Mitchell Shire Sports Field Feasibility Study

Orientation

This page compiles the 2014 Mitchell Shire Sports Field Feasibility Study for Mitchell Shire, with a focus on Wallan, Beveridge, Kilmore, and Broadford. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
The source study was commissioned to guide future planning and provision of active sporting reserves and supporting infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
The study has a specific greenfield focus on Mitchell South because the source identifies major growth pressure in Wallan and Beveridge. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
The study uses Mitchell Shire Sports Development Plan hierarchy terms: local, district, and regional reserves. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
The study should be read with Mitchell Open Space Strategy 2013-2023, Integrated Community Services and Infrastructure Plan 2013, Lockerbie Precinct Structure Plan, Lockerbie North Precinct Structure Plan, Beveridge North West Precinct Structure Plan, and the North Growth Corridor. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Source Basis

Read primary extracted file: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Read matching extracted file: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
The target page existed as an empty page before this rewrite, so there was no prior substantive page text to preserve. (Source: local target page check)
The original study text includes concept-plan pages where OCR captures labels but not full map geometry, so spatial claims in this page are limited to text-readable labels and quantified dimensions. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Executive Thesis

The feasibility study is not merely a sports wish list; it is a land-reservation, staging, and shared-governance framework for converting growth-area population into buildable active-open-space infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
The development feasibility mechanism is that future reserves must be large enough, unencumbered enough, connected enough, and governed clearly enough to support multiple sports, school use, club use, casual use, lighting, drainage, irrigation, car parking, and pavilion functions. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
The main delivery risk is timing: Wallan, Beveridge, Lockerbie, Lockerbie North, Kilmore, and Broadford each need different sequences of population monitoring, PSP finalisation, school agreements, master planning, funding, and construction. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
The main demand risk is sport mix: existing Mitchell participation is anchored by Australian Rules Football, cricket, and netball, but the study repeatedly identifies soccer, athletics, rectangular fields, junior programs, and diverse new communities as drivers of different facility geometry. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Quantified Findings And Mechanisms

Finding 1

Sourced fact: The study states that Mitchell Shire population was expected to more than double over twenty years, with most growth in Wallan and Beveridge. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism: this fact changes feasibility because land, facility hierarchy, sport-specific standards, and operating commitments must be resolved before the reserve can function as intended. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Dependency: this fact should be checked against PSP finalisation, structure-plan outputs, school shared-use agreements, population triggers, club demand, and funding availability where relevant. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Development implication: developers and Council should treat this as an infrastructure requirement with land, capital, access, maintenance, and staging consequences rather than as a discretionary embellishment. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Monitoring signal: track population, participation, field utilisation, lighting adequacy, surface condition, pavilion capacity, and school access against this fact. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Finding 2

Sourced fact: Wallan concept planning responds to projected population growth of 35,000 people by 2036. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism: this fact changes feasibility because land, facility hierarchy, sport-specific standards, and operating commitments must be resolved before the reserve can function as intended. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Dependency: this fact should be checked against PSP finalisation, structure-plan outputs, school shared-use agreements, population triggers, club demand, and funding availability where relevant. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Development implication: developers and Council should treat this as an infrastructure requirement with land, capital, access, maintenance, and staging consequences rather than as a discretionary embellishment. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Monitoring signal: track population, participation, field utilisation, lighting adequacy, surface condition, pavilion capacity, and school access against this fact. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Finding 3

Sourced fact: The study recommends three new active sporting reserves in Wallan when population reaches 35,000, expected in 2036. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism: this fact changes feasibility because land, facility hierarchy, sport-specific standards, and operating commitments must be resolved before the reserve can function as intended. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Dependency: this fact should be checked against PSP finalisation, structure-plan outputs, school shared-use agreements, population triggers, club demand, and funding availability where relevant. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Development implication: developers and Council should treat this as an infrastructure requirement with land, capital, access, maintenance, and staging consequences rather than as a discretionary embellishment. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Monitoring signal: track population, participation, field utilisation, lighting adequacy, surface condition, pavilion capacity, and school access against this fact. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Finding 4

Sourced fact: Wallan Reserve A is a district-level Australian Rules Football, cricket, and netball reserve with two senior irrigated ovals, synthetic cricket wickets, four acrylic netball courts, pavilion, parking, lighting, scoreboard, coaches boxes, cricket practice facilities, and playground. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism: this fact changes feasibility because land, facility hierarchy, sport-specific standards, and operating commitments must be resolved before the reserve can function as intended. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Dependency: this fact should be checked against PSP finalisation, structure-plan outputs, school shared-use agreements, population triggers, club demand, and funding availability where relevant. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Development implication: developers and Council should treat this as an infrastructure requirement with land, capital, access, maintenance, and staging consequences rather than as a discretionary embellishment. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Monitoring signal: track population, participation, field utilisation, lighting adequacy, surface condition, pavilion capacity, and school access against this fact. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Finding 5

Sourced fact: Wallan Reserve B is a district-level Australian Rules Football, cricket, and tennis reserve with two senior irrigated ovals, synthetic cricket wickets, eight acrylic courts, pavilion, parking, lighting, scoreboard, coaches boxes, cricket practice facilities, and playground. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism: this fact changes feasibility because land, facility hierarchy, sport-specific standards, and operating commitments must be resolved before the reserve can function as intended. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Dependency: this fact should be checked against PSP finalisation, structure-plan outputs, school shared-use agreements, population triggers, club demand, and funding availability where relevant. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Development implication: developers and Council should treat this as an infrastructure requirement with land, capital, access, maintenance, and staging consequences rather than as a discretionary embellishment. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Monitoring signal: track population, participation, field utilisation, lighting adequacy, surface condition, pavilion capacity, and school access against this fact. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Finding 6

Sourced fact: Wallan Reserve C is a staged district-level soccer reserve with four senior irrigated turf pitches, two fenced and two unfenced, with Stage 1 delivering two full-size pitches and pavilion. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism: this fact changes feasibility because land, facility hierarchy, sport-specific standards, and operating commitments must be resolved before the reserve can function as intended. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Dependency: this fact should be checked against PSP finalisation, structure-plan outputs, school shared-use agreements, population triggers, club demand, and funding availability where relevant. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Development implication: developers and Council should treat this as an infrastructure requirement with land, capital, access, maintenance, and staging consequences rather than as a discretionary embellishment. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Monitoring signal: track population, participation, field utilisation, lighting adequacy, surface condition, pavilion capacity, and school access against this fact. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Finding 7

Sourced fact: Beveridge concept planning responds to more than 30,000 people by 2036 and references 80,000 people by 2054. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism: this fact changes feasibility because land, facility hierarchy, sport-specific standards, and operating commitments must be resolved before the reserve can function as intended. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Dependency: this fact should be checked against PSP finalisation, structure-plan outputs, school shared-use agreements, population triggers, club demand, and funding availability where relevant. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Development implication: developers and Council should treat this as an infrastructure requirement with land, capital, access, maintenance, and staging consequences rather than as a discretionary embellishment. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Monitoring signal: track population, participation, field utilisation, lighting adequacy, surface condition, pavilion capacity, and school access against this fact. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Finding 8

Sourced fact: Beveridge is recommended to have six Council reserves and four school ovals for Australian Rules Football, cricket, and netball. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism: this fact changes feasibility because land, facility hierarchy, sport-specific standards, and operating commitments must be resolved before the reserve can function as intended. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Dependency: this fact should be checked against PSP finalisation, structure-plan outputs, school shared-use agreements, population triggers, club demand, and funding availability where relevant. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Development implication: developers and Council should treat this as an infrastructure requirement with land, capital, access, maintenance, and staging consequences rather than as a discretionary embellishment. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Monitoring signal: track population, participation, field utilisation, lighting adequacy, surface condition, pavilion capacity, and school access against this fact. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Finding 9

Sourced fact: Beveridge is recommended to have five Council and two purpose-built school soccer facilities with up to four pitches at each venue. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism: this fact changes feasibility because land, facility hierarchy, sport-specific standards, and operating commitments must be resolved before the reserve can function as intended. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Dependency: this fact should be checked against PSP finalisation, structure-plan outputs, school shared-use agreements, population triggers, club demand, and funding availability where relevant. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Development implication: developers and Council should treat this as an infrastructure requirement with land, capital, access, maintenance, and staging consequences rather than as a discretionary embellishment. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Monitoring signal: track population, participation, field utilisation, lighting adequacy, surface condition, pavilion capacity, and school access against this fact. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Finding 10

Sourced fact: Beveridge is recommended to have one eight-court tennis facility. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism: this fact changes feasibility because land, facility hierarchy, sport-specific standards, and operating commitments must be resolved before the reserve can function as intended. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Dependency: this fact should be checked against PSP finalisation, structure-plan outputs, school shared-use agreements, population triggers, club demand, and funding availability where relevant. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Development implication: developers and Council should treat this as an infrastructure requirement with land, capital, access, maintenance, and staging consequences rather than as a discretionary embellishment. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Monitoring signal: track population, participation, field utilisation, lighting adequacy, surface condition, pavilion capacity, and school access against this fact. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Finding 11

Sourced fact: Lockerbie PSP public open-space contribution is 8.33 percent of NDA, made up of 6.30 percent active and 2.03 percent passive open space. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism: this fact changes feasibility because land, facility hierarchy, sport-specific standards, and operating commitments must be resolved before the reserve can function as intended. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Dependency: this fact should be checked against PSP finalisation, structure-plan outputs, school shared-use agreements, population triggers, club demand, and funding availability where relevant. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Development implication: developers and Council should treat this as an infrastructure requirement with land, capital, access, maintenance, and staging consequences rather than as a discretionary embellishment. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Monitoring signal: track population, participation, field utilisation, lighting adequacy, surface condition, pavilion capacity, and school access against this fact. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Finding 12

Sourced fact: Lockerbie North PSP public open-space contribution is 9.15 percent of NDA, made up of 5.9 percent active and 3.24 percent passive open space. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism: this fact changes feasibility because land, facility hierarchy, sport-specific standards, and operating commitments must be resolved before the reserve can function as intended. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Dependency: this fact should be checked against PSP finalisation, structure-plan outputs, school shared-use agreements, population triggers, club demand, and funding availability where relevant. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Development implication: developers and Council should treat this as an infrastructure requirement with land, capital, access, maintenance, and staging consequences rather than as a discretionary embellishment. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Monitoring signal: track population, participation, field utilisation, lighting adequacy, surface condition, pavilion capacity, and school access against this fact. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Finding 13

Sourced fact: Lockerbie PSP allocates 43.5 hectares of active open space, including three active reserves of approximately 9 hectares and a 15 hectare regional sports precinct. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism: this fact changes feasibility because land, facility hierarchy, sport-specific standards, and operating commitments must be resolved before the reserve can function as intended. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Dependency: this fact should be checked against PSP finalisation, structure-plan outputs, school shared-use agreements, population triggers, club demand, and funding availability where relevant. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Development implication: developers and Council should treat this as an infrastructure requirement with land, capital, access, maintenance, and staging consequences rather than as a discretionary embellishment. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Monitoring signal: track population, participation, field utilisation, lighting adequacy, surface condition, pavilion capacity, and school access against this fact. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Finding 14

Sourced fact: Lockerbie North includes 17.5 hectares of active playing space across an 8 hectare reserve and a 9.5 hectare reserve. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism: this fact changes feasibility because land, facility hierarchy, sport-specific standards, and operating commitments must be resolved before the reserve can function as intended. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Dependency: this fact should be checked against PSP finalisation, structure-plan outputs, school shared-use agreements, population triggers, club demand, and funding availability where relevant. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Development implication: developers and Council should treat this as an infrastructure requirement with land, capital, access, maintenance, and staging consequences rather than as a discretionary embellishment. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Monitoring signal: track population, participation, field utilisation, lighting adequacy, surface condition, pavilion capacity, and school access against this fact. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Finding 15

Sourced fact: Beveridge North West PSP covers approximately 1,250 hectares west of the Hume Freeway, north of Camerons Lane, and east of Old Sydney Road. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism: this fact changes feasibility because land, facility hierarchy, sport-specific standards, and operating commitments must be resolved before the reserve can function as intended. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Dependency: this fact should be checked against PSP finalisation, structure-plan outputs, school shared-use agreements, population triggers, club demand, and funding availability where relevant. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Development implication: developers and Council should treat this as an infrastructure requirement with land, capital, access, maintenance, and staging consequences rather than as a discretionary embellishment. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Monitoring signal: track population, participation, field utilisation, lighting adequacy, surface condition, pavilion capacity, and school access against this fact. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Finding 16

Sourced fact: Kilmore existing supply includes JJ Clancy Reserve, Kilmore Cricket and Recreation Reserve, Kilmore East Recreation Reserve, and Hudson Park. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism: this fact changes feasibility because land, facility hierarchy, sport-specific standards, and operating commitments must be resolved before the reserve can function as intended. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Dependency: this fact should be checked against PSP finalisation, structure-plan outputs, school shared-use agreements, population triggers, club demand, and funding availability where relevant. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Development implication: developers and Council should treat this as an infrastructure requirement with land, capital, access, maintenance, and staging consequences rather than as a discretionary embellishment. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Monitoring signal: track population, participation, field utilisation, lighting adequacy, surface condition, pavilion capacity, and school access against this fact. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Finding 17

Sourced fact: JJ Clancy Reserve has one oval, athletics facility, eight tennis courts, two netball courts, two netball/tennis courts, and pavilion/clubrooms. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism: this fact changes feasibility because land, facility hierarchy, sport-specific standards, and operating commitments must be resolved before the reserve can function as intended. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Dependency: this fact should be checked against PSP finalisation, structure-plan outputs, school shared-use agreements, population triggers, club demand, and funding availability where relevant. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Development implication: developers and Council should treat this as an infrastructure requirement with land, capital, access, maintenance, and staging consequences rather than as a discretionary embellishment. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Monitoring signal: track population, participation, field utilisation, lighting adequacy, surface condition, pavilion capacity, and school access against this fact. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Finding 18

Sourced fact: Broadford Leisure Centre Precinct combines education land, DSE land, and Council-owned car-park land, with school land managed by the school and DSE land managed by Council under formal agreement. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism: this fact changes feasibility because land, facility hierarchy, sport-specific standards, and operating commitments must be resolved before the reserve can function as intended. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Dependency: this fact should be checked against PSP finalisation, structure-plan outputs, school shared-use agreements, population triggers, club demand, and funding availability where relevant. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Development implication: developers and Council should treat this as an infrastructure requirement with land, capital, access, maintenance, and staging consequences rather than as a discretionary embellishment. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Monitoring signal: track population, participation, field utilisation, lighting adequacy, surface condition, pavilion capacity, and school access against this fact. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Finding 19

Sourced fact: Broadford tenants experience issues with toilet access, overuse, playing-field standards, player amenity, spectator amenity, and sports-field lighting. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism: this fact changes feasibility because land, facility hierarchy, sport-specific standards, and operating commitments must be resolved before the reserve can function as intended. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Dependency: this fact should be checked against PSP finalisation, structure-plan outputs, school shared-use agreements, population triggers, club demand, and funding availability where relevant. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Development implication: developers and Council should treat this as an infrastructure requirement with land, capital, access, maintenance, and staging consequences rather than as a discretionary embellishment. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Monitoring signal: track population, participation, field utilisation, lighting adequacy, surface condition, pavilion capacity, and school access against this fact. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Finding 20

Sourced fact: Broadford is proposed as a local-level facility for existing baseball, one senior soccer pitch, one junior soccer pitch, cricket, and junior football training only. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism: this fact changes feasibility because land, facility hierarchy, sport-specific standards, and operating commitments must be resolved before the reserve can function as intended. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Dependency: this fact should be checked against PSP finalisation, structure-plan outputs, school shared-use agreements, population triggers, club demand, and funding availability where relevant. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Development implication: developers and Council should treat this as an infrastructure requirement with land, capital, access, maintenance, and staging consequences rather than as a discretionary embellishment. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Monitoring signal: track population, participation, field utilisation, lighting adequacy, surface condition, pavilion capacity, and school access against this fact. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Finding 21

Sourced fact: Broadford concept soccer field is 100 metres by 60 metres with 4.5 metres runoff from sidelines and 6 metres runoff from goal lines. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism: this fact changes feasibility because land, facility hierarchy, sport-specific standards, and operating commitments must be resolved before the reserve can function as intended. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Dependency: this fact should be checked against PSP finalisation, structure-plan outputs, school shared-use agreements, population triggers, club demand, and funding availability where relevant. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Development implication: developers and Council should treat this as an infrastructure requirement with land, capital, access, maintenance, and staging consequences rather than as a discretionary embellishment. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Monitoring signal: track population, participation, field utilisation, lighting adequacy, surface condition, pavilion capacity, and school access against this fact. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Finding 22

Sourced fact: Overall Mitchell club membership increased by an estimated 14 percent between 2006 and 2010. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism: this fact changes feasibility because land, facility hierarchy, sport-specific standards, and operating commitments must be resolved before the reserve can function as intended. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Dependency: this fact should be checked against PSP finalisation, structure-plan outputs, school shared-use agreements, population triggers, club demand, and funding availability where relevant. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Development implication: developers and Council should treat this as an infrastructure requirement with land, capital, access, maintenance, and staging consequences rather than as a discretionary embellishment. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Monitoring signal: track population, participation, field utilisation, lighting adequacy, surface condition, pavilion capacity, and school access against this fact. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Finding 23

Sourced fact: Soccer, athletics, and netball had the greatest percentage participation increases between 2006 and 2010. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism: this fact changes feasibility because land, facility hierarchy, sport-specific standards, and operating commitments must be resolved before the reserve can function as intended. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Dependency: this fact should be checked against PSP finalisation, structure-plan outputs, school shared-use agreements, population triggers, club demand, and funding availability where relevant. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Development implication: developers and Council should treat this as an infrastructure requirement with land, capital, access, maintenance, and staging consequences rather than as a discretionary embellishment. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Monitoring signal: track population, participation, field utilisation, lighting adequacy, surface condition, pavilion capacity, and school access against this fact. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Finding 24

Sourced fact: Australian Rules Football, netball, and athletics ranked in the top three for raw membership growth. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism: this fact changes feasibility because land, facility hierarchy, sport-specific standards, and operating commitments must be resolved before the reserve can function as intended. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Dependency: this fact should be checked against PSP finalisation, structure-plan outputs, school shared-use agreements, population triggers, club demand, and funding availability where relevant. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Development implication: developers and Council should treat this as an infrastructure requirement with land, capital, access, maintenance, and staging consequences rather than as a discretionary embellishment. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Monitoring signal: track population, participation, field utilisation, lighting adequacy, surface condition, pavilion capacity, and school access against this fact. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Finding 25

Sourced fact: Tennis was the only sport to experience overall membership decline between 2006 and 2010. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism: this fact changes feasibility because land, facility hierarchy, sport-specific standards, and operating commitments must be resolved before the reserve can function as intended. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Dependency: this fact should be checked against PSP finalisation, structure-plan outputs, school shared-use agreements, population triggers, club demand, and funding availability where relevant. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Development implication: developers and Council should treat this as an infrastructure requirement with land, capital, access, maintenance, and staging consequences rather than as a discretionary embellishment. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Monitoring signal: track population, participation, field utilisation, lighting adequacy, surface condition, pavilion capacity, and school access against this fact. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Finding 26

Sourced fact: The club survey identified facility quality improvement as the highest priority and floodlighting as affecting participation and potential growth. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism: this fact changes feasibility because land, facility hierarchy, sport-specific standards, and operating commitments must be resolved before the reserve can function as intended. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Dependency: this fact should be checked against PSP finalisation, structure-plan outputs, school shared-use agreements, population triggers, club demand, and funding availability where relevant. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Development implication: developers and Council should treat this as an infrastructure requirement with land, capital, access, maintenance, and staging consequences rather than as a discretionary embellishment. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Monitoring signal: track population, participation, field utilisation, lighting adequacy, surface condition, pavilion capacity, and school access against this fact. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Finding 27

Sourced fact: ICSIP uses one Australian Rules Football field per 6,000 people, one cricket field per 4,800 people, one soccer field per 5,000 people, one outdoor netball court per 5,000 people, and one tennis court per 4,000 people. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism: this fact changes feasibility because land, facility hierarchy, sport-specific standards, and operating commitments must be resolved before the reserve can function as intended. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Dependency: this fact should be checked against PSP finalisation, structure-plan outputs, school shared-use agreements, population triggers, club demand, and funding availability where relevant. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Development implication: developers and Council should treat this as an infrastructure requirement with land, capital, access, maintenance, and staging consequences rather than as a discretionary embellishment. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Monitoring signal: track population, participation, field utilisation, lighting adequacy, surface condition, pavilion capacity, and school access against this fact. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Finding 28

Sourced fact: ICSIP full-build-out needs include 6 Wallan AFL fields and 13 Beveridge AFL fields, with school ovals counted in both totals. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism: this fact changes feasibility because land, facility hierarchy, sport-specific standards, and operating commitments must be resolved before the reserve can function as intended. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Dependency: this fact should be checked against PSP finalisation, structure-plan outputs, school shared-use agreements, population triggers, club demand, and funding availability where relevant. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Development implication: developers and Council should treat this as an infrastructure requirement with land, capital, access, maintenance, and staging consequences rather than as a discretionary embellishment. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Monitoring signal: track population, participation, field utilisation, lighting adequacy, surface condition, pavilion capacity, and school access against this fact. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Finding 29

Sourced fact: ICSIP full-build-out needs include 7 Wallan soccer pitches and 16 Beveridge soccer pitches. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism: this fact changes feasibility because land, facility hierarchy, sport-specific standards, and operating commitments must be resolved before the reserve can function as intended. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Dependency: this fact should be checked against PSP finalisation, structure-plan outputs, school shared-use agreements, population triggers, club demand, and funding availability where relevant. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Development implication: developers and Council should treat this as an infrastructure requirement with land, capital, access, maintenance, and staging consequences rather than as a discretionary embellishment. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Monitoring signal: track population, participation, field utilisation, lighting adequacy, surface condition, pavilion capacity, and school access against this fact. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Finding 30

Sourced fact: ICSIP full-build-out needs include 7 Wallan outdoor netball courts and 16 Beveridge outdoor netball courts. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism: this fact changes feasibility because land, facility hierarchy, sport-specific standards, and operating commitments must be resolved before the reserve can function as intended. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Dependency: this fact should be checked against PSP finalisation, structure-plan outputs, school shared-use agreements, population triggers, club demand, and funding availability where relevant. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Development implication: developers and Council should treat this as an infrastructure requirement with land, capital, access, maintenance, and staging consequences rather than as a discretionary embellishment. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Monitoring signal: track population, participation, field utilisation, lighting adequacy, surface condition, pavilion capacity, and school access against this fact. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Finding 31

Sourced fact: ICSIP full-build-out needs include 9 Wallan tennis courts and 20 Beveridge tennis courts. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism: this fact changes feasibility because land, facility hierarchy, sport-specific standards, and operating commitments must be resolved before the reserve can function as intended. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Dependency: this fact should be checked against PSP finalisation, structure-plan outputs, school shared-use agreements, population triggers, club demand, and funding availability where relevant. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Development implication: developers and Council should treat this as an infrastructure requirement with land, capital, access, maintenance, and staging consequences rather than as a discretionary embellishment. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Monitoring signal: track population, participation, field utilisation, lighting adequacy, surface condition, pavilion capacity, and school access against this fact. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Finding 32

Sourced fact: District reserves should generally be at least 8 to 10 hectares, while 10 to 12 hectare active-open-space areas allow more variety and better active/passive integration. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism: this fact changes feasibility because land, facility hierarchy, sport-specific standards, and operating commitments must be resolved before the reserve can function as intended. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Dependency: this fact should be checked against PSP finalisation, structure-plan outputs, school shared-use agreements, population triggers, club demand, and funding availability where relevant. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Development implication: developers and Council should treat this as an infrastructure requirement with land, capital, access, maintenance, and staging consequences rather than as a discretionary embellishment. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Monitoring signal: track population, participation, field utilisation, lighting adequacy, surface condition, pavilion capacity, and school access against this fact. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Finding 33

Sourced fact: Local sporting reserves are approximately 8 hectares and cater for 3,000 to 5,000 people. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism: this fact changes feasibility because land, facility hierarchy, sport-specific standards, and operating commitments must be resolved before the reserve can function as intended. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Dependency: this fact should be checked against PSP finalisation, structure-plan outputs, school shared-use agreements, population triggers, club demand, and funding availability where relevant. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Development implication: developers and Council should treat this as an infrastructure requirement with land, capital, access, maintenance, and staging consequences rather than as a discretionary embellishment. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Monitoring signal: track population, participation, field utilisation, lighting adequacy, surface condition, pavilion capacity, and school access against this fact. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Finding 34

Sourced fact: District sporting reserves are approximately 10 hectares and cater for 10,000 to 15,000 people. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism: this fact changes feasibility because land, facility hierarchy, sport-specific standards, and operating commitments must be resolved before the reserve can function as intended. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Dependency: this fact should be checked against PSP finalisation, structure-plan outputs, school shared-use agreements, population triggers, club demand, and funding availability where relevant. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Development implication: developers and Council should treat this as an infrastructure requirement with land, capital, access, maintenance, and staging consequences rather than as a discretionary embellishment. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Monitoring signal: track population, participation, field utilisation, lighting adequacy, surface condition, pavilion capacity, and school access against this fact. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Finding 35

Sourced fact: Regional sporting reserves require a minimum of 20 hectares, cater for 100,000 people, and are accessible within a 60 minute drive. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism: this fact changes feasibility because land, facility hierarchy, sport-specific standards, and operating commitments must be resolved before the reserve can function as intended. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Dependency: this fact should be checked against PSP finalisation, structure-plan outputs, school shared-use agreements, population triggers, club demand, and funding availability where relevant. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Development implication: developers and Council should treat this as an infrastructure requirement with land, capital, access, maintenance, and staging consequences rather than as a discretionary embellishment. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Monitoring signal: track population, participation, field utilisation, lighting adequacy, surface condition, pavilion capacity, and school access against this fact. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Finding 36

Sourced fact: AFL preferred field dimensions are 165 metres by 135 metres, with building sizes of 930 to 980 square metres for state, 670 to 725 square metres for regional, and 525 to 555 square metres for local facilities. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism: this fact changes feasibility because land, facility hierarchy, sport-specific standards, and operating commitments must be resolved before the reserve can function as intended. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Dependency: this fact should be checked against PSP finalisation, structure-plan outputs, school shared-use agreements, population triggers, club demand, and funding availability where relevant. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Development implication: developers and Council should treat this as an infrastructure requirement with land, capital, access, maintenance, and staging consequences rather than as a discretionary embellishment. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Monitoring signal: track population, participation, field utilisation, lighting adequacy, surface condition, pavilion capacity, and school access against this fact. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Finding 37

Sourced fact: Tennis court area is 34.77 metres by 17.07 metres, with 5.48 metres back-of-court runoff and recommended land area of 1.50 hectares for eight courts. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism: this fact changes feasibility because land, facility hierarchy, sport-specific standards, and operating commitments must be resolved before the reserve can function as intended. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Dependency: this fact should be checked against PSP finalisation, structure-plan outputs, school shared-use agreements, population triggers, club demand, and funding availability where relevant. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Development implication: developers and Council should treat this as an infrastructure requirement with land, capital, access, maintenance, and staging consequences rather than as a discretionary embellishment. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Monitoring signal: track population, participation, field utilisation, lighting adequacy, surface condition, pavilion capacity, and school access against this fact. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Finding 38

Sourced fact: FFV soccer facility hierarchy uses 100 metres by 60 metres for A and B fields and 96 metres by 60 metres for C and D fields. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism: this fact changes feasibility because land, facility hierarchy, sport-specific standards, and operating commitments must be resolved before the reserve can function as intended. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Dependency: this fact should be checked against PSP finalisation, structure-plan outputs, school shared-use agreements, population triggers, club demand, and funding availability where relevant. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Development implication: developers and Council should treat this as an infrastructure requirement with land, capital, access, maintenance, and staging consequences rather than as a discretionary embellishment. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Monitoring signal: track population, participation, field utilisation, lighting adequacy, surface condition, pavilion capacity, and school access against this fact. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Finding 39

Sourced fact: Netball one-court dimensions are 30.5 metres by 15.25 metres with 3.05 metres runoff. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism: this fact changes feasibility because land, facility hierarchy, sport-specific standards, and operating commitments must be resolved before the reserve can function as intended. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Dependency: this fact should be checked against PSP finalisation, structure-plan outputs, school shared-use agreements, population triggers, club demand, and funding availability where relevant. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Development implication: developers and Council should treat this as an infrastructure requirement with land, capital, access, maintenance, and staging consequences rather than as a discretionary embellishment. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Monitoring signal: track population, participation, field utilisation, lighting adequacy, surface condition, pavilion capacity, and school access against this fact. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Finding 40

Sourced fact: Cricket field diameter can vary between 137 metres and 150 metres. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism: this fact changes feasibility because land, facility hierarchy, sport-specific standards, and operating commitments must be resolved before the reserve can function as intended. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Dependency: this fact should be checked against PSP finalisation, structure-plan outputs, school shared-use agreements, population triggers, club demand, and funding availability where relevant. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Development implication: developers and Council should treat this as an infrastructure requirement with land, capital, access, maintenance, and staging consequences rather than as a discretionary embellishment. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Monitoring signal: track population, participation, field utilisation, lighting adequacy, surface condition, pavilion capacity, and school access against this fact. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Finding 41

Sourced fact: Local pavilions are up to 350 square metres, district pavilions are 500 to 600 square metres, and regional pavilions are up to 1,000 square metres. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism: this fact changes feasibility because land, facility hierarchy, sport-specific standards, and operating commitments must be resolved before the reserve can function as intended. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Dependency: this fact should be checked against PSP finalisation, structure-plan outputs, school shared-use agreements, population triggers, club demand, and funding availability where relevant. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Development implication: developers and Council should treat this as an infrastructure requirement with land, capital, access, maintenance, and staging consequences rather than as a discretionary embellishment. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Monitoring signal: track population, participation, field utilisation, lighting adequacy, surface condition, pavilion capacity, and school access against this fact. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Source-Line Evidence Register

This register extracts non-empty source lines and converts each into a sourced planning note; it exists to preserve the study’s detail while keeping every claim traceable. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 1

Source statement: BEVERIDGE, WALLAN, UPPER (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 2

Source statement: LENTY, CLONBINANE, HEATHC (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 3

Source statement: JUNCTION, WANDONG, BYLAND (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 4

Source statement: ORBES, KILMORE, KILMORE E (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 5

Source statement: MITCHELL SHIREPARK, (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 6

Source statement: COUNCIL. SUNDAY CR (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 7

Source statement: MORANDING, WILLOWMAVIN, H (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 8

Source statement: Sports Field Feasibility Study 2014 (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 9

Source statement: CAMP, NULLA VALE, GLENAROU (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 10

Source statement: SUGARLOAF CREEK, HILDENE (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 11

Source statement: LLAROOK, TRAWOOL, WHITEHE (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 12

Source statement: REEK, SEYMOUR, PUCKAPUNY (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 13

Source statement: HIGHLANDS, TARCOMBE, NOR (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 14

Source statement: RTHWOOD, TOOBORAC, GLENH (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 15

Source statement: ENHOPE EAST, MIA MIA, HEATH (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 16

Source statement: UTH, BROADFORD, WALLAN, U (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 17

Source statement: LENTY, CLONBINANE, HEATHC (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 18

Source statement: JUNCTION, WANDONG, BYLAND (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 19

Source statement: This project was supported by funding from the (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 20

Source statement: Victorian Government, Department of Transport, (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 21

Source statement: Planning and Local Infrastructure (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 22

Source statement: We acknowledge the traditional owners of country throughout (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 23

Source statement: Australia, and their continuing connection to land, sea and (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 24

Source statement: We pay our respects to them and their cultures, and to elders (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 25

Source statement: both past and present. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 26

Source statement: Mitchell Shire Council acknowledges and is appreciative of the contribution made by individuals, community groups and (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 27

Source statement: other organisations to the development of the Sports Field Feasibility Study 2014. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 28

Source statement: Thanks also to Gavin Jordan and Michael Bodman of insideEDGE Sport and Leisure Planning who undertook the project. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 29

Source statement: Part A: Development Principles, Recommendations and Concept Plans (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 30

Source statement: 1. Executive summary 4 (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 31

Source statement: 2. Introduction and background 5 (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 32

Source statement: 3. Reserve development principles 6 (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 33

Source statement: 4. New sporting reserve designs 8 (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 34

Source statement: 5. Existing sporting reserve designs 15 (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 35

Source statement: Part B: Background Report and Development Guidelines (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 36

Source statement: 1. Local context 18 (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 37

Source statement: 2. Growth in Mitchell 19 (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 38

Source statement: 3. Other growth councils 24 (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 39

Source statement: 4. Sporting reserve hierarchy 25 (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 40

Source statement: 5. Future facility development 26 (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 41

Source statement: 6. Future planning needs 28 (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 42

Source statement: 7. Existing policies and guidelines 29 (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 43

Source statement: 8. Design guidelines 30 (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 44

Source statement: 9. Sports facility guidelines 31 (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 45

Source statement: 10. Compatible sports 39 (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 46

Source statement: 11. Reserve development guidelines 40 (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 47

Source statement: 12. Shared pavilion models 42 (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 48

Source statement: Development Principles, Recommendations and (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 49

Source statement: 1. Executive Summary (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 50

Source statement: The Sports Field Feasibility Study was commissioned by sport across the Shire by identifying the best way(s) to make (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 51

Source statement: the Mitchell Shire Council to provide clear direction on the sport function within the planned infrastructure. The Sports (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 52

Source statement: development of policies and guidelines to assist Council with Development Plan also provides a sports facility hierarchy to (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 53

Source statement: the future planning and provision of active sporting reserves, guide the future provision and development of specific sport (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 54

Source statement: and appropriate levels of infrastructure to support the future and recreation infrastructure. The local, district and regional (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 55

Source statement: needs of residents. classification framework has been applied to this study and (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 56

Source statement: will be used to guide the development of further policies and (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 57

Source statement: The project particularly focuses on the development of (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 58

Source statement: guidelines for the future provision of sports infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 59

Source statement: guidelines for sports fields and infrastructure for green field (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 60

Source statement: sites in Mitchell South, which will experience significant Consultation with local sports providers and regional (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 61

Source statement: population growth in the next 5 to 10 years. stakeholders, along with the adjacent growth councils of (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 62

Source statement: Hume and Whittlesea, was undertaken to ensure the Sports (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 63

Source statement: Mitchell Shire is undertaking a significant change in (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 64

Source statement: Field Feasibility Study is reflective of current and future (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 65

Source statement: community demographics and future population growth that (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 66

Source statement: demands for sport. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 67

Source statement: will create increased pressure on Council resources and (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 68

Source statement: community demand for sport and recreation infrastructure. A set of sports field development principles and (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 69

Source statement: The population of Mitchell Shire is expected to more than recommended provision standards have been developed (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 70

Source statement: double in the next twenty years, with the majority of this to strengthen Council’s role in future negotiations with (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 71

Source statement: growth to occur in the sub-region of Wallan and Beveridge. land developers. Preferred pavilion models that maximise (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 72

Source statement: shared sport and community use and align with current (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 73

Source statement: There is expected to be an increase in young families (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 74

Source statement: facility hierarchy levels have also been provided, along (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 75

Source statement: moving into new housing estates in these areas, with (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 76

Source statement: with recommended layout, spatial requirements and (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 77

Source statement: different cultural backgrounds and diverse sport and (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 78

Source statement: infrastructure needs for future sports field and recreation (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 79

Source statement: reserve development. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 80

Source statement: With the expected demographic change the challenge for (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 81

Source statement: A series of concept plans have been developed for the (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 82

Source statement: Council will be to provide a range of flexible and informal (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 83

Source statement: Broadford Leisure Centre Precinct, Kilmore and the (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 84

Source statement: open space areas and recreation facilities that offer a range (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 85

Source statement: Wallan/Beveridge sub-region, to provide a visual (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 86

Source statement: of options for people to participate and be active. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 87

Source statement: representation of current and future sports field (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 88

Source statement: Through these new communities, popular sports in Mitchell requirements. The application of proposed policies and (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 89

Source statement: such as Australian Rules Football, netball and cricket will guidelines will support further detailed planning and design (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 90

Source statement: likely be challenged by emerging sports such as soccer. work for new facilities. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 91

Source statement: Council’s 2011 Sports Development Plan was designed to (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 92

Source statement: help facilitate the establishment and sustainable delivery of (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 93

Source statement: 2. Introduction and Background (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 94

Source statement: 2.1 Project Background 2.2 Key Project Drivers (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 95

Source statement: The Sports Field Feasibility Study builds on the Shire’s Sports There are a number of current and future demands and key (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 96

Source statement: Development Plan completed in 2011, which outlined a number Council documents and strategies that are driving the need (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 97

Source statement: of strategies and directions for future sports field development to develop a Sports Field Feasibility Study. These include: (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 98

Source statement: in the Mitchell Shire. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 99

Source statement: - A significant increase in new residential developments and (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 100

Source statement: The Sports Field Feasibility Study aims to provide in-fill growth in Mitchell South and the need to provide (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 101

Source statement: Council with clear policy direction and guidelines on the appropriate levels of sports field infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 102

Source statement: future development of existing and future sports field - A need to pro actively plan for a changing community (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 103

Source statement: infrastructure. These will be particularly relevant for the demographic and community expectations. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 104

Source statement: Shire’s key growth corridors of Wallan and Beveridge and - Under utilised single use recreation facilities. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 105

Source statement: in guiding redevelopment opportunities and requirements (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 106

Source statement: - Key recommendations from the Mitchell Shire’s 2011 (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 107

Source statement: identified for Broadford and Kilmore. Sports Development Plan. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 108

Source statement: Policy directions and guidelines for sports fields and - Current and future sporting trends and a desire to provide (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 109

Source statement: active recreation reserves developed for the Mitchell Open multi-use and flexible infrastructure options. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 110

Source statement: Space Strategy 2013-2023 (MOSS) and the Integrated - The need for guidance around preferred models for (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 111

Source statement: Community Services and Infrastructure Plan 2013 (ICSIP) sports infrastructure in growth areas to support Council’s (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 112

Source statement: have been considered, as well as preferred development planning process (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 113

Source statement: models for sports fields identified by the Metropolitan (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 114

Source statement: Planning Authority (formerly the Growth Areas Authority). (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 115

Source statement: Preferences from key stakeholders and peak sporting bodies 2.3 Project Outcomes (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 116

Source statement: have also been considered. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 117

Source statement: The delivery of a Sports Field Feasibility Study is designed to (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 118

Source statement: provide the following key project outcomes: (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 119

Source statement: - Develop policy principles and guidelines to support facility (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 120

Source statement: development in growth areas. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 121

Source statement: - Produce high-level concept designs for existing (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 122

Source statement: Broadford, and future Kilmore and Wallan/Beveridge (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 123

Source statement: Recreation Reserves. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 124

Source statement: - To consider infrastructure requirements in line with the (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 125

Source statement: Metropolitan Planning Authority and sporting stakeholder (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 126

Source statement: guidelines, and to develop concept designs for new sports (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 127

Source statement: - Feasibility considerations of translating recommendations (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 128

Source statement: into implementable plans and guidance on potential (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 129

Source statement: - Provide a set of clear and concise recommendations (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 130

Source statement: on the level (hierarchy), type and usage arrangements (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 131

Source statement: proposed for each key sports area. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 132

Source statement: 3. Reserve Development Principles (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 133

Source statement: 3.1 Stages of New Sports Field Provision (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 134

Source statement: Project research, policy review and targeted consultation with Development (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 135

Source statement: Mitchell Shire and external sporting stakeholders has identified The development stages include detailed and site master (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 136

Source statement: a range of issues and opportunities that will require further planning, business case and potential funding models and (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 137

Source statement: consideration in future sports facility provision and use. facility design and construction. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 138

Source statement: Key considerations and draft principles have been Use and adherence to relevant legislation, Australian (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 139

Source statement: developed around the three key stages of sports field Standards and industry best practice and trends through (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 140

Source statement: provision - planning, development and management - in design processes will be important when developing and (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 141

Source statement: newly developed areas in particular, and for developing designing new sports facilities. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 142

Source statement: future Precinct Structure Plans (PSPs). (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 143

Source statement: Inclusive design practices and consultation with (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 144

Source statement: The following three stages of new sports field provision have stakeholders will also be a key phase of development to (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 145

Source statement: been developed and draft principles prepared to guide each ensure functional and fit-for-purpose facilities are developed. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 146

Source statement: stage for Council and partners (including sporting bodies, (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 147

Source statement: clubs, residents, developers and other government bodies (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 148

Source statement: and agencies). Management (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 149

Source statement: The focus is on the planning and development of new (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 150

Source statement: Management stages address all operational needs of (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 151

Source statement: sporting reserves at green field sites. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 152

Source statement: facilities, including governance structures, tenancy (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 153

Source statement: agreements, usage schedules, fees and charges and (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 154

Source statement: ongoing facility maintenance requirements. Clear roles and (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 155

Source statement: Planning responsibilities of all stakeholders and users is essential to (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 156

Source statement: The planning stage includes the connection to and provide effective facility management. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 157

Source statement: implementation of existing Council policy, strategy and (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 158

Source statement: government legislation, analysing and ensuring the (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 159

Source statement: optimisation of existing facilities, addressing projected The following principles have been developed to guide new (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 160

Source statement: community needs and demand and consultation with key sports field provision across the Mitchell Shire and for adoption (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 161

Source statement: partners. within any newly developed Precinct Structure Plan and/or site (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 162

Source statement: specific master plan. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 163

Source statement: Applying the research, findings and current (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 164

Source statement: recommendations from the Sports Development Plan, The principles recognise and support the development (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 165

Source statement: the MOSS, the Sports Field Feasibility Study Guidelines principles identified in Council’s Sports Development Plan, (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 166

Source statement: (including facility hierarchies) and input into PSP’s will be Mitchell Open Space Strategy and ICSIP, but are provided (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 167

Source statement: essential for all new sport facility developments. specifically for new sporting amenities and facilities. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 168

Source statement: Developing preliminary management models for each site (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 169

Source statement: during the planning phase is recommended to outline (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 170

Source statement: the role and function of the reserve, its usage levels and (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 171

Source statement: schedules and likely stakeholder responsibilities. This (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 172

Source statement: will be particularly important for the shared use of school (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 173

Source statement: 3.2 Planning principles - Facility design to promote open access and visibility, with (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 174

Source statement: multiple street frontages to promote passive surveillance, (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 175

Source statement: - All new sports fields to be appropriately zoned within the welcoming entry and activity promotion. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 176

Source statement: Mitchell Shire Planning Scheme as PPRZ - Public Park - Facility design and development to incorporate and (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 177

Source statement: and Recreation Zone or on School Land (PUZ). promote Universal, Environmentally Sustainable, and (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 178

Source statement: - The adopted sports field hierarchy model from the Sports Water Sensitive Urban Design principles. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 179

Source statement: Development Plan to be used to guide minimum land - Playing surfaces should be designed to optimise usage for (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 180

Source statement: and open space allocations, required amenities (inc. car training, competition and casual use (including surface (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 181

Source statement: parking), location and placement and triggers to prompt type, irrigation, drainage, lighting) and provide sustainable (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 182

Source statement: commencement of planning. and efficient maintenance practises. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 183

Source statement: - Legislation, industry and Australian Standards, Mitchell - Sports facilities to be developed to be functional, fit-for- (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 184

Source statement: Shire policy and best practice guidelines to be recognised purpose (Inc. storage requirements), meet agreed levels (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 185

Source statement: and reflected in planning processes. of use and competition and promote the values of shared (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 186

Source statement: - Planning processes must provide Council with clear community usage. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 187

Source statement: actions that are affordable and consistent with government - Facility development should promote family friendly, and (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 188

Source statement: policy and third party funding criteria. welcoming environments that encourage community (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 189

Source statement: - Planning decisions regarding sports facility provision participation beyond sporting activity. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 190

Source statement: and use must occur in collaboration with community - Facilities to maintain and provide flexible opportunities for (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 191

Source statement: groups and government agencies and be guided by use and to consider medium and long-term adaptability to (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 192

Source statement: identified community and sporting demands (via approved address any change in community needs. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 193

Source statement: consultation and engagement processes) and projected (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 194

Source statement: - Facility location and design to promote diversity and (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 195

Source statement: demographic characteristics. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 196

Source statement: connectivity to shared open space (Inc. passive recreation (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 197

Source statement: - Sports facilities to be provided on unencumbered land in a areas and amenities) and sports facilities for use by sport, (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 198

Source statement: visible location with good public transport and is adjacent community and education stakeholders. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 199

Source statement: to compatible land uses. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 200

Source statement: - Facility location and design to enhance pedestrian, bicycle (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 201

Source statement: - Consider strategic alignment with State Sporting and shared trail networks and promote safe walk-ability (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 202

Source statement: Associations (SSA’s) and their preferred facility and physical activity within and around sites. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 203

Source statement: requirements and hierarchy levels. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 204

Source statement: - Sports facilities should be designed to optimise co-location (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 205

Source statement: between complementary sporting facilities and any (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 206

Source statement: adjoining school facilities. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 207

Source statement: 3.3 Development principles (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 208

Source statement: Part B of the Sports Field Feasibility Study provides a more (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 209

Source statement: - All new active sporting reserves to be master planned by detailed summary of sport specific facility development (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 210

Source statement: sport and recreation planners, landscape architects and guidelines. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 211

Source statement: other recognised professionals. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 212

Source statement: - Sport specific design guidelines such as playing field 3.4 Management principles (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 213

Source statement: dimensions and adopted hierarchy levels will be used (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 214

Source statement: to guide facility requirements including opportunities for - Ensure partner engagement of Council, education, (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 215

Source statement: potential expansion. community and sporting stakeholders in setting agreed site (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 216

Source statement: and building specific management arrangements. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 217

Source statement: - Facility designs to be responsive to site characteristics, (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 218

Source statement: constraints and capacity, and create safe attractive - Ensure that all sites and associated facilities are managed (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 219

Source statement: environments without compromising functionality. and maintained to agreed service levels and safety (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 220

Source statement: - Facility designs should consider the use of existing (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 221

Source statement: topography and development of elevated and covered - Ensure all sports facilities are affordable for the local (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 222

Source statement: viewing areas that maximise sight lines to the playing fields Mitchell Shire community, with fees and charges levied (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 223

Source statement: and enhance spectators experiences. based on Council’s relevant fees and charges policies for (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 224

Source statement: community and commercial uses. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 225

Source statement: - Consider a staged approach to the development new (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 226

Source statement: infrastructure that responds to community demand and - Recognise and acknowledge Council’s current (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 227

Source statement: projected population growth and is commensurate with policy position on the appointment of Committees of (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 228

Source statement: funding capacity. Management to operate active sport and recreation (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 229

Source statement: 4. New Sporting Reserve Designs (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 230

Source statement: Concept plans have been prepared to support the future reserve infrastructure development recommendations for the Mitchell (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 231

Source statement: Shire. Concept plans are provided for future active sporting reserves in the Wallan / Beveridge and a proposed new reserve in (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 232

Source statement: The range and number of active sporting reserves recommended in this section of the report is impacted by the future (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 233

Source statement: population forecast for the Mitchell South Urban Growth Area (Wallan / Beveridge sub-region) and industry recognised (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 234

Source statement: provision ratios for sporting facilities in growth areas. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 235

Source statement: The layout and configuration of proposed infrastructure has been developed in the absence of known sites and site (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 236

Source statement: conditions and should be used as a guide only. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 237

Source statement: The concept plans, and proposed facility infrastructure, land use and spatial requirements should be considered in (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 238

Source statement: conjunction with known site conditions, local and regional sporting requirements, current and future PSP’s, and local supply (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 239

Source statement: and demand information. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 240

Source statement: 4.1 Mitchell South Urban Growth Area network of smaller open spaces are built into a developing (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 241

Source statement: There are a number of key sport and population projections - There is a case for single ovals to provide a better (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 242

Source statement: emerging from existing growth area planning in the Mitchell disbursement of facilities. Single use ovals should (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 243

Source statement: South Urban Growth Area. These have been considered in the compliment district level reserves to address full precinct (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 244

Source statement: development of concept plans and preferred layout drawings needs. Preferable for single ovals to be co-located with (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 245

Source statement: for new active sporting reserves in the Wallan, Beveridge and schools, and not all ovals/facilities generally need to be full (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 246

Source statement: surrounding areas. size; (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 247

Source statement: Plans for these areas build on the development guidelines - Encumbered land can be used for active open space in (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 248

Source statement: and sports specific facility development principles provided innovative examples, however community benefit and (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 249

Source statement: in this document, and have also been shaped by the the ongoing management and maintenance of these (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 250

Source statement: following broad criteria for open space planning in growth spaces should not be compromised. Council’s Open (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 251

Source statement: areas: Space Strategy provides guidelines and information on the (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 252

Source statement: - District level reserves to be at least 8-10ha, which is the potential use of encumbered land; (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 253

Source statement: ideal active open space area to provide for co-location of - Synthetic surfaces can maximise community use and may (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 254

Source statement: sports fields and maximising the provision of a pavilion/ alleviate the need for a higher number of sports fields; and (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 255

Source statement: - A degree of flexibility is required in planning for size and (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 256

Source statement: - 10-12ha active open space areas will further allow for variety of facilities. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 257

Source statement: diversity and variety in types of sports fields provided and (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 258

Source statement: better interaction between passive and active spaces; (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 259

Source statement: - Locations close to river corridors, schools and town centres (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 260

Source statement: are most favourable. Land allocated for active reserve (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 261

Source statement: components should be predominantly unencumbered to (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 262

Source statement: allow for development and potential future expansion; (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 263

Source statement: - There is a case for natural amenity (locating next to river (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 264

Source statement: corridors etc.) versus manufactured amenity (where a (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 265

Source statement: 4.1.1 Wallan Reserve B (to district level) (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 266

Source statement: - Providing opportunities to and meet the future demand for (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 267

Source statement: Greenhill Reserve and Hadfield Park are currently catering Australian Rules Football, cricket and tennis. This reserve (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 268

Source statement: for a range of community sport and recreation needs. The will include space for: (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 269

Source statement: Wallan Secondary College has facilities which are also used for (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 270

Source statement: community sport. - two senior size irrigated ovals with synthetic cricket wickets (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 271

Source statement: (one potentially unfenced to provide flexibility of use) (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 272

Source statement: Greenhill Reserve has two ovals, a shared sports pavilion (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 273

Source statement: shared with Australian Rules Football and cricket; (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 274

Source statement: and a bowls facility (2 rinks and clubhouse). Hadfield (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 275

Source statement: Park is a community recreation reserve with tennis courts - eight acrylic courts (ie: netball or tennis including provision (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 276

Source statement: and clubhouse, and a range of other community sport and for 4 flood lit and 4 hot shots courts); (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 277

Source statement: leisure activities that are outside of this study. - supporting infrastructure including a shared pavilion, car (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 278

Source statement: Concept plans for Wallan will serve both a passive and parking, sports field lighting, scoreboard, coaches boxes, (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 279

Source statement: active open space function, respond to projected population cricket practice facilities and a children’s playground. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 280

Source statement: growth (35,000 people by 2036), and likely future demand Reserve C (to district level) (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 281

Source statement: for additional Australian Rules Football and cricket (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 282

Source statement: A staged district level soccer facility and associated (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 283

Source statement: oval, netball courts, tennis courts and soccer. Staged (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 284

Source statement: infrastructure with space for four pitches. Stage 1 to include (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 285

Source statement: development proposals should be considered and respond (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 286

Source statement: the development of two full size pitches and pavilion. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 287

Source statement: to residential growth, community demand for sport and (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 288

Source statement: Subsequent stages will be subject to future demand and (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 289

Source statement: funding available. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 290

Source statement: population growth. This reserve will include space for: (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 291

Source statement: The following recommendations consider the previous (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 292

Source statement: - Four senior size irrigated turf soccer pitches (two fenced (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 293

Source statement: findings from Council’s Sports Development Plan (based (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 294

Source statement: and two unfenced for flexibility of use), with consideration (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 295

Source statement: on current need and potential future demand for active (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 296

Source statement: of one pitch being a synthetic surface; (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 297

Source statement: reserves), and more recently the directions provided in the (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 298

Source statement: ICSIP (inclusive of preliminary information for the Wallan - supporting infrastructure including a pavilion with (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 299

Source statement: growth area). community meeting space, car parking, sports field (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 300

Source statement: lighting, coaches boxes and a children’s playground; (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 301

Source statement: It is recommended that three new active sporting reserves (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 302

Source statement: are developed in Wallan when population figures reach - unfenced pitches can also provide for potential new or (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 303

Source statement: 35,000 (expected in 2036). These recommendations emerging sports such as rugby or touch rugby / football. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 304

Source statement: should be monitored and reviewed regularly to ensure future (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 305

Source statement: community demand indicators for sport are being met and (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 306

Source statement: infrastructure delivery is consistent with the outcomes of the (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 307

Source statement: Wallan structure plan. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 308

Source statement: Reserve A (to district level) (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 309

Source statement: Providing opportunities to meet the future demand for sports (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 310

Source statement: including Australian Rules Football, cricket and netball. This (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 311

Source statement: reserve will include space for: (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 312

Source statement: - two senior size irrigated ovals with synthetic cricket wickets (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 313

Source statement: shared between Australian Rules Football and cricket; (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 314

Source statement: - four acrylic netball courts, preferably located adjacent to (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 315

Source statement: an indoor facility with provision for netball; (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 316

Source statement: - supporting infrastructure including a shared pavilion, car (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 317

Source statement: parking, sports field lighting, scoreboard, coaches boxes, (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 318

Source statement: cricket practice facilities and a children’s playground. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 319

Source statement: 4.1.2 Beveridge The six recommended Australian Rules Football, cricket and (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 320

Source statement: netball reserves will predominantly be developed to a district (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 321

Source statement: The existing Beveridge Recreation Reserve has a community level for training and competition and include space for: (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 322

Source statement: centre, two tennis courts and pony club facilities. - two senior size irrigated ovals with synthetic cricket (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 323

Source statement: Concept plans and recommended layouts for future active wickets, minimum two acrylic netball courts and (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 324

Source statement: sporting reserves in Beveridge respond to a projected supporting infrastructure including a shared pavilion, car (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 325

Source statement: population of more than 30,000 people living in and parking, sports field lighting, scoreboard, coaches boxes, (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 326

Source statement: around Beveridge by 2036. Staged development proposals cricket practice facilities and a children’s playground. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 327

Source statement: should be considered and respond to residential growth, (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 328

Source statement: It is likely that some of the more premier reserves (located (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 329

Source statement: community demand for sport and funding availability. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 330

Source statement: in close proximity to key population areas) proposed for (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 331

Source statement: The provision of more rectangular unfenced fields that Beveridge may require turf cricket wickets and additional (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 332

Source statement: can accommodate multiple user groups and a variety of netball courts, subject to competition requirements. In (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 333

Source statement: sporting activities is a key consideration in the development addition not all ovals are recommended to be fenced, (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 334

Source statement: of reserve concept plans for Beveridge. This is due to the ensuring flexibility of use and the potential introduction of (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 335

Source statement: likelihood of new communities having more diverse sport other sports. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 336

Source statement: and recreation preferences than the traditional football and (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 337

Source statement: The five proposed soccer facilities will be developed to a (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 338

Source statement: cricket model that dominates other parts of the Shire. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 339

Source statement: district level for training and competition. These reserves will (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 340

Source statement: The following recommendations consider the previous include space for: (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 341

Source statement: findings from Council’s Sports Development Plan, as well (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 342

Source statement: - Up to four senior size irrigated turf soccer pitches (two (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 343

Source statement: as recommendations provided in the ICSIP and completed (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 344

Source statement: fenced and two unfenced for flexibility of use i.e. athletics), (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 345

Source statement: PSP’s for Lockerbie and Lockerbie North. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 346

Source statement: with consideration of at least one pitch at one of these (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 347

Source statement: New active sporting reserves recommended for Beveridge reserves being a synthetic surface; (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 348

Source statement: and surrounds include: (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 349

Source statement: - supporting infrastructure including a pavilion with (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 350

Source statement: Six Council reserves and four school ovals to cater for the community meeting space, car parking, sports field (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 351

Source statement: future demand of Australian Rules Football, cricket and lighting, coaches boxes and a children’s playground; (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 352

Source statement: The proposed eight court tennis facility will be developed to a (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 353

Source statement: - Five Council and two purpose built school soccer facilities district level for competition and development programs with (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 354

Source statement: with up to four pitches at each venue; space for: (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 355

Source statement: - One eight court tennis facility. - eight acrylic tennis courts with (4 floodlit and provision for (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 356

Source statement: 4 hot shots courts); (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 357

Source statement: These facilities will only be realised if the population of (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 358

Source statement: Beveridge reaches the projected 30,000 people in 2036 - supporting infrastructure including a community pavilion (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 359

Source statement: and 80,000 people by 2054*. Infrastructure development with meeting space, bbq and picnic facilities, car parking, (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 360

Source statement: levels should match population growth and continue to be and a children’s playground. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 361

Source statement: reviewed as PSP’s are finalised. Proposed site locations, (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 362

Source statement: land use and spatial allocations for active sporting reserves (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 363

Source statement: and schools should be reviewed and monitored regularly to (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 364

Source statement: ensure community expectations and demands for sport are (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 365

Source statement: *Note: Population numbers and the rate of growth are based on current (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 366

Source statement: forecasts which will be reviewed on an ongoing bases, as more accurate (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 367

Source statement: information becomes available. Changes to assumptions and forecasts (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 368

Source statement: may result in changes to facility needs (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 369

Source statement: 4.2 Kilmore 4.3 School Facilities (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 370

Source statement: JJ Clancy Reserve, the Kilmore Cricket and Recreation Reserve, Community use of school facilities is crucial to ensuring all (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 371

Source statement: the Kilmore East Recreation Reserve and Hudson Park are levels of local sporting competition and training needs can (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 372

Source statement: currently providing for a range of community sport and be accommodated. The proposed shared use of any new (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 373

Source statement: recreation needs. school facilities in Wallan and Beveridge will be important in (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 374

Source statement: addressing the future overflow training needs of senior and (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 375

Source statement: - JJ Clancy Reserve has one oval, athletics facility, eight (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 376

Source statement: junior sport, low grade competitions and junior development (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 377

Source statement: tennis courts, two netball courts, two netball/tennis courts (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 378

Source statement: and modified programs. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 379

Source statement: and a pavilion / clubrooms; (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Evidence item 380

Source statement: An example of a shared use school facility catering for a (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Mechanism reading: the statement should be interpreted through the study’s planning-development-management sequence, because sports-field feasibility depends on policy alignment, master planning, funding, construction, tenancy, scheduling, fees, and maintenance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Feasibility reading: the statement may affect land reservation, field dimensions, pavilion size, court provision, school co-location, passive surveillance, active-transport links, lighting, irrigation, drainage, or shared-use governance. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Staging reading: the statement should be sequenced with growth triggers, PSPs, detailed site master plans, business cases, funding models, and construction timing before it is treated as deliverable infrastructure. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Risk reading: the statement becomes a risk if forecasts, land shape, school access, club demand, capital funding, sport standards, or maintenance capacity change before delivery. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Contested Issues And Delivery Risks

No individual public submissions or submission table were found in the matching corpus, although the study records consultation with local sports providers, regional stakeholders, Hume, and Whittlesea. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Broadford has a documented shared-land and operating conflict because education land, DSE land, and Council-controlled land interact with toilet access, overuse, field quality, amenity, and lighting constraints. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Wallan and Beveridge have a land-timing risk because reserve counts are tied to 2036 and 2054 population forecasts and PSP/structure-plan outcomes. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Kilmore has a demand-evidence risk because the study recommends further investigation before detailed master planning for an additional reserve. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
School-facility reliance is a governance risk because community capacity depends on access to school ovals and indoor courts for overflow training, junior sport, low-grade competitions, and modified programs. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Sport compatibility is a management risk because the study warns that too many groups with large player numbers can create complex governance issues around change rooms, social rooms, catering, storage, memorabilia, scheduling, and shared resources. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Development Feasibility Implications

Wallan feasibility: preserve and stage three new district reserves at the 35,000-person trigger, with one AFL/cricket/netball reserve, one AFL/cricket/tennis reserve, and one staged soccer reserve. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Beveridge feasibility: reserve enough land for six Council oval reserves, four school ovals, five Council soccer facilities, two school soccer facilities, and one eight-court tennis facility if 2036 and 2054 growth is realised. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Kilmore feasibility: do not proceed from concept to detailed master plan until local club needs and district demand for junior football, cricket, and grass athletics are confirmed. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Broadford feasibility: resolve land management, school sharing, lighting, pavilion, soccer, baseball, softball, toilet, and field-condition issues as one precinct problem. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Developer feasibility: active-open-space parcels need to be large, unencumbered, visible, connected, and capable of supporting fields, courts, pavilions, car parking, play spaces, lighting, irrigation, drainage, and future expansion. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Council feasibility: capital works should be sequenced through planning, development, and management stages so that new assets are fundable, maintainable, affordable, and usable by multiple community groups. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Timeline And Monitoring Signals

2006-2010: Mitchell sports-club membership increased by an estimated 14 percent. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
2011: Sports Development Plan established the active-reserve hierarchy used by the feasibility study. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
2012: Melbourne Growth Corridor Plans set the regional context for PSP planning. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
2013: Mitchell Open Space Strategy and ICSIP informed open-space and community-infrastructure planning. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
2014: Sports Field Feasibility Study compiled reserve principles, recommendations, concept plans, background analysis, sport guidelines, reserve guidelines, and pavilion models. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
2036: Wallan was forecast to reach 35,000 people and Beveridge more than 30,000 people. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
2054: Beveridge was forecast to reach 80,000 people if growth assumptions were realised. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Ongoing: monitor population forecasts, PSP changes, school agreements, sport participation, lighting, surface condition, pavilion capacity, funding, and maintenance load. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Cross-References

Places: Wallan, Beveridge, Kilmore, Broadford, Seymour, Wandong, Pyalong, Tallarook, Tooborac. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Plans: Mitchell Shire Sports Development Plan, Mitchell Open Space Strategy 2013-2023, Integrated Community Services and Infrastructure Plan 2013, Lockerbie Precinct Structure Plan, Lockerbie North Precinct Structure Plan, Beveridge Central Precinct Structure Plan, Beveridge North West Precinct Structure Plan, Wallan Structure Plan, North Growth Corridor. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)
Facilities: Broadford Leisure Centre Precinct, Greenhill Reserve, Hadfield Park, Beveridge Recreation Reserve, JJ Clancy Reserve, Kilmore Cricket and Recreation Reserve, Kilmore East Recreation Reserve, Hudson Park. (Source: mitchell_sports_field_feasibility_study_finalsmall.txt)

Grange Planning Brain

Explorer

Mitchell Shire Sports Field Feasibility Study

Orientation

Source Basis

Executive Thesis

Quantified Findings And Mechanisms

Finding 1

Finding 2

Finding 3

Finding 4

Finding 5

Finding 6

Finding 7

Finding 8

Finding 9

Finding 10

Finding 11

Finding 12

Finding 13

Finding 14

Finding 15

Finding 16

Finding 17

Finding 18

Finding 19

Finding 20

Finding 21

Finding 22

Finding 23

Finding 24

Finding 25

Finding 26

Finding 27

Finding 28

Finding 29

Finding 30

Finding 31

Finding 32

Finding 33

Finding 34

Finding 35

Finding 36

Finding 37

Finding 38

Finding 39

Finding 40

Finding 41

Source-Line Evidence Register

Evidence item 1

Evidence item 2

Evidence item 3

Evidence item 4

Evidence item 5

Evidence item 6

Evidence item 7

Evidence item 8

Evidence item 9

Evidence item 10

Evidence item 11

Evidence item 12

Evidence item 13

Evidence item 14

Evidence item 15

Evidence item 16

Evidence item 17

Evidence item 18

Evidence item 19

Evidence item 20

Evidence item 21

Evidence item 22

Evidence item 23

Evidence item 24

Evidence item 25

Evidence item 26

Evidence item 27

Evidence item 28

Evidence item 29

Evidence item 30

Evidence item 31