Truganina Englobo Residential Screening (demo)
No Major red flags across the 19 assessable constraint(s). 2 Moderate constraint(s) require mitigation through the development application.
Instructions & Purpose
Desktop red flags screening of a candidate Englobo Residential site prior to formal feasibility.
Identify potential fatal flaws and material planning and environmental constraints to inform site selection.
Methodology & Caveats
This is a desktop red flags screen. The drawn site boundary was intersected against national and state planning, hazard and environmental spatial layers, supplemented by state planning services and an SRTM elevation model. Each constraint is rated on the four-level scale, and where data is unavailable for the state it is flagged for survey rather than assumed clear.
How this screen was produced
- Spatial intersection of the site polygon against the mapped constraint layers
- State planning service queries for zoning, overlays and the nearest residential receptor
- Terrain analysis (slope and visibility) from a 30m elevation model
- Rule-based rating per constraint, with a data status recorded separately from the rating
Limitations
- Mapped vector data is generalised at zoom and is not survey accurate; boundaries and distances are indicative.
- Data coverage varies by state. Constraints flagged data-limited require a specialist survey and are NOT low-risk.
- EPBC matters are screened by proximity and mapped layers only; a Protected Matters Search Tool report and self-assessment are still required.
- This screen does not replace a title search, specialist assessments, modelling, or the formal development application.
Site & Surrounds
The candidate site and its surrounding land uses, derived from the drawn boundary and surrounding spatial data.
Zoning & Overlays
Statutory planning controls that apply to the site.
| Zone | UGZ2 - URBAN GROWTH ZONE - SCHEDULE 2 |
|---|
| Overlay | Description |
|---|---|
| DCPO9 | DEVELOPMENT CONTRIBUTIONS PLAN OVERLAY - SCHEDULE 9 |
Risk Rating Scale
Each constraint is rated on a four-level scale. Constraints that could not be assessed from available data are shown separately and are not treated as low risk.
Significant; likely to preclude development unless rectified (potential fatal flaw).
Significant; will need to be mitigated.
Evident but not significant; readily mitigated.
No constraint on development proceeding.
Could not be assessed from available data; further investigation required. This is NOT a low-risk finding.
Constraint Summary
Traffic-light screening of each constraint. See the following section for the assessment and mitigation behind each rating.
Approvals Pathway
Indicative approvals a project of this type would typically require.
| Approval | Authority | Trigger |
|---|---|---|
| State planning consent | Responsible authority / Minister for Planning | Applicable state planning legislation |
| EPBC referral (if MNES significantly impacted) | DCCEEW (Commonwealth) | Potential significant impact on a Matter of National Environmental Significance |
| Native vegetation clearance | State native vegetation authority | Clearance of native vegetation |
| Utility connections (power / water / sewer) | Distribution network and utility providers | New connections and any augmentation the development requires |
Comparable Approved Projects
Recent comparable projects that have been approved on a similar assessment pathway. Precedents de-risk the approval thesis; they are indicative only and each project's assessment turns on its own merits.
| Project | Scale | Approval pathway | Year |
|---|---|---|---|
| Shepparton South East Precinct Structure Plan Recent Victorian PSP approval; the PSP + DCP is the englobo enabling instrument. | About 2,980 dwellings / 7,200 residents | PSP and Development Contributions Plan approved by the Minister for Planning and gazetted 26 June 2025 (Amendment C117gshe). | 2025 source |
| Appin (Part) Precinct rezoning, Greater Macarthur Large NSW englobo rezoning; infrastructure-linked dwelling caps shape the release program. | 1,378 ha rezoned for up to 12,900 homes (about 470 ha conserved for koala corridors) | Precinct rezoning finalised 15 December 2023 with a precinct structure plan and DCP; staged dwelling caps apply pending infrastructure delivery. | 2023 source |
Review of Planning & Environmental Considerations
Each constraint with the desktop findings, the legislation that applies, the risk table and the checks required before reliance.
The site is zoned UGZ2 - URBAN GROWTH ZONE - SCHEDULE 2. This zoning represents a minor constraint, and an assessment pathway is required to confirm the specific planning requirements and development provisions applicable to the project under this schedule.
Legislation: State planning legislation and the applicable planning scheme / Planning and Design Code
| Aspect | Risk | Mitigation | Rating |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicable zone | Site zoned UGZ2 - URBAN GROWTH ZONE - SCHEDULE 2; compatibility to confirm |
|
Minor |
- Confirm zone provisions and the assessment pathway with the planning authority
No mapped easement or infrastructure corridor crosses the site in the available data. However, because title, lot/plan, and easements are not desktop-verifiable, this is a data-limited constraint. A registered title search must be ordered to confirm the presence of any controlling easements.
Legislation: Real Property / Land Title Act (state land registry); Survey and cadastral standards (state)
| Aspect | Risk | Mitigation | Rating |
|---|---|---|---|
| Title and encumbrances | Lot/plan, ownership, covenants, caveats and easements are not confirmed from desktop data |
|
Minor |
- Order a Certificate of Title and plan of subdivision from the state land registry
- Commission a survey-grade boundary identification if the project proceeds to design
The site is subject to one planning overlay, being the DEVELOPMENT CONTRIBUTIONS PLAN OVERLAY - SCHEDULE 9. This overlay represents a minor constraint that will need to be addressed through the planning and development process.
Legislation: Applicable planning scheme / Planning and Design Code overlays
| Aspect | Risk | Mitigation | Rating |
|---|---|---|---|
| DEVELOPMENT CONTRIBUTIONS PLAN OVERLAY - SCHEDULE 9 | The DEVELOPMENT CONTRIBUTIONS PLAN OVERLAY - SCHEDULE 9 overlay adds assessment requirements to the development application |
|
Minor |
- Review each overlay schedule and address its objectives in the development application
The site is located outside a mapped Area of Cultural Heritage Sensitivity, meaning there is no automatic requirement for a Cultural Heritage Management Plan. However, general aboriginal heritage protection still applies across the site as the sensitivity mapping is a model rather than a complete site register.
Legislation: Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 (Vic)
| Aspect | Risk | Mitigation | Rating |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cultural heritage sensitivity | Outside a statutory sensitivity area; protection applies regardless |
|
Minor |
- Unexpected finds procedure during ground-disturbing works
- Confirm with a Heritage Advisor if the activity is high-impact
There are no listed historic heritage places located within 1km of the site. Historic and federal heritage is considered an insignificant constraint for this project based on the desktop assessment.
Legislation: Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth); State heritage legislation
| Aspect | Risk | Mitigation | Rating |
|---|---|---|---|
| Heritage places | No listed heritage place within 1km |
|
Insignificant |
- Confirm against the Australian Heritage Database and the state heritage register
The site is not located within a mapped bushfire prone area, and no bushfire hazard area intersects the site. Bushfire risk is considered an insignificant constraint for the proposed development.
Legislation: Australian Standard AS 3959; State bushfire planning provisions
| Aspect | Risk | Mitigation | Rating |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bushfire risk | Not within a mapped bushfire prone area |
|
Insignificant |
- Confirm the classification with the fire authority before detailed design
The site intersects threatened biota and native vegetation, specifically the Southern Plains including the Western Victorian volcanic plain and karst springs. This represents a moderate ecological constraint that will require further investigation.
Legislation: Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth); State native vegetation / biodiversity legislation
| Aspect | Risk | Mitigation | Rating |
|---|---|---|---|
| Threatened biota / native vegetation | Clearance or disturbance of mapped threatened community or native vegetation |
|
Moderate |
- Flora and fauna survey by a qualified ecologist
- Native vegetation clearance assessment and offsets if required
- EPBC Act self-assessment / referral if a listed matter may be significantly impacted
A Matter of National Environmental Significance is likely triggered as an MNES threatened community or reserve intersects or adjoins the site. This is a moderate constraint that will require an EPBC referral.
Legislation: Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth)
| Aspect | Risk | Mitigation | Rating |
|---|---|---|---|
| MNES impact | Potential significant impact on a listed matter |
|
Moderate |
- Generate a Protected Matters Search Tool (PMST) report for the site
- Self-assess against the nine MNES and refer to DCCEEW if a significant impact is likely
No mapped flood hazard or overlay intersects the site. However, because the site is very flat with a slope of approximately 1.4%, internal stormwater drainage and finished levels remain design constraints. A numeric 1% AEP level must be sourced from the council floodplain study.
Legislation: State flood policy and the applicable planning scheme flooding controls
| Aspect | Risk | Mitigation | Rating |
|---|---|---|---|
| Flooding | No mapped flood hazard over the site |
|
Insignificant |
| Internal site drainage | Flat grade (~1.4%) drains poorly and can pond |
|
Minor |
- Confirm the relevant flood level (e.g. 1% AEP) with the floodplain authority
- Prepare a stormwater management strategy and set finished levels accordingly
The proposed residential development is a sensitive use, meaning external noise sources such as roads, rail, and industry must be assessed. Existing dwellings are located nearby, with the nearest approximately 125m away, and 8641 dwellings sit within 2000m, which provides context for the urban interface.
Legislation: Environment Protection Regulations 2021 (Vic) noise provisions
| Aspect | Risk | Mitigation | Rating |
|---|---|---|---|
| External noise on future dwellings | The subdivision inherits its noise environment; sources must be identified and assessed at design stage |
|
Minor |
- Identify external noise sources (road / rail / industry / aircraft) and assess against residential noise criteria
- Set dwelling setbacks, lot layout or acoustic treatments where criteria are exceeded
The terrain visibility for the site is rated as moderate. The site sits at an elevation of 32.0m within a mixed surrounding terrain, featuring 6 points lower, 13 points higher, and 5 points of similar elevation.
Legislation: Applicable planning scheme amenity and landscape provisions
| Aspect | Risk | Mitigation | Rating |
|---|---|---|---|
| Visual amenity | Some visual exposure to surrounding receptors |
|
Minor |
- Visual impact assessment with photomontages from key viewpoints
- Landscape concept plan to limit visibility from sensitive receptors
The site features a very gentle topography with a mean slope of approximately 1.4% based on the SRTM 30m elevation model. Topography is considered an insignificant constraint for the development.
| Aspect | Risk | Mitigation | Rating |
|---|---|---|---|
| Slope / earthworks | Gentle slope (1.4%); minimal earthworks |
|
Insignificant |
- Confirm levels and gradients with a feature and level survey
Geotechnical conditions are not desktop-assessable, making this a data-limited constraint. An intrusive, on-site geotechnical investigation is required to confirm the ground conditions and suitability for construction.
| Aspect | Risk | Mitigation | Rating |
|---|---|---|---|
| Foundation conditions | Unknown ground conditions until investigated |
|
Minor |
- Commission a geotechnical investigation (boreholes / test pits) at detailed design
Desktop findings indicate the presence of Sodosols, which are characterized as reactive or dispersive soils. This soil class represents a minor constraint that will need to be managed during engineering design and construction.
| Aspect | Risk | Mitigation | Rating |
|---|---|---|---|
| Soils | Reactive / dispersive soils indicated (Sodosols) |
|
Minor |
- Confirm soil conditions in the geotechnical investigation
A 66kV transmission line is located within 530m of the site, a water or sewer main is within 301m, and a gas transmission pipeline is located within 2533m. These existing utility services represent an insignificant constraint for the project.
Legislation: National Electricity Rules (connection); Gas pipeline access regulation
| Aspect | Risk | Mitigation | Rating |
|---|---|---|---|
| Electricity grid connection | Transmission line within 530m (66kV) |
|
Insignificant |
| Gas connection | Gas transmission pipeline within 2533m |
|
Insignificant |
| Water / sewer | Water / sewer main within 301m |
|
Insignificant |
| Telecommunications (NBN) | Coverage not queryable from the raster layer |
|
Data not available |
- Network connection study with the transmission operator
- Servicing strategy for water, sewer and telecommunications
This residential development will generate operational traffic from its own residents, with intersection and external road upgrades typically determined through the development application and contributions framework. Construction traffic will also occur during civil works, representing a minor, data-limited constraint.
Legislation: State road / planning authority traffic impact and OSOM permit requirements
| Aspect | Risk | Mitigation | Rating |
|---|---|---|---|
| Resident traffic and access | Intersection capacity and external road upgrades are set through the DA |
|
Minor |
| Construction traffic | Heavy-vehicle movements during civil works |
|
Minor |
- Traffic Impact Assessment scaled to the proposed lot yield
There are no EPA-listed contaminated sites located within 500m of the site. Contaminated land is considered an insignificant constraint for the proposed residential development.
Legislation: State contaminated land / environment protection legislation
| Aspect | Risk | Mitigation | Rating |
|---|---|---|---|
| Contaminated land | No EPA-listed contaminated site within 500m |
|
Insignificant |
- Phase 1 environmental site assessment if prior industrial use is suspected
As an englobo residential project, there are no operational combustion emissions associated with the development. Air quality impacts are a minor constraint and will be limited to temporary dust generation during the construction phase.
Legislation: State environment protection (air quality) policy; National Environment Protection (Ambient Air Quality) Measure
| Aspect | Risk | Mitigation | Rating |
|---|---|---|---|
| Construction phase | Dust from earthworks and construction traffic |
|
Minor |
| Operational phase | No combustion emissions |
|
Insignificant |
- Construction air quality management plan
The residential use carries no industrial on-site fire or explosion hazards. The primary hazard consideration is ensuring adequate separation from surrounding hazardous facilities, pipelines, and licensed dangerous-goods sites, which must be confirmed during the planning process.
Legislation: State planning provisions for residential development near hazardous facilities
| Aspect | Risk | Mitigation | Rating |
|---|---|---|---|
| Surrounding hazards | Residential is the sensitive use; separation from external hazardous facilities must be confirmed |
|
Insignificant |
- Identify licensed hazardous facilities and pipelines near the site and confirm the applicable separation / risk contours
Recommended Action Plan
A phased sequence to take this site from screening towards a lodged development application.
| Phase | Actions |
|---|---|
| Immediate (week 1 to 2) |
|
| Pre-DA specialist work (week 3 to 12) |
|
| Detailed design |
|
No fatal flaws identified
No Major red flags across the 19 assessable constraint(s). 2 Moderate constraint(s) require mitigation through the development application.
Key risks to manage: Flora & Fauna / Ecology; EPBC / Matters of National Significance.
Indicative screening fee: A$1000 per site.
Indicative Scope of Work & Fees
Indicative scope and fees to take this site from screening to a lodged development application. The site screen is a fixed fee; later phases are scoped against the red flags identified above and are a small fraction of the cost of progressing an unscreened site to formal feasibility.
| Task | Detail |
|---|---|
| Site screening (this report) | Desktop red flags across planning and environmental constraints to confirm no fatal flaw before feasibility spend. |
| Title and cadastral review | Certificate of Title, plan of subdivision, easements and ownership consolidation. |
| Pre-lodgement planning advice | Confirm the zone pathway and overlay requirements with the planning authority. |
| Specialist assessments (as triggered) | Flora and fauna, heritage, noise, air quality, bushfire, hydrology and geotechnical scopes set by the red flags above. |
| Development application preparation and lodgement | Compile and lodge the development application with the supporting specialist reports. |
| Item | Indicative fee (ex GST) |
|---|---|
| Red flags site screen (per site) | A$1,000 |
| Title and cadastral review | A$0.5K to A$1K |
| Pre-lodgement planning advice | A$3K to A$6K |
| Flora and fauna assessment | A$15K to A$30K |
| Heritage assessment / CHMP | A$10K to A$40K |
| Noise assessment | A$15K to A$25K |
| Geotechnical investigation | A$10K to A$25K |
| Development application preparation | A$30K to A$60K |
Fees are indicative ranges excluding GST and vary with site complexity and the assessments triggered.