Brunswick Terminal Station - planning.vic.gov.au€¦ · Planning and Environment Act 1987 Advisory...

Planning and Environment Act 1987

Advisory Committee Report

Brunswick Terminal Station

21 August 2015

Planning and Environment Act 1987

Advisory Committee Report pursuant to Section 151 of the Act

Brunswick Terminal Station

221 August 2015

Nick Wimbush, Chair Robin Crocker, Member

Brunswick Terminal Station Advisory Committee Report 21 August 2015

Contents Page

Summary and response to Terms of Reference ..................................................................... i

1 Introduction and background...................................................................................... 1 1.1 The role of the Advisory Committee ....................................................................... 1 1.2 Appointment and Terms of Reference .................................................................... 1 1.3 Submissions ............................................................................................................. 2 1.4 Hearings ................................................................................................................... 2 1.5 Inspections .............................................................................................................. 3 1.6 Structure of this Report ........................................................................................... 3

2 Overview of the site and surrounds ............................................................................ 4 2.1 The subject site and surrounds ............................................................................... 4 2.2 Background to the proposal .................................................................................... 8

3 Review of the planning approvals ............................................................................. 10 3.1 Planning permit application MPS/2009/776 ......................................................... 10 3.2 Planning permit application MPS/2011/420 ......................................................... 11 3.3 Moreland Planning Scheme Amendment C140 .................................................... 13 3.4 Post ‐ Moreland Planning Scheme Amendment C140 .......................................... 15 3.5 Planning permit application MPS/2014/87 ........................................................... 15 3.6 Submissions on planning approvals process ......................................................... 16 3.7 Discussion and conclusions ................................................................................... 19 3.8 Findings and recommendations ............................................................................ 21

4 Consultation ............................................................................................................. 22 4.1 Overview of processes .......................................................................................... 22 4.2 Pre‐Moreland C140 processes .............................................................................. 22 4.3 Moreland C140 process ......................................................................................... 30 4.4 Post Moreland Amendment C140 processes ........................................................ 31 4.5 Impact consultation had on design outcomes ...................................................... 31 4.6 Overall discussion and conclusions ....................................................................... 32 4.7 Findings and recommendations ............................................................................ 36

5 Amenity impacts and landscaping ............................................................................. 38 5.1 The issue ................................................................................................................ 38 5.2 Submissions ........................................................................................................... 45 5.3 Discussion and conclusions ................................................................................... 45 5.4 Findings and recommendations ............................................................................ 46

6 Future planning assessment and consultation .......................................................... 47 6.1 Overview of existing models and processes ......................................................... 47 6.2 Submissions ........................................................................................................... 49 6.3 Discussion and conclusions ................................................................................... 51 6.4 Findings and recommendations ............................................................................ 52

7 Other matters ........................................................................................................... 54 7.1 Network regulatory approval process ................................................................... 54 7.2 Review of the existing planning instruments ........................................................ 56


8 Health and safety impacts ......................................................................................... 59 8.1 Background ............................................................................................................ 59 8.2 Electro‐magnetic radiation .................................................................................... 59 8.3 Fire and emergency response ............................................................................... 65

Appendix A Terms of Reference

List of Tables

Page

Table 1 Parties to the Committee Hearings ......................................................................... 2

Table 2 Summary of BTS consultation activities and outcomes: from 2010 ..................... 23

Table 3 Public participation: Application of IAP2 core values at the BTS .......................... 34

List of Figures Page

Figure 1 BTS site location ...................................................................................................... 4

Figure 2 Aerial photograph of BTS site .................................................................................. 5

Figure 3 Merri Creek environs east of BTS site ..................................................................... 6

Figure 4 Views of BTS site from (top to bottom): north, south, east and west ......................................................................................................................... 7

Figure 5 Zoning of BTS site and surrounding area ................................................................ 8

Figure 6 2013 Landscape Concept Plan (revised), Urban Initiatives ................................... 40

Figure 7 New 66kV building under construction, adjacent to Merri Creek parklands, April 2015 ............................................................................................. 42

Figure 8 2014 Landscape Plan 01, Urbis .............................................................................. 43

Figure 9 2014 Landscape Plan 02, Urbis .............................................................................. 44


List of Abbreviations

AEMO Australian Energy Market Operator

ARPANSA Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency

AusNet Services AusNet Transmission Group Pty Ltd; SP AusNet

BTS Brunswick Terminal Station

BTSCRG Brunswick Terminal Station Community Reference Group

BTSCWG Brunswick Terminal Station Community Working Group

CBD Central Business District

CMP Construction Management Plan

Council Moreland City Council

DELWP Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning, previously DPCD and DTPLI

DPCD Department of Planning and Community Development (former)

DTPLI Department of Transport, Planning and Local Infrastructure (former)

EES Environment Effects Statement

EMF Electro‐magnetic Field

EMR Electro‐magnetic Radiation

ENRC Inquiry into the Environment Effects Statement Process in Victoria

EPA Environment Protection Authority

ESO Environmental Significance Overlay

ESV Energy Safe Victoria

FOMC Friends of Merri Creek

Former Minister for Planning Hon. Matthew Guy (then) MLC

GRZ General Residential Zone

IAP2 International Association for Public Participation

LPPF Local Planning Policy Framework

MCMC Merri Creek Management Committee

MCRG Merri Creek Residents Group

Minister for Planning Hon. Richard Wynne MP

MSS Municipal Strategic Statement


NER National Electricity Rules

NHMRC National Health and Medical Research Council

NRZ Neighbourhood Residential Zone

Proponents AusNet Services, CitiPower, AEMO. Referred to generically. Where necessary a specific company may be identified as the ‘proponent’.

R1Z Residential 1 Zone

RIT Regulatory Impact Test

SBO Special Building Overlay

SPPF State Planning Policy Framework

SUZ Special Use Zone

the Act Planning and Environment Act 1987

VAGO Victorian Auditor‐General’s Office

VCAT Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal

VPP Victoria Planning Provisions


Page i

Summary and response to Terms of Reference (i) Summary The Brunswick Terminal Station Advisory Committee (the Committee) was appointed by the Minister for Planning on 20 March 2015 under section 151 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.

The Committee’s Terms of Reference (attached at Appendix A) state at paragraphs 3 and 4 that the Advisory Committee has the following purpose: …to review the planning approvals process, including community consultation, for the upgrade of the Brunswick Terminal Station and report on its findings. The Advisory Committee should provide advice to assist in the planning assessment and consultation process for future regional or state significant infrastructure proposals.

The Committee wrote to affected parties on 13 April 2015 inviting them to provide a written submission and appear before the Committee. These affected parties were identified in clause 11 of the Terms of Reference and were Moreland City Council, AusNet Services, CitiPower, the Australian Energy Market Operator, and Merri Creek Residents Group Inc. In addition, the Committee wrote to Yarra City Council and Darebin City Council inviting them to provide a submission on the basis of their status as nearby and involved Councils. A request to make a submission was made and acceded to by the Committee by Professor Carolyn Whitzman, an Urban Planning specialist and local resident.

The Hearings took place on 16 and 17 June, and 16 July 2015 at Planning Panels Victoria.

Key issues raised in submissions and at the Hearing included: The planning approvals process – both submissions in support for this process and

submissions opposing the process that took place The community consultation process Amenity impacts and landscaping Proposed future planning assessment and consultation Appropriateness of Ministerial Amendment process and section 20(4) Appropriateness of regulatory tests and approval process Health and safety impacts.

Having considered the issues and submissions in detail, the Committee has concluded that there were no apparent fundamental flaws in the planning permit application process and consideration of the permit applications by Moreland City Council. In hindsight, the justification for the use of the s20(4) process to approve Moreland Amendment C140 on the material before the Committee does not appear strong. That being said, the Committee accepts that the Proponent had genuine concerns as to the urgency and necessity of supply protection; but is not convinced that the pathway taken ended up being any more efficient.

The Committee considers that the use of section 20(4) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 is legitimate in some circumstances; but other than for minor amendments with limited third party impacts, should be used judiciously and in consultation with the responsible authority.


Page ii

Further, the Committee considers that a review of terminal station and other critical electrical infrastructure in planning schemes could be considered, to improve their recognition in the SPPF and apply appropriate land use controls and zoning where necessary.

(ii) Findings and recommendations The Committee makes the following findings and recommendations against the reporting requirements in the Terms of Reference which are primarily contained in clauses 20 and 22.

20(a) A review of the planning approvals process, including community consultation, for the upgrade of Brunswick Terminal Station.

20(b) Advice on the impact that the consultation undertaken had on the design outcome.

The planning approvals process is addressed in Chapter 3 of this report.

Findings:

In relation to the planning approvals process, the Committee finds:

There were no apparent fundamental flaws in the planning permit application process and consideration of the permit applications by the Moreland City Council.

In hindsight, the justification for the use of the s20(4) provisions to approve Moreland C140 on the material before the Panel does not appear strong; and it is not clear to the Committee why a s20(4) planning scheme amendment was used as opposed to the former Minister for Planning calling in the planning permit from the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal.

Whether or not it was ‘the right decision’ of the former Minister for Planning to use s20(4) rather than allowing the matter to take its course through the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal is a rather moot point, as the decision was made and has not been legally challenged by any party.

The planning instruments developed and implemented through Amendment C140 appear to have been poorly drafted, and to some extent reversed the efficiencies gained through the use of s20(4).

It is arguable that if the second planning permit application had been allowed to run its course, possibly through the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal, that the end outcome would have been achieved in a similar timeframe to that which resulted, with more transparency for the community; but the Committee accepts that at the time the Proponent had genuine concerns as to the urgency and necessity of supply protection.

Recommendations:

In relation to the planning approvals process the Committee does not make any specific recommendations. Recommendations for future planning processes are included later in this Executive Summary and report.

Community consultation and the impact on design is addressed in Chapter 4 of this report.


Page iii

Findings:

In relation to community consultation, the Committee finds:

Community consultation and participation for the Brunswick Terminal Station upgrade started late and did not include any community input into the decision to substantially increase the capacity at the site.

Consultation undertaken from 2010 met some good practice principles identified by the Victorian Auditor General’s Office and the International Association for Public Participation, but tended to focus on providing information and seeking support for proposed on‐site works.

Consultation largely targeted local residents, with limited involvement of community groups and no significant involvement by the State government.

Consultation related to planning permit applications generally met statutory requirements but did not fully address some community concerns regarding the Brunswick Terminal Station upgrade.

The design of the project, but not the location, was fundamentally altered in response to community consultation undertaken through the land use planning process. This resulted, in the Committee’s view, in a much improved project, but at substantially increased cost.

Recommendations:

In relation to community consultation the Committee recommends:

1. The relevant agency formally adopt the International Association for Public Participation and Victorian Auditor General’s Office community consultation and participation principles and processes in future infrastructure projects at the scoping stage. This should include preparation of a comprehensive consultation plan, consultation at an early stage, and the use of independent facilitators for consultation and participation activities.

2. Identify key agency responsibilities for projects of state and regional significance and ensure appropriate involvement in the planning and consultation process.

20(c) Advice to Government on how existing amenity impacts could be mitigated through any changes to the Draft Landscape Concept Plans under the Brunswick Terminal Station Incorporated Document 2012.

Amenity and landscaping plans are addressed in Chapter 5 of this report.

Findings:

In relation to the amenity and landscape plans the Committee finds:

The 2014 Landscape Plan by Urbis is based on sound principles and includes extensive planting of mostly indigenous species. No significant changes to the plan were put forward in submissions and the Advisory Committee did not identify changes that would further mitigate visual impacts.

Effective implementation of the plan and ongoing maintenance works, to the satisfaction of the responsible authority, will provide a substantial improvement


Page iv

in visual amenity in residential streets adjacent to the Brunswick Terminal Station and along the Merri Creek parklands.

Earlier landscape planning for the site was of variable quality, in some cases lacking adequate assessment of site values, articulation of landscape principles and involvement of the community.

Recommendations:

The Committee makes no specific recommendations on improvements to landscaping and amenity beyond implementation of the existing approved landscape plans.

20(d) Advice on the options to Government for the planning assessment and consultation process of future regional or state significant infrastructure.

Future planning and assessment of infrastructure are addressed in Chapter 6 of this report. This focuses on land use planning. The Committee addresses network planning in Chapter 7.

Findings:

In relation to future land use planning and assessment of infrastructure the Committee finds:

The planning process, including, as relevant, assessment under the Environment Effects Act 1978, and the Planning and Environment Act 1987 via environment effects statements, planning scheme amendments and planning permit applications are fundamentally robust processes for considering regional and state significant infrastructure.

The Victorian Parliament Inquiry into the Environment Effects Statement Process (2011) suggested significant changes to the Environment Effects Statement process which would, if implemented, likely provide for more nuanced pathways for environmental assessment of significant projects and improved strategic assessment.

The use of section 20(4) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 is legitimate in some circumstances; but other than for minor amendments with limited third party impacts, should be used judiciously and in consultation with the responsible authority.

A review of terminal station and other critical electrical infrastructure in planning schemes could be considered, to improve their recognition in the State Planning Policy Framework and apply appropriate land use controls and zoning where necessary.

Recommendations:

In relation to future planning and assessment of infrastructure the Committee recommends:

3. Consider the recommendations of the Inquiry into the Environment Effects Statement Process (2011) with a view to revising the environmental assessment process and the Ministerial guidelines for assessment of environmental effects, including greater use of strategic environmental assessment.


Page v

4. Consider revising the Planning and Environment Act 1987 to reintroduce a requirement for the Minister for Planning to consult with the responsible authority when utilising s20(4) of the Act.

5. Consider reviewing the practice note Ministerial Powers of Intervention in Planning and Heritage Matters to ensure it is relevant to contemporary planning objectives and expectations.

6. Consider undertaking a review of the treatment of critical electrical infrastructure in the State Planning Policy Framework (Clause 19) and an analysis of specific infrastructure sites to facilitate appropriate underlying zoning and land use controls.

20(e) Any other relevant matters raised in the course of the Advisory Committee hearing.

Other matters are addressed in Chapter 7 of this report. These other matters include links to the electricity regulatory approval process and the improvement of the approved planning instruments.

Findings:

In relation to regulatory approvals for electricity networks the Committee finds:

There is no clear link between the regulatory approval process for electricity infrastructure in Victoria, and the approval processes under the Planning and Environment Act 1987.

Earlier engagement by the Proponent(s) in the land use planning process as opposed to the network regulatory process would very likely have produced a similar or better outcome in a more timely manner.

Recommendations:

In relation to regulatory approvals for electricity networks the Committee recommends:

7. The Minister for Planning consult with the Minister for Energy and Resources with the aim of improving integration between land use planning processes and the electricity network regulatory process, including community consultation.

Findings:

In relation to improving the approved planning regime for the Brunswick Terminal Station the Committee finds:

A more thorough process of preparation and expert peer review of the planning instruments contained in Amendment C140 would likely have resulted in a more robust and effective set of planning controls that may have reduced the need for additional planning permits and delay.

Recommendations:

The Committee makes no specific recommendations in relation to improving the approved planning regime for the Brunswick Terminal Station.

22 Submissions regarding health and safety impacts will be considered by the Advisory Committee and referred to the appropriate authority when the issue falls outside the jurisdiction of the Minister for Planning.


Page vi

Health and safety impacts are addressed in Chapter 8 of this report.

Findings:

In relation to health and safety (EMR and EMF) the Committee finds:

Subject to the finding below, based on the Committee’s review of the available material, AusNet Services and CitiPower’s approach to electro‐magnetic radiation appears reasonable.

The Committee is not an expert committee in relation to non‐ionising electro‐magnetic radiation and considers this issue requires ongoing review and monitoring to ensure regulation maintains pace with relevant research.

In relation to other health and safety matters the Committee finds:

Based on the Committee’s review of the available material, AusNet Services and CitiPower’s approach to emergency planning and response appears reasonable.

Recommendations:

In relation to health and safety (EMR and EMF) the Committee recommends:

8. The Minister for Planning refer this report to the Victorian Department of Health and Human Services, Radiation Safety, for further consideration and discussion with relevant Commonwealth Department counterparts.


Page 1 of 66

1 Introduction and background 1.1 The role of the Advisory Committee The Advisory Committee’s (the Committee) Terms of Reference (TOR) (attached at Appendix A) state at paragraphs 3 and 4 that the Committee has the following purpose:1

… to review the planning approvals process, including community consultation, for the upgrade of the Brunswick Terminal Station and report on its findings. The Advisory Committee should provide advice to assist in the planning assessment and consultation process for future regional or state significant infrastructure proposals.

1.2 Appointment and Terms of Reference Mr Nick Wimbush (Chair) and Mr Robin Crocker were appointed as the Committee by the Minister for Planning on 20 March 2015 under section 151 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.

The Terms of Reference set the scope and role of the Committee in advising the Minister, and at clause 20 outline the reporting requirements as follows:

The Advisory Committee must produce a written report for the Minister for Planning providing specific advice on the following issues: A review of the planning approvals process, including community

consultation, for the upgrade of Brunswick Terminal Station Advice on the impact that the consultation undertaken had on the design

outcome Advice to Government on how existing amenity impacts could be enhanced

through any changes to the Draft Landscape Concept Plans under the Brunswick Terminal Station Incorporated Document 2012

Advice on the options to Government for the planning assessment and consultation process of future regional or state significant infrastructure

Any other relevant matters raised in the course of the Advisory Committee hearing

A list of persons consulted or heard.

The TOR also noted that the Committee is not to review decisions of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) and that, at clause 20:

Submissions regarding health and safety impacts will be considered by the Advisory Committee and referred to the appropriate authority when the issue falls outside the jurisdiction of the Minister for Planning.

1 The Committee requested the Minister for Planning vary the Terms of Reference to expand the Hearing

timeframe to accommodate the Merri Creek Residents Group availability. The Terms of Reference in Appendix A reflect this change.


Page 2 of 66

1.3 Submissions Under clause 11 of the TOR, the Committee wrote to affected parties inviting them to provide a written submission and appear before the Committee. The invited parties were: Moreland City Council (Council) AusNet Services CitiPower Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) Merri Creek Residents Group Inc (MCRG).

In addition to the parties listed above, the Committee wrote to the following Councils inviting them to provide a submission on the basis of their status as nearby and involved Councils: Yarra City Council Darebin City Council.

The City of Yarra made a submission and appeared at the Hearing in response to the invitation.

Professor Carolyn Whitzman, a local resident and expert in community consultation, approached the Committee requesting to make a submission; a request to which the Committee acceded.

1.4 Hearings A Directions Hearing was held on 19 May 2015 at Planning Panels Victoria. The Hearings were held on 16 and 17 June and 16 July 2015 at Planning Panels Victoria. The Committee heard the parties listed at Table 1.

Table 1 Parties to the Committee Hearings

Submitter Represented by

Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP)

Taren Brockhouse and Sharon Stewart

Moreland City Council John Rantino of Maddocks Lawyers assisted by Darren Camilleri of Moreland City Council. Briana Eastaugh for Maddocks Lawyers appeared for the closing

AusNet Transmission Group Pty Ltd (AusNet Services)

Ian Pitt QC of Best Hooper assisted by Dennis McRohan and Alistair Parker

CitiPower Pty Ltd Neil Watt

Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) Marita Foley of Counsel assisted by Nicola Falcon and Natalie O’Connor

Yarra City Council Sherry Hopkins

Professor Carolyn Whitzman

Merri Creek Residents Group Nick Tweedie SC and Jon Gottschall of Counsel


Page 3 of 66

assisted by Ramon Collodetti and Chris Black2

1.5 Inspections The Committee visited the subject site and surrounds on an unaccompanied basis on 15 April 2015 including neighbouring streets, the Merri Creek environment and Sumner Park. On 4 June 2015, the Committee, with representatives from AusNet Services, CitiPower, Council and the MCRG, inspected the construction works within the BTS.

1.6 Structure of this Report The report is structured generally around the key reporting requirements in the Terms of Reference as follows: Overview of the site and surrounds Review of the planning approvals Consultation Amenity impacts and landscaping Future planning assessment and consultation Other matters

- Network regulatory approval process - Review of the existing planning instruments

Health and safety impacts.

2 Other members including Mr John Langer and Mr Colin Abbott also made comment at the Hearings. Other

members were present at different times.


Page 4 of 66

2 Overview of the site and surrounds 2.1 The subject site and surrounds The Brunswick Terminal Station (BTS) site is located about 3km northeast of central Melbourne in Brunswick East (Figures 1 and 2). The site is bounded by the Merri Creek parklands to the east and residential areas to the south (Alister Street) and west (King Street).

Figure 1 BTS site location3

3 Source: DELWP, 2015.


Page 5 of 66

Figure 2 Aerial photograph of BTS site4

The Merri Creek corridor is a regionally important open space asset, providing wildlife habitat and attracting large numbers of users to the bicycle/pedestrian trail and to sporting facilities including a soccer field and clubhouse at Sumner Park. The creek environs have significant natural and landscape values, enhanced by active management overseen by the Merri Creek Management Committee (MCMC) since its establishment in 1989 (Figure 3). A bicycle/pedestrian bridge over Merri Creek adjacent to the BTS provides convenient access across the creek.

4 Source: Urbis 2015.


Page 6 of 66

Figure 3 Merri Creek environs east of BTS site5

Alister and King streets have a range of mostly low‐set dwelling styles built from the 1930s, on original size allotments. Views into the BTS from these residential streets, and the Merri Creek parklands, are relatively open with various infrastructure elements visible (Figure 4).

The BTS has an area of 4.06ha. It was rezoned from Residential 1 Zone (R1Z) to Special Use Zone Schedule 3 (SUZ3) in Moreland Planning Scheme Amendment C140 (Figure 5). This zoning provides for continued use and development of the site as a utility installation ‘… while minimising the impact on the amenity of the surrounding area’.6

Three overlays affect the site: the Environmental Significance Overlay (ESO1), Land Subject to Inundation Overlay (LSIO1), and Special Building Overlay (SBO). Permits are required for certain works under these overlays.

The site has been highly altered due to its establishment as a utility installation. Natural and landscape values are low with existing vegetation of varying quality and health. All established species are introduced and none are of local significance.7

5 Unless otherwise indicated, images were taken by the Committee in April 2015. 6 BTS Planning Permit Application February 2014, Urbis. 7 BTS Planning Permit Application, SP AusNet/Urbis, February 2014 (Binder 2, Tab 62).


Page 7 of 66

Figure 4 Views of BTS site from (top to bottom): north, south, east and west


Page 8 of 66

Figure 5 Zoning of BTS site and surrounding area8

2.2 Background to the proposal The BTS is one of three terminal stations supplying electricity to the inner Melbourne metropolitan area (and one of 49 terminal stations owned by AusNet Services). The stations convert electricity from high voltage to lower voltage for domestic and commercial use.

The BTS site has operated as a terminal station since 1939. The site contains transformers, a switchyard and associated facilities. High voltage powerlines at 220kV enter the site from the north and east along the Merri Creek valley, and a series of lower voltage lines leave the site at various points at 66kV and 22kV.

8 From Moreland Planning Scheme.


Page 9 of 66

Electricity from the terminal station is supplied to about 73,000 customers in Melbourne’s inner northern suburbs and the north eastern corner of the Central Business District (CBD).

The need to upgrade supply security, and predictions of increased demand for electricity in the supply area, led CitiPower to propose an upgrade to the BTS in 2004. Upgrades are also proposed for the terminal stations at Richmond and West Melbourne.

Proposed upgrading of the BTS includes a switchgear building near King Street, two new 220kV and 66kV buildings located towards the eastern boundary, and removal of redundant structures. Extensive retaining walls, security fencing and landscaping are also proposed (Figure 8). The upgrade will increase the output of the BTS from 225 Megavolt Ampere to 900 Megavolt Ampere, a 400% increase.


Page 10 of 66

3 Review of the planning approvals This section focuses on the land use planning system and the series of permit applications, planning scheme amendment and VCAT decision that occurred from 2008 to now. The electricity network regulatory framework decisions pre‐2009 are discussed in Chapter 7.

3.1 Planning permit application MPS/2009/776 3.1.1 Lodgement and application The planning permit application was lodged on 7 December 2009 for buildings and works summarised as:9

Install 7 x 220kV circuit breakers Install 2 x 220/66kV busses Install 2 x 220/66kV transformers (225 mva each) Line entry connections for Thomastown line Demolish some existing buildings and 66kV switch yard Install one new 66kV switch room New electric fence within the compound, for public safety purposes.

3.1.2 Planning controls The application provided an assessment of the relevant planning controls including identifying the following objective in the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (the Act), at s4(e):

To protect public utilities and other assets and enable the orderly provision and coordination of public utilities and other facilities for the benefit of the community.

The application also drew attention to the following State Planning Policy Framework (SPPF) clauses as relevant and provided commentary on their applicability: Clause 12.04 – A more prosperous city Clause 14.01 – Planning for urban settlement Clause 15 – Environment Clause 18 – Infrastructure Clause 19.03 – Design and built form.

An assessment against the Local Planning Policy Framework (LPPF) was also undertaken and identified the following clauses as relevant: Clause 21.05‐5 – Urban design urban character and street landscapes Clause 21.05‐6 – Open space and outdoor recreation Clause 21.05‐10 – Infrastructure Clause 22.01 – Discretionary uses in residential areas.

9 Aurecon Development Application, 12 November 2009, page 12.


Page 11 of 66

The following zone and overlay controls were identified and their purposes and permit trigger requirements considered:10

The subject site is located in the Residential 1 Zone (R1Z) and is affected by an Environmental Significance Overlay – Schedule 1 (ESO1). A small portion of the site (along the eastern boundary) is also included in the Land Subject to Inundation Overlay (LSIO) and the south‐eastern corner of the site is covered by a Special Building Overlay (SBO).

3.1.3 Council decision Following a number of requests for further information, the application was considered at the Moreland City Council Urban Planning Committee meeting on 23 June 2010. The officer report assessed the application against the planning scheme and recommended that a permit be granted with extensive conditions.

The officer recommendation conclusion noted that the BTS had been in existence for over 50 years; there was no activity proposed beyond the existing use rights; and changes suggested through the report and conditions ensure the proposal is acceptable having regard to the provisions of the Moreland Planning Scheme and local objections.

Council voted to refuse the permit and a notice of refusal was issued on 30 June 2010. The reasons for refusal, included inconsistency with the SPPF and LPPF, particularly in relation to responsiveness to the Merri Creek and residential context including siting, design and landscape and issues with the existing use rights under clause 63.05.

The applicant did not exercise a right of appeal to VCAT on the refusal.

3.2 Planning permit application MPS/2011/420 3.2.1 Lodgement and application Following the refusal of the initial planning permit, an expanded consultation process was undertaken as outlined in Chapter 4.

The second planning permit application was lodged on 25 August 2011 for buildings and works for the proposal summarised as:11

Retention of 22kV switchgear building at the northern end of the site Retention of 220/22kV enclosed transformers at the northern end of the

site Replacement of the line termination rack at the northern end of the site.

The new rack will be more tubular in appearance Replacement of the existing outdoor 220kV switchyard with new indoor Gas

Insulated Switchgear (GIS). The building will be located near the eastern site boundary and will be approximately 26 metres x 27 metres and approximately 10 metre (sic) high

10 Aurecon Development Application, 12 November 2009, page 16. 11 Beca Permit Application, 25 August 2011, page 14.


Page 12 of 66

Establishment of a control room abutting the 220kV room that is approximately 27m x 16m and approximately 6 metres in height

Establishment of a 66kV building towards the southern end of the site. This building will house the 66kV GIS, transformers and the capacitor banks. The building will be approximately 57 metre x 50 metre. This building will be divided roughly into thirds with each third incrementally stepping up and away from Alister Street – approximately 7 metres, 9 metres, then 10 metres in height. This building will be designed to allow a future expansion to install an additional transformer and associated switchgear

Relocation of the existing perimeter and security fences. The security fence is to be set back as far as practicable and the permitter fence will be replaced with a fence made of a combination of palisade and chain‐wire mesh and set‐back along the frontages closest to the King and Alister Streets intersection

Removal of the redundant 66kV switchyard located in the eastern area of the BTS site

Removal of the existing compressor room Removal of the workshop buildings and sheds located in the south east

corner of the site Removal of redundant buildings along King Street (Maintenance Building,

Cooling Tower and Machine Room) Removal of the tower on the King Street side of the site Complete removal of the dis‐used access‐point mid‐way along King Street.

The application was notable in that as well as being a substantially re‐designed project it included a considerable number of additional specialist studies compared to the first application including a contamination assessment, geotechnical assessment, Aboriginal and other heritage assessments, an assessment of electromagnetic fields and others.

3.2.2 Planning controls The planning controls applying to the site at the time of the second planning permit application were as described in 3.1.2 above and the consultants for the applicant undertook a similar analysis in support of the application.

The second application provided a more thorough assessment of clause 63 – Existing uses, and noted that the applicant had obtained a Certificate of Compliance from Council confirming that the established facility had existing use rights.

3.2.3 Council decision The application was considered at the Urban Planning Committee Meeting on 23 November 2011. The Council officers supported the application and recommended that a permit be issued concluding that:

The Brunswick Terminal Station has existed in this location for 80 years. The proposed building and works are considered to respond to their context, ensure the sensitive interfaces and environments are protected and enhances liveability and amenity.


Page 13 of 66

The design of the buildings and the landscaping is considered to be responsive to the preferred future character for the area as it reinforces the positive landscape element of the existing character and improves the landscape/green character.

Lastly, the proposal meets the objectives and requirements of Council’s Human Exposure to Electromagnetic Radiation Policy and Relocation of Overhead Cables Strategy Policy. In particular, a number of measures have been introduced into the design to reduce fields, particularly magnetic fields.12

Council voted to refuse the application and a notice of refusal was issued on 29 November 2011. The reasons for refusal included inconsistency of the building and works scale with the Residential 1 Zone, the inability of the project to satisfactorily demonstrate that it addressed health impacts (from Electro‐magnetic Fields (EMF)), that it was contrary to Council’s policy on Electro‐magnetic Radiation (EMR) and that there were still issues related to clause 63 and existing use rights.

The Proponent, AusNet Services, lodged an application for review at VCAT in December 2011; this was withdrawn in February 2012 following the approval of Amendment C140 (discussed below).13

3.3 Moreland Planning Scheme Amendment C140 3.3.1 Background In October 2011 a briefing prepared by AEMO, the then SP AusNet, CitiPower and Powercor was provided to senior officers from DPCD and DPI.14 This briefing outlined the planning process undertaken including consultation, and stressed that planning delays were at risk of prolonging a period of reduced security of electricity supply and increasing the likelihood of supply constraints for new development.

On 7 November 2011, a letter signed by AEMO, CitiPower and Powercor to the Minister for Planning requested that the planning permit be called in prior to it being considered by the City of Moreland.15 The letter indicated that the matter would be likely to proceed to VCAT.

The letter outlined the planning history and consultation process and identified the reasons for the call‐in as security of supply, the extent of consultation undertaken and the potential impact of delays on customers and communities. The request was supported on 15 November 2011 by the former Minister for Energy and Resources in writing to the former Minister for Planning.16

12 In relation to the last point Council also commissioned a peer review of the EMF issue which generally

supported the application. This is discussed further in Chapter 8. 13 Moreland original submission, para 54. 14 Document 15 in the Hearing. 15 A copy of this letter was provided to the Committee as part of the request for information from the

Committee to DELWP (the ‘RFI package’). 16 Ibid.


Page 14 of 66

DPCD prepared documentation for the former Minister for Planning to enable the call‐in to take place. They advised the Committee that: 17

Advice was subsequently received by DPCD from the Minister’s office that the preferred course of action was a planning scheme amendment to apply planning controls to reflect the use of the land as a utility installation and enable the upgrade through an incorporated document.

The Department then provided a briefing to the former Minister which included a summary of the process to date and key issues and three options; being a planning scheme amendment under s20(4) of the Act, calling in the permit as requested, and no action. The first option was presented as the preferred option.18

The call‐in was not supported in the briefing on the basis that it would not address the inappropriateness of the underlying planning controls for the site, particularly the residential zoning.

Amendment C140 to the Moreland Planning Scheme was approved by the former Minister for Planning on 3 February 2012 under section 20(4) of the Act and gazetted on 17 February 2015.19 The reasons given by the former Minister were:20

I consider that –

Compliance with any of the requirements of sections 17, 18 and 19 of the Act and the regulations is not warranted because: The Amendment rezones the land to facilitate the development of the land

for the upgrade of the Brunswick Terminal Station. This development has been the subject of a planning permit application that was fully advertised and that third parties were given an opportunity to comment on.

The interests of Victoria or any part of Victoria make such an exemption appropriate because: The Amendment rezones the land to facilitate the upgrade of the Brunswick

Terminal Station which is part of the Victorian transmission network. The upgrade is urgent to ensure the maintenance of a secure electricity supply to the Melbourne CBD and inner suburbs.

3.3.2 What the Amendment did The Amendment made the following changes to the Moreland Planning Scheme: 21

Rezoning 46 King Street, Brunswick East from Residential 1 Zone to Special Use Zone;

17 DELWP Submission, Hearing Document 2. The Committee questioned Ms Brockhouse of the nature of this

advice from the former Minister’s office and she advised that it was verbal advice. 18 A copy of the briefing was provided by DELWP to the Committee in the RFI package. 19 S20(4) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 enables the Minister to prepare, adopt and approve an

Amendment without notice. This is discussed further in Chapter 6. 20 Reasons for Decision to Exercise Power of Intervention Under Section 20(4) of the Planning and

Environment Act 1987 Moreland Planning Scheme Amendment C140. 21 Moreland C140 Explanatory Report.


Page 15 of 66

Inserting Schedule 3 to the Special Use Zone; Amending Schedule 1 to Clause 42.01 to introduce exemptions for buildings

and works carried out in accordance with the Brunswick Terminal Station Incorporated Document 2012;

Including the Brunswick Terminal Station Incorporated Document, 2012 in the Schedule to Clause 81.01.

The Explanatory Report described the need for the Amendment as follows:

To respond to the projected growth in electricity demand in Melbourne’s inner suburbs and CBD ‐ CitiPower, the Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) and SP AusNet (together are referred to as ‘the proponent’) propose to upgrade the Brunswick Terminal Station to increase its capacity. The upgrade is required by summer 2014/2015 and is critical to providing capacity and security of supply (sufficient backup arrangements to prevent power disruptions) to the CBD network. If the Brunswick Terminal Station upgrade is not complete by summer 2014/2015, the proponent has advised that it is almost inevitable that power interruptions will occur during periods of summer loading affecting one or more suburbs at a time.

The Incorporated Document included in Amendment C140 states that no permit is required to use and develop the BTS site for a utility installation, provided that it is carried out in accordance with the conditions of the Incorporated Document. This is further discussed in Chapter 7.

3.4 Post ‐ Moreland Planning Scheme Amendment C140 Throughout early 2013, there was a significant amount of correspondence between Council, the Proponent and the MCRG in relation to tree removal, site management, consultation and other issues.22

It became apparent during this time that a number of works required for the BTS were not covered by the exemptions provided by the Incorporated Document and on 17 July 2013 AusNet Services requested that the former Minister undertake another Amendment to the Moreland Planning Scheme to allow a number of works that had already occurred.23

The then DTPLI sought Council’s view on such an Amendment, and Council advised in a letter dated 9 January 2014 that it did not support the requested Amendment. Council advised the Committee that it has never heard of the outcome of this request24, and a planning permit application was lodged by the Proponent soon after.

3.5 Planning permit application MPS/2014/87 The Committee is not reviewing the VCAT decision in accordance with its TOR. The following information is provided for completeness.

22 See Folder 2 provided by Council. 23 Council original submission, paragraph 63 onwards. 24 Ibid, paragraph 67.


Page 16 of 66

A planning permit application (MPS/2014/87) was lodged by AusNet Services (then SP AusNet) for the following:25

Removal of vegetation, construction of fences, excavation works at depths greater than 1 metre, 2 lot subdivision and minor alterations for the development of the land not generally in accordance with the Brunswick Terminal Station Incorporated Document 2012.

The application was considered by Council on 11 June 2014, who resolved to issue a permit with conditions; notice of the decision to grant a planning permit being issued on 17 June 2014.

On 3 July 2014 the MCRG lodged an application for review with VCAT. The matter was heard in August 2014 and VCAT ordered that a permit be issued in their decision of 4 September 2014.26 The permit was issued on 10 September 2014 and plans endorsed on 22 September 2014.

As noted by Council in their original submission to the Committee, the plans endorsed through the 2014 permit process depart in some cases from those included in the Incorporated Document. Particularly relevant plans include:27 The Vegetation Removal Plan Landscape Plan Planting schedules.

3.6 Submissions on planning approvals process There were a range of views expressed in submissions to the Committee in relation to the planning approvals process. These generally fell into two major positions: support for the process as it occurred and particularly the s20(4) amendment from the electrical supply and distributions companies and regulator; and opposition to the Ministerial intervention on the basis that the planning process should have run its course from Council and the MCRG.

Some of the detailed issues are outlined in the process summary earlier in this chapter but the two positions can be summarised briefly as follows.

Support for the process eventually followed based on the several avenues and opportunities of consultation undertaken; the redesign of the project to respond to community concerns; and the urgency of decision‐making given the stated threat to supply security.

Opposition to the planning process as it evolved was grounded in opposition to the expansion of the BTS itself, but was particularly focused on the Ministerial s20(4) process when the planning decision was taken away from the responsible authority. Mr Rantino for Council restated this fundamental opposition:28

25 There were a number of other minor relatively uncontroversial permit applications including

MPS/2013/868, to retrospectively consider drainage works. 26 Merri Creek Residents Group Inc v Moreland CC [2014] VCAT 1099. 27 Council original submission, paragraph 82. 28 Moreland City Council original submission, paragraph 85.


Page 17 of 66

It would be a misunderstanding of Council’s decision to grant the 2014 permit or to endorse the plans to think that Council supported the expansion of the site. Council did not and does not support the expansion of the site.

He submitted that as Council was not permitted to consult in relation to Amendment C140 before it was approved, in particular in relation to the new planning controls and the Incorporated Document, Council considers that this resulted in the following:29

Planning controls that were not clear in relation to planning permit exemptions

The inclusion of a Construction Management Plan and associated planning enforcement responsibilities that go well beyond the expertise and resources of Council

The inability for Council to defend its concerns in relation to the health impacts of the infrastructure and uphold Council’s Human Exposure to Electromagnetic Radiation Policy, February 2000

The removal of the requirement for the project to satisfactorily demonstrate how the buildings and works will satisfy a policy of prudent avoidance to eliminate any health effects associated with exposure to electromagnetic energy fields

A landscape plan approved in the Incorporated Document that lacked detail, was ambiguous, unclear and left the community and officers uncertain as to setbacks, trees to be retained and vegetation.

Council further stated that as the Construction Management Plan (CMP) has been the subject of numerous iterations and debate over the meaning of certain aspects, the Minister should be responsible for its enforcement.

The MCRG submitted similarly that the approval process was flawed for a number of reasons including:30 The process was unsatisfactory and led to a poor planning outcome Consultation was poor and this contributed to the poor outcome The former Minister’s intervention was unnecessary and unjustified The process excluded the Group’s usual rights in the planning process and the ‘urgency’

reason was an unsubstantiated assertion The resulting amendment (C140) was flawed and has resulted in a planning control that

is inadequate, unclear, unfair, inflexible and (in some respects) unlawful In approving the Amendment the former Minister failed to give adequate consideration

to environmental and health matters including EMF.31

29 Council original submission, pages 26‐27 30 MCRG original submission paragraph 10. 31 Submissions were made on the extent to which planning decisions should consider environmental, health

and amenity issues, for example see the Council Hearing submission paragraph 18 onwards. The Committee does not consider this was a contested issue and there is broad acceptance of considering such issues in planning. The extent of consideration of course may be at issue in particular decisions.


Page 18 of 66

The planning process through the initial two permit applications appears to have been operating as it should under the Act, albeit with apparently growing concern from the Proponents in relation to timing.

A key issue in submissions in relation to the planning process was that of urgency. AusNet Services and CitiPower submitted that the request for the planning permit call in, which resulted in the s20(4) amendment, was that the upgrade had become urgent and security of electricity supply was threatened (see 3.3.1 above).

The MCRG submitted that this substantial exaggeration of the true position was not borne out:32

As far as the group is aware, there were no significant power interruptions that occurred in the summer of 2014/2015 within inner Melbourne. This is despite the fact that the BTS Project has, as a result of the actions of the operator of the BTS, still not been completed (and indeed had barely even been commenced in the summer of 2014/2015.

CitiPower submitted that the primary reason that the predictions of supply interruption and degraded supply security did not come to pass was because of the ‘work arounds’ that were undertaken when the planning process delays became apparent.

These, it was submitted, were undertaken jointly by CitiPower, AusNet Services, Jemena Electricity Networks and United Energy, and included:33 Temporary 66kV powerlines in Kew and Malvern A temporary additional 220kV transformer at Richmond Terminal Station Operational switching on high demand days.

Mr Watt for CitiPower submitted that the first two ‘works arounds’ cost approximately $19 million, are temporary, and do not provide for a long term supply solution.

Mr Pitt for AusNet Services tabled in the Hearing Transmission Connection Planning Reports for 2011 and 2014. The Committee was taken through the relevant parts of these reports relating to the BTS, Richmond Terminal Station and West Melbourne Terminal Station in some detail by the Proponents and the MCRG to demonstrate their respective points of view about the necessity and timing of works.

Another issue raised by the MCRG in relation to the planning process was that of the transmission lines from the BTS being upgraded due to the BTS expansion, but not being included in the BTS assessment itself. A powerline under 220kV is defined as a ‘minor utility installation’ at clause 74 in the planning scheme and does not require a permit for use in the residential zones.

Mr Tweedie for MCRG submitted that there is a long history in planning and environmental assessment of including the whole of a project in the assessment. In response Mr Pitt submitted that as the sub‐transmission lines do not require a permit under the planning scheme, then a permit is not required.

32 MCRG original submission, paragraph 27. 33 CitiPower Hearing submission, paragraphs 19‐23.


Page 19 of 66

3.7 Discussion and conclusions One of the striking elements of the whole matter is how much work was undertaken on the network regulatory assessment process by the Proponent(s) prior to a planning permit application being considered. This issue is discussed in more detail in Chapter 7 but in essence the Proponents had undertaken several years worth of regulatory approval work and appeared, in the early stages of the land use planning process, to have expected a ‘rubber stamp’ on the initial planning permit application.

Whatever the relationship with the regulatory approval process, the Panel considers that the planning permit application processes with Council as the responsible authority appear to have run as they should under the Act.

The Committee considers that the planning process, and the public scrutiny of the BTS expansion through those permit processes, has demonstrably resulted in a better, albeit considerably more expensive, project for the local community than that originally proposed.34

The Committee notes that two permit applications were refused by Council in the face of officer support, and despite the efforts at consultation by the Proponents. Nothing can be read in to this other than the normal Council process running its course; no one sought to argue before the Committee that Council was not entitled to make the two refusal decisions.

However, in light of the first refusal, and the likelihood of the second refusal, the Committee also accepts and understands the concerns of the Proponents in exploring other approval avenues; that is directly approaching the former Minister for Planning, to try and expedite a positive decision‐making outcome.

The Committee can see no intent in the Proponent’s request to the former Minister other than to expedite the outcome of improving security of supply and to prevent supply disruptions; both genuinely held concerns in the Committee’s view.

The question of need and urgency was subject to considerable submissions in the Hearing. The Committee was taken in great detail through network planning reports that were said to demonstrate, or not, whether the BTS upgrade was needed at all and whether it was needed in such a hurry.

While the Committee does not need to provide an answer to this specific question, it does make the following observations: Network planning and the supply of such critical infrastructure has long lead times and

decisions on major asset upgrade and equipment are relatively inflexible35 The risks in ‘under‐servicing’ demand are apparent; over‐servicing has cost implications

for the consumer but under‐servicing may impose critical limitations on an essential service

That there were no supply disruptions in the summer of 2014/2015 would appear to be plausibly explained by ‘work arounds’, demand management, and to some extent, a milder summer.

34 The improvements are articulated in Chapter 4. 35 Mr Watt from CitiPower talked of the difficulty of delivery and lead times for transformers for example.


Page 20 of 66

In relation to the course of action taken by the former Minister for Planning in preparing and approving Moreland C140, it is important to note that there is no suggestion before the Committee that the former Minister his legal powers in making the s20(4) decision. If he had, the proper place to challenge this would have been before the courts and no such challenge has been made.

Why the former Minister chose the s20(4) pathway rather than calling in the second planning permit from VCAT is less clear. DELWP in their submission and in answering questions could not shed any light on the matter other than to say it was verbally requested from the former Minister’s office.

The end result, and it may be the reason for the s20(4) approach, although this is pure speculation, was that any further consultation was excluded.36 If a permit is called in under s58 of Schedule 1 of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998, an Advisory Committee under s151 of the Planning and Environment Act is usually formed with an opportunity for public input to advise the former Minister on the permit application.37

Alternatively, the route taken via Amendment C140 can be seen as a longer term solution which provides a fundamentally more appropriate zoning for the land given the BTS use. However, as the post Amendment C140 permit applications and VCAT decision attest, it has still not been as efficient a process as the Proponents might have hoped.

Overall, and with the helpful benefit of hindsight, the decision of the former Minister to use s20(4) of the Act to prepare and approve Amendment C140 appears to have not been particularly supportive of project delivery as it: Approved planning instruments that were flawed to some extent (discussed further in

Chapter 7) (Partly because of the above point) did not achieve the efficiency benefits desired by the

Proponents in the planning process as additional permit applications and eventually a VCAT hearing were still required

Led to significant community concern due to the lack of engagement in the process compared to if the project as a whole had been argued in front of VCAT.

It is difficult not to conclude, although the Committee cannot be certain, that if following the refusal of the second permit application the matter had run its course through VCAT, that a similar outcome might have been achieved in a shorter timeframe than has eventuated. This of course is assuming that in the circumstances, VCAT had decided that a permit should be issued.

If VCAT had refused to issue a permit, the use of s20(4) as a ‘last resort’ to approve Amendment C140 or a similar Amendment would still have been available to the former Minister.

36 Mr Pitt at para 2.29 of the AusNet submission rightly noted that exclusion of consultation is not limited to

s20(4) in the Act. 37 This is the same head of power for this Committee. A number of similar VCAT call‐ins with associated

Advisory Committees have been undertaken recently, for example for the Mt Buller‐Mt Stirling Link Road. It should be noted that such an Advisory Committee is not required by the VCAT Act but is usually undertaken as a matter of convention.


Page 21 of 66

In relation to the issue of whether sub‐transmission lines, which are ‘as of right’ in most if not all zones, should have been included in the application and assessment process, the Committee notes this did not appear to be an issue in the planning permit applications before Council and it was not addressed specifically in the Ministerial Amendment C140. However the Committee is aware that there a body of law on this type of issue going back to at least the Pioneer Principle and it may require consideration in future.38

The difficulty in describing what the project actually includes may be problematic in both spatial and temporal terms given the timing of works and extent of the electricity grid.

3.8 Findings and recommendations Findings:

In relation to the planning approvals process, the Committee finds:

There were no apparent fundamental flaws in the planning permit application process and consideration of the permit applications by the Moreland City Council.

In hindsight, the justification for the use of the s20(4) provisions to approve Moreland C140 on the material before the Panel does not appear strong; and it is not clear to the Committee why a s20(4) planning scheme amendment was used as opposed to the former Minister for Planning calling in the planning permit from the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal.

Whether or not it was ‘the right decision’ of the former Minister for Planning to use s20(4) rather than allowing the matter to take its course through the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal is a rather moot point, as the decision was made and has not been legally challenged by any party.

The planning instruments developed and implemented through Amendment C140 appear to have been poorly drafted, and to some extent reversed the efficiencies gained through the use of s20(4).

It is arguable that if the second planning permit application had been allowed to run its course, possibly through the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal, that the end outcome would have been achieved in a similar timeframe to that which resulted, with more transparency for the community; but the Committee accepts that at the time the Proponent had genuine concerns as to the urgency and necessity of supply protection.

Recommendations:

In relation to the planning approvals process the Committee does not make any specific recommendations. Recommendations for future planning processes are included later in this report.

38 The Committee notes that the planning provisions around wind energy facilities have been changed in 2015

to explicitly include the transmission lines to the grid from a wind farm in the project assessment to acknowledge their potential impact.


Page 22 of 66

4 Consultation 4.1 Overview of processes Extensive documentation on consultation activities undertaken on the BTS upgrade was provided to the Committee by Council (Folders 1 and 2), and in other written submissions. This included accounts of the processes undertaken by the Council, AusNet Services, CitiPower and AEMO, and stakeholder responses. Professor Whitzman submitted an assessment of the adequacy and appropriateness of the consultation process and offered comments on alternative approaches. Several members of the MCRG also made individual submissions.

The Committee reviewed all submissions and also considered some recent policy documents relevant to the BTS upgrade. Most of these were tabled or cited at the Hearing.

A summary of the main consultation activities and impacts on design outcomes is shown in Table 2. This provides an overview of community consultation and participation since 2010.

Submissions are discussed in detail in sections 4.2 to 4.5 and an overall discussion and recommendations are included in sections 4.6 and 4.7.

4.2 Pre‐Moreland C140 processes Relevant activities prior to community consultation commencing in 2010 were noted: Following a decision by the Essential Services Commission to approve the upgrade of the

BTS in 2008, two written submissions were received, both from power companies. A related 2008 CitiPower report recommending upgrade of the BTS was available to the public.39

SP AusNet wrote to the Council on 6 August 2009 regarding proposals to construct fencing and undertaken landscape works. Consultation was not discussed. The upcoming planning permit application for the upgrade was also not discussed.

SP AusNet c/‐ Aurecon lodged a planning permit application for a $58 million upgrade of the BTS on 7 December 2009. No consultation was documented in the application or in the associated Aurecon Development Application of 12 November 2009. The proposal included a series of additional towers and overhead wires.

The Council wrote to Aurecon on 4 March 2010 indicating that any requirements for advertising would be advised.

39 CitiPower submission 15 May 2015, p6.


Page 23 of 66

Table 2 Summary of BTS consultation activities and outcomes: from 2010

Date/ C140 stage

Community stakeholders involved

Consultation Stat/Non Stat *

Proposal/ issues Community inputs Impact on design outcomes

Source

Pre C140

Mar‐Jun 2010

Adjacent owners/ occupiers, 3 stakeholder organisations (including MCMC).

Stat: Notices at site, in media, sent to stakeholder organisations, one community meeting (31/5/10).

Dec 2009 application for planning permit: proposed $58m upgrade including 12 new 26 m pylons. Issues: Alternative options, impacts on visual amenity, noise, landscaping, nature of works, health.

16 initial objections and 26 more after 31 May meeting. No consensus at meeting. Subsequently a total of over 200 objections.

Proponent committed�

Brunswick Terminal Station - planning.vic.gov.au€¦ · Planning and Environment Act 1987 Advisory...

Documents

Transcript of Brunswick Terminal Station - planning.vic.gov.au€¦ · Planning and Environment Act 1987 Advisory...