Planning and Environment Act Panel Report. Glen Eira Planning Scheme Amendment C McKinnon Road, McKinnon.

Transcription

1 Planning and Environment Act 1987 Panel Report Glen Eira Planning Scheme Amendment C McKinnon Road, McKinnon Front page 14 June 2017

2 Planning and Environment Act 1987 Panel Report pursuant to section 25 of the Act Glen Eira Planning Scheme Amendment C McKinnon Road, McKinnon 14 June 2017 Nick Wimbush, Chair Peter Edwards, Member

3 Contents Page 1 Introduction The Amendment Panel process Issues dealt with in this report Non contested issue Planning context Policy framework Ministerial Directions and Practice Notes Discussion Conclusions The exhibited and proposed controls The proposed controls Procedural issues Recommendation Infrastructure Background Traffic and parking Flooding and stormwater drainage Infrastructure upgrades Appendix A Appendix B Submitters to the Amendment Document list List of Tables Page Table 1 Parties to the Panel Hearing... 4 Table 2 Proposed zones key elements Table 3 Traffic survey data List of Figures Page Figure 1 The subject site... 2

4 List of Abbreviations DDO DELWP EAO GERA GRZ HDA IN3Z LPPF MCA MNAC MSS MUZ NRZ RGZ SBO SPPF VPP Design and Development Overlay Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning Environmental Audit Overlay Glen Eira Residents Association General Residential Zone Housing Diversity Area Industrial 3 Zone Local Planning Policy Framework Minimal Change Area McKinnon Neighbourhood Activity Centre Municipal Strategic Statement Mixed Use Zone Neighbourhood Residential Zone Residential Growth Zone Special Building Overlay State Planning Policy Framework Victoria Planning Provisions

5 Executive summary (i) Summary Glen Eira Planning Scheme Amendment C143 (the Amendment) as exhibited sought to rezone McKinnon Road, McKinnon from the Industrial 3 Zone (IN3Z) to the Mixed Use Zone Schedule 1 (MUZ1) and apply the Environmental Audit Overlay (EAO) and Design and Development Overlay (DDO). When exhibited, the Amendment attracted 187 submissions, 182 of which were opposed to the rezoning. The objecting submissions raised issue related to: Inappropriateness of MUZ1 Rezoning will result in overdevelopment of the site Increasing traffic and parking issues Residential amenity impacts Potential for flooding due to proposed development Viability of new retail businesses in the area Decreasing property values Council should vote to abandon the Amendment based on the number of objecting submissions received Lack of Council transparency Protection of neighbourhood character and village feel. Council considered the Amendment at a Council meeting on 21 March 2017 and resolved to support the rezoning of the site to the General Residential Zone Schedule 2 (GRZ2). This was primarily to reduce the height and intensity of future development and restrict the range of commercial uses that could occur under the MUZ. Council brought this revised approach to the Panel, an approach supported by the Amendment proponent. Having reviewed the policy context for the McKinnon Neighbourhood Activity Centre, the Panel supports the revised Amendment. Submitters at the Panel Hearing also raised a number of procedural issues and these are addressed in the body of this report. (ii) Recommendations Based on the reasons set out in this Report, the Panel recommends: 1. Adopt Glen Eira Planning Scheme Amendment C143 in the form as put to the Panel; with the General Residential Zone Schedule 2 and the Environmental Audit Overlay applied.

6 1 Introduction 1.1 The Amendment (i) Amendment description Glen Eira Planning Scheme Amendment C143 (the Amendment) was prepared by the Glen Eira City Council (Council) as the Planning Authority. The Amendment was requested by Dash Urban Planning on behalf of the proponent, Gil and Ofira Bareket. The Amendment, which applies to land at McKinnon Road, McKinnon, was placed on public exhibition in November The exhibited Amendment proposed to: Rezone the land from Industrial 3 Zone (IN3Z) to a Mixed Use Zone Schedule 1 (MUZ1) Apply an Environmental Audit Overlay (EAO) Apply a Design and Development Overlay Schedule 6 (DDO6). On 21 March 2017, Council resolved to abandon the MUZ1 and DDO6 and instead continue the Amendment and refer it to a Panel, recommending that the General Residential Zone Schedule 2 (GRZ2) and EAO be applied instead. This was in response to objectors who opposed the MUZ1/DDO6 and the proposed maximum height of 14.5 metres (4 storeys). Council considered that the GRZ2, which reduces the building height from 4 to 3 storeys, was a more appropriate strategic fit within the context of its local area. The Panel, in considering submissions, has considered both the exhibited Amendment and Council s proposed changes. (ii) Purpose of the Amendment The land is currently zoned IN3Z and residential uses are prohibited. Council considers that support exists for residential zoning in both State and Local policy as the site is located near public transport and other services and is within the McKinnon Neighbourhood Activity Centre (MNAC), which is a Housing Diversity Area (HDA) in the planning scheme. An EAO is proposed as the site has a history of light industrial use. (iii) The subject site The subject land includes 88, (which has one pair of semi detached single storey dwellings) and McKinnon Road. The land is located on the south east corner of McKinnon and Wheatley Roads in McKinnon. It is situated on the western edge of the MNAC near McKinnon Train Station and McKinnon Secondary College to the east and Ormond Primary School to the north. The subject land is 3,671 square metres in area and is generally rectangular in shape with the long boundaries running east west. The site has the following dimensions: West boundary (Wheatley Road): metres North boundary (McKinnon Road): metres East boundary: 37.1 metres South boundary (rear laneway): metres. Page 1

7 The site is also covered by a Special Building Overlay (SBO) that identifies flooding risk in a 1 in 100 year flood (Melbourne Water is a referral authority for any development located within the SBO). The Parking Overlay (PO2 3) covers the site but this is only relevant to the development of student accommodation and is not proposed to be altered or removed by the Amendment. The site comprises several mechanical repair, petrol stations and tyre fitting retail premises, along with one pair of semi detached single storey dwellings. Five vehicular crossovers provide access from McKinnon Road to the subject site. Surrounding the site are the following: South a 3.2 metre wide laneway separates the site from residential properties. All the properties in the Amendment have access to the laneway. Abutting the laneway to the south are properties predominantly located in the Neighbourhood Residential Zone (NRZ) fronting Lees Street with a row of modern two storey terraces fronting Wheatley Street in the GRZ2. North properties include a florist and single storey residential development within the GRZ2 across McKinnon Road. West a two storey medical centre on the south west corner of Wheatley and McKinnon Roads in the NRZ is surrounded primarily by single storey detached dwellings. A medical centre is also located on the north west corner of the same intersection. East land that is zoned GRZ2 and includes a petrol station, single and double storey dwellings and a community hall. The land further east is zoned GRZ1 and Commercial 1 Zone (C1Z) towards the centre of the MNAC. The Amendment applies to land shown in Figure 1. Figure 1 The subject site 1 1 From Council minutes 19 September Page 2

8 1.2 Panel process The Amendment was placed on public exhibition between 17 November and 23 December 2016, with a total of 187 submissions received (182 against; five in support) 2. Issues raised in objecting submissions included: Inappropriateness of MUZ1 Rezoning will result in overdevelopment of the site Increasing traffic and parking issues Residential amenity impacts Potential for flooding due to proposed development Viability of new retail businesses in the area Decreasing property values Council should vote to abandon the amendment based on the number of objecting submissions received Lack of transparency of Council Protection of neighbourhood character and village feel. Supporting submissions stated that the site is currently an unattractive use of valuable urban village land. At its meeting of 21 March 2017, Council resolved to refer the submissions to a Panel. The Council resolution reads as follows: That Council: Notes the submissions received; Abandons the proposed Mixed Use Zone and Design and Development Overlay (6); Endorses a General Residential Zone (Schedule 2) and an Environmental Audit Overlay; and Refers submissions and the General Residential Zone (Schedule 2) and an Environmental Audit Overlay to an independent panel in accordance with Section 23 of the Planning and Environment Act As a result, a Panel to consider the Amendment was appointed under delegation from the Minister for Planning on 28 March 2017, and comprised Nick Wimbush (Chair) and Peter Edwards. A Directions Hearing was held in relation to the Amendment on 19 April Following the Directions Hearing, the Panel undertook an inspection of the subject site and its surrounds. The Panel then met in the offices of Glen Eira Council on 25 May 2017 to hear submissions about the Amendment. Those in attendance at the Panel Hearing are listed in Table 1. 2 Council Part B submission, page 10. Page 3

9 Table 1 Parties to the Panel Hearing Submitter Glen Eira City Council Gil and Ofira Bareket George Poulios Colin Solomon K L Healy Tony Farfor and Mary Arulappan Glen Eira Residents Association Marlene Laurent Ann Galvin Natalie Vella Represented by Jacqui Brasher Will Pearce from Urbis Miriam Healy Tony Farfor Bette Hatfield 1.3 Issues dealt with in this report The Panel considered all written submissions made in response to the exhibition of the Amendment; as well as further submissions, and other material presented to it during the Hearing, and observations from site visits. The Panel has reviewed a large volume of material and has had to be selective in referring to the more relevant or determinative material in the report. All submissions and materials have been considered by the Panel in reaching its conclusions, regardless of whether they are specifically mentioned in the report. This report deals with the issues under the following headings: Planning context The exhibited and proposed controls Infrastructure - Traffic and parking - Flooding and stormwater drainage - Infrastructure upgrades 1.4 Non contested issue The EAO was to be applied to the Amendment site under both the exhibited planning controls and in the controls now proposed by Council. This element of the Amendment is uncontroversial and no objections were received. Given the past industrial use of the land (albeit light industrial) the Panel supports the application of the EAO if any sensitive use is proposed. The Panel does not address this issue further. Page 4

10 2 Planning context Council provided a response to the Strategic Assessment Guidelines as part of the Explanatory Report. The Panel has reviewed Council s response and the policy context of the Amendment, and has made a brief appraisal of the relevant zone and overlay controls and other relevant planning strategies. 2.1 Policy framework (i) State Planning Policy Framework (SPPF) The SPPF includes Clause 9 (Plan Melbourne). Planning authorities are required to consider and apply the new Plan Melbourne : Metropolitan Planning Strategy. Council in its Part A submission identified the following clauses of Plan Melbourne as relevant: Plan Melbourne Direction 1.3: Create development opportunities at urban renewal precincts across Melbourne Plan Melbourne Direction 2.1: Manage the supply of new housing in the right locations to meet population growth and create a sustainable city Plan Melbourne Direction 2.2: Deliver more housing closer to jobs and public transport Plan Melbourne Direction 2.5: Provide greater choice and diversity of housing Council submitted that the Amendment is supported by the following other clauses in the SPPF: Clause 11 (Settlement) this clause states that Planning is to anticipate and respond to the needs of existing and future communities through provision of zoned and serviced land for housing, employment, recreation and open space, commercial and community facilities and infrastructure. Clause (Supply of Urban Land) this clause has the objective To ensure a sufficient supply of land is available for residential, commercial, retail, industrial, recreational, institutional and other community uses. Strategies include Plan to accommodate projected population growth over at least a 15 year period and provide clear direction on locations where growth should occur. It states that Planning for urban growth should consider: Opportunities for the consolidation, redevelopment and intensification of existing urban areas. Neighbourhood character and landscape considerations. Clause (Activity Centres) this clause has the objective To build up activity centres as a focus for high quality development, activity and living for the whole community by developing a network of activity centres. Clause (Housing Choice) this clause has the objective To provide housing choice close to jobs and services. Strategies include: Page 5

11 Manage the supply of new housing in locations that will meet population growth and create a sustainable city. Facilitate increased housing in the established areas to create a city of 20 minute neighbourhoods close to existing services, jobs and public transport. Support housing growth and diversity in defined housing change areas and redevelopment sites. Direct new housing to areas with appropriate infrastructure. Provide certainty about the scale of growth in the suburbs by prescribing height and site coverage provisions in different areas. Deliver more housing closer to jobs and public transport. Support new housing in activity centres and other places that offer good access to jobs, services and public transport. Clause (Neighbourhoods) this clause has the objective To create a city of inclusive, vibrant and healthy neighbourhoods that promote strong communities, healthy lifestyles and good access to local services and jobs. Strategies include: Support a network of vibrant Neighbourhood Activity Centres. Create mixed use neighbourhoods at varying densities that offer more choice in housing, create opportunities for local businesses and jobs and deliver better access to services and facilities. Clause (Use of Potentially Contaminated Land) this clause has the objective To ensure that potentially contaminated land is suitable for its intended future uses and development, and that contaminated land is used safely. Council stated that an EAO will be applied to the land to ensure that the objectives of this clause are achieved. Clause (Location of residential development) this clause has the objective To locate new housing in or close to activity centres and in urban renewal precincts and sites that offer good access to jobs, services and transport. Clause (Housing opportunity areas) this clause has the objective To identify areas that offer opportunities for more medium and high density housing near employment and transport in Metropolitan Melbourne. Clause (Housing Diversity) this clause has the objective To provide for a range of housing types to meeting increasingly diverse needs. Clause (Housing affordability) this clause has the objective To deliver more affordable housing closer to jobs, transport and services. Council stated that the relevant sections of Clause 16 will be satisfied as the subject site is located within the McKinnon Neighbourhood Activity Centre. Council further noted that the site is well served by public transport, open space, commercial and retail services. As such it is an ideal location to provide medium density housing choices for the community. (ii) Local Planning Policy Framework (LPPF) Council submitted that the Amendment supports the following local planning objectives: Page 6

12 Clause (Strategic Framework) this clause includes the following key land use visions for Glen Eira: Allow for sustainable redevelopment which balances the needs of current and future populations Ensure a greater diversity of housing to meet future housing needs Improve and protect the liveability, neighbourhood character and amenity of Glen Eira Clause (Framework Plan) this clause states in relation to Activity Centres: These are distributed throughout the City, to serve as the focus for individual neighbourhoods and provide a mix of small scale convenience retailing and service uses. Apartments and shop top housing is encouraged within the commercial areas of these centres. Single dwellings and multi unit development are encouraged immediately adjoining the commercial areas of these centres It states in relation to Industry: Industrial sites surrounded by residential areas are encouraged to convert to residential where appropriate. Clause (Housing and Residential Development) this clause states that In managing the municipality s projected housing demand, Council supports a targeted approach to meet future housing needs Various locations have been identified that are suitable for multi unit development based on a number of factors including : Access to services, facilities and fixed route transport. Housing needs and capacity of residential areas to support new development. Residential character. Strategies include: Guide multi unit development towards obvious strategic locations that have access to public transport, commercial, community, educational and recreational services and facilities. Encourage residential use on large former industrial sites and other transitional sites that are surrounded by established residential areas and are well served by infrastructure. Recognise that in areas of heritage significance or potential flooding the ability to develop multi unit development may be limited. Ensure new residential development enhances the character of the neighbourhood. Facilitate high quality urban design and architecture that will enhance neighbourhood character. Page 7

13 Ensure that traffic impacts are adequately addressed when considering new residential development. Clause (Industry) this clause includes the following objectives: To encourage a variety of small scale manufacturing and service industries which do not impact on surrounding amenity or the environment. To identify preferred use and development options for industrial sites nearing the end of their economic life. Strategies include: Encourage the conversion of isolated pockets of industrially zoned land to residential where residential land use surrounds such sites. Encourage conversion of derelict industrial sites to residential or mixed use activity where appropriate. Zones and Overlays: Applying the Environmental Audit Overlay to locations where the scheme allows sensitive uses, such as residential, for the first time. Clause (Housing Diversity Area Policy) this clause includes Clause (Neighbourhood Centres) which states that it is policy to: Recognise neighbourhood centres as locations which provide significant opportunities for housing diversity, but at a lesser scale and density than developments in urban villages and the Phoenix Precinct. Recognise that different development outcomes are sought in the commercial and residential areas of neighbourhood centres. Encourage a mix of dwelling types and layouts. Recognise that these areas offer opportunities for multi unit development but at a lower scale and density than development in the commercial and mixed use areas of neighbourhood centres. Ensure that residential development is sited and designed so that it does not dominate the streetscape. Encourage a decrease in the density of residential development as the proximity to the commercial area of the neighbourhood centre decreases. Ensure that the siting and design of residential development responds positively to its interface with existing residential development in minimal change areas. Council stated that The proposed amendment will facilitate development of a large, underutilized piece of industrial land. The site is within one of Glen Eira s Housing Diversity Areas and is therefore in an area earmarked for multi unit development. The proposed General Residential Zone is consistent with the zoning of neighbouring properties along McKinnon and Wheatley Roads and the Schedule 2 requirements will ensure generous setbacks from the Neighbourhood Residential Zoned area to the south. Page 8

14 Council further noted that the subject site is located within a Special Building Overlay and therefore multi unit development could be limited in some way on this site, depending on the requirements of Melbourne Water. Comments will be sought at the time of a development application. 2.2 Ministerial Directions and Practice Notes (i) Ministerial Directions and Practice Notes Council submitted that the Amendment meets the relevant requirements of the following Ministerial Directions: Ministerial Direction 1 Potentially Contaminated Land Ministerial Direction 9 Metropolitan Strategy Ministerial Direction No 11 Strategic Assessment of Amendments - The Amendment is consistent with Ministerial Direction 11 (Strategic Assessment of Amendments) and Planning Practice Note 46 (Strategic Assessment Guidelines) The Form and Content of Planning Schemes (s7(5)) - The Amendment is consistent with the Ministerial Direction on the Form and Content of Planning Schemes under Section 7(5) of the Act Discussion Having reviewed the written submissions and heard submissions at the Hearing, the Panel is of the view that there is very little opposition to residential use of the Amendment site per se. The opposition goes to the potential form of development that may result if the exhibited zone (MUZ1) is pursued. The opposition is thus about the form and intensity of residential development, not that the site will be used for residential development. Having reviewed State and local planning policy, the Panel agrees that this is an ideal site to transition to residential development from light industrial. The specific policy support is articulated above but includes: The site is within an activity centre close to public transport with good access to infrastructure and services Council s MSS identifies the site as a Housing Diversity Area (HDA) within the McKinnon Neighbourhood Activity Centre (MNAC) in the planning scheme Council has specific policies to transition such pockets of industrial land to residential use. There are a number of detailed issues to be considered; many of which will not be able to be resolved until the site is developed. The key issues are discussed later in this report. 3 It is not clear to the Panel if this includes consistency with the revised Ministerial Direction (May 2017) introduced through Amendment VC133. This is an issue that should be checked during Amendment finalisation. Page 9

15 2.4 Conclusions The Panel concludes: there is strong policy support for the transition of the Amendment site from industrial use to residential use the site is in a HDA in the planning scheme; suggesting some level of higher intensity development compared to the Minimal Change Areas (MCA) of the planning scheme; albeit at a lesser scale and density than in the commercial core of the neighbourhood centre the location of the site within, but on the western edge of, the MNAC suggests that residential use should be a transition between the commercial area of the activity centre and the MCA. The key outstanding issue in the Panel s mind is exactly what level of residential use and development should be supported. This is addressed in the following chapter. Page 10

16 3 The exhibited and proposed controls 3.1 The proposed controls (i) The issue The Amendment was exhibited with the site rezoned to MUZ1 and the DDO6 applied. Council now proposes to rezone the land to the GRZ2 with no overlay 4. The issue is whether the now proposed zone is suitable in the context of relevant planning policy and in the light of objections. (ii) The proposed zoning schemes The proposed zones and their main key differences are summarised in Table 2 below. At the Panel s request the Applicant prepared block diagrams 5 of possible maximum development of the site and how it might differ under the two approaches to demonstrate possible heights, setback responses and garden area requirements. This proved very useful to the Panel and the Panel appreciates the effort undertaken by the applicant in preparing these. There was confusion amongst submitters sighting these diagrams; some assuming that this is the form eventual development might take. Both Council and the Applicant (and indeed the Panel) are in agreement that the actual development potential is highly likely to be different (and less) than the diagrams would suggest. A full consideration of planning scheme elements, articulation and good design and other factors such as the Melbourne Water assets will result in a very different outcome. 4 5 Apart from the EAO as mentioned in section 1.4. Document 2 in the Hearing. Page 11

17 Table 2 Proposed zones key elements Element MUZ1 and DDO6 GRZ2 Main zone purposes Uses Height To provide for a range of residential, commercial, industrial and other uses which complement the mixed use function of the locality. To provide for housing at higher densities. To encourage development that responds to the existing or preferred neighbourhood character. To facilitate the use, development and redevelopment of land in accordance with the objective specified in a schedule to this zone. To encourage development that respects the neighbourhood character of the area. To encourage a diversity of housing types and housing growth particularly in locations offering good access to services and transport. To allow educational, recreational, religious, community and a limited range of other non residential uses to serve local community needs in appropriate locations. The MUZ1 has a significantly greater range of Section 1 and Section 2 uses than the GRZ2 (the most obvious being Office and Industry) Mandatory 14.5 metres 6 maximum (effectively 4 storeys) via DDO6 Mandatory 11.0 metres (3 storeys) maximum Street setback 7 Clause , Standard B6 Clause , Standard B6 Side and rear Clause , Standard B17. setbacks 8 Larger rear (southern) setbacks to the NRZ provided for in DDO6 ranging from 4 metres at ground level to minimum 18 metres at fourth storey. Amenity consideration Minimum garden area requirement Clause , Standard B17. Larger setbacks to NRZ provided in schedule to the zone. Both approaches have extensive amenity consideration requirements through the application of Clause through the zones. DDO6 has explicit amenity considerations in the design objectives. 35 percent Plus up to 1.5 metre lift overrun. Assuming more than two dwellings being developed. Ibid. Likely requirement. The actual amount is lot size dependent; recently introduced via Amendment VC136. Page 12

18 (iii) Submissions Council Council s view on the Amendment is, at the end of the day, relatively straightforward. Ms Brasher submitted that the proposed MUZ1/DDO6 was exhibited to test the water (Council s words). But in the end: 10 the General Residential Zone (Schedule 2) is the most appropriate zone for this location. This zone fits well with the zoning of the surrounding area and will result in a development that will enhance the housing diversity in Glen Eira. The Neighbourhood Residential Zone is not considered appropriate for this location due to the area s designation as a housing diversity area within a neighbourhood activity centre. Council s resolution to support the GRZ2 as opposed to the exhibited proposal was a direct response to the significant number of objections to the MUZ1/DDO6; and particularly the 4 storey height countenanced under that zoning. The Proponent Mr Pearce for the Barekets noted that the exhibited Amendment was supported by Council s planning officers; but that his client now accepts the GRZ2 being put forward. There is substantial alignment between Council and the Proponent. He also noted the change in proposed zone effectively lowers the status of the site in the HDA hierarchy from Neighbourhood centre commercial to Neighbourhood centre residential. Mr Pearce took the Panel to a number of VCAT cases 11 said to stand for the proposition that HDAs in Glen Eira, given they account for only 22 per cent of the municipality, are generally not suitable for the NRZ, even on the edge of the HDA or interface areas. Mr Pearce also emphasised the commentary in these cases on the importance of high quality design, an issue he said would be addressed at the planning permit stage. He submitted that the combination of zone controls and Clause 55 standards will provide an appropriate framework to ensure the local context, character and amenity is considered if and when development is proposed. Objectors Objectors to the exhibited Amendment were primarily concerned 12 with the potential 4 storey development that could occur under the MUZ1/DDO6. Most of the objections were form letters that contained the following: This proposed zone amendment is significant and detrimental to this area. The Design & Development Overlay proposes a 4 Storey Development in the Document 4, page 16. Town Hall Consulting Group Pty Ltd v Glen Eira CC [2016] VCAT 1800, Yue qui Group Pty Ltd v Glen Eira CC [2017] VCAT 153. Other concerns related to infrastructure are discussed in Chapter 4. Page 13

19 middle of clearly defined residential (RGZ) 13 and neighbourhood (NRZ) zones (emphasis from original). Submitters to the Hearing, whilst more comfortable with the 3 storey as opposed to 4 storey limit, were mostly concerned with the change to GRZ2 without further consultation and the possibility of considering the NRZ as an alternative zone. The Glen Eira Residents Association Inc. (GERA) submitted that the Panel should recommend to Council that further consultation be undertaken on the GRZ2 and the NRZ1. Submitter Mr Poulios expressed a desire for the NRZ as his preferred zone, then the GRZ2. He drew on his experience in the City of Port Phillip to articulate that McKinnon is a family area and it should be kept that way. Mr Poulios, and other submitters, noted that he is not against redevelopment of the site; it is how it is done. The Panel particularly notes the submissions of Ms Vella and Ms Galvin who live at 102 and 104 McKinnon Road, abutting the eastern boundary of the site. Both submitters expressed concern that a large blank wall may appear on the property boundary and raised other concerns related to social impacts, construction impacts on their houses and traffic for example. Many of the submitters to the Hearing such as Ms Vella and Ms Galvin, Mr Poulios and Mr Solomon and Ms Laurent spoke at length about the difficulties they had with the planning process and transparency in Council decision making. These and other procedural matters are dealt with in Chapter 3.2 below. (iv) Discussion The Panel notes the agreement between the Proponent and the Council in relation to the progression of the GRZ2 rather than the MUZ1/DDO6. Having heard submissions from both, the Panel is satisfied that the new approach is sound based on a review of the policy framework. Whilst the site could have been, and was originally argued to be, zoned to an even higher use in the MUZ, the Panel considers given its particular characteristics the GRZ2 is appropriate and should allow a form and density appropriate to a HDA. The VCAT cases presented by Mr Pearce are noted and the need for development to taper off at the edges of HDAs has clearly been refuted. This site, however, is more than on the edge. It is: Somewhat removed from the commercial core A finger of land (along with the GRZ2 land across McKinnon Road and the existing townhouses on Wheatley Road) that juts out from the MNAC and is largely surrounded by low rise residential development, up to two storeys. 13 RGZ refers to the Residential Growth Zone; the Panel assumes the submissions are referring to the General Residential Zone (GRZ). The objection form letter also calls for a residential zone to be applied. The MUZ is a residential zone in the planning scheme. Page 14

20 The Panel is not arguing that the NRZ may be appropriate. It is clearly not an appropriate zone in policy terms unless the boundaries of the MNAC change, and given this relatively large site on the edge of the MNAC the status as a HDA is appropriate. These circumstances, however, the Panel is prepared to support the GRZ2 as a zoning that will provide for appropriate development outcomes and be consistent with zoning on all sides except the NRZ area to the south. Whilst the Panel appreciates the concerns of Ms Vella and Ms Galvin, at the end of the day the GRZ2 zoning will be the same as their properties. Even if the site was zoned to the NRZ, a different outcome is unlikely as the side setbacks are still as per Clause This raises a major issue for some submitters: lack of certainty about what development may eventuate. Many of the issues raised by submitters can only be addressed through detailed design and the planning permit process, which will be open for the public to comment when an application is lodged. A permit application was not, and is not required to be, attached with the Amendment. The Panel can only view the possible outcomes that might occur based on the proposed zone and other controls. In this case the Panel is satisfied that the GRZ2 is appropriate. (v) Conclusions The Panel concludes: The GRZ2 now being proposed on the site is appropriate and consistent with the outcomes sought in the HDA. Given the site s location in policy in the HDA, the NRZ would not be an appropriate outcome and could result in significant underdevelopment in a neighbourhood activity centre. The proposed zone and associated planning controls give enough guidance to provide the framework for high quality design and built form in keeping with the neighbourhood centre. 3.2 Procedural issues (i) The issue A number of procedural issues were raised. These include: Transformation of the Amendment Lack of transparency and lack of notice of changes leading to denial of natural justice. The Panel considers these below. (ii) Transformation The issue in the Panel s mind is whether the conversion of the MUZ1 to the GRZ2 post exhibition could be called a transformation of the Amendment. There are many authorities in VCAT decisions and Panel Reports on what constitutes transformation. Page 15

21 The Greater Dandenong C96 14 Panel had this to say: The change in zoning proposed by Council might be considered to transform the Amendment. Transforming an amendment is changing it in a fundamental way so that, in effect, it becomes a different amendment. The general principle applied in panel hearings is that modifications to amendments are acceptable so long as they do not result in a transformation of the proposal. Panels are guided by the general objective to achieve good outcomes without unnecessary delay or protraction of process. To do this, panels need to be prepared to facilitate the decision making process. Therefore, if modifying a proposal will achieve a good outcome, which overcomes legitimate and reasonable concerns, it is considered better to do so as part of the process of considering the matter than to reject it and require the process to be recommenced. What constitutes a transformation must be judged according to its own circumstances, but it would need to be something quite different to that originally proposed. The Panel considers this provides useful guidance for its consideration of the issue in this Amendment. Firstly, is the change proposed here significant enough to warrant the definition of transformation? The Panel s view is that it is not. The purpose of the Amendment is to rezone a discrete area of land (as opposed to the broad areas of land in the example above) from an industrial past to a residential future. The residential outcome between the exhibited zone and the proposed zone is a change in intensity of development, but a relatively minor change in degree (mostly likely reflected in reduced height and limiting of commercial uses). Importantly in the Panel s view, the change sought by Council, and now supported by the Proponent, will result in less development intensity, not more. This raises the question: should this change be re exhibited to afford natural justice to all, including those who may have supported the exhibited MUZ? Again in these circumstances the Panel does not consider such a case needs to be made. Council s primary reason for changing the Amendment was to address submissions relating to the proposed height and potential uses. 15 The main detrimentally affected party is the proponent and they are now in support of the changes. (iii) Lack of transparency and denial of natural justice A number of submitters were critical of Council and suggested there has been a lack of consultation, communication and a lack of transparency. The Panel is satisfied on the material before it that Council has gone above and beyond what it is statutorily required to PSA [2010] PPV 71. Document 1, page 11. Page 16

22 do and an outline of the process was provided in Appendix A to Council s submission. The receipt of 187 submissions and substantial resulting changes to the Amendment in the Panel s view attests to the success of Council s process, rather than a failure. In relation to whether Council should have put the GRZ2 out for public comment and whether a denial of natural justice has occurred 16, the Panel has addressed this to some extent in the comments on transformation in the above section. The important consideration here is notice. As the Panel has noted, the change to the Amendment was not put out for broad notice other than through the Council minutes. The Panel has also concluded that this was not needed as no transformation of the Amendment has occurred. Council did, however, write to all submitters on 4 April 2017 advising them of the Council resolution and notifying them that Planning Panels Victoria would subsequently invite them to attend the Panel Hearing (which occurred). It cannot be said that the extensive number of submitters, most of whom are local to the Amendment site, were not aware of Council s proposal, the proposal put forward to allay their concerns to a large extent. 17 The Panel thus does not consider a denial of natural justice has occurred. A number of submitters such as Mr Solomon also gave articulate presentations on how difficult they found the planning process. Unfortunately, the planning process at times can be a highly demanding, technically challenging process which requires a lot from participants. For this point the Panel has no simple solutions. (iv) Conclusions The Panel concludes that the procedural matters are not an impediment to the revised Amendment proceeding. 3.3 Recommendation The Panel recommends: 1. Adopt Glen Eira Planning Scheme Amendment C143 in the form as put to the Panel; with the General Residential Zone Schedule 2 and the Environmental Audit Overlay applied This point was made explicitly by Ms Galvin. Noting that the form letter objection called for abandonment and further consultation, not the application of the GRZ2. Page 17

23 4 Infrastructure 4.1 Background Some issues raised by the community in submissions must by their nature be considered as part of a future development application where a detailed proposal would be available; rezoning land is strategic and broad brush in understanding the land uses that may or may not be appropriate. The Panel, however, provides some general commentary below. 4.2 Traffic and parking (i) The issue The issues are: Whether the existing road network can accommodate future development Whether there is sufficient car parking. (ii) Submissions The applicant provided a high level traffic assessment to ascertain the indicative traffic and parking demand for the possible development scenarios. This was reviewed and generally accepted by Council with the caveat that any future development application include a detailed traffic and parking impact assessment. The GRZ2 development scenario 18 has 85 apartments, generating 43 vehicle movements in the peak hour, around 425 vehicle movements per day, and a demand for 130 parking spaces. Council s Traffic Engineering Team Leader noted the additional traffic generated by a residential development would not have any adverse impact on the surrounding road network. Council traffic surveys show the estimated daily traffic flow and threshold levels (where intervention may be required) in Table 3 below. Council s Traffic Engineering Team Leader also noted that if congestion became a problem in the narrow section [Wheatley Road] it may require some sections of parking to be prohibited during peak periods (similar to clearways) to improve traffic flow during these periods. Table 3 Traffic survey data Location Estimated Daily Traffic Vehicles per day (vpd) Threshold Volume (vpd) Wheatley Road near Fitzroy Street (south of site) 2,700 3,000 Wheatley Road (north of site) 7,000 + McKinnon Road 7,580 10,000 14, Provided as part of the block diagrams in Document 2. Page 18

24 The majority of submitters were concerned with traffic congestion and the additional parking demand from any development. Many flagged that existing congestion would be exacerbated by additional traffic, similarly on street parking would become scarcer due to additional parking demand from any redevelopment of the site. Mr Farfor carried out his own peak hour (8 9 am) traffic survey over 4 days at Wheatley Street/McKinnon Road intersection and identified: Wheatley Street 395 vehicles McKinnon Road 711 vehicles. Generally, peak hour traffic is around 10 to 15 percent of the total daily traffic and Mr Farfor data is consistent with Council data. He noted that this level of traffic would require traffic signals to be installed. (iii) Discussion and conclusions Residents and the Panel were unable to understand what impact the proposed Amendment would have on traffic and parking conditions without the MUZ1 and GRZ2 Massing Studies and associated high level traffic analysis. There is no doubt that not having this information at the start of the process led to significant community concern and apprehension. However, with this information, the Panel supports Council s assessment that the road network is capable of accommodating additional residential development at this site. The high level analysis suggests there are no traffic and parking grounds which should prevent the Amendment proceeding. The fine detail and in depth traffic and parking assessment will occur as part of any development application. At that stage, details on site access, the number and type(s) of parking spaces to be provided, traffic generation and distribution onto the road network would be undertaken. The Panel notes that the traffic and on street parking demand associated with the existing business/industrial uses would no longer occur; the loss of this traffic and parking demand can be offset against any future redevelopment. The Panel concludes: There are no traffic and parking grounds which should prevent the Amendment proceeding. 4.3 Flooding and stormwater drainage (i) The issue The issue is whether the Amendment sufficiently considers potential flooding issues. (ii) Submissions The Background Report identified that the site is covered by a Special Building Overlay (SBO) as it is subject to flooding during the 1 in 100 year flood event, and would require any permit application to be referred to Melbourne Water. Melbourne Water also has a main stormwater drain running through the site, at 94 McKinnon Road. Page 19

25 Several submitters were concerned that any large future development, including basement car parking and additional impervious surfaces could increase overland flow and create more severe localised flooding. They questioned whether a major redevelopment was appropriate under these circumstances. (iii) Discussion and conclusions The site is subject to flooding during intense storm events and Melbourne Water has a major stormwater drain running through the site. The Panel notes that a residential redevelopment would require a minimum 35 percent garden area. This would decrease stormwater flow rates compared to existing conditions, as much of the site is covered with impervious areas. Building a basement car park would not increase the amount of impervious area or stormwater runoff. As part of a permit application, Melbourne Water approval will be required. This would involve consultation between Melbourne Water and Council officers, the applicant s architect, drainage and traffic specialists to realise a safe and functional design which incorporates appropriate stormwater management and flood mitigation measures. While the Panel acknowledges resident concern about flood issues, the Amendment is unlikely to materially affect future flood conditions on other properties. The Panel concludes: The Amendment is unlikely to materially affect future flood conditions on other properties. 4.4 Infrastructure upgrades (i) Submissions A few submissions raised the issue that the existing infrastructure (sewerage, electricity, stormwater drainage, traffic management) may be overloaded by a future development and residents may bear the cost for infrastructure renewal and/or upgrades. Council made no specific submission regarding this issue other than to note that the existing McKinnon Road/Wheatley Road roundabout is to be upgraded to improve its safety and operational characteristics. (ii) Discussion and conclusions The Panel notes that there is ongoing maintenance and renewal of essential infrastructure around Melbourne by Council and other agencies. The cost of these works is generally funded through council rates, grants, or with utilities, bills which incorporate an allowance for maintenance and upgrade works. At this stage, it is inappropriate for the Panel to speculate on what infrastructure upgrade(s) may be required however, it is noted that site specific infrastructure upgrade works would generally be at the developer s cost. The Panel concludes: That infrastructure upgrades are beyond the remit of this Panel. Page 20

26 Appendix A Submitters to the Amendment Submitter Submitter Submitter M Laurent T Solomon S M Main C and K G Murphy G and A Poulios T E Wilson S Lai A J Calderon H A Chambers R J Smith L Liu J J Greer J Smith I Solomon L Tinkler H M Kemp S Margolius H M Helmore D Kemp C M Solomon W J Green T R M and R J Burns R S Cowpe K J Coles S Rozenbes C J Robinson Y Wu Dosa C P Enever A K Liolios A J Macko R G Bramley E Fernando J P D S Swieboda C Hona S B and P Watson N L Swieboda M L Sedger R G Leoszko L M Occhietti C Fraser B J Drummond M Laurent S Fraser D Barrow D Sidhu J M Fraser J R Shelley and J Bartholomeusz D Alvarado E Fraser J R Burton P A Thomson K S M Fraser H P Wu S A Coles H E Lang E Bieg V Jobling D Belling L M Hanley Department of Economic Development, Jobs Transport and Resources G M Thorne A M H Van Amrooij South East Water C Thorne R C Myers EPA Victoria C L Thorne M C Myers H Tilstra M Thorne M A Townsend Melbourne Water Corporation T Thorne N Sporton V Jobling S Shuter R H Townsend K Y Spaargaren M Taylor L S I Sabin S Dasari J Rutten L J Tyrrell R J and R A Hallowell S Elliot K Johnston H Deng J L P Sullivan S M Stanley D Cameron J C Sullivan A Campbell J M Valenta G Latsis S M Fantham A Misterov Page 21

27 D Pham B Cameron B J Michell L Cohen M Lindeman C Peter A M Coughlin R Smith Mursalo J E Searle Q Guo T Merlo M Lu J J Coughlin M Cerny E J Torcasio M W Dale N A Mursalo R Aiello Y Ma B Linderman T Bourke P Jacobs M A Sabin N Passov M G Lumb P J McCaffrey N G Laver M A O'Leary M B McCaffrey P Z Schwarz C A Mead B A Payne J Clarke B M Bruce L Coughlan D J Parrott Glen Eira Residents Association T Price B C Smithells J Martakis A J Toler B Schwarz L M Anderson T A Healey J A Naylor Y Chen O A Healey K Ayres B J Marten K Deneiffe M Fox S Campbell P Kane A M Mitchell E Martakis N A Vella A J Macko J Basile A B Galvin B Forbes T Farfor S Steele M F Speak M G Arulappan C Steele D P and H E Lang B E Wales H L Steadman D A Watts H E Jenkins S M Marshall M Stein M Chiarezza X Liang P J Comarmond N M Gardiner A Lyon J Li E F Potter D J Cameron K L Healy K M Evans W B Stannus R Webbe E V Percoco M G Stanley S M Gaylard G Sporton G J Cameron D Zhao Page 22

28 Appendix B Document list No. Date Description Tabled by 1 18/05/2017 Council Part A submission Council 2 25/05/2017 Massing Studies MUZ1 and GRZ2 Urbis 3 Background material Draft Activity Centre, Housing and Local Economy Strategy Correspondence from Melbourne Water to Barekets (4 pieces) Copy of titles in Amendment Council 4 Council Part B submission Council 5 Submission for G and O Bareket Urbis 6 Submission for G and O Bareket slides Urbis 7 Town Hall Consulting Group Pty Ltd v Glen Eira CC [2016] VCAT 1800 Urbis 8 Yue Qui Group Pty Ltd v Glen Eira CC [2017] VCAT 153 Urbis 9 Glen Eira Amendment C25 Panel Report, December 2002 Urbis 10 Submission M & G Healy 11 Advisory Note 66 excerpt from Apartment Standards Mr Farfor 12 Submission Glen Eira Residents Association Inc. Ms Hatfield 13 Submission Ms Laurent 14 Submission photographs McKinnon Road Ms Galvin & Ms Vella 15 Council resolution and Panel Hearing Letter to residents Council 16 29/05/2017 Written copy of verbal submission at Hearing Mr Farfor Page 23