The City of Greater Dandenong acknowledges the traditional custodians of this land, Elders, past and present, their spirits and ancestors.

Transcription

1

2 Residential Planning Policy & Controls Project Consultation Summary Report Planisphere This publication is copyright. No part may be reproduced by any process except in accordance with the provisions of the Copyright Act PROJECT CONTROL NAME NO. PM APPROVED PD APPROVED DATE Final Consultation Report 1 JLR JLR 08/08/2014 Final Consultation Report 2 JMR JLR 26/08/2014 The City of Greater Dandenong acknowledges the traditional custodians of this land, Elders, past and present, their spirits and ancestors. planisphere 2014

3 Residential Planning Policy & Controls Project Consultation Summary Report CONTENTS Introduction Background Consultation Process... 3 What We Heard Community Participation Information Sessions Workshops Survey & Feedback Form Written Submissions Community Initiated Survey Resident Petition Summary Key Findings Next Steps Appendices planisphere 2014

4

5 1 INTRODUCTION 1

6 Residential Planning Policy & Controls Project Introduction 1.1 BACKGROUND The Residential Planning Policy & Controls Project is an action identified in the Draft Greater Dandenong Housing Strategy. It seeks to improve the operation of planning policy and controls across all residential areas in the City of Greater Dandenong to ensure that they balance and achieve a variety of housing types that meet high amenity standards and accommodate expected population growth. The project has a particular focus on the Residential Growth Zone in Dandenong, Noble Park and Springvale. The project will ultimately recommend changes to the Greater Dandenong Planning Scheme, where required, as well as develop Residential Design Guidelines for medium and higher density housing forms. The project is being undertaken in three stages: STAGE 1 INCEPTION & PLANNING ASSESSMENT February - March 2014 STAGE 2 CONSULTATION June July 2014 STAGE 3 SUMMARY REPORT & PLANNING SCHEME CHANGES August September 2014 The project is currently at the end of Stage 2. The process to date has involved consultation with various stakeholders, including Councillors, Council Officers, the Department of Transport Planning and Local Infrastructure, local developers and private land owners and occupiers. The findings of the consultation process will provide a key input into the review of planning policies and controls as well as the development of Residential Design Guidelines. In addition to the findings of this report, this project will also need to take into account a variety of other inputs and requirements such as: the Planning and Environment Act 1987, the new metropolitan strategy Plan Melbourne, the Council Plan, the Municipal Strategic Statement and a number of Ministerial Directions and planning-related Advisory and Practice Notes. PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT This report has been prepared to provide a summary of the outcomes of the Stage 2 consultation period. This phase of consultation was branded Future Housing near Major Shopping Centres in order to ensure that the emphasis of the project was clear to residents and stakeholders. Council received hundreds of community and stakeholder responses in a variety of different formats - workshop notes, formal and community survey responses, feedback forms, detailed written submissions and petitions. Many community planisphere

7 Residential Planning Policy & Controls Project Introduction members took the opportunity to provide feedback in multiple formats. Rather than document every response, the approach taken by this report is to summarise the information, present the key themes, understand the priorities, and explain how the information will be used to inform Stage 3 of the project. Every effort has been made to accurately summarise each submission received in a manner that maintains the submitter s anonymity. 1.2 CONSULTATION PROCESS The consultation period occurred for one month, from 10 June to 10 July 2014 and involved the following components: Bulletin and Feedback Form distributed via Council s website, at Council Customer Service Centres and at the Information Drop-In Sessions (Attached at Appendix A) Notice on Council s website with links to the Proposed Residential Framework Plans, Bulletin, Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs), Online Survey, Feedback Form and Interactive Mapping Tool Letter sent to all landowners and occupiers in the Residential Growth Zone, with a copy of the Bulletin attached (11,316 letters in total) Online survey with questions from the Feedback Form. Articles in the April and June 2014 editions of The City Advertisements in the Dandenong Journal and Dandenong Leader newspapers for four consecutive weeks, commencing 10 June 2014 Advertisement via Council s social media Advertisement (single slide) on the big screen at Dandenong Civic Square Information stall at the Dandenong Market on Sunday 22 June between 10am-1pm Three Information Drop-In Sessions held in Dandenong, Noble Park and Springvale on 24 and 26 June 2014 Two facilitated workshops, undertaken with the local development industry and Dandenong residents respectively on 26 June planisphere

8 2 WHAT WE HEARD 4

9 Residential Planning Policy & Controls Project What we Heard 2.1 COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION There was a strong response to the Future Housing around Major Shopping Centres consultation from the Greater Dandenong community. The following table provides an overview of the number of responses and participants involved in different elements of the consultation process: TABLE 1 - OVERVIEW OF CONSULTATION PARTICIPATION The reported figures have not been tallied as some individuals attended more than one workshop and workshop attendees were also encouraged to complete surveys and provide additional written feedback. It is also noted that some respondents provided feedback via multiple methods (e.g. feedback form/online survey, written submission and pro-forma survey). FORUM Information Session Local Development Industry & Community Workshops NUMBER OF RESPONSES/PARTICIPANTS Approximately 79 attendees 27 attendees Feedback Form/Online Survey 153 Written Submissions 22 Pro-forma Written Submissions 30 Community Initiated Survey 439 Resident Petition 1 (93 signatures) planisphere

10 Residential Planning Policy & Controls Project What we Heard 2.2 INFORMATION SESSIONS ATTENDANCE & FORMAT Information Drop-In Sessions were held at three separate locations at the times listed below. Tuesday 24June pm Noble Park Paddy O Donoghue Centre Tuesday 24 June pm Springvale Thursday 26 June 6-8pm Buckley Street, Noble Park Springvale Senior Citizens Centre 3 The Crescent, Springvale Dandenong Greater Dandenong Civic Centre 225 Lonsdale Street, Dandenong The information sessions were well attended, attracting approximately 79 people in total: 12 people at the Noble Park Information Session 15 people at the Springvale Information Session 52 people at the Dandenong Information Session. available to discuss the proposed Residential Framework Plans, and answer any questions or queries relating to the project. Local Councillors also attended the sessions and were available to discuss the proposed Residential Framework Plans with their constituents. A brief presentation providing an overview of the project, proposed Residential Framework Plans and methodology was given at the Dandenong information session due to the large number of people present. An opportunity to ask questions was provided at the end of the presentation. A number of display boards were prepared which provided an overview of the proposed Residential Framework Plans as well as indicative streetscape images for the proposed Inner, Middle and Outer areas (see Appendix B). The reported attendance numbers are based on the number of individuals who filled out the attendance sheet. The figures are likely to be conservative as some people may not have filled out the sheet and others may have filled out the sheet on behalf of a larger party. The information sessions were run informally. Several Council staff as well as two members of the consultant team were planisphere

11 Residential Planning Policy & Controls Project What we Heard 2.3 WORKSHOPS Two stakeholder group workshops were held on 26 June 2014, one with local developers and the other with local residents. An overview of these workshops and their key findings is provided below LOCAL DEVELOPMENT INDUSTRY WORKSHOP Twenty-five representatives of the local development industry (residential land developers, architects and planning consultants, etc) were invited to attend the industry workshop. A total of four invitees attended. Representatives from Council s Strategic Planning, Statutory Planning, Urban Design and City Development Teams also attended the session. The purpose of the workshop was to gain an insight into the market for, and barriers to providing, medium and higher density housing in Greater Dandenong and gain feedback on the proposed Residential Framework Plans. KEY FINDINGS The following key comments were made in regard to the market for medium and higher density housing in Greater Dandenong: Medium and higher density housing developments typically cost between $3 million and $8 million to construct. The market generally delivers apartments in the $200,000 to $400,000 price range. Apartments beyond this price point generally do not sell well. Two bedroom apartments are the most popular and easily sold dwelling configuration. Although there is some demand for three and four bedroom apartments, this type of housing is not viable due to the cost of construction and the comparatively similar sale price of detached houses. Basement car parking is considered to present issues in the development of medium and higher density housing, particularly in terms of construction costs and practicality. The workshop participants were generally satisfied with the proposed Residential Framework Plans and the prospect of future changes to Council planning policy and controls, noting that the proposed is not dissimilar to the existing Dandenong Neighbourhood Character Study and Clause of the Greater Dandenong Planning Scheme. Other comments included: Stud Road is considered to be a physical barrier to development, particularly for people with limited mobility and the elderly. The area bounded by David Street, Cleeland Street, Stud Road and Clow Street was identified as key area with significant potential for medium and higher density development. planisphere

12 Residential Planning Policy & Controls Project What we Heard There are opportunities for urban renewal north-west of Robinson Street, Dandenong. Princes Highway is a key gateway for development. Recent development in Noble Park has tended to be of a lower scale than in Dandenong or Springvale. It was the view of the participants that Noble Park should remain a neighbourhood scale centre. There is significant development potential on the northern side of Springvale Railway Station, particularly since the station s redevelopment. An extension to the boundary of the RGZ could be considered in this area COMMUNITY WORKSHOP Invitations to the community workshop were sent to all residents who had either asked a question regarding the residential zones at a recent Council meeting, or had prepared a petition to Council about residential development. Approximately 23 people attended the community workshop. All attendees were either invitees or their guests and all were primarily interested in development within the suburb of Dandenong. The purpose of the workshop was to gain feedback on the proposed Residential Framework Plans and what would improve medium and higher density housing outcomes in the municipality. KEY FINDINGS There were differing levels of understanding among workshop participants regarding the purpose, context and stage of Council s current review of residential planning policy and controls. Some had a detailed understanding of the current planning scheme provisions and their history. Other participants were less familiar with the background to the current project. A number of residents were either unaware that their land had formerly been included in the Residential 2 Zone, that this zoning encouraged substantial change, or that this had applied for several years prior to the introduction of the Residential Growth Zone. A summary of the key issues raised during the workshop is provided below. FEEDBACK ON PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL FRAMEWORK PLANS Many residents voiced their general concern regarding higher density development. Some residents voiced their support for such development in certain locations, such as McCrae Street, Dandenong. Some participants advocated that apartment style development should be restricted to areas directly abutting the railway station and within the non-residentially zoned areas of the shopping centre. planisphere

13 Residential Planning Policy & Controls Project What we Heard It was also suggested by some that the implementation of the proposed Residential Framework Plans should be staged, for example focusing development in the Residential Inner Area of the Residential Growth Zone now, and later in the Residential Middle and Residential Outer Areas. TRAFFIC CONGESTION & PARKING Many participants raised issues regarding traffic congestion, car parking and traffic management. In particular participants raised concerns about the capacity of local roads to accommodate the additional traffic and car parking generated by medium and higher density development. According to participants, there are currently significant traffic issues on David Street and Clow Street, Dandenong in particular. It was also stated that higher density forms of housing are not appropriate on Ann Street, Dandenong for safety and traffic management reasons. INFRASTRUCTURE & SERVICING Workshop participants expressed the need for resource, service and infrastructure provision to be considered when planning for higher density housing. Residents felt that local social and physical services do not have the capacity to accommodate the increased population envisaged by the proposed Residential Framework Plans. AMENITY The quality of life for future residents of apartment developments was raised as an issue. In particular, emphasis was placed on the need for access to quality open space for people to enjoy and children to play. Higher density housing was regularly characterised as slums of the future. The safety of the area was also raised as a key concern. OVERDEVELOPMENT Many participants felt that the City of Greater Dandenong is at capacity ( full ) and cannot accommodate any more growth. Some participants advocated that Council express this sentiment to the Minister of Planning. Some felt that the municipally contains too much intensive development and that this is destroying local character. There was also a perception that developers are buying up too much land for multi-unit development and that too many dwellings are currently being constructed on individual lots. PLANNING CONTROLS, POLICY & ENFORCEMENT Some participants felt that developers require more guidance regarding appropriate locations for medium and higher density development, and both developers and residents need certainty as to where and what type of development can occur. Workshop participants expressed a disconnect between Council s planning policy and development compliance. planisphere

14 Residential Planning Policy & Controls Project What we Heard Residents felt that Council needed to improve the monitoring and enforcement of planning permit conditions. FUTURE COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION Residents expressed a desire for further engagement on planning issues and noted that the current process is more comprehensive than others that have occurred in the past. planisphere

15 Residential Planning Policy & Controls Project What we Heard 2.4 SURVEY & FEEDBACK FORM A total of 153 responses were received to Council s feedback form and online survey distributed to stakeholders. Refer to Appendix A for copies of the Feedback Form and online survey METHODOLOGY The form and survey included open-ended and closed questions about future housing around Greater Dandenong s major shopping centres and provided space for additional comments. OPEN ENDED QUESTIONS The feedback form / online survey predominantly comprised open ended questions. In order to capture and prioritise the wide range of comments and issues raised in the responses this report presents a thematic analysis of the responses. Many responses contained comments that fell into multiple themes. Responses were tallied to identify the most common themes and issues raised. The thematic approach used in this report is necessarily subjective and requires the exercise of professional judgement as to how comments are summarised and categorised. The advantage of this approach is that it provides a useful means of identifying significant themes and priorities within highly variable and detailed responses. CLOSED QUESTIONS Responses to closed questions were tallied by category THE RESPONDENTS As illustrated by Figure 1, the majority (71%) of respondents were residents living in the current Residential Growth Zone (red, yellow and green areas indicated on the maps). 14% of respondents lived elsewheree in Greater Dandenong and 9% had an other interest (e.g. investor, developer, consultant). The remainder of respondents did not state their interest, or fell into more than one of the three main categories. FIGURE 1 RESPONDENT INTEREST IN HOUSING planisphere

16 Residential Planning Policy & Controls Project What we Heard As illustrated by Figure 2, the majority of residents were in the year age group (59%) followed by the and 65+ years age groups (17% each). FIGURE 2 - AGE OF RESPONDENT KEY FINDINGS The following discussion provides a thematic overview of the key issues raised in response to each question in the feedback form / online survey. Figures 6-8 map all location-specific recommendations made by respondents via the feedback from, online survey and written submissions. As previously noted, general statements about particular areas were not mapped. LOCATION OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF HOUSING (QUESTION 4) Where do you think differentferent types of housing should be located? This question sought to gain respondents feedback about the proposed Residential Framework Plans. As noted above, the plans seek to encourage e different densities and building typologies in discrete areas of the existing Residential Growth Zone. The following provides an overview of the general level of support for the proposed Residential Framework Plans: Thirty-six (36) or 24% of responses indicated support (these responses offered support for the Framework without qualification). Fifty-three (53) or 35% of responses indicated partial support (these were responses that indicated support subject to qualificationsations or suggested changes). Twenty-nine (29) or 19% of responses did not state their level of support. planisphere

17 Residential Planning Policy & Controls Project What we Heard Twenty-seven (27) or 18% of responses indicated that the respondent did not support the proposed approach (these responses indicated their opposition to the Framework without qualification). Eight (8) or 5% of responses indicated they were unsure whether they supported the frameworks or not. These results need to be treated with caution due to the wide spread of opinions, the proportion of respondents who did not state their level of support, and the broad range of suggested changes that accompanied many of the responses. The issues raised in submissions are addressed in subsequent sections of this report. IMPROVING THE LOOK OF NEW HOUSING (QUESTION 5) What would improve the look of new housing? There were a variety of suggestions made about how the look of new housing in Greater Dandenong could be improved. Figure 3 summarises the most common themes discussed in the responses, namely: landscaping building design car parking building height building materials. These topics are summarised below. FIGURE 3- SUGGESTED IMPROVEMENTS TO NEW DEVELOPMENT BUILDING DESIGN Forty-six (46) responses discussed building, of which: Nine (9) responses reflected a desire for an improvement in the quality and standardd of design and development. Nine (9) responses expressed a preference for contemporary building design. Seven (7) responses emphasised the importance of new development being appropriate to and respecting the surrounding context. planisphere

18 Residential Planning Policy & Controls Project What we Heard Four (4) responses advocated for more energy efficient new development. The balance of responses addressed a range of issues, including a preference for traditional architecture; and ensuring adequate spacing between buildings. LANDSCAPING Forty-four (44) responses discussed landscaping, of which: Thirty (32) respondents sought some form of landscaping around new development. Four (4) submissions raised issues with the concreting of front setback areas. Three (3) responses sought more street trees. The balance of responses raised a range of issues including concerns about maintenance; and a preference to limit landscaping in new development. BUILDING HEIGHT A broad range of issues was discussed by the 43 responses that discussed building height. It was difficult to determine whether comments related to the area as whole or to specific locations. Notwithstanding: Twenty-seven (27) responses advocated for building height to be limited to two to three storeys. Four (4) responses indicated that they supported the building heights put forward in the proposed Residential Framework Plans. TRAFFIC CONGESTION & CAR PARKING Forty-three (43) responses discussed car parking, of which: Thirty-four (34) responses emphasised the importance of off-street car parking. When a design approach was proposed, the most common preference was for underground spaces. Six (6) responses advocated for adequate visitor car parking to be provided on-site. Other issues raised included existing traffic congestion surrounding the major shopping centres and the need for Council to enforce parking restrictions. BUILDING MATERIALS Thirty-three (33) responses discussed building materials, of which: Eleven (11) responses preferred to have new buildings constructed out of brick. Nine (9) responses specifically mentioned the importance of the durability and quality of building materials. Four (4) responses stated that they do not like bare and sheer concrete facades. planisphere

19 Residential Planning Policy & Controls Project What we Heard Three (3) responses referred to the environmental performance of building materials. FUTURE HOUSING NEEDS (QUESTION 6) What types of housing do you think Greater Dandenong needs in the future? Why? There was not a clear preference for any one particular housing typology to house Greater Dandenong s future population. The responses are summarised as follows: Thirty-two (32) responses discussed apartments. Twenty (20) supported apartment developments and 9 were opposed. The balance of responses partially supported apartments, with caveats such as limiting building height, while others warned that they should not be the only solution. Twenty-one (21) responses stated a preference for units. Twenty (20) responses stated a preference for detached housing, many respondents emphasised the importance of gardens. Twenty (20) responses stated that the municipality needs a mix of different housing types. Sixteen (16) responses stated a preference for townhouses. The balance of responses did not answer the question, or discussed issues such as high density development, congestion, affordable housing, family housing, building height and opposition to change. YOUR FUTURE HOUSE (QUESTION 7) In 10 years time, what type of house would you like to live in? Figure 4 illustrates respondents preferred future housing type(s). Where respondents nominated more than one housing type both are listed (e.g. Apartment/Townhouse). FIGURE 4- RESPONDENTS FUTURE HOUSING Detached house Not Stated Unit Townhouse Apartment/Townhouse Apartment Future Housing Type Other (Multiple Types) planisphere

20 Residential Planning Policy & Controls Project What we Heard DEVELOPMENT OF APARTMENTS OUTSIDE THE RED, YELLOW AND GREEN AREAS (QUESTION 8) Council thinks apartment buildings should normally be built only within the areas shown in red, yellow or green. Do you agree? This question sought to gain stakeholder and community opinion on the construction of apartment buildings outside the Residential Outer (Red), Residential Middle (Yellow) and Residential Inner (Green) Areas of the Residential Growth Zone. However the results appear contradictory, implying that the question was not well understood by respondents: Fifty-eight (58) respondents (38%) disagreed, therefore implying that apartments should be constructed outside the red, yellow and green areas. Sixty-four (64) respondents (42%) agreed that apartments should not be constructed outside the red, yellow and green areas. Thirty-one respondents or (20%) did not answer this question. The results from this question are considered inconclusive. Thirty-six (36) responses provided additional feedback on the proposed Residential Framework Plans. Some indicated strong support for the proposal, while others discussed the need for future physical (e.g. transport and drainage) and social infrastructure (e.g. public open space) provision to be considered in conjunction with this planning process. Many made suggestions about the refinement of the Outer Area (Red), Middle Area (Yellow) and Outer Area (Green). Some respondents restated their opposition to the proposed plans. Eighteen (18) responses discussed issues associated with Council responsibility, particularly in terms of the assessment of medium density planning permit applications. Others raised matters relating to the maintenance of private property, which are outside the scope of this study. The balance of responses addressed a wide range of issues such as traffic congestion, building design, refinements to maximum building height controls, car parking and support for or opposition to apartment developments. GENERAL COMMENTS (QUESTION 9) Is there anything else you would like to tell us? A range of issues were discussed by respondents when provided with the opportunity for further comments: planisphere

21 Residential Planning Policy & Controls Project What we Heard 2.5 WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS A total of 52 submissions were received via letter and . It is highlighted that 30 of these submissions were received in a pro-forma format. An overview of the key themes raised by submitters is provided below METHOD A thematic analysis of submissions has been undertaken to ensure that the wide range of comments and issues raised have been captured and priorities highlighted. Each submission was summarised and assigned to a thematic category. Many responses contained comments that fell into multiple themes KEY FINDINGS The following provides an overview of the key issues raised in the written submissions. Figures 6-8 provide a map of all location-specific recommendations made via the feedback form, online survey and written submissions. As previously noted, general statements about particular areas were not mapped. PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL FRAMEWORK PLANS Forty-two (42) submissions provided comments on the proposed Residential Framework Plans. Of those: Three (3) supported the Plan in its current format, one of which referred specifically to Dandenong. One (1) submission advocated that no change should be made to the existing application or content of the Residential Growth Zone. The balance of submitters requested changes to the proposed Plans, ranging from the rezoning of specific areas (discussed further below) to the identification of opportunities for 'up zoning'. The suggested changes to the Proposed Residential Frameworks varied considerably. Some submissions sought different or even contradictory outcomes for the same streets or locality. Rather than document the wide variety of suggested changes here they have been illustrated graphically in Figures 6 to 8 below. The study team will use the information contained in the submissions to guide further investigations to be undertaken during Stage 3 of the project. THE RESIDENTIAL GROWTH ZONE Twenty-eight (28) submissions were received in a pro-forma letter from residents of Buckley Street, Wall Street, Craig Street, Hellyer Street, Stuart Street and Myrtle Street in Noble Park and Masters Street, Dandenong. The letter requested that the named streets be removed from the Residential Growth Zone and be included in the General Residential Zone. The planisphere

22 Residential Planning Policy & Controls Project What we Heard letters also stated that apartments were not suited to the neighbourhood character of the nominated street. Two (2) submissions were received in a pro-forma letter requesting that the bounded by Princess Avenue, Regent Avenue, Queen Avenue and Osborne Avenue, Springvale be up zoned and included in the Middle (Yellow) Area. One submission comprised 22 signatures of residents of Macpherson Street, Dandenong requesting that their area be removed from the Residential Growth Zone and included in the General Residential Zone. The submission also outlined residents preference for: No apartments in Macpherson Street Townhouses, 2 storey limit, detached Villa units, single and two storey Detached houses up to 2 storey Improved building quality that enhances the character of Macpherson Street Preferred building features including height, materials, roof form, colours, window, spacing between buildings, landscaping, car parking, open space, street setback, site coverage and fencing. Four (4) further submitters requested the reduction of Council's Residential Growth Zone areas: Two (2) requested the removal of Middle (Yellow) and Outer (Red) areas from the Residential Growth Zone. Three (3) stated that the extent of the Residential Growth Zone in Greater Dandenong should be reduced to better protect neighbourhood character, minimise the impact of non-residential uses on residential areas and to balance long-term infrastructure provision. METHODOLOGY TO DEVELOP PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL FRAMEWORK PLANS One (1) submission raised concerns with the methodology used to review the RGZ and develop the proposed Residential Framework Plans. The submitter made specific reference to Dandenong in arguing that: The walking times used to develop the proposed Residential Framework Plans are understated. The findings of the original Dandenong Neighbourhood Character Study should be considered and used. This study designated residential land east of Stud Road as a moderate change area. Some of the streets are too narrow to accommodate higher density development. EXTENSION OF STUDY AREA Three (3) submissions discussed opportunities for the study area to be expanded, as follows: planisphere

23 Residential Planning Policy & Controls Project What we Heard Along Princes Highway (2) and other existing corridors such as Railway Parade, Heatherton Road (1) Main bus routes and near major freeways (1) Adjacent to or in close proximity of train lines (2) Micro-shopping centres, namely the Menzies Avenue, Brady Road and Harrisfield shopping strips (1) South of Dandenong Train Station towards Cheltenham Road (1) Along Springvale Road and other main roads that carry two lanes of traffic in each direction (1). BUILDING DESIGN Twelve (12) submissions addressed a range of issues related to building design, these are summarised as follows: Concern about amenity impacts associated with higher density dwelling types (e.g. overshadowing, loss of privacy, access to sunlight) (4 submissions). The importance of high quality materials and design to the future of Greater Dandenong's residential areas (3 submissions). One (1) submission argued that some current provisions should be relaxed in order to promote new development (e.g. locating private open space in front setback areas, screening of habitable windows). The balance of submissions included individual preferences for building materials and features. TRAFFIC CONGESTION & CAR PARKING Ten (10) submissions made reference to traffic, with most identifying existing issues with street parking and congestion. Recent development was seen to have increased the number of cars parked on the street. There was also concern that the scale of proposed future development would not provide sufficient access for emergency and waste vehicles. One submitter suggested that car parking requirements should be reduced to encourage greater use of public transport. HIGH DENSITY HOUSING Eight (8) submissions addressed housing density. Of these, 5 supported or partially supported higher densities in appropriate locations. Some submissions suggested that higher density housing should be limited to within 500m of the CBD and along railway corridors. Others strongly opposed high density development of any form (see previous Proposed residential framework plans theme). One submitter stated that larger scale developments within smaller housing markets have greater impacts not simply to its immediate environment, but the greater economic environment planisphere

24 Residential Planning Policy & Controls Project What we Heard referring to the Noble Park context. This submission argued the benefit of smaller sized boutique developers operating in the local market. BUILDING HEIGHT A range of comments and suggestions were made by the six (6) submissions that specifically discussed building height: Two (2) submissions stated that four and five storey developments were not in keeping with the character of residential areas. One submitter suggested that height limits should be consistent on both sides of an individual street (e.g. Herbert Street and Potter Street, Dandenong). One submitter suggested that the maximum height limits in each area be revised to the following: Inner (Green) 3 storey apartments Middle (Yellow) 2 storey apartments and/or townhouses Outer (Red) 2 storey townhouses and/or units. No detached houses. Many submitters also made location-specific comments relating to preferred maximum building heights, as mapped on Figures 6-8. LANDSCAPING Landscaping was raised in five (5) submissions, with four (4) submissions noting the importance of public open spaces and landscaped setbacks. FUTURE RESIDENTS Four (4) submissions explicitly addressed the implications of the proposed Residential Framework Plans for the future community. In particular, submissions expressed a preference for owner-occupied dwellings, a need to consider and ensure areas remain family friendly and concern regarding crime and other anti-social behaviour. COUNCIL POLICY & PROCESSES Council policy and processes were raised in three (3) submissions. This included reference to: The need for the Infrastructure Recovery Charge in particular parts of Dandenong to be reviewed/deferred (2). Referral of planning permits applications to Council meetings (1). Surety of timelines for development, responses and process (1). Development of a local planning policy incorporating future character statements from council s Neighbourhood Character Study, to improve design outcomes (1). planisphere

25 Residential Planning Policy & Controls Project What we Heard One submission stated the need for residential design guidelines and stronger planning controls, while another acknowledged the importance of such regulations but warned of over-reliance on tick-the-box items that can tend to focus the applicant on satisfying these minimum requirements at the expense of good design. HOUSING DIVERSITY Increasing the diversity of housing types in Greater Dandenong's residential areas was raised in two (2) submissions. This included reference to shared housing, social housing, boarding houses, low-rise apartments and dual occupancy housing. It was acknowledged that a range of housing types is needed in the municipality, notwithstanding this, stronger policies may be needed to determine their appropriate locations and design. OTHER Additional comments made by submitters included: Opportunities for Council to improve planning and consultation processes (5). Population forecasts should not be viewed as targets and should be reviewed frequently against actual growth and housing supply (2). planisphere

26 Residential Planning Policy & Controls Project What we Heard 2.6 COMMUNITY INITIATED SURVEY Dandenong residents prepared and distributed an alternative survey to the one distributed by Council. A total of 439 responses were received in this format. It was observed that many surveys contained similar or identical comments. The following provides an overview of the key themes from the submissions. The alternative survey differed from the one prepared by Council due to its emphasis on: Preferred housing typologies, with an emphasis on apartment development Design of townhouse development (detached vs. attached) Application of the Residential Growth Zone. It is not known how or to whom the survey was distributed or what explanatory information was provided to the respondents. It is noted that the responses are strongly weighted against certain types of development, whereas responses to Council s surveys elicited a broader range of views. Furthermore, the substantial majority of responses were also focussed on the suburb of Dandenong (97% from Dandenong), with 3% of responses from the suburbs of Springvale and Endeavour Hills. LOCATION OF APARTMENTS In response to the first question, Referring to the Council map, which areas in Dandenong do you think apartments should be built? The majority of responses opposed the construction of apartments anywhere in the Residential Growth Zone of Dandenong. The majority of responses supported development within shopping centre areas and right next to railway stations. DESIGN OF TOWNHOUSE DEVELOPMENT In response to the second question, Should townhouses in residential areas be attached or fully detached? The majority of responses advocate that townhouses be fully detached. There was a portion of responses that either did not leave a preference, wanted townhouses to be attached, or both. Many submissions were concerned with the overdevelopment of residential blocks and advocated for Council, not to allow more than two to three dwellings per quarter acre block. planisphere

27 Residential Planning Policy & Controls Project What we Heard REMOVAL OF AREAS FROM THE RESIDENTIAL GROWTH ZONE In response to the third question Should any of the Dandenong residential areas be removed from the Residential Growth Zone? The largest proportion of submitters advocated for the removal of the outer (red) area, followed by the middle (yellow) and inner (green) areas from the Residential Growth Zone. Some responses suggested altering the proposed Dandenong Residential Framework Plan through the movement of boundaries, for example, limiting the Residential Inner Area (Green) to the Dandenong Declared Area. Others suggested the application of different maximum height limits. Refer to Figures 6-8 for an overview of all area specific recommendations made across all types of submissions. Concern about traffic congestion and inadequate car parking associated with proposed Residential Framework Plans Preference to limit new medium density development to a maximum of 3-4 dwellings per quarter acre block. GENERAL COMMENTS The fourth question provided an opportunity for additional comments. The key recurrent messages from responses were: The Residential Growth Zone surrounding Dandenong shopping centre is too large Opposition to apartments Preference for a maximum building height of two storeys planisphere

28 Residential Planning Policy & Controls Project What we Heard 2.7 RESIDENT PETITION A resident petition was submitted bearing the signatures of 93 private owner and occupiers. The petition opposes the inclusion of the following streets in the Residential Growth Zone in Dandenong: Bruce Street Ann Street Herbert Street Olive Street Robert Street Melbe Court Margaret Court. The petition seeks to protect the area from overdevelopment. It advocates a maximum building height of two storeys and the restriction of new housing to dual occupancies, villa units and detached townhouses. It opposes apartment development. Figure 5 illustrates the streets subject to the resident petition. EARLIER PETITIONS It is noted that Council has received five resident petitions since the implementation of the new residential zones in November These petitions are also shown on Figure 5 by way of context. planisphere

29 Residential Planning Policy & Controls Project What we Heard FIGURE 5 - RESIDENT PETITIONS (Revised 29 September 2014) planisphere

30 Residential Planning Policy & Controls Project What we Heard planisphere

31 3 SUMMARY 27

32 Residential Planning Policy & Controls Project Next Steps 3.1 KEY FINDINGS There was a very strong response from local stakeholders and residents to Future Housing near Major Shopping Centres consultation, particularly from residents in Dandenong. REVIEW PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL FRAMEWORK PLANS A large number of participants provided comments and suggested refinements regarding the proposed Residential Framework Plans. Some were general in nature (e.g. reducing the maximum building height in the Inner Area (Green), Middle Area (Yellow) and Outer Area (Red) to two storeys); while others provided location-specific suggestions to refine boundaries. Figures 6-8 provide an overview of all location-specific changes to the proposed Residential Framework Plans suggested by respondents. Many participants suggested that allotments directly adjoining Princes Highway, Springvale Road and railway stations and railway lines be investigated as potential areas where the Residential Growth Zone could be applied. BUILDING DESIGN There was a strong recurrent theme associated with a desire to improve the design and quality of new medium and higher density development and for buildings to be responsive to the local context. Residential Design Guidelines are being prepared concurrent to this project. It is important that the findings from this consultation are ultimately reflected in the Guidelines. LANDSCAPING Many submitters raised the issue of landscaping in their submissions, both onsite and in relation to the provision of street trees. CAR PARKING & TRAFFIC CONGESTION A large proportion of submissions raised issues associated with car parking and traffic congestion. There are opportunities to address these issues, to an extent, through the planning scheme, however an integrated approach is required utilising Council s Traffic and Engineering department. Car parking can also be addressed (to a limited degree) in the Residential Design Guidelines. planisphere

33 Residential Planning Policy & Controls Project Next Steps FIGURE 6 - DANDENONG RESIDENTIAL FRAMEWORK PLAN CHANGES SUGGESTED BY RESPONDENTS planisphere

34 Residential Planning Policy & Controls Project Next Steps FIGURE 7 - SPRINGVALE RESIDENTIAL FRAMEWORK PLAN CHANGES SUGGESTED BY RESPONDENTS planisphere

35 Residential Planning Policy & Controls Project Next Steps FIGURE 8 - NOBLE PARK RESIDENTIAL FRAMEWORK PLAN CHANGES SUGGESTED BY RESPONDENTS planisphere

36 Residential Planning Policy & Controls Project Next Steps INFRASTRUCTURE Many submitters expressed their concern that existing facilities and services will not be able to accommodate the additional demand generated by new medium density development. Public open space provision was an area of particular concern. HOUSING AFFORDABILITY There were mixed views regarding the need for affordable housing in Greater Dandenong. Some saw the proposed Residential Framework Plans as an opportunity to broaden the housing stock available in the municipality and provide more affordable forms of housing. Others were concerned about the type of residents and tenants that would live in the area. While related to this project, housing affordability issues are more closely aligned with Council s Draft Housing Strategy. 3.2 NEXT STEPS These findings will be used to guide appropriate refinements to planning controls and policies; and to develop residential guidelines to improve design quality. This analysis will occur in the next project stage. Council will then consider making changes to the Greater Dandenong Planning Scheme FURTHER CONSULTATION Given the response from the community to the Future Housing near Major Shopping Centres consultation, it is recommended that Council continues to engage with residents in a considered and comprehensive way. planisphere

37 33

38 Residential Planning Policy & Controls Project Appendices A APPENDICES planisphere

39 Residential Planning Policy & Controls Project Appendices APPENDIX A: BULLETIN & FEEDBACK FROM planisphere 2014

40

41

42

43

44 Residential Planning Policy & Controls Project Appendices APPENDIX B: DISPLAY BOARDS planisphere 2014

45

46

47

48

49

50