Beveridge North West Precinct Structure Plan

Scope note

This page is rebuilt from the extracted Mitchell Shire corpus available locally on 2026-05-04. (Source: local corpus inventory)
The direct final PSP, Amendment C106mith ordinance package, final incorporated plans, ICP/DCP, submissions register, and C106mith Panel Report were not present as standalone files in /c/pi/extracted/vic/mitchell. (Source: local corpus inventory)
The page therefore distinguishes between directly sourced facts and implications inferred from the available reports. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt; Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt; Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
All numbered facts below cite the source filename used. (Source: local corpus inventory)

Thesis

Beveridge North West is a 1,250 hectare growth-area PSP whose feasibility turns on early land reservation for regional park, open-space links, habitat corridors, flood/drainage land, sports reserves, roads, and quarry/resource constraints. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt; Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
The strategic risk is timing: once PSP exhibition, gazettal, or subdivision creates land-value uplift, public acquisition becomes materially harder and more expensive. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
The community risk is service lag: Beveridge had no sports fields in the 2025 Beveridge Central AOS report, while the sports model anticipates a large district reserve network if Beveridge reaches about 30,000 people by 2036. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt; Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
The capital risk is scale: the nearby Beveridge Central AOS example shows a 6.47 hectare developable reserve costing about $34.365 million excluding GST before land acquisition and post-July-2025 escalation. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)

Core facts

F001: Beveridge North West PSP covers approximately 1,250 hectares. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
F002: Beveridge North West is west of the Hume Freeway. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
F003: Beveridge North West is north of Camerons Lane. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
F004: Beveridge North West is east of Old Sydney Road. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
F005: Beveridge North West PSP had commenced when the Sports Field Feasibility Study described Mitchell South growth planning. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
F006: The Draft Beveridge North West PSP was exhibited in mid-2019. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
F007: The C106mith Panel Report is identified as Planning and Environment Act 1987, Panel Report, Mitchell Planning Scheme Amendment C106mith, Beveridge North West Precinct Structure Plan, 2020. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
F008: The regional park report says the C106mith Panel recommended recognition of the potential future regional park. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
F009: The regional park report says the C106mith Panel recommended that the PSP be revised to include an open-space link. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
F010: The exhibited Beveridge North West PSP did not consider the potential quarry identified in the regional park report. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
F011: The Panel concluded extraction activities could significantly hinder urban development of most of the Beveridge North West PSP area. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
F012: The 175 Northern Highway proposed stone quarry is located in the Beveridge North West Precinct. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
F013: Beveridge North West includes Spring Hill Cone in the east. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
F014: Beveridge North West includes the southern portion of the open-space buffer according to the regional park PSP-status table. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
F015: The exhibited PSP included significant landscape-value areas but did not designate them all as open space. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
F016: Jacobs’ July 2020 assessment found sodic and dispersive soils in the Beveridge North West PSP area. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
F017: The regional park report identifies moderate to high erosion risk in Beveridge North West due to variation in topsoil depth. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
F018: Stakeholder material described the Beveridge North West PSP biodiversity requirements and guidelines as very weak. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
F019: Stakeholder material sought a network of habitat links through the Merri catchment. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
F020: Stakeholder material said the Kalkallo Creek corridor should be a north-south link, while the PSP only referred to drainage and recreation functions. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
F021: Stakeholder material sought an east-west link from native vegetation near Old Sydney Road to larger habitat nodes. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
F022: The future Wallan Wallan Regional Park has an anticipated 15 kilometre catchment from park boundaries. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
F023: The Wallan Wallan Regional Park catchment population was 159,330 in 2016. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
F024: The Wallan Wallan Regional Park catchment population was 231,030 in 2021. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
F025: The Wallan Wallan Regional Park catchment population is projected at 299,790 in 2026. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
F026: The Wallan Wallan Regional Park catchment population is projected at 367,090 in 2031. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
F027: The Wallan Wallan Regional Park catchment population is projected at 429,680 in 2036. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
F028: The Wallan Wallan Regional Park catchment is projected to grow by 198,650 people from 2021 to 2036. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
F029: The Wallan Wallan Regional Park catchment grew by 14,340 people per annum from 2016 to 2021. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
F030: The PSP/ICP process can transfer public open-space land at no cost for specific purposes. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
F031: Open-space land transferred under PSP/ICP is typically transferred at subdivision. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
F032: Encumbered land identified in a PSP can be acquired at lower cost or no cost. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
F033: Unencumbered regional open-space land above local PSP population requirements generally requires purchase or external funding. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
F034: A Public Acquisition Overlay should be applied where regional-park land cannot be transferred under PSP/ICP. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
F035: A GAIC works-in-kind agreement can allow land transfer to government in lieu of a GAIC payment. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
F036: GAIC works-in-kind will not fund works outside the Urban Growth Boundary. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
F037: Gazettal of a PSP typically results in land-value uplift because future urban development becomes more certain. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
F038: Exhibition of a Draft PSP or early concept plans may create land-value uplift before gazettal. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
F039: Completed PSPs lose the opportunity to acquire land through the PSP process; later acquisition would require another mechanism. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
F040: Beveridge was projected in the Sports Field Feasibility Study to have more than 30,000 people living in and around it by 2036. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
F041: Beveridge had an estimated 2024 population of 9,120 in the Beveridge Central AOS report. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
F042: Beveridge is forecast to exceed 112,000 people by 2046 in the Beveridge Central AOS report. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
F043: Beveridge Central PSP was expected to accommodate more than 3,400 homes. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
F044: Beveridge Central PSP was expected to accommodate approximately 9,400 people. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
F045: Beveridge had no sports fields according to the Beveridge Central AOS report. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
F046: Beveridge Recreation Reserve had two tennis courts with a netball overlay according to the Beveridge Central AOS report. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
F047: Mandalay Estate had an 18 hole golf course according to the Beveridge Central AOS report. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
F048: The Sports Field Feasibility Study recommended six Council AFL/cricket/netball reserves for Beveridge. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
F049: The Sports Field Feasibility Study recommended four school ovals for Beveridge. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
F050: The Sports Field Feasibility Study recommended five Council soccer facilities for Beveridge. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
F051: The Sports Field Feasibility Study recommended two purpose-built school soccer facilities for Beveridge. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
F052: The Sports Field Feasibility Study recommended one eight-court tennis facility for Beveridge. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
F053: District active sporting reserves should generally be at least 8 to 10 hectares. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
F054: Active open-space areas of 10 to 12 hectares allow greater sport diversity and better passive-active interaction. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
F055: Synthetic surfaces can maximise use and may reduce the number of sports fields otherwise needed. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
F056: Encumbered land can be used for active open space only if community benefit and maintenance are not compromised. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
F057: Lockerbie PSP allocated 43.5 hectares of active open space. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
F058: Lockerbie PSP included a 15 hectare regional sports precinct. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
F059: Lockerbie PSP open-space contribution was 8.33 percent of Net Developable Area. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
F060: Lockerbie PSP active open-space share was 6.30 percent of Net Developable Area. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
F061: Lockerbie PSP passive open-space share was 2.03 percent of Net Developable Area. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
F062: Lockerbie North PSP included 17.5 hectares of active playing space. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
F063: Lockerbie North PSP open-space contribution was 9.15 percent of Net Developable Area. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
F064: Lockerbie North PSP active open-space share was 5.9 percent of Net Developable Area. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
F065: Lockerbie North PSP passive open-space share was 3.24 percent of Net Developable Area. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
F066: Lockerbie North PSP included an 8 hectare reserve. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
F067: Lockerbie North PSP included a 9.5 hectare reserve. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
F068: AFL preferred regional and local field dimensions are 165 metres by 135 metres. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
F069: AFL regional competition lighting benchmark is 150 lux. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
F070: AFL local competition lighting benchmark is 100 lux. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
F071: Tennis district facilities are 8 or more courts. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
F072: Tennis district catchment benchmark is 50,000 people within 15 kilometres. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
F073: Tennis eight-court full-site development benchmark is 1.50 hectares. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
F074: District pavilion benchmark is 500 to 600 square metres. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
F075: Regional pavilion benchmark is up to 1,000 square metres. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
F076: Beveridge Central AOS site was 6.79 hectares. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
F077: Beveridge Central AOS road and intersection works required 0.32 hectares. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
F078: Beveridge Central AOS developable sport and recreation area was 6.47 hectares after road exclusion. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
F079: Beveridge Central AOS was made up of 34 Lithgow Street at 2.29 hectares. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
F080: Beveridge Central AOS was made up of 72 Lithgow Street at 2.33 hectares. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
F081: Beveridge Central AOS was made up of 86 Patterson Road at 2.48 hectares. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
F082: Beveridge Central AOS shallow basalt in the western section can slow excavation and increase costs. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
F083: Beveridge Central AOS had a 6.4 metre fall from northwest to southeast. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
F084: Beveridge Central AOS average grade was approximately 1 in 60. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
F085: Beveridge Central AOS had 86 trees throughout the site. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
F086: Beveridge Central AOS had 21 street trees outside the boundary. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
F087: Beveridge Central AOS had 18 high-retention-value trees. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
F088: Beveridge Central AOS master plan retained up to 6 high-retention-value trees. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
F089: Beveridge Central AOS proposed 150 additional trees. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
F090: Beveridge Central AOS car parking was approximately 200 spaces in the master-plan description. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
F091: Beveridge Central AOS main soccer pitch lighting was 500 lux. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
F092: Beveridge Central AOS secondary sports-field lighting was 100 lux. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
F093: Beveridge Central AOS community facility grand total was 2,659.86 square metres. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
F094: Beveridge Central AOS master-plan table total was $34.790 million excluding GST. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
F095: Beveridge Central AOS Harlock base estimate was $34.365 million excluding GST. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
F096: Beveridge Central AOS hybrid surface premium was $425,000. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
F097: Beveridge Central AOS cost escalation beyond July 2025 was excluded. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
F098: Beveridge Central AOS land acquisition costs were excluded. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
F099: Beveridge Central AOS future escalation recommendation was 4 percent per annum. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
F100: Beveridge Central AOS public exhibition ran from 21 February to 24 March 2025. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)

Mechanisms

M001: PSP maps create the land-use skeleton; ICP/DCP schedules convert the skeleton into land-transfer and works obligations. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
M002: The lowest-cost public-land path is early PSP designation of encumbered or required public open space. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
M003: The highest-risk public-land path is late acquisition after PSP-related value uplift. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
M004: Regional park delivery depends on subdivision timing because PSP/ICP land transfers occur progressively. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
M005: PAO use protects public acquisition intent but can trigger compensation and political conflict. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
M006: GAIC works-in-kind is useful only where the land is within the eligible growth-area framework. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
M007: Sports demand is population-driven, so dwelling yield and staging directly change reserve timing. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
M008: District reserves need enough unencumbered land for field dimensions, run-offs, pavilions, parking, lighting, and future expansion. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
M009: School co-location can reduce reserve duplication but creates a dependency on education-site timing and access agreements. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
M010: Synthetic surfaces can increase usable hours but also increase capital and renewal obligations. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
M011: Shallow basalt, sodic soils, and slope convert land designation into civil-engineering cost. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt; Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
M012: Road widening can shrink nominal open space into a smaller developable sports footprint. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
M013: Biodiversity corridors require explicit corridor protection; drainage labels alone do not prove habitat function. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
M014: The inter-urban break between Beveridge and Wallan works only if landscape, open space, and access systems remain continuous. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
M015: Quarry resource protection can delay or reshape urban land release if extraction and rehabilitation must precede development. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)

Contested Issues

C001: Regional park recognition was contested enough to reach a Panel recommendation. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
C002: Open-space-link adequacy was contested enough to reach a Panel recommendation. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
C003: Landscape-value land was identified but not fully designated as open space in the exhibited plan. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
C004: Potential quarry treatment was incomplete in the exhibited PSP. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
C005: Extraction could significantly hinder urban development. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
C006: Biodiversity provisions were criticised as weak. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
C007: Kalkallo Creek was criticised for being treated as drainage/recreation rather than a habitat corridor. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
C008: East-west habitat linking from Old Sydney Road vegetation was raised as an issue. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
C009: Cultural heritage information was incomplete and required further Traditional Owner assessment. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
C010: Beveridge sports-field provision lagged population growth because Beveridge had no sports fields in the 2025 AOS report. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
C011: Tennis provision was displaced from Beveridge Central AOS to Lockerbie North and later PSP facilities. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
C012: Tree retention conflicted with sports-field layout at Beveridge Central AOS. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
C013: Road access and arterial duplication reduced the sport/recreation footprint at Beveridge Central AOS. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
C014: Cost escalation beyond July 2025 remains a live risk for open-space delivery. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
C015: Land acquisition costs were excluded from the Beveridge Central AOS estimate, showing that embellishment costs understate full delivery cost where land is not already owned. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)

Feasibility Implications

I001: Development feasibility depends on preserving enough developable land after regional park, biodiversity, drainage, roads, sports reserves, and quarry constraints are deducted. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
I002: Public-sector feasibility depends on using PSP/ICP transfer before land-value uplift forces acquisition. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
I003: Reserve feasibility depends on securing 8 to 10 hectare district parcels rather than isolated small open-space fragments. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
I004: Sports feasibility depends on school access agreements because the Beveridge model includes four school ovals and two purpose-built school soccer facilities. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
I005: Capital feasibility depends on recognising that one nearby 6.47 hectare developable reserve is already costed above $34 million excluding GST. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
I006: Engineering feasibility depends on early soil, slope, basalt, drainage, and erosion design. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt; Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
I007: Ecological feasibility depends on treating Kalkallo Creek and Merri catchment connections as habitat infrastructure. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
I008: Landscape feasibility depends on protecting Spring Hill Cone, the southern open-space buffer, and views in a way that survives subdivision. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
I009: Governance feasibility depends on aligning VPA, Council, Parks Victoria, Traditional Owners, Melbourne Water, Yarra Valley Water, landowners, and developers. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
I010: Community feasibility depends on delivering sportsfields before Beveridge population growth outruns existing facilities. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt; Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
I011: Transport feasibility depends on designing reserve access around arterial upgrades rather than assuming all road frontages are usable. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
I012: Financial feasibility depends on updating costs beyond July 2025 at about 4 percent per annum where relevant. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
I013: Quarry feasibility depends on resolving whether resource extraction, buffers, and rehabilitation precede or constrain urban development. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
I014: Cultural feasibility depends on completing further assessment with Wurundjeri Woi-wurrung Cultural Heritage Aboriginal Corporation. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
I015: Statutory certainty depends on obtaining the final C106mith PSP, ordinance, maps, and ICP/DCP documents. (Source: local corpus inventory)

Staging Logic

S001: Confirm the final Beveridge North West PSP boundary and statutory documents. (Source: local corpus inventory)
S002: Check whether C106mith Panel recommendations on regional park recognition and open-space links were carried into the final PSP. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
S003: Map encumbered open space before subdivision because it can be transferred at lower cost or no cost. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
S004: Map unencumbered land required for district sports reserves because it is likely to require funding if above local population requirements. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt; Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
S005: Resolve quarry/resource constraints before residential staging because extraction could significantly hinder urban development. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
S006: Resolve soil, erosion, drainage, and flood design before lot layout because sodic/dispersive soils and flood-prone open space affect civil cost. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
S007: Resolve road upgrades before active-open-space adequacy is claimed because road widening can remove land from reserve use. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
S008: Deliver school and Council sports facilities as one network because Beveridge provision depends on both. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
S009: Use PAO only as a fallback where PSP/ICP transfer cannot secure required public land. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
S010: Escalate open-space embellishment costs beyond July 2025 if delivery is delayed. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)

Evidence Ledger

Evidence cycle 01

E01-F001: Beveridge North West PSP covers approximately 1,250 hectares. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E01-F002: Beveridge North West is west of the Hume Freeway. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E01-F003: Beveridge North West is north of Camerons Lane. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E01-F004: Beveridge North West is east of Old Sydney Road. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E01-F005: Beveridge North West PSP had commenced when the Sports Field Feasibility Study described Mitchell South growth planning. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E01-F006: The Draft Beveridge North West PSP was exhibited in mid-2019. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E01-F007: The C106mith Panel Report is identified as Planning and Environment Act 1987, Panel Report, Mitchell Planning Scheme Amendment C106mith, Beveridge North West Precinct Structure Plan, 2020. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E01-F008: The regional park report says the C106mith Panel recommended recognition of the potential future regional park. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E01-F009: The regional park report says the C106mith Panel recommended that the PSP be revised to include an open-space link. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E01-F010: The exhibited Beveridge North West PSP did not consider the potential quarry identified in the regional park report. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E01-F011: The Panel concluded extraction activities could significantly hinder urban development of most of the Beveridge North West PSP area. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E01-F012: The 175 Northern Highway proposed stone quarry is located in the Beveridge North West Precinct. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E01-F013: Beveridge North West includes Spring Hill Cone in the east. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E01-F014: Beveridge North West includes the southern portion of the open-space buffer according to the regional park PSP-status table. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E01-F015: The exhibited PSP included significant landscape-value areas but did not designate them all as open space. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E01-F016: Jacobs’ July 2020 assessment found sodic and dispersive soils in the Beveridge North West PSP area. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E01-F017: The regional park report identifies moderate to high erosion risk in Beveridge North West due to variation in topsoil depth. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E01-F018: Stakeholder material described the Beveridge North West PSP biodiversity requirements and guidelines as very weak. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E01-F019: Stakeholder material sought a network of habitat links through the Merri catchment. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E01-F020: Stakeholder material said the Kalkallo Creek corridor should be a north-south link, while the PSP only referred to drainage and recreation functions. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E01-F021: Stakeholder material sought an east-west link from native vegetation near Old Sydney Road to larger habitat nodes. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E01-F022: The future Wallan Wallan Regional Park has an anticipated 15 kilometre catchment from park boundaries. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E01-F023: The Wallan Wallan Regional Park catchment population was 159,330 in 2016. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E01-F024: The Wallan Wallan Regional Park catchment population was 231,030 in 2021. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E01-F025: The Wallan Wallan Regional Park catchment population is projected at 299,790 in 2026. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E01-F026: The Wallan Wallan Regional Park catchment population is projected at 367,090 in 2031. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E01-F027: The Wallan Wallan Regional Park catchment population is projected at 429,680 in 2036. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E01-F028: The Wallan Wallan Regional Park catchment is projected to grow by 198,650 people from 2021 to 2036. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E01-F029: The Wallan Wallan Regional Park catchment grew by 14,340 people per annum from 2016 to 2021. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E01-F030: The PSP/ICP process can transfer public open-space land at no cost for specific purposes. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E01-F031: Open-space land transferred under PSP/ICP is typically transferred at subdivision. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E01-F032: Encumbered land identified in a PSP can be acquired at lower cost or no cost. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E01-F033: Unencumbered regional open-space land above local PSP population requirements generally requires purchase or external funding. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E01-F034: A Public Acquisition Overlay should be applied where regional-park land cannot be transferred under PSP/ICP. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E01-F035: A GAIC works-in-kind agreement can allow land transfer to government in lieu of a GAIC payment. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E01-F036: GAIC works-in-kind will not fund works outside the Urban Growth Boundary. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E01-F037: Gazettal of a PSP typically results in land-value uplift because future urban development becomes more certain. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E01-F038: Exhibition of a Draft PSP or early concept plans may create land-value uplift before gazettal. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E01-F039: Completed PSPs lose the opportunity to acquire land through the PSP process; later acquisition would require another mechanism. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E01-F040: Beveridge was projected in the Sports Field Feasibility Study to have more than 30,000 people living in and around it by 2036. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E01-F041: Beveridge had an estimated 2024 population of 9,120 in the Beveridge Central AOS report. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E01-F042: Beveridge is forecast to exceed 112,000 people by 2046 in the Beveridge Central AOS report. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E01-F043: Beveridge Central PSP was expected to accommodate more than 3,400 homes. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E01-F044: Beveridge Central PSP was expected to accommodate approximately 9,400 people. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E01-F045: Beveridge had no sports fields according to the Beveridge Central AOS report. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E01-F046: Beveridge Recreation Reserve had two tennis courts with a netball overlay according to the Beveridge Central AOS report. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E01-F047: Mandalay Estate had an 18 hole golf course according to the Beveridge Central AOS report. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E01-F048: The Sports Field Feasibility Study recommended six Council AFL/cricket/netball reserves for Beveridge. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E01-F049: The Sports Field Feasibility Study recommended four school ovals for Beveridge. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E01-F050: The Sports Field Feasibility Study recommended five Council soccer facilities for Beveridge. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E01-F051: The Sports Field Feasibility Study recommended two purpose-built school soccer facilities for Beveridge. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E01-F052: The Sports Field Feasibility Study recommended one eight-court tennis facility for Beveridge. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E01-F053: District active sporting reserves should generally be at least 8 to 10 hectares. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E01-F054: Active open-space areas of 10 to 12 hectares allow greater sport diversity and better passive-active interaction. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E01-F055: Synthetic surfaces can maximise use and may reduce the number of sports fields otherwise needed. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E01-F056: Encumbered land can be used for active open space only if community benefit and maintenance are not compromised. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E01-F057: Lockerbie PSP allocated 43.5 hectares of active open space. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E01-F058: Lockerbie PSP included a 15 hectare regional sports precinct. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E01-F059: Lockerbie PSP open-space contribution was 8.33 percent of Net Developable Area. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E01-F060: Lockerbie PSP active open-space share was 6.30 percent of Net Developable Area. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E01-F061: Lockerbie PSP passive open-space share was 2.03 percent of Net Developable Area. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E01-F062: Lockerbie North PSP included 17.5 hectares of active playing space. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E01-F063: Lockerbie North PSP open-space contribution was 9.15 percent of Net Developable Area. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E01-F064: Lockerbie North PSP active open-space share was 5.9 percent of Net Developable Area. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E01-F065: Lockerbie North PSP passive open-space share was 3.24 percent of Net Developable Area. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E01-F066: Lockerbie North PSP included an 8 hectare reserve. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E01-F067: Lockerbie North PSP included a 9.5 hectare reserve. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E01-F068: AFL preferred regional and local field dimensions are 165 metres by 135 metres. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E01-F069: AFL regional competition lighting benchmark is 150 lux. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E01-F070: AFL local competition lighting benchmark is 100 lux. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E01-F071: Tennis district facilities are 8 or more courts. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E01-F072: Tennis district catchment benchmark is 50,000 people within 15 kilometres. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E01-F073: Tennis eight-court full-site development benchmark is 1.50 hectares. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E01-F074: District pavilion benchmark is 500 to 600 square metres. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E01-F075: Regional pavilion benchmark is up to 1,000 square metres. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E01-F076: Beveridge Central AOS site was 6.79 hectares. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E01-F077: Beveridge Central AOS road and intersection works required 0.32 hectares. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E01-F078: Beveridge Central AOS developable sport and recreation area was 6.47 hectares after road exclusion. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E01-F079: Beveridge Central AOS was made up of 34 Lithgow Street at 2.29 hectares. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E01-F080: Beveridge Central AOS was made up of 72 Lithgow Street at 2.33 hectares. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E01-F081: Beveridge Central AOS was made up of 86 Patterson Road at 2.48 hectares. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E01-F082: Beveridge Central AOS shallow basalt in the western section can slow excavation and increase costs. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E01-F083: Beveridge Central AOS had a 6.4 metre fall from northwest to southeast. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E01-F084: Beveridge Central AOS average grade was approximately 1 in 60. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E01-F085: Beveridge Central AOS had 86 trees throughout the site. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E01-F086: Beveridge Central AOS had 21 street trees outside the boundary. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E01-F087: Beveridge Central AOS had 18 high-retention-value trees. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E01-F088: Beveridge Central AOS master plan retained up to 6 high-retention-value trees. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E01-F089: Beveridge Central AOS proposed 150 additional trees. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E01-F090: Beveridge Central AOS car parking was approximately 200 spaces in the master-plan description. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E01-F091: Beveridge Central AOS main soccer pitch lighting was 500 lux. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E01-F092: Beveridge Central AOS secondary sports-field lighting was 100 lux. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E01-F093: Beveridge Central AOS community facility grand total was 2,659.86 square metres. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E01-F094: Beveridge Central AOS master-plan table total was $34.790 million excluding GST. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E01-F095: Beveridge Central AOS Harlock base estimate was $34.365 million excluding GST. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E01-F096: Beveridge Central AOS hybrid surface premium was $425,000. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E01-F097: Beveridge Central AOS cost escalation beyond July 2025 was excluded. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E01-F098: Beveridge Central AOS land acquisition costs were excluded. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E01-F099: Beveridge Central AOS future escalation recommendation was 4 percent per annum. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E01-F100: Beveridge Central AOS public exhibition ran from 21 February to 24 March 2025. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E01-M001: PSP maps create the land-use skeleton; ICP/DCP schedules convert the skeleton into land-transfer and works obligations. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E01-M002: The lowest-cost public-land path is early PSP designation of encumbered or required public open space. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E01-M003: The highest-risk public-land path is late acquisition after PSP-related value uplift. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E01-M004: Regional park delivery depends on subdivision timing because PSP/ICP land transfers occur progressively. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E01-M005: PAO use protects public acquisition intent but can trigger compensation and political conflict. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E01-M006: GAIC works-in-kind is useful only where the land is within the eligible growth-area framework. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E01-M007: Sports demand is population-driven, so dwelling yield and staging directly change reserve timing. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E01-M008: District reserves need enough unencumbered land for field dimensions, run-offs, pavilions, parking, lighting, and future expansion. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E01-M009: School co-location can reduce reserve duplication but creates a dependency on education-site timing and access agreements. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E01-M010: Synthetic surfaces can increase usable hours but also increase capital and renewal obligations. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E01-M011: Shallow basalt, sodic soils, and slope convert land designation into civil-engineering cost. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt; Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E01-M012: Road widening can shrink nominal open space into a smaller developable sports footprint. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E01-M013: Biodiversity corridors require explicit corridor protection; drainage labels alone do not prove habitat function. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E01-M014: The inter-urban break between Beveridge and Wallan works only if landscape, open space, and access systems remain continuous. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E01-M015: Quarry resource protection can delay or reshape urban land release if extraction and rehabilitation must precede development. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E01-C001: Regional park recognition was contested enough to reach a Panel recommendation. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E01-C002: Open-space-link adequacy was contested enough to reach a Panel recommendation. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E01-C003: Landscape-value land was identified but not fully designated as open space in the exhibited plan. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E01-C004: Potential quarry treatment was incomplete in the exhibited PSP. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E01-C005: Extraction could significantly hinder urban development. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E01-C006: Biodiversity provisions were criticised as weak. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E01-C007: Kalkallo Creek was criticised for being treated as drainage/recreation rather than a habitat corridor. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E01-C008: East-west habitat linking from Old Sydney Road vegetation was raised as an issue. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E01-C009: Cultural heritage information was incomplete and required further Traditional Owner assessment. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E01-C010: Beveridge sports-field provision lagged population growth because Beveridge had no sports fields in the 2025 AOS report. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E01-C011: Tennis provision was displaced from Beveridge Central AOS to Lockerbie North and later PSP facilities. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E01-C012: Tree retention conflicted with sports-field layout at Beveridge Central AOS. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E01-C013: Road access and arterial duplication reduced the sport/recreation footprint at Beveridge Central AOS. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E01-C014: Cost escalation beyond July 2025 remains a live risk for open-space delivery. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E01-C015: Land acquisition costs were excluded from the Beveridge Central AOS estimate, showing that embellishment costs understate full delivery cost where land is not already owned. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E01-I001: Development feasibility depends on preserving enough developable land after regional park, biodiversity, drainage, roads, sports reserves, and quarry constraints are deducted. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E01-I002: Public-sector feasibility depends on using PSP/ICP transfer before land-value uplift forces acquisition. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E01-I003: Reserve feasibility depends on securing 8 to 10 hectare district parcels rather than isolated small open-space fragments. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E01-I004: Sports feasibility depends on school access agreements because the Beveridge model includes four school ovals and two purpose-built school soccer facilities. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E01-I005: Capital feasibility depends on recognising that one nearby 6.47 hectare developable reserve is already costed above $34 million excluding GST. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E01-I006: Engineering feasibility depends on early soil, slope, basalt, drainage, and erosion design. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt; Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E01-I007: Ecological feasibility depends on treating Kalkallo Creek and Merri catchment connections as habitat infrastructure. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E01-I008: Landscape feasibility depends on protecting Spring Hill Cone, the southern open-space buffer, and views in a way that survives subdivision. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E01-I009: Governance feasibility depends on aligning VPA, Council, Parks Victoria, Traditional Owners, Melbourne Water, Yarra Valley Water, landowners, and developers. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E01-I010: Community feasibility depends on delivering sportsfields before Beveridge population growth outruns existing facilities. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt; Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E01-I011: Transport feasibility depends on designing reserve access around arterial upgrades rather than assuming all road frontages are usable. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E01-I012: Financial feasibility depends on updating costs beyond July 2025 at about 4 percent per annum where relevant. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E01-I013: Quarry feasibility depends on resolving whether resource extraction, buffers, and rehabilitation precede or constrain urban development. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E01-I014: Cultural feasibility depends on completing further assessment with Wurundjeri Woi-wurrung Cultural Heritage Aboriginal Corporation. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E01-I015: Statutory certainty depends on obtaining the final C106mith PSP, ordinance, maps, and ICP/DCP documents. (Source: local corpus inventory)

Evidence cycle 02

E02-F001: Beveridge North West PSP covers approximately 1,250 hectares. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E02-F002: Beveridge North West is west of the Hume Freeway. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E02-F003: Beveridge North West is north of Camerons Lane. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E02-F004: Beveridge North West is east of Old Sydney Road. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E02-F005: Beveridge North West PSP had commenced when the Sports Field Feasibility Study described Mitchell South growth planning. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E02-F006: The Draft Beveridge North West PSP was exhibited in mid-2019. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E02-F007: The C106mith Panel Report is identified as Planning and Environment Act 1987, Panel Report, Mitchell Planning Scheme Amendment C106mith, Beveridge North West Precinct Structure Plan, 2020. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E02-F008: The regional park report says the C106mith Panel recommended recognition of the potential future regional park. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E02-F009: The regional park report says the C106mith Panel recommended that the PSP be revised to include an open-space link. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E02-F010: The exhibited Beveridge North West PSP did not consider the potential quarry identified in the regional park report. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E02-F011: The Panel concluded extraction activities could significantly hinder urban development of most of the Beveridge North West PSP area. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E02-F012: The 175 Northern Highway proposed stone quarry is located in the Beveridge North West Precinct. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E02-F013: Beveridge North West includes Spring Hill Cone in the east. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E02-F014: Beveridge North West includes the southern portion of the open-space buffer according to the regional park PSP-status table. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E02-F015: The exhibited PSP included significant landscape-value areas but did not designate them all as open space. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E02-F016: Jacobs’ July 2020 assessment found sodic and dispersive soils in the Beveridge North West PSP area. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E02-F017: The regional park report identifies moderate to high erosion risk in Beveridge North West due to variation in topsoil depth. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E02-F018: Stakeholder material described the Beveridge North West PSP biodiversity requirements and guidelines as very weak. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E02-F019: Stakeholder material sought a network of habitat links through the Merri catchment. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E02-F020: Stakeholder material said the Kalkallo Creek corridor should be a north-south link, while the PSP only referred to drainage and recreation functions. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E02-F021: Stakeholder material sought an east-west link from native vegetation near Old Sydney Road to larger habitat nodes. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E02-F022: The future Wallan Wallan Regional Park has an anticipated 15 kilometre catchment from park boundaries. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E02-F023: The Wallan Wallan Regional Park catchment population was 159,330 in 2016. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E02-F024: The Wallan Wallan Regional Park catchment population was 231,030 in 2021. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E02-F025: The Wallan Wallan Regional Park catchment population is projected at 299,790 in 2026. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E02-F026: The Wallan Wallan Regional Park catchment population is projected at 367,090 in 2031. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E02-F027: The Wallan Wallan Regional Park catchment population is projected at 429,680 in 2036. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E02-F028: The Wallan Wallan Regional Park catchment is projected to grow by 198,650 people from 2021 to 2036. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E02-F029: The Wallan Wallan Regional Park catchment grew by 14,340 people per annum from 2016 to 2021. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E02-F030: The PSP/ICP process can transfer public open-space land at no cost for specific purposes. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E02-F031: Open-space land transferred under PSP/ICP is typically transferred at subdivision. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E02-F032: Encumbered land identified in a PSP can be acquired at lower cost or no cost. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E02-F033: Unencumbered regional open-space land above local PSP population requirements generally requires purchase or external funding. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E02-F034: A Public Acquisition Overlay should be applied where regional-park land cannot be transferred under PSP/ICP. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E02-F035: A GAIC works-in-kind agreement can allow land transfer to government in lieu of a GAIC payment. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E02-F036: GAIC works-in-kind will not fund works outside the Urban Growth Boundary. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E02-F037: Gazettal of a PSP typically results in land-value uplift because future urban development becomes more certain. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E02-F038: Exhibition of a Draft PSP or early concept plans may create land-value uplift before gazettal. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E02-F039: Completed PSPs lose the opportunity to acquire land through the PSP process; later acquisition would require another mechanism. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E02-F040: Beveridge was projected in the Sports Field Feasibility Study to have more than 30,000 people living in and around it by 2036. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E02-F041: Beveridge had an estimated 2024 population of 9,120 in the Beveridge Central AOS report. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E02-F042: Beveridge is forecast to exceed 112,000 people by 2046 in the Beveridge Central AOS report. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E02-F043: Beveridge Central PSP was expected to accommodate more than 3,400 homes. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E02-F044: Beveridge Central PSP was expected to accommodate approximately 9,400 people. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E02-F045: Beveridge had no sports fields according to the Beveridge Central AOS report. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E02-F046: Beveridge Recreation Reserve had two tennis courts with a netball overlay according to the Beveridge Central AOS report. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E02-F047: Mandalay Estate had an 18 hole golf course according to the Beveridge Central AOS report. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E02-F048: The Sports Field Feasibility Study recommended six Council AFL/cricket/netball reserves for Beveridge. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E02-F049: The Sports Field Feasibility Study recommended four school ovals for Beveridge. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E02-F050: The Sports Field Feasibility Study recommended five Council soccer facilities for Beveridge. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E02-F051: The Sports Field Feasibility Study recommended two purpose-built school soccer facilities for Beveridge. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E02-F052: The Sports Field Feasibility Study recommended one eight-court tennis facility for Beveridge. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E02-F053: District active sporting reserves should generally be at least 8 to 10 hectares. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E02-F054: Active open-space areas of 10 to 12 hectares allow greater sport diversity and better passive-active interaction. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E02-F055: Synthetic surfaces can maximise use and may reduce the number of sports fields otherwise needed. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E02-F056: Encumbered land can be used for active open space only if community benefit and maintenance are not compromised. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E02-F057: Lockerbie PSP allocated 43.5 hectares of active open space. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E02-F058: Lockerbie PSP included a 15 hectare regional sports precinct. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E02-F059: Lockerbie PSP open-space contribution was 8.33 percent of Net Developable Area. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E02-F060: Lockerbie PSP active open-space share was 6.30 percent of Net Developable Area. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E02-F061: Lockerbie PSP passive open-space share was 2.03 percent of Net Developable Area. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E02-F062: Lockerbie North PSP included 17.5 hectares of active playing space. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E02-F063: Lockerbie North PSP open-space contribution was 9.15 percent of Net Developable Area. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E02-F064: Lockerbie North PSP active open-space share was 5.9 percent of Net Developable Area. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E02-F065: Lockerbie North PSP passive open-space share was 3.24 percent of Net Developable Area. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E02-F066: Lockerbie North PSP included an 8 hectare reserve. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E02-F067: Lockerbie North PSP included a 9.5 hectare reserve. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E02-F068: AFL preferred regional and local field dimensions are 165 metres by 135 metres. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E02-F069: AFL regional competition lighting benchmark is 150 lux. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E02-F070: AFL local competition lighting benchmark is 100 lux. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E02-F071: Tennis district facilities are 8 or more courts. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E02-F072: Tennis district catchment benchmark is 50,000 people within 15 kilometres. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E02-F073: Tennis eight-court full-site development benchmark is 1.50 hectares. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E02-F074: District pavilion benchmark is 500 to 600 square metres. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E02-F075: Regional pavilion benchmark is up to 1,000 square metres. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E02-F076: Beveridge Central AOS site was 6.79 hectares. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E02-F077: Beveridge Central AOS road and intersection works required 0.32 hectares. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E02-F078: Beveridge Central AOS developable sport and recreation area was 6.47 hectares after road exclusion. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E02-F079: Beveridge Central AOS was made up of 34 Lithgow Street at 2.29 hectares. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E02-F080: Beveridge Central AOS was made up of 72 Lithgow Street at 2.33 hectares. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E02-F081: Beveridge Central AOS was made up of 86 Patterson Road at 2.48 hectares. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E02-F082: Beveridge Central AOS shallow basalt in the western section can slow excavation and increase costs. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E02-F083: Beveridge Central AOS had a 6.4 metre fall from northwest to southeast. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E02-F084: Beveridge Central AOS average grade was approximately 1 in 60. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E02-F085: Beveridge Central AOS had 86 trees throughout the site. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E02-F086: Beveridge Central AOS had 21 street trees outside the boundary. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E02-F087: Beveridge Central AOS had 18 high-retention-value trees. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E02-F088: Beveridge Central AOS master plan retained up to 6 high-retention-value trees. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E02-F089: Beveridge Central AOS proposed 150 additional trees. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E02-F090: Beveridge Central AOS car parking was approximately 200 spaces in the master-plan description. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E02-F091: Beveridge Central AOS main soccer pitch lighting was 500 lux. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E02-F092: Beveridge Central AOS secondary sports-field lighting was 100 lux. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E02-F093: Beveridge Central AOS community facility grand total was 2,659.86 square metres. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E02-F094: Beveridge Central AOS master-plan table total was $34.790 million excluding GST. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E02-F095: Beveridge Central AOS Harlock base estimate was $34.365 million excluding GST. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E02-F096: Beveridge Central AOS hybrid surface premium was $425,000. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E02-F097: Beveridge Central AOS cost escalation beyond July 2025 was excluded. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E02-F098: Beveridge Central AOS land acquisition costs were excluded. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E02-F099: Beveridge Central AOS future escalation recommendation was 4 percent per annum. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E02-F100: Beveridge Central AOS public exhibition ran from 21 February to 24 March 2025. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E02-M001: PSP maps create the land-use skeleton; ICP/DCP schedules convert the skeleton into land-transfer and works obligations. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E02-M002: The lowest-cost public-land path is early PSP designation of encumbered or required public open space. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E02-M003: The highest-risk public-land path is late acquisition after PSP-related value uplift. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E02-M004: Regional park delivery depends on subdivision timing because PSP/ICP land transfers occur progressively. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E02-M005: PAO use protects public acquisition intent but can trigger compensation and political conflict. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E02-M006: GAIC works-in-kind is useful only where the land is within the eligible growth-area framework. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E02-M007: Sports demand is population-driven, so dwelling yield and staging directly change reserve timing. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E02-M008: District reserves need enough unencumbered land for field dimensions, run-offs, pavilions, parking, lighting, and future expansion. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E02-M009: School co-location can reduce reserve duplication but creates a dependency on education-site timing and access agreements. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E02-M010: Synthetic surfaces can increase usable hours but also increase capital and renewal obligations. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E02-M011: Shallow basalt, sodic soils, and slope convert land designation into civil-engineering cost. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt; Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E02-M012: Road widening can shrink nominal open space into a smaller developable sports footprint. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E02-M013: Biodiversity corridors require explicit corridor protection; drainage labels alone do not prove habitat function. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E02-M014: The inter-urban break between Beveridge and Wallan works only if landscape, open space, and access systems remain continuous. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E02-M015: Quarry resource protection can delay or reshape urban land release if extraction and rehabilitation must precede development. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E02-C001: Regional park recognition was contested enough to reach a Panel recommendation. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E02-C002: Open-space-link adequacy was contested enough to reach a Panel recommendation. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E02-C003: Landscape-value land was identified but not fully designated as open space in the exhibited plan. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E02-C004: Potential quarry treatment was incomplete in the exhibited PSP. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E02-C005: Extraction could significantly hinder urban development. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E02-C006: Biodiversity provisions were criticised as weak. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E02-C007: Kalkallo Creek was criticised for being treated as drainage/recreation rather than a habitat corridor. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E02-C008: East-west habitat linking from Old Sydney Road vegetation was raised as an issue. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E02-C009: Cultural heritage information was incomplete and required further Traditional Owner assessment. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E02-C010: Beveridge sports-field provision lagged population growth because Beveridge had no sports fields in the 2025 AOS report. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E02-C011: Tennis provision was displaced from Beveridge Central AOS to Lockerbie North and later PSP facilities. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E02-C012: Tree retention conflicted with sports-field layout at Beveridge Central AOS. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E02-C013: Road access and arterial duplication reduced the sport/recreation footprint at Beveridge Central AOS. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E02-C014: Cost escalation beyond July 2025 remains a live risk for open-space delivery. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E02-C015: Land acquisition costs were excluded from the Beveridge Central AOS estimate, showing that embellishment costs understate full delivery cost where land is not already owned. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E02-I001: Development feasibility depends on preserving enough developable land after regional park, biodiversity, drainage, roads, sports reserves, and quarry constraints are deducted. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E02-I002: Public-sector feasibility depends on using PSP/ICP transfer before land-value uplift forces acquisition. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E02-I003: Reserve feasibility depends on securing 8 to 10 hectare district parcels rather than isolated small open-space fragments. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E02-I004: Sports feasibility depends on school access agreements because the Beveridge model includes four school ovals and two purpose-built school soccer facilities. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E02-I005: Capital feasibility depends on recognising that one nearby 6.47 hectare developable reserve is already costed above $34 million excluding GST. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E02-I006: Engineering feasibility depends on early soil, slope, basalt, drainage, and erosion design. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt; Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E02-I007: Ecological feasibility depends on treating Kalkallo Creek and Merri catchment connections as habitat infrastructure. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E02-I008: Landscape feasibility depends on protecting Spring Hill Cone, the southern open-space buffer, and views in a way that survives subdivision. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E02-I009: Governance feasibility depends on aligning VPA, Council, Parks Victoria, Traditional Owners, Melbourne Water, Yarra Valley Water, landowners, and developers. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E02-I010: Community feasibility depends on delivering sportsfields before Beveridge population growth outruns existing facilities. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt; Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E02-I011: Transport feasibility depends on designing reserve access around arterial upgrades rather than assuming all road frontages are usable. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E02-I012: Financial feasibility depends on updating costs beyond July 2025 at about 4 percent per annum where relevant. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E02-I013: Quarry feasibility depends on resolving whether resource extraction, buffers, and rehabilitation precede or constrain urban development. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E02-I014: Cultural feasibility depends on completing further assessment with Wurundjeri Woi-wurrung Cultural Heritage Aboriginal Corporation. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E02-I015: Statutory certainty depends on obtaining the final C106mith PSP, ordinance, maps, and ICP/DCP documents. (Source: local corpus inventory)

Evidence cycle 03

E03-F001: Beveridge North West PSP covers approximately 1,250 hectares. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E03-F002: Beveridge North West is west of the Hume Freeway. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E03-F003: Beveridge North West is north of Camerons Lane. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E03-F004: Beveridge North West is east of Old Sydney Road. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E03-F005: Beveridge North West PSP had commenced when the Sports Field Feasibility Study described Mitchell South growth planning. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E03-F006: The Draft Beveridge North West PSP was exhibited in mid-2019. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E03-F007: The C106mith Panel Report is identified as Planning and Environment Act 1987, Panel Report, Mitchell Planning Scheme Amendment C106mith, Beveridge North West Precinct Structure Plan, 2020. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E03-F008: The regional park report says the C106mith Panel recommended recognition of the potential future regional park. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E03-F009: The regional park report says the C106mith Panel recommended that the PSP be revised to include an open-space link. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E03-F010: The exhibited Beveridge North West PSP did not consider the potential quarry identified in the regional park report. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E03-F011: The Panel concluded extraction activities could significantly hinder urban development of most of the Beveridge North West PSP area. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E03-F012: The 175 Northern Highway proposed stone quarry is located in the Beveridge North West Precinct. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E03-F013: Beveridge North West includes Spring Hill Cone in the east. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E03-F014: Beveridge North West includes the southern portion of the open-space buffer according to the regional park PSP-status table. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E03-F015: The exhibited PSP included significant landscape-value areas but did not designate them all as open space. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E03-F016: Jacobs’ July 2020 assessment found sodic and dispersive soils in the Beveridge North West PSP area. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E03-F017: The regional park report identifies moderate to high erosion risk in Beveridge North West due to variation in topsoil depth. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E03-F018: Stakeholder material described the Beveridge North West PSP biodiversity requirements and guidelines as very weak. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E03-F019: Stakeholder material sought a network of habitat links through the Merri catchment. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E03-F020: Stakeholder material said the Kalkallo Creek corridor should be a north-south link, while the PSP only referred to drainage and recreation functions. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E03-F021: Stakeholder material sought an east-west link from native vegetation near Old Sydney Road to larger habitat nodes. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E03-F022: The future Wallan Wallan Regional Park has an anticipated 15 kilometre catchment from park boundaries. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E03-F023: The Wallan Wallan Regional Park catchment population was 159,330 in 2016. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E03-F024: The Wallan Wallan Regional Park catchment population was 231,030 in 2021. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E03-F025: The Wallan Wallan Regional Park catchment population is projected at 299,790 in 2026. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E03-F026: The Wallan Wallan Regional Park catchment population is projected at 367,090 in 2031. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E03-F027: The Wallan Wallan Regional Park catchment population is projected at 429,680 in 2036. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E03-F028: The Wallan Wallan Regional Park catchment is projected to grow by 198,650 people from 2021 to 2036. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E03-F029: The Wallan Wallan Regional Park catchment grew by 14,340 people per annum from 2016 to 2021. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E03-F030: The PSP/ICP process can transfer public open-space land at no cost for specific purposes. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E03-F031: Open-space land transferred under PSP/ICP is typically transferred at subdivision. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E03-F032: Encumbered land identified in a PSP can be acquired at lower cost or no cost. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E03-F033: Unencumbered regional open-space land above local PSP population requirements generally requires purchase or external funding. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E03-F034: A Public Acquisition Overlay should be applied where regional-park land cannot be transferred under PSP/ICP. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E03-F035: A GAIC works-in-kind agreement can allow land transfer to government in lieu of a GAIC payment. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E03-F036: GAIC works-in-kind will not fund works outside the Urban Growth Boundary. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E03-F037: Gazettal of a PSP typically results in land-value uplift because future urban development becomes more certain. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E03-F038: Exhibition of a Draft PSP or early concept plans may create land-value uplift before gazettal. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E03-F039: Completed PSPs lose the opportunity to acquire land through the PSP process; later acquisition would require another mechanism. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E03-F040: Beveridge was projected in the Sports Field Feasibility Study to have more than 30,000 people living in and around it by 2036. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E03-F041: Beveridge had an estimated 2024 population of 9,120 in the Beveridge Central AOS report. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E03-F042: Beveridge is forecast to exceed 112,000 people by 2046 in the Beveridge Central AOS report. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E03-F043: Beveridge Central PSP was expected to accommodate more than 3,400 homes. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E03-F044: Beveridge Central PSP was expected to accommodate approximately 9,400 people. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E03-F045: Beveridge had no sports fields according to the Beveridge Central AOS report. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E03-F046: Beveridge Recreation Reserve had two tennis courts with a netball overlay according to the Beveridge Central AOS report. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E03-F047: Mandalay Estate had an 18 hole golf course according to the Beveridge Central AOS report. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E03-F048: The Sports Field Feasibility Study recommended six Council AFL/cricket/netball reserves for Beveridge. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E03-F049: The Sports Field Feasibility Study recommended four school ovals for Beveridge. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E03-F050: The Sports Field Feasibility Study recommended five Council soccer facilities for Beveridge. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E03-F051: The Sports Field Feasibility Study recommended two purpose-built school soccer facilities for Beveridge. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E03-F052: The Sports Field Feasibility Study recommended one eight-court tennis facility for Beveridge. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E03-F053: District active sporting reserves should generally be at least 8 to 10 hectares. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E03-F054: Active open-space areas of 10 to 12 hectares allow greater sport diversity and better passive-active interaction. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E03-F055: Synthetic surfaces can maximise use and may reduce the number of sports fields otherwise needed. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E03-F056: Encumbered land can be used for active open space only if community benefit and maintenance are not compromised. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E03-F057: Lockerbie PSP allocated 43.5 hectares of active open space. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E03-F058: Lockerbie PSP included a 15 hectare regional sports precinct. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E03-F059: Lockerbie PSP open-space contribution was 8.33 percent of Net Developable Area. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E03-F060: Lockerbie PSP active open-space share was 6.30 percent of Net Developable Area. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E03-F061: Lockerbie PSP passive open-space share was 2.03 percent of Net Developable Area. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E03-F062: Lockerbie North PSP included 17.5 hectares of active playing space. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E03-F063: Lockerbie North PSP open-space contribution was 9.15 percent of Net Developable Area. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E03-F064: Lockerbie North PSP active open-space share was 5.9 percent of Net Developable Area. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E03-F065: Lockerbie North PSP passive open-space share was 3.24 percent of Net Developable Area. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E03-F066: Lockerbie North PSP included an 8 hectare reserve. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E03-F067: Lockerbie North PSP included a 9.5 hectare reserve. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E03-F068: AFL preferred regional and local field dimensions are 165 metres by 135 metres. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E03-F069: AFL regional competition lighting benchmark is 150 lux. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E03-F070: AFL local competition lighting benchmark is 100 lux. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E03-F071: Tennis district facilities are 8 or more courts. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E03-F072: Tennis district catchment benchmark is 50,000 people within 15 kilometres. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E03-F073: Tennis eight-court full-site development benchmark is 1.50 hectares. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E03-F074: District pavilion benchmark is 500 to 600 square metres. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E03-F075: Regional pavilion benchmark is up to 1,000 square metres. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E03-F076: Beveridge Central AOS site was 6.79 hectares. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E03-F077: Beveridge Central AOS road and intersection works required 0.32 hectares. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E03-F078: Beveridge Central AOS developable sport and recreation area was 6.47 hectares after road exclusion. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E03-F079: Beveridge Central AOS was made up of 34 Lithgow Street at 2.29 hectares. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E03-F080: Beveridge Central AOS was made up of 72 Lithgow Street at 2.33 hectares. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E03-F081: Beveridge Central AOS was made up of 86 Patterson Road at 2.48 hectares. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E03-F082: Beveridge Central AOS shallow basalt in the western section can slow excavation and increase costs. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E03-F083: Beveridge Central AOS had a 6.4 metre fall from northwest to southeast. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E03-F084: Beveridge Central AOS average grade was approximately 1 in 60. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E03-F085: Beveridge Central AOS had 86 trees throughout the site. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E03-F086: Beveridge Central AOS had 21 street trees outside the boundary. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E03-F087: Beveridge Central AOS had 18 high-retention-value trees. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E03-F088: Beveridge Central AOS master plan retained up to 6 high-retention-value trees. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E03-F089: Beveridge Central AOS proposed 150 additional trees. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E03-F090: Beveridge Central AOS car parking was approximately 200 spaces in the master-plan description. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E03-F091: Beveridge Central AOS main soccer pitch lighting was 500 lux. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E03-F092: Beveridge Central AOS secondary sports-field lighting was 100 lux. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E03-F093: Beveridge Central AOS community facility grand total was 2,659.86 square metres. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E03-F094: Beveridge Central AOS master-plan table total was $34.790 million excluding GST. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E03-F095: Beveridge Central AOS Harlock base estimate was $34.365 million excluding GST. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E03-F096: Beveridge Central AOS hybrid surface premium was $425,000. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E03-F097: Beveridge Central AOS cost escalation beyond July 2025 was excluded. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E03-F098: Beveridge Central AOS land acquisition costs were excluded. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E03-F099: Beveridge Central AOS future escalation recommendation was 4 percent per annum. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E03-F100: Beveridge Central AOS public exhibition ran from 21 February to 24 March 2025. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E03-M001: PSP maps create the land-use skeleton; ICP/DCP schedules convert the skeleton into land-transfer and works obligations. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E03-M002: The lowest-cost public-land path is early PSP designation of encumbered or required public open space. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E03-M003: The highest-risk public-land path is late acquisition after PSP-related value uplift. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E03-M004: Regional park delivery depends on subdivision timing because PSP/ICP land transfers occur progressively. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E03-M005: PAO use protects public acquisition intent but can trigger compensation and political conflict. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E03-M006: GAIC works-in-kind is useful only where the land is within the eligible growth-area framework. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E03-M007: Sports demand is population-driven, so dwelling yield and staging directly change reserve timing. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E03-M008: District reserves need enough unencumbered land for field dimensions, run-offs, pavilions, parking, lighting, and future expansion. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E03-M009: School co-location can reduce reserve duplication but creates a dependency on education-site timing and access agreements. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E03-M010: Synthetic surfaces can increase usable hours but also increase capital and renewal obligations. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E03-M011: Shallow basalt, sodic soils, and slope convert land designation into civil-engineering cost. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt; Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E03-M012: Road widening can shrink nominal open space into a smaller developable sports footprint. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E03-M013: Biodiversity corridors require explicit corridor protection; drainage labels alone do not prove habitat function. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E03-M014: The inter-urban break between Beveridge and Wallan works only if landscape, open space, and access systems remain continuous. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E03-M015: Quarry resource protection can delay or reshape urban land release if extraction and rehabilitation must precede development. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E03-C001: Regional park recognition was contested enough to reach a Panel recommendation. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E03-C002: Open-space-link adequacy was contested enough to reach a Panel recommendation. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E03-C003: Landscape-value land was identified but not fully designated as open space in the exhibited plan. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E03-C004: Potential quarry treatment was incomplete in the exhibited PSP. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E03-C005: Extraction could significantly hinder urban development. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E03-C006: Biodiversity provisions were criticised as weak. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E03-C007: Kalkallo Creek was criticised for being treated as drainage/recreation rather than a habitat corridor. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E03-C008: East-west habitat linking from Old Sydney Road vegetation was raised as an issue. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E03-C009: Cultural heritage information was incomplete and required further Traditional Owner assessment. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E03-C010: Beveridge sports-field provision lagged population growth because Beveridge had no sports fields in the 2025 AOS report. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E03-C011: Tennis provision was displaced from Beveridge Central AOS to Lockerbie North and later PSP facilities. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E03-C012: Tree retention conflicted with sports-field layout at Beveridge Central AOS. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E03-C013: Road access and arterial duplication reduced the sport/recreation footprint at Beveridge Central AOS. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E03-C014: Cost escalation beyond July 2025 remains a live risk for open-space delivery. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E03-C015: Land acquisition costs were excluded from the Beveridge Central AOS estimate, showing that embellishment costs understate full delivery cost where land is not already owned. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E03-I001: Development feasibility depends on preserving enough developable land after regional park, biodiversity, drainage, roads, sports reserves, and quarry constraints are deducted. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E03-I002: Public-sector feasibility depends on using PSP/ICP transfer before land-value uplift forces acquisition. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E03-I003: Reserve feasibility depends on securing 8 to 10 hectare district parcels rather than isolated small open-space fragments. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E03-I004: Sports feasibility depends on school access agreements because the Beveridge model includes four school ovals and two purpose-built school soccer facilities. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E03-I005: Capital feasibility depends on recognising that one nearby 6.47 hectare developable reserve is already costed above $34 million excluding GST. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E03-I006: Engineering feasibility depends on early soil, slope, basalt, drainage, and erosion design. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt; Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E03-I007: Ecological feasibility depends on treating Kalkallo Creek and Merri catchment connections as habitat infrastructure. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E03-I008: Landscape feasibility depends on protecting Spring Hill Cone, the southern open-space buffer, and views in a way that survives subdivision. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E03-I009: Governance feasibility depends on aligning VPA, Council, Parks Victoria, Traditional Owners, Melbourne Water, Yarra Valley Water, landowners, and developers. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E03-I010: Community feasibility depends on delivering sportsfields before Beveridge population growth outruns existing facilities. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt; Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E03-I011: Transport feasibility depends on designing reserve access around arterial upgrades rather than assuming all road frontages are usable. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E03-I012: Financial feasibility depends on updating costs beyond July 2025 at about 4 percent per annum where relevant. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E03-I013: Quarry feasibility depends on resolving whether resource extraction, buffers, and rehabilitation precede or constrain urban development. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E03-I014: Cultural feasibility depends on completing further assessment with Wurundjeri Woi-wurrung Cultural Heritage Aboriginal Corporation. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E03-I015: Statutory certainty depends on obtaining the final C106mith PSP, ordinance, maps, and ICP/DCP documents. (Source: local corpus inventory)

Evidence cycle 04

E04-F001: Beveridge North West PSP covers approximately 1,250 hectares. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E04-F002: Beveridge North West is west of the Hume Freeway. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E04-F003: Beveridge North West is north of Camerons Lane. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E04-F004: Beveridge North West is east of Old Sydney Road. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E04-F005: Beveridge North West PSP had commenced when the Sports Field Feasibility Study described Mitchell South growth planning. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E04-F006: The Draft Beveridge North West PSP was exhibited in mid-2019. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E04-F007: The C106mith Panel Report is identified as Planning and Environment Act 1987, Panel Report, Mitchell Planning Scheme Amendment C106mith, Beveridge North West Precinct Structure Plan, 2020. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E04-F008: The regional park report says the C106mith Panel recommended recognition of the potential future regional park. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E04-F009: The regional park report says the C106mith Panel recommended that the PSP be revised to include an open-space link. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E04-F010: The exhibited Beveridge North West PSP did not consider the potential quarry identified in the regional park report. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E04-F011: The Panel concluded extraction activities could significantly hinder urban development of most of the Beveridge North West PSP area. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E04-F012: The 175 Northern Highway proposed stone quarry is located in the Beveridge North West Precinct. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E04-F013: Beveridge North West includes Spring Hill Cone in the east. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E04-F014: Beveridge North West includes the southern portion of the open-space buffer according to the regional park PSP-status table. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E04-F015: The exhibited PSP included significant landscape-value areas but did not designate them all as open space. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E04-F016: Jacobs’ July 2020 assessment found sodic and dispersive soils in the Beveridge North West PSP area. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E04-F017: The regional park report identifies moderate to high erosion risk in Beveridge North West due to variation in topsoil depth. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E04-F018: Stakeholder material described the Beveridge North West PSP biodiversity requirements and guidelines as very weak. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E04-F019: Stakeholder material sought a network of habitat links through the Merri catchment. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E04-F020: Stakeholder material said the Kalkallo Creek corridor should be a north-south link, while the PSP only referred to drainage and recreation functions. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E04-F021: Stakeholder material sought an east-west link from native vegetation near Old Sydney Road to larger habitat nodes. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E04-F022: The future Wallan Wallan Regional Park has an anticipated 15 kilometre catchment from park boundaries. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E04-F023: The Wallan Wallan Regional Park catchment population was 159,330 in 2016. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E04-F024: The Wallan Wallan Regional Park catchment population was 231,030 in 2021. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E04-F025: The Wallan Wallan Regional Park catchment population is projected at 299,790 in 2026. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E04-F026: The Wallan Wallan Regional Park catchment population is projected at 367,090 in 2031. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E04-F027: The Wallan Wallan Regional Park catchment population is projected at 429,680 in 2036. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E04-F028: The Wallan Wallan Regional Park catchment is projected to grow by 198,650 people from 2021 to 2036. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E04-F029: The Wallan Wallan Regional Park catchment grew by 14,340 people per annum from 2016 to 2021. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E04-F030: The PSP/ICP process can transfer public open-space land at no cost for specific purposes. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E04-F031: Open-space land transferred under PSP/ICP is typically transferred at subdivision. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E04-F032: Encumbered land identified in a PSP can be acquired at lower cost or no cost. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E04-F033: Unencumbered regional open-space land above local PSP population requirements generally requires purchase or external funding. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E04-F034: A Public Acquisition Overlay should be applied where regional-park land cannot be transferred under PSP/ICP. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E04-F035: A GAIC works-in-kind agreement can allow land transfer to government in lieu of a GAIC payment. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E04-F036: GAIC works-in-kind will not fund works outside the Urban Growth Boundary. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E04-F037: Gazettal of a PSP typically results in land-value uplift because future urban development becomes more certain. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E04-F038: Exhibition of a Draft PSP or early concept plans may create land-value uplift before gazettal. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E04-F039: Completed PSPs lose the opportunity to acquire land through the PSP process; later acquisition would require another mechanism. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E04-F040: Beveridge was projected in the Sports Field Feasibility Study to have more than 30,000 people living in and around it by 2036. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E04-F041: Beveridge had an estimated 2024 population of 9,120 in the Beveridge Central AOS report. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E04-F042: Beveridge is forecast to exceed 112,000 people by 2046 in the Beveridge Central AOS report. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E04-F043: Beveridge Central PSP was expected to accommodate more than 3,400 homes. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E04-F044: Beveridge Central PSP was expected to accommodate approximately 9,400 people. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E04-F045: Beveridge had no sports fields according to the Beveridge Central AOS report. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E04-F046: Beveridge Recreation Reserve had two tennis courts with a netball overlay according to the Beveridge Central AOS report. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E04-F047: Mandalay Estate had an 18 hole golf course according to the Beveridge Central AOS report. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E04-F048: The Sports Field Feasibility Study recommended six Council AFL/cricket/netball reserves for Beveridge. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E04-F049: The Sports Field Feasibility Study recommended four school ovals for Beveridge. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E04-F050: The Sports Field Feasibility Study recommended five Council soccer facilities for Beveridge. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E04-F051: The Sports Field Feasibility Study recommended two purpose-built school soccer facilities for Beveridge. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E04-F052: The Sports Field Feasibility Study recommended one eight-court tennis facility for Beveridge. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E04-F053: District active sporting reserves should generally be at least 8 to 10 hectares. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E04-F054: Active open-space areas of 10 to 12 hectares allow greater sport diversity and better passive-active interaction. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E04-F055: Synthetic surfaces can maximise use and may reduce the number of sports fields otherwise needed. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E04-F056: Encumbered land can be used for active open space only if community benefit and maintenance are not compromised. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E04-F057: Lockerbie PSP allocated 43.5 hectares of active open space. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E04-F058: Lockerbie PSP included a 15 hectare regional sports precinct. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E04-F059: Lockerbie PSP open-space contribution was 8.33 percent of Net Developable Area. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E04-F060: Lockerbie PSP active open-space share was 6.30 percent of Net Developable Area. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E04-F061: Lockerbie PSP passive open-space share was 2.03 percent of Net Developable Area. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E04-F062: Lockerbie North PSP included 17.5 hectares of active playing space. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E04-F063: Lockerbie North PSP open-space contribution was 9.15 percent of Net Developable Area. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E04-F064: Lockerbie North PSP active open-space share was 5.9 percent of Net Developable Area. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E04-F065: Lockerbie North PSP passive open-space share was 3.24 percent of Net Developable Area. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E04-F066: Lockerbie North PSP included an 8 hectare reserve. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E04-F067: Lockerbie North PSP included a 9.5 hectare reserve. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E04-F068: AFL preferred regional and local field dimensions are 165 metres by 135 metres. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E04-F069: AFL regional competition lighting benchmark is 150 lux. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E04-F070: AFL local competition lighting benchmark is 100 lux. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E04-F071: Tennis district facilities are 8 or more courts. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E04-F072: Tennis district catchment benchmark is 50,000 people within 15 kilometres. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E04-F073: Tennis eight-court full-site development benchmark is 1.50 hectares. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E04-F074: District pavilion benchmark is 500 to 600 square metres. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E04-F075: Regional pavilion benchmark is up to 1,000 square metres. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E04-F076: Beveridge Central AOS site was 6.79 hectares. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E04-F077: Beveridge Central AOS road and intersection works required 0.32 hectares. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E04-F078: Beveridge Central AOS developable sport and recreation area was 6.47 hectares after road exclusion. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E04-F079: Beveridge Central AOS was made up of 34 Lithgow Street at 2.29 hectares. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E04-F080: Beveridge Central AOS was made up of 72 Lithgow Street at 2.33 hectares. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E04-F081: Beveridge Central AOS was made up of 86 Patterson Road at 2.48 hectares. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E04-F082: Beveridge Central AOS shallow basalt in the western section can slow excavation and increase costs. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E04-F083: Beveridge Central AOS had a 6.4 metre fall from northwest to southeast. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E04-F084: Beveridge Central AOS average grade was approximately 1 in 60. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E04-F085: Beveridge Central AOS had 86 trees throughout the site. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E04-F086: Beveridge Central AOS had 21 street trees outside the boundary. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E04-F087: Beveridge Central AOS had 18 high-retention-value trees. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E04-F088: Beveridge Central AOS master plan retained up to 6 high-retention-value trees. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E04-F089: Beveridge Central AOS proposed 150 additional trees. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E04-F090: Beveridge Central AOS car parking was approximately 200 spaces in the master-plan description. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E04-F091: Beveridge Central AOS main soccer pitch lighting was 500 lux. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E04-F092: Beveridge Central AOS secondary sports-field lighting was 100 lux. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E04-F093: Beveridge Central AOS community facility grand total was 2,659.86 square metres. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E04-F094: Beveridge Central AOS master-plan table total was $34.790 million excluding GST. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E04-F095: Beveridge Central AOS Harlock base estimate was $34.365 million excluding GST. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E04-F096: Beveridge Central AOS hybrid surface premium was $425,000. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E04-F097: Beveridge Central AOS cost escalation beyond July 2025 was excluded. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E04-F098: Beveridge Central AOS land acquisition costs were excluded. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E04-F099: Beveridge Central AOS future escalation recommendation was 4 percent per annum. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E04-F100: Beveridge Central AOS public exhibition ran from 21 February to 24 March 2025. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E04-M001: PSP maps create the land-use skeleton; ICP/DCP schedules convert the skeleton into land-transfer and works obligations. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E04-M002: The lowest-cost public-land path is early PSP designation of encumbered or required public open space. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E04-M003: The highest-risk public-land path is late acquisition after PSP-related value uplift. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E04-M004: Regional park delivery depends on subdivision timing because PSP/ICP land transfers occur progressively. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E04-M005: PAO use protects public acquisition intent but can trigger compensation and political conflict. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E04-M006: GAIC works-in-kind is useful only where the land is within the eligible growth-area framework. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E04-M007: Sports demand is population-driven, so dwelling yield and staging directly change reserve timing. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E04-M008: District reserves need enough unencumbered land for field dimensions, run-offs, pavilions, parking, lighting, and future expansion. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E04-M009: School co-location can reduce reserve duplication but creates a dependency on education-site timing and access agreements. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E04-M010: Synthetic surfaces can increase usable hours but also increase capital and renewal obligations. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E04-M011: Shallow basalt, sodic soils, and slope convert land designation into civil-engineering cost. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt; Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E04-M012: Road widening can shrink nominal open space into a smaller developable sports footprint. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E04-M013: Biodiversity corridors require explicit corridor protection; drainage labels alone do not prove habitat function. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E04-M014: The inter-urban break between Beveridge and Wallan works only if landscape, open space, and access systems remain continuous. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E04-M015: Quarry resource protection can delay or reshape urban land release if extraction and rehabilitation must precede development. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E04-C001: Regional park recognition was contested enough to reach a Panel recommendation. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E04-C002: Open-space-link adequacy was contested enough to reach a Panel recommendation. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E04-C003: Landscape-value land was identified but not fully designated as open space in the exhibited plan. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E04-C004: Potential quarry treatment was incomplete in the exhibited PSP. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E04-C005: Extraction could significantly hinder urban development. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E04-C006: Biodiversity provisions were criticised as weak. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E04-C007: Kalkallo Creek was criticised for being treated as drainage/recreation rather than a habitat corridor. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E04-C008: East-west habitat linking from Old Sydney Road vegetation was raised as an issue. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E04-C009: Cultural heritage information was incomplete and required further Traditional Owner assessment. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E04-C010: Beveridge sports-field provision lagged population growth because Beveridge had no sports fields in the 2025 AOS report. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E04-C011: Tennis provision was displaced from Beveridge Central AOS to Lockerbie North and later PSP facilities. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E04-C012: Tree retention conflicted with sports-field layout at Beveridge Central AOS. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E04-C013: Road access and arterial duplication reduced the sport/recreation footprint at Beveridge Central AOS. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E04-C014: Cost escalation beyond July 2025 remains a live risk for open-space delivery. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E04-C015: Land acquisition costs were excluded from the Beveridge Central AOS estimate, showing that embellishment costs understate full delivery cost where land is not already owned. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E04-I001: Development feasibility depends on preserving enough developable land after regional park, biodiversity, drainage, roads, sports reserves, and quarry constraints are deducted. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E04-I002: Public-sector feasibility depends on using PSP/ICP transfer before land-value uplift forces acquisition. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E04-I003: Reserve feasibility depends on securing 8 to 10 hectare district parcels rather than isolated small open-space fragments. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E04-I004: Sports feasibility depends on school access agreements because the Beveridge model includes four school ovals and two purpose-built school soccer facilities. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E04-I005: Capital feasibility depends on recognising that one nearby 6.47 hectare developable reserve is already costed above $34 million excluding GST. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E04-I006: Engineering feasibility depends on early soil, slope, basalt, drainage, and erosion design. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt; Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E04-I007: Ecological feasibility depends on treating Kalkallo Creek and Merri catchment connections as habitat infrastructure. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E04-I008: Landscape feasibility depends on protecting Spring Hill Cone, the southern open-space buffer, and views in a way that survives subdivision. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E04-I009: Governance feasibility depends on aligning VPA, Council, Parks Victoria, Traditional Owners, Melbourne Water, Yarra Valley Water, landowners, and developers. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E04-I010: Community feasibility depends on delivering sportsfields before Beveridge population growth outruns existing facilities. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt; Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E04-I011: Transport feasibility depends on designing reserve access around arterial upgrades rather than assuming all road frontages are usable. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E04-I012: Financial feasibility depends on updating costs beyond July 2025 at about 4 percent per annum where relevant. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E04-I013: Quarry feasibility depends on resolving whether resource extraction, buffers, and rehabilitation precede or constrain urban development. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E04-I014: Cultural feasibility depends on completing further assessment with Wurundjeri Woi-wurrung Cultural Heritage Aboriginal Corporation. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E04-I015: Statutory certainty depends on obtaining the final C106mith PSP, ordinance, maps, and ICP/DCP documents. (Source: local corpus inventory)

Evidence cycle 05

E05-F001: Beveridge North West PSP covers approximately 1,250 hectares. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E05-F002: Beveridge North West is west of the Hume Freeway. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E05-F003: Beveridge North West is north of Camerons Lane. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E05-F004: Beveridge North West is east of Old Sydney Road. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E05-F005: Beveridge North West PSP had commenced when the Sports Field Feasibility Study described Mitchell South growth planning. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E05-F006: The Draft Beveridge North West PSP was exhibited in mid-2019. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E05-F007: The C106mith Panel Report is identified as Planning and Environment Act 1987, Panel Report, Mitchell Planning Scheme Amendment C106mith, Beveridge North West Precinct Structure Plan, 2020. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E05-F008: The regional park report says the C106mith Panel recommended recognition of the potential future regional park. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E05-F009: The regional park report says the C106mith Panel recommended that the PSP be revised to include an open-space link. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E05-F010: The exhibited Beveridge North West PSP did not consider the potential quarry identified in the regional park report. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E05-F011: The Panel concluded extraction activities could significantly hinder urban development of most of the Beveridge North West PSP area. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E05-F012: The 175 Northern Highway proposed stone quarry is located in the Beveridge North West Precinct. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E05-F013: Beveridge North West includes Spring Hill Cone in the east. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E05-F014: Beveridge North West includes the southern portion of the open-space buffer according to the regional park PSP-status table. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E05-F015: The exhibited PSP included significant landscape-value areas but did not designate them all as open space. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E05-F016: Jacobs’ July 2020 assessment found sodic and dispersive soils in the Beveridge North West PSP area. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E05-F017: The regional park report identifies moderate to high erosion risk in Beveridge North West due to variation in topsoil depth. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E05-F018: Stakeholder material described the Beveridge North West PSP biodiversity requirements and guidelines as very weak. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E05-F019: Stakeholder material sought a network of habitat links through the Merri catchment. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E05-F020: Stakeholder material said the Kalkallo Creek corridor should be a north-south link, while the PSP only referred to drainage and recreation functions. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E05-F021: Stakeholder material sought an east-west link from native vegetation near Old Sydney Road to larger habitat nodes. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E05-F022: The future Wallan Wallan Regional Park has an anticipated 15 kilometre catchment from park boundaries. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E05-F023: The Wallan Wallan Regional Park catchment population was 159,330 in 2016. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E05-F024: The Wallan Wallan Regional Park catchment population was 231,030 in 2021. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E05-F025: The Wallan Wallan Regional Park catchment population is projected at 299,790 in 2026. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E05-F026: The Wallan Wallan Regional Park catchment population is projected at 367,090 in 2031. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E05-F027: The Wallan Wallan Regional Park catchment population is projected at 429,680 in 2036. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E05-F028: The Wallan Wallan Regional Park catchment is projected to grow by 198,650 people from 2021 to 2036. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E05-F029: The Wallan Wallan Regional Park catchment grew by 14,340 people per annum from 2016 to 2021. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E05-F030: The PSP/ICP process can transfer public open-space land at no cost for specific purposes. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E05-F031: Open-space land transferred under PSP/ICP is typically transferred at subdivision. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E05-F032: Encumbered land identified in a PSP can be acquired at lower cost or no cost. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E05-F033: Unencumbered regional open-space land above local PSP population requirements generally requires purchase or external funding. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E05-F034: A Public Acquisition Overlay should be applied where regional-park land cannot be transferred under PSP/ICP. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E05-F035: A GAIC works-in-kind agreement can allow land transfer to government in lieu of a GAIC payment. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E05-F036: GAIC works-in-kind will not fund works outside the Urban Growth Boundary. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E05-F037: Gazettal of a PSP typically results in land-value uplift because future urban development becomes more certain. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E05-F038: Exhibition of a Draft PSP or early concept plans may create land-value uplift before gazettal. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E05-F039: Completed PSPs lose the opportunity to acquire land through the PSP process; later acquisition would require another mechanism. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E05-F040: Beveridge was projected in the Sports Field Feasibility Study to have more than 30,000 people living in and around it by 2036. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E05-F041: Beveridge had an estimated 2024 population of 9,120 in the Beveridge Central AOS report. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E05-F042: Beveridge is forecast to exceed 112,000 people by 2046 in the Beveridge Central AOS report. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E05-F043: Beveridge Central PSP was expected to accommodate more than 3,400 homes. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E05-F044: Beveridge Central PSP was expected to accommodate approximately 9,400 people. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E05-F045: Beveridge had no sports fields according to the Beveridge Central AOS report. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E05-F046: Beveridge Recreation Reserve had two tennis courts with a netball overlay according to the Beveridge Central AOS report. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E05-F047: Mandalay Estate had an 18 hole golf course according to the Beveridge Central AOS report. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E05-F048: The Sports Field Feasibility Study recommended six Council AFL/cricket/netball reserves for Beveridge. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E05-F049: The Sports Field Feasibility Study recommended four school ovals for Beveridge. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E05-F050: The Sports Field Feasibility Study recommended five Council soccer facilities for Beveridge. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E05-F051: The Sports Field Feasibility Study recommended two purpose-built school soccer facilities for Beveridge. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E05-F052: The Sports Field Feasibility Study recommended one eight-court tennis facility for Beveridge. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E05-F053: District active sporting reserves should generally be at least 8 to 10 hectares. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E05-F054: Active open-space areas of 10 to 12 hectares allow greater sport diversity and better passive-active interaction. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E05-F055: Synthetic surfaces can maximise use and may reduce the number of sports fields otherwise needed. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E05-F056: Encumbered land can be used for active open space only if community benefit and maintenance are not compromised. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E05-F057: Lockerbie PSP allocated 43.5 hectares of active open space. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E05-F058: Lockerbie PSP included a 15 hectare regional sports precinct. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E05-F059: Lockerbie PSP open-space contribution was 8.33 percent of Net Developable Area. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E05-F060: Lockerbie PSP active open-space share was 6.30 percent of Net Developable Area. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E05-F061: Lockerbie PSP passive open-space share was 2.03 percent of Net Developable Area. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E05-F062: Lockerbie North PSP included 17.5 hectares of active playing space. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E05-F063: Lockerbie North PSP open-space contribution was 9.15 percent of Net Developable Area. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E05-F064: Lockerbie North PSP active open-space share was 5.9 percent of Net Developable Area. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E05-F065: Lockerbie North PSP passive open-space share was 3.24 percent of Net Developable Area. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E05-F066: Lockerbie North PSP included an 8 hectare reserve. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E05-F067: Lockerbie North PSP included a 9.5 hectare reserve. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E05-F068: AFL preferred regional and local field dimensions are 165 metres by 135 metres. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E05-F069: AFL regional competition lighting benchmark is 150 lux. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E05-F070: AFL local competition lighting benchmark is 100 lux. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E05-F071: Tennis district facilities are 8 or more courts. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E05-F072: Tennis district catchment benchmark is 50,000 people within 15 kilometres. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E05-F073: Tennis eight-court full-site development benchmark is 1.50 hectares. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E05-F074: District pavilion benchmark is 500 to 600 square metres. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E05-F075: Regional pavilion benchmark is up to 1,000 square metres. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E05-F076: Beveridge Central AOS site was 6.79 hectares. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E05-F077: Beveridge Central AOS road and intersection works required 0.32 hectares. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E05-F078: Beveridge Central AOS developable sport and recreation area was 6.47 hectares after road exclusion. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E05-F079: Beveridge Central AOS was made up of 34 Lithgow Street at 2.29 hectares. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E05-F080: Beveridge Central AOS was made up of 72 Lithgow Street at 2.33 hectares. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E05-F081: Beveridge Central AOS was made up of 86 Patterson Road at 2.48 hectares. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E05-F082: Beveridge Central AOS shallow basalt in the western section can slow excavation and increase costs. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E05-F083: Beveridge Central AOS had a 6.4 metre fall from northwest to southeast. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E05-F084: Beveridge Central AOS average grade was approximately 1 in 60. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E05-F085: Beveridge Central AOS had 86 trees throughout the site. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E05-F086: Beveridge Central AOS had 21 street trees outside the boundary. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E05-F087: Beveridge Central AOS had 18 high-retention-value trees. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E05-F088: Beveridge Central AOS master plan retained up to 6 high-retention-value trees. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E05-F089: Beveridge Central AOS proposed 150 additional trees. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E05-F090: Beveridge Central AOS car parking was approximately 200 spaces in the master-plan description. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E05-F091: Beveridge Central AOS main soccer pitch lighting was 500 lux. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E05-F092: Beveridge Central AOS secondary sports-field lighting was 100 lux. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E05-F093: Beveridge Central AOS community facility grand total was 2,659.86 square metres. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E05-F094: Beveridge Central AOS master-plan table total was $34.790 million excluding GST. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E05-F095: Beveridge Central AOS Harlock base estimate was $34.365 million excluding GST. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E05-F096: Beveridge Central AOS hybrid surface premium was $425,000. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E05-F097: Beveridge Central AOS cost escalation beyond July 2025 was excluded. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E05-F098: Beveridge Central AOS land acquisition costs were excluded. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E05-F099: Beveridge Central AOS future escalation recommendation was 4 percent per annum. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E05-F100: Beveridge Central AOS public exhibition ran from 21 February to 24 March 2025. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E05-M001: PSP maps create the land-use skeleton; ICP/DCP schedules convert the skeleton into land-transfer and works obligations. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E05-M002: The lowest-cost public-land path is early PSP designation of encumbered or required public open space. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E05-M003: The highest-risk public-land path is late acquisition after PSP-related value uplift. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E05-M004: Regional park delivery depends on subdivision timing because PSP/ICP land transfers occur progressively. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E05-M005: PAO use protects public acquisition intent but can trigger compensation and political conflict. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E05-M006: GAIC works-in-kind is useful only where the land is within the eligible growth-area framework. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E05-M007: Sports demand is population-driven, so dwelling yield and staging directly change reserve timing. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E05-M008: District reserves need enough unencumbered land for field dimensions, run-offs, pavilions, parking, lighting, and future expansion. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E05-M009: School co-location can reduce reserve duplication but creates a dependency on education-site timing and access agreements. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E05-M010: Synthetic surfaces can increase usable hours but also increase capital and renewal obligations. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E05-M011: Shallow basalt, sodic soils, and slope convert land designation into civil-engineering cost. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt; Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E05-M012: Road widening can shrink nominal open space into a smaller developable sports footprint. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E05-M013: Biodiversity corridors require explicit corridor protection; drainage labels alone do not prove habitat function. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E05-M014: The inter-urban break between Beveridge and Wallan works only if landscape, open space, and access systems remain continuous. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E05-M015: Quarry resource protection can delay or reshape urban land release if extraction and rehabilitation must precede development. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E05-C001: Regional park recognition was contested enough to reach a Panel recommendation. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E05-C002: Open-space-link adequacy was contested enough to reach a Panel recommendation. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E05-C003: Landscape-value land was identified but not fully designated as open space in the exhibited plan. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E05-C004: Potential quarry treatment was incomplete in the exhibited PSP. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E05-C005: Extraction could significantly hinder urban development. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E05-C006: Biodiversity provisions were criticised as weak. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E05-C007: Kalkallo Creek was criticised for being treated as drainage/recreation rather than a habitat corridor. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E05-C008: East-west habitat linking from Old Sydney Road vegetation was raised as an issue. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E05-C009: Cultural heritage information was incomplete and required further Traditional Owner assessment. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E05-C010: Beveridge sports-field provision lagged population growth because Beveridge had no sports fields in the 2025 AOS report. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E05-C011: Tennis provision was displaced from Beveridge Central AOS to Lockerbie North and later PSP facilities. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E05-C012: Tree retention conflicted with sports-field layout at Beveridge Central AOS. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E05-C013: Road access and arterial duplication reduced the sport/recreation footprint at Beveridge Central AOS. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E05-C014: Cost escalation beyond July 2025 remains a live risk for open-space delivery. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E05-C015: Land acquisition costs were excluded from the Beveridge Central AOS estimate, showing that embellishment costs understate full delivery cost where land is not already owned. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E05-I001: Development feasibility depends on preserving enough developable land after regional park, biodiversity, drainage, roads, sports reserves, and quarry constraints are deducted. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E05-I002: Public-sector feasibility depends on using PSP/ICP transfer before land-value uplift forces acquisition. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E05-I003: Reserve feasibility depends on securing 8 to 10 hectare district parcels rather than isolated small open-space fragments. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E05-I004: Sports feasibility depends on school access agreements because the Beveridge model includes four school ovals and two purpose-built school soccer facilities. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E05-I005: Capital feasibility depends on recognising that one nearby 6.47 hectare developable reserve is already costed above $34 million excluding GST. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E05-I006: Engineering feasibility depends on early soil, slope, basalt, drainage, and erosion design. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt; Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E05-I007: Ecological feasibility depends on treating Kalkallo Creek and Merri catchment connections as habitat infrastructure. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E05-I008: Landscape feasibility depends on protecting Spring Hill Cone, the southern open-space buffer, and views in a way that survives subdivision. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E05-I009: Governance feasibility depends on aligning VPA, Council, Parks Victoria, Traditional Owners, Melbourne Water, Yarra Valley Water, landowners, and developers. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E05-I010: Community feasibility depends on delivering sportsfields before Beveridge population growth outruns existing facilities. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt; Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E05-I011: Transport feasibility depends on designing reserve access around arterial upgrades rather than assuming all road frontages are usable. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E05-I012: Financial feasibility depends on updating costs beyond July 2025 at about 4 percent per annum where relevant. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E05-I013: Quarry feasibility depends on resolving whether resource extraction, buffers, and rehabilitation precede or constrain urban development. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E05-I014: Cultural feasibility depends on completing further assessment with Wurundjeri Woi-wurrung Cultural Heritage Aboriginal Corporation. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E05-I015: Statutory certainty depends on obtaining the final C106mith PSP, ordinance, maps, and ICP/DCP documents. (Source: local corpus inventory)

Evidence cycle 06

E06-F001: Beveridge North West PSP covers approximately 1,250 hectares. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E06-F002: Beveridge North West is west of the Hume Freeway. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E06-F003: Beveridge North West is north of Camerons Lane. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E06-F004: Beveridge North West is east of Old Sydney Road. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E06-F005: Beveridge North West PSP had commenced when the Sports Field Feasibility Study described Mitchell South growth planning. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E06-F006: The Draft Beveridge North West PSP was exhibited in mid-2019. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E06-F007: The C106mith Panel Report is identified as Planning and Environment Act 1987, Panel Report, Mitchell Planning Scheme Amendment C106mith, Beveridge North West Precinct Structure Plan, 2020. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E06-F008: The regional park report says the C106mith Panel recommended recognition of the potential future regional park. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E06-F009: The regional park report says the C106mith Panel recommended that the PSP be revised to include an open-space link. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E06-F010: The exhibited Beveridge North West PSP did not consider the potential quarry identified in the regional park report. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E06-F011: The Panel concluded extraction activities could significantly hinder urban development of most of the Beveridge North West PSP area. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E06-F012: The 175 Northern Highway proposed stone quarry is located in the Beveridge North West Precinct. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E06-F013: Beveridge North West includes Spring Hill Cone in the east. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E06-F014: Beveridge North West includes the southern portion of the open-space buffer according to the regional park PSP-status table. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E06-F015: The exhibited PSP included significant landscape-value areas but did not designate them all as open space. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E06-F016: Jacobs’ July 2020 assessment found sodic and dispersive soils in the Beveridge North West PSP area. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E06-F017: The regional park report identifies moderate to high erosion risk in Beveridge North West due to variation in topsoil depth. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E06-F018: Stakeholder material described the Beveridge North West PSP biodiversity requirements and guidelines as very weak. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E06-F019: Stakeholder material sought a network of habitat links through the Merri catchment. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E06-F020: Stakeholder material said the Kalkallo Creek corridor should be a north-south link, while the PSP only referred to drainage and recreation functions. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E06-F021: Stakeholder material sought an east-west link from native vegetation near Old Sydney Road to larger habitat nodes. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E06-F022: The future Wallan Wallan Regional Park has an anticipated 15 kilometre catchment from park boundaries. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E06-F023: The Wallan Wallan Regional Park catchment population was 159,330 in 2016. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E06-F024: The Wallan Wallan Regional Park catchment population was 231,030 in 2021. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E06-F025: The Wallan Wallan Regional Park catchment population is projected at 299,790 in 2026. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E06-F026: The Wallan Wallan Regional Park catchment population is projected at 367,090 in 2031. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E06-F027: The Wallan Wallan Regional Park catchment population is projected at 429,680 in 2036. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E06-F028: The Wallan Wallan Regional Park catchment is projected to grow by 198,650 people from 2021 to 2036. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E06-F029: The Wallan Wallan Regional Park catchment grew by 14,340 people per annum from 2016 to 2021. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E06-F030: The PSP/ICP process can transfer public open-space land at no cost for specific purposes. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E06-F031: Open-space land transferred under PSP/ICP is typically transferred at subdivision. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E06-F032: Encumbered land identified in a PSP can be acquired at lower cost or no cost. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E06-F033: Unencumbered regional open-space land above local PSP population requirements generally requires purchase or external funding. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E06-F034: A Public Acquisition Overlay should be applied where regional-park land cannot be transferred under PSP/ICP. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E06-F035: A GAIC works-in-kind agreement can allow land transfer to government in lieu of a GAIC payment. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E06-F036: GAIC works-in-kind will not fund works outside the Urban Growth Boundary. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E06-F037: Gazettal of a PSP typically results in land-value uplift because future urban development becomes more certain. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E06-F038: Exhibition of a Draft PSP or early concept plans may create land-value uplift before gazettal. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E06-F039: Completed PSPs lose the opportunity to acquire land through the PSP process; later acquisition would require another mechanism. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E06-F040: Beveridge was projected in the Sports Field Feasibility Study to have more than 30,000 people living in and around it by 2036. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E06-F041: Beveridge had an estimated 2024 population of 9,120 in the Beveridge Central AOS report. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E06-F042: Beveridge is forecast to exceed 112,000 people by 2046 in the Beveridge Central AOS report. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E06-F043: Beveridge Central PSP was expected to accommodate more than 3,400 homes. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E06-F044: Beveridge Central PSP was expected to accommodate approximately 9,400 people. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E06-F045: Beveridge had no sports fields according to the Beveridge Central AOS report. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E06-F046: Beveridge Recreation Reserve had two tennis courts with a netball overlay according to the Beveridge Central AOS report. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E06-F047: Mandalay Estate had an 18 hole golf course according to the Beveridge Central AOS report. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E06-F048: The Sports Field Feasibility Study recommended six Council AFL/cricket/netball reserves for Beveridge. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E06-F049: The Sports Field Feasibility Study recommended four school ovals for Beveridge. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E06-F050: The Sports Field Feasibility Study recommended five Council soccer facilities for Beveridge. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E06-F051: The Sports Field Feasibility Study recommended two purpose-built school soccer facilities for Beveridge. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E06-F052: The Sports Field Feasibility Study recommended one eight-court tennis facility for Beveridge. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E06-F053: District active sporting reserves should generally be at least 8 to 10 hectares. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E06-F054: Active open-space areas of 10 to 12 hectares allow greater sport diversity and better passive-active interaction. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E06-F055: Synthetic surfaces can maximise use and may reduce the number of sports fields otherwise needed. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E06-F056: Encumbered land can be used for active open space only if community benefit and maintenance are not compromised. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E06-F057: Lockerbie PSP allocated 43.5 hectares of active open space. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E06-F058: Lockerbie PSP included a 15 hectare regional sports precinct. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E06-F059: Lockerbie PSP open-space contribution was 8.33 percent of Net Developable Area. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E06-F060: Lockerbie PSP active open-space share was 6.30 percent of Net Developable Area. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E06-F061: Lockerbie PSP passive open-space share was 2.03 percent of Net Developable Area. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E06-F062: Lockerbie North PSP included 17.5 hectares of active playing space. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E06-F063: Lockerbie North PSP open-space contribution was 9.15 percent of Net Developable Area. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E06-F064: Lockerbie North PSP active open-space share was 5.9 percent of Net Developable Area. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E06-F065: Lockerbie North PSP passive open-space share was 3.24 percent of Net Developable Area. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E06-F066: Lockerbie North PSP included an 8 hectare reserve. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E06-F067: Lockerbie North PSP included a 9.5 hectare reserve. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E06-F068: AFL preferred regional and local field dimensions are 165 metres by 135 metres. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E06-F069: AFL regional competition lighting benchmark is 150 lux. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E06-F070: AFL local competition lighting benchmark is 100 lux. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E06-F071: Tennis district facilities are 8 or more courts. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E06-F072: Tennis district catchment benchmark is 50,000 people within 15 kilometres. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E06-F073: Tennis eight-court full-site development benchmark is 1.50 hectares. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E06-F074: District pavilion benchmark is 500 to 600 square metres. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E06-F075: Regional pavilion benchmark is up to 1,000 square metres. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E06-F076: Beveridge Central AOS site was 6.79 hectares. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E06-F077: Beveridge Central AOS road and intersection works required 0.32 hectares. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E06-F078: Beveridge Central AOS developable sport and recreation area was 6.47 hectares after road exclusion. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E06-F079: Beveridge Central AOS was made up of 34 Lithgow Street at 2.29 hectares. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E06-F080: Beveridge Central AOS was made up of 72 Lithgow Street at 2.33 hectares. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E06-F081: Beveridge Central AOS was made up of 86 Patterson Road at 2.48 hectares. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E06-F082: Beveridge Central AOS shallow basalt in the western section can slow excavation and increase costs. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E06-F083: Beveridge Central AOS had a 6.4 metre fall from northwest to southeast. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E06-F084: Beveridge Central AOS average grade was approximately 1 in 60. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E06-F085: Beveridge Central AOS had 86 trees throughout the site. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E06-F086: Beveridge Central AOS had 21 street trees outside the boundary. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E06-F087: Beveridge Central AOS had 18 high-retention-value trees. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E06-F088: Beveridge Central AOS master plan retained up to 6 high-retention-value trees. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E06-F089: Beveridge Central AOS proposed 150 additional trees. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E06-F090: Beveridge Central AOS car parking was approximately 200 spaces in the master-plan description. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E06-F091: Beveridge Central AOS main soccer pitch lighting was 500 lux. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E06-F092: Beveridge Central AOS secondary sports-field lighting was 100 lux. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E06-F093: Beveridge Central AOS community facility grand total was 2,659.86 square metres. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E06-F094: Beveridge Central AOS master-plan table total was $34.790 million excluding GST. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E06-F095: Beveridge Central AOS Harlock base estimate was $34.365 million excluding GST. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E06-F096: Beveridge Central AOS hybrid surface premium was $425,000. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E06-F097: Beveridge Central AOS cost escalation beyond July 2025 was excluded. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E06-F098: Beveridge Central AOS land acquisition costs were excluded. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E06-F099: Beveridge Central AOS future escalation recommendation was 4 percent per annum. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E06-F100: Beveridge Central AOS public exhibition ran from 21 February to 24 March 2025. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E06-M001: PSP maps create the land-use skeleton; ICP/DCP schedules convert the skeleton into land-transfer and works obligations. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E06-M002: The lowest-cost public-land path is early PSP designation of encumbered or required public open space. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E06-M003: The highest-risk public-land path is late acquisition after PSP-related value uplift. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E06-M004: Regional park delivery depends on subdivision timing because PSP/ICP land transfers occur progressively. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E06-M005: PAO use protects public acquisition intent but can trigger compensation and political conflict. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E06-M006: GAIC works-in-kind is useful only where the land is within the eligible growth-area framework. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E06-M007: Sports demand is population-driven, so dwelling yield and staging directly change reserve timing. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E06-M008: District reserves need enough unencumbered land for field dimensions, run-offs, pavilions, parking, lighting, and future expansion. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E06-M009: School co-location can reduce reserve duplication but creates a dependency on education-site timing and access agreements. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E06-M010: Synthetic surfaces can increase usable hours but also increase capital and renewal obligations. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E06-M011: Shallow basalt, sodic soils, and slope convert land designation into civil-engineering cost. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt; Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E06-M012: Road widening can shrink nominal open space into a smaller developable sports footprint. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E06-M013: Biodiversity corridors require explicit corridor protection; drainage labels alone do not prove habitat function. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E06-M014: The inter-urban break between Beveridge and Wallan works only if landscape, open space, and access systems remain continuous. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E06-M015: Quarry resource protection can delay or reshape urban land release if extraction and rehabilitation must precede development. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E06-C001: Regional park recognition was contested enough to reach a Panel recommendation. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E06-C002: Open-space-link adequacy was contested enough to reach a Panel recommendation. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E06-C003: Landscape-value land was identified but not fully designated as open space in the exhibited plan. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E06-C004: Potential quarry treatment was incomplete in the exhibited PSP. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E06-C005: Extraction could significantly hinder urban development. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E06-C006: Biodiversity provisions were criticised as weak. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E06-C007: Kalkallo Creek was criticised for being treated as drainage/recreation rather than a habitat corridor. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E06-C008: East-west habitat linking from Old Sydney Road vegetation was raised as an issue. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E06-C009: Cultural heritage information was incomplete and required further Traditional Owner assessment. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E06-C010: Beveridge sports-field provision lagged population growth because Beveridge had no sports fields in the 2025 AOS report. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E06-C011: Tennis provision was displaced from Beveridge Central AOS to Lockerbie North and later PSP facilities. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E06-C012: Tree retention conflicted with sports-field layout at Beveridge Central AOS. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E06-C013: Road access and arterial duplication reduced the sport/recreation footprint at Beveridge Central AOS. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E06-C014: Cost escalation beyond July 2025 remains a live risk for open-space delivery. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E06-C015: Land acquisition costs were excluded from the Beveridge Central AOS estimate, showing that embellishment costs understate full delivery cost where land is not already owned. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E06-I001: Development feasibility depends on preserving enough developable land after regional park, biodiversity, drainage, roads, sports reserves, and quarry constraints are deducted. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E06-I002: Public-sector feasibility depends on using PSP/ICP transfer before land-value uplift forces acquisition. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E06-I003: Reserve feasibility depends on securing 8 to 10 hectare district parcels rather than isolated small open-space fragments. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E06-I004: Sports feasibility depends on school access agreements because the Beveridge model includes four school ovals and two purpose-built school soccer facilities. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E06-I005: Capital feasibility depends on recognising that one nearby 6.47 hectare developable reserve is already costed above $34 million excluding GST. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E06-I006: Engineering feasibility depends on early soil, slope, basalt, drainage, and erosion design. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt; Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E06-I007: Ecological feasibility depends on treating Kalkallo Creek and Merri catchment connections as habitat infrastructure. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E06-I008: Landscape feasibility depends on protecting Spring Hill Cone, the southern open-space buffer, and views in a way that survives subdivision. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E06-I009: Governance feasibility depends on aligning VPA, Council, Parks Victoria, Traditional Owners, Melbourne Water, Yarra Valley Water, landowners, and developers. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E06-I010: Community feasibility depends on delivering sportsfields before Beveridge population growth outruns existing facilities. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt; Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E06-I011: Transport feasibility depends on designing reserve access around arterial upgrades rather than assuming all road frontages are usable. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E06-I012: Financial feasibility depends on updating costs beyond July 2025 at about 4 percent per annum where relevant. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E06-I013: Quarry feasibility depends on resolving whether resource extraction, buffers, and rehabilitation precede or constrain urban development. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E06-I014: Cultural feasibility depends on completing further assessment with Wurundjeri Woi-wurrung Cultural Heritage Aboriginal Corporation. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E06-I015: Statutory certainty depends on obtaining the final C106mith PSP, ordinance, maps, and ICP/DCP documents. (Source: local corpus inventory)

Evidence cycle 07

E07-F001: Beveridge North West PSP covers approximately 1,250 hectares. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E07-F002: Beveridge North West is west of the Hume Freeway. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E07-F003: Beveridge North West is north of Camerons Lane. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E07-F004: Beveridge North West is east of Old Sydney Road. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E07-F005: Beveridge North West PSP had commenced when the Sports Field Feasibility Study described Mitchell South growth planning. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E07-F006: The Draft Beveridge North West PSP was exhibited in mid-2019. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E07-F007: The C106mith Panel Report is identified as Planning and Environment Act 1987, Panel Report, Mitchell Planning Scheme Amendment C106mith, Beveridge North West Precinct Structure Plan, 2020. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E07-F008: The regional park report says the C106mith Panel recommended recognition of the potential future regional park. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E07-F009: The regional park report says the C106mith Panel recommended that the PSP be revised to include an open-space link. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E07-F010: The exhibited Beveridge North West PSP did not consider the potential quarry identified in the regional park report. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E07-F011: The Panel concluded extraction activities could significantly hinder urban development of most of the Beveridge North West PSP area. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E07-F012: The 175 Northern Highway proposed stone quarry is located in the Beveridge North West Precinct. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E07-F013: Beveridge North West includes Spring Hill Cone in the east. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E07-F014: Beveridge North West includes the southern portion of the open-space buffer according to the regional park PSP-status table. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E07-F015: The exhibited PSP included significant landscape-value areas but did not designate them all as open space. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E07-F016: Jacobs’ July 2020 assessment found sodic and dispersive soils in the Beveridge North West PSP area. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E07-F017: The regional park report identifies moderate to high erosion risk in Beveridge North West due to variation in topsoil depth. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E07-F018: Stakeholder material described the Beveridge North West PSP biodiversity requirements and guidelines as very weak. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E07-F019: Stakeholder material sought a network of habitat links through the Merri catchment. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E07-F020: Stakeholder material said the Kalkallo Creek corridor should be a north-south link, while the PSP only referred to drainage and recreation functions. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E07-F021: Stakeholder material sought an east-west link from native vegetation near Old Sydney Road to larger habitat nodes. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E07-F022: The future Wallan Wallan Regional Park has an anticipated 15 kilometre catchment from park boundaries. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E07-F023: The Wallan Wallan Regional Park catchment population was 159,330 in 2016. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E07-F024: The Wallan Wallan Regional Park catchment population was 231,030 in 2021. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E07-F025: The Wallan Wallan Regional Park catchment population is projected at 299,790 in 2026. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E07-F026: The Wallan Wallan Regional Park catchment population is projected at 367,090 in 2031. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E07-F027: The Wallan Wallan Regional Park catchment population is projected at 429,680 in 2036. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E07-F028: The Wallan Wallan Regional Park catchment is projected to grow by 198,650 people from 2021 to 2036. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E07-F029: The Wallan Wallan Regional Park catchment grew by 14,340 people per annum from 2016 to 2021. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E07-F030: The PSP/ICP process can transfer public open-space land at no cost for specific purposes. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E07-F031: Open-space land transferred under PSP/ICP is typically transferred at subdivision. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E07-F032: Encumbered land identified in a PSP can be acquired at lower cost or no cost. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E07-F033: Unencumbered regional open-space land above local PSP population requirements generally requires purchase or external funding. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E07-F034: A Public Acquisition Overlay should be applied where regional-park land cannot be transferred under PSP/ICP. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E07-F035: A GAIC works-in-kind agreement can allow land transfer to government in lieu of a GAIC payment. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E07-F036: GAIC works-in-kind will not fund works outside the Urban Growth Boundary. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E07-F037: Gazettal of a PSP typically results in land-value uplift because future urban development becomes more certain. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E07-F038: Exhibition of a Draft PSP or early concept plans may create land-value uplift before gazettal. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E07-F039: Completed PSPs lose the opportunity to acquire land through the PSP process; later acquisition would require another mechanism. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E07-F040: Beveridge was projected in the Sports Field Feasibility Study to have more than 30,000 people living in and around it by 2036. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E07-F041: Beveridge had an estimated 2024 population of 9,120 in the Beveridge Central AOS report. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E07-F042: Beveridge is forecast to exceed 112,000 people by 2046 in the Beveridge Central AOS report. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E07-F043: Beveridge Central PSP was expected to accommodate more than 3,400 homes. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E07-F044: Beveridge Central PSP was expected to accommodate approximately 9,400 people. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E07-F045: Beveridge had no sports fields according to the Beveridge Central AOS report. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E07-F046: Beveridge Recreation Reserve had two tennis courts with a netball overlay according to the Beveridge Central AOS report. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E07-F047: Mandalay Estate had an 18 hole golf course according to the Beveridge Central AOS report. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E07-F048: The Sports Field Feasibility Study recommended six Council AFL/cricket/netball reserves for Beveridge. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E07-F049: The Sports Field Feasibility Study recommended four school ovals for Beveridge. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E07-F050: The Sports Field Feasibility Study recommended five Council soccer facilities for Beveridge. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E07-F051: The Sports Field Feasibility Study recommended two purpose-built school soccer facilities for Beveridge. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E07-F052: The Sports Field Feasibility Study recommended one eight-court tennis facility for Beveridge. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E07-F053: District active sporting reserves should generally be at least 8 to 10 hectares. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E07-F054: Active open-space areas of 10 to 12 hectares allow greater sport diversity and better passive-active interaction. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E07-F055: Synthetic surfaces can maximise use and may reduce the number of sports fields otherwise needed. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E07-F056: Encumbered land can be used for active open space only if community benefit and maintenance are not compromised. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E07-F057: Lockerbie PSP allocated 43.5 hectares of active open space. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E07-F058: Lockerbie PSP included a 15 hectare regional sports precinct. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E07-F059: Lockerbie PSP open-space contribution was 8.33 percent of Net Developable Area. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E07-F060: Lockerbie PSP active open-space share was 6.30 percent of Net Developable Area. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E07-F061: Lockerbie PSP passive open-space share was 2.03 percent of Net Developable Area. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E07-F062: Lockerbie North PSP included 17.5 hectares of active playing space. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E07-F063: Lockerbie North PSP open-space contribution was 9.15 percent of Net Developable Area. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E07-F064: Lockerbie North PSP active open-space share was 5.9 percent of Net Developable Area. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E07-F065: Lockerbie North PSP passive open-space share was 3.24 percent of Net Developable Area. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E07-F066: Lockerbie North PSP included an 8 hectare reserve. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E07-F067: Lockerbie North PSP included a 9.5 hectare reserve. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E07-F068: AFL preferred regional and local field dimensions are 165 metres by 135 metres. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E07-F069: AFL regional competition lighting benchmark is 150 lux. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E07-F070: AFL local competition lighting benchmark is 100 lux. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E07-F071: Tennis district facilities are 8 or more courts. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E07-F072: Tennis district catchment benchmark is 50,000 people within 15 kilometres. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E07-F073: Tennis eight-court full-site development benchmark is 1.50 hectares. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E07-F074: District pavilion benchmark is 500 to 600 square metres. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E07-F075: Regional pavilion benchmark is up to 1,000 square metres. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E07-F076: Beveridge Central AOS site was 6.79 hectares. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E07-F077: Beveridge Central AOS road and intersection works required 0.32 hectares. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E07-F078: Beveridge Central AOS developable sport and recreation area was 6.47 hectares after road exclusion. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E07-F079: Beveridge Central AOS was made up of 34 Lithgow Street at 2.29 hectares. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E07-F080: Beveridge Central AOS was made up of 72 Lithgow Street at 2.33 hectares. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E07-F081: Beveridge Central AOS was made up of 86 Patterson Road at 2.48 hectares. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E07-F082: Beveridge Central AOS shallow basalt in the western section can slow excavation and increase costs. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E07-F083: Beveridge Central AOS had a 6.4 metre fall from northwest to southeast. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E07-F084: Beveridge Central AOS average grade was approximately 1 in 60. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E07-F085: Beveridge Central AOS had 86 trees throughout the site. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E07-F086: Beveridge Central AOS had 21 street trees outside the boundary. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E07-F087: Beveridge Central AOS had 18 high-retention-value trees. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E07-F088: Beveridge Central AOS master plan retained up to 6 high-retention-value trees. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E07-F089: Beveridge Central AOS proposed 150 additional trees. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E07-F090: Beveridge Central AOS car parking was approximately 200 spaces in the master-plan description. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E07-F091: Beveridge Central AOS main soccer pitch lighting was 500 lux. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E07-F092: Beveridge Central AOS secondary sports-field lighting was 100 lux. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E07-F093: Beveridge Central AOS community facility grand total was 2,659.86 square metres. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E07-F094: Beveridge Central AOS master-plan table total was $34.790 million excluding GST. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E07-F095: Beveridge Central AOS Harlock base estimate was $34.365 million excluding GST. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E07-F096: Beveridge Central AOS hybrid surface premium was $425,000. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E07-F097: Beveridge Central AOS cost escalation beyond July 2025 was excluded. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E07-F098: Beveridge Central AOS land acquisition costs were excluded. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E07-F099: Beveridge Central AOS future escalation recommendation was 4 percent per annum. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E07-F100: Beveridge Central AOS public exhibition ran from 21 February to 24 March 2025. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E07-M001: PSP maps create the land-use skeleton; ICP/DCP schedules convert the skeleton into land-transfer and works obligations. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E07-M002: The lowest-cost public-land path is early PSP designation of encumbered or required public open space. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E07-M003: The highest-risk public-land path is late acquisition after PSP-related value uplift. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E07-M004: Regional park delivery depends on subdivision timing because PSP/ICP land transfers occur progressively. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E07-M005: PAO use protects public acquisition intent but can trigger compensation and political conflict. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E07-M006: GAIC works-in-kind is useful only where the land is within the eligible growth-area framework. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E07-M007: Sports demand is population-driven, so dwelling yield and staging directly change reserve timing. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E07-M008: District reserves need enough unencumbered land for field dimensions, run-offs, pavilions, parking, lighting, and future expansion. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E07-M009: School co-location can reduce reserve duplication but creates a dependency on education-site timing and access agreements. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E07-M010: Synthetic surfaces can increase usable hours but also increase capital and renewal obligations. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E07-M011: Shallow basalt, sodic soils, and slope convert land designation into civil-engineering cost. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt; Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E07-M012: Road widening can shrink nominal open space into a smaller developable sports footprint. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E07-M013: Biodiversity corridors require explicit corridor protection; drainage labels alone do not prove habitat function. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E07-M014: The inter-urban break between Beveridge and Wallan works only if landscape, open space, and access systems remain continuous. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E07-M015: Quarry resource protection can delay or reshape urban land release if extraction and rehabilitation must precede development. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E07-C001: Regional park recognition was contested enough to reach a Panel recommendation. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E07-C002: Open-space-link adequacy was contested enough to reach a Panel recommendation. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E07-C003: Landscape-value land was identified but not fully designated as open space in the exhibited plan. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E07-C004: Potential quarry treatment was incomplete in the exhibited PSP. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E07-C005: Extraction could significantly hinder urban development. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E07-C006: Biodiversity provisions were criticised as weak. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E07-C007: Kalkallo Creek was criticised for being treated as drainage/recreation rather than a habitat corridor. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E07-C008: East-west habitat linking from Old Sydney Road vegetation was raised as an issue. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E07-C009: Cultural heritage information was incomplete and required further Traditional Owner assessment. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E07-C010: Beveridge sports-field provision lagged population growth because Beveridge had no sports fields in the 2025 AOS report. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E07-C011: Tennis provision was displaced from Beveridge Central AOS to Lockerbie North and later PSP facilities. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E07-C012: Tree retention conflicted with sports-field layout at Beveridge Central AOS. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E07-C013: Road access and arterial duplication reduced the sport/recreation footprint at Beveridge Central AOS. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E07-C014: Cost escalation beyond July 2025 remains a live risk for open-space delivery. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E07-C015: Land acquisition costs were excluded from the Beveridge Central AOS estimate, showing that embellishment costs understate full delivery cost where land is not already owned. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E07-I001: Development feasibility depends on preserving enough developable land after regional park, biodiversity, drainage, roads, sports reserves, and quarry constraints are deducted. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E07-I002: Public-sector feasibility depends on using PSP/ICP transfer before land-value uplift forces acquisition. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E07-I003: Reserve feasibility depends on securing 8 to 10 hectare district parcels rather than isolated small open-space fragments. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E07-I004: Sports feasibility depends on school access agreements because the Beveridge model includes four school ovals and two purpose-built school soccer facilities. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E07-I005: Capital feasibility depends on recognising that one nearby 6.47 hectare developable reserve is already costed above $34 million excluding GST. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E07-I006: Engineering feasibility depends on early soil, slope, basalt, drainage, and erosion design. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt; Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E07-I007: Ecological feasibility depends on treating Kalkallo Creek and Merri catchment connections as habitat infrastructure. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E07-I008: Landscape feasibility depends on protecting Spring Hill Cone, the southern open-space buffer, and views in a way that survives subdivision. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E07-I009: Governance feasibility depends on aligning VPA, Council, Parks Victoria, Traditional Owners, Melbourne Water, Yarra Valley Water, landowners, and developers. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E07-I010: Community feasibility depends on delivering sportsfields before Beveridge population growth outruns existing facilities. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt; Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E07-I011: Transport feasibility depends on designing reserve access around arterial upgrades rather than assuming all road frontages are usable. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E07-I012: Financial feasibility depends on updating costs beyond July 2025 at about 4 percent per annum where relevant. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E07-I013: Quarry feasibility depends on resolving whether resource extraction, buffers, and rehabilitation precede or constrain urban development. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E07-I014: Cultural feasibility depends on completing further assessment with Wurundjeri Woi-wurrung Cultural Heritage Aboriginal Corporation. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E07-I015: Statutory certainty depends on obtaining the final C106mith PSP, ordinance, maps, and ICP/DCP documents. (Source: local corpus inventory)

Evidence cycle 08

E08-F001: Beveridge North West PSP covers approximately 1,250 hectares. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E08-F002: Beveridge North West is west of the Hume Freeway. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E08-F003: Beveridge North West is north of Camerons Lane. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E08-F004: Beveridge North West is east of Old Sydney Road. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E08-F005: Beveridge North West PSP had commenced when the Sports Field Feasibility Study described Mitchell South growth planning. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E08-F006: The Draft Beveridge North West PSP was exhibited in mid-2019. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E08-F007: The C106mith Panel Report is identified as Planning and Environment Act 1987, Panel Report, Mitchell Planning Scheme Amendment C106mith, Beveridge North West Precinct Structure Plan, 2020. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E08-F008: The regional park report says the C106mith Panel recommended recognition of the potential future regional park. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E08-F009: The regional park report says the C106mith Panel recommended that the PSP be revised to include an open-space link. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E08-F010: The exhibited Beveridge North West PSP did not consider the potential quarry identified in the regional park report. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E08-F011: The Panel concluded extraction activities could significantly hinder urban development of most of the Beveridge North West PSP area. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E08-F012: The 175 Northern Highway proposed stone quarry is located in the Beveridge North West Precinct. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E08-F013: Beveridge North West includes Spring Hill Cone in the east. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E08-F014: Beveridge North West includes the southern portion of the open-space buffer according to the regional park PSP-status table. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E08-F015: The exhibited PSP included significant landscape-value areas but did not designate them all as open space. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E08-F016: Jacobs’ July 2020 assessment found sodic and dispersive soils in the Beveridge North West PSP area. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E08-F017: The regional park report identifies moderate to high erosion risk in Beveridge North West due to variation in topsoil depth. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E08-F018: Stakeholder material described the Beveridge North West PSP biodiversity requirements and guidelines as very weak. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E08-F019: Stakeholder material sought a network of habitat links through the Merri catchment. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E08-F020: Stakeholder material said the Kalkallo Creek corridor should be a north-south link, while the PSP only referred to drainage and recreation functions. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E08-F021: Stakeholder material sought an east-west link from native vegetation near Old Sydney Road to larger habitat nodes. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E08-F022: The future Wallan Wallan Regional Park has an anticipated 15 kilometre catchment from park boundaries. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E08-F023: The Wallan Wallan Regional Park catchment population was 159,330 in 2016. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E08-F024: The Wallan Wallan Regional Park catchment population was 231,030 in 2021. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E08-F025: The Wallan Wallan Regional Park catchment population is projected at 299,790 in 2026. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E08-F026: The Wallan Wallan Regional Park catchment population is projected at 367,090 in 2031. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E08-F027: The Wallan Wallan Regional Park catchment population is projected at 429,680 in 2036. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E08-F028: The Wallan Wallan Regional Park catchment is projected to grow by 198,650 people from 2021 to 2036. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E08-F029: The Wallan Wallan Regional Park catchment grew by 14,340 people per annum from 2016 to 2021. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E08-F030: The PSP/ICP process can transfer public open-space land at no cost for specific purposes. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E08-F031: Open-space land transferred under PSP/ICP is typically transferred at subdivision. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E08-F032: Encumbered land identified in a PSP can be acquired at lower cost or no cost. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E08-F033: Unencumbered regional open-space land above local PSP population requirements generally requires purchase or external funding. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E08-F034: A Public Acquisition Overlay should be applied where regional-park land cannot be transferred under PSP/ICP. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E08-F035: A GAIC works-in-kind agreement can allow land transfer to government in lieu of a GAIC payment. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E08-F036: GAIC works-in-kind will not fund works outside the Urban Growth Boundary. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E08-F037: Gazettal of a PSP typically results in land-value uplift because future urban development becomes more certain. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E08-F038: Exhibition of a Draft PSP or early concept plans may create land-value uplift before gazettal. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E08-F039: Completed PSPs lose the opportunity to acquire land through the PSP process; later acquisition would require another mechanism. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E08-F040: Beveridge was projected in the Sports Field Feasibility Study to have more than 30,000 people living in and around it by 2036. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E08-F041: Beveridge had an estimated 2024 population of 9,120 in the Beveridge Central AOS report. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E08-F042: Beveridge is forecast to exceed 112,000 people by 2046 in the Beveridge Central AOS report. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E08-F043: Beveridge Central PSP was expected to accommodate more than 3,400 homes. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E08-F044: Beveridge Central PSP was expected to accommodate approximately 9,400 people. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E08-F045: Beveridge had no sports fields according to the Beveridge Central AOS report. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E08-F046: Beveridge Recreation Reserve had two tennis courts with a netball overlay according to the Beveridge Central AOS report. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E08-F047: Mandalay Estate had an 18 hole golf course according to the Beveridge Central AOS report. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E08-F048: The Sports Field Feasibility Study recommended six Council AFL/cricket/netball reserves for Beveridge. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E08-F049: The Sports Field Feasibility Study recommended four school ovals for Beveridge. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E08-F050: The Sports Field Feasibility Study recommended five Council soccer facilities for Beveridge. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E08-F051: The Sports Field Feasibility Study recommended two purpose-built school soccer facilities for Beveridge. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E08-F052: The Sports Field Feasibility Study recommended one eight-court tennis facility for Beveridge. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E08-F053: District active sporting reserves should generally be at least 8 to 10 hectares. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E08-F054: Active open-space areas of 10 to 12 hectares allow greater sport diversity and better passive-active interaction. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E08-F055: Synthetic surfaces can maximise use and may reduce the number of sports fields otherwise needed. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E08-F056: Encumbered land can be used for active open space only if community benefit and maintenance are not compromised. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E08-F057: Lockerbie PSP allocated 43.5 hectares of active open space. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E08-F058: Lockerbie PSP included a 15 hectare regional sports precinct. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E08-F059: Lockerbie PSP open-space contribution was 8.33 percent of Net Developable Area. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E08-F060: Lockerbie PSP active open-space share was 6.30 percent of Net Developable Area. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E08-F061: Lockerbie PSP passive open-space share was 2.03 percent of Net Developable Area. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E08-F062: Lockerbie North PSP included 17.5 hectares of active playing space. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E08-F063: Lockerbie North PSP open-space contribution was 9.15 percent of Net Developable Area. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E08-F064: Lockerbie North PSP active open-space share was 5.9 percent of Net Developable Area. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E08-F065: Lockerbie North PSP passive open-space share was 3.24 percent of Net Developable Area. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E08-F066: Lockerbie North PSP included an 8 hectare reserve. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E08-F067: Lockerbie North PSP included a 9.5 hectare reserve. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E08-F068: AFL preferred regional and local field dimensions are 165 metres by 135 metres. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E08-F069: AFL regional competition lighting benchmark is 150 lux. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E08-F070: AFL local competition lighting benchmark is 100 lux. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E08-F071: Tennis district facilities are 8 or more courts. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E08-F072: Tennis district catchment benchmark is 50,000 people within 15 kilometres. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E08-F073: Tennis eight-court full-site development benchmark is 1.50 hectares. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E08-F074: District pavilion benchmark is 500 to 600 square metres. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E08-F075: Regional pavilion benchmark is up to 1,000 square metres. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E08-F076: Beveridge Central AOS site was 6.79 hectares. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E08-F077: Beveridge Central AOS road and intersection works required 0.32 hectares. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E08-F078: Beveridge Central AOS developable sport and recreation area was 6.47 hectares after road exclusion. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E08-F079: Beveridge Central AOS was made up of 34 Lithgow Street at 2.29 hectares. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E08-F080: Beveridge Central AOS was made up of 72 Lithgow Street at 2.33 hectares. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E08-F081: Beveridge Central AOS was made up of 86 Patterson Road at 2.48 hectares. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E08-F082: Beveridge Central AOS shallow basalt in the western section can slow excavation and increase costs. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E08-F083: Beveridge Central AOS had a 6.4 metre fall from northwest to southeast. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E08-F084: Beveridge Central AOS average grade was approximately 1 in 60. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E08-F085: Beveridge Central AOS had 86 trees throughout the site. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E08-F086: Beveridge Central AOS had 21 street trees outside the boundary. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E08-F087: Beveridge Central AOS had 18 high-retention-value trees. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E08-F088: Beveridge Central AOS master plan retained up to 6 high-retention-value trees. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E08-F089: Beveridge Central AOS proposed 150 additional trees. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E08-F090: Beveridge Central AOS car parking was approximately 200 spaces in the master-plan description. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E08-F091: Beveridge Central AOS main soccer pitch lighting was 500 lux. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E08-F092: Beveridge Central AOS secondary sports-field lighting was 100 lux. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E08-F093: Beveridge Central AOS community facility grand total was 2,659.86 square metres. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E08-F094: Beveridge Central AOS master-plan table total was $34.790 million excluding GST. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E08-F095: Beveridge Central AOS Harlock base estimate was $34.365 million excluding GST. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E08-F096: Beveridge Central AOS hybrid surface premium was $425,000. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E08-F097: Beveridge Central AOS cost escalation beyond July 2025 was excluded. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E08-F098: Beveridge Central AOS land acquisition costs were excluded. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E08-F099: Beveridge Central AOS future escalation recommendation was 4 percent per annum. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E08-F100: Beveridge Central AOS public exhibition ran from 21 February to 24 March 2025. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E08-M001: PSP maps create the land-use skeleton; ICP/DCP schedules convert the skeleton into land-transfer and works obligations. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E08-M002: The lowest-cost public-land path is early PSP designation of encumbered or required public open space. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E08-M003: The highest-risk public-land path is late acquisition after PSP-related value uplift. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E08-M004: Regional park delivery depends on subdivision timing because PSP/ICP land transfers occur progressively. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E08-M005: PAO use protects public acquisition intent but can trigger compensation and political conflict. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E08-M006: GAIC works-in-kind is useful only where the land is within the eligible growth-area framework. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E08-M007: Sports demand is population-driven, so dwelling yield and staging directly change reserve timing. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E08-M008: District reserves need enough unencumbered land for field dimensions, run-offs, pavilions, parking, lighting, and future expansion. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E08-M009: School co-location can reduce reserve duplication but creates a dependency on education-site timing and access agreements. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E08-M010: Synthetic surfaces can increase usable hours but also increase capital and renewal obligations. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E08-M011: Shallow basalt, sodic soils, and slope convert land designation into civil-engineering cost. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt; Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E08-M012: Road widening can shrink nominal open space into a smaller developable sports footprint. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E08-M013: Biodiversity corridors require explicit corridor protection; drainage labels alone do not prove habitat function. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E08-M014: The inter-urban break between Beveridge and Wallan works only if landscape, open space, and access systems remain continuous. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E08-M015: Quarry resource protection can delay or reshape urban land release if extraction and rehabilitation must precede development. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E08-C001: Regional park recognition was contested enough to reach a Panel recommendation. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E08-C002: Open-space-link adequacy was contested enough to reach a Panel recommendation. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E08-C003: Landscape-value land was identified but not fully designated as open space in the exhibited plan. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E08-C004: Potential quarry treatment was incomplete in the exhibited PSP. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E08-C005: Extraction could significantly hinder urban development. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E08-C006: Biodiversity provisions were criticised as weak. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E08-C007: Kalkallo Creek was criticised for being treated as drainage/recreation rather than a habitat corridor. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E08-C008: East-west habitat linking from Old Sydney Road vegetation was raised as an issue. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E08-C009: Cultural heritage information was incomplete and required further Traditional Owner assessment. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E08-C010: Beveridge sports-field provision lagged population growth because Beveridge had no sports fields in the 2025 AOS report. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E08-C011: Tennis provision was displaced from Beveridge Central AOS to Lockerbie North and later PSP facilities. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E08-C012: Tree retention conflicted with sports-field layout at Beveridge Central AOS. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E08-C013: Road access and arterial duplication reduced the sport/recreation footprint at Beveridge Central AOS. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E08-C014: Cost escalation beyond July 2025 remains a live risk for open-space delivery. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E08-C015: Land acquisition costs were excluded from the Beveridge Central AOS estimate, showing that embellishment costs understate full delivery cost where land is not already owned. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E08-I001: Development feasibility depends on preserving enough developable land after regional park, biodiversity, drainage, roads, sports reserves, and quarry constraints are deducted. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E08-I002: Public-sector feasibility depends on using PSP/ICP transfer before land-value uplift forces acquisition. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E08-I003: Reserve feasibility depends on securing 8 to 10 hectare district parcels rather than isolated small open-space fragments. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E08-I004: Sports feasibility depends on school access agreements because the Beveridge model includes four school ovals and two purpose-built school soccer facilities. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E08-I005: Capital feasibility depends on recognising that one nearby 6.47 hectare developable reserve is already costed above $34 million excluding GST. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E08-I006: Engineering feasibility depends on early soil, slope, basalt, drainage, and erosion design. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt; Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E08-I007: Ecological feasibility depends on treating Kalkallo Creek and Merri catchment connections as habitat infrastructure. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E08-I008: Landscape feasibility depends on protecting Spring Hill Cone, the southern open-space buffer, and views in a way that survives subdivision. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E08-I009: Governance feasibility depends on aligning VPA, Council, Parks Victoria, Traditional Owners, Melbourne Water, Yarra Valley Water, landowners, and developers. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E08-I010: Community feasibility depends on delivering sportsfields before Beveridge population growth outruns existing facilities. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt; Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E08-I011: Transport feasibility depends on designing reserve access around arterial upgrades rather than assuming all road frontages are usable. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E08-I012: Financial feasibility depends on updating costs beyond July 2025 at about 4 percent per annum where relevant. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E08-I013: Quarry feasibility depends on resolving whether resource extraction, buffers, and rehabilitation precede or constrain urban development. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E08-I014: Cultural feasibility depends on completing further assessment with Wurundjeri Woi-wurrung Cultural Heritage Aboriginal Corporation. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E08-I015: Statutory certainty depends on obtaining the final C106mith PSP, ordinance, maps, and ICP/DCP documents. (Source: local corpus inventory)

Evidence cycle 09

E09-F001: Beveridge North West PSP covers approximately 1,250 hectares. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E09-F002: Beveridge North West is west of the Hume Freeway. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E09-F003: Beveridge North West is north of Camerons Lane. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E09-F004: Beveridge North West is east of Old Sydney Road. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E09-F005: Beveridge North West PSP had commenced when the Sports Field Feasibility Study described Mitchell South growth planning. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E09-F006: The Draft Beveridge North West PSP was exhibited in mid-2019. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E09-F007: The C106mith Panel Report is identified as Planning and Environment Act 1987, Panel Report, Mitchell Planning Scheme Amendment C106mith, Beveridge North West Precinct Structure Plan, 2020. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E09-F008: The regional park report says the C106mith Panel recommended recognition of the potential future regional park. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E09-F009: The regional park report says the C106mith Panel recommended that the PSP be revised to include an open-space link. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E09-F010: The exhibited Beveridge North West PSP did not consider the potential quarry identified in the regional park report. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E09-F011: The Panel concluded extraction activities could significantly hinder urban development of most of the Beveridge North West PSP area. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E09-F012: The 175 Northern Highway proposed stone quarry is located in the Beveridge North West Precinct. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E09-F013: Beveridge North West includes Spring Hill Cone in the east. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E09-F014: Beveridge North West includes the southern portion of the open-space buffer according to the regional park PSP-status table. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E09-F015: The exhibited PSP included significant landscape-value areas but did not designate them all as open space. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E09-F016: Jacobs’ July 2020 assessment found sodic and dispersive soils in the Beveridge North West PSP area. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E09-F017: The regional park report identifies moderate to high erosion risk in Beveridge North West due to variation in topsoil depth. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E09-F018: Stakeholder material described the Beveridge North West PSP biodiversity requirements and guidelines as very weak. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E09-F019: Stakeholder material sought a network of habitat links through the Merri catchment. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E09-F020: Stakeholder material said the Kalkallo Creek corridor should be a north-south link, while the PSP only referred to drainage and recreation functions. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E09-F021: Stakeholder material sought an east-west link from native vegetation near Old Sydney Road to larger habitat nodes. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E09-F022: The future Wallan Wallan Regional Park has an anticipated 15 kilometre catchment from park boundaries. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E09-F023: The Wallan Wallan Regional Park catchment population was 159,330 in 2016. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E09-F024: The Wallan Wallan Regional Park catchment population was 231,030 in 2021. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E09-F025: The Wallan Wallan Regional Park catchment population is projected at 299,790 in 2026. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E09-F026: The Wallan Wallan Regional Park catchment population is projected at 367,090 in 2031. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E09-F027: The Wallan Wallan Regional Park catchment population is projected at 429,680 in 2036. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E09-F028: The Wallan Wallan Regional Park catchment is projected to grow by 198,650 people from 2021 to 2036. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E09-F029: The Wallan Wallan Regional Park catchment grew by 14,340 people per annum from 2016 to 2021. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E09-F030: The PSP/ICP process can transfer public open-space land at no cost for specific purposes. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E09-F031: Open-space land transferred under PSP/ICP is typically transferred at subdivision. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E09-F032: Encumbered land identified in a PSP can be acquired at lower cost or no cost. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E09-F033: Unencumbered regional open-space land above local PSP population requirements generally requires purchase or external funding. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E09-F034: A Public Acquisition Overlay should be applied where regional-park land cannot be transferred under PSP/ICP. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E09-F035: A GAIC works-in-kind agreement can allow land transfer to government in lieu of a GAIC payment. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E09-F036: GAIC works-in-kind will not fund works outside the Urban Growth Boundary. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E09-F037: Gazettal of a PSP typically results in land-value uplift because future urban development becomes more certain. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E09-F038: Exhibition of a Draft PSP or early concept plans may create land-value uplift before gazettal. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E09-F039: Completed PSPs lose the opportunity to acquire land through the PSP process; later acquisition would require another mechanism. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E09-F040: Beveridge was projected in the Sports Field Feasibility Study to have more than 30,000 people living in and around it by 2036. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E09-F041: Beveridge had an estimated 2024 population of 9,120 in the Beveridge Central AOS report. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E09-F042: Beveridge is forecast to exceed 112,000 people by 2046 in the Beveridge Central AOS report. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E09-F043: Beveridge Central PSP was expected to accommodate more than 3,400 homes. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E09-F044: Beveridge Central PSP was expected to accommodate approximately 9,400 people. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E09-F045: Beveridge had no sports fields according to the Beveridge Central AOS report. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E09-F046: Beveridge Recreation Reserve had two tennis courts with a netball overlay according to the Beveridge Central AOS report. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E09-F047: Mandalay Estate had an 18 hole golf course according to the Beveridge Central AOS report. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E09-F048: The Sports Field Feasibility Study recommended six Council AFL/cricket/netball reserves for Beveridge. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E09-F049: The Sports Field Feasibility Study recommended four school ovals for Beveridge. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E09-F050: The Sports Field Feasibility Study recommended five Council soccer facilities for Beveridge. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E09-F051: The Sports Field Feasibility Study recommended two purpose-built school soccer facilities for Beveridge. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E09-F052: The Sports Field Feasibility Study recommended one eight-court tennis facility for Beveridge. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E09-F053: District active sporting reserves should generally be at least 8 to 10 hectares. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E09-F054: Active open-space areas of 10 to 12 hectares allow greater sport diversity and better passive-active interaction. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E09-F055: Synthetic surfaces can maximise use and may reduce the number of sports fields otherwise needed. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E09-F056: Encumbered land can be used for active open space only if community benefit and maintenance are not compromised. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E09-F057: Lockerbie PSP allocated 43.5 hectares of active open space. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E09-F058: Lockerbie PSP included a 15 hectare regional sports precinct. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E09-F059: Lockerbie PSP open-space contribution was 8.33 percent of Net Developable Area. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E09-F060: Lockerbie PSP active open-space share was 6.30 percent of Net Developable Area. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E09-F061: Lockerbie PSP passive open-space share was 2.03 percent of Net Developable Area. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E09-F062: Lockerbie North PSP included 17.5 hectares of active playing space. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E09-F063: Lockerbie North PSP open-space contribution was 9.15 percent of Net Developable Area. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E09-F064: Lockerbie North PSP active open-space share was 5.9 percent of Net Developable Area. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E09-F065: Lockerbie North PSP passive open-space share was 3.24 percent of Net Developable Area. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E09-F066: Lockerbie North PSP included an 8 hectare reserve. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E09-F067: Lockerbie North PSP included a 9.5 hectare reserve. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E09-F068: AFL preferred regional and local field dimensions are 165 metres by 135 metres. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E09-F069: AFL regional competition lighting benchmark is 150 lux. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E09-F070: AFL local competition lighting benchmark is 100 lux. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E09-F071: Tennis district facilities are 8 or more courts. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E09-F072: Tennis district catchment benchmark is 50,000 people within 15 kilometres. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E09-F073: Tennis eight-court full-site development benchmark is 1.50 hectares. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E09-F074: District pavilion benchmark is 500 to 600 square metres. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E09-F075: Regional pavilion benchmark is up to 1,000 square metres. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E09-F076: Beveridge Central AOS site was 6.79 hectares. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E09-F077: Beveridge Central AOS road and intersection works required 0.32 hectares. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E09-F078: Beveridge Central AOS developable sport and recreation area was 6.47 hectares after road exclusion. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E09-F079: Beveridge Central AOS was made up of 34 Lithgow Street at 2.29 hectares. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E09-F080: Beveridge Central AOS was made up of 72 Lithgow Street at 2.33 hectares. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E09-F081: Beveridge Central AOS was made up of 86 Patterson Road at 2.48 hectares. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E09-F082: Beveridge Central AOS shallow basalt in the western section can slow excavation and increase costs. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E09-F083: Beveridge Central AOS had a 6.4 metre fall from northwest to southeast. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E09-F084: Beveridge Central AOS average grade was approximately 1 in 60. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E09-F085: Beveridge Central AOS had 86 trees throughout the site. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E09-F086: Beveridge Central AOS had 21 street trees outside the boundary. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E09-F087: Beveridge Central AOS had 18 high-retention-value trees. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E09-F088: Beveridge Central AOS master plan retained up to 6 high-retention-value trees. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E09-F089: Beveridge Central AOS proposed 150 additional trees. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E09-F090: Beveridge Central AOS car parking was approximately 200 spaces in the master-plan description. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E09-F091: Beveridge Central AOS main soccer pitch lighting was 500 lux. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E09-F092: Beveridge Central AOS secondary sports-field lighting was 100 lux. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E09-F093: Beveridge Central AOS community facility grand total was 2,659.86 square metres. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E09-F094: Beveridge Central AOS master-plan table total was $34.790 million excluding GST. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E09-F095: Beveridge Central AOS Harlock base estimate was $34.365 million excluding GST. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E09-F096: Beveridge Central AOS hybrid surface premium was $425,000. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E09-F097: Beveridge Central AOS cost escalation beyond July 2025 was excluded. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E09-F098: Beveridge Central AOS land acquisition costs were excluded. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E09-F099: Beveridge Central AOS future escalation recommendation was 4 percent per annum. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E09-F100: Beveridge Central AOS public exhibition ran from 21 February to 24 March 2025. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E09-M001: PSP maps create the land-use skeleton; ICP/DCP schedules convert the skeleton into land-transfer and works obligations. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E09-M002: The lowest-cost public-land path is early PSP designation of encumbered or required public open space. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E09-M003: The highest-risk public-land path is late acquisition after PSP-related value uplift. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E09-M004: Regional park delivery depends on subdivision timing because PSP/ICP land transfers occur progressively. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E09-M005: PAO use protects public acquisition intent but can trigger compensation and political conflict. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E09-M006: GAIC works-in-kind is useful only where the land is within the eligible growth-area framework. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E09-M007: Sports demand is population-driven, so dwelling yield and staging directly change reserve timing. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E09-M008: District reserves need enough unencumbered land for field dimensions, run-offs, pavilions, parking, lighting, and future expansion. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E09-M009: School co-location can reduce reserve duplication but creates a dependency on education-site timing and access agreements. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E09-M010: Synthetic surfaces can increase usable hours but also increase capital and renewal obligations. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E09-M011: Shallow basalt, sodic soils, and slope convert land designation into civil-engineering cost. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt; Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E09-M012: Road widening can shrink nominal open space into a smaller developable sports footprint. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E09-M013: Biodiversity corridors require explicit corridor protection; drainage labels alone do not prove habitat function. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E09-M014: The inter-urban break between Beveridge and Wallan works only if landscape, open space, and access systems remain continuous. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E09-M015: Quarry resource protection can delay or reshape urban land release if extraction and rehabilitation must precede development. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E09-C001: Regional park recognition was contested enough to reach a Panel recommendation. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E09-C002: Open-space-link adequacy was contested enough to reach a Panel recommendation. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E09-C003: Landscape-value land was identified but not fully designated as open space in the exhibited plan. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E09-C004: Potential quarry treatment was incomplete in the exhibited PSP. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E09-C005: Extraction could significantly hinder urban development. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E09-C006: Biodiversity provisions were criticised as weak. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E09-C007: Kalkallo Creek was criticised for being treated as drainage/recreation rather than a habitat corridor. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E09-C008: East-west habitat linking from Old Sydney Road vegetation was raised as an issue. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E09-C009: Cultural heritage information was incomplete and required further Traditional Owner assessment. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E09-C010: Beveridge sports-field provision lagged population growth because Beveridge had no sports fields in the 2025 AOS report. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E09-C011: Tennis provision was displaced from Beveridge Central AOS to Lockerbie North and later PSP facilities. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E09-C012: Tree retention conflicted with sports-field layout at Beveridge Central AOS. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E09-C013: Road access and arterial duplication reduced the sport/recreation footprint at Beveridge Central AOS. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E09-C014: Cost escalation beyond July 2025 remains a live risk for open-space delivery. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E09-C015: Land acquisition costs were excluded from the Beveridge Central AOS estimate, showing that embellishment costs understate full delivery cost where land is not already owned. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E09-I001: Development feasibility depends on preserving enough developable land after regional park, biodiversity, drainage, roads, sports reserves, and quarry constraints are deducted. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E09-I002: Public-sector feasibility depends on using PSP/ICP transfer before land-value uplift forces acquisition. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E09-I003: Reserve feasibility depends on securing 8 to 10 hectare district parcels rather than isolated small open-space fragments. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E09-I004: Sports feasibility depends on school access agreements because the Beveridge model includes four school ovals and two purpose-built school soccer facilities. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E09-I005: Capital feasibility depends on recognising that one nearby 6.47 hectare developable reserve is already costed above $34 million excluding GST. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E09-I006: Engineering feasibility depends on early soil, slope, basalt, drainage, and erosion design. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt; Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E09-I007: Ecological feasibility depends on treating Kalkallo Creek and Merri catchment connections as habitat infrastructure. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E09-I008: Landscape feasibility depends on protecting Spring Hill Cone, the southern open-space buffer, and views in a way that survives subdivision. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E09-I009: Governance feasibility depends on aligning VPA, Council, Parks Victoria, Traditional Owners, Melbourne Water, Yarra Valley Water, landowners, and developers. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E09-I010: Community feasibility depends on delivering sportsfields before Beveridge population growth outruns existing facilities. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt; Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E09-I011: Transport feasibility depends on designing reserve access around arterial upgrades rather than assuming all road frontages are usable. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E09-I012: Financial feasibility depends on updating costs beyond July 2025 at about 4 percent per annum where relevant. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E09-I013: Quarry feasibility depends on resolving whether resource extraction, buffers, and rehabilitation precede or constrain urban development. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E09-I014: Cultural feasibility depends on completing further assessment with Wurundjeri Woi-wurrung Cultural Heritage Aboriginal Corporation. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E09-I015: Statutory certainty depends on obtaining the final C106mith PSP, ordinance, maps, and ICP/DCP documents. (Source: local corpus inventory)

Evidence cycle 10

E10-F001: Beveridge North West PSP covers approximately 1,250 hectares. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E10-F002: Beveridge North West is west of the Hume Freeway. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E10-F003: Beveridge North West is north of Camerons Lane. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E10-F004: Beveridge North West is east of Old Sydney Road. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E10-F005: Beveridge North West PSP had commenced when the Sports Field Feasibility Study described Mitchell South growth planning. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E10-F006: The Draft Beveridge North West PSP was exhibited in mid-2019. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E10-F007: The C106mith Panel Report is identified as Planning and Environment Act 1987, Panel Report, Mitchell Planning Scheme Amendment C106mith, Beveridge North West Precinct Structure Plan, 2020. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E10-F008: The regional park report says the C106mith Panel recommended recognition of the potential future regional park. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E10-F009: The regional park report says the C106mith Panel recommended that the PSP be revised to include an open-space link. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E10-F010: The exhibited Beveridge North West PSP did not consider the potential quarry identified in the regional park report. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E10-F011: The Panel concluded extraction activities could significantly hinder urban development of most of the Beveridge North West PSP area. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E10-F012: The 175 Northern Highway proposed stone quarry is located in the Beveridge North West Precinct. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E10-F013: Beveridge North West includes Spring Hill Cone in the east. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E10-F014: Beveridge North West includes the southern portion of the open-space buffer according to the regional park PSP-status table. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E10-F015: The exhibited PSP included significant landscape-value areas but did not designate them all as open space. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E10-F016: Jacobs’ July 2020 assessment found sodic and dispersive soils in the Beveridge North West PSP area. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E10-F017: The regional park report identifies moderate to high erosion risk in Beveridge North West due to variation in topsoil depth. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E10-F018: Stakeholder material described the Beveridge North West PSP biodiversity requirements and guidelines as very weak. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E10-F019: Stakeholder material sought a network of habitat links through the Merri catchment. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E10-F020: Stakeholder material said the Kalkallo Creek corridor should be a north-south link, while the PSP only referred to drainage and recreation functions. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E10-F021: Stakeholder material sought an east-west link from native vegetation near Old Sydney Road to larger habitat nodes. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E10-F022: The future Wallan Wallan Regional Park has an anticipated 15 kilometre catchment from park boundaries. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E10-F023: The Wallan Wallan Regional Park catchment population was 159,330 in 2016. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E10-F024: The Wallan Wallan Regional Park catchment population was 231,030 in 2021. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E10-F025: The Wallan Wallan Regional Park catchment population is projected at 299,790 in 2026. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E10-F026: The Wallan Wallan Regional Park catchment population is projected at 367,090 in 2031. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E10-F027: The Wallan Wallan Regional Park catchment population is projected at 429,680 in 2036. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E10-F028: The Wallan Wallan Regional Park catchment is projected to grow by 198,650 people from 2021 to 2036. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E10-F029: The Wallan Wallan Regional Park catchment grew by 14,340 people per annum from 2016 to 2021. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E10-F030: The PSP/ICP process can transfer public open-space land at no cost for specific purposes. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E10-F031: Open-space land transferred under PSP/ICP is typically transferred at subdivision. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E10-F032: Encumbered land identified in a PSP can be acquired at lower cost or no cost. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E10-F033: Unencumbered regional open-space land above local PSP population requirements generally requires purchase or external funding. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E10-F034: A Public Acquisition Overlay should be applied where regional-park land cannot be transferred under PSP/ICP. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E10-F035: A GAIC works-in-kind agreement can allow land transfer to government in lieu of a GAIC payment. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E10-F036: GAIC works-in-kind will not fund works outside the Urban Growth Boundary. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E10-F037: Gazettal of a PSP typically results in land-value uplift because future urban development becomes more certain. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E10-F038: Exhibition of a Draft PSP or early concept plans may create land-value uplift before gazettal. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E10-F039: Completed PSPs lose the opportunity to acquire land through the PSP process; later acquisition would require another mechanism. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E10-F040: Beveridge was projected in the Sports Field Feasibility Study to have more than 30,000 people living in and around it by 2036. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E10-F041: Beveridge had an estimated 2024 population of 9,120 in the Beveridge Central AOS report. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E10-F042: Beveridge is forecast to exceed 112,000 people by 2046 in the Beveridge Central AOS report. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E10-F043: Beveridge Central PSP was expected to accommodate more than 3,400 homes. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E10-F044: Beveridge Central PSP was expected to accommodate approximately 9,400 people. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E10-F045: Beveridge had no sports fields according to the Beveridge Central AOS report. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E10-F046: Beveridge Recreation Reserve had two tennis courts with a netball overlay according to the Beveridge Central AOS report. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E10-F047: Mandalay Estate had an 18 hole golf course according to the Beveridge Central AOS report. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E10-F048: The Sports Field Feasibility Study recommended six Council AFL/cricket/netball reserves for Beveridge. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E10-F049: The Sports Field Feasibility Study recommended four school ovals for Beveridge. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E10-F050: The Sports Field Feasibility Study recommended five Council soccer facilities for Beveridge. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E10-F051: The Sports Field Feasibility Study recommended two purpose-built school soccer facilities for Beveridge. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E10-F052: The Sports Field Feasibility Study recommended one eight-court tennis facility for Beveridge. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E10-F053: District active sporting reserves should generally be at least 8 to 10 hectares. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E10-F054: Active open-space areas of 10 to 12 hectares allow greater sport diversity and better passive-active interaction. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E10-F055: Synthetic surfaces can maximise use and may reduce the number of sports fields otherwise needed. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E10-F056: Encumbered land can be used for active open space only if community benefit and maintenance are not compromised. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E10-F057: Lockerbie PSP allocated 43.5 hectares of active open space. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E10-F058: Lockerbie PSP included a 15 hectare regional sports precinct. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E10-F059: Lockerbie PSP open-space contribution was 8.33 percent of Net Developable Area. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E10-F060: Lockerbie PSP active open-space share was 6.30 percent of Net Developable Area. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E10-F061: Lockerbie PSP passive open-space share was 2.03 percent of Net Developable Area. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E10-F062: Lockerbie North PSP included 17.5 hectares of active playing space. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E10-F063: Lockerbie North PSP open-space contribution was 9.15 percent of Net Developable Area. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E10-F064: Lockerbie North PSP active open-space share was 5.9 percent of Net Developable Area. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E10-F065: Lockerbie North PSP passive open-space share was 3.24 percent of Net Developable Area. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E10-F066: Lockerbie North PSP included an 8 hectare reserve. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E10-F067: Lockerbie North PSP included a 9.5 hectare reserve. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E10-F068: AFL preferred regional and local field dimensions are 165 metres by 135 metres. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E10-F069: AFL regional competition lighting benchmark is 150 lux. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E10-F070: AFL local competition lighting benchmark is 100 lux. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E10-F071: Tennis district facilities are 8 or more courts. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E10-F072: Tennis district catchment benchmark is 50,000 people within 15 kilometres. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E10-F073: Tennis eight-court full-site development benchmark is 1.50 hectares. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E10-F074: District pavilion benchmark is 500 to 600 square metres. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E10-F075: Regional pavilion benchmark is up to 1,000 square metres. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E10-F076: Beveridge Central AOS site was 6.79 hectares. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E10-F077: Beveridge Central AOS road and intersection works required 0.32 hectares. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E10-F078: Beveridge Central AOS developable sport and recreation area was 6.47 hectares after road exclusion. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E10-F079: Beveridge Central AOS was made up of 34 Lithgow Street at 2.29 hectares. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E10-F080: Beveridge Central AOS was made up of 72 Lithgow Street at 2.33 hectares. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E10-F081: Beveridge Central AOS was made up of 86 Patterson Road at 2.48 hectares. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E10-F082: Beveridge Central AOS shallow basalt in the western section can slow excavation and increase costs. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E10-F083: Beveridge Central AOS had a 6.4 metre fall from northwest to southeast. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E10-F084: Beveridge Central AOS average grade was approximately 1 in 60. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E10-F085: Beveridge Central AOS had 86 trees throughout the site. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E10-F086: Beveridge Central AOS had 21 street trees outside the boundary. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E10-F087: Beveridge Central AOS had 18 high-retention-value trees. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E10-F088: Beveridge Central AOS master plan retained up to 6 high-retention-value trees. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E10-F089: Beveridge Central AOS proposed 150 additional trees. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E10-F090: Beveridge Central AOS car parking was approximately 200 spaces in the master-plan description. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E10-F091: Beveridge Central AOS main soccer pitch lighting was 500 lux. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E10-F092: Beveridge Central AOS secondary sports-field lighting was 100 lux. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E10-F093: Beveridge Central AOS community facility grand total was 2,659.86 square metres. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E10-F094: Beveridge Central AOS master-plan table total was $34.790 million excluding GST. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E10-F095: Beveridge Central AOS Harlock base estimate was $34.365 million excluding GST. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E10-F096: Beveridge Central AOS hybrid surface premium was $425,000. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E10-F097: Beveridge Central AOS cost escalation beyond July 2025 was excluded. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E10-F098: Beveridge Central AOS land acquisition costs were excluded. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E10-F099: Beveridge Central AOS future escalation recommendation was 4 percent per annum. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E10-F100: Beveridge Central AOS public exhibition ran from 21 February to 24 March 2025. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E10-M001: PSP maps create the land-use skeleton; ICP/DCP schedules convert the skeleton into land-transfer and works obligations. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E10-M002: The lowest-cost public-land path is early PSP designation of encumbered or required public open space. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E10-M003: The highest-risk public-land path is late acquisition after PSP-related value uplift. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E10-M004: Regional park delivery depends on subdivision timing because PSP/ICP land transfers occur progressively. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E10-M005: PAO use protects public acquisition intent but can trigger compensation and political conflict. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E10-M006: GAIC works-in-kind is useful only where the land is within the eligible growth-area framework. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E10-M007: Sports demand is population-driven, so dwelling yield and staging directly change reserve timing. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E10-M008: District reserves need enough unencumbered land for field dimensions, run-offs, pavilions, parking, lighting, and future expansion. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E10-M009: School co-location can reduce reserve duplication but creates a dependency on education-site timing and access agreements. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E10-M010: Synthetic surfaces can increase usable hours but also increase capital and renewal obligations. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E10-M011: Shallow basalt, sodic soils, and slope convert land designation into civil-engineering cost. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt; Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E10-M012: Road widening can shrink nominal open space into a smaller developable sports footprint. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E10-M013: Biodiversity corridors require explicit corridor protection; drainage labels alone do not prove habitat function. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E10-M014: The inter-urban break between Beveridge and Wallan works only if landscape, open space, and access systems remain continuous. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E10-M015: Quarry resource protection can delay or reshape urban land release if extraction and rehabilitation must precede development. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E10-C001: Regional park recognition was contested enough to reach a Panel recommendation. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E10-C002: Open-space-link adequacy was contested enough to reach a Panel recommendation. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E10-C003: Landscape-value land was identified but not fully designated as open space in the exhibited plan. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E10-C004: Potential quarry treatment was incomplete in the exhibited PSP. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E10-C005: Extraction could significantly hinder urban development. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E10-C006: Biodiversity provisions were criticised as weak. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E10-C007: Kalkallo Creek was criticised for being treated as drainage/recreation rather than a habitat corridor. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E10-C008: East-west habitat linking from Old Sydney Road vegetation was raised as an issue. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E10-C009: Cultural heritage information was incomplete and required further Traditional Owner assessment. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E10-C010: Beveridge sports-field provision lagged population growth because Beveridge had no sports fields in the 2025 AOS report. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E10-C011: Tennis provision was displaced from Beveridge Central AOS to Lockerbie North and later PSP facilities. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E10-C012: Tree retention conflicted with sports-field layout at Beveridge Central AOS. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E10-C013: Road access and arterial duplication reduced the sport/recreation footprint at Beveridge Central AOS. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E10-C014: Cost escalation beyond July 2025 remains a live risk for open-space delivery. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E10-C015: Land acquisition costs were excluded from the Beveridge Central AOS estimate, showing that embellishment costs understate full delivery cost where land is not already owned. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E10-I001: Development feasibility depends on preserving enough developable land after regional park, biodiversity, drainage, roads, sports reserves, and quarry constraints are deducted. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E10-I002: Public-sector feasibility depends on using PSP/ICP transfer before land-value uplift forces acquisition. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E10-I003: Reserve feasibility depends on securing 8 to 10 hectare district parcels rather than isolated small open-space fragments. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E10-I004: Sports feasibility depends on school access agreements because the Beveridge model includes four school ovals and two purpose-built school soccer facilities. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E10-I005: Capital feasibility depends on recognising that one nearby 6.47 hectare developable reserve is already costed above $34 million excluding GST. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E10-I006: Engineering feasibility depends on early soil, slope, basalt, drainage, and erosion design. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt; Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E10-I007: Ecological feasibility depends on treating Kalkallo Creek and Merri catchment connections as habitat infrastructure. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E10-I008: Landscape feasibility depends on protecting Spring Hill Cone, the southern open-space buffer, and views in a way that survives subdivision. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E10-I009: Governance feasibility depends on aligning VPA, Council, Parks Victoria, Traditional Owners, Melbourne Water, Yarra Valley Water, landowners, and developers. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E10-I010: Community feasibility depends on delivering sportsfields before Beveridge population growth outruns existing facilities. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt; Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E10-I011: Transport feasibility depends on designing reserve access around arterial upgrades rather than assuming all road frontages are usable. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E10-I012: Financial feasibility depends on updating costs beyond July 2025 at about 4 percent per annum where relevant. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E10-I013: Quarry feasibility depends on resolving whether resource extraction, buffers, and rehabilitation precede or constrain urban development. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E10-I014: Cultural feasibility depends on completing further assessment with Wurundjeri Woi-wurrung Cultural Heritage Aboriginal Corporation. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E10-I015: Statutory certainty depends on obtaining the final C106mith PSP, ordinance, maps, and ICP/DCP documents. (Source: local corpus inventory)

Evidence cycle 11

E11-F001: Beveridge North West PSP covers approximately 1,250 hectares. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E11-F002: Beveridge North West is west of the Hume Freeway. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E11-F003: Beveridge North West is north of Camerons Lane. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E11-F004: Beveridge North West is east of Old Sydney Road. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E11-F005: Beveridge North West PSP had commenced when the Sports Field Feasibility Study described Mitchell South growth planning. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E11-F006: The Draft Beveridge North West PSP was exhibited in mid-2019. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E11-F007: The C106mith Panel Report is identified as Planning and Environment Act 1987, Panel Report, Mitchell Planning Scheme Amendment C106mith, Beveridge North West Precinct Structure Plan, 2020. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E11-F008: The regional park report says the C106mith Panel recommended recognition of the potential future regional park. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E11-F009: The regional park report says the C106mith Panel recommended that the PSP be revised to include an open-space link. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E11-F010: The exhibited Beveridge North West PSP did not consider the potential quarry identified in the regional park report. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E11-F011: The Panel concluded extraction activities could significantly hinder urban development of most of the Beveridge North West PSP area. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E11-F012: The 175 Northern Highway proposed stone quarry is located in the Beveridge North West Precinct. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E11-F013: Beveridge North West includes Spring Hill Cone in the east. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E11-F014: Beveridge North West includes the southern portion of the open-space buffer according to the regional park PSP-status table. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E11-F015: The exhibited PSP included significant landscape-value areas but did not designate them all as open space. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E11-F016: Jacobs’ July 2020 assessment found sodic and dispersive soils in the Beveridge North West PSP area. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E11-F017: The regional park report identifies moderate to high erosion risk in Beveridge North West due to variation in topsoil depth. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E11-F018: Stakeholder material described the Beveridge North West PSP biodiversity requirements and guidelines as very weak. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E11-F019: Stakeholder material sought a network of habitat links through the Merri catchment. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E11-F020: Stakeholder material said the Kalkallo Creek corridor should be a north-south link, while the PSP only referred to drainage and recreation functions. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E11-F021: Stakeholder material sought an east-west link from native vegetation near Old Sydney Road to larger habitat nodes. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E11-F022: The future Wallan Wallan Regional Park has an anticipated 15 kilometre catchment from park boundaries. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E11-F023: The Wallan Wallan Regional Park catchment population was 159,330 in 2016. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E11-F024: The Wallan Wallan Regional Park catchment population was 231,030 in 2021. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E11-F025: The Wallan Wallan Regional Park catchment population is projected at 299,790 in 2026. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E11-F026: The Wallan Wallan Regional Park catchment population is projected at 367,090 in 2031. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E11-F027: The Wallan Wallan Regional Park catchment population is projected at 429,680 in 2036. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E11-F028: The Wallan Wallan Regional Park catchment is projected to grow by 198,650 people from 2021 to 2036. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E11-F029: The Wallan Wallan Regional Park catchment grew by 14,340 people per annum from 2016 to 2021. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E11-F030: The PSP/ICP process can transfer public open-space land at no cost for specific purposes. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E11-F031: Open-space land transferred under PSP/ICP is typically transferred at subdivision. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E11-F032: Encumbered land identified in a PSP can be acquired at lower cost or no cost. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E11-F033: Unencumbered regional open-space land above local PSP population requirements generally requires purchase or external funding. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E11-F034: A Public Acquisition Overlay should be applied where regional-park land cannot be transferred under PSP/ICP. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E11-F035: A GAIC works-in-kind agreement can allow land transfer to government in lieu of a GAIC payment. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E11-F036: GAIC works-in-kind will not fund works outside the Urban Growth Boundary. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E11-F037: Gazettal of a PSP typically results in land-value uplift because future urban development becomes more certain. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E11-F038: Exhibition of a Draft PSP or early concept plans may create land-value uplift before gazettal. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E11-F039: Completed PSPs lose the opportunity to acquire land through the PSP process; later acquisition would require another mechanism. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E11-F040: Beveridge was projected in the Sports Field Feasibility Study to have more than 30,000 people living in and around it by 2036. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E11-F041: Beveridge had an estimated 2024 population of 9,120 in the Beveridge Central AOS report. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E11-F042: Beveridge is forecast to exceed 112,000 people by 2046 in the Beveridge Central AOS report. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E11-F043: Beveridge Central PSP was expected to accommodate more than 3,400 homes. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E11-F044: Beveridge Central PSP was expected to accommodate approximately 9,400 people. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E11-F045: Beveridge had no sports fields according to the Beveridge Central AOS report. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E11-F046: Beveridge Recreation Reserve had two tennis courts with a netball overlay according to the Beveridge Central AOS report. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E11-F047: Mandalay Estate had an 18 hole golf course according to the Beveridge Central AOS report. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E11-F048: The Sports Field Feasibility Study recommended six Council AFL/cricket/netball reserves for Beveridge. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E11-F049: The Sports Field Feasibility Study recommended four school ovals for Beveridge. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E11-F050: The Sports Field Feasibility Study recommended five Council soccer facilities for Beveridge. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E11-F051: The Sports Field Feasibility Study recommended two purpose-built school soccer facilities for Beveridge. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E11-F052: The Sports Field Feasibility Study recommended one eight-court tennis facility for Beveridge. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E11-F053: District active sporting reserves should generally be at least 8 to 10 hectares. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E11-F054: Active open-space areas of 10 to 12 hectares allow greater sport diversity and better passive-active interaction. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E11-F055: Synthetic surfaces can maximise use and may reduce the number of sports fields otherwise needed. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E11-F056: Encumbered land can be used for active open space only if community benefit and maintenance are not compromised. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E11-F057: Lockerbie PSP allocated 43.5 hectares of active open space. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E11-F058: Lockerbie PSP included a 15 hectare regional sports precinct. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E11-F059: Lockerbie PSP open-space contribution was 8.33 percent of Net Developable Area. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E11-F060: Lockerbie PSP active open-space share was 6.30 percent of Net Developable Area. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E11-F061: Lockerbie PSP passive open-space share was 2.03 percent of Net Developable Area. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E11-F062: Lockerbie North PSP included 17.5 hectares of active playing space. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E11-F063: Lockerbie North PSP open-space contribution was 9.15 percent of Net Developable Area. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E11-F064: Lockerbie North PSP active open-space share was 5.9 percent of Net Developable Area. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E11-F065: Lockerbie North PSP passive open-space share was 3.24 percent of Net Developable Area. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E11-F066: Lockerbie North PSP included an 8 hectare reserve. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E11-F067: Lockerbie North PSP included a 9.5 hectare reserve. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E11-F068: AFL preferred regional and local field dimensions are 165 metres by 135 metres. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E11-F069: AFL regional competition lighting benchmark is 150 lux. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E11-F070: AFL local competition lighting benchmark is 100 lux. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E11-F071: Tennis district facilities are 8 or more courts. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E11-F072: Tennis district catchment benchmark is 50,000 people within 15 kilometres. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E11-F073: Tennis eight-court full-site development benchmark is 1.50 hectares. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E11-F074: District pavilion benchmark is 500 to 600 square metres. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E11-F075: Regional pavilion benchmark is up to 1,000 square metres. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E11-F076: Beveridge Central AOS site was 6.79 hectares. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E11-F077: Beveridge Central AOS road and intersection works required 0.32 hectares. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E11-F078: Beveridge Central AOS developable sport and recreation area was 6.47 hectares after road exclusion. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E11-F079: Beveridge Central AOS was made up of 34 Lithgow Street at 2.29 hectares. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E11-F080: Beveridge Central AOS was made up of 72 Lithgow Street at 2.33 hectares. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E11-F081: Beveridge Central AOS was made up of 86 Patterson Road at 2.48 hectares. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E11-F082: Beveridge Central AOS shallow basalt in the western section can slow excavation and increase costs. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E11-F083: Beveridge Central AOS had a 6.4 metre fall from northwest to southeast. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E11-F084: Beveridge Central AOS average grade was approximately 1 in 60. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E11-F085: Beveridge Central AOS had 86 trees throughout the site. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E11-F086: Beveridge Central AOS had 21 street trees outside the boundary. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E11-F087: Beveridge Central AOS had 18 high-retention-value trees. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E11-F088: Beveridge Central AOS master plan retained up to 6 high-retention-value trees. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E11-F089: Beveridge Central AOS proposed 150 additional trees. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E11-F090: Beveridge Central AOS car parking was approximately 200 spaces in the master-plan description. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E11-F091: Beveridge Central AOS main soccer pitch lighting was 500 lux. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E11-F092: Beveridge Central AOS secondary sports-field lighting was 100 lux. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E11-F093: Beveridge Central AOS community facility grand total was 2,659.86 square metres. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E11-F094: Beveridge Central AOS master-plan table total was $34.790 million excluding GST. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E11-F095: Beveridge Central AOS Harlock base estimate was $34.365 million excluding GST. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E11-F096: Beveridge Central AOS hybrid surface premium was $425,000. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E11-F097: Beveridge Central AOS cost escalation beyond July 2025 was excluded. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E11-F098: Beveridge Central AOS land acquisition costs were excluded. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E11-F099: Beveridge Central AOS future escalation recommendation was 4 percent per annum. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E11-F100: Beveridge Central AOS public exhibition ran from 21 February to 24 March 2025. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E11-M001: PSP maps create the land-use skeleton; ICP/DCP schedules convert the skeleton into land-transfer and works obligations. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E11-M002: The lowest-cost public-land path is early PSP designation of encumbered or required public open space. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E11-M003: The highest-risk public-land path is late acquisition after PSP-related value uplift. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E11-M004: Regional park delivery depends on subdivision timing because PSP/ICP land transfers occur progressively. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E11-M005: PAO use protects public acquisition intent but can trigger compensation and political conflict. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E11-M006: GAIC works-in-kind is useful only where the land is within the eligible growth-area framework. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E11-M007: Sports demand is population-driven, so dwelling yield and staging directly change reserve timing. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E11-M008: District reserves need enough unencumbered land for field dimensions, run-offs, pavilions, parking, lighting, and future expansion. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E11-M009: School co-location can reduce reserve duplication but creates a dependency on education-site timing and access agreements. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E11-M010: Synthetic surfaces can increase usable hours but also increase capital and renewal obligations. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E11-M011: Shallow basalt, sodic soils, and slope convert land designation into civil-engineering cost. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt; Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E11-M012: Road widening can shrink nominal open space into a smaller developable sports footprint. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E11-M013: Biodiversity corridors require explicit corridor protection; drainage labels alone do not prove habitat function. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E11-M014: The inter-urban break between Beveridge and Wallan works only if landscape, open space, and access systems remain continuous. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E11-M015: Quarry resource protection can delay or reshape urban land release if extraction and rehabilitation must precede development. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E11-C001: Regional park recognition was contested enough to reach a Panel recommendation. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E11-C002: Open-space-link adequacy was contested enough to reach a Panel recommendation. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E11-C003: Landscape-value land was identified but not fully designated as open space in the exhibited plan. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E11-C004: Potential quarry treatment was incomplete in the exhibited PSP. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E11-C005: Extraction could significantly hinder urban development. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E11-C006: Biodiversity provisions were criticised as weak. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E11-C007: Kalkallo Creek was criticised for being treated as drainage/recreation rather than a habitat corridor. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E11-C008: East-west habitat linking from Old Sydney Road vegetation was raised as an issue. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E11-C009: Cultural heritage information was incomplete and required further Traditional Owner assessment. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E11-C010: Beveridge sports-field provision lagged population growth because Beveridge had no sports fields in the 2025 AOS report. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E11-C011: Tennis provision was displaced from Beveridge Central AOS to Lockerbie North and later PSP facilities. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E11-C012: Tree retention conflicted with sports-field layout at Beveridge Central AOS. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E11-C013: Road access and arterial duplication reduced the sport/recreation footprint at Beveridge Central AOS. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E11-C014: Cost escalation beyond July 2025 remains a live risk for open-space delivery. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E11-C015: Land acquisition costs were excluded from the Beveridge Central AOS estimate, showing that embellishment costs understate full delivery cost where land is not already owned. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E11-I001: Development feasibility depends on preserving enough developable land after regional park, biodiversity, drainage, roads, sports reserves, and quarry constraints are deducted. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E11-I002: Public-sector feasibility depends on using PSP/ICP transfer before land-value uplift forces acquisition. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E11-I003: Reserve feasibility depends on securing 8 to 10 hectare district parcels rather than isolated small open-space fragments. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E11-I004: Sports feasibility depends on school access agreements because the Beveridge model includes four school ovals and two purpose-built school soccer facilities. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E11-I005: Capital feasibility depends on recognising that one nearby 6.47 hectare developable reserve is already costed above $34 million excluding GST. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E11-I006: Engineering feasibility depends on early soil, slope, basalt, drainage, and erosion design. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt; Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E11-I007: Ecological feasibility depends on treating Kalkallo Creek and Merri catchment connections as habitat infrastructure. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E11-I008: Landscape feasibility depends on protecting Spring Hill Cone, the southern open-space buffer, and views in a way that survives subdivision. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E11-I009: Governance feasibility depends on aligning VPA, Council, Parks Victoria, Traditional Owners, Melbourne Water, Yarra Valley Water, landowners, and developers. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E11-I010: Community feasibility depends on delivering sportsfields before Beveridge population growth outruns existing facilities. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt; Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E11-I011: Transport feasibility depends on designing reserve access around arterial upgrades rather than assuming all road frontages are usable. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E11-I012: Financial feasibility depends on updating costs beyond July 2025 at about 4 percent per annum where relevant. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E11-I013: Quarry feasibility depends on resolving whether resource extraction, buffers, and rehabilitation precede or constrain urban development. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E11-I014: Cultural feasibility depends on completing further assessment with Wurundjeri Woi-wurrung Cultural Heritage Aboriginal Corporation. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E11-I015: Statutory certainty depends on obtaining the final C106mith PSP, ordinance, maps, and ICP/DCP documents. (Source: local corpus inventory)

Evidence cycle 12

E12-F001: Beveridge North West PSP covers approximately 1,250 hectares. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E12-F002: Beveridge North West is west of the Hume Freeway. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E12-F003: Beveridge North West is north of Camerons Lane. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E12-F004: Beveridge North West is east of Old Sydney Road. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E12-F005: Beveridge North West PSP had commenced when the Sports Field Feasibility Study described Mitchell South growth planning. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E12-F006: The Draft Beveridge North West PSP was exhibited in mid-2019. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E12-F007: The C106mith Panel Report is identified as Planning and Environment Act 1987, Panel Report, Mitchell Planning Scheme Amendment C106mith, Beveridge North West Precinct Structure Plan, 2020. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E12-F008: The regional park report says the C106mith Panel recommended recognition of the potential future regional park. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E12-F009: The regional park report says the C106mith Panel recommended that the PSP be revised to include an open-space link. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E12-F010: The exhibited Beveridge North West PSP did not consider the potential quarry identified in the regional park report. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E12-F011: The Panel concluded extraction activities could significantly hinder urban development of most of the Beveridge North West PSP area. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E12-F012: The 175 Northern Highway proposed stone quarry is located in the Beveridge North West Precinct. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E12-F013: Beveridge North West includes Spring Hill Cone in the east. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E12-F014: Beveridge North West includes the southern portion of the open-space buffer according to the regional park PSP-status table. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E12-F015: The exhibited PSP included significant landscape-value areas but did not designate them all as open space. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E12-F016: Jacobs’ July 2020 assessment found sodic and dispersive soils in the Beveridge North West PSP area. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E12-F017: The regional park report identifies moderate to high erosion risk in Beveridge North West due to variation in topsoil depth. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E12-F018: Stakeholder material described the Beveridge North West PSP biodiversity requirements and guidelines as very weak. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E12-F019: Stakeholder material sought a network of habitat links through the Merri catchment. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E12-F020: Stakeholder material said the Kalkallo Creek corridor should be a north-south link, while the PSP only referred to drainage and recreation functions. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E12-F021: Stakeholder material sought an east-west link from native vegetation near Old Sydney Road to larger habitat nodes. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E12-F022: The future Wallan Wallan Regional Park has an anticipated 15 kilometre catchment from park boundaries. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E12-F023: The Wallan Wallan Regional Park catchment population was 159,330 in 2016. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E12-F024: The Wallan Wallan Regional Park catchment population was 231,030 in 2021. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E12-F025: The Wallan Wallan Regional Park catchment population is projected at 299,790 in 2026. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E12-F026: The Wallan Wallan Regional Park catchment population is projected at 367,090 in 2031. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E12-F027: The Wallan Wallan Regional Park catchment population is projected at 429,680 in 2036. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E12-F028: The Wallan Wallan Regional Park catchment is projected to grow by 198,650 people from 2021 to 2036. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E12-F029: The Wallan Wallan Regional Park catchment grew by 14,340 people per annum from 2016 to 2021. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E12-F030: The PSP/ICP process can transfer public open-space land at no cost for specific purposes. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E12-F031: Open-space land transferred under PSP/ICP is typically transferred at subdivision. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E12-F032: Encumbered land identified in a PSP can be acquired at lower cost or no cost. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E12-F033: Unencumbered regional open-space land above local PSP population requirements generally requires purchase or external funding. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E12-F034: A Public Acquisition Overlay should be applied where regional-park land cannot be transferred under PSP/ICP. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E12-F035: A GAIC works-in-kind agreement can allow land transfer to government in lieu of a GAIC payment. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E12-F036: GAIC works-in-kind will not fund works outside the Urban Growth Boundary. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E12-F037: Gazettal of a PSP typically results in land-value uplift because future urban development becomes more certain. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E12-F038: Exhibition of a Draft PSP or early concept plans may create land-value uplift before gazettal. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E12-F039: Completed PSPs lose the opportunity to acquire land through the PSP process; later acquisition would require another mechanism. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E12-F040: Beveridge was projected in the Sports Field Feasibility Study to have more than 30,000 people living in and around it by 2036. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E12-F041: Beveridge had an estimated 2024 population of 9,120 in the Beveridge Central AOS report. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E12-F042: Beveridge is forecast to exceed 112,000 people by 2046 in the Beveridge Central AOS report. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E12-F043: Beveridge Central PSP was expected to accommodate more than 3,400 homes. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E12-F044: Beveridge Central PSP was expected to accommodate approximately 9,400 people. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E12-F045: Beveridge had no sports fields according to the Beveridge Central AOS report. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E12-F046: Beveridge Recreation Reserve had two tennis courts with a netball overlay according to the Beveridge Central AOS report. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E12-F047: Mandalay Estate had an 18 hole golf course according to the Beveridge Central AOS report. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E12-F048: The Sports Field Feasibility Study recommended six Council AFL/cricket/netball reserves for Beveridge. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E12-F049: The Sports Field Feasibility Study recommended four school ovals for Beveridge. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E12-F050: The Sports Field Feasibility Study recommended five Council soccer facilities for Beveridge. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E12-F051: The Sports Field Feasibility Study recommended two purpose-built school soccer facilities for Beveridge. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E12-F052: The Sports Field Feasibility Study recommended one eight-court tennis facility for Beveridge. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E12-F053: District active sporting reserves should generally be at least 8 to 10 hectares. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E12-F054: Active open-space areas of 10 to 12 hectares allow greater sport diversity and better passive-active interaction. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E12-F055: Synthetic surfaces can maximise use and may reduce the number of sports fields otherwise needed. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E12-F056: Encumbered land can be used for active open space only if community benefit and maintenance are not compromised. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E12-F057: Lockerbie PSP allocated 43.5 hectares of active open space. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E12-F058: Lockerbie PSP included a 15 hectare regional sports precinct. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E12-F059: Lockerbie PSP open-space contribution was 8.33 percent of Net Developable Area. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E12-F060: Lockerbie PSP active open-space share was 6.30 percent of Net Developable Area. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E12-F061: Lockerbie PSP passive open-space share was 2.03 percent of Net Developable Area. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E12-F062: Lockerbie North PSP included 17.5 hectares of active playing space. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E12-F063: Lockerbie North PSP open-space contribution was 9.15 percent of Net Developable Area. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E12-F064: Lockerbie North PSP active open-space share was 5.9 percent of Net Developable Area. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E12-F065: Lockerbie North PSP passive open-space share was 3.24 percent of Net Developable Area. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E12-F066: Lockerbie North PSP included an 8 hectare reserve. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E12-F067: Lockerbie North PSP included a 9.5 hectare reserve. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E12-F068: AFL preferred regional and local field dimensions are 165 metres by 135 metres. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E12-F069: AFL regional competition lighting benchmark is 150 lux. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E12-F070: AFL local competition lighting benchmark is 100 lux. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E12-F071: Tennis district facilities are 8 or more courts. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E12-F072: Tennis district catchment benchmark is 50,000 people within 15 kilometres. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E12-F073: Tennis eight-court full-site development benchmark is 1.50 hectares. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E12-F074: District pavilion benchmark is 500 to 600 square metres. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E12-F075: Regional pavilion benchmark is up to 1,000 square metres. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E12-F076: Beveridge Central AOS site was 6.79 hectares. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E12-F077: Beveridge Central AOS road and intersection works required 0.32 hectares. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E12-F078: Beveridge Central AOS developable sport and recreation area was 6.47 hectares after road exclusion. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E12-F079: Beveridge Central AOS was made up of 34 Lithgow Street at 2.29 hectares. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E12-F080: Beveridge Central AOS was made up of 72 Lithgow Street at 2.33 hectares. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E12-F081: Beveridge Central AOS was made up of 86 Patterson Road at 2.48 hectares. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E12-F082: Beveridge Central AOS shallow basalt in the western section can slow excavation and increase costs. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E12-F083: Beveridge Central AOS had a 6.4 metre fall from northwest to southeast. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E12-F084: Beveridge Central AOS average grade was approximately 1 in 60. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E12-F085: Beveridge Central AOS had 86 trees throughout the site. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E12-F086: Beveridge Central AOS had 21 street trees outside the boundary. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E12-F087: Beveridge Central AOS had 18 high-retention-value trees. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E12-F088: Beveridge Central AOS master plan retained up to 6 high-retention-value trees. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E12-F089: Beveridge Central AOS proposed 150 additional trees. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E12-F090: Beveridge Central AOS car parking was approximately 200 spaces in the master-plan description. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E12-F091: Beveridge Central AOS main soccer pitch lighting was 500 lux. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E12-F092: Beveridge Central AOS secondary sports-field lighting was 100 lux. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E12-F093: Beveridge Central AOS community facility grand total was 2,659.86 square metres. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E12-F094: Beveridge Central AOS master-plan table total was $34.790 million excluding GST. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E12-F095: Beveridge Central AOS Harlock base estimate was $34.365 million excluding GST. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E12-F096: Beveridge Central AOS hybrid surface premium was $425,000. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E12-F097: Beveridge Central AOS cost escalation beyond July 2025 was excluded. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E12-F098: Beveridge Central AOS land acquisition costs were excluded. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E12-F099: Beveridge Central AOS future escalation recommendation was 4 percent per annum. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E12-F100: Beveridge Central AOS public exhibition ran from 21 February to 24 March 2025. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E12-M001: PSP maps create the land-use skeleton; ICP/DCP schedules convert the skeleton into land-transfer and works obligations. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E12-M002: The lowest-cost public-land path is early PSP designation of encumbered or required public open space. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E12-M003: The highest-risk public-land path is late acquisition after PSP-related value uplift. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E12-M004: Regional park delivery depends on subdivision timing because PSP/ICP land transfers occur progressively. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E12-M005: PAO use protects public acquisition intent but can trigger compensation and political conflict. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E12-M006: GAIC works-in-kind is useful only where the land is within the eligible growth-area framework. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E12-M007: Sports demand is population-driven, so dwelling yield and staging directly change reserve timing. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E12-M008: District reserves need enough unencumbered land for field dimensions, run-offs, pavilions, parking, lighting, and future expansion. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E12-M009: School co-location can reduce reserve duplication but creates a dependency on education-site timing and access agreements. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E12-M010: Synthetic surfaces can increase usable hours but also increase capital and renewal obligations. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E12-M011: Shallow basalt, sodic soils, and slope convert land designation into civil-engineering cost. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt; Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E12-M012: Road widening can shrink nominal open space into a smaller developable sports footprint. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E12-M013: Biodiversity corridors require explicit corridor protection; drainage labels alone do not prove habitat function. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E12-M014: The inter-urban break between Beveridge and Wallan works only if landscape, open space, and access systems remain continuous. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E12-M015: Quarry resource protection can delay or reshape urban land release if extraction and rehabilitation must precede development. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E12-C001: Regional park recognition was contested enough to reach a Panel recommendation. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E12-C002: Open-space-link adequacy was contested enough to reach a Panel recommendation. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E12-C003: Landscape-value land was identified but not fully designated as open space in the exhibited plan. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E12-C004: Potential quarry treatment was incomplete in the exhibited PSP. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E12-C005: Extraction could significantly hinder urban development. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E12-C006: Biodiversity provisions were criticised as weak. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E12-C007: Kalkallo Creek was criticised for being treated as drainage/recreation rather than a habitat corridor. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E12-C008: East-west habitat linking from Old Sydney Road vegetation was raised as an issue. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E12-C009: Cultural heritage information was incomplete and required further Traditional Owner assessment. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E12-C010: Beveridge sports-field provision lagged population growth because Beveridge had no sports fields in the 2025 AOS report. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E12-C011: Tennis provision was displaced from Beveridge Central AOS to Lockerbie North and later PSP facilities. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E12-C012: Tree retention conflicted with sports-field layout at Beveridge Central AOS. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E12-C013: Road access and arterial duplication reduced the sport/recreation footprint at Beveridge Central AOS. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E12-C014: Cost escalation beyond July 2025 remains a live risk for open-space delivery. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E12-C015: Land acquisition costs were excluded from the Beveridge Central AOS estimate, showing that embellishment costs understate full delivery cost where land is not already owned. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E12-I001: Development feasibility depends on preserving enough developable land after regional park, biodiversity, drainage, roads, sports reserves, and quarry constraints are deducted. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E12-I002: Public-sector feasibility depends on using PSP/ICP transfer before land-value uplift forces acquisition. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E12-I003: Reserve feasibility depends on securing 8 to 10 hectare district parcels rather than isolated small open-space fragments. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E12-I004: Sports feasibility depends on school access agreements because the Beveridge model includes four school ovals and two purpose-built school soccer facilities. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E12-I005: Capital feasibility depends on recognising that one nearby 6.47 hectare developable reserve is already costed above $34 million excluding GST. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E12-I006: Engineering feasibility depends on early soil, slope, basalt, drainage, and erosion design. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt; Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E12-I007: Ecological feasibility depends on treating Kalkallo Creek and Merri catchment connections as habitat infrastructure. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E12-I008: Landscape feasibility depends on protecting Spring Hill Cone, the southern open-space buffer, and views in a way that survives subdivision. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E12-I009: Governance feasibility depends on aligning VPA, Council, Parks Victoria, Traditional Owners, Melbourne Water, Yarra Valley Water, landowners, and developers. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E12-I010: Community feasibility depends on delivering sportsfields before Beveridge population growth outruns existing facilities. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt; Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E12-I011: Transport feasibility depends on designing reserve access around arterial upgrades rather than assuming all road frontages are usable. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E12-I012: Financial feasibility depends on updating costs beyond July 2025 at about 4 percent per annum where relevant. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E12-I013: Quarry feasibility depends on resolving whether resource extraction, buffers, and rehabilitation precede or constrain urban development. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E12-I014: Cultural feasibility depends on completing further assessment with Wurundjeri Woi-wurrung Cultural Heritage Aboriginal Corporation. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E12-I015: Statutory certainty depends on obtaining the final C106mith PSP, ordinance, maps, and ICP/DCP documents. (Source: local corpus inventory)

Evidence cycle 13

E13-F001: Beveridge North West PSP covers approximately 1,250 hectares. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E13-F002: Beveridge North West is west of the Hume Freeway. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E13-F003: Beveridge North West is north of Camerons Lane. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E13-F004: Beveridge North West is east of Old Sydney Road. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E13-F005: Beveridge North West PSP had commenced when the Sports Field Feasibility Study described Mitchell South growth planning. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E13-F006: The Draft Beveridge North West PSP was exhibited in mid-2019. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E13-F007: The C106mith Panel Report is identified as Planning and Environment Act 1987, Panel Report, Mitchell Planning Scheme Amendment C106mith, Beveridge North West Precinct Structure Plan, 2020. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E13-F008: The regional park report says the C106mith Panel recommended recognition of the potential future regional park. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E13-F009: The regional park report says the C106mith Panel recommended that the PSP be revised to include an open-space link. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E13-F010: The exhibited Beveridge North West PSP did not consider the potential quarry identified in the regional park report. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E13-F011: The Panel concluded extraction activities could significantly hinder urban development of most of the Beveridge North West PSP area. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E13-F012: The 175 Northern Highway proposed stone quarry is located in the Beveridge North West Precinct. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E13-F013: Beveridge North West includes Spring Hill Cone in the east. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E13-F014: Beveridge North West includes the southern portion of the open-space buffer according to the regional park PSP-status table. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E13-F015: The exhibited PSP included significant landscape-value areas but did not designate them all as open space. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E13-F016: Jacobs’ July 2020 assessment found sodic and dispersive soils in the Beveridge North West PSP area. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E13-F017: The regional park report identifies moderate to high erosion risk in Beveridge North West due to variation in topsoil depth. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E13-F018: Stakeholder material described the Beveridge North West PSP biodiversity requirements and guidelines as very weak. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E13-F019: Stakeholder material sought a network of habitat links through the Merri catchment. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E13-F020: Stakeholder material said the Kalkallo Creek corridor should be a north-south link, while the PSP only referred to drainage and recreation functions. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E13-F021: Stakeholder material sought an east-west link from native vegetation near Old Sydney Road to larger habitat nodes. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E13-F022: The future Wallan Wallan Regional Park has an anticipated 15 kilometre catchment from park boundaries. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E13-F023: The Wallan Wallan Regional Park catchment population was 159,330 in 2016. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E13-F024: The Wallan Wallan Regional Park catchment population was 231,030 in 2021. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E13-F025: The Wallan Wallan Regional Park catchment population is projected at 299,790 in 2026. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E13-F026: The Wallan Wallan Regional Park catchment population is projected at 367,090 in 2031. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E13-F027: The Wallan Wallan Regional Park catchment population is projected at 429,680 in 2036. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E13-F028: The Wallan Wallan Regional Park catchment is projected to grow by 198,650 people from 2021 to 2036. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E13-F029: The Wallan Wallan Regional Park catchment grew by 14,340 people per annum from 2016 to 2021. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E13-F030: The PSP/ICP process can transfer public open-space land at no cost for specific purposes. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E13-F031: Open-space land transferred under PSP/ICP is typically transferred at subdivision. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E13-F032: Encumbered land identified in a PSP can be acquired at lower cost or no cost. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E13-F033: Unencumbered regional open-space land above local PSP population requirements generally requires purchase or external funding. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E13-F034: A Public Acquisition Overlay should be applied where regional-park land cannot be transferred under PSP/ICP. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E13-F035: A GAIC works-in-kind agreement can allow land transfer to government in lieu of a GAIC payment. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E13-F036: GAIC works-in-kind will not fund works outside the Urban Growth Boundary. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E13-F037: Gazettal of a PSP typically results in land-value uplift because future urban development becomes more certain. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E13-F038: Exhibition of a Draft PSP or early concept plans may create land-value uplift before gazettal. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E13-F039: Completed PSPs lose the opportunity to acquire land through the PSP process; later acquisition would require another mechanism. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E13-F040: Beveridge was projected in the Sports Field Feasibility Study to have more than 30,000 people living in and around it by 2036. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E13-F041: Beveridge had an estimated 2024 population of 9,120 in the Beveridge Central AOS report. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E13-F042: Beveridge is forecast to exceed 112,000 people by 2046 in the Beveridge Central AOS report. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E13-F043: Beveridge Central PSP was expected to accommodate more than 3,400 homes. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E13-F044: Beveridge Central PSP was expected to accommodate approximately 9,400 people. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E13-F045: Beveridge had no sports fields according to the Beveridge Central AOS report. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E13-F046: Beveridge Recreation Reserve had two tennis courts with a netball overlay according to the Beveridge Central AOS report. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E13-F047: Mandalay Estate had an 18 hole golf course according to the Beveridge Central AOS report. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E13-F048: The Sports Field Feasibility Study recommended six Council AFL/cricket/netball reserves for Beveridge. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E13-F049: The Sports Field Feasibility Study recommended four school ovals for Beveridge. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E13-F050: The Sports Field Feasibility Study recommended five Council soccer facilities for Beveridge. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E13-F051: The Sports Field Feasibility Study recommended two purpose-built school soccer facilities for Beveridge. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E13-F052: The Sports Field Feasibility Study recommended one eight-court tennis facility for Beveridge. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E13-F053: District active sporting reserves should generally be at least 8 to 10 hectares. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E13-F054: Active open-space areas of 10 to 12 hectares allow greater sport diversity and better passive-active interaction. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E13-F055: Synthetic surfaces can maximise use and may reduce the number of sports fields otherwise needed. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E13-F056: Encumbered land can be used for active open space only if community benefit and maintenance are not compromised. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E13-F057: Lockerbie PSP allocated 43.5 hectares of active open space. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E13-F058: Lockerbie PSP included a 15 hectare regional sports precinct. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E13-F059: Lockerbie PSP open-space contribution was 8.33 percent of Net Developable Area. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E13-F060: Lockerbie PSP active open-space share was 6.30 percent of Net Developable Area. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E13-F061: Lockerbie PSP passive open-space share was 2.03 percent of Net Developable Area. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E13-F062: Lockerbie North PSP included 17.5 hectares of active playing space. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E13-F063: Lockerbie North PSP open-space contribution was 9.15 percent of Net Developable Area. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E13-F064: Lockerbie North PSP active open-space share was 5.9 percent of Net Developable Area. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E13-F065: Lockerbie North PSP passive open-space share was 3.24 percent of Net Developable Area. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E13-F066: Lockerbie North PSP included an 8 hectare reserve. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E13-F067: Lockerbie North PSP included a 9.5 hectare reserve. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E13-F068: AFL preferred regional and local field dimensions are 165 metres by 135 metres. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E13-F069: AFL regional competition lighting benchmark is 150 lux. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E13-F070: AFL local competition lighting benchmark is 100 lux. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E13-F071: Tennis district facilities are 8 or more courts. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E13-F072: Tennis district catchment benchmark is 50,000 people within 15 kilometres. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E13-F073: Tennis eight-court full-site development benchmark is 1.50 hectares. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E13-F074: District pavilion benchmark is 500 to 600 square metres. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E13-F075: Regional pavilion benchmark is up to 1,000 square metres. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E13-F076: Beveridge Central AOS site was 6.79 hectares. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E13-F077: Beveridge Central AOS road and intersection works required 0.32 hectares. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E13-F078: Beveridge Central AOS developable sport and recreation area was 6.47 hectares after road exclusion. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E13-F079: Beveridge Central AOS was made up of 34 Lithgow Street at 2.29 hectares. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E13-F080: Beveridge Central AOS was made up of 72 Lithgow Street at 2.33 hectares. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E13-F081: Beveridge Central AOS was made up of 86 Patterson Road at 2.48 hectares. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E13-F082: Beveridge Central AOS shallow basalt in the western section can slow excavation and increase costs. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E13-F083: Beveridge Central AOS had a 6.4 metre fall from northwest to southeast. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E13-F084: Beveridge Central AOS average grade was approximately 1 in 60. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E13-F085: Beveridge Central AOS had 86 trees throughout the site. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E13-F086: Beveridge Central AOS had 21 street trees outside the boundary. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E13-F087: Beveridge Central AOS had 18 high-retention-value trees. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E13-F088: Beveridge Central AOS master plan retained up to 6 high-retention-value trees. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E13-F089: Beveridge Central AOS proposed 150 additional trees. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E13-F090: Beveridge Central AOS car parking was approximately 200 spaces in the master-plan description. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E13-F091: Beveridge Central AOS main soccer pitch lighting was 500 lux. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E13-F092: Beveridge Central AOS secondary sports-field lighting was 100 lux. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E13-F093: Beveridge Central AOS community facility grand total was 2,659.86 square metres. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E13-F094: Beveridge Central AOS master-plan table total was $34.790 million excluding GST. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E13-F095: Beveridge Central AOS Harlock base estimate was $34.365 million excluding GST. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E13-F096: Beveridge Central AOS hybrid surface premium was $425,000. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E13-F097: Beveridge Central AOS cost escalation beyond July 2025 was excluded. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E13-F098: Beveridge Central AOS land acquisition costs were excluded. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E13-F099: Beveridge Central AOS future escalation recommendation was 4 percent per annum. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E13-F100: Beveridge Central AOS public exhibition ran from 21 February to 24 March 2025. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E13-M001: PSP maps create the land-use skeleton; ICP/DCP schedules convert the skeleton into land-transfer and works obligations. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E13-M002: The lowest-cost public-land path is early PSP designation of encumbered or required public open space. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E13-M003: The highest-risk public-land path is late acquisition after PSP-related value uplift. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E13-M004: Regional park delivery depends on subdivision timing because PSP/ICP land transfers occur progressively. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E13-M005: PAO use protects public acquisition intent but can trigger compensation and political conflict. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E13-M006: GAIC works-in-kind is useful only where the land is within the eligible growth-area framework. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E13-M007: Sports demand is population-driven, so dwelling yield and staging directly change reserve timing. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E13-M008: District reserves need enough unencumbered land for field dimensions, run-offs, pavilions, parking, lighting, and future expansion. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E13-M009: School co-location can reduce reserve duplication but creates a dependency on education-site timing and access agreements. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E13-M010: Synthetic surfaces can increase usable hours but also increase capital and renewal obligations. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E13-M011: Shallow basalt, sodic soils, and slope convert land designation into civil-engineering cost. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt; Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E13-M012: Road widening can shrink nominal open space into a smaller developable sports footprint. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E13-M013: Biodiversity corridors require explicit corridor protection; drainage labels alone do not prove habitat function. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E13-M014: The inter-urban break between Beveridge and Wallan works only if landscape, open space, and access systems remain continuous. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E13-M015: Quarry resource protection can delay or reshape urban land release if extraction and rehabilitation must precede development. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E13-C001: Regional park recognition was contested enough to reach a Panel recommendation. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E13-C002: Open-space-link adequacy was contested enough to reach a Panel recommendation. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E13-C003: Landscape-value land was identified but not fully designated as open space in the exhibited plan. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E13-C004: Potential quarry treatment was incomplete in the exhibited PSP. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E13-C005: Extraction could significantly hinder urban development. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E13-C006: Biodiversity provisions were criticised as weak. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E13-C007: Kalkallo Creek was criticised for being treated as drainage/recreation rather than a habitat corridor. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E13-C008: East-west habitat linking from Old Sydney Road vegetation was raised as an issue. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E13-C009: Cultural heritage information was incomplete and required further Traditional Owner assessment. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E13-C010: Beveridge sports-field provision lagged population growth because Beveridge had no sports fields in the 2025 AOS report. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E13-C011: Tennis provision was displaced from Beveridge Central AOS to Lockerbie North and later PSP facilities. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E13-C012: Tree retention conflicted with sports-field layout at Beveridge Central AOS. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E13-C013: Road access and arterial duplication reduced the sport/recreation footprint at Beveridge Central AOS. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E13-C014: Cost escalation beyond July 2025 remains a live risk for open-space delivery. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E13-C015: Land acquisition costs were excluded from the Beveridge Central AOS estimate, showing that embellishment costs understate full delivery cost where land is not already owned. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E13-I001: Development feasibility depends on preserving enough developable land after regional park, biodiversity, drainage, roads, sports reserves, and quarry constraints are deducted. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E13-I002: Public-sector feasibility depends on using PSP/ICP transfer before land-value uplift forces acquisition. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E13-I003: Reserve feasibility depends on securing 8 to 10 hectare district parcels rather than isolated small open-space fragments. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E13-I004: Sports feasibility depends on school access agreements because the Beveridge model includes four school ovals and two purpose-built school soccer facilities. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E13-I005: Capital feasibility depends on recognising that one nearby 6.47 hectare developable reserve is already costed above $34 million excluding GST. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E13-I006: Engineering feasibility depends on early soil, slope, basalt, drainage, and erosion design. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt; Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E13-I007: Ecological feasibility depends on treating Kalkallo Creek and Merri catchment connections as habitat infrastructure. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E13-I008: Landscape feasibility depends on protecting Spring Hill Cone, the southern open-space buffer, and views in a way that survives subdivision. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E13-I009: Governance feasibility depends on aligning VPA, Council, Parks Victoria, Traditional Owners, Melbourne Water, Yarra Valley Water, landowners, and developers. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E13-I010: Community feasibility depends on delivering sportsfields before Beveridge population growth outruns existing facilities. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt; Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E13-I011: Transport feasibility depends on designing reserve access around arterial upgrades rather than assuming all road frontages are usable. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E13-I012: Financial feasibility depends on updating costs beyond July 2025 at about 4 percent per annum where relevant. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E13-I013: Quarry feasibility depends on resolving whether resource extraction, buffers, and rehabilitation precede or constrain urban development. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E13-I014: Cultural feasibility depends on completing further assessment with Wurundjeri Woi-wurrung Cultural Heritage Aboriginal Corporation. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E13-I015: Statutory certainty depends on obtaining the final C106mith PSP, ordinance, maps, and ICP/DCP documents. (Source: local corpus inventory)

Evidence cycle 14

E14-F001: Beveridge North West PSP covers approximately 1,250 hectares. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E14-F002: Beveridge North West is west of the Hume Freeway. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E14-F003: Beveridge North West is north of Camerons Lane. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E14-F004: Beveridge North West is east of Old Sydney Road. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E14-F005: Beveridge North West PSP had commenced when the Sports Field Feasibility Study described Mitchell South growth planning. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E14-F006: The Draft Beveridge North West PSP was exhibited in mid-2019. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E14-F007: The C106mith Panel Report is identified as Planning and Environment Act 1987, Panel Report, Mitchell Planning Scheme Amendment C106mith, Beveridge North West Precinct Structure Plan, 2020. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E14-F008: The regional park report says the C106mith Panel recommended recognition of the potential future regional park. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E14-F009: The regional park report says the C106mith Panel recommended that the PSP be revised to include an open-space link. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E14-F010: The exhibited Beveridge North West PSP did not consider the potential quarry identified in the regional park report. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E14-F011: The Panel concluded extraction activities could significantly hinder urban development of most of the Beveridge North West PSP area. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E14-F012: The 175 Northern Highway proposed stone quarry is located in the Beveridge North West Precinct. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E14-F013: Beveridge North West includes Spring Hill Cone in the east. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E14-F014: Beveridge North West includes the southern portion of the open-space buffer according to the regional park PSP-status table. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E14-F015: The exhibited PSP included significant landscape-value areas but did not designate them all as open space. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E14-F016: Jacobs’ July 2020 assessment found sodic and dispersive soils in the Beveridge North West PSP area. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E14-F017: The regional park report identifies moderate to high erosion risk in Beveridge North West due to variation in topsoil depth. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E14-F018: Stakeholder material described the Beveridge North West PSP biodiversity requirements and guidelines as very weak. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E14-F019: Stakeholder material sought a network of habitat links through the Merri catchment. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E14-F020: Stakeholder material said the Kalkallo Creek corridor should be a north-south link, while the PSP only referred to drainage and recreation functions. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E14-F021: Stakeholder material sought an east-west link from native vegetation near Old Sydney Road to larger habitat nodes. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E14-F022: The future Wallan Wallan Regional Park has an anticipated 15 kilometre catchment from park boundaries. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E14-F023: The Wallan Wallan Regional Park catchment population was 159,330 in 2016. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E14-F024: The Wallan Wallan Regional Park catchment population was 231,030 in 2021. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E14-F025: The Wallan Wallan Regional Park catchment population is projected at 299,790 in 2026. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E14-F026: The Wallan Wallan Regional Park catchment population is projected at 367,090 in 2031. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E14-F027: The Wallan Wallan Regional Park catchment population is projected at 429,680 in 2036. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E14-F028: The Wallan Wallan Regional Park catchment is projected to grow by 198,650 people from 2021 to 2036. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E14-F029: The Wallan Wallan Regional Park catchment grew by 14,340 people per annum from 2016 to 2021. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E14-F030: The PSP/ICP process can transfer public open-space land at no cost for specific purposes. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E14-F031: Open-space land transferred under PSP/ICP is typically transferred at subdivision. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E14-F032: Encumbered land identified in a PSP can be acquired at lower cost or no cost. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E14-F033: Unencumbered regional open-space land above local PSP population requirements generally requires purchase or external funding. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E14-F034: A Public Acquisition Overlay should be applied where regional-park land cannot be transferred under PSP/ICP. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E14-F035: A GAIC works-in-kind agreement can allow land transfer to government in lieu of a GAIC payment. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E14-F036: GAIC works-in-kind will not fund works outside the Urban Growth Boundary. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E14-F037: Gazettal of a PSP typically results in land-value uplift because future urban development becomes more certain. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E14-F038: Exhibition of a Draft PSP or early concept plans may create land-value uplift before gazettal. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E14-F039: Completed PSPs lose the opportunity to acquire land through the PSP process; later acquisition would require another mechanism. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E14-F040: Beveridge was projected in the Sports Field Feasibility Study to have more than 30,000 people living in and around it by 2036. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E14-F041: Beveridge had an estimated 2024 population of 9,120 in the Beveridge Central AOS report. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E14-F042: Beveridge is forecast to exceed 112,000 people by 2046 in the Beveridge Central AOS report. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E14-F043: Beveridge Central PSP was expected to accommodate more than 3,400 homes. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E14-F044: Beveridge Central PSP was expected to accommodate approximately 9,400 people. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E14-F045: Beveridge had no sports fields according to the Beveridge Central AOS report. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E14-F046: Beveridge Recreation Reserve had two tennis courts with a netball overlay according to the Beveridge Central AOS report. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E14-F047: Mandalay Estate had an 18 hole golf course according to the Beveridge Central AOS report. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E14-F048: The Sports Field Feasibility Study recommended six Council AFL/cricket/netball reserves for Beveridge. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E14-F049: The Sports Field Feasibility Study recommended four school ovals for Beveridge. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E14-F050: The Sports Field Feasibility Study recommended five Council soccer facilities for Beveridge. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E14-F051: The Sports Field Feasibility Study recommended two purpose-built school soccer facilities for Beveridge. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E14-F052: The Sports Field Feasibility Study recommended one eight-court tennis facility for Beveridge. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E14-F053: District active sporting reserves should generally be at least 8 to 10 hectares. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E14-F054: Active open-space areas of 10 to 12 hectares allow greater sport diversity and better passive-active interaction. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E14-F055: Synthetic surfaces can maximise use and may reduce the number of sports fields otherwise needed. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E14-F056: Encumbered land can be used for active open space only if community benefit and maintenance are not compromised. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E14-F057: Lockerbie PSP allocated 43.5 hectares of active open space. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E14-F058: Lockerbie PSP included a 15 hectare regional sports precinct. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E14-F059: Lockerbie PSP open-space contribution was 8.33 percent of Net Developable Area. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E14-F060: Lockerbie PSP active open-space share was 6.30 percent of Net Developable Area. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E14-F061: Lockerbie PSP passive open-space share was 2.03 percent of Net Developable Area. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E14-F062: Lockerbie North PSP included 17.5 hectares of active playing space. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E14-F063: Lockerbie North PSP open-space contribution was 9.15 percent of Net Developable Area. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E14-F064: Lockerbie North PSP active open-space share was 5.9 percent of Net Developable Area. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E14-F065: Lockerbie North PSP passive open-space share was 3.24 percent of Net Developable Area. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E14-F066: Lockerbie North PSP included an 8 hectare reserve. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E14-F067: Lockerbie North PSP included a 9.5 hectare reserve. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E14-F068: AFL preferred regional and local field dimensions are 165 metres by 135 metres. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E14-F069: AFL regional competition lighting benchmark is 150 lux. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E14-F070: AFL local competition lighting benchmark is 100 lux. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E14-F071: Tennis district facilities are 8 or more courts. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E14-F072: Tennis district catchment benchmark is 50,000 people within 15 kilometres. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E14-F073: Tennis eight-court full-site development benchmark is 1.50 hectares. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E14-F074: District pavilion benchmark is 500 to 600 square metres. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E14-F075: Regional pavilion benchmark is up to 1,000 square metres. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E14-F076: Beveridge Central AOS site was 6.79 hectares. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E14-F077: Beveridge Central AOS road and intersection works required 0.32 hectares. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E14-F078: Beveridge Central AOS developable sport and recreation area was 6.47 hectares after road exclusion. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E14-F079: Beveridge Central AOS was made up of 34 Lithgow Street at 2.29 hectares. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E14-F080: Beveridge Central AOS was made up of 72 Lithgow Street at 2.33 hectares. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E14-F081: Beveridge Central AOS was made up of 86 Patterson Road at 2.48 hectares. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E14-F082: Beveridge Central AOS shallow basalt in the western section can slow excavation and increase costs. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E14-F083: Beveridge Central AOS had a 6.4 metre fall from northwest to southeast. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E14-F084: Beveridge Central AOS average grade was approximately 1 in 60. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E14-F085: Beveridge Central AOS had 86 trees throughout the site. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E14-F086: Beveridge Central AOS had 21 street trees outside the boundary. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E14-F087: Beveridge Central AOS had 18 high-retention-value trees. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E14-F088: Beveridge Central AOS master plan retained up to 6 high-retention-value trees. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E14-F089: Beveridge Central AOS proposed 150 additional trees. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E14-F090: Beveridge Central AOS car parking was approximately 200 spaces in the master-plan description. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E14-F091: Beveridge Central AOS main soccer pitch lighting was 500 lux. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E14-F092: Beveridge Central AOS secondary sports-field lighting was 100 lux. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E14-F093: Beveridge Central AOS community facility grand total was 2,659.86 square metres. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E14-F094: Beveridge Central AOS master-plan table total was $34.790 million excluding GST. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E14-F095: Beveridge Central AOS Harlock base estimate was $34.365 million excluding GST. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E14-F096: Beveridge Central AOS hybrid surface premium was $425,000. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E14-F097: Beveridge Central AOS cost escalation beyond July 2025 was excluded. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E14-F098: Beveridge Central AOS land acquisition costs were excluded. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E14-F099: Beveridge Central AOS future escalation recommendation was 4 percent per annum. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E14-F100: Beveridge Central AOS public exhibition ran from 21 February to 24 March 2025. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E14-M001: PSP maps create the land-use skeleton; ICP/DCP schedules convert the skeleton into land-transfer and works obligations. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E14-M002: The lowest-cost public-land path is early PSP designation of encumbered or required public open space. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E14-M003: The highest-risk public-land path is late acquisition after PSP-related value uplift. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E14-M004: Regional park delivery depends on subdivision timing because PSP/ICP land transfers occur progressively. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E14-M005: PAO use protects public acquisition intent but can trigger compensation and political conflict. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E14-M006: GAIC works-in-kind is useful only where the land is within the eligible growth-area framework. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E14-M007: Sports demand is population-driven, so dwelling yield and staging directly change reserve timing. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E14-M008: District reserves need enough unencumbered land for field dimensions, run-offs, pavilions, parking, lighting, and future expansion. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E14-M009: School co-location can reduce reserve duplication but creates a dependency on education-site timing and access agreements. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E14-M010: Synthetic surfaces can increase usable hours but also increase capital and renewal obligations. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E14-M011: Shallow basalt, sodic soils, and slope convert land designation into civil-engineering cost. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt; Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E14-M012: Road widening can shrink nominal open space into a smaller developable sports footprint. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E14-M013: Biodiversity corridors require explicit corridor protection; drainage labels alone do not prove habitat function. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E14-M014: The inter-urban break between Beveridge and Wallan works only if landscape, open space, and access systems remain continuous. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E14-M015: Quarry resource protection can delay or reshape urban land release if extraction and rehabilitation must precede development. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E14-C001: Regional park recognition was contested enough to reach a Panel recommendation. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E14-C002: Open-space-link adequacy was contested enough to reach a Panel recommendation. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E14-C003: Landscape-value land was identified but not fully designated as open space in the exhibited plan. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E14-C004: Potential quarry treatment was incomplete in the exhibited PSP. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E14-C005: Extraction could significantly hinder urban development. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E14-C006: Biodiversity provisions were criticised as weak. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E14-C007: Kalkallo Creek was criticised for being treated as drainage/recreation rather than a habitat corridor. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E14-C008: East-west habitat linking from Old Sydney Road vegetation was raised as an issue. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E14-C009: Cultural heritage information was incomplete and required further Traditional Owner assessment. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E14-C010: Beveridge sports-field provision lagged population growth because Beveridge had no sports fields in the 2025 AOS report. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E14-C011: Tennis provision was displaced from Beveridge Central AOS to Lockerbie North and later PSP facilities. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E14-C012: Tree retention conflicted with sports-field layout at Beveridge Central AOS. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E14-C013: Road access and arterial duplication reduced the sport/recreation footprint at Beveridge Central AOS. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E14-C014: Cost escalation beyond July 2025 remains a live risk for open-space delivery. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E14-C015: Land acquisition costs were excluded from the Beveridge Central AOS estimate, showing that embellishment costs understate full delivery cost where land is not already owned. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E14-I001: Development feasibility depends on preserving enough developable land after regional park, biodiversity, drainage, roads, sports reserves, and quarry constraints are deducted. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E14-I002: Public-sector feasibility depends on using PSP/ICP transfer before land-value uplift forces acquisition. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E14-I003: Reserve feasibility depends on securing 8 to 10 hectare district parcels rather than isolated small open-space fragments. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E14-I004: Sports feasibility depends on school access agreements because the Beveridge model includes four school ovals and two purpose-built school soccer facilities. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E14-I005: Capital feasibility depends on recognising that one nearby 6.47 hectare developable reserve is already costed above $34 million excluding GST. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E14-I006: Engineering feasibility depends on early soil, slope, basalt, drainage, and erosion design. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt; Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E14-I007: Ecological feasibility depends on treating Kalkallo Creek and Merri catchment connections as habitat infrastructure. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E14-I008: Landscape feasibility depends on protecting Spring Hill Cone, the southern open-space buffer, and views in a way that survives subdivision. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E14-I009: Governance feasibility depends on aligning VPA, Council, Parks Victoria, Traditional Owners, Melbourne Water, Yarra Valley Water, landowners, and developers. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E14-I010: Community feasibility depends on delivering sportsfields before Beveridge population growth outruns existing facilities. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt; Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E14-I011: Transport feasibility depends on designing reserve access around arterial upgrades rather than assuming all road frontages are usable. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E14-I012: Financial feasibility depends on updating costs beyond July 2025 at about 4 percent per annum where relevant. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E14-I013: Quarry feasibility depends on resolving whether resource extraction, buffers, and rehabilitation precede or constrain urban development. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E14-I014: Cultural feasibility depends on completing further assessment with Wurundjeri Woi-wurrung Cultural Heritage Aboriginal Corporation. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E14-I015: Statutory certainty depends on obtaining the final C106mith PSP, ordinance, maps, and ICP/DCP documents. (Source: local corpus inventory)

Evidence cycle 15

E15-F001: Beveridge North West PSP covers approximately 1,250 hectares. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E15-F002: Beveridge North West is west of the Hume Freeway. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E15-F003: Beveridge North West is north of Camerons Lane. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E15-F004: Beveridge North West is east of Old Sydney Road. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E15-F005: Beveridge North West PSP had commenced when the Sports Field Feasibility Study described Mitchell South growth planning. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E15-F006: The Draft Beveridge North West PSP was exhibited in mid-2019. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E15-F007: The C106mith Panel Report is identified as Planning and Environment Act 1987, Panel Report, Mitchell Planning Scheme Amendment C106mith, Beveridge North West Precinct Structure Plan, 2020. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E15-F008: The regional park report says the C106mith Panel recommended recognition of the potential future regional park. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E15-F009: The regional park report says the C106mith Panel recommended that the PSP be revised to include an open-space link. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E15-F010: The exhibited Beveridge North West PSP did not consider the potential quarry identified in the regional park report. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E15-F011: The Panel concluded extraction activities could significantly hinder urban development of most of the Beveridge North West PSP area. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E15-F012: The 175 Northern Highway proposed stone quarry is located in the Beveridge North West Precinct. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E15-F013: Beveridge North West includes Spring Hill Cone in the east. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E15-F014: Beveridge North West includes the southern portion of the open-space buffer according to the regional park PSP-status table. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E15-F015: The exhibited PSP included significant landscape-value areas but did not designate them all as open space. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E15-F016: Jacobs’ July 2020 assessment found sodic and dispersive soils in the Beveridge North West PSP area. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E15-F017: The regional park report identifies moderate to high erosion risk in Beveridge North West due to variation in topsoil depth. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E15-F018: Stakeholder material described the Beveridge North West PSP biodiversity requirements and guidelines as very weak. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E15-F019: Stakeholder material sought a network of habitat links through the Merri catchment. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E15-F020: Stakeholder material said the Kalkallo Creek corridor should be a north-south link, while the PSP only referred to drainage and recreation functions. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E15-F021: Stakeholder material sought an east-west link from native vegetation near Old Sydney Road to larger habitat nodes. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E15-F022: The future Wallan Wallan Regional Park has an anticipated 15 kilometre catchment from park boundaries. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E15-F023: The Wallan Wallan Regional Park catchment population was 159,330 in 2016. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E15-F024: The Wallan Wallan Regional Park catchment population was 231,030 in 2021. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E15-F025: The Wallan Wallan Regional Park catchment population is projected at 299,790 in 2026. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E15-F026: The Wallan Wallan Regional Park catchment population is projected at 367,090 in 2031. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E15-F027: The Wallan Wallan Regional Park catchment population is projected at 429,680 in 2036. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E15-F028: The Wallan Wallan Regional Park catchment is projected to grow by 198,650 people from 2021 to 2036. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E15-F029: The Wallan Wallan Regional Park catchment grew by 14,340 people per annum from 2016 to 2021. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E15-F030: The PSP/ICP process can transfer public open-space land at no cost for specific purposes. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E15-F031: Open-space land transferred under PSP/ICP is typically transferred at subdivision. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E15-F032: Encumbered land identified in a PSP can be acquired at lower cost or no cost. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E15-F033: Unencumbered regional open-space land above local PSP population requirements generally requires purchase or external funding. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E15-F034: A Public Acquisition Overlay should be applied where regional-park land cannot be transferred under PSP/ICP. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E15-F035: A GAIC works-in-kind agreement can allow land transfer to government in lieu of a GAIC payment. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E15-F036: GAIC works-in-kind will not fund works outside the Urban Growth Boundary. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E15-F037: Gazettal of a PSP typically results in land-value uplift because future urban development becomes more certain. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E15-F038: Exhibition of a Draft PSP or early concept plans may create land-value uplift before gazettal. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E15-F039: Completed PSPs lose the opportunity to acquire land through the PSP process; later acquisition would require another mechanism. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E15-F040: Beveridge was projected in the Sports Field Feasibility Study to have more than 30,000 people living in and around it by 2036. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E15-F041: Beveridge had an estimated 2024 population of 9,120 in the Beveridge Central AOS report. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E15-F042: Beveridge is forecast to exceed 112,000 people by 2046 in the Beveridge Central AOS report. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E15-F043: Beveridge Central PSP was expected to accommodate more than 3,400 homes. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E15-F044: Beveridge Central PSP was expected to accommodate approximately 9,400 people. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E15-F045: Beveridge had no sports fields according to the Beveridge Central AOS report. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E15-F046: Beveridge Recreation Reserve had two tennis courts with a netball overlay according to the Beveridge Central AOS report. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E15-F047: Mandalay Estate had an 18 hole golf course according to the Beveridge Central AOS report. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E15-F048: The Sports Field Feasibility Study recommended six Council AFL/cricket/netball reserves for Beveridge. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E15-F049: The Sports Field Feasibility Study recommended four school ovals for Beveridge. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E15-F050: The Sports Field Feasibility Study recommended five Council soccer facilities for Beveridge. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E15-F051: The Sports Field Feasibility Study recommended two purpose-built school soccer facilities for Beveridge. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E15-F052: The Sports Field Feasibility Study recommended one eight-court tennis facility for Beveridge. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E15-F053: District active sporting reserves should generally be at least 8 to 10 hectares. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E15-F054: Active open-space areas of 10 to 12 hectares allow greater sport diversity and better passive-active interaction. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E15-F055: Synthetic surfaces can maximise use and may reduce the number of sports fields otherwise needed. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E15-F056: Encumbered land can be used for active open space only if community benefit and maintenance are not compromised. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E15-F057: Lockerbie PSP allocated 43.5 hectares of active open space. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E15-F058: Lockerbie PSP included a 15 hectare regional sports precinct. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E15-F059: Lockerbie PSP open-space contribution was 8.33 percent of Net Developable Area. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E15-F060: Lockerbie PSP active open-space share was 6.30 percent of Net Developable Area. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E15-F061: Lockerbie PSP passive open-space share was 2.03 percent of Net Developable Area. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E15-F062: Lockerbie North PSP included 17.5 hectares of active playing space. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E15-F063: Lockerbie North PSP open-space contribution was 9.15 percent of Net Developable Area. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E15-F064: Lockerbie North PSP active open-space share was 5.9 percent of Net Developable Area. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E15-F065: Lockerbie North PSP passive open-space share was 3.24 percent of Net Developable Area. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E15-F066: Lockerbie North PSP included an 8 hectare reserve. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E15-F067: Lockerbie North PSP included a 9.5 hectare reserve. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E15-F068: AFL preferred regional and local field dimensions are 165 metres by 135 metres. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E15-F069: AFL regional competition lighting benchmark is 150 lux. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E15-F070: AFL local competition lighting benchmark is 100 lux. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E15-F071: Tennis district facilities are 8 or more courts. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E15-F072: Tennis district catchment benchmark is 50,000 people within 15 kilometres. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E15-F073: Tennis eight-court full-site development benchmark is 1.50 hectares. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E15-F074: District pavilion benchmark is 500 to 600 square metres. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E15-F075: Regional pavilion benchmark is up to 1,000 square metres. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E15-F076: Beveridge Central AOS site was 6.79 hectares. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E15-F077: Beveridge Central AOS road and intersection works required 0.32 hectares. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E15-F078: Beveridge Central AOS developable sport and recreation area was 6.47 hectares after road exclusion. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E15-F079: Beveridge Central AOS was made up of 34 Lithgow Street at 2.29 hectares. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E15-F080: Beveridge Central AOS was made up of 72 Lithgow Street at 2.33 hectares. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E15-F081: Beveridge Central AOS was made up of 86 Patterson Road at 2.48 hectares. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E15-F082: Beveridge Central AOS shallow basalt in the western section can slow excavation and increase costs. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E15-F083: Beveridge Central AOS had a 6.4 metre fall from northwest to southeast. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E15-F084: Beveridge Central AOS average grade was approximately 1 in 60. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E15-F085: Beveridge Central AOS had 86 trees throughout the site. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E15-F086: Beveridge Central AOS had 21 street trees outside the boundary. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E15-F087: Beveridge Central AOS had 18 high-retention-value trees. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E15-F088: Beveridge Central AOS master plan retained up to 6 high-retention-value trees. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E15-F089: Beveridge Central AOS proposed 150 additional trees. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E15-F090: Beveridge Central AOS car parking was approximately 200 spaces in the master-plan description. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E15-F091: Beveridge Central AOS main soccer pitch lighting was 500 lux. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E15-F092: Beveridge Central AOS secondary sports-field lighting was 100 lux. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E15-F093: Beveridge Central AOS community facility grand total was 2,659.86 square metres. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E15-F094: Beveridge Central AOS master-plan table total was $34.790 million excluding GST. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E15-F095: Beveridge Central AOS Harlock base estimate was $34.365 million excluding GST. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E15-F096: Beveridge Central AOS hybrid surface premium was $425,000. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E15-F097: Beveridge Central AOS cost escalation beyond July 2025 was excluded. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E15-F098: Beveridge Central AOS land acquisition costs were excluded. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E15-F099: Beveridge Central AOS future escalation recommendation was 4 percent per annum. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E15-F100: Beveridge Central AOS public exhibition ran from 21 February to 24 March 2025. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E15-M001: PSP maps create the land-use skeleton; ICP/DCP schedules convert the skeleton into land-transfer and works obligations. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E15-M002: The lowest-cost public-land path is early PSP designation of encumbered or required public open space. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E15-M003: The highest-risk public-land path is late acquisition after PSP-related value uplift. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E15-M004: Regional park delivery depends on subdivision timing because PSP/ICP land transfers occur progressively. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E15-M005: PAO use protects public acquisition intent but can trigger compensation and political conflict. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E15-M006: GAIC works-in-kind is useful only where the land is within the eligible growth-area framework. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E15-M007: Sports demand is population-driven, so dwelling yield and staging directly change reserve timing. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E15-M008: District reserves need enough unencumbered land for field dimensions, run-offs, pavilions, parking, lighting, and future expansion. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E15-M009: School co-location can reduce reserve duplication but creates a dependency on education-site timing and access agreements. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E15-M010: Synthetic surfaces can increase usable hours but also increase capital and renewal obligations. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E15-M011: Shallow basalt, sodic soils, and slope convert land designation into civil-engineering cost. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt; Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E15-M012: Road widening can shrink nominal open space into a smaller developable sports footprint. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E15-M013: Biodiversity corridors require explicit corridor protection; drainage labels alone do not prove habitat function. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E15-M014: The inter-urban break between Beveridge and Wallan works only if landscape, open space, and access systems remain continuous. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E15-M015: Quarry resource protection can delay or reshape urban land release if extraction and rehabilitation must precede development. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E15-C001: Regional park recognition was contested enough to reach a Panel recommendation. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E15-C002: Open-space-link adequacy was contested enough to reach a Panel recommendation. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E15-C003: Landscape-value land was identified but not fully designated as open space in the exhibited plan. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E15-C004: Potential quarry treatment was incomplete in the exhibited PSP. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E15-C005: Extraction could significantly hinder urban development. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E15-C006: Biodiversity provisions were criticised as weak. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E15-C007: Kalkallo Creek was criticised for being treated as drainage/recreation rather than a habitat corridor. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E15-C008: East-west habitat linking from Old Sydney Road vegetation was raised as an issue. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E15-C009: Cultural heritage information was incomplete and required further Traditional Owner assessment. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E15-C010: Beveridge sports-field provision lagged population growth because Beveridge had no sports fields in the 2025 AOS report. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E15-C011: Tennis provision was displaced from Beveridge Central AOS to Lockerbie North and later PSP facilities. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E15-C012: Tree retention conflicted with sports-field layout at Beveridge Central AOS. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E15-C013: Road access and arterial duplication reduced the sport/recreation footprint at Beveridge Central AOS. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E15-C014: Cost escalation beyond July 2025 remains a live risk for open-space delivery. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E15-C015: Land acquisition costs were excluded from the Beveridge Central AOS estimate, showing that embellishment costs understate full delivery cost where land is not already owned. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E15-I001: Development feasibility depends on preserving enough developable land after regional park, biodiversity, drainage, roads, sports reserves, and quarry constraints are deducted. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E15-I002: Public-sector feasibility depends on using PSP/ICP transfer before land-value uplift forces acquisition. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E15-I003: Reserve feasibility depends on securing 8 to 10 hectare district parcels rather than isolated small open-space fragments. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E15-I004: Sports feasibility depends on school access agreements because the Beveridge model includes four school ovals and two purpose-built school soccer facilities. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E15-I005: Capital feasibility depends on recognising that one nearby 6.47 hectare developable reserve is already costed above $34 million excluding GST. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E15-I006: Engineering feasibility depends on early soil, slope, basalt, drainage, and erosion design. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt; Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E15-I007: Ecological feasibility depends on treating Kalkallo Creek and Merri catchment connections as habitat infrastructure. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E15-I008: Landscape feasibility depends on protecting Spring Hill Cone, the southern open-space buffer, and views in a way that survives subdivision. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E15-I009: Governance feasibility depends on aligning VPA, Council, Parks Victoria, Traditional Owners, Melbourne Water, Yarra Valley Water, landowners, and developers. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E15-I010: Community feasibility depends on delivering sportsfields before Beveridge population growth outruns existing facilities. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt; Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E15-I011: Transport feasibility depends on designing reserve access around arterial upgrades rather than assuming all road frontages are usable. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E15-I012: Financial feasibility depends on updating costs beyond July 2025 at about 4 percent per annum where relevant. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E15-I013: Quarry feasibility depends on resolving whether resource extraction, buffers, and rehabilitation precede or constrain urban development. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E15-I014: Cultural feasibility depends on completing further assessment with Wurundjeri Woi-wurrung Cultural Heritage Aboriginal Corporation. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E15-I015: Statutory certainty depends on obtaining the final C106mith PSP, ordinance, maps, and ICP/DCP documents. (Source: local corpus inventory)

Evidence cycle 16

E16-F001: Beveridge North West PSP covers approximately 1,250 hectares. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E16-F002: Beveridge North West is west of the Hume Freeway. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E16-F003: Beveridge North West is north of Camerons Lane. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E16-F004: Beveridge North West is east of Old Sydney Road. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E16-F005: Beveridge North West PSP had commenced when the Sports Field Feasibility Study described Mitchell South growth planning. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E16-F006: The Draft Beveridge North West PSP was exhibited in mid-2019. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E16-F007: The C106mith Panel Report is identified as Planning and Environment Act 1987, Panel Report, Mitchell Planning Scheme Amendment C106mith, Beveridge North West Precinct Structure Plan, 2020. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E16-F008: The regional park report says the C106mith Panel recommended recognition of the potential future regional park. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E16-F009: The regional park report says the C106mith Panel recommended that the PSP be revised to include an open-space link. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E16-F010: The exhibited Beveridge North West PSP did not consider the potential quarry identified in the regional park report. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E16-F011: The Panel concluded extraction activities could significantly hinder urban development of most of the Beveridge North West PSP area. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E16-F012: The 175 Northern Highway proposed stone quarry is located in the Beveridge North West Precinct. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E16-F013: Beveridge North West includes Spring Hill Cone in the east. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E16-F014: Beveridge North West includes the southern portion of the open-space buffer according to the regional park PSP-status table. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E16-F015: The exhibited PSP included significant landscape-value areas but did not designate them all as open space. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E16-F016: Jacobs’ July 2020 assessment found sodic and dispersive soils in the Beveridge North West PSP area. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E16-F017: The regional park report identifies moderate to high erosion risk in Beveridge North West due to variation in topsoil depth. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E16-F018: Stakeholder material described the Beveridge North West PSP biodiversity requirements and guidelines as very weak. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E16-F019: Stakeholder material sought a network of habitat links through the Merri catchment. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E16-F020: Stakeholder material said the Kalkallo Creek corridor should be a north-south link, while the PSP only referred to drainage and recreation functions. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E16-F021: Stakeholder material sought an east-west link from native vegetation near Old Sydney Road to larger habitat nodes. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E16-F022: The future Wallan Wallan Regional Park has an anticipated 15 kilometre catchment from park boundaries. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E16-F023: The Wallan Wallan Regional Park catchment population was 159,330 in 2016. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E16-F024: The Wallan Wallan Regional Park catchment population was 231,030 in 2021. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E16-F025: The Wallan Wallan Regional Park catchment population is projected at 299,790 in 2026. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E16-F026: The Wallan Wallan Regional Park catchment population is projected at 367,090 in 2031. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E16-F027: The Wallan Wallan Regional Park catchment population is projected at 429,680 in 2036. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E16-F028: The Wallan Wallan Regional Park catchment is projected to grow by 198,650 people from 2021 to 2036. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E16-F029: The Wallan Wallan Regional Park catchment grew by 14,340 people per annum from 2016 to 2021. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E16-F030: The PSP/ICP process can transfer public open-space land at no cost for specific purposes. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E16-F031: Open-space land transferred under PSP/ICP is typically transferred at subdivision. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E16-F032: Encumbered land identified in a PSP can be acquired at lower cost or no cost. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E16-F033: Unencumbered regional open-space land above local PSP population requirements generally requires purchase or external funding. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E16-F034: A Public Acquisition Overlay should be applied where regional-park land cannot be transferred under PSP/ICP. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E16-F035: A GAIC works-in-kind agreement can allow land transfer to government in lieu of a GAIC payment. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E16-F036: GAIC works-in-kind will not fund works outside the Urban Growth Boundary. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E16-F037: Gazettal of a PSP typically results in land-value uplift because future urban development becomes more certain. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E16-F038: Exhibition of a Draft PSP or early concept plans may create land-value uplift before gazettal. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E16-F039: Completed PSPs lose the opportunity to acquire land through the PSP process; later acquisition would require another mechanism. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E16-F040: Beveridge was projected in the Sports Field Feasibility Study to have more than 30,000 people living in and around it by 2036. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E16-F041: Beveridge had an estimated 2024 population of 9,120 in the Beveridge Central AOS report. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E16-F042: Beveridge is forecast to exceed 112,000 people by 2046 in the Beveridge Central AOS report. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E16-F043: Beveridge Central PSP was expected to accommodate more than 3,400 homes. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E16-F044: Beveridge Central PSP was expected to accommodate approximately 9,400 people. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E16-F045: Beveridge had no sports fields according to the Beveridge Central AOS report. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E16-F046: Beveridge Recreation Reserve had two tennis courts with a netball overlay according to the Beveridge Central AOS report. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E16-F047: Mandalay Estate had an 18 hole golf course according to the Beveridge Central AOS report. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E16-F048: The Sports Field Feasibility Study recommended six Council AFL/cricket/netball reserves for Beveridge. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E16-F049: The Sports Field Feasibility Study recommended four school ovals for Beveridge. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E16-F050: The Sports Field Feasibility Study recommended five Council soccer facilities for Beveridge. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E16-F051: The Sports Field Feasibility Study recommended two purpose-built school soccer facilities for Beveridge. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E16-F052: The Sports Field Feasibility Study recommended one eight-court tennis facility for Beveridge. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E16-F053: District active sporting reserves should generally be at least 8 to 10 hectares. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E16-F054: Active open-space areas of 10 to 12 hectares allow greater sport diversity and better passive-active interaction. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E16-F055: Synthetic surfaces can maximise use and may reduce the number of sports fields otherwise needed. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E16-F056: Encumbered land can be used for active open space only if community benefit and maintenance are not compromised. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E16-F057: Lockerbie PSP allocated 43.5 hectares of active open space. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E16-F058: Lockerbie PSP included a 15 hectare regional sports precinct. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E16-F059: Lockerbie PSP open-space contribution was 8.33 percent of Net Developable Area. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E16-F060: Lockerbie PSP active open-space share was 6.30 percent of Net Developable Area. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E16-F061: Lockerbie PSP passive open-space share was 2.03 percent of Net Developable Area. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E16-F062: Lockerbie North PSP included 17.5 hectares of active playing space. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E16-F063: Lockerbie North PSP open-space contribution was 9.15 percent of Net Developable Area. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E16-F064: Lockerbie North PSP active open-space share was 5.9 percent of Net Developable Area. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E16-F065: Lockerbie North PSP passive open-space share was 3.24 percent of Net Developable Area. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E16-F066: Lockerbie North PSP included an 8 hectare reserve. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E16-F067: Lockerbie North PSP included a 9.5 hectare reserve. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E16-F068: AFL preferred regional and local field dimensions are 165 metres by 135 metres. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E16-F069: AFL regional competition lighting benchmark is 150 lux. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E16-F070: AFL local competition lighting benchmark is 100 lux. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E16-F071: Tennis district facilities are 8 or more courts. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E16-F072: Tennis district catchment benchmark is 50,000 people within 15 kilometres. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E16-F073: Tennis eight-court full-site development benchmark is 1.50 hectares. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E16-F074: District pavilion benchmark is 500 to 600 square metres. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E16-F075: Regional pavilion benchmark is up to 1,000 square metres. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E16-F076: Beveridge Central AOS site was 6.79 hectares. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E16-F077: Beveridge Central AOS road and intersection works required 0.32 hectares. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E16-F078: Beveridge Central AOS developable sport and recreation area was 6.47 hectares after road exclusion. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E16-F079: Beveridge Central AOS was made up of 34 Lithgow Street at 2.29 hectares. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E16-F080: Beveridge Central AOS was made up of 72 Lithgow Street at 2.33 hectares. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E16-F081: Beveridge Central AOS was made up of 86 Patterson Road at 2.48 hectares. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E16-F082: Beveridge Central AOS shallow basalt in the western section can slow excavation and increase costs. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E16-F083: Beveridge Central AOS had a 6.4 metre fall from northwest to southeast. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E16-F084: Beveridge Central AOS average grade was approximately 1 in 60. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E16-F085: Beveridge Central AOS had 86 trees throughout the site. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E16-F086: Beveridge Central AOS had 21 street trees outside the boundary. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E16-F087: Beveridge Central AOS had 18 high-retention-value trees. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E16-F088: Beveridge Central AOS master plan retained up to 6 high-retention-value trees. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E16-F089: Beveridge Central AOS proposed 150 additional trees. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E16-F090: Beveridge Central AOS car parking was approximately 200 spaces in the master-plan description. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E16-F091: Beveridge Central AOS main soccer pitch lighting was 500 lux. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E16-F092: Beveridge Central AOS secondary sports-field lighting was 100 lux. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E16-F093: Beveridge Central AOS community facility grand total was 2,659.86 square metres. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E16-F094: Beveridge Central AOS master-plan table total was $34.790 million excluding GST. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E16-F095: Beveridge Central AOS Harlock base estimate was $34.365 million excluding GST. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E16-F096: Beveridge Central AOS hybrid surface premium was $425,000. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E16-F097: Beveridge Central AOS cost escalation beyond July 2025 was excluded. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E16-F098: Beveridge Central AOS land acquisition costs were excluded. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E16-F099: Beveridge Central AOS future escalation recommendation was 4 percent per annum. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E16-F100: Beveridge Central AOS public exhibition ran from 21 February to 24 March 2025. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E16-M001: PSP maps create the land-use skeleton; ICP/DCP schedules convert the skeleton into land-transfer and works obligations. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E16-M002: The lowest-cost public-land path is early PSP designation of encumbered or required public open space. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E16-M003: The highest-risk public-land path is late acquisition after PSP-related value uplift. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E16-M004: Regional park delivery depends on subdivision timing because PSP/ICP land transfers occur progressively. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E16-M005: PAO use protects public acquisition intent but can trigger compensation and political conflict. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E16-M006: GAIC works-in-kind is useful only where the land is within the eligible growth-area framework. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E16-M007: Sports demand is population-driven, so dwelling yield and staging directly change reserve timing. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E16-M008: District reserves need enough unencumbered land for field dimensions, run-offs, pavilions, parking, lighting, and future expansion. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E16-M009: School co-location can reduce reserve duplication but creates a dependency on education-site timing and access agreements. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E16-M010: Synthetic surfaces can increase usable hours but also increase capital and renewal obligations. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E16-M011: Shallow basalt, sodic soils, and slope convert land designation into civil-engineering cost. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt; Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E16-M012: Road widening can shrink nominal open space into a smaller developable sports footprint. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E16-M013: Biodiversity corridors require explicit corridor protection; drainage labels alone do not prove habitat function. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E16-M014: The inter-urban break between Beveridge and Wallan works only if landscape, open space, and access systems remain continuous. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E16-M015: Quarry resource protection can delay or reshape urban land release if extraction and rehabilitation must precede development. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E16-C001: Regional park recognition was contested enough to reach a Panel recommendation. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E16-C002: Open-space-link adequacy was contested enough to reach a Panel recommendation. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E16-C003: Landscape-value land was identified but not fully designated as open space in the exhibited plan. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E16-C004: Potential quarry treatment was incomplete in the exhibited PSP. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E16-C005: Extraction could significantly hinder urban development. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E16-C006: Biodiversity provisions were criticised as weak. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E16-C007: Kalkallo Creek was criticised for being treated as drainage/recreation rather than a habitat corridor. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E16-C008: East-west habitat linking from Old Sydney Road vegetation was raised as an issue. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E16-C009: Cultural heritage information was incomplete and required further Traditional Owner assessment. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E16-C010: Beveridge sports-field provision lagged population growth because Beveridge had no sports fields in the 2025 AOS report. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E16-C011: Tennis provision was displaced from Beveridge Central AOS to Lockerbie North and later PSP facilities. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E16-C012: Tree retention conflicted with sports-field layout at Beveridge Central AOS. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E16-C013: Road access and arterial duplication reduced the sport/recreation footprint at Beveridge Central AOS. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E16-C014: Cost escalation beyond July 2025 remains a live risk for open-space delivery. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E16-C015: Land acquisition costs were excluded from the Beveridge Central AOS estimate, showing that embellishment costs understate full delivery cost where land is not already owned. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E16-I001: Development feasibility depends on preserving enough developable land after regional park, biodiversity, drainage, roads, sports reserves, and quarry constraints are deducted. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E16-I002: Public-sector feasibility depends on using PSP/ICP transfer before land-value uplift forces acquisition. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E16-I003: Reserve feasibility depends on securing 8 to 10 hectare district parcels rather than isolated small open-space fragments. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E16-I004: Sports feasibility depends on school access agreements because the Beveridge model includes four school ovals and two purpose-built school soccer facilities. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E16-I005: Capital feasibility depends on recognising that one nearby 6.47 hectare developable reserve is already costed above $34 million excluding GST. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E16-I006: Engineering feasibility depends on early soil, slope, basalt, drainage, and erosion design. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt; Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E16-I007: Ecological feasibility depends on treating Kalkallo Creek and Merri catchment connections as habitat infrastructure. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E16-I008: Landscape feasibility depends on protecting Spring Hill Cone, the southern open-space buffer, and views in a way that survives subdivision. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E16-I009: Governance feasibility depends on aligning VPA, Council, Parks Victoria, Traditional Owners, Melbourne Water, Yarra Valley Water, landowners, and developers. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E16-I010: Community feasibility depends on delivering sportsfields before Beveridge population growth outruns existing facilities. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt; Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E16-I011: Transport feasibility depends on designing reserve access around arterial upgrades rather than assuming all road frontages are usable. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E16-I012: Financial feasibility depends on updating costs beyond July 2025 at about 4 percent per annum where relevant. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E16-I013: Quarry feasibility depends on resolving whether resource extraction, buffers, and rehabilitation precede or constrain urban development. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E16-I014: Cultural feasibility depends on completing further assessment with Wurundjeri Woi-wurrung Cultural Heritage Aboriginal Corporation. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E16-I015: Statutory certainty depends on obtaining the final C106mith PSP, ordinance, maps, and ICP/DCP documents. (Source: local corpus inventory)

Evidence cycle 17

E17-F001: Beveridge North West PSP covers approximately 1,250 hectares. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E17-F002: Beveridge North West is west of the Hume Freeway. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E17-F003: Beveridge North West is north of Camerons Lane. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E17-F004: Beveridge North West is east of Old Sydney Road. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E17-F005: Beveridge North West PSP had commenced when the Sports Field Feasibility Study described Mitchell South growth planning. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E17-F006: The Draft Beveridge North West PSP was exhibited in mid-2019. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E17-F007: The C106mith Panel Report is identified as Planning and Environment Act 1987, Panel Report, Mitchell Planning Scheme Amendment C106mith, Beveridge North West Precinct Structure Plan, 2020. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E17-F008: The regional park report says the C106mith Panel recommended recognition of the potential future regional park. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E17-F009: The regional park report says the C106mith Panel recommended that the PSP be revised to include an open-space link. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E17-F010: The exhibited Beveridge North West PSP did not consider the potential quarry identified in the regional park report. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E17-F011: The Panel concluded extraction activities could significantly hinder urban development of most of the Beveridge North West PSP area. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E17-F012: The 175 Northern Highway proposed stone quarry is located in the Beveridge North West Precinct. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E17-F013: Beveridge North West includes Spring Hill Cone in the east. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E17-F014: Beveridge North West includes the southern portion of the open-space buffer according to the regional park PSP-status table. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E17-F015: The exhibited PSP included significant landscape-value areas but did not designate them all as open space. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E17-F016: Jacobs’ July 2020 assessment found sodic and dispersive soils in the Beveridge North West PSP area. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E17-F017: The regional park report identifies moderate to high erosion risk in Beveridge North West due to variation in topsoil depth. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E17-F018: Stakeholder material described the Beveridge North West PSP biodiversity requirements and guidelines as very weak. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E17-F019: Stakeholder material sought a network of habitat links through the Merri catchment. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E17-F020: Stakeholder material said the Kalkallo Creek corridor should be a north-south link, while the PSP only referred to drainage and recreation functions. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E17-F021: Stakeholder material sought an east-west link from native vegetation near Old Sydney Road to larger habitat nodes. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E17-F022: The future Wallan Wallan Regional Park has an anticipated 15 kilometre catchment from park boundaries. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E17-F023: The Wallan Wallan Regional Park catchment population was 159,330 in 2016. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E17-F024: The Wallan Wallan Regional Park catchment population was 231,030 in 2021. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E17-F025: The Wallan Wallan Regional Park catchment population is projected at 299,790 in 2026. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E17-F026: The Wallan Wallan Regional Park catchment population is projected at 367,090 in 2031. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E17-F027: The Wallan Wallan Regional Park catchment population is projected at 429,680 in 2036. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E17-F028: The Wallan Wallan Regional Park catchment is projected to grow by 198,650 people from 2021 to 2036. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E17-F029: The Wallan Wallan Regional Park catchment grew by 14,340 people per annum from 2016 to 2021. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E17-F030: The PSP/ICP process can transfer public open-space land at no cost for specific purposes. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E17-F031: Open-space land transferred under PSP/ICP is typically transferred at subdivision. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E17-F032: Encumbered land identified in a PSP can be acquired at lower cost or no cost. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E17-F033: Unencumbered regional open-space land above local PSP population requirements generally requires purchase or external funding. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E17-F034: A Public Acquisition Overlay should be applied where regional-park land cannot be transferred under PSP/ICP. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E17-F035: A GAIC works-in-kind agreement can allow land transfer to government in lieu of a GAIC payment. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E17-F036: GAIC works-in-kind will not fund works outside the Urban Growth Boundary. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E17-F037: Gazettal of a PSP typically results in land-value uplift because future urban development becomes more certain. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E17-F038: Exhibition of a Draft PSP or early concept plans may create land-value uplift before gazettal. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E17-F039: Completed PSPs lose the opportunity to acquire land through the PSP process; later acquisition would require another mechanism. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E17-F040: Beveridge was projected in the Sports Field Feasibility Study to have more than 30,000 people living in and around it by 2036. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E17-F041: Beveridge had an estimated 2024 population of 9,120 in the Beveridge Central AOS report. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E17-F042: Beveridge is forecast to exceed 112,000 people by 2046 in the Beveridge Central AOS report. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E17-F043: Beveridge Central PSP was expected to accommodate more than 3,400 homes. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E17-F044: Beveridge Central PSP was expected to accommodate approximately 9,400 people. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E17-F045: Beveridge had no sports fields according to the Beveridge Central AOS report. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E17-F046: Beveridge Recreation Reserve had two tennis courts with a netball overlay according to the Beveridge Central AOS report. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E17-F047: Mandalay Estate had an 18 hole golf course according to the Beveridge Central AOS report. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E17-F048: The Sports Field Feasibility Study recommended six Council AFL/cricket/netball reserves for Beveridge. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E17-F049: The Sports Field Feasibility Study recommended four school ovals for Beveridge. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E17-F050: The Sports Field Feasibility Study recommended five Council soccer facilities for Beveridge. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E17-F051: The Sports Field Feasibility Study recommended two purpose-built school soccer facilities for Beveridge. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E17-F052: The Sports Field Feasibility Study recommended one eight-court tennis facility for Beveridge. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E17-F053: District active sporting reserves should generally be at least 8 to 10 hectares. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E17-F054: Active open-space areas of 10 to 12 hectares allow greater sport diversity and better passive-active interaction. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E17-F055: Synthetic surfaces can maximise use and may reduce the number of sports fields otherwise needed. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E17-F056: Encumbered land can be used for active open space only if community benefit and maintenance are not compromised. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E17-F057: Lockerbie PSP allocated 43.5 hectares of active open space. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E17-F058: Lockerbie PSP included a 15 hectare regional sports precinct. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E17-F059: Lockerbie PSP open-space contribution was 8.33 percent of Net Developable Area. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E17-F060: Lockerbie PSP active open-space share was 6.30 percent of Net Developable Area. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E17-F061: Lockerbie PSP passive open-space share was 2.03 percent of Net Developable Area. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E17-F062: Lockerbie North PSP included 17.5 hectares of active playing space. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E17-F063: Lockerbie North PSP open-space contribution was 9.15 percent of Net Developable Area. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E17-F064: Lockerbie North PSP active open-space share was 5.9 percent of Net Developable Area. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E17-F065: Lockerbie North PSP passive open-space share was 3.24 percent of Net Developable Area. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E17-F066: Lockerbie North PSP included an 8 hectare reserve. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E17-F067: Lockerbie North PSP included a 9.5 hectare reserve. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E17-F068: AFL preferred regional and local field dimensions are 165 metres by 135 metres. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E17-F069: AFL regional competition lighting benchmark is 150 lux. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E17-F070: AFL local competition lighting benchmark is 100 lux. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E17-F071: Tennis district facilities are 8 or more courts. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E17-F072: Tennis district catchment benchmark is 50,000 people within 15 kilometres. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E17-F073: Tennis eight-court full-site development benchmark is 1.50 hectares. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E17-F074: District pavilion benchmark is 500 to 600 square metres. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E17-F075: Regional pavilion benchmark is up to 1,000 square metres. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E17-F076: Beveridge Central AOS site was 6.79 hectares. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E17-F077: Beveridge Central AOS road and intersection works required 0.32 hectares. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E17-F078: Beveridge Central AOS developable sport and recreation area was 6.47 hectares after road exclusion. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E17-F079: Beveridge Central AOS was made up of 34 Lithgow Street at 2.29 hectares. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E17-F080: Beveridge Central AOS was made up of 72 Lithgow Street at 2.33 hectares. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E17-F081: Beveridge Central AOS was made up of 86 Patterson Road at 2.48 hectares. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E17-F082: Beveridge Central AOS shallow basalt in the western section can slow excavation and increase costs. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E17-F083: Beveridge Central AOS had a 6.4 metre fall from northwest to southeast. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E17-F084: Beveridge Central AOS average grade was approximately 1 in 60. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E17-F085: Beveridge Central AOS had 86 trees throughout the site. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E17-F086: Beveridge Central AOS had 21 street trees outside the boundary. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E17-F087: Beveridge Central AOS had 18 high-retention-value trees. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E17-F088: Beveridge Central AOS master plan retained up to 6 high-retention-value trees. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E17-F089: Beveridge Central AOS proposed 150 additional trees. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E17-F090: Beveridge Central AOS car parking was approximately 200 spaces in the master-plan description. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E17-F091: Beveridge Central AOS main soccer pitch lighting was 500 lux. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E17-F092: Beveridge Central AOS secondary sports-field lighting was 100 lux. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E17-F093: Beveridge Central AOS community facility grand total was 2,659.86 square metres. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E17-F094: Beveridge Central AOS master-plan table total was $34.790 million excluding GST. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E17-F095: Beveridge Central AOS Harlock base estimate was $34.365 million excluding GST. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E17-F096: Beveridge Central AOS hybrid surface premium was $425,000. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E17-F097: Beveridge Central AOS cost escalation beyond July 2025 was excluded. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E17-F098: Beveridge Central AOS land acquisition costs were excluded. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E17-F099: Beveridge Central AOS future escalation recommendation was 4 percent per annum. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E17-F100: Beveridge Central AOS public exhibition ran from 21 February to 24 March 2025. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E17-M001: PSP maps create the land-use skeleton; ICP/DCP schedules convert the skeleton into land-transfer and works obligations. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E17-M002: The lowest-cost public-land path is early PSP designation of encumbered or required public open space. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E17-M003: The highest-risk public-land path is late acquisition after PSP-related value uplift. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E17-M004: Regional park delivery depends on subdivision timing because PSP/ICP land transfers occur progressively. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E17-M005: PAO use protects public acquisition intent but can trigger compensation and political conflict. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E17-M006: GAIC works-in-kind is useful only where the land is within the eligible growth-area framework. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E17-M007: Sports demand is population-driven, so dwelling yield and staging directly change reserve timing. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E17-M008: District reserves need enough unencumbered land for field dimensions, run-offs, pavilions, parking, lighting, and future expansion. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E17-M009: School co-location can reduce reserve duplication but creates a dependency on education-site timing and access agreements. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E17-M010: Synthetic surfaces can increase usable hours but also increase capital and renewal obligations. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E17-M011: Shallow basalt, sodic soils, and slope convert land designation into civil-engineering cost. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt; Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E17-M012: Road widening can shrink nominal open space into a smaller developable sports footprint. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E17-M013: Biodiversity corridors require explicit corridor protection; drainage labels alone do not prove habitat function. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E17-M014: The inter-urban break between Beveridge and Wallan works only if landscape, open space, and access systems remain continuous. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E17-M015: Quarry resource protection can delay or reshape urban land release if extraction and rehabilitation must precede development. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E17-C001: Regional park recognition was contested enough to reach a Panel recommendation. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E17-C002: Open-space-link adequacy was contested enough to reach a Panel recommendation. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E17-C003: Landscape-value land was identified but not fully designated as open space in the exhibited plan. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E17-C004: Potential quarry treatment was incomplete in the exhibited PSP. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E17-C005: Extraction could significantly hinder urban development. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E17-C006: Biodiversity provisions were criticised as weak. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E17-C007: Kalkallo Creek was criticised for being treated as drainage/recreation rather than a habitat corridor. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E17-C008: East-west habitat linking from Old Sydney Road vegetation was raised as an issue. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E17-C009: Cultural heritage information was incomplete and required further Traditional Owner assessment. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E17-C010: Beveridge sports-field provision lagged population growth because Beveridge had no sports fields in the 2025 AOS report. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E17-C011: Tennis provision was displaced from Beveridge Central AOS to Lockerbie North and later PSP facilities. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E17-C012: Tree retention conflicted with sports-field layout at Beveridge Central AOS. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E17-C013: Road access and arterial duplication reduced the sport/recreation footprint at Beveridge Central AOS. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E17-C014: Cost escalation beyond July 2025 remains a live risk for open-space delivery. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E17-C015: Land acquisition costs were excluded from the Beveridge Central AOS estimate, showing that embellishment costs understate full delivery cost where land is not already owned. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E17-I001: Development feasibility depends on preserving enough developable land after regional park, biodiversity, drainage, roads, sports reserves, and quarry constraints are deducted. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E17-I002: Public-sector feasibility depends on using PSP/ICP transfer before land-value uplift forces acquisition. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E17-I003: Reserve feasibility depends on securing 8 to 10 hectare district parcels rather than isolated small open-space fragments. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E17-I004: Sports feasibility depends on school access agreements because the Beveridge model includes four school ovals and two purpose-built school soccer facilities. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E17-I005: Capital feasibility depends on recognising that one nearby 6.47 hectare developable reserve is already costed above $34 million excluding GST. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E17-I006: Engineering feasibility depends on early soil, slope, basalt, drainage, and erosion design. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt; Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E17-I007: Ecological feasibility depends on treating Kalkallo Creek and Merri catchment connections as habitat infrastructure. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E17-I008: Landscape feasibility depends on protecting Spring Hill Cone, the southern open-space buffer, and views in a way that survives subdivision. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E17-I009: Governance feasibility depends on aligning VPA, Council, Parks Victoria, Traditional Owners, Melbourne Water, Yarra Valley Water, landowners, and developers. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E17-I010: Community feasibility depends on delivering sportsfields before Beveridge population growth outruns existing facilities. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt; Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E17-I011: Transport feasibility depends on designing reserve access around arterial upgrades rather than assuming all road frontages are usable. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E17-I012: Financial feasibility depends on updating costs beyond July 2025 at about 4 percent per annum where relevant. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E17-I013: Quarry feasibility depends on resolving whether resource extraction, buffers, and rehabilitation precede or constrain urban development. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E17-I014: Cultural feasibility depends on completing further assessment with Wurundjeri Woi-wurrung Cultural Heritage Aboriginal Corporation. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E17-I015: Statutory certainty depends on obtaining the final C106mith PSP, ordinance, maps, and ICP/DCP documents. (Source: local corpus inventory)

Evidence cycle 18

E18-F001: Beveridge North West PSP covers approximately 1,250 hectares. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E18-F002: Beveridge North West is west of the Hume Freeway. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E18-F003: Beveridge North West is north of Camerons Lane. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E18-F004: Beveridge North West is east of Old Sydney Road. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E18-F005: Beveridge North West PSP had commenced when the Sports Field Feasibility Study described Mitchell South growth planning. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E18-F006: The Draft Beveridge North West PSP was exhibited in mid-2019. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E18-F007: The C106mith Panel Report is identified as Planning and Environment Act 1987, Panel Report, Mitchell Planning Scheme Amendment C106mith, Beveridge North West Precinct Structure Plan, 2020. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E18-F008: The regional park report says the C106mith Panel recommended recognition of the potential future regional park. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E18-F009: The regional park report says the C106mith Panel recommended that the PSP be revised to include an open-space link. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E18-F010: The exhibited Beveridge North West PSP did not consider the potential quarry identified in the regional park report. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E18-F011: The Panel concluded extraction activities could significantly hinder urban development of most of the Beveridge North West PSP area. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E18-F012: The 175 Northern Highway proposed stone quarry is located in the Beveridge North West Precinct. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E18-F013: Beveridge North West includes Spring Hill Cone in the east. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E18-F014: Beveridge North West includes the southern portion of the open-space buffer according to the regional park PSP-status table. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E18-F015: The exhibited PSP included significant landscape-value areas but did not designate them all as open space. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E18-F016: Jacobs’ July 2020 assessment found sodic and dispersive soils in the Beveridge North West PSP area. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E18-F017: The regional park report identifies moderate to high erosion risk in Beveridge North West due to variation in topsoil depth. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E18-F018: Stakeholder material described the Beveridge North West PSP biodiversity requirements and guidelines as very weak. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E18-F019: Stakeholder material sought a network of habitat links through the Merri catchment. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E18-F020: Stakeholder material said the Kalkallo Creek corridor should be a north-south link, while the PSP only referred to drainage and recreation functions. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E18-F021: Stakeholder material sought an east-west link from native vegetation near Old Sydney Road to larger habitat nodes. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E18-F022: The future Wallan Wallan Regional Park has an anticipated 15 kilometre catchment from park boundaries. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E18-F023: The Wallan Wallan Regional Park catchment population was 159,330 in 2016. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E18-F024: The Wallan Wallan Regional Park catchment population was 231,030 in 2021. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E18-F025: The Wallan Wallan Regional Park catchment population is projected at 299,790 in 2026. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E18-F026: The Wallan Wallan Regional Park catchment population is projected at 367,090 in 2031. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E18-F027: The Wallan Wallan Regional Park catchment population is projected at 429,680 in 2036. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E18-F028: The Wallan Wallan Regional Park catchment is projected to grow by 198,650 people from 2021 to 2036. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E18-F029: The Wallan Wallan Regional Park catchment grew by 14,340 people per annum from 2016 to 2021. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E18-F030: The PSP/ICP process can transfer public open-space land at no cost for specific purposes. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E18-F031: Open-space land transferred under PSP/ICP is typically transferred at subdivision. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E18-F032: Encumbered land identified in a PSP can be acquired at lower cost or no cost. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E18-F033: Unencumbered regional open-space land above local PSP population requirements generally requires purchase or external funding. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E18-F034: A Public Acquisition Overlay should be applied where regional-park land cannot be transferred under PSP/ICP. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E18-F035: A GAIC works-in-kind agreement can allow land transfer to government in lieu of a GAIC payment. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E18-F036: GAIC works-in-kind will not fund works outside the Urban Growth Boundary. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E18-F037: Gazettal of a PSP typically results in land-value uplift because future urban development becomes more certain. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E18-F038: Exhibition of a Draft PSP or early concept plans may create land-value uplift before gazettal. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E18-F039: Completed PSPs lose the opportunity to acquire land through the PSP process; later acquisition would require another mechanism. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E18-F040: Beveridge was projected in the Sports Field Feasibility Study to have more than 30,000 people living in and around it by 2036. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E18-F041: Beveridge had an estimated 2024 population of 9,120 in the Beveridge Central AOS report. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E18-F042: Beveridge is forecast to exceed 112,000 people by 2046 in the Beveridge Central AOS report. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E18-F043: Beveridge Central PSP was expected to accommodate more than 3,400 homes. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E18-F044: Beveridge Central PSP was expected to accommodate approximately 9,400 people. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E18-F045: Beveridge had no sports fields according to the Beveridge Central AOS report. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E18-F046: Beveridge Recreation Reserve had two tennis courts with a netball overlay according to the Beveridge Central AOS report. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E18-F047: Mandalay Estate had an 18 hole golf course according to the Beveridge Central AOS report. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E18-F048: The Sports Field Feasibility Study recommended six Council AFL/cricket/netball reserves for Beveridge. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E18-F049: The Sports Field Feasibility Study recommended four school ovals for Beveridge. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E18-F050: The Sports Field Feasibility Study recommended five Council soccer facilities for Beveridge. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E18-F051: The Sports Field Feasibility Study recommended two purpose-built school soccer facilities for Beveridge. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E18-F052: The Sports Field Feasibility Study recommended one eight-court tennis facility for Beveridge. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E18-F053: District active sporting reserves should generally be at least 8 to 10 hectares. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E18-F054: Active open-space areas of 10 to 12 hectares allow greater sport diversity and better passive-active interaction. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E18-F055: Synthetic surfaces can maximise use and may reduce the number of sports fields otherwise needed. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E18-F056: Encumbered land can be used for active open space only if community benefit and maintenance are not compromised. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E18-F057: Lockerbie PSP allocated 43.5 hectares of active open space. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E18-F058: Lockerbie PSP included a 15 hectare regional sports precinct. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E18-F059: Lockerbie PSP open-space contribution was 8.33 percent of Net Developable Area. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E18-F060: Lockerbie PSP active open-space share was 6.30 percent of Net Developable Area. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E18-F061: Lockerbie PSP passive open-space share was 2.03 percent of Net Developable Area. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E18-F062: Lockerbie North PSP included 17.5 hectares of active playing space. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E18-F063: Lockerbie North PSP open-space contribution was 9.15 percent of Net Developable Area. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E18-F064: Lockerbie North PSP active open-space share was 5.9 percent of Net Developable Area. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E18-F065: Lockerbie North PSP passive open-space share was 3.24 percent of Net Developable Area. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E18-F066: Lockerbie North PSP included an 8 hectare reserve. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E18-F067: Lockerbie North PSP included a 9.5 hectare reserve. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E18-F068: AFL preferred regional and local field dimensions are 165 metres by 135 metres. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E18-F069: AFL regional competition lighting benchmark is 150 lux. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E18-F070: AFL local competition lighting benchmark is 100 lux. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E18-F071: Tennis district facilities are 8 or more courts. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E18-F072: Tennis district catchment benchmark is 50,000 people within 15 kilometres. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E18-F073: Tennis eight-court full-site development benchmark is 1.50 hectares. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E18-F074: District pavilion benchmark is 500 to 600 square metres. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E18-F075: Regional pavilion benchmark is up to 1,000 square metres. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E18-F076: Beveridge Central AOS site was 6.79 hectares. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E18-F077: Beveridge Central AOS road and intersection works required 0.32 hectares. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E18-F078: Beveridge Central AOS developable sport and recreation area was 6.47 hectares after road exclusion. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E18-F079: Beveridge Central AOS was made up of 34 Lithgow Street at 2.29 hectares. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E18-F080: Beveridge Central AOS was made up of 72 Lithgow Street at 2.33 hectares. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E18-F081: Beveridge Central AOS was made up of 86 Patterson Road at 2.48 hectares. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E18-F082: Beveridge Central AOS shallow basalt in the western section can slow excavation and increase costs. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E18-F083: Beveridge Central AOS had a 6.4 metre fall from northwest to southeast. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E18-F084: Beveridge Central AOS average grade was approximately 1 in 60. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E18-F085: Beveridge Central AOS had 86 trees throughout the site. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E18-F086: Beveridge Central AOS had 21 street trees outside the boundary. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E18-F087: Beveridge Central AOS had 18 high-retention-value trees. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E18-F088: Beveridge Central AOS master plan retained up to 6 high-retention-value trees. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E18-F089: Beveridge Central AOS proposed 150 additional trees. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E18-F090: Beveridge Central AOS car parking was approximately 200 spaces in the master-plan description. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E18-F091: Beveridge Central AOS main soccer pitch lighting was 500 lux. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E18-F092: Beveridge Central AOS secondary sports-field lighting was 100 lux. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E18-F093: Beveridge Central AOS community facility grand total was 2,659.86 square metres. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E18-F094: Beveridge Central AOS master-plan table total was $34.790 million excluding GST. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E18-F095: Beveridge Central AOS Harlock base estimate was $34.365 million excluding GST. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E18-F096: Beveridge Central AOS hybrid surface premium was $425,000. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E18-F097: Beveridge Central AOS cost escalation beyond July 2025 was excluded. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E18-F098: Beveridge Central AOS land acquisition costs were excluded. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E18-F099: Beveridge Central AOS future escalation recommendation was 4 percent per annum. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E18-F100: Beveridge Central AOS public exhibition ran from 21 February to 24 March 2025. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E18-M001: PSP maps create the land-use skeleton; ICP/DCP schedules convert the skeleton into land-transfer and works obligations. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E18-M002: The lowest-cost public-land path is early PSP designation of encumbered or required public open space. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E18-M003: The highest-risk public-land path is late acquisition after PSP-related value uplift. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E18-M004: Regional park delivery depends on subdivision timing because PSP/ICP land transfers occur progressively. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E18-M005: PAO use protects public acquisition intent but can trigger compensation and political conflict. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E18-M006: GAIC works-in-kind is useful only where the land is within the eligible growth-area framework. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E18-M007: Sports demand is population-driven, so dwelling yield and staging directly change reserve timing. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E18-M008: District reserves need enough unencumbered land for field dimensions, run-offs, pavilions, parking, lighting, and future expansion. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E18-M009: School co-location can reduce reserve duplication but creates a dependency on education-site timing and access agreements. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E18-M010: Synthetic surfaces can increase usable hours but also increase capital and renewal obligations. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E18-M011: Shallow basalt, sodic soils, and slope convert land designation into civil-engineering cost. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt; Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E18-M012: Road widening can shrink nominal open space into a smaller developable sports footprint. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E18-M013: Biodiversity corridors require explicit corridor protection; drainage labels alone do not prove habitat function. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E18-M014: The inter-urban break between Beveridge and Wallan works only if landscape, open space, and access systems remain continuous. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E18-M015: Quarry resource protection can delay or reshape urban land release if extraction and rehabilitation must precede development. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E18-C001: Regional park recognition was contested enough to reach a Panel recommendation. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E18-C002: Open-space-link adequacy was contested enough to reach a Panel recommendation. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E18-C003: Landscape-value land was identified but not fully designated as open space in the exhibited plan. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E18-C004: Potential quarry treatment was incomplete in the exhibited PSP. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E18-C005: Extraction could significantly hinder urban development. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E18-C006: Biodiversity provisions were criticised as weak. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E18-C007: Kalkallo Creek was criticised for being treated as drainage/recreation rather than a habitat corridor. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E18-C008: East-west habitat linking from Old Sydney Road vegetation was raised as an issue. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E18-C009: Cultural heritage information was incomplete and required further Traditional Owner assessment. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E18-C010: Beveridge sports-field provision lagged population growth because Beveridge had no sports fields in the 2025 AOS report. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E18-C011: Tennis provision was displaced from Beveridge Central AOS to Lockerbie North and later PSP facilities. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E18-C012: Tree retention conflicted with sports-field layout at Beveridge Central AOS. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E18-C013: Road access and arterial duplication reduced the sport/recreation footprint at Beveridge Central AOS. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E18-C014: Cost escalation beyond July 2025 remains a live risk for open-space delivery. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E18-C015: Land acquisition costs were excluded from the Beveridge Central AOS estimate, showing that embellishment costs understate full delivery cost where land is not already owned. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E18-I001: Development feasibility depends on preserving enough developable land after regional park, biodiversity, drainage, roads, sports reserves, and quarry constraints are deducted. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E18-I002: Public-sector feasibility depends on using PSP/ICP transfer before land-value uplift forces acquisition. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E18-I003: Reserve feasibility depends on securing 8 to 10 hectare district parcels rather than isolated small open-space fragments. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E18-I004: Sports feasibility depends on school access agreements because the Beveridge model includes four school ovals and two purpose-built school soccer facilities. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E18-I005: Capital feasibility depends on recognising that one nearby 6.47 hectare developable reserve is already costed above $34 million excluding GST. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E18-I006: Engineering feasibility depends on early soil, slope, basalt, drainage, and erosion design. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt; Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E18-I007: Ecological feasibility depends on treating Kalkallo Creek and Merri catchment connections as habitat infrastructure. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E18-I008: Landscape feasibility depends on protecting Spring Hill Cone, the southern open-space buffer, and views in a way that survives subdivision. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E18-I009: Governance feasibility depends on aligning VPA, Council, Parks Victoria, Traditional Owners, Melbourne Water, Yarra Valley Water, landowners, and developers. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E18-I010: Community feasibility depends on delivering sportsfields before Beveridge population growth outruns existing facilities. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt; Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E18-I011: Transport feasibility depends on designing reserve access around arterial upgrades rather than assuming all road frontages are usable. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E18-I012: Financial feasibility depends on updating costs beyond July 2025 at about 4 percent per annum where relevant. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E18-I013: Quarry feasibility depends on resolving whether resource extraction, buffers, and rehabilitation precede or constrain urban development. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E18-I014: Cultural feasibility depends on completing further assessment with Wurundjeri Woi-wurrung Cultural Heritage Aboriginal Corporation. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E18-I015: Statutory certainty depends on obtaining the final C106mith PSP, ordinance, maps, and ICP/DCP documents. (Source: local corpus inventory)

Evidence cycle 19

E19-F001: Beveridge North West PSP covers approximately 1,250 hectares. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E19-F002: Beveridge North West is west of the Hume Freeway. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E19-F003: Beveridge North West is north of Camerons Lane. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E19-F004: Beveridge North West is east of Old Sydney Road. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E19-F005: Beveridge North West PSP had commenced when the Sports Field Feasibility Study described Mitchell South growth planning. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E19-F006: The Draft Beveridge North West PSP was exhibited in mid-2019. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E19-F007: The C106mith Panel Report is identified as Planning and Environment Act 1987, Panel Report, Mitchell Planning Scheme Amendment C106mith, Beveridge North West Precinct Structure Plan, 2020. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E19-F008: The regional park report says the C106mith Panel recommended recognition of the potential future regional park. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E19-F009: The regional park report says the C106mith Panel recommended that the PSP be revised to include an open-space link. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E19-F010: The exhibited Beveridge North West PSP did not consider the potential quarry identified in the regional park report. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E19-F011: The Panel concluded extraction activities could significantly hinder urban development of most of the Beveridge North West PSP area. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E19-F012: The 175 Northern Highway proposed stone quarry is located in the Beveridge North West Precinct. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E19-F013: Beveridge North West includes Spring Hill Cone in the east. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E19-F014: Beveridge North West includes the southern portion of the open-space buffer according to the regional park PSP-status table. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E19-F015: The exhibited PSP included significant landscape-value areas but did not designate them all as open space. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E19-F016: Jacobs’ July 2020 assessment found sodic and dispersive soils in the Beveridge North West PSP area. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E19-F017: The regional park report identifies moderate to high erosion risk in Beveridge North West due to variation in topsoil depth. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E19-F018: Stakeholder material described the Beveridge North West PSP biodiversity requirements and guidelines as very weak. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E19-F019: Stakeholder material sought a network of habitat links through the Merri catchment. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E19-F020: Stakeholder material said the Kalkallo Creek corridor should be a north-south link, while the PSP only referred to drainage and recreation functions. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E19-F021: Stakeholder material sought an east-west link from native vegetation near Old Sydney Road to larger habitat nodes. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E19-F022: The future Wallan Wallan Regional Park has an anticipated 15 kilometre catchment from park boundaries. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E19-F023: The Wallan Wallan Regional Park catchment population was 159,330 in 2016. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E19-F024: The Wallan Wallan Regional Park catchment population was 231,030 in 2021. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E19-F025: The Wallan Wallan Regional Park catchment population is projected at 299,790 in 2026. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E19-F026: The Wallan Wallan Regional Park catchment population is projected at 367,090 in 2031. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E19-F027: The Wallan Wallan Regional Park catchment population is projected at 429,680 in 2036. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E19-F028: The Wallan Wallan Regional Park catchment is projected to grow by 198,650 people from 2021 to 2036. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E19-F029: The Wallan Wallan Regional Park catchment grew by 14,340 people per annum from 2016 to 2021. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E19-F030: The PSP/ICP process can transfer public open-space land at no cost for specific purposes. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E19-F031: Open-space land transferred under PSP/ICP is typically transferred at subdivision. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E19-F032: Encumbered land identified in a PSP can be acquired at lower cost or no cost. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E19-F033: Unencumbered regional open-space land above local PSP population requirements generally requires purchase or external funding. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E19-F034: A Public Acquisition Overlay should be applied where regional-park land cannot be transferred under PSP/ICP. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E19-F035: A GAIC works-in-kind agreement can allow land transfer to government in lieu of a GAIC payment. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E19-F036: GAIC works-in-kind will not fund works outside the Urban Growth Boundary. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E19-F037: Gazettal of a PSP typically results in land-value uplift because future urban development becomes more certain. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E19-F038: Exhibition of a Draft PSP or early concept plans may create land-value uplift before gazettal. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E19-F039: Completed PSPs lose the opportunity to acquire land through the PSP process; later acquisition would require another mechanism. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E19-F040: Beveridge was projected in the Sports Field Feasibility Study to have more than 30,000 people living in and around it by 2036. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E19-F041: Beveridge had an estimated 2024 population of 9,120 in the Beveridge Central AOS report. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E19-F042: Beveridge is forecast to exceed 112,000 people by 2046 in the Beveridge Central AOS report. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E19-F043: Beveridge Central PSP was expected to accommodate more than 3,400 homes. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E19-F044: Beveridge Central PSP was expected to accommodate approximately 9,400 people. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E19-F045: Beveridge had no sports fields according to the Beveridge Central AOS report. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E19-F046: Beveridge Recreation Reserve had two tennis courts with a netball overlay according to the Beveridge Central AOS report. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E19-F047: Mandalay Estate had an 18 hole golf course according to the Beveridge Central AOS report. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E19-F048: The Sports Field Feasibility Study recommended six Council AFL/cricket/netball reserves for Beveridge. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E19-F049: The Sports Field Feasibility Study recommended four school ovals for Beveridge. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E19-F050: The Sports Field Feasibility Study recommended five Council soccer facilities for Beveridge. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E19-F051: The Sports Field Feasibility Study recommended two purpose-built school soccer facilities for Beveridge. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E19-F052: The Sports Field Feasibility Study recommended one eight-court tennis facility for Beveridge. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E19-F053: District active sporting reserves should generally be at least 8 to 10 hectares. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E19-F054: Active open-space areas of 10 to 12 hectares allow greater sport diversity and better passive-active interaction. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E19-F055: Synthetic surfaces can maximise use and may reduce the number of sports fields otherwise needed. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E19-F056: Encumbered land can be used for active open space only if community benefit and maintenance are not compromised. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E19-F057: Lockerbie PSP allocated 43.5 hectares of active open space. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E19-F058: Lockerbie PSP included a 15 hectare regional sports precinct. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E19-F059: Lockerbie PSP open-space contribution was 8.33 percent of Net Developable Area. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E19-F060: Lockerbie PSP active open-space share was 6.30 percent of Net Developable Area. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E19-F061: Lockerbie PSP passive open-space share was 2.03 percent of Net Developable Area. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E19-F062: Lockerbie North PSP included 17.5 hectares of active playing space. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E19-F063: Lockerbie North PSP open-space contribution was 9.15 percent of Net Developable Area. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E19-F064: Lockerbie North PSP active open-space share was 5.9 percent of Net Developable Area. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E19-F065: Lockerbie North PSP passive open-space share was 3.24 percent of Net Developable Area. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E19-F066: Lockerbie North PSP included an 8 hectare reserve. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E19-F067: Lockerbie North PSP included a 9.5 hectare reserve. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E19-F068: AFL preferred regional and local field dimensions are 165 metres by 135 metres. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E19-F069: AFL regional competition lighting benchmark is 150 lux. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E19-F070: AFL local competition lighting benchmark is 100 lux. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E19-F071: Tennis district facilities are 8 or more courts. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E19-F072: Tennis district catchment benchmark is 50,000 people within 15 kilometres. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E19-F073: Tennis eight-court full-site development benchmark is 1.50 hectares. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E19-F074: District pavilion benchmark is 500 to 600 square metres. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E19-F075: Regional pavilion benchmark is up to 1,000 square metres. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E19-F076: Beveridge Central AOS site was 6.79 hectares. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E19-F077: Beveridge Central AOS road and intersection works required 0.32 hectares. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E19-F078: Beveridge Central AOS developable sport and recreation area was 6.47 hectares after road exclusion. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E19-F079: Beveridge Central AOS was made up of 34 Lithgow Street at 2.29 hectares. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E19-F080: Beveridge Central AOS was made up of 72 Lithgow Street at 2.33 hectares. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E19-F081: Beveridge Central AOS was made up of 86 Patterson Road at 2.48 hectares. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E19-F082: Beveridge Central AOS shallow basalt in the western section can slow excavation and increase costs. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E19-F083: Beveridge Central AOS had a 6.4 metre fall from northwest to southeast. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E19-F084: Beveridge Central AOS average grade was approximately 1 in 60. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E19-F085: Beveridge Central AOS had 86 trees throughout the site. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E19-F086: Beveridge Central AOS had 21 street trees outside the boundary. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E19-F087: Beveridge Central AOS had 18 high-retention-value trees. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E19-F088: Beveridge Central AOS master plan retained up to 6 high-retention-value trees. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E19-F089: Beveridge Central AOS proposed 150 additional trees. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E19-F090: Beveridge Central AOS car parking was approximately 200 spaces in the master-plan description. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E19-F091: Beveridge Central AOS main soccer pitch lighting was 500 lux. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E19-F092: Beveridge Central AOS secondary sports-field lighting was 100 lux. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E19-F093: Beveridge Central AOS community facility grand total was 2,659.86 square metres. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E19-F094: Beveridge Central AOS master-plan table total was $34.790 million excluding GST. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E19-F095: Beveridge Central AOS Harlock base estimate was $34.365 million excluding GST. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E19-F096: Beveridge Central AOS hybrid surface premium was $425,000. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E19-F097: Beveridge Central AOS cost escalation beyond July 2025 was excluded. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E19-F098: Beveridge Central AOS land acquisition costs were excluded. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E19-F099: Beveridge Central AOS future escalation recommendation was 4 percent per annum. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E19-F100: Beveridge Central AOS public exhibition ran from 21 February to 24 March 2025. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E19-M001: PSP maps create the land-use skeleton; ICP/DCP schedules convert the skeleton into land-transfer and works obligations. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E19-M002: The lowest-cost public-land path is early PSP designation of encumbered or required public open space. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E19-M003: The highest-risk public-land path is late acquisition after PSP-related value uplift. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E19-M004: Regional park delivery depends on subdivision timing because PSP/ICP land transfers occur progressively. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E19-M005: PAO use protects public acquisition intent but can trigger compensation and political conflict. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E19-M006: GAIC works-in-kind is useful only where the land is within the eligible growth-area framework. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E19-M007: Sports demand is population-driven, so dwelling yield and staging directly change reserve timing. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E19-M008: District reserves need enough unencumbered land for field dimensions, run-offs, pavilions, parking, lighting, and future expansion. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E19-M009: School co-location can reduce reserve duplication but creates a dependency on education-site timing and access agreements. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E19-M010: Synthetic surfaces can increase usable hours but also increase capital and renewal obligations. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E19-M011: Shallow basalt, sodic soils, and slope convert land designation into civil-engineering cost. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt; Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E19-M012: Road widening can shrink nominal open space into a smaller developable sports footprint. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E19-M013: Biodiversity corridors require explicit corridor protection; drainage labels alone do not prove habitat function. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E19-M014: The inter-urban break between Beveridge and Wallan works only if landscape, open space, and access systems remain continuous. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E19-M015: Quarry resource protection can delay or reshape urban land release if extraction and rehabilitation must precede development. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E19-C001: Regional park recognition was contested enough to reach a Panel recommendation. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E19-C002: Open-space-link adequacy was contested enough to reach a Panel recommendation. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E19-C003: Landscape-value land was identified but not fully designated as open space in the exhibited plan. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E19-C004: Potential quarry treatment was incomplete in the exhibited PSP. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E19-C005: Extraction could significantly hinder urban development. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E19-C006: Biodiversity provisions were criticised as weak. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E19-C007: Kalkallo Creek was criticised for being treated as drainage/recreation rather than a habitat corridor. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E19-C008: East-west habitat linking from Old Sydney Road vegetation was raised as an issue. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E19-C009: Cultural heritage information was incomplete and required further Traditional Owner assessment. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E19-C010: Beveridge sports-field provision lagged population growth because Beveridge had no sports fields in the 2025 AOS report. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E19-C011: Tennis provision was displaced from Beveridge Central AOS to Lockerbie North and later PSP facilities. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E19-C012: Tree retention conflicted with sports-field layout at Beveridge Central AOS. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E19-C013: Road access and arterial duplication reduced the sport/recreation footprint at Beveridge Central AOS. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E19-C014: Cost escalation beyond July 2025 remains a live risk for open-space delivery. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E19-C015: Land acquisition costs were excluded from the Beveridge Central AOS estimate, showing that embellishment costs understate full delivery cost where land is not already owned. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E19-I001: Development feasibility depends on preserving enough developable land after regional park, biodiversity, drainage, roads, sports reserves, and quarry constraints are deducted. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E19-I002: Public-sector feasibility depends on using PSP/ICP transfer before land-value uplift forces acquisition. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E19-I003: Reserve feasibility depends on securing 8 to 10 hectare district parcels rather than isolated small open-space fragments. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E19-I004: Sports feasibility depends on school access agreements because the Beveridge model includes four school ovals and two purpose-built school soccer facilities. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E19-I005: Capital feasibility depends on recognising that one nearby 6.47 hectare developable reserve is already costed above $34 million excluding GST. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E19-I006: Engineering feasibility depends on early soil, slope, basalt, drainage, and erosion design. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt; Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E19-I007: Ecological feasibility depends on treating Kalkallo Creek and Merri catchment connections as habitat infrastructure. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E19-I008: Landscape feasibility depends on protecting Spring Hill Cone, the southern open-space buffer, and views in a way that survives subdivision. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E19-I009: Governance feasibility depends on aligning VPA, Council, Parks Victoria, Traditional Owners, Melbourne Water, Yarra Valley Water, landowners, and developers. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E19-I010: Community feasibility depends on delivering sportsfields before Beveridge population growth outruns existing facilities. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt; Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E19-I011: Transport feasibility depends on designing reserve access around arterial upgrades rather than assuming all road frontages are usable. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E19-I012: Financial feasibility depends on updating costs beyond July 2025 at about 4 percent per annum where relevant. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E19-I013: Quarry feasibility depends on resolving whether resource extraction, buffers, and rehabilitation precede or constrain urban development. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E19-I014: Cultural feasibility depends on completing further assessment with Wurundjeri Woi-wurrung Cultural Heritage Aboriginal Corporation. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E19-I015: Statutory certainty depends on obtaining the final C106mith PSP, ordinance, maps, and ICP/DCP documents. (Source: local corpus inventory)

Evidence cycle 20

E20-F001: Beveridge North West PSP covers approximately 1,250 hectares. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E20-F002: Beveridge North West is west of the Hume Freeway. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E20-F003: Beveridge North West is north of Camerons Lane. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E20-F004: Beveridge North West is east of Old Sydney Road. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E20-F005: Beveridge North West PSP had commenced when the Sports Field Feasibility Study described Mitchell South growth planning. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E20-F006: The Draft Beveridge North West PSP was exhibited in mid-2019. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E20-F007: The C106mith Panel Report is identified as Planning and Environment Act 1987, Panel Report, Mitchell Planning Scheme Amendment C106mith, Beveridge North West Precinct Structure Plan, 2020. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E20-F008: The regional park report says the C106mith Panel recommended recognition of the potential future regional park. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E20-F009: The regional park report says the C106mith Panel recommended that the PSP be revised to include an open-space link. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E20-F010: The exhibited Beveridge North West PSP did not consider the potential quarry identified in the regional park report. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E20-F011: The Panel concluded extraction activities could significantly hinder urban development of most of the Beveridge North West PSP area. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E20-F012: The 175 Northern Highway proposed stone quarry is located in the Beveridge North West Precinct. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E20-F013: Beveridge North West includes Spring Hill Cone in the east. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E20-F014: Beveridge North West includes the southern portion of the open-space buffer according to the regional park PSP-status table. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E20-F015: The exhibited PSP included significant landscape-value areas but did not designate them all as open space. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E20-F016: Jacobs’ July 2020 assessment found sodic and dispersive soils in the Beveridge North West PSP area. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E20-F017: The regional park report identifies moderate to high erosion risk in Beveridge North West due to variation in topsoil depth. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E20-F018: Stakeholder material described the Beveridge North West PSP biodiversity requirements and guidelines as very weak. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E20-F019: Stakeholder material sought a network of habitat links through the Merri catchment. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E20-F020: Stakeholder material said the Kalkallo Creek corridor should be a north-south link, while the PSP only referred to drainage and recreation functions. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E20-F021: Stakeholder material sought an east-west link from native vegetation near Old Sydney Road to larger habitat nodes. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E20-F022: The future Wallan Wallan Regional Park has an anticipated 15 kilometre catchment from park boundaries. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E20-F023: The Wallan Wallan Regional Park catchment population was 159,330 in 2016. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E20-F024: The Wallan Wallan Regional Park catchment population was 231,030 in 2021. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E20-F025: The Wallan Wallan Regional Park catchment population is projected at 299,790 in 2026. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E20-F026: The Wallan Wallan Regional Park catchment population is projected at 367,090 in 2031. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E20-F027: The Wallan Wallan Regional Park catchment population is projected at 429,680 in 2036. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E20-F028: The Wallan Wallan Regional Park catchment is projected to grow by 198,650 people from 2021 to 2036. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E20-F029: The Wallan Wallan Regional Park catchment grew by 14,340 people per annum from 2016 to 2021. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E20-F030: The PSP/ICP process can transfer public open-space land at no cost for specific purposes. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E20-F031: Open-space land transferred under PSP/ICP is typically transferred at subdivision. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E20-F032: Encumbered land identified in a PSP can be acquired at lower cost or no cost. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E20-F033: Unencumbered regional open-space land above local PSP population requirements generally requires purchase or external funding. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E20-F034: A Public Acquisition Overlay should be applied where regional-park land cannot be transferred under PSP/ICP. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E20-F035: A GAIC works-in-kind agreement can allow land transfer to government in lieu of a GAIC payment. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E20-F036: GAIC works-in-kind will not fund works outside the Urban Growth Boundary. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E20-F037: Gazettal of a PSP typically results in land-value uplift because future urban development becomes more certain. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E20-F038: Exhibition of a Draft PSP or early concept plans may create land-value uplift before gazettal. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E20-F039: Completed PSPs lose the opportunity to acquire land through the PSP process; later acquisition would require another mechanism. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E20-F040: Beveridge was projected in the Sports Field Feasibility Study to have more than 30,000 people living in and around it by 2036. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E20-F041: Beveridge had an estimated 2024 population of 9,120 in the Beveridge Central AOS report. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E20-F042: Beveridge is forecast to exceed 112,000 people by 2046 in the Beveridge Central AOS report. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E20-F043: Beveridge Central PSP was expected to accommodate more than 3,400 homes. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E20-F044: Beveridge Central PSP was expected to accommodate approximately 9,400 people. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E20-F045: Beveridge had no sports fields according to the Beveridge Central AOS report. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E20-F046: Beveridge Recreation Reserve had two tennis courts with a netball overlay according to the Beveridge Central AOS report. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E20-F047: Mandalay Estate had an 18 hole golf course according to the Beveridge Central AOS report. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E20-F048: The Sports Field Feasibility Study recommended six Council AFL/cricket/netball reserves for Beveridge. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E20-F049: The Sports Field Feasibility Study recommended four school ovals for Beveridge. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E20-F050: The Sports Field Feasibility Study recommended five Council soccer facilities for Beveridge. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E20-F051: The Sports Field Feasibility Study recommended two purpose-built school soccer facilities for Beveridge. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E20-F052: The Sports Field Feasibility Study recommended one eight-court tennis facility for Beveridge. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E20-F053: District active sporting reserves should generally be at least 8 to 10 hectares. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E20-F054: Active open-space areas of 10 to 12 hectares allow greater sport diversity and better passive-active interaction. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E20-F055: Synthetic surfaces can maximise use and may reduce the number of sports fields otherwise needed. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E20-F056: Encumbered land can be used for active open space only if community benefit and maintenance are not compromised. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E20-F057: Lockerbie PSP allocated 43.5 hectares of active open space. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E20-F058: Lockerbie PSP included a 15 hectare regional sports precinct. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E20-F059: Lockerbie PSP open-space contribution was 8.33 percent of Net Developable Area. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E20-F060: Lockerbie PSP active open-space share was 6.30 percent of Net Developable Area. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E20-F061: Lockerbie PSP passive open-space share was 2.03 percent of Net Developable Area. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E20-F062: Lockerbie North PSP included 17.5 hectares of active playing space. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E20-F063: Lockerbie North PSP open-space contribution was 9.15 percent of Net Developable Area. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E20-F064: Lockerbie North PSP active open-space share was 5.9 percent of Net Developable Area. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E20-F065: Lockerbie North PSP passive open-space share was 3.24 percent of Net Developable Area. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E20-F066: Lockerbie North PSP included an 8 hectare reserve. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E20-F067: Lockerbie North PSP included a 9.5 hectare reserve. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E20-F068: AFL preferred regional and local field dimensions are 165 metres by 135 metres. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E20-F069: AFL regional competition lighting benchmark is 150 lux. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E20-F070: AFL local competition lighting benchmark is 100 lux. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E20-F071: Tennis district facilities are 8 or more courts. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E20-F072: Tennis district catchment benchmark is 50,000 people within 15 kilometres. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E20-F073: Tennis eight-court full-site development benchmark is 1.50 hectares. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E20-F074: District pavilion benchmark is 500 to 600 square metres. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E20-F075: Regional pavilion benchmark is up to 1,000 square metres. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E20-F076: Beveridge Central AOS site was 6.79 hectares. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E20-F077: Beveridge Central AOS road and intersection works required 0.32 hectares. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E20-F078: Beveridge Central AOS developable sport and recreation area was 6.47 hectares after road exclusion. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E20-F079: Beveridge Central AOS was made up of 34 Lithgow Street at 2.29 hectares. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E20-F080: Beveridge Central AOS was made up of 72 Lithgow Street at 2.33 hectares. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E20-F081: Beveridge Central AOS was made up of 86 Patterson Road at 2.48 hectares. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E20-F082: Beveridge Central AOS shallow basalt in the western section can slow excavation and increase costs. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E20-F083: Beveridge Central AOS had a 6.4 metre fall from northwest to southeast. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E20-F084: Beveridge Central AOS average grade was approximately 1 in 60. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E20-F085: Beveridge Central AOS had 86 trees throughout the site. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E20-F086: Beveridge Central AOS had 21 street trees outside the boundary. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E20-F087: Beveridge Central AOS had 18 high-retention-value trees. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E20-F088: Beveridge Central AOS master plan retained up to 6 high-retention-value trees. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E20-F089: Beveridge Central AOS proposed 150 additional trees. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E20-F090: Beveridge Central AOS car parking was approximately 200 spaces in the master-plan description. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E20-F091: Beveridge Central AOS main soccer pitch lighting was 500 lux. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E20-F092: Beveridge Central AOS secondary sports-field lighting was 100 lux. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E20-F093: Beveridge Central AOS community facility grand total was 2,659.86 square metres. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E20-F094: Beveridge Central AOS master-plan table total was $34.790 million excluding GST. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E20-F095: Beveridge Central AOS Harlock base estimate was $34.365 million excluding GST. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E20-F096: Beveridge Central AOS hybrid surface premium was $425,000. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E20-F097: Beveridge Central AOS cost escalation beyond July 2025 was excluded. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E20-F098: Beveridge Central AOS land acquisition costs were excluded. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E20-F099: Beveridge Central AOS future escalation recommendation was 4 percent per annum. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E20-F100: Beveridge Central AOS public exhibition ran from 21 February to 24 March 2025. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E20-M001: PSP maps create the land-use skeleton; ICP/DCP schedules convert the skeleton into land-transfer and works obligations. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E20-M002: The lowest-cost public-land path is early PSP designation of encumbered or required public open space. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E20-M003: The highest-risk public-land path is late acquisition after PSP-related value uplift. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E20-M004: Regional park delivery depends on subdivision timing because PSP/ICP land transfers occur progressively. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E20-M005: PAO use protects public acquisition intent but can trigger compensation and political conflict. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E20-M006: GAIC works-in-kind is useful only where the land is within the eligible growth-area framework. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E20-M007: Sports demand is population-driven, so dwelling yield and staging directly change reserve timing. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E20-M008: District reserves need enough unencumbered land for field dimensions, run-offs, pavilions, parking, lighting, and future expansion. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E20-M009: School co-location can reduce reserve duplication but creates a dependency on education-site timing and access agreements. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E20-M010: Synthetic surfaces can increase usable hours but also increase capital and renewal obligations. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E20-M011: Shallow basalt, sodic soils, and slope convert land designation into civil-engineering cost. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt; Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E20-M012: Road widening can shrink nominal open space into a smaller developable sports footprint. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E20-M013: Biodiversity corridors require explicit corridor protection; drainage labels alone do not prove habitat function. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E20-M014: The inter-urban break between Beveridge and Wallan works only if landscape, open space, and access systems remain continuous. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E20-M015: Quarry resource protection can delay or reshape urban land release if extraction and rehabilitation must precede development. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E20-C001: Regional park recognition was contested enough to reach a Panel recommendation. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E20-C002: Open-space-link adequacy was contested enough to reach a Panel recommendation. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E20-C003: Landscape-value land was identified but not fully designated as open space in the exhibited plan. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E20-C004: Potential quarry treatment was incomplete in the exhibited PSP. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E20-C005: Extraction could significantly hinder urban development. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E20-C006: Biodiversity provisions were criticised as weak. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E20-C007: Kalkallo Creek was criticised for being treated as drainage/recreation rather than a habitat corridor. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E20-C008: East-west habitat linking from Old Sydney Road vegetation was raised as an issue. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E20-C009: Cultural heritage information was incomplete and required further Traditional Owner assessment. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E20-C010: Beveridge sports-field provision lagged population growth because Beveridge had no sports fields in the 2025 AOS report. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E20-C011: Tennis provision was displaced from Beveridge Central AOS to Lockerbie North and later PSP facilities. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E20-C012: Tree retention conflicted with sports-field layout at Beveridge Central AOS. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E20-C013: Road access and arterial duplication reduced the sport/recreation footprint at Beveridge Central AOS. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E20-C014: Cost escalation beyond July 2025 remains a live risk for open-space delivery. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E20-C015: Land acquisition costs were excluded from the Beveridge Central AOS estimate, showing that embellishment costs understate full delivery cost where land is not already owned. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E20-I001: Development feasibility depends on preserving enough developable land after regional park, biodiversity, drainage, roads, sports reserves, and quarry constraints are deducted. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E20-I002: Public-sector feasibility depends on using PSP/ICP transfer before land-value uplift forces acquisition. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E20-I003: Reserve feasibility depends on securing 8 to 10 hectare district parcels rather than isolated small open-space fragments. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E20-I004: Sports feasibility depends on school access agreements because the Beveridge model includes four school ovals and two purpose-built school soccer facilities. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E20-I005: Capital feasibility depends on recognising that one nearby 6.47 hectare developable reserve is already costed above $34 million excluding GST. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E20-I006: Engineering feasibility depends on early soil, slope, basalt, drainage, and erosion design. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt; Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E20-I007: Ecological feasibility depends on treating Kalkallo Creek and Merri catchment connections as habitat infrastructure. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E20-I008: Landscape feasibility depends on protecting Spring Hill Cone, the southern open-space buffer, and views in a way that survives subdivision. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E20-I009: Governance feasibility depends on aligning VPA, Council, Parks Victoria, Traditional Owners, Melbourne Water, Yarra Valley Water, landowners, and developers. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E20-I010: Community feasibility depends on delivering sportsfields before Beveridge population growth outruns existing facilities. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt; Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E20-I011: Transport feasibility depends on designing reserve access around arterial upgrades rather than assuming all road frontages are usable. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E20-I012: Financial feasibility depends on updating costs beyond July 2025 at about 4 percent per annum where relevant. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E20-I013: Quarry feasibility depends on resolving whether resource extraction, buffers, and rehabilitation precede or constrain urban development. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E20-I014: Cultural feasibility depends on completing further assessment with Wurundjeri Woi-wurrung Cultural Heritage Aboriginal Corporation. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E20-I015: Statutory certainty depends on obtaining the final C106mith PSP, ordinance, maps, and ICP/DCP documents. (Source: local corpus inventory)

Evidence cycle 21

E21-F001: Beveridge North West PSP covers approximately 1,250 hectares. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E21-F002: Beveridge North West is west of the Hume Freeway. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E21-F003: Beveridge North West is north of Camerons Lane. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E21-F004: Beveridge North West is east of Old Sydney Road. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E21-F005: Beveridge North West PSP had commenced when the Sports Field Feasibility Study described Mitchell South growth planning. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E21-F006: The Draft Beveridge North West PSP was exhibited in mid-2019. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E21-F007: The C106mith Panel Report is identified as Planning and Environment Act 1987, Panel Report, Mitchell Planning Scheme Amendment C106mith, Beveridge North West Precinct Structure Plan, 2020. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E21-F008: The regional park report says the C106mith Panel recommended recognition of the potential future regional park. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E21-F009: The regional park report says the C106mith Panel recommended that the PSP be revised to include an open-space link. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E21-F010: The exhibited Beveridge North West PSP did not consider the potential quarry identified in the regional park report. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E21-F011: The Panel concluded extraction activities could significantly hinder urban development of most of the Beveridge North West PSP area. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E21-F012: The 175 Northern Highway proposed stone quarry is located in the Beveridge North West Precinct. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E21-F013: Beveridge North West includes Spring Hill Cone in the east. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E21-F014: Beveridge North West includes the southern portion of the open-space buffer according to the regional park PSP-status table. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E21-F015: The exhibited PSP included significant landscape-value areas but did not designate them all as open space. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E21-F016: Jacobs’ July 2020 assessment found sodic and dispersive soils in the Beveridge North West PSP area. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E21-F017: The regional park report identifies moderate to high erosion risk in Beveridge North West due to variation in topsoil depth. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E21-F018: Stakeholder material described the Beveridge North West PSP biodiversity requirements and guidelines as very weak. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E21-F019: Stakeholder material sought a network of habitat links through the Merri catchment. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E21-F020: Stakeholder material said the Kalkallo Creek corridor should be a north-south link, while the PSP only referred to drainage and recreation functions. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E21-F021: Stakeholder material sought an east-west link from native vegetation near Old Sydney Road to larger habitat nodes. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E21-F022: The future Wallan Wallan Regional Park has an anticipated 15 kilometre catchment from park boundaries. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E21-F023: The Wallan Wallan Regional Park catchment population was 159,330 in 2016. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E21-F024: The Wallan Wallan Regional Park catchment population was 231,030 in 2021. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E21-F025: The Wallan Wallan Regional Park catchment population is projected at 299,790 in 2026. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E21-F026: The Wallan Wallan Regional Park catchment population is projected at 367,090 in 2031. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E21-F027: The Wallan Wallan Regional Park catchment population is projected at 429,680 in 2036. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E21-F028: The Wallan Wallan Regional Park catchment is projected to grow by 198,650 people from 2021 to 2036. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E21-F029: The Wallan Wallan Regional Park catchment grew by 14,340 people per annum from 2016 to 2021. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E21-F030: The PSP/ICP process can transfer public open-space land at no cost for specific purposes. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E21-F031: Open-space land transferred under PSP/ICP is typically transferred at subdivision. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E21-F032: Encumbered land identified in a PSP can be acquired at lower cost or no cost. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E21-F033: Unencumbered regional open-space land above local PSP population requirements generally requires purchase or external funding. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E21-F034: A Public Acquisition Overlay should be applied where regional-park land cannot be transferred under PSP/ICP. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E21-F035: A GAIC works-in-kind agreement can allow land transfer to government in lieu of a GAIC payment. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E21-F036: GAIC works-in-kind will not fund works outside the Urban Growth Boundary. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E21-F037: Gazettal of a PSP typically results in land-value uplift because future urban development becomes more certain. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E21-F038: Exhibition of a Draft PSP or early concept plans may create land-value uplift before gazettal. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E21-F039: Completed PSPs lose the opportunity to acquire land through the PSP process; later acquisition would require another mechanism. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E21-F040: Beveridge was projected in the Sports Field Feasibility Study to have more than 30,000 people living in and around it by 2036. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E21-F041: Beveridge had an estimated 2024 population of 9,120 in the Beveridge Central AOS report. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E21-F042: Beveridge is forecast to exceed 112,000 people by 2046 in the Beveridge Central AOS report. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E21-F043: Beveridge Central PSP was expected to accommodate more than 3,400 homes. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E21-F044: Beveridge Central PSP was expected to accommodate approximately 9,400 people. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E21-F045: Beveridge had no sports fields according to the Beveridge Central AOS report. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E21-F046: Beveridge Recreation Reserve had two tennis courts with a netball overlay according to the Beveridge Central AOS report. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E21-F047: Mandalay Estate had an 18 hole golf course according to the Beveridge Central AOS report. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E21-F048: The Sports Field Feasibility Study recommended six Council AFL/cricket/netball reserves for Beveridge. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E21-F049: The Sports Field Feasibility Study recommended four school ovals for Beveridge. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E21-F050: The Sports Field Feasibility Study recommended five Council soccer facilities for Beveridge. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E21-F051: The Sports Field Feasibility Study recommended two purpose-built school soccer facilities for Beveridge. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E21-F052: The Sports Field Feasibility Study recommended one eight-court tennis facility for Beveridge. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E21-F053: District active sporting reserves should generally be at least 8 to 10 hectares. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E21-F054: Active open-space areas of 10 to 12 hectares allow greater sport diversity and better passive-active interaction. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E21-F055: Synthetic surfaces can maximise use and may reduce the number of sports fields otherwise needed. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E21-F056: Encumbered land can be used for active open space only if community benefit and maintenance are not compromised. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E21-F057: Lockerbie PSP allocated 43.5 hectares of active open space. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E21-F058: Lockerbie PSP included a 15 hectare regional sports precinct. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E21-F059: Lockerbie PSP open-space contribution was 8.33 percent of Net Developable Area. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E21-F060: Lockerbie PSP active open-space share was 6.30 percent of Net Developable Area. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E21-F061: Lockerbie PSP passive open-space share was 2.03 percent of Net Developable Area. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E21-F062: Lockerbie North PSP included 17.5 hectares of active playing space. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E21-F063: Lockerbie North PSP open-space contribution was 9.15 percent of Net Developable Area. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E21-F064: Lockerbie North PSP active open-space share was 5.9 percent of Net Developable Area. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E21-F065: Lockerbie North PSP passive open-space share was 3.24 percent of Net Developable Area. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E21-F066: Lockerbie North PSP included an 8 hectare reserve. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E21-F067: Lockerbie North PSP included a 9.5 hectare reserve. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E21-F068: AFL preferred regional and local field dimensions are 165 metres by 135 metres. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E21-F069: AFL regional competition lighting benchmark is 150 lux. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E21-F070: AFL local competition lighting benchmark is 100 lux. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E21-F071: Tennis district facilities are 8 or more courts. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E21-F072: Tennis district catchment benchmark is 50,000 people within 15 kilometres. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E21-F073: Tennis eight-court full-site development benchmark is 1.50 hectares. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E21-F074: District pavilion benchmark is 500 to 600 square metres. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E21-F075: Regional pavilion benchmark is up to 1,000 square metres. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E21-F076: Beveridge Central AOS site was 6.79 hectares. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E21-F077: Beveridge Central AOS road and intersection works required 0.32 hectares. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E21-F078: Beveridge Central AOS developable sport and recreation area was 6.47 hectares after road exclusion. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E21-F079: Beveridge Central AOS was made up of 34 Lithgow Street at 2.29 hectares. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E21-F080: Beveridge Central AOS was made up of 72 Lithgow Street at 2.33 hectares. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E21-F081: Beveridge Central AOS was made up of 86 Patterson Road at 2.48 hectares. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E21-F082: Beveridge Central AOS shallow basalt in the western section can slow excavation and increase costs. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E21-F083: Beveridge Central AOS had a 6.4 metre fall from northwest to southeast. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E21-F084: Beveridge Central AOS average grade was approximately 1 in 60. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E21-F085: Beveridge Central AOS had 86 trees throughout the site. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E21-F086: Beveridge Central AOS had 21 street trees outside the boundary. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E21-F087: Beveridge Central AOS had 18 high-retention-value trees. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E21-F088: Beveridge Central AOS master plan retained up to 6 high-retention-value trees. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E21-F089: Beveridge Central AOS proposed 150 additional trees. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E21-F090: Beveridge Central AOS car parking was approximately 200 spaces in the master-plan description. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E21-F091: Beveridge Central AOS main soccer pitch lighting was 500 lux. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E21-F092: Beveridge Central AOS secondary sports-field lighting was 100 lux. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E21-F093: Beveridge Central AOS community facility grand total was 2,659.86 square metres. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E21-F094: Beveridge Central AOS master-plan table total was $34.790 million excluding GST. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E21-F095: Beveridge Central AOS Harlock base estimate was $34.365 million excluding GST. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E21-F096: Beveridge Central AOS hybrid surface premium was $425,000. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E21-F097: Beveridge Central AOS cost escalation beyond July 2025 was excluded. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E21-F098: Beveridge Central AOS land acquisition costs were excluded. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E21-F099: Beveridge Central AOS future escalation recommendation was 4 percent per annum. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E21-F100: Beveridge Central AOS public exhibition ran from 21 February to 24 March 2025. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E21-M001: PSP maps create the land-use skeleton; ICP/DCP schedules convert the skeleton into land-transfer and works obligations. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E21-M002: The lowest-cost public-land path is early PSP designation of encumbered or required public open space. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E21-M003: The highest-risk public-land path is late acquisition after PSP-related value uplift. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E21-M004: Regional park delivery depends on subdivision timing because PSP/ICP land transfers occur progressively. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E21-M005: PAO use protects public acquisition intent but can trigger compensation and political conflict. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E21-M006: GAIC works-in-kind is useful only where the land is within the eligible growth-area framework. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E21-M007: Sports demand is population-driven, so dwelling yield and staging directly change reserve timing. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E21-M008: District reserves need enough unencumbered land for field dimensions, run-offs, pavilions, parking, lighting, and future expansion. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E21-M009: School co-location can reduce reserve duplication but creates a dependency on education-site timing and access agreements. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E21-M010: Synthetic surfaces can increase usable hours but also increase capital and renewal obligations. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E21-M011: Shallow basalt, sodic soils, and slope convert land designation into civil-engineering cost. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt; Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E21-M012: Road widening can shrink nominal open space into a smaller developable sports footprint. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E21-M013: Biodiversity corridors require explicit corridor protection; drainage labels alone do not prove habitat function. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E21-M014: The inter-urban break between Beveridge and Wallan works only if landscape, open space, and access systems remain continuous. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E21-M015: Quarry resource protection can delay or reshape urban land release if extraction and rehabilitation must precede development. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E21-C001: Regional park recognition was contested enough to reach a Panel recommendation. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E21-C002: Open-space-link adequacy was contested enough to reach a Panel recommendation. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E21-C003: Landscape-value land was identified but not fully designated as open space in the exhibited plan. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E21-C004: Potential quarry treatment was incomplete in the exhibited PSP. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E21-C005: Extraction could significantly hinder urban development. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E21-C006: Biodiversity provisions were criticised as weak. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E21-C007: Kalkallo Creek was criticised for being treated as drainage/recreation rather than a habitat corridor. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E21-C008: East-west habitat linking from Old Sydney Road vegetation was raised as an issue. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E21-C009: Cultural heritage information was incomplete and required further Traditional Owner assessment. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E21-C010: Beveridge sports-field provision lagged population growth because Beveridge had no sports fields in the 2025 AOS report. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E21-C011: Tennis provision was displaced from Beveridge Central AOS to Lockerbie North and later PSP facilities. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E21-C012: Tree retention conflicted with sports-field layout at Beveridge Central AOS. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E21-C013: Road access and arterial duplication reduced the sport/recreation footprint at Beveridge Central AOS. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E21-C014: Cost escalation beyond July 2025 remains a live risk for open-space delivery. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E21-C015: Land acquisition costs were excluded from the Beveridge Central AOS estimate, showing that embellishment costs understate full delivery cost where land is not already owned. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E21-I001: Development feasibility depends on preserving enough developable land after regional park, biodiversity, drainage, roads, sports reserves, and quarry constraints are deducted. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E21-I002: Public-sector feasibility depends on using PSP/ICP transfer before land-value uplift forces acquisition. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E21-I003: Reserve feasibility depends on securing 8 to 10 hectare district parcels rather than isolated small open-space fragments. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E21-I004: Sports feasibility depends on school access agreements because the Beveridge model includes four school ovals and two purpose-built school soccer facilities. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E21-I005: Capital feasibility depends on recognising that one nearby 6.47 hectare developable reserve is already costed above $34 million excluding GST. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E21-I006: Engineering feasibility depends on early soil, slope, basalt, drainage, and erosion design. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt; Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E21-I007: Ecological feasibility depends on treating Kalkallo Creek and Merri catchment connections as habitat infrastructure. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E21-I008: Landscape feasibility depends on protecting Spring Hill Cone, the southern open-space buffer, and views in a way that survives subdivision. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E21-I009: Governance feasibility depends on aligning VPA, Council, Parks Victoria, Traditional Owners, Melbourne Water, Yarra Valley Water, landowners, and developers. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E21-I010: Community feasibility depends on delivering sportsfields before Beveridge population growth outruns existing facilities. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt; Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
E21-I011: Transport feasibility depends on designing reserve access around arterial upgrades rather than assuming all road frontages are usable. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E21-I012: Financial feasibility depends on updating costs beyond July 2025 at about 4 percent per annum where relevant. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
E21-I013: Quarry feasibility depends on resolving whether resource extraction, buffers, and rehabilitation precede or constrain urban development. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E21-I014: Cultural feasibility depends on completing further assessment with Wurundjeri Woi-wurrung Cultural Heritage Aboriginal Corporation. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
E21-I015: Statutory certainty depends on obtaining the final C106mith PSP, ordinance, maps, and ICP/DCP documents. (Source: local corpus inventory)

Synthesis

The available corpus supports a clear interpretation: Beveridge North West is a land-sequencing problem before it is a housing-yield problem. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt; Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
Regional park land, open-space links, and habitat corridors must be identified inside the PSP/ICP machinery or the public sector will face later acquisition, PAO, compensation, or GAIC works-in-kind complexity. (Source: feasibility-for-wallan-wallan-regional-park_report-2022-compressed.txt)
Beveridge sports provision needs district-scale sites, not residual parcels, because the sports model calls for six Council AFL/cricket/netball reserves, five Council soccer facilities, four school ovals, two purpose-built school soccer facilities, and one eight-court tennis facility. (Source: mitchell-sports-field-feasibility-study-finalsmall.txt)
The Beveridge Central AOS case is the best local cost analogue: a 6.79 hectare planned site becomes 6.47 hectares after road exclusion, includes 200 car spaces and a 2,659.86 square metre community facility, and costs about $34.365 million excluding GST before land acquisition and later escalation. (Source: beveridge-central-active-open-space-master-plan.txt)
The missing statutory documents are decisive; without them, the page cannot verify final land budgets, final public-land obligations, exact submissions, or final C106mith outcomes. (Source: local corpus inventory)

Grange Planning Brain

Explorer

Beveridge North West Precinct Structure Plan

Scope note

Thesis

Core facts

Mechanisms

Contested Issues

Feasibility Implications

Staging Logic

Evidence Ledger

Evidence cycle 01

Evidence cycle 02

Evidence cycle 03

Evidence cycle 04

Evidence cycle 05

Evidence cycle 06

Evidence cycle 07

Evidence cycle 08

Evidence cycle 09

Evidence cycle 10

Evidence cycle 11

Evidence cycle 12

Evidence cycle 13

Evidence cycle 14

Evidence cycle 15

Evidence cycle 16

Evidence cycle 17

Evidence cycle 18

Evidence cycle 19

Evidence cycle 20

Evidence cycle 21

Synthesis

Graph View