Gas Import Jetty and Pipeline Project · • The focus of my assessment is the Pipeline Works and...

Inquiry and Advisory Committee

Gas Import Jetty and Pipeline Project Date of Report: September 2020 Report prepared for AGL Wholesale Gas Limited and APA Transmission Pty Ltd Report prepared by Tim McBride-Burgess

© Contour Consultants Aust Pty Ltd The information contained in this document is confidential and intended solely for the use of the client identified in the report for the purpose for which it has been prepared and no representation is made or is to be implied as being made to any third party. Use or copying of this document in whole or part without the written permission of Contour Consultants Aust Pty Ltd constitutes an infringement of copyright. The Intellectual property contained in this document remains the property of Contour Consultants Aust Pty Ltd.

Inquiry and Advisory Committee

Gas Import Jetty and Pipeline Project Date of Report: September 2020 Report prepared for AGL Wholesale Gas Limited and APA Transmission Pty Ltd Report prepared by Tim McBride-Burgess

Contents

1 Introduction ............................................................. 3

2 Instructions and Information Relied Upon .......... 4

3 Facts, Matters and Assumptions .......................... 7

4 Summary of Key Issues, Opinions and Recommendation ................................................... 9

5 Consideration of Relevant Chapter and Exhibited Technical Reports ................................ 12 5.1 Preamble ...................................................... 12 5.2 State Policy Considerations ....................... 15 5.3 Local Policy Considerations ....................... 18 5.4 Pipeline Alignment Selection Process ...... 22 5.5 Proposed Segment Considerations ........... 27 5.6 Mainline Valve (MLV) locations .................. 40 5.7 Pakenham Delivery Facility ........................ 44 5.8 End of Line Scraper Station ........................ 48

6 Review of Submissions ........................................ 53

7 Review and Recommendations on the Mitigation Measures ............................................ 63 7.1 Review Measures Recommended in

Chapter 25 of the EES ................................. 63 7.2 Review the Pipeline License Application .. 64

8 Conclusion ............................................................. 65

Attachment 1 Expert Witness Declaration

Attachment 2 Information Relied Upon

Gas Import Jetty and Pipeline Project Contour Consultants Aust Pty Ltd 3

1

1 Introduction

1 This expert witness statement has been prepared by Tim McBride-Burgess, Director at Contour Consultants Aust Pty Ltd (Contour Consultants) of Level 1, 283 Drummond Street, Carlton. Angela Ash, an Associate at Contour Consultants assisted in the preparation of this statement.

2 Attachment 1 provides a summary of my professional qualifications and experience in accordance with the Planning Panels Victoria Expert Witness Guide (April 2019).

3 I have been requested by Ashurst and Hall & Wilcox acting on behalf of AGL Wholesale Gas Limited (AGL) and APA Transmission Pty Ltd (APA) to consider the town planning and amenity impacts of the Pipeline Works proposed as part of the Gas Import Jetty and Pipeline Project (the Project). I was not involved in the preparation of the EES or various Technical Reports that form part of the EES.

4 My opinions and recommendations are set out in this expert witness statement.

5 I acknowledge that my colleague Andrew Biacsi, also a Director at Contour Consultants, has been separately engaged by AGL and APA to assess the strategic planning issues associated with the proposed works at the Crib Point Jetty including in respect of draft Planning Scheme Amendment C272 to the Mornington Peninsula Planning Scheme.


2

2 Instructions and Information Relied Upon

6 My instructions are set out in a brief received from Ashhurst and Hall & Wilcox (dated 7 August 2020). My instructions are to consider the town planning and amenity impacts of the Pipeline Works component of the proposed Gas Import Jetty and Pipeline Project (the Project).

7 The Project consists of two key sets of works:

• the Pipeline Works which are to be developed by APA; and

• The Gas Import Jetty Works which are to be developed by AGL.

8 My instructions outline that the scope of the Pipeline Works includes:

• an underground gas pipeline approximately 57 kilometres long linking the Crib Point Receiving Facility at Crib Point and the VTS east of Pakenham (noting that various options were considered for the route and minor deviations may continue to arise due to negotiations with affected landowners along the route);

• a pigging facility at the Crib Point Receiving Facility to enable in-line inspections of the pipeline with a pipeline inspection gauge (pig);

• an above-ground Pakenham Delivery Facility adjacent to the Pakenham East rail depot to monitor and regulate gas;

• a below-ground End of Line Scraper Station (EOLSS) located at the connection point to the VTS, north of the Princes Highway in Pakenham; and

• two above-ground mainline valves (MLV1 and MLV2) located at different points along the pipeline alignment to enable isolation of the pipeline in an emergency.

9 The scope of my engagement is confined to consideration of the town planning and amenity implications associated only with the Pipeline Works extending from Crib Point to the Pakenham. I have not been requested to consider the town planning implications associated with the Gas Import Jetty Works and proposed Planning Scheme Amendment (PSA C272).

10 The Environmental Effects Statement (EES) has been jointly exhibited together with the following Key Approval Documentation:

• a Pipeline Licence Application under the Pipelines Act 2005 (Pipelines Act 2005) for the Pipeline Works;

• a Works Approval Application under the Environment Protection Act 1970 (EP Act) for the Floating Storage and Regasification Unit (FSRU) component of the Gas Import Jetty Works; and

Gas Import Jetty and Pipeline Project Contour Consultants Aust Pty Ltd 5 2 Instructions and Information Relied Upon

• a Planning Scheme Amendment (PSA) to the Mornington Peninsula Planning Scheme (C272), which will apply a Specific Controls Overlay and Incorporated Document to facilitate the use and development of land at Crib Point with the Gas Import Jetty Works. The PSA will also extend the Port Zone further around the jetty and rezone some anomalous areas to Port Zone.

11 I am instructed and understand that if a Pipeline Licence is issued in respect of the Pipeline Works, planning permission will not be required in respect of either the use or development of the Pipeline Works by operation of Section 85 of the Pipelines Act 2005.

12 My instructions, however, are to consider the land use and amenity impacts of the Pipeline Works component of the Project in the context of the environmental effects assessment to be undertaken pursuant to the Environmental Effects Act 1978 (Vic) (the EE Act) and the Pipeline Licence Application made pursuant to the Pipelines Act 2005.

13 In this regard, Section 49 of the Pipelines Act 2005 sets out the matters the Minister for Energy, Environment & Climate Change must consider when granting a licence. An extract of Section 49 follows:

s.49 In determining an application for a licence, the Minister must consider the following-----

(a) the potential environmental, social, economic and safety impacts of the proposed pipeline;

(b) the potential impact of the proposed pipeline on cultural heritage (including Indigenous cultural heritage);

(c) the benefit of the proposed pipeline to Victoria relative to its potential impacts;

(d) the submissions received under section 34 in relation to the application;

(e) the report of the panel (if any) on the submissions received in relation to the application;

(f) the assessment of the Environment Effects Minister in relation to the proposed pipeline, if an assessment has been made;

(g) any written comments received from the Planning Minister or the relevant responsible authority on the effect of the proposed pipeline on the planning of the area through which it is to pass;

(h) any written comments received from the Water Minister and from the relevant Crown Land Minister on the impact of the proposed pipeline.

Gas Import Jetty and Pipeline Project Contour Consultants Aust Pty Ltd 6 2 Instructions and Information Relied Upon

14 My instructions are to consider Chapter 17 --- Land Use of the EES and the Technical Report L Land Use Impact Assessment that address the relevant town planning context for The Project. I have also been directed to consider EES Technical Report L which also addresses town planning matters.

15 I have also been provided with a copy of the IAC RFI dated 16/09/20 and considered and responded to the specific requests accordingly.

16 My evidence has been prepared on the basis that there is a demonstrated need for the Project. Confirmation of this is a matter for others. My considerations are confined to the town planning and amenity considerations associated with the proposed construction and operation of the Pipeline Works as proposed by the proponent.

17 A list of the documentation and material I have relied on in preparing my evidence is included at Attachment 2 of this statement.


3

3 Facts, Matters and Assumptions

18 The facts, matters and assumptions I have relied upon in preparing this witness statement include the following:

• The Project consists of two key sets of works:

− the Pipeline Works which are to be developed by APA; and

− the Gas Import Jetty Works which are to be developed by AGL.

• The Pipelines Act 2005 exempts pipelines from the requirement for approval under the Planning and Environment Act 1987 where a Pipeline Licence is issued.

• The Pipelines Act 2005 does not apply to a pipeline which is wholly within a port.

• The Pipeline Works, which are in part located outside the port area, will be subject to a Pipeline Licence under the Pipelines Act 2005.

• Section 49 of the Pipelines Act 2005 sets out the matters the Minister for Energy, Environment & Climate Change must consider when granting a licence.

• As the Gas Import Jetty Works would be entirely located within declared Port of Hastings land, the gas piping on the jetty and Crib Point Receiving Facility cannot be licensed under the Pipelines Act 2005. This means the exemption from approval under the Planning and Environment Act 1987 is not applicable for those works.

• The Gas Import Jetty Works (including the floating storage and regasification unit (FSRU)) will require planning approval under the Mornington Peninsula Planning Scheme.

• Proposed Planning Scheme Amendment C272 to the Mornington Peninsula Planning Scheme seeks to apply a Specific Controls Overlay to the Crib Point Jetty. An Incorporated Document is to be the mechanism to facilitate the use and development of land at Crib Point and the proposed jetty works. The PSA will also extend the Port Zone and rezone some adjacent anomalous areas to the Port Zone.

• The focus of my assessment is the Pipeline Works and the matters that must be considered as set out at Section 49 of the Pipelines Act 2005, as relevant to my expertise.

• The Project is one of State significance.

19 At the time of writing it was not possible to undertake a physical inspection of the proposed pipeline route or the Crib Point Jetty due to the COVID-19 Stage 4 lockdown requirements in place across Metropolitan Melbourne.

Gas Import Jetty and Pipeline Project Contour Consultants Aust Pty Ltd 8 3 Facts, Matters and Assumptions

20 My assessment is based on a desktop review of the available information, including the aerial photography from Nearmaps, google maps and street view, GIS mapping providing by the proponent, zoning maps etc.

21 My assessment may be supplemented by physical site inspections once it is possible and I am permitted to do so.


4

4 Summary of Key Issues, Opinions and Recommendation

23 In undertaking my assessment of the town planning and amenity considerations, I have considered the following:

• The relevant evaluation objectives in the Scoping Requirements and how this is addressed in within ESS documentation, including within Chapter 17;

• Considered the proposed Pipeline Works having regard to the strategic planning objectives contained with the Mornington Peninsula, Casey, and Cardinia Planning Schemes;

• Assessed the pipeline alignment have regard to the construction and end use amenity impacts;

• Considered the suitability of the proposed locations of the two above-ground transmission valves (MLV), the above-ground Pakenham Delivery Facility and the below-ground End of Line Scraper Station (EOLSS);

• Considered the submissions received during the exhibition period;

• Reviewed the License Application included at Attachment IX to the EES and its associated attachments; and

• Reviewed the Environmental Management Framework.

24 Subject to the recommendations contained within my evidence, the land use planning and amenity impacts associated with the proposed Pipeline Works are acceptable. The proposed land use assessment undertaken by the proponent is comprehensive and has reasonably considered the amenity impacts of the Pipeline Works proposed as part of the Project during construction and operation.

25 There will undoubtedly be some impacts on amenity during construction. These include traffic, noise, vibration, and air quality and visual impacts however these are a normal component of any construction works and will be temporary. These impacts will be managed as part of the Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) which has been prepared as part of the EES Documentation and accompanies the Application for a Pipeline License. Specific chapters within the EES also address these matters and are supplemented by associated Technical Reports.

26 Construction works within the township of Hastings are largely limited to the existing railway corridor and will be undertaken using underground horizontal directional drilling (HDD). This method will assist to mitigate construction related amenity impacts or end use impacts. Between Hastings and the Pakenham Delivery Facility the pipeline alignment typically extends through agricultural and rural living land uses which would only experience short term amenity impacts during the construction phase due to the progressive nature of the works as they occur along the alignment.

Gas Import Jetty and Pipeline Project Contour Consultants Aust Pty Ltd 10 4 Summary of Key Issues, Opinions and Recommendation

27 End use impacts largely relate to the introduction of easements along the pipeline alignment. Reinstatement of existing surface and landscaping should occur where trenching is proposed.

28 The easement will restrict certain buildings and works, and uses from occurring within the easement area but will not restrict activities such as grazing and typical farming activities.

29 Following ongoing landowner and stakeholder consultation I understand that two proposed changes to the Pipeline alignment are now proposed. These are referred to as BJ11 and BH11. I have reviewed these proposed modified alignments and find them to be acceptable in terms of the town planning and amenity consequences.

30 The chosen alignment of the Pipeline from Crib Point to Pakenham is acceptable, save for the minor recommendations I have made within my statement. I accept the alternative, shorter western alignment to Dandenong would result in increased land use conflicts and is therefore an inferior option to that proposed. I also agree that the offshore option through Western Port is the least preferred option given that it would extend through the Western Port Ramsar site and has been correctly dismissed for this reason.

31 The land use and amenity implications resulting from the Pipeline Works once in operation would be limited. The alignment is generally limited to existing railway alignment, roads and title boundaries. The resultant easements along the pipeline are a necessary element of this type of infrastructure but again I consider that the alignment generally along existing road and title boundaries limits these impacts. I have recommended avoiding diagonally crossing properties wherever practical.

32 The location of the two mainline valves (MLV1 and MLV2), the above-ground Pakenham Delivery Facility, and the EOLSS are acceptably located and will not cause unreasonable amenity impacts. In the absence of the permit exemption under Section 49 of the Pipelines Act 2005, these components of the Pipeline Works could be supported.

33 Overall, I consider that the proposed Pipeline Works are acceptable from a town planning perspective and will not cause unacceptable amenity impacts during construction or operation. I also consider that the scoping requirements relevant to town planning matters have been addressed, and the scoping objective to minimise adverse amenity impacts affects to the local and regional area is satisfied.

34 I consider that the Pipeline Works are appropriate and support the existing Port of Hastings use having regard to the relevant policies and provisions within the Mornington Peninsula Planning Scheme, the Casey Planning Scheme, and the Cardinia Planning Scheme, and appropriately balance the net community benefit aspirations of Clause 71.02-1 of these Planning Schemes.

Gas Import Jetty and Pipeline Project Contour Consultants Aust Pty Ltd 11 4 Summary of Key Issues, Opinions and Recommendation

35 I form this view notwithstanding that the proposed Pipeline Works are exempt under Section 49 of the Pipelines Act 2005 from approval under the Planning and Environment Act 1987 where a Pipeline Licence is issued.


5

5 Consideration of Relevant Chapter and Exhibited Technical Reports

36 As identified previously in the preceding sections of my statement, I have considered the town planning and amenity impacts associated with the proposed Pipeline Works. This includes the proposed 57km of underground pipeline extending from Crib Point to Pakenham, the above-ground Pakenham Delivery Facility, below-ground the EOLSS, the two above-ground MLV’s located along the alignment.

37 The town planning considerations associated with The Project are addressed within Chapter 17 --- Land Use of the EES. This chapter is supplemented by EES Technical Report L --- Land Use Impact Assessment.

38 These documents have been prepared to address the scoping requirements relevant to the land use and amenity impacts of The Project. The Scoping Requirements are listed within the ‘Scoping Requirements for the Gas Import Jetty and Pipeline Project Environment Effects Statement (The Scoping Requirements)’ document dated January 2019.

It states the following:

In the light of the potential for significant environmental effects, on 8 October 2018 the Victorian Minister for Planning (the Minister) determined under the Environment Effects Act 1978 that AGL Wholesale Gas Limited (AGL) and APA Transmission Pty. Limited (APA) (jointly acting as the proponent) must prepare an environment effects statement (EES) for the Crib Point Gas Import Jetty and Crib Point to Pakenham Pipeline project (the project). AGL is the primary proponent for the gas import jetty works, including the floating storage and regasification unit (FSRU) and AGL is the primary proponent for the Crib Point to Pakenham pipeline works.

The purpose of the EES is to provide a sufficiently detailed description of the proposed project, assess its potential effects on the environment and assess alternative project layouts, designs and approaches to avoid and mitigate effects. The EES will inform and seek feedback from the public and stakeholders and enable the Minister to issue an assessment of the environmental effects of the project under the Environment Effects Act. The Minister’s assessment will inform statutory decision-makers responsible for the project’s approvals.

The scoping requirements for the project set out the specific matters to be investigated and documented in the EES. The Minister issued the scoping requirements for the EES following consideration of public comments received on a draft which was available for public comment over a three-week period in November-December 2018.

5.1 Preamble

Gas Import Jetty and Pipeline Project Contour Consultants Aust Pty Ltd 13 5 Consideration of Relevant Chapter and Exhibited Technical Reports

39 The scoping requirements provide further detail on the specific matters to be investigated in the EES. Section 4.5 of the Scoping Requirements specifically relate to the ‘social, economic, amenity and land use’ objectives.

40 The draft evaluation objective listed in Table 1 is:

To minimise potential adverse social, economic, amenity and land use effects at local and regional scales.

41 The specific requirements to assess this objective are listed as follows:

Key issues

→ Potential for project works and operations to affect business (including farming and tourism) operations or other existing or approved facilities or land uses.

→ Potential for dust emissions resulting from construction works and activities, including dust from potentially contaminated soil.

→ Potential for increases in noise and vibration levels during project construction or operation to affect amenity adversely in adjacent residential and parkland areas.

→ Potential for project construction or operation to affect local air quality adversely.

→ Potential for temporary or permanent changes to use of or access to existing infrastructure in the project area and in its vicinity.

→ Potential for impacts on reasonably foreseeable upgrades to public infrastructure.

→ Potential for impacts on recreational boating and other recreational activities from the project.

→ Potential for adverse impacts on visual or landscape values.

Priorities for characterising the existing environment

→ Describe the demographic and social character of residential communities near the project.

→ Identify dwellings and any other potentially sensitive receptors (e.g. community centres, open spaces, etc.) that could be affected by the project’s potential effects on air quality, noise or vibration levels, especially vulnerable receptors including children and the elderly.

→ Monitor and characterise background levels of air quality (e.g. dust and greenhouse gas emissions from equipment), noise and vibration near the project, including established residential areas and other sensitive receptors.

→ Identify existing and reasonably foreseeable land uses and businesses occupying land to be traversed by, adjacent to, or otherwise affected by impacts from the project.

→ Identify strategic plans specifying or encouraging land use outcomes for land to be occupied by the project.

→ Identify existing levels of recreational boating and other recreational activities in the vicinity of the Crib Point jetty and the channels used by commercial shipping to move to and from the jetty.


→ Identify visual and landscape values near the project, including public and private vantage points from which elements of the project may be visible.

Design and mitigation measures

→ Identify potential and proposed design responses and/or other mitigation measures to avoid, reduce and/or manage any significant effects for sensitive receptors during project construction and operation arising from specified air pollution indicators, noise, vibration, traffic and lighting, in the context of applicable policy and standards and the anticipated increase in shipping traffic in Western Port resulting from the project.

→ Identify options for mitigating impacts from project construction or operation on potentially affected businesses and community facilities including open space.

→ Identify options for mitigating or managing visual or landscape impacts of the project.

Assessment of likely effects

→ Identify implications for communities, current land uses and businesses and immediately foreseeable changes in land use.

→ Predict likely atmospheric concentrations of dust and other air pollution indicators at sensitive receptors near the FSRU or along the pipeline corridor, during project construction and operation, using an air quality impact assessment undertaken in accordance with SEPP environmental objectives.

→ Assess likely noise, vibration, traffic, lighting and visual impacts at sensitive receptors adjacent to the project during project construction and operation (both with and in the absence of the proposed mitigation measures), relative to standards.

→ Describe the likely extent and duration of temporary disruption to existing land uses arising from project construction.

→ Describe potential impacts on public infrastructure including roads resulting from construction or operations activities.

→ Describe potential impacts on recreational activities resulting from the project.

→ Assess potential safety hazards to the public arising from project construction and operation.

Approach to manage performance.

→ Measures to manage other potentially significant effects on amenity, environmental quality and social wellbeing (including access to open spaces) should also be addressed in the EES, including a framework for identifying and responding to emerging issues, as part of the EMF (Section 5).

→ Describe any further measures that are proposed to enhance social outcomes, and either manage risks to landscape and recreational values, or enhance visual amenity outcomes both for residents living near the project and for visitors to the locality, to form part of the EMF (see Section 5).


42 I have had regard for these scoping requirements in my assessment of the proposed Pipeline Works and in the preparation of my statement of evidence.

43 In that regard, my assessment and review of The Project addresses the following key considerations:

• Has the EES adequately considered the relevant state planning policy considerations relevant to the Pipeline Works?

• Has the EES adequately considered the relevant local planning considerations within the Mornington Planning Scheme, the Casey Planning Scheme, and the Cardinia Planning Scheme?

• Is the proposed pipeline alignment and VTS connection at Pakenham appropriate?

• Has the proposed alignment adequately sought to minimise the localised land use and amenity impacts of the pipeline during construction and operation?

• Are the proposed locations for the two MLV’s, the Pakenham Delivery Facility, and the EOLSS acceptable?

44 The abovementioned considerations are addressed in the remaining sections of my statement.

45 I have also reviewed the submissions received during the public exhibition process and considered these to the extent that they relate to my area of expertise.

46 As part of my assessment I have undertaken my own review of the Planning Policy Framework (PPF) as relevant to the Project and scope of my assessment associated with the Pipeline Works.

47 Clause 71.02 sets out the Operation of the Planning Policy Framework, the purpose of which is to provide a context for spatial planning and decision making.

48 As outlined in Clause 71.02-1 the PPF ‘seeks to ensure that the objectives of Planning in Victoria (as set out in Section 4 of the Act) are fostered through appropriate land use and development planning policies and practices that integrate relevant environment, social and economic factors in the interests of net community benefit and sustainable development.’

49 I consider the following provisions of the PPF are relevant to the Project and my assessment:

• Clause 11.01 Victoria

• Clause 11.01-1R Green wedges --- Metropolitan Melbourne

5.2 State Policy Considerations


• Clause 11.02 Managing Growth

• Clause 11.02-1S Supply of urban land

• Clause 11.03 Planning for Places

• Clause 11.03-1S Activity Centres

• Clause 11.03-1R Activity Centres --- Metropolitan Melbourne

• Clause 11.03-4S Coastal Settlement

• Clause 11.03-5S Distinctive areas and landscapes

• Clause 12.01 Biodiversity

• Clause 12.01-1S Protection of biodiversity

• Clause 12.02 Coastal Areas

• Clause 12.02-1S Protection of Coastal Areas

• Clause 12.02-3S Bays

• Clause 12.03 Water Bodies and Wetlands

• Clause 12.03-1S River corridors, waterways, lakes and wetlands

• Clause 12.05 Significant Environments and Landscapes

• Clause 12.05-1S Environmentally sensitive areas

• Clause 12.05-2S Landscapes

• Clause 13.01 Climate Change Impacts

• Clause 13.01-1S Natural hazards and climate change

• Clause 13.02 Bushfire

• Clause 13.02-1S Bushfire planning

• Clause 13.03 Floodplains

• Clause 13.03-1S Floodplain management

• Clause 13.07 Amenity and Safety

• Clause 13.07-1S Land use compatibility

• Clause 13.07-2S Major Hazard Facilities


• Clause 14.01 Agriculture

• Clause 14.01-1S Protection of agricultural land

• Clause 14.01-2S Sustainable agricultural land use

• Clause 14.02 Water

• Clause 14.02-1S Catchment planning and management

• Clause 14.02-2S Water quality

• Clause 14.03 Earth and Energy Resources

• Clause 14.03-1S Resource exploration and extraction

• Clause 15.01 Built Environment

• Clause 15.01-1S Urban Design

• Clause 15.01-6S Design for rural areas

• Clause 15.02 Sustainable Development

• Clause 15.02-1S Energy and resource efficiency

• Clause 15.03 Heritage

• Clause 15.03-2S Aboriginal cultural heritage

• Clause 17.01 Employment

• Clause 17.01-1S Diversified Economy

• Clause 17.03 Industry

• Clause 17.03-3S State significant industrial land

• Clause 17.04 Tourism

• Clause 17.04-2S Coastal and maritime tourism and recreation

• Clause 18.03 Ports

• Clause 18.03-1S Planning for ports

• Clause 18.03-2S Planning for port environs

• Clause 18.05 Freight

• Clause 18.05-1S Freight links


• Clause 19.01 Energy

• Clause 19.01-1S Energy supply

• Clause 19.01-2S Renewable energy

• Clause 19.01-3S Pipeline Infrastructure

50 Section 17.5.1 of Chapter 17 (Land Use) of the EES contains a high-level list of the PPF. Technical Report L (Land Use Impact Assessment) further discusses the PPF as relevant to the Project at Section 5.2.1.1.

51 There are differences between the EES (Chapter 17) and Technical Report with my list of relevant clauses as set out above. The difference arises only from the level of detail within which the sub-clauses are referenced in the respective documents. Chapter 17 of the EES and the accompanying Technical Report L both refer to higher-level clauses and reference only some of the sub-clauses as relevant to the Project.

52 I am comfortable that the summaries of the PPF contained within Chapter 17 of the EES and Technical Report L are adequate and reference the relevant provisions of the PPF, if not all the sub-clauses.

53 The differences between Chapter 17 of the EES, Technical Report L and those provisions outlined in the list above are, in my view, of no consequence to the overall assessment and conclusions made.

54 In response to item 121 in the IAC RFI dated 16/09/20 as part of my assessment of the PPF I have also considered and had regard for Clause 19.01-3S relating to Pipeline Infrastructure. In terms of the strategies of Clause 19.01-3S I consider that the Pipeline works support the existing and proposed use of the port and are appropriately located with respect to zoned residential land and other sensitive land uses, subject to the recommendations as set out within this statement. In terms of the amenity impacts of the Pipeline works as they relate to my area of expertise, I conclude that the Pipeline works can and have been positioned to minimise impacts on environmentally sensitive areas. I also consider that the EES provides suitable protection of the Pipeline works proposed, including through the location of Pipeline works within easements.

55 The Local Planning Policy Framework (LPPF) consists of Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS) at Clauses 21 and individual Local Planning Policies at Clause 22 of the respective Planning Schemes.

56 Clause 23 of the Planning Scheme was introduced by Amendment VC148 on the 31 July 2018 and outlines the transitional operation of the LPPF.

57 Clause 23.02 outlines the operation of the MSS being a

‘…concise statement of the key strategic planning, land use and development objectives for the municipality and the

5.3 Local Policy Considerations


strategies and actions for achieving the objectives. It furthers the objectives of planning in Victoria to the extent that the State Planning Policy Framework is applicable to the municipality and local issues. It provides the strategic basis for the application of the zones, overlays and particular provisions in the planning scheme and decision making by the responsible authority.

The MSS provides an opportunity for an integrated approach to planning across all areas of council and should clearly express links to the corporate plan. The MSS is dynamic and enables community involvement in its ongoing review. The MSS will be built upon as responsible authorities develop and refine their strategic directions in response to the changing needs of the community. When preparing amendments to this planning scheme and before making decisions about permit applications, planning and responsible authorities must take the MSS into account.’

58 The operation of the local policies is outlined at Clause 23.03. The objectives and strategies of the MSS are implemented by the Local Planning Policies.

59 Clause 23.02 outlines that ‘A Local Planning Policy is a policy statement of intent or expectation. It states what the responsible authority will do in specified circumstances or the responsible authority’s expectation of what should happen. A Local Planning Policy gives the responsible authority an opportunity to state its view of a planning issue and its intentions for an area. A Local Planning Policy provides guidance to decision making on a day to day basis. It can help the community to understand how the responsible authority will consider a proposal. The consistent application of policy over time should achieve a desired outcome. When preparing amendments to this planning scheme and before making decisions about permit applications, planning and responsible authorities must take any relevant Local Planning Policy into account.’

Mornington Planning Scheme LPPF

60 Having undertaken my own review of the LPPF of the Mornington Peninsula Planning Scheme, I consider that the following provisions are relevant:

• Clause 21.01 Purpose of the Municipal Strategic Statement

• Clause 21.02 Profile of the Mornington Peninsula

• Clause 21.03 Mornington Peninsula --- Regional Role and Local Vision

• Clause 21.04 Mornington Peninsula Strategic Framework Plan


• Clause 21.05 Objectives strategies and Implementation

• Clause 21.06 Strategic Framework and the Peninsula’s Settlement Pattern

• Clause 21.07 Guiding Future Township Development

• Clause 21.08 Foreshores and Coastal Areas

• Clause 21.09 Planning for Rural Areas

• Clause 21.10 Managing Port Area Development

• Clause 21.12 Reference Documents

• Clause 21.13 Local Area Plans

• Clause 22.01 Industrial Areas Policy

• Clause 22.03 Dwelling density, excisions and realignments in rural areas

• Clause 22.04 Heritage Places and Abutting Land

• Clause 22.05 Aboriginal Cultural Heritage

• Clause 22.06 Development on Highways, Main Roads and Tourist Routes

• Clause 22.07 Commercial and Industrial Uses in Rural Areas

• Clause 22.08 Integrated Recreational and Residential Development in Rural Areas

• Clause 22.11 Mornington Peninsula Fire Protection Policy

• Clause 22.14 Mornington Peninsula Land Units

• Clause 22.24 Hastings Activity Centre Policy

• Clause 23.01 Relation to the Planning Policy Framework

• Clause 23.02 Operation of the Municipal Strategic Statement

• Clause 23.03 Operation of the Local Planning Policies

61 I acknowledge that Section 17.5.2 of Chapter 17 of the EES identifies policies of the LPPF relevant to the Gas Import Jetty Works and Pipeline Works. This summary is also expanded upon in Sections 5.2.1.1 and 5.2.2.1 of the Technical Report L. Several of the local policies contained within the above list are not referenced in either Chapter 17 or the Technical Report L, including Clause 23 of the Planning Scheme.


62 I note that Figure 17-5: Segment 3 --- Hastings Township included in Chapter 17 of the EES shows the Pipeline Works extending north-south through the Hastings Activity Centre as identified by Maps within Clauses 21.13-2 and 22.24 of the Planning Scheme. I have therefore considered the content of Clauses 21.13 and 22.24 as being of relevance to my assessment to the Pipeline Works.

63 These omissions are in my view inconsequential to the overall assessment of the Project and the Pipeline Works as specifically relevant to my evidence.

Casey Planning Scheme LPPF

64 Having undertaken my own review of the LPPF of the Casey Planning Scheme, I consider that the following provisions are relevant:

• Clause 21.01 Introduction

• Clause 21.02 Key Issues and Strategic Vision

• Clause 21.04 Environment

• Clause 21.08 Local Area Approach

• Clause 21.12 Casey Coast

• Clause 21.13 Casey Farm

• Clause 22.05 Stormwater Policy

• Clause 22.08 Non-Agricultural Uses in Green Wedge Areas Policy




65 I acknowledge that Section 17.5.3 of Chapter 17 of the EES identifies policies of the LPPF relevant to the Project. This summary is also expanded upon in Section 5.2.2.1 of the Technical Report L. Except for Clause 23, the local policies contained within the above list are referenced in Chapter 17 of the EES, within Technical Report L or within both documents.

66 I consider the omission of Clause 23 to be inconsequential to the assessment undertaken and conclusions made.

Cardinia Planning Scheme LPPF

67 Having undertaken my own review of the LPPF of the Cardinia Planning Scheme, I consider that the following provisions are relevant:


• Clause 21.01 Cardinia Shire Key Issues and Strategic Vision

• Clause 21.02 Environment

• Clause 21.03 Settlement and Housing

• Clause 21.04 Economic Development

• Clause 21.05 Infrastructure

• Clause 21.06 Particular Uses and Development

• Clause 22.04 Highway Development

• Clause 22.05 Western Port Green Wedge Policy




68 I acknowledge that Section 17.5.4 of Chapter 17 of the EES identifies policies of the LPPF relevant to the Project. This summary is also expanded upon in Sections 5.2.2.1 of the Technical Report L. Except for Clause 23, the local policies contained within the above list are referenced in Chapter 17 of the EES, within Technical Report L or within both documents.

69 Again, I consider the omission of Clause 23 to be inconsequential to the assessment undertaken and conclusions made.

70 A specific matter to be addressed in the Scoping Requirements is ‘‘project alternatives.’’ Section 3.4 of the Scoping Requirements states that the EES should document the proponent’s consideration of feasible alternatives and include an explanation of how specific alternatives were shortlisted for evaluation within the EES. The EES should investigate and document the likely environmental, social and economic effects of the alternatives, particularly where these offer a potential to achieve beneficial environmental, social and economic outcomes and can meet the objectives of the project.

71 Relevant to my assessment, the following is identified for consideration:

→ an explanation of selection process for the proposed pipeline route; and

→ identification and evaluation of design alternatives for any components of the project.

72 I have also considered the two new Pipeline works alignment options (BJ11 and BH11) that have been prepared following ongoing landowner and stakeholder consultation. I comment on these as follows.

5.4 Pipeline Alignment Selection Process


73 Section 2.6 within Chapter 2 (Project Rationale) provides an explanation of the selection process for the pipeline alignment1. It identifies that multiple options for the alignment were considered with the assistance of IDM Partners Pty Ltd2. This included consideration of alignment options from Crib Point to various locations along the existing Victorian Transmission System (VTS). I understand from the documentation that it is not economically feasible and also not environmentally desirable to transfer the quantity of gas proposed to be imported as part of the project by road or rail3. As such, the EES concludes that a new pipeline is required to connect the gas from Crib Point to the VTS to allow the gas to then be transported around Victoria.

74 I also understand that alignment identification and selection requirements for gas pipelines are set out in Australian and New Zealand Standards AS/NZ 2885.1: 2018 Pipelines - Gas and Liquid Petroleum Design and Construction, and that these requirements have informed the assessment process undertaken to determine the preferred pipeline alignment between Crib Point Jetty and the connection to the VTS.

75 The EES notes that the following environmental, social, economic and safety values were considered in the identification of pipeline alignment options4:

→ pipeline length → number of land parcels and landowners affected by the

preferred pipeline alignment → existing land use → complex terrain and mobile landforms, such as sand dunes,

national parks, state parks, conservation reserves and flora reserves where right of way (ROW) does not exist or is not achievable, for example the Western Port Ramsar site

→ threatened ecological communities and threatened species habitat (where possible)

→ waterbodies and wetlands and, where possible, provision of adequate separation to watercourses prone to channel avulsion or downstream bend migration, particularly outside bends

→ existing infrastructure, such as stock watering infrastructure and stockyards

→ known sites of cultural significance → potential future land use development as identified in the

Pakenham East Precinct Structure Plan (PSP) → presence of good to high quality agricultural land → transport networks → proximity to houses, schools, nursing homes and hospitals → potential for co-location with existing linear infrastructure → constructability --- the ability to construct the pipeline including

issues such as: − access

1

Refer Page 2-31 of EES (Volume 1)

2 Refer Section 2.6.3 with Chapter 2 (Volume 1)

3 Refer Section 2.6.1 with Chapter 2 (Volume 1)

4 Refer Page 2-32 of EES (Volume 1)


− workspace and stringing space for horizontal directional drills or horizontal bores

− a 30-metre-wide construction ROW to safely accommodate the equipment and personnel during each pipeline construction phase including space for stockpiling of topsoil and trench material so it can be later used to backfill and rehabilitate the area.

− potential for relocation of existing services − potential for reinstatement and rehabilitation of the easement

post construction − disruption to businesses and agricultural activities − potential to encounter contaminated land − soils, landforms and watercourses

→ ability to achieve perpendicular crossings of existing railway and third-party underground infrastructure

→ limiting exposure to steep and side slopes → third-party damage → accessibility for pipeline operation → public and worker safety (during construction and operation).

76 I consider this to be an appropriate and comprehensive set of parameters to consider as part of the alignment scoping exercise.

77 The pipeline selection process is stated in the EES to have identified two potential corridors for the proposed Pipeline from the Crib Point Jetty. These are noted as being:

→ a western corridor running direct from Crib Point Jetty through Hastings township to APA’s existing Dandenong South LNG Facility

→ an eastern corridor, which consisted of onshore and offshore options to the existing Dore Road Mainline Valve (MLV), near Pakenham.

78 These are illustrated in Figure 5.1 below.


Figure 5.1 Pipeline Alignment Options

Figure 2-21 with the Chapter 2 of the EES identifies the two potential corridors for the pipeline alignment to either Dandenong South (the western corridor) or Pakenham (the eastern corridor).

79 A constraint based analysis was then adopted by the proponent to identify the alignment options within these two potential corridors. The EES describes the constraint levels that was used as ‘no-go, high, medium, low and very low’.5 This analysis resulted in eight alignment options, including two through an western corridor to Dandenong and six through an eastern corridor to Pakenham.6

80 The corridor to Dandenong represented the shortest pipeline alignment. However, this option was discounted by the proponent as it was considered highly constrained due to the pattern of development, urban growth, and industrial subdivision in these areas.

81 Whilst the EES identifies that there are existing linear infrastructure corridors between Crib Point/Hastings and Dandenong South, these are noted as being occupied by existing assets and the ability to widen the corridors to co-locate with this infrastructure is limited due to existing adjacent land uses.

5

Refer Section 2.6.3 with Chapter 2 (Volume 1)

6 Refer 2-33 of EES (Volume 1)


82 Furthermore, the urban location of the existing Dandenong South LNG Facility was considered a constraint. I have included an aerial photograph of the existing Dandenong South facility below at Figure 5.2.

83 I accept the rationale for discounting the western corridor. The existing Dandenong South VTS site is constrained due it is urban location. I also agree with the conclusions that the pipeline alignment between Crib Point and Dandenong South would be challenging due to extended lengths of the pipeline being located proximate to residential and other urban land uses.

Figure 5.2 APA’s existing Dandenong South LNG Facility Images obtained from Nearmaps and https://mapshare.vic.gov.au/vicplan/

84 For these reasons, my assessment focuses on the relevant impacts associated with the proposed pipeline alignment extending between Crib Point, through Hastings, and terminating at the existing VTS facility at Pakenham.

85 The six alignment options identified between Crib Point and Pakenham are listed within the Chapter 2 of the EES.7 The land based alignments are identified as preferred and the offshore pipeline alignment was least favoured due to the potential impact to the Western Port Ramsar site. Having regard to the scoping requirements, I agree with this conclusion.

86 In support of the preferred alignment, the following is stated:

Pipeline alignment CP-DR#3b was identified as the preferred pipeline alignment as it traverses mainly grazing land and uses existing pipeline corridors, while avoiding congested road reserves, rail yards and areas of high value intensive

7


https://mapshare.vic.gov.au/vicplan/


agriculture. Pipeline alignment CP-DR#3b minimises potential impacts on existing landowners and occupiers. This pipeline alignment also avoids potential impacts on existing and future land use, including avoiding land within the Pakenham East residential and commercial development (also known as the Pakenham East Precinct Structure Plan).8

87 In response to the Scoping Requirement to identify and evaluate design alternatives for any component of the project, the EES notes that the preferred pipeline alignment (CP-DR#3b) has been subject to 11 design revisions responding to stakeholder feedback and environmental management considerations9. I also understand that subsequent revisions have occurred in response to the more recent formal public exhibition process.

88 In my view, the explanation of the selection process is clear and the rationale for adopting the proposed alignment, and discounting of various alternatives has been sufficiently undertaken. The rationale for the preferred alignment option, including the underpinning aspiration to confine the alignment to grazing land and existing pipeline corridors where possible is sound and appropriate from a town planning perspective, and where this is not possible mitigation measure are proposed to minimise residual amenity impacts.

89 This above discussion has responded to items 123 and 124in the IAC RFI dated 16/09/20.

90 Technical Report L: Land Use Impact Assessment provides a comprehensive description and analysis of the proposed pipeline alignment. The Technical Report supplements and expands on the information contained within Chapter 17 --- Land Use within the EES.

91 Both documents break down the length of the pipeline alignment into five (5) specific segments.

92 These are:

→ Segment 1 --- Crib Point Jetty → Segment 2 ---Crib Point Jetty to Hastings Township → Segment 3 --- Hastings Township → Segment 4 --- Hastings Township to the Princess Freeway → Segment 5 --- Princess Freeway to the Victoria Transmission

System

93 For consistency, I have structured my analysis of the proposed pipeline alignment into the same segments.

8


9 Refer Page 2-31 of EES (Volume 1)

5.5 Proposed Segment Considerations


94 I have, however considered the specific works associated with the MLVs, the Pakenham Delivery Facility and the EOLSS separately, given the differing considerations relevant to these elements of the Project.

95 Whilst the Pipelines Act 2005 exempts pipelines from the requirement for approval under the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (where a Pipeline Licence is issued), the potential environmental, social, economic and safety impacts of the proposed pipeline are to be considered in addition to any written comments received from the Planning Minister or the relevant responsible authority on the effect of the proposed pipeline on the planning of the area through which it is to pass.

96 To assist in my assessment of these matters I have reviewed the alignment of the proposed pipeline and its proximity to surrounding existing and proposed land uses. I have reviewed the applicable zone and overlay controls that apply to the subject land and its surrounds, and the existing uses on surrounding land as well as potential future uses. I have also considered the acceptability of the resultant use and works for the MLV’s, EOLSS and the Pakenham Delivery Facility had the exemption within the Pipeline Act not applied.

97 I have independently mapped the alignment on both aerial photographs utilising Nearmap and on the appliable zoning maps. The exercise was preliminary only and follows the exhibited alignment illustrated in the EES documentation. I acknowledge that some alternatives for the alignment have been suggested in response to the exhibition process. I have not mapped these alternatives.

98 My observations in relation to each segment are set out below. Consistent with the approach adopted in the EES, I have considered a 200 metres wide corridor either side of the pipeline.

99 The following assessment responds to item 124 in the IAC RFI dated 16/09/20.

Segment 1 --- Crib Point Jetty

100 Segment 1 is described in the Technical Report L as follows:

The Crib Point Jetty segment (Segment 1) comprises the full extent of Crib Point Jetty and its immediate environs, including the gas piping and Crib Point Receiving Facility, as well as the nearby Victorian Maritime Centre building located on the western side of The Esplanade, directly opposite the Jetty.

101 The extent of Segment 1 is illustrated Figure 5.3 below.


Figure 5.3 Segment 1 --- Crib Point Jetty

102 This segment relates to the proposed works contained within the dedicated Port of Hastings. These works are not exempt pursuant to Section 49 of the Pipelines Act from planning approval. To facilitate these works a Planning Scheme Amendment (PSA C272) has been prepared and forms part of the EES proposal and is one o f the key project approvals sought. C272 seeks to introduce an Incorporated Document applicable to port land into the Mornington Peninsula Planning Scheme.

103 The strategic acceptability of the C272 and the proposed Incorporated Document are being addressed separately.

Segment 2 ---Crib Point Jetty to Hastings Township


The Crib Point Jetty to Hastings township segment (Segment 2) comprises land between Segment 1 and Hastings township. The segment primarily comprises agricultural land, nature reserves, road reserves and pockets of low-density residential development.



Figure 5.4 Segment 2 ---Crib Point Jetty to Hastings Township

106 This segment can be generally described as following The Esplanade

and Wooleys Road alignment, abutting the rear of properties within the SUZ1 and FZ before traversing a 1.7km section of Warringine Park. Warringine Park is included within a Public Conservation and Resource Zone (PCRZ). The segment terminates where the alignment intersects with Reid Parade and the Stoney Point railway corridor at the southern edge of Hastings.

107 It would have been preferable to avoid Warringine Park and the Ramsar area within the parklands. To that end, I investigated an alternate option utilising the existing railway corridor to west of Warringine Park.

108 In response to my enquiries I was provided with a Supplementary Witness Instruction Memo from Hall & Wilcox Lawyers dated 14 September 2020 (Supplementary Memo).

109 This Supplementary Memo provided further clarity around the siting of the Pipeline Works having regard for constraints associated with obtaining initial consent from the Rail Authority, encumbrances caused by overhead powerlines that exist within part (eastern side) of the rail easement, potential impacts on vegetation, potential safety risks, constraints on HSS due to the curve radius of the rail track and increased disturbance on additional numbers of landowners if additional private property access was required.

110 I accept that these constraints make the current option the most viable.


111 Furthermore, where the Pipeline Works will traverse Warringine Park, the proposed alignment follows an existing 30 metres wide pipeline easement1011. The proposed alignment is direct, and the combination of trenching and boring (dependant on the existing conditions) will result in little recognisable change to the landscape post construction. I recommend that where trenching occurs reinstatement surfacing and landscaping occurs to conceal these works post completion.

112 I note that a large portion of the Warringine Park is subject to an existing Trust for Nature Covenant (the Covenant). The Covenant appears to straddle either side of the existing pipeline easement that dissects the park. The Covenant will only be affected during the physical construction process due to the width of the proposed works area, save for a small area covered by the Covenant located immediately south of Reid Street. To address this outcome, I have been provided with an alternative alignment option known as Option No. BJ-11 which I understand has been developed in response to ongoing discussions with Trust for Nature and Council as stakeholders. This option proposes that the pipeline avoid the Covenant entirely in this location by extending the alignment north over Reid Street before joining the railway corridor. This option will result in a portion of the vacant properties north of Reid Street being encumbered by the proposed pipeline easement, however in my view this is preferable to impacting the existing Covenant. I am instructed that these properties are owned by Vic Gas Distribution Co and this is the former company name of Australian Gas Networks (Vic) Pty Ltd. The easement will not render those vacant properties undevelopable and will retain sufficient room to accommodate a reasonable dwelling in the future consistent with the GRZ which applies to those properties, should that outcome be proposed.

113 The impacts during construction, including traffic, noise, dust and vibration impacts for this segment are likely to be limited and short lived due to the proposed alignment along existing roads; to the rear of substantial properties in the SUZ1 and FZ; and through Warringine Park. The proposed horizontal directional drilling (HDD)12 methodology to be adopted within parts of Warringine Park will also assist to limit any disturbances to the parklands and to the Ramsar area, including visual impacts. I understand that an updated noise assessment has been prepared by AECOM that considers the repositioned HDD as relative to residents in Reid Parade. This noise assessment is beyond my area of expertise. I understand that Mr Tim Marks is giving expert acoustic evidence.

10

Table 17-9: Construction impacts across segments 1 to 5 describes the widening of an existing pipeline easement. Refer 17-21 of EES (Volume 2)

11 See Certificate of Title CP172381

12 HDD is described in the ESS as a trenchless technology by which a pipeline tunnel is drilled at a shallow angle under a

crossing (e.e a waterway, wetland, road or railway) through which the pipe is then threaded.


Segment 3 --- Hastings Township


The Hastings township segment (Segment 3) comprises the township of Hastings between Reid Parade to the south and Graydens Road to the north. Within this segment the pipeline alignment is located within the existing Stony Point rail corridor. Two construction laydown areas are also proposed east of the Western Port Bluescope Steel Corporation industrial site.


Figure 5.5 Segment 3 --- Hastings Township

116 This segment can be generally described as extending north-south through the Hastings township. As is illustrated above in Figure 5.5, the Pipeline follows the existing Stony Point Railway Corridor. The 200 metre assessment area either side of the proposed pipeline is illustrated in yellow in Figure 5.5 above.

117 Between Reid Street to the south and Hodgins Road to the north, the alignment is generally flanked by land included within the IN3Z to the west and the GRZ to the east. North of Hodgins Road is the PUZ2 and the PPRZ on the eastern side of the corridor. These areas are occupied by Hastings Primary School and Hasting Park. To the west is land included within the C2Z and used for a hotel and the Hastings Community Hub. North of Hodgins Road, the alignment is again


flanked by the IN3Z to the west and the GRZ to the east.

118 Figure 5.6 illustrates the existing zoning adjacent to the pipeline alignment.

Figure 5.6 Mornington Peninsula Planning Scheme --- Map 19 Image obtained from https://mapshare.vic.gov.au/vicplan/

Mornington Peninsula Planning Scheme --- Map 15

Image obtained from https://mapshare.vic.gov.au/vicplan/

119 The construction method for the majority of Segment 3 will involve HDD. This extends from Reid Street to approximately John Coleman Close, north of Hasting Park. North of John Coleman Close, trenching is proposed.

120 I acknowledge that there are sensitive uses within Hastings that would fall within the 640m Measured Length from the pipeline. These include Hastings Primary School, Toogoolawa School, the Hastings Community Hub and The Bays Aged Care Facility. Beyond this distance is also Western Port College, Fun for Kids Early Leaning Centre, Wallaroo Primary School. Parts of Hastings Primary School and Toogoolawa School are situated with the 200 metre assessment area.

121 I acknowledge that the submissions of Cardinia, Casey and others are critical that these sensitive uses will occur within the Measured Length (ML).

122 I consider this circumstance to be unavoidable given the urban location.




123 To assist my considerations I have been provided with an Information Sheet prepared by APA (Issue date October 2019) that includes an explanation of the term ML and how ML impacts land use. AS2885 requires pipelines to avoid sensitive land uses. However, AS2885 also acknowledges that this may not always be possible. Where this cannot be achieved it requires a pipeline to be designed to ensure risks are minimised. I am instructed that the proposed pipeline for the Project will be a ‘no-rupture design.’ This reduces the area of sensitivity.

124 The alignment along the existing railway corridor will assist to mitigate any land use impacts, including future land use intensification impacts. To that end, consistent with item 126 of IAC RFI dated 16/09/20, I have reviewed the adopted Hastings Town Centre Structure Plan which formed the basis of Mornington Planning Scheme Amendment C190 and is currently with the Minister for Planning for approval. That document does not propose any strategic land use changes of consequence within proximity of the pipeline alignment. Refer Figure 5.7 below.

125 The introduction of the Pipeline will require the assessment and consideration of the appropriateness of new sensitive uses within its proximity. These sensitive uses will need to be considered on a case by case basis and, subject to no unreasonable risk, should be accommodated.

126 In relation to construction impacts, as these will be largely limited to the underground HDD method, the impacts are unlikely to be unreasonable. Noise and vibration impacts from the drilling, particularly at night are address within Chapter 13 (Noise and Vibration) and EES and Technical Report H --- Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. They are also addressed in the CEMP which is included at Attachment 2 to the Pipeline License application.

127 Where the HDD method is not adopted north of Hastings Park, the works remain in the railway corridor, and the amenity impacts, including noise, dust and vibration impacts can be appropriately managed in accordance with the CEMP. Some road closures will be required at times and two construction laydown areas are proposed but these will be temporary and are a normal component of construction works in urban areas.


Figure 5.7 Hastings Structure Plan

The Hastings Town Centre Structure was adopted by Mornington Peninsula Shire in October 2017. It was the subject of Planning Scheme Amendment C190 in 2017. The Panel Report (dated 23 August 2017) concluded that C190 should be adopted as exhibited subject to minor changes. The Amendment was adopted by Council on 16 October 2017 and is currently with the Minister for Planning for Approval.

Segment 4 --- Hastings Township to the Princess Freeway


The Hastings township to the Princes Freeway segment (Segment 4) comprises the pipeline alignment extending from Graydens Road, Hastings to its intersection with the Princes Freeway, east of Pakenham. The pattern of zoning within Segment 4 predominantly supports agricultural activity.



Figure 5.8 Segment 4 --- Hastings Township to the Princess Freeway

130 Segment 4 comprises the longest physical segment along the pipeline alignment. The segment extends from Hastings, through the City of Casey, into Cardinia Shire Council, and on to Pakenham.

131 The segment traverses land included in the Green Wedge Zone (GWZ), Farming Zone (FZ), Urban Growth Zone (UGZ), Low Density Residential Zone (LDRZ), Special Use Zone (SUZ), Public Use Zone (PUZ), Rural Conservation Zone (RCZ) and the Road Zone Category 1 (RDZ1).

132 Land uses along this segment can be generally described as grazing and mixed farming land, equine agistment, agriculture and rural living. The Pipeline alignment also passes the G & K O’Connor abattoir on Koo Wee Rup Road in Pakenham and the Pakenham Wastewater Treatment Plant. I have reviewed the submission of G & K O’Connor.

133 The two proposed MLVs are included within Segment 4. MLV1 is proposed to be located at 28a Bayview Road in Hastings (within the Mornington Peninsula Shire) and MLV2 is proposed to be located at 45 Bloomfield Lane in Cardinia (within Cardinia Shire Council). I address the appropriateness of these facilities and their proposed siting in the subsequent chapter of my statement. I note the submissions from Cardinia Council in relation the land at 45 Bloomfield Lane.

134 As identified previously, it is generally proposed to confine the pipeline alignment to grazing land and existing pipeline corridors, where possible. An easement is proposed to be applied to the pipeline route, and this will restrict certain buildings and works, and uses from occurring within the easement area. It will not restrict activities such as


grazing and farming.

135 For this reason, the proposed alignment through existing farming / rural land, including green wedge land, which is likely to be retained for that purpose, is appropriate in town planning terms as the implications to existing and preferred land use can be minimised.

136 The existing zoning of affected land is unlikely to significantly change in the future, particularly noting the extent of the alignment which sits outside the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB).

137 That said, in my view, the pipeline should be situated along property boundaries wherever possible. To that end, I note the submission from Cardinia Shire Council which identifies that proposed pipeline alignment crosses a number of properties in a diagonal direction. I agree that this outcome should be avoided wherever practical to reduce the impacts to private land, and existing and future uses.

138 Specifically, I note that my preferred alignment options identified within the Map Book included at Attachment VII of the EES material are as follows:

- Option BG11

- Option AN-9

- Option AM-9

- Option AE-8_0.1

- Option Z-8

- Option AU-9

- Option D-8

- Option AT-9

- Option AO-9

139 The above discussion responds to item 123 and 124 of the IAC RFI dated 16/09/20.

140 Construction impacts along this segment are likely to be limited and short lived for affected land holder and the public due to the proposed alignment along properties boundaries and roads, where practicable. The progressive nature of the works along the alignment will also assist to minimise broader traffic impacts as well as noise, light spill, dust and vibration impacts. The CEMP is the appropriate tool to manage construction related amenity impacts in these areas.

141 As noted previously, I recommend that where trenching occurs reinstatement surfacing and landscaping occurs to conceal these


works post completion.

Segment 5 --- Princess Freeway to the Victoria Transmission System


The Princes Freeway to the Victorian Transmission System segment (Segment 5) comprises the pipeline connecting the Pakenham Delivery Facility with the Victorian Transmission System, north of Princes Freeway, Pakenham. The alignment is not located within the Pakenham East Precinct Structure Plan Area or the Urban Growth Boundary within this segment. The Project is predominantly located within established road reserves and within a private land holding at the terminus of the pipeline.


Figure 5.9 Segment 5 --- Princess Freeway to the Victoria Transmission System

Different colours depict the different Segments of the Project, Segment 4 to the south and Segment 5 to the north.

144 Segment 5 generally comprises land between Pakenham Delivery Facility and the EOLSS. It follows the alignment of Mount Ararat South Road and is situated between FZ1 land to the east and GWZ1 land to the west. The western side of Mount Ararat South Road is included in the Pakenham East Precinct Structure Plan area. Mount Ararat South Road also forms the Urban Growth Boundary.

145 Refer Figure 5.10 below.


Figure 5.10 Pakenham East Precinct Structure Plan

The Pakenham Precinct Structure Plans forms part of the Amendment C234 to the Cardinia Planning Scheme (Amendment C234). The PSP has not been approved by the Minister for Planning

146 The road would be closed to vehicles during construction, and physical location and works are separated from the PSP area by existing roads. I note the submission from the VPA in relation to the PSP and address this later within my statement.

147 I have assessed the specific implication of the Pakenham Delivery Facility and the EOLSS, as well as MLV1 and MLV2 separately below.

Segment Summary

148 Overall, I conclude that the proposed land use planning and amenity impacts resulting from the proposed alignment of the Pipeline Works to be acceptable. In forming this view I have also had regard for the role of the Pakenham East PSP as discussed above, consistent with item 126 of the IAC RFI dated 16/09/20.

149 I accept the findings of the Project Segment Impact Assessment contained at Section 8.2 of Technical Report L as they relate to the operational impacts, construction impacts, and foreseeable development constraints.


The Pipeline Works include the provision of two above-ground MLVs located at different points along the pipeline alignment. I understand that the purpose of these is to allow the isolation of segments of the pipeline in an emergency.

The proposed MLV’s are to be located at:

- 28a Bayview Road in Hastings; and

- 45 Bloomfield Lane in Cardinia

28a Bayview Road, Hastings

150 MLV1 is proposed to be located on land located on large parcel of land know as 28a Bayview Road in Hastings. More specifically, the proposed site of the MLV is situated south of Denham Road, which is an east-west oriented road which interests with Frankston-Flinders Road to the west. The portion of the property to accommodate the MLV is currently vacant grazing land.

151 It is my understanding that MLV1 would be contained within a fenced area comprising 10 metres by 11 metres. During construction, an area of 50 metres by 18 metres would be fenced with access provide by Denham Road. The height of the proposed MLV is to be approximately 3.0 metres.

152 The portion of the land required to use and construct the MLV would be subdivided and acquired by the proponent.

153 The subject land is included within the Special Use Zone (SUZ1) within Mornington Peninsula Planning Scheme. The specific portion of the land proposed to accommodate the MLV is not subject to any Overlays.

154 The SUZ1 specifically relates to Port Uses.

155 The purposes of the zone are as follows:

→ To provide a location for selected port and industrial uses which depend upon or gain significant economic advantages from the natural deep water channels in Western Port.

→ To enable the effective implementation of the Hastings Port Industrial Area Land Use Structure Plan (Department of Planning and Development 1996). To protect the environmental values of the waters, coastline and intertidal areas of Western Port and adjoining land.

→ To provide for the interim rural use of land to the extent consistent with maintaining land resources for future port and port related development.

→ To protect the towns of Tyabb, Hastings, Crib Point and Bittern by ensuring that no port industrial development which may have an adverse effect on the amenity or safety of residents occurs in proximity to residential areas.

5.6 Mainline Valve (MLV) locations


Figure 5.11 28a Bayview Road, Hastings Images obtained from Nearmaps and https://mapshare.vic.gov.au/vicplan/

156 Under the SUZ1, if a planning permit was not exempt for the works pursuant to the Pipeline Act 2005, a planning permit would be required to use land for the purposes of ‘Utility Installation’ associated with the proposed MLV. No conditions are stipulated for this use under the SUZ1.

157 If a planning permit was not exempt for the works pursuant to the Pipeline Act 2005, a permit would also be required to subdivide land. Lots created to be used for an approved port related use may be created.

158 As relevant to the MLV, if a planning permit was not exempt for the works pursuant to the Pipeline Act 2005, a planning permit would also be required under the SUZ1 to construct or carry out buildings or works due to proximity to a site boundary.

159 Given vacant existing status of the land, the relatively isolated location separated from any identifiable sensitive use, and the applicable zoning (that applies to the land and all immediately surrounding land), the proposed location of MLV1 represents an appropriate location for this necessary element of the pipeline.

45 Bloomfield Lane, Cardinia

160 MLV2 is proposed to be located on land located at 45 Bloomfield Lane in Cardinia (Lot 9 on LP8853). The proposed site of the MLV is to be situated at the eastern end of the property. This property is currently used for beef grazing.

161 MLV2 is proposed to be located within a triangular parcel of land at the termination of Bloomfield Lane. Consistent with MLV1, MLV2 would

MLV1 Location



also be located within a chain-wired fenced area of approximately 10 metres by 11 metres and comprise a height of 3 metres.

162 The subject land is included within the Green Wedge Zone (GWZ) within Cardinia Planning Scheme. The specific portion of the land proposed to accommodate the MLV is also subject to a Land Subject to Inundation Overlay (LSIO). The adjacent Cardinia Creek, to the east, is also subject to a Floodway Overlay.

Figure 5.12 45 Bloomfield Lane, Cardinia Images obtained from Nearmaps and https://mapshare.vic.gov.au/vicplan/

163 The purposes of the GWZ are as follows:

→ To implement the Municipal Planning Strategy and the Planning Policy Framework.

→ To provide for the use of land for agriculture. → To recognise, protect and conserve green wedge land for its

agricultural, environmental, historic, landscape, recreational and tourism opportunities, and mineral and stone resources.

→ To encourage use and development that is consistent with sustainable land management practices.

→ To encourage sustainable farming activities and provide opportunity for a variety of productive agricultural uses.

→ To protect, conserve and enhance the cultural heritage significance and the character of open rural and scenic non-urban landscapes.

→ To protect and enhance the biodiversity of the area.

164 Under the GWZ, if a planning permit was not exempt for the works pursuant to the Pipeline Act 2005, a planning permit would be required to use land for the purposes of ‘Utility Installation’ associated with the proposed MLV. No conditions are stipulated for this use under the GWZ.

165 As relevant to the MLV, if a planning permit was not exempt for the works pursuant to the Pipeline Act 2005, a planning permit would also

MLV2 Location



be required under the GWZ to construct or carry out buildings or works associated with:

• a use in Section 2 of Clause 35.04-1, in this case a Utility Installation. The permit exemptions specified under Clause 35.04-5 do not apply to the MLV.

• for earthworks as specified in a schedule to this zone. In this regard, Schedule 1 to the GWZ specifies that for all land a permit is required where:

• Earthworks which change the rate or flow or the discharge point of water across a property.

• Earthworks which increase the discharge of saline groundwater.

• a building which is within any of the specified setbacks, being 100 metres from a Road Zone Category 1 (Princess Freeway).

166 Clause 35.04-6 of the GWZ sets out the decision guidelines that the responsible authority would be required to consider for an application, as appropriate. These decision guidelines include matters relating to general issues, rural issues, environmental issues, design, and siting issues and primary or secondary school issues.

167 The purposes of the LSIO are:

→ To implement the Municipal Planning Strategy and the Planning Policy Framework.

→ To identify land in a flood storage or flood fringe area affected by the 1in 100 year flood or any other area determined by the flood plain management authority.

→ To ensure that development maintains the free passage and temporary storage of flood waters, minimises flood damage, is compatible with the flood hazard and local drainage conditions and will not cause any significant rise in flood level or flow velocity.

→ To reflect any declaration under Division 4 of Part 10 of the Water Act, 1989 where a declaration has been made.

→ To protect water quality in accordance with the provisions of relevant State Environment Protection Policies, particularly in accordance with Clauses 33 and 35 of the State Environment Protection Policy (Waters of Victoria).

→ To ensure that development maintains or improves river and wetland health, waterway protection and flood plain health.

168 Under the LSIO, if a planning permit was not exempt for the works pursuant to the Pipeline Act 2005, a planning permit would be required for the proposed works associated with the MLV2. Under Clause 44.04-2 of the Cardinia Planning Scheme a permit is required to construct a building or to construct or carry out works. A permit is not required for:


→ The laying of underground sewerage, water and gas mains, oil pipelines, underground telephone lines and underground powerlines provided they do not alter the topography of the land.

→ The erection of telephone or powerlines provided they do not involve the construction of towers or poles.

169 Clause 35.04-6 of the GWZ sets out the decision guidelines that the responsible authority would be required to consider for an application, as appropriate. These decision guidelines include matters relating to general issues, rural issues, environmental issues, design, and siting issues and primary or secondary school issues.

170 I understand that the exact siting of any MLV needs to consider access during an emergency, availability of utilities, constructability, maintainability, bushfire protection and other environmental constraints such as visual amenity.

171 Having considered the physical conditions and context of the land including its relatively small land size and dimensions, and the location at the termination of Bloomfield Lane which limits potential for public realm visibility of the structure. I consider the proposed location of MLV2 to be acceptable. I acknowledge that the land is subject to inundation and accept that the location may not be accessible in a 1:100 year flood event. I have been advised that the facility has been designed to withstand such an event. For these reasons, I am satisfied that the proposed location is acceptable.

172 The proposed Pakenham Delivery Facility is located on land that is approximately two hectares in area adjacent to the Pakenham East Rail Depot (also referred to as the Pakenham East Train Stabling and Maintenance Facility).

173 Chapter 4 of the EES identifies that the Pakenham Delivery Facility is to include a pig receiver, filtration, metering, heating, pressure control and a vent stack. An indicative layout of the Pakenham Delivery Facility is shown in Figure 4-14 of Chapter 4 of the EES. (Refer to Figure 5.13 below).

174 The following paragraphs respond to item 125 in the IAC RFI dated 16/9/20.

5.7 Pakenham Delivery Facility


Figure 5.13 Pakenham Delivery Facility Layout

Image an extract of Figure 4-14 of Chapter 4 of the EES

175 The Pakenham Delivery Facility is proposed to be located on land known as Oakview Lane, Nar Nar Goon (Lot 4 on Plan of Subdivision No. 607403).

176 The land is included in the Green Wedge Zone (GWZ) Schedule 1 (GWZ1) under the Cardinia Planning Scheme. (Refer to Figure 5.11)

177 The western portion of this parcel (Lot 4) is also affected by a Land Subject to Inundation Overlay (LSIO). The Pakenham Delivery Facility is sited to the north-east corner of the parcel, outside the area affected by the LSIO. (Refer to Figure 5.12)


Figure 5.14 ZONE MAP


Figure 5.15 LSIO MAP


178 It is noted that mapping identified part of the land proposed for the

Pakenham Delivery Facility as being an ‘area of aboriginal cultural heritage sensitivity’ (Refer to Figure 5.12 below). Chapter 21 of the EES addresses matters relevant to aboriginal heritage sensitivity and significance.

Pakenham Delivery Facility Location





Figure 5.16 AREA OF CULTURAL HERITAGE SENSITIVTY MAP


179 I have listed the purposes of the GWZ above at paragraph 143.

180 A planning permit would have been required to use land for the purposes of ‘Utility Installation’ associated with the proposed Pakenham Delivery Facility.

181 As relevant to the Pakenham Delivery Facility, if a planning permit was not exempt for the works pursuant to the Pipeline Act 2005, a planning permit would also be required under the GWZ to construct or carry out buildings or works, including earthworks.

182 As noted above, the GWZ sets out the decision guidelines that the responsible authority would be required to consider for an application, as appropriate. These decision guidelines include matters relating to general issues, rural issues, environmental issues, design, and siting issues and primary or secondary school issues.

183 The proposed Pakenham Delivery Facility is located in the north-east corner of a parcel of land generally bound by Oakview Lane (to the east), Princess Freeway (to the north) and the Pakenham East Rail Depot (to the south). The land is currently vacant.

184 Having considered the physical conditions and context of the land including its relatively small land size and dimensions, sitting between an existing Rail Depot and the Princess Freeway (a Road Zone Category 1), I conclude that the location of the Pakenham Delivery Facility is appropriate.

185 The land by virtue of its size, location and context has questionable ability to be used for agricultural purposes as encouraged by the purpose of the GWZ. I am also comforted by the proposed position of the Delivery Facility outside that part of land (further to the west) which is affected by LSIO.

186 This section has addressed item 126 of the IAC RFI dated 16/09/20.




187 I have also considered that mapping identifies part of the land as ‘an area of cultural heritage sensitivity’. Chapter 21 of the EES outlines that a Cultural Heritage Management Plan (CHMP) covering the northern portion of the proposed pipeline alignment from Tooradin to Pakenham is being prepared (CHMP No. 15834). The CHMP must be approved prior to any works being undertaken. The Activity Area of CHMP 15384 is outlined by Chapter 21 of the EES to stretch across a linear 21-kilometre section of the Project Area, generally covering agricultural areas. The extent of the Activity Area is shown in Figure 21-3 of Chapter 21 to the EES.

188 The EOLSS is a buried facility located at the connection point to the VTS east of Pakenham. (Refer to Figure 4-15 in Chapter 4 of the EES)

Figure 5.17 END OF LINE SCRAPER STATION

Image is an extract of Figure 4-15 in Chapter 4 of the EES

189 The EOLSS is proposed to be located on land known as Princes Highway, Nar Nar Goon North (Lot 1 on Title Plan 103656).

190 The land is included in the Green Wedge Zone (GWZ1) under the Cardinia Planning Scheme. It is also affected by Environmental Significance Overlay (ESO1) which applies to ‘Northern Hills’. (Refer to Figures 5.18 and 5.19)

5.8 End of Line Scraper Station


Figure 5.18 ZONE MAP


Figure 5.19 ESO MAP


191 I have listed the purposes of the GWZ above at paragraph 143.

192 A planning permit would have been required to use land for the purposes of ‘Utility Installation’ associated with the proposed EOLSS.

193 As relevant to the EOLSS, if a planning permit was not exempt for the works pursuant to the Pipeline Act 2005, a planning permit would also be required under the GWZ to construct or carry out buildings or works.

194 As outlined above, the EOLSS land is also affected by ESO1 under the Cardinia Planning Scheme.

195 The purpose of the ESO is:

• To implement the Municipal Planning Strategy and the Planning Policy Framework.

• To identify areas where the development of land may be affected by environmental constraints.

EOLSS Location

EOLSS Location




• To ensure that development is compatible with identified environmental values.

196 Under the ESO, if a planning permit was not exempt from the works pursuant to the Pipeline Act 2005, a planning permit would be required to construct or carry out works unless the requirements set out in Clause 3.0 of Schedule 1 to the ESO are met. The requirements specified at Clause 3.0 of ESO1 being that:

• Building materials must be non-reflective or subdued colours which complement the environment to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

• The height of any dwelling must not exceed 7 metres above natural ground level and the height of all other buildings must not exceed 4 metres above natural ground level.

• The works must not involve the excavation of land exceeding 1 metre or filling of land exceeding 1 metre and any disturbed area must be stabilised by engineering works or revegetation to prevent erosion.

• The slope of the land on which the buildings or works are undertaken must not exceed 20%. The buildings and works must not result in the removal or destruction of native vegetation (including trees, shrubs, herbs, sedges and grasses) within an area of botanical or zoological significance as shown on the mapped information provided by the Department of Sustainability and Environment, with the exception of Sweet Pittosporum (Pittosporum undulatum).

• If the building is an extension to an existing dwelling that is less than 50 percent of the floor area of the existing building.

• If the building is an outbuilding ancillary to a dwelling, the gross floor area of all outbuildings on the land must not exceed 120 square metres.

• If the building is in a Green Wedge or Rural Conservation Zone and is associated with the existing use of the land for the purposes of agriculture, the gross floor area of the building must not exceed 160 square metres.

• If a building envelope is registered on the plan of subdivision, any building must be located within the building envelope.

197 In the case of the proposed EOLSS, the works proposed are understood to require excavation of land in excess of 1 metre and as such, consistent with the ESO, any disturbed area must be stabilised by engineering works or revegetation to prevent erosion.


198 Clause 1.0 of ESO1 sets out the following Statement of environmental significance:

The hills to the northern part of the municipality (generally to the north of the Princes Highway) is an area with significant landscape and environmental values. The area is characterised by a geology of Devonian Granitic and Sulrian Sediment origin, moderate to steep slopes, and areas of remnant vegetation. These characteristics contribute to environmental values including landscape quality, water quality, and habitat of botanical and zoological significance. These characteristics are also a significant factor in terms of environmental hazards including erosion and fire risk.

The vegetation supports the ecological processes and biodiversity of this area by forming core habitat areas within a complex network of biolink wildlife corridors. Sites containing threatened flora and fauna are defined as being of botanical and zoological significance. Development within and around these sites need to be appropriately managed to ensure the long term protection, enhancement and sustainability of these ecological processes and the maintenance of biodiversity.

199 Clause 2.0 of ESO1 sets out the environmental objectives to be achieved which are:

• To protect and enhance the significant environmental and landscape values in the northern hills area including the retention and enhancement of indigenous vegetation.

• To ensure that the siting and design of buildings and works does not adversely impact on environmental values including the diverse and interesting landscape, areas of remnant vegetation, hollow bearing trees, habitat of botanical and zoological significance and water quality and quantity.

• To ensure that the siting and design of buildings and works addresses environmental hazards including slope, erosion and fire risk, the protection of view lines and maintenance of vegetation as the predominant feature of the landscape.

• To protect and enhance biolinks across the landscape and ensure that vegetation is suitable for maintaining the health of species, communities and ecological processes, including the prevention of the incremental loss of vegetation.

200 The proposed EOLSS is located to the north of Princes Highway (a Road Zone Category 1 road), within an area of land that is vacant and does not contain any vegetation. It is also proposed to locate alongside existing gas infrastructure (pipeline into the VTS between Longford to Dandenong Pipeline and the Bunyip to Pakenham pipeline). As noted in Section 4.4.6 of Chapter 4 of the EES, the EOLSS is also proposed to be


contained entirely within the existing 24m wide easement (Victorian Pipelines Commission) which traverses this portion of the land.

201 Having considered the physical conditions and context of the land including the location of the EOLSS within an existing easement and its sitting relative to the Princes Highway (a Road Zone Category 1), I conclude that the location of the EOLSS is appropriate.

202 The land on which the EOLSS is proposed to be located by virtue of its existing conditions (including existing easement), location and context has questionable ability to be used for agricultural purposes as encouraged by the purpose of the GWZ.

203 The above has responded to item 126 of the IAC RFI dated 16/09/20.

204 I have also considered the role of the ESO1 that affects the property in terms of the appropriateness of the EOLSS. The location of the proposed EOLSS within an existing easement, alongside the Princes Highway and not affecting any existing vegetation support the location as appropriate. Furthermore, the proposed EOLSS is located below ground and whilst there will be signposts and concrete covers to pits these will not impact on the environmental significance of the broader area. I understand that excavation is required below 1m and therefore would require a planning permit under the EOS1 if these works were not exempt from the need for a planning permit under the Pipeline Act 2005. The excavation works are temporary with ground levels otherwise returned to normal post construction (other than the concrete covers to pits).

205 I conclude that the EOLSS is appropriately located having regard to the guidance provided by the Cardinia Planning Scheme.


6

6 Review of Submissions

206 At the time of writing, approximately 4,000 submissions had been received in response to the exhibition of the Project. I have reviewed the submissions received as provided by Hall & Wilcox.

207 From my review of the submissions, a large proportion of the concerns raised relate to themes that are addressed by the various technical reports that accompany the EES. These include environmental concerns, water quality, marine biodiversity, greenhouses gases, air quality, noise and vibration, visual impacts, social impacts and business impacts, amongst others. Many of the submissions raise matters that are not specifically relevant to my expertise in town planning. Others are addressed in specific chapters within the EES and the associated Technical Reports.

208 A significant proportion of the submissions focus on impacts directly related to the use of the Crip Point Jetty. These include visual and noise impacts, the marine impacts, biodiversity and wildlife impacts as well as process concerns relating to the FRSU and conversion of the LNG into gas.

209 The following town planning themes relating the Pipeline Works are raised:

• Appropriateness of the proposed buffer distance adopted

• Impacts to agricultural land / Impacts from easements to be applied to private land

• Traffic concerns during construction

• Impact to public transport during construction

• Visual impacts during the construction of the pipeline

• Potential amenity impacts from dust during construction

• Construction concerns relating to noise and vibration, including night works that cause sleep disturbance

• Operations concerns relating to noise and vibration

• Changes in land use, access, or amenity impacts

• Disturbance of aboriginal cultural heritage (ACH) places

210 I have addressed these themes as appropriate throughout my Statement. My considerations of these matters can be summarised as follows:

Gas Import Jetty and Pipeline Project Contour Consultants Aust Pty Ltd 54 6 Review of Submissions

Buffer Distance

211 The submissions of Cardinia, Casey and VPA together with other submitters refer to and are critical of the Measured Length (ML) adopted in the Project. To assist in my review of these submissions I was provided with an Information Sheet prepared by APA (Issue date October 2019) that includes an explanation of the term Measured Length and how Measured Length impacts land use. I am instructed that this information sheet was issued to Cardinia Council and others. I have considered this APA information sheet as appropriate in my assessment of the potential impacts on any land use(s).

212 I address the matter of the ML and the assessment area further within the Paragraphs 238-242 below.

Agricultural land

213 The pipeline alignment selection process is detailed within Chapter 3 of the EES and is summarised within the Section 5.4 of my Statement. This principally considered two alignment alternatives, being a western alignment to Dandenong South or an eastern alignment to Pakenham. A key difference between to the two options was the urbanised environment along the western alignment and the agricultural environment along the eastern alignment. The eastern alignment was preferred.

214 The introduction of easements to private land, as is necessary, will not restrict activities such as grazing and typical farming activities. The implications to these land uses are lesser, both physically and proportionally than would be the case in urbanised locations.

215 That said, these encumbrances should still be limited where possible and for this reason I have recommended that the pipeline alignment follow title / property boundaries wherever practical. Diagonally traversing across properties should be avoided unless there is no reasonable alternative. Where trenching is proposed, reinstatement to match the existing surface treatment should also be adopted.

Transport Impacts

216 The transport impacts resulting for the Pipeline Works will be largely construction related. These impacts are a normal consequence of construction works. Such impacts are to be expected in urban locations such as Hastings, albeit I note that the proposed HDD construction methodology and the co-locating of the alignment within the railway corridor will purposely lessen these impacts. The impacts are likely to be periodic and short lived in the agricultural areas due to the linear nature of the construction works.

217 The specific transport related issues are addressed in Chapter 15 (Transport) of the EES and Technical Report J --- Transport Impact Assessment. I understand that Ms Charmaine Dunstan is providing traffic evidence.


Construction Impacts

218 A Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) is included at Attachment 2 to the Application for the Pipeline License. The CEMP identifies relevant construction related impacts and proposes mitigation measures to be adopted. The CEMP is the appropriate tool to manage these impacts.

219 Generally speaking, construction impacts are unavoidable. However, the linear nature of the works along the alignment will minimise static impacts during the 18-27 month construction program.

Visual Impacts

220 The extent of the Pipeline Works will for the most part be underground, save for the two MLV’s and the Pakenham Delivery Facility. The acceptability of these physical above ground elements is addressed in Section 5 of my Statement.

221 The satisfactory reinstatement of surfaces where trenching occurs will be critical to reduce lasting visual impacts. These should be reinstated with like-for-like surfaces particularly within publicly accessible spaces such as Warringine Park and where the alignment is on or adjacent to agricultural land.

222 I understand that Mr Hayden Burge is providing visual impact evidence.

Noise and Vibration

223 Noise and vibration matters relating to the Pipeline Works typically relate to construction matters. These include night works associated with the HDD construction method which may occur for a period of time. These matters are identified in the CEMP as discussed above, and mitigation and consultation measures are proposed to manage any impact.

224 More specifically, noise related issues are addressed in Chapter 13 (Noise and Vibration) and EES and Technical Report H --- Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. I understand that Mr Tim Marks is giving acoustic evidence.

Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Impacts

225 Part of the land to be used for the Pakenham Delivery Facility is included in an area of cultural heritage sensitivity. Chapter 21 of the EES outlines that a Cultural Heritage Management Plan (CHMP) covering the northern portion of the proposed pipeline alignment from Tooradin to Pakenham is being prepared (CHMP No. 15834). The CHMP must be approved prior to any works being undertaken. I understand that Ms Oona Nicholson is providing evidence in relation to cultural heritage matters.


Land Use Implications

226 The land use implications resulting from the Pipeline Works once in operation would be limited. The alignment is generally limited to existing rail, road and title boundaries. The resultant easements along the pipeline are a necessary element of this type of infrastructure and the land use implications are managed due to the alignment decisions adopted by the proponent, namely the co-locating of the Pipeline within the existing railway corridor through Hastings, along existing pipeline infrastructure alignments, and through predominantly agricultural and farming uses between Hastings and Pakenham .

227 The location of the pipeline will have a bearing on future uses within proximity of the pipeline. Whilst a constraint, these acceptability of any ne uses with be consider by the relevant authorities on a case by case basis in the interests of safety. This is necessary and appropriate.

228 The location of the two mainline valves (MLV1 and MLV2), the above-ground Pakenham Delivery Facility, and the EOLSS are acceptably located and these are address within Section 5 of my Statement.

229 Furthermore, a number of specialist technical reports have been produced as part of the EES and address matters raised within the submission received. Relevant to my assessment these include:

• EES Technical Report M --- Social Impact Assessment

• EES Technical Report N --- Business Impact Assessment

• EES Technical Report O --- Agriculture Impact Assessment

• EES Technical Report H --- Noise and Vibration Assessment

• EES Technical Report J --- Transport Impact Assessment


• EES Technical Report Q --- Historic Heritage Impact Assessment

Local Government Submissions

230 Submissions have been received from Mornington Peninsula Shire (Submission 2276), Cardinia Shire (Submission 2805) and Casey City Council. The submissions made oppose the Project, including as relevant to my area of assessment the proposed Pipeline Work. I note that a submission has also been received from Bass Coast Shire Council (Submission 665).

231 Other authority submissions include:

• Australian Industry Group submission (Submission 365)

• Bunurong Land Council Aboriginal Corporation (Submission 2870)


• Commonwealth Department of Agriculture, Water & the Environment (Submission 2871)

• Department of Transport (Submission 1357)

• EPA Victoria (Submission 2671)

• Environment Victoria (Submission 3088)

• Major Road Projects Victoria (Submission1461)

• Port of Hastings Development Authority (PoHDA) (Submission 2700)

• Sea Shepherd (Submission 2617)

• Trust for Nature (Submission 2558)

• Victorian Chamber of Commerce (Submission 2546)

• Victorian National Parks Association (Submission 3004)

• Victorian Planning Authority (Submission 234)

232 As previously noted, the Project relates to land within the local government areas of Mornington Peninsular (Both the Gas Import Jetty Works and Pipeline Works), Casey and Cardinia Shire (Pipelines Works). The concerns raised in the Council’s submissions extend beyond my area of expertise in town planning.

233 From my review, there is a level of overlap between the concerns raised in each of the submissions however for completeness I comment in turn on each of the Council submission’s.

Mornington Peninsula Shire Council

234 The submission from Mornington Peninsula relates to both the Gas Import Jetty Works and Pipeline Works, the latter being relevant to the scope of my town planning assessment of the amenity consequences of the Pipeline Works. The following is a summary of the key concerns relevant to my town planning assessment:

• The proposal’s response to the locational context of the project including the natural resource and environmental values of the area associated with Western Port Bay and the Ramsar Wetlands, together with the character of Crib Point and Hastings.

• Impacts on the Hastings Major Activity Centre. Note that none are specifically identified in submission.

• Potential amenity impacts (noise) associated with construction and operation of the Project on nearby residences and recreational users.


• Traffic considerations including associated with construction phase (i.e. movement of pipes) and long term consequence for traffic movements (including future duplication and electrification of the Stony Point Railway to Hastings).

235 The natural resource and environmental values of the area, including Western Port Bay and the Ramsar Wetlands are comprehensively addressed with the EES Material, including Chapters 6, 7, 8 and 9 and Technical Reports A, B, C and D. These are matters beyond my area of expertise.

236 The pipeline alignment will extend through the Hastings Major Activity Centre. I consider and discuss these impacts within Section 5 (Paragraphs 111-120) of my statement. The proposed alignment along the existing railway corridor and the HDD construction methodology along the majority of Segment 3 will assist to minimise land use and amenity impacts. This technique will also assist with construction related impacts.

237 The noise related issues are addressed in Chapter 13 (Noise and Vibration) and EES and Technical Report H --- Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment.

238 The transport impact related issues are addressed in Chapter 15 (Transport) of the EES and Technical Report J --- Transport Impact Assessment.

Cardinia Shire Council

239 Cardinia Shire Council’s submission objects to the Project. It raises specific concern with the following matters of relevance to my town planning assessment:

• Location of the pipeline alignment and impacts on ongoing farming abilities on Green Wedge zoned land, including specifically at 45 Bloomfield Lane, Cardinia and Crown Allotment 94A PP3272 Koo Wee Rup Road, Pakenham South.

• Alignment of the Pipeline in a diagonal direction across the three properties at 665-735 Manks Road, Cardinia, 2500 Ballarto Road, Cardinia and 1025 McDonalds Drain Road, Pakenham.

• Location of the Pipeline Works as it relates to three properties at 95 Adams Road, Cardinia, 765 Koo Wee Rup Road, Pakenham South and 825 Koo Wee Rup Road, Pakenham South, suggesting it should follow paddock boundaries.

• Impact on future land uses and businesses within the Measurement Length (ML) of the Pipeline Works and the suggested 640 ML which differs from the measurements used in EES.


• Potential impacts on future land use planning for Pakenham East Precinct Structure Plan (PEPSP) including proximity of schools and land within the PEPSP area.

• Ongoing landscape and visual amenity impacts of the Project on properties within the ML.

240 The land at 45 Bloomfield Lane in Cardinia is proposed to accommodate MLV2. I have addressed the suitability of this location to house this facility at Paragraphs 152-163 of my Statement. Namely, I conclude that the proposed location is acceptable.

241 I agree with submissions that the alignment of the Pipeline in a diagonal direction across properties should be avoided wherever practical, and have made similar recommendations at Paragraph 135 of my Statement.

242 Several submissions, including Cardinia Shire Council’s submission expressed concern with the consequence of the 200m assessment area adopted either side on the pipeline in the ESS, rather than a 640m ML. Concerns are also raised in relation to the potential impacts on future land uses and businesses.

243 In considering these submissions, as noted previously I have been provided with the Information Sheet prepared by APA. The document includes an explanation of ML, including noting that ML is determined by the maximum allowable operating pressure and the pipeline diameter. I have also reviewed AS2885. The APA Information Sheet makes reference to the ML as being more ‘‘…accurately defined as the area where risks associated with the pipeline is assessed and consequently designed out to be as low as reasonably practical so to minimise any such event from occurring. The ML is not a ‘buffer’ in the sense that all land use needs to be kept a distance from the pipeline, it is the area of study and assessment.’’ AS2885 requires pipelines and the associated ML to avoid sensitive land uses. Where this cannot occur the pipeline must be designed appropriately to ensure risks are minimised to be a low as reasonably practical. AS2885 also discourages new sensitive uses from locating within a ML.

244 The proposed pipeline will be a ‘no-rupture design.’ The worst case credible scenario would have a significantly reduced area of consequence thereby reducing the area of sensitivity. APA have advised that there are examples of Victorian PSP’s where the discouragement of sensitive uses has not be applied to the entire ML area and a reduced assessment area has been accepted. I acknowledge that this has not always been a consistent approach.

245 Based on the information provided to me, I am satisfied that there is no meaningful town planning consequence by adopting the 200m assessment area in the EES rather than a 640m ML as suggested by submitters. To the contrary, this reduces the potential lands use impacts.


246 In terms of the potential impact of the Pipeline Works on future land uses and businesses, I understand from the material provided that the ML does not generally impact on urban development from occurring around it.

247 The introduction of the Pipeline will require any new land uses within the ML to be considered on a case by case basis. This may have some implications on the ability for new sensitive uses to establish within close proximity to the Pipeline and within the ML. The consideration and acceptability of these new uses will be similar to the assessment of any new use within a buffer area and I find this to be reasonable.

248 As I have acknowledged previously, the proposed pipeline for the Project will be a ‘no-rupture design’ and T1 standard. This reduces the area of sensitivity. In that regard, I note that APA were satisfied in their submission to Amendment C234 to the Cardinia Planning Scheme (Pakenham East Precinct Structure Plan) dated 23 February 2018 that a 50 metre distance was appropriate. It that correspondence, APA stated:

Given the outcome of the SMS conducted for the PSP and the high design quality of the APA pipelines rupture of the pipelines is deemed to be non credible and therefore for the purposes of triggering sensitive land use permits, the trigger area can reasonably be applied to the areas of highest possible consequence/risk rather than the full measurement length. Therefore APA can accept an area of 50m either side of the APA gas pipeline easements be applied and shown on plan 3 ‘‘Future Urban Structure’’, rather than the full Measurement Length of 700m.

249 I also understand that where an application for a new sensitive use, as defined by AS2885, being Educations facilities, child care, aged care, hospitals and correction facilities is sought within the assessment area the application will be assessed on a case by case basis by APA and would not be opposed unless there is a unreasonable risk.

Casey City Council

250 Casey City Council’s submission is set out in the Agenda and Minutes to the 18 August 2020 Council Meeting (Item 5.8). The submission raises specific concerns with the following matters of relevance to my town planning assessment:

• Impacts on the Western Port Green Wedge including on agricultural land which is said to form a substantive part of Melbourne’s food bowl.

• Impacts on the Western Port, in particular the Western Port Ramsar site.


• Inconsistency with State and Local Planning Policy Framework, specifically objectives and strategies for the Green Wedge, resulting in complications and risks to Casey’s farming community.

• Consequences for future land uses within the ML.

• Impacts on the environmental and agricultural productivity, both elements sought to be protected under the Casey Planning Scheme and Casey Westernport Green Wedge Management Plan.

• Impacts on traffic, including during construction.

• The EES does not satisfactorily identify what the consequences, risk and impacts to biodiversity (including vegetation removal) may be in issuing a pipeline license, and by establishing an easement right of way the for the pipeline under the Pipeline Permit under the Pipelines Act 2005.

251 The agricultural related issues are addressed in Chapter 20 of the EES and Technical Report O --- Agriculture Impact Assessment.

252 As noted above, natural resource, environmental values and biodiversity implications are comprehensively addressed with the EES Material, including Chapters 6, 7, 8 and 9 and Technical Reports A, B, C and D. These are matters beyond my area of expertise.

253 In relation to the implications to Green Wedge zoned land, the farming community and agricultural productivity, the construction related impacts will be short lived. The introduction of new easements across private land will restrict certain buildings and works from occurring within the easement area. This will introduce a constraint to these properties that would not otherwise exist. However, the easement will not restrict activities such as grazing and typical farming activities and the proposed Pipeline Alignment has, in part, been adopted to extend through green wedge and agriculture land for this reason. The implications to these agricultural land uses will be lesser than other areas, such as more urbanised locations.

254 The transport impact related issues are addressed in Chapter 15 (Transport) of the EES and Technical Report J --- Transport Impact Assessment.

Victoria Planning Authority (VPA) Submission

255 The VPA submission does not object to the proposal. The submission acknowledges that discussions between the VPA and APA have been ongoing and agreement has been reached. The VPA submission requests:

• Implications for the Pakenham East PSP are clearly discussed within the EES inclusive of a reassurance within the document (consistent with advice provided to the VPA by APA) that the pipeline will be designed and constructed such that there will be no adverse


impacts upon the future development within this precinct, which will be predominately residential.

• The EES be more specific about the 640m measurement length that applies to both sides of the proposed pipeline and should articulate how the increased design and construction standards of the pipe, particularly in the vicinity of the PSP area, will lead to a reduction in its length or a change in how it is the measurement length is interpreted / responded to;

• The Advisory Committee require APA and AGL to engage with the VPA when revising the EES to ensure that it adequately addresses the above matters and remains consistent with advice already provided to the VPA by APA. I note also that the VPA, Melbourne Water and DELWP are not referred to in the stakeholder engagement sections of the EES and have apparently have not previously been included in this process.

256 I acknowledge the Pakenham East PSP. This has been the subject of a Panel process and I understand that the Proponent participated in these proceedings. At the time of writing, the Pakenham East PSP is yet to be approved. The preferred outcome is that both the Pakenham East PSP and the Pipeline acknowledge each other and are compatible. Both parties, as acknowledged by the VPA, should continue to work together to ensure that this is achieved.

257 I consider that sufficient detail is included in the EES documentation, the IAC RFI request, and the Information Sheet prepared by APA that includes explanation of ML and circulated to the parties.


7

7 Review and Recommendations on the Mitigation Measures

258 Chapter 25 (Environmental Management Framework) of the EES seeks to specifically address Section 5 of the Scoping Requirements and outline how the management of potential environmental impacts from the Project that have been identified and will be addressed through the approvals process.

259 I have been requested to review the mitigation measures recommended in the EES relevant to my area of expertise. The focus of my assessment has been the extent of the Pipeline Works which, subject to the grant of a license under the Pipelines Act 2005, do not require planning permission under the Planning and Environment Act. I have not been asked to review or consider the extent of Crib Point Jetty works proposed within the Port of Hastings which are excluded from the Pipelines Act exemption, or the proposed Planning Scheme Amendment material and proposed Incorporated Document.

260 The Application for the Pipeline License has been prepared and publicly exhibited with the EES documentation. The License Application includes a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) at Attachment 2 which identifies detailed management protocols for the management of a range of matters during construction and operation. Under the Pipelines Act 2005 the construction and operation must be in accordance with an accepted CEMP.

261 The drafted Environment Management Plan:

→ identifies the risks to the environment arising from the pipeline operation;

→ specifies what the licensee will do to eliminate or minimise those risks, including rehabilitation of the land; and

→ sets out any matter prescribed by the Pipelines Regulations 2017 (the Pipelines Regulations).

262 I am satisfied having regard to the relevant EES documentation and technical reports that the key considerations impacting the land use and amenity component of the EES have been appropriately identified, and that the Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) included as Attachment 2 to the Application for the Pipeline License ensures appropriate mitigation measures will be adopted and can be enforced.

7.1 Review Measures Recommended in Chapter 25 of the EES

Gas Import Jetty and Pipeline Project Contour Consultants Aust Pty Ltd 64 7 Review and Recommendations on the Mitigation Measures

263 I have also been requested to review the Application for the Pipeline License which has been prepared and exhibited with EES documentation. The license application has been prepared in accordance with Section 28, 29 and 30 of the Pipelines Act 2005. The document is included at Attachment IX of the EES documentation.

264 Having reviewed the Application for the Pipeline License, I consider it be a fair summary of the key matters addressed with the EES material. I am unable to identify any deficiencies that would fall within my scope or that I haven’t otherwise commented on earlier in my statement.

7.2 Review the Pipeline License Application


8

8 Conclusion

265 Overall, I consider that the proposed Pipeline Works are acceptable from a town planning perspective and that Chapter 17 (Land Use) of the EES and Technical Report L --- Land Use Impact Assessment satisfactorily identify and consider the relevant land use considerations. In my view, and limited to scope of my expertise, I consider that the proposal will not cause unacceptable amenity impacts during construction or operation.

266 I consider that the Pipeline Works are appropriate having regard to the relevant policies and provisions within the Mornington Peninsula Planning Scheme, the Casey Planning Scheme and the Cardinia Planning Scheme, and appropriately balance the net community benefit aspirations of Clause 71.02-1 of the Planning Scheme.

267 I also consider that, subject to my recommendations as set out above, the proposed alignment of the Pipeline Works is appropriate and acceptable.

268 I form this view notwithstanding that the proposed Pipeline Works are exempt under Section 49 of the Pipelines Act from approval under the Planning and Environment Act 1987 where a Pipeline Licence is issued.


1 A

Attachment 1 Expert Witness Declaration

Gas Import Jetty and Pipeline Project Contour Consultants Aust Pty Ltd 67 Attachment 1 - Expert Witness Declaration

Name and Address Tim McBride-Burgess is a Director of Contour Consultants Australia Pty Ltd, Town Planners and Practices from Level 1, 283 Drummond Street, Carlton, in Victoria.

Professional Qualifications → Bachelor of Applied Science (Planning) → Bachelor of Social Science (Environment) → Board Member of the Victorian Planning & Environmental Law Association

(VPELA)

Professional Experience I am a Director at Contour Consultants Aust Pty Ltd.

I was first employed as a Student Town Planner at Hansen Partnership Pty Ltd in 2003. I continued that employment until August 2005 when I accepted a role as a Statutory Planner at the City of Port Phillip.

In 2006 I moved to London and was employed on a three month contract at the London Borough of Brent as a Development Control Officer. At the completion of that contract I was employed as a Senior Town Planner at Planning Potential Ltd, a London based private town planning practice. I continued my employment with Planning Potential until my return to Melbourne in December 2007.

I was employed by Contour Consultants in January 2008 and have been a Director of the firm since July 2016.

In October 2019 I was elected to the board of the Victorian Planning & Environmental Law Association (VPELA).

Areas of Expertise → Statutory and strategic planning. → Advice and assessment of land use and development proposals in

metropolitan and regional Victoria and the United Kingdom for developers and private clients (including residential, retail, commercial, industrial, signage and mixed use projects), planning authorities and objectors.

Expertise to Prepare this Report

My training and experience including involvement with a diverse variety of planning permit application proposals qualifies me to comment on the statutory planning implications and the impacts of the proposal.

Instructions which Define the Scope of this Report

I received instructions from Hall & Wilcox Lawyers, on behalf of AGL Wholesale Gas Limited (AGL) and APA Transmission Pty Ltd (APA), to consider the town planning implications of the Gas Import Jetty and Pipeline Project. More specifically, my instructions

Facts, Matters and Assumptions Relied Upon

→ Refer to Chapter 3 of my report and as otherwise described in my report.

Gas Import Jetty and Pipeline Project Contour Consultants Aust Pty Ltd 68 Attachment 1 - Expert Witness Declaration

Documents Taken into Account

Refer to documents described in report.

Identity of Persons Undertaking the Work

I prepared this report with the assistance of Angela Ash, Associate at Contour Consultants.

I have made all enquires 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 Inquiry and Advisory Committee appointed by the Victorian Minister for Planning

Tim McBride-Burgess Director Contour Consultants Aust Pty Ltd


2 A

Attachment 2 Information Relied Upon

Gas Import Jetty and Pipeline Project Contour Consultants Aust Pty Ltd 70 Attachment 2 - Information Relied Upon

269 The key documents and materials I have used in preparing this witness statement include (but are not limited to) the following:

• My written instructions dated 7 August 2020 and accompanying brief;

• A Supplementary Witness Instruction Memo prepared by Hall & Wilcox dated 14 September 2020;

• The documents referred to at Annexure B of the brief;

• The EES and Key Approval Documents (Pipeline Licence Application, Works Approval Application and Draft Planning Scheme Amendment) referred to in the brief and exhibited as part of this process; and

• The Mornington Peninsula Planning Scheme;

• The Casey Planning Scheme; and

• The Cardinia Planning Scheme.

270 In preparing this statement of evidence I have had regard to the following as it concerns the Pipeline Works specifically relevant to my instructions as relevant to the Project:

• Chapter 17 --- Land Use of the EES;

• EES Technical Report L --- Land Use Impact Assessment.

271 I have also been provided with a copy of the IAC RFI dated 16/09/20 and considered and responded to the specific requests accordingly.

272 In addition to the above, I have reviewed and familiarised myself with the following additional chapters with the EES, the technical reports listed below and the relevant attachments.

• Chapters 1-5 of the EES --- which provide an overview of the project and the rationale, including:

- Chapter 1 --- Introduction

- Chapter 2 --- Project Rationale

- Chapter 3 --- Project Development

- Chapter 4 --- Project Description

- Chapter 5 --- Key Approvals and Assessment Framework

• Chapter 12 --- Air Quality

• Chapter 13 --- Noise and Vibration


• Chapter 14 --- Landscape and Visual

• Chapter 15 --- Transport

• Chapter 18 --- Social

• Chapter 20 --- Agriculture

• Chapter 21 --- Aboriginal Cultural Heritage

• Chapter 22 --- Historic Heritage

• EES Technical Report M --- Social Impact Assessment


• EES Technical Report O --- Agriculture Impact Assessment

• EES Technical Report H --- Noise and Vibration Assessment

• EES Technical Report J --- Transport Impact Assessment


• EES Technical Report Q --- Historic Heritage Impact Assessment

• EES Attachment II --- Legislation and Policy Report

• EES Attachment VII --- Map Book

• EES Attachment VIII --- Works Approval Application

• EES Attachment IX --- Pipeline License Application

I have also reviewed and considered the following additional documents as relevant:

• Plan Melbourne 2017-2050: Metropolitan Planning Strategy (Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning, 2017).

• Plan Melbourne 2017-2050: Addendum 2019 (Department of VC168 Environment, Land, Water and Planning, 2019).

• Pakenham East Structure Plan (March 2020)

• Mornington Peninsula Amendment C190 & C206 Panel Report

• Mornington Peninsula Localised Planning Statement (Victorian Government, 2014)

• Hastings Town Centre Structure Plan (November 2014)


• Hastings District Heritage Study, Volume 1, Heritage Place Reports, Project Methods, Recommendations and Volume 2, Environmental History (Graeme Butler & Associates 2002)

• Hastings Outline Development Plan (Shire of Hastings, 1991)

• Hastings Port Industrial Area Land Use Structure Plan (WRPCC, 1996)

• Hastings Urban Industrial Zones Review (Western Port Development Council, May 1990)

• Landscape Assessment of the Southern Mornington Peninsula (Centre for Environmental Studies--- University of Melbourne, May 1974)

• Landscape Setting Types for the Victorian Coast (Victorian Coastal Council - May 1998)

• Mornington Peninsula Activity Centres Strategy (MPSC - September 2005)

• Mornington Peninsula --- Western Port Roadside Management Plan (MPSC 1996)

• Mornington Peninsula Shire Heritage Review, Area 2 Volume 2 - Place and Precinct Citations by Context Pty Ltd, 22 August 2016 (Revised September 2017)

• Mornington Planning Scheme Rural Lands Strategy (Shire of Mornington, March 1988)

• Mornington Rural Land Use Strategy (Shire of Mornington)

• Review of Issues on the Urban Fringe --- Final Report (Department of Infrastructure, 1997)

• Rural Planning Priorities for the Western Port Region (WRPCC, 1994)

• Victorian Coastal Strategy (Victorian Coastal Council, 2014)

• Western Port Bay Strategy (WRPCC, 1992)

• Cardinia Western Port Green Wedge Management Plan (May 2017)

• Casey and Cardinia Regional Agricultural Audit and Action Framework 2004

• Planning Decision Support Framework for Salinity (2005)

• Environment Management Strategy 2004-2007

• Land Capability Study of the Cardinia Shire (1997)


• Shire of Cardinia Urban Growth Corridor Aboriginal Heritage Study (2004)

• Township Character Assessment --- Garfield, Bunyip, Koo Wee Rup and Lang Lang (November 2006)

• Regional Economic Strategy for Melbourne’s South East (2003 --- 2030), 2003

• Casey C21: A vision for our future strategy, City of Casey, 2002

• Port Phillip and Western Port Regional Catchment Strategy 2004-2009, Port Phillip and Westernport Catchment Management Authority, 2004.

PO Box 1040 Level 1⁄283 Drummond Street Carlton Victoria 3053

Telephone 03 9347 6100 [email protected] contour.net.au

Contour Consultants Australia Pty Ltd ABN 98 417 162 976 ACN 068 152 714

Gas Import Jetty and Pipeline Project · • The focus of my assessment is the Pipeline Works and...

Documents

Transcript of Gas Import Jetty and Pipeline Project · • The focus of my assessment is the Pipeline Works and...