DĞůďŽƵƌŶĞŝƌƉŽƌƚŶǀŝƌŽŶƐ^ĂĨĞŐƵĂƌĚŝŶŐ ϭϱ ^ƚĂŶĚŝŶŐĚǀŝƐŽƌLJŽŵŵŝƚƚĞĞͲ/ƐƐƵĞƐĂŶĚ KƉƚŝŽŶƐWĂƉĞƌ &ƵůůEĂŵĞ͗ ĞŶZƵƐƐĞůů KƌŐĂŶŝƐĂƚŝŽŶ͗ ƌŽŽŬĨŝĞůĚ'ƌĞĞŶǀĂůĞWƚLJ>ƚĚ ĨĨĞĐƚĞĚƉƌŽƉĞƌƚLJ͗ ͕'ƌĞĞŶǀĂůĞs/ϯϬϱϵ ƚƚĂĐŚŵĞŶƚϭ͗ ŚƚƚƉƐ͗ͬͬĞŶŐĂŐĞ͘ǀŝĐ͘ŐŽǀ͘ĂƵͬĚŽǁŶůŽĂĚͺĨŝůĞͬϰϴϮϬϴ ƚƚĂĐŚŵĞŶƚϮ͗ ƚƚĂĐŚŵĞŶƚϯ͗ ŽŵŵĞŶƚƐ͗ ƐĞĞĂƚƚĂĐŚĞĚƐƵďŵŝƐƐŝŽŶ ^ƵďŵŝƐƐŝŽŶŽǀĞƌ^ŚĞĞƚ Brookfield Greenvale Pty Ltd ABN 66 128 996 261 Tel 1800 330 702 Level 1, Flare Building, 39 Hercules Street PO Box 372 Hamilton QLD 4007 Hamilton QLD 4007 brookfieldresidential.com.au 22 June 2021 Melbourne Airport Environs Standing Advisory Committee C/- Planning Panels Victoria 1 Spring Street Melbourne VIC 3000 Dear Standing Advisory Committee Re: Melbourne Airport Environs Safeguarding Standing Issues and Options Paper Background This letter is a submission on behalf of Brookfield Greenvale Pty Ltd (Brookfield) in response to the Melbourne Airport Environs Safeguarding Issues and Options Paper dated 23 April 2021 (the Paper). Brookfield is the owner of a parcel of land at , Greenvale. The property is approximately 136 hectares in area, is predominately in the Green Wedge Zone and is currently not impacted by the Airport Environs Overlay (AEO). The Committee outlines possible changes to the Clause 18.04-1S of the Victorian Planning Provisions (VPP) in Appendix C1 of the Paper. This submission explores, discusses and makes recommendations to the proposed changes. Summary The extent of proposed restrictions on sensitive land uses within the AEO as per Appendix C1 of the Paper compromises and undermines the objectives of Plan Melbourne through: x The restriction on rezoning of land to intensify sensitive uses such as increased residential densities in established areas; and x The restriction on the rezoning of land from Farming Zone to Urban Growth Zone within the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). This submission is supported by: x Independent advice on acoustic impact by Marshall Day Acoustics regarding the measuring of noise impact and the use of N contours as a planning tool (Attachment A); and x Independent advice from Aviation Projects (Attachment B) regarding the modelled runway approaches as it affects the site. This submission does not draft planning scheme provisions. However, it suggests that there is a need for a more balanced response to protect the Melbourne Airport operations (and other airports). A graded response to noise management would be more appropriate, for example: x Prohibition in some areas; x Managing impact of noise through building construction in lesser impacted areas; and x Notification of the potential for some impact in marginally impacted areas. 1 Brookfield Greenvale Pty Ltd ABN 66 128 996 261 Tel 1800 330 702 Level 1, Flare Building, 39 Hercules Street PO Box 372 Hamilton QLD 4007 Hamilton QLD 4007 brookfieldresidential.com.au The planning response to airport noise should be consistent with the approach to planning for noise impacts from other noise generating uses, such as railways, industrial uses, ports and freight interchanges. Melbourne Airport as a non-government body with competitive interests in development of land should not be a determining authority for planning scheme applications and amendments. Noise Impact – Discussion Determining the appropriate noise impact level for restriction of sensitive uses and amelioration of noise impact in built form design is ultimately based on subjective criteria. The material presented to the committee is informed by the available research which presents a reasonable interpretation on what constitutes a significant level of impact. Application of restrictions through the VPP’s will ultimately be subject to the extent of noise at any specific location and under what circumstances as to what constitutes a reasonable level to prohibit, restrict or enable development of sensitive uses in a modified form. Through previous policy processes, there have discussions with Melbourne Airport in regard to addressing the amelioration of noise impact in building design. However, this has not been addressed in the Paper as a potential planning solution. Paper Proposal The proposed changes, if implemented, could ban rezoning of land for sensitive uses. This would include residential zoning on all land that falls within the nominated noise contours, through modified VPP provisions that inform decision making. While this will apply to all airports, the report focusses primarily on Melbourne Airport with references and mapping. The mapping applies to a large area that extends from the Macedon Ranges to Newport near Williamstown across metropolitan Melbourne. When all airports are considered, including Essendon, Moorabbin, Avalon, and smaller airports such as Point Cook and Tyabb. The cumulative impact on sterilised land would be significant. Impact on Plan Melbourne The proposed restrictions impact on land within the UGB including, land in growth areas yet to be planned through the PSP process, established urban areas including areas identified for higher density residential development. The proposed changes would restrict necessary rezoning to facilitate these higher density developments. This would consequently reduce the potential for developments of this nature which are essential to achieve the objectives of Plan Melbourne. Response to N contours as a basis for planning provisions Marshall Day Acoustics has provided specific advice on the appropriateness of using National Airport Safeguarding Framework (NASF) guidelines as a basis for land use planning for airports (Attachment A). Marshall Day Acoustics concluded that N contours are not an appropriate mechanism for specifically determining land use but that they function as 2 Brookfield Greenvale Pty Ltd ABN 66 128 996 261 Tel 1800 330 702 Level 1, Flare Building, 39 Hercules Street PO Box 372 Hamilton QLD 4007 Hamilton QLD 4007 brookfieldresidential.com.au a guideline for consideration of future airport operations. Key elements from the report include: x There is no evidence to support the use of potential maximum noise levels based on N contours for airport planning; x The NASF are not a mechanism for precluding sensitive uses. However, they are an example of possible noise impacts based on one set of modelling assumptions. They are not definitive; x N contours are prone to uncertainties. This is further supported by Aviation Projects who identified that there are alternative flight paths to the options modelled in the Melbourne Airport Masterplan; x No airport in Australia uses maximum N contour projections to govern land use planning around airports; x No evidence exists to suggest that the N contours mapped for Melbourne Airport are an accepted standard; x ANEF’s under AS-2021 are the accepted standard for noise planning around airports; and x Marshall Day Acoustics recommend that the N contours be used for information purposes only in the consideration of other implications when determining planning provisions around airports, rather than the basis for an overlay (such as an AEO). Comparative Planning Mechanisms Planning schemes have mechanisms in place which address impacts on amenity in response to industrial noise and odour and noise from railway lines. The principal that residential development should be protected from poor amenity outcomes is established. In instances such as noise, there is a range of graded responses from prohibition of sensitive uses to amelioration of the noise impact, to notification of likelihood of impact. In regards to addressing planning within proximity to airports, the following is noted: x Not all airports have current and consistent noise modelling; x To consistently address each airport, noise impact mapping on a consistent methodology should occur; and x Any approach to addressing noise impact around airports should be treated in the same way detrimental impact of noise is addressed in other noise impact areas e.g., industrial noise buffers and built form responses and railway line interfaces. The VPP’s have a gradational response through various mechanisms, to dealing with noise. Some examples include: x Airport Environs Overlay (AEO1) o Regarding residential development this is an example of a level of restriction that prohibits more than one dwelling per lot and restricts subdivision of land that creates an intensification of residential lots while allowing existing lots to construct a single dwelling on a lot. 3 Brookfield Greenvale Pty Ltd ABN 66 128 996 261 Tel 1800 330 702 Level 1, Flare Building, 39 Hercules Street PO Box 372 Hamilton QLD 4007 Hamilton QLD 4007 brookfieldresidential.com.au x Design and Development Overlay (DDO 10 – Wyndham Planning Scheme) o This overlay introduced a mechanism to ensure that new housing was not impacted by the Regional Rail Line (RRL) by placing a requirement in Section 2.0 “Buildings and Works” (Attachment C): If a building includes a bedroom, the building (and associated works) must be constructed in such a way as to ensure internal bedroom noise levels will not exceed 65dBL and 40dBL for the night period from 10pm to 6am. A permit may not be granted to construct a building or carry out works which are not in accordance with this requirement. x Section 173 Agreements/ Notifications on title o While cumbersome these options have been used to inform purchasers of land that they are in an area that may be impacted upon by aircraft noise. Not to be dismissed, the objectives could be converted to a planning scheme requirement under an AEO or similar for areas with low impact. The above presents examples of alternate planning