Proponent should Mr Supported Council submitted this The Panel agrees only be responsible McKinley misinterprets the with Council for Bluff Road on behalf purpose and function of drainage, parking of SLPH the linear open space. A and footpath on shared path will be the north side only, located within the linear not both open space to replace the need for a footpath in the road reserve, subject to arboriculture assessments. Similarly, the road pavement width should be determined following these assessments noting that on-street parking is unlikely to be necessary given there will be no direct lot access A footpath along Mr Supported Not supported. Refer McBeth Street is McKinley to Section 7.4 for not required or on behalf discussion justified of SLPH Restriction of the Mr Supported Not supported As the oval shape around McKinley responsibilities for the north-west on behalf the upgrade of this intersections to of SLPH 3-way intersection just the Murradoc are known the Panel Road/Leviens Road agrees with SLPH the intersection oval shape should be reduced to apply to the Leviens Road/Murradoc Road intersection and have an additional notation on the ODP that states such *The proponents refer to either or all of the individual landowners Council submitted that the Stormwater Management Plan be finalised before the adoption of the Amendment by Council. This was not to be a requirement of the DDO39 however Council conveyed this to the Panel during the hearing. Council advised this was based on: A holistic drainage strategy (SSMP) should form a reference document for the entire growth area given the implication of a DDO that all parcels can develop independently Previous advice (pre & post application) asks for a flood report in accordance with best practice, i.e. a full, proper and final flood impact assessment from which detail
Proponent should only be responsible for Bluff Road drainage, parking and footpath on the north side only, not both Mr McKinley on behalf of SLPH Supported Council submitted this misinterprets the purpose and function of the linear open space. A shared path will be located within the linear open space to replace the need for a footpath in the road reserve, subject to arboriculture assessments. Similarly, the road pavement width should be determined following these assessments noting that on-street parking is unlikely to be necessary given there will be no direct lot access The Panel agrees with Council A footpath along McBeth Street is not required or justified Mr McKinley on behalf of SLPH Supported Not supported. Refer to Section 7.4 for discussion Restriction of the oval shape around the north-west intersections to just the Murradoc Road/Leviens Road intersection Mr McKinley on behalf of SLPH Supported Not supported As the responsibilities for the upgrade of this 3-way intersection are known the Panel agrees with SLPH the oval shape should be reduced to apply to the Leviens Road/Murradoc Road intersection and have an additional notation on the ODP that states such *The proponents refer to either or all of the individual landowners Council submitted that the Stormwater Management Plan be finalised before the adoption of the Amendment by Council. This was not to be a requirement of the DDO39 however Council conveyed this to the Panel during the hearing. Council advised this was based on: A holistic drainage strategy (SSMP) should form a reference document for the entire growth area given the implication of a DDO that all parcels can develop independently Previous advice (pre & post application) asks for a flood report in accordance with best practice, i.e. a full, proper and final flood impact assessment from which detail
8d2b858dd252001-GreaterGeelongC317andC325PanelReport.docx