Panel Report. Planning and Environment Act 1987

Transcription

1 Planning and Environment Act 1987 Panel Report Darebin Planning Scheme Amendments C136, C137 and C138 MSS review and corridor plans for St Georges Road and Plenty Road 31 July 2014 Revision A: 12 March 2015

2 Planning and Environment Act 1987 Panel Report pursuant to Section 25 of the Act Darebin Planning Scheme Amendments C136, C137 and C138 MSS review and corridor plans for St Georges Road and Plenty Road Lester Townsend, Chair Suzanne Barker, Member Lynn Sweeney, Member

3 Contents Page 1 Executive summary Conclusions Recomendations Background and issues About Darebin The Amendments Recent State policy initiatives Summary of issues raised in submissions Issues dealt with in this Report Housing and economic land use direction Plan Melbourne and State Planning Policy Framework (SPPF) MSS drafting issues A possible new format for MSSs Economic development framework Strategic housing framework Environmental Audit Overlay (EAO) Overarching principles for corridors The issues Overall strategic direction Application of zones Traffic, access and parking Specific controls in the DDOs Use of DDO Relation to policies Under development Rear setbacks and the 30 degree/45 degree requirement Management of side interfaces Overshadowing and overlooking Building design Mandatory controls General expression and construction Reservoir Structure Plan Industrial precincts Anderson Road Secondary Industrial Area DELUS Precinct Beavers Road Secondary Industrial Area DELUS Precinct Gadd Street DELUS Precinct Northcote Central (Arthurton Road) DELUS Precinct Heidelberg Road and Westfield Street DELUS Precinct Separation Street DELUS Precinct Edwardes Road DELUS Precinct Elizabeth Street/McNamara Street DELUS Precinct Page i

4 8 St Georges Road corridor precincts St Georges Road Precinct 1 Merri Creek Neighbourhood Centre St Georges Road Precinct 2 Sumner Estate and Little Sisters St Georges Road Precinct 3 Arthurton Road St Georges Road Precinct 4 Gladstone Avenue St Georges Road Precinct 5 Normanby Avenue St Georges Road Precinct 6 Hutton Street St Georges Road Precinct 7 Oakover Village St Georges Road Precinct 8 Preston Central Western Edge Plenty Road Corridor Precincts The Junction DDO Plenty Road Precinct 1 Preston Central Eastern Edge Plenty Road Precinct 2 Tyler Street Neighbourhood Centre Plenty Road Precinct 3 Summerhill Plenty Road Precinct 4 Lancaster Gate Appendix A List of submitters and appearances List of Tables Table 1: Table 2: Amendment Summary... v Panel Process... v List of Figures Figure 1: Darebin ultimate zoning plan submitted to the RZSAC Figure 2: Plenty Road Urban Design Framework Plan Summary Figure 3: St Georges Road Urban Design Framework Plan Summary Figure 4: Land finger in Precinct 6 with no side boundary requirements Figure 5: Figure 6: Figure 7: Figure 8: Figure 9: St Georges Road Framework Plan Precinct 1 Merri Creek (SGR UDF) St Georges Road Framework Plan Precinct 2 Little Sisters (SGR UDF) St Georges Road Framework Plan Precinct 3 Arthurton Road (SGR UDF) St Georges Road Framework Plan Precinct 4 Gladstone Avenue (SGR UDF) St Georges Road Framework Plan Precinct 5 Normanby Avenue (SGR UDF) Page ii

5 Figure 10: St Georges Road Framework Plan Precinct 6 Hutton Street (SGR UDF) Figure 11: St Georges Road Framework Plan Precinct 7 Oakover Village (SGR UDF) Figure 12: St Georges Road Precinct 7 shows area to which DDO16 would apply Figure 13: Development Plan Overlay Concept Plan showing area to which DPO11 would apply Figure 14: St Georges Road Precinct 7 within the DPO11 area which is proposed to be rezoned Figure 15: Precinct 8 Preston Central Western Edge (SGR UDF) Figure 16: The Junction Precinct Plan (from exhibited Clause The Junction Local Area Plan) Figure 17: Existing Junction Local Area Plan (Clause 22.02) (left) / Existing extent of DDO3 (right) Figure 18: Plenty Road Framework Plan Precinct 1 Preston Central Eastern Edge (Source Plenty Road UDF) Figure 19: Plenty Road Framework Plan Precinct 2 Tyler Street Neighbourhood Centre (Source Plenty Road UDF) Figure 20: Plenty Road Framework Plan Precinct 3 Summerhill Village Neighbourhood Centre (Source Plenty Road UDF) Figure 21: Plenty Road Framework Plan Precinct 5 Lancaster Gate Neighbourhood Centre Map 1 area (Source Plenty Road UDF) Figure 22: Plenty Road Framework Plan Precinct 5 Lancaster Gate Neighbourhood Centre Map Page iii

6 List of Abbreviations C1Z Commercial 1 Zone C2Z Commercial 2 Zone DDO Design and Development Overlay DELUS Darebin Economic Land Use Strategy, 2013 DHS Darebin Housing Strategy, DPO Development Plan Overlay DTPLI Department of Transport, Planning and Local Infrastructure EAO Environmental Audit Overlay EPA Environment Protection Authority GRZ General Residential Zone HO Heritage Overlay LPPF Local Planning Policy Framework which includes the MSS and local planning policies MAA Major Activities Area MSS Municipal Strategic Statement NCO Neighbourhood Character Overlay NMIT Northern Metropolitan Institute of TAFE NRZ Neighbourhood Residential Zone PPF Planning Policy Framework RGZ Residential Growth Zone RSP Reservoir Structure Plan 2012 RZSAC SBO SPPF UDF VPP Residential Zones Standing Advisory Committee Special Building Overlay State Planning Policy Framework Urban Design Framework Victoria Planning Provisions Page iv

7 Amendments C136, C137, C138 Summary Table 1: The Amendments Purpose Amendments Planning Authority Amendment Summary of Darebin Planning Scheme Amendments C136, C137 and C138 Revise Darebin s Municipal Strategic Statement (Amendment C138) and implements land use and built form controls for the Junction, Oakover precinct, St Georges (Amendment C136) and Plenty Road corridors (Amendment C137) Darebin City Council Exhibition 7 August to 7 October, 2013 Submissions 253 submissions in total: Amendment C submissions Amendment C submissions Amendment C submissions Panel Process Table 2: Panel Process The Panel Lester Townsend (Chair), Suzanne Barker, Lynn Sweeney Directions Hearing 16 December 2013 Panel Hearing 17 February to 6 March and 19 May 2014 Site Inspections A number of unaccompanied inspections were made. Appearances See Appendix A Submissions See Appendix A Date of this Report 31 July 2014 Revisions Revision A: 12 March 2015 Page 107 revised to remove submitters names Page v

8 1 Executive summary 1.1 Conclusions Amendments C136, C137 and C138 to the Darebin Planning Scheme were prepared as a package of amendments to: Review the planning scheme Implement land use and built form directions for the Junction, Oakover precinct, St Georges and Plenty Road corridors Implement new strategies: Darebin Economic Land Use Strategy (DELUS) Darebin Housing Strategy (DHS) Reservoir Structure Plan (RSP). The Panel was impressed with the detailed and strategic planning which underpinned the preparation of a broad suite of documentation supporting the Amendments. Council has worked diligently to keep up with the fast moving planning environment which has seen the release of Plan Melbourne and the introduction of new residential zones. Council s intention has clearly been aiming to lead change in Darebin rather than responding to the development, policy and zoning changes currently affecting all Councils. Council presented an extensive submission responding to the strategic basis of the Amendments as well as the issues and concerns of the 253 submissions. The Panel contended with the substantial amount of material provided to support the Amendments: thousands of pages of submissions and a further 128 documents handed up during the Hearing. The Panel supports the strategic direction of the review of Council s MSS and the idea of managing development along public transport corridors. The Panel does, however, make recommendations regarding the content and drafting of the DDOs and considers that the DDOs attempt to cover too broad a range of matters. The Panel recommends that the DDO controls are not expressed as mandatory controls apart from height. The Panel considers that Amendments C136, C137, C138 will provide Council with a robust policy and development control platform to respond to the development pressures in inner and middle Melbourne over the years to come. The Panel has concluded: C1 The MSS is broadly consistent with the recently approved Plan Melbourne and there appears to be no fundamental difficulties in translating the MSS into the format proposed by the State Planning Policy Framework (SPPF) review advisory committee for an integrated planning framework should this format be progressed. C2 C3 Clauses and provide a sound basis for a comprehensive and robust housing and economic land use strategy for Darebin but that the housing framework should reflect the ultimate residential zoning recommended by the RZSAC. The vision and framework exhibited for the St Georges and Plenty Road corridors are broadly appropriate except the heights proposed for a number of precincts. Page 1

9 C4 C5 The use of the Commercial, Mixed Use 1, General Residential, and Residential Growth zones is broadly justified and appropriate, except for the Mixed Use 2 Zone, although a number changes are recommended in specific locations. It is appropriate to use a DDO along the corridors to control built form, however the DDOs should not unnecessarily duplicate policy. The DDOs should be redrafted to remove ESD requirements, refer to relevant ResCode provisions, be discretionary controls except for mandatory maximum heights, clarify the principles for the application of rear setback controls and avoid the use of additional maps. 1.2 Recomendations For the reasons outlined in this report, the Panel recommends that Darebin Planning Scheme Amendments C136, C137 and C138 should be adopted as exhibited subject to the following recommendations: MSS and local policy 1. Rename the strategic frameworks to Strategic Housing Framework, Strategic Economic Development Framework and Strategic Transport and Infrastructure Framework. 2. Refine the strategic frameworks to remove any inconsistencies between them. 3. Delete references to external documents in objectives, strategies or guidelines in the MSS. 4. Include a specific statement in the MSS that the hierarchy of residential growth is as follows (adjusted as necessary for any Plan Melbourne changes): a) Principal Activity Centres at Preston and Northland b) Activity Centres at Reservoir and High Street Northcote c) Neighbourhood Activity Centres d) Corridors including Plenty Road and St Georges Road. 5. Make necessary typographical changes and minor corrections and additions to Clause 21, including: a) (Regional Context) replace rapid with relatively high b) (Key influences) add underutilised after the words has created pockets of vacant c) (Industry) delete other in the first line of the second dot point. 6. Amend Clause Built Environment dot point 2 to read: Develop and implement detailed guidelines for areas where substantial housing change and growth is encouraged. 7. Amend Clause to include the sentence following the text regarding Strategic Opportunity Sites: It is envisaged that in addition to these sites, future sites that fulfil the above criteria can be identified and classified as Strategic Opportunity Sites. 8. Amend the Strategic Housing Framework at to show: a) Incremental and minimal change areas based on the application of the General and Neighbourhood Residential Zones as recommended by the RZSAC. If Page 2

10 Amendment C138 is adopted before the findings of the RZSAC are known it should be based on Council s submission to the RZSAC. b) Substantial Housing Change Areas as exhibited in Amendment C138 but with the following changes, unless the RZSAC has made an explicit recommendation to the contrary: High Street Thornbury: change from Incremental to Substantial Change Area Australian Horizons Site: show as a Substantial Change Area Gilbert Road Corridor: show as a Substantial Change Area Separation Street, Northcote: include the Northcote Plaza site Area bounded by St Georges Road, Watt Street, the rail line and Normanby Avenue: show as Potential Substantial Housing Change Precinct Include train stations in the legend. 9. Amend the Strategic Housing Framework at to show: a) Potential Substantial Change Precinct notation on the obsolete industrial precincts, including: the area north of Beavers Road (DELUS Precinct 5) the Gadd Street Precinct (DELUS Precinct 6) the Northcote Central (Arthurton Road) (DELUS Precinct 7) the Separation Street Precinct (DELUS Precinct 14). b) The area south of Beavers Road as employment land (DELUS Precinct 5). c) The Heidelberg Road and Westfield Street Precinct as a Mixed Use Precinct (DELUS Precinct 11). 10. Amend Clause (dot point 1) to include the sentence: a) The General Residential Zone will apply until the appropriate built form guidelines and policies are in place in Substantial Change Areas. 11. Amend Clause to: a) Include a map to identify industrial land precincts and clarify the future of all existing and transitioning industrial land precincts in Darebin as shown in the following table. b) Include a table in to clarify the future of all existing and transitioning industrial land precincts in Darebin generally as shown in the following table, but adjusted for any approved rezoning. Proposed Table to Clause Precinct Role Zone 1 Reservoir Core industrial area Industrial 1 and Industrial 3 2A East Preston (industrial) 2B East Preston (renewal) Core industrial area Industrial 1 and Industrial 3 Urban renewal Area bounded by Gower, Bell, Albert Streets and Chifley Drive 3 Fairfield Core industrial area Industrial 3 4 Anderson Road Secondary industrial area Retain Industrial Use but review after 2019 Rezone to Comprehensive Development Zone and ensure development contributions. Industrial 3 Page 3

11 Precinct Role Zone 5 Beavers Road Mixed employment and residential Rezone south of Beavers Road to Commercial 1 and north of Beavers Road to Residential 6 Gadd Street, Northcote 7 Northcote Central (Arthurton Road) Ongoing employment Potential Residential Urban renewal for commercial and residential use 8 Oakover Road Ongoing industrial precinct Industrial 3 Industrial 3 Continue industrial use with a view to potential long term conversion to residential. Consult with landowners prior to any rezoning To be determined 9 Westgarth Mixed use and residential redevelopment Rezone land in Cunningham Street to Mixed Use or Residential 1 Zone Rezone land in Little High Street to Commercial 1 10 St Georges Road and Merri Parade Mixed use redevelopment Rezone to Mixed Use 11 Heidelberg Road and Westfield Street 12 Heidelberg Road Pockets 13 Heidelberg Road, Alphington 14 Separation Street, Northcote 15 Plenty Road Pockets, Preston 16 Regent Street, Preston 17 Edwardes Road, Reservoir 18 Plenty Road pockets, Bundoora 19 High Street, Northcote (Town Hall Precinct) Mixed use employment Rezone to Mixed Used with a Schedule including an objective that requires or encourages employment uses in appropriate locations within the precinct Mixed use and residential redevelopment Rezone to Mixed Use Commercial redevelopment Rezone to Commercial 2 Ongoing industrial precinct Potential residential redevelopment if existing industrial use vacate the precinct Industrial 3 Rezone for Residential use only when the whole precinct can transition to a residential use Rezoning to be determined through the Plenty Road Study Commercial redevelopment Rezone to Commercial 1 Residential zoning to be selected through implementation of the Reservoir Structure Plan Commercial and mixed use redevelopment Rezone land between Hardiman Reserve and Bradshaw Street to Commercial 2 Rezone land between Bradshaw Street and Highland Street to Mixed Use or Business 1 Commercial 1 Page 4

12 12. Amend Clause to: a) Add to Further Strategic Work: Review the Northcote Structure Plan (2007) in accordance with the directions of the Darebin Housing Strategy (2013) with emphasis on the Industrial 3 Zone land around Arthurton Road and adjacent to Northcote Railway Station. d) Delete from Implementation: dot points 3, 4, 5 and 6 referring to rezoning of land. 13. Amend the Strategic Economic Development Framework to show the Gadd Street precinct as employment land. 14. Amend Clause to: a) Include the words and train stations in Objective 1 b) Include the words and other opportunities such as Alphington Station in dot point Abandon proposed changes to Clause and Clause that exclude their operation from the corridors. 16. Remove the rear setback requirements from the map in Clause The Junction Local Area Plan. Environmental Audit Overlay 17. Apply the EAO in accordance with the Appendix 30 of Council s submission and to the following additional properties: a) , 535 St Georges Road b) 290, 322, , , Plenty Road. Rezoning 18. Review whether the MUZ2 should replace the RGZ if issues related to building height in the RGZ have been clarified. 19. Rezone 2A and 38 Arthurton Road and 99 Helen Street to Mixed Use. 20. Retain the current C1Z zoning for the Elizabeth Street/McNamara Street area (DELUS Precinct 33). 21. Amend the proposed rezoning for the properties between Hawthorn Road and McCracken Avenue, east side of St Georges Road from RGZ to GRZ (St Georges Road Precinct 2). 22. Amend the proposed rezoning for the land between Elm Street and Bent Street from C1Z to MUZ1 (St Georges Road Precinct 3). 23. Amend the proposed rezoning for 137 St Georges Road from C1Z to MUZ1 (St Georges Road Precinct 3). 24. Amend the proposed zoning for properties between Emmaline Street and Woolton Avenue, east side of St Georges Road from MUZ2 to RGZ (St Georges Road Precinct 4). 25. Amend the proposed zoning for St Georges Road from R1Z to C1Z (St Georges Road Precinct 5). Page 5

13 26. Amend the proposed zoning for land covered by DDO16 Precinct 7 to from MUZ2 to RGZ (St Georges Road Precinct 7). 27. Amend the proposed zoning for the land north side of Showers Street east of St Georges Road from MUZ2 to RGZ (St Georges Road Precinct 7). 28. Amend the proposed zoning of residential properties to commercial on the east side of Plenty Road from C1Z to RGZ (Plenty Road Precinct 2). 29. Amend the proposed zoning of 572 Plenty Road from RGZ to GRZ (Plenty Road Precinct 2). 30. Amend the proposed zoning of the north side of Plenty Road Precinct 3 from MUZ2 to RGZ (Plenty Road Precinct 3). 31. Amend the proposed zoning of 2 O Connell Street as the balance of the land at Plenty Road (Precinct 4). Design and Development Overlays 32. Review whether the DDO is needed on residentially zoned land or whether the controls can be delivered as a schedule to a residential zone. 33. Review the interaction between the DDO and built form controls in the zone where a residential zone is applied. 34. Amend the requirements of the DDOs to make all requirements discretionary except for maximum building heights. 35. Redraft the DDOs to: a) Radically simplify their structure. b) Tighten and improve language. c) Focus content on: Site width Building height Building setback Site coverage Walls on boundaries Street interface. d) Delete provisions from the DDOs that duplicate Clause and Clause e) Delete reference to minimum heights. f) Modify the 30 degrees boundary setback requirement to apply only where the adjoining land is significantly lower than the corridor land. g) Use reference to other policies or ResCode requirements where possible, in particular refer to ResCode to manage overlooking and overshadowing impacts. h) Remove requirements related to ESD and internal amenity. i) Avoid or minimise the need for maps in the schedule by showing the precincts on the planning scheme maps, and delete (or simplify) the maps in the DDO schedule by: Relating Active frontage to zone Applying a standard set back requirement Page 6

14 Removing Strategic Site designation in particular removing the strategic opportunity site designation from the Northcote High School site in DDO Insert the following objective into DDO16 and DDO17: a) To provide a transition in scale on the side street frontage that responds to the character of housing adjoining the site. 37. Include a design objective in the DDOs to provide pedestrian connections where block lengths exceed 100 metres. 38. Insert the following in DDO3, DDO16 and DDO17: a) In mid block locations avoid right turning vehicles across the tram tracks including U turns. Left in and left out only access may be required (as set out in the Public Transport Guidelines for Land Use and Development, 2008). 39. Amend DDO3 to: a) Include the amended pedestrian connections shown on the post exhibition version of the DDO3 plan b) Include a design objective in DDO3 to encourage the integration of infrastructure for cyclists in new developments c) Remove the requirement for landscaped setbacks at ground level front property boundaries d) Include a design objective in DDO3 to encourage urban forms of landscaping such as green walls and roofs. Application of Overlays 40. Remove 11 Clarke Street from DDO16 (St Georges Road Precinct 1). 41. Amend DDO16 to show a building height of 3 storeys for the block between Hawthorn Road and McCracken Avenue, east side of St Georges Road (St Georges Road Precinct 2). 42. Amend DDO16 in relation to 137 St Georges Road to include additional guidance to manage the residential interface on the Auburn Road frontage (St Georges Road Precinct 3): a) Auburn Road is to be treated as a frontage with a setback of 3m required at ground level b) A preferred maximum building height of 3 storeys within 10m of the southern boundary with stepped setbacks to form a transitional buffer c) Vehicle access points to minimise unreasonable impacts on adjoining residential areas d) Provision of setbacks to the western boundary to provide space for deep rooted vegetation e) Orient active frontage commercial uses to Arthurton Road and St Georges Road and residential uses towards Auburn Avenue and the western laneway f) Avoid high front fencing along Auburn Avenue. 43. Amend DDO16 to show a building height of 4 storeys for properties between Emmaline Street and Woolton Avenue, east side of St Georges Road (St Georges Road Precinct 4). Page 7

15 44. Amend DDO16 to remove the building height nominated for 195 St Georges Road on the Precinct 4 map (St Georges Road Precinct 4). 45. Amend DDO16 to apply a 4 storeys height limit to Precinct 7 (St Georges Road Precinct 7). 46. Apply DDO controls or controls under the zone to land on the north side of Showers Street east of St Georges Road to set a building height of 4 storeys (St Georges Road Precinct 7). 47. Remove the block bounded by St Georges Road, Cramer Street, Edith Street and Bruce Street from the DDO (St Georges Road Precinct 8). 48. Amend DDO3 to apply a building height of 18 storeys to 6 34 High Street and 31 Plenty Road (The Junction). 49. Amend DDO3 to apply a building height in the block between Miller Street and Oakover Road on the west side of High Street of 8 storeys (The Junction). 50. Amend DDO17 Precinct 2 to show a building height of 4 storeys for the east side of Plenty Road, except for the strategic site located on the south east corner of Tyler Street and Plenty Road (Plenty Road Precinct 2). 51. Amend DDO17 Precinct 3 to show a building height of 4 storeys for the north side of Plenty Road (Plenty Road Precinct 3). 52. Apply the same overlay provisions to 2 O Connell Street as the balance of the land at Plenty Road (Plenty Road Precinct 4). 53. Amend DDO17 to include further guidance that buildings should display a fine grained design response which emphasises vertical elements in relation to 1091 Plenty Road (Plenty Road Precinct 4). 54. Amend DDO17 to remove the nominated pedestrian links shown on the Precinct 4 Map 2 for 1091 Plenty Road (Plenty Road Precinct 4). Development Plan Overlay 55. Amend DPO11 schedule to: a) Include an objective to ensure development provides a transition in height and massing to surrounding lower scale form and within the precinct where appropriate b) Include new guidance about the transition from taller built form to lower scale residential areas, especially areas within heritage overlays c) Include a preferred maximum building height of threes storeys along streetscapes other than St Georges Road, with additional storeys to be located toward the centre of large blocks d) Require new developments to consider the impact of the building s bulk and mass on adjoining and adjacent areas f) Specify lower rise residential north of the proposed northern pedestrian connection on the west side of St Georges Road g) Move the north south link pedestrian link located east of St Georges Road to run from the court bowl of Kenwood Court north to Showers Street h) Remove the east west pedestrian link east of St Georges Road. Page 8

16 56. Amend DPO11 schedule to Include a section on the Display of Development Plan stating: a) Before deciding to approve a development plan, the responsible authority must display the plan for public comment b) Notice of the development plan must be given to the owners and occupiers of adjoining land c) A development plan must be displayed or further information required within 28 days after the plan is received by the responsible authority. The plan must be displayed within 14 days of satisfactory further information being received d) The development plan must be displayed for at least 14 days but no longer than Amend DPO11 schedule to include the transitional buffer zones on the concept plan. 58. Amend the application of DPO11 to exclude land on the north side of Showers Street east of St Georges Road. Road Closure Overlay 59. Apply a Road Closure Overlay to facilitate the closure of redundant roads on 800 Plenty Road. Further work The Panel also recommends: 60. Council determine and apply a more appropriate zone to the Northcote Central (Arthurton Road) precinct as soon as possible to resolve the future of this clearly obsolete industrial land. Page 9

17 2 Background and issues Darebin Planning Scheme Amendments C136, C137 and C138 (the Amendments) were prepared by the Darebin Council as Planning Authority. Amendment C138 applies to the whole of the City of Darebin, and C136 and C137 apply to the St Georges Road and Plenty Road corridors respectively. 2.1 About Darebin Darebin covers an area of 53 square kilometres across Melbourne s established inner and middle ring suburbs. Its diverse population of 143,000 (2011) is expected to grow by 1.06 per cent per annum to around 174,000 by Darebin, like many established areas, is experiencing residential development pressure as it is increasingly being identified as a desirable and progressive place to live. Manufacturing, as an important part of Darebin s traditional economic base, is experiencing significant decline. The transition of Darebin s economy from post industrial to a modern retail/business base, and increased pressure for residential development and urban renewal, underscore the need for sound strategic land use planning. Darebin is experiencing significant redevelopment pressure as land values in the southern half of the municipality have crossed the urban renewal threshold where residential redevelopment land values have surpassed industrial land value on obsolete sites. Ad hoc redevelopments, increased traffic and adverse external impacts of increasingly intensive urban living have decreased the residential amenity in some locations. Council has undertaken a range of strategic studies to understand the ongoing pressures that will impact on the development of Darebin and seeks to update its economic land use and housing policies. 2.2 The Amendments Amendment C138 sets the strategic land use framework for Darebin identifying where growth should go, while Amendments C136 and C137 cover the strategic application of the growth in the St Georges Road and Plenty Road corridors including the Junction. (i) Amendment C138 Amendment C138 reviews Darebin s MSS and implements Council s research and policy position on housing, economic development, environmental management, transport and infrastructure. It introduces provisions to implement the Darebin Housing Strategy (DHS), Darebin Economic Land Use Strategy 2013 (DELUS) and the Reservoir Structure Plan (RSP). Specifically, the Amendment replaces the existing MSS (Clause 21) with a new format MSS. The new MSS implements the: Overall Strategic Framework Plan (Clause ) Strategic Housing Framework at , identifying substantial, incremental and minimal housing change areas based on the recommendations of the DHS Page 10

18 Strategic Economic Development Framework (Clause ) setting out a clear retail, commercial and industrial hierarchy for Darebin based on the outcomes of the DELUS Strategic Transport and Infrastructure Framework (Clause ). It also updates the policies for: Industrial and Commercial activity (Clause 22.04) Residential and mixed use development up to four storeys in the Commercial 1 and Priority Development Zones (Clause 22.06) Residential and mixed use development of four or more storeys (Clause 21.07). (ii) Amendment C136 Amendment C136 seeks to implement the land use and built form directions contained in the St Georges Road Urban Design Framework. This will be primarily achieved through the introduction of a Design and Development Overlay Schedule 16 (DDO16), together with a number of rezonings including applying the Residential Growth Zone (RGZ) and General Residential Zone (GRZ). Amendment C136 specifically proposes to: Rezone some land affected by the Amendment to apply the new Residential Growth, General Residential and Mixed Use Zones and Commercial 1 Zone Insert DDO16 Insert Development Plan Overlay Schedule 11 (DPO11) over the Oakover precinct Amend the following local policies to exclude the area covered by DDO16 from their operation: Clause Neighbourhood Character Clause Residential and Mixed Use Development of less than Four Storeys Clause Residential and Mixed Use Development of Four or More Storeys Clause Preston Central (Incremental Change). (iii) Amendment C137 Amendment C137 seeks to implement the land use and built form directions contained in the Plenty Road Urban Design Framework. Similar to Amendment C136, this will be primarily introduced through the introduction of DDO17, an amended and expanded DDO3, together with a number of rezonings including applying the Residential Growth Zone (RGZ) and General Residential Zone (GRZ). Amendment C137 specifically proposes to: Amend Clause The Junction Local Area Plan to remove The Junction Integrated Development Plan (2001) as a reference document, update the Junction Local Area Plan in relation to the Plenty Road Corridor Urban Design Framework 2013 and insert the Plenty Road Corridor Urban Design Framework 2013 into the Clause as a reference document Rezone land affected by the Amendment to apply the new Residential Growth Zone and Mixed Use Zone and Commercial (Commercial 1 and 2) Zones Insert DDO17 Replace DDO3 Page 11

19 Amend the following local policies to exclude the area covered by DDO17 from their operation: Clause Neighbourhood Character Clause Residential and Mixed Use Development of less than Four Storeys Clause Residential and Mixed Use Development of Four or More Storeys. (iv) Potentially Contaminated Land Policy Both Amendment C136 and C137 seek to introduce an Environmental Audit Overlay (to land where site history indicates potential for contamination) to land along the St Georges Road and Plenty Road corridors. Specifically they propose to: Insert Clause Potentially Contaminated Land Policy into the Local Planning Policy Framework Apply an Environmental Audit Overlay to land where site history indicates potential for contamination. 2.3 Recent State policy initiatives The Amendments are proposed at a time of significant changes to the planning landscape in Victoria: Plan Melbourne, the new metropolitan strategy was approved on 19 May 2014 setting the agenda for increased population growth within the established metropolitan area Reformed planning zones have been introduced and new residential zones are in the process of being rolled out The SPPF Review Advisory Committee has released a revised SPPF format and content for all planning schemes. 2.4 Summary of issues raised in submissions The key issues raised in the submissions of the various parties are briefly summarised as follows: (i) Planning Authority The key issues for the Council were the: Need to replace the MSS to reflect updated policy and future direction for the growth of Darebin Identification of areas suitable for substantial residential and commercial intensification and the adoption of a strong methodology for the ongoing study of precincts Need for clear and defendable policies and controls for residential, industrial and commercial development Need for clear direction and controls for residential growth along the St Georges Road and Plenty Road Corridors and the Junction. Page 12

20 (ii) Authorities The key issues for Authorities were: VicTrack: the designation of land adjacent to Alphington Station as a significant site for residential development EPA: Form of the Potentially Contaminated Land Policy. (iii) Individual Submitters The key issues raised by submitters were: The impacts of increased residential development and population growth in Darebin Disagreement with the recommendations of the DELUS for their land Opposition to designation of minimal, incremental and substantial change areas Opposition to residential development on car parking land adjacent to Alphington Station The form and impact of the proposed development on the Plenty Road and St Georges Road corridors, and land adjoining these areas A range of site specific issues. 2.5 Issues dealt with in this Report The Panel considered all written submissions, as well as submissions presented to it during the Hearing. In addressing the issues raised in those submissions, the Panel has been assisted by the information provided to it as well as its observations from inspections of specific sites. The following chapters of this report discuss the issues raised in submission relating to the Amendment in further detail, with the Panel s conclusions and recommendations consolidated in the Executive Summary: Housing and economic land use direction Overarching principles for corridors Specific controls in the DDOs Reservoir Structure Plan Industrial precincts St Georges Road corridor precincts Plenty Road corridor precincts. Page 13

21 3 Housing and economic land use direction 3.1 Plan Melbourne and State Planning Policy Framework (SPPF) (i) What is the issue? Are the economic land use and housing directions proposed in the Amendments consistent with the new metropolitan strategy and the SPPF? (ii) Evidence and submissions Council presented a comprehensive submission outlining how the Amendments and the suite of background strategic planning studies are consistent with the SPPF and more specifically the seven objectives of the new metropolitan strategy, Plan Melbourne. The revised MSS is illustrated by the Strategic Framework (Clause ) showing how the Plan Melbourne Activity Centre hierarchy is distributed in Darebin including, for example, the emerging LaTrobe Employment Cluster and Activity Centre designation of Preston Central and Northland. The Framework identifies a hierarchy of Activity Centres, Strategic Corridors and areas of Urban Intensification. The Housing Framework (Clause ) identifies minimal, incremental and substantial Housing Change Areas and shows these in relation to the public transport network. In so doing Council seeks to provide the opportunity for a diversity of housing types and achieve the fundamental objective of increasing housing density within walking distance of public transport while protecting existing neighbourhood character, where appropriate. Mr Phillips, for Council submitted that the Strategic Housing Framework, including the identification of areas suitable for increased residential density, implements one of the fundamental objectives of Plan Melbourne to consolidate residential growth within the existing urban area. Council submitted that Economic Development Framework (Clause ) is consistent with State and Council policy on: retaining local employment; managing the transition of former industrial land, where the highest and best use is residential; and managing development, market pressure and places in transition. Council submitted that the form of Amendment C138 is consistent with the Ministerial Direction on the Form and Content of Planning Schemes, has been evaluated in accordance with Ministerial Direction 11: Strategic Assessment of Amendments and is consistent with Ministerial Direction 9: Metropolitan Strategy. While not directly questioning the consistency of the Amendments with Plan Melbourne, a number of submitters, including the Darebin Appropriate Development Association (DADA), questioned the extent to which the Amendments seek to achieve the objectives of housing and population growth. DADA submitted that the extent of housing growth contemplated could result in a loss of the highly valued liveability currently enjoyed by Darebin residents. Page 14

22 (iii) Discussion and conclusion Council provided a thorough presentation on the alignment of the Amendments with Council policy and Plan Melbourne and the Panel is convinced that Council has adequately dealt with the issues that increasing development and population will inevitably bring. Darebin has taken a proactive approach to delivering both its metropolitan and local responsibilities through its revised MSS. The Panel strongly supports Council s approach of accommodating significant growth in a planned manner and identifying areas for urban transformation. The Panel concludes: The MSS is broadly consistent with the recently approved Plan Melbourne. 3.2 MSS drafting issues (i) What is the issue? Is the MSS appropriately drafted? (ii) Submissions Submissions did not address detailed MSS drafting issues and these issues were not discussed in detail at the Panel. However, the Panel s consideration of the Amendments identified a number of usability and drafting issues: The Strategic Housing Framework, Strategic Economic Development Framework and Strategic Transport and Infrastructure Framework are all called Strategic Framework making referencing difficult Navigating between the Strategic Housing Framework and the Strategic Economic Development Framework can create confusion The application of zones refers to rezoning some land A number of objectives, strategies or guidelines in the MSS refer to external documents that are not formally incorporated. A number of submissions presented during the Panel Hearing and questions from the Panel identified the lack of consistency between the Housing Framework and the Economic Development Framework. Council submitted that this has occurred due to the different completion times of the DHS and DELUS and that the DHS only related to land currently zoned for housing. Council noted that the inclusion of DELUS, along with the Reservoir Structure Plan and the DHS as reference documents would enable the strategies to be monitored and reviewed to ensure that the economic and residential requirements within the municipality will be achieved. (iii) Discussion and conclusion The policy for rezoning land should be an expressed policy rather than buried in the application of zones which should serve to explain how current zones have been applied as required by the Planning and Environment Act Identifying future residential areas where the policy position for transformation has been settled can do this. The direction for industrial land in DELUS should be clearly outlined in the MSS without needing to cross reference the DELUS to understand the relevant policy and planning controls. How this could be included in the MSS is discussed in Chapter 3.4. Page 15

23 The Panel agrees with the panel for the review of the Greater Geelong LPPF 2008: As a matter of principle and for consistency with the Practice Note: Reference and Incorporated Documents (August 2000), all references to external documents that are not formally incorporated should be removed from the MSS and LPPs unless they appear simply in the list of reference documents 1. The Panel does not see this as an onerous task. (iv) Recommendations The Panel recommends: Rename the strategic frameworks to Strategic Housing Framework, Strategic Economic Development Framework and Strategic Transport and Infrastructure Framework. Refine the strategic frameworks to remove any inconsistencies between them. Delete references to external documents in objectives, strategies or guidelines in the MSS. 3.3 A possible new format for MSSs (i) Issue and submissions The Minister for Planning established an Advisory Committee to review the State Planning Policy Framework (SPPF) in July In October 2013, the terms of reference of the Committee were expanded to review ways in which Local Planning Policy Frameworks (LPPF) could be better aligned with the SPPF. (ii) Discussion and conclusion The Advisory Committee has prepared a document called the draft Planning Policy Framework (PPF), which shows how a revised format for the SPPF and LPPF could work. Council s submission to that Advisory Committee concluded that there would be no fundamental difficulties in translating the proposed MSS and local planning policies into the new structure if it were to proceed. The Panel agrees with this assessment. The Panel concludes: There appears to be no fundamental difficulties in translating the MSS into the format proposed by the SPPF Review Advisory Committee for an integrated PPF should this format be progressed. 3.4 Economic development framework (i) What are the issues? Does Clause provide a sound Economic Development Framework for Darebin? 1 Panel Report of Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C129 page 17. Page 16

24 The revised MSS includes Darebin s Economic Development Framework (Clause 21.04) which is based on the findings of the DELUS. A number of submissions questioned recommendations with regard to individual properties and precincts in Clause Economic Development and DELUS and the precincts which were the subject of submissions are considered in Chapter 7 of this report. No submissions were received questioning the overall validity of the economic development approach, but it is necessary to review this approach to understand the strategic basis of the Amendments. (ii) Evidence and submissions Council outlined that Clause provides a comprehensive and strategic approach to secure the future of retail, office and industrial uses in Darebin by identifying the preferred strategic direction rather than reacting to structural economic changes which are continuing to affect the municipality and its businesses. The Strategic Economic Development Framework establishes the retail and industrial hierarchy developed to implement Council s strategic vision for Darebin s economy: Darebin s economy will be vibrant, diverse and adaptive to the structural changes occurring at a national and local level. The Economic Development Policy (Clause 21.04) identifies an Activity Centre hierarchy consisting of: Principal and Specialised Activities Areas: Northland, Preston Central and LaTrobe University Major and Neighbourhood Activity Areas: Northcote, Preston, Reservoir, Fairfield Local Centres and other Activity Areas High Street (one of the longest retails strips in Melbourne) and a number of small retail clusters. It also sets out an industrial hierarchy and recommendations: Major (Core) Industrial Precincts to be retained: Fairfield, East Preston, Reservoir Secondary Industrial Areas to be retained: Anderson Road area Beavers Road to be rezoned to provide for a mix of uses with employment continuing to play a key role Industrial Pockets and single sites unlikely to enjoy re investment for industrial purposes where appropriate, the recommended alternative use includes employment. Amendment C138 does not rezone industrial land but the Economic Development Framework it introduces places precincts within the commercial and industrial hierarchy, and this will provide the strategic justification needed for future rezoning of industrial land recommended in DELUS. Council called evidence from Mr McNeill, author of DELUS, to respond to landowner submissions. Mr McNeill outlined the structural economic changes and socio demographic changes impacting on Darebin and Melbourne. These include the decline in manufacturing and the impacts of ongoing gentrification. He explained that Darebin is moving from a postindustrial economy to a modern retail/business economy. The impacts are increasing land values which cross the urban consolidation threshold in much of the southern part of the municipality, generally south of Bell Street but also some well located pockets north of Bell Page 17

25 Street. This means that the value of land for residential development equals or surpasses its industrial value. Mr McNeill went further to add that, in the metropolitan context, these forces can t be turned back. Mr McNeill outlined the rationale to maintain the viability of the core and secondary industrial areas by avoiding spot rezonings chipping away at the viability of these areas. In terms of the smaller industrial areas and individual sites, the DELUS sets out its approach: The approach taken has been to consider the context of each defined area and consider: The nature of the surrounding area including the extent to which sensitive interfaces such as residential may act to compromise the future use of the land for industrial purposes The existing economic and employment generation of sites and the surrounding area and the likelihood that industry would be likely to be attracted to the location The nature and quality of the existing built form The extent to which the location represents an opportunity for higher intensity development (employment based and/or residential) and therefore a more optimal use of the site (DELUS p27). Council submitted there is an ongoing need for a strong and consistent approach to industrial land use policy in the Planning Scheme to ensure that industry has a sufficient level of confidence that their operations will be protected. Council also noted that it is important that any transition of use of obsolete land occurs in an orderly, efficient and equitable manner. A number of submitters in the Arthurton Road Northcote industrial precinct, including Ms Kouremenous, expressed frustration at the lack of definitive action on the rezoning of the clearly obsolete industrial precinct with Council deferring the issue until review of the High Street Structure Plan. Mr McNeill provided a number of minor changes to Clause 21 which were not contentious and were supported by Council. (iii) Discussion The significant number of submissions regarding land holdings within the industrial precincts reflects the high level of land use change currently being undertaken or contemplated in Darebin. The current high level of property activity highlights the need for, and value of, Council taking a proactive approach to retail, commercial and most importantly, industrial land strategy. As indicated above, few submissions questioned the fundamental basis of Clause or the methodology of DELUS, although a number of submissions questioned the outcomes of DELUS for specific precincts. The Panel believes the methodology and analysis underpinning Clause will assist Darebin in retaining employment by protecting viable industrial land and transitioning obsolete land to other employment or residential uses in an orderly manner. Page 18

26 As the submissions on various precincts have shown, the current industrial land use policy is still open to interpretation. The Panel believes the Economic Development policy in the MSS would be more clearly presented and enhanced by: A map identifying the precincts (e.g. DELUS Fig. 2 p.33) Summary tables in Clause that specify the role and direction of each precinct as identified in DELUS. Specific rezoning proposals from Clause Implementation Application of Zones and Overlays (dot points 3, 4, 5 and 6) should be removed and presented in this table for clarity. The Panel accepts Council s view that the zoning future of the Northcote Central (Arthurton Road) precinct should be determined in a holistic way at the time of the review of the High Street Northcote Structure Plan but believes this should be done as soon as possible to allow this important precinct to develop. The minor corrections and additions to Clause 21 recommended by Mr McNeill and Council are logical and should be incorporated. (iv) Conclusion and recommendations The Panel concludes: Clause Economic Development provides a sound basis for a comprehensive and robust economic land use strategy for Darebin. The Panel recommends: Make necessary typographical changes and minor corrections and additions to Clause 21, including: a) (Regional Context) replace rapid with relatively high, b) (Key influences) add underutilised after the words has created pockets of vacant c) (Industry) delete other in the first line of the second dot point; Amend Clause to: a) Include a map and table in Clause to identify industrial land precincts and clarify the future of all existing and transitioning industrial land precincts in Darebin as shown in the table forming part of Recommendation 11 in the Executive Summary. b) Add to Further Strategic Work: Review the Northcote Structure Plan (2007) in accordance with the directions of the Darebin Housing Strategy (2013) with emphasis on the Industrial 3 Zone land around Arthurton Road and adjacent to Northcote Railway Station. c) Delete from Implementation: dot points 3, 4, 5 and 6 referring to rezoning of land. Council determine and apply a more appropriate zone to the Northcote Central (Arthurton Road) precinct as soon as possible to resolve the future of this clearly obsolete industrial land. Page 19

27 3.5 Strategic housing framework What are the issues? Darebin s housing policy (Clause 21.03) aims to manage housing growth in the municipality. Council expects an additional 13,000 dwellings over the next 20 years. The policy, which is illustrated by the Housing Framework at Clause , is based on the outcomes of the DHS and aims to provide greater certainty in relation to the housing change envisaged across the municipality by identifying a clear hierarchy of Housing Change Areas in order to manage the current and future housing growth pressures, namely: Substantial housing change Incremental change Minimal housing change. Submissions raised a range of issues including the: Designation of residential land as suitable for substantial, incremental and minimal housing change Impact of population increase on community infrastructure Loss of housing diversity Loss of neighbourhood character Impact on health and the environment Overall strategic direction (i) Submissions Council outlined the overall housing policy direction and rationale for the Housing Framework (Clause ): The Housing Strategy sets a direction to be socially inclusive through providing a diverse range of housing options facilitated by what will be a pragmatic and humanistic approach in applying the three new residential zones. The Housing Framework was developed following a substantial suite of strategic work to: Provide balance between heritage and character preservation and the need to facilitate housing growth, access to jobs and services Encourage higher density housing in identified substantial change areas and in identified strategic opportunity sites Identify housing issues such as affordable and social housing provision, environmentally sustainable design, housing diversity, density in appropriate locations, access to jobs and services, accessible housing for the elderly and people with limited mobility and student accommodation Establish a clear framework for future strategic work to support the application the new residential zones, reviewing neighbourhood character guidelines, better monitor residential growth trends and integrate housing and infrastructure growth requirements Link with key directions in the Council Plan for a diverse and inclusive community, rather than taking the approach that Darebin is to be essentially exclusive by the wholesale application of the low change housing areas. Page 20

28 The Housing Framework represents a hierarchy of residential growth directions of: Principal Activity Centres Preston and Northland Major Activity Centres Reservoir and High Street Northcote Neighbourhood Activity Centres e.g. Lancaster gate, Fairfield, Westgarth and Thornbury Corridors including Plenty Road and St Georges Road. Council agreed that this hierarchy could be more explicitly expressed in the MSS. It was also noted that the areas identified for substantial change should be revisited to determine suitability for the application of the RGZ. This included precincts along the major road corridors as well as other areas. A number of submissions, including Mr Italiano from Acustruct Builders, supported Council s approach to the DHS and the Housing Framework. Mr Italiano highlighted the financial effect planning delays have on housing affordability and recommended... a wider more balanced approach for all. Community infrastructure DADA identified that vital community infrastructure such as schools should be considered in the allocation of minimal change areas due to the existing housing being most suited to families with school age children. DADA suggested that a School Protection Zone where three or more street blocks around schools could be restricted to dual occupancy and two storey development. This would apply even when the blocks fall within 400 metres of a train or tram stop. Ms Martin questioned the Housing Framework in terms of the pressure that increased population will put on already stretched public transport, schools, hospitals especially in the Northland area. A number of individual submitters raised concerns that Council s proposal to increase development potential and population within the various precincts was not supported by appropriate infrastructure improvements. The types of infrastructure mentioned by submitters included: improvement to or increase in open space; social infrastructure such as schools, child care and medical care; and civil infrastructure such as traffic management, public transport or stormwater management. Ms Wheeler stated it is a given that there needs to be infrastructure responses to more people living in the area, and that she would welcome services such as a bank or Post Office within walking distance of her home in the Oakover Precinct. Council responded that it is well aware of the additional community infrastructure that will be needed to support the increased population in Darebin but noted that the provision of community infrastructure was not directly managed through the proposed zones, DDOs or DPO controls. Council stated that new development would be expected to contribute to open space provisions. Diversity of housing DADA and Ms Burns among a number of other submitters raised concerns that the vision for intensification undermines housing and population diversity by promoting one type of development and minimising opportunities for units and townhouses. Submitters were concerned that there would be an oversupply of one and two bedroom apartments which Page 21

29 would exclude owner occupiers and families. DADA identified the mismatch between the need for a mix of 1, 2 and 3 bedroom dwellings and the fact that 94 per cent of the residential applications since 2012 have been for 1 or 2 bedrooms. DADA believes that quotas should be introduced to protect 3+ bedroom stock or introduce larger areas of minimal housing change areas / Neighbourhood Residential Zone to protect access to this larger dwellings. Mr and Mrs Coffey submitted that the development of units in Reservoir and across Darebin will result in a substantial loss of garden space and tree canopy which would be to the detriment of the whole community. Council responded to this issue noting that the strategic reasoning for enabling different housing stock along the corridors is to provide a different housing stock to the streets behind the corridors, namely detached dwellings on separate titles. Impact of residential areas on health Ms Somers submitted the revised MSS does not go far enough in emphasising the impact that the built environment can have on health. Ms Somers particularly noted the importance of supporting active transport and supports measures to reduce car dependency. In his submission Mr Kneale suggested that the Darebin MSS and DHS did not go far enough to require improved universal access for people with disabilities, bicycle parking and access to daylight. Council responded to these issues concluding that that they are adequately addressed and that the MSS represents the recommendations from both the DHS and Darebin Transport Strategy and did not support any further changes in this regard. (ii) Discussion The broad approach that Darebin has taken is consistent with contemporary approaches to planning for residential development. Darebin Council has taken a strong stand in relation to identifying areas suitable for higher density development. While the Panel has considered the issues raised by submitters who reject the direction Council has taken, it is convinced that the significant amount of research, strategic planning and community involvement in the development of the policies and reports supports Council s approach. Council has clearly illustrated that the current planning regime is resulting in significantly compromised conditions for existing houses where they are adjacent to higher density developments. The Panel is convinced that Council is aiming to take the initiative to identify the location and conditions where higher density is suited and, as such, provide the community with a higher level of certainty into the future. Without dismissing the impact on any individual, the Panel is persuaded that Council s overall approach will provide a net community benefit from the change that is inevitably coming. The Panel is not convinced that there is merit in limiting development of higher density housing near schools to preserve detached housing stock. Many larger homes are occupied by childless couples, empty nesters or families without school age children. It is not clear that such limits would make any material difference to the viability of schools or help reduce children s journey to school. This is particularly the case in the context where many children do not attend the nearest school. Page 22

30 The Panel acknowledges that planning for infrastructure is an ongoing effort and is of the view that Council should proactively plan for social and civil infrastructure requirements associated with the planned growth in the municipality, preferably by facilitating a cross Council / cross agency approach. Housing diversity needs to be managed on a municipality wide basis taking into account the existing housing stock. In Darebin s case increasing the supply of apartments will increase housing diversity. The Panel agrees with the approach to provide a diversity of housing stock along the corridors that is different to the detached dwellings that exists in the majority of Darebin. Council has considered broader social planning considerations and the Panel agrees with Council that further changes are not required in the MSS in this regard. The Panel is satisfied that the housing policy at Clause will provide a sound approach for the management of residential development in Darebin but notes that it needs to reflect the application of the new residential zones. The application of the new zones is a fast moving policy area and is discussed in the next section. To make navigating between the Strategic Employment Framework and the Strategic Housing Frameworks easier the Strategic Housing Framework at Clause should include the Potential Substantial Change Precinct notation on industrial precincts identified for a residential future. The MSS should also include an explicit hierarchy of where housing growth is to be directed. (iii) Conclusion and recommendations The Panel concludes: Clause Housing provides a sound approach and basis for housing strategy for Darebin. The Panel recommends: Amend the Strategic Housing Framework at Clause to show a Potential Substantial Change Precinct notation on the obsolete industrial precincts. Include a specific statement in the MSS that the hierarchy of residential growth is as follows (adjusted as necessary for any Plan Melbourne changes): a) Principal Activity Centres at Preston and Northland b) Activity Centres at Reservoir and High Street Northcote c) Neighbourhood Activity Centres d) Corridors including Plenty Road, St Georges Road Minimal and incremental change areas (i) What is the issue? Are the minimal and incremental change areas appropriate? (ii) Submissions The Housing Framework identifies the housing change area for Darebin and a number of submitters questioned these. DADA submitted that by identifying just 25 per cent of Page 23

31 residential land as minimal change areas, the Darebin Housing Framework is excessively pro multi unit development considering that 34 per cent of Darebin s dwellings are already medium or high density compared to 28 per cent of Greater Melbourne. Mr Carfi submitted that the east side of Alexander Street should be included in the minimal change areas rather than incremental change. He also requested improved heritage controls and was concerned that Preston is losing its character as well as solar loss due to incremental change of single storey housing to large two storey houses. With regard to Queen Street, Council submitted that a mapping anomaly should be corrected to show 15 27, and 58 Queen Street Reservoir as minimal change areas in alignment with the Queen Street Heritage Precinct. While Council submitted that it considers there are sufficient planning controls to protect heritage buildings in the municipality, it noted that a Heritage Overlay does not prohibit development: In Queen Street, Reservoir, Minimal Change has been identified towards the Queen Street/Oakhill Junction and Incremental Change along the balance of Queen Street and both areas aim to ensure that new development is consistent with the character of the area. SJB, for the Branson Group requested that 35 Beaconsfield Parade Northcote be identified as an incremental change area rather than minimal change due to its superior public transport and facilities: 50m from Croxton Station; close to tram and cycling routes; and close to Northcote Activity Centre. SJB further identified that the property has no Heritage Overlay, no single dwelling covenant, has laneway access and is adjacent to a rail yard. Council did not agree with the submitter as the Beaconsfield Parade site is part of the precinct identified in the Neighbourhood Character Study as having a Special Neighbourhood Character (Neighbourhood Character Precinct A2). Council took the view that its approach in the DHS must remain consistent and recommended the following additional text in the DHS p.73 (Minimal Change Areas): Figure 22 add Areas within an identified special neighbourhood character precinct and as being recommended for the Neighbourhood Character Overlay (NCO) in the Darebin Neighbourhood Character Study (2007), Include a map of the identified areas recommended for the NCO in the Neighbourhood Character Study (2007) as an Appendix to the DHS Alphington While there was a range of views in submissions relating to the Alphington area, the majority of residents strongly supported the designation of the precinct as a minimal change area. Mr and Ms Anders and a number of other submitters were concerned that the minimal change area designation does not go far enough to prevent the character of Alphington changing drastically with a significant number of homes being replaced with large 2 storey homes. On the other hand, the submission from Ms Nairn argued that Alphington should be designated as incremental change due to its superior location in terms of services and facilities. Council is satisfied that Alphington fulfils the criteria for the minimal change area designation and notes that the demolition of existing housing stock cannot be prevented Page 24

32 unless an overlay, such as a Heritage Overlay, applies. Council explained that the interim heritage provisions over the area were abandoned following exhibition of C108. Ms Griffin requested that both sides of Grange Road Alphington should be shown as incremental change rather than minimal change to reflect the existing conditions and development pattern. Council accepted this submission as a mapping error and agrees that the Housing Change Framework show the eastern side of Grange Road as incremental change. (iii) Discussion In some respects the issues before this Panel have been overtaken by the introduction of the new residential zones. The introduction of three new residential zones on 1 July 2013 was part of a larger reform of the planning zones in Victoria 2. Council has prepared Amendment C144 to implement the Neighbourhood Residential Zone and General Residential Zone. On 3 March 2014 Council resolved to: (1) Refer consideration of the draft Planning Scheme Amendment C144 to the Residential Zones Standing Advisory Committee. (2) Proceed with notification in accordance with the terms of reference of the Residential Zones Standing Advisory Committee (section 12 17) including identified timeframes and minimum notice requirements. The purpose of the Residential Zones Standing Advisory Committee (RZSAC) is to provide advice on the suitability of the residential zones and the method proposed to introduce the zones into a Scheme. It is being conducted with a view to completion around July The RZSAC s findings will be to: Make an assessment of the appropriateness of the new residential zones within Darebin Recommend whether the planning scheme amendment could be prepared, adopted and pursued pursuant to Section 20(4) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (via a Ministerial Amendment). The Committee will deliver its recommendations to the Minister who will make the ultimate decision concerning the introduction of residential zones into a Scheme. The primary role of the DHS and Housing Strategic Framework in regard to the new residential zones is to establish the strategic rationale for the broad criteria that are used to identify Housing Change Areas. The Housing Change Areas mirror the new zones and provide a guiding framework for how the new zones might be applied. The DHS anticipates and identifies further work that is necessary to bring the zones into effect. Council submitted an ultimate zoning plan to the Advisory Committee on the residential zones. This is shown below. 2 The Minister for Planning approved new and amended zones through planning scheme amendments V8, VC100 and VC103. Page 25

33 Figure 1: Darebin ultimate zoning plan submitted to the RZSAC This zoning plan departs from the Strategic Framework presented at Panel and the areas identified for minimal or incremental change are different. The RZSAC will address the application of the GRZ and NRZ in detail informed by a wider perspective on how these zones are applied in a number of schemes. The Panel believes that this process should determine the location of the minimal and incremental change areas. The Panel is satisfied that Alphington has been appropriately designated as a minimal change area and notes Council has presented both sides of Grange Road as incremental change to the RZSAC. Page 26

34 (iv) Recommendation The Panel recommends: Amend the Strategic Housing Framework at to show: a) Incremental and minimal change areas based on the application of the General and Neighbourhood Residential Zones as recommended by the RZSAC. If Amendment C138 is adopted before the findings of the RZSAC are known it should be based on Council s submission to the RZSAC Substantial change areas (i) What is the issue? Have appropriate substantial change areas been identified? (ii) Submissions Council submitted that the timing of the RZSAC precludes an opportunity to consider the introduction of the Residential Growth Zone (RGZ). Council would need to conduct further strategic work and community consultation prior to introducing the RGZ. This involves complex work that cannot be completed within timeframes indicated for the RZSAC process. The issue of the identification of substantial change areas on the Strategic Housing Framework is before this Panel. Mr Tormey submitted that his property in Strettle Street should be designated a substantial change area rather than a minimal change area due to the large size of the block and the fact that it is not subject to an Environmental Significance Overlay (as incorrectly identified in the DHS analysis). Council accepts that the site was incorrectly mapped during the analysis and agrees that the minimal change area should not apply but proposes incremental change rather than the substantial change area requested. Council recommends incremental change as the area is relatively remote to public transport compared to other areas of Darebin and due to the interface with the Secondary Industrial Precinct which Council is seeking to protect through DELUS. Council also submitted that the Strategic Housing Framework Plan should be changed to correctly show the Gilbert Road Corridor as substantial change rather than incremental change. Ms Burns questioned the substantial change designation of the area around the Thornbury Primary School. Ms Burns submitted that vital community infrastructure such as the Primary School should be considered and its future protected in determining the location for more intensive development. Council responded noting that the superior transport access of the area supports its designation as a substantial change area. A number of submissions from residents of Shower Street in the Oakover precinct objected to the designation of the small residential street as a substantial change area and opposed the rezoning of Shower Street to Mixed Use. Council explained its rationale for the rezoning in that the level of change expected in the Oakover precinct will transform the neighbourhood and that the Mixed Use zoning reflects this. This issue is dealt with in Section 8.7 of this report. Page 27

35 Council requested a change to Clause 21 to correct errors in the exhibited version, namely: Clause ; Bullet point 1 (Add) The General residential Zone would apply until such time as the appropriate built form guidelines and policies are in place in Substantial Change Areas. (iii) Discussion Substantial change areas represent 10 per cent of Darebin s residential land and apply to areas where character is evolving with an eclectic mix of new and old forms of housing. These areas are likely to transition to the Residential Growth Zone. The DHS indicates that Council will develop area specific controls to establish height limits, provide guidance on site coverage, setbacks, permeability and fence heights. The substantial change areas were identified on the basis of: Possessing superior accessibility to key services, facilities, public transport, employment centres and activity areas Exhibiting an evolving and transitional residential character Being generally free from planning and environmental constraints (DHS p.76) The substantial change areas identified on the Strategic Housing Framework appear logical. The plan identifies a large area of substantial change in Thornbury bounded by St Georges Road, Watt Street, the rail line and Normanby Avenue. The Panel accepts that there is a prima facie case for housing growth in this area, but thinks more investigation needs to be undertaken before the potential of this area can confirm rezoning to RGZ. This investigation would need to determine how to manage residential growth in the context of the existing low density residential character. It would be better to characterise this area as a Potential Substantial Housing Change Precinct recognising that future investigations are required to confirm that does indeed have potential for housing growth. A number of refinements to the Strategic Housing Framework were identified in the Hearing to address anomalies. These are addressed in the recommendations. (iv) Recommendations The Panel recommends: Amend the Strategic Housing Framework at to show: a) Substantial Housing Change Areas as exhibited in Amendment C138 but with the following changes, unless the RZSAC has made an explicit recommendation to the contrary: High Street Thornbury: change from Incremental to Substantial Change Area Australian Horizons Site: show as a Substantial Change Area Gilbert Road Corridor: show as a Substantial Change Area Separation Street, Northcote: include the Northcote Plaza site Area bounded by St Georges Road, Watt Street, the rail line and Normanby Avenue: show as Potential Substantial Housing Change Precinct Include train stations in the legend. Page 28

36 Amend Clause (dot point 1) to include the sentence: a) The General Residential Zone will apply until the appropriate built form guidelines and policies are in place in Substantial Change Areas Strategic Opportunity sites (i) What is the issue? Should additional sites, including Alphington Station, be identified as Strategic Opportunity sites? (ii) Submissions A number of submissions raised concerns about the impact of the identification of Strategic Opportunity sites and the identification of additional sites. Clause identifies Strategic Opportunity Sites as having the following characteristics: Over 1,000sqm In a zone that permits residential use Not constrained by a Heritage Overlay Displaying one or more of the following favourable locational criteria: Within 500m of a train station Within 400m of a tram stop Fronting a strategic corridor (St Georges Road) Within a designated major or principal activities area The request to include Alphington Station as an additional Strategic Opportunity site was one of the more contentious issues presented to Panel. VicTrack requested a number of wording changes to the Amendment to support the potential for development of underutilised railway land. The VicTrack submission related primarily to the redevelopment potential of a parcel of car parking land at the northern side of the Alphington Station highlighting that the investigation of the site is supported by the draft Metropolitan Strategy, Plan Melbourne as it:... represents a great opportunity to unlock underutilised rail land to increase the diversity of housing in the areas which is close to public transport and to use these proceeds to provide the local community and commuters with an improved public transport hub. VicTrack specifically highlighted Plan Melbourne Initiative which:... identifies and supports new urban renewal sites around train stations and unlocking the capacity of under utilised land such as car parks. VicTrack submitted that: The Alphington Station site should be identified as a Strategic Opportunity Site in the DHS as it is zoned Public Use Zone Schedule 4 (Transport) which does not prohibit residential use and therefore should be considered within the range of appropriate zones Clause, Housing Framework should: identify stations and making it explicit that stations and land surrounding them can be opportunities for growth and further investigation Page 29

37 include a statement noting that further strategic opportunity sites can be identified and that the Neighbourhood Character Policy should not apply Clause Transport should note the potential for residential redevelopment at train stations and specifically at Alphington, Bell and Reservoir. Council agreed with a number of the changes requested by VicTrack, including noting train stations on the Strategic Housing Framework Plan and including an additional sentence to emphasise that it is envisaged that future sites that fulfil the criteria can be identified. Council supported the requested addition to Clause 21.05: Include the words and train stations in Objective 1 Include the words and other opportunities such as Alphington Station in bullet point 4 While Council supported part of the VicTrack submission it did not support the removal of the Neighbourhood Character Policy from Strategic Opportunity Sites in the DHS, nor to note it as further work in Clause Council noted that where Strategic Opportunity Sites fall outside substantial change areas (and are within residential neighbourhoods only suitable for an incremental scale of housing change at the broader precinct level) removing the Neighbourhood Character Policy could provide for out of character development when character is a relevant design consideration. Submissions also addressed other strategic opportunity sites. Mr Malvaso submitted that the identification of 242 St Georges Road as a Strategic Opportunity site could affect the potential future sale of his adjoining house in Emmaline Street. Council submitted that 242 St Georges Road satisfies the criteria for designation as a Strategic Opportunity site. (iii) Discussion Strategic Opportunity Sites are not indicated on the Housing Framework plan but Strategic Sites are identified on the DDO maps in the Schedules. An indicative list of sites is provided in the DHS. The Panel supports the investigation of underutilised land as a valid approach to increasing opportunities for residential development. The Panel agrees with Council s acceptance of VicTrack s recommended changes to general clauses to acknowledge that underutilised transport land can be suitable for residential development. With regard to the VicTrack site at Alphington Station, the Panel supports Council s position not to remove the Neighbourhood Character Policy from Strategic Opportunity Sites as development will need to have regard to the context of the community in which it is located. Council has been clear that the new MSS is based on the principle of net community benefit where any potential development opportunity must consider its context within, and contribution to, the existing neighbourhood not just its development potential alone. While VicTrack s submission that the Public Use Zone Schedule 4 (Transport) does not prohibit residential use and thus satisfies the requirement for Strategic Opportunity Sites may be technically correct, it does not fit with the approach taken by Council in the preparation of the DHS. It could be argued that all other public use land, commercial zones and even industrial zones which allow for caretaker residences would also fall into this category. Council limited its DHS analysis to those sites within residential zones, although it Page 30

38 would have been helpful if this had been more clearly stated in the DHS. If Council wants to identify sites in areas other than residential zones, Council it should create a separate list. The Panel is also concerned that the Northcote Secondary College is being designated with a Strategic Site red dot on the DDO16 map. This appears to be at odds with the approach taken to the Strategic Opportunity Sites in the DHS. The Panel does not agree that the land at Alphington Station should be designated as a Strategic Opportunity Site unless Council contemplates a separate list of all properties which are not in residential zones, as including a single exception would weaken the methodical approach taken in the DHS. The Panel noted the long term community commitment to the care and protection of the land surrounding the station. This was clearly illustrated through the submissions, including the Friends of Alphington Station regarding the mature red gums and how safety may be compromised by the loss of open views to the platform. It is important to note that this Panel does not have a development proposal for the land adjacent to Alphington Station before it and cannot make any comment on the suitability of the site, alternative car parking options, or the impact on the landscape. Should the land at Alphington Station become available for development, the Panel is satisfied that the MSS offers ample support for a rezoning proposal to be submitted and the full range of development and community issues can be considered by Council at that time. The Panel is satisfied that 242 St Georges Road has been correctly identified as a Strategic Opportunity site. (iv) Conclusion and recommendations The Panel concludes: The land at Alphington Station should not be added as a Strategic Opportunity Site unless a consistent approach is adopted in the DHS that include all of the sites which could satisfy this broader definition. The Panel recommends: Amend Clause Built Environment: a) Dot point 2 to read: Develop and implement detailed guidelines for areas where substantial housing change and growth is encouraged. Amend Clause to include the sentence following the text regarding Strategic Opportunity Sites: It is envisaged that in addition to these sites, future sites that fulfil the above criteria can be identified and classified as Strategic Opportunity Sites. Amend Clause to: a) Include the words and train stations in Objective 1 b) Include the words and other opportunities such as Alphington Station in dot point 4. Remove the strategic opportunity site designation from the Northcote High School site in DDO16. Page 31

39 3.6 Environmental Audit Overlay (EAO) (i) What is the issue? Amendments C136 and C137 introduce Clause Potentially Contaminated Land Policy (PCLP) and apply the EAO to a number of properties along the Plenty and St Georges Road Corridors as a result of the proposed zone changes that facilitate development for sensitive uses. (ii) Submissions Council submitted that the introduction of Clause PCLP: Formalises a process being undertaken within Council s Statutory Planning department namely that where a site s history indicates a potential for contamination, preliminary site investigations from a suitably qualified person are sought with a view to ascertaining whether a certificate or statement of environmental audit is required. On land outside the EAO, this approach is seen as a fair and reasonable way to balance the high cost of site clean up against matters of safety and provision of development. In its submission the EPA supported the introduction of the PCLP although Council acknowledged that the EPA initially encouraged Council to consider applying the version which was proposed as part of the Maribyrnong Amendment C82 Part 2. Council submitted that it determined not to revise the PCLP in line with Maribyrnong s policy as Darebin s is simpler, retains flexibility, is efficient and has been accepted by the EPA. Council explained that it undertook a desktop analysis exercise to identify sites that may be contaminated along the St Georges and Plenty Road corridors where the rezoning would now enable a sensitive use to establish. Where rate records indicated a land use indicative of contamination Council proposed to apply the EAO. Following consideration of submissions and further research Council presented an amended approach to the application of the EAO at the Panel Hearing: Council now seeks to amend its approach to the application of the EAO in Amendments C136 and C137, as follows: Continue to apply the EAO to formerly industrially zoned land where a potentially contaminating use has been identified Continue to apply the EAO to former or current service station sites in the R1Z and C1Z and Remove the EAO from all other properties. Council submitted a summary table 3 identifying the changes resulting from the revised approach to applying the EAO. The table identified: Properties where no zone change is proposed or a Statement of Environmental Audit had already been issued. In both cases it is proposed that the EAO not be applied. 3 Amendments C136 and C137 Potentially Contaminated Land as Appendix 30 (Volume 2 Council submission) Page 32

40 Land is potentially contaminated and a sensitive use has commenced and no evidence of an Audit has been found (two former petrol station owned properties at and 535 St Georges Road) Six properties which are proposed to be rezoned from IN3Z that are potentially contaminated and the EAO should apply but were not advertised as part of the Amendment. (iii) Further notice of EAO The Panel directed notice be given to the additional six properties where application of the EAO was proposed after exhibition of the Amendment. The Panel received two submissions as a result of the further notice: Mr Chiminello submitted that his property at 591 to 593 Plenty Road had been previously used as a Pelaco shirt factory. He sought clarification as to why his property was to have the EAO applied. Council provided the explanation that the property is to be rezoned and that a sensitive use could be established. The Panel noted that an industrial use had previously operated from the premises and, as such, the EAO should apply. Ms Leong submitted that her family s property at 495 Plenty Road had been a shopfront and house prior to its conversion to a restaurant 30 years ago. She provided plans to show that the only commercial part of the property was the shopfront and that the rear was uncovered and had a residential yard and garage. The Panel accepts that the sale of car parts was in all likelihood, only from the shopfront and that the EAO should not be applied. (iv) Discussion The Panel is satisfied that Darebin s PCLP is an acceptable approach, is supported by the EPA, and should be included as Clause The Panel notes that the EAO is a process that provides an additional layer of security for the community but acknowledges that it does create additional complexity and cost for landowners. The Panel is satisfied that the targeted approach taken by Council to the application of the EAO is justified and appropriate. (v) Conclusion and recommendation The Panel concludes that: The Panel accepts the approach Council presented to the Panel Hearing as realistic in not applying the EAO where no zone change is proposed or a Statement of Environmental Audit had already been issued. The Panel recommends: Apply the EAO in accordance with the Appendix 30 of Council s submission and to the following additional properties: a) , 535 St Georges Road b) 290, 322, , , Plenty Road. Page 33

41 4 Overarching principles for corridors 4.1 The issues Amendment C136 (St Georges Road) and Amendments C137 (Plenty Road) implement a suite of planning measures to control the land use and built form outcomes for the St Georges Road and Plenty Road corridors. This chapter deals with broad strategic concepts and general issues common to the corridors. The next chapter deals with detailed issues of the DDOs. In relation to the corridors the Amendments: Rezone land to apply the new Residential Growth, General Residential and Mixed Use Zones and Commercial 1 Zone to better reflect exiting conditions or desired outcomes Apply a Design and Development Overlay to the corridors DDO16 (St Georges Road) and DDO17 (Plenty Road) Amend the following local policies to exclude land covered by from its operation: Clause Neighbourhood Character Clause Residential and Mixed Use Development of less than Four Storeys Clause Residential and Mixed Use Development of Four or More Storeys Clause Preston Central (Incremental Change) The corridors are separated into precincts 8 precincts for St Georges Road and 5 precincts for Plenty Road. Each of the precincts has slightly different built form and land use characteristics and a unique preferred outcome. Chapters 8 and 9 discuss issues related to individual precincts. 4.2 Overall strategic direction (i) Overall directions Council developed the two corridor plans in response to growth trends within Darebin and more broadly across inner Melbourne. St Georges Road and Plenty Road are identified as areas of Urban Intensification in the exhibited MSS at Clause recognising their locational advantages on the Principal Public Transport Network (PPTN) and consequential development potential. The Panel notes the different distance of St Georges Road and Plenty Road to the CBD. The majority of St Georges Road is within 10 kilometres of Melbourne s CBD; Plenty Road, whilst overlapping in a north south direction with St Georges Road for a couple of kilometres, extends for the most part into the middle ring suburbs of Melbourne. Council prepared two Urban Design Frameworks (UDFs) to examine the strategic direction for the corridors. The UDFs have similar rationales; Plenty Road UDF states: This Urban Design Framework has been developed in response to the need to set a clear direction for residential and mixed use growth along the Plenty Road Corridor (the Corridor). Parts of the Corridor are in transition away from former industrial and large format business uses to new mixed use developments and other parts are fairly stable, experiencing minimal change. Page 34

42 This Corridor has been identified as an area that is suitable for higher residential density, with a mix of smaller scale non residential uses and more intensive built form. The Corridor functions as a major piece of regional infrastructure and this additional growth means that it takes on a number of new roles. Plenty Road Overview Plenty Road corridor is an eight kilometre corridor, which begins nine kilometres from the Melbourne CBD. The Plenty Road corridor intersects four activity centres and is the eastern edge to the Preston Central Principal Activity Centre. Plenty Road extends north from the Junction and ends beyond the municipal boundary. Plenty Road has two tram tracks in its road reserve but does not have bicycle infrastructure. Over the last decade the southern portion of the corridor around the Junction has experienced significant development. The Plenty Road Integrated Land Use and Transport Study (2013) informs the Plenty Road Urban Design Framework. The Urban Design Framework establishes an overall Framework Plan for the corridor, identifies a number of opportunities for revitalisation and intensification along the corridor and describes a number of mechanisms to manage off site development impacts. The Plenty Road UDF offers the following vision for the corridor: The Plenty Road Corridor supports more efficient, accessible and reliable public transport and provides opportunities for housing intensification. The corridor connects revitalised activity centres at The Junction (Preston South), Preston Central, Tyler Street, Summerhill Village and Lancaster Gate. In general, retail and commercial uses in these centres will serve the immediate hinterland to provide local convenience opportunities. The Preston Central Activity Centre will be supported as the regional focus of community activity, services and investment. Development along the Plenty Road corridor continues to support the growth of La Trobe University, one of Victoria s largest tertiary institutions and significant employer within the municipality. Page 35

43 Figure 2: Plenty Road Urban Design Framework Plan Summary Plenty Road will continue to serve a regional transport function with new development incrementally replacing existing buildings. A transition will occur over the next twenty years with development initially concentrated in the Junction and moving north over time. Council submitted in order to facilitate the desired level of intensification: There will be a transition of building typologies, public realm conditions and the built form character. Facilitating opportunities for intensification will require a varied approach; however, this will deviate from the conventional single lot redevelopments which usually generate additional 3 to 4 dwellings in the form of 2 to 3 storey town house style proposals. To achieve the desired level of intensification, new developments which generate more than additional dwellings in multi storey apartment development (usually 4 6 storeys in height through consolidation of lots into more efficient parcels) is sought. Page 36

44 To achieve the optimum built form and land use outcomes, Council notes there will be some rezoning of land which no longer reflects the current or future land use for the area. This will see residential uses in activity centres rezoned for business or mixed use purposes to support the ongoing viability of the various centres on the corridor. In other places, existing under utilised industrial zoned land will be changed to either business/mixed use or residential purposes. This will give clear direction for the type of land use and the form of development expected. St Georges Road corridor overview The St Georges Road corridor is a wide road reserve serving a regional transport and water function. A central median contains two tram tracks, a cycling walking path and water mains. The St Georges Road UDF offers the following vision for the corridor: St Georges Road forms a strategic corridor transitioning to a more intensive mix of uses, especially residential. The corridor will evolve and build on the strengths of each precinct s local character and activity to enhance the sense of place and vitality of the corridor. Leveraging the high level of accessibility to public transport this strategic corridor affords a significant increase in population to support local places. This increase will be accommodated in multi storey built form with a mix of uses at ground level. This will contribute to a high quality public realm that supports an attractive, safe and accessible footpath environment and multiple crossing points east/west. Generally an increase in residential density through redevelopment into higher built form apartment style development and consolidation of lots into more efficient development parcels is encouraged. Page 37

45 Figure 3: St Georges Road Urban Design Framework Plan Summary (ii) Submissions Council reiterated the preeminent importance of considering local context and appropriate built form outcomes for development on the corridors above the need to absorb growth. Council submitted: Accommodating growth pressures on properties fronting the corridors should not be at the expense of supporting further intensification in the PACs and MACs. In fact the coincidence of being near a tram or train line (as espoused at a high level) of itself is not justification for the substantial level of intensification being proposed (4 6 storeys) as has been raised by numerous submission. It is suggested that a wide range of considerations should be applied when assessing multi storey development to include the cumulative impact in a local setting and the existing communities of those areas. Page 38

46 In relation to character Council submitted that:... revitalisation and renewal are central to the visions contained within the two UDFs. The UDFs identify areas along the St Georges Road and Plenty Road corridors which have experienced a decline in traditional land use such as light industry and retail as key opportunities to experience greater change to the character. The UDFs aim to support existing businesses whilst also creating opportunities for local hubs to create neighbourhood shops for local residents. Given the residential intensification underway along the corridors Council contended that it will not be possible to retain suburban amenity levels into the future within this changing environment. Council submitted that the existing Planning Scheme controls do not provide adequately for the expected changes. In relation to height, Council submitted that: This issue is a core area of the C136 and C137 amendments and is addressed in the DDOs. The UDFs and planning policies establish a performance based approach to the design and assessment of new buildings. It is therefore not an automatic assumption that maximum building heights will be achieved on all sites. The starting point for any development is a site responsive design that achieves setbacks from its boundaries as per the DDO requirements, and the ultimate heights will be assessed in relation to all other aspects of the site and design meeting the guidelines, with lot width being a key determining factor on the scale and intensity of development. Council explained that building heights have been determined to respond to the dimensions and constraints of sites and to contribute to overall housing capacity. Council submitted they are seeking to implement planning changes along the corridors, in some cases well ahead of the demand for development. Council noted that whilst the current development demand in some sections of the corridors is primarily for lower scale residential dwellings, it anticipates that... over the next twenty year planning time frame that these middle ring sections of the corridor will be more intensively developed to accommodate growth beyond the next 10 years. Council provided the following rationale: Development pressures are currently being experienced in Darebin, particularly in the southern sections of St Georges Road and in the Junction Precinct and sections of Plenty Road. The UDFs however have been developed in the context of the Darebin Housing Strategy, which establishes a 20 year vision, and represent the optimal vision for each precinct. The full realisation of the vision will take well beyond this time and this is subject to market conditions. The proposed policies also seek to set the benchmarks early before much of the forecast development occurs and to ensure that it is balanced across the municipality. This will enable a large part of Darebin s residential neighbourhoods to be better protected from development with increases in density focused in on areas that are better serviced or aligned with transport corridors. Page 39

47 Council also stated that the scale of change will be moderated because not all sites will be able to be developed in their current configuration and will need to be consolidated to comply with the proposed controls. Development proposals will be assessed having regard to the following site conditions: size; width of frontage; relationship to adjacent properties; orientation; and access opportunities. Many submissions from residents in and adjoining the corridors expressed concern about the scale of change, building heights, and the cumulative impacts of two different building types in close proximity those located on the corridor (medium rise apartments), and the low rise residential development to the rear of the corridor. Whilst there was no consensus, many from the Darebin community expressed a preference for 2 to 3 storey development. Mr McKenzie and Mr Glossop, representing development interests, submitted that building heights were not tall enough and sought greater flexibility in the controls. Ms Kerslake and others submitted that the cumulative effect of multiple six storey buildings on Plenty Road next to her two storey townhouse would have a detrimental effect on her amenity and would be visually unattractive from her property. Submitters stated there should be specific controls to protect the amenity of existing medium density housing to minimise the potential adverse impacts of adjoining high density development on existing residences. Ms Satya and Ms Harrison from the Sumner Estate contended that ResCode provisions should continue to be used to deal with visual bulk as a way of mitigating impacts. In relation to properties which adjoin commercial areas or activity centres located on the corridors, Mr Glossop submitted that residents cannot expect the same level of amenity as those in a residential suburb. He suggested that ResCode, in particular Standard B17, offered a balanced approach. Whilst a number of submitters (e.g. Mr Corbett) accepted that planning amendments are required to increase overall residential capacity within the area, numerous submissions questioned the scale of the proposed transformation and building heights, particularly in residential areas. Submitters expressed caution or concern about the detail of the controls and the impact on local areas and homes. For example, Mr Erlandsen and Ms Healy submitted that:... residents feel that there is a distinct lack of vision, an over arching vision of what Darebin s physical environment will look like in the future that is the aesthetic of a city, including public open spaces, green spaces and respect for heritage. There were pockets within a number of precincts (e.g. Plenty Road Precinct 2, St Georges Road Precinct 7) where submitters expressed concern about the scale of transformation, building heights and the effect this would have on the character and amenity of their streets and properties. Other submitters rejected the appropriateness of taller buildings along tram corridors, or submitted that the proposed heights were excessive (e.g. Ms Doupe, Mr Valkenburg and Mr Birbara). Page 40

48 (iii) Discussion While absorbing population growth is one driver for managing change on the corridors, a number of other local drivers and challenges include: Dealing with development and market pressures Promoting increased accessibility to public transport Addressing declining local amenity Managing the transitional nature of the corridors Considering urban design issues in order to carefully manage development. It is clear that the character along St Georges Road and Plenty Road is already changing to a more intensive built form in response to the change in amenity levels and conditions along the corridors edge. Council s submission illustrated the transition occurring in many parts of St Georges Road. The Panel agrees that it is important to have planning controls in place to effectively manage development and land use. However, it is important to recognise that the conditions and policy settings are not uniform along the corridors and that different approaches and different planning controls will be needed depending on local circumstances. Council has recognised this to a degree by exhibiting a different DDO to the Junction precinct and applying a DPO to the Oakover area. The Panel has recommended that the MSS present an explicit hierarchy of residential growth as follows (adjusted as necessarily for any Plan Melbourne changes): Principal Activity Centres at Preston and Northland Activity Centres at Reservoir and High Street Northcote Neighbourhood Activity Centres Corridors including Plenty Road and St Georges Road. While it is important to make use of public transport along the corridors and to make use of the opportunities they present for local housing diversity the corridors are not in general the primary focus for housing intensification in Darebin. The exception is where there is clear policy support for increasing densities around activity centres Plenty Road has a number of these where it makes strategic sense to focus growth. LaTrobe University is also importantly identified in Plan Melbourne as an emerging Employment Cluster. The Panel accepts that managing the built form of development along the corridors is a key driver of the Amendments. There is a fine balance between establishing a vision in advance of change which facilitates a controlled evolution of that vision, and causing unnecessary community concern by setting parameters that are remote from existing conditions and prospects for change. Given that absorbing growth is a secondary driver of the Amendments, and managing built form outcomes to improve local amenity is of primary importance, the Panel believes a key issue is the appropriateness of the built form response and scale of change for the individual precincts. Page 41

49 Areas of intensification along the corridors The Panel agrees with the principle that properties adjoining activity centres and commercial areas cannot expect the same level of amenity as properties located in purely residential areas. General development along the corridors The Panel believes that corridors create particular challenges which are not akin to activity centres which have a node like urban structure. This is because the land cross section is much narrower, which intensifies the discord at the boundary between the apartment and single dwelling. Given this, it is important to have effective planning controls in place that manage the interface between the two building typologies in a corridor scenario even more so than would be appropriate for an activity centre. The Panel believes there is a risk in relation to visual bulk where multiple taller buildings adjoin low rise residential buildings in a linear fashion. The Panel agrees with Council s submission that it is not appropriate to impose a low scale suburban residential character along the corridor. The corridors are not quiet residential streets; they are major roads with a mix of uses. Front gardens are a feature of low scale traditional residential form and it is not clear how this interface can be maintained along the corridors given pressures for off street parking and high front fences to shield against traffic. The Panel agrees that trying to maintain a low scale residential form will work against achieving a quality urban environment. There are long sections of the corridors between identified growth nodes where the Amendment proposes 4 to 6 storey buildings. The Panel understands that UDF documents included scenario testing for each of the precincts: For each area a set of three scenarios have been tested: Minimal Change; Incremental Change; and Substantial (High) Change. These Scenarios refer to the level and type of change that might be expected with future development. Each scenario has been tested to identify the benefits and disbenefits from certain types of built form typologies. From this analysis and review of several other factors, a Preferred Future Outcome has been identified for each Precinct. The Panel cannot see the justification for 6 storey development along the corridors outside of growth nodes. Given that the main rationale for controls outside of growth nodes is to manage development to ensure appropriate amenity and development outcomes, as opposed to housing supply, the Panel believes 3 to 4 storey development would better suit the local context while still delivering the desired outcomes. In particular, the Panel questions the built form response for the northern sections of Plenty Road where land is remote from activity centres. Recommendations for individual precincts are discussed later in the report. The Panel agrees in a broad sense that it is important to use the corridors as assets and to plan for their redevelopment. However, the Panel does have specific issues with aspects of the controls and the scale of the proposed change in some locations. These are addressed in subsequent chapters of this report. Page 42

50 Whilst Council has provided some justification for the quantum of change envisioned along the corridors as part of its housing strategy, noting the corridors play a function within the overall growth hierarchy, the Panel is mindful that a key driver for the Amendments is utilising development and built form outcomes to improve the local amenity of the corridors. The Panel believes that the built form should be responsive to the precinct within which it is located. The Panel supports Council in planning for change, establishing a long term vision, and directing mixed use apartments along the corridors. However, it is of the view that whilst the proposed heights and scale of change are in many instances appropriate, building heights in some locations are excessive and should be tempered. This will be discussed in more detail in relation to individual precincts in Chapters 8 and 9 of this report. (iv) Conclusion The Panel concludes: The vision and framework exhibited for the Plenty Road and St Georges Road corridor is broadly appropriate except the heights proposed for a number of sites in the northern sections of Plenty Road should be tempered where the land is not within an activity centre. Planning controls along the corridors outside of activity centres should be directed primarily at managing change and not primarily at housing supply. The height and scale proposed for the corridors in many instances are appropriate but will, in some instances, need to be tempered. 4.3 Application of zones (i) Submissions The Amendments propose zone changes to manage the different use and development scenarios identified for the corridors. The RGZ (Residential Growth Zone) is applied where residential uses are encouraged in buildings of up to 4 storeys. The Amendments propose to use the RGZ without varying the discretionary 13.5metre height limit. The Mixed Use Zone (MUZ) is applied to areas where the preferred height limit exceeds four storeys in order to avoid confusion with the RGZ. Council submitted at the time of exhibition of the Amendment, the new residential zones were not in operation and noted the RGZ s purpose: to provide housing at increased densities in buildings up to and including four storey buildings. Council stated: To avoid confusion over the RGZ, the MUZ has been proposed with two schedules to distinguish between active frontages via commercial uses at ground level to facilitate revival of local convenience shopping facilities and more active streetscapes, and the other allows residential uses at ground level. MUZ1 has a commercial focus at ground level, and the MUZ2 is used where residential uses are encouraged at ground level and commercial uses are discouraged. Council became aware after the exhibition of C136 and C137 that the RGZ can be applied to buildings in excess of four storeys via a schedule. Page 43

51 The Amendments seek to apply C1Z: on sites with existing commercial/industrial uses and built form or on blocks surrounded by land within the Commercial 1 Zone. The Commercial 1 Zone promotes a mix of uses that will facilitate stronger local activity nodes along the Corridor, particularly at ground level, to serve the existing and emerging community and allow for upper level residential uses. Council further noted that the Amendments seek to apply the Commercial 2 Zone (C2Z) to a small number of parcels of land to facilitate the continued use of large format commercial or industrial uses. Ms Boffa submitted that the proposed planning controls should be strengthened to protect land which is to be rezoned to commercial purposes (including Mixed Use) to ensure that there is sufficient protection of existing residential amenity. She contended that the same provisions for overshadowing and overlooking which currently exist within the Residential 1 Zone should be applied to the land which is to be rezoned. (ii) Discussion The Framework Plans in the UDFs should provide the broad strategic vision for land use. The plans recognise: activity centres (emerging or existing); corridor clusters (mixed use with residential above); and large sections of consolidated residential. The Panel agrees that a commercial zone should be applied to properties that have a current commercial built form or are intended for commercial use. The Panel notes that the category consolidated residential in the UDFs has been translated in the precinct plans as: medium rise residential (RGZ) residential neighbourhood character (GRZ) mixed use residential (MUZ1) mixed use commercial (MUZ2) in some instances primary commercial (C1Z). The Panel does not support applying the commercial zone in an attempt to expand neighbourhood activity centres in the absence of demonstration of demand for retail space or clear strategic justification. In particular the Panel does not support applying commercial zones to areas identified for consolidated residential use. The zone should be appropriate for the land use which is intended for the site; if the intent is consolidated residential, then either RGZ or MUZ could be used. The Panel does not see a problem with horizontal mixed use where some blocks along the corridors have commercial uses and some are residential. While the Panel understands Council s concerns in relation to the use of the MUZ2 to manage building height, the Panel does not share the view that it is necessary to apply this zone to deal with heights greater than four storeys. While the MUZ and RGZ are both from the suite of residential zones they have different purposes with different land use controls. The MUZ aims to provide a range of residential, commercial, industrial and other uses which complement the mixed use function of the area. The RGZ is clearly more residentially focussed and so a better zone for areas where a residential use is intended. Page 44

52 The Panel notes the head clause for the RGZ has a discretionary height of 13.5metres which can be amended to a mandatory height limit with the use of a schedule. No schedules to the RGZ are proposed as part of these Amendments. The Panel notes that using a schedule to the RGZ for heights greater than 13.5metres would set up mandatory height controls. Council should review whether the MUZ2 should be replaced with the RGZ if issues related to building height in the RGZ have been clarified. The interaction of DDOs and the new residential zones needs to be carefully managed to avoid confusion. Schedules in zones should mirror the DDOs to avoid confusion on applicable heights. (iii) Conclusions and recommendations The Panel concludes: The use of the Mixed Use 1 Zone, General Residential Zone, and Residential Growth Zone is broadly justified and appropriate. The Commercial 1 Zone has been applied in some areas where there is no need for or prospect of increased retail activity. The use of the Mixed Use 2 Zone may not be needed and the Residential Growth Zone may be a better fit with strategic intent. The Panel recommends: Review whether the MUZ2 should replace the RGZ if issues related to building height in the RGZ have been clarified. Review the interaction between the DDO and built form controls in the zone where a residential zone is applied. 4.4 Traffic, access and parking (i) What is the issue? Has access been appropriately dealt with in the DDOs? (ii) Submissions Traffic impacts Council explained that both Plenty and St Georges Roads provide a regional arterial role and are managed by VicRoads. Council stated that an increase in traffic along the corridors is in part due to the vehicle trips generated outside the municipality, and this creates challenges in managing the impact on local streets. Council s Going Places, Darebin Transport Strategy proposes a focus on mode shift to more sustainable forms of transport such as walking, cycling and public transport rather than full reliance on the private vehicle. Council submitted: The management of local traffic is a key area for Council to address through a range of short term behaviour change measures and in the overall design of Page 45

53 new development. While some increase in local traffic will result from an increase in residential density, traffic volumes on Plenty Road are expected to increase as development outside the municipality continues and the current designated role for this corridor for north/south traffic movements remains in place. Council provided additional information in relation to traffic impacts from GTA consultants. GTA broadly considered the traffic capacity and car parking impacts for the St Georges Road corridor based on forecast growth. The document concluded that: The delivery of additional land use, at least to the level contemplated by Council in the UDF along the St Georges Road corridor is unlikely to have any significant adverse transport impact but act as a catalyst to realising the level of change forecast in the departments Victorian Integrated Transport Model (VITM). In regards to existing public car parking (on street), Council has the ability to manage this resource through the introduction of a variety of restrictions to ensure residential amenity and commercial activity is supported within the corridor. Indeed, Council has an existing practise of restricting parking within residential streets through permit systems where necessary. Many submissions from members of the community expressed concern about increased traffic volumes generated by development spilling onto local streets. These concerns were echoed across the majority of precincts in the St Georges and Plenty Road corridors and included: Concern about the increased traffic volumes as a consequence of development and the impact this would have in terms of pedestrian safety Concern about over flow traffic entering quieter neighbouring streets and submissions that Council should install traffic calming measures as part of future development Submission that the vision for the corridors should not have been informed by urban design considerations alone and that the capacity of local infrastructure to cope with the projected population should have similarly informed the Amendment. Access The DDOs encourage access via rear laneways where they exist, side streets or minimising cross over points. In relation to laneways, Council stated laneways are legal points of access and can be used to create slow speed and safe environments whilst minimising crossovers required from the corridors themselves. A number of submitters expressed concern that laneways were not appropriate to provide access to development along the corridors. General concerns raised were in relation to the width and safety of laneways. Ms Boffa submitted that laneways should be of sufficient width to be adequate for cars. Mr Curtis contended that access from narrow laneways has the effect of deterring people from using them and that the fear of damage to medium and large sized vehicles results in increased parking in side streets. A number of submissions from residents raised safety concerns associated with the use of laneways. For example: Page 46

54 That development of apartments using the laneway between Swift Street and Gower Street would exacerbate already congested and unsafe conditions for pedestrians and children. Mr Jackson expressed concern about the amenity and safety of the laneway off Gadd Street being used for access and avoiding signalised intersections on St Georges Road. Mr Valkenburg and Mr Birbara similarly observed that Bakers Lane is currently used as a thoroughfare to avoid the St Georges Road intersection, which makes accessing their existing residential entrances off Bakers Lane difficult. Mr Birbara submitted that the objectives in DDO16 which seek to encourage access off rear laneways as well as to minimise adverse impacts on local traffic conditions are contradictory. Given the scale of development proposed he submitted that the proposed development will only exacerbate traffic problems in the lanes as well as local streets. Public Transport Victoria was generally supportive of the Amendments and requested the following additional words in the UDF and DDOs which Council supported: [In mid block locations, lots should be consolidated and vehicle crossovers to Plenty Road minimised to avoid]... Right turning vehicles across the tram tracks including U turns i.e. left in and left out only access may be required (as set out in the Public Transport Guidelines for Land Use and Development, 2008). Parking DDO16 and DDO17 also propose to specify a minimum lot width to ensure there is enough width to achieve an efficient and practical parking layout. The exhibited DDO16, for example, has the following minimum lot frontage width requirements: Lots to be developed in a Commercial 1 Zone must have a minimum frontage to St Georges Road of 15 metres Lots to be developed in a Mixed Use Zone or a residential zone must have a minimum frontage to St Georges Road of 20 metres. Council submitted that they expect some lots would require consolidation to achieve the minimum lot frontage requirements to adequately deal with access and parking. A number of submissions raised concerns about parking including: Council should encourage the development of dedicated car parking facilities as part of the development of the corridor The local street network is currently under stress and the availability of parking would become even more difficult with the proposed development Greater clarity and certainty would be achieved if the DDOs specifically identified reduced parking requirements in locations that are near to a railway station. A number of submissions raised concerns about overflow parking as a consequence of the increase in commercial uses. Two commercial areas often mentioned were the Woolworths site in the Junction (e.g. Mr and Ms Tresca, Mr and Ms Athanasiadis) and Plenty Road Precinct 2 Tyler Street (e.g. Ms Dunn, Ms Boustavy, Ms Reddrop). Submitters from these areas expressed concern that the DDOs did not adequately address the need for additional car parking in the area particularly given the location of businesses. Page 47

55 Specific concerns in relation to parking on Elm Street Northcote were raised in relation to community facilities (e.g. kindergarten, playground, BBQ facilities) in Batman Park and the demand for on street parking already generated by these services. The narrow cross section of the road was also highlighted. Mr Reid requested that DDO3 be amended to allow for the sharing of car parking spaces within mixed use developments subject to technical feasibility. Council did not support changes to the DDO car parking requirements. Council submitted: It has consistently applied the resolution that development post 2004 is not eligible for on street parking permits. The Amendments do not propose to vary the car parking rates set by the Planning Scheme. Clause provisions will be used to assess appropriate car parking rates and any considerations for waivers in the car parking provision would be assessed against access to nearby public transport, services and facilities. Controlling access points is the main mechanism proposed by the Amendments to minimise the loss of on street parking, minimising vehicle crossovers, and create a safer environment for pedestrians. All other car parking related issues are considered outside the scope of the Amendment. (iii) Discussion Traffic The Panel is conscious of the arterial road status of St Georges and Plenty Roads and accepts that a large portion of the traffic carried by these roads is generated beyond Darebin s boundaries. The Panel accepts that traffic increases are inevitable given the arterial status of the road, and the quantum of development proposed will not materially affect the traffic function of the roads given the broader changes in growth and development in the region. The Amendments do not raise specific traffic issues such as increased pressure on a congested intersection which can be pertinent issues in amendments. Access The Panel agrees with Council that laneways are legal points of access and that people have a right to use the laneways for this purpose. The Panel supports Council s use of laneways to avoid further crossovers on the corridor frontages, but accepts that in some cases there may be detailed issues that require resolution at a permit application stage. Parking The Panel agrees with Council s submission that providing excess parking would be a poor planning outcome. However, care needs to be taken to avoid unacceptable parking outcomes in local streets. The Panel understands that VCAT has rejected some permit applications along the corridors partly on the basis of inadequate parking. The Panel acknowledges that provisions which deal with the waiving of car parking exist in current policy Clause and Clause but notes the Amendments propose to exclude the operation of these policies from the corridors. The Panel also agrees with the use of minimum lot widths to consolidate lots to create sufficient building widths to efficiently manage internal car parking requirements. This is a well targeted control that could drive significantly better built form outcomes. Page 48

56 (iv) Conclusion and recommendations The Panel concludes: Traffic and parking have been appropriately dealt with in the DDOs The Panel recommends: Insert the following in DDO3, DDO16 and DDO17: a) In mid block locations avoid right turning vehicles across the tram tracks including U turns. Left in and left out only access may be required (as set out in the Public Transport Guidelines for Land Use and Development, 2008). Page 49

57 5 Specific controls in the DDOs 5.1 Use of DDO (i) What is the issue? Is the DDO the appropriate tool to manage growth along the corridors? (ii) What do the DDOs cover? DDO3 (The Junction Area), DDO16 (St Georges Road Corridor) and DDO17 (Plenty Road Corridor) are based around design objectives, and general and specific requirements. These requirements relate to some discretionary standards and some mandatory controls. DDO3 currently exists and is amended by C137. The DDOs cover precinct specific guidelines and requirements for: Minimum lot widths Building height and setbacks Site coverage, permeability and walls on boundaries Private open space Building design ESD, internal amenity Car parking and access. DDO16 identifies eight precincts for St Georges Road, and DDO17 identifies four precincts for the Plenty Road corridor. The exhibited versions of DDO3, DDO16 and DDO17 specify a height range and rear setback envelope angle for each of the precincts identified. The aim of DDOs is to manage the built form associated with growth along the corridors. The DDOs are drafted generally as standalone self contained controls with some reference to other parts of the Scheme, such as ResCode. (iii) Evidence and submissions Council provided the rationale for the DDOs including that the corridors are a narrow section of land within the overall municipality, and that the apartment housing typology envisioned along these corridors is different to the single detached housing and town house dwelling types which are found adjacent to the corridors. In order to manage the development of the corridors Council submitted that: The Design and Development Overlays offer the appropriate tool and functionality to implement the urban design strategies of the UDFs and provide the necessary direction for built form outcomes sought along the corridors. The DDOs have been developed to include a combination of discretionary and mandatory controls based on the analysis of existing conditions, recent planning permit applications, VCAT decisions and feedback from the community. Page 50

58 (iv) Discussion The use of DDOs as the appropriate tool to manage the development pressures in St Georges and Plenty Roads and the corridors was not contested. Given the ability to schedule heights and vary ResCode requirements under the Residential Growth Zone it is not clear to the Panel whether a DDO is in fact needed where the RGZ is applied. Given the increasing experience in the application of the new residential zones it would be prudent for Council to consider whether it can achieve what it needs to on residentially zoned land without the need for a DDO. Council needs to review the interaction between residential zone schedules and the DDOs. (v) Recommendations The Panel recommends: Review whether the DDO is needed on residentially zoned land or whether the controls can be delivered as a schedule to a residential zone. Review the interaction between the DDO and built form controls in the zone where a residential zone is applied. 5.2 Relation to policies (i) What is the issue? The Amendments propose to exclude land covered by DDOs along the corridor from: Clause Neighbourhood Character Clause Residential and Mixed Use Development of Less than Four Storeys in the Commercial 1 Zone and Priority Development Zones 1 and 2 Clause Residential and Mixed Use Development of Four or More Storeys. (ii) Evidence and submissions Clause Neighbourhood Character Council contended that it is consistent with the strategic vision to exclude the corridors from the neighbourhood character policy at Clause given the different urban conditions along the arterial roads compared with properties which front the streets behind the corridor. Council explained that the neighbourhood character of properties facing St Georges Road and some parts of Plenty Road is already transitioning to a more intensive built form in response to the different amenity conditions experienced along the arterial roads edges. They contended that the diversity of uses in this area means that a purely residential character is not an accurate reflection of uses. A number of submitters expressed concern that neighbourhood character was not afforded adequate consideration in the proposed controls. For example, Mr McLeish and Ms Patterson submitted the controls should provide some direction in relation to neighbourhood character and that development should have some regard to the character of the precinct which it abuts and was once part of. A number of submitters (e.g. Mr Clancy and Ms Cassar) raised concerns about the loss of character in various precincts along the Page 51

59 corridors as a consequence of changes to land use, increased building heights, and commercial rezoning. There were some submissions that contended that views formed an important part of the neighbourhood character of the area. Council s response acknowledged that, whilst views form part of neighbourhood character, people do not have a legal right to a view. Council contended that the amenity of St Georges Road as a central landscaped boulevard is not translated to the land uses along the road s edges: There is an ongoing tension between this role (as an arterial road) and the regular pattern of east/west streets connecting local neighbourhoods to the centrally located High Street. Yet it is interesting to note that except for the educational facilities, the land use patterns are changing from a regional focus to service a smaller local catchment. Clause and Residential and Mixed Use Development Council submitted that it sought to create a stand alone control in the DDOs that would obviate the need to refer to the existing policies at Clause and (iii) Discussion Clause Neighbourhood Character If the long term vision for the corridors is for mid rise apartment buildings the character associated with the corridor frontages will change significantly. It is therefore not appropriate to apply the existing neighbourhood character policy where significant change is contemplated. The Panel agrees with Council s submission that: Given the quantum of changes anticipated across the whole DDO area a new character will emerge. The DDO boundary is intended to constrain redevelopment within its boundaries and not dribble out along the adjoining side streets. Clause and Residential and Mixed Use Development Clause and currently deal with issues related to: sustainability design and materials building heights; setbacks dwelling diversity car parking and vehicular access street address amenity impacts on site amenity and facilities waste management equitable access utility services. Both policies also refer to the consideration of a number of provisions of ResCode. Some provisions are generically referred to in both Clause and Clause For example: Page 52

60 overlooking; internal views; and noise. Other provisions are specified in the instance where development adjoins a dwelling in a residential zone. These provisions include: side and rear setbacks; daylight to existing windows; north facing windows; and overshadowing open space. The Panel notes many of the elements currently dealt with in policy are to be incorporated into the DDOs. While a DDO is an appropriate tool to manage built form, the duplication of the same controls in multiple DDOs is a concern. Where requirements are also covered by ResCode provisions these should be cross referenced to simplify the complexity of the overlay. The Panel rejects the idea that the DDOs should be constructed as a self contained control; decision makers need to use the whole Planning Scheme. Creating one off controls and approaches for particular areas will not help decision makers where potentially different rules and approaches apply in otherwise similar contexts. The Panel considers that the stand alone approach needs to be reconsidered, and that many of the elements which are in the DDO should rightfully sit within policy, as they currently do in Clause and Clause (iv) Recommendations The Panel recommends: Abandon proposed changes to Clause and Clause that exclude their operation from the corridors. Redraft the DDOs to delete provisions from the DDOs that duplicate Clause and Clause Under development (i) What is the issue? Are minimum heights justified? (ii) Submissions The specified heights include minimum heights. A number of submissions challenged the proposed controls on underdevelopment which appear to be mandatory. In response, Council s contended that: There is already evidence of underdevelopment (that is, in building typologies not sought by Council and below the preferred heights sought in the DDO17) in the area which has the flow on impact of reducing the intensification opportunity along the corridor. Recent development in the area also leads to further fragmentation of ownership patterns inhibiting consolidation in the future. (iii) Discussion and conclusion The Panel does not see the need to introduce specific controls to limit under development on the corridors. Specific density or population targets have not been determined for the Page 53

61 corridors, and the strategic justification for minimum development yields has not been established. Under development has been accepted as a legitimate reason to refuse planning permits at VCAT, and establishing a minimum height over such a broad range of development conditions runs the risk of locking in poor development outcomes. (iv) Recommendations The Panel recommends: Redraft the DDOs to delete reference to minimum heights. 5.4 Rear setbacks and the 30 degree/45 degree requirement (i) What is the issue? Are the setback requirements appropriate? (ii) What is proposed The Amendments draw on the UDFs and propose in the DDOs rear building envelopes (either 30 degrees or 45 degrees) as the main tool to manage sensitive interfaces. The envelope is measured from 3 metres above ground level at the adjoining property boundary to the rear. The DDOs have additional rear setback requirements of a minimum 3 metre setback at ground floor, and 5.5 metres at the first floor to create minimum separation distances. Laneways are used as part of this distance where they exist. As exhibited DDO17 states: Buildings are required to apply the following rear setbacks: Rear upper floor setbacks must comply with a 30 degree angle at a height of 3 metres above natural ground level. The 30 degree angle is to be measured perpendicular to the said adjoining site boundary. Where there is no laneway to the rear or no existing wall or fixed roofed structure (e.g. a boundary wall or a garage) on an abutting residential site, a minimum setback of 3 metres at ground floor level applies. A minimum setback of 5.5 metres at first floor level from a lot in General Residential Zone or Neighbourhood Residential Zone boundary applies. Where rear laneways of 3 metres minimum width separate the development site and adjacent residential zoned land, or where the topography of the land significantly falls from the residential zoned land to the development site, or where residential zoned land is located to the north of a development site, a 45 degree angle is to be applied (starting at the adjoining site boundary to the rear of the development site, at a height of 3 metres. The 45 degree angle is to be measured perpendicular to the said adjoining site boundary). Building heights and rear setbacks of new development are shown in Section 2.1 of this schedule. This can be contrasted with the ResCode requirement: Page 54

62 A new building not on or within 200mm of a boundary should be set back from side or rear boundaries... 1 metre, plus 0.3 metres for every metre of height over 3.6 metres up to 6.9 metres, plus 1 metre for every metre of height over 6.9 metres. This applies a 45 degree setback from a point 6.9 metres high and 2 metres from the boundary. The 30 degree setback is roughly a setback of 1.75 metres for every metre of height over 3 metres. (iii) Evidence and submissions Many submissions from members of the community with properties which adjoined the corridor were concerned about the impacts of taller corridor buildings on their amenity. Many were concerned that the proposed setback requirements were inadequate to protect their amenity. Those representing developer interests were also critical of the proposed rear setback provisions, in particular the 30 degree envelope. A number of advocates (Mr McKenzie and Mr Glossop and Mr De Pasquale) expressed concern that the 30 degree control was too conservative and would result in a significant loss of development capacity, and Mr Glossop substantiated this claim by indicating that a number of apartments at 154 High Street would be lost as a result of this requirement. Mr De Pasquale also suggested that the setback requirements are inconsistent with the DDOs objective to discourage underdevelopment: The requirement for a 3 metre setback at ground level (no rear laneway) and the minimum 5.5 metre setback at first floor level from a lot in a General Residential Zone (GRZ) or Neighbourhood Residential Zone (NRZ) is onerous. These requirements restrict the ability to develop land along Plenty Road. In a GRZ or a NRZ, buildings can be constructed to the boundary in accordance with ResCode and to not allow buildings in a CZ within 3 metres of the rear boundary is not considered proper or orderly planning. Mr McKenzie suggested that the UDF did not intend for the 30 and 45 degrees setback angles as fixed design standards. Whist differing in their intended outcome, both Ms Callaghan and Mr Glossop raised concerns about the inconsistency of the application of the 30 degrees and 45 degrees setback for properties. Mr Sheppard also expressed a preference for the use of ResCode and the Higher Density Guidelines to guide the assessment of development. In relation to 154 High Street Pty Ltd Mr Glossop suggested that the application of the 45 degrees rear setback requirement would have a negligible impact on the owner s development proposal however Standard B17 of Clause 55:... would be a more appropriate measure for rear setbacks and would address interface considerations with residential properties. It seems to us that the setback requirements have primarily been applied to mollify the concerns of abutting landowners that face the side streets. In our submission, this is short term thinking in that it protects residential amenity Page 55

63 as it exists today at the expense of the efficient redevelopment of the High Street and Plenty Road corridors and it should consider this corridor as an asset. In his evidence, Mr Sheppard stated that he was not sure what the rationale for the 30 degrees or 45 degrees rear setback requirement was. He could not understand why land within an activity centre and serviced by a tram is subject to more stringent setback controls than those sought by the B17 provisions of ResCode, when the adjoining residential land abuts an activity centre. He further noted that the 30 degrees setback could result in greater setbacks than properties within the RGZ. In relation to the Aldi site in the Summerhill Activity Centre, he disagreed with Council s assertion that a three storey building could be constructed with a 30 degrees setback requirement because the third storey would be economically unviable because of the building depth of the third storey. Council s response Council detailed the logic behind the nominated setback requirements including the 30 degrees and 45 degrees setback rules, which address the current policy void for assessing apartment buildings. Council stated that ResCode can only deal with development less than five storeys. Council submitted that ResCode was designed to manage medium density development such as town house typologies, and that it does not adequately deal with interface issues generated by multi storey apartment development. Council stated that the current State policy for assessing apartments above four storeys the Guidelines for Higher Density Residential Development is based on the premise that development is within an activity centre and do not adequately deal with sensitive rear interfaces which are typical of corridor development. Council explained the rationale behind introducing rear setback requirements: The 45 degree envelope has been used previously along the High Street Spine and is a well understood tool in that context and A second envelope condition that was more sympathetic to the surrounding low scale residential uses was required to manage the off site impact and to balance the cumulative effects of intensification resulting in buildings over 4 storeys in height. Council further submitted that the 45 degrees rear setback envelope enabled a taller built form to be developed whilst effectively dealing with off site amenity impacts for residential properties to the rear. Council noted that the 30 degrees rear setback requirement is more stringent than ResCode standard B17 at Clause : It is typically proposed to be used in circumstances where greater built form separation is required to mitigate the cumulative impact of the additional built form above four storeys. The setbacks mean downward views of 3 storeys and above are blocked by floors below and overshadowing typically falls within the envelope of the ground first floor. Further, the proposed development s bulk would be directed towards the frontage of the site that is, closer towards St Georges Road or Plenty Road. This results in a greater separation distance between the most bulky part of the development and the adjoining residential hinterland. Page 56

64 Council explained that the 3 metre setback allowed a buffer distance for residential properties which directly abut development sites on the corridors where no laneway exists. In addition, Council explained that the first floor setback requirement is to facilitate a rear facing balcony or private open space which does not directly overlook an adjoining property below. Council stated that this also creates a space for deep rooted landscaping to create an additional buffer. Topography is a significant issue in many parts of the corridor, particularly in Plenty Road. Council submitted that the rear setback envelopes have been used to address topography where relevant in a precinct: The 30 or 45 degree setbacks are applied differently where there are notable topographical differences between corridor land and the residential hinterland. Where the corridor land is lower than the hinterland site 45 degrees applies. Where the corridor site is higher than the hinterland site 30 degrees applies. New buildings must be contained within the envelope created by the rear setback and maximum height requirement. Council added: The building height (in the context of the corridors) is reliant on the ability to achieve the building setback from a sensitive interface (i.e. a residential hinterland). Council disagreed with submissions that Standard B17 should be used as the appropriate tool to deal with interface issues: Standard B17 has the effect of bringing the bulk and mass of a development closer to the rear boundary of a development site. B17 does not address the visual impact of development greater than 4 storeys in height. Therefore this control would not be appropriate in areas where there is a preferred maximum of 6 storeys. (iv) Discussion The Panel agrees that the rear interface between the taller corridor buildings and adjoining low rise residential housing is important to manage and, in principle, supports rear setback provisions that manage the visual and amenity impact of taller buildings on adjoining lower scale housing. The Panel also agrees with the use of the adjoining property boundary at a height of 3metres as the starting point for measurements used to create building setbacks. The Panel observes that the 30 degrees and 45 degrees rear setback provisions are key components of the DDOs, as well as a 3 metre ground level and 5.5 metre first level setback. The Panel supports Council s use of the 3 metre and 5.5 metre setback to ensure that there is some separation between the two building typologies. The Panel also supports the 45 degree rear setback requirement as a way of dealing with the offsite impacts of taller buildings that approximates Clause 55 Standard B17. However, in relation to the more onerous 30 degrees rear setback provision, the Panel has had difficulty in following the logic of its application. Council provided the Panel with some clarification by submitting that the 30 degrees rear setback envelope had been applied where: There is no rear lane way, to give further built form separation or There is a HO on a redevelopment property or Page 57

65 There is a HO on adjoining property or The topography contributes to the perception of bulk and mass from the lower level / scale residential hinterland or The preferred future outcome indicates the built form should be limited to ensure the surrounding neighbourhood character is respected or The sensitive interface is a public park and a more gentle transition is require or The cumulative impact of multiple consecutive developments will increase the off site negative amenity impacts Council responded to submissions regarding the inconsistent application of the rear setback requirements by stating that they will review their application with a view to correct any inconsistent application. They specifically proposed to amend the rear setback for 3 15 High Street Preston to 45 degrees. The Panel is not satisfied that the 30 degrees setback requirements have been mapped in a logical, rigorous, methodical manner and does not agree with all of the rationale used by Council to apply the different setback provisions. For example, the Panel does not believe that a 30 degrees setback provision is required where no laneway exists, given that the rear setback envelope is measured from the adjoining property boundary and that a further 3 metre setback is sought where no laneway exists. The Panel also notes that Council proposes to apply the DDOs on a number of properties where land parcels extend into the hinterland like land fingers, as shown in the example below. Figure 4: Land finger in Precinct 6 with no side boundary requirements The Panel observes that DDO16 in this condition specifies a rear setback condition of 30 degrees but does not specify a side setback requirement for the portion of land which extends into the adjoining corridor. The Panel considers that the side boundaries in this scenario are equally important to consider if a central purpose of the overlay is to manage sensitive interfaces and amenity impacts. The Panel considers that the DDOs should explicitly deal with all boundaries which adjoin residential land which abut the corridor and support the rear boundary envelope. This will cover the instance of side boundaries as well as rear boundaries where corridor properties Page 58

66 located on corners adjoin, or where land fingers from the corridor extend into, the adjoining residential hinterland. The use of the rear setback requirement should be based on a clear logic and not require maps to identify their application. This allows a transparent set of rules to be applied on a site by site basis. The Panel notes that Council has endeavoured to base their rules on the adjoining land use condition and Panel agrees with this approach. The controls also include requirements that Rear building setbacks should be sympathetic to the topography of the land, e.g. step down or up with the fall of the land in order to not be visual dominate on a significantly lower lying adjacent secluded private open space that is to the rear of the lot that is to be developed, where reasonably applicable. The Panel cannot see the justification from departing from the accepted ResCode standards for residentially zoned land, certainly not a requirement that would create a more restrictive environment along an area identified for change. For land in the Mixed Use Zone or a commercial zone it is difficult to see the justification for a 30 degree setback requirement, except perhaps in cases where land is to the south of a development parcel and significantly downhill from the development. The Panel has struggled to understand the logic of supporting higher development on residential land (including a minimum height of four storeys in some cases) but then constraining development with a 30 degree setback rule. (v) Conclusion and recommendation The Panel concludes that the rules should be simplified from those prepared by Council, as follows: Apply a 30 degrees rear (or side) boundary setback where corridor land abuts residential hinterland that is notably lower than the corridor land due to topographical differences (eg where there is a grade change of more than 1:7). Otherwise apply a 45 degrees rear (or side) boundary setback where corridor land abuts residential hinterland. The Panel recommends: Redraft the DDOs to modify the 30 degrees boundary setback requirement to apply only where the adjoining land is significantly lower than the corridor land. 5.5 Management of side interfaces The Panel notes that corridor development has three main interfaces to consider: the arterial road; the rear with the residential hinterland; and the side street for corner properties. These side streets are for the most part local roads which are shared with much smaller scale residential development. The character of corner lot development should be considered in relation to this side street interface as well as the corridor. The Panel agrees with Council s suggestion to strengthen the DDOs to provide further guidance in relation to building design which responds to the character of a surrounding area, but this should be limited to situations where buildings are Page 59

67 located on corners and interface with residential streets. Buildings in this situation should be designed to complement the street frontage on which they are located and provide an appropriate transition in scale and form from the corridor to the lower scale hinterland. This is similar to Council s suggested changes to the Auburn Road interface for 137 St Georges Road in Precinct 3 of St Georges Road (discussed in more detail in Section 8.3 of this report). The Panel recommends: Insert the following objective into DDO16 and DDO17: a) To provide a transition in scale on the side street frontage that responds to the character of housing adjoining the site. 5.6 Overshadowing and overlooking (i) Evidence and submissions In relation to overshadowing, Council submitted that the proposed setbacks, which are more stringent than ResCode, seek to protect sensitive interfaces from overshadowing particularly for buildings above two storeys. Council have also included a general building requirement in the DDOs which seeks to ensure that development does not unreasonably overshadow existing secluded private open space and habitable room windows, where reasonably practicable. Council submitted: Overlooking provisions within the UDFs and the DDOs have been developed within the parameters of the Victorian Planning Provisions where an accepted standard is to screen views within 9m of secluded private open space and habitable room windows. Council contended that the DDOs consider off site amenity as well as internal amenity for future residents of apartments on the corridors through consideration of achieving privacy for adjoining residents without forgoing outlook from apartments. Ms Callaghan amongst others expressed concern about the potential for overlooking and lack of privacy with high rise development adjoining their property. Numerous submissions raised concerns about the effect of development on access to daylight and sunlight (e.g. Ms Kerslake, Ms Lloyd). Ms Kerslake disagreed that the controls provided for a sensitive interface and suggested there should be requirements to ensure access to 8 hours of sunlight in outdoor areas and for solar power generation, no overshadowing of habitable rooms and no overlooking. In evidence, Mr Sheppard contented that overshadowing is a generic issue and should not be given any extra weight in the corridors than the rest of the municipality. Mr Glossop suggested that given the north/south orientation of the corridors and abutting lots overshadowing will not be a significant issue. In response to Council s justification for the setback controls, Mr Glossop stated that it is perceived overlooking and not actual overlooking which is stated as the issue within the UDF: The Panel should not concern itself with perceptions, but with reality. Actual overlooking is an issue which can be and is in fact routinely addressed through a wide variety of methods (e.g. obscure glazing or external screens etc.). Page 60

68 (ii) Discussion The Panel is of the view that the issues of overlooking and overshadowing are generic issues which are currently consistently managed by State provisions in the relevant clauses of ResCode. In relation to overshadowing, the Panel notes that unlike existing local policy (Clause and 22.10), the DDOs do not explicitly refer to Clause North facing windows or Overshadowing open space. Yet, for overlooking, the DDOs refer to Clause The Panel considers that if the DDOs are to be used to manage amenity impacts, then the overlays should explicitly refer to appropriate clauses of the existing State Provisions which deal with overlooking and overshadowing. This would also assist with simplifying the DDOs which are currently long and cumbersome to read. The Panel also notes that the proposed rear envelope setbacks are designed to assist with managing overlooking and will provide an additional resource for decision makers. (iii) Recommendation The Panel recommends: Redraft the DDOs to refer to ResCode to manage overlooking and overshadowing impacts. 5.7 Building design (i) What is the issue? Council explained that it developed the DDOs as self contained controls in order to assist applicants to understand the entire range of requirements relating to development in the corridors. Council submitted that two important components of the proposed DDOs are implementing Environmentally Sustainable Design (ESD) measures and improving the internal amenity of new apartments. (ii) Submissions Council noted that Plan Melbourne identifies issues particular to the design of apartments. These issues include apartments that are being designed that are: too small; have rooms with borrowed light or lack of ventilation; inadequately consider the amenity impacts on adjacent apartment buildings; and offer little variety or choice in designs. Council contended that the DDOs respond to these issues with controls which deliver improved amenity for existing residents in adjoining properties, as well as for new residents of apartment buildings. Specifically relating to apartments, Council submitted that the DDOs include provisions which: Encourage privacy screens which maintain a reasonable outlook for habitable room windows and new balconies whilst complying with overlooking standards Avoid noise sources of plant near bedroom windows Improve the design of storage facilities so that they are usable, safe, and easy to access Page 61

69 Introduce a number of ESD measures which improve natural ventilation, and access to daylight amongst others. The DDO was designed to ensure that ESD is considered early in the design process to minimise dealing with the cumulative effects of multiple multi storey dwellings being designed in isolation with the aim to improve the on and offsite amenity. A number of submitters were supportive of Council s approach in relation to ESD and suggested that Council should mandate ESD requirements for all new buildings. For example, Ms Villani and Ms Passlow submitted that all new buildings should have no less than 4 star green star accreditation. A number of individual submitters (e.g. Mr Kneale) suggested that the use of borrowed light for bedrooms in apartments should not be permitted and that new development should not compromise the daylight access of existing buildings. Ms Heggen questioned whether ESD standards should be included within a DDO control given that this overlay is primarily about built form and urban design outcomes. Noise and visual clutter In relation to noise pollution, Council stated that the DDOs provide some guidance for the location of noise sources, but stated that: Subject to further investigations, the DDOs could be strengthened to require developers to address potential noise impacts of the building design on adjoining dwellings. It is clear a building design which mitigates the potential for noise emissions at its source is the most effective measure to address noise issues. This may include the location of car parking, doorways and communal areas. The exhibited DDOs also contain the following building design requirement for residential buildings: Any plant or equipment (e.g. bin storage, gas metres, air conditioning units etc.) must be located and designed so as to minimise visibility from the adjoining public realm and from residential properties. Such equipment must not be located adjacent to bedroom windows, on balconies or terraces less than 10 square metres. Ms Kerslake suggested that communication devices, cabling, antennas and plant should be integrated into the design and not be visible from surrounding streets. She also raised concerns about noise emissions from car lifters and suggested acoustic assessment for car lifters. (iii) Discussion Whilst the Panel commends Council for their proactive approach to address ESD and internal amenity issues, it considers that these issues are generic in nature and do not just apply to apartments in the corridors. The Panel notes that the Environmentally Efficient Design Local Policy Advisory Committee has recently considered Amendments put forward by a number of Council s who are seeking to implement ESD policy into their Planning Schemes. The Panel considers that Council Page 62

70 should examine the Committee s findings and, if State wide provisions are not introduced, supports Council following a similar approach to that recommended by the Committee. The Panel believes it is generally more appropriate to include provisions that apply across the municipality within policy rather than replicating them in a number of DDOs. The Panel supports this approach in relation to ESD. The Panel notes that Clause and Clause contain some reference to sustainability measures and considers that these provisions should continue to apply as an interim position until a specific ESD policy in line with the aforementioned Advisory Committee recommendations is developed. In relation to the internal amenity of apartments, the Panel notes that the Office of the Victorian Government Architect is currently working on a project to address this issue. As this issue goes beyond the St Georges Road and Plenty Road corridors it is appropriate to address this matter through the outcomes of the broader project. The Panel acknowledges that the timeframe for the introduction of any new provisions is unknown. (iv) Recommendation The Panel recommends: Redraft the DDOs to remove requirements related to ESD and internal amenity. 5.8 Mandatory controls (i) What is the issue? Are the proposed mandatory controls justified? (ii) Evidence and submissions Council submitted that:... there is a combination of a few mandatory and mostly discretionary provisions within the proposed DDO controls. There was much discussion at the Hearing as to whether the proposed DDOs were intended to be mandatory or not. Must was used to express some requirements implying a mandatory control only to be qualified by the requirements to be met if a permit were to be granted. The Panel had to be taken through the DDO line by line to understand what was intended to be a mandatory control. Council stated that the mandatory controls are intended to apply to the following components: Height Rear setback envelopes Lot width ESD measures. In response to Practice Note 59 for Mandatory Provisions, Council submitted that the controls are strategically justified, noting the importance of the corridor within the overall growth framework and the need to provide certainty to developers and the community in relation to height. Page 63

71 Council used a number of cross sections through various lot depths to illustrate an indicative design response which could achieve the proposed maximum heights and contended that: the fact that Council is continuing to receive development applications within the suggested height range and specifically below the suggested maximum height, demonstrates the inclusion of mandatory controls does not stifle development. Council contended that mandatory height controls are required because the existing discretionary provisions... show a trend for height creep and unrealistic development yield expectations. In relation to height, Council clarified that the proposed maximum heights were intended to be mandatory but not the minimum heights. As to whether the mandatory provisions were appropriate for the majority of proposals, Council submitted that the mandatory controls will improve consistency of assessment, decision making for Council and improve the level of equity between sites. In response to submissions questioning whether the controls have been carefully considered in order to avoid any unnecessary loss of flexibility or opportunity, Council reiterated that the heights have been tested in relation to development capacity which has been demonstrated through a number of cross sectional analyses. A number of advocates representing developer interests opposed mandatory controls. Mr Cicero, for Aldi, submitted that there needs to be a strong strategic case made out for mandatory heights and he did not consider that Council had made a sufficient case to warrant this level of control. Ms Heggen in evidence stated that she saw no place for mandatory controls in Victoria s performance based planning system and referred to Clause 55 as a way of drafting the controls by way of objectives and discretionary provisions. Mr Glossop advocated for non mandatory height controls to allow for discretion and flexibility in the design response. Some local residents supported mandatory provisions. For example, in relation to development around 572 Plenty Road, Preston, Mr Erlandsen and Ms Healy submitted that the Panel should consider mandatory height controls for sites which adjoin heritage properties. This would ensure that the significance of their property is not swallowed up by bigger, bulkier and taller buildings surrounding it. (iii) Discussion Victoria has a planning system which is based largely around performance based measures to ensure flexibility. Importantly, the system focuses on outcomes to enable designs to respond to site characteristics, context and to accommodate innovative design that achieves objectives. However, Plan Melbourne and the new residential zones establish a new policy environment. The Panel notes that Plan Melbourne flags the need for some mandatory controls. Initiative Protect Melbourne s neighbourhood centres, including provision for mandatory controls, states: Page 64

72 The attributes of, and opportunities for, neighbourhood centres at the small scale vary considerably across the metropolitan area, which is one reason why local communities should lead the planning of their own centres. In some instances, where centres are already well developed or communities are seeking to protect the unique character of their centres (such as by protecting heritage buildings or access to open space), they should be assisted in determining the desired built form outcomes. Under Plan Melbourne, local governments, after preparing a local housing strategy and consulting with the community, will be able to prepare and exhibit a planning scheme amendment to introduce mandatory height controls for neighbourhood centres. One of the threshold criteria set by Practice Note 59 for Mandatory Provisions is to demonstrate that the controls have been tested in a vast majority of cases to limit the unnecessary loss of flexibility and opportunity available in a performance based system. This is quite an onerous requirement particularly in relation to a corridor condition which extends for many kilometres. The Panel notes Council s use of generic diagrams to test the proposed heights with various lot depths which reflect the typical configurations found along the corridors. The analysis shows that a six storey apartment building is possible within typical lot depths found along the corridors. The Panel is generally satisfied that Council has demonstrated a sufficient level of analysis in relation to building heights to justify mandatory maximum height provisions. In relation to the other proposed mandatory controls (rear setback envelopes, lot width and ESD measures) the Panel has not seen the same level of analysis to indicate that Council has considered the impact of mandatory provisions on development. For example, the Panel observes that Council s setback provisions, which are intended to be mandatory, show portions of typical apartment buildings intruding into the envelopes which would not be permissible if this, were a fixed line. The Panel is concerned that the use of mandatory controls, in this instance, could create unnecessary loss of flexibility and opportunity. Whilst the Panel accepts that the maximum building heights are appropriately expressed as mandatory provisions, the Panel is not convinced that the other provisions in the DDOs should be expressed as mandatory controls. The Panel also notes that building height should be expressed in metres as well as storeys to avoid confusion. (iv) Conclusion and recommendation The Panel concludes: The proposed maximum building heights are appropriate as mandatory provisions but rear setback envelopes, lot width, and ESD measures and other provisions are not. The Panel recommends: Amend the requirements of the Design and Development Overlays to make all requirements discretionary except for maximum building heights. Page 65

73 5.9 General expression and construction (i) General issues The Panel agrees with a broad range of expert and lay submissions that the DDOs should be simplified for ease of interpretation and assessment, to correct inconsistencies which should be addressed and redrafted to improve their language and clarity and remove unnecessary regulation. The DDOs are long and complex and the expression is not clear in places. Reducing the topics covered in the DDOs will facilitate their redrafting. (ii) Specifying heights in storeys Specifying maximum building height in metres minimises ambiguity. There is considerable debate about whether heights should be expressed in metres or storeys. Part of the confusion stems from the fact that a different floor to ceiling height might be appropriate in different circumstances, depending on use. Where protection of views or the creation of a consistent built edge is required then specification in metres is appropriate. When the issue is one of pedestrian friendliness or maintaining low scale development, then perhaps specification in storeys is appropriate. In some cases, it may be necessary to specify both. The DDO controls make reference to number of storeys in addition to a maximum building height specified in metres. The use of storeys to give the community and designers a visual impression of the height of development that is promoted in each sub precinct is appropriate. For mandatory controls stipulating a maximum building height in metres is more precise and minimises ambiguity. In comparison, the word storey is less specific, as the floor to ceiling heights of a building can vary considerably. For example, a building may be two storeys, but the floor to ceiling heights are such that the overall height may be greater than 9 or 10 metres. In this report the Panel has referred to storeys for ease of communication, but in a redrafted DDO, especially where mandatory controls are applied, height should be specified in metres. (iii) Mapping Showing the precincts on the planning scheme map rather than a map in the schedule to the DDO would avoid interpretation issues and make the DDO schedule shorter. The Port Phillip Planning Scheme has examples of DDOs that have been mapped in this fashion. Page 66

74 (iv) Conclusion and recommendations The Panel concludes: Height should generally be specified in metres, with an additional commentary on the number of storeys permitted to help communicate the intent or outcomes of controls. The Panel recommends: Redraft the DDOs to: a) Radically simplify their structure. b) Tighten and improve language. c) Focus content on: Site width Building height Building setback Site coverage Walls on boundaries Street interface. d) Use reference to other policies or ResCode requirements where possible. e) Avoid or minimise the need for maps in the schedule by showing the precincts on the planning scheme maps, and delete (or simplify) the maps in the DDO schedule by: Relating Active frontage to zone Applying a standard set back requirement Removing Strategic Site designation. Page 67

75 6 Reservoir Structure Plan Reservoir is the major retail, service and transport hub in the northern sector of Darebin. It is approximately 14km from the CBD. Reservoir is designated as a Major Activities Area (MAA) within the Darebin s MSS. It offers a range of retail, service and community facilities across two main shopping areas; Reservoir Village and Broadway. Major roads and the rail line create significant barriers for cars and pedestrians in the centre. The RSP vision: In 2030 Reservoir will be a place without barriers that celebrates diversity, connectedness and participation. Through replanning and renewed investment in its streets, businesses, infrastructure and housing while keeping and honouring what already makes it great Reservoir will reach its full potential. (i) What the Amendment proposes The revised MSS introduces the RSP as a reference document to the Darebin Planning Scheme and seeks to elevate Reservoir s role in Darebin s retail hierarchy. The RSP sets out strategies and actions to support the renewal of businesses, housing, public spaces and streets and community facilities. One of the key objectives is to advocate for the long term rail and road grade separation to create a Central Heart for Reservoir. (ii) What are the issues? Will increased residential density have unacceptable impacts on liveability? (iii) Evidence and submissions Of the few submissions which commented on the RSP, most supported the directions of the RSP to elevate Reservoir s role within Darebin s retail hierarchy and advocate for grade separation of the road and rail to create a central heart. The PTV supported Council s approach to the RSP and noted that Council will investigate the economic benefits for rail and road separation to provide an evidence base for sinking the South Morang line at Reservoir. Mr and Mrs Coffey submitted concerns regarding the impact of multi unit development on gardens and greenery noting that increased populations need more access to recreation space and community facilities. Council is satisfied with the open space standards set in Clause 54 and 55 and noted that the issues raised will be further addressed in the Northland Structure Plan which will be exhibited later in (iv) Discussion and Conclusion The Panel noted that the small number of submissions on the RSP reflected the considerable level of community involvement in the development of the Plan and congratulates Council on its proactive approach. Page 68

76 Liveability largely relates to access to open space, social and transport infrastructure. The Panel is satisfied that these issues have been addressed in the RSP. The Panel concludes: Amendment C138 sets the policy framework for Reservoir and that detailed planning will be appropriately determined through the implementation of the RSP. Page 69

77 7 Industrial precincts This Chapter considers those industrial precincts where there were submissions requesting changes to the Economic Framework based on the outcomes of the DELUS. 7.1 Anderson Road Secondary Industrial Area DELUS Precinct 4 Precinct 4 is based around the axis of Normanby Avenue and Anderson Road Thornbury. The industrial precinct is 7.7ha and is zoned Industrial 3. Clause identifies Precinct 4 to be retained as a secondary industrial precinct to protect employment. Objective 1 Industrial Areas sets out Council s strategies to retain the precinct as industrially zoned land and discourage the encroachment of non compatible business and residential uses. (i) What are the issues? Should 6 8 Anderson Road be identified for transition to a non industrial use? (ii) Evidence and submissions Ms Plakidis, representing the owners of 6 8 Anderson Road, submitted that the property should be considered as an individual and one off case as it is divided by a road from the main industrial precinct. Ms Plakidis advised that the owners believe the industrial future of the site is not promising as adjoining residences limit the scope for industrial operations. Recent tenancies have been subject to complaints from neighbouring residents regarding the emissions from the flues on the roof near existing dwellings. Ms Plakidis submitted analysis by Charter Keck Cramer has identified a surplus of vacant industrial land in Darebin and across Melbourne and supports her request that 6 8 Anderson Road be identified for rezoning for residential development. She requested that Clause be modified to read: Maintain three core industrial areas at East Preston, Reservoir and Fairfield and one secondary industrial area at Anderson road except land at 6 8 Anderson Road, Thornbury, for the purposes of industrial and employmentbased activities in Darebin. Under Further Strategic Work, include an additional bullet point which reads Examine the future land use options for land at 6 8 Anderson Road, Thornbury, specifically for a residential rezoning. Amend the DELUS, such that the land at 6 8 Anderson Road, Thornbury is given special recognition for its unique attributes, and identified as a candidate site for a future residential rezoning. Under cross examination Mr McNeill conceded that removal of this property from the precinct would not destroy the precinct and he couldn t quantify the impact of its removal. He did reiterate that the principle of supporting functional industrial areas by not chipping away at their edges underpinned the approach to DELUS. Mr McNeill also advised that in an ideal world the boundary between Industrial 3 land and residences would be a road rather than a back or side fence. Page 70

78 Mr McNeill advised that he had reviewed his DELUS recommendation and maintained that keeping the industrial area intact is still the most appropriate approach to the precinct. He did, however, support review of the precinct in around five years to see if it was still functioning as a viable industrial area. (iii) Discussion While the location of 6 8 Anderson Street presents as a one off case, being separated from the rest of the industrial precinct by a road, it does read as part of the precinct and has been occupied for industrial purposes albeit at a suboptimal level. The Panel is mindful of the basis of DELUS in identifying employment areas which have a scale and potential to continue operating in the long term. The approach of maintaining those viable precincts and not allowing them to be chipped away by rezonings is supported in this case. Even within the context that IN3Z now provides greater opportunities for office and other uses the Panel notes Ms Plakidis submission that the industrial future of 6 8 Anderson Road is limited and agrees that DELUS be amended to note that the function of the Anderson Road Industrial Precinct should be reviewed in five years. (iv) Conclusions and recommendation The Panel concludes: The Anderson Road area is not ready for complete transformation to non industrial uses and the area should not be chipped away at the edges. The Panel recommends: The proposed table at Clause include: Precinct Role Zone 4 Anderson Road Secondary industrial area Retain Industrial/employment Use with review after 2019 Industrial Beavers Road Secondary Industrial Area DELUS Precinct 5 (i) Precinct overview Precinct 5 is located north of Arthurton road, west of Woodhouse Street and north and south of Beavers Road, Northcote. The precinct is 5.98ha, is zoned Industrial 3 and is identified as a Secondary Industrial Area with a broad mix of uses and built form. Clause Economic Development Framework identifies the Beavers Road precinct as having a mixed employment focus. Clause Objective 3 Redundant Industrial Land includes a strategy to transition the Beavers Road Secondary Industrial Area to a mixed use precinct and encourage green business to locate in this precinct. (ii) What are the issues? Is the residential transition of the precinct appropriate? How should inconsistency between the Economic Development and Housing Frameworks in the MSS be resolved? Page 71

79 (iii) Evidence and submissions Hansen Partnership, on behalf of First Stone and Codstream Pty Ltd regarding Beavers Road, supported both DELUS and the DHS but identified the discrepancy of strategic sites identified in DELUS not being shown on the Housing Framework Plan. The submitter requested that Clause be amended to include an additional criteria for areas of substantial change:... brownfield redevelopment sites that offer additional opportunities for higher forms of development. Council explained that the Beavers Road site is not identified as a substantial change area as the DHS only considered residentially zoned land. Council also submitted that the land is affected by Amendment C122 which will rezone the land north side of Beavers Road to Residential Growth Zone and the south side to Commercial 1. Pastor Soo from the Reach Community Church outlined the difficulty for community and religious organisations finding appropriate premises. He identified the potential risks of increased competition for car parking and noise complaints as concerns regarding increased residential development close to the Church. In his evidence, Mr McNeill advised that the proposed Commercial 1 zoning allows for a Place of Worship as a Section 1 Use. Council advised that the rezoning of land is underway as C127. (iv) Discussion While the Panel accepts that the difference in timing of undertaking the DHS and DELUS has resulted in some anomalies, it is primarily concerned with the ongoing usability of the Scheme. The Panel is satisfied that the Beavers Road land is satisfactorily identified on the Strategic Framework (Areas of Urban Intensification), DELUS, DHS and is convinced by Council s view that:... sufficient site and precinct work has been carried out to support the application of the RGZ and Substantial Change. As previously discussed in Chapter 3.5 the obsolete industrial precincts, including Beavers Road should be identified on the Housing Framework (as a Potential Substantial Housing Change Precinct) to ensure consistency. In relation to the issue of increased competition for car parking arising from increased residential development the Panel notes the genuine concern from the Reach Community Church but cannot determine appropriate zoning on the basis of protecting the access to on street car parking for any one purpose. Planning Schemes provide mechanisms and controls to require car parking for any change of use, regardless of the zone or whether or not a permit is required. Page 72

80 (v) Conclusions and recommendations The Panel recommends: The proposed table at Clause include: Precinct Role Zone 5 Beavers Road Mixed employment and residential Rezone south of Beavers Road to Commercial 1 and north of Beavers Road Residential Amend the Strategic Housing Framework to show the area north of Beavers Road as Potential Substantial Housing Change Precinct and the area south of Beavers Road as employment land. 7.3 Gadd Street DELUS Precinct 6 (i) Precinct overview Precinct 6 is made up of two small separate areas west of St Georges Road and north and south of Gadd Street, Northcote. The precinct is 1.2ha and is currently zoned Industrial 3. It contains a mix of uses including, the long established businesses, Ensign (Spotless Cleaning Services) and Pierce Body Works. Precinct 6 is not identified on the Economic Development Framework. Clause Objective 3 Redundant Industrial Land includes a strategy that addresses this precinct: Rezone non viable single use industrial sites and small clusters to enable use for commercial and /or residential purposes. Where appropriate alternative uses should include forms of economic activity. (ii) What are the issues? Will the identification of the Gadd Street precinct for residential rezoning hinder wellestablished industrial operations? (iii) Evidence and submissions Pierce Body Works and Spotless submitted that they are long term industrial uses in the Gadd Street precinct that would be materially disadvantaged by the residential rezoning of the precinct. Both businesses suggested that reliance on existing use rights could hinder their operations and severely limit their potential to expand operations. Pierce Bodyworks also submitted that relocation of their business in the local area would not be viable due to the difficulty of finding a suitable alternative location. In his evidence Mr McNeill noted that the precinct is already experiencing a creep in residential rezoning and maintained that the long term vision for the precinct is residential. He concluded that the DELUS recommendation should be amended to downgrade the rezoning priority from medium to low and include a note to the effect that there should be ongoing consultation with the owners of properties prior to any rezoning in the precinct. Page 73

81 (iv) Discussion and conclusions The Panel appreciates the genuine concerns of the long term industries located in this precinct but is convinced of the limited industrial future of the land due to the residential interfaces and ongoing expectation of residents in gentrifying suburbs, including Northcote. The Panel accepts the view that the precinct should transition to residential use but agrees that the timing is not critical and that Council should consult with the industrial landowners prior to any rezoning. As discussed in Chapter 3.5 the precinct should be identified as a Future Potential Substantial Housing Change Precinct on the Housing Framework at Clause The Panel recommends: The proposed table at Clause include: Precinct Role Zone 6 Gadd Street, Northcote Ongoing employment Potential Residential Industrial 3 Continue industrial use with a view to potential long term conversion to residential. Consult with landowners prior to any rezoning Amend the Strategic Economic Development Framework to show the Gadd Street precinct as employment land. Amend the Strategic Housing Framework to show the Gadd Street precinct as a Potential Substantial Housing Change precinct. 7.4 Northcote Central (Arthurton Road) DELUS Precinct 7 Precinct 7 is located primarily south of Arthurton Road, Northcote between the railway line and Helen Street. The precinct is 1.7ha and zoned Industrial 3. The area south of Arthurton Road comprises a range of uses including a relatively high office component, auto repairs and printing services. The built form quality is relatively poor with landowners waiting for a decision on the precinct s future. North of Arthurton Road there is a modern childcare facility, the large Australian Horizons site which is to be developed as a large mixed use complex and an isolated small parcel at 2A. (i) What the Amendment proposes Clause Implementation (dot point 4) addresses precinct 7: Rezone the area south of Arthurton Road adjacent to Northcote railway station from the Industrial 3 Zone to the Commercial 1 Zone and encourage a mix of uses with a particular focus on commercial (office) development. (ii) What are the issues? The timing and process to rezone the obsolete industrial precinct to allow for redevelopment. Page 74

82 (iii) Evidence and submissions A number of submissions endorsed the overall direction of DELUS and Clause for precinct transitioning from industrial zoning to mixed use. The Australian Horizons supported the Mixed Use 1 zoning proposed in DELUS. Council noted that the site is currently in detailed planning and agreed that it should be identified as a substantial change area in the DHS to ensure consistency between the two documents. Council submitted that the precinct s future should be included for further consideration as part of the review of the High Street Northcote Structure Plan which is not, as yet, scheduled. Landowners in the precinct, including 2A and 38 Arthurton Road and 99 Helen Street, expressed frustration that the precinct s future would be delayed pending a further strategic study. They requested that these properties be included in the Mixed Use 1 Zone now as they are clear anomalies, and have been subject to a number of strategic planning studies over the last decade all of which have concluded that the sites have no future for industrial purposes. In response to questions from the Panel, Council indicated that it would support the provision of further notice to relevant neighbouring properties of the proposal to rezone these three properties to Mixed Use. (iv) Further notice The Panel appreciated the limitations of DELUS in that it does not trigger rezonings. The three properties identified in this precinct as anomalies: 2A and 38 Arthurton Road; and 99 Helen Street appear to present the opportunity for C138 to improve the logic of the precinct zoning. The Panel determined that it would be appropriate to consider the rezoning of the three properties to Mixed Use as each is an obvious anomaly which should be addressed through the current process. The Panel determined to provide further notice to all neighbouring properties to be heard on the matter. Three submissions were received and a further hearing was convened: Ms Monikino, owner of 99 Helen Street, supported the rezoning to Mixed Use. Ms Mann objected to the Mixed Use rezoning on the basis that the windows and balconies of the existing building at 99 Helen Street are not satisfactorily screened, residential use would increase overlooking and potential disturbance in terms of parking and noise. Council responded that the rezoning will not automatically result in the use of 99 Helen Street as residences. Ms Kouremenous submitted that her former industrial property at 1 Arthurton Road is obsolete and should be rezoned as it is effectively in limbo until Council undertook yet another strategic study. She noted that the property had been earmarked for rezoning but that it has not yet eventuated. Council did not object to the rezoning of the three properties as they are clear anomalies which should be addressed. Council submitted that in the case of 1 Arthurton Road, any rezoning should wait for the High Street Northcote Structure Plan review and be done as a package to achieve the best outcome for the precinct. Council conceded that due to the Page 75

83 significant workload currently facing Council that the High Street Northcote Structure Plan review was not yet scheduled. (v) Discussion While the Panel sympathises over the delays in rezoning the land in the Arthurton Road precinct it accepts there are benefits in considering the appropriate zone and controls for the precinct in the context of the review of the High Street Northcote Structure Plan. This will provide the best opportunity to co ordinate the most appropriate zone and design controls to make the most of the important precinct which links the Station and High Street. As further notice was not given regarding the rezoning of 1 Arthurton Road, rezoning cannot be considered at this time. The Panel is satisfied that the rezoning of 2A, 38 Arthurton Road and 99 Helen Street is logical and that Council will adequately address the issues related to detailed planning permission for future use and development. (vi) Conclusions and recommendations The Panel recommended earlier that: Council determine and apply a more appropriate zone to the Northcote Central (Arthurton Road) precinct as soon as possible to resolve the future of this clearly obsolete industrial land. The Panel recommends: Rezone 2A and 38 Arthurton Road and 99 Helen Street to Mixed Use. The proposed table at Clause include: Precinct Role Zone 7 Northcote Central (Arthurton Road) Urban renewal for commercial and residential use To be determined Amend the Strategic Housing Framework to show the Northcote Central (Arthurton Road) Precinct 7 as a Potential Substantial Housing Change Precinct 7.5 Heidelberg Road and Westfield Street DELUS Precinct 11 Precinct 3 is located on the north side of Heidelberg Road between Holmes and Jeffrey Streets and south of Westfield Street, Northcote. The 1.69ha precinct is currently zoned Industrial 3 and contains a mix of commercial and industrial uses fronting Heidelberg Road and a mix of residential/business uses behind. Clause Objective 3 Redundant Industrial Land contains three strategies that apply to this precinct: Encourage appropriate commercial and residential uses on redundant industrial land and Prioritise the transition of under utilised industrial site to other (uses) that provide for other economic uses that provide choices in local employment and Page 76

84 Rezone non viable single use industrial sites or small clusters to enable use for commercial and/or residential purposes. Where appropriate alternative uses should include forms of economic activity. (i) What are the issues? How can the valued creative live/work characteristics of the precinct be maintained through a zoning transition? (ii) Evidence and submissions A number of submissions identified the emerging special character of Precinct 11 with a cluster of creative industries and increasing residential population due to the prevalence of caretaker residences. Submitters spoke of the special nature of the area suggesting that the live/work and especially creative enterprises should be nurtured and protected by any planning scheme changes. The residents and business owners in the precinct are passionate about the special character of the area and seek planning controls to ensure that; the love from the people who live there (Mr Favaloro and Mr Griffith) is not undermined by new residential development pressure which doesn t value the live/work mix currently present in the precinct. Many of the submissions supported the identification of the precinct for a Mixed Use zoning. In his expert evidence, Mr McNeill identified that the precinct has already become a de facto mixed use precinct where there is a mix of residential and various employment uses including commercial offices. Mr McNeill suggests DELUS be amended to show that Mixed Use is the recommended future zoning and that:... a Schedule to the Mixed Use zone should include an objective that requires or encourages employment uses in appropriate locations within the precinct. (iii) Discussion Council and existing residents have clearly identified that they wish to retain the mix of residential and enterprises and have proposed a Schedule to the Mixed Use Zone encouraging employment as well as residential use. The Panel is satisfied that Council s proposal to create a Schedule to the Mixed Use Zone to encourage employment uses is a practical approach to this precinct. (iv) Recommendations The Panel recommends: The proposed table at Clause include: Precinct Role Zone 11 Heidelberg Road and Westfield Street Mixed use employment Rezone to Mixed Used with a Schedule including an objective that requires or encourages employment uses in appropriate locations within the precinct Page 77

85 Amend the Strategic Housing Framework to show the Heidelberg Road and Westfield Street Precinct as a Mixed Use Precinct. 7.6 Separation Street DELUS Precinct 14 Precinct 14 is located on the north side of Separation Street, between Rathmines and Boothby Streets, Northcote. The 2.63ha precinct is currently zoned Industrial 3 and is held in two major ownerships: NCI and 29th Street. The precinct is bounded on the north and south by major open space assets and has residential development to the east and west. Separation Street is narrow and heavily used offering poor business access. Clause Economic Framework does not identify the land for industrial purposes and the first 3 objectives for Redundant Industrial Land apply: Encourage appropriate commercial and residential uses on redundant industrial land and Prioritise the transition of under utilised industrial sites to other (uses) that provide for other economic uses that provide choices in local employment and Rezone non viable single use industrial sites or small clusters to enable use for commercial and/or residential purposes. Where appropriate alternative uses should include forms of economic activity Dot point 5 of Implementation also applies: Implementation Rezone redundant Industrial 1 Zone and Industrial 3 Zone land to more appropriate business zones in accordance with the recommendations of the DELUS. (i) What are the issues? Is the precinct ready to transition from industrial? Is it appropriate to allow half of the precinct to transform? (ii) Evidence and submissions Mr Stokans clearly identified that NCI is a business with a long history on the site with an intention to continue in its current location. He submitted that the effect of identifying the Separation Street precinct in both Clause and DELUS as having a residential future is contrary to the fundamental basis of Council s policy of supporting job creation. Mr McDonald, CFO for NCI outlined the current operations at the site, the level of recent investment in the ongoing operation, and the intention to remain on the site in the future. Mr Stokans submitted that the DELUS assessment of land suitability for alternative uses to industrial was flawed in the case of Separation Street. He outlined the four considerations as: Where the land is unlikely to fulfil industrial use in the future not the case for the NCI land Where the surrounding areas is uniformly residential as is essentially the case for Separation Street acknowledging that the land is surrounded by residential and open space uses Page 78

86 Where no expansion of industrial use is recommended questionable for Separation Street given the ongoing operation of NCI That the land is identified for residential use in the DHS Separation Street left blank in the DHS. Mr O Farrell for 29 th Street submitted that a rezoning of part or all of the Separation Street land would not affect the existing use rights of NCI and that it should rightly remain operating for as long as it likes. As the Separation Street industrial precinct sits within a residential neighbourhood, Council noted that the original DELUS recommended that the precinct be rezoned to Residential 1 as a high priority. In his evidence, Mr McNeill advised that he had reconsidered the precinct after consideration of the submissions from NCI and 29 th Street. He acknowledged the issue of NCI as:... a classic example of the tension that exists between ongoing business viability and longer term goals in the municipality s various isolated pockets. The surrounding area is residential and nearby higher density forms of development have been recently completed. The precinct is adjacent to parkland and provides a high amenity setting. It is considered that a residential future for the precinct remains appropriate and it is only a question of when. Mr McNeill expanded on his approach considering the context and future of such industrial pockets being that the land should be identified as having a residential future if: They are unlikely to fulfil an industrial land need in the future (not currently the case for NCI) They are surrounded by residential and other high amenity areas (as is the case in Separation Street). In evidence, Mr Iles, stated that there would be adequate scope for control of the design of housing on the 29 th Street site to provide for protection from noise and other externalities from the adjacent industrial use through the use of walls, buffer distances and other methods. Mr Iles concluded that there should be no imposition to the 29 th Street site being rezoned independently of NCI, and the interface issues could be adequately addressed in the design and development of the housing. (iii) Discussion The Separation Street land is a classic illustration of the pressure created by economic changes occurring in Darebin and throughout inner Melbourne. It could be said that modern expectations of residential amenity are fuelling the demise of manufacturing along with the structural economic changes. The Panel has some sympathy for the position of both landowners in this precinct. The Panel notes that the intention of Clause is to deal with non viable industrial sites and is convinced that NCI does not fall into this category at this point in time. The Panel is mindful of the range of pressures on industry located within established areas as well as Council s objectives to retain and support employment uses in the municipality. Further isolating a single operation as a stand alone industrial operation could add to these Page 79

87 pressures. These pressures must be balanced against the fact that this location is a residential stand out in terms of the surrounding amenity including parks and recreation facilities. The Panel notes, however, that the residential advantages of the site are not at risk and will still be available to the precinct over the long term. The Panel agrees that the Strategic Housing Framework at Clause should be amended to identify the Separation Street land as a Potential Future Housing Change Precinct given its long term prospects. While Mr Iles presented evidence to show that it would be possible to develop residences adjacent to NCI which could provide adequate protection from noise and other industrial externalities. The Panel is not convinced that this would provide the optimal solution for either party. The Panel agrees with the DELUS approach of not chipping away at viable industrial land as this could increase the potential for increasing land use conflict. While the surrounding open space assets, residential development and limited road access contribute to the precinct being identified as a stand out residential opportunity, the Panel is not convinced of the imperative for this to occur in the short term to the detriment of an existing business. The Panel therefore concludes that the precinct should only transition to residential when it can do so as a whole. (iv) Conclusions and recommendations The Panel concludes: The proposed future zoning of the Separation Street land (DELUS precinct 14) should be residential, landowner led and should only occur at a timing of mutual agreement of the two landowners in the precinct. The Panel recommends: The proposed table at Clause include: Precinct Role Zone 14 Separation Street, Northcote Ongoing industrial precinct Potential residential redevelopment if existing industrial use vacate the precinct Industrial 3 Rezone for Residential use only when the whole precinct can transition to a residential use Amend the Strategic Housing Framework to show the Separation Street, Northcote Precinct (14) as a Potential Substantial Housing Change Precinct. Page 80

88 7.7 Edwardes Road DELUS Precinct 17 (i) Precinct overview Precinct 17 is located on the south side of Edwardes Road between Pine and George Streets, approximately 250metres west of the Reservoir MAA. The small 0.88ha precinct is currently zoned Industrial 3 and it contains a mix of warehouse, factory and auto repair businesses. The precinct is not identified in the Economic Development Framework and DELUS defers the zoning recommendation to the implementation of the RSP. (ii) What are the issues? Should the precinct be rezoned to residential or mixed use? (iii) Evidence and submissions Mr and Ms Kai Sun and Su Chen supported DELUS and requested that this precinct be rezoned for residential or mixed use development. Mr McNeill maintained the recommendation in DELUS that the zoning should be determined through the RSP. Council submitted that both the DHS and the RSP identified the precinct as a substantial change area. (iv) Discussion and Conclusion The Panel is satisfied that the future zoning of the precinct will be addressed through the implementation of the RSP and that this will be the appropriate process to ensure that all local issues are taken into account. The Panel recommends: The proposed table at Clause include: Precinct Role Zone 17 Edwardes Road, Reservoir Transition to Residential Zone to be selected through implementation of the RSP 7.8 Elizabeth Street/McNamara Street DELUS Precinct 33 (i) Precinct overview The Elizabeth St/McNamara Street precinct is a small local convenience centre identified as Precinct 33 in the DELUS Retail Activity Area Review (Appendix B). Precinct 33 is a local retail centre in a neighbourhood currently undergoing renewal. Clause Objective 1 Retail addresses precinct 33 at dot point 18: Retain secondary neighbourhood activities areas and local centres as recommended by the DELUS. Page 81

89 (ii) What are the issues? Should the local centre be identified for future rezoning to MUZ1 as identified in DELUS? (iii) Evidence and submissions Mr Tenance and Ms Petrovic objected to the DELUS recommendation that this group of shops be rezoned to Mixed Use given the current level of regeneration as a viable community hub. There is a significant Mixed Use precinct with 400 dwellings, supermarket, shops, office space and other local services planned just across the boundary in the City of Moreland. In his evidence Mr McNeill acknowledged the changed circumstances in the area and supported retention of the existing business zoning (now Commercial 1). (iv) Discussion and Conclusion The Panel notes that the reference to this precinct in the MSS is via a reference to DELUS and that we have previously recommended removing these references. The Panel is confident that Council will be able to make the findings for precincts clear through the use of a table or other text. The Panel noted the extent of renewal underway in the precinct and is satisfied that the existing commercial zoning should be retained. The Panel recommends: Retain the current C1Z zoning for the Elizabeth Street/McNamara Street area DELUS Precinct 33. Page 82

90 8 St Georges Road corridor precincts 8.1 St Georges Road Precinct 1 Merri Creek Neighbourhood Centre (i) Precinct overview St Georges Road Precinct 1 extends north of Bridge Street and south of Sumner Avenue as shown in the figure below. Figure 5: St Georges Road Framework Plan Precinct 1 Merri Creek (SGR UDF) Page 83

91 The east and west side of St Georges Road have different roles and functions. The west side has a small pocket of low scale fine grained residential streets located south of Northcote High School, and east of the Merri Creek. Detached interwar housing is located north of Northcote High School with single storey Victorian row houses behind. The east side has a mix of industrial (small scale), residential and commercial uses with building typologies which reflect these uses including converted industrial buildings, and residential cottages. The Albion Charles Hotel is a landmark to the entrance of the precinct. Council noted that a number of permits have been issued for residential development of between four and five storeys on the east side of St Georges Road. (ii) What the Amendment proposes Amendment C136 proposes to apply DDO16 and rezone land: On the west side of St Georges Road between Elizabeth Street and Eunson Avenue from R1Z to GRZ with a 2 to 3 storey height limit On the east side of St Georges Road: between Bridge Street and Clarke Street from IN3Z to C1Z with a 4 to 6 storey height limit between Clarke Street and Gordon Grove from R1Z to C1Z with a 4 to 6 storey height limit between Gordon Grove and the Little Sisters of the Poor site from R1Z to GRZ with a 2 to 3 storey height limit The exhibited DDO16 objectives for this precinct are: To create a sense of local place by redeveloping former industrial sites with high quality buildings which add a sense of interest and identity to the area and incorporate active frontages serving as a vibrant node for the local community. To protect the existing residential character and amenity with change that respects and complements the local character. (iii) What is the issue? Are the proposed building heights for SGR Precinct 1 appropriate? (iv) Submissions Four submissions were received in relation to Precinct 1 including: Mr Valkenburg and Mr Birbara in Bakers Lane who considered that 3 to 4 storeys is a more appropriate height than the exhibited 4 to 6 storey height because of the heritage value of the old bakery and cobbled lane. They also sought heritage controls to protect the laneway although Council did not support this. Mr Stevens submitted that 11 Clarke Street should not be included in DDO16 and Amendment C136 because his property is within a Heritage Overlay. His submission that the logical boundary for the precinct is the east side of the laneway which adjoins his property was agreed by Council who noted it was an administrative error. Page 84

92 (v) Discussion The Panel agrees with Mr Stevens and Council on the revised boundary in Clarke Street. In relation to Bakers Lane, the Panel acknowledges the heritage fabric of the old bakery but does not believe this is a reason to reduce the building heights in this industrial/commercial context. There are many examples of the redevelopment of heritage buildings which are sympathetic to the original heritage fabric and that heritage controls do not preclude redevelopment. The Panel accepts Council s position in relation to building heights for the precinct given the existing built form context, development pressures and permit activity in the area. (vi) Conclusions and recommendation The Panel concludes: The proposed building heights for St Georges Road Precinct 1 are appropriate. The Panel recommends: Remove 11 Clarke Street from DDO St Georges Road Precinct 2 Sumner Estate and Little Sisters (i) Precinct overview St Georges Road Precinct 2 east side extends north of the Little Sisters of the Poor site to south of McCracken Avenue. On the west of St Georges Road, the precinct extends north of Merri Park and south of Auburn Avenue. Figure 6: St Georges Road Framework Plan Precinct 2 Little Sisters (SGR UDF) Page 85

93 The precinct has exclusively residential uses in one to two storey dwellings, apart from the Little Sisters of the Poor site. The UDF describes the precinct as follows: The Little Sisters and Sumner Estate Precinct rises up from the Merri Creek flatlands to a local high point within the former Little Sisters of the Poor land near the corner of Hawthorn Road and St Georges Road. The former convent buildings are a landmark protected by a heritage overlay within this precinct. The land has an undulating form and the east side is less consistent in built form than the west side of St Georges Road. The west side is within the Sumner Estate developed in the 1920s and protected by HO165. Council noted:... that land which fronts St Georges Road has undergone a gradual change such as new second level extensions, high solid front fences, external cladding and verandah alterations, partly in response to the main road location. The UDF sets preferred future outcome for the precinct: It is anticipated that this Precinct will remain predominantly residential with limited opportunities to introduce mixed use at ground level. Although there is a Heritage Overlay along a greater proportion of this Precinct, there is still the potential for an incremental level of change to take place over the expected twenty year study period. This is possible on sites identified as noncontributory to the local heritage values. This level of change acknowledges that there may be some sizeable renovations and redevelopment of properties that front St Georges Road. The gradient of the land on the east side also allows for the bulk of the built form to be sleeved within the slope and directed towards the St Georges Road frontage away from the sensitive interface at the rear. It is expected that the character along St Georges Road will gradually change as properties respond to the declining amenity and increased traffic noise. (ii) What the Amendment proposes The Amendment proposes to apply DDO16 and rezone land: On the west side of St Georges Road between Merri Park and Auburn Avenue from R1Z to GRZ with a 2 to 3 storey height limit On the east side of St Georges Road: Little Sisters of the Poor site from R1Z to GRZ with no specified height limit Between Hawthorn Road and McCracken Avenue from R1Z to RGZ with a 3 to 4 storey height limit. The exhibited objective in DDO16 for this precinct is: To protect the existing residential character and amenity with change that respects and complements the local character. Page 86

94 (iii) What are the issues? Are the proposed building heights and land uses controls appropriate for this precinct? (iv) Submissions Council submitted that the objective for the precinct was drafted in response to the significant heritage fabric on the west side of the precinct and that the protection of this fabric should be the precinct s focus. The Amendment therefore seeks to rezone the west side of the precinct to GRZ:... to ensure that there are still opportunities for growth and diversity of housing while nevertheless ensuring new development is consistent with neighbourhood character. Ms Roberts and Mr Gates noted that HO166 applies to their property on the east side of the precinct and submitted this is inconsistent with the proposed RGZ. They submitted that the GRZ would be more appropriate given the heritage significance of the group of properties and that the proposed building height of 3 to 4 storeys would overshadow their property. Council agreed that the Amendment should be modified in relation to St Georges Road to: Amend the proposed rezoning from RGZ to GRZ Change the building heights in DDO16 from 3 to 4 storeys to 2 to 3 storeys. (v) Discussion The Panel agrees the existing built form and heritage fabric on the west side of the precinct is a key consideration and supports the proposed building heights and land use controls on the west side of St Georges Road in this precinct. Whilst the Panel acknowledges that the Ms Roberts and Mr Gate s property is subject to HO166, the Panel does not agree that changing the height controls in the middle of the street block would result in a good outcome for their property. The Panel cannot see the strategic imperative to have such a fine grained zoning and built form response in this location, particularly given that Council does not see significant change happening within this precinct. If Council sees the strategic direction for the rest of this particular precinct as GRZ with a height limit of 2 to 3 storeys, then the block between Hawthorn Road and McCracken Avenue should be subject to the same land use and built form controls as the balance of the precinct. This is also consistent with the proposed land use controls for the street block to the north of McCracken Avenue. (vi) Recommendations The Panel recommends: Amend the proposed rezoning for the properties between Hawthorn Road and McCracken Avenue, east side of St Georges Road from RGZ to GRZ (St Georges Road Precinct 2). Amend DDO16 to show a maximum building height of 3 storeys for the block between Hawthorn Road and McCracken Avenue, east side of St Georges Road (St Georges Precinct 2). Page 87

95 8.3 St Georges Road Precinct 3 Arthurton Road (i) Precinct overview St Georges Road Precinct 3 extends north of McCracken Avenue to Bent Street on the east side of St Georges Road, and north of Auburn Avenue on the west of St Georges Road through to Bent Street. Figure 7: St Georges Road Framework Plan Precinct 3 Arthurton Road (SGR UDF) There is a mix of different uses located around the Arthurton and St Georges Road intersection including Batman Park. It is a major crossing point for pedestrians and east west connection through the municipality. The Framework describes the precinct as follows: There is a mix of different uses located around this intersection. The southeast corner includes single storey traditional dwellings; a vacant, former service station site is on the south west corner; and a row of 1 2 storey commercial buildings occupy the northwest corner. Higher density development on the east of St Georges Road will need to consider the nearby Heritage Overlay properties and valued characteristics. The UDF preferred outcome for the precinct is:... to increase the mix of uses around this intersection to leverage off the passing traffic in both directions. Future development will better utilise the corner and prominent location providing active frontages to both St Georges and Arthurton Roads. Linked with the landmark of Batman Park this new development will create a greater sense of place for the emerging new community. Redevelopment in the form of high quality development with additional height would more effectively acknowledge and activate this key intersection. Page 88

96 (ii) What the Amendment proposes The Amendment proposes to apply DDO16 and rezone land: On the west side of St Georges Road: between Auburn Avenue and Arthurton Road from R1Z to C1Z with a 4 to 5 storey height in the block Arthurton Road and Gracie Street from R1Z to C1Z (south part of block) or MUZ1 (north part of block) with a 4 to 5 storey height limit in the block Gracie Street and Bent Street from R1Z to MUZ1 with a 4 to 5 storey height limit On the east side of St Georges Road: between McCracken Avenue and Arthurton Road from R1Z to RGZ with a 2 to 3 storey height limit between Elm Street and Bent Street from R1Z to C1Z with a 4 to 5 storey height limit. The exhibited objectives in DDO16 for this precinct are: To revitalise the west side of the St Georges Road/ Arthurton Road intersection into a vibrant commercial node with development that incorporates active frontages supporting higher density, mixed use development To give prominence to the St Georges Road/ Arthurton Road intersection with high quality, visually interesting and responsive development To ensure new development does not compromise key heritage elements (iii) What are the issues? Are the proposed building heights and land use zone appropriate generally and specifically for 137 St Georges Road? (iv) Submissions Council submitted that the introduction of new built form controls which seek building heights of 4 to 5 storeys and the use of a mixed use zone is aimed at revitalising the western side of St Georges Road between Arthurton Road and Bent Street and encouraging active frontages. Mr Clancy and Ms Cassar opposed the rezoning of the land between Batman Park and Bent Street for commercial purposes and submitted that the existing Residential zone with a 3 storey height limit should remain. In response to Mr Clancy and Ms Cassar, Council maintained that the proposed 4 to 5 storey height and C1Z were appropriate given the non residential use of the church located on the corner of the street block. It noted that the intention of the Amendment is to consolidate and encourage a mix of land uses with active frontages as the preferred future outcome for this precinct. The old service station site on south east corner of Separation Street 137 St Georges Road (the old service station site on south east corner of Separation Street) is currently zoned R1Z and was previously a petrol station. The Amendment proposes to rezone the land to C1Z with a building height of 4 to 5 storeys. Council explained that a Page 89

97 recent VCAT refusal for development on the site provided commentary on the site s features and constraints. A number of submissions were received in relation to the site from residents of the Sumner Estate. Ms Harrison contended that the Amendment in its current form does not adequately deal with the sensitive transition to the heritage listed Sumner Estate, and does not acknowledge the scale, character and topography of the site. She suggested the VCAT decision commentary in relation to the Supreme Property Group proposal should be given weight as to what is considered appropriate development for that site. Ms Harrison noted: the site is currently subject to a Special Building Overlay (SBO), and has a significant slope of about 3 metres across the site, sloping away from St Georges Road with a retaining wall along the site s western boundary. She further noted the south and west of the site have sensitive interfaces and should not have commercial uses on these edges and that the bulk of the height of the building should be focussed on the north east corner of the site, namely to Arthurton and St Georges Roads. Ms Harrison submitted because of the particulars of the site (the retaining wall and altered street level) the site should be subject to a 30 degrees setback on the site s western boundary and increased setbacks towards Auburn Avenue because of the slope of the land. Ms Harrison suggested further amendments to DDO16 in order to ensure deep rooted planting is viable along the western and southern interface of the site. Ms Staya also from the Sumner Estate submitted the streetscape amenity of the southern side of Auburn Road should be protected from overshadowing by development at 137 St Georges Road. In response to submissions from residents of the Sumner Estate, Council proposed to change the exhibited zoning for 137 St Georges Road from C1Z to MUZ1 to recognise the residential street frontage along Auburn Avenue. Council submitted that the MUZ1 is a preferable zone for the site in order to facilitate a residential interface along Auburn Road, given the preference of the C1Z for dwellings to be located at upper levels with restrictions on ground level frontage widths. Council documented changes proposed in their post exhibition version of DDO16. Council proposed to include the following requirements in DDO16 for 137 St Georges Road: Auburn Road is to be treated as a frontage with a setback of 3m required at ground level and a further setback of the first floor and above levels A preferred maximum building height of 2 3 storeys within 10m of the southern boundary with stepped setbacks to form a transitional buffer Vehicle access points to minimise unreasonable impacts on adjoining residential areas Provision of setbacks to the western boundary to provide space for deep root planting Orient active frontage commercial uses to Arthurton Road and St Georges Road and residential uses towards Auburn Avenue and the western laneway Avoid high front fencing along Auburn Avenue Page 90

98 Council further stated that the front setback from Auburn Avenue should provide upper levels setback at 5.5 metres to reduce the impact of a solid street wall forming and reflect the residential context of this particular interface. (v) Discussion The transition in land use and built form occurs in this precinct around the busy Arthurton Road intersection. The existing built form is a mix of commercial buildings interspersed with single detached dwellings. The Panel accepts that the proposed building heights are appropriate as they are generally consistent with the broader vision established for the corridor to facilitate the transformation of the existing building stock. In relation to land use, the Panel observes the Framework Plan nominates the precinct for consolidated residential. However, the Panel notes the existing commercial uses to the north of Arthurton Road on the west side of St Georges Road. The Panel therefore accepts the proposed section of C1Z for this section of the west side given the existing conditions. With regard to the proposed rezoning of land from R1Z to C1Z between Batman Park and Bent Street, the Panel notes that the Amendment proposes to rezone land to the north side of Bent Street to MUZ1 with the same building height of 4 to 5 storeys. The Panel cannot see a strategic imperative to rezone the land to C1Z and believes that the zoning and built form provisions should be consistent on the two sides of Bent Street. Whilst the Panel considers the exhibited building heights of 4 to 5 storeys appropriate, the Panel considers the MUZ1 should be applied to the block between Elm Street and Bent Street. This would also facilitate a mix of land uses with active frontages as the preferred future outcome for this location. The Panel therefore does not support Mr Clancy and Ms Cassar s submission for the land use to remain R1Z. The Panel accepts that MUZ1 is consistent with the intent of the Framework Plan for the balance of this precinct. The old service station site on south east corner of Separation Street The Panel agrees that the MUZ1 will provide a more flexible zone for 137 St Georges Road recognising the site s various street frontages. Having reviewed the detailed plans developed for this site and the VCAT decision the Panel supports the additional guidance suggested by Council. Auburn Road is a local residential street that serves as an entrance to the Sumner Estate. It is appropriate that it is developed to reflect this residential character ground level setback. High front fencing along Auburn Avenue should be avoided to reinforce the residential nature of this interface. However, the Panel does not support the need for a further setback of the first floor and above levels as this is not a typical requirement in residential areas. A preferred maximum building height of 2 3 storeys within 10m of the southern boundary with stepped setbacks to form a transitional buffer would create an appropriate interface with the residential area. Providing for deep root planting along the western side will manage visual intrusion in the context of the topography of the land and local street pattern. Page 91

99 Orienting active frontage commercial uses to Arthurton Road and St Georges Road and residential uses towards Auburn Avenue and the western laneway makes sense in the local context. (vi) Conclusions and recommendations The Panel concludes: The proposed built form controls for Precinct 3 Arthurton Road are appropriate. The land use controls for Precinct 3 Arthurton Road are appropriate except for the land between Elm Street and Bent Street on the east side of St Georges Road. The Panel recommends: Amend the proposed rezoning for the land between Elm Street and Bent Street from C1Z to MUZ1 (St Georges Road Precinct 3). Amend the proposed rezoning for the 137 St Georges Road from C1Z to MUZ1 (St Georges Road Precinct 3). Amend DDO16 in relation to 137 St Georges Road to include additional guidance to manage the residential interface on the Auburn Road frontage (St Georges Road Precinct 3): a) Auburn Road is to be treated as a frontage with a setback of 3m required at ground level b) A preferred maximum building height of 2 3 storeys within 10m of the southern boundary with stepped setbacks to form a transitional buffer c) Vehicle access points to minimise unreasonable impacts on adjoining residential areas d) Provision of setbacks to the western boundary to provide space for deep rooted vegetation e) Orient active frontage commercial uses to Arthurton Road and St Georges Road and residential uses towards Auburn Avenue and the western laneway f) Avoid high front fencing along Auburn Avenue. Page 92

100 8.4 St Georges Road Precinct 4 Gladstone Avenue (i) Precinct overview St Georges Road Precinct 4 extends north of Bent Street through to Woolton Avenue. Figure 8: St Georges Road Framework Plan Precinct 4 Gladstone Avenue (SGR UDF) The precinct is diverse, with a small stretch of existing businesses on the west side of St Georges Road between Bent Street and Emmaline Street. The businesses have historically clustered around the Windsor Smith Shoe factory site at 195 St Georges Road. Council noted this site is subject to DDO15, a site specific DDO, and is therefore excluded from DDO16. Council explained HO166, a precinct overlay, extends north of Batman Park west of the railway line. Only a number of properties which front the east side of St Georges Road are affected by it. Properties north of Beaconsfield Parade are not subject to heritage controls. Council stated within this location: Page 93

101 ... renewal of existing stock is occurring through individual lot development where a single dwelling is demolished and replaced by a development containing 3 4 dwellings. Council stated that the proposed heights and characteristics of this precinct lend it towards accommodating a substantial level of change compared with existing conditions. (ii) What the Amendment proposes The Amendment proposes to apply DDO16 and rezone land: On the west side of St Georges Road between Emmaline Street and Woolton Avenue from R1Z to RGZ with a 3 to 4 storey height limit On the east side of St Georges Road: between Bent Street and a block south of Beavers Road from R1Z to MUZ1 with a 4 to 5 storey height limit in the southern portion of the block and 2 to 3 storeys for the northern portion of the block between Beavers Road and Gladstone Avenue (southern half) from MUZ to C1Z with a 4 to 5 storey height limit between Gladstone Avenue and Beaconsfield Parade from R1Z to C1Z with a 4 to 5 storey height limit between Beaconsfield Parade and Woolton Avenue from R1Z to MUZ2 with a 4 to 5 storey height limit The Amendment proposes to apply DDO16 with no rezoning of land: between Bent Street and Emmaline Street (west side of St Georges Road) with a 4 to 5 storey height limit. The exhibited objectives in DDO16 for this precinct are: To create vibrant mixed use development that creates ground level spaces suitable for active street level uses with high density dwellings at upper levels To achieve dwelling diversity and increased density through site consolidation and redevelopment of residential properties fronting St Georges Road To ensure new development contributes to diversity in types and sizes of housing to provide for flexible formats for a range of household configurations (iii) What are the issues? Are the proposed building heights and land use controls appropriate for SGR Precinct 4? (iv) Submissions Of the 17 submissions received in relation to Precinct 4, the majority were from residents from the east side of St Georges Road, and six were from residents in Gadd Street. A number of submissions (Ms Walding, Mr McLeish, Ms Colaci for example) were received from property owners on the east side of St Georges Road between Kemp and Emmaline Streets. Submissions raised concerns in relation to the proposed rezoning of the land to MUZ2 from R1Z as well as the building controls, in particular height. Page 94

102 Ms Colaci submitted that her 172sqm property is too small to be redeveloped for commercial purposes and that the building heights would create problems with privacy and overlooking. It was submitted that the proposed 4 to 5 storey height limit for the north east corner of Kemp Street is excessive within an existing residential area suggesting that 2 to 3 storey development would be acceptable. Mr Jackson submitted that development on the Gadd Street intersection should be three storeys and not the exhibited four to five storeys. Mr McLeish submitted that the dwellings in Gadd Street are predominantly late Victorian and early Edwardian and overwhelmingly conform to the A2 Character Overlay. Mr McLeish stated that the proposed building height and form will not be in the context of the neighbourhood or streetscape and negatively impact on their amenity. He questioned why the west and east sides of St Georges Road were being treated differently in their rezoning when the east side had a more intact residential focus with no rear lane access. In relation to the west side of St Georges Road submissions requested that building heights should be limited to four storeys with strategic sites being limited to 5 storeys and that buildings 4 storeys or taller should be setback on all sides above 2 storeys. Council responded that the exhibited building heights and zones are generally appropriate given the existing diversity in land use and built form. They maintain that this provides the opportunity to set a vision to allow the precinct to transform with the replacement of existing single detached dwellings with mixed use and commercial multi storey buildings. In response to submissions relating to properties between Emmaline Street and the eastwest laneway between Gadd Street and Kemp Street, however, Council proposed a post exhibition change from MUZ2 to RGZ with building heights of 3 to 4 storeys in this location St Georges Road (Windsor Smith Factory site) Although Council advised that this site is not subject to DDO16, Mr Bonadio submitted that good design should be the driver for overall building height, and expressed concern that the proposed 5 storey height limit for his property at St Georges Road was limiting and should be expressed as a preference. Mr Bonadio noted that many taller buildings in excess of 5 to 6 storeys have been built in Lygon Street, Brunswick, with residential interfaces, and reiterated that good design and exemplary ESD should drive the overall building height outcome. (v) Discussion The Panel notes that single detached dwellings currently sit within a range of commercial buildings within the precinct s southern portion. The Panel generally accepts commercial land uses with 4 to 5 storey buildings in this area but notes that the Amendment proposes Emmaline Street as the transition point between commercial and residential zoning with a change in building height from 4 to 5 storey down to 3 to 4 storey on the west side of St Georges Road only. The Panel cannot see why the east side of St Georges Road should be treated differently when the east side has a more intact residential focus with no rear lane access. The Panel accepts Council s post exhibition changes in relation to properties between Emmaline Street and the east west laneway between Gadd Street and Kemp Street, but does not consider this fully addresses the concerns raised in submissions. The Panel notes Ms Azorakos Cocciglia s submission for a reduced height of 3 to 4 storeys for the corner of Page 95

103 Kemp Street and considers the RGZ and 3 to 4 storey height limit should be continued through to Woolton Avenue. This would provide a consistent built form response for both sides of St Georges Road as well as the northern portion of the precinct which the Panel agrees is the appropriate outcome. The Panel notes that 195 St Georges Road is not subject to this Amendment however notes that DDO16 nominates a building height of 5 storeys on the map included in the overlay schedule. The Panel believes this is confusing and should be removed from the documentation. (vi) Recommendations The Panel recommends: Amend the proposed zoning for properties between Emmaline Street and Woolton Avenue, east side of St Georges Road from MUZ2 to RGZ (St Georges Road Precinct 4). Amend DDO16 to show a building height of 4 storeys for properties between Emmaline Street and Woolton Avenue, east side of St Georges Road (St Georges Road Precinct 4). Amend DDO16 to remove the building height nominated for 195 St Georges Road on the Precinct 4 map (St Georges Road Precinct 4). 8.5 St Georges Road Precinct 5 Normanby Avenue (i) Precinct overview St Georges Road Precinct 5 extends north of Woolton Avenue to Ballantyne Street. Figure 9: St Georges Road Framework Plan Precinct 5 Normanby Avenue (SGR UDF) Page 96

104 Normanby Avenue and St Georges Road is the intersection of two arterial roads which provides access to the wider region and therefore draws upon a broader population catchment. The land use and built form have capitalised on passing traffic with priority given to car access and increasing conflict with pedestrian movement. Fragmented land use and built form pattern prevents a cohesive character and sense of place from being established. In relation to recent development activity, Council stated that a development was recently approved for a 5 storey mixed use building at 314 St Georges Road. The preferred outcome for the precinct is: The Normanby Ave intersection is at the heart of this precinct and is intended to become a more vibrant commercial area serving the local community as well as the wider community travelling along this key east west connection. The built form on the corner of Normanby Ave and St Georges Road should establish a landmark corner that defines the sense of place around this precinct. Additional height of up to 5 storeys will be important to give both prominence and activity through upper level residential uses around this commercial cluster. (ii) What the Amendment proposes The Amendment proposes to apply DDO16 and rezone land: On the west side of St Georges Road between Woolton Avenue and Normanby Avenue from R1Z to RGZ with a 3 to 4 storey height limit On the east side of St Georges Road between Shaftesbury Parade and Ballantyne from R1Z to C1Z with a 4 to 5 storey height limit. The Amendment proposes to apply DDO16 with no rezoning of land: between Woolton Avenue and Shaftesbury Street (east side of St Georges Road) Bent and Normanby Avenue and Ballantyne Street (west side of St Georges Road) with a 4 to 5 storey height limit. The exhibited objectives in DDO16 for this precinct are: To support development on the corners of Normanby Avenue and St Georges Road, incorporating building heights of 5 storeys with active frontages at ground level and residential uses above. To achieve dwelling diversity and increased density through site consolidation and redevelopment of residential properties fronting St Georges Road. To ensure new development contributes to dwelling diversity regarding housing types and sizes with flexible format for a range of household types. (iii) What are the issues? Are the proposed building heights and land use controls appropriate for this precinct? Page 97

105 (iv) Submissions Submissions which related to precinct 5 were: Mr Bishara expressed support for the direction proposed in the Amendment and stated that the proposal will meet the growing pressure for development and provide suitable guidelines for well designed and sustainable development. Ms O Neill opposed her property being rezoned for commercial purposes and stated that Precincts 4 and 5 should be kept for residential purposes. Council clarified that the proposed rezoning of this property is from R1Z to RGZ. Council submitted that increased development of private land would result in improvements to the public realm through activated street edges and consequential removal of large at grade car parks and/or high walls. (v) Discussion The Panel agrees with Council that redevelopment in the precinct with buildings up to 5 storeys would facilitate the areas revitalisation and considers that Council have generally balanced the built form and land use outcomes effectively for this area. The Panel notes that RGZ is proposed for the land between Shaftesbury Parade and Normanby Avenue on the west side of St Georges Road and observes, however, that the buildings and land use on the corner of Normanby Avenue already exhibit a commercial focus, given their prominent location. The Panel questions the zone choice for these two land parcels and considers they should be rezoned to C1Z consistent with the balance of the land located on the intersection corners. The Panel agrees that 3 to 4 storeys for the blocks between Woolton Avenue and Normanby Avenue on the west side of St Georges Road is appropriate. It also agrees with Council that the land use for the southern portion of the block between Normanby Avenue and Shaftesbury Parade should be zoned RGZ. (vi) Conclusions and recommendation The Panel concludes: The proposed building heights and land use zones for St Georges Road Precinct 5 are appropriate except for the proposed zoning at St Georges Road. The Panel recommends: Amend the proposed zoning for St Georges Road from R1Z to C1Z (St Georges Road Precinct 5). Page 98

106 8.6 St Georges Road Precinct 6 Hutton Street (i) Precinct overview St Georges Road Precinct 6 extends north of Ballantyne Street to Miller Street. Figure 10: St Georges Road Framework Plan Precinct 6 Hutton Street (SGR UDF) The Hutton Street intersection incorporates a key tram and bus interchange, with some commercial activity on the western side of St Georges Road south from Hutton Street through to Smith Street. To the north on the west side of St Georges Road, Council stated that the area has a cohesive pattern of residential development, however noted that some properties have constructed high front fences to deal with amenity impacts from St Georges Road. The Aboriginal Advancement League building is south of Miller Street, to the east of St Georges Road, and residential land use and detached housing south of this through to Page 99

107 Hutton Street. Council stated that a diverse mix of land uses have established south of Hutton Street through to Harold Street. Council submitted that: The transition of St Georges Road in this area has begun with 2 3 storey townhouse developments utilising larger sites. These developments are setback from St Georges Road, presumably in an attempt to address the poor amenity (i.e. road noise) of this location. Council submits that in this location, a substantial increase in built form of residential development is expected provided that on site amenity can be managed through modern construction materials and techniques and amenity impacts on adjacent properties can be controlled by respectful rear setbacks. (ii) What the Amendment proposes The Amendment proposes to apply DDO16 and rezone land: On the west side of St Georges Road: between Ballantyne Street and Smith Street from R1Z to C1Z with a 4 to 5 storey height limit between Hutton Street and Miller Street from R1Z to C1Z with a 4 to 5 storey height limit On the east side of St Georges Road between Shaftesbury Parade and Ballantyne from R1Z to C1Z with a 4 to 5 storey height limit The Amendment proposes to apply DDO16 with no rezoning of land: between Smith Street and Hutton Street (west side of St Georges Road) with a 4 to 5 storey height limit. The exhibited objectives in DDO16 for this precinct are: To assist in the revitalisation of commercial uses through redevelopment and public realm improvements To improve pedestrian safety and sense of place along St Georges Road through increasing the space between the roadway and adjacent built form To ensure new development contributes diversity in types and housing sizes To achieve dwelling diversity and increased density through site consolidation and redevelopment of properties fronting St Georges Road. (iii) What are the issues? Are the scale of change and the proposed heights appropriate? (iv) Submissions Mr Bonadio expressed concern about the proposed preferred building heights on properties on the western side of St Georges Road, in particular for consolidated sites. He stated that for these corner sites which are consolidated, taller buildings should be allowed in order to create landmarks and to eliminate a canyon feel down St Georges Road. Ms Zlatkovic whose property abuts the St Georges Road corridor, expressed concern about the proposed 4 to 5 storey building height for land on the corner of St Georges Road and Miller Street. She stated that the area is predominantly single storey dwellings which afford a reasonable amount of privacy and suggested that the building height along the corridor should be limited to 9 metres. Page 100

108 Mr Perrin and Ms Ow both objected to their properties being rezoned from R1Z to RGZ and the proposed heights of 3 to 4 storeys as they believe some of the permissible uses such as medical centre and food and drink premises under the RGZ should be controlled because they are at odds with residential areas. Council responded that they are unable to make changes to the RGZ except through a new schedule and that it is inappropriate to impose a traditional suburban residential character in this area given the quantum of changes anticipated. Council noted that taller built form for corner sites would be assessed at the permit stage, and a determination of the appropriateness of additional height would depend on the design response meeting and exceeding the requirements of DDO16 including achieving a high level of internal amenity and accommodating car parking. (v) Discussion The Panel notes that additional height would not be permissible under mandatory height controls and that Council would not have the discretion to allow additional height at the permit stage. The Panel is of the view that additional height is not the only design tool available to create landmark qualities to a building and does not support Mr Bonadio s submission that additional height is required. The Panel considers that the off site impacts of the proposed 4 to 5 storeys can be appropriately managed by the Amendment as discussed in Chapters 4 and 5 of this report. Medical centres and food and drink premises are acceptable uses on an arterial road within the context of the corridor. The Panel accepts Council s position that the land uses and amenity of properties fronting the corridor will transition significantly over the coming years. The Panel considers that the built form and zoning controls proposed by Council for this precinct are appropriate and justified. (vi) Conclusions The Panel concludes: The proposed building heights for St Georges Road Precinct 6 are appropriate. Page 101

109 8.7 St Georges Road Precinct 7 Oakover Village Precinct overview St Georges Road Precinct 7 extends north of Miller Street to Bell Street. North of Oakover Road, the precinct extends further east and west of St Georges Road to form the Oakover Village. Figure 11: St Georges Road Framework Plan Precinct 7 Oakover Village (SGR UDF) The UDF has the following context description of the Oakover Village precinct: Along Oakover Road, in the vicinity of St Georges Road, is a collection of remnant industrial sites (some contaminated), Newman Reserve, Yarra Trams Depot, St John s Greek Orthodox college and Ray Bramham Gardens. The residential area includes a significant number of vacant sites currently in the ownership of the Department of Human Services. This area is incoherent Page 102

110 in its presentation with an ad hoc development pattern. It presents a renewal opportunity within walking distance of Train, Tram and the SmartBus services (PPTN). North of the new village, the St Georges Road frontage on the eastern side is taken up by the Ray Bramham Gardens and the Darebin Arts and Entertainment centre. To the rear of this is the St John s College and the Bell Street Train Station. Opposite these gardens on the western edge is a row of detached dwellings on lots that vary in lot depth. The corner position is held by a strategic site which currently contains a convenience restaurant (McDonalds). The SGR UDF states that this area is similar to the Junction Precinct when it was identified as a strategic redevelopment area over 10 years ago. The UDF states: There is the long term potential to develop an additional 1000 units in this area in the form of 1, 2, and 3 bedroom apartment style units in several multistorey buildings. This is likely to generate a new community of approximately 2,100 people in a range of household configurations. This increase in population will be able to support a range of local and retail and small scale businesses that could form a neighbourhood activity centre within an established Mixed Use Zone area. This redevelopment will open the opportunity to renew Newmans Reserve as a high quality community focal point and create a pedestrian network creating new connections through the precinct and to the Bell Street station. What the Amendment proposes The Amendment proposes to apply DDO16 and rezone land: On the west side of St Georges Road between Miller Street and Oakover Road from R1Z to MUZ2 with a 4 to 5 or 4 to 5 storey height limit and Oakover Road on the south west corner to MUZ1. from 39 St Georges Road to Bell Street from R1Z to MUZ2 Figure 12: St Georges Road Precinct 7 shows area to which DDO16 would apply Page 103

111 The Amendment proposes to apply DPO11 to the Oakover Village area (shown on the plan below). Figure 13: Development Plan Overlay Concept Plan showing area to which DPO11 would apply The Amendment also proposes to rezone land apply DPO11 to the area shown in the above plan and rezone some of the land as follows: Figure 14: St Georges Road Precinct 7 within the DPO11 area which is proposed to be rezoned The exhibited objective in DDO16 for this precinct is: To ensure that new development on identified strategic sites leverages the locational advantages, in particular Newman Reserve, the urban context and supports the consolidation of an emerging neighbourhood activity centre (Oakover Village) through delivering a taller built form with particular emphasis on a high quality public/private interface and public realm pivoting off St Georges Road. Page 104

112 DPO11 identifies a number of sub precincts (identified in the plan above) and establishes objectives and built form outcomes for each of these: Sub precinct 1: Penola/Stokes Uses To provide for higher residential densities accommodating a range of dwelling sizes and types, including a mix of social/affordable housing Built form To incorporate a medium rise, built form that transitions from the higher built form in the Newman Mixed Use sub precinct to the adjoining low rise residential area to the north and west Sub precinct 2: Newman Mixed Use Uses To create an active commercial area focussed around Newman Reserve and St Georges Road frontages supported by residential apartment/mixed use activity in the western section of the sub precinct Built form To consolidate higher built form within this sub precinct utilising high quality, podium tower style development with a consistent setback from southern interfaces within the sub precinct To introduce a north south road extension from Stott Street to Oakover Road and an east west pedestrian/road connection allowing for a finer grain of use and development Sub precinct 3: St Georges Road Landmark Uses To allow for prominent active retail uses on the St Georges Road frontage and Oakover and Showers Street corners at ground level with lower levels configured to allow for commercial adaptation overtime and incorporating residential activity at upper levels Built form To create a landmark built form on 30 St Georges Road that demonstrates exemplary architecture utilising a podium and tower form with high legibility in the round and a built form that transitions towards the Ray Bramham Gardens and residential areas to the east Sub precinct 4: Kenwood/Showers Uses To support intensification of residential development and provide for active uses at ground level along the Oakover Road frontage Built form To encourage multi storey, apartment style development through lot consolidation Page 105

113 To create a transitional built form to the north of the sub precinct with lower heights to the Ray Bramham Gardens interface What are the issues Is the DPO the appropriate tool to manage growth in Precinct 7? Will DPO11 and DDO16 appropriately manage growth in Precinct 7? Oakover precinct general (i) Submissions General Eighty eight submissions were received commenting on this precinct. Council submitted Oakover Village warrants a specific focus because of the mix of residential and mixed use zones, and public and private ownership of land. Council undertook an internal design workshop which explored the redevelopment of the area. The workshop concluded that a collaborative approach with land owners in the planning of the area and coordinated redevelopment could facilitate improved outcomes for: local connectivity; local amenity through urban design and landscape initiatives; amenity of local reserves and open spaces. Council stated the precinct has a long term potential to develop an additional 1000 units in several multi storey buildings. This would facilitate a new community of approximately 2,100 people and support a neighbourhood activity centre within a Mixed Use Zone. Council noted that a collaborative approach is needed in this precinct because of the diverse land ownership including public and private, mix of different uses, and number of sites. Council submitted the DPO... is an ideal tool to maximise redevelopment opportunities through a considered coordinated process. Council stated the DDO: Can provide specific guidelines and controls around development but has no control over land use, staging of development, managing traffic, coordinating solutions to land use contamination or local drainage. Given this it has limited scope to create a coordinated approach to use and development. Instead, the Development Plan Overlay necessitates a collaborative approach to explore both development potential and allows opportunities for coordinated solutions including contribution to public realm initiatives which improve the amenity of the wider community. Council explained the rationale for including or excluding land within the DPO area including: The land s development potential (particularly vacant public land) Declining activity and commercial viability around Newman Reserve and St Georges/Oakover Road Utilising roads as logical boundaries Protecting heritage areas Recognising medium to long term development potential of areas with locational advantages e.g. Kenwood Court and Showers Street. Page 106

114 Page revised to remove submitters names: Revision A: 12 March 2015 Council submitted DPO11 has a number of minimum requirements as part of the preparation of the development plan relating to: sub precinct objectives site context information integrated transport and traffic management landscape construction management Ecologically Sustainable Development housing and diversity; social infrastructure services and infrastructure land use and design. In post exhibition changes Council proposed to include the following in DPO11: Include new guidance about the transition from taller built form to lower scale residential areas, especially areas within heritage overlays The preferred maximum building height of threes storeys along streetscapes will be included, with additional storeys to be located toward the centre of large blocks Requiring new developments to consider the impact of the building s bulk and mass on adjoining and adjacent areas. Council stated the MUZ1 is nominated for the heart of the DPO11 to facilitate commercial ground floor frontages. The balance of the land is proposed as MUZ2 to promote ground floor residential. Council contended that the MUZ is appropriate to enable the emergence of a new neighbourhood centre in the precinct by allowing a mix of residential and nonresidential uses. Submissions generally raised concerns in relation to the proposed heights, scale of change, the change to character, loss of sense of community, and the rezoning of land to MUZ. For example, a number of individual submitters (e.g. Ms Hall and Ms Willis, Ms Caraballo, Mr Sharpe) expressed the view that the proposed heights for the Oakover Precinct were excessive and out of character. They submitted that there was a strong sense of community within the precinct and signs of community care while Mr Sharpe felt that new development should respect existing development and be designed to blend and reflect height, colour, design, shapes and features of the existing built form. Resident submissions generally suggested that local character would be eroded with excessive development, and that 2 to 3 storey development would be preferable, with scope for some additional height at 30 St Georges Road. Some submissions raised concerns in relation to community consultation and community appeal rights. Ms Wheeler suggested that it was a good idea to require developers to consult with the community early in the production of the Development Plan in order to facilitate community acceptance. Submissions raised concerns that there was no opportunity for residents to appeal development proposals once a development plan had been approved by Council. Some submitters suggested that growth should be directed to existing activity centres and Oakover was remote from transport. For example, Ms Oakley did not support the vision for Oakover Village and suggested the proposal should be seen as out of centre development. Page 107

115 She submitted that the nearest train station was in excess of 800 metres and that the nearest tram stop was in excess of 400 metres, there are no direct transport links to the Preston Principal Activity Centre or the High Street Centre, and that Council had not provided any update to the retail assessment which showed that this area should be an activity centre. Mr and Mrs Sinclair expressed general support that Council was seeking to establish planning mechanisms to guide development to create Oakover Village however they had a number of concerns. They suggested that St Georges Road clearly has two sides and operates as a barrier to pedestrian movement which cannot be ignored and that public transport is not as proximate as it would seem. The Sinclair s submitted that it is a mistake to consider Oakover Village as a precinct uniformly open for development. In relation to the drafting of DPO11, Ms Hall and Mr Wright submitted that high standard design is poorly defined in the overlay and Ms Wheeler also suggested that affordable housing needs to be defined. (ii) Discussion General It is clear that Oakover Village provides a strategic opportunity for revitalisation; this is clear from the most cursory site inspection, and was not disputed by submitters. The precinct would benefit from new pedestrian links and a coordinated approach to development to create a quality urban environment and make the best use of development opportunities while managing impacts on existing residential development. Master planning the precinct is clearly desirable and would be expected to be a logical stage in the development of the area. The Panel considers that formal approval of such a master plan by the responsible authority would be desirable. This supports the use of the DPO. The DPO is a flexible tool that can be used to implement a plan to guide the future development of the land such as an outline development plan, detailed development plan or master plan. The overlay has two purposes: To identify areas that require the form and conditions of future use or development to be shown on a plan before a permit can be granted to use or develop land. To exempt a planning permit application from notice and review if it is generally in accordance with an approved plan. Ad hoc development of individual sites runs the risk of a piecemeal, fragmented approach to the development process, and would reduce the potential for broader benefits to be secured in terms of integrating new local access networks, or involving the community in the planning and delivery of local services. There is a need to balance a reasonable degree of certainty with the need for flexibility to plan for a possible range of future uses across the precinct. The use of the proposed DPO is the best approach to assist with integrated planning while maintaining appropriate respect for the local context through requirements that have been incorporated into the proposed overlay schedule. Page 108

116 The Panel generally supports Council as it is appropriate to use a DPO to manage development given a coordinated development response is required, but has some concerns with a number of the sub precincts which will be covered in the following sections. The Panel notes that the DPO head clause exempts development which is in accordance with the approved development plan from further notice and review. The Panel considers that this is appropriate given the level of consideration which is afforded through the development plan to interface issues. The Panel accepts Council s proposed changes to DPO11 to provide additional guidance in relation to the transition and interface of taller buildings to the surrounding residential areas. The Panel accepts the transitional buffer areas nominated in the post exhibition DPO concept plan (February 2014). A concern with the application of the DPO is the removal of third party rights. The DPO schedule provides: An application under any provision of this scheme which is generally in accordance with the development plan is exempt from the notice requirements of Section 52(1)(a), (b) and (d), the decision requirements of Section 64(1), (2) and (3) and the review rights of Section 82(1) of the Act. The concern is that where no standards or details are prescribed in the schedule there can be no certainty for third parties about what the development plan will consist of. Practice Note 23 Applying the Incorporated Plan and Development Plan Overlays states: Because the DPO has no public approval process for the plan, it should normally be applied to development proposals that are not likely to significantly affect third party interests, self contained sites where ownership is limited to one or two parties and sites that contain no existing residential population and do not adjoin established residential areas. It is possible to draft a requirement in the DPO schedule that the plan be exhibited by the responsible authority albeit recognising that there is no way of requiring the responsible authority to consider any submission without adding legal complications. Because there are no third party rights, the use of the DPO places more responsibility with Council to ensure that the overall development properly balances the amenity concerns of existing residents with the need to efficiently develop land. Development Plans must be approved by the responsible authority and it is common for councils to consult their community before making a decision. Including a clause in the DPO schedule to this effect would clarify expectations, recognising that this does not give third party rights of review. A Clause to require notice of the development plan is proposed by the Panel. To be practical the Clause needs to set specific timing. The Panel adopts timings used in DPOs in other situations, but an alternative timing could also be acceptable. The Panel does not see that direct residential abuttal automatically mean that third party rights need to be maintained. The critical issue is whether the planning framework can provide a level of comfort that the interests of third parties will be appropriately addressed. The overall impact on adjoining properties is something that would be determined in the master planning processes leading to the development plan. The interface between Page 109

117 residential development is well defined in planning being covered in Clauses 54 and 55, and alternative setbacks or the like could be part of a development plan for non residential uses. The DPO schedule should be strengthened to identify transitional buffer zones on DPO11 s concept plan to ensure development provides a transition in height and massing to surrounding lower scale form and within the precinct. Including guidance about the transition from taller built form to lower scale residential areas, especially areas within heritage overlays will allow the transitions and off site impacts to be properly planned as part of the preparation of the development Plan. Given the pattern of existing development and the scale of development ultimately in keeping with the area, the panel considers that it is appropriate to specify a preferred maximum building height of threes storeys along streetscapes, with additional storeys to be located toward the centre of large blocks. In preparing the development the impact of the building bulk and mass on adjoining and adjacent areas should be explicitly considered. (iii) Conclusions and recommendations The Panel concludes: The DPO is the appropriate tool to manage development in the Oakover Precinct. The Panel recommends: Amend DPO11 schedule to: a) Include the objective to ensure development provides a transition in height and massing to surrounding lower scale form and within the precinct where appropriate b) Include new guidance about the transition from taller built form to lower scale residential areas, especially areas within heritage overlays c) Include a preferred maximum building height of threes storeys along streetscapes other than St Georges Road, with additional storeys to be located toward the centre of large blocks d) Require new developments to consider the impact of the building s bulk and mass on adjoining and adjacent areas. Amend DPO11 schedule to include Display of Development Plan a) Before deciding to approve a development plan, the responsible authority must display the plan for public comment. b) Notice of the development plan must be given to the owners and occupiers of adjoining land. c) A development plan must be displayed or further information required within 28 days after the plan is received by the responsible authority. The plan must be displayed within 14 days of satisfactory further information being received. d) The development plan must be displayed for at least 14 days but no longer than 28. Amend DPO11 schedule to include transitional buffer zones on the concept plan. Page 110

118 8.7.4 St Georges Road West Side (i) Submissions Sub precinct 1 Penola/Stokes includes vacant Department of Human Services land and single storey and detached dwellings. The street blocks run in a north south direction with block lengths of approximately 400metres. Council informed the Panel that the Department of Human Services is seeking to redevelop land in the short to medium term and Council sought a coordinated approach in order to manage the redevelopment of this area and facilitate east west connections. Sub precinct 2 Newman Mixed Use has a number of underutilised and disused sites. Newman Reserve provides a strong focus for the sub precinct and has potential for redevelopment with shops, cafes and other commercial uses to create active street frontages and Council noted the park interface will allow taller buildings which could step down in height towards the north: Without the increased density of development and population, the shops and cafes cannot happen, and without the redevelopment, Newman Reserve remains underutilised. Council submitted revitalisation of this area is central to the purpose of the DPO however because of the fragmented land ownership a coordinated approach is necessary to avoid adhoc redevelopment. Council submitted that the use of DDO16 Precinct 7 outside the DPO11 area will facilitate well designed higher density buildings and manage off site impacts consistent with the planning provisions which apply to the balance of the corridor land. Submissions from residents in Penola and Stotts Streets generally expressed concern in relation to the proposed heights, loss of character and impact on amenity as a consequence of taller buildings adjoining their land. A number of submitters (e.g. Mr Richards) raised concerns about the proposed height for the Department of Human Services owned land, and suggested that this should be 2 storeys, and not the proposed 4 to 6 storeys, as a reduced height would facilitate the development to blend in with the surrounding built form. Ms Wakefield and Ms Vogelsang, whilst generally opposed to the proposed development heights in Penola Street, requested that their property be included within the bounds of DPO11 as they will be surrounded by 4 to 6 storey development on two property boundaries as well as across the road. They expressed concern that one half of the street was to be rezoned and included in DPO11 or DDO16 and they were not that they had to live with the consequences of the rezoning but did not gain any economic benefit from it. They submitted the boundary for DPO11 should be further north and include their property. They suggested a more acceptable building height would be 3 to 4 storeys. DDO16 Precinct 7 A number of submissions were received from members of the community who adjoin the proposed DDO16 Precinct 7 to the west of St Georges Road where building heights range from 4 to 6 storeys or 4 to 5 storeys. Page 111

119 Submissions from the south of Oakover Road noted that the land adjoining St Georges Road is a heritage precinct. Submitters raised concerns about the proposed building heights and the impact this would have on their amenity. For example, Mr and Mrs Rickards submitted that the proposed 4 to 5 storey height adjoining their property in Davies Street was a significant change to the current situation as they are within a heritage overlay and the street currently has only single storey detached housing. The properties which front St Georges Road are similarly single storey. The Rickards submitted that development of five storey apartments on St Georges Road to their rear would significantly change the way they operate within their home and back yard and that a two storey maximum height limit on St Georges Road for properties south of Oakover Road would be more appropriate. (ii) Discussion The Panel agrees Ms Wakefield and Ms Vogelsang s submission in relation to the proposed northern boundary of higher built form under DPO11 west of St Georges Road. The boundary is problematic in that it unnecessarily creates a tension between taller buildings and existing single storey housing. The Panel can see merit in keeping the boundary of the DPO but considers that the boundary for higher density development should be specified to align with the proposed northern most pedestrian link. Given the potential for the land and surrounding development it would be appropriate to prepare the Development Plan for the balance of the land bounded by Stokes and Penola as well as land on the east side of Penola Street to facilitate 4 to 6 storeys as proposed by the Amendment, with a transition to the lower scaled housing further north. The Panel is of the view that the west side of Stott Street should be zoned RGZ with a 4 storey height limit. DDO16 Precinct 7 The Panel notes that south of Miller Street building heights are 4 to 6 storeys and that the area west of St Georges Road north of Miller Street is within a precinct wide heritage overlay characterised by single storey period homes. It is difficult to see how the scale of development proposed relates to the surrounding area. The Panel considers a reduced height of 3 to 4 storeys is appropriate in this context and that the land should also be rezoned to RGZ. For development north of Oakover Road, the Panel similarly considers that height should be tempered to provide a consistent built form to the south side of the Oakover precinct. (iii) Recommendations The Panel recommends: Amend the DPO11 schedule to specify lower rise residential north of the proposed northern pedestrian connection on the west side of St Georges Road. Amend DDO16 to apply a 4 storeys height limit to Precinct 7 (St Georges Road Precinct 7). Page 112

120 Amend the proposed zoning for land covered by DDO16 Precinct 7 from MUZ2 to RGZ (St Georges Road Precinct 7) St Georges Road East Side DPO Sub Precinct 3 Landmark (i) Submission Sub precinct 3 Landmark has a frontage to St Georges Road of approximately 160metres between the tram depot and the Ray Bramham Gardens. 30 St Georges Road is a large parcel of land (6,000sqm) in single ownership and could accommodate a podium tower building of 8 to 12 storeys as a landmark development. Mr Alexander, on behalf of 30 St Georges Road, submitted that the word exemplary should be replaced with quality development. He suggested design which befits the site s prominence might be more appropriate. (ii) Discussion and conclusion The Panel agrees that this site has significant development potential. The Panel considers that sub precinct 3 has the capacity to contribute to redevelopment and revitalisation in the area with taller buildings and a coordinated development response. The Panel accepts that the exhibited heights and MUZ1 zone are appropriate for this location. The Panel does not support the submission that the wording of exemplary design is overly onerous and agrees that it is important to facilitate a quality architectural response on this prominent site St Georges Road East Side DPO Sub Precinct 4 Kenwood Showers (i) Submissions Sub precinct 4 Kenwood Showers has ageing public housing at low densities in its southern part. The area also has high redevelopment potential and is in close proximity to the Junction and Bell station. Council proposed that taller built form could be accommodated here because of the interface to the south with the Yarra Trams Depot. Council submitted that it is logical to include the private residential land within this precinct given the land s locational advantages but agreed that the redevelopment of this area is likely to occur at a later stage because the current housing stock is sought after and well maintained. Council contended that it is important to protect the potential of the area as longer term redevelopment pressure will occur. In post exhibition changes Council proposed to include the following in DPO11: A new front setback requirement for properties fronting Oakover Road and Austral Avenue to reduce the impact on the smaller scale residential development across the road, especially those to the south which are in HO166 Specific guidance for building setbacks and streetscape conditions on the northern side of Oakover Road to create an attractive and landscaped streetscape Page 113

121 In their post exhibition changes however Council proposed to create Showers Street as a sub precinct on its own to recognise the need for a transitional buffer between the street and 30 St Georges Road and Kenwood Court as shown on the post exhibition concept plan. Council also proposed to include rear setback requirements to recognise the fragmented land ownership of Showers Street. Ms Oakley and a number of other residents from Showers Street submitted that the majority of the single storey, single fronted village has a strongly valued local character and rejected Council s proposal to rezone the street to Mixed Use as part of the Oakover Village precinct. Ms Caraballo and Mr Sinclair also supported the view that the need for the redevelopment of the obsolete industrial and vacant land in the Oakover Precinct has overlooked the value of the local character and environment in Shower Street. Ms Caraballo suggested that 4 to 6 storeys would be more acceptable for the strategic development sites on St Georges Road and she supported the stepped building profiles. Ms Caraballo, Mr and Mrs Sinclair sought the removal of Showers, Penola and Stokes Streets from the Amendment in order to retain the existing character. Council responded to these concerns that the Mixed Use zoning was determined as part of the overall plan for Oakover Village. (ii) Discussion Whilst the Panel acknowledges that Oakover generally has redevelopment potential, the Panel has concerns with the scale of change that is proposed, particularly in the smaller residential streets. On inspection, the Panel noted the distinctly residential and well maintained nature of the predominantly single storey cottages on the narrow Showers Street. It is apparent from submissions received from the local community, that whilst the land on St Georges Road and the DHS land might display signs of neglect and need for revitalisation, that this is not true for the balance of the residential streets which form the hinterland to St Georges Road, including properties on the north side of Showers Street. The Panel does not agree that the conditions at this time warrant the rezoning of the area to MUZ2 and concludes that the RGZ is more appropriate with a 4 storey height limit to balance the residential context with capacity for growth. This approach does not require the application of a DPO to coordinate development, and including these properties in the DPO will unnecessarily complicate the preparation of the development plan. (iii) Conclusions and recommendations The Panel concludes: The proposed building heights and land use zones for DPO11 sub precincts 3 and 4 are appropriate and justified. The Panel recommends: Amend DPO11 to exclude land on the north side of Showers Street east of St Georges Road. Amend the proposed zoning for land north side of Showers Street east of St Georges Road from MUZ2 to RGZ (St Georges Road Precinct 7). Page 114

122 Apply DDO controls or controls under the zone to land on the north side of Showers Street east of St Georges Road to set a height of 4 storeys (St Georges Road Precinct 7) Traffic, access and pedestrian links (i) Submissions A number of submitters raised concerns in relation to car parking and traffic as a consequence of the proposed development of Oakover Village. Ms Rizzo submitted that there is a need to provide commercial car parking spaces in the Oakover Precinct. A number of submitters (e.g. Ms Cornwallis, Ms Roberts) raised concerns in relation to the potential for Council to waive car parking requirements in the precinct and that traffic and safety in relation to vehicles and parking has not been adequately dealt with. Submitters suggested off street parking had not been planned for and as a consequence local streets would be used for on street parking including the narrow Showers Street. Ms Thorpe and Ms Brown in relation to Penola Street contended that development would result in excessive on street parking, traffic and diminish the safety of Penola Street for children. Ms Wheeler supported the provision of car sharing pods as part of developments in the precinct as a means of reducing car parking demand, as well as providing sufficient bicycle storage. Council responded noting that DPO11 requires an integrated transport and traffic management plan as a background report to document existing conditions and consider coordinated solutions to car parking and traffic. Pedestrian Links Council submitted that a key purpose of DPO11 is to improve connectivity within the precinct given the existing block lengths which in some cases were several hundred metres. Whilst a number of submissions supported improved connectivity, some residents expressed concern about the safety of the proposed connections and the impact these would have on their properties located beside them. Mr Alexander, on behalf of 30 St Georges Road, submitted that the east west link shown on the proposed DPO11 is not warranted due to the block length and should be deleted. He further submitted that the north south link is warranted but suggested that the Kenwood Court connection is already half way there and could be used for this purpose. (ii) Discussion The Panel is satisfied that the issue of car parking and traffic management is appropriately dealt with by requiring a background report to inform the development plan. The Panel agrees with Council that the existing block lengths within the Oakover Village do not promote pedestrian connectivity and a development plan can facilitate a coordinated approach to improving this situation with targeted pedestrian links. The Panel therefore supports the use of pedestrian links to guide the Development Plan response, but considers their locations should be refined. East of St Georges Road the pedestrian link should run from the court bowl of Kenwood Court north to Showers Street. This will provide connectivity and align with the right of way Page 115

123 to provide access to Ray Bramham Gardens. This is seen as a far more achievable link that the link proposed. The Panel agrees that there is no practical need for a new pedestrian link in an east west direction to the east of St Georges Road. (iii) Recommendation The Panel recommends: Amend DPO Schedule 11 to: a) Move the north south link pedestrian link located east of St Georges Road to run from the court bowl of Kenwood Court north to Showers Street. b) Remove the east west pedestrian link east of St Georges Road. Page 116

124 8.8 St Georges Road Precinct 8 Preston Central Western Edge (i) Precinct overview St Georges Road Precinct 8 extends north of Bell Street to Murray Road Figure 15: Precinct 8 Preston Central Western Edge (SGR UDF) Council stated Precinct 8 is diverse and comprises residential pockets, the NMIT Preston campus, recent multi storey apartment buildings, public open space and a commercial edge along Bell Street which is under utilised. The precinct crosses boundaries with the Precinct Central Structure Plan 2005 which identified two land mark sites in the north east of the precinct which have been recognised in the UDF for consistency. Page 117

125 (ii) What the Amendment proposes The Amendment proposes to apply DDO16 and rezone land: On the west side of St Georges Road: north side of Bell Street from R1Z to C1Z with a 4 to 6 storey height limit to the north and south of Leicester Street from R1Z to RGZ with a 3 to 4 storey height limit next to NMIT and fronting Cramer Street from R1Z to MUZ2 with a 4 to 6 storey height limit between Cramer Street and Murray Road from R1Z to RGZ with a 3 to 4 storey height limit On the east side of St Georges Road: on the block bounded by St Georges Road, Cramer Street, Edith Street and Bruce Street from R1Z to RGZ with a 3 to 4 storey height limit between Bruce Street through to 68 St Georges Road from R1Z to GRZ with a 2 to 3 storey height limit The exhibited DDO16 has the following objectives for the precinct: To provide for increased residential densities utilising the excellent location attributes of this area To allow for development capable of accommodating a diversity of mixed use and residential outcomes based on the valued context features; To recognise the important gateway at the Bell Street / St Georges Road intersection through high quality built form and active ground level frontages to both roads (iii) What are the issues? Are the proposed building heights and land use controls appropriate for this precinct? (iv) Submissions Council submitted that: New development in this precinct should work towards creating a cohesive character that recognises and supports the nearby Preston Central Principal Activity Centre. In the long term this area will be dominated by residential uses at higher densities, recognising the demand for student housing created by NMIT, and to leverage the excellent locational advantages. Council submitted that the precinct s location near the Preston Activity Centre and public transport warrants increased residential densities. The RGZ has been applied in recognition of the growth pressure associated with the land s proximity to the NMIT campus and the GRZ has been used in areas where there is an existing HO in place. Council further submitted the DDO has been applied to blocks which face Edith Street in order to facilitate lot consolidation given the narrow lot depth of the properties which front St Georges Road. In the only submission received regarding precinct 8 Mr Kemp and Mr Azhar questioned the inclusion of properties on Bruce and Edith Streets as inconsistent with the balance of the Amendment which focuses on land fronting St Georges Road. They consider the different Page 118

126 land use controls and building heights for the two sides of Bruce Street will adversely affect neighbourhood character by being inconsistent. Council did not support any changes in response to the submission. (v) Discussion The Panel accepts that the precinct warrants increased residential densities and notes that Council has chosen to take a different approach to that which has been used in the Oakover precinct. The Panel observes that HO184 applies to the land south of Bruce Street fronting St Georges Road and notes Council s amended submission plan from February 2014 which shows this land as being part of a neighbourhood character area. It would appear that Council is attempting to restructure the block bounded by St Georges Road, Cramer Street, Edith Street and Bruce Street in order to facilitate larger parcels of land for development. The Panel considers that the DDO is not the ideal tool for this task as it is premised on development backing on to adjoining lower scale development where, in this case, back to back parcels could be redeveloped. Using the DDO in this instance may create problems with built form, connectivity and access outcomes depending on the sequence of land development, particularly given that the DDO includes rear setback requirements. The Panel does not support the application of the DDO to the block bounded by St Georges Road, Cramer Street, Edith Street and Bruce Street. The Panel considers that Precinct 8 is in need of a broader vision to maximise the potential offered by the NMIT campus and public transport. Council has chosen to use the DPO for the Oakover Precinct where similar conditions apply. The Panel is of the view that Precinct 8 should similarly be defined more widely in order to establish a holistic vision. (vi) Conclusions and recommendation The Panel concludes: Council should undertake further strategic work to formulate built form and land use controls for a more broadly defined Precinct 8. The Panel recommends: Remove the block bounded by St Georges Road, Cramer Street, Edith Street and Bruce Street from the DDO. Page 119

127 9 Plenty Road Corridor Precincts 9.1 The Junction DDO General issues (i) Precinct overview The Junction is located at the confluence of High Street and Plenty Road as shown above. Council describes the Junction as:... land north of Miller Street / Dundas Street formed by the divergence of Plenty Road off High Street. It includes land within the physical junction itself, and surrounding areas identified on the (Framework Plan) The Junction offers core retail functions, lifestyle shopping, public transport, minimal residential interfaces (save for at the periphery) as well as entertainment (i.e. The Junction Hotel). Figure 16: The Junction Precinct Plan (from exhibited Clause The Junction Local Area Plan) Page 120

128 Figure 17: Existing Junction Local Area Plan (Clause 22.02) (left) / Existing extent of DDO3 (right) The Junction Local Area Plan from Clause shows the extent to which current policy applies. The current DDO3 applies to a smaller section of the precinct. The UDF described the Junction s existing conditions: Some industrial uses that previously operated in The Junction area (trade supplies, automotive repairs) remain. Some old industrial as well as some ground floor spaces of new buildings are vacant. The built form is of varying character, ranging from single to double storey old industrial brick buildings to new multiple storey developments with glass, metal, render concreted surfaces. As a result, the streetscape varies greatly and the Precinct lacks a coherent identity. The UDF also described the establishment of the Junction revitalisation: The Junction continues to be transformed from an industrial area in decline into an intensive urban activity centre. The change has resulted in the construction of over 1000 apartments during the last 10 years. This transformation is the result of The Junction Integrated Development Plan 2001 which set the direction for future development and formed the basis for a zone change from industrial to business use. This amendment introduced Clause The Junction Local Area Plan policy and objectives and referenced the Junction Integrated Development Plan Dec The UDF has the following preferred outcome for the Junction precinct: The Junction (formerly known as the South Preston Activity Centre) will strengthen its role as an inner urban mixed use intensive neighbourhood activity centre. This will be achieved by taking a place making approach to build on its existing assets, locational advantages and promote an emerging urban centre character. Page 121

129 (ii) What the Amendment proposes Amendment C137 proposes to: rezone a number of parcels of land within the Junction to MUZ1, MUZ2 or C1Z extend the area to which DDO3 applies and generally increase the building heights allowed under the current controls revise Clause The Junction Local Area Plan: to remove The Junction Integrated Development Plan (2001) as a reference document, update the Junction Local Area Plan in relation to the Plenty Road Corridor Urban Design Framework 2013 and insert the Plenty Road Corridor Urban Design Framework 2013 into the Clause as a reference document. Amendment C137 proposes to extend DDO3: so that it applies along High Street from Miller Street north to Bell Street (with the exception of a number of properties near to the Bell Street intersection) north along Plenty Road through to the south side of Bell Street. Properties fronting Raglan Street to the north are also to be included in DDO3. (iii) What are the issues? Is the strategic direction and proposed controls for the Junction appropriate? Are the proposed controls for a number of individual sites within the Junction appropriate? Strategic direction and general submissions (i) Evidence and submissions Council submitted that the proposed Junction Precinct Plan is an evolution and refinement of the previous Junction Local Plan. The proposed controls seek to improve some of the perceived deficiencies in the current planning provisions with the objective of improving building design and place making outcomes. Mr McKenzie on behalf of 3 15 High Street, Preston and Ms Heggen in expert evidence both saw the expansion of the Junction as a logical refinement of the existing strategic direction. Ms Heggen stated: In the context of the change that has occurred over the last decade and the establishment of the Junction as an area of higher density development and mixed uses, I consider it logical for the DDO3 to cover a wider area in which there is likely to be developer interest and which can contribute to the next phase of generational change within the centre. Mr McKenzie s view was that the strategic vision for the Junction, as an area identified for substantial change, was not adequately reflected in DDO3. He submitted the purpose of exhibiting C138 and C137 together was to utilise the strategic opportunity to mesh the aims of the Amendments together and identify areas of substantial change and housing renewal. He therefore suggested that the MSS and DDO3 should talk to each other in this respect. A number of submissions from community members were less supportive of the proposed strategic direction. For example, Ms Nash and Ms Chalmers rejected further high density development in the Junction. They submitted there are already high vacancy rates within Page 122

130 the area and further development of concrete block high rise with minimal open space would do little to add to the charm or character of the area. A number of submitters were concerned with the impact of development on adjoining areas including Mr and Mrs Elliot who noted that the policy section is largely silent on the need to minimise the impact of development on surrounding residential streets, in particular those with heritage significance. (ii) Discussion The Panel notes the current strategic direction for the Junction is well established, supports Council s review and refinement of the existing planning controls, and agrees that the proposed strategic direction is broadly appropriate and justified. Whilst acknowledging concerns from some local residents in relation to the further intensification of the Junction, the Panel considers the interface issues are well resolved through the Amendment and have provided extensive comment and discussion in relation to these general issues in Chapters 4 and 5. The Panel supports the strategic direction however it considers that Council should look at the Junction precinct more holistically. The current Junction Local Area Plan in Clause identifies the Junction more broadly and the Panel accepts there is a problem because the extent of the existing DDO3 and mapped area for the application of this policy do not align. The Panel agrees that more direction in terms of built form outcomes is required however questions why Council has not continued to view the Junction in this broader context. For example, it seems unusual not to include the land located in the wedge between Plenty Road and High Street given that this land has been identified for substantial change in the Housing Framework. Furthermore, the Junction straddles the rail corridor to its west and it seems anomalous that the precinct would not contemplate the future of this land within the growth context and vision which this Amendment seeks to establish. While the Panel recognises that this is beyond the scope of the current Amendment, it encourages Council to consider the boundaries of the Junction precinct more widely as part of its review of the application of the RGZ. Unlike DDO16 and DDO17 which contain maps, Clause includes the Precinct map for the Junction, not the exhibited DDO3. Council s post exhibition changes have amended DDO3 to include The Junction Precinct map. Whilst it is appropriate and indeed desirable for a local policy of this nature to include a plan, the Panel believes that similar to the discussion in Chapter 5 of this report, the plan in Clause should not explicitly detail rear setback provisions. These provisions should be expressed as a set of rules within DDO3. (iii) Conclusions and recommendations The Panel concludes: The strategic direction proposed for the Junction is appropriate and justified but an extended Junction precinct should be examined in further strategic work as an area designated for substantial change. The Panel recommends: Remove the rear setback requirements from the map in Clause The Junction Local Area Plan. Page 123

131 9.1.3 Pedestrian and links and cycle infrastructure (i) What is the issue? Are the pedestrian links indicated on DDO3 appropriate? (ii) Evidence and submissions Ms Heggen illustrated why it is problematic to show the location of pedestrian connections in DDO3 s map through the Paintmobile site and stated it would be preferable to require pedestrian connections as a design objective approximately 100 metres apart. She suggested the objective could require two links be provided in the block bounded by Plenty Road, High street and Raglan Street. Mr Cicero submitted DDO3 required redrafting in relation to sharing the burden of the provision of pedestrian connections so that this does not fall unfairly on one land owner. Mr Bonadio also objected to the denotation on DDO3 of a pedestrian link through his site at and Plenty Road. He suggested that this would take away from the exclusiveness of any development constructed on the site and result in security concerns. In response to submissions, Council stated pedestrian traffic will increase in an east west direction through the precinct and therefore supports the need for the additional connections. Council contended that the central wedge in the precinct currently acts as a barrier to east west pedestrian movement and the intention of the link is to improve street block permeability. Council further suggested that businesses at ground level in this commercial area would benefit from the additional connection and pedestrian traffic. Council proposed to change the Amendment by modifying the pedestrian link in the central block of the DDO3 map to align with the cadastral boundaries. In relation to alternative transport modes and connectivity, Mr Kneale suggested a number of changes to the wording of DDO3 in order to promote cycling and cycling infrastructure including secure bicycle parking and that east west connectivity within the Junction should be encouraged. (iii) Discussion The Panel supports the further recognition of the importance of bicycles as a form of active transport by including reference to cyclists in the design objectives. In relation to pedestrian links, the Panel believes Mr Cicero s submission raises a broader issue of pedestrian links shown on the DDO3 map. A number of recent panels (e.g. Melbourne Southbank Structure Plan C171, Melbourne City North Structure Plan C196) have dealt extensively with the use of plans to mandate the location of pedestrian links. In both of these cases, the Panel was critical of their use because the links were not strategically targeted. Whilst the Panel agrees that new pedestrian connections should be provided as a design objective and negotiated rather than mandated by way of a plan, it is also of the view that where pedestrian connections are shown to be targeted, logical, and achievable, then they should be shown on a plan. The two links which align with cadastral boundaries between the block wedged between High Street and Plenty Road are logical, achievable, and strategically justified. The Panel therefore supports their inclusion in DDO3 as well the Page 124

132 inclusion of an explicit design objective that pedestrian permeability should be enhanced where block lengths exceed 100 metres. This objective should be included in all the exhibited DDOs. In relation to the other links nominated on the DDO3 map and indeed the other DDO maps, the Panel however does not support their inclusion on the maps. (iv) Recommendations The Panel recommends: Amend DDO3 to include the amended pedestrian connections shown on the post exhibition version of the DDO3 plan. Include a design objective in the DDOs to provide pedestrian connections where block lengths exceed 100 metres. Amend DDO3 to include a design objective to encourage the integration of infrastructure for cyclists in new developments High Street (i) What is the issue? Is the 4 to 6 storey height limit for 3 15 High Street appropriate? (ii) Evidence and submissions Mr McKenzie contended that the horse has already bolted in terms of requiring a reduced height as proposed in the exhibited DDO3 and that it does not make sense to have a 4 to 6 storey height limit in this location given the existing conditions. He noted there is already an existing 8 storey building within this precinct on the corner of High and Miller Streets. He stated the controls should be similar to those proposed further north which contemplate 8 storeys as per the existing conditions. He submitted a better outcome would be to have a 6 to 8 storey height limit along Miller Street towards the railway line which would be consistent with the vision for the Junction as an area of substantial change. Mr McKenzie s submission was supported in evidence by Ms Heggen: I question the identification of land at 1 High Street (corner of High Street and Miller Street) as appropriate for merely 4 6 storeys, given an 8 storey building was approved here and is now approaching completion. Council noted there is already adequate capacity within the Junction for 5,540 dwellings at the exhibited heights and there was no strategic need for an increased height at this site. Council stated it did not wish to increase the building height in order to protect the residential amenity of adjoining properties. (iii) Discussion Given the existing 8 storey built form in this street block and the proposed 8 storey built form for the area to the north there is no justification for a 4 to 6 storeys limit. It may well be that the increased height is not required from a capacity point of view but it is not a fair or orderly approach to apply arbitrary restrictions on one precinct because capacity is supplied in another. A consistent and fair approach needs to be taken across all precincts. Page 125

133 (iv) Recommendation The Panel recommends: Amend DDO3 to apply a building height in the block between Miller Street and Oakover Road on the west side of High Street of 8 storeys (The Junction) /50 Plenty Road (Woolworths site) (i) What is the issue? Is the 12 storey height limit for 1/50 Plenty Road appropriate? (ii) Submissions Of the 24 submissions received in relation to the Junction Precinct, 17 were from residents behind the Woolworths site to the east. Submitters (e.g. Mr and Ms Athanasiadis, Mr and Ms Vassiliou) expressed concerns the controls within DDO3 were inadequate to minimise the visual impact of any new development or avoid the loss of privacy and sunlight for existing residents, particularly for those properties adjoining the site in Roxburgh Street. Mr and Ms Elliott noted a Heritage Overlay (HO302 and HO304) has recently been applied to properties fronting Roxburgh Street and the proposed height for the Woolworths site would be contrary to the objectives of the HO. They suggested a reduced height of 7 to 8 storeys would be more appropriate. Council acknowledged the location is a strategic site and will play an important role in providing for housing in the future. It also noted the controls are designed to allow 12 storeys on the Plenty Road frontage with a reduced height towards sensitive residential interfaces. The controls will provide for a ground level set back of 3 metres and first level setback of 5.5 metres. Council proposed to amend Table 1 of DDO3 to include additional guidelines and design principles specific to the site to ensure a transitional interface to the sensitive residential edge: Additional principles that acknowledge the greater lot depth, irregular shape, and the westerly fall of the site. Inclusion of further emphasis of transition in building scale towards the sensitive eastern (rear) interface by the introduction of a transition buffer with a preferred height of 4 storeys. Council submitted some concern may have arisen because of the Framework Plan mapping. Council stated 12 storeys would only be supported on the Plenty Road frontage and not proximate to Roxburgh Street. (iii) Discussion The Panel agrees with the approach to acknowledge the strategic potential of this site by allowing additional height and accepts the site is large enough to accommodate 12 storey buildings to the Plenty Road frontage. The Panel notes the site adjoins HO302. Any future permit will need to consider the impact on the heritage values of HO302. Page 126

134 Plenty Road (Paintmobile Pty Ltd ) (i) What is the issue? Are the heights of 8 to 18 storeys for 6 34 High Street and 31 Plenty Road appropriate? (ii) Evidence and submissions The Paintmobile site has been identified as a strategic site with a preferred building height of 8 to 18 storeys and Mr Cicero noted the owner s endorsement of the strategic outcome proposed for the site subject to a number of refinements. These refinements related to the nominated heights for the various parcels within the site and the ground level treatment requirements. Drawing on evidence provided by Ms Heggen, Mr Cicero submitted that: a building height of 18 storeys on the subject site, will not impede reasonable development outcomes for other sites, particularly, those to the north, south and west. Ms Heggen suggested that a building of this height would add visual interest to the area given the site was a visual terminus for the vista along High Street. She considered the revised DDO3 responded to the mid rise development scenario sought by the UDF vision. Mr Cicero relied on Ms Heggen s evidence in relation to DDO3 s requirements for the treatment of the ground level. In Ms Heggen s view it is not appropriate within an urban context to provide for a 3 metre landscape setback on the ground level where urban character and development to the street edge should be promoted. Ms Heggen stated it was not clear whether DDO3 allowed 8 to 18 storeys for the heritage listed Junction Hotel. She stated she did not see the heritage listing as an impediment to development as there had been many successful examples of heritage buildings being incorporated into high rise redevelopment sites. She further added the car park should, at least, be considered as a strategic redevelopment site. Not all submissions were supportive of the nominated height for the site. For example, Mr and Ms Elliott submitted that 18 storeys was excessive, would impact on the nearby heritage areas of Roxburgh Street, Larne Grove and Milton Crescent and suggested a reduced height of 12 storeys would be more appropriate. Council proposed to change the Amendment by modifying DDO3: To provide further clarification of the landmark site provisions as per the UDF To clarify that the strategic site comprises both 6 34 High Street and 31 Plenty Road. (iii) Discussion This is a key location within an identified activity centre. The site is capable of taking a tall structure of up to 18 storeys without undue impact on adjoining sites. The Panel supports changes to DDO3 to recognise the site comprises 6 34 High Street as well as 31 Plenty Road. The Panel agrees it is not appropriate within an urban context within an activity centre to provide a 3 metre landscape setback on the ground level. It considers this is inconsistent with the strategic aim for the Junction to create a vibrant mixed use activity centre. DDO3 Page 127

135 should not thwart these aims by requiring conditions that are not urban in nature and should be amended to encourage zero boundary setbacks. Council should explore other avenues such as street tree planting or including a design objective for urban forms of landscaping such as green walls and roofs. (iv) Recommendations The Panel recommends: Amend DDO3 to apply a building height of 18 storeys to 6 34 High Street and 31 Plenty Road (the Junction). Amend DDO3 to remove the requirement for landscaped setbacks at ground level front property boundaries. Amend DDO3 to include a design objective to encourage urban forms of landscaping such as green walls and roofs High Street and Plenty Road (i) What is the issue? Are the proposed heights of 8 to 12 storeys for High Street and Plenty Road appropriate? (ii) Submissions Mr Bonadio submitted the proposed building height of 8 to 12 storeys will restrict development of the site given the costs associated with decontamination of the land. He further submitted the presence of a water table at 6 to 7 metres below ground level would restrict underground car parking and this would need to be provided above ground. Mr Bonadio stated despite having obtained planning approval for an 11 storey development on the land, this is not financially viable as a consequence of the contamination, high water table and that further height was needed in order to make the development economic. Council rejected the request for additional height for the site to offset clean up costs. (iii) Discussion The Panel considers the nominated building heights for the site provides a transition away from the visual terminus at the junction of High Street and Plenty Road where the tallest built form is encouraged. The Panel considers that 8 to 12 storeys are appropriate for the subject land. (iv) Conclusion The Panel concludes: 8 to 12 storeys are appropriate for High Street and Plenty Road. Page 128

136 High Street (i) What is the issue? Is the height proposed for 154 High Street appropriate? (ii) Submissions Mr Glossop on behalf of 154 High Street Pty Ltd questioned the nominated heights of 4 to 6 storeys given that elsewhere on High Street Council has proposed 8 storeys. He questioned why the 30 degrees rear setback has been applied to the site as the property does not adjoin a heritage overlay. Council did not support a change in height provisions. (iii) Discussion The Panel has already discussed in detail the issue of rear setback conditions in Section 5.4 of this report. The Panel has concluded that setbacks should be 45 degrees. In relation to height, the Panel does not agree that the heights nominated for 154 High Street can be compared to properties south of Oakover Road. Council have nominated a consistent height control for the land north of Showers/Raglan Streets along High Street and the Panel accepts that this is an appropriate outcome for this location. (iv) Conclusion The Panel concludes: The proposed height for 154 High Street is appropriate. Page 129

137 9.2 Plenty Road Precinct 1 Preston Central Eastern Edge (i) Precinct overview Figure 18: Plenty Road Framework Plan Precinct 1 Preston Central Eastern Edge (Source Plenty Road UDF) Plenty Road Precinct 1 Preston Central Eastern Edge extends north of Bell Street through to south of Murray Road. This precinct forms the eastern edge of the Preston Central Structure Plan area and Council submitted their preferred outcome is consistent with the Structure Plan and sympathetically responds to the heritage values of the area. Page 130

138 (ii) What the Amendment proposes The Amendment proposes to apply DDO17 along the entirety of the Precinct except for the Tram Depot north of Bell Street on the west side of Plenty Road. DDO17 nominates building heights of 4 to 6 storeys for the precinct except for the block on the east side of Plenty Road, north of Gower Street and south of Murray Road. Building heights of 3 to 4 storeys are proposed here. The Amendment also proposes to rezone land in this precinct: Between Bell Street and David Street land generally from IN3Z to C1Z Between David Street and Gower Street, from R1Z to MUZ2 or MUZ1 Between Gower Street and Murray Road, from either IN3Z or R1Z to MUZ2 or MUZ1. The exhibited DDO17 has the following objectives for this precinct: To encourage new development that supports the role and function of the Preston Central Activity Centre through a built form of 3 6 storeys with active frontages at ground level in commercial and mixed use zoned land which affords the provision of small scale businesses and the opportunity for local employment. (iii) What are the issues? Are the proposed building heights and land use controls appropriate for this precinct? (iv) Submissions Thirteen individual and proforma submissions were received which related to Precinct 1. A number of submissions related to properties north of David Street and south of Gower Street which are proposed to be rezoned from R1Z to MUZ1 or MUZ2. The submissions questioned why Council was seeking to rezone this section of Plenty Road for commercial purposes when numerous existing shops are untenanted. Ms Lloyd for example expressed concern about her property being rezoned from R1Z to MUZ1. Other submissions questioned the proposed heights and why there were different building heights proposed for the blocks between David and Gower Streets (4 to 6 storeys) and the west side of Gower Street and Murray Road (3 to 4 storeys). They noted the lots between David and Gower Streets are smaller and narrower in configuration than the properties further north and objected to the block between David and Gower being earmarked for 4 to 6 storey development. Other submitters from this precinct believed the area should be a maximum of 3 storeys. Council proposed no changes to the exhibited controls for this precinct in response to submissions and contended amending the building heights would undermine the ability of the DDO to meet its strategic direction of increased densities. (v) Discussion The Panel generally accepts the vision outlined for this precinct. The Panel accepts the land use direction and considers there is opportunity to encourage mixed use development in this area. The Panel understands that the different building and land use conditions which exist in this precinct have informed the building heights and land use zones proposed by the Page 131

139 Amendment. The precinct has a large portion of industrial / commercial buildings and is close in proximity to Preston Central. In relation to the east side of Plenty Road between Gower Street and Murray Road, it is notable that there is a relatively consistent residential use and built form, and topography is an issue with the land falling away from Plenty Road towards the east. This would result in greater impacts for properties behind taller buildings on the east side of the corridor and would trigger the 30 degrees setback rule consistent with Panel s recommendation in Section 5.4. The Panel recognises this particular precinct is a transition zone and its western side in particular is influenced by its proximity to Preston Central. It also observes how the diagonal orientation of Plenty Road influences the distances to High Street and Preston Central. In relation to Ms Lloyd s property, the Panel notes the Amendment proposes to rezone the existing R1Z to MUZ1 with building heights of 4 to 6 storeys. The Panel notes the existing four storey construction on the corner property, the existing built form with commercial emphasis of the street block, and that High Street is just over 400 metres away. The Panel agrees that MUZ1 is appropriate for this location. (vi) Conclusion The Panel concludes: The land use and built form directions proposed for Plenty Road Precinct 1 are supported. Page 132

140 9.3 Plenty Road Precinct 2 Tyler Street Neighbourhood Centre General issues (i) Precinct overview Plenty Road Precinct 2 Tyler Street Neighbourhood Centre extends north of Murray Road through to Albert Street. Figure 19: Plenty Road Framework Plan Precinct 2 Tyler Street Neighbourhood Centre (Source Plenty Road UDF) The Plenty Road UDF describes the Tyler Street Precinct has having three distinct areas: Tyler St Neighbourhood Activity Centre (NAC) Tyler Street Precinct South (Murray Road to Wood Street) Tyler Street Precinct North (Ethel Street to Albert Street). Page 133

141 Topography is a relevant issue in this precinct with a fall from the north west across Plenty Road to the properties on the southern side which are set below the road level. The UDF states: This section of Plenty Road is a continuation of the mix of business, residential uses as well as some remnant industrial uses. It is already apparent that as this area redevelops over the next 20 years, it is not suitable for industrial uses due to the declining access, small lot pattern and potential for reverse sensitivity impacts. On the east side of Plenty Road are mostly residential uses with small pockets of industrial land between Wood and Malpas Streets. The Tyler Street NAC provides local convenience services however has a lack of car parking which impacts on the viability of the centre. Single storey detached housing is predominant in the areas north of the NAC with direct access off Plenty Road. The character is predominantly inter war and post war period homes with gardens within the large front setbacks. The character north of the NAC is notably different to the urban built form within the NAC and south of the centre. Council described the preferred future outcome for this precinct: This precinct will reflect a finer grain redevelopment with a greater mix of built form typologies and new development should incorporate landscaped setbacks to reflect the garden suburb feel of the area. This increase in residential density and local catchment, improvements to the public realm and creation of new local economic opportunities will support the revitalisation of the Tyler Street Neighbourhood Centre (ii) What the Amendment proposes The Amendment proposes to apply DDO17 along the entirety of the Precinct with building heights of 4 to 6 storeys or 3 to 4 storeys. On the west side of Plenty Road, building heights are 4 to 6 storeys except for north of Ethel Grove to Albert Street where 3 to 4 storeys is proposed. Building heights of 3 to 4 storeys are generally proposed for the east side of Plenty Road except for the land north of Wood Street through to south of Robb Street where 4 to 6 storeys is nominated. The Amendment also proposes to rezone land in this precinct: On the west side of Plenty Road: Between Pender Street and Youngman Street land from IN3Z to C1Z Between Youngman Street and Thomas Street, from R1Z to MUZ1 and Between Goldsmith Street and Shakespeare Avenue, from either IN3Z to MUZ2 or C1Z. On the east side of Plenty Road: Between Murray Road and Wood Street land from R1Z to RGZ except for land on the south side of Sylvester Grove which is proposed to be zoned MUZ1 Between: Wood Street and Malpas Street; Madeline Street and Rene Street and a number of properties north of Tyler Street to Kinkora Road from either IN3Z or R1Z to C1Z Between Malpas Street and Madeline Street, from either R1Z to MUZ1. Page 134

142 The exhibited DDO17 has the following objectives for this precinct: To encourage new development that supports the role and function of the Tyler Street Neighbourhood Activity Centre, bound by Wood Street and Ethel Grove To encourage new development that has active frontages at ground level and residential uses above at increased densities in 4 to 6 storey built form between Murray Road and Wood Street To encourage new residential development at increased densities north of Ethel Grove that responds to the local conditions and sensitive interfaces. (iii) What are the issues? Are the proposed building heights and land use controls appropriate for this precinct? (iv) Submissions Twenty eight submissions were received which related to the built form controls for this precinct. Whilst many submitters welcomed plans to encourage the revitalisation of the Tyler Street strip shops with medium density housing, a number of individual submitters (Ms Young, Ms Haines, Mr Corbett for example) opposed the proposed heights for the precinct. In particular, many were concerned about the difference in building heights proposed for the corridor compared with the lower scale residential buildings behind. Other concerns related to the visual impact of the taller buildings and the effect this would have on adjoining properties amenity. Some offered a compromise height limit of 4 storeys (Mr Corbett for example) or 2 to 4 storeys (Mr Cotic for example). Mr Zissis and Ms Baird s objected to the proposed 4 to 6 storey building height for land between Robb and Wood Streets on the south east side of Tyler Street. Mr Zissis suggested that a height limit of 2 to 4 storeys would be more appropriate for the western side of Plenty Road, and 1 to 2 storeys for the eastern side given the existing residential area. Mr Zissis further stated properties fronting the eastern side of Plenty Road are substantially higher at natural ground level than the properties to the rear. As a consequence of the fall of the land, building heights of 4 to 6 storeys on the eastern side of Plenty Road would have a greater impact on properties to their rear and would not be consistent with the residential character of the area. A submission from 1A Hawker Avenue expressed concern about the property s inclusion in the Amendment and the impact of 4 to 6 storey development on the adjoining site on their property. Council responded by noting the site is strategically part of the Plenty Road corridor and its likely medium term future is to be consolidated with the adjoining properties to the west ( Plenty Road). Council suggested Plenty Road could not be developed to 6 storeys under the provisions of DDO17 given its constraints and could only reach this height if it was consolidated with 1A Hawker Avenue. In response to submissions, Council maintained the exhibited heights were appropriate for the Tyler Street Precinct and heights are likely to be three storeys on most sites due to the prevalence of smaller lots in the precinct. Council reiterated 6 storeys are only likely on consolidated or strategic sites. Council did, however, suggest additional words could be included to DDO17 Table 3, to ensure that building design considers off site amenity impacts, in relation to the development of the strategic sites at 1/696 Plenty Road and 233a Tyler Street because of their size, configuration and elevated position. Page 135

143 (v) Discussion The Panel considers Council s comments highlight a problem with the proposed heights and controls in this precinct, particularly on the east side of Plenty Road. While understanding the objective to revitalise the commercial area within this precinct, the Panel considers that residents concern about height in this area are legitimate particularly given the significant fall of land to the east. It broadly agrees with the land use provisions proposed in the precinct but does not agree with the proposed building heights on the east side of Plenty Road. It considers the east side of this precinct should be 3 to 4 storeys, with the exception of the strategic site identified at the south east corner of Tyler Street and Plenty Road. It considers, given the size and prominent location of this site in the activity centre, the additional height is warranted and supports the exhibited 4 to 6 storeys. The Panel cannot see the strategic justification of rezoning residential land to Commercial 1. Such a rezoning would trigger active frontage control in the DDO, but there is no strategic justification for increased commercial activity in this area. There is no obvious way to provide car parking to support commercial activity, and it is not obvious how rezoning land on the opposite site of the street to the existing shops would lead to a more viable activity centre. These lots do not appear to the Panel to be surrounded by land within the Commercial 1 Zone. Simply rezoning land will not act to facilitate stronger local activity nodes unless a shortage of zoned land is holding back the development of the neighbourhood centre. There is no evidence that this is the case. The Panel does not see a problem with horizontal mixed use where some blocks along the corridors have commercial uses and some are residential. In relation to 1A Hawker Avenue, the Panel agrees with Council s submission and based on the commercial zoning, supports the inclusion of the site in DDO17 as a logical strategic direction. (vi) Conclusions and recommendations The Panel concludes: The land use and built form directions proposed for Plenty Road Precinct 2 are generally supported with modifications to building heights on the east side of Plenty Road. The Panel recommends: Amend the proposed zoning of residential properties to commercial on the east side of Plenty Road from C1Z to RGZ (Plenty Road Precinct 2). Amend DDO17 Precinct 2 to show building heights of 4 storeys for the east side of Plenty Road, except for the strategic site located on the south east corner of Tyler Street and Plenty Road. (Plenty Road Precinct 2). Page 136

144 Plenty Road (i) What is the issue? Do the proposed controls for 572 Plenty Road appropriately recognise its heritage significance? (ii) Evidence and submissions Mr Erlandsen and Ms Healy submitted the property to their north should be amended to minimal change scenario in order to protect the heritage significance of 572 Plenty Road. They submitted DDO17 does not adequately deal with development for sites adjoining a Heritage Overlay. They believe 572 Plenty Road s heritage significance is defined not only by the building but also by the setting within which the building sits: it is the whole property as a complete setting and a total environment that is adversely affected. They suggested intensification of sites adjoining or abutting this property needed a rethink within the context of protecting the heritage significance of the property. In particular they were concerned with the requirement which seeks to minimise underdevelopment of sites and encourage site consolidation. Tighter height controls on development adjoining the land with an incremental stepping away on the side boundary was requested: 3 4 storey development to our northern boundary will be intrusive and from what we know from a prior application will be unsympathetic in scale and form. In response, Council suggested to rezone 572 Plenty Road to GRZ and noted a heritage overlay is not a prohibition on development. Council were, however, supportive of the approach to provide additional guidance within DDO17 in relation to development which interfaces with heritage sites. (iii) Discussion The Panel supports rezoning the site to GRZ. Heritage interface issues arise across many sites, and any policy on interfaces should apply generally not just in the DDOs where development interfaces with heritage sites. (iv) Recommendations The Panel recommends: Amend the proposed zoning for 572 Plenty Road from RGZ to GRZ (Plenty Road Precinct 2). Page 137

145 9.4 Plenty Road Precinct 3 Summerhill General (i) Precinct overview Plenty Road Precinct 3 Summerhill Village Neighbourhood Centre extends north east of Albert Street and south west of CT Barling Park. Figure 20: Plenty Road Framework Plan Precinct 3 Summerhill Village Neighbourhood Centre (Source Plenty Road UDF) The UDF describes the Summerhill Village Neighbourhood Activity Centre as a conventional mall based shopping centre. East and north east of the centre are large retirement developments and south, west and north west is low density, post war residential development. The precinct is located at a regional high point which allows for panoramic views to the Melbourne CBD skyline, the Dandenong Ranges and Kinglake Ranges to the north. The UDF states: Generally the precinct suffers from poor integration between land uses. In this precinct, Plenty Road has a dedicated corridor for the tram with three traffic lanes on either side serving heavy traffic volumes along the corridor. A challenge is to integrate the eastern and western sides of Plenty Road and provide ease and comfort for pedestrians accessing public transport stops and crossing the corridor. Council described the preferred future outcome for this precinct: The Summerhill precinct offers excellent potential for redevelopment and regeneration of an improved activity centre upgrading the post war typology Page 138

146 to a vibrant and viable 21 st century town centre layout and form. As increased activity is anticipated, a denser form of development will be created on the Summerhill Village site with more moderate forms radiating from the retail core on the north side of Plenty Road being responsive to their context. The improved Village centre allows more people to live close to the associated services, employment and existing public transport facilities in the area. At the same time, redevelopment will allow for improvements to the physical amenity of the area on private land and within the public realm. (ii) What the Amendment proposes The Amendment proposes to apply DDO17 for the entirety of the Precinct and rezone the land opposite Summerhill Village Shopping Centre from R1Z to MUZ2 with building heights of 4 to 6 storeys. Building heights for the Summerhill Village Shopping Centre are proposed at 4 to 6 storeys at the western end with 6 to 12 storeys for the balance of the site. The exhibited objective in DDO17 for this precinct is: To encourage new development that contributes to the consolidation of the Activity Centre through the development of an integrated taller built form that presents a strong high quality pedestrian friendly environment and frontage to Plenty Road that respects the sensitive interfaces with surrounding residential uses. Two submissions were received in relation to Precinct 3. (iii) What are the issues? Are the proposed controls for the precinct appropriate? Plenty Road (i) Evidence and submissions In relation to height, Mr Cicero on behalf of Aldi argued there was no strategic justification that would require a lower height of 4 to 6 storeys as proposed by the exhibited DDO17 compared to the taller buildings proposed for the balance of the Summerhill Village Shopping Centre. Mr Cicero submitted that a single storey development, which is the only viable development proposal for the site in the short to medium term, is disallowed under the exhibited DDO controls. The objective in DDO17 which deals with underdevelopment would effectively result in the sterilisation of the site from development in the short to medium term. Mr Cicero submitted a single storey development should be allowed as an interim proposition until such time as other uses and development become viable and that DDO17 should contemplate interim uses for the site. Mr Cicero also noted the exhibited wording of DDO17 does not permit buildings and works for a shop extension or refurbishment because it would not be permitted as an underdevelopment. Mr Sheppard provided expert urban design evidence on behalf of Aldi. He noted the site was well located to create a marker or gateway building given its elevated topography and intersection location and that anything above 2 to 3 storeys would be visible from quite a distance given the site s prominence warranting a quality architectural response. Mr Page 139

147 Sheppard stated a single storey development should be permissible as an interim scrape off use. In his view, while a minimum height remained as a mandatory requirement for the site, the site is unlikely to be developed and would remain derelict. In expert evidence in the area of urban economics Mr Lee suggested even within a 5 to 15 year timeframe the land value of the site would not warrant apartment development due to the low price differential between houses and apartments. He suggested a more likely interim use would be a retail or semi commercial development and further noted this should not be a substantial development but rather a low value retail use. In response to questions at the hearing, Mr Lee stated a staged development with apartments planned for at a later stage is problematic for the Aldi site because the land is unlikely to be developed first. In his view, the site would need to leverage off amenity created by development on the land to the east and that the subdivision of the site should be avoided in order to preserve the land for a higher use at some future point in time. In Mr Lee s view, in order not to sterilise the land from development, a low investment development and interim use on one title should be permissible. Whilst affirming that the exhibited heights for the site are appropriate and in response to Mr Lee s comments, Council was not opposed to including provisions in DDO17 to enable a single storey development on the site subject to the land not being subdivided. The Panel noted the discussion of this issue also raised the further issue of finding an appropriate mechanism to close the internal roads within the site. (ii) Discussion In relation to 800 Plenty Road the Panel supports the objective to revitalise the Summerhill Precinct and considers the proposed heights are appropriate. The site does not have the depth of the adjoining sites and abutting land is at a lower level than the development site. In this context the Panel accepts that a lower built form compared to adjoining site would be reasonable. The Panel does not see the need to introduce specific controls to limit under development. Under development has been accepted as a legitimate reason to refuse planning permits at VCAT, and the Panel agrees that an interim use of this site might be a good way of managing the land. In any case, the Panel notes that the land has been subdivided some time ago and part of the development parcel is shown as road on the plan of subdivision. This effectively prevents development of the land in the way envisaged by Council. It will be up to Council to act proactively to resolve the fragmented nature of the site. To this end the Panel recommends applying a Road Closure Overlay to the land to facilitate development. The Panel notes Council s submission that this is not its preferred way of proceeding in relation to this issue. In the Panels experience applying such an overlay as part of this Amendment could be an efficient and effective way of dealing with the blight that affects this land. The Panel understands that the owner and Council have all but agreed the roads can be closed on the site. Applying the Road Closure Overlay as part of this Amendment will obviate the need for a longer and more complex process under the Local Government Act. Page 140

148 (iii) Conclusion and recommendation The Panel concludes: The proposed height and built form controls for 800 Plenty Road are supported. The Panel recommends: Apply a Road Closure Overlay to facilitate the closure of redundant roads on 800 Plenty Road Plenty Road North side (i) Submissions Ms Maltzis submitted the proposed 4 to 6 storeys for the north side of Plenty Road is excessive given the existing consistent low scale development. She noted despite existing controls contemplating four storeys, both Council and VCAT (Time Architects Pty Ltd v Darebin CC, 15 November 2013) determined a recent proposed four level development was excessive for the context and three storeys was more appropriate. She suggested a three storey height limit should be adopted for the north side of Plenty Road with more intense development to be concentrated on the south side of Plenty Road. Mr Maltzis suggested there is little relationship between the two sides of Plenty Road given the wide road reserve and tram line and that the two sides of the road should therefore have different height controls which would provide a more appropriate balance between existing built form and character and the intended outcome of the amendment. Ms Maltzis submitted the property at 2A Erskine Avenue should be excluded from the Amendment given it was a small site and had recently been sold to a homeowner. She suggested the prospect of its development is therefore remote as it would need to be consolidated with the property fronting Plenty Road to be developed. In response, Council s contended that: There is already evidence of underdevelopment (that is, in building typologies not sought by Council and below the preferred heights sought in the DDO17) in the area which has the flow on impact of reducing the intensification opportunity along the corridor. Recent development in the area also leads to further fragmentation of ownership patterns inhibiting consolidation in the future. Council further stated that by: Setting a height range of 4 6 storeys will drive consolidation of corner lots which is the outcome Council seeks to achieve. There is evidence of this already happening along this strip. Council expressed concern at creating subdivision patterns with multi unit sites if building heights are reduced in this location because the north side of Plenty Road is characterised by lots of greater depth and sufficient width not to require consolidation. Page 141

149 (ii) Discussion The Panel agrees that the two sides of Plenty Road are quite distinct in this location but notes this land is adjacent to an activity centre and agrees there could be some intensification. The sites are not particularly well connected or integrated with the neighbourhood centre. Given the residential context of the surrounding area the Panel considers 4 storeys are appropriate for this area and the RGZ is appropriate as the land use zone. In relation to 2A Erskine Avenue, the Panel can see no reason why the site should not remain within the DDO, the site being clearly part of the area land identified as part of the corridor. (iii) Conclusions and recommendations The Panel concludes: The land use and built form directions proposed for Plenty Road Precinct 2 are generally supported for the Summerhill Village Neighbourhood Centre, however are to be modified in relation to the north side of Plenty Road. The Panel recommends: Amend DDO17 Precinct 3 to show building heights of 4 storeys for the north side of Plenty Road. Amend the proposed zoning for the north side of Plenty Road Precinct 3 to from MUZ2 to RGZ (Plenty Road Precinct 2). Page 142

150 9.5 Plenty Road Precinct 4 Lancaster Gate (i) Precinct overview Plenty Road Precinct 4 Lancaster Gate Neighbourhood Centre extends north of CT Barling Park through to Snake Gully Drive. It is divided into two areas: Map 1 and Map 2 and shown in the figures below. Figure 21: Plenty Road Framework Plan Precinct 5 Lancaster Gate Neighbourhood Centre Map 1 area (Source Plenty Road UDF) Page 143

151 Figure 22: Plenty Road Framework Plan Precinct 5 Lancaster Gate Neighbourhood Centre Map 2 The Plenty Road UDF identifies the precinct as located approximately 15 kilometres from the Melbourne CBD. At his point Plenty Road has a wide reserve with six traffic lanes divided by a central median with tram infrastructure for route 86 as well as a service road in some sections. Regionally significant land uses are located within the precinct including La Trobe University, Bundoora Park, the Polaris Shopping Centre development and Preston Cemetery. The former Smorgy s Restaurant site at 1091 Plenty Road also features within the precinct. Diverse mixes of uses are located opposite the cemetery including residential, trade services, retail, business services, and petrol stations. The UDF notes: There are sufficient differences in the land use and built form along this Precinct making it difficult to achieve an integrated outcome. The primary focus is the Lancaster Gate Neighbourhood Centre and its immediate surrounds. Plenty Road creates a significant barrier to the integration of the Strategic Site at 1091 Plenty Road, abutting Bundoora Park. Page 144