenuation for specific uses of land; and
. Reviewed the submission prepared by Tract Consultants Pty Ltd (on behalf of YourLand Developments) to the Melbourne Airport Environs Safeguarding Standing Advisory Committee dated 2 October 2020.
Documents and materials used in preparing the statement
In preparing my Statement I have used the following documents:
. Brimbank Planning Scheme;
Hansen Partnership Pty Ltd 2
. Strategic Assessment Guidelines, Planning Practice Note 46, August 2018;
. Melbourne Airport Master Plan 2018;
. Melbourne Airport Environs Strategy Plan 2003;
. Principles and Guideline A (including Attachment) of the National Airports Safeguarding Framework;
. Plan Melbourne 2017-2050;
. River Valley Estate Development Plan 2002;
. Section173 Agreement X615755V made on the 16 March 2001; and
. Australian Standard AS2021-2025 (Acoustics – Aircraft Noise Intrusion – Building Siting and Construction.
Summary of opinion
It is my opinion that the submission on behalf of YourLand Developments, is strategically justified because:
. As a state significant transport gateway with significant economic and strategic advantages, the Melbourne Airport and its curfew-free status needs to be protected for the competitive advantage it provides to Melbourne and Victoria. Accordingly, planning decisions made on land within the Airport environs must include appropriate provisions to safeguard the operations of the Airport;
. The implications of aircraft noise on sensitive uses are of significant importance when planning for land around airports and within the Melbourne Airport Environs as this can lead to land use conflict and complaints from residents that can undermine the successful and long term operations of the Airport;
. It is important that an integrated and balanced approach is taken when planning for land surrounding airports and in areas exposed to aircraft noise that allows for the balancing of other important strategic planning outcomes such as providing housing and achieving urban consolidation outcomes supported in Plan Melbourne;
. The subject land is identified as a strategic development site within the Sunshine National Innovation and Employment Cluster (NEIC) in Plan Melbourne;
Hansen Partnership Pty Ltd 3
. The subject land will play an important role in ensuring Brimbank meets its housing targets in responding to the changing needs of its community by increasing the diversity and affordability of housing within a State significant location for employment and transport access;
. The density provision of Schedule 2 to the MAEO is a blunt and unsophisticated tool to manage the use and development of land within the Melbourne Airport Environs that does not allow for the consideration of strategic planning policies that support increased housing densities on sites that provide other desirable strategic outcomes such as urban consolidation. The application of MAEO2 makes no distinction between different strategic planning contexts of land that it affects; and
. A more sophisticated approach to regulating use and development within the area of the MAEO2 that relies on noise attenuation requirements in new development is a more appropriate tool, together with enhanced awareness of the Airport’s operations and potential impacts for people making the choice to live in the environs of the Airport. This could be in the form of additional provisions in the MAEO2 or a separate schedule to the MAEO that identifies land where there is a strategic imperative to develop such as the NEIC, activity centres and identified strategic development sites.
Hansen Partnership Pty Ltd 4
Sandra Rigo Director
email [email protected] I phone +61 3 9664 9825 I mobile + 61 418 530 210
Summary of Experience Sandra Rigo holds more than 25 years’ experience in statutory and strategic planning at a senior level in local government, and in the private sector at Hansen Partnership. Her experience encompasses all elements of the development approvals process for a wide range of land uses and develop- ments, including residential development, use and development of land in rural areas, assessment of proposals in heritage areas, coastal locations and other environmentally sensitive areas.
Sandra’s responsibilities include the preparation and presentation of development proposals in the public forum, liaison with relevant stakeholders (both private and public sector), conducting community consultation meetings, advocacy at VCAT and Panel Hearings and presentation of expert plan- ning evidence at VCAT and Panel Hearings. Her expertise extends to strategic planning projects, including built form reviews, urban character studies, structure plans and urban design framework plans. Responsibilities include coordinating and conducting community consultation programs and writing of planning policies and controls. Current Qualifications Director Bachelor of Planning and Design (Honours), Hansen Partnership University of Melbourne (1993) September 2003 – present Affiliations Experience ■ Planning Institute of Australia (PIA) - Fellow Hansen Partnership ■ Victorian Planning and Environmental Law Association (VPELA) – Member ■ Associate (August 2001 - August 2003) ■ Senior planner (August 1999 - August 2001) Specialisations Mornington Peninsula Shire Council ■■ VCAT and Planning Panels expert witness ■ Team leader development planning (June 1998 – July 1999) ■■ Residential infill development ■ Development planner – (February 1994 – June 1998) ■■ Land use and development in coastal areas ■■ Land use and development in green wedge and rural zones City of Caulfield ■■ Tourism and recreational development ■ Planning officer (April – July 1993)
urban planning I urban design I landscape architecture I www.hansenpartnership.com.au