North East Link

XURBAN XURBAN

North East Link

Landscape & Visual Assessment Allan Wyatt – Expert Evidence Statement

For: North East Link Project

July 2019 | Final

XURBAN

North East Link

Landscape & Visual Assessment Allan Wyatt – Expert Evidence Statement

Client North East Link Project

Project No 15100 Version Final

Signed

Approved by Allan Wyatt

Date 15 July 2019

XURBAN

Allan Wyatt – Expert Evidence Statement Landscape & Visual Assessment

XURBAN

Table of Contents

1. Introduction 1 Expert Evidence – Practice Note 1 Name & address 1 Qualifications & experience 1 People assisting 1 Instructions 2 Facts, matters and assumptions 2 Declaration 2 Further work 2 Summary of key issues, opinions and recommendations 2 Landscape impact 2 Visual impact 2 Recommendations 3

2. Public submissions 4

3. Methodology 5 Scale of effects 5 Single viewpoint 5 Project scale 6

4. Landscape setting 8 Landscape character areas 9 Loss of open space 10

5. Visual impact – publicly accessible locations 14 Number of viewpoints 14 Viewpoint locations 14 Yarra River 14 Eastern Freeway corridor 15 Koonung Creek 15

6. Visual impact – residential locations 16 Highly impacted residential properties 16 Medium impacted residential properties 17 Low impacted residential properties 17 Residential impacts 17

7. Design elements 19 Bridges and elevated structures 19 Ventilation structures 20 Landscape 20

Allan Wyatt – Expert Evidence Statement Landscape & Visual Assessment

XURBAN

Photomontage landscape 21 Loss of privacy 21

8. Project lighting 22 Existing lighting background 22 Light spill 22 Overall impact 22

9. Construction 23 Loss of parkland 23 Early planting 23

10. Request for further information 24 Mapping of affected properties 24 View lines to proposed structures 26 Photomontages 26 Wire frame imaging 26 Printer output scale 27 Extent of visual impact scale 27 Viewpoint selection 28 Visual impact of road portals 28

11. Conclusion 29 Landscape impact 29 Visual impact 29

Table of figures Figure 1 Panorama 5 Figure 2 80O field of view 6 Figure 3 Photomontage 6 Figure 4 Project Context (UDS, p3) 8 Figure 5 Landscape character areas (Technical Report H, p36) 9 Figure 6 Open space within each character area 10 Figure 7 Koonung Creek existing landscape 15 Figure 8 VPF Photomontage Year 0 (Technical Report H, p262) 16 Figure 9 Existing view across the rear boundary 16 Figure 10 VPJ (Technical Report H, p272) 17 Figure 11 VP46 Photomontage (Technical Report H, page104) 19 Figure 12 Mullum Mullum Creek ventilation structure (UDS, p88) 20 Figure 13 Photomontage reference photos Federation Square 27

Allan Wyatt – Expert Evidence Statement Landscape & Visual Assessment

XURBAN Annexures Annexure A Allan Wyatt – Curriculum vitae

Annexure B Instructions

Allan Wyatt – Expert Evidence Statement Landscape & Visual Assessment

XURBAN

1. Introduction The full findings of this study were included in the Environment Effects Statement (EES) in ‘Technical Report H – Landscape and Visual’, dated April 2019 and summarised in ‘Chapter 16 – Landscape and visual’ of the EES as well as Chapter 27 which included the environmental performance requirements (EPRs) and those applicable to landscape (LV1, LV2, LV3 and LV4).

The LVA was an iterative process, which both informed aspects of the Urban Design Strategy (UDS) as well as assessing the visual and landscape impacts of the project based upon the requirements and benchmarks set out in the UDS.

I adopt the Technical Report, in connection with this statement, as my written expert evidence for the purposes of the North East Link Inquiry and Advisory Committee’s inquiry into the environmental effects of the Project. I have further reviewed the environmental performance requirements relevant to my area of expertise.

Expert Evidence – Practice Note I acknowledge that I have read and complied with the Guide to Expert Evidence (dated April 2019). In compliance with this Guide, I provide the following information.

Name & address

Allan Wyatt – Landscape Architect XURBAN Suite 1103, 408 Lonsdale Street Melbourne, Victoria, 3000.

Qualifications & experience I am a registered Landscape Architect with over 30 years’ experience, and I have a Grad.Dip.L.D. from RMIT (1980) and I am a member of the Australian Institute of Landscape Architects.

I have given expert evidence on landscape, urban design and visual impact assessment at the former Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) and VCAT and provided expert evidence before panel hearings in Victoria. I have also given expert evidence before Planning Appeal bodies in NSW, South Australia, Tasmania, Queensland and New Zealand.

A Curriculum Vitae is attached as Annexure A to this report.

People assisting The LVA Allan Wyatt of XURBAN was the lead author and worked with Landscape Architects and Visual Assessment experts at GHD to undertake a Landscape and Visual Assessment (LVA) of the North East Link. People assisting in the preparation of the LVA included: • Laura Farrell – Senior Landscape Architect AILA, Landscape Strategy Consultant, GHD • Emma Davis – Senior Landscape Architect AILA, Landscape Strategy Consultant, GHD

These specialists, as well as members of the stakeholder communication and social teams were also involved in the selection of indicative viewpoints that were assessed in the LVA.

Allan Wyatt – Expert Evidence Statement 1

XURBAN

Some of the viewpoints were also identified by Councils, following the Technical Reference Group (TRG) meeting.

This report I was responsible for the preparation of this Expert Witness Statement (EWS) and sought assistance from GHD in the provision of GIS based areas as well as lengths etc used in this report. GHD and Urban Circus provided the photomontages used in the LVA and prepared the additional photomontages requested by the Panel.

Instructions Allan Wyatt of XURBAN has been engaged following the lodgement of the EES, by Clayton Utz acting on behalf of North East Link Project (NELP) to prepare an Expert Witness Statement which addresses the Technical Report and which responds to issues raised in the public submissions which raise issues concerning landscape and / or visual impact.

My instructions dated 28 May 2019 are attached to the Statement in Annexure B.

Facts, matters and assumptions I have received a copy of all the submissions on the EES as well as a summary of those submissions which were made in relation to landscape and visual impact. I have read the submissions and recategorized the themes that are applicable.

Declaration I have made all the inquiries that I believe are desirable and appropriate and no matters of significance which I regard as relevant have, to my knowledge, been withheld from the Panel.

Further work Since the preparation of the LVA I have sought areas of public open space that are impacted by the project, either during construction, or once the Project is operational.

Additional photomontages are also being prepared in line with the Panel’s request for photomontages from viewpoints which have a medium to high rating.

Summary of key issues, opinions and recommendations

Landscape impact The LVA assessed the impact of the temporary loss of parkland during construction as high and this rating is reflected in the concerns raised by submitters.

The LVA has also recognised that this is temporary, albeit for up to seven years, and that the areas of parkland lost are much less once construction is completed.

The LVA and UDS have also suggested strategies for some immediate mitigation measures during construction.

After construction, the creation of additional parkland in the land bridges and the rehabilitation of construction areas will return much of the alienated land to the community.

Visual impact One concern, that is not supported by the assessment, is the notion that significant visual impacts accrue because of the width of the Project when viewed in the project documents where it appears as from a birds-eye view.

Allan Wyatt – Expert Evidence Statement 2

XURBAN

When viewing the Project from ground-based viewpoints the impact is often that of the closest noise wall. These are generally no higher that a two or three storey building and well within the range of vegetation to filter and screen views.

Also, when one travels a short distance from the Project’s edge, intervening vegetation, built form and topography can and will screen most views. The immediate impact is greatest from immediately adjoining residential properties and roadways.

The impact from existing open space depends upon the extent of planting between the viewer and the noise wall. The most un-screened views are those across sporting fields or other large open expanses of grass.

Recommendations Two recommendations arise from this work and the response to submissions. These are:

• Ensure that any section of Koonung Creek that is not under the roadway (where a culvert will be required) is re-created as a naturalistic creek environment.

• Ensure that in sections where canopy trees cannot be used to screen noise walls that creepers be considered as a potential visual mitigation measure.

Allan Wyatt – Expert Evidence Statement 3

XURBAN

2. Public submissions I have reviewed the public submissions and the key themes that arise from these submissions are:

• Concerns/comment about adequacy and/or accuracy of assessment and the methodology. • Concerns/comment about characterisation of landscape setting and the visual character of the area. • Concerns/comment about visual impacts from open space areas. • Concerns/comment about visual impacts from residential areas. • Concerns/comment about design elements and urban design treatments and particularly about the visual impacts of ventilation structures. There were also concerns/comment about visual impacts of bridges and elevated structures, including concerns about loss of privacy. • Concerns/comment about visual impacts associated with project lighting. • Concerns/comment about visual impacts during construction including from construction compounds and light spill.

Allan Wyatt – Expert Evidence Statement 4

XURBAN

3. Methodology The individual submissions which referred to methodological issues included submissions numbered 143, 299, 304, 311, 316, 514, 546, 722, 729 and 800.

The methodology used in the assessment is set out in the Technical Report and Chapter 16 of the EES and I do not intend to repeat the same information.

Scale of effects The four criteria which are assessed for each publicly accessible viewpoint are: • Viewer numbers. • Visibility • Distance • Landscape character & viewer sensitivity.

The criteria for the assessment of a private viewpoint does not include viewer numbers and the sensitivity is always rated as ‘high’. These four criteria need to be considered in the assessment of each viewpoint. However, the ratings of each criterion are not numerically based and cannot be simply added together and averaged to arrive at an overall rating. There was a concern that the scale of effects was “skewed” in that a single ”low” rating would reduce the visual impact, even if other factors were rated as “high”. An explanation as to the reasoning behind this statement is to consider a viewpoint where, for example, the visibility is ‘high’, the distance is close, therefore this also rated as ‘high’ and the landscape / viewer sensitivity is also rated as ‘high’, but the viewer numbers are ‘low’, then the overall assessment is reduced to ‘low’ as few people would be able to perceive the Project.

Similar results are obtained where there is no visibility, but other ratings are ‘high’. Or where the distance is so great the Project, even though visible, is such a small component in the view that the overall visual impact is reduced to ‘low’.

These are simple examples, but in the viewpoints used within the LVA, the assessment also is one of judgement, balancing each factor.

Single viewpoint Concerns were raised that the single fixed viewpoint used in the assessment is not representative of the full field of view of a person able to swing around and take in a 360O panorama, or simply swivel their head from side to side to see at least 180O. This is correct, viewers can rotate and see a wider field of view than shown in the photomontages and photographs within the LVA.

However, if photographs with a wide field of view are used in an assessment these minimise the apparent impact. This is best shown in an example which is VP36, at Carey Bulleen Sports Complex. When comparing Figure 1 (a panoramic view) with Figure 2, an 80O field of view, it is apparent that in Figure 1 the landscape elements appear smaller.

Figure 1 Panorama

Allan Wyatt – Expert Evidence Statement 5

XURBAN

Figure 2 80O field of view

The landscape context is not lost in Figure 2. It is actually a better representation of what a viewer would see. The same field of view was used in the photomontages.

Figure 3 Photomontage

In the LVA, the assessment is focused on a view that tries to represent the ‘worst case’ by using a component of the panoramic view along a view line of greatest impact and is therefore a conservative way to assess the visual impact. In the example above (at Year 0), the noise walls and the elevated road were shown with minimal landscape treatment and the proposed ventilation structure is visible above the trees on the left.

Some viewpoints are not ‘worst case’ but are representative of important publicly accessible locations and, in some cases, these are at the periphery of the viewshed.

Project scale Concerns were raised that the assessments could not be correct because of the aerial scale of the Project, that seventeen lanes, for example, must be visually dominant and therefore the methodology is incorrect.

In fact, the assessments often show that the only component visible will be the nearest noise wall and these are of a scale that can be screened by intervening built form and landscape. Obviously, the proposed ventilation structures and fly-overs will be larger and these have been assessed accordingly.

It is important to understand that the scale of the Project shown in aerial views does not directly correlate with the visual impact. That being true, it is recognised that there is a landscape impact correlated with the size of the Project and that is open space impacts which include the reduction in parkland.

For example, in the Yarra River Valley Character Area it is recognised that 34,700 m2 of open space would be lost, whilst there may be opportunities to increase open space around the interchange (Appendix H, p105). In the Koonung Creek Valley precinct 127,000 m2 of open

Allan Wyatt – Expert Evidence Statement 6

XURBAN space would be lost (Appendix H, p170) and in the Ridgeline Character Area 20,600 m2 would be lost (Appendix H, p244).

These figures do not take into account the creation of usable open space in land bridges and in other opportunities.

The reference design included the objective of “minimising the construction footprint, with one of the key objectives of the project being to minimise impacts to private properties and open space where practical” (Ch 16 Landscape & Visual, p16-14).

The LVA does recognise that “a key objective for the project is to minimise impacts on communities … widening of the Eastern Freeway has been limited to protect the adjoining public open space” (Appendix H, p106, p171). The guiding principle (EES, Chapter 1, Table 1-2) includes the minimisation of “impact on communities” which has led to the creation of a road corridor where landscape opportunities are limited.

Allan Wyatt – Expert Evidence Statement 7

XURBAN

4. Landscape setting The individual submissions which raised concerns regarding landscape setting included a submission numbered 646 as well as mentions in submissions numbered 143, 299, 304, 311, 316, 514, 546, 722, 729 and 800.

The North East Link would connect the Metropolitan Ring Road to the Eastern Freeway and include works along the Eastern Freeway from near Hoddle Street to Springvale Road. The proposed Freeway and alterations to the existing Eastern Freeway are approximately 32 km in length and comprises a section of tunnel as well as above ground sections on grade, in a elevated viaduct or in open cut. The breakdown of the project is: • Underground 6.2 km • Surface 22.1 km • Viaduct Structure 2.4 km • Open Cut 1.5 km

The project context is shown in Figure 4.

Figure 4 Project Context (UDS, p3)

It is apparent in Figure 4 that sections of the project to the west and south parallel and cross the Yarra River, whilst the sections of the project to the east are aligned with Koonung Creek. The Project to the north of the Yarra is in the undulating hills of the City of Banyule.

The landscape character areas were also based on the differing geology, topography and waterways, vegetation coverage and land use which were analysed in the EES (Appendix H, p30 -36). The UDS also uses the same landscape character areas (UDS, p23).

Allan Wyatt – Expert Evidence Statement 8

XURBAN Landscape character areas The three Landscape character areas through which the Project passes are: • Ridgeline • Yarra River Valley • Koonung Creek Valley

Figure 5 Landscape character areas (Technical Report H, p36)

These landscape character areas are responsive to the scale of the Project and the landscapes through which it passes. There was a concern that the neighbourhood character areas in the various Planning Schemes may have been appropriate, however, these are designed to guide the construction of small-scale built form within established communities. Such small-scale neighbourhood character areas are not appropriate when looking at a large infrastructure project such as the North East Link.

The Project is aligned, for a large proportion of the project, with waterways and these have been a particular focus in the state and local planning schemes.

The Melbourne Water submission acknowledged that “significant impacts will be reduced if the final design meets the Urban Design Strategy outcomes and the EPRs”.

Allan Wyatt – Expert Evidence Statement 9

XURBAN Loss of open space The loss of open space during construction and when the project is operational was a concern in submissions. The location of the open space within each character area is shown on Figure 6.

Figure 6 Open space within each character area

The data (areas and percentages) in the tables on the following pages are based on information provided by GHD, which in turn have relied upon the DELWP data base.

Allan Wyatt – Expert Evidence Statement 10

XURBAN

Table 1 shows the areas of open space in the Yarra River Valley character area as a percentage of the total open space shown in Figure 6.

Table 1 Open space – Yarra River Valley character area

Parkland Area Construction Operation

Banksia Park 346,200m2 14% 0%

Bulleen Park 344,400m2 15% 7%

Columba Street Reserve 37,600m2 5% 0%

Creekbend Reserve 58,000m2 24% 1%

Dights Falls Reserve 18,100m2 2% 0%

Fairlea Reserve 19,900m2 25% 4%

Gray Street Reserve 500m2 51% 0%

Jack O’Tool Reserve 14,000m2 32% 0%

Kate Campbell Reserve 17,700m2 15% 0%

Leonis Avenue Reserve 10,600m2 99% 5%

Maugie Street Reserve 2,200m2 100% 0%

Muscat Street Reserve 90,700m2 50% 0%

Unnamed reserve (behind the 30,500m2 100% 35% Boroondara Tennis Centre, bordered the Bulleen Swim Centre)

Unnamed reserve (eastern side of 200m2 48% 0% Bulleen Rd between Avon St and Golden Way)

Unnamed reserve (following the 700m2 100% 0% western side of Bulleen Rd, from Ilma Ct following the residential area)

Unnamed reserve (eastern side of 1,100m2 58% 1% Bulleen Rd, between Golden Way and the Trinity Sports Complex)

Unnamed reserve (western side of 300m2 100% 0% Bulleen Road, between Tao's restaurant and Ilma Ct)

Yarra Bend Park 2,476,700m2 3% 0%

Yarra Flats (Northern) 857,600m2 2% 0%

Yarra Flats (Southern) 45,400m2 17% 0%

Allan Wyatt – Expert Evidence Statement 11

XURBAN

Table 2 shows the areas of open space in the Koonung Creek Valley character area as a percentage of the total open space shown in Figure 6.

Table 2 Open space – Koonung Creek Valley character area

Parkland Area Construction Operation

Boronia Grove Reserve 68,200m2 23% 0%

Eastern Freeway Linear Reserve 186,400m2 65% 1%

Elgar Park 241,100m2 43% 9%

Frank Sedgman Reserve 18,200m2 10% 0%

Katrina Street Reserve 21,300m2 18% 0%

Koonung Creek Linear Park 181,200m2 60% 8% (Doncaster/Donvale/Box Hill North)

Koonung Creek Linear Park (Blackburn 134,000m2 48% 9% North)

Koonung Creek Reserve (Balwyn North) 328,100m2 83% 19%

Koonung Creek Reserve (Doncaster 123,200m2 19% 0% East/Blackburn North)

Koonung Reserve 109,500m2 64% 14%

Park Avenue Reserve 15,100m2 27% 3%

Pipeline Reserve 3,000m2 3% 0%

Stanton Street Reserve 600m2 100% 4%

Tram Road Reserve 30,400m2 12% 2%

Unnamed reserve located south of 800m2 100% 49% Doncaster Road, between Hender Street to the east and the Eastern Freeway to the west (643082)

Unnamed reserve to the north of Earl 11,900m2 1% 0% Street, between Peel Street to the east and Princess Street to the west (998876)

Allan Wyatt – Expert Evidence Statement 12

XURBAN

Table 3 shows the areas of open space in the Ridgeline character area as a percentage of the total open space shown in Figure 6.

Table 3 Open space – Ridgeline character area

Parkland Area Construction Operation

A K Lines Reserve 54,300m2 96% 3%

Borlase Reserve 26,600m2 100% 58%

Frensham SEC Reserve 11,000m2 100% 5%

Gabonia Avenue Reserve 38,800m2 94% 0%

Gillingham Reserve 3,500m2 26% 4%

Trist Street Reserve 3,300m2 100% 4%

Unnamed reserve in power easement 2,400m2 100% 0% west of Watsonia Station

Unnamed reserve located at 48A 200m2 100% 0% Sellars Street in watsonia North, in the road reserve area of the Greensborough Highway (PFI: 642652)

Watsonia Road Reserve 2,500m2 100% 20%

Watsonia Station Carpark Reserve 3,200m2 100% 76%

Winsor Reserve 25,200m2 95% 0%

The Figures in the tables show that there will be a loss of open space during construction and that this will reduce greatly when the project becomes operational.

Allan Wyatt – Expert Evidence Statement 13

XURBAN

5. Visual impact – publicly accessible locations

The individual submissions which referred to the visual impact from publicly accessible locations included submissions numbered 3, 82, 153, 194, 226, 240, 316, 351, 418, 461, 611, 694, 717, 718, 809 and 855.

The three character areas (Yarra River Valley, Koonung Creek Valley, and Ridgeline) allowed grouping of viewpoints which formed the basis of the LVA assessment. The assessment was both based on individual viewpoints as well as the recognition that the removal of open space was also part of the impact. This has been discussed previously in the EWS, refer ‘Project Scale’.

Viewpoints were selected in the public domain from both public open space areas and from the local road network. In the LVA 22 viewpoints were assessed within the Yarra River Valley character area, 23 viewpoints within the Koonung Creek Valley character area and 24 viewpoints within the Ridgeline Character Area.

Number of viewpoints

There was a concern about the number of viewpoints and their selection.

For example, there was no viewpoint within Yarra Flats Park, however there was a viewpoint at a closer location in Bulleen Park (VP35). Therefore, whilst I would agree that some locations do not have a viewpoint, nonetheless the viewpoint locations are representative of the impacts of the Project on the open space and road network surrounding the Project.

The number selected are sufficient to understand the proposed landscape and visual impact, however it is recognised that there are locations that do not have a Viewpoint assessment.

Viewpoint locations

There was also a concern that a number of viewpoints were at some distance from the Project. In many cases this was deliberate, as moving further back from foreground vegetation allowed a view of higher objects such as the ventilation structures, which were largely screened by intervening vegetation from closer viewing locations. It was always the intention that the assessment be conservative.

Yarra River

There are concerns regarding the impact on the Yarra River. The road design has placed much of the new freeway in the Yarra River corridor in a tunnel. The section of the proposed freeway from the northern portal to the southern portal is placed underground and it is the ventilation structures and portals which would be the visible elements of the Project once completed. These elements will be discussed later in this report.

The land bridges, to the north of the tunnel, also provide open space opportunities.

However, as acknowledged earlier in this statement, there is a loss of parkland brought about by the Project and where this is evident it will be rated as a ‘high’ level of landscape and visual impact.

Allan Wyatt – Expert Evidence Statement 14

XURBAN Eastern Freeway corridor There is a concern that the loss of existing vegetation along the Eastern Freeway has not been assessed. This was assessed. “The Eastern Freeway Upgrades would also greatly alter the existing freeway landscape character” (Appendix H, p106).

It was an aim of the Project to minimise land acquisition and to reinstate the existing landscape character of the Eastern Freeway would have required a larger road corridor and therefore a larger impact on adjoining parklands. This decision to minimise land acquisition has led to reduced landscape opportunities within the proposed freeway corridor, in comparison with the landscape buffers on the existing freeway. The use of the existing landscape buffers has led to the removal of the existing vegetation and there is not room in the proposed corridor for its reinstatement.

This is recognised in the LVA.

Koonung Creek There was a concern that the impact of the Project on sections of Koonung Creek was great. This is confirmed by the assessment, for example VP58, which acknowledges that the impact would be ‘High’ at Year 0 as well as at Year 10.

Figure 7 Koonung Creek existing landscape

This is a result of the visual prominence of the noise wall and overpass as well as the removal of vegetation and particularly the removal of the re-created creek-side parkland which includes a recently constructed boardwalk that is located within a construction area. This will probably be removed, but re-constructed after the completion in accordance with the UDS.

At some other locations within the Koonung Creek character area, the visual impact is far less. This range of impacts is represented by the selected viewpoints.

The placement of the re-created creek within a culvert is not an advantageous or aesthetic solution. The existing creek is a man-made creek on a new alignment which was created following the existing freeway creation and shows how an ordinary culvert can be transformed into an attractive landscape which can appear as a remnant pre-European settlement landscape.

Recommendation Ensure that any section of Koonung Creek that is not under the roadway (where a culvert will be required) is re-created as a naturalistic creek environment.

Allan Wyatt – Expert Evidence Statement 15

XURBAN

6. Visual impact – residential locations

The individual submissions which referred to concerns relating to the visual impact from residential properties included submissions numbered 21, 25, 40, 54, 135, 173, 174, 175, 178, 217, 225, 232, 240, 247, 284, 298, 309, 398, 436,442, 451, 498, 512, 588, 589, 596, 619, 638, 651, 708, 720, 734, 740, 793, 795, 809, 815, 816, 818, 841, 850, 858 and 862.

Twelve viewpoints were examined to understand the impact of the Project on the private domain, particularly from houses in close proximity to the Project.

There were a number of submissions that were concerned about the removal of vegetation and the reduced setback of the noise wall to existing residential private open spaces as well as the assessment.

Highly impacted residential properties

Where properties are in close proximity to the noise wall, and this is unfiltered by vegetation, the impact was assessed as high.

Even at Year 10 the proposed landscaping would only partially screen some sections of the noise wall and the visual and landscape impact is still rated as high.

For example, VPF (Appendix H, p263) shows that the noise wall would remain a dominant element in the view from the front yard.

Figure 8 VPF Photomontage Year 0 (Technical Report H, p262)

In VPF it is recognised that the view will be greatly changed and intervening landscape will have a minimal impact.

In VPL (Technical Report H, p279) it is recognised that the visual impact may reduce over time. The main impact is the removal of existing vegetation that is within the easement of the existing Eastern freeway and the increased height of the proposed noise wall.

Figure 9 Existing view across the rear boundary

Allan Wyatt – Expert Evidence Statement 16

XURBAN

Urban design treatments of the proposed noise wall, which could also include creepers (either self-adhering or on wire supports), as well as landscaping within affected properties, are the only methods to reduce the visual impact. Figure 9 also shows an example of creepers on the existing rear fence.

Medium impacted residential properties In some instances, the existing freeway is sited on the opposite side of a local road. The proposed noise walls will remove some of the vegetation, however, views to the new noise wall may be partially screened by existing vegetation.

Such an example is shown in Figure 10.

Figure 10 VPJ (Technical Report H, p272)

Low impacted residential properties

The noise wall is relatively easily screened across a residential neighbourhood by intervening built form and vegetation and therefore the most impacted residential properties are those immediately adjacent to the freeway corridor or directly across a main road. Properties further removed would not be impacted visually by the Project.

Similarly, some houses have dense screen vegetation within the privately-owned properties adjacent to the freeway corridor. The Project will have a low visual impact on such properties, although existing vegetation will be removed in the road corridor, the vegetation in some properties is still sufficient to screen views to the proposed noise wall, although it will be located closer to the residential boundary.

Residential impacts

The impacts assessed as part of the LVA do represent the range of visual and landscape impacts that can be expected along both the existing Eastern Freeway reservation and along new section of the Project.

The most impacted properties could be defined as: • Noise wall and shared use path with not enough space either side to screen the noise wall with vegetation beyond the rear property boundary fence • Proposed noise wall with 5 m of space or less from rear property boundary fence, therefore limiting the potential for intervening screening vegetation. • Noise wall on rear property boundary fence with no ability to screen the noise wall on public land.

Allan Wyatt – Expert Evidence Statement 17

XURBAN

Based on these assumptions, the approximate numbers of residential properties Impacted per landscape character area were provided by GHD and are as follows: • Yarra River Valley – 0 • Koonung Creek Valley – 41 • Ridgeline – 67

Given that the Project is approximately 32 km in length these numbers are quite low.

Allan Wyatt – Expert Evidence Statement 18

XURBAN

7. Design elements

The LVA was, as stated earlier, a document that was a result of an iterative process which was developed in parallel with the Urban Design Strategy (UDS).

As potential landscape and visual impacts were identified, the UDS was modified to include design guidance which would assist in reducing impact. This included, but was not limited to, design and built form options as well as planting and landscape guidance. They included changes to the noise wall from a solid structure to perspex panels in certain locations (eg VP40) and the creation of visually permeable bridges such as that shown in Figure 11.

This iterative process led to Performance Requirements that would improve the final built form and landscape response. The final assessment of the visual and landscape impact was of a project that incorporated the elements within the UDS.

Bridges and elevated structures

There was a concern that bridges and elevated structures would appear dominant or be visually unappealing. Submissions which raised concerns regarding bridges and elevated structures included 114, 192, 193, 194, 196, 247, 415, 418, 453, 498, 546, 557, 586, 617, 651, 653, 663, 707, 738, 784 and 862.

The UDS seeks to ensure that bridges and other elevated structures will be of a high-quality standard’ and seek to ‘minimise visual bulk’. The modelling of these elevated structures in the photomontages showed indicative examples of how such structures could appear. For example, in VP46 the shared use bridge was modelled as a light steel structure.

Figure 11 VP46 Photomontage (Technical Report H, page104)

The lightweight steel structure shown on the photomontage is an example of how the final design could respond to the UDS.

Allan Wyatt – Expert Evidence Statement 19

XURBAN Ventilation structures

There was a concern regarding the visual impact of the ventilation structures and submissions which raised these concerns included 340, 451, 453, 533, 601, 655, 718 and 728.

The height of ventilation structures could be up to 40 m in height and the areas from which they could be visible would extend 4.5 km from the structure (Technical Report H, page26). These ventilation structures will be the tallest components within the Project.

The ventilation structure at the Mullum Mullum Tunnel in East Link shows an example where such a structure is an art form and an attractive piece of urban sculpture.

Figure 12 Mullum Mullum Creek ventilation structure (UDS, p88)

Such an example sets the standard for those structures within the Project and if they are constructed as pieces of urban art then, even though visible, they will be an attractive element in the landscape.

Landscape

In the LVA and the UDS, landscaping is proposed where practical to filter views to the proposed noise walls. In time this landscaping will achieve heights that can screen or filter views to both noise walls and to the elevated sections of the road.

There was a concern regarding growth rates, however rates of 1m/year have been achieved on many other projects for which I have prepared landscape plans. Typically, better growth rates than 1m/year have been achieved where deep ripping has been part of the preparation.

Vegetation can also include creepers (either self-adhering or on wire supports) to “green” the wall (UDS, p108). This landscape treatment of self-adhering creepers is particularly effective where in situations where trees cannot be established as there is insufficient room for planting and the noise wall is in close proximity to a residential or parkland viewpoint. For example, in locations where rear fences and a proposed noise wall is viewed from the neighbouring residential property, it may be appropriate to consider landscaping with creepers on the surface of the noise wall. Such a soft landscape treatment will also prevent graffiti.

Allan Wyatt – Expert Evidence Statement 20

XURBAN

In many situations, creepers such as the Climbing Fig (Ficus pumila) and Virginia Creeper / Boston Ivy (Parthenociussus spp.) may be more appropriate than indigenous creepers which require support and tend to eventually have all their foliage at a high level and the lower sections of the wall would be left covered with bare branches.

Recommendation Ensure that in sections where canopy trees cannot be used to screen noise walls, that creepers (self-adhering or supported) be considered as a potential visual mitigation measure

Photomontage landscape

The photomontages show landscape treatments at Year 10 (and Year 3 for residential properties) and when preparing these photomontages assumptions had to be made as to the appropriate landscape response. The landscape shown on the photomontages is generally native planting at irregular centres and assumes a growth rate of approximately 1m per year.

Loss of privacy

Overlooking was not covered within the LVA, however this was considered in EPR LV1 “Avoid or minimise landscape and visual, overlooking, and shading (with reference to EPR LP4) impacts in extent, duration and intensity.” (LVA, p283).

Privacy and overlooking was also mentioned in the Social Report (Technical Report I, p182 and p185).

Allan Wyatt – Expert Evidence Statement 21

XURBAN

8. Project lighting There were concerns raised about the impact of lighting. Submissions that raised these concerns included those numbered 35, 235, 316, 380, 398, 453, 498, 504, 565, 594, 608, 643, 663, 752 and 784. Concerns were raised about potential light pollution and the UDS does seek solutions for lighting to minimise light pollution (p95).

Existing lighting background The Project is located in an urban environment where streetlights and car headlights are common elements. In this background, the majority of the lighting will not create a new source of lighting in a residential area.

Light spill Light spill will be minimised by the light selection which also ensures that the majority of the light emitted by the selected lighting will be focused on the road and the immediate road corridor as required for safety. Light concerns also included lighting on overpasses which will be addressed as part of the Project’s detail design.

Overall impact Although lights may be visible for some distance, they must be assessed as part of this urban environment that does already contain lights, both static and moving. Some lighting associated with freeways has, in past projects such as the Eastern Freeway, become a feature that is appreciated by the community (refer UDS, Fig.51, p95).

Allan Wyatt – Expert Evidence Statement 22

XURBAN

9. Construction There were concerns raised about construction impact in submissions numbered 35, 235, 316, 380, 398, 453, 498, 504, 565, 594, 608, 643, 663, 752, 784.

Construction compounds and activity may be operational for seven years and the LVA recognises that the construction impact, for example, in the Ridgeline Character Area and especially from viewpoints near Simpson Barracks would have a medium to high level of visual impact.

Loss of parkland There was a concern that the construction compounds and associated requirements for lay down areas will take away community open space for the period of construction.

These areas are not finalised, but it is recognised that this temporary loss will create a high to medium level of visual and landscape impact. The areas impacted by construction activities are given in the LVA and are: • Yarra River Valley character area **331,300 m2 • Koonung Creek Valley character area 795,800 m2 (Appendix H, p170). • Ridgeline character area 162,700 m2 (Appendix H, p243). ** This figure has been adjusted since the LVA which incorrectly stated an area of 311,200 m2 (Appendix H, p105).

These are significant areas that will be temporarily lost during construction and that impact is recognised within the LVA.

Early planting These significant impacts of construction visibility and parkland loss can be partly reduced if early planting, recommended in the UDS (p108) is implemented. For example, if planting could be introduced along Greensborough Road in a strip between the construction fence and the road, then this planting could reduce the visual impact of the construction zone much faster than if the commencement of landscaping was left until project completion. I am not suggesting that this will be the equivalent of the existing view, but it is a measure that will reduce the visual impact.

This strategy is discussed in the LVA, which states that “temporary landscaping could be installed to soften and filter views to construction compounds” (Appendix H, p243).

This is also the intention of the design strategy in the UDS which recommends that “Early landscape buffer and tree planting is used to optimise growth and ability to enhance amenity and provide visual screening (where practical and appropriate).” (UDS, p108).

Allan Wyatt – Expert Evidence Statement 23

XURBAN

10. Request for further information The panel requested further information. Areas that would be within the context of this report are: 5.1.3 Mapping of affected properties 23 Confirmation of the extent of correlation between the properties referred to in that table and the properties for which photomontages or section drawings were prepared in Technical Report H (Landscape and Visual). 5.1.4 View lines to proposed structures 24 A selection of photomontages from ‘worst case’ vantage points where only illustrative cross sections have been provided to date and Technical Report H has assessed the visual impact at year 0 to be ‘medium’ or above.

25 Confirmation of whether ‘wire’ imaging is available to indicate the location and height of modelled infrastructure behind existing structures or revegetation for photomontages included in Technical Report H.

26 An indication of what printer output scale is most representative of human perception for the photomontages, for example A0 size paper.

5.1.4 Extent of visual impact scale 27 Confirmation of the source of this rating methodology (such as a relevant guideline, manual or the like) and an analysis of how this methodology has been applied by relevant court, panel or tribunal decisions.

Viewpoints p28 How were viewpoints for the photomontages selected?

Road portals p30 Has the visual impact of the road portals been assessed?

These are dealt with in turn in the following sections of this chapter.

Mapping of affected properties The Panel requested “Confirmation of the extent of correlation between the properties referred to in that table and the properties for which photomontages or section drawings were prepared in Technical Report H (Landscape and Visual)”.

The Table below lists the locations that were referred to in Table 10-1 in the Social Report and the viewpoints that were analysed as part of the LVA.

Allan Wyatt – Expert Evidence Statement 24

XURBAN

Table 4 Social report and LVA - correlation

Location in Social Report Viewpoints in LVA

M80 Ring Road to northern portal

Residential properties directly adjacent to VP1 - Healy Court, Bundoora the project boundary along the M80 Ring VP2 - Killarney Ridge, Greensborough Road such as Healy Court and Killarney Ridge VPA - Marcona Street, Watsonia North

Residential properties at the M80 Ring VP4 - Gillingham Street, Watsonia North; Road interchange in the south-west and VP5 - Greensborough Bypass shared use south-east, including Gillingham Street path adjacent to M80 Ring Road interchange; VP6 - Open space adjacent to Sellars Street, Watsonia North; VPB - Sellars Street, Watsonia North Adjacent residential properties at Nearest VP's include: Grimshaw Street VP8 - the Corner Hamlet Street and Saxon Court, Greensborough Residential properties along VP10 - Greensborough Road, north of Greensborough Road to the east, Teresa Street including Service Road and Kay Court VP15 - Service Road, Watsonia VP21 - Kay Court; VP22 - Borlase Street, Yallambie; VPC - Watson Street, Macleod Residential properties along VP17 - Greensborough Road, adjacent to Greensborough Road to the west between Simpson Barracks, Macleod; Yallambie Road and Lower Plenty Road VP18 - Fairlie Avenue, Macleod; VP20 - Strathallan Road, Macleod; VPD - Baptcare Strathalan, Upper Boronia Crescent, Macleod Northern portal to southern portal

Residential properties along VP10 - Greensborough Road, north of Greensborough Road to the east Teresa Street VP15 - Service Road, Watsonia VP22 - Borlase Street, Yallambie VPC - Watson Street, Macleod Residential properties directly adjacent to VP18 - Fairlie Avenue, Macleod the northern portal to the east and west, VP20 - Strathallan Road, Macleod due to loss of Borlase Reserve altering the character of the existing landscape. These VPD - Baptcare Strathalan, Upper Boronia include residents living on Borlase Street Crescent, Macleod and residential properties to the south- VP21 - Kay Court, Yallambie west and south-east at the Eastern VP22 - Borlase Street, Yallambie Freeway interchange, including Highview Road and Bulleen Road NOTE: Red text looks to be southern portal VP48 - Highview Road, Balwyn North VP49 - Mountain View Road, Balwyn North VPF - Mountain View Road, Balwyn North VP40 - Columba Street, Balwyn North

Allan Wyatt – Expert Evidence Statement 25

XURBAN

Eastern Freeway

Properties directly adjacent to the project VP40 - Columba Street, Balwyn North boundary on the south along the Eastern VP43 - Kellett Grove, Kew Freeway, including Columba Street and Eram Road (Box Hill North) VP44 - Vaughan Crescent, Kew VP48 - Highview Road, Balwyn North VP49 - Mountain View Road, Balwyn Road VP63 - Frank Sedgeman Reserve VP67 - Middlefield Drive and Koonung Road, Blackburn North VPF - Mountain View Road, Balwyn North VPG - Jocelyn Avenue, Balwyn North VPJ - Lyndhurst Crescent, Box Hill North VPK - Eram Road, Box Hill North VPL - Douglas Street, Blackburn North

The impact in the social report was defined as “Direct views of new infrastructure, such as new noise walls, viaducts or elevated road corridor” and this was based on the analysis undertaken as part of the LVA.

The table in the Social Report also includes references to lighting impacts and these were not accessed on a viewpoint basis, but the impacts are discussed generally in the LVA in section 9.6, page 282.

Although referred to in the LVA (Section 9.5, p281) overshadowing impacts are addressed in the Land Use and Planning Report (Technical Report E, p68-69).

View lines to proposed structures

Photomontages Additional photomontages are being prepared by Urban Circus and these will be included in an Appendix to be prepared when these photomontages are completed.

Wire frame imaging A selection of images outlining project structures, where obscured behind existing structures or vegetation at an example set of locations, can be prepared, if so desired by the Panel.

Wire frame imaging is typically prepared when using 3DSMax as a verification tool as it enables the reviewer to see the correlation between contours, clumps of trees, fence lines etc in the model and therefore there is a degree of certainty that modelled elements in the view (ie wind turbines) are correctly located and at the proper scale.

Whilst following a standard process including the use of 3DSMAX, the methodology used by North East Link Project and Urban Circus to prepare the photomontages included; cross referencing georeferenced survey inputs of vegetation and built form with the georeferenced reference project information and reviewing this with the relevant specialists. Therefore, this did not result in the preparation of wire frame imagery.

As the methodology was different, wire frame images were not provided in the LVA.

Allan Wyatt – Expert Evidence Statement 26

XURBAN

Printer output scale It is recognised that the small photographs and the A3 photomontages included within this assessment whilst technically accurate, are not perceptually accurate. The A3 images, which are appended to the LVA, are clearer than the smaller images in the text, as these are larger.

A0 photomontages provide a clear indication of the actual visual impact – these are perceptually accurate. This opinion is based on a site visit to Federation Square where the building in the south western corner was photographed from a distance of approximately 50 m (refer Figure 13). This building is not dissimilar in scale to the height of the noise walls and the viewing distance was approximately that of many of the viewpoints which tended to be much closer to those noise walls than has been the case in other visual assessments of larger infrastructure.

Figure 13 Photomontage reference photos Federation Square

These photographs were then printed on an A0 sheet and I returned to the site from which they were taken and compared print outs that comprised a 50O, 60O, 70O, 80 O 90 O and 100 O field of view on a A0 sheet, with the actual view. At this distance the 80O field of view was the best representation and was adopted as the basis for the field of view used for the photomontages within the LVA.

Extent of visual impact scale The methodology and the scale of effects is discussed earlier in Chapter 3 of this report.

This scale of effects or similar has been used for many years and presented to courts in New Zealand and in most Australian jurisdictions. The scale of effects has been influenced by the British Guidelines (both current and past) as well as by past projects in New Zealand.

The description of ‘Negligible’ is identical to an earlier NZ court direction on the NZ Scale of Effects which defined a rating of ‘De minimis’ using the same terms as I define “Negligible”.

In essence all Visual Assessment Guidelines rate visual impact on a scale – many guidelines do not attempt to define the terms of this scale and earlier guidelines did not recognise that a visual change could be ‘Positive’. The current British Landscape Institute Guidelines do not define the scale, but include the following recommendation:

3.34 When drawing a distinction between levels of significance is required (beyond significant/not significant) a word scale for degrees of significance can be used (for example a four-point scale of major/moderate/minor/negligible). Descriptions should be provided for each of the categories to make clear what they mean, (my underlining) as well as a clear explanation of which categories are considered to be significant and which are not. It should also be made clear that effects not considered to be significant will not be completely disregarded. (Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, Third Edition, Landscape Institute and Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment, 2013).

A current New Zealand guideline, prepared by the New Zealand Traffic Authority (NZTA), also suggests a scale of effects.

Allan Wyatt – Expert Evidence Statement 27

XURBAN

Evaluate the magnitude of the effect. Magnitude is influenced by variables, for example the dimensions of a cut batter, distance from a viewpoint, extent of screening. Use a relative scale to rank magnitude, but always give the reasons to justify the ranking. The following 5 point scale is suggested: It is symmetrical around a ‘moderate’ middle score, uses neutral (‘objective’) descriptors, and can be used for a range of effects or other purposes. LOW MODERATELOW MODERATE MODERATEHIGH HIGH: (NZTA Landscape and Visual Assessment Guidelines, p106).

This rating scale does not recognise “Positive” on “Nil” as a potential impact, nor does the guideline define the scores besides defining “Moderate” as a middle score.

Many assessment guidelines recommend transparency in how the assessments were achieved and this should include an explanation of the rating scale as used within the LVA.

Viewpoint selection How were the viewpoints for the photomontages selected? (p28)

The viewpoint selection process was discussed in the LVA (p10). Viewpoint selections, where projects components may be visible, were also put forward by the landscape and visual specialists and members of the stakeholder communication and social teams at GHD.

Some of the viewpoints were also identified by Councils, following the TRG meeting.

Visual impact of road portals The visual impact of the road portals was discussed in the LVA.

Northern Portal • VP17 Greensborough Road, Macleod • VP18 Fairlie Avenue, Macleod • VP19 Simpson Barracks • VP20 Strathallan Road, Macleod

Southern Portal • VP31 Outlook Drive, Eaglemont • VP34 Veneto Club • VP35 Bulleen Park playground, Bulleen • VP36 Carey Bulleen Sports Complex • VP37 Marcellin College

Allan Wyatt – Expert Evidence Statement 28

XURBAN

11. Conclusion The submitters were concerned with the landscape and visual impact of the project. The LVA has recognised many of the concerns raised in submissions.

Landscape impact The LVA has assessed the impact of the temporary loss of parkland during construction as high and this rating is reflected in the concerns raised by submitters.

The LVA has also recognised that this is temporary, albeit for up to seven years, and that the areas of parkland lost are much less once construction is completed.

The LVA and UDS have also suggested strategies for some immediate mitigation measures during construction.

After construction, the creation of additional parkland in the land bridges and the rehabilitation of construction areas will return much of the alienated land back to the community.

Allan Wyatt – Expert Evidence Statement 29

XURBAN

Annexure A

Allan Wyatt – Curriculum vitae

Allan Wyatt – Expert Evidence Statement Allan Wyatt – Expert Evidence Statement

XURBAN

Professional Affiliations and Allan Wyatt - Registrations Associate, Australian Institute of Landscape Curriculum Vitae Architects

Allan has extensive experience in assessing the Fellow, Victorian Planning and Environmental Law landscape and visualimpacts of wind energy Association developments to assist in the management of environmental and related risks. Fields of Competence Allan also has the capabilities to prepare and present evidence in legal hearings in all states and territories Urban Design with regard to landscape and visual impacts. . Allan regularly appears before independent panel hearings, Landscape Architecture the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) Visual Assessments. and other appellant bodies as an expert witness in the areas of urban design, visual assessment and landscape architecture. Education More recently, Allan has specialised in large scale Graduate Diploma Landscape Design (RMIT) 1979 masterplanning and urban design work with major projects being undertaken for local government, boards of management as well as for private Languages developers both in Australia and in China, Hong Kong, India and Malaysia English

2015 to present Publications Landscape Architect - XURBAN Community perception studies as a means of evaluating landscape quality, NZ Wind Energy Conference. 1997 to 2015 Photomontages and perceptual accuracy, NZ WE Environmental Resources Management Pty Ltd Conference paper. Partner & Practice Leader - Urban Design and Landscape Architecture - Asia Pacific Visual assessment and environmental restoration of mine and quarry operations, paper presented to the joint VPELA and Victorian Chamber of Mines 1989 to 1996 Trees in the urban jungle and other Neighbourhood Ratio Consultants Pty Ltd Partner conflicts, paper represented to joint AILA/VPELA/RAPI Seminar.

1980 to 1989 Concerns regarding statutory control on tree planting Allan Wyatt Pty Ltd - Principal in our cities, published in Victorian Planning and Environmental Law Association Newsletter.

1976 to 1979 Public Works Department, Victoria - Landscape Architect

1974 to 1976 Peter Jones Architect & Landscape Consultant - Landscape Architect

Allan Wyatt | Curriculum Vitae 1

XURBAN

Various Road projects Key Projects Allan has been the Project Director within ERM for Some examples of key projects are listed below. various road projects which have included highway bridge duplication in NSW as well as more recently providing visual assessment input and providing the Infrastructure projects photomontages for the Geelong Bypass and working on the Urban Design Framework for East West Link. Allan Wyatt has been the team leader for landscape and visual assessment for many large infrastructure Airports at Cairns, Broken Hill, Alice Springs and projects. Devonport Site and landscape design of pedestrian and entry Basslink treatments. Typically these projects involved Visual assessment of proposed transmission line extensive external landscape treatment for visual options and associated components for major inter- amelioration and, in the case of Broken Hill, the connector between Tasmania and Victoria. landscape treatment was critical for dust control.

Melbourne Desalination Plant Mallacoota Boat Launching Ramp & foreshore Landscape and visual assessment for this major masterplan infrastructure project that also involved the Responsible for the revised Masterplanning in assessment of a 220kV transmission line and a response to a visual assessment for this foreshore pipeline easement cutting through residential and redevelopment project. rural landscapes. Peer reviews Yarra Pedestrian Bridge Recently, XURBAN has undertaken peer reviews for Urban design and landscape involvement on this the government for the Western Distributor and the major pedestrian link between the MCG and Birrarung Metro Tunnel projects. Marr.

LNG Terminal, South Soko, Hong Kong Windfarm projects Landscape and Visual Assessment components Allan Wyatt has provided advice and visual within an EES that also included a fly through model assessments for more than 30 wind farms in Australia of the proposed development on South Soko Island. and New Zealand. These include:

Channel Deepening Project, Port of Melbourne Golden Plains Wind Farm (WestWind Energy Pty (POMC) Ltd) Visual assessment of this major piece of Victorian XYRBAN has undertaken the preparation of a infrastructure which included an examination of the Landscape & Visual Assessment as part of the visual impacts of the plume created by dredging Notification to the Minister for Planning (Vic) under the activities in Port Philip Bay. Environment Effects Act 1978 and the subsequent preparation and lodgement of the EES for the Parramatta Rail proposed Golden Plains Wind Farm. Visual assessment and the development of Murra Warra Wind Farm (RES Pty Ltd) subsequent site design and documentation for key nodal areas on this railway line upgradeEast West XURBAN provided advice as part of the Notification to Link the Minister for Planning (Vic) under the Environment Effects Act 1978 and preparation and lodgement of Provided advice as to urban design and landscape the Planning Application material for the proposed opportunities which would form part of the tender Murra Warra Wind Farm near Horsham. This project package for the East West Link. was granted planning approvals in April 2017. North East Link Timboon & Ferguson Wind Farms (Future Energy Currently providing input into the North East Link Pty Ltd) project in areas of landscape and urban design as well XURBAN undertook the Landscape and Visual as leading the team responsible for the visual Assessment for these two small wind farms near the assessment of the route. Great Ocean Road.

Allan Wyatt | Curriculum Vitae 2

XURBAN

Mount Mercer Wind Farm (WestWind Energy Pty • Nirranda South Wind Farm; Ltd) • Black Springs Wind Farm, NSW; Allan Wyatt provided advice as part of the Notification • Berrybank Wind Farm; to the Minister for Planning (Vic) under the • Yoloak Estate Wind Farm; and Environment Effects Act 1978 and preparation and • Waubra Wind Farm. lodgement of the Planning Application material for the proposed Mount Mercer Wind Farm. This project was granted planning approvals in April 2007. Visual Assessment of Ryan Corner Wind Farm (TME Australia Pty Ltd) telecommunications facilities ERM was engaged to prepare the Environment XURBAN has undertaken the visual and landscape Effects Statement (EES), subject to the provisions of assessment of the impacts more than 30 the Environment Effects Act 1978. Allan Wyatt was telecommunications facilities for both Telstra and nbn commissioned to prepare and present evidence on co. These have included: Landscape and Visual Assessment at the hearing before Planning Panels Victoria. • Minerva Road, Herne Hill (Telstra); • Elizabeth Street, Hobart (Telstra); Lal Lal Wind Farm (WestWind Energy Pty Ltd) • Flagstaff Road, Bethanga (nbn co); Allan Wyatt managed a research project to determine • Ration Hill Road, Stanley (nbn co); the attitudes of the community to wind farm developments in Victoria, and in particular in relation • You Yangs Road, Little River (nbn co); to the proposed Lal Lal Wind Farm. This research is • Echo Road, Lovely Banks (nbn co); and designed to provide a quantitative and defendable • Lewis Road, Silvan (nbn co). data as to the level of community support or opposition for the project. The data was utilised in the application material. Urban design, masterplanning & golf Other wind farm projects courses Other wind farm projects on which Allan Wyatt Dalingshan, Dongguan Provence, China prepared visual and landscape assessments include: Urban design for a city expected to grow to 3 million. As a central component of the urban planning for the • Golden Plains Wind Farm revitalisation of this City, open space provided • Murra Warra Wind Farm contiguous corridors for both recreational needs, flood • Ferguson Wind Farm management and pollution control. • Dundonnell Wind Farm, Victoria Nanjing Lake and the Purple Mountain • Stockyard Hill Wind Farm; The masterplanning of this central 44 km2 area in • Turitea Wind Farm, New Zealand; central Nanjing involved heritage issues as well as • Waubra Wind Farm; ideas to dramatically retreat major freeways that were • Darlington & Berrybank Wind Farm; dividing the historic precinct in central Nanjing. • Newfield Wind Farm; Pukou, Central China • Mount Mercer Wind Farm; 2 • Hawkesdale Wind Farm; This 21 km new urban area in central China was designed around LEED ND principles and • Oaklands Hill Wind Farm; incorporated a new arterial road network as well as • Newfield Wind Farm; urban planning for a design population of 200,000 • Sidonia Hills Wind Farm; along with commercial and employment nodes. • Gullen Range Wind Farm; Royal Palms, Goregaon, Mumbai, India • Mortlake Wind Farm; The masterplanning of this 90 ha precipitous quarry • Macarthur Wind Farm; site in India encompassed a golf course, a 5 star and • Dollar Wind Farm; a 4 star hotel, luxury housing and condominiums set • Bald Hills Wind Farm; in a high quality lake and parkland setting. • Ararat Wind Farm; Integrated Tourism Resort, Powai, India - Stage 2 • Crowlands Wind Farm; • Portland Wind Energy Project; Preparation of a site masterplan for a golf course, hotels, convention centre, time share and residential • Yass Wind farm, NSW apartments, golf lodges, aquarium, butterfly house • Taralga Wind Farm, NSW;

Allan Wyatt | Curriculum Vitae 3

XURBAN and cultural village. The site was on a steeply sloping Residential project, Wo Shang Wai, Hong Kong volcanic ridge. Preparation of a Landscape Master Plan and Sustainable Landscape Design Guidelines for a Pearl Island Golf & Country Club, Penang, confidential project near a sensitive wetland Malaysia environment in Hong Kong. Following the masterplanning of this site and the subsequent documentation of the golf course, ERM has been engaged to create the extensive landscape Open space planning spaces which are to be an integral part of this major facility Karkarook Lake and Wetlands The masterplanning & documentation of the lake and PPH Resorts, Penang, Malaysia wetlands of the largest man-made wetlands in Landscape and masterplanning options as well as on- Melbourne and treats urban run-off as well as going documentation and contract administration of a providing a substantial recreation resource. major 18 hole golf course and associated facilities in a mountainous region of Malaysia. Confidential project, Taiwan Preparation of a Landscape Master Plan and Queenscliff Coastal Action Plan \ Sustainable Landscape Design Guidelines for a Undertake a study of future land use options, confidential new city development in Taiwan. pedestrian and vehicular strategies for the on-going development of one of Victoria’s premier coastal Croydon Open Space Study resorts for the Central Coastal Board. Community and The City of Croydon contained many areas of open stakeholder consultation was a key component of the space derived from residential contributions. This study. study examined their ecological value and made recommendations for future development. City of Casey Planning and Urban Design Various structure plan reviews and urban design Tarneit Wetlands, Victoria, Australia works examining built form, streetscape, traffic and Masterplanning of a large new wetlands system at the landscape improvements to increase the identity, head of the Werribee River to deal with stormwater character and pedestrian amenity of the City of Casey. retention, habitat creation and is to create community open space for the surrounding residential Victoria Racing Club (VRC), Melbourne, Victoria, developments. Australia Flood wall treatments along the Maribyrnong River Botanica Springs, Melbourne, Australia were followed with the masterplanning, Concept and detailed design of an ornamental documentation and contract administration for the wetlands system associated with a large residential new wetlands at Flemington Racecourse, Melbourne. development. The entries on Flemington Road were also part of this project. Mines and quarries Eli Waters, Hervey Bay, Queensland Preparation of end use masterplans as well as staged Landscape Masterplan for this large residential estate rehabilitation plans for large long term mining and in Queensland, which focuses on an 18-hole golf quarrying projects. Many of these projects have also course and an extensive wetlands and lakes system. involved a visual assessment of the proposal and integrated this visual assessment with proposed Dalian Waterfront, Dalian, China staging and rehabilitation works. Design team for a new waterfront including parklands Quarries as part of the Dundonnell Wind Farm and commercial facilities. Two quarries were proposed as part of the Clifton Park, Victoria infrastructure to construct the Dundonnell Wind Farm. Project coordination and contract administration for Chiltern Quarry the construction of a large community park in Brunswick. Visual assessment as well as a landscape proposal which sought to replicated the landscape pattern of HK University Ideas Competition, Hong Kong the surrounding countryside. Preparation of landscape masterplan for the existing university campus and the proposed western expansion.

Allan Wyatt | Curriculum Vitae 4

XURBAN

Mount Shamrock Quarry, Pakenham Visual and Landscape assessment for proposed Works Authority extension to existing quarry. The work involved Landscape Rehabilitation and Mitigation Planting to address environment and visual issues.

Uranium Mine, Northern Territory, Australia Preparation of 3D modelling, photomontages based on a conceptual site layout and landscape plans for a confidential client in Australia.

Montrose Quarry Development of end use guidelines and rehabilitation recommendations for Montrose Quarry.

Gold mine, WA Preparation of confidential end use plans for mining tenements that were reaching completion.

Grantville Sand Quarry Staged rehabilitation plans for this sand quarry, particularly the slimes storage areas.

Yea Sand & Gravel Quarry Quarry rehabilitation of an area subject to flooding and adjacent to the Yea River.

Sunshine Quarry The rehabilitation of this quarry involved the creation of a nine-hole golf course as well as special landscape treatments for the extensive battered slopes on the Maribyrnong River.

Niddrie Quarry redevelopment masterplan Residential and recreational land use planning of the quarry.

Allan Wyatt | Curriculum Vitae 5

XURBAN

Annexure B

Instructions

Allan Wyatt – Expert Evidence Statement Allan Wyatt – Expert Evidence Statement