for ent
711. 58 09945 VIC:VR copy 2 PUNNiNG AND EPA UBRARY .:'J'l.··.· . ..'~,:;;.- ·.· . ~---··,-·-<,":--- . .I t I ,-·· -, \ . :.'\ ( ; : ,! .--~- ?1, ~ . . ", . ·. ·.'1 . '"·.,__ ·.. .. ~ :. I .I REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT PANEL APPOINTED TO HEAR SUBMISSIONS
-.I IN RESPECT OF ., I AMENDMENT SRI ',I RELATING TO ALL PLANNING SCHEMES IN VICTORIA ·I I ·I -I '_I -I
-~1 Panel members: P. Davies, Chairman. J. Arndt, Member. ·:1 K. Mackenzie, Member. Dates of · hearing: 4th. November 1991. :I 6th. Nov. to 8th. Nov .1991. 12th. Nov. to 13th. Nov. 1991 6th. Dec. 1991 ,I Date of submission of report: 29th. January, 1992. · ·;I J· 711.58 ~a Report of the 09945 1ridependent panel VIC:VR appo1nted to hear 1 copy 2 submissions in _., L .. fespec~--~f ' =-:-=::::::·=---~~"'=··""~"- ·-· ". --·, -.~,- -. SR 1 Panel Report 20/1/92
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SYNOPSIS ...... , ...... ·...... 3 I I. Purpose of the Amendment...... ~ ...... 6 2. Background information (provided by the Depanment of Planning and Housing 'per D.Rae, W. I Morris and P. Goldstone) ...... ·...... ? 3. Review of the submissions ...... 1 7 3.1. General Issues ...... •..... 1 7 I 3.1.1. Panel commentary ...... 1 7 3.1.1.1. General thrust of the amendment...... 18 3.1.1.2 Exclusion from the amendment of cenain areas ...... 19 3.1.1.3. Doughnut effect...... 20 I 3.1.1.4. Separation of medium density deliberations from Viccode ...... 20 3.1.1.5. Fostering information programs ...... 20 I 3.1.1.6. Leapfrogging ...... ,. ... 2 0 3.1.1.7. Approval process and local structure plans ...... 20 3.1.1.8. Inclusion of the commentary found in AM CORD ...... 2 8 3.1.1.9. Need for continuing review ...... 29 I 3.1.1.10. Panel Recommendations ...... ·:· ...... 3 0 3.2 Matters relating to the specific elements of ,. VicCode ...... -. .' ... 3 3 I 3.2.1. Introduction and background ...... •.,.:.34 3.2.1.1. Department commentary and suggested modifications...... ' .. .34 I 3.2.1.2. Panel commentary...... 3 5 3.2.1.3. Panel recommendations ...... :...... 3 5 3.2.2 Element EO - Community design ...... 36 3.2.2.1. Synopsis of commentary in submissions ...... 3 6 I 3.2.2.2. Department commentary arid suggested modifications...... 37 3.2.2.3. Panel commentary ...... 3 8 I 3.2.2.4. Panel recommendations ...... 40 3.2.3 Element El - Lot size and orientation ...... 41 3.2.3.1 Synopssis of commentary in submissions ...... 41 I 3.2.3.2. Department commentary and suggested modifications ...... 43 3.2.3.3. Panel commentary ...... 45 3.2.3.4. Panel recommendations ...... 46 3.3.3 Element E2 - Building siting and design ...... 48 I 3.3.3.1. Synopsis of commentary in submissions ...... 48 3.3.3.2. Department commentary and suggested. modifications ...... 52 3.3.3.3. Panel commentary ...... 56 .I 3.3.3.4. Panel recommendations ...... 5? 3.3.4 Element E3 - Private Open Space ...... 61 3.3.4.1. Synopsis of commentary in submissions ...... 6"1 I 3.3A.2. Department commentary and suggested modifications ...... 62 3.3.4.3. Panel commentary ...... 62 3.3.4.4. Panel recommendations ...... , ... 63 3.3.5 Element E4 Vehicle parking ...... 64 I 3.3.5.1. Synopsis of commentary in submissions ...... 65 3.3.5.2. Department commentary and suggested modifications ...... ;66 3.3.5.3. Panel commentary ...... 6 8 I 3.3.5.4. Panel recommendations ...... 69 3.3.6 Element ES - Streetscape ...... 71 3.3.6.1. Synopsis of commentary in submissions ...... 7 1 I 3.3.6.2. Department commentary and suggested modifications ...... 73 3.3.6.3. Panel commeentary ...... 7 6 1: I I L_ SR I Panel Report 20/1/92 2
3.3.6.4. Panel recommendations ...... 77 3.3.7 Element E6 Movement network ...... 79 3.3.7.1 Synopsis of commentary in submissions ...... 79 3.3.7.2. Department commentary and suggested modifications...... ·...... 81 I 3.3.7.3. Panel commentary ...... 8 7 3.3.7.4. Panel recommendations ...... 8 8 3.3.8 Element E7 Pedestrians and cyclists ...... 92 I 3.3.8.1. Synopsis of commentary in submissions ...... 92 3.3.8.2. Department commentary and suggested modifications~ ...... 92 3.3.8.3. Panel commentary ...... 95 I 3.3.8.4. Panel recommendations ...... 96 3.3.9 Element E8 - Street design ...... 99 3.3.9.1 Synopsis of commentary in submissions ...... 99 3.3.9.2. . Department commentary and suggested modifications ...... 10 1 3.3.9.3 Panel commentary ...... 104 I 3.3.9.4. Panel recommendations ...... 105 3.3.10 Element E9 Street construction ...... 109 3.3.1-0.1. Synopsis of commentary in submissions ...... 109 3.3.10.2. Department commentary and suggested modifications ...... ·...... 109 3.3.10.3. Panel commentary ...... 110 3.3.10.4. Panel recommendations ...... 111 I 3.3.11 Element EIO - Public open space ...... 112 . ·. 3.3.11.1. Synopsis of commentary in subm,issions ...... 112 3.3.11.2. Department commentary and suggested modifications I ...... 113 3.3.11.3 Panel commentary ...... 1 16 3.3.11.4. Panel recommendations ...... ) 18 3.3.12. Element Ell - Utilities provision ...... 121 I 3.3.12.1. Synopsis of commentary in submissions ...... 12 I 3.3.12.2. Department commentary and suggested modifications...... 122 I 3.3.12.3. Panel commentary ...... 122 3.3.12.4. Panel recommendations ...... 123 3.3.13. Element E12·· - Drainage network & Element E12(a) - Mino,r stormwater flows...... : ...... 124 I 3.3.13.1. Synopsis of commentary in submissions ...... 124 3.3.13.2. Department commentary and suggested modifications...... 127 I 3.3.13.3 Panel commentary ...... 129 3.3.13.4 Panel recommendations ...... :...... 130 3.3.14 Element E12(b) Major stormwater flows ...... 133 I -3.3.14.1. Synopsis of commentary in submissions ...... 133 3.3.14.2. Department commentary and suggested modifications ...... 133 3.3.14.3. Panel commentary ...... l34 I 3.3.14.4 Panel recommendations ...... 134 4. Matters for ongoing review of VicCo de ...... : .. 136 4.·1 Panel Recommendation ...... 13 7 I NUMERCIAL LIST OF SUBMITTORS ...... 138 I _I SR I Panel Report 20/1/92 · 3
SYNOPSIS I Amendment SR 1 aims at setting in place, within the ·formal planning documentation of the State of Victoria, the Victorian Code for Residential Development - commonly referred to as VicCode. The amendment seeks to enable any proponent wishing to use VicCode to do so within a I number of nominated municipalities which are located upon the urban fringe. These municipalities are experiencing the bulk of urban growth and the ability to · apply VicCode will aid in containing urban growth, in I conjunction with the other perceived benefits of VicCode. In addition the setting place of VicCode in a statutory form will I open up the opportunity for other Councils to adopt its application· within their own municipality.
VicCode has its origin from the existing Victorian Residential I Development Provisions and AMCORD, the Australian Model Code. The introduction of VicCode and its close inter-relationship with AMCORD is viewed as setting a base for planning compatibility with other States who are I either reviewing the possibility of. its implementation or who have adopted ,~ AMCORD principles. I It should be appreciated. that VicCode consists of a diverse range of clements embracing:- Community design; Lot size and orientation; Building siting and design; Private open space; Vehicle parking; I Streetscape; Movement network; Pedestrian and cyclists; Street design; I Street construction; Public open space; Utilities provision; Drainage network.
Each of these elements is expanded to incorporate objectives, I performance criteria and performance measurements. It is anticipated that in conjunction with making house and land ownership more affordable, allied with the ability to assist in conserving energy and resources, the matters embraced by VicCode will aid in creating a living environment of I high environmental quality. An additional element beyond those found in AMCORD has been added to VicCode. This element deals with Community Design and is directed towards ensuring the establishment of safe, I sustainable and stimulating neighbourhoods and formally ensuring that, as design is undertaken, it relates sensibly with overall Local Structure Plans. I The amendment is directed at providing "as of right" ability to subdivide land if a subdivision proposal accords. with nominated performance measurements of specified elements and objectives and criteria of other elements. The application of this principle is available when the I proposed subdivision .interfaces with an approved Local Structure Plan. The alternative approach is to use the normal permit process. I SR 1 Panel Report 20/1/92 4
Sixty eight submissions were received in respect of the amendment. Submissions, in the main, were from Councils, service bodies and industry related organisations. The submissions generally were directed at two levels. The first level dealt with the philosophical aspects of I YicCode whilst the second level covered matters of a more finite form dealing with the actual prov1s1ons of the objectives, criteria and measurements embodied in the amendment. At this latter level a number of constructive comments were offered and these comments were taken up in number of I instances in Panel recommendations.
At the philosophical level industry based submissions were I supportive of VicCode and were desirous of seeing the amendment proceed without significant modification or without the introduction of modifications which would create more oppressive controls than those proposed in I YicCode. Councils expressed concern at this level at having VicCode "imposed" upon them "from above" and giving rise to what they perceived as a lowering of local standards, whether it be density. proviSions or engineering standards, the loss of ability to control subdivisions through the I planning permit system or an inability to gain adequate fees to cover the administration of VicCode subdivisions. Significant concern was expressed also at the manner in which open space would have to be negotiated i.e. I being constrained to a 5% contribution.
Following a review of the submissions the Panel upheld the I amendment and the implementation of YicCode subject to detailed recommendations made in respect of each eleme :.. The substance of such recommendations is best appreciated by reviewing the section of the Panel I report which deals with these aspects. The Panel paid significant attention to the· administrative aspects of implementing YicCode, including the manner in which Local I Structure Plans would be approved or set in place. The Panel considered that detailed guidelines on Local Structure Plans be in was to gain approval. In additio·n the Panel held the 'I view permit system should be implemented rather th A of t e nvuonment Act whereb The Panel held the belief ~~~~-!.~__...;-:~~:;:~~~::....~--7:!,!:...... !:~:.:-::~~-i t was primarily introduced I act as a base process for
I The proposed modified permit system, as proposed by the Panel, would embody the general principles of "to the satisfaction" but at the same time it would enable the major administrative characteristics of the existing permit and thus would retain the basic principles around which the I Subdivision Act is based. The Department stance was to retain the approval system as exhibited and to look to setting in place administrative processes to operate effectively under Section 149A. Industry based groups were firm in I ~heir desire to~hieve an approval system which obviated "third party" Involvement. I The Panel has devoted significant commentary to the topic of public open space under its review of Element E 10. In essence the Panel considers that the issue of public open space merits further investigation and whilst at this stage the Panel is not prepared withhold approval to the I amendment on this issue, it believes that it is a matter which merits a high I priority in any review investigatic;ms of VicCode.
.,, - --,
SR 1 Panel Report 20/1/92 5
The Panel has highlighted the need to ensuring · that adequate information programs are in place to support the introduction of VicCode. The Department of Planning and Housing has given every indication to the Panel of their comprehending the need for such programs and their willingness to set such programs in place.
The effective utilization of VicCode is dependent upon a a thorough knowledge of all its elements and the inter-relationship of the elements. The extent and complexity of this task is best appreciated by I the fact that the exhibited VicCode embodied some 250 detailed objectives, performance criteria and performance measurements which would need to be considered for each subdivision. The actual extent of such application may vary with the size of the subdivision but in theory each subdivision I needs to be analysed against the final contents of VicCode. The Panel has drawn attention to the need for adequate I resourcing to be available at Department level to aid in the inception of VicCode, the rapid resolution of matters of interpretation and/or implementation and the need for a proactive ongoing review process. The Panel holds the strongest opinion on these matters as failure to provide I service within the Department on this aspect will result in the use of VicCode being thwarted, allied with a sense of distrust. I The review process should be performed through a Working Committee comprised of a cross section of interests. The Panel has placed stress also upon the need for the Department to have the ability to draw . upon I a resource of expertise \",. · · ich has a balanced and practical appreciation of the subdivision process and assc.ciated aspects of "on site" development. This latter requirement is vital to be able to issue policy directives which have credence and a high level of acceptability and to obviate the formulation of a I diverse range of attitudes which could lead to delay.
The Panel wishes to· accord recognition to officers of the I Department who provided significant input into analysing the content of the submissions and prepared detail commentary on possible modifications. The Panel is also grateful for the quality of submissions and the manner in I which personal presentations were made.
In summary the amendment is upheld, subject to Panel recommendations set out in the report. Stress is drawn to issues highlighted I above if VicCode is to find acceptance. I Dated the ...... ?.9..~~······· I P.F.Davies, Chairman. I ·····················-'"""'J~ ... ' J. Arndt, Member.
~----( .. ~ K. Mackenzie, Member. I I I I SR 1 Panel Report 20/1/92 6
I. Purpose of the Amendment The amendment replaces, in the State Section, the ex1stmg Residential Development Provisions November 1988 with the Victorian Code for Residential Development June 1991, and provides that any Responsible I Authority may use the Code -when . considering a proposal to subdivide land for residential development or to use a lot for a single house. ... I · , The amendment also requires the Code to be applied in various specified zones in the Metropolitan, Westernport and Upper Yarra Valley and Dandenong Ranges Region Planning Schemes. The zones include the Reserved Living Zone and equivalent zones in the developing fringe of the I metropolitan area. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I SR I Panel Report 20/1/92 7
2. Background information provided by the Department of Planning and Housing per D.Rae, W. Morris and P. Goldstone.
The Panel was provided with a broad range of background literature on Residential Development and this resource information was I available to the Panel and any interested parties throughout the entire deliberations.
The presentation by the Departmental representatives was I divided into the following aspects:- 1. A brief introductory video; 2. A review of the background and evolution and policies; I 3. Broad details on residential development workshops and some illustrations of the residential design process which sought to achieve VicCode objectives; I 4. An overview of the written submissions as at the date of pres~ntation. 5. Major issues of detail. I The attention of the Panel was drawn to the Planning Ministers' Conference 1991 and the Policy Directions for Urban Reform which were agreed upon at that Conference. Desired outcomes emerging from the I Conference were as ·follows:- 1. Planning and Co-ordination of Urban Development. I Th:'·' strategic plans for major new urban development encompass minimum density requirements and AMCORD or equivalent principles; That :residential ..infill..,or major redevelopments of existing I areas should ·incorporate substantial higher density components subject to site constraints; 2. Regulatory Reform. I That Commonwealth, State and Territory Planning Ministers endorse the adoption of performance based codes modeled on AMCORD and urge that local government join I in co-operative approaches to achieve this objective before the end of 1992; • That the Commonwealth, State and Territory Governments support accelerated reform of local government approval I processes, particularly in relation to approval times and decision making; That Ministers seek support of the Heads of Go_vernment to I mm1mize the regulation of housing that conforms with performance based codes such as AMCORD (or equivalent). I The Panel was advised that Queensland had adopted AMCORD but such adoption had not been accompanied by any participatory involvement as had been undertaken in Victoria with SRI. I Amendment SR 1 possesses three major components. These are:-
1. Statement of policy objectives addressing the main issues in I residential development in Victoria in the immediate future; 2. The introduction of the Victorian Code for Residential Development I to the State Section of ill planning schemes in Victoria, replacing the Residential Development Provisions. It further provides that any Responsible Authority may use the Code when considering a I I d I SR I Panel Report 20/1/92 8 proposal to subdivide land for residential development or to use a I lot for a single house; 3. The specifying in the Regional Sections, of all planning schemes in the Metropolitan, Westernport and Upper Yarra Valley and I Dandenong Ranges Regions, a series of zones to which the code must be applied. The amendment, and consequently the Code, applies in the specified zones, to:- I. The subdivision of land; I 2. The subdivision of land and the use of any lot for a single house; I 3. The use of a lot ''for a single house. VicCode was viewed as providing an integrated and performance oriented approach to the subdivision of land and the siting of houses. It I emphasized innovative solutions to these issues, in a context of quality community design and, in doing so, addresses some significant social environmental and financial concerns.
I A overview was given on housing standards, housing choice and affordability, planning policy context, the Victorian Housing and Residential Development Plan, Residential Development Provisions, Australian Model I Code for Residential ·Development(AMCORD), the Triple-RRR Program, the RDP Review (A copy of the RDP Review report was made available to the Panel) and the emergence of VicCode. Additional commentary was provided on the need for a better approach to Community Design and the resultant I inclusion of the Community Design element in VicCode. This element represents an addition to the AMCORD documentation. It acts as a framework and outlined the objectives and design criteria that should guide the .I planning of a new residential area. before applying the detailed proviSions in design elements E I to E I2. This new element also has . a focus on safe, I sustainable and stimulating neighbourhoods. An inherent component of the introduction ·of the innovative clements of VicCode was the need for education and seminars, residential design workshops, continuing review and I publicity. The Department had been actively involved in these areas and had run a number of residential design workshops and seminars on VicCode.
I An overview was given of the major issues raised in the submissions by the major "umbrella" organizations, namely the Municipal Association of Victoria, the Housing Industry Association, the Master Builders I Association and the Urban Development Association of Australia. More detailed response to the whole range of submissions was provided separately. Reference to these detailed responses is found in later sections of the Panel report as each element is reviewed. It was considered pertinent at this stage I to set out what the Department perceived as the major issues arising from the submissions of these "umbrella" organizations as such appraisal provided a I good backdrop to the level of support and significant areas of concern. Generally all the "umbrella" associations expressed support for the overall aims and objectives of Amendment SRI and VicCode. The major I areas of concern were as follows:- I. URBAN CONSOLIDATION. A number of fringe Councils expressed concern that the onus for I achieving urban consolidation was being unfairly imposed on them I I SR I Panel Report 20/1/92 9 I
and that there was a danger of a "doughnut" effect occurring in population distribution. I
The issue was complex but it should be appreciated that the Government was implementing urban consolidation policies across the whole metropolitan region. The Government was endeavouring to encourage medium high densities in the middle/inner ring areas. A graphic portrayal was provided to illustrate that, in contrast to outer regions, a compacting of density did in fact occur in the middle/inner areas.
The introduction of higher densities to the urban fringe was directed I towards controlling the further outward sprawl. A comparison of the density of Melbourne to other cities in the world was provided. This comparison highlighted the low residential densities which existed I m Melbourne.
2. NATIONAL STANDARDS WITH STATE AND LOCAL VARIATIONS. The MAV suggested that VicCode represented a State variation from a I National Code (AMCORD) and there should be an opportunity for local (municipal) variations from the State Code. I It was pointed out that both Commonwealth and State Governments, in pursuing micro-economic reform, were seeking to reduce and eliminate, where possible, regulatory duplication. YicCode was considered by . the Department to represent a development of AM CORD I rat~er than a variation.
It was stated close examination revealed that on the key issues of lot I size, building Slllng ... and · infrastructure prov1s1on, the differences between AMCORD and YicCode were minimal. These key ·issues, set out as mandatory elements in ·SR 1, were viewed by the Government as I being critical to the success of the objectives of the amendment and the Code.
A built in flexibility existed with some of the elements, including the I movement network. In addition some ability existed to allow local variations where Councils can clearly identify areas of, say, environmental quality, however, such variations would only be I allowed where clear and well documented justification was produced. There was concern that in producing VicCode the useful commentary I which was provided in AMCORD has been omitted.
The documents were viewed as being complementary and it was considered that benefits existed in keeping YicCode, _ which was I essentially a statutory Code, as concise as possible.
The application of the Code was restricted to Metropolitan fringe I municipalities. It should be applied across the whole State and in particular to the major provincial centres of Geelong, Bendigo and Ballaarat. I The amendment enables any municipality in the State to adopt the Code when dealing with an application for subdivision. The specific I, application to fringe metropolitan areas had been elected as it was in these areas that the greatest opportunity was available and the I SR I Panel Report 20/1/92 I 0 greatest need existed to strongly support urban consolidation I policies. The suggestion had been made that the Code should· only apply to I broad-acre sites and that in-fill areas should be excluded. The choice of zonings for application of the Code was based on the metropolitan Reserved Living Zone and its equivalent In all I developing fringe areas. This choice assumed the provision of reticulated services and appropriateness for residential development. The approval process would allow an adequate level of control over any proposal to ensure its integration with the surrounding I development.
The applicability to smaller infill areas was perceived as permitting I innovative developers to make use of the code's more flexible approach.
In the instance of an approved plan of subdivision the amendment allowed houses without a permit and with lesser setback requirements than non-code development. It was considered that the building ·envelope requirements in the Code provided adequate I amenity safeguards to adjoining properties.
Industry associations suggested that medium density (multi-unit) I guidelines should be incorporated into VicCode when completed.
The Department supported this proposal in concept. Clear advantages existed in working towards one document which dealt with all I matters relating . to housing. ·At this juncture it was c.onsidered that a logical break existed at around the 300 sq. metre mark which allowed I the YicCode and the Multi-unit Code to proceed as separate projects. The siting controls should be transposed into Part 11 of the Victorian Building Regulations and applied as-of-right across the whole of I Victoria. Any exemptions sho.uld be processed by means of a planning permit.
I The Department held the view that the siting requirements of houses · and other buildings were essentially· planning issues and should be handled through that process, leaving the VBR's to deal with issues of structure, safety etc.. Section 29 of the Building Control Act provided specific mechanism to override any duplication of standards.
Councils have expressed concern that the work they have undertaken, with funding from the Commonwealth Government under the RRR-program, to review their residential codes has been I wasted because of the imposition of VicCode. It was appreciated that Councils had undertaken significant work in the preparation of codes through Commonwealth funding under the RRR-program. An objective of this program was to promote the I concepts of AMCORD. It had certainly placed the major issues of housing diversity, cost effective infrastructure and urban I consolidation firmly on the agenda in the· selected areas. I I SR I Panel Report 20/1/92 I I I
An analysis of the Codes prepared under the program indicated that a very high degree (in the order of 75% to 90%) concurrence existed I between YicCode and the current RRR-program ·drafts. The major variations tended to be in areas such as lot sizes, street networks, open space etc .. I YicCode has a major role of demonstrating clearly the criteria - as identified in the mandatory performance measures which the Department believed as being critical to the. successful I implementation of the Government objectives for housing density, cost effective infrastructure and urban consolidation. I A number of Councils have expressed concerns that the urban design skills necessary to implement VicCode were lacking in Victoria. I The Department was conscious of this aspect and it has used the workshop process to aid in assisting in this area. It was envisaged that cO'ntinuing use. will be made of this medium to aid in the comprehension of VicCode principles. In addition other I forms of continuing education would be fostered and currently negotiations were proceeding with the Commonwealth Government under its Greenstreet program with a view to funding and running I further workshops and seminars during 1992 and onwards. 3. LEAPFROGGING I MA V was concerned io prevent subdivision occurring ahead of the availability of structure plans. I This concern was supported by the Department. It was considered that some confusion may exist as the MA V referred to growth corridors Growth corridors were already subject to requirements for I structure pLns to be prepared in accordance with the instructions set out in Ministerial Directions 2 and 3.
Amendment SRI specifically applied Vic Code to areas of the I Metropolitan fringe in Reserved Living zones and equivalent zones. The vast majority of this land possessed some form of existing overlying "structure plan" e.g. an Outline Development Plan. The I amendment required that where a subdivision proposal occurred the original .. ODP should be updated to comply with the Local Structure Plan criteria set out in the amendment or else the proposal must be I handled through the permit process. Either way the Responsible Authority would be able to fit the proposal into the wider framework.
On the general use of out-of-sequence developments the I Department had prepared out-of-sequence guidelines for use by Councils and the Development industry. (Panel note: A copy of the draft notes was made available to the Panel. At the time of I report writing the draft had been circulated to a limited group on a confidential basis for comment.) · I 4. CONSENT PROCESS
It had been suggested that a mechanism be provided for approval of a local structure plan by the Minister, with or without comment by the I Council. I I I SR I Panel Report 20/1/92 I 2
The Department held the firm belief that the preparation of the Local I, Structure Plan was . essentially a local planning responsibility and it was appropriate that the Department should only set the overall criteria and context. This was provided for in the amendment. A LSP may be prepared by any person but should always be prepared I in consultation with the Council. Clearly Council would be the body responsible in the long term for the development and maintenance of the resulting community and it would undoubtedly play an I important role in the formation of that community.
The issue of approval and introduction of Local Structure Plans was I canvassed at length both during the Panel hearing and in subsequent investigations by the Department, following a request by the · Panel to pursue this matter. This later investigation took the form of gaining input from a range of consultants, development I bodies and Councils.
At the present time three distinct forms of Local Structure Plan could I· be considered to exist. These were:- 1. As pan of the planning scheme; 2. As ·documents incorporated by reference; 3. Not in the planning scheme but recognized as a Council I policy document.
A number of submissions suggested that there ought to be I ~ much more standardised approach to LSPs. The t>epartment recognized this issue and it would form a working group with local government and the industry on I this issue. In the development of new areas the LSP was clearly a very significant document. The Department, as part of the I Planning Approval · Process Review, would pursue processes which would ensure a more secure status for the I LSP whilst still maintaining its flexibility. There was, in addition, a clear view that .the process of development and approval of a LSP - especially when this was associated with a I consequent approval where no permit was required - must ensure that all affected parties were adequately consulted. When agreements arise that cannot be resolved through negotiation arbitration must be available .. This was identified as a significant issue m the I Packenham, Melton and Werribee submissions.
To approve a plan of subdivision without a permit it was vital that the I Council should be familiar with the LSP. Therefore the suggestion that this plan should be prepared without Council comment was I deemed quite inappropriate. The Department did offer a recommendation however that Clause 7-5.3 be amended to make clear any person may prepare an LSP for presentation to the Responsible I Authority for approval.
Concern was expressed that it would not be possible to levy I development contributions as. a planning permit may not be required in some cases. I I SR I Panel Report 20/1/92 1 3 I
The Department supported the general principle of Responsible Authorities ·being able to obtain contributions to the provision of I infrastructure which was required to service new development. The Minister had released a set of Guidelines to assist Councils in this regard. However the Department would only support the levying of contributions by way of permit conditions or planning scheme I provisions which clearly met the following criteria:- 1. Specific works, services and/or facilities were identified; I 2. The specific works, services and/or facilities were necessary as a consequence of the development, whether in isolation or in I combination with other development; 3. The payment for, or the provision of the specific works, services and/or facilities be fairly and reasonably related to the permitted I development.
It was stressed that the Department would ensure that ·I where the "to the satisfaction" process was used, Council would have an equivalent Head of Power to levy development contributions. At this stage the options I appeared to be:- 1. Through the planning scheme; 2. Through the permit process; 3. Through agreements. I
It was the Department's view that the above listing provided a range of secure options and the Department would also be further pursuing I its legal' advice on this matter, particularly in relation to the ability of local structure plans to deal with development contributions. I This particular issue was being specifically pursued in the Melton and Cranbourne areas and should provide valuable lessons as case studies. I The Department also indicated that in 7-5.3 the last * point required any agreements to be included in the Local Structure Plan. This requirement was now considered I impractical. The point should be amended to convey that a LSP must stipulate any matters which should be the subject of an ··agreement whether with a Responsible Authority or I a referral authority.
The certainty of a permit - particularly the existence of a clear legal document setting out what was permitted - would be lost. The I subdivision approval system was built around a planning permit as the major approval medium. The whole subdivision approval system at Local Government level had been structured on a permit system I and the Subdivision Act and the Planning and Environment Act embodied a range of standards forms to deal with the approval system. No such forms or system existed for the" to the satisfaction" concept. I
The Responsible Authority should be able, in· expressing its satisfaction about a proposal, to clearly set out what it had approved I and what conditions would apply. I I I SR I Panel Report 20/1/92 1 4
The Department considered that there was much sound sense in requiring standard documentation to be prepared where a "consent" was applied for and obtained. This aspect would be pursued through the Planning Approvals Review.
The Department was firm in its belief that the introduction of a totally permit based system, or even a modified permit I system, was not acceptable where a local structure plan was in place and a proposal interfaced satisfactorily with a local structure plan that was either Council based or had I been derived . through Council and proponent negotiations. A prime feature of VicCode was that the observance of its Elements by a proponent should ensure that no advertising was necessary and it I would obviate the possibility of "third party" delays. Industry had a strong interest in the achievement of this feature.
I In respect of the actual permit option available where no local structure plan was in place, the Department was also pursuing, through the Planning Approvals Review I Process, further means of expediting the permit process whilst retaining its essential integrity.
Such review included:- I 1. Review of the notification process; 2. Reviewing the rights of objectors; 3. Refining the matters for consideration; I 4. Review of referral processes; 5. Providing guidance to applicants to reduce·; the degree of applicant induced delay.
I It was suggested that the no-permit-required approach meant public open space could only be obtained through a planning scheme I requirement. It was the Department's · view that Section 18 of the Subdivision Act does not limit an open space requirement I to a permit or a planning scheme. A Responsible Authority would be able to give consent to a subdivision proposal either by means of a permit or by a "statement of satisfaction". Either of these I consents could include a requirement for. open space.· 5. CONSENT PROCESS - FEES.
I The introduction of a process when a planning permit was not required for subdivision would mean that Councils would lose a significant amount of revenue yet it would need to carry out the same I degree of checking in order to be able to state that they are "satisfied". ·
The. "satisfaction" process was only available when a local structure I plan had been prepared in accordance with the conditions set out m the amendment. The forward planning process should be able to identify and classify many of the issues normally dealt with through I a permit, for example density, road network and standards, infrastructure requirements. The level of analysis required at the I "satisfaction" stage should, therefore, be reduced. I SR I Panel Report 20/1/92 1 5 I
The current Act and Regulations prescribe a fee of $57 where a I Council was required to indicate its satisfaction. The original intent of. this provision was to deal with less significant proposals. The Department was conscious of the complexity of issues raised in a subdivision application and determination. I
Any change of fee structure would need to be assessed within the Government's overall policy on taxes and charges and would require I a change to the Planning and Environment Act Regulations. This would require a Regulatory Impact Statement to be prepared and exhibited. I The Department supported the ability of Councils to be able to charge an appropriate fee for reviewing an application under VicCode. It proposed to seek an amendment to the I Regulations and to prepare a Regulatory impact statement on this·· aspect. I Concern has been expressed from industry groups in particular that the " consent process" set out in Clauses 7-5.2 and 7-5.5 did not include time limits, in distinct contrast to the permit process. It had also been I suggested that the "consent process" did not provide an avenue for appeals.
The issue of time limits and appeals was dealt with in Section 149A of I the Planning and Environment Act. In essence it stated that where a planning scheme specified that a . matter must be done to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority etc. and either a dispute I existed about that "satisfaction" or the Responsible Authority failed to determine within the prescribed time, then the issue may be referred to the AAT for determination. The prescribed time in respect of Section 149A was intended to be 30 days an
6. OTHER GENERAL MA TIERS.
The Shire of Flinders had objected to the 12 metres height limit for detached houses on the basis that this conflicted with the 8 metre height limit currently in place in Bayside suburbs as part . of the Government Coastal policy. I The Department accepted the Council's concern on this issue and it was agreeable to exempting the 12 metre height limit in the mandated residential zones with the Shire of Flinders. T h e Department would endorse an amendment to SRI to ensure I consistency with the existing limits.
The need to exclude the following areas from the amendment:- I I I I SR 1 Panel Report 20/1/92 1 6 1. Areas. where no sewerage facilities existed and where it was envisaged that they would not be I available for many years; 2. incorrect reference had been made; 3. Areas which possessed attributes which did · not I justify application of VicCode .
The Department had noted the concern by a number of Councils and I as a result it investigated the appropriateness of a number of areas being included ·in the amen.dment. The Department supported modification to the amendment on the basis of recognizing the validity of such grounds and it recommended the deletions I of the following references:- ]. In Clause 7 - Metropolitan Regional Section - Reserved Living zones in the City of Knox; I 2. In Clause 8 - Westernport Regional Section - land ·west of Boneo Road and land south of the Mornirigton Peninsula Freeway and· its proposed western extension; 3. In clause 8 - Westernport Regional Section - Shire of I Pakenham - those part of Residential zones which are located in the townships of Bunyip, Garfield, Nar Nar Goon and Tynong. I 4. In clause 9 - Upper Yarra Valley and Dandenong Ranges Regional Section - Shire of Lillydale - the Township of Wonga I Park. I I I I I I I I I I I SR I Panel Report 20/1/92 1 7 I 3. Review of the. submissions. I The Panel considered that the most effective manner of dealing with the matters raised in the submissions was to collate the areas of concern under the following headings:- I ]. General issues. 2. Matters relating to the specific elements of VicCode.
The Panel made use, in part, of summanes of submission I reactions to the exhibited elements of VicCode which were compiled by the Department of Planning and Housing to aid both Department officers and the Panel in gaining an overall perspective. The Panel added to this initial I compilation its own additional record of submissions concerns, particularly as raised in the submissions which were personally presented to the Panel. It should be appreciated that the Panel has not included reference to every I submission and to every aspect that was placed before it but it has endeavoured to refer to major concerns in its report so that an appreciation can be made of .1,the main issues. I In conjunction with the review of the submissions the Panel provided details of Panel Deliberations which lead to a Panel Recommenation to the topics which were considered under each of the relevant headings. I
It should be appreciated that prior to undertaking any final deliberations the Panel visited a number of the municipalities directly I affected by the amendment. In addition a diverse range of subdivisions were inspected and display homes were viewed in some of the areas currently being developed. I 3. I. General Issues.
Department commentary on general issues is to be found in the I outline above on the issues which were raised by the major umbrella organizations. These issues also appeared in a number of the submissions by Councils and other submitters. I The summary provided by the Department in the preceding section of this report is considered to cover adequately the issues which were raised on these general matters. It is not intended to further elaborate on the I details set out in the submissions. on these matters, though it should be noted that in a number of the submissions, particularly from Councils, concern was expressed at the amendment imposing planning controls "from above" I rather than through a negotiated process. .3.1.1. Panel commentary . I Prior to embarking upon specific Panel commentary the Panel wishes to indicate that during the course of the Panel hearing the Panel received an initial response by the Department of Planning and Housing to I the written submissions. Copies of this response were circulated to all submittors who proposed to make additional commentary through a personally presented submission. Following the presentation of this initial I Departmental submission, representatives of the Department attended through out the Panel hearing to note the details of the personally presented submissions. I During the hearing the Panel brought to the attention of the Departmental representatives a number of matters upon which it sought I I I SR I Panel Report 20/1/92 1 8
further commentary. These matters dealt with concerns of submittors upon I which the Panel sought additional background information and/or embraced issues which the Panel considered should be addressed in any final recommendations that were made by the Department on suggested modifications to the amendment and VicCode. In addition the Panel had a I concern as to the method of application of VicCode and the effectiveness of such application. This approach was taken by the Panel due to the complexity of the documentation and the need for the Panel to have a comprehension of I the effect of any possible modifications and associated inter-relationships.
Following the completion of personally presented submissions I the Panel adjourned the hearing to give the Departmental representatives opportunity to consider any new matters raised by the personally presented submissions and also to address the issues raised during the Panel hearing by I the Panel. A summary Departmental. response was presented to the Panel on the closing day of the Panel hearing. The details of such summarized I report are included in this report under the heading of "Departmental commentary and suggested modifications" as each element of VicCode is I reviewed. The Panel is appreciative of the time and effort by staff on the Department in seeking out further information on a range of matters of direct interest to the Panel. In addition the formulation of a Departmental I attitude to submissions and supplementary information gained through subsequent investigation has been of assistance to the Panel in framing its recommendations. The Panel wishes to express also its gratitude for outside I experts and representatives of industry who aided in broadening the perspective of the Panel after the receipt of the . submissions. VicCode is an extremely detailed document and the Panel held a firm belief that its I recommendations should sensibly inter-relate to such a cletailed format. 3..1.1.1. GENERAL THRUST OF THE AMENDMENT.
I It is imperative at the outset of Panel deliberations to indicate whether the Panel is supportive of the general thrust of VicCode prior to moving into later deliberations upon detailed elements. In dealing with this I topic the Panel is also covering matters related to urban consolidation and National Standards and their relationship with the State and local Councils. I The Panel considers that the · general objectives of VicCode merit support, particularly as they are directed towards achieving the policy directions for urban reforms as set out at the Planning Ministers' Conference 1991. The Panel recognizes that the I amendment has a major objective of providing a backdrop which is aimed towards lifting urban densities, whilst ensuring that ~.· design criteria are in place to build sound environmental and I social elements. It endeavours to do this by creating the opportunity for initial implementation of its principles in the growth areas of the I metropolis. The Panel comprehends the frustration of some Councils that their efforts under the RRR-program appear to be put to one side by the amendment and that they are have imposed upon them some control I elements which go beyond the planning policies over which they have long deliberated. I I SR I Panel Report 20/1/92 I 9 I
However the Panel considers that the action taken by Government in exhibiting VicCode was appropriate. The Government is I endeavouring to give effect to the principles in AMCORD which have been developed over an extensive period. It should be further appreciated that the existing Residential Development Provisions have served as a prefacing medium for VicCode. As indicated in the earlier commentary by the Department of Planning and Housing, an examination of the individual draft codes prepared under the RRR-program reveals a significantly high level of agreement with both AMCORD and VicCode. Furthermore the establishment of a uniform base set of performance standards for residential development which, in addition to enabling the achievement of having objectives related to higher density yields, embodies principles directed towards quality of community living, sensitivity in design, social, environmental and financial concerns, will aid in the attempt to maximize the wide range of resources which are associated with such development. I Procrastination by the Government on the matter of implementation would not serve any valid planning purpose and it would only result in lost opportunities in dealing with the need to set in place a I strategy to encourage a lifting of density. It should be appreciated that the amendment does not force the implementation of VicCode but it opens up the opportunity to the land development industry to implement the VicCcide I concepts. In this respect it will be market driven and thus if it finds acceptance with the market, Councils should appreciate that it can be claimed that it has a public mandate. I It should be also comprehended that its implementation will . not result in an immediate flood of requests for Council endorsement of VicCode based plans. Bpth the. market and the public will take some time to attune to I its standards. Thus the Panel considers that it is timely to bring forward VicCode as both the land development and housing areas are experiencing a slow period. I
The Minister has indicated that Council involvement m the RRR- project has enabled Councils to become familiar with the elements of I AMCORD as they have striven to adjust to their perceived local needs. The Panel believes that this is indeed the case and whilst VicCode introduces aspects which are at variance with some of the detail expressed in draft proposals by Councils, the experience gained I by working through AMCORD will be of significant benefit to Councils in the application of VicCode. I 3.1.1.2 EXCLUSION FROM THE AMENDMENT OF CERTAIN AREAS. The Panel considers that the application of VicCode to the areas I included in the amendment is appropriate, subject to the deletion of the following references:- 1. In Clause 8 - Westernport Regional Section - land west of Boneo Road and land south of the Mornington Peninsula Freeway and I its proposed western extension; 2. In Clause 8 - Westernport Regional Section - Shire of Pakenham - those parts of Residential zones which are located in the I townships of Bunyip, Garfield, Nar Nar Goon and Tynong. 3. In Clause 9 Upper Yarra Valley and Dandr.nong Ranges Regional Section - Shire of Lillydale - the. Township of Wonga Park; I I I I SR I Panel Report 20/1/92 20
4. Clause 7 - Metropolitan Regional Section - Reserved Living I zones in the City of Knox as no such zones exist in the City of Knox.
Such deletions are supported on the basis of the submissions· I made by the respective Councils and local groups and also on the recommendation of the Department of Planning and Housing.
I 3.1.1.3. DOUGHNUT EFFECf.
The Panel does not foresee a dramatic "doughnut" effect I· expressed in some submissions. The Panel believes that application of YicCode to lots on Plans of Subdivision within the nominated areas is appropriate.
I 3.1.1.4. SEPARATION OF MEDIUM DENSITY DELIBERATIONS FROM VICCODE.
The Panel concurs with the Department apg;oacn of separating, I at this stage, medium densit from YicCode. Ultimately the opportunity to e taken and indeed such a concept has been endorsed by the presentation. However the Panel supports the I treatment separately at this juncture as it permits a clear separation of the issues. I 3. 1.1.5. FOSTERING INFORMATION PROGRAMS. The Panel would also endorse the need for the Department of Planning and Housing to foster information programs of VicCode. It is I imperative that such campaigns· embrace not only the development industry, its associated professions, those involved in the construction process and I local councils but also the general public. The Department indicated to the Panel that it was desirous of being active in this area and was looking towards running a series of I workshops and seminars. Every support should be given to such activities. The Panel considers that work performed by the Urban Land Authority and the Housing Industry Association in this area is to be I commended, particularly with the establishment of building displays incorporating zero lot line housing and their sessions in aiding future house I owners in siting of buildings and selection of appropriate style housing .. 3.1.1.6. LEAPFROGGING I The Panel has noted the response by the Department to this aspect. It is considered that out-of-sequence requests should be adequately controlled through the application of the guidelines proposed by the I Department of Planning and Housing. 3.1.1.7. APPROVAL PROCESS AND LOCAL STRUCfURE PLANS.
I Both the approval process and the manner in which local structure plans would be implemented received significant mention in the I the written and presented submissi·ons. Councils had a concern at the loss of their ability to impose fees I which would normally be made under the permit process. They also held the I SR I Panel Report 20/1/92 2 I I
belief that the subdivision system was based around a permit system and concept of relying upon the "satisfaction" of the Council as per Section 149A I of the Planning and Environment was clumsy. It lacked the standard "pro forma treatment" available under the permit system, together with the. supporting record system, and made it difficult for Council to embody I requirements and ensure that referral authorities were involved 10 the subdivision certification and compliance process. Furthermore it was perceived to be an approval concept with which a wide number of persons and organizations were familiar. I
As indicated in earlier commentary by the Department on this matter, the Department held the firm view that the "to the satisfaction" I principle should be retained. Officers of the Department of Planning and Housing indicated that it would be possible to incorporate infrastructure and other requirements on the document which indicated that the YicCode proposal was "to the satisfaction" of the Council. The Department gave an I undertaking that it would ensure that administrative elements for such processing woutd be; considered. It should be also stated that the land development industry appeared to give strong support to the "to the I sa ti sfac tion" concept.
The Panel asked the Department to research further the proposed approval process and measure reactions from industry and persons I ·'' familiar with Council procedures. The Department initiated a workshop with representatives from local government and industry to receive commentary and input on "a without prejudice" basis in respect of the manner in which I local structure plans could be implemented and the approval process auld possibly operate for VicCode style of subdivisions. The Chairman of the Panel had the opportunity to witness the discussion. I The Panel spent considerable time in reviewing the approval process. It held the firm belief that the approval system must work effectively, it must be acceptable to both Responsible Authorities and the I Land Development industry and it must fulfil the general principles of YicCode/AMCORD i.e. if components of elements as stated in the amendment arc met, approval should be forthcoming in the minimum time frame. I
In addition the Panel felt that it was imperative to clarify the manner in which the Local Structure Plan would operate ·as the "to the I satisfaction" process was inherently related to the Local Structure Plan. During the course of the Panel hearing it was apparent that under the current planning process a range of names existed for "forward planning maps", with the use of the term "outline development plan" being a common I name.
Following lengthy discussion, and after taking into I consideration the commentary of the officers of the Department of Planning and Housing, the comments in the submissions and the general input to the later investigation required by the Panel, the following principles emerged:- I II I I I I SR I Panel Report 20/1/92 22 I Local Structure Plans. These plans would fall into three categories:- I CATEGORY 1 -PROPOSED REZONING OF CORRIDOR LAND. LSPs would be prepared to relate to areas gaining a broad I residential status through a rezoning. Two options would appear to be available. Under the first option such LSPs could become pan of the local planning scheme by being I pan of the amendment documentation. The approved LSP would have the ability to be fine tuned without having to undenake any further amending process.
I This option could be used when land being released was of such a size that the preparation of detail local structure plan was possible I' and its ·inclusion in the amendment was feasible. Under the second option the LSP can be developed as Council policy document where the planning scheme requires subdivision to accord with the local structure plan. This option may be more I appropriate when extremely large areas were released from corridor zoning with a requirement to produce a Local Structure Plan prior to I subdivision being undertaken. ,. ... The figure below endeavours to portray ·the options available as:' . designated corridor land achieves a development zoning. The figure·· I also includes reference to the · use of recourse to amendment and Panel resolution where a proponent generated Local . Structure Plan cannot achieve acceptance by the Council as a policy document. I (Refer also to commentary on page 25.) I LOCAL STRUCTURE PLAM 111PLEI1EIITATIOM CASE STUDY 1 -CORRIDOR ZOME
I I CORRIDOR ZOIIE I I ~ P11111STDtl~ DIRECTIOII I· STRATEGIC PLAII I
AI1EIIDI'IEIIT TO AI1EIU)I'IEIIT TO r I URBAII DEVELOPI1EIIT ZOIIE URBAII DEYn.OPI'IE.rI YHICH REQUIRES LSP IIICLUDES LSP PRIOR TO SUBDIYISIOII I LSP PREPARED LSP PREPARm l I BV PROPOIIE.r BY COUIICR. ~ I I COUIICL DETAIL PROPOIIEJIT DET AD. INCORPORATED CAIUIOT RECOIICU LSP PREPARED Ymt COUIICL I LSP PREP AilED I BV H BECot1ES A R.A. BECot1ES A R.A. AP1EIIDI'IEIIT SEDC AI1DIIH'IEIIT POLICY DOCUP1EIIT POLICY DOCUP1EIIT I I AI1EIIDI1EIIT I~~OIICLIATIOII:~ I rj. DECIS::"' TED BV COUIIC I ADOPTED__. I I IIOT ADOPTED YICCODE APPLICATIOIIS I COIISID£Rm 011 FAST. TRACIC APPROYAL NOTE: AjlpH.. tion rnus1 W.Ciudo on~ noct ---~---- SR I Panel Report 20/1/92 23 I CATEGORY 2 - AREAS WHERE EXISTING OUTLINE DEVELOPMENT PLANS EXIS_TED WHICH WERE PART OF COUNCIL ~OCAL SCHEME OR COUNCIL I POLICY DOCUMENTS. In these instances it would appear that the Outline Development Plans could be updated to become Local Structure Plans, subject to I fulfilling the requirements of 7-5.3 of the amendment an·d subject to ga1mng Responsible Authority approval. This approach was considered appropriate as many of these existing Outline Development Plans had been evolved through a lengthy consultation process and currently development was underway in some of these areas. The resultant LSPs would be either a policy document or an amendment to the Local Scheme. It should be noted that if the Council had not taken the initiative of updating the LSP then a proponent would be in a position to place I a proposition before the Council. However the Panel held the opinion, where relatively close agreement existed, that a majority of Councils would be taking the initiative to update their existing I Outline .Development Plans to ensure that they expressed the development themes which the Councils were interested in pursuing. I Where no Council update was in place and the proponent did not seek to be involved in the preparation of an updated ODP to achieve a Local Structure Plan, then the normal permit process was still available to the proponent. I The figure below below endeavours to options available. I • 1. ..,~ 1 • 1 f ~ ' LOCAL STRUCTURE PLAN IMPLEMENTATION CASE STUDY 2 - WHERE ODP EXISTS I RESIDENTIAL ZONING 'ttiTH OPD (EITHER AS POL ICY I DOCUMENT OR AS PART OF LOCAL SCHEME ) I I I I ODP REQUIRES UPGRADING. ODP NOT UPGRADED TO LSP COUNCIL PREPARES LSP OR PERMIT APPLICATION I PROPONENT PREP ARES LSP REQUIRED APPROVED BY R.A. I APPPLIC AT ION FOR APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL TO V ICC ODE APPROVAL TO V ICCODE SUBDIVISION UNDER SUBDIVISION UNDER I FAST TRACK APPROY AL NORMAL PERMIT APPLICATION I NOTE: 'w'h•r• LSP impl•m•nbtion follow•d th•n r•f•r•nct must b• includ•d in th• LSP docum•nt~tion to ~ny ntcuury I infrastructur• ~v••m•nts. I I SR 1 Panel Report 20/1/92 24 I CATEGORY 3. INFILL AREAS. In these areas a range of possibilities could occur. The figure below endeavours to illustrate the manner in which approval could I be sought for a VicCode subdivision. I I I I I LOCAL STRUCTURE PLAN IMPLEMENTATION CASE STUDY 3 - I NFI LL AREA NOTE: Thl' impll'ml'ntation concl'pts rl'latl' to both land which alrudy I holds a rl'sidl'ntial zoning and land which gains a ruidtntial potl'ntial through ruoning •·9· a forml'r sit• r•serv•d for I education purpos•s and subs•qu•ntly found to b• not required. I REZON lNG OF INF ILL I UNDEVELOPED RESIDENTIALLY J AREA TO RESIDENTIAL ZONED LAND • I I . INFILL LSP EITHER IN CONJUNCT ION Y ITH INO LSP OYER THE INFILL LSP EITHER I REZONING OR SUBJECT LAND PREPARED BY COUNCIL OR PREPARED BY COUNCIL PREPARED BY PROPONENT AFTER REZON lNG OR & APPROVED BY R. A. PREPARED BY PROPONENT I & APPROVED BY R.A. ·I APPLICATION FOR APPLICATION FOR APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL TO Y IC CODE APPROVAL TO YICCODE APPROY AL TO Y IC CODE SUBDIVISION SUBDIVISION SUBDIVISION I UNDER FAST TRACK UNDER NORMAL PERMIT UNDER FAST TRACK APPROVAL APPLICATION APPROVAL I NOTE: 'w'h•re LSP impleml'ntation followed then refl'rence must bt includl'd in LSP I documl'ntation to infrastructure agreements. I I I ·- -'-.!~---· ·--·"--·-·-· ~-- ;:,.;._- __ - -~ ,.._. ------. -~· ____-._ .-______SR I Panel Report 20/l/92 25 I The Panel believes that it is imperative that the Department of Planning and Housing should prepare a set of clear guidelines on the I introduction of Local Structure Plans.· Consultation with municipalities, referral authorities and industry should occur in conjunction with such preparation. In these guidelines it is important that the status of I existing Outline Development Plans or similar such plans is addressed and the process is detailed as to how they can be converted to local Structure Plans. The Panel holds the firm opinion that if VicCode ultimately gains approval for implementation such I guidelines must be in place at the date of such approval. It should be noted that in the Case Study 1 it is proposed that the I Panel system could be used to deal with situations where a proponent and a Council cannot agree on a Local Structure Plan which is being prepared by a proponent. This process could be applied similarly in I Case Studies 2 and 3 where reconciliation between proponent and Council is not possible. It would assist if the Department could set up a "fast track" for such hearings. I The Panel suggests that in such instances the proponent could table a proposed Local Structure Plan with the Responsible Authority and seek its inclusion, through the amending process, within the local I section of the Planning Scheme. If such a concept is perceived to be a satisfactory device for arbitration, the resolution of such situations should receive as speedy a path as possible and the Department should address the manner of resolving differences r:.f attitude in the proposed I guidelines. It should be further appreciated that this process could also deal with a situation where differences are being encountered between a proponent and statutory authority. I One further feature to note is that discussions with industry revealed that it was appreciated the actual subdivision plan should not I be dealt with as a "procedural plan" under the Subdivision Act. The procedural plan concept is directed towards extremely simple instances of subdivision e.g. a minor boundary variation between two properties and its use for a VicCode subdivision would be most inappropriate. It is I vital in dealing with the finite VicCode subdivision plan on whose boundaries construction would be based, easements located in conjunction with referral authority approval, compliance conditions I placed, etc., that it should need to proceed through the normal subdivision. approval procedure. This procedure follows after the approval in principle that is currently gained under the permit process I and which is proposed to correspond with the "to the satisfaction" concept. It should be noted that the Subdivision Act embodies an option I for a proponent to place before a Council responses by referral authorities relating to the subdivision under consideration for certification. The lodgement of these responses will avoid the need for I formal circulation from referral bodies and can cut back si·gnificantly approval time. I Treatment of applications. The Panel has a concern over the reliance of the provisions of Section 149A for the approval process. The Panel believes that there is value is setting up a modified permit process which eliminates the need for advertising and an initial circulation to referral authorities. I I SR I Panel Report 20/1/92 26 The prime reason for the Panel proposing a modified permit I approach, rather than seeking a Council response under Section 149A as to whether the proposed subdivision "is to the satisfaction of the Council", is that the Subdivision Act was drawn up on the basic I principle that a planning permit was the prime approval document of a proposed subdivision. Councils and referral authorities have built their administrative systems around this approach and it would desirable to use an approval process which accords, in general, with the permit I process. A "modified permit process" could possess a 30 day approval time I limit and would be exempt from advertising due to the fact that the proponent is required to fulfil all the aspects outlined in 7-5.2. The normal circulation to referral authorities and the associated 28 day for I response by referral authorities would be unnecessary due to the up front information which was required under 7-5.2. However, whilst appreciating the fact that official circulation I for comment by referral authorities is proposed to be obviated through the presence of upfront referral bodies responses provided with . the application, the Panel considers that some form of notification is I required to advise the referral bodies that the plan is in the approval system and to indicate that the Council holds a record of the conditions of approval issued by the referral bodies. Such action would be prudent to ensure integrity is retained in both the approval system and the land I information system and related data banks operated by refe:rral bodies. The use of a modified permit system would result in the I ·following benefits:- 1. The retention of an approval document which is familiar to those outside the planning system e.g. I lending bodies; 2. The ability to be used as a reference on plans of subdivision lodged at the Land Titles Office for registration and to apply Subdivision Act principles as I they relate to a permit e.g. removal or modification of easement; 3. The· use as a formal medium for setting down the I appropriate conditions etc. associated with a subdivision e.g. open space and later staging, if any; 4. The ability to serve as an accepted record where action I is required to implement adherence to conditions embodied in the permit and the grounds upon which it was granted; 5. The use of a system which is compatible with existing I administrative processing of subdivisions. Section 149A was introduced to deal with site specific amendments I where complex agreements may have been reached e.g a major development project. Its application to become a normal way of achieving approval in principle for a subdivision is completely I contrary to the prime function of the Section and also to the permit process which is the everyday approval document for land subdivision. The Panel is aware that the Department of Planning and I Housing is desirous of minimizing approval time frame for YicCode so that the date of .operation of YicCode is not delayed. The use of the I Section 149A process was viewed as obviating a "lead delay" which I SR I Panel Report 20/1/92 27 I would mostly likely arise if an alternative system, necessitating an amendment to the Planning and Environment Act, was proposed and I which would need to confront the normal administrative processes that are associated with an amendment to an Act. I The Panel recognizes that modification of the Planning and Environment Act and the regulations to accommodate "30 day permit approval process" for VicCode applications in lieu of relying upon Section 149A of the Planning and Environment Act could be difficult to I achieve in a tight time frame. However the Panel is firm in its belief that an important principle is at stake as the whole Subdivision Act is written around the "permit" approval process and many aspects of the I Subdivision Act will be denied if this principle is not retained. The Panel is aware that the general principles of the Subdivision Act have received a high level of support from both sides of I Parliament as it has passed through Parliament. Furthermore the concept of:t'i. using' the permit as the major planning approval medium has been accepted a desirable principle on both sides of Parliament. I The Panel would also point out that in the Departmental commentary reference has been made to the need to amend legislation I in any case to deal with some of the matters raised on the approval process e.g. the setting of fees and placing .· a time constraint in the regulations. In addition the possibility of setting down administrative I procedures to achieve some form of uniformity to applications under Section 149A was mentioned. The Panel would trust that the bringing forward of a I proposition which still retains the principle of a "modified permit" as the record of planning approval but which still embodies the principles and time frame of the "to the satisfaction" concept would receive I support from the Minister. Furthermore the Panel would hope that the process of amending legislation can be sufficiently flexible to cope with the ability to aid the introduction of VicCode by the hopefully rapid setting in place of fine tuning legislative modifications to enabJe I VicCode approval processes to sensibly inter-relate to the Subdivision Act. I The general principles of such a "modified permit" would be as follows:- 1. A "modified permit" would be recognized as permit for Subdivision I Act purposes and thus the procedures and processes extended under the Subdivision Act would be available to such a permit e.g. introduction of restrictions in conjunction with a plan of subdivision. (Note: Where the application proposed matters such I as the removal or variation of easements normal permit treatment would apply due to the need to advertise and notify affected parties. However if all necessary consents were provided up front I then modified process could be still utilized.) 2. A proponent would eligible to apply for a modified permit if the proposed subdivision demonstrated that the plan complies with the I matters shown in 7-5.2 of the amendment namely:- • The plan complies with a Local Structure Plan prepared to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority in accordance with Clause 7-5.3 I • The mandatory elements of the Code as set out in Clause 7-5.4 have been met; I I ---- I SR 1 Panel Report 20/1/92 28 • Element objectives and performance criteria for all other I elements of the Code have been met; • Services can be provided to meet requirements of authorities specified in the local section as referral authorities for subdivision. I 3. No advertising will be required if the above matters are fulfilled 4. It operates under the same administrative processes in terms of being registered, its progress monitored etc. as does a normal I permit; 5. Fees are payable on the basis of the schedule for a normal permit; 6. The time for approval by the Council is 30 days; 7. No need exists for formal circulation to referral authorities or the I need to await response within 21 days of such circulation; 8. Formal advice of the receipt of the plan and the associated conditions set by a referral authority should be given to each I referral authority. Such notice is purely for "advice only" and an authority could respond if it considers a major discrepancy exists between its record of agreement and that· tended to the Responsible 'I Authority by the proponent in conjunction with the application; 9. Failure to grant a permit within the nominated time frame would result in a right of appeal to the AAT. 10. In the event of a valid major discrepancy being found in I statements, "the clock" principles of the current system would come into play if the proponent was agreeable otherwise the proponent must accept the decision of the Responsible Authority I within the nominated time frame. This feature is an important aspect as a prime feature of 7-5.2 as exhibit,· i clearly indicates that the application for approval by the proponent is ·" t o I demonstrate" on the basis that the above aspects in 6 above can be fulfilled. ~ The Panel further comprehends that the Department holds I concerns at the possibility of objections ansmg from a "third party". The Panel believes that the likelihood of third party intervention will be extremely remote where no advertising is required and no I substantive evidence was led to indicate that third party intervention would emerge. I The concept of reducing "third party" involvement leads the Panel to stress that it is imperative that ample opportunity should exist during the Local Structure Plan preparation for community input. If such opportunity is built in the approval process of Local Structure I Plans then it is reasonable to presume that attitudes on a range of fronts have been explored and the final plan represents the outcome of such participation. Thus third party involvement can be obviated at the I detail ·stage as the performance standards of VicCode serve to ensure that sound planning principles are observed in infill plans and associated development and the interface with the Local Structure Plan. I In summary the Panel retains its viewpoint that the amendment should be varied to recognize a modified permit process in accordance with the principles outlined above and the relevant supporting I legislative procedures be put in place. I 3.1. 1.8. INCLUSION OF THE COM1v1ENTARY FOUND IN AMCORD. The Panel has considered at length the merits of including such I commentary. The Department hold the belief that as VicCode is a I SR I Panel Report 20/1/92 29 working document, somewhat akin to to regulations, that such complementary material is unnecessary. Furthermore the Department I views VicCode and the AMCORD qocumentation as being complementary and thus no need for inclusion arises. I However the Panel holds the belief that in the initial stages of introduction of VicCode it would be valuable to have available complementary material on the background of the elements. This background material is viewed as being a backdrop to VicCode and there I is little doubt in the mind of the Panel that it will result in a better comprehension of the function of VicCode. I The Panel does consider that the material should not be an inherent component of VicCode but it should be viewed as a supplement and should be published as such. As time goes on and familiarity with I YicCode is achieved, the need for such a supplement will diminish. However in the first instance, if YicCode is approved, it should be freely wa:vailable for complementary purchase with YicCode. It should be further appreciated that in situations where Councils are I considering the possible implementation of VicCode such complementary material acts as a valuable medium for assisting comprehension both to the public and the Council staff and Councillors. I 3.1.1.9. NEED FOR CONTINUING REVIEW. I During the cours~ of the hearing the possibility of monitoring the implementation of VicCode -..1as raised, as was a the need for a continuing review procedure. The Panel considers that it is imperative, if VicCode comes into operation, ··that the Government · should ensure that a monitoring/review I program is set in place·: This program must be adequately supported and it must possess a mandate to move quickly in problem solving. The past experience of the Subdivision Act has revealed that continual access must b:: I av ai I able both to Council officers, development industry personnel, professional advisers and consultants if new concepts are to be successful. I The Panel does not seek to set out in detail the form of the actual program but it would appear to be best achieved by an working party comprised of industry related persons, Council representatives and Departmental staff and serviced by nominated full time staff. It should I involve monitoring the acceptance of VicCode and endeavour to obtain responses on the implementation of VicCode elements and the effectiveness of the elements. Some of this monitoring may be long term and in such I instance may merely require the keeping of appropriate records to enable analysis in such a time frame. In other instances rapid and effective resolution is vital to enable projects to proceed and to foster overall I objectives. It should be appreciated that land development is the "sharp" end of the planning process and lack of decision making or an inability to achieve clear and positive interpretation represents an anathema to development and innovation. I The Panel was firm in its view that the Department must have the ability and resources to draw upon top expertise at local government I level or other appropriate areas to resolve issues of immediate import such that sensible and well balanced solutions emerged which could be issued ·as policy directives or minor modifications to YicCode. In addition to achieving I immediate resolution it was vital to have continuing information programs I I I SR 1 Panel Report 20/1/92 30 on such matters if the integrity of VicCode was to be achieved and the I possibility of conflicting viewpoints was to be avoided. The Panel had discussion upon whether such a Working Party should have some direct form of resident representation. The view was expressed that it was important to ensure that the Working Party did not operate in isolation and that resident input was available to reflect matters of direct import to residents through direct resident representation. The Panel arrived at the conclusion that The Working Party should be kept inforrl)ed on activities and concerns of local residents groups in new developments, where such groups were being actively fostered by development I organizations such as the Urban Land Authority or alternatively groups were emerging through direct local initiative. In addition the Working Party should seek, on appropriate occasions, commentary from persons were I working in the field of community interests and issues in residential estates. At the conclusion of the Panel report (Section 4) a series of aspects are listed for consideration by the Working Party and those involved I in the continuing review of VicCode. I 3.1.1.10. Panel Recommendations. I. The general thrust of the amendment and its setting in place of VicCode as expressed in the amendment is supported by the Panel. Later Panel_ recommendations will refer to specific modifications to both the I amendment and VicCode, following . its deliberations on submissions presented, both personally and by wri.:.en submission. I 2. The following areas should be removed from the amendment as it is considered that they possess. characteristics ,. which do -not justify the application of VicCode: · 1. In Clause 8 - Westernport Regional Section - land west of I Boneo Road and land south of the Mornington Peninsula Freeway and its proposed western extension; 2. In clause 8 - Westernport Regional Section ·- Shire of I Packenham - those part of Residential zones which are located in the townships of' Bunyip, Garfield, Nar Nar Goon and Tynong. I 3. In clause 9 - Upper Yarra Valley and Dandenong Ranges Regional Section - Shire of Lillydale - Township of Wonga Park. In addition reference to Reserved Living Zones in the City of Knox I should be removed as no such zones exist within that City. ·3. The Panel endorses the need for the Department of Planning and I Housing to foster information programs on VicCode. It is imperative that such campaigns embrace not only the development industry, its associated professions, those involved in the construction process and I local councils but also the general public. The Panel considers that work performed by the Urban Land Authority, Housing Industry Association and other forward thinking developers in this area is to be commended, particularly with the establishment of building . displays I incorporating zero lot line housing and their sessions in aiding future house owners in siting of buildings and selection of _appropriate design I housing. 4. The Panel believes that it is imperative that the Department of Planning I and Housing should prepare a set of clear guidelines on the :I r---- - ~,------ SR 1 Panel Report 20/l/92 3 1 I introduction of Local Structure Plans. In these guidelines it is important that the status of existing Outline Development Plans or similar such plans is addressed and a manner in which they can be convened to I local Structure Plans is detailed. The Panel holds the firm opm1on that if VicCode ultimately gains approval for implementation such guidelines must be in place at the date of such I approval. In any prepared guidelines reference should be made to the manner in which a proponent can expect to seek resolution of differences which I are encountered when the proponent takes the option of preparing a Local Structure Plan and differences of viewpoint are encountered between the Responsible Authority or statutory authorities. I 5. The approval of detail subdivisions, following approval in principle of a VicCode subdivision; should be by the normal subdivision approval process under the Subdivision Act and not as a "procedural plan". I 6. The proposed approval process in Clause 7-5.2 of the amendment which is based-~· upon a "to the satisfaction principle" be changed to accommodate a "modified permit process" which embodies the following I principles:- a. A "modified permit" would be recognized as permit for Subdivision Act purposes and thus the procedures and I processes extended under the Subdivision Act would ·be available to such a permit e.g. introduction of restrictions in conjunction with a plan of subdivision. (Note: Where the I applicat: ·n proposed matters such as the removal or variation of easements normal permit treatment would apply due to the need to advertise and notify affected parties. However if all necessary consents were provided up I front then modified process could be still utilized.) b. A proponent would eligible to apply for a modified permit if the proposed subdivision demonstrated that the plan accords I with the matters shown in 7-5.2 of the amendment namely: The plan complies with a Local Structure Plan prepared to the satisfaction of the Responsible I Authority in accordance with Clause 7-5.3 The mandatory elements of the Code as set out in Clause 7-5.4 have been met; Element objectives and performance criteria for all I other elements of the Code have been met; Services can be provided to meet requirements of authorities specified in the local section as referral I authorities for subdivision. c. No advertising will be required if the above matters are fulfilled. d. It operates under the same administrative processes in terms of being registered, its progress monitored etc. as does a normal permit; e. Fees are payable on the basis of the schedule for a normal I permit; f. The time for approval by the Council is 30 days; g. No need exists for formal circulation to referral authorities I or the need to await response within 21 days of such circulation; h. Formal advice of the receipt of the plan and the associated I conditions set by a referral authority need only to be given to each referral authority. Such notice is purely for "advice I I SR I Panel Report 20/1/92 32 only" and· an authority could respond if it considers a major I -discrepancy exists between its record of agreement and that tended to the Responsible Authority by the proponent in conjunction with the application; I 1. Failure to grant a permit within the nominated time frame would result in a right of appeal to the AAT. J. In the event of a valid major discrepancy being found in the statements set out in 6 above, the clock principles of the I current permit system would come into play if the proponent was agreeable. Otherwise the proponent must accept the decision of the responsible authority within the I nominated time frame. This feature is an imponant aspect as a prime feature of 7-5.2, as exhibited, clearly indicates that the application for approval by the proponent is " to demonstrate" on the basis that the above aspects in 6 I above can be fulfilled. Relevant legislative changes should be introduced to allow such a "modified permit" to operate in accordance.. with the I principles outlined above. 7. In Clause 7~5.3 of the amendment the last * point should be I amended to convey that a LSP must stipulate any matters which should be the subject of an agreement, whether· with a Responsible Authority or a referral authority. I 8. A supplement shov.!d be produced for VicCode which covers background ,,;aterial to each of .th.e elements of I YicCode in form akin to that shown in. AM CORD. 9. It is imperative if .VicCode comes into operation that the Government should ensure that 'a· monitoring/review I program is set in place. This program must be adeguatelv supported and it must possess a mandate to move quickly in I problem solving.· I I I I I I SR I Panel Report 20/1/92 3 3 I 3. 2 Matters relating to the specific elements of VicCode. I In this section of the Panel report a synopsis is made of the submissions which were presented in respect of each specific element. This synopsis is followed by a detailed commentary by the Department of Planning and Housing on the respective element. Proposed changes to each I clement are outlined. These changes originated from several sources including: I response to major issues outlined in written submissions, and in presentations to the Panel; responses to queries raised by the Panel; I response to speCific issues raised in written submi:,,ions and in presentations made to the Panel; modifications regarded as improvements gleaned through RRR based revisions to AMCORD. I changes, particularly clarifications and operational impro.vements, proposed·· by the Department based on its own review or review by its consultants. I The Department had assistance from Andrew O'Brien of Andrew O'Brien & Associates (Traffic Engineers) and· Mark Whalan of Scott & Furphy I. (Engineering) in its review of the submissions and in formulating the ..t changes in this aspect of its submission. Both were heavily involved in the preparation of AMCORD and had been able to provide explanation . and clarification of many of the issues raised. I The Department prepared a preliminary response to assist submittors and the Panel. Following the presentation of all personally I presented submissions a consolidated response was compiled on the detailed aspects of VicCode. The exhibition and Panel process were perceived as being very valuable in providing a very significant contribution towards the refinement of YicCode. I The submissions included proposals for replacement of many of the diagrams in the exhibited YicCode and proposed additional diagrams. I Whilst not part of the statutory provisions the use of new diagrams was considered to provide a better explanation of many clauses, and to illustrate good design practice. The Department believed that the revised diagrams I were important and would help people to better understand and use the code. The Department also proposed to include an additional appendix which would list key references, providing elaboration of matters dealt with I under each Element in YicCode. This was particularly important where the documents represented current Victorian practice, such as for bicycle facilities, shared trenches, buses, etc .. I Following the review of the remarks and suggested modifications by the Department, Panel commentary is made, both upon the I substance of the ·submissions and the Department response, and a Panel attitude is formulated. This attitude is summarized and then Panel recommendations are expressed in respect of the relevant elements. 1: I I. 1:'1 L I SR I Panel Report 20/1/92 34 I 3.2.1. Introduction and background. Energy Victoria was the sole submittor to indicate a need for specific modification to this section of VicCode. General details of its concern I on. this aspects were as follows:- It was considered that an introductory paragraph should set out the areas of application. Guidance was required on areas where it I could eventually apply and mechanisms local authorities may use to adopt all or pan of the Code I The belief was held that there was a need to expand "Energy and Resources" paragraph with specific reference to energy efficiency in subdivision and house siting and design. I Commentary was also sought regarding current and projected energy use in the residential and transport sectors and the contribution that energy efficiency can make in reducing I fossil fuel consumption (An attached paper "Efficient Energy Use and Design in Urban Planning and Housing" was provided.) I For consistency and clarity, retention of the AM CORD "deemed to comply" terminology was preferred. Use of "performance criteria" and "performance measures" was viewed as being very confusing and appeared to be an unnecessary I variation. If adopr.ion of "deemed to comply" was not possible ·it was suggested that u:.;e of "compliance strategy" or "compliance measures" to reinforce the link with "deemed to comply" may be I appropriate. Energy efficiency should be included within the overall I objective. The definition of "precinct". needed clarification. Graphics should ensure that all diagrams illustrated energy efficient practices in both street and· lot layout and house siting I and design. 3.2.1.1. DEPARTMENT COMMENTARY AND SUGGESTED MODIFICATIONS .. I The Depanment supponed the need for replacement of many of the diagrams in the exhibited VicCode and proposed additional diagrams. Whilst not part of the . statutory provisions the new diagrams endeavoured to I provide a better explanation of many clauses, and ·were also used to illustrate good design practice. The Department believed that the revised diagrams were imponant and would help people to better understand and use the code. I The Depanment also proposed to include an additional appendix which would list key references providing elaboration of matters dealt with under each Element in VicCode. This was panicularly important where the I documents represented current Victorian practice, such as for bicycle facilities, shared trenches, buses, etc .. I Attention was drawn to the fact the exhibited amendment referred to the use of a lot for a single house. It was intended that VicCode would cater for both attached and detached houses and this was made clear in the Scope of the Code on page 7. It was considered that the amendment should I be equally clear and refer to both attached and detached houses. I I SR I Panel Report 20/1/92 35 I It was considered that no further modifications were warranted to this section of YicCode. I 3.2.1.2. PANEL COMMENTARY The inclusion of an additional · appendix listing key references I was supported. Such inclusion was perceived as overcoming some of the concerns expressed by outside bodies or authorities and obviated the need for building in specific performance elements which, at this stage, had not been I sufficiently widely advertised or exposed to public comment. The Panel was not .prepared to accept extracts from such material as being vital for inclusion in YicCode at this juncture. These references were perceived to have a more meaningful role as being included in an appendix to YicCode. I The preparation of revised diagrams was supported and later specific reference to diagram modification or revisions is found under the I relevant elements. The revised drawings could, in appropriate instances, illustrate the ~.Q,me o( the energy. efficient aspects which were raised by. Energy Victoria. I It was considered no further modifications were warranted to this section of YicCode. I 3.2.1.3. Panel recommendations. I. Reference should be made to a supporting appendix of key references I which would act as a meaningful supplementation to YicCode. 2. The amendment should refer to both attached and detached houses. I I I I I I I I I I I I SR 1 Panel Report 20/1/92 36 I 3.2.2 Element EO Community design. 3.2.2.1. SYNOPSIS OF COMMENTARY IN SUBMISSIONS I P T C. Buses should not have to penetrate residential cells. Phase 5 diagram shows bus/rail duplication - thus reduces serviced area. City of Berwick. Need to recognize constraints in old subdivision permits. I Questions rationale for encouraging service roads on main roads. Shire of Cranbourne. Performance criteria are vague, subjective I judgements will follow. DPH is advocating layouts with few courts and rectangular road layouts. These may not accord with current practice, public demand or local views regarding design. Council and staff would need to improve urban design policies and skills. DPH should assist by offering an I Urban Design Service. Shire of Eltham. Add objective: "to seek to minimize the adverse impacts of I developments on the surrounding environment by encouraging appropriate siting of buildings and a high standard of building design" I Shire of Pakenham. Based on very theoretical design objectives and issues. In some aspects it reflects views of inner urban State Government planners. Substantial debate and controversy has resulted. Opposition to large lots and courts in favour of small lots and grid pattern cannot be I supported in outer areas. Shire of Hastings. Gives consideration to the quality of residential I environments and covers such issues as personal safety, pedestrian networks and traffic permeability. Emphasis on these issues is supported~ I Mahon and Mahon. Provide Performance Measures or delete Element EO. Country Fire Authority. Re 03:- after the word "residents" add "and I fire brigade/emergency vehicles." Re PC3: after the phrase "local vehicle movements", insert "and I to provide safe entry and exit for ·fire brigade/emergency vehicles." Barrabool Shire. EO may be seen as too narrow in its focus. (Bellarine is carrying out a study looking ·at related topics; preliminary I outcomes suggest that if such an approach is to be pursued, more is required for such an element). Energy Victoria. Need to strengthen the relationship between I objectives and the energy efficient content of the performance criteria for this Element and that for Lot Size and Orientation. Re 02:- expand to cover protection of the opportunity to utilize I solar energy for household energy needs and solar access. PC4:- expand reference to "facilitating use of solar energy" by adding " ... with appropriate street orientations". PC5:- there are two (2) PC5s. I PC7:- definition of "legibility" would be useful for the non cognoscenti. Add PC: To emphasise regard for slope and orientation for good I solar access when allocating land use - locate open space, non-residential uses or large lots on land with restricted solar access. I I SR I Panel Report 20/1/92 37 I Add Performance Measures to this Element to establish acceptable ways of meeting Performance Criteria PC1-12. I Add reference to Energy Vic's brochure "Energy Smart Lots" and consider using some of its illustrations in VicCode. Melbourne Water. 02:- After "protecting environmental assets" insert I "minimizing offsite and downstream impacts". PC8:- replace "encourage on-site water retention" with "maximize on-site water retention and· infiltration opportunities". I Shire of Lillydale. Suffers from lack of PCs and PMs in range of areas including watercou.rse protection, vegetation and cultural features I retention, preference for street and lot orientation, backs of lots, thermal efficiency. landscaping, shopping facilities etc.. This is essential if Code is to be used in a statutory fashion. Performance measures should be quantifiable, not vague, subjective and open-ended. I Residential Developments P/L. Diagram Phase 8 (p.16): delete reference to small lots on hill. This considered impractical, many other I considerations more important e.g. slope, facilities access and subdivision economics. I Wonga Park & District Residents Association. Concern was held that element EO was not broad enough. 3.2.2.2. DEPARTMENT COMMENTARY AND SUGGESTED MODIFICATIONS. I The submissions revealed a range of comments which <.:auld be considered as being generally supportive of this element. Some submissions I requested further strengthening···· of- the element, whilst others were concerned that design objectives were not appropriate, particularly for the south eastern corridor. · I The Country Fire Authority requested inclusion of appropriate proviSions for design in relation to bushfire protection. The thrust of their submission was supported by the . Department. subject to the application of I the principles being applied in the interface area between the actual urban fringe and the adjoining rural areas. However where a subdivision was being staged the view was held that rigorous application of these provisions I was not applicable to interim fringe areas. Several submitters queried the absence of performance I measures. The Department did not feel that high quality urban design, as encouraged by this element, could be ensured through performance measures. Any such measures, however, should be based on further I research. The Department was currently working with the Office of the Environment (Greenhouse Unit) on a project entitled "Low energy Urban Development" which had as an objective the definition of possible PM's for EO, to be incorporated in the future. I As a result of reviewing the written and presented submissions, and noting issues raised by the Panel during the hearing, the Department I brought forward to the Panel the following suggested modifications:- 1. In the introduction, reference could be made to the need to design I infrastructure to cope with future residential intensification, at least up I I I SR I Panel Report 20/1/92 38 to 15 dwellings/hectare capacity, except in environmentally sensitive I areas where intensification was considered unlikely to occur. 2. Objectives provide new objective related to environmental management I including bushfire protection (CFA), urban runoff (Melbourne Water), soil erosion and fauna protection. I 3. Performance Criteria correct numbering from PC5; add new criteria to strengthen PC4 relating to design for use of I solar energy (Energy Vic); strengthen criteria (PC8) relating to on site infiltration and control of urban runoff (Melbourne Water); add PC relating to subdivision design in areas of bushfirc hazard I (CFA). 4. Diagrams . modify Phase 5 diagram on page 16 to relocate bus route away from railway line; , modify Phase 8 diagram to include reference to small lots near I centre, and to reduce emphasis on small Jot provision on hill. 3.2.2.3. PANEL COMMENTARY. I This element is an addition to those which are contained in. Al\tl:..::OP.D. The Panel supports its inclusion. It is important that the design of a subdivision inter-relate with community features and characteristics. In I many of the infill type" subdivisions a .large. percentage of these components will be possibly in place. Some fine tuning· may be required to· cater for the needs of any proposed development under YicCode. Nevertheless the application of this element is still valid as it will ensure that a sensible and I balanced relationship has been achieved. At the broader scale the application of the element will set the scene for major design principles and I it will act as sound device for interfacing with the local structure plan. The Panel has a concern that the implementation of concepts embodied -in the production of plans as associated with EO and Local Structure I Plans should be viewed as a general commitment in principle, not only for a · developer as infill subdivision occurs, but also for Councils and Government. The developer has little alternative but to implement -the subdivision as proposed and as related to YicCode elements. Furthermore such action must I be· taken normally within a given time frame. The Government and Councils are in a different category. I Whilst the implementation of the aspects shown on Local Structure Plans, such as social or public transit infrastructure, is . not binding upon them, they have a significant responsibility to their introduction. This I introduction is vital to provide a dimension beyond the mere parcellation an d d e v e I o p m en t o f i n d i_v i d u a I I o t s , to g e t h e r w i t h as s o c i ate d ,- . landscape/movement elements, as It acts as a vital service to the households forming on new subdivisions and aids in ensuring a satisfactory quality of I I i fc. The Panel considers that this commitment should be directed I towards ensuring that facilities come on stream as the development takes place on the subdivided land or in the case of rapid transit linkage even I before development is in place. The provision of facilities will act as a I SR 1 Panel Report 20/1/92 39 I generator of interest in the area and it will provide the valuable infrastructure components around which all subdivision has occurred and I on which many of the objectives, criteria and elements of VicCode are formulated. The Panel holds the belief that there is the potential for the I inclusion of additional objectives, performance criteria and performance measures so that consideration of ways of enabling people to meet their needs can be made more explicit. All people have the same set of needs. The I degrees to which they are important may differ from group to group or person to person. The ways in which people meet these needs also differ. The best any environment can achieve is to not hinder people from being able to I satisfy their heeds. There are numerous examples where the physical environment has stopped people from achieving this satisfaction. VicCode implies some of the needs and specifies other. A more I systematic approach would assist people in the development industry to consciously consider as full as possible a range of human needs when designing and developing environments for people. Apart from the basic I needs of sustainability (such as sleep, food, shelter, clothing and reproduction) and the needs for safety and security there are the requirements for belonging, identity, stimulation, aesthetics and growth. I During the review process, which has been suggested by the Panel, it may be appropriate to investigate the modification of the objectives to include reference to such matters. Furthermore an analysis could be performed as to whether the performance criteria could be widened to embrace broad I parameters for opportunities for people to be able to meet these needs. Other inter-related matters include balance between I opportuntties for community and privacy, the ability to achieve a sense of territory, the provision of options for choice and mobility and the ability to exercise ownership control as· they all have a role in the manner in which I people can meet their needs. Such matters could even be extended to embrace the needs of the people who are involved in the maintenance of residential areas. I The Panel reviewed the presented submissions and the modifications which were brought forward by the the Department. The Panel is supportive of the suggested Departmental modifications and I considers that they generally address the main areas of concern which were raised In the submissions. I The Panel has noted that reference is made on a number of occasions that the Department is placing a strong emphasis upon rectangular layout. It was claimed that such design principles were not always practical and did not accord with public demand and local views on I design. The Panel considers that VicCode diagrams could, in some I instances, provide illustrations which accord a recognition of more flexible design. The Panel wishes to point out, in the instance of the illustrated rectilinear layouts, that it is important to appreciate that any street pattern must be read in conjunction with design features arising from application of I movement network, streetscape, street design, topography . and open space elements. Such application can result in a significant effect upon the ultimate developed form and its resulting environment. Detail diagrams on I the previously mentioned elements within VicCode endeavour to ·illustrate some of the possible forms. I I' I SR 1 Panel Report 20/1/92 40 .I 3.2.2.4. Panel recommendations. The following modifications should be made to Element EO:- I 1. A modification should be made to the introductory comment of the need to design infrastructure to cope. with future residential intensification, at least up· to 15 dwellings per hectare capacity, except in I environmentally sensitive areas where intensification was unlikely to occur. 2. Objectives. I provide new objective related to environmental management including bushfire protection, urban runoff, soil erosion and I fauna protection. 3. Performance Criteria. correct numbering from PC5; add new criteria to strengthen PC4 relating to des.ign for use of solar energy; strengthen criteria (PC8) relating to on site infiltration and control of urban runoff; I add PC relating to subdivision design in areas of bushfire hazard (noting the constraints of application as indicated In the I Departmental presentation). 4. Diagrams. modify Phase 5 diagram on page 16 to relocate bus route away from'· railway line; I modify. Phase 8 . diagram_ to include reference to small lots near I centre, and to reduce emphasis on small.,.lot provision on hill. I I I I I I I I SR I Panel Report 20/1/92 4 1 ~ 3. 2. 3 Element El Lot size and orientation. 3.2.3.1 SYNOPSIS OF COMMENTARY IN SUBMISSIONS. I City of Berwick. Acknowledge environmental factors, e.g. slopes and significant trees (Reference made to Berwick RRR Study). Council's varied I density subdivision policy requires a minimum rectangle of 60% of lot area. Code's 10 x 15m rectangle will generate 50% (300m2), 33.3% (450m2) and 25% (600m2) rectangles which are seen as being less effective. I Shire of Eltham. 01:- Expand objective by adding " .... take . account of environmental constraints", after "meet user requirements". Performance I criteria and measures should refer to environmental and development constraints such as slope, inundation and significant vegetation. Energy conservation principles are not carried through to performance measures. Performance measures D5 and D6 of AM CORD Element B 1 (Orientation for I Temperate Climates). Shire of Hastings. Provision of smaller lots at subdivision is I preferable to squeezing on MDH later. Concerns about ability of builders to produce imaginative designs. Extensive VicCode education program should be introduced. I Mahon and Mahon. Re PC1 :- Reference should· be made to diverse target ~ densities required, having regard to topography and Minister's Direction 1990. I Re PMI : Elements E2 (PM1, 3, 4, 5 and 6) and E4 (PMI and 2) should also apply to El PM1 Re PM3:- See comment on Integrated Development. I Master Builders Association. Supports variable lot sizes down to 300m2. It is unconvinced about market interest. I City of Croydon. Deletion of (RDP) 500m2 average lot size cause for concern. Affected areas in Croydon Residential Development Zone have a minimum lot size of 450 sq. metres. "Salt and peppering" i.e. mix of lot sizes I will be beyond. Council discretion under "no-permit-required" provisions. City of Springvale. Performance measures vary slightly from SRDPs e.g. I 480m2 for as-of-right housing (VicCode 450m2), 15m x 24m rectangle (VicCode lOrn x· 15m). No average lot size for subdivision (Springvale 500m2). I Country Fire Authority. Concern re effect of reduced lot sizes and reduced distance between dwellings, vis a vis topography. Re 0 I: after the word "principles" add "and to minimize the impact of fire and emergency I conditions arising from fire". Energy Victoria. Application of energy conservation principles is a stated objective of this Element. Recommend boosting the "how" of energy I conservation by including fundamentals of Energy Victoria's solar efficient subdivision guidelines together with the new solar rating system. PC2:- Need to clarify "majority of lots in new residential areas". I This should refer to a majority of lots within each development application. Recommend that the current 51% "majority of lots" requirement be replaced with a target of between 70-80% compliance for new lots. I Skewing lots a useful technique. 70-80% compliance a relatively easy target; I I I SR I Panel Report 20/1/92 42 90% is achievable for most subdivisions, more constraints exist on small scale infill sites. I Suggest new PC2 as follows:- "within each application for development in new residential areas, at least 80% of all lots to have a size, proportion and orientation that maximizes the opportunity for dwellings to I be sited to take advantage of the northerly sun's energy". PC3:- After "permit solar access" insert "to utilize solar energy for household energy needs". It would be desirable to offer additional I protection for solar appliances e.g. hot water systems and photovoltaic panels. Add reference that all new lots shall be rated for solar access and the rating and Solar Opportunity Line shown on the plan to provide I advice to planners, lot purchasers and designers. PM I: Recommend that the acceptable orientation range be changed to require at least one long lot boundary (for 80% of lots) to fall I within 200 west and 300 east of true north/south or 300 south and 200 north of true east. An illustration is needed. Add Performance Measure to outline the desirable range of I orientations for streets namely. N/S streets . within 20° west and 30° east of true north; E/W streets within 30° south and 20° north of true east. Illustration is needed. I Add: Performance Measure(s) for all plans of subdivision and development plans to include solar ratings for all lots between 300m2 and 1000m2, with the Solar Opportunity Line and rating to be shown on the plan I at minimum I :500 scale. Add ·a requirement for both subdivision and development plans to be submitted at a minimum or particular scale (1 :500 would be consistent with the solar rating information) I Add: requirement for contours to be shown on the same plan as the Solar Opportunity Line. This enables the line location and rating to be verified as solar access is affected by slope. I PM2:- Should promote built-to-boundary on south and west boundaries as first preference. Detached house construction with north wall boundary construction should be actively discouraged. PM2 should reflect I acceptable orientation range, limited in this case to within 20° west and 30° east of true north. PM3:- Need to define the level of solar access desired for integrated development. Add: All Plans of Subdivision and Development Plans to include solar rating for lots between 300-I OOOm2. showing Solar Opportunity Line and rating, with plans at 1:500 maximum. Add: reference to Energy Vic brochure, perhaps use some illustrations in Code. Diagram - "Diversity of Lots" should be amended to widen E/W lots, with narrowest lots being N/S. I Diagram "Solar Access" diagrams all show houses with projecting walls that effectively shade north windows for much of the day. Illustrate the optimum with a fairly straight north wall. (Note: This comment applies throughout the entire VicCode document). On the N/S streets sketch I widen the lots to reflect a 4* or 5* lot rating (15-I?m width). Diagrams Energy Vic to provide suggestions for revised diagrams in this Element, to reflect content changes resulting from I incorporating energy-smart lots material. Melbourne Water. Add "PC4: Buildings on lots abutting public open space I to be orientated to front that area for greater security and protection of the park". I. I SR I Panel Report 20/1/92 43 ·I Add "PC5: The majority. of larger lots within a subdivision to be adjacent to public open space to act as a .buffer between the open space and I intense public areas". Shire of Diamond Valley. Additional Performance Measures and Criteria are required to ensure that steep terrain, high tree cover and drainage I problems are taken into account and that larger lot sizes can be required on these grounds. I Residential Developments P/L. PMl: it is not necessary to contain a rectangle within lot boundaries, as dimensions and shape will be market self-regulating. I PM2: the same argument applies. But if the UBR proportions of lot width to area are acknowledged, e.g. Column 3 allowing 15m to 530m2, it follows that a 300m2 lot could have a 8.49m width. The PM2 rectangle should, I if it is used at all, be specified as 9m x 15m whether the building is "zero lot line" or not. G.Goodfellow. Concern at Kilmore Shire and its reaction in L50 whereby I it was claimed that initially the Shire agreed to 450 sq. metre lots but subsequent to hearing it adopted a 1000 sq. metre average. Sought application of VicCode to Kilmore. I 3.2.3.2. DEPARTMENT COMMENTARY AND SUGGESTED MODIFICATIONS. I This element provides for lots down to 300 sq. metres. Despite earlier resistance to smaller lots, the submissions ·to VicCode on this element now indicate widespread acceptance of this provision. Only two councils noted with concern the non-inclusion of the RDP's requirement for an I average lot size of 500 sq. metres. Comments were on a wide range of matters of detail with no I strong theme. Energy Victoria's submission provided detailed proposals for I clarifying the solar energy prov1s1on, a result of the recently compiled "Solar Efficient Subdivisions Study". with which the Department of Planning and Housing was closely involved. . The Department endorsed the Energy Victoria submission in principle and, as far as practicable, it would include I some aspects in revised prov1s10ns. In addition, as previously mentioned, the study should be .. iincluded as a reference to VicCode. I Several submittors requested that an additional objective/criteria be included to require lot size dimensions to relate to environmental and site conditions. The belief is held that this is an issue I which needs to be dealt with on a case by case basis. The Department considers that where Councils believe a local variation is warranted they should clearly identify the relevant area, provide substantive information on the grounds for which special consideration should be accorded and be I prepared to initiate an amendment to introduce controls which are deemed necessary to provide the required environmental protection. I As a result of reviewing the written and presented submissions, and noting issues raised by the Panel during the h~aring, the Department brought forward to the Panel the following suggested modifications:- ·I 1. Objectives. I I SR 1 Panel Report 20/l/92 44 add new objective ·for lot size and dimensions to .. take account of environmental features and constraints but not in a manner that generally removes scope for smaller lots to be provided. (various s u b m i tt o r,s) ; I add new objective relating to safety considerations (bushfire, arterial I roads and security abutting parks). I 2. Performance Criteria. • modify PC2 and PC3 to more specifically cover lot dimensions and orientation for solar access . A Revised wording proposed for PC2 is: "PC2. Lots to be orientated to facilitate siting of dwellings to take I advantage of solar access by: • ensuring the long axes of lots are within the range I N200W to NJOO£ , or E200N orE JOOS; and • dimensions of lots are adequate to protect solar access on-site, taking into account the relationship of each lot to the street, I such . that a minimum of 70% of all lots have appropriate solar orientation." expand PCI to more clearly relate to household diversity and choice; I • add new PC's to cover - environmental features and constraints - layout for bushfire safety I lots abutting major roads lots abutting · parks. I 3. Performance Measures. • for PM2, review the definition of building envelope and provide a demonstration diagram of a building envelope for use on 300-450 I sq.m lots. PM2 will also require some modification to make it workable. The current wording requires the building envelope to conform to building, open space and parking requirements. This, in essence, I would require definition of the basic dwelling outline, car space location and open space area for every lot. This (a) will restrict the type of house which may ultimately be chosen, and (b) is a very I complex and unnecessary requirement, especially for plans of subdivision with a considerable number of lots between 300 and 450 sq.m. The word "conforming" could be replaced by " ... which will I enable compliance with ... ", although more comprehensive re wording may be better. In addition PM2 should make provision for two types of building envelope one to be two dimensional, defining those sections of I boundaries where walls may be built, with building heights to be controlled by the Building Height envelope in E2, PM3. The other envelope to be three dimensional, providing for modification to E2, PM3, I to allow second storey and gable ends to boundaries, or to restrict the heights on some lots, as ULA do for solar access protection. Where boundary building heights in envelopes go beyond E2 PM3 limits, they I should be noted as easements or covenants on titles of adjacent lots. I I SR I Panel Report 20/1/92 45 I • clarify PM3 as to what is an approved integrated development - there is a need to ensure that multi-unit developments and dual occupancy I sites can be designated on a plan of subdivision. 4. Diagrams. I • replace Diversity of Lots diagram on page 17 with example showing much more diversity. • modify diagram illustrating building envelope to show clearly for 300 I - 450 sq.m lots how front setbacks and built to boundary areas are defined, how the third dimension is shown, and how notations regarding parking, driveway access and private open space can be I included. • replace diagrams on page 18 to better demonstrate solar efficient lot layout principles (in conjunction with Energy Vic, using diagrams generally from new Energy Smart Lots Guidelines). I • add diagrams showing lot configuration to provide dwelling frontage to trunk:. collectors and arterials. add a diagram showing lot size varied in relation to environmental I constraints such as slope and vegetation. 3.2.3.3. PANEL COMMENTARY. I This particular element sets in place performance standards which have a direct effect upon lot design. A number of expressions were I directed towards lot size. The Panel considers that the performance measur~s provide a scene for flexible design which should aid in achieving ti .. densities that have been set by the Minister for peripheral urban areas in· an endeavour to control urban growth. · It should be further appreciated that I there is no coercion to go the smaller lot sizes, but VicCode opens up the opportunity for the land development industry to explore the attitudes of the market in respect of. small lots. Inherent with the introduction of small lot I sizes is a resultant decrease in costs for infrastructure per lot due to increased yield. Inter-related with the small lot sizes are criteria which are I directed towards maximizing energy opportunities. As indicated in the Department of Planning and Housing commentary, Energy Victoria made detailed submissions on the need to maximize solar opportunity and it I requested the inclusion of a "Solar Opportunity Line" on lots. It further sought the need to set down more specific criteria to ensure that adequate opportunities for utilizing solar energy were available. I The Panel endorses the approach taken by the Department of Planning and Housing in its suggested modifications on ·the aspect of solar opportunity and the Panel considers that no need exists, at this juncture, to I include further detail. The matter as to whether further elaboration is required can be kept under review as VicCode comes into operation. Energy Victoria has recently launched a publication which provides considerable I detail on lot design to maximize solar opportunity. As indicated in earlier recommendations this booklet will be shown as a reference in an Appendix in VicCode. I During the course of the Panel hearing the Panel noted the concerns of some municipalities at the impact of the design element on areas which were steep, possessed high tree cover and/or drainage problems. It I should be noted that the_ performance objectives and criteria are proposed to be modified to deal with this aspect. I ll I I SR I Panel Report 20/1/92 46 .. 1 : The Panel wishes to stress that it is important to comprehend that at all times there a choice to be made in the application of each element of control so that a proponent may follow the performance measures for I some and the performance criteria for others. The Panel noted that the Department drew attention in its recommendations on Performances Measures to the possibility of the need to I introduce easements or covenants over adjoining lots where the building heights in envelopes go beyond E2 PM3 limits. The Panel has investigated this situation and it believes that the introduction of covenants should be I avoided if possible and the provisions of the Subdivision Act be utilized. Section 23 of the Subdivision Act "regulates or authorises the creation, removal Q.[ easements or restriction in accordance with a I planning scheme or permit" and Regulation 17 of the Subdivision (Procedures) Regulations, allied with example 8 of those regulations, provides the administrative procedure for the introduction of a restriction. I If, at the time of a permit being issued for the subdivision, a clear indication was provided of the location of building envelopes and the fact that. for example, a free standing two storey wall was proposed to be built on the lot I boundary then it should be possible to include as pan of the subdivision a restriction over the adjoining lot to accept the constraints imposed by such a building envelope. I The Panel wishes again to make the point that the use of such an option illustrates the value of adhering to a permit based approval system as ·· it opens up the opportunity to fully utilize the many flexible attributes of the I Subdivision Act which has its statutory expressions built around a permit based system. I The concern expressed by Mr. Goodfellow in respect of the Shire of Kilmore cannot be dealt with by the Panel. The Panel does consider that it would be riot be appropriate to exiend the mandatory application of VicCode to embrace the Shire at this juncture, particularly where that Shire was not I given the opportunity to comment on such a proposition. The matter of the attitude of the Shire to Amendment L50 lies outside the ambit of the Panel. I After reviewing the submissions the Panel endorses the modifications which have been brought forward by the Department of I Planning and Housing for· this particular element. 3.2.3.4. Panel recommendations. The following modifications should be made to Element E 1:- I I. Objectives. add new objective for lot size and dimensions to take account of environmental features and constraints but not in a manner that I generally removes scope for smaller lots to be provided.; add new objective relating to ·safety considerations (bushfire, arterial I roads and security abutting parks). 2. Performance Criteria. • modify PC2 and PC3 to more specifically cover lot dimensions and I orientation for solar access. A Revised wording proposed for PC2 is: "PC2. Lots· to be orientated to facilitate siting of dwellings to take I advantage of solar access by: I SR I Panel Report 20/1/92 47 I • ensuring the long axes of lots are within the range N200W to NJOO£ , or E200N orE JOOS; and I· • dimensions of lots are adequate to protect solar access on-site, taking into account the relationship of each lot to the street, I such that a minimum of 70% of all lots have appropriate solar orientation except where significant constraints limit achievement of such a target". I • expand PCI to more clearly relate to household diversity and choice; • add new PC's to cover environmental features and constraints; layout for bushfire safety; I lots abutting major roads; lots abutting parks. I 3. Performance Measures. '.;~~- for PM2, review the definition of building envelope and provide a I demonstration diagram of a building envelope for use on 300-450 sq.m lots. The word "conforming" could be replaced by " ... which will enable compliance with ... ", or some alternative wording to avoid the rigorous demands of the word "conforming". I In addition PM2 should make provision for two types of building envelope one to be two dimensional, defining those sections of boundaries where walls may be built, with building heights to be I controlled by the Building Height envelope in E2, PM3. The other envelope to be three dimensional, providing for modification to E2, PM3, to allow second storey and gable ends to boundaries, or to restrict the I heights on some lots, as ULA do for solar access protection. Where boundary building heights in envelopes go beyond E2, PM3 limits or if it proposed that they are built to boundary as in the new PM proposed in E2, the r0ssibility of using Section 23 of the Subdivision Act to introduce I restrictions on adjacent lots should be investigated. • clarify PM3 as to what is an approved integrated development. I 4. Diagrams. • replace Diversity of Lots diagram on page 17 with example showing much more diversity. I • modify diagram illustrating building envelope to show clearly · for 300 - 450 sq.m lots how front setbacks and built to boundary areas are defined, how the third dimension is shown, and how notations I regarding parking, driveway access and private open space can be included. • replace diagrams on page 18 to better demonstrate solar efficient lot I layout principles . • add diagrams showing lot configuration to provide development frontage to trunk collectors and arterials. add a diagram showing lot size varied in relation to environmental I constraints such as slope and vegetation. I I I I I SR I Panel Report 20/1/92 48 I 3.3.3 Element E2 Building siting and design. 3.3.3.1. SYNOPSIS OF COMMENTARY IN SUBMISSIONS. City of Berwick Potenti'al overlooking problems with two-storey I dwellings 1. 7m from side boundary. Height/setbacks only work on flat blocks. Siting does not foster good lot orientation, therefore contravening EO objective. Built-to-boundary walls should be limited to a maximum of 20m on I both side and rear boundaries (including garages and car ports) Minor queries on siting garages and car ports (Code allows carports between building line and street boundary, subject to compatible I design). Is a building set back I50-300mm from the boundary deemed to be on the boundary? Shire of Eltham. Add additional objective: "to ensure that buildings I and works are so designed and located that site excavation or fill is kept to a m1n1mum and existing significant vege-tation is retained wherever practicable". Additional relevant performance criteria should be included. I Performance criteria and measures should clearly relate to both proposed dwellings and their impact on existing buildings on adjoining land. Performance criteria relating to sunlight and daylight should include specific standards rather than using the words "adequate" and "maximum I amount". The performance measures for daylight do not appear to protect window walls of existing buildings from overshadowing. The performance I measures for privacy are inadequate as the specified performance measures of other elements will not adequately ensure privacy. The building envelope (PM3) has been· designed for flat land;· I should be redesigned to allow for steeply sloping land. Shire of Gisborne. Visual aspect of higher than average roof lines is ignored. Consideration of side setbacks is based only on wall height, ignores I the amenity of abuttin'g properties affected by a steep gable roof. City of Knox. Height control ignores topography . and thus privacy I between adjoining dwellings - better mechanism needed. Do encroachments e.g. landings, steps or ramps over I metre in height need to be setback I I metre from boundary? This aspect should be clarified. Sorrento Portsea Blairgowrie Conservation Group. 12 metre height limit is opposed. Requests that the Shire of Flinders scheme be deleted I from SRI in relation to Element E2 (mandatory). Housing Industry Association. Need different criteria for E/W and N/S lot orientations. Vertical building envelope (PM3) is suitable for E/W I lots; minor diagram change suggested: 3:1 angle to go to boundary line; contain eaves inside envelope. For N/S lots, boundary height should be increased to 5.5m to I encourage 2 storey construction; careful location of horizontal building envelope necessary. Shire of Pakenham. No explanation given for replacing AMCORD 2 I storey height limit with 12 metre limit. Wall length on boundary increased from 15m (AMCORD) to 20m without explanation. I Shire of Hastings. Zero lot lines positive step. Building height will provide flexibility. But the permissible 3-4 storey dwellings should be I subject to Council consent. I SR 1 Panel Report 20/1/92 49 I Shire of Flinders. Code allows max. ,building height of 12m - in excess I of local scheme section 4.01 provision Buildings in areas unaffecty.d by VicCode are restricted to 8m, this is inequitable. Concern that 20m maximum build-to-boundary line includes garages/carports, but excludes outbuildings. Amendment contradicts earlier . Departmental policy "Making I the Most of the Bay", requiring 8m maximum building height. Inappropriate that detailed building and siting controls be included in the State Section of schemes when they override provisions in the local section, creating I confusion and uncertainty. If the Minister proceeds with Code introduction, recommend that controls be placed in local section and that any existing provisions in I local section be deleted. Mahon and Mahon. Objectives should make reference to solar performance and relationship between indoor/outdoor spaces. All setback I references, currently in. E5, should be placed in E2. Re PM3: ·. Three dimensional building envelope does not satisfy the performance criteria on daylight. Alternative suggested. I Master Builders Assoc. Suggests siting controls (with modifications) be included in Part II of Victorian Building Regulations and operated "as-of- I right". Where Code provisions are not met, planning permit should be required. Building height formula is restrictive, ignores sloping sites. Supports zero-lot-line. Suggests allowing a 150mm setback as-of-right, to allow for projections. I Re PM3 (building height): building '· 1velop is complex, especially with steep sites; simplify. Suggest VBR control of IOOmm setback for every 300mm rise. I City of Croydon. Amendment applies VicCode to existing lots, e.g. m semi- developed courts. I City of Springvale. Re PM I: reference in third paragraph to "building" instead of "boundary" and should read: "not less than a horizontal distance of I metre from any boundary or an adjoining lot that they face". This would be I consistent with Building Code of Australia. VicCode requires I metre setback, Council By-Law requires 1.2 metres. Re PM3:- wall height parameters are more onerous than VBR I for wall heights greater than 6.9m. Re PM4 in the paragraph commencing "may encroach";_ after "0.5 metres" add "or within I metre of the external wall or associated encroachments of another building on the same lot". Where buildings are built to boundary, a planning permit I should be required. Country Fire Authority. Appears this element was considered on the I basis that all lots are level. Slope aspect has a bearing on fire behaviour, north slopes are generally drier. Re 01: after the word "daylighting" add "and to minimize the spread of fire". I Re PM4: it is unclear what is meant by Clause 3 of BCA - more specific reference required. Re PM5 (built to boundaries): infers that the walls within metre of the boundary need not have fire rating if there are no openings. I Re "windows facing the boundary are infilled with translucent or opaque materials". Black plastic sheet or opaque glass may satisfy the requirement but otherwise fail. PM5 sho.uld be more explicit. I I I I SR 1 Panel Report 20/1/92 50 Urban Land Authority. Re PM3 - building height and sltmg: walls up I to 12m height be able to be located on boundaries of north/south blocks. ULA has developed 2-storey terrace designs. This type of development is I appropriate and flexible. Energy Victoria. Need to incorporate reference to solar energy/access as valid planning criteria for design and siting. Propose incorporation of specific sections on solar access. Conflict between day lighting and solar I access requirements needs further review. One way is to link setbacks to orientation, to ensure adequate separation in front of north windows. Element offers opportunity to provide guidance on energy - efficient design I and siting. Use the white pages to set out principles - it may be possible to include some of these as objectives and performance criteria. This may be premature given the anticipated House Energy Rating Scheme (late 1991) and the possible 1992 regulation for household energy performance I 01: it is essential to add solar energy to this objective. PC: it may be clearer to use separate headings for "daylight" and "solar energy". PC'1: include in Daylight section. I PC2: include in Solar Energy Section. Change "sunshine" to "solar energy". Add: dwellings to be designed and sited with living zones having I a northerly aspect. Add: recognition of need for solar access to solar hot water systems and photovoltaic panels. It may be appropriate for these to be protected by other planning mechanisms. For new developments with lots I rated, the typical levels of solar radiation available to the north wall and roof are inherent in the· rating, giving useful consumer information. PC4: is loss of solar access regarded as "loss of amenity?" If· not, I there is a need to establish right to solar access for energy conservation purposes as described already. Add: preferred locations of boundary walls in relation to solar I orientati0n and the impact on solar access. Build-to-boundary should be encouraged on all boundaries but northern ones. Need to promote shared wall construction as energy saving strategy. Optimum situation is where an E/W boundary is shared and both dwellings have north solar access. I PM 1: allowable setbacks are inadequate for solar purposes. Their adoption effectively renders window openings as permanent heat loss points. Conflict exists between the Solar and Daylight energy requirements - needs I more work. More effective for setbacks to respond to orientation to deliver adequate building separation for north facing windows, especially for living I space windows. For development of guidelines/rating system, Solar Opportunity Zone assumes build-to-boundary single storey construction with a 6m high upper storey setback, 1.8m from boundary most cases. Separation between buildings varies with desired level of solar radiation but I in all cases is substantially greater than those permitted under the day light standards (e.g. 5m for 2* rating cf 1m for daylight setbacks). PM: introduce new heading "Solar energy" after "Daylight". I with text: "At least one living space likely to be heated by fossil fuels to have a northern window sited within the orientation range 30° south to 20° north of true east and that is not shaded by projecting walls of the house or I garage". Add: new PM under "Solar energy" :"north facing windows to habitable rooms to have an area of between 10-15% of the floor area of the room or space they serve for houses with timber floors, and between 15-25% I similarly for houses with concrete slab floors". If this is regarded as too onerous, then every attempt should be made to at least require this window I proportion for one north facing living space in a dwelling. I l SR I Panel Report 20!1/92 5 I I' PM3: concern at building height and envelope profile showing no appreciation of solar access requirements. Requires further work as I Code's daylight and solar requirements conflict. PM4: encroachments mean that the allowable space open to the sky between houses may be reduced to 0.5m separation between eaves and a boundary wall. This is inadequate for solar access. Prefer setbacks linked to I orientation and room type (habitable or non-habitable). PM6: recommend that built-to-boundary not be permitted to the northern boundary. I DIAG: "relationship between dwellings" sketch (p.l9, top) should show the street setback area shaded due to privacy, amenity and solar implications. May be appropriate to delete this diagram as it provides no I discernible assistance. DIAG: "Side setbacks" diagram should be modified to suit the proposed amendment for solar access. This requires further discussion. DIAG: "Building height" diagrams as for "Side setbacks" I diagram. DI~G: "Built · ..) boundary" diagram should be modified to indicate a lot with a good solar rating and a more energy efficient lay out. House I should be sited behind the Solar Opportunity Line. Projecting walls shade the north window to the living space for much of the day. The· garage could be set forward to reduce its impact on solar access. If not acceptable, then I the living .areas should be moved towards the rear so that there is greater northern exposure to these rooms. ADD TO WHITE PAGES: Energy Victoria is preparing a House Energy Rating Schemes and can offer assi.o::•ance on energy efficient house I design. An information section could se. out the principles of energy efficient design, covering: * orientation and siting I * zoning of plan * north windows to heated spaces * roof slope I * extent of glazing to different walls * location and shading of windows * insulation * thermal mass/construction materials I * air movement * landscaping * energy efficient appliances/fixtures. I Shire of Mornington. Performance Measures (p.l9) should be modified to:- I 1 . Ensure that privacy between dwellings is maintained by location/ height of windows and suitable screening methods; 2. Clarify "maximum height" as applying to either the top of roof line or the maximum wall height. I 3. View lines, where applicable, are taken into account in siting of buildings. I Shire of Diamond Valley. Larger setbacks should be req~ired for areas of steep terrain and high tree cover. Residential Developments P/L. Building height diagram (p.20): zero I lot-line for single and 2 storey houses will be seriously affected if the 1 metre setback from side boundaries is introduced. Matter could be addressed through individual applications. Suggest pitching the diagram at the I boundary after a rise of. 5.6 metres. Support separate consideration of E/W and N/S lot orientations 'for zero lot-line development, due to disadvantages I I I SR I Panel Report 20/1/92 52 of E/W orientations and the lesser implications of overshadowing where N/S I axis occurs. PM3 (20 metre maximum wall length): if the requirement refers to buildings on one boundary (more appropriate), then it should be included as PM7 on p.21. However, this maximum may be problematic, particularly for I examples like the diagram on p.25 for the bottom lot. Wonga Park & District Residents Association. Concern was held at I possible loss of privacy. Two storey dwellings were unsuitable for elderly. I 3.3.3.2. DEPARTMENT COMMENTARY AND SUGGESTED MODIFICATIONS. The major issue raised in relation to this element was a perceived need to clarify and strengthen the solar energy provisions for I houses. With respect to solar energy provts1ons the Department believed that it was appropriate to ensure that houses sited on "solar" lots should be required to take advantage of such solar potential by having an appropriate amount of glass oriented to the north. Several submissions sought an alteration to the building envelope to indicate a clear response to solar I orientation. At this juncture the Department was not supportive of such additional modification as it assumed that all lots are correctly solar oriented and it had not been adequately demonstrated to provide major energy I savings over present envelope controls allied with the proposed glass . requirements as outlined above. ··~ Several submittors requested that the building envelope be I enlarged to allow walls of two storey buildings on some boundaries. Whilst the Department did not· support modifying the envelope it proposed to clarify the mechanism relating to building envelope definition on lots between 300 sq. metres and 450 sq. metre~. ensuring that these envelopes could be used to I specify buildings going beyond the standard building lirie. Notations of such envelopes would need to be included on abutting lots. II One submission proposed relocating the front boundary setbacks from E5 Streetscape to this element. This modification was supported by the Department and in later commentary by the Department on I E5 specific commentary was made on this aspect. Four Councils raised concerns about the lack of PM's relating to privacy, especially when the building envelope in PM3 was applied to I sloping land. The privacy performance measures in AMCORD were not included in VicCode. Present controls of detached housing have no privacy requirements and there was a high level of community acceptance of the I present controls. VicCode wished to encourage two storey dwellings which would I be increasingly necessary as lots become smaller. The Code encouraged design of new buildings to minimize overlooking, but did not provide PM's as a simple wording of appropriate measures was not possible. The Department considers that the existing controls, balanced against other housing I objectives, · provide a level of privacy which was acceptable to the community. I A few submissions opposed the 12 metre height control in general. These were distinct from the submissions which had be covered in I earlier Departmental commentary e.g. Shire of Flinders. The building I SR I Panel Report 20/1/92 53 I envelope, including the 12 metre limit, was a recommendation of the Detached House Height Control Task Force, set up to advise the Minister on a I replacement for the existing height control in the Planning Scheme. As a result of reviewing the written and presented submissions, I and noting issues raised by the Panel during the hearing, the Department brought forward to the Panel the following suggested modifications:- 1. Objectives. I • expand objectives to cover design for energy efficiency and environmental management (Energy Vic, CFA, fringe councils). I 2. Performance Criteria. • clarify and extend PC's to cover: I siting_ of dwellings for solar access protection, including setbacks from :morth-. boundary. (Include a table showing desirable setbacks from north boundary for different lot configurations); I - design for solar gain and energy savings including windows to north walls, and building to boundary; - siting to ensure good sunlight to private open space areas; I - design for bushfire protection in high fire hazard areas; - siting to minimize soil disturbance and vegetation removal. • In relation to design of houses to take advantage of solar access, the following revision of PC2 i:; proposed:- I "PC2. On lots with app!,.priMe orientation (£1 ,PC2) dwellings sited and designed so that windows are located in north walls to take advantage of solar access by: I • setting.: the north wall sufficiently far back from the north boundary to provide on-site solar access protection; and I • providing a total window area oriented to the north of 10% - 15% of the floor area of the dwelling." • elaborate on PC3 covering privacy to clarify that the design and I siting of buildings should seek to minimize loss of existing privacy to adjacent private open space and habitable rooms. add a PC relating to site coverage and sealed surfaces. This is I necessary to override the VBRs 50% site coverage requirement (DPH/ULA) and will also require a PM. The need for such a PC is best appreciated by the fact that a 120 sq.m house, with 18 sq.m garage and 12 sq.m shed would be the maximum level of development under I the 50% site cover rule. Houses (single storey) up to around 140 sq.m are in fact practical on 300 sq.m lots, allowing for ancillaries, 80 sq.m private open space and front setbacks. This is around. 56% site I coverage. A site coverage figure of 55% would be reasonable. 3. Performance Measures I correct the error in PM 1 - where the word "building" occurs m the last line, it should be "boundary". • review the daylight provisions - PM 1 is satisfactory when houses within the PM3 building envelope are adjacent, providing eaves are I restricted to ensure a one metre mm1mum distance from the boundary is open to the sky (see PM4 comment). The Building Control Division of DPH acknowledges that the BCA daylight I provisions relate . to basic health and ventilation need, but do not I I I SR 1 Panel Report 20/1/92 54 relate to daylight for amenity and natural lighting energy savings I (DPH). Further discussion with Building Control staff suggests that PM 1 be reworded to: I "PM 1. Dwellings where each habitable room has clear windows totalling in area a minimum equivalent to 1 Oo/o · of the room's floor area, and such windows are Located to face a Light court (of minimum area 3 sq.m and dimension one I metre), or other outdoor space open to the sky, or an open veranda or open carport, and are not Less than a horizontal distance of one metre clear to the sky from any boundary or I other building measured perpendicular to the face of the window." This is a slightly better daylight level than that specified in the BCA and by removing reference to compliance with BCA removes a I present anomaly relating to eaves. It will mean that walls located only .one metre back from the boundary will not be able to have eaves, but will also ensure that building to boundary on the adjacent lot is not restricted. (See also PM4). Where the height of walls on the boundary exceeds 3.6 metres, the building envelope should increase daylight access to adjacent walls by specifying a greater setback, to I give a clear 2 metre side space to the sky. This provision. (PM 1) also provides inadequate protection of d~ylight to existing dwellings. Typically dwelling walls ·are sited 1.2m from a side boundary, with eaves extending 500-600mm, leaving only 500- I 700 mm width open to the sky. The BCANBRs, however. allow built to boundary to occur adjacent, even·· thoug.. d~ylight to habitable room windows in the existing dwelling would be restricted. One solution is to require a light court of I m. setback~ in the wall of the new dwelling, to extend at least 3 m. inclusive of the whole area opposite the window. A PM should be introduced to deal with this aspect. • transfer frontage setbacks from E5 Streetscape to this element. (This may also require modifications to Objectives and Performance Criteria in both . elements). I • delete the part of PM2 relating to integrated development, in recognition that the multi-dwelling code (now in preparation by DPH) covers the relevant issues far more adequately. I • ensure that PM3, allowing a 12 metre building height, does not override height controls already existing in some local planning controls. This needs to be done in the Amendment itself, but I clarification may be beneficial here. • amend PM4 to allow encroachment by chimneys above the building envelope. PM4 also needs amendment to its title and clarification of its purpose. In order to ensure that any house may build a zero lot I line, now or in future, and meet BCA fire and daylight provisions, separation between the outermost points of buildings must be one metre minimum (or abutting). Accordingly, encroachment of eaves, I gutters, fascias to within 500mm of a boundary are inappropriate. Houses 1m from boundary should have no eaves, and single storey houses with eaves should be around 1.5m. from the boundary. I The following revised wording is suggested: Encroachments for daylight and fire protection. PM4. "Eaves, fascias, gutters and chimneys may encroach beyond the building envelope applicable under PM3, provided I that the distance from the outermost point of the building to the boundary is not Less than one metre. I I SR 1 Panel Report 20/1/92 55 I PM4A. Masonry chimney backs, flues, pipes, domestic fuel tanks, cooling or heating appliances or other services may I encroach beyond the building envelope provided that· the distance between the outermost point of the structure and the boundary is not less than 0.5m, unless protected by a 1 hour fire rating wall. I Light fittings etc ... " add a new PM relating to building site coverage limits, setting up a maximum of 55% of lot area. I PM5 was reviewed to clarify its purpose and the appropriate restrictions relating to fire protection. Most of the provision can be removed as it is an unnecessary duplication of the BCANBR's. I The reference to opaque or trans! ucent glass is a pn vacy consideration to ensure that windows on boundary walls arc not transparent. It should be reworded and moved after PM2. A suggested wording is: PM2A. "Windows located in walls on the boundary are to be opaque or translucent." • add an additional PM under Built to the Boundary specifying that walls set back a minimal distance (i.e. 150 mm) be deemed to be on the boundary, (it is common that for legal and other reasons, walls are set back this minimal amount). Clarify that Built to Boundary walls I are maximum 3.6 m in height and that all of the roof must remain within 3.6 m height for one metre back from the boundary. • under Built to the Boundary add an additional PM to allow double storey walls or gflble ends to single storey walls built to boundary on I lots between 300 ~md 450 sq.m where such a wall is specified on a three dimensi·onal building envelope plan, and is on a boundary adjacent to other lots which have building envelopes specified to I meet the relevant PC's ·of ·this ·element. Where the boundary building envelope goes beyond the envelope in PM3, this should be specified in the titles (or in a S.l73 agreement) of abutting lotS, to ensure adjacent owners are aware of the envelope. In addition, party wall I easements should be encouraged in recognition of the energy saving benefits of shared walls. several submissions requested that Built to the Boundary provisions I be modified to remove opportunity for built to boundary along the north lot boundary. The Department acknowledges that this may help discourage house siting with poor solar access, however, this I should be addressed through the improved PC and PMs relating to solar access. In addition built to boundary provisions apply to all buildings, including garages and outbuildings, and to houses on lots down to 9 metres wide, which may in pan wish to fully span the lot, I and which may generate extra energy savings through shared walls. It is therefore not proposed at this stage to include any orientation based restrictions on building to boundaries. I • clarify PM6 and PM3 in relation to the applicability of Built to Boundary provisions to lots over 45.0 sq. metres which do not have a building envelope shown on a plan of subdivision. The Built to I Boundary section should be moved to follow PM3, and be re-worded: "PM3A. Dwelling and outbuildings on lots over 450 sq.m may be built to the boundary under the following conditions: - maximum height of 3.6 m for one metre back from the I boundary; - a maximum of 20 metres length of wall (including carports) along a side or rear boundary; (remove I reference in PM3) I I I SR I Panel Report 20/1/92 56 PLANNING AND EPA UBRARY PM3B. Dwellings and outbuildings on lots of 450 sq.m or less I may be· built to ·the boundary as specified in PM3 and PM3A along boundaries nominated on a two dimensional building envelope plan (see El, PM2), or in accordance with a nominated three dimensional building envelope on a plan of I subdivision which may provide for Built to Boundary or party wall heights of up to 8 metres. (Details of this envelope must be noted by covenants or easements on titles of adjacent I lots). • Built to Boundary should be defined to include walls se_t back up to 150 I mm from the boundary." 4. Diagrams. • consider deleting the Relationship between Dwellings diagram on page 19, as it provides little information of practical value. I • revise the Side Setbacks diagram to show a 1 metre setback without eaves, which allows a built to boundary wall adjacent and retains access to 1 metre of daylight. I • show an additional diagram of protection of daylight to windows of an adjacent existing house. • under Building Height diagram on page 20 add a new diagram I showing how to calculate the height for sloping sites. • modify the bottom diagram on building. height to include a "no eaves" two storey house, with the ·benefit of better daylight access. • replace Built to Boundary diagram on page 21 with one more clearly I showing the benefits of building to the boundaries. Additionally consider includin£, cross-sections of roof/wall junctions and floor/wall junctions similar to those in ULA Residential Planning I Policy Technical Note No. 1. • add a Table showing desirable setbacks from north boundary, derived and simplified from that in the Energy Smart Lots brochure. • replace the drawing on the bottom of page 21 with one showing I principles of solar house siting on different lot orientations. • consider including a diagram with the essential design requirements for bushfire protection for urban fringe houses. (DPH) I • consider including a diagram indicating house siting to minimize cut and fill on slopes. I 3.3.3.3. PANEL COMMENTARY. This Element of VicCode will lead to a significant impact upon I the location of houses and the actual design of houses. As development becomes more compact requirements become more prescriptive in an endeavour to achieve some level of protection of· privacy. At the same time, I whilst ensuring opportunities exist for maximizing access to light and solar energy, it should be appreciated that both subdivision design and housing design will need to be carefully attuned to optimizing opportunities for the I establishment of a sense of identity. Currently a relatively high degree of flexibility exists in the design of lots and whilst some may argue that a sense of sameness exists, in I reality the Panel considers that closer examination reveals that a sense of uniqueness is achievable, a.nd indeed on many occasions is attained. Nevertheless VicCode extends a significant challenge in this area. Due to the I fact that it advances further into the detailed aspects of subdivision during the initial lot design stage, it is expected that great opportunity exists for the I creation of a sense of identity through the inter-relationship between built I SR I Panel Report 20/1/92 57 I forms, streetscape design, integrated open space and attention to movement patterns. I The general tenor of the submissions made in respect of this element related to commentary on detailed aspects of the criteria, measures and diagrams. The Panel considers that both the initial Departmental I response, allied with the response of the Department to matters raised by the Panel as the submissions were reviewed, have dealt with a number of the concerns. I As mentioned in the Department commentary the concerns of the Shire of Flinders with respect to the 12 metre height control not inter I relating with its local controls and also the need to respect Departmental policy "Making the Most of the Bay" has been addressed in earlier commentary and recommendations both by the Department and the Panel. I Reference was made by the Urban Land Authority to the need for terrace hous·ing to ·be implemented. It is clearly stated on page 8 of YicCode that whilst a terrace house development was unlikely to meet some of I the performance measures that it could satisfy appropriate performance criteria and be permitted on that basis. In. addition the proposed modification per PM3B of the Departmental modification clearly caters for terrace style I housing. The proposed inclusion of the setback of north wall from north boundary in tre. diagram modifications is not accepted by the Panel. This I diagram can L.. accessed from the proposed references and it is deemed inappropriate to include as part of the YicCode documentation at this stage due to the constraints which are imposed. Future inclusion can be the I subject of later review.: In its review of this element the Panel held the opinion that the I issue of privacy could merit closer scrutiny in later reviews of VicCode as some measure was gained of public response to the living environment which· would be generated by YicCode. I The Panel considers that the proposals brought forward in the final Departmental response and outlined its commentary generally merit support. I 3.3.3.4. Panel recommendations. The following modifications should be made to Element E2:- I 1. Objectives. I • expand objectives to cover design for· energy efficiency and environmental management. I 2. Performance Criteria • clarify and extend PC's to cover: I - Siting of dwellings for solar access protection, including setbacks from north boundary. (Include a table showing desirable setbacks from north boundary for different lot configurations); - . design for solar gain and energy savings including windows to I north walls, and building to boundary; - siting to ensure good sunlight to private open space areas; I I ------ I SR I Panel Report 20/1/92 58 .,. - design for bushfire protection in high fire hazard areas; I - siting to minimise soil disturbance and vegetation removal. • In relation to design of houses to take advantage of solar access. the following revision of PC2 is proposed:- "PC2. On lots with appropriate orientation ( El,PC2) dwellings I sited and designed so that windows are located in north walls to take advantage of solar access by: • setting the north wall sufficiently far back from the I north boundary to provide on-site solar access protection; and • providing a total window area oriented to the north of I 10% - 15% of the floor area of the dwelling. • elaborate on PC3 covering privacy to clarify that the design and siting of buildings should seek to minimize loss of existing privacy to I adjacent private open space and habitable rooms. add a PC relating to site coverage and sealed surfaces. This 1s necessary to override the VBRs 50% site coverage requirement (DPH!ULA) and will also require a PM. 3. Performance Measures. I correct the error in PM 1 - where the word "building" occurs m the last line, it should be "boundary". • PMl be reworded to:· I "PM 1. Dwellings where each habitable room has clear windows totailin;: in area a minimum equivalent tq. 10% of the room's floor area, and such windows are located to face a light court (of mwlmum area 3 sq.m and dimension one I metre), or other outdoor space open to the sky, or an open veranda or open carport, and are not less than a horizontaL distance of one metre clear to the sky from any boundary or I other building measured perpendicular to the face of the window." A PM should be incorporated in the built to boundary PMs which I requires a light court of lm. setback in the wall of the new dwelling, to extend at least 3m. inclusive of the whole area opposite the window. • transfer frontage setbacks from E5 Streetscape to this element. (This may also require modifications to Objectives and Performance I Criteria in both elements). qelete the part of PM2 relating to integrated development, in recognition that the multi-dwelling code (now in preparation by I DPH) covers the relevant issues far more adequately. • ensure that PM3 allowing a 12 metre building height does not override height controls already ex1stmg in some local planning I controls. This needs to be done in the Amendment itself. but clarification may be beneficial here. • PM4 should be reworded as follows: "Encroachments for daylight and fire protection. I PM4. "Eaves, fascias, gutters and chimneys may encroach beyond the buiLding envelope applicable under in PM3 provided that the distance from the outermost point of the I building to the boundary is not less than one metre. PM4A Masonry chimney backs, flues, pipes, domestic fuel tanks, cooling or heating appliances or other services may encroach beyond the building envelope provided that the I distance between the outermost point of the structure and the I I SR 1 Panel Repon 20/l/92 59 I boundary is not less than 0.5m, unless. protected by a 1 hour fire rating wall. I Light fittings etc ... " • add a new PM relating to building site coverage limits, setting up a maximum of 55% of lot area. • Delete PM5. See new PMs proposed below. I • Insert new PM2A as follows:- PM2A. "Windows located in walls on the boundary are to be opaque or translucent." I • add an additional PM under Built to the Boundary specifying that walls set back a minimal distance (i.e. 150 mm) be deemed to be on the boundary. Clarify that Built to Boundary walls are maximum 3.6 m in height and that all of the roof must remain within 3.6 m height for I one metre back from the boundary. • under Built to the Boundary add an additional PM to allow double storey walls or gable ends to single storey walls built to boundary on I lots between .300 and 450 sq. metres where such a wall is specified on a three dimensional building envelope plan, and is on a boundary adjacent to other lots which have building envelopes specified to I meet the relevant PC's of this element. Where the boundary building envelope goes beyond the envelope in PM3, this should be speci ficd in the titles of abutting lots, to ensure adjacent owners are aware of the envelope. (Refer to Panel recommendation under Element E 1 I which commented upon the possibility of including reference to restrictions as part of the registered plan of subdivision.) In addition, party wall easements should be encouraged in recognition I of the energy saving benefits of shared walls. • clarify PM6 and PM3 in relation to the applicability of Built to Boundary provisions to lots over 450 sq. metres which do not have a I building envelope shown on a plan of subdivision. The Built to Boundary section should be moved to follow PM3, and be re-worded: "PM3A. Dwelling and outbuildings on lots over 450 sq.m may be built to the boundary under the following I conditions: maximum height of 3.6 m for one metre back from the boundary; I a maximum of 20 metres length of wall (including carports) along a side or rear boundary; (remove reference in PM3) PM3B. Dwellings and outbuildings on lots of 450 sq.m or I less may be built to the boundary as specified in PM3 and PM3A along boundaries nominated on a two dimensional building envelope pian (see £1, PM 1 ), or in accordance I with a nominated three dimensional building envelope on a . plan of subdivision which may provide for Built to Boundary or party wall heights of up to 8 metres. Details of I this envelope must be recorded in some acceptable form. Built to Boundary should be defined to include walls set back up to 150 mm from the . boundary." I 4. Diagrams. • consider deleting the Relationship between Dwellings diagram on I page 19, as it provides little information of practical value. • revise the Side Setbacks diagram to show a 1 metre setback without eaves, which allows a built to boundary wall adjacent and retains I access to 1 metre of daylight. I I I SR 1 Panel Report 20/1/92 60 show an· additional diagram· of protection of daylight to windows of an I adjacent existing house. • under Building Height diagram on page 20 add a new diagram showing how· to calculate the height for sloping sites. • modify the bottom diagram on building height to include a "no eaves" I two storey house, with the benefit of better daylight access. • replace Built to Boundary diagram on page 21 with one more clearly showing the benefits of building to the boundaries. I Additionally consider including cross-sections of roof/wall junctions and floor/wall junctions similar to those in ULA Residential Planning Policy Technical Note No. 1. • replace the drawing on the bottom of page 21 with one showing I principles of solar house siting on different lot . orientations. • consider including a diagram with the essential design requirements for bush fire protection for urban fringe houses .. I • consider including a diagram . indicating house siting to minimize cut and fill on slopes. I I I I II I ·I I I I I I I SR 1 Panel Report 20/1/92 6 1 3.3.4 Element E3 - Private Open Space. 3.3.4.1. SYNOPSIS OF COMMENTARY ON SUBMISSIONS. Shire of Eltham. Area of private open space should be related to the size of the dwelling, not the lot area. Maximum grade of 1:8 for usable open space is I too steep. Requirement that open space is "directly accessible from the habitable rooms of the dwelling" is inappropriate. Should impose limit on the area of impervious surface. I City of Knox. Open space should not have to be directly accessible from all habitable rooms. Need control to ensure that private open space is protected from overshadowing. I Housing Industry Association. Suggest new illustration for north facing house allowed closer to frontage, allowing open space to be located I further back. Shire of Hastings. Measures are generally supported. Slope requirements I are over-restrictive (i.e. max. 1 :8). Mahon and Mahon. Reference to 1:8 slope is misleading in subdivision context. Requirement should relate to subsequent house and part of PM1 I needs be directed to house construction, not subdivision. Master Builders Association. Supports. I Country Fire Authority. Unclear whether open car park areas can be part of private open space provision. I Urban Land Authority. Re PMl: mm1mum dimension should be reduced from 4m to 3m. Lesser dimension more appropriate for smaller sites and is adequate. Consistent with many Council multi-unit codes I Energy Victoria. PC3: add - take account of solar access to dwelling when determining private open space. I PC4: include reference to orientation of private open space as providing solar access to dwelling. Where open space location corresponds with the Solar Opportunity Zone, there is the greatest chance of solar access being available to the dwelling I PM2: add - one part of the private open space to have a northerly aspecL It would be desirable to set an area that should have this aspect. I Melbourne Water. PC3: add "garden planting and fences are to be sympathetic to the objectives of abutting public open space". I Shire of Diamond Valley. Larger areas of private open space should be required for areas of steep terrain and high tree cover. A large proportion of affected land in the Shire would be steeper than 1:8 as specified - I compliance would be difficult. Residential Developments P/L. Presumes that as lots <300m2 are I considered to be "integrated developments" and as Code doesn't apply to such lots, then open space requirement (PMl) would not apply to "integrated developments"? I I I ------ I SR I Panel Report 20/1/92 62 L.Ord. Performance criteria are laudable but the diagrams show up the I lack of criteria about visib.ility/permeability of. the street interface. 3.3.4.2. DEPARTMENT COMMENTARY AND SUGGESTED MODIFICATIONS. I It was considered that no major issues were raised m the individual submissions on this element. As a result of reviewing the written and presented submissions, and noting issues raised by the ·Panel during the I hearing, the Department brought forward to the Panel the following suggested modifications:- I 1. Objectives. rewrite the objective to clarify purpose and scope of private open space to include use for recreation, service areas and storage rather I than reference to "user requirements". (DPH) I 2. Performance Criteria. expand PC3 to discourage the situation where private open space (i.e. property backs) abuts public open space (Melbourne Water and others), as it is usually nqt advantageous to either the park or 'the I property owner, because of vandalism, security and loss of value problems. rewrite PC4 to clarify it relates to access to amenity sunshine for I private open space, and may additionally have a function of ensuring solar access to north windows. (Energy Vic) I 3. Performance Measures. delete the requirement in PM1 for a 1 in: 8 slope requirement. It is difficult to satisfy in many hilly areas and difficult to measure and I check. modify PM 1 in relation to the wording "directly accessible from the habitable rooms of the dwelling" to "conveniently accessible from a I major living area of the dwelling". I 4. Diagrams. • revise the drawing on page 23 to better indicate private open space uses and functional relationships. (attachment E3.1) Alter the drawing of the lot on· the south side of the road to discourage I significant private open space use at the front, with its consequent demands for high solid fences surrounding it, which detract from streetscape amenity and personal safety. I • include a table of shadow lengths at equinox and mid winter to enable easy calculation of the extent of sunlight access to private open space I abutted by fences or single storey walls. (attachment E3.2). 3.3.4.3. PANEL COMMENTARY. A number of the submissions raised valid concerns on this I element. particularly in respect of the criteria and the measures. As a result the modifications brought forward by the Department accord recognition to a. number of these concerns. The Panel is generally supportive of the I proposed modifications. I I SR I Panel Report 20/1/92 63 I The Panel has some reservations about the need to include in PC3 the need to discourage the situation where the rear of lots abut public I open space. Whilst the ·Panel has incorporated a modification to the wording brought forward by the Department on this aspect, the Panel would prefer to have more detailed analysis as to the actual reactions of residents who experience such a living environment before changes were made to this I criteria. The Panel also has a further concern on the proposed modification to diagrams which is directed towards discouraging significant private open space use at the front of lots which are located on the south side of the road. In the opinion of the Panel it is an onerous constraint to deny a family the opportunity to take advantage of a northern orientation because they live on the south side of a road and that they must forego such opportunity to ensure that overlooking of the footways in the street is achieved. I It is possible to have a balance in both these objectives and from a realistic viewpoint if residents wish to create private living areas they will I do by use of planting over which no control exists. It should be further appreciated that houses on the northern side will be endeavouring to locate dwellings as close as possible to the street I alignment so they may maximize their northern aspect. This will result in a close inter-relationship with street footways and a close overseeing on pedestrian activity. I 3.3.4.4. Panel recommendations. I The following modifications should be made to Element E3:- 1. Objectives. rewrite the objective to clarify purpose and scope of private open I space- to include use for recreation, service areas and storage rather than reference . to "user requirements". (DPH) I 2. Performance Criteria. · rewrite PC4 to clarify it relates to access to amenity sunshine for private open space, and may additionally have a function of I ensuring solar access to north windows. modify PC 3 to indicate that care should be taken in siting lots such that the rear of the lot abuts on to open space as such siting could result in the possibility of vandalism and security problems in some I instances. This recommendation is made subject to substantiation of the concerns from a cross section of residents who experience such a living environment as it is known that some residents seek the I ability to adjoin open space areas. 3. Performance Measures. I delete the requirement in PMI for a 1 in 8 slope requirement. modify PM 1 in relation to the wording "directly accessible from the habitable rooms of the dwelling" to "conveniently accessible from a major living area of the dwelling". I 4. Diagrams. revise the drawing on page 23 to better indicate private open space I uses and functional relationships. I I I SR I Panel Report 20/1/92 64 include a table . of shadow lengths at equinox and mid winter to enable I easy calculation of. the extent of. sunlight· access to private open space abutted by fences or single storey walls. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I SR 1 Panel Report 20/1/92 6 5 3.3.5 Element E4 Vehicle parking. 3.3.5.1. SYNOPSIS OF COMMENTARY IN SUBMISSIONS. PTC. Oppose right angle parking on arterial/sub arterial roads see diagram P.26. I City of Berwick. Essential to provide 3 car spaces per dwelling (VicCode requires 2). Car spaces should be 5.5 x 2.6m (Code 4.9 x 2.6m). I Shire of Eltham. Performance measure PM 1 should refer to AS2890.1 ( 1986) or subsequent standard to be consistent with PM4. I' Shire of Gisborne. A dwelling may be built as-of-right on a 4.5m setback. A Ford Wagon (5m long) would protrude into the road reservation, this would be exacerbated by tandem parking. Objectives for Community Design and I Streetscape could be breached by insensitive carport design. . Str:~!!t parking should be. encouraged for visitors. Alternatively, LSPs could require increased dwelling setbacks where two (2) on site car I spaces are proposed. Robin C. Spragg. Mandatory off-street provisions over-generous - at odds with government transport objectives. What about spatial flexibility, rather I than. forcing construction of spaces? Housing Industry Association. Minimum length of car space should be I 4.5m to accord with Element E5 streetscape. Shire of Hastings. Measures are supported. I Mahon and Mahon. Driveways for east/west lots should be located towards the north boundary. Except for E/W lots, driveways should be combined to maximize kerbside parking opportunities. Double vehicle crossings for c;..-.:h I lot should be considered as lot density increases. Where verge width is at least 4.8 metres without a footpath or 6 metres with a footpath, the vehicle crossing should be counted as a space; I with dual crossings, two credits are appropriate. Vehicle crossings should be offset 0. 75 metres from side boundaries to allow garage construction on boundaries. · Single vehicle I crossings should be 3 metres wide, duals 5 metres. Where kerbside parking is to be used, space for parking, crossings and laybacks will govern minimum lot frontages ~ :. generally to a maximum of 10 or 11 metres. All parking requirements should be in this element. I Re PM2: appropriate requirement is three spaces per dwelling - with a rear garage door, can be easily accommodated on a 300m2 lot, if sensibly designed. I Re PM3: the statement "equally accessible to either dwelling" is too restrictive; the word "equally" should be altered. The requirement (i.e. three car spaces/two dwellings) is too low and should relate to number of bedrooms/unit. I Re PM7: this requirement must be spelt out here, not referred to Table E8-1. I Master Builders Assoc. Legislating for car space ·dimensions is unnecessary /unreal is tic. Car space width of 2.6 metres will not always be readily achievable e.g. in the case of existing dwellings. I Re PM2: except for very small lots, this requirement (5m x 3m for minimum covered car space dimensions) is superfluous. The "driveside" I I I SR I Panel Report 20/1/92 66 of most dwellings is 2.3m 2.6m wide, this is where most people want to build I a carport City of Springvale. Diagram (p25) showing a car space over the front building line should be clarified. Garages should be required to be setback I from front boundary, otherwise, garages could dominate streetscape. Country Fire Authority. Re PM2: ·is it necessary to cover one of the I car spaces? If so, to what extent? City of Broad meadows. On-street parking diagram · (p.26) is in I conflict with Table E8-l that does not require on-street parking for a 5.5 metre width. Energy Victoria. PM2: reference should be made to Siting the covered car bay location so it is capable of containing a carport or garage which does not significantly reduce solar radiation available to north facing windows of ·dwelling. Why are 2 car spaces required for every dwelling, even small lot developments? Melbourne Water. Add: "PC2 off-site environmental impacts of drainage from car parks should be minimized". Follows from concerns about I car park drainage e.g. oil, grease and litter. Shire of Diamond Valley. Off-street driveways need only be 2.7m wide. I Proximity of driveways to intersections should relate to design speed ·and street width. Legislative changes to the Road Safety (Traffic) Regulations are I required. Shire of Lillydale. Code mandates use of smaller car spaces than local scheme, nonetheless considered adequate. I L!Ord. Concern that vehicle parking could represent a hazard to pedestrians who may need to walk along streets where no footpath provision I exists. 3.3.5.2. DEPARTMENT COMMENTARY AND SUGGESTED MODIFICATIONS. I There were no major issues raised with respect to this element. A number of matters of detail were raised expressing diverse views relating to parking numbers and car park dimensions. Following a review of the written and presented submissions the Department brought forward modifications as set out below:- 1. Objectives This element needs a cross reference to streetscape and building siting and design issues. Move garage siting provisions from E5 I Streetscape to this element. 2. Performance Criteria add additional points to PC 1 relating to: the need to minimize impervious surfaces in relation to storm I water runoff; the potential for only one car space. Scope exists for parking to be increased on a lot where increased demands occur in future. I an additional PC is needed to elaborate on 02, outlining issues relating to manoeuvrability, visibility and efficient provision of on-street carparking·. · I ------l SR 1 Panel Report 20/1/92 67 I an additional PC is needed to cover impact of carparking prov1s1on (driveways and garages) on streetscape amenity and pedestrian I surveillance. 3. Performance Measures. I • PM2, specifying carpark numbers, should precede PMl. Minimum dimensions for the carpark designated as covered should be deleted in this PM. • PMI should be elaborated to cover all dimensions, including the I carpark designated as covered having minimum dimensions of 3m x 5m for a carport. For garages the dimensions should be 6m x 3m for a single garage and 6m x 5.5m for a double garage (measured I internally). Additionally, clarify that the 3m accessway referred to is actually referring to the narrow connection of a hammerhead or battle-axe lot. • with respect to queries regarding the dimensions of 4.9m x 2.6m for I an uncovered space, the Department's Transport Planner advises that these dimensions are appropriate, and are consistent with the Australian Standard 2890, which provides for dimensions to be varied I to meet different circumstances. • a new PM should be added relating to conditions limiting double garages fronting the street, and associated double driveways: I These have detrimental effects on the streetscape because of the dominance of the street by garage doors and paved surfaces." whilst also limiting on-street parking potential. The following control is regarded as appropriate: I "Double crossovers to the street are permitted only on lots with 16.5 metres minimum frontage." This limits the % of exposure to the street to around 35% of a frontage I and ensures the remaining lot width is sufficient for two on-street parking spaces. relocate provisions relating to garage siting in E5 Streetscape to this I element. • remove PM3. The concept of equally accessible spaces is usually unworkable. This provision should be removed in the light of the proposed Multi-Dwelling Code which will deal fully with parking for I integrated developments. • add a new PM3 relating to the requirements for vehicle crossover dimensions. In narrow streets these are critical to ensure that I vehicles remain on the carriageway (3.5m width) or do. not get blocked in by parked cars opposite the driveway (5m and 5.5m carriageway~"- widths). This PM should .also encourage paired I crossings where practical as these make on-street parking more efficient. This PM needs to be cross referenced to E8 Street Design, because where upright kerbs are used, the vehicle crossover dimension and location is determined prior to street construction. I Where layback kerbs are used, it may be determined at the time of house construction. • add a new PM requiring driveway and parking layout on any lots I fronting Trunk Collectors to provide for frontways exit of vehicles. This provision is relocated from E8 (PC12) and broadened to allow a range of access arrangements. I • modify PM7 to establish that in all streets, visitor carparking is to be provided at the minimum rate of one space per two dwellings, located on or off carriageways in accordance with specifications in Table E8.1. Clarification is needed in this section that usually parking will I be on carriageway for Access Streets and Collectors rather than in additional parking bays. Additional indented bays may be added to I I I SR I Panel Report 20/1/92 68 Access Streets or to 6m. wide Collectors, but the speed-slowing effects I of the parked cars. is negated. along with the cost savings of narrower pavements. I 4. Diagrams. replace diagram on page 25 with a series of lots showing a variety of garage configurations including diagram promoting "drive I through" garages, to provide an additional car or recreational vehicle space if desired. add diagram showing critical dimensions for vehicle crossovers in I relation to street width. revise on street parking diagram ·on page 26, to show provision of indented parallel and 90° indented parking for Access Places as this I is the most likely street type to use indented parking. 3.3.5.3. PANEL COMMENTARY. I · The City of Berwick made a strong plea. both in its written and personally presented submission, for the need to provide 3 car spaces per dwelling. This requirement related directly to the lack of adequate public I transport. If the issues raised by the Panel in earlier commentary under Element EO, relating to public transport being up front, was achieved then some of the concerns expressed by Berwick could be minimized. The Panel gave detailed consideration to Berwick's request and during the course of the I hearing tested ·attitudes on whether su.pport existed for such a requirement. No strong support emerged and on balance the Panel decided to retain the I existing requirement in PM2. Close attention was paid to commentary made on cross overs and as is evident in the Department modifications a number of changes were I made on this aspect. An analysis of the synopsis of the issues raised in commentary of this element reveals a range of detail concerns. The Panel reviewed these I comments and the associated Departmental response. The Panel is generally supportive of the Departmental response. I The Department brought forward a proposal that double cross overs should not be permitted for lots of less than 16 .. 5 metres minimum frontage. The Panel had some ·concern with this control which was designed I to minimize the impact of driveways and also ensure provision existed for car spaces on the street frontage. The Panel's concern arose from the possible problems of access which may arise if a person sought to have. a double garage and wished to have such garage located at the minimum set back I distance. The Panel was desirous of further details being investigated to ensure that it would not adversely effect the opportunity to locate a double I garage on a property. The Panel also held the view that the principles of PM3 should be retained until such time as the Multi-Dwelling Code was formally in place though the Panel was agreeable to the deletion of the reference to being I · equally accessible. In respect of the proposed modification to PM7 the Panel held I the view that reference to Table E8.1 was supported but no further commentary need be added as such table clearly indicates the options open I for parking. I SR 1 Panel Report 20/1/92 69 I The Panel did not support the modification proposed by the Department which suggested that only one car space be provided initially for I a dwelling as long as scope exists for parking to be increased on a lot where increased demands occur in the future. The Panel . believes that the introduction of this concession should be avoided. It will be extremely I difficult to police or monitor in the future and could result even in local conflict occurring. The Panel believes that the AMCORD requirement on this aspect is well founded and no concession should be made as is proposed by I the Department. The Panel considers that the implementation of this element merits monitoring and should be subject to close scrutiny in any future I review. Many of the concepts introduce an entirely new approach to the matter of parking within broad residential subdivision areas and it . is important to measure their effectiveness. The use of a number of the I principles has been successfully applied in "unit" style development but it must be remembered that such .. development has strong cellular characteristics and it does not experience the level of servicing by a range I of vehicles which occurs within larger residential areas. In addition household structure of broader residential areas is not necessarily in accord with that found in "unit" style development. I ~ 3.3.5.4. Panel recommendations. The following modifications should be made to Element E4:- I 1. Objectives. I This element needs a cross . reference to streetscape and building Siting and design issues. Move garage siting provisions from E5 Streetscape to this element. I 2. Performance Criteria. add an additional point to PCI relating to: I the need to minimize impervious surfaces in relation to storm water runoff; an additional PC is needed to elaborate on 02, outlining issues relating to manoeuvrability, visibility and efficient provision of on-street I carparking. an additional PC is needed to cover impact of carparking proviSIOn (driveways and garages) on streetscape amenity and pedestrian I surveillance, subject to not being over constraining. 3. Performance Measures. I PM2, specifying carpark numbers, should precede PMI. Minimum dimensions for the carpark designated as covered should be deleted in this PM. I PM I should be elaborated to cover all dimensions, including the carpark designated as covered having minimum dimensions of 3m x 5m for a carport. For garages the dimensions should be 6m x 3m for a I single garage and 6m x 5.5m for a double garage (measured internally). Additionally, clarify that the 3m accessway referred to is actually referring to the narrow connection of a hammerhead or I battle-axe lot. I I I SR 1 Panel Report 20/1/92 70 • The dimensions of 4.9m x 2.6m for an uncovered space are appropriate, and are consistent with the Australian Standard 2890, I which provides for dimensions to be varied to meet different circumstances. investigation should be undertaken on the impact of double driveways on the streetscape but in undertaking such an appraisal, I care must be taken that a control is not evolved which places undue constraints on the ability to place double garages on lots. Obviously such a control has a relationship with frontage and it noted that I AMCORD is silent on this aspect. A balancing will be . necessary to ensure that a satisfactory streetscape is achieved. relocate provisions relating to garage siting in E5 Streetscape to this I element. Modify PM3 to remove the words "equally accessible" and substitute with "convenientally accessible". Reference could be embodied in this PM that it lapses on the approval of the Multi-development Code I which will deal with parking in integrated developments. add a new PM3 relating to the requirements for vehicle crossover dimensions. This PM should also encourage paired crossings where I practical as these make on-street parking more efficient. This PM needs to be cross referenced to E8 Street Design, because where upright kerbs are used, the vehicle crossover dimension and location I is determined prior to street construction. Where layback kerbs are used, it may be determined at the time of house construction. add a new PM requiring driveway and parking layout on any lots fronting Trunk Collectors to provide for frontways exit of vehicles. I This provision is relocated from E8 (PC12) and broadened to allow a range of access arrangements. modify PM7 to establish that in all streets, visitor carparking is to be I provided at the minimum rate of one space per two dwellings, located ·on or off carriageways' in accordance with specifications in Table E8.1. I 4. Diagrams. replace diagram on page 25 with a series of lots showing a variety of I garage configurations including diagram promoting "drive through" garages, to provide an additional car or recreational vehicle space if desired. I add diagram showing critical dimensions for vehicle crossovers m relation to street width. revise on street parking diagram on page 26, to show provision of indented parallel ·and 90o indented parking for Access Places as this I is the most likely street type to use indente-d parking. I I I I I I SR 1 Panel Report 20/1/92 7 1 I 3.3.6 Element ES S treetsca pe. 3.3.6.1. SYNOPSIS OF COMMENTARY IN SUBMISSIONS I City of Berwick. S tree tsc ape plan should be required for all subdivisions, not just where lots are < 450m2. Shire of Cranbourne. Existing street tree · requirements should be retained. I Shire of Eltham. Clarify the heading of Column 3 in Table E5-1 and the term "frontage building line" in PM5. Sightlines at street intersections I. should be protected by limiting wall, fence or other obstructions to 1 metre height within 9 metres of the kerbline. City of Knox. It is unclear as to how the streetscape (e.g. design and I planting) is to be developed and who is responsible. A streetscape plan is required for lotS!•< 450m2.- is this ,.applicable only where all lots are < 450m2, or where even 1 lot qualifies? Streetscape should relate to design and I setback, not just lot size. Setback requirements for different types of streets are considered to be inappropriate except in VicCode designed and approved subdivisions - otherwise an inequitable situation will exist with infill lots . . The *footnote to Table E5-1 should be amended to read "whichever is greater". I Robin C Spragg. Concern about double crossings/garaging ·.and visual aspects. I Housing Industry ·Association. Table E5-1: open garages should be permitted at 4.5m from frontage. Setbacks on collector streets should vary to allow solar access to building e.g. 4.5m north side of street, 6m on south side of street, with exceptions allowed where solar access and private open space I can be demonstrated as available to the rear of lots. Shire of Pakenham. Requirement .for an acoustic report to determine I frontage setbacks on a trunk collector has been deleted. Code requires streetscape plan where lots < 450m2 - consider streetscape plan for all residential subdivisions I Shire of Hastings. Frontage setbacks are more restrictive than current Council"·· requirements. In any case, query setback application in existing residential streets where there is no street classification. I Mahon and Mahon. All references to setbacks should be transferred to Element E2. Re PM3: too restrictive and relates to a house which would be built after subdivision (height of front fences and walls restricted to 1.2 metres). I Re PM4: this measure IS supported but requires a better description. Re PM5: the option to build ga~ages on the frontage bui !ding line of the side street is fully supported. But PM5 needs to be clearer and, I importantly, Table E5-1 must exclude garages. Reference also needs to be made to clear intersection site lines. Carports and boundaries - must allow a carport (or garage) to I abut any side or rear boundary unless there is a specific reason why it is i impractical. li I •I I SR I Panel Report 20/1/92 72 Table E5-1: minimum frontage set-back (4.5 metres) for an I Access Place is excessive. RDPs recommended 3 metres, Code should be alte{ed accordingly, and Access Streets treated similarly. Master Builders Assoc. Re Table E5-1: minimum front and side setbacks I are too restnctive, suggest 3m front set back for Access Place and Access Street (side street setback 2m) and 4.5m front setback for Collector Street and Truck Collector (Side street setback 3m). All prescribed setbacks should be I variable at officer-level discretion. Re PM3: how does one build a "front fence higher than 1.2m? Suggest 2m, beyond that Council consent should be required. I Re PM4/5: garages should also be permitted to the front street alignment provided design considerations are met. City of Croydon. Setbacks (Table E5-1) will reduce to 4.5m and 6.0m I (currently 7.5m) - proposed range is acceptable. City of Springvale. No requirement for garage or carport setbacks - these should be setback at least 4.5m; less with a planning permit. Re PM5: clarify use of the word "frontage" Locating garages on the building line is undesirable for aesthetic and safety. reasons. Re PM1: minimum side street setbacks is excessive for street I types above Access Street. A 6m setback from Truck Collectors (side streets) would mean a larger than normal lot, thus increasing costs. I Urban Land Authority. Re Table E5-1 (p.28): reduce setbacks as follows:- Access Place @ 3m (not 4.5m) from frontage; I Collector Street @ 3m (not 6m) from frontage and 4m (not 6m) from any side- street. · Energy Victoria. 01: make reference to potential for landscaping to I be used to minimize fossil fuel use through provid: · g summer shade/winter penetration. Solar Opportunity Zone assumes some tree and grass cover, but not extensive evergreen planting. I PC5: garage/carport siting and design should have regard for ~' . solar access to northern windows. PC6: -incorporate need for street landscaping to maintain solar I access to north wall of dwellings over the heating season, with emphasis to the south side of E/W streets. Illustrate effective use of deciduous or evergreen trees. Expand microclimate role of trees. PC7: include reference to solar access impact when establishing I building line setbacks. The Solar Opportunity Line' can be a valuable tool in determining building envelopes and street setbacks, especially for N/S lots. PM 1: Table E5-1 does not allow scope to modify stre~t setbacks to I improve solar access in some situations PM2: what are the setback requirements for small lots in an 1,- Access Place? Is a "local street" an Access Place? Small lots on the north side I of E/W streets will benefit from reduced front setback to optimise solar access. PM3: for energy efficient ·houses we should encourage people to locate living areas to the north. Where north is to be the street, there is need I for a higher level of privacy for front yard use. Low fences e.g. nominated 1.2m height allows .easy overlooking, promote use of screen planting. This may reduce solar access, especially as lots with northern aspect to the street I "borrow" solar access from the street reserve I I I SR Panel Report 20/1/92 73 I PM4 : siting/design of carports to permit solar access to north windows of dwelling; provide shading to east and west windows. PM5: as per I PM4. DIAGRAM : "Streetscape" diagram (p.27) should illustrate energy efficient house siting. Energy Vic can advise. DIAGRAM : "Streetscape Design" diagram (p.28) definitions do I not match descriptions in the text i.e. building line. Shire of Mornington. PM 1: should be modified to ensure I compliance with front building setbacks of adjoining dwellings, except with permission of the responsible authority. I Shire of Diamond Valley. Front fences, landscaping and walls on corner sites should be no more than 1 metre· high to ensure that they are below 1.15 metres (average driver's eye level) for a distance of up to 9 metres. Landscaping of road reserves should acknowledge underground I services. Residential Developments P/L. On-site parking diagram (p.26) conflicts I with diagram (p.31) showing cross-section of street type ·and with details in Table E8 (p.38). According to Table, parking should be included in the 5.5m pavement. Agree. Table E5-1: does not encourage varying setbacks. Access places I and streets should be 3m, and for collector streets, 4.5m. Side street setbacks for Access Places and streets should be common at 2m, and should only be marginallY. increased, perhaps, for collector streets. I Element E 1 states that lots < 300m2 should be dealt with as "integrated developments". Element E5 introduces two further categories without naming them.· These are firstly lots > 450m2 to which the building I line setbacks in Table E5-l apply, and secondly, lots < 450m2 referred to in PM2. The requirement that these lots be the subject of setbacks as described in an "approved building envelope plan" could lead to greater and I unnecessary encumbrances on lots between 300-450m2. Remedy: remove "approved building envelope plan", and reference to Table E5-l for setbacks would be satisfactory. Diagram streetscape design (p.28, bottom): problem of I terminology (1) in that the definitions refer "building line" to "setback" without any reference in setback to building line and (2) the diagram shows different distances for each, when logically they should be same. "Building I line" has historically referred to a line, not a distance (as per diagram). Remedy: removal of distance B and arrow to indicate which line represents the building line would be more appropriate. I Further confusion exists as diagram shows car accommodation within the front setback, contrary to the building regulations. Side spaces(s) are not referred to in definitions, suspect they are in fact side setbacks and should be called such. I 3.3.6.2. DEPARTMENT COMMENTARY AND SUGGESTED MODIFICATIONS. I Three matters received considerable attention in the submissions. These were: 1. Frontage building setbacks (E5.1 ). Views ranged from requests for I reduction to requests for increasing setbacks. 2. Clarification of requirements for streetscape plans and absence of mandatory requirements for streetscape plans for lots over 450 sq. metres. I 3. Relationship of carports and garages to boundaries. I I I SR 1 Panel Report 20/1/92 74 I The Department. acknowledges the need to review the front setbacks, particularly to allow reductions in ·conjunction with building envelope definition· and in relation to existing areas where street types are not identified. The Department also acknowledges the need to clarify and ·I extend the performance measures relating to streetscape plans and landscaping requirements. I With respect to carports and garages, a range of views were put, however no major changes to the exhibited provisions are supported at this I stage. As a result of reviewing the written and presented submissions, and noting issues raised by- the Panel during the hearing, the Department undertook a complete' revision of this element. This review involved the I relocation to other elements of provisions relating to building design such as frontage setbacks, and garage/carport design and location, retaining a broad I PC reference and cross reference in PMs only. In addition the element required strengthening in regard to its major purpose which was the design of the public space - the street. This should include a streetscape plan requirement for all new streets showing I street planting, detailing of hard surface finishes, detailed layout of pavement within the reservation, including the location and surface treatment of carparking bays, kerb profiles and finish proposed, the design I and detailing of speed restraints, street furniture and footpath/cyclepath dctai Is. I In this element reference should be made to verge widths and medians and their . role m defining streets of different character (i.e. avenues, boulevards, etc) adding to legibility. I The requirements for a streetscape plan for small lots c ly should be deleted. A streetscape plan is to be provided for all new streets, but is· not required for single house approval. Fences should be covered in this I element as they define the edge of the public space.' The lack of a front fence is often cited as a problem, especially for women, in relation to young children, rubbish accumulation and vandalism, and to privacy as front I setbacks are reduced. As a result of reviewing the written and presented submissions, and noting issues raised· by the Panel during the hearing, the Department I brought forward to the Panel the following suggested modifications:- 1. Objectives. I ' ' Retain in their present form. I Performance Criteria. • the PC should be re-ordered to put reference to building setbacks and garages together at the end, with a note cross-referencing to E2 and I E4 for elaboration. PC2 should include reference to the role of streetscape in establishing a special character and image for a street or precinct. I • PC6 should be expanded to cover more than just landscaping details, including all the elements of a typical streetscape plan, as outlined I above. PC4 may then be able to be deleted. I SR I Panel Report 20/1/92 75 I PC7 could be deleted - it.s meaning is unclear. • include a new PC to cover fence provision, and relation of fence type I to surveillance of the street as well as utility of front gardens, ensuring that high solid fences are not encouraged, and equally that covenants preventing erection of any front fence are not imposed. I • include a new PC to encourage use of a variety of street reserve dimensions to provide for legibility and special identity within new developments, and particularly to enable planting of larger sizes of street trees than those envisaged for the minimum verge widths I specified in E8. 3. Performance Measures. I • relocate PMI and PM2. relating to building frontage setbacks to E2 Building Siting and Design. I • the following amendments are suggested to PMI and 2. The minimum building_ line ... setback for all lots over 300 sq. m. should be covered in the table. The minimum setback should relate ·to the whole street and should not have dwellings on interspersed small lots meeting a I different setback requirement. Thus in PM2 there would be no need for building envelopes to override frontage setbacks. • ·Table E5-l should be varied to allow reduced front building line I setbacks to 3 metres for Access Place and Access Street, and 4.5 metres for Collector Streets. This change will be strongly supported by some e.g. ULA/RDL, but Councils reaction may vary. I These setbacks should apply to dwe: :ngs only, with garages required to be a minimum of 5 metres back, (or if the building is set further back, ideally garages not to project forward of the dwelling). If the frontage. setba<;:ks are reduced the five metre setback for garages is I favoured to avoid the ·high likelihood of garages ending up as the dominant feature along a street. In addition a category of street needs to be added for residential I streets created r; . .or to VicCode, with setbacks defined for new houses on lots in already subdivided areas. A setback range of 4.5 - 6m is suggested. (Note that this will only be necessary if the 'as of right' prov1s1ons for detached houses in the planning scheme amendment I apply to lots created prior· to VicCode). • the minimum side street setbacks in Table E5.1 should also be reduced for Access Street to 2 metres, and Collector Street and Trunk Collector I to 3 metres. • expand PM3 to limit solid fences to a maximum of 1.2 m, but to allow 50% transparent fences to a maximum of 1.5 m. high. I • PM5 needs to clarify that garages are to the "building line" as per Table E5.1 for side streets, and on the rear boundary for lanes. • relocate PM4 & 5 relating to garages to E4 Vehicle Parking. change PM6 to require submission of an appropriately detailed I streetscape plan for all new streets to be created by a plan of subdivision. I 4. Diagrams. replace diagrams on page 27 with a more detailed streetscape plan to I inter-relate to PC2 and PC6; • the typical streetscape and streetscape design diagram on page 28 should both be deleted, as they are of little value; typical streetscape cross sections showing verge widths for different I character streets . should be included .on page 28. I I I SR I Panel Report 20/1/92 76 I 3.3.6.3. PANEL COMMENTARY. This particular element will add a new dimension to subdivision and its associated documentation. It is related very much to the detail I components of the future streetscape and the proposed modifications brought forward by the Department reinforce this aspect. It will be interesting to determine the effectiveness of this element and the Panel considers that it should be closely monitored by the VicCode review body I which has been proposed in earlier Panel commentary. It introduces a significant variance in set backs and as indicated I in discussion on Element E2, Building Siting and Design, these aspects are proposed to be relocated within that Element. The Panel has noted the subsequent variation in set-back distance proposed by the Department, I following its consideration of submissions. It should be noted that the possibility of a variation in set back was included in documentation made available to all persons and bodies in advance of their appearing before the Panel. No significant expressions of opposition were voiced to the Panel I however due to the short time frame given to distribution this aspect may not have been duly noted. I In balance the Panel considers that it would be inappropriate to make a variation to the exhibited setbacks of the extent proposed by the Department in its suggested modifications. The Panel would be prepared to accept a variation to the extent that is shown in AMCORD, namely 4 metres in I an Access Place but it holds the belief that any other variation should be subject to the receipt of commentary from local government organizations. I The Panel .further :considers that the proposal by the ·Department in its modification to require a garage to be setback a distance of 5 metres from the front alignment should be varied to allow the garage to be I placed flush with the setback proposed for dwellings where a double garage is proposed. It is a common feature in house design to have a double garage as· an extension of the house frontage alignment and whilst value is seen in the five metre setback the Panel believes that it is not sufficient to justify I the imposition of an extra setback distance for garage. It should also be remembered that it should be desirable to retain a high degree of compatibility with the national Code as it could be advantageous to have I house designs produced by major organizations capable of reproduction in another State. I In addition in steep terrain the living area of a dwelling may be located above a double garage and the need to enforce an additional setback does not appear reasonable when the on site parking requirement is being I met behind the set back distance. The Panel is not opposed to a Council formulating policy vanations which introduces a reduction of set back distances where a sound I justification exists e.g. a street may experience a strong cross fall and thus the location of a garage on or near the alignment may be reasonable to avoid extensive intrusion into the lot to provide an access way at grade to a garage I located at or beyond the standard set back distance. It should be further noted that the removal of PMl and PM2 from this Element has the effect of removing the proposed mandatory I aspects of this element as exhibited in the amendment. The Department has suggested to the cPanel that the Element should become fully mandated. The I Panel has difficulty with accepting such a modification to the exhibited I SR 1 Panel Report 20/1/92 77 I amendment and it believes in the event of PMsl and 2 being transferred in I their revised format to Element E2 that element E5 should be deleted f~om 7- 5.4. Such approach will result in the Element Objectives and Criteria being applicable in any considerations on a VicCode application - refer to 7-5.2. I A number of Councils had a concern as to the requirement for a streetscape plan as set out in PM6. As detailed in the Departmental commentary it is now proposed to require the submission of an appropriately detailed streetscape plan for all new streets to be created by a plan of I subdivision. The Panel has a concern that the "splay corner" concept I appears to have been not addressed. This concept has long been accepted in residential subdivision and can result in improved visibility at street intersections. The use of the ·"splay corner" is an integral component of I streetscape. The Panel considers that the issue of "splay comers" should be mentioned as they·· inter-relate with fencing, safety, road design, footpath location and general streetscape design. I An analysis of the issues raised in commentary of this elements reveals a range of detail concerns. The Panel reviewed these comments and · the associated Departmental response. The Panel is supportive of the I Departmental response, subject to the action· referred to above in respect of setback variations and the need to . gain a measure of Council reaction. I The Panel considers ;that the implementation of this element merits monitoring and should be sut:.ject to close scrutiny in any future review. I 3.3.6.4. Panel recommendations. The following modifications should be made to Element E5:~. I I. Objectives. I Retain in their present form. 2. Performance Criteria • the PC should be re-ordered to put reference to building setbacks and I garages together at the end with a note cross-referencing to E2 and E4 for elaboration. • PC2 snould include reference to the role. of streetscape Ill I_ establishing a special character and image for a street or precinct. • PC6 should be expanded to cover more than just landscaping details, including all the elements of a typical streetscape plan, as outlined above. PC4 may then be able to be deleted. I • PC? could be deleted - its meaning is unclear. • include a new PC to cover. fence provision, and relation of fence type to surveillance of the street ·as well as utility of front gardens·, I ensuring that high solid fences are not encouraged, and equally that covenants preventing erection of any front fence are not imposed. • include a new PC to encourage use of a variety of street reserve I dimensions to provide for legibility and special identity within new developments, and particularly to enable planting of appropriate larger sizes of street trees than those envisaged for the minimum verge widths specified in E8. I I I L . I SR I Panel Report 20/1/92 78 ,I 3. Performance Measures. • relocate PMI and PM2 relating to building frontage setbacks to E2 Building. Siting and Design. • the following amendments are suggested to PMI and 2. The minimum I building line setback for all lots over 300 sq. m. should be covered in the table. The minimum setback should relate to the whole street and should not have dwellings on interspersed small lots meeting a I different setback requirement. Thus in PM2 there would be no need for building envelopes to override frontage setbacks. • Table E5-1 should be varied to allow reduced front building line setbacks to 4 metres for Access Place. I The proposed setbacks· should apply to both dwellings and double garages. Single garages should possess a 5 metre setback to point of garage entry though the roof line could be extended to accord with I the normal setback distance. • a category of street needs to be added for residential streets created prior to VicCode,. with setbacks defined for new houses on lots in ··I already subdivided areas. A setback range of 4.5 - 6m is suggested. • expand PM3 to limit solid fences to a maximum of 1.2 m, but to allow 50% transparent fences to a maximum of 1.5 m. ·high. • PM5 needs to clarify that garages are to the "building line" as per I Table E5.1 for side streets, and on the rear boundary for lanes. • relocate PM4 & 5 relating to garages to E4 Vehicle Parking. change PM6 to require submission of an appropriately detailed I streetscape plan for all new streets to be created by a plan of subdivision. · - • ·with the movement of PMI and 2 to Element 2 reference to this I Element in 7-5.4 should be deleted. 4. Diagrams. I • replace diagrams on page 27 with a more detailed streetscape plan to inter-relate to PC2 and PC6; • the typical streetscape and streetscape design diagrams on page 28 I should both be deleted, as they are of little value; • typical streetscape cross sections showing verge widths for different character streets should be included on page 28. I 5. Additional matter for consideration. Consideration should be given to the fact that comer lots may be required to make provision for splays and the manner in which such a I treatment would be incorporated into the streetscape. In addition there may be need to inter-relate this concept ·with other Elements e.g. indicating that splay comer cut off can constitute pan of the comer lot I for area calculations, traffic criteria which generate need for splay, etc .. I -~' I I I I SR I Panel Report 20/1/92 79 I 3.3. 7 Element E6 Movement network. I 3.3.7.1 SYNOPSIS OF COMMENTARY IN SUB'MJSSIONS. PTC. Buses should operate only on sub-arterial roads; should not penetrate I residential areas (Implications for PM3). VicRoads. Include basic design criteria for arterial roads in Performance Criteria (refer extracts from Planning Safer Subdivisions). Include I reference to the need to design road safety into the street layout at design stage, not later. Mention desirability to minimize driveway accesses and parking on collector roads, AND "no access collectors". E6 should be I mandatory. City of Berwick. Access place should permit only 100 vehicles per I day (VicCode 300). Arterial road spacing (1.5km max.) may be unrealistic in certain circumstances. I, Shire of Cranbourne. AMCORD road hierarchy should be retained. Shire of Eltham. Performance measure PM3 encourages through traffic. In Table E6-l, the maximum speed in both classes of Access Street and in I Collector Streets should be 40kph. In Table E6-4, a separate column should specify Minimum Arc Length for Curve to achieve adequate speed reduction. The Collector Street diagram (p.34) is a poor example as the bend is too short to achieve · 1eed reduction. Minimum carriageway width could be I reduced from 7.0m to. 6.5m. City of Knox. "Provisions are satisfactory, however they are I extremely difficult to understand and interpret". There is no power to control vehicle speeds in accordance with the design parameters. This matter must be rectified I Foreshore Residents Association. Request that coastal roads not be designated as arterial roads (PC2). Concern about vehicle speeds in Table E6- 2. I Shire of Hastings. Minimum lOrn road reserve width for Access Place is inadequate 12m is more realistic (top diagram, p33). I Mahon and .~ahon. Element objectives should include:- "To ensure streets within a residential precinct are not used as I routes for external cut through traffic" and "To ensure that within residential precincts, primary emphasis is given to the movement of pedestrians and cyclists". Re 08: add "with the emphasis on pedestrian and cyclist I movement". Re PC2: arterial road intervals should be at 1.6 kilometres due to the old mile grid (obviously an oversight). Re PC4: add "in accordance with Table E6-l ". Re PC7: the word "acceptable" is too broad. Re Table E6-l: there is a presumption that an Access Place is a I court with a carriageway of 3.5 metres. Suggest that the role of the Access Place be reinforced by adding "Where there is only one exit from an Access Place, the maximum number of lots facing the Access Place shall be eight". Re Table E6-l and Truck Collector: What is meant by "large-scale I residential forms of development" and what type of access is proposed? The definition is unclear. I I I SR I Panel Report 20/1/92 80 Re PM7: three turning movements are too restrictive, given the need to:- I (a) limit the effective length; and (b) restrict the number of access points to a limited access road. Recommend that maximum number of turning movements be four. I Re Table E6-2: the typical average junction spacing for a two- lane sub-arterial should be 80 metres. The other typical junction spacing I appear to err on the side of caution. City of Springvale. Re PM6: this should be deleted and in its place the final paragraph of Table E6-l be amended to read "Large scale residential forms of development may be considered on these streets if service roads or I some other special siting conditions ensure acceptable amenity". Country Fire Authority. Concern re road widths, recommend adoption I of standards in "Planning Conditions and Guidelines for Subdivisions" more stringent, of tantamount importance. Where speed control devices are installed, a constant width must be maintained. I Urban Land Authority Re Table E6-l (p31) and etc: the terms Collector Street and Truck Collector should be changed to "local street" and "distributor road". This terminology is consistent with the method of road I classification in Victoria. City of Broadmeadows. Re-instate AMCORD Element Objective 010, •• regarding avoidance of through traffic routes. I ,·, Re-instate AMCORD Pe:·formance Criteria P5, concerning street link limitations (linkages relate to streets connecting with other streets not more than 2 levels higher or lower in the street hierarchy). I Re Table E6-2:· minimum ·spacing for staggered intersections on access streets and collector streets should be increased from 20m to 25m and 30m, to cater for safe double right turns for service vehicles. I The spacing of slow points indicated. in Table E6-5 is an overkill. Spacing of 100-120m with a slowpoint/bend speed of 35kph would suffice and be cost effective. The 3.5m carriage width for access places (re top diagram I p.33) would only provide for one way traffic for upright curve situations and at intersections should be increased to 5.0m for a distance of 8.0m from major road kerbline, to mm1m1ze congestion on major roads, and hence allow for I localized two way traffic. Energy Victoria. Add: objective "To establish a movement network which minimizes the consumption of non-renewable fuels for transport ·I purposes". Add: objective "To provide a movement network that facilitates solar· access to lots through appropriate street and 'path orientations." DIAGRAMS: check that diagrams show streets within the I acceptable orientation range. Shire of Lillydale. Practice shows that the desirable mm1mum back to back kerb width is 5.5 metres. Lesser widths may suffice for Access Places I serving a small number of lots. E6 not mandatory, requirements may be varied. I Residential Developments P/L PC2: distance between arterial roads ~ should ·be ~increased from 1.5 to 1.6km to match existing (I mile) spacing on main road structure. General concept diagram (p.29): bus route is suspect if scale is I applied to diagram. If this style of diagram is to be included, it should be I proven beforehand~" Labels such as "street" and· "road" are confusing. Are all ------~ SR I Panel Report 20/1/92 8 I I "safety and amenity" streets to be called streets and all "traffic-dominated" roads to be called roads? Where then do drives. avenues, crescents etc. fit I into this structure? PC3: experience shows that external and internal road systems need to be integrated to maximize performance and use. One should not I necessarily "conform" to the requirements of ihe other - economies by working the two in concert. Table E6-1: the last category of residential street (Trunk collector) seems inappropriate in the structure of any residential cell. The I Trunk collector appears to be neither a "local street" nor "arterial road" and therefore has no place in the road hierarchy. This assumption is based on the traffic volume and maximum speed appropriate to this road in the Table. Consider it possible to design road systems around 3000 vpd. In doing so, the two roads types referred to on p.29 can be created i.e. one amenity and one traffic. If this category is to be retained, perhaps designate "Trunk collector" as a sub-arterial. I Table E6-3: compliance may be difficult; there appears to be conflict between·''· this· Table, Table E6-l and the notion indicated by the diagram (p.31) "maximum turning movements". Street lengths in excess of I 155m are likely, even with traffic management devices e.g. roundabouts. However, these streets will exceed the speed limitations of Table E6-l. All sections relating to traffic volumes, speeds, management and I local amenity need considerably more investigation/discussion. Trunk collector' Street diagram(p.34): shows only one solution relevant to uses adjacent to these streets. "Large scale" development may be inappropriate ·r many reasons. Considerable thought needs be given to the I treatment of "liraited access roads" as experience indicates they are uneconomical, visually poor, and do not necessarily increase amenity for pedestrians or motorists. I Loder and Bayly. Queried why E6 and E7 critical elements were not mandatory. Concern was held that broadacre subdivision on land without arterial roads nearby would be designed to be sui table for buses. Include I Table E6-3 and E6-5 as mandatory by cross referencing with a footnote on Table E8-l so that criteria is mandatory to achieve speed control. Arterial roads or routes with a significant traffic role to be I provided at frequent intervals - preferably not greater than 1.5 km.. PC9 on page 30 should be varied by deleting the words "without facilitating traffic speeds". I PM2 on page 30 should be made mandatory as PC7 is too broad. The inclusion of a new street is sought - a traffic route which possesses no direct driveway access and no street parking. Referenc.e was made to publication by VicRoads which was prepared by Loder and Bayly. I Include a requirement that maximum driving time from a Collector Street to any lot should not exceed 1 minute. I 3.3.7.2. DEPARTMENT COMMENTARY AND SUGGESTED MODIFICATIONS. A range of diverse views were provided on the proposed I classification of residential streets. There was some consistency of view that "Access Place" should relate to fewer dwellings than 30. There were also concerns expressed about the purpose and definition of a Trunk collector. I The Public Transportation Corporation requested that buses be not required to penetrate the residential street system, an·d that arterials and sub-arterials be provided at 800 - 1000· metre intervals. There is no definition I of sub-arterial road, and .. arterial spacing is proposed for 1.6 km., thus there wi 11 be a need for buses to operate on streets classified as collector streets. I I I SR I Panel Report 20/1/92 82 .. I The Department is also aware of benefits to bus patronage in systems within residential streets, in terms of providing efficient access and providing personal safety and surveillance. Costs of road provision will limit the capacity for provision of more streets i.e. sub-arterials without direct I frontage access, whilst energy efficiency requirements encourage a network of streets rather than a rigid hierarchy. I As a result of reviewing the written and presented submissions, and noting issues raised by the Panel during the hearing, the Department brought forward to the Panel the following suggested modifications:- I 1. Objectives. o revise 02 to make it clear that streets are the principal pedestrian and I cyclist movement system, with other paths supplementary to these. 03 should be revised with a wording that includes reference to traffic routes, and the need for clear distinction between these .and local I streets in the network. The need for strong distinction between different types of residential streets is not warranted. o expand 06 to also cover orientation of streets to facilitate correct solar orientation of lots. I revise 08 to ensure that convenient linkages are provided between dwellings within the area, as well as to activity focal points within and nearby. Relocate 08 after 01 to emphasise its significance. I o add· a new objectiv~ and a PC to establish a movement network which will contribute to 'limiting the consumption of non-renewable fuels for transport use; that is a network which is designed to limit the I vehicle kilometres traveled in local trips, and to encourage trips to be undertaken by means other than private vehicle. o consider adding a new objective which covers design to deter through traffic, but provides good accessibility to traffic routes. I restricting the lengtl. of time that drivers spend in a low speed environment (assuming their journey goes beyond the local area). The following wording is suggested: I "To discourage residential streets from operating as through traffic routes for externally generated traffic, whilst at the same time limiting the length of time local I drivers need to spend in a low speed environment." 2. Performance Criteria. I PC2 should refer to the traffic route network, rather than arterials, and be amended from "not more than 1.5 km" to "approximately 1.6 km" to more accurately reflect the old mile grid which will determine I the future arterial network in many new areas. A table defining the design parameters for the different types of traffic route should be included as a diagram only. (Note:- Vic Roads and some other submitters have requested inclusion of these definitions, however I there appears to still be a need to get agreement from various parties on the ~ctual terminology, particularly the relationship between that terminology and the road classification used in the Planning Scheme, I before they could go into the statutory pan of the Code.) Reference in this PC could also be made to the need to design street networks which optimise the use of the traffic route infrastructure I investment by ensuring they will operate at high volume/capacity ratios at peak times, in situations where no significant long term I increases in vehicle loads are anticipated. I SR 1 Panel Report 20/l/92 83 I • add to PC3 "provision for the proposed external road system to be modified to achieve a better overall network," thus recognizing that internal and external street systems need to be integrated to I maximize performance and use. • modify PC6 to ensure that it is clear that it removes the current implication that the pedestrian and cycle· network is· to be largely I provided off street, and to clarify the intent which is to ensure that where the street network contains culs de sac aligned with major pedestrian or cycle desire lines, that cui de sac heads are linked. I • add new PC relating to limiting use of fossil fuels covering design to provide for relatively direct connections for local vehicle trips. and to provide a street system that encourages walking, cycnng and public transport for daily activities. I • PC7, PC8 and PC9 relate only to buses; when it is anticipated that both light and heavy rail should have a significant role in future growth areas. At least PC7 should be modified to relate to other public I transport forms as well as buses, and the words "acceptable walking distance;· . replac.ed with .,."400-1000 metres safe and convenient walking distance", to provide a more specific framework for satisfaction. I • PC9 should be modified to "Local bus routes should be as efficient as possible to serve the population. The alignment and geometry of streets that form bus routes to allow for the efficient and unimpeded I movement of buses." • a new PC should be added to ensure that street networks in the vicinity of railway stations and major light rail routes are focussed I towards the public transport stops, providing high levels of accessibility and surveillance. • consider adding a new PC relating to designing the residential street network with .-the aim.. of: .. ,ensuring that no street carries more than I 3,000 vehicles per day and that most dwellings have frontage to streets with significantly lower volumes. I 3. Performance Measures. PM2 should be altered to include the walking distance widely I considered appropriate for railway stations, namely 800 metres, retaining 400 metres for bus and tram/light rail routes, to ensure that 90% of all dwellings have access to public transport. Table 6.1 in PM5 should have the heading Design Speed altered to I Desired Maximum Street Speeds. See discussion under PM10. • In PM5._.concem has been raised that Table 6. 1 has been altered from AMCORD so that the heading to the third column now reads I "indicative" rather than "maximum" traffic volumes. This was done because in a statutory document the imposing of maximum traffic volume levels was regarded as quite inappropriate given the I uncertainty of future needs. Given that the word "indicative" has been interpreted by some to mean average rather than the upper level of traffic, a wording change to "indicative maximum traffic volume" is recommended. I Two other issues relating to Table 6.1 (and Table 8.1) are whether the traffic volumes for Access Place are too high, (and should be reduced from 300 to· 100), and whether the definition of Trunk Collector is I appropriate as it is the only form of limited access residential street provided. Given that an access place is limited to a maximum length of 100 metres (Table 8.1, note 5), it is unlikely that the 300 v .p.d. I volume would be reached. It is however important to add to the definition of Access Place in Table E6.1. to highlight the 100 metre I I I SR I Panel Report 20/1/92 84 maximum, and to stress the need for comprehensive design to achieve the 15km/hr design speed. The submissions indicate an I inadequate understanding of the 'access place' concept. It is not to apply to every low volume street in the network. Rather it is to provide for solutions designed to integrate vehicle movement, I parking and pedestrians in a very low speed environment. "Access street", which involves more typical street design elements, can be applied to any streets with volume under 2,000 v.p.d. This I needs to be made clearer in Tables 6.1 and 8.1. It has also been noted that the VicCode makes reference to rear access lane on a number of occasions. The definition of rear access lane is not easily encompassed under access place, so a new category I of Access Lane should be added to Table E6.1 and E8.1, with a reserve width range of 3m to 8m. With respect to the Trunk Collector, several submissions indicated the I need for another form of limited access residential street. The Department believes that no change should be made to the Trunk Collector length at this stage. Flexibility is already provided by PM6. I Further discussion on this matter needs to occur to ensure that such a route has appropriate traffic purpose and amenity. If warranted, the Department considers that such a street should have maximum volumes retained at 6,000 and speeds preferably reduced to 50 k.p.h. I but length not restricted to 150 metres, with full residential frontage (rather than backs) encouraged. On street parking would be permitted, both to ensure that visitors are able to visit residents in I the conventional manner, and in recognition that on street parking is now ,;cknowledged as a valid method for reducing vehicle speeds and improving amenity for pedestrians by providing a barrier between them and moving traffic. This review should be conducted. I after VicCode has.. been operating for some time. The definition of Trunk Collector in Table E6.l needs amendment to remove reference to "large scale residential developments" as this is I considered overly restrictive, when revt: .>ing vehicles and conflict with pedestrian/cycle . movement are considered the key problems. The desired maximum street speed for trunk collector should be 50 I km/hr not 60 km/h as this is the anticipated result from a leg length limitation to 150m. PM7 should be revised as follows for greater clarity: "No more than three turns at street intersections or I junctions when traveling from any dweLling to the most convenient coLlector street or higher order road." Relocate PMlO to follow Table E6.2, as it is the introductory PM for I PMll, 12 and 13. Table 6.2 then relates directly to PM9, as it should. Table 6.2 requires revision of the title to "Minimum Junction Spacing for Residential Streets and Traffic Routes", and secondly minor I review to clarify columns and to include a footnote on what spacing applies for left in/left out junctions. PMlO needs expansion to make it clear that the requirement is to achieve the design speed for the street type. Firstly, a new definition I of Desired Maximum Street Speed is required and the current definition of Design Speed modified, to distinguish the 85th percentile speed from the desired speed. The design methods for speed management revised available are varied but include PMll, 12 and 13. A suggested wording for PM10 is: "PM 10. The street network to be designed to limit desired maximum street spuds to those specified in Tables £6.1 and I £8.1. This may be done by limiting leg length, and I providing appropriate slow points at the end of each leg. I SR 1 Panel Report 20/1/92 85 I Slow points may be provided by a variety of mechanisms including street junctions, introduction of sharp bends and surface obstructions. Slow points have a maximum I design speed of 20 kmlhr in Access Streets and Collector Streets. Speeds may also be restrained by a continuous series of bends. or by a combination of approaches. I • The PMs 11, 12 and 13 have been extensively reviewed since the Department's preliminary submission. A range of traffic engineers in Victoria and interstate have been consulted to ascertain whether I they are/or can be applied effectively to obtain the desired speeds. It is evident that practitioners support them in principle but are not using the tables in their current form. They need to be re-organized and claiified. I Firstly Ptv111 Table E6.3 should be revised to limit the speeds specified to those necessary for the street classification, i.e. to 30, 40, 50 and 60 km/hr. A leg length of up to 90 or lOOm. is considered appropriate I for 30 km/hr streets. (Supported by Stapleton, and Daley (Technis.earch)). A range 'for leg length may be more useful, and helps Indicate that this is far from an exact science. A suggested I revision is: STREET TYPE DESIGN SPEED MAXIMUM LEG LENGTH REQUIRED I Access Street 30km/hr 75-100 metres 40km/hr 100-140 metres I Collector Street 50 km/hr 120-155 metres Trunk Collector (150 m. max) . 50 km/hr 120-155 metres I The reference to the effect of slope could be deleted. I PM 12 and Table E6.4 should be revised to relate to pavement widths, and in so doing provide assistance to street network designers at an early stage, as these figures may be directly translated into the I angle of bends for street reserves. The current diagrams in AMCORD and YicCode (pp.33,34) highlight the problem arising if deflection angles are not specified. Work done by Stapleton suggested 450 and 700 angle changes were required for I double and single bends respectively. Testing of some examples suggests that the values set out in E6-4 below are necessary. PMJ2 "Where bends are introduced to control speeds, the I "deflection angle" in the change of alignment of a street is to be at least the angle determined from Table £6-4." I Table E6-4 Deflection angles for speed control Bend Type Street Pavement Width (m) I 3.5 m. 5.0 - 5.5 m 7.0 - 7.5 m. Single bend 60° 70° 90° Chicane (2 reverse bends) 30°- 300 450 - 450 60° - 600 I PM13 should be revised to "Where bends or slow points are used which allow speeds greater than 20 kmlhr, the length of street between two bends or slow points complies with the distance I specified in Table £.6.5 :" I I I SR l Panel Report 20/l/92 86 Table E6.5 should be modified to delete . the columns relating to speeds I of 25, 35 and 45 km/hr, leaving only those street speeds which relate to VicCode's street categories. The Table will require minor adjustment to make it consistent with the revised Table E6.3. I The Department believes that prior to finalizing PM10- 13 a short workshop should be held with invited traffic engineers to ensure that the revised measures are workable and cost-effective. Add a· new PM requiring slow points and carriageway narrowings to I ensure provision is made for cyclists, either by speed compatibility, or off pavement diversions. Add a new PM relating to the need to limit the length of time that a I driver needs to spend in a low speed residential environment before reaching a collector street. This is probably best expressed m distance rather than the "one minute travel time" specified in AMCORD, as it is then possible to measure. A distance of 700 metres is I considered to be an appropriate maximum distance from any dwelling to the nearest collector or higher order street. The "one minute"· AMCORD provision was deleted in VicCode as it was I considered that street systems with such low connectivity are unlikely. However including it, revised to a distance requirement, I will provide ex.tra assurance. 4. Diagrams. • revise General Concept diagram on page 29 to clearly show .two I different ways of gaining access to arterials - i.e. trunk collectors on to major arterials where lights are needed, and collectors on. to arterials/sub arterials. Notations to be changed so that traffic routes I are not seen as vehicle conduits only. • tfie diagram o'n p~age'" 29' should be revised to 'more effectively show a ·.:} network of pedestrian and cycle movements relating to public I transport and activity points. • the diagrams on page 30 and 31 to be replaced with the diagra, s from page 33 and 34 showing the characteristics of the four main Street ..... Types. diagram of Bus Routes (page 30) to be modified in response to various comments and also further annotated to encourage larger lots (and thus less dwellings) in the areas not served by public transport. I Relocate to page 32. • diagram on page 32 entitled Arterial Road Intersection Spacing needs to be re-named Staggered Traffic Route Intersection Spacing, and the diagram modified to accord with Table E6.2 and the captions relating I to speed removed. • diagrams of Access street (page 33) and Collector street (page 34) need to be modified to show the correct leg length and angle of bend I to restrain traffic to the desired speed levels. • diagram of Trunk Collector Street (page 34) should be modified to include a median, as this is· regarded as essential to pedestrian safety I and amenity at the traffic volumes envisaged. • diagram of Vehicle Speed and Carriageway Width (page 31) to be •. revised and renamed to Carriageway Width and relocated to E8. • add Table summarizing Traffic Route classifications on page 32. I • on pages 33 and 34, add diagrams illustrating speed limiting design techniques, showing leg length and bend dimensions and other slow point techniques. I • there is a benefit in considering inclusion of table specifying the minimum street reserve widths for each category. This will assist I subdivision designers at an early stage. I SR 1 Panel Report 20/1/92 87 I Street type Minimum Reserve Width I Access Place 12m Access Street 13m I Collector 15.5m Trunk Collector 24.5 m Access Lane 3 - 8 m I 3.3.7.3. PANEL COl\.1MENTARY. Significant attention was paid to this particular Element.· I Following discussion on a number of points raised by submissions and during the Panel hearing the Department undertook discussions and investigation on these aspects. The extent of the resultant modifications for this element I and other following traffic-related Elements reveals that significant fine tuning is requir,e,_d. , It_. should be noted. that the exhibited amendment does not require the performance measures found in Element E6 to be met, though 7- I 5.2 as introduced, requires that it is necessary to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Council that the element objectives and performance criteria for all other elements of VicCode have been met. I The Panel does not concur with the modification . proposed by the Department whereby it has suggested that trunk collectors should have a speed constraint of 50 k.p.h and that housing should be encouraged to front I on to such roads. The Panel comprehends that the Department seeks such frontage on the basis ·that footways will exist along such roads and that surveillance is desirable. The Panel believes that other contra views exist as I expressed on page 55,.,."of the _AMCORD ·.document. The Panel would support the retention of the 60 k.p.h as the likelihood of trunk collectors being longer than 150 metres is possible. It believes that it is desirable to continue to foster I forms of developn ~nt along Trunk Collector which either have entrances from inner access roads ·or alternatively are of a scale which have forward access and egress. The Panel does not favour the introduction of parking on Trunk Collectors. I It should be remembered that roads of this nature will possess a median. If the "gateway effect" - as outlined on page 49 of the AMCORD I document - is proposed and lower traffic flows are envisaged then it would be reasonable to envisage housing fronting on to such a road. It would be valuable for re.v,iew work on VicCode to ·monitor the effectiveness of controls and to provide ongoing commentary on the most desirable treatment of I Trunk Collectors. The inclusion of a new objective and PC relating to establishing. I a movement network which will contribute to limiting consumption of fuels and to encourage trips to be undertaken by other means is considered to be redundant when all other objectives and criteria are studied. The. Panel is agreeable to Objective 4 being enlarged to have specific reference made to I light and heavy rail. The Panel is supportive of the proposed modifications which I have been brought forward • by the Department, a number of which arise out of detailed submissions. The Panel considers that applications of this element merit specific monitoring by the Review Working Group. I I I SR 1 Panel Report 20/l/92 88 3.3.7.4. Panel recommendations. The following· modifications should . be made to Element E6:- 1. Objectives. • revise 02 to make it clear that streets are the principal pedestrian and cyclist movement system, with other paths supplementary to these. • 03 should be revised with a wording that includes reference to traffic I routes, and the need for clear distinction between these and local streets in the network. • expand 06 to also cover orientation of streets to facilitate correct solar orientation of lots. I • revise 08 to ensure that convenient linkages are provided between dwellings within the area, as well as to activity focal points within and nearby. Relocate 08 after 01 to emphasise its significance. I • add to 04 the need for the network to have a focus where applicable ·to fixed or lightrail. • Add a new objective as follows:- "To discourage residential . streets from operating as through traffic routes ·for externally generated traffic, whilst at the same time Limiting the Lengih of time Local I drivers need to spend in a Low speed environment." 2. Performance Criteria. I • PC2 should refer to the traffic route network, rather than arterials, and be amended from "not more than 1.5 km" to "approximately 1.6 km". A table defining the design parameters for the different types I of traffic routes should be included as a diagram only . . Reference· in this PC could~ also be made to the need to design street networks which optimise the use of the traffic route infrastructure investment by ensuring they will operate at high volume/capacity I ratios at peak times, in situations where no significant long term increases in vehicle loads are· anticipated. • add to PC3 "provision for the proposed external road system to be I modified to achieve a better overall network," thus recognizing that internal and external street systems need to be integrated to maximize performance and use. modify PC6 to ensure that it is clear thai ·it removes the current I implication that the pedestrian and cycle network is to be largely provided off street, and to clarify the intent which is to ensure that where the street network contains culs de sac aligned with major I pedestrian or cycle desire lines, that cui de sac heads are linked. • add new PC to provide for relatively direct connections for local vehicle trips, and to provide a street system that encourages walking, I cycling and public transport for daily activities. • PC7. PC8 and PC9 relate only to buses, when it is anticipated that both light and heavy rail should have a significant role in future growth 1' areas. At least PC7 should be modified to relate to other public I transport forms as well as buses, and the words "acceptable walking distance" replaced with "400-1000 metres safe and convenient walking distance". to provide a more specific framework for I satisfaction. • PC9 should be modified to "Local bus routes should be as efficient as possible to serve the population. The alignment and geometry of I streets that form bus routes to allow for the efficient and unimpeded movement of buses." I I SR 1 Panel Report 20/1/92 89 I • a new PC should be added to ensure that street networks in the vicinity of railway stations and major light rail routes are focussed I towards the public transport stops, providing high levels . of accessibility and surveillance. • consider adding a new PC relating to desirably designing the I residential street network with the aim of ensuring that no street carries more than 3,000 vehicles per day and that most dwellings have frontage to streets with significantly lower volumes. I 3. Performance Measures. PM2 should be altered to include the walking distance widely I considered appropriate for railway stations, namely 800 metres, retaining 400 metres ·for bus and tram/light rail routes, to ensure that 90% of all dwellings have potential access to public transport. I • Table 6.1 in PM5 should have the heading Design Speed altered to Desired Maximum Street Speeds. See discussion under PMIO. In PM5?. ·a wording change to "indicative maximum traffic volume" is recommended. I Add to the definition of Access Place in Table E6.1 to highlight the 100 metre maximum, and to stress the need for comprehensive design to achieve the 15km/hr design speed. I "Access street", which involves more typical street design elements. can be applied to any streets with volume under 2,000 v.p.d. This needs to be made clearer in Tables 6.1 and 8.1. · • The new category of Access Lane should be added to Table E6. 1 and I E8.1, with a reserve width range of 3m. to 8m. • No change should be made to the Trunk Collector length at this stage. Flexibility is already provided by PM6. Further investigation on this I matter should occur to ensure that such a route has appropriate traffic purpose and amenity. PM7 should be revised ·as follows for greater clarity: I "No more than three tu "'S at street intersections or junctions when traveling from any dwelling to the most convenient collector street or higher order road." Relocate PMIO to follow Table E6.2, as it is the introductory PM for I PMll, 12 and 13. Table 6.2 then relates directly to PM9, as it should. Table 6.2 requires revision of the title to "Minimum Junction Spacing for Residential Streets and Traffic Routes", and secondly minor I review to clarify columns and to include a footnote on what spacing applies for left in/left out .junctions. PMlO needs expansion to make it clear that the requirement is to I achieve the design speed for the street type. Firstly, a new definition of Desired Maximum Street Speed is required and the current definition of Design Speed modified, to distinguish the 85th percentile speed from the desired speed. The design methods for I speed management revised available are varied but include PM11. 12 and 13. A suggested wording for PMlO is: "PMJO The street network to be designed to limit desired I maximum street speeds to those specified in Tables £6.1 and £8.1. This may be done by limiting leg length, and providing appropriate slow points at the end of each leg. I Slow points may be provided by a variety of mechanisms including street junctions, introduction of sharp bends and surface obstructions. Slow points have a maximum design speed of 20 km!hr in Access Streets and Collector I Streets. Speeds may also be restrained by a continuous senses of bends, or by a combination of approaches. I I I SR 1 Panel Repo rt 20/1/92 90 . The p Ms 11, 12 and 13 have been extensively reviewed since the I. Depart ment's preliminary submission. ' They need to be re-organized and cl arified. Table E6.3 should be revised to limit the speeds specified to those I necessa ry for the street classification, i.e. to 30, 40, 50 and 60 km/hr. A leg 1ength of up to 90 or 100 m. is considered appropriate for 30 km/hr streets. (Supported by Stapleton, and Daley (Technisearch)). A rang e for leg length may be more useful, and helps indicate that I this is far from an exact science. A suggested revision is: STREET TYPE DESIGN SPEED MAXIMUM LEG LENGTH RE UlRED I Access Street 30km/hr 75-100 metres 40km/hr 100-140 metres I Collecto r Street 50 km!hr 120-155 metres I· Trunk Collector 60 km/hr 120-155 metres Th e reference to the effect of slope could be deleted. I p M 12 and Table E6.4 should be revised to · relate to pavement widths, and in so doing provide assistance to street network designers at an e arly stage, as these figures may be directly translated into the angle o f bends for street reserves, · · I The cu rrent diagrams in AMCORD and VicCode (pp.33,34) highlight the pro blem arising if deflection angles are not specified. Testing of some e xamples suggests that the values set out in E6-4 below are I necessa ry p M 12 "Where bends are introduced to control speeds, the "d eflection angle" in the change of: alignment of a street I is to be at least the angle determined from Table £6-4." Table E6-4 I Bend Type 3.5 m. 5.0 - 5.5 m 7.0 - 7.5 m. I Single be nd 60° 70° 90° I Chicane C2 reverse bends 30°- 30° 60° - 60° . PM13 s hould be revised to "Where bends or slow points are used which allow speeds greater than 20 km/hr, the length of street I between two bends or slow points complies with the distance I specified in Table £.6.5 :" .' Table E 6.5 should be modified to delete the columns relating to speeds I of 25,3 5 and 45 km/hr, leaving only those street speeds which relate to Vic Code's street categories. The Table will require minor adjustme nt to make it consistent with the revised Table E6.3. I Pnor to finalizing PMlO - 13 the Department should organize a short· workshop with invited traffic engineers and experts in subdivision design to ensure that the revised measures are workable and cost effective. It would be prudent to include in this workshop an I overview of proposed modifications to all PMs if time permits. I I l SR I Panel Report 20/1/92 9 1 I: Add a new PM requiring slow points and carriageway narrowings to ensure provision is made for cyclists, either by speed compatibility, I or off pavement diversions. Add a new PM relating to the need to limit the length of time that a driver needs to spend in a low speed residential environment before I reaching a collector street. A distance of 700 metres is considered to be an appropriate maximum distance from any dwelling to the nearest collector or higher order street. I 4. Diagrams. • revise General Concept diagram on page 29 to clearly show two I different ways of gaining access to arterials - i.e. trunk collectors on to major arterials where lights are needed, and collectors . on to arterials/sub arterials. Notations to be changed so that traffic routes I are not seen as vehicle conduits only. • the diagram on page 29 should be revised to more effectively show a network of pedestrian and cycle movements relating to public transport and activity . points. I • the diagrams on page 30 and 31 to be replaced with the diagrams from page 33 and 34 showing the characteristics of the four main Street Types. I diagram of Bus Routes (page 30) to be modified in response to various comments and also further annotated to encourage larger lots (and thus .Jess dwellings) in the areas not served by public transport. I Relocate to page 32. • diagram on page 32 entitled Arterial Road Intersection Spacing needs to be re-named Staggered Traffic Route ·Intersection Spacing, and the diagram modified to accord with Table E6.2 and the captions relating I to speed removed. • diagrams of Access street (page 33) and Collector street (page 34) need to be modified to show the correct leg length and angle of bend I to restrain traffic to the desired speed levels. • diagram of Trunk Collector Street (page 34) should be modified to include a median, as this is. regarded as essential to pedestrian safety and amenity at the traffic volumes envisaged. I • diagram of Vehicle Speed and Carriageway Width (page 3 1) to be revised and renamed to Carriageway Width and relocated to E8. add Table summarizing Traffic Route classifications on page 32. I • on pages 33 and 34, add diagrams illustrating speed limiting design techniques, showing leg length and bend dimensions and other slow point techniques. I • there is a benefit in considering inclusion of table specifying the minimum street reserve widths for each category. This will assist subdivision . designers at an early stage. I Street type Minimum Reserve Width Access Place 12m Access Street 13m I Collector 15.5m Trunk Collector 24.5 m Access Lane 3 - 8 m I I I I ----- I SR 1 Panel Report 20/1/92 92 3.3.8 Element E7 Pedestrians and cyclists. 3.3.8.1. SYNOPSIS OF COMMENTARY IN SUBMISSIONS. I PTC. Modify diagram (no buses on collector streets.) City of Berwick. Footpath should be required for streets of 20 lots (Code I 50), although it is accepted that circumstances vary. Shire of Eltham. Footpaths abutting kerb where pavements are less than 5.5m may be dangerous (PM3). The threshold level of 500 vpd should be I reduced to 300 vpd (PM3). Footpath width of 1.4m should be required adjacent to schools and high pedestrian activity areas (PM6). I City of Knox. Legislation needs to be amended where pedestrians and cyclists share the same part of the carriageway. Bicycle Victoria and Councils promote pedestrian and cyclist separation, Code promotes conflict I between the two. Shire of Hastings. Measures generally supported. The 1.2m footpath width I (Table E8-1) is inadequate for shared hike and bike. Prefer 1.4m. Mahon and Mahon. Re PM1: a separate table should be provided m E7 rather than in E8. I Re PM3: this should relate to Access Streets rather than local streets as they are the only ones that fit the parameters. Access Places ·should be preferred hike and bike facilities. Appropriate crossings should. be provided at pedestrian/cycle path intersections with vehicular traffic. I Re PM4: logic? . It seems to be saying that a separate path is required even if there is already a planned pedestrian or cycle path. Re PM5: if pedestrian and cycle movement is correctly designed, I there should be no need for two footpaths on a Truck Collector. This pro · c;;ion will encourage poor urban design. Re PM6: this should specify circumstances where a pedestrian (only) path will be required rather than to say "if required". Code measures I need to be based on known requirements. There should be reference to perambulator crossings with a maximum gradient of 1 in 12. I City of Springvale. Access Place, Access Street and Collecior Street traffic volumes are inconsistent with the SRDP definitions. I City of Broadmeadows. Re footpath requirements: error refers to access place as below 500 vpd, elsewhere below 300 vpd. Energy Victoria. DIAGRAM: ensure that diagrams show streets within the I acceptable orientation range. Shire of Diamond Valley. Pathways should not directly abut road I pavement edge for safety reasons. Footpath provision should relate to number of lots served as well as type of street. Bikepath widths should be I consistent with the Bikepath strategy plan. Shire of Lillydale. Complements Council's Bike Plan. I 3.3.8.2. DEPARTMENT COMMENTARY AND SUGGESTED MODIFICATIONS. There were no major issue.s raised with respect to this element. I A number of submissions suggested a variety of modifications to require I SR I Panel Report 20/1/92 93 I footpaths on lower order streets. The Depanment is sympathetic to this view, particularly in the light of recent work indicating that women in general I and mothers with prams and children have a strong desire for footpaths, even on low trafficked streets. As a result of reviewing the written and presented submissions, I and noting issues raised by the Panel during the hearing, the Department brought forward to the Panel the suggested modifications set out below. It should be noted that comments on this section were requested from the State I Bicycle Committee of VicRoads to ensure consistency with Bicycle Planning and Design Principles as published and under review, as this group is currently finalizing an Australia-wide bicycle manual for publishing next I year as "AUSTROADS: GUIDE TO TRAFFIC ENGINEERING PRACTICE - PART I4 BICYCLES." I. Objectives. I • 0 I needs to be . revised to emphasise . that most pedestrian and cycle movement will be on streets not other paths, and to emphasise that I connections between the development and other areas should be efficient. • a new objective needs to be added to emphasise the code's overall environmental thrust of providing residential areas which I encpurage walking and cycling to daily activities as an important modal shift from private vehicle use. Recreational walking and cycling activity, which may more often use paths, also needs to be I recognized, but has different requirements from the former. 2. Performance Criteria. I In PCI specify what an approved plan is: i.e. the just released Victorian Bicycle Strategy, linear trails in Melbourne's Open Space Plan etc. (This is also relevant to PM2.) I • in PCI reference is made to "• projected travel demand". The SBC advise that this is very difficult to assess and that the paths should be provided even if demand cannot be shown. I • PC2 should for clarity refer only to pedestrian use with cyclist use being covered in PC3. PC2 should clarify that all access streets should have at least one footpath. AMCORD, page 7I, and the Street Types I Table (E8.1 in VicCode) makes clear that this is its intention, although the relevant deemed to comply criteria set 500 vpd as the minimum (PM3). :·The Depanment believes that least one footpath should be provided on all access streets. I • PC2 needs to be strengthened to emphasise planning for the most satisfactory footpath conditions for pedestrians rather than using the cost-effective, vehicle volume limit approach. Street lengths, I location, likely use patterns, sun and shade connections to activities and even the type and density of housing are critical factors in determining when and where footpaths should be provided. The I Department has become aware in recent research ·on women's housing needs, published as "Speaking of Housing", .that women, in panicular, place a high value on footpaths. This is for a variety of reasons quite unrelated to traffic safety. In addition the Department I does not believe the no-footpath option would promote walking in most new subdivisions. • PC3 should be expanded to embrace the network design as well as the I implied street' pavement design. A suggested wording: I I I SR 1 Panel Report 20/1/92 94 New PC. "The street network to provide a permeable network. of low I volume, low stress, low conflict, low speed routes for cyclists, to promote the use of such streets for on-pavement cycling for daily actlvlt!es. Design of street pavements in all residential streets to facilitate use by cyclists. Abutting court heads to have a cycle path I connection." • Whilst experienced cyclists will usually prefer on-pavement cycling even on collectors and trunk collectors, there may be benefit in an I additional PM to widen one footpath to 2 m. (minimum) for a shared path on any collector or trunk collector providing major access to a primary school, to cater for inexperienced cyclists. I • PC5 should be expanded to cover prams, pushes etc: "PC5. Design of footpaths or shared paths to facilitate ease of use by the disabled, aged and very young." • in PC6 the reference to gradients should also apply to design of street systems. Gradients on all residential streets (but particularly. on major cycle routes) should be kept gentle wherever possible to facilitate use by' cyclists. (A· maximum gradient of 5% over not more than 30 m. is a generally accepted figure). • PC7 should be reworded to cover consideration of safety and convenience in relation to alignment. The following revised I wording is suggested: "PC7. Alignment of paths to allow safe and convenient use by pedestrians and cyclists and be varied to preserve trees and other significant features and focus on vistas and landmarks to add visual I interest." • An additional PC to be inserted prior to PC8 requiring the choice of path types and widths to relate to user types and volumes and accord I with the Bicycle Facilities Planning and Design Guidelines of the State Bicycle Committee. • In PC8, the words "conflict points" should be changed to "meeting I points or junctions," to be more pos1t1ve. Reference could also be made here for t. ~ design of pavements suitable for the addition of seats. I 3. Performance Measures. • there are opportumt1es to simplify the PMs in this section as PM3 I (part), PM4 and PM5 covering footpath provision, all duplicate Table E8.1 already referred to in PM I. Alternatively, the footpath provisions could be outlined in PMl without reference to Table 8.1. The remaining part of PM3 relating to the location of footpaths I within the verge then stands alone. The revised PMs should make it clear that at least one footpath is to be provided on all access streets. • Re PM I: In relation to cycle paths on streets, has been revised and I street widths reviewed to ensure that cycle movement will be able to occur safely on street pavements without additional facilities being provided. Additional cycle paths (i.e. as shared foot/cycle paths of i I m. minimum may be provided anywhere in the local street network that forms a major route used by inexperienced cyclists e.g. on collectors or trunk collectors near to primary schools. • PM3 and PM6 relate to the width of footpaths. Several submittors I have indicated that 1.2 metres is not wide enough in areas of high pedestrian volume. This is supported and the wording should be altered to require wider footpaths of 1.4 m. or more in the vicinity of I meeting points, schools, shops and other activity centres and shared paths to 2m. on collectors or trunk collectors providing good access to I primary schools. I SR I Panel Report 20/1/92 95 • PM2 needs to be clarified in terms of what is an approved plan. • PM3 and PM4 both include reference to "blockwork" as a suitable I material. The SBC advise that this is not appropriate for cyclist use. • PM7 relates to width of cycle routes. SBC advise that 2.0m. is absolute minimum off street and that their guidelines should be referenced in I relation to PMs and cyclists. SBC on-street designated cycle routes have a 1.5m minimum. The PM needs expansion and clarification in relation to Guidelines. one submission proposed inclusion of a PM to require pram crossings I for paths crossing upright kerbs (at a maximum gradient of 1: 12). This is supported. · • there are other detailed design matters that relate to enhancing I pedestrian and cycle use, including minimizing the radius of kerbs at street junctions, providing crossings over streets at intersections with major paths etc. These are currently being investigated so they can be addressed more fully in the code. (See E8 PMlO). I 4. Diagrams,, I • Correct the diagrams on page 35. Additional text is needed on the Footpath Provision diagram, and the head clearance figure of 0.28m should be 0.25m in Bicycle Operating Space. I • The diagram on page 36 should be deleted and a plan showing a network of pedestrian and cyclist routes to major attractions should be included. It may be more appropriate to have this "concept" diagram on page 36, moving the detailed drawings to page 37.: 1pposite I the PMs. • Add diagrams of footpath widths from Model Cluster Code. • An additional diagram . summarizing the pros and cons of locating I footpaths abutting kerbs may be of value. • consider adding diagram from SBC Guidelines on page 6.23 of a collector road bicycle refuge. I 3.3.8.3. PANEL COMMENTARY. Following a review of the submissions and the modifications I proposed by the Department, the Panel is generally supportive of the modifications, with the exception that the Panel considers that the reference to "blockwork" should be retained in PM3 and PM5. The Panel believes that I such surface treatment should be an alternative for pedestrian areas. The Panel has noted the concern expressed in some submissions I at the possibility of a footpath abutting a road pavement. The Panel is supponive of the view that it is preferable to have a separator between the footway and the road pavement, however in some instances e.g. where_ a significant crossfall exists, it may be expedient for efficient design to hav_e I footway alongside a road pavement. Therefore the Panel considers that the relevant measure - PM 3 - does not require modification as it merely opens up an option. I The Panel does not support the proposal brought forward from the SBC that PCl should be modified by deleting the need to consider projected travel demand when any approved plan is prepared. The Panel I believes that this is not an inappropriate consideration and it should be retained. I The Panel believes that the suggested revised PC3 should be modified as shown in the Panel recommendation. I I r------~~------ I SR 1 Panel Report 20/1/92 96 I The Panel · does not accept the proposed Departmental modification to PC6 and it considers that the present PC6 should be retained. The .current criteria requires the gradient of a bicycle pathway adjoining a I road pavement to possess a gradient which is no greater than the road pavement. The proposed modification seeks to encourage "gentle grades" and this could result in the need to introduce expensive earthworks and complex engineering solutions to inter-relate a bicycle pathway with a road which I may possess a grade that lies beyond the term "gentle". The Panel believes that the present criteria are practical and sufficient. I A number of other minor modifications have been made to the Departmental suggestions by the Panel and such modifications have been embodied in the Panel recommendations. I 3.3.8.4. Panel recommendations. I The following modifications should be made to Element E7:- I. Objectives. I • 01 needs to be revised to emphasise that most pedestrian and cycle movement will be within street reserves and not necessarily on separate . paths, and to emphasise that connections between the development and other areas should be efficient. I • a new objective needs to be added to emphasise the code's overall· environmental thrust of providing residential areas which facilitate walking and cycling to daily activities to aid in fostering a modal:· I shift from private vehicle use. 2. Performance Criteria. I In PCl specify what an approved plan is e.g. the just released Victorian Bicycle Strategy, linear trc...:s in Melbourne's Open Space Plan etc.. This would be best achieved by providing a definition for an approved plan. A possible definition could be "A plan which I accords with an endorsed State or a Local Bicycle Strategy or cyclist pathway concept embodied in a Local Structure Plan"." (This is also relevant to PM2.) I • PC2 should, for clarity, refer only to pedestrian use with cyclist use being covered in PC3. PC2 should clarify that all access streets should have at least one footpath. PC2 should be modified to draw attention to the need when designing I the street network to balance planning for the most satisfactory footpath conditions for pedestrians against the cost-effective, vehicle volume limit approach. Street lengths, location, likely use patterns, I sun and shade, connections to activities and even the type and density of housing are critical factors in determining when and where footpaths should be provided. I • PC3 should be expanded to embrace the network design as well as the implied street pavement design. A suggested wording: New PC. "The street network should aim towards providing a permeable network of low speed routes for cyclists and to I promote the use of any streets included in such routes for on-pavement cycling for daily activities. Design of street pavements in all residential streets to facilitate use by I cyclists. Abutting court heads to have a cycle path connection." I • PC5 should be expanded to cover prams, pushers etc: I SR I Panel Report 20/1/92 97 I "PC5. Design of footpaths or shared paths to facilitate ease of use by the disabLed, aged and very young." I o PC7 should be reworded to cover conside.ration of safety and convenience in relation to alignment. The following revised wording is suggested: I "PC7. ALignment of paths to a/Low safe and convenient use by pedestrians and cyclists and be varied to preserve trees and other significant features and focus on vistas and Landmarks to add visuaL interest where possibLe." I Investigate the possibility of inserting an additional PC prior to PC8 requiring the choice of path types and widths to relate to user types and volumes and accord with the Bicycle Facilities Planning and I Design Guidelines of the State Bicycle Committee. If the investigation reveals that the use of the guidelines will not result in significant cost factors then insenion should be undenaken. It is suggested that I additional input into such investigation should be gained from Councils and developmental sources. o In PC8, the words "conflict points" should be changed to "meeting points or junctions," to be more pos1t1ve. Reference could also be I made here for the design of pavements suitable for the addition of seats in appropriate locations. I 3. Performance Measures. o Retain PM 1 as currently written but include a rider which indicates that where provision must be made for sr· ·.arate pedestrian I path/paths, such path/paths will be of bitumen, concrete of blockwork to the approved construction standard. Where pavements . are 5.5 metres or less in width, footpaths may abut a kerb, though a I preference exists for a verge separation between path and road surface. This modification will permit the deletion of PM3. It would be desirable to inter-relate PM I to the Table E8.1. I • The wording of PM6 should be modified by the inclusion of the need to require wider footpaths of 1.4m or more in the vicinity of meeting points, schools, shops and other activity centres and shared paths to 2m on collectors or trunk collectors providing good access to primary I schools. (The introduction of this modification should be related to the investigation that is referred to above in conjunction with the possible addition of a PC prior to PC8). I o The term "approved plan" appearing in PM 2 has been defined as a result of an earlier recommendation. o PM7 relates to width of cycle routes. This PM needs expansion and I clarification in relation to Guidelines of the SBC, subject to significant construction requirements not being introduced. o A PM should be introduced to require· pram crossings for paths crossing upright kerbs (at a maximum gradient of 1: 12). I 4. Diagrams. I o Correct the diagrams on page 35. Additional text is needed on the Footpath Provision diagram, and the head clearance figure of 0.28m should be 0.25m in Bicycle Operating Space. I o The diagram on page 36 should be deleted and a plan showing a network of pedestrian and cyclist routes to major attractions should be included. It may be more appropriate to have this "concept" diagram on page 36, moving the detailed drawings to page 37 opposite I the PMs. o Add diagrams of footpath widths. I I I SR I Panel Report 20/1/92 98 • consider adding diagram from SBC. Guidelines on page 6.23 of a I collector road bicycle. refuge. I I I I ·I I I .. I I I I I I I I I I I SR 1 Panel Report 20/1/92 99 I 3.3.9 Element E8 - Street design. I 3.3.9.1 SYNOPSIS OF COMMENTARY IN SUBMISSIONS. City of Berwick. Reviewing road pavement widths, information will be I forwarded when available. Shire of Eltham. In Table E8-1, minimum carriageway widths for collector streets should be reduced to 6.5 metres .. Limiting crossfall to 3% is I· inappropriate (PClO). Crossfalls should relate to local conditions. City of Knox. Many of these parameters are already being introduced I in fringe areas. Extreme care should be taken when designing cul-de-sac heads, otherwise service providers will require property owner indemnities to provide service. I Shire of· Pakenham. Council has 7 level street hierarchy, VicCode has 4. Different stand•ards ·therefore apply. ···Concern with Vic Code Access Place serving 30 lots - should be less than 10 lots. Footpaths should be provided I where more than 20 lots per street (VicCode 50). Shire of Hastings. Access place speed is limited to 15 kph, doubts I whether this is realistic for longer Access Places. Code allows 450mm wide kerb & channel, flush and open swale drains. This is acceptable in the Access Place depending on design, however the flush and swale is only appropriate for say, Access Place with 5 lots w; :, a reasonable grade. Due to I maintenance problems with grass swales and water pooling, they should not be used for Access Streets conventional rollover kerb and channel currently in use should be retained. I Mahon and Mahon. Element E8 . causes confusion between other elements: attempts to deal with issues such as parking (E4), movement I network (E6), :edestrian and cyclist (E7) and street construction (E9) which should be properly canvassed in these other elements. Element E8 a real hodge-podge; should be totally reviewed; reads as if a traffic engineer is to control everything that happens from fence to fence; Elements EO, E4, E5, E6, I E7 and E9 prove this is not the case. Only by reading the definition· of Street Reserve is it realized that verge includes all street functions other than carriageway. I Objectives 03-08 should be moved to the appropriate elements. PC3 - PC6 and .PC14 ·- PC16 should be moved to the appropriate elements. PM2 - PM4 should be· moved to the appropriate elements. I Re Table E8-1: after the above alterations becomes a simple matter of pavement widths and verges without all the qualifying statements. Carriageway widths must be as specific as other VicCode content e.g. for an Access Street of up to 1000 VPD, either a pavement width of 5 metres is I required, or 5.5 metres is required. Maximum carriageway width column should be deleted except that an Access Street should be 5.5m wide. There should be a classification of I Sub-Arterial. The specified maximum length of a Trunk Collector is 150m. This will be inadequate in the future. Centreline intersections of streets should be between 700 and 90°, preference for 900 intersections. I . Movement from one street type to another should be emphasized by a strip of different type of pavement width. Re Table E8-2: it will be fascinating to discover how many people understand this table. In any event, Table should be moved to Element E6 where design speeds are given. I I I ------·---- I SR I Panel Report 20/1/92 100 Re PM5: why? The relationship between verge widths, footpaths I abutting fencelines and cars reversing from driveways is obscure. The need for different verge widths is difficult to comprehend. City of Springvale. Re PM9 (last point): suggests that measure should I read - "For turning movements at the head of Access Places, sufficient area for the design single unit truck to make a three point turn". Delete reference I following to situations where Access Place is < 60m. City of Broadmeadows. PMll: single unit access not permitted on trunk collector (see also Table E8-1) should be extended to all development on I trunk collectors. Stopping distance in Table E8-2 should be increased to ensure Safe Intersection Sight Distance in accordance with Table 5.3 AUSTROADS "Guide to Traffic Engineering Practice" Part 5 (Suggested Sight Distances I quoted). Re PM9: reference to turning movement criteria for access streets and collector· roads should also apply to access places to facilitate ·I· service vehicle access. Energy Victoria. 03: perhaps include reference to street orientation I being within the acceptable range for energy efficiency of future dwellings. DIAGRAM: Alter "cul-de-sac" diagram (P.41, top) to show rectangular lots at court heads and lot boundaries within the acceptable I orientation range. Dandenong Valley Authority. 07: the concept of Valley Floors needs I to be included with ·a requirement for roads and reserves to follow valley drainage lines. PClO: after the expression "while. satisfying" ADD "major I drainage functions". Melbourne Water. Table E8-l: add the· following note, referenced to access places and streets: "(14) infiltration of drainage from access places I and streets to be maximized". Shire of Diamond Valley. Related legislation is required to ensure that I design speeds can be enforced (Road Safety (Traffic) Regulations). Hammer head court designs are unsatisfactory for several reasons (loss of on-street parking, difficult driver manoeuvres and trouble with asphalt finish). Circular court bowls cost about the same and should be used. Stopping I distances should be the same as AMCORD. Shire of Lillydale. Already using some techniques. Concern with on- I street parking where traffic volumes exceed 1000 vpd. .. Residential Developments P/L. Table E8-l: carriage-way widths should I be definite, a range is inappropriate. Maximum width should be indicated based on design speed and volume. Recommend: Access place - 3.0m, Access street - 5.5m, Collector street - 7.5m. Table nominates widths between inverts. Notes 5 and 6 are I inappropriate, remove. Note 7 should read: "A minimum of one footpath on one side of the street to be constructed". I Loder and Bayly. Seek a change from Indicative Traffic Volume to Maximum Traffic Volume. Change figure of 3000 vpd to 2000 vpd for Collector I streets. Delete Footnote (10) from Table E 8.1 - seems to create a confusing I l SR 1 Panel Report 20/l/92 1 0 1 I situation if parking is allowed on a carriageway and a marked cycle lane is proposed. · I 3.3.9.2. DEPARTMENT COMMENTARY AND SUGGESTED MODIFICATIONS. I A number of relatively minor issues were raised regarding this element, relating substantially to the details of Table E8.1 - Characteristics of Street Types. These can be summarized as follows:- • should access place be reduced from 30 lots to 10 lots? I • should only one street width rather than a range be specified for each type? • are grass swale drains appropriate for drainage of residential I streets? • appropriate kerb types; footpath provision. I Ths_. Departlll:ent considers . that there is a case for reduction in lots served to access place category but it believes that the 100 metre maximum length control will suffice. It supports retention of both the range I of carriageway widths and the use of different kerb profiles (including swale and upright kerbs) and recognizes that users of YicCode may require further explanation of the relationship between the two (essentially, I layback kerbs allow narrower pavement widths). As mentioned in the previous Element the Department also I supports reducing the vehicle volume~ for streets without footpaths. As a result of reviewing the written and presented submi~sions, and noting issues raised by the Panel during the hearing, the Department I brought forward to the Panel the following suggested modifications:- I. Objectives. I • 02 should be modified to emphasise that pedestrian and cyclist modes are to be facilitated in residential streets. • 05 should be modified as follows: I "To provide a safe, pleasant and comprehensible environment for residents and other users". This wording more clearly acknowledges that streets are public I spaces available to the whole community, who should be able to use them in an appropriate manner. In particular, the existing wording makes .-~o acknowledgement of the needs of visitors and emergency I services to be able to find their way around with relative ease. • 06 should be broadened to become a more positive statement cross referencing to E5 Streetscape relating to design of all engineering elements of carriageway, drainage, footpath and parking areas to I provide desired amenity as envisaged in the streetscape plan. • The DV A requested that 07 be expanded to introduce· the concept of streets to run along valley floors. The Department considers that this I is a broad movement network design matter and so is more appropriate if placed in E6. An additional PC is proposed. • There is benefit in re-organizing PC 1 to PC7 to group together those I covering street reserve width (PC1, PC6), carriageway widths (PC2, PC3, PC5A) verge width and kerb crossings (PC5, PC7), with PC4 becoming PC1 as it is introductory. I li I I SR 1 Panel Report 20/1/92 102 I 2. Performance Crite ria. . PC5 should be s plit, for clarity, into two PCs. One covers unobstructed access to indiv idual lots, and relates to driveway kerb crossing dimensions and verge widths. The second covers street design for I speed restraint. (PC5A) • PC7 relating to verge width needs to also cover consideration of width in relation to carriageway and requirements for vehicles turning I into driveways. Relates to PC5 (first part). • The next group of PC (PC8 - PC12, PC15) relating to carriageway alignment detail s and sightlines should be given an appropriate I subheading. PC9 should perhaps be a PM? • PC9, relating t o Table E8.2 (Minimum Stopping Distances), needs further clarificati on to enable it to be used effectively. It should be I revised to relate directly to the Street Types, as follows: STREET TYPE AND DESIGN SPEED STOPPING SIGHT DISTANCE ·I Access Plac e 5 metres Access Stre et 20 metres 30 metres I Collector s treet 40 metres Trunk Colle ctor 55 metres I . The OVA· has r equested that PC10 should. make specific reference to "major drainage functions" as the safety crii.aia to be satisfied. Thi·s is supported, but may also require re-wording of PC16. I . PC11 needs rew ording as Austroads Design Guidelines are for arterial roads and their turning . radii are not appropriate here. Replace with: PC. I I Kerb r adii at intersections to be a minimum subject to I satisfying requir ed turning templates to keep pedestrian crossing distances to a m inimum, and to control turning vehicle speeds. • PC13 relating to carriageway width for buses should refer to I maximum not mi nimum widths - and should be a PM. . Add a new PC relating to the need to design streets abutting areas of identified bushfire hazard in a manner that facilitates access by fire I· emergency vehicl es under conditions of poor visibility. This will relate p articular! y to pavement width and to the style of speed restraint devices. (CFA). The CFA would need to indicate which streets are needed for fire access, largely in accord with its "Planning Conditions and Guidelines for Subdivisions" and would only be in circumstances where the residential development formed the long I term urban edge. 3. Performance Measures. PM5 refers to two ways of calculating the minimum verge width: I firstly widths for "verge parking" as specified in Table 8.1, and secondly the minimum as calculated in relation to the design speed of the street. This is unfortunately not consistent with Table 8. 1 which I just specifies verge widths in relation to design speeds. PM5 needs to be reconsidered and Table 8.1 used to provide the only reference to minimum verge widths. Verge widths required for I driveway manoeuvrability also need to be considered i.e. for an access place, this is understood to be 2.9m. (6.4m minus 3.5m), along I with those required for sight lines at intersections. Verge width for I SR 1 Panel Report 20/l/92 103 I planting of large trees may also require guidance to ensure pavements are. not deformed or building footings affected. A suggested revision is: I "PM5. Verge widths having the minimum distance from the carriageway for each street type as specified in Table £8.1. Verge widths may often need to be increased to allow I space for larger scale landscaping, indented parking, future carriageway widening, retaining walls, cycle paths or swale drains." I PM9 relates to turning movement dimensions between different· street types. The PM is not clear in the second or third point as to which street junctions the radii refer. This clause in VicCode is worded differently from AM CORD, but neither is clear. PM I 0 is I unclear in its relationship to PM9, and additionally refers to driveways in a manner which is non-specific. PM I 0 needs review to produce a more approprjate control and more specific wording. It is I considered appropriate to specify the minimum kerb radii which would ~,elate to each street type. PM9. At intersections, turning vehicles accommodated by utilizing SAA design vehicles and turning templates, to enable turns to be made in a single forward movement as follows: · • for turning movements involving trunk collector or I collector streets, the 'design articulated vehicle' with turning path radius of at least 11.0 metres, using any part of the· 11avement. • for turning movements involving access streets or collector streets the ·'design heavy rigid' vehicle with turning path radius 11.0 metres, using any part of the I pavement. • for turning movements on access streets or collector streets, the £99 'design car' with turning path radius 7.5 I metres, using the correct side of the pavement only. • for turning movements at the head of a cui de sac, sufficient area for the 'design small rigid' vehicle to I make a three-point turn. Where driveway entrances are to be used for U turning movements, the required area must be able to withstand the relevant loads. I • PM10. Turning radii to not exceed 6.0m except if required to accommodate turning vehicles as per PM9. • Driveway kerb crossover dimensions already covered in E4 Vehicle Parking need to be cross referenced to this element, and a PM I included e.g. single crossovers on streets < 5.5 metres wide will be 4.5 metres wide at the kerb and on streets > 5.5 metres the single crossover shall be 3.8 wide at the kerb. I • PM II provides only one solution for frontwards vehicle egress on to Trunk Collectors. This PM needs to allow for other mechanisms which achieve the same ends. The following wording is suggested: I "PM1 1. Driveways and direct vehicle access to Trunk Collector Streets to be designed to allow frontways egress of vehicles from properties." The PM should be cross referenced to E 1 and E4. I • add a new PM requiring streets to be designed to meet the design speeds given in Table E8.1 for each street type. This is in lieu of making E6 provisions mandatory at this stage. I • Most comments from submittors on this element related to Table E8.I: Characteristics of Street Types. Earlier comments in this submission, I I .~ SR 1 Panel Report 20/1/92 104 particularly those relating to street type definition (Table 6.1) and to footpath provisions (E7. PM3 ), are relevant. Later comments relating to kerb profiles are also relevant. The Department considers that the table could be modified in a number of respects, principally as follows: I - addition of an extra category of Access Lane designed to provide rear or side access to lots also having a street frontage. This is particularly useful with respect to lots fronting trunk collectors or I other traffic routes, or to groups of narrow lots where the street may otherwise become dominated by garage doors. - reference to Access Place being a maximum of I 00 metres long I moved from subscript 5 to main table to highlight it. - need to better define minimum or .maximum carriageway widths essentially as width ranges. (This will be clearer when the diagram -On-P-age 3.1 -(Vehicle -Speed --and---Car-riageway- Wid-t-h-)-i-s-- - I . revised and moved to E8). - need to make subscript 3 relating to widening on bends consistent with the ·dimensions calculated ·for bends to operate as slow points 'I under E6 Table 6.4 (and revisions) - the column relating to kerbing to be adjusted as appropriate following the review of kerb profiles in E9 Table 9.1. provisiOns for trunk collectors need some revision to refer to I indented parking if required. - subscript 10 to be deleted, as cycling will usually be on carriageway of collector · roads, and marked cycle lanes will I conflict with parking which L. also on carriageway. - where access places intersect with coll~ctor streets, pavement is to be 5m for at least the first 7m, to remove conflict between vehicles I entering and exiting the busier street. Add another note to subscript 5. - subscript 5 refers to requirements for passing bays on Access I Places if length is greater than 80m. In fact the need for passing bays is better related to likely vehicle trips. A better criterion is to provide passing bays if there are more than i5 dwellings. - subscript 8 relating to design for slowing speeds at I pedestrian/cycle crossings should also be illustrated in a diagram. 4. Diagrams. I I All diagrams on page 37 relate to mm1mum stopping distances and visibility. as do the two on page 39. These all relate to Table E8.2 The diagrams should be rationalized to fit on page 39 only. I • Page 37 should show the Carriageway Widths diagram from E6, page 31. • the diagrams of speed control measures on page 40 need revision to I ensure that they will qualify as an adequate slow point of 20 km/h. • the cui de sac head diagrams on page 41 should be reduced to include only the T -head, the bottom one, (linked t-head), and another one I which shows two linked court heads within a continuous street reserve and court head meeting a traffic route or trunk collector. add diagram showing carriageway restrictions in conjunction with bus stop, to avoid vehicles overtaking the bus. I add diagram of driveway dimensions in relation to street widths (Attachment E8.4) I • Revised Table E8.1. I I SR 1 Panel Report 20/1/92 105 I 3.3.9.3 PANEL COMMENTARY. I The submissions raised a number of issues which merited further investigation. Following this investigation by the Department in conjunction with input by expert consultants, the Panel considers that the I proposed modifications brought forward by the Department generally merit support. A number of minor changes were made by the Panel to these modifications as the Panel formulated its recommendations. Such changes I were made to ensure that the Element did not become too restrictive or to inter-relate with other variances made by the Panel to Departmental recommendations on other Elements. I It should be appreciated that the Panel can envisage that on occasions in some topographical situations subdivisional design may require traffic design solutions which will lead to a need to depart from some aspects I of the Element measurements. It should be appreciated that such departure is possible (Refer-r,-~ to page 8 o( YicCode) and that in such an instance the performance criteria become of paramount importance. I 3.3.9.4. Panel recommendations. I 1. Objectives. • 02 should be modified to emphasise that pedestrian and cyclist modes are to be facilitated in residential streets. I • 05 should ue l"!'lodified as follows: "To provide a safe, distinct and pleasant environment for . residents. and other users". I 06 should J:>e··: ·broadened···to: become a more· positive statement cross referencing to E5 Streetscape relating to design of all engineering elements of carriageway, drainage, footpath and parking areas to provide desired amenity as envisaged in the streetscape plan. I • The DY A requested that 07 be expanded to introduce the concept of streets to run along valley floors. This is considered to be a broad movement network design matter and so is more appropriate if· I placed in E6 per medium of an additional PC in that Element. • PC 1 to PC7 should be re-organized to group together those covering street reserve width (PCl, PC6), carriageway widths (PC2, PC3, PC5A) I verge width and kerb crossings (PC5, PC7), with PC4 becoming PCl as it is introductory. 2. Performance Criteria. I • PC5 should be split, for clarity, into two PCs. One would cover unobstructed access to individual lots, and relate to driveway kerb I crossing dimensions and verge widths. The second should cover street design for speed restraint. (PC5A) • PC7 relating to verge width should cover consideration of width in I relation to carriageway and requirements for vehicles turning into driveways and it has an inter-relationship with the revised first part of PC5. • PC8 - PC12 and PC15 relate to carriageway alignment details and I sightlines and should be given an appropriate subheading. • PC9, relating to Table E8.2 (Minimum Stopping Distances), needs further clarification to enable it to be used effectively. It should be I revised to relate directly to the Street Types, as follows: I I ...------ I SR 1 Panel Report 20/1/92 106 I STREETTYPEANDDE~S-IG-N._SP_E_E_o____ _.s_T~O-P~PI~N~G~S~I~G=HT_.D_I_ST=AN~=C=E~ Access Place 5 metres I Access Street 20 metres 30 metres Collector Street 40 metres I Trunk Collector 55 metres • PC 10 should make specific reference to "major drainage functions" as the safety criteria to be satisfied. Consequential re-wording of PC 16 I may be necessary. • PCII needs rewording as Austroads Design Guidelines are for arterial roads and their turning radii are not appropriate here. The current · PC wording should be replaced as fo1lows:- "PC11. Kerb radii at intersections to be a mzmmum subject to satisfying ,required turning templates to keep pedestrian crossing distances to a minimum, and to control turning vehicle speeds." • PC13 relating to carriageway width for buses should refer to upper limit shown in Table E.8-l widths - and should be a PM. I • Add a new PC relating to the need to design streets abutting areas of identified bushfire hazard in a manner that facilitates access by fire emergency vehicles under conditions of poor visibility. This • will ;j I relate particularly to. pavement width and to the style of speed ".. ~. restraint devices. The CFA would need to indicate which streets .. are " needed for fire access, largely in accord with its "Planning ;, I Conditions and Guidelines for Subdivisions" and the criteria w o y I d · · •only be ·applied· '!':···in· -circumstances·· where the relevant . ..., residential deyelopment under ·consideration formed I portion of the lone term urban edee. 3. Performance Measures. I • PM5 should be revised as follows:- "PM5. Verge widths having the mtnzmum distance from the carriageway for each street type as specified in Table £8.1. I Verge wtdths may often need to be increased to allow space for larger scale landscaping, indented parking, future carriageway widening, retaining walls, cycle paths or swale drains." I • PM9 should be revised as follows:- PM9. At intersections, turning vehicles accommodated by utilizing SAA design vehicles and turning templates, to I enable turns to be made in a single forward movement as follows: • for turning movements involving trunk collector or I collector streets, ·the 'design articulated vehicle' with turning path radius of at least 11.0 metres, using any part of the pavement. I • for turning movements involving access streets or collector streets the 'design heavy rigid'· vehicle with turning path radius 11.0 metres, using any part of the I pavement. • for turning movements on access streets or collector I streets, the £99 'design car' with turning path radius I SR 1 Panel Report 20/1/92 107 I 7.5 metres, using the correct side of the pavement only. I • for turning movements at the head of a cui de sac, sufficient area for the 'design smaLL rigid' vehicle to make a three-point turn. Where driveway entrances I are to be used for U turning movements, the required area must be able to withstand the relevant Loads. • PM10. Turning radii to not exceed 6.0m except if I required to accommodate turning vehicles as per PM9. • Driveway kerb crossover dimensions already covered in E4 Vehicle Parking need to be cross referenced to this element, and a PM I included e.g. single crossovers on streets < 5.5 metres wide will be 4.5 metres wide at the kerb, and on > 5.5 metres wide crossovers will be 3.8 metres wide. I • PM11 should be revised as follows: PM 11. Driveways and direct vehicle access to Trunk CoLLector Streets to be designed to aLLow frontways egress of I vehicles from properties." The PM · should be cross referenced to E 1 and E4. • add a new PM requiring streets to be designed to meet the design speeds given in Table 8.1 for each street type. This is in lieu of I making E6 provisions mandatory at this stage. (Note: The design speed of 60kph should be retained for Trunk Collector as per a previous notation by Panel that the exhibited figure should be retained.) I. ..'able E8.1: Characteristics of Street Types should be modified as follows:- - addition of an extra category of Access Lane designed to provide I rear or side access to lots also having a street frontage. This is particularly useful with respect to lots fronting trunk collectors or other traffic routes, or to groups of narrow lots where the street may otherwise become dominated by garage doors. I - reference to Access Place being a maximum of 100 metres long moved from subscript 5 to main table to highlight it. - need to better define minimum or maximum carriageway widths I essentially as width ranges. Clarification of this aspect will be aided when the diagram on Page 31 (Vehicle Speed and Carriageway Width) is revised and moved to E8. I - need to make subscript 3 relating to widening on bends consistent with the dimensions calculated for bends to operate as slow points under E6 Table 6.4 (and revisions) the column relating to kerbing to be adjusted as appropriate I following the review of kerb profiles in E9 Table 9.1 as detailed in Panel recommendations under that Element. - provisions for tnmk collectors should be retained as exhibited I in respect of design speed, parking and footway/cycle path. The following notation should be made in respect of access "Vehicles froni any fronting development must exit in a forward direction". Any footway/cycle path provided along a Trunk I Collector must be 1m from abutting development frontages. other modification proposed by Department are accepted. - subscript 10 to be deleted, as cycling will usually be on I carriageway of collector roads, and marked cycle lanes will conflict with parking which is also on carriageway. - where access places intersect with collector streets, pavement I should be 5m for at least the first 7m, to remove conflict I I I SR I Panel Report 20/1/92 108 between vehicles entering and exiting the . busier street. Add I appropriate note to subscript 5. - subscript 5 refers to requirements for passing bays on Access Places if length is greater than 80m. In fact the need for passing bays is better related to likely vehicle trips. A better I criterion is to provide passing bays if there are more than 15 dwellings. - subscript 8 relating to design for slowing speeds at I pedestrian/cycle crossings should also be illustrated in a diagram. I 4. Diagrams. All diagrams on page 37 relate to mm1mum stopping d·istances and visibility. as do the two on page 39. These all relate to Table E8.2 The I diagrams should be rationalized to fit on page 39 only. • Page 37 should show the Carriageway Widths diagram from E6. page 31. I • the diagrams of speed control measures on page 40 need revision to ·. ensure that they will qualify as an adequate slow point of 20 km/h. the cui de sac head diagrams on page 41 should ·be reduced to include only the T-head, the bottom one, (linked t-head), and another one I which shows two linked court heads within a continuous street reserve and court head meeting a traffic route or trunk collector. add diagram showing carriageway restrictions in conjunction with I bus stop, io avoid vehicles overtaking the bus. add simple ··diagram of driveway dimensions in relation Tto street, widths. revised Table E8.1 I I I I I I I I I I SR 1 Panel Report 20/l/92 109 I 3.3.10 Element E9 Street construction. I 3.3.10.l.SYNOPSIS OF COMMENTARY IN SUBMISSIONS. City of Berwick. 600mm kerb width preferable (Code widths mostly I~ 450mm). An (unidentified) kerb profile in the code has presented problems with access and drainage. Suggest use of AMCORD profiles. Shire of Cranbourne. Retain AMCORD kerb construction standards. I Shire of Eltham. Performance measure PM4 should refer to Table E8-1. I Shire of Pakenham. Rollover kerb profile not satisfactory for vehicle access to property - modify. · Shire of Hastings. Pavement design to ARRB requirements will I necessitate fully documented designs and close Council examination for approval before··· current minimum ·standards are reduced. I Mahon and Mahon. The latest lay back profile for lot drainage should be used. Some of the provisions in E8 should be in E9. I City of Broadmeadows. AMCORD Element B8 deemed to comply criteria D7 (pavement edge construction conforming to local authority requirements) should be reinstated. Re Table E9-1: upright kerbs should be deleted for safety. 450mm I width is not sufficient for basaltic clay areas. Re PM3: interlocking pavers are inappropriate on highly reactive basaltic clays. I Melbourne Water. Table E9-1: reference to VICROADS standards should be expanded and/or their incorporation in the Code. I Shire of Lillydale. Many. criteria already in use. 3.3.10.2. DEPARTMENT COMMENTARY AND SUGGESTED MODIFICATIONS. I There were no major issues raised about this Element. A variety of comments were provided on appropriate kerb profiles, including three I submissions suggesting the use of AMCORD profiles rather than those in Table E9.1 which are from the RDPs. I As a result of reviewing the written and presented submissions, and noting issues raised by the Panel during the hearing, the Department brought forward to the Panel the following suggested modifications:- I 1 . Objectives. No modifications required. I 2. Performance Criteria. I PC6 should be expanded to include reference to streetscape amenity. • Consider adding an additional PC under pavement edge relating to options fo.r "porous" drainage (such as swale drains and porous gutters) ·to assist reduction of stormwater runoff into the piped I drainage system. Melbourne Water have requested that infiltration be maximized in access places and access streets. I I I SR I Panel Report 20/1/92 11 0 I 3. Performance Measures • the reference to Table 9.1 in PM4 is an error and is to be corrected to Table 8.1. I • PM2 and PM3 should be worded to the same specifications as PM 1. • expand PM6 to include mortared brick. • add an additional PM relating to pavement edge, requmng kerb crossings in upright kerbs to be of appropriate length for the street I width. • many submissions related to Table 9.1. The Department has reviewed Table 9.1 in conjunction with its consultants. I It is proposed that not only will several kerb and drainage profiles (including swale drains and central gutters) be illustrated, but that additionally, the design criteria for kerbs wilJ be spelt out so that alternative profiles may be used in appropriate ·circumstances. I Consideration of amenity issues will also be included in the criteria, as it is considered that the visual impact of kerbs in many new developments could be signifi'cantly enhanced at minimal additional I cost. A revised Table E9.1 was presented to the Panel. I 4. Diagrams. delete the diagram on page 43 (Pavement Widths and Costs). add diagrams of driveway dimensions and turning circles. I • ad:! diagram showing street cross sections suitable for overland flow drainage functions. I 3.3.10.3. PANEL COMMENTARY. The requests by some. submitters for ;a longer pavement design il life was given careful consideration by the Panel. It is accepted that in many streets a relatively minor increase in pavement thickness m. ; increase the design life of a pavement significantly. I The 20 year design life adopted in the Code is one widely accepted and used both here and overseas by all road authorities, Federal, State and local. A proper appreciation of the meaning of the "design life" I and pavement maintenance management is necessary to ensure the pavement is constructed and maintained on a least cost basis through its life. I All pavements require maintenance to restore ski<;i resistance, rideability, crack repair etc. and any analysis using a longer life than 20 years can be misleading. It is not the purpose of this Panel to discuss this aspect in any detail. The Panel considers that a design life of 20 I years is acceptable. However the Panel has a concern that users of VicCode in I general, and pavement and drainage designers in particular. be· fully aware of the potential damage to pavements, particularly asphalt, that can be caused through floodwaters covering them and a concurrent use by traffic. I The regular flooding of roads with a 50% AEP means this aspect !!l...llil be appreciated.· Asphalt surfaces in minor residential streets are usually not as I well compacted as larger arterial type roads and in most circumstances the I pavement will no.t be. impervious. Thus it must be assumed that pavement I SR 1 Panel Report 20/1/92 1 1 1 I courses and the subgrade will be saturated for long periods and at frequent intervals. I In the highly reactive clays areas, common in the Mel bourne area and growth corridors where VicCode is to be used, the probability of pavement failure under the above conditions is great. It is essential that I users of VicCode in general, and pavement designers in particular, be fully aware of the above potential problem· in the reactive clays common in many areas. I Following an appraisal of the presented submission and the modifications brought forward by the Department, after seeking additional I expert commentary, the Panel supports such modifications. 3.3.10.4. Panel recommendations. I The following modifications should be made to Element E9:- I. Objectives. I No modifications required. 2. Performance Criteria. I PC6 should be expanded to include reference to streetscape amenity. • Add an additional PC under pavement edge relating to options for I "porous" drainage (such as swale drains and porous gutters) to assist reduction of stormwater runoff into the piped drainage system. I 3. Performance Measures. the reference to Table 9.1 in PM4 is an error and is to be corrected to Tab ..· 8.1. I • PM2 and PM.3 should be worded to the same specifications as PM 1. • expand PM6 to include mortared brick. • add an additional PM relating to pavement edge, requiring kerb I crossings in upright kerbs to be of appropriate length for the street width. • Modified VicRoads kerb profiles should be used instead of those from I . RDPs. The revised Table E9.1 as presented to the Panel should be adopted. 4. Diagrams. Delete the diagram on page 43 (Pavement Widths and Costs). I I I I I .I I I SR I Panel Report 20/1/92 1 1 2 I 3.3.11- Element ElO - Public open space. 3.3.11.1. SYNOPSIS OF CO.MMENTARY IN SUBMISSIONS. I PTC. Emphasise adequate lighting and surveillance. Shire of Cranbourne. Require a 1 hectare park within 500m walking I distance, as per AMCORD. Shire of Eltham. The objective should be reworded by adding the words "safe and" and "and is so designed to ensure the safety. security and needs of I all groups in the community are provided for". to reflect Victorian Government Policy on Safety. Security and Women. This objective should be reflected in performance criteria and measures. I Shire of Gisborne. Different age groups/different commumtles need a range of POS. The Performance Measures do not accurately reflect the needs of a (given) community. Councils need flexibility. Councils should be able to I achieve > 5% open space. Provide for this in the State section, enabling more negotiation between developer and council. I Petcare. Drew attention to the large number of persons who have pets. In Melbourne 53% of households owned a dog or cat. Companionship was a vital function. Petcare sought to ensure that elements of YicCode would not be so prescriptive as to limit or prohibit ownership of pets. Particular I ''ttention was drawn to the need to be able to exercise pets in public open·: areas and any wording on public open space should recognize such role. • I City of Knox. Performance measures are totally inappropriate and contrary to the Act, which ~allows Council to identity the best means of achieving a level of open space. In an "as-of-right" development, unless the planning scheme specifies a level · of. open space, Council could not obtain' I P.O.S. under the Code. This needs rectifying. If performance measures are to be. maintained as stated, more than 5% P.O.S. will be necessary, otherwise considerable costs would be required of Council. This situation was not I envisaged and changes are required. The requirement for unencumbered open space is contrary to the Act and has little regard to the definition in the I Code which allows for easements e.g. cycle ways. Shire of Pakenham. Requirements for small 0.4 hectare neighbourhood parks have been inserted consistent with Council's ODP. I Shire of Hastings. POS provisions function is not to allow district parks and spans area. DPH open space guidelines recommend 1.5 ha/1000 people. This alone translates to 5% of land area in a traditional residential I subdivision. POS provision should therefore be reviewed. OEMA. Concerned with POS provision, especially where no permit is I required. Need to substantially alter ·current provisions to effect compliance. Opportunities for integrated linear parks will be lost. City of Croydon. Council could pursue > 5% POS through permit conditions I - unlikely to be successful. City of Springvale. Council SRDP requires up to 12% open space, Code I provides reference to Subdivision Act (5% maximum) unless Council and applicant agree a higher figure. I I SR 1 Panel Report 20/1/92 1 1 3 I Energy Victoria. PC5: Add to. the list of aspects: "*solar access to abutting properties". Add: . consider a new PC that highlights the .opportunity to utilize I sites for POS that have restricted solar access for dwellings e.g. steep south slopes, awkward shapes or vegetated land which unduly restricts solar access to dwellings. I Melbourne Water. Add "02 The prov1s1on of public open space ts to have a balance between the local and regional needs considered on a regional basis by a broad-based representational group." I PC2: the intention of this criteria needs to be clarified as it is currently unclear. PC3: the intention of this criteria needs to be clarified as it is I currently unclear. Does the following change the intent? "PC3 : areas of open space to be provided to take advantage and enhance neighbouring recreational areas and natural features e.g. land adjoining nearby beaches, national parks, large environmental parks and so on. This may diminish or I obviate the need for acquisition from existing or future residential areas". PC~·:. Add : "Advantage of natural features such as waterways is to be maximized". I PC5: in the first dot point, replace "the needs" with "The short and long term needs" and insert "current arid future" before "population". Add the following dot point: "recognition and enhancement of I existing values e.g. educational and cultural". PM2: replace "4000 square metres" with "6000 square metres". 4000 square metres is considered rather small (cf MPE Planning Guide for Urban Open Space recommends unrestricted areas of at least 1 hectare). I Delete "/or". PM3: replace preamble with: "Individual areas of unencumbered public open space less than 6000 square metres may be provided which". I Residential Developments P/L. Open space links diagram: it is important to mmtmtze the number of lots siding on to open space, as siding does not I ensure increased surveillance. , Iowever, siding is preferred to backing. 3.3.11.2. DEPARTMENT COMMENTARY AND SUGGESTED MODIFICATIONS. I Several submittors highlighted that 01 can't be met by the PMs, especially where 5% contribution only is required. Rather more open space - in the order of 12% or more - is needed to meet all open space requirements I for regional district and local activities. In ··the corridors linear ·open space may be designated as non I residential (creek valleys etc.) contributing some of the requirement, but in Reserved Living and equivalent zones this is not necessarily done. Outline development plans may indicate some desirable open space areas, but where the land area involved is greater than the developers open space percentage I contribution, no mechanisms exist in the code to ensure that the additional land is set aside for open space and subject to purchase by Council or Government. I However it is proposed to clarify PM1 to indicate that open space may be provided in accordance with the requirement specified in the local I section of a planning scheme or as provided for by the Subdivision Act. There are a number of problems with the Performance Measures as written. Firstly the PMs do not adequately satisfy the objectives I and performance criteria, particularly as they do not deal with quality, use or safety issues. Secondly, size and location are covered, but it is confusing I I I SR 1. Panel Report 20/1/92 1 14 as to what size areas within what distance are required. Thirdly PM4 (cash) I is actually a partial or total, alternative to PMl-3· ·and this needs to be ·clear. Additionally PM4 appears to inadvertently direct the spending of the Responsible Authority. Significant revision by the Department is proposed I as detailed later in this commentary. Two submissions highlighted the need to emphasise personal safety and surveillance in relation to public open space. The Department I supports making appropriate changes to this Element, and notes that this increases consistency with criteria in EO. I As a result of reviewing the written and presented submissions, and noting issues raised by the Panel during the hearing, the Department brought· forward to the Panel the following suggested modifications:- I 1. Objectives. · • 01 should be altered to remove the word "sufficient" and replace with: -'I "OJ. To ensure that public open space of appropriate quality and quantity is provided to contribute towards meeting the recreational and social needs of the community in convenient locations." I • a second objective should be added to highlight the use of natural and cultural features as a basis for location of public open space. I 2. Performance Criteria. The PCs are presently not particularly clear in terms of setting criteria for open space planning in new subdivisions. With some re I organization and elaboration, much more useful assistance can be given. • PC2 should be deleted, as it is covered in PC5: PC3 and PC4 can be combined and then expanded to outline more fully I the type and amount of open space to be provided. List factors e.g.: - provide a balance between local, district ;md regional open space; - take advantage of natural and cultural features; I provide land for regional linear open space as defined in e.g. Melbourne's Open Space for regional trails; identify land for district parks of 3ha. m1mmum, usually I combining passive and active use, within 2 km. of dwellings; - provide land for large local parks (active and passive) within 500 m. safe walking distance of all dwellings; - provide small local parks within 150m to 300m safe walking I distance of all residents; - take into account shared use of active open space with schools e.g. ovals; I - take into account land used for drainage control, or stream and floodway purposes if generally available for recreational use. • PC5 makes reference to providing public open space · in accordance I with approved plan ... yet no such process for preparing or approving plans according to the criteria listed exists, other than the Local Structure Plan process covered in the SR 1 Amendment (but not in VicCode). Reference to an approved plan should be deleted and this I PC clause modified to two new PCs. "PC5A. The location of Public Open Space to be consistent with any adopted metropolitan or regional open space strategy, regional cycle I riding or walking trail network, or municipal or district open space plan." I I SR 1 Panel Report 20!1/92 1 1 5 I "PC5B. The location landscaping and facilities proposed for local and district public open space. to be planned having regard to the I following: the distance and accessibility of open space to users; the safety and surveillance aspects; I the protection of extsttng trees, rocks, structures and sites of natural or cultural value; opportunities for waterways to be created or retained and promotion of on site infiltration and retention of run off; I the co-location benefits possible with community facilities; the value of open space in developing character and identity; the needs /or exercising pets; I the protection of native fauna; the items already· listed in PC5. • Add a new PC covering design and location of public open space to consider personal security and surveillance and property protection I issues, in relation to the park and the surrounding streets and lots. Highlighting of this· issue is considered necessary because of the very limited appreciation of subdivision designers of this issue and I the need to consider it at an early stage of subdivision street and lot layout. • Thus the new structure of the PCs for this element is: I PC1. Multi-functional use promoted PC2. (New) Broad requirements for amount and type of open space. (Ref. Planning Guide for Urban Open Space, MPE, 1989). PC3. (New) Requirement to take into account adopted regional and I municipal open space or linear trail strategies. (e.g. Melbourne's Open Space - State Government's Strategy Plan). PC4. (New) Detailed matters . for consideration when planning the I location, use imd develdpment of local and district facilities. PC5. (New) Specific reference for design and location of open space to consider personal safety and surveillance and property protection I issues. • its size, location and features are appropriate to its proposed open · space use in relation to the population served. I 3. Performance Measures. PMs 1,2 and 3 three should be rewritten as shown below:- "PM 1. Unencumbered public open space provided to the extent I required for land under the Subdivision Act 1988 (or as required in a local section of a planning scheme) or a cash in lieu payment. I Where land is provided, PM2 and 3 must also be satisfied and be approved by the Responsible Authority (or other body to be granted over ownership or management of the land). I Location and quality PM2 Land provided under PMJ is to be: • of a quality and characteristics which are related to its potential I functions. • located so as to ensure that every lot in the subdivision is within 500 metres walking distance of an area of existing or proposed I public open space. • related to the street and lot layout in a manner that promotes personal safety and surveillance for users of the public open I space and surrounding areas. I I I SR I Panel Report 20/1/92 I 16 Size .I PM3 Public Open Space must be provided in parcels of 400 sq.m. or greater in areas, or be land which: • forms a linear connection between streets or to existing or I proposed public open space; or • is combined with existing or proposed public open space on adjacent land; or I • is a small local park serving a neighbourhood within 300 metres safe walking distance. I 4. Diagrams. • further modify diagrams to reduce number· of lots shown abutting the space (RDL, EO) I • add additional sketches illustrating appropriate designs ·for public open space to for example, protect natural features, and which co I locate with local facilities etc. 3.3.11.3 PANEL COMMENTARY. I The Panel has reviewed in detail all submissions and the proposed modifications brought forward by the Department. Prior to dealing with the proposed modifications brought forward by the Department the I Panel wishes to discuss the matter of the provision of open space as per the Subdivision Act. A number of the Council submissions expressed significant I concern at the need to have to . rely solely upon the provisions of the Subdivision Act for obtaining open space. It was claimed that the percentage requirement found under the Act was totally inadequate and that the actual I percentage value lay in the order of 10% to 12% or greater. A number of Councils indicated that they had a desire to introduce amendments in their I local section to increase the percentage value. The Panel pointed , out to submittors when the recent Amendments to the Subdivision Act were presented to Parliament that they embodied a provision which sought to increase the percentage amount from I 5% to 6%. Such modification did not gain ultimate Parliamentary endorsement on the grounds that 5% should be the maximum value due to the fact that any increase would result in a consequential increase in land costs I to purchasers. The belief is held that purchasers and developers are burdened with significant on costs and that if additional open space was I required then the Council should fund it from its own sources. The Panel is aware also that during the review of the Subdivision Act the matter of open space received significant attention by the Working Party and that the Working Party indicated that additional I investigation should be undertaken on the topic. This investigation was .not so much concerned with the percentage but more with the philosophical aspect as to whether the Subdivision Act should include a matter of planning I import and also if the proposed amendments to the Subdivision Act would resolve the range of problems which were being encountered by both . Councils and developers in interpreting the provisions of the Subdivision I Act on open space. I I ~------· SR I Panel Report 20/1/92 1 1 7 I The Panel also noted the reference in PMI to "unencumbered public open space":- and the commentary ·made by some submittors that the I Subdivision Act provisions did not inter-relate with such an approach. The Panel would agree that some form of conflict could exist on this aspect. I In addition to these matters the Panel studied in detail the commentary found in AMCORD on open space. The Panel does believe that the introduction of VicCode will lead I to an increase in densities and it is timely to re-evaluate the whole topic of open space, particularly for the growing outer areas. It should be remembered when areas such as Nunawading, Waverley, Doncaster and I similar areas were experiencing rapid expansion that the 5% concept was introduced by the current Opposition to aid these municipalities in their planning to meet open space requirements. The concept has proved to be I extremely valuable and it has aided in community development. However it is . important ·to appreciate that at about the same time this percentage requirement was complemented by a facility under the I Metropolitan Planning Scheme, as administered by the then MMBW, for Councils to seek to purchase land zoned as "Proposed Public Open Space" and the Board, through its Metropolitan Improvement Fund, was prepared to lend I money for purchase to Councils over either a 7 or I 0 year period with the first three years of the loan being interest free. This approach aided Councils where sudden decisions were to be made on land proposed for open I space which came up for purchase and for which no allowance had been made in Council estimates. In addition it represented significant financial relief through the exemption of interest payment for the first three years . I .• ..., . >. This facility both. aided and encouraged Councils to be involved in the designation of land for future open space and the purchase of land over the 5% gained through land subdivision. However in the subsequent I changes which have occurred in planning and other areas this facility has been lost. It should be recognized that Councils in growing areas experience great difficulty in fulfilling open space planning requirements in the current si.tuation and comparison with the manner in which former outer I areas coped is not valid. In a number of instances Councils have endeavoured to rely on Council policy decisions which were directed towards a developer providing additional open space beyond the 5% or alternatively I under the guise of negotiated planning additional open space contributions were sought. 1J•e Panel believes that such an ad hoc approach is undesirable and a proponent of a development is entitled to be aware of legislative I demands which are required on open space and should not be forced into additional "trade offs". However by the same token Outer Councils are also the I recipients of planning decisions which are more sophisticated than earlier scheme controls. These decisions embody the setting aside of land for extensive metropolitan parks, greater control over flood way areas. tree I preservation areas, conservation type zones etc. and other such areas which, in their own way, inter-relate with the open character of an area. Furthermore increased use is made by drainage authorities of large areas for I temporary retaining basins and these areas can have a dual open space function. In addition it mt1st be remembered that Councils are receiving in some instances development contributions which aid in community infrastructure and again this form oi contribution was not available at the I time the 5% figure was set. I I I SR I Panel Report 20/1/92 1 1 8 The Panel considers that it is appropriate to raise the topic of the percentage of open space as a matter for further discussion 1n I conjunction ·with other matters raised ·by the Working Party on the Subdivision Act. The Panel believes that the commentary in AMCORD provides a succinct summary on open space and brings forward a claim for a I minimum unencumbered area requirement of at least 6% for public open space. provision. The Panel would be generally supportive of this figure in cases where Vic Code is to apply. This support is not merely related to the fact that VicCode will introduce densities in excess of those against which the 5% I figure was formulated, but also increase in the percentage requirement will add to the integrity of the Local Structure Plan. The Panel supports the principle of the Council to fund such additional space over the prime I percentage requirement as it considers necessary to met the future demands of its residents. It would be of advantage to Councils if immediate access to I loan monies was available to assist in priority purchases. As indicated in earlier commentary the Panel is cognizant that different attitudes exist at a political level on the treatment of open space percentages but the Panel believes that during the proposed ongoing review I process for VicCode it is not unreasonable to explore attitudes on increasing the percentage allocation in areas where VicCode is introduced. I One further matter for consideration on this topic is the need to clearly identify in any Local Structure Plan any areas of open space which are deemed to be of metropolitan or regional significance and to clarify the areas of responsibility for purchase. Such declaration will aid a proponent in I the preliminary negotiation on subdivision design. Turning to the proposed modifications brought forward by the I Department the Panel is generally in agreement with such modifications and believes that they meet a number of the concerns raised. The Panel in its review of the Departmental recommendations has made a number of minor I changes and the..,~ are embodied in the Panel recommendations. 3.3.11.4. Panel recommendations. I 1. During the review period of initial operation of VicCode, consideration should be given to the topic of open space and the percentage of land to be made available by a proponent when undertaking a subdivision in which I VicCode principles will apply. This review should be related with any review which may be supported by the Working Party on the Subdivision Act on open space e.g. whether public open space provisions should be in I the Planning and Environment Act due to its being a design element that comes under consideration during the permit process. 2. Clarification should be gained on the reference to "unencumbered open I space" in PM 1 and the inter-relationship with the powers of Council under Section 18 of the Subdivision Act. · J I 3. In the preparation of Local Structure Plans proposed open space areas of metropolitan or regional significance, which are viewed as not being of direct Council responsibility, should be clearly identified and the relevant I responsible body nominated. I I I SR 1 Panel Report 20/1/92 1 1 9 I 4. The following detailed modification should be made to element E10:- 1. Objectives. I 01 should be altered to remove the word "sufficient" and replace with: "OJ. To ensure that public open space of appropriate I quality and quantity is provided to contribute towards meeting the recreational and social needs of the community in convenient locations." I 2. Performance Criteria. I PC2 should be deleted, as It IS covered in PC5. PC3 and PC4 can be combined and then expanded to include factors such as:- providing a balance between local, district and regional I open space; -~" takfng advantage·· of natural and cultural features; identifying land for regional linear open space as defined I in documents such as Melbourne's Open Space for regional trai Is; take into account shared use of active open space with schools e.g. ovals; I take into account land used for drainage control, or stream and floodway purposes if generally available for recreational use. I PC5 should be amended to read as follows (Note: The combi.:;ng of PC3 and 4 will result in the content of PC5 now being known as PC4):- I PC4. Public open space should be provided after giving consideration to the following:- location being consistent with any adopted metropolitan or regional open space strategy, I regional cycle or walking trail network, local structure plan or municipal or district open space plan; I the distance and accessibility of open space to users; proposed - landscaping and provision of facilities; safety and surveillance aspects, including prov1s1on I for adequate lighting in accordance with Australian Standard ll58.1 (1986), where appropriate; the possible need to give protection to ex1st1ng trees, rocks and sites of natural or cultural value; I opportunities for water features to be created or retained and promotion of on site infiltration and retention of stormwater run off; I recognizing that some areas of open space should be available for exercising pets; other components of the current PC5 as shown in VicCode. I Add a new PC covering design and location of public open space to consider personal security and surveillance and property protection issues, in relation to the park and the surrounding streets and lots. I I I I SR 1 Panel Report 20/1/92 120 I 3. Performance Measures. PMs 1,2 and 3 should be rewritten as shown below:- PM 1. Unencumbered public open space provided to the extent I required for land under the Subdivision Act 1988 (or as required in a local section of a planning scheme) or a cash ~n lieu payment. Where land is provided, PM2 and 3 must also be I satisfied and be approved by the Responsible Authority and ·any other body who could possibly be granted over ownership or management of the land. I PM2. Land provided under PM1 is to be: • of a quality and characteristics which are related to its potential functions. • located so as to ensure that every lot in the subdivision is within 500 metres walking distance of an area of existing or proposed public open space. • related to the street and lot layout in a manner that promotes personal safety and surveillance for users of the I public open space and surrounding areas. PM3. Public Open Space must be provided. in parcels of 4000 sq.m. or greater in areas; or be land which: I • forms a linear connection between streets or to existing or proposed public open space; or • is combined with existing or proposed public open space I on adjacent land; or • is a small local 'park serving a neighbourhood within 300 I metres safe walking distance. 4. Diagrams further modify diagrams to reduce number of lots shown abutting the open space; I add additional sketches illustrating appropriate designs for public open space e.g. to protect natural features, and which co I locate with local facilities etc .. I· I I I I I I SR 1 Panel Report 20/1/92 1 21 I 3.3.12. Element Ell Utilities provision. I 3.3.12.1. SYNOPSIS OF COMMENTARY IN SUBMISSIONS. PTC. Emphasise adequate lighting and · surveillance. I Telecom. Amend PM8: "designed by a qualified person in accordance with the requirements of the relevant telecommunications carrier". Common trenching diagrams are inappropriate and misleading (refer to Street works I Code of Practice 1980 and 1990). Need small land parcels additional to street reticulation requirements. I Shire of Gisborne. Common trenching difficulties exist, often Council is an unwilling arbiter. Underground power and phone should be mandated, to acknowledge objectives for Community Design (EO). I Shire of Hastings. Common trenching is supported, but workability will hinge on authority co-ordination. · I Mahon and Mahon. Objective 05 should include a reference to a qualified person. The description relating to qualifications should be the same in PM3 as in PM5, PM7 and PM9. I State Electricity Comm. VicCode should include reference to available guidance in the "Co-ordination of Streetworks Code of Practice" I (copy enclosed) and that any examples · should reflect cu: ~nt Victorian practice. Standard common· trenching diagrams (p49) should be revlaced by attached diagrams. Inclusion of specific servicing arrangements in VicCode is not recommended due to the continuing development work of the I Streetworks Co-ordination Committee. City of Springvale. Code not specific on underground electricity, SRDP I requires undergrounding. Country Fire Authority. Re PM6 (water supply):- recommend that fire service water supply for residential developments be assessed on the grounds I of development size, location and availability and means of supply (e.g. · reticulated supply, static storage) with a view to having a master plan for each subdivision. I City of Broad meadows. Should make specific mention of underground SEC or overhead aerial bundled cable. I Energy Victoria. 01:- include provision in an energy efficient manner. Perhaps this could be expanded to include reference to use renewable technologies such as solar street lighting. I Melbourne Water. Include reference to "Co-ordination of Streetworks Code of Practice", especially in regard to common trenching. PM2 and PM3 I should be combined and rewritten in the form of PM5. In PM2 or its rewrite, "specific standards" should be replaced with "requirements". In PM3 or its rewrite "person qualified" . should be replaced with "qualified person". In I PM5 "specific standards" should be replaced with "requirements". Shire of Diamond Valley. This element is satisfactory, subject to co- operation between service authorities. I I I I SR 1 Panel Report 20/1/92 122 Shire of Lillydale. Shared trenching already in use by various service I authorities. 3.3.12.?. DEPARTMENT COMMENTARY AND SUGGESTED MODIFICATIONS .. I An issue raised by several submissions related to common trenching and defining the role of the Streetworks Co-ordinatong Committee. The SCC undertook to respond to the RDPs and provided guidelines on I common trenching in Victoria which were published in 1990. Another issue several submittors raised was that SEC power supply should be provided underground or in aerial bundled cables. This has I been, in the past, a major cost factor. Whilst it is understood that the relative costs are now much closer, it is considered inappropriate for the Department I to support a mandatory provision in this area. 1. Objectives. I No additional modification required. 2. Performance Criteria. I PC2 to be revised to give a stronger encouragement to common trenching and to make reference to the Streetworks Co-ordination I Committee. 3. Performance Measures. .. •.r.: the wording in various PMs to a "qualified person" needs to .be made :: I consistent with that in PM7. add a PM relating to common trenching in accordance with the Streetworks Co-ordination Committee 1990 document or such later I policy as may be issued. (Note· that the Streetwl ks Code of Practice will need to be modified to accord with the final VicCode street nomenclatures - perhaps a revision could be issued prior to approval .. I of final VicCode and the revision be referred to in this PM). 4. Diagrams. I • replace diagrams on page 49 with those provided by the Streetworks Co-ordination Committee. I 3.3.12.3. PANEL COM'MENTARY. Representatives of the Street Work Co-ordination Committee I appeared before the Panel. It was indicated that continuing close consultation was underway in an endeavour to achieve common trenching. Further refinement was taking place on service location and on developing ·I performance criteria and measures. The use of an undimensioned diagram was proposed due to the fact that overall policy was still being formulated. However in respect of lower order streets agreements would appear to have been reached as indicated in a tabled letter to the Minister for Local I Government - dated 20th. March, 1990. In balance the Panel supports the use of undimensioned I diagrams in VicCode, subject to a notation being embodied of the need to consult the "Streetworks Code of Practice" to ensure that current space I allocations are observed. The practice of encouraging referral to the I SR 1 Panel Report 20/l/92 123 I "Streetworks Code of Practice" will obviate the need to updating YicCode where some variance of practice is introduced or agreements are varied. I This correspondence had attached sectional diagrams showing space allocation for implementation in RDPs for lower order streets. The I Panel endorses the Depanment of Planning and Housing proposal to include such diagrams within VicCode, subject to reference being made in Performance Criteria on the guidance available in the "Streetworks Code of I Practice". In addition an appropriate notation should appear on any diagrams indicating that prior to implementation it is necessary to make reference to the "Streetworks Code of Practice" to determine current space I allocations. After reviewing in detail other submissions on this element and the proposed modifications brought forward by the Depanment of Planning I and Housing the Panel generally supported the Departmental recommendations as ··'meeting issues · which merited consideration. I 3.3.12.4. Panel recommendations. The following modifications should be made to Element E II:- I I. Objectives. No additional modification required. · I 2. Performance Criteria. I PC2 to be ~revised ;to ·give'· a stronger encouragement to common trenching and to make reference to the Streetworks Co-ordination Committee. I 3. Performance Measures. the wording in various PMs to a "qualified person" needs to be made I consistent with that in PM7. add a PM relating to common trenching in accordance with the Streetworks Co-ordination Committee 1990 document or such later I policy as may be issued. (Note that the Streetworks Code of Practice will need to be modified to accord with the fina·l YicCode street nomenclatures. It would assist if the Committee could be advised that a revision could be issued prior to approval of the final VicCode and the I revision be referred to this PM.). 4. Diagrams. I . • replace diagrams on page 49 with those provided by the Streetworks Co-ordination Committee. The use of undimensioned diagrams is I favoured as it is considered that detail of this nature is not appropriate in VicCode. In addition ensure that a notation is embodied in the diagram of the need to consult the "Streetworks Code of Practice" to ensure that current space allocations are observed. · I I I I r------ I SR 1 Panel Report 20/1/92 124 3.3.13. Element E12 Drainage network & Element El2(a) Minor .I stormwater flows. Element E12(b) Major stormwater flows. 3.3.13.1. SYNOPSIS OF COMMENTARY IN SUB:MISSIONS. I Shire of Cranbourne. Floor levels should be set at 600mm, not 300mm. Drainage design should be based on 20% AEP, not 50% AEP (AMCORD I standard). Shire of Eltham. Minor and· major drainage systems should be· defined. It may be appropriate to provide for on AEP of 20% (i.e. once every 5 years) rather than 50%, depending on the definition of minor drainage I system. AEP level should be related to the type and value of assets to be protected. Performance measure PM5 cannot be successfully applied in streets with rollover kerbs. Shire of Gisborne. Performance measures should include the specific use of retarding basins. This could be .referenced to POS provisions in ElO. Housing Industry Association. Re minor storm water flows agricultural and surface grate drains (in front of garages and driveways) should be allowed to discharge to rear pipe drains. Suggest new diagram for lots grading towards the front. . K. P. Courtis. To prevent an authority from imposing a higher drainage I requirement than the Performance Measure is dangerous - particular situations must be frequently catered for, especially when draina15e is not to the street. Opposes swale drains as Performance Measure (El2A PM4), as they would effectively prevent pedestrian and vehicle access to properties for I . almost 1 hour plus precipitation time for AEP 50%; worse ·for lower AEPs. Pedestrian bridges over swales e.g. at intersections, are likely to be more I expensive than underground drainage system Shire of Hastings. Drainage network - Code should maintain a 50% AEP for catchments up to 7 ha. In larger catchments, adopt 20% AEP. I Culverts and piped drains should be designed to run just full, and not under head as per Code. All house drainage should be piped to· a drain or pit, due to difficulties with rollover kerb, especially on flat land. I Mahon and Mahon. Reference should be made to design being carried out by a qualified person. Drainage side entry pits should be standardized. I Master Builders. Consider allowing on-site disposal of stormwater where e.g. soil conditions would allow soak pits to adequately control storm I water discharge. City of Springvale. Concern with side-effects of widespread use of swale drains on Access Streets e.g. ponding and deterioration of road I surfaces. Recommends deletion of swale drains (PM4 ). City of Broadmeadows. Considers that any less than 5 years (20% AEP) is totally unacceptable. 50% AEP not appropriate for easement drainage; it I would be satisfactory for street drainage if the roadway is designed as a floodway to take major flows of 1% AEP. Re PM5: this is impossible to achieve in all situations (re all I house drainage to front of lot, unless topography dictates otherwise). I I SR 1 Panel Report 20/1/92 125 I Energy Victoria. Add: reference to seeking more sustainable stormwater practices .. While not knowledgeable in this field, surprised, given I emphasis on sustainability, at the lack of encouragement for alternative stormwater treatments e.g. on-site infiltration, use of surface drainage networks as an environmentally sensitive design element. I Shire of Mornington. Performance measures (p.51) should be modified as follows:- AEP in PM2 should be 20% not 50%. Cut-off or swale drains should not be acceptable at sides or backs of properties. The term "inner lot" I drainage needs definition. Connection of house drains directly to rollover kerbs is not possible. I Dandenong Valley Authority. Element 12a 06: delete exiSting objective, replace with "To protect the environmental and structural values of receiving water courses. The I provisions of the State Environmental Protection Policy (Waters of Victoria) are to be considered". Provisions of the SEPP include minimizing erosion on I construction sites, urban run-off should not degrade streams and watercourses. PM2: delete existing, replace with "The rainfall intensity I derived for the area based on an Annual Exceedance Probability (AEP) of 50 per cent for drainage systems with an upstream catchment of less than 10 hectares and an AEP of 20 per cent for drainage systems with an upstream catchment of greater than 10 hectares". I PM4: advises that swale drains should only be used to supplement the pipe system, not to replace it. PM7: replace "0.3 metres" with "0.6 metres". Inadequate pipe I cover and potential problems ·with . minimum grades for house connections to the drainage system. I Element 12b 08 : as for 06 (above). PC3: delete existing, replace with "Habitable rooms to have floor levels above the estimated flood level resulting from a flood of 1 per cent I AEP, to the satisfaction of the relevant drainage authority". PCI: delete the expression " ... for an Annual Exceedance Probability (AEP) of 50 per cent". I Proposed wording follows on from the definition of minor stormwater flows. PC2: delete the expression" ... a stormwater flow of an AEP of 50 I per cent" and insert "minor stormwater flows". PC3: delete existing. Insert "The minor drainage system to be designed to provide a mechanism to ensure that blockages or failures of the minor drainage system will result in surcharge flows being directed into the I major drainage system". Rationale is that property damage will be prevented and personal safety will not be adversely affected. · PC5: delete the expression "runoff from on AEP of 50 per cent" I and insert "minor stormwater flows". Add new PM : "the drainage system is to be designed by a qualified person in accordance with the requirements of the relevant drainage authority" I Melbourne Water. 06: Should read "To .protect environmental and structural values of receiving water courses. The provisions of the State I Environment Protection Policy (Waters of Victoria) are to be considered". I I I SR 1 Panel Report 20/1/92 126 PC1: Replace "an Annual Exceedance Probability (AEP) of 50 per I cent" with "a rainfall intensity derived for the area based on an Annual Exceedance Probability (AEP) of 50 per cent for drainage systems with an upstream catchment of less than 10 hectares and an AEP of 20 per cent for I drainage systems with an upstream catchment greater than 10 hectares" PC2: Replace "from a stormwate~ flow of an AEP of 50 per cent" with "from a minor stormwater flow". New PC3 : "The minor drainage system to be designed so that any I overflow will be directed to the major drainage system without causing damage to property nor affecting the safety of people". What is meant by "system failure", what is a "fail safe mechanism? I PC4: after "existing" add "downstream flows are restricted to pre development flows and that". PC5: Replace "runoff from an AEP of 50 per cent" with "a minor storm water flow". I New PC7: Drainage networks to be designed to provide for the collection and removal of silt and debris at accessible locations". PC10: Add to the end of the sentence '-'while giving appropriate I recognition to environmental values and downstream effects". New PM2: "the rainfall intensity derived for the area based on an Annual Exceedance Probability (AEP) of 50 per cent for drainage systems I with an upstream catchment of less than 10 hectares and on AEP of 20 per cent for drainage systems with an upstream catchment greater than 10 hectares" PM7 : replace "0.3" with "0.6". I Add additional PMs as follows:- "PM 11. The minor drainage system is to !)e designed by a qualified person in accordance with the requirements of the drainage I authority. In the event of an inconsistency between this Code and the requirements of· the authority·· the · requirements of the· authority will prevail". PM12: Silt and litter traps to be provided to protect downstream I values (particularly during construction of the subdivision)." PM13: Provide facilities to retain peak stormwater flows to pre I development levels" Element 12b Add new 08 "To protect environmental and structural values of I rece1vmg water-courses. The provisions of the State Environment Protection Policy (Waters of Victoria) are to be considered. PC4: In the footnote to PC4, replace "motorists" with "roadway users". I Add additional PMs as follows - "PM5: The major drainage system to be designed to ensure that the downstream flows be restricted to pre-development levels". I PM6: The major· drainage system is to be designed by a qualified person in accordance with the requirements of the drainage authority. In the event of an inconsistency between this Code and the requirements of the I authority, the requirements of the authority will prevail". PC4: after "existing" add "down-stream flows are restricted to pre-development flows and that". I Shire of Diamond Valley. Need to define minor and major drainage systems. PM2 ( 12a) and its 2 year recurrence interval could mean that drainage systems might be overtaxed. A number of performance measures I and criteria directly conflict with objectives. Experience shows that due to topography and large catchment areas, a 10 year recurrence level is I I SR 1 Panel Report 20/1/92 127 I required, or alternatively, a 5 year recurrence level if a in 100 year floodway is provided. I Easement drains should be designed to cope with the whole property, and not just for roofed areas. Shire of Lillydale. PM7: drainage pit spacing should be ·at less than I 90m. Suggest 50m on private properties and 80m in streets. Drainage pipe cover should be increased to .45m. PM should specify mm1mum sized pipe (currently 300mm). I Opposed to swale drains, based on experience in residential areas 3.3.13.2. DEPARTMENT COMMENTARY AND SUGGESTED MODIFICATIONS. I Several submissions requested definitions of minor and major stormwater flows. The inclusion of such definitions was supported by the Department. I Submissions from Melbourne Water, OVA and Energy Victoria requested a broadening of the objectives to encourage improved II environmental practices in drainage prov1s1on. The Department supports such a broadening, noting that this will improve consistency with element EO. I, The major concerns were in relation to the definition of rainfall intensity (PM2) to be used for designing drainage systems, with consistent submissions, principally from C: uncils, requesting 50% AEP be changed to I 20% AEP. The Department undeHook ··additional investigation on this aspect. This investigation . revealed that until the mid 1980's I "acceptable" drainage· design practice was to provide for AEP of 20% in minor drainage systems. · A research study into Drainage Management In Residential Subdivision (Scott & Furphy et t~l, 1989) concluded that there was I no basis for this criteria and that for cost dfectiveness minor drainage systems for densities less than 20 dwellings per hectare should be based on an AEP of 50%. This contention ·was supported by previous studies, in particular by the report by John Argue titled "Stormwater Drainage in Small I Urban Catchments - 1986". However there does appear some justification for modifications where a larger catchment is encountered and the Department believes where overland flows exceed 0.4 m2 per sec. then piping to 20% AEP I is considered appropriate. The Department considered that Objective 4 should be expanded I to relate to retarding basins. It should be noted that this objective also raised issues in relation to definition of land that may be counted as public open · space if it had a dual use. The Department considered including a modified version of the Table to page 10 of the RDPs relating to dual use contribution, I and including it under PCI to EIO. However after examination it was not regarded as appropriate to allow a reduction from the 5% unencumbered minimum, as this figure only partially provides open space needs. The belief I was held that Councils requmng higher percentage would be free to negotiate whether such dual use could be counted. I As a result of reviewing the written and presented submissions, and noting issues raised by the Panel during the hearing, the Department brought forward to the Panel the following suggested modifications:- I I I I SR 1 Panel Report 20/1/92 128 I 1. Objectives. 04 makes reference to dual use open space opportunities and should be expanded to relate to retarding basins. • revise 06 to promote improved environmental approaches to I drainage design. relating to pollutants collection and minimizing down stream runoff increase. I 2. Performance Criteria. • the AEP of 50% is to be retained in PCl but the PC should be expanded I to indicate where overland flows exceed· 0.4 m2 per sec. then piping to 20% AEP is considered appropriate. • modify wording in PClO to refer to a "qualified person". PC3 should be revised to elaborate on the appropriate "fail-safe I mechanism". The following wording should be substituted:- PCJ. The minor drainage system to be designed so that any overflow will be directed to the major drainage system I without causing damage to property nor affecting the safety of people." • Re PC4: Melbourne Water has requested that PC4 be reworded to: I "downstream flows be restricted to pre-development levels". This is supported in principle but not supported as an absolute requirement, as in some cases receiving waters can accept higher flows and the I responsible drainage . authority can determine this. Therefore the wording is considered appropriate wi'.~Y the additional words "unless otherwise agreed to by the responsible drainage authority". • add a new PC to require drainage networks to be designed to provide I for the collection . and removal of silt and debris at accessible locations. · The "following ·is· suggested:- PC7. Drainage networks to be designed to mlnlm!ze potential I for accumulation of silt and debris. and provide for its collection and removal at accessible locations." I 3. Performance Measures. •. PM2 should be retained substantially as it is, with modifications to include overland flow criteria, which. if not met, will require piping I to 20% AEP. To PM2 add:- "Where the gap flows exceed the criterion of da v ave < 0.4m2Jsec. (where da is the mean flow depth and vave is I the mean flow velocity) a rainfall intensity derived for the area based on an AEP of 20% for suburban residential lots with gross residential areas not greater than 20 lots per hectare and AEP of 10% for gross residential densities I greater than 20 lots per hectare." • PM5 has generated a range of comments relating to the difficulty of connecting house drainage to rollover kerbs. However this is I possible using a special connection. PM5 should also be expanded to allow for on-site infiltration of stormwater where soil permeability is adequate and an on-site infiltration (soak) pit is provided. I • Requests to delete PM4 relating to swale drains are not supported. Swale drains can provide an environmentally attractive and cost effective solution under the conditions specified. • in PM7 the DVA and Melbourne Water requested an increase in I freeboard of 0.3m to 0.6m. Further discussions have been held on this I matter and the DV A/Melbourne Water are prepared to accept the 0.3 I SR I Panel Report 20/l/92 129 I metres with the proviso that where plastic pipes are used the cover should be 0.45 metres. PM7 makes . reference to drainage pits but does I not provide standardized requirements. Two submittors requested these be standardized. Drainage pits refers to side entry pits, grated pits and junction pits. There is no basis for standardization as pit sizes and types will vary depending on soil types, flow values and I depths of pipes. add a new PM requmng the drainage system to be designed by a qualified person in accordance with the requirements of the I relevant drainage authority. • add new PM to require drainage pits which provide for the collection of silt debris and litter at locations nominated by the responsible drainage authority. I 4. Diagrams. I • consider inclusion of Table B 12.1 (page 91, AMCORD) to specify . the relationship between · AEP and assets protected. • the diagram on page 52 should be captioned, and in relation to lots I draining to the front (HIA), arrows should point to the front with inclusory note stating 'flows directed to the street where topography is suitable". • .add diagram to illustrate PM5 connections from house drains to kerbs, I or add to· diagram E9.1 on pavement edge profiles. 5 .. Definitions. I • add definition of "minor" and "major" storm water flows and definition of "inter-lot drainage" as follows: I "Minor flows means "those flows derived from rainfall intensities of AEPs of 50, 20 and 10% as specified and which are controlled by the use of piped drainage, gutters, swales, I soakage pits or small on-site retarding basins and s ~all water quality control systems. Major flows means those flows derived from rainfall intensities in excess of AEP's of 50%, 20% and 10% as I specified and which are controlled by the use of trunk drainage, floodway channels, street pavements, reserves, retarding basins, large water quality control system, I streams and open areas serving a dual purpose. Inter-lot drainage means drainage systems which run fro'm the r.ear or side boundary of a lot to the rear or side boundary of an adjacent lot." I 3.3.13.3 PANEL COMMENTARY. I The Panel considers that the proposed modifications brought forward by the Department, following consideration of submissions and matters raised by the Panel during the hearing, deal adequately with main substantive issues and the Panel supports such suggested modifications. I In addition to the earlier Departmental remarks the Panel offers commentary as outlined below. I Cover over Drainage Pipes - PM7. Minor Stormwater flows. I Some submittors considered that 300mm was insufficient protection over drainage pipes and could cause problems with house I I I SR I Panel Report 20/1/92 130 connections. The 300mm is the minimum cover in lots and there is a 750mm I minimum below top of kerbs in streets. The Panel had some concern as to the adequateness of the cover I requirement and sought substantive input from Melbourne Water and the DV A on this aspect. As indicated in the Department of Planning and Housing commentary subsequent investigation by those bodies (now operating in coalesced form) indicated that 0.3 was acceptable except where plastic piping I was used and that in such an instance the· ground level should be increased to 0.45 m. The Panel is supportive of this modification. I Design of Minor Drainage systems. Dandenong Valley Authority requested that for Minor Drainage I systems an AEP of 50% be used where drainage systems have an upstream catchment less than 10 ha. and a 20% AEP for drainage systems for upstream catchments greater than IOha. This request was supported by Melbourne I Water. The Panel accepts the reasoning that amenity, safety and health factors may necessitate an AEP greater than 50% but the use of an area as the I sole criteria irrespective of the other factors involved may be an oversimplification of the decision making process. Following additional commentary by Melbourne Water and the DV A and a review by · the I Department of Planning and Housing of such commentary (See specific reference in Departmental commer::~ary to a background research study) the suggested modifications to PCI and PM2 appear reasonable. I This . aspect should be kept under annual review if Vic Code is brought into operation. I Qualified De<;igner. Some submissions were received on the need to ensure duly qualified drainage designers only be used and this is strongly endorsed by I the Panel. The need for the design of drainage works to be undertaken by I properly qualified persons is obvious and means more than just a forn:tal qualification. It is essential that such designers have an understanding of and experience in both the objectives of VicCode and the appropriate I drainage design methodology. Vic Code has the potential to open new horizons in urban planning and it is essential that practitioners using it be fully alert to its potential and objectives. I 3.3.13.4 Panel recommendations. I The following modifications should be made to Element E 12A:- I. Objectives. I 04 makes reference to dual use open space opportunities and should be expanded to relate to retarding basins. • revise 06 to promote improved environmental approaches to I· drainage design, relating to pollutants collection and minimizing downstream runoff increase. I I SR I Panel Report 20/1/92 I 3 I I 2. Performance Criteria. I • the AEP of 50% is to be retained in PCI but the PC should be expanded to indicate where overland flows exceed 0.4 m2 per sec. then piping to 20% AEP is considered appropriate. • modify wording in PCIO to refer to a "qualified person". I PC3 should be revised to elaborate on the appropriate "fail-safe mechanism". The following wording should be substituted:- PC3. The minor drainage system to be designed so that any I overflow will be directed to the major drainage system without causing damage to property nor affecting the safety of people." I • Re PC4: Should be reworded to include:- "downstream flows be restricted to pre-development levels unless otherwise agreed to by the responsible drainage authority". I • add a new PC to require drainage networks to be designed to provide for the-- collection and removal of silt and debris at accessible locations. The following is suggested:- I "PC7. Drainage networks to be designed to minimize potential for accumulation of silt and debris, and provide for its collection and removal at accessible locations." I 3. Performance Measures. PM~' should be retained substantially as it is, with modifications to I include overland flow criteria, which, if not met, will require piping to 20% AEP. To PM2 add:- "Where the gap flows exceed the criterion of da v ave < I 0.4m21sec. (where da is -the mean flow depth and vave is the mean flow velocity) a rainfall intensity derived for the area based on an AEP of 20% for suburban residential lots I with gross residential areas not greater than 20 lots per hectare and AEP of 10% for gross residential densities greater than 20 lots per hectare." • PM5 should also be expanded to allow for on-site infiltration of I stormwater where soil permeability is adequate and an on-site infiltration (soak) pit is provided. • PM7 should embody a provision that where plastic pipes are used the I cover should be 0.45 metres. • add a new PM requiring the drainage system to be designed by a qualified person in accordance with the requirements of the I relevant drainage authority. • add new PM to require drainage pits which provide for the collection of silt debris and litter at locations nominated by the responsible drainage authority. I 4. Diagrams. I • Include Table B_I2.1 (page 91, AMCORD) to specify the relationship between AEP and assets protected. • The diagram on page 52 should be captioned, and in relation to lots I draining to the front arrows should point to the front with inclusory note stating "flows directed to the street where topography is suitable". add diagram to illustrate PM5 connections from house drains to kerbs, I or add to diagram E9.1 on pavement edge profiles. I I I SR I Panel Report 20/1/92 132 I 5. Definitions. • add definition of "tninor" and "major" storm water flows and ·definition of "inter-lot drainage" as follows: I "Minor flows means. those flows derived from rainfall intensities of AEPs of 50%, 20% and 10% as specified and which are controlled by the use of piped drainage, gutters, swales, soakage pits or small on-sire retarding basins and I small water quality control systems. Major flows means those flows derived from rainfall intensities in excess of AEP's of 50%, 20% and 10% as I specified and which are controlled by the use of trunk drainage, floodway channels, street pavements, reserves, retarding basins, large water quality control system, streams and open areas serving a dual purpose. I Inter-lot drainage means drainage systems which run from the rear or side boundary of a lor to the rear of side I boundary of an adjacent lor." I I I I I I I I I I I I I SR 1 Panel Report 20/1/92 133 I 3.3.14 Element El2(b) - Major stormwater flows. I 3.3.14.1. SYNOPSIS OF COMMENTARY IN SUBMISSIONS. I Refer to the synopsis details in 3. 3. 13. I under Element 12(a) where submissions in respect of both Element 12(a) and 12(b) were set out. 3.3.14.2. DEPARTMENT COMMENTARY AND SUGGESTED MODIFICATIONS WHERE I CONSIDERED APPROPRIATE. As in 12(a) submittors proposed a broadening of the objectives I to cover environmental issues and this was supponed. Melbourne Water also proposed that drainage systems be designed by a qualified person to the requirements of the drainage authority, and that if these requirements I differ from VicCode, then the drainage authority's requirements should prevail. As a result of reviewing the written and presented submissions, I and noting issues raised by the Panel during the hearing, the Department brought forward io the Panel the following suggested modifications:- I 1. Objectives. This section needs re-working to ensure that the relationship I between Objectives, Performance Crit~ria and Performance Measures is similar to other elements, i.e. relating to increased levels of specificity. • modify the wording o£,.. 08: .to . strengthen it. in terms of environmental I approaches to drainage · design. 2. Performance Criteria. I OVA and Melbourne Water want the floor levels in PC3 to be varied, with Melbourne Water wanting 0.6m and OVA wanting flexibility to I set the level. A wording for consideration is: "0.3m or other level to a maximum of 0.6 m as defined by the responsible drainage authority." This PC should be cross referenced to element E2 Building Siting and I Design.· • PC4 refe,rs to a "gap flow". This should be asterisked and explained as per AMCORD, p91. or given a definition. I • add new PC requiring that the major drainage system be designed to ensure that the downstream flows be restricted to pre-development levels, unless a higher level is agreed to by the responsible drainage I authority. 3. Performance Measures. I • consider whether PC2 and PC3 should be PMs and cross referenced to Element E2. • in PM4 add units of measure for the components of the formula. I • add an additional PM requiring that:- · "the major drainage system is to be designed by a qualified person in accordance with the requirements of the responsible drainage authority" I I I I SR I Panel Report 20/1/92 134 I 4. Diagrams. consider relocating diagram on p53 to p55 as it principally applies to I major flows. 3.3.14.3. PANEL COMMENTARY. The Panel considers that the proposed modifications brought I forward by the Department, following consideration of submissions and matters raised by the Panel during the hearing, deal adequately with main I substantive issues and the Panel supports such suggested modifications. The Panel offers specific commentary on the matter of flood I level freeboard. Floor Level Freeboard. The Shire of Cranbourne recommended that habitable rooms I should have floor levels to a minimum of 600mm above flood levels whilst the Dandenong Valley Authority recommended that habitable rooms should have noor levels above the estimated level resulting from a I% AEP flood to the I satisfaction of the relevant drainage authority. They claimed that backwater curves, wave action etc. cannot be be predicted to a sufficient degree of accuracy and depending on the catchment cross section and other factors I 300mm may not be enough. It was indicated by the Authority that the usual practice was to set floor level 600mm above the I% flood level. The Panel accepts that there are accuracy limitations in the I calculation of flood levels and that it is not an exact science. It can be claimed there is sufficient knowledge available to enable an experienced and competent designer to critically assess each catchment and make a balanced -I assessment of the flood level. The 300mm freeb0ard above a declared flood level is widely accepted throughout Australia for "'oth wide and narrow catchment cross sections. I However in the light of the commentary offered by both Melbourne Water and the DV A the Panel is prepared to support the modification to PC3 which brought forward by the Department of Planning I and Housing which extends a degree of discretion. It should be noted that Melbourne Water stressed at the Panel hearing that it had not actively sought a variation but that it was prepared to lend support to the view of the I OVA. The Panel has taken this stance as it considers prudence is vital on this aspect and it is preferable to err on. the side of conservatism and I allow . refinement at later stage rather than be endeavouring to reverse the process at a later stage. I 3.3.14.4 Panel recommendations. I The following modifications should be made to Element E I2 B:- 1. Objectives. This section needs re-working to ensure that the relationship I between Objectives, Performance Criteria and Performance Measures is similar to other elements, i.e. relating to increased levels of I specificity. I .. SR 1 Panel Report 20/1/92 135 I modify the wording of 08 to strengthen it in terms of environmental approaches to drainage design. I 2. Performance Criteria. I o PC3 should be varied to read:- "0.3m or other level to a maximum of 0.6 m as defined by the responsible drainage authority." This PC should be cross referenced to element E2 Building Siting and I Design. o PC4 refers to a "gap flow". This should be asterisked and explained as per AMCORD, p91, or given a definiiion. I o add new PC requiring that the major drainage system be designed to ensure that the downstream flows be restricted to pre-development levels, unless agreed to by the responsible drainage authority. I 3. Performance· Measures. o PC2 and PC3 should become PMs and cross referenced to Element E2. I o in PM4 add units of measure for the components of the formula. o add an additional PM requiring that:- "the major drainage system is to be designed by a qualified I person in accordance with the requirements of the responsible drainage authority" 4. Diagrams. I consider relocating diagram on p53 to p55 as it principally applies to major flows. I I I I I I I I I I --z..... !I SR 1 Panel Report 20/l/92 136 I 4. Matters for ongoing review of VicCode.· Earlier in the Panel report reference has been made by the Panel to the fact that it considers a need to exist for an ongoing review of VicCode. The Panel again wishes to stress the importance of such a review I process. VicCode is directed towards setting in place a set of very detailed planning controls over residential development and it is utterly imperative that the results of such planning controls are overseen to ensure that the I objectives are being attained. It is envisaged that this review would operate at two levels. One level would relate to matters of some degree of urgency which emerge as I warranting immediate attention to fine tune VicCode, as undoubtedly a document as complex as VicCode, allied with a new processing system, will I result in a number of minor changes. The second level would cover matters which merit longer term studies to appraise the impact of VicCode and to evaluate the principles on I which VicCode is founded. The Panel has endeavoured to highlight in its report topic which it believes as falling into this level. The following topic areas received specific mention by the Panel and a collated listing is as set I out below:- 1. Element EO may require a reappraisal or extension of its objectives and criteria. Reference to this fact is found in I Panel commentary under Element EO. 2. The treatment of parking and its adequacy is deemed as meriting close monitoring. The actual impact of decisions on I this aspect will not emerge until households are formed and have matured and this feature will in essence require a long term study. Nevertheless trends may emerge. 3. The operation of Element E5 Streetscape should receive close I scrutiny. 4. The topic of setbacks will require further attention. A number of submittors sought a reduction in the setback I distances and the Department tended to support such proposition. The Panel did not accept the need to vary significantly the setback distances at this juncture on the grounds that Councils should be given the opportunity to I have further input on this topic. (Refer to Panel commentary under Element E5.) 5. The topic of Trunk Collectors and their actual role was a I subject of significant discussion during the Panel hearing. The treatment of traffic should be monitored and an appraisal made as to whether the objectives relating to traffic I movement are being achieved. In addition attention should be paid as to the form of development, if any, which should be permitted on Trunk Collectors. 6. The Panel made detailed commentary on Public Open Space I (Refer to Panel Commentary under Element ElO) and it indicated quite clearly that this aspect required immediate consideration in any proposed review. I 7. The topic of privacy and attitudes to privacy in development. on VicCode subdivisions should be monitored to determine if I any action is required in this area. I I ...,. \ 1 SR 1 Panel Report 20/1/92 137 I 4.1 Panel Recommendation. I Yiccode should be subject to continual review and as a result of the Panel findings the Panel brings forward the following topics for initial I consideration:- 1. Element EO may require a reappraisal or an extension of its objectives and criteria. Reference to this fact is found in Panel commentary under Element EO. I 2. The treatment of parking and its adequacy is deemed as meriting close monitoring. The actual impact of decisions on this aspect will not emerge until households are formed and I matured and this feature will in essence require a long term study. Nevertheless trends may emerge. 3. The operation of Element E5 Streetscape should receive close scrutiny. I 4. The topic of setbacks will require further attention. A number of submitters sought a reduction in the setback distances and the Department tended to support such I proposition. The Panel did not accept the need to vary significantly the setback distances as exhibited at this juncture on the grounds that Councils should be given the I opportunity to have further input on this topic. (Refer to Panel commentary under Element E5.) 5. The topic of Trunk Collectors and their actual role was a subject of significant discussion during the Panel hearing. I The treatment of traffic should be monitored and an appraisal made as to whether the objectives relating to traffic movement are being achieved. In addition attention should I be paid as" to the forn'i''·:of development, if any, which should be permitted on Trunk Collectors. 6. The Panel made detailed commentary on Public Open Space I (Refer to · "nel Commentary under ·Element E I 0) and it indicated quite clearly that this aspect required immediate consideration in any proposed review. 7. The topic of privacy and attitudes to privacy in development I on YicCode subdivisions should be monitored to determine if any action is required in this area. I I I I I I I I! I SR 1 Panel Report 2011/92 1 3 8 II NUMERCIAL LIST OF SUBMITTORS 1 Albury Wodonga Development Corporation I 2 Latrobe Regional Commission 3 City of Brighton 4 Coburg City Council I 5 City of Moe 6 WHackett 7 Ballarat Water Board 8 Public Transport Corporation I 9 Telecom Australia 10 Upper Yarra Valley & Dandenong Ranges Authority 11 Vic Roads I 12 Education- Western Metropolitan Region I 13 City of Berwick 14 " Shire of Buninyong 11· 15 Shire of Cranbourne 16 Shire of Eltham 17 Shire of Gisborne 18 Outer Eastern Municipalities Association II 19 .Shire of Mount Rouse 20 Geelong West the Heritage City 21 Municipal Association of Victoria I 22 Sorrento-Portsea-Blairgowrie Conservation Group :) 23 Contour 24 Petcare I 25 R Spragg 26 · ·" Housing Industry Association 27 Urban Development Institute of Australia 28 City of Frankston I 29 Shire of Pakenham City of Ringwood 30 ' 31 Foreshore Residents' Association I 32 K Courtis 33 Shire of Hastings 34 Ms L Broornhall 35 Shire of Flinders I 36 City of Knox 37 City of Prahran 38 Mahon & Mahon Pty Ltd I 39 City of Altona 40 City of Footscray 41 SEC I 42 Master Builders Assocation of Victoria 43 City of Croydon 44 City of Springvale 45 Country Fire Authority I 46 City of Essendon 47 Shire of Sherbrooke 48 Collie Planning and Development I 49 Barrabool Shire 50 City of Broadrneadows 51 Shire of Kilmore I 52 City of Whittlesea 53 Energy Victoria 54 Shire of Mornington ·55 Shire of Strathfieldsaye I 56 Dandenong Valley & Westernport Authority I .._._ ~ '1 SR 1 Panel Report 20/1/92 139 I PLANNING ANP J;PA UBRARY I 57 Melbourne Water 58 Shire of Diamond Valley 59 . Shire of Lillydale 60 Residential Developments I 61 Wonga Park & Disnict Residents Association 62 City of Melbourne 63 Loder & Bayly I 64 Mr/Ms Goodfellow 65 Collins Riding Ratepayers Association Inc 66 SEC I 67 Sweetnam Godfrey and Ord 68 City of Swan Hill I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I·