Planning and Environment Act 1987
AMENDMENT C2 BAYSIDE PLANNING SCHEME
Report of a Panel Pursuant to Sections 153, 155 and 157 of the Act
Panel:
Ms Kathryn Mitchell, Chair Mr John Keaney Ms Pauline Semmens
August 2001
Bayside Planning Scheme: Amendment C2 Report of a Panel: August 2001
AMENDMENT C2 BAYSIDE PLANNING SCHEME
Report of a Panel Pursuant to Sections 153, 155 and 157 of the Act
Ms Kathryn Mitchell, Chair
Mr John Keaney, Member
Ms Pauline Semmens, Member
August 2001
TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE NO. 2 Bayside Planning Scheme: Amendment C2 Report of a Panel: August 2001
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 5
1. THE PANEL ...... 8
1.1 THE PANEL...... 8 1.2 DIRECTIONS HEARING...... 8 1.3 SITE VISITS ...... 9 1.4 PROCEDURAL MATTERS ...... 9 1.5 OBLIGATIONS ...... 9 2. THE STRATEGIC BASIS OF AMENDMENT C2 ...... 11
2.1 BASIS OF NEW FORMAT PLANNING SCHEMES ...... 11 2.2 CITY OF BAYSIDE RESIDENTIAL STRATEGY (1999)...... 12 2.3 CITY OF BAYSIDE URBAN CHARACTER REPORT (1999) ...... 14 2.4 CITY OF BAYSIDE VEGETATION CHARACTER ASSESSMENT (1999)...... 15 2.5 CITY OF BAYSIDE HEIGHT CONTROL STUDY (2000) ...... 16 3. THE AMENDMENT ...... 18
3.1 THE EXHIBITED AMENDMENT C2...... 18 3.2 AMENDMENT C2 IN SUMMARY...... 20 3.3 THE MODIFIED AMENDMENT C2*...... 21 4. A SNAPSHOT OF BAYSIDE...... 23
5. SUBMISSIONS AND HEARINGS ...... 26
5.1 EXHIBITION AND SUBMISSIONS ...... 26 5.2 SUBMISSIONS MADE TO THE PANEL ...... 26 5.3 SUMMARY OF KEY ISSUES...... 29 6. PLANNING CONTEXT ...... 31
6.1 RESCODE ...... 31 6.2 STATE POLICY PLANNING FRAMEWORK...... 38 6.3 STRATEGIC ASSESSMENT GUIDELINES – SPPF...... 40 6.4 MUNICIPAL STRATEGIC STATEMENT...... 42 6.5 STRATEGIC ASSESSMENT GUIDELINES - MSS ...... 44 6.6 LOCAL PLANNING POLICIES ...... 46 6.7 MINISTERIAL DIRECTIONS – LOCAL VARIATIONS ...... 49 7. POPULATION AND HOUSING ...... 54
8. HEIGHT ...... 60
8.1 EXISTING HEIGHT CONTROLS IN BAYSIDE ...... 60 3 Bayside Planning Scheme: Amendment C2 Report of a Panel: August 2001
8.2 BAYSIDE HEIGHT CONTROL STUDY ...... 61 8.3 BAYSIDE URBAN CHARACTER REPORT ...... 65 8.4 EXHIBITED AND PROPOSED HEIGHT CONTROLS ...... 66 8.5 HEIGHT CONTROLS AND RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS...... 67 8.6 HEIGHT CONTROLS IN NEW FORMAT PLANNING SCHEMES ...... 68 8.7 FORESHORE HEIGHT CONTROL...... 73 8.8 INLAND HEIGHT CONTROL ...... 73 8.9 COMMERCIAL AREA HEIGHT CONTROL ...... 76 8.10 NODE/GATEWAY HEIGHT CONTROL ...... 78 9. DENSITY ...... 81
9.1 EXISTING AND PROPOSED DENSITY CONTROLS IN BAYSIDE...... 81 9.2 DENSITY CONTROLS IN NEW FORMAT PLANNING SCHEMES ...... 83 9.3 DENSITY ANALYSIS...... 87 10. VEGETATION PROTECTION OVERLAY...... 89
10.1 PROPOSED VEGETATION PROTECTION OVERLAY ...... 89 10.2 VEGETATION ANALYSIS ...... 94 11. PANEL CONCLUSIONS...... 98
12. PANEL RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 101
APPENDICES
1. Letter from Directions Hearing and Panel Timetable.
2. Exhibited Amendment C2.
3. List of Submittors to Amendments C2 and C2*.
4. Minutes of Council Meeting - 23 October 2000.
5. Modified Panel DDO (Height).
4 Bayside Planning Scheme: Amendment C2 Report of a Panel: August 2001
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1. In 1997, the then Minister for Planning and Local Government announced that all planning schemes in Victoria were to be changed to give them a more explicit strategic basis. The Victoria Planning Provisions (VPPs) provided the “model” structure for the new schemes. In the late 1990s all council schemes in Victoria were exhibited and were evaluated by an Independent Panel and Advisory Committee. The “new format” schemes were gradually introduced over a two year period from October 1998. The new format Bayside Planning Scheme was gazetted on 24 February 2000.
2. When the Minister introduced the Bayside scheme it contained a number of requirements of Council to conduct further research into important matters in the municipality. This further work included the preparation of a housing strategy to guide future residential development in the municipality.
3. Bayside City Council promptly set about the task of conducting a “Residential Strategy”. In the same context they also conducted an Urban Character Report; a Vegetation Study and a Height Control Study. These studies were all the subject of extensive community input. The Panel compliments Council for its commitment to undertaking this research.
4. At the completion of the strategic work, Council sought to implement the findings by exhibiting Amendment C2 to the Bayside Planning Scheme.
5. Council regarded Amendment C2 as an exhibited amendment without giving it its full endorsement. Council wished to assess community input before endorsing the amendment.
6. The amendment was exhibited for two months in June and July 2000 and it attracted 136 submissions.
7. At its meeting on 23rd October 2000, Council considered Amendment C2 and the submissions which had been made to it. Council decided to make substantial changes to Amendment C2. This version became known as Amendment C2* and it is this version which has the support of Council. The Panel regards Amendment C2* as Bayside Council’s submission to the exhibited Amendment C2.
8. An Independent Panel was convened to hear submissions and, at the Directions Hearing on 6 February 2001, it directed that the changes to the amendment made as result of the 23 October 2000 Council meeting be informally exhibited to all submittors. A further 236 submissions were received.
9. The Independent Panel then conducted public hearings at Bayside City Council in May 2001. The Panel also inspected numerous sites within Bayside during and after the hearings.
5 Bayside Planning Scheme: Amendment C2 Report of a Panel: August 2001
10. In June 2000, at much the same time as Amendment C2 was exhibited, the State Government released for public comment the “ResCode” consultation draft which was intended to replace the two existing residential “codes” in place in Victoria being the “Good Design Guide” and “VicCode 1”. ResCode was the subject of extensive community consultation and was also the subject of an Independent Advisory Committee Report that considered the consultation draft and all submissions made to it. The Committee completed its report to the Minister for Planning in December 2000, and it was publicly released in January 2001.
11. At the Directions Hearing for Amendment C2 in February 2001, the Panel noted that ResCode, in some shape or form, was likely to be approved during 2001, and that it may have profound implications for Amendment C2. Council advised the Panel that despite the imminent approval of ResCode, Council wished to proceed with the amendment.
12. The final ResCode was publicly released on 24 May 2001, two days after the final day of hearings for Amendment C2. ResCode is anticipated to be in operation by the end of August 2001.
13. The Panel finds that ResCode fundamentally alters the residential planning framework for all municipalities. In terms of Amendment C2, the changes are very significant in that, on the one hand it makes some of Amendment C2 redundant; yet on the other hand it enables Bayside to quite easily convert some of its strategic work into a form that will greatly assist Council in making decisions on residential development applications under ResCode. The clear direction provided by ResCode is for a Council to establish a “preferred character” statement for areas within its municipality. Bayside Council has effectively done this already in their Urban Character Report but surprisingly, this research did not feature prominently in Amendment C2. The Panel believes that this is the path that Council needs to follow rather than have endless amount of prescription, much of which is already covered by ResCode anyway.
14. The Panel finds that Amendment C2 (but not Amendment C2*) is a reasonably accurate reflection of the strategic research, and that it translates this research into a workable statutory document that can complement ResCode
15. The Panel supports Amendment C2 subject to the modifications detailed (in summary) below which should enable Council to adequately influence residential development outcomes in its municipality;
• MSS – Strengthen the MSS in its vision and housing sections to provide the reader with a snapshot of Councils housing strategy using much of the exhibited housing policy. Further modifications are to include up to date and general population projections; and to include much stronger reference to the issue of neighbourhood character and preferred height. • Local Policies - Delete the exhibited “housing” and “height” policies as they serve no useful purpose. Give consideration, in the context of ResCode, to including new policies
6 Bayside Planning Scheme: Amendment C2 Report of a Panel: August 2001
based on the Urban Character Report or alternatively, making the Urban Character Report and Guidelines an Incorporated Document; • Height Controls (DDO1) – Retain the mandatory height controls in the foreshore areas. Retain height controls in the commercial areas and the identified “nodes” consistent with the exhibited Amendment C2. Delete any form of height control in the inland residential areas including Black Rock and Beaumaris as there is no strategic justification for them and there is no demonstrable need for them. • Design and Development Overlay No. 2 – Delete this control as much of its content is adequately addressed in ResCode. • Density Controls – Delete all reference to density as there is no justification for such controls. • Local Variations – Delete any references to local variations as they are no longer contemplated by ResCode. Some of the elements of the variations are supported in principle and may be considered for inclusion in a future schedule to the Residential 1 zone or in a local policy dealing with neighbourhood character. • Vegetation Protection Controls – Retain the exhibited controls subject to minor wording changes consistent with Amendment C2*. • Other – Rewrite all controls as per recommendations.
16. The Panel has given the Amendment C2* changes the same status that it has to any other submissions received to the amendment. The Panel does not support any of the suggested changes of Amendment C2* other than for the vegetation overlay. The Panel finds that the suggested Amendment C2* changes have little strategic justification and arbitrarily impose planning controls in response to submissions which are at odds with Council’s own strategic research.
17. The Panel finds that Amendment C2 (but not Amendment C2*) enables Council to meet its “urban consolidation” responsibilities under the State Planning Policy Framework of the Bayside Planning Scheme.
18. The Panel concludes that Bayside is an attractive residential destination with much to offer in terms of access to the bay, proximity to public transport, excellent range of schools, local shopping, access to regional shopping and provision of open spaces. In addition to this, there is an aging population in the municipality and there will inevitably be a requirement for more diverse housing. The Panel believes that Amendment C2 would help deliver the modest population increases which will enable people to take advantage of all of these assets. The Panel cannot reach the same conclusion with Amendment C2* as it would have the effect of stifling development in favour of retention of the status quo.
7 Bayside Planning Scheme: Amendment C2 Report of a Panel: August 2001
1. THE PANEL
1.1 The Panel Under the provisions of Sections 153, 155 and 157 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, a Panel was appointed under delegation from the Minister for Planning on 24 November 2000 to hear and consider submissions about Amendment C2 to the Bayside Planning Scheme. It consisted of Ms Kathryn Mitchell (Chair), Ms Margaret Pitt and Ms Pauline Semmens. Following an initial Directions Hearing and due to the later than anticipated timing of the hearing for this amendment, the original Panel appointed was amended on 21 March 2001 to replace Ms Pitt with Mr John Keaney.
The Panel met in the Council Offices of the City of Bayside for seven hearing days, these being 7, 8, 9, 10, 14, 15 and 16 May 2001 to hear submissions in respect of Amendment C2 to the Bayside Planning Scheme. In addition the Panel heard final submissions in the form of concluding comments by the Council on 22 May 2001.
In reaching its conclusions and recommendations, the Panel has read and considered all submissions and a range of other material referred to it in relation to the amendment. This includes written submissions and verbal presentations.
1.2 Directions Hearing
Two Directions Hearing were held in relation to this amendment. The first Directions Hearing was held on 6 February 2001 where the Panel made a number of observations about the intent and form of the amendment. It noted that the Council had undertaken an enormous amount of research and work in getting the amendment to this stage. It further said that the Panel would need to be satisfied that the proposed amendment to the Municipal Strategic Statement and the introduction of the new local policies and overlays are consistent with the broad philosophy and intent of the VPPS. A key issue raised at this Directions Hearing was the timing of the amendment in the context of the ResCode Advisory Committee report which was released in January 2001.
The ResCode Advisory Committee report made a number of recommendations that directly impinged on Amendment C2. At the time of the first Directions Hearing, the Minister for Planning was seeking to announce his final recommendations on ResCode towards the end of March, and it was the suggestion of the Panel that the hearing be deferred until after that time so that the Council could review their amendment in the context of the emerging position on ResCode. It was also suggested that the Council work with the Department of Infrastructure to provide the Panel with a proposal for transition of its amendment to ResCode where appropriate.
All parties at the Directions Hearing generally agreed with this proposition as put by the Panel and it was agreed to defer the hearing to a time later in April.
Another issue raised was that the Council had considered the amendment and submissions made to it at its meeting on 23 October 2000, and it had made a number of resolutions which in effect resulted in a modified amendment. Some of the submittors at the Directions Hearing were concerned about the change in the position of Council, while others submitted that while they had 8 Bayside Planning Scheme: Amendment C2 Report of a Panel: August 2001 not made a formal submission about the exhibited amendment, they would like the opportunity to make a submission about the modified amendment. The Panel directed that the Council notify all submittors of the proposed changes and provide an opportunity for further submissions.
The Panel further suggested that in order to take the amendment further and to assist with the transition process to ResCode, the Council could recommend to the Department of Infrastructure that it be appointed as an Advisory Committee, but this suggestion was not taken up.
A second Directions Hearing was held on 6 April 2001 where the Panel established the hearing dates and venue, and made a number of directions about the conduct of the hearing. A copy of the letter that outlined those directions and the final timetable is attached as Appendix 1.
1.3 Site Visits
The Panel has undertaken a number of unaccompanied site visits of the municipality and of specific areas within Bayside that have been the subject of discussion and debate. The Panel visited major sites and places referred to it, and in particular, it requested submittors to provide it with addresses of places considered to represent examples of appropriate and inappropriate development so that it could see first hand those places within the municipality that either caused or did not cause concern in relation to recent development. The Panel found these views informed them of the varied opinions about development in the municipality and it was interesting that in some cases, what submittors saw as appropriate development, the Panel thought otherwise. Conversely the Panel did not accept that all the examples put forward as inappropriate development were in fact inappropriate. It is clear that there are divergent views on the form of development in Bayside, and that the subjective nature of opinions has contributed to the rigorous debate about the amendment under consideration.
1.4 Procedural Matters
The only procedural matter to arise during the course of the Panel Hearing that warrants any comment concerned Council’s failure to distribute material in accordance with the Panel’s directions. At the Directions hearing, the Panel identified that one of its key issues upon reading the supporting material for the amendment was for Council to indicate how the population increases were to be housed. In response, Mr Montebello indicated on behalf of Council, that Council would provide more up to date information. In effect this information was for a reduced population figure based on revised figures prepared by Dr Wolinski. The Panel was not provided with this report as part of the exchanged material, and it was not submitted to the Panel until the commencement of the hearing. The Panel noted for the record that it was disappointed that Council had not adequately circulated this information.
1.5 Obligations
The Panel has considered all written submissions to Amendment C2, and all submissions presented to it at the hearing in reaching its conclusions and recommendations.
The Panel is generally satisfied that the City of Bayside has fulfilled its basic obligations under the Planning and Environment Act 1987 in processing Amendment C2 and that no party which made
9 Bayside Planning Scheme: Amendment C2 Report of a Panel: August 2001 a submission has been denied its right to be heard in respect of the amendment and in having its submission considered.
10 Bayside Planning Scheme: Amendment C2 Report of a Panel: August 2001
2. THE STRATEGIC BASIS OF AMENDMENT C2
In 1997, the then Minister for Planning and Local Government announced that all planning schemes in Victoria were to be changed to give them a more explicit strategic basis. The model structure for the new schemes was provided by the Victoria Planning Provisions (VPPs). In the late 1990s all Council schemes in Victoria were exhibited and were evaluated by an Independent Panel and Advisory Committee. The new format schemes were gradually introduced over a two year period from October 1998.
In 1998, Bayside Council placed the new format Bayside Planning Scheme on public exhibition. After consideration of submissions by an Independent Panel and Advisory Committee and after final adoption of the planning scheme by Council, the new format Bayside Planning Scheme was gazetted on 24 February 2000.
2.1 Basis of New Format Planning Schemes One of the key aspects of all new format Planning Schemes is the need for a strategic basis for all planning controls. Council advised the Panel that it was an explicit requirement of the new Bayside Planning Scheme that it develop a housing strategy. Council advised the Panel that it had spent much of the last two years preparing strategic planning documents to provide a sound strategic rationale for future housing provision within the city.
Council is to be commended for the speed and the manner in which they have undertaken this task. They have commissioned an array of important strategic research and have consulted widely with their community in preparing this research. Council detailed this strategic research in the explanatory reports that accompanied Amendment C2. The explanatory reports explained the rationale for the research and gave a convenient snapshot of the context for the strategic research. The explanatory reports noted (amongst other things):
Bayside provides a high quality urban environment for people who both live and work in the City. The City’s residential areas, many spacious and leafy, provide a high level of urban amenity, with the benefits of access to the Port Phillip Bay and an array of diverse local businesses, schools and community services. As such, the City is a place of high desirability for new residents, and a place much valued by existing residents. These locational and environmental factors and structural changes, combined with an increase in residential development, the age of existing housing stock and the prevailing residential lot size within the City, have placed pressures on the residential fabric. Change needs to be controlled and well managed to ensure that the very fabric of the residential areas of the City that attract existing and new residents alike are not lost in that new development. Council anticipated many of these issues and subsequently commissioned the Urban Character Study, the Vegetation Character Study and the Residential Strategy to gain a thorough understanding of the make up of the City and the pressures that are being applied.
11 Bayside Planning Scheme: Amendment C2 Report of a Panel: August 2001
Several of the conflicts encountered with new medium density housing proposals are created by the standardised approach to development that has followed from the use of the Good Design Guide. The Urban Character Study, Vegetation Character Assessment and Residential Strategy have helped identify deficiencies in the Good Design Guide where the application of that Guide may lead to less appropriate planning outcomes. In this regard, Council has, among other things:
• developed clear procedural and philosophical guidelines indicating to prospective developers Council’s views on what it considers to be quality design, and that a standard approach prepared without consultation with Council or neighbours will not be supported; • prepared the Urban Character Study and Vegetation Character Assessment and proposed their reference in the Bayside Planning Scheme; • developed a housing policy for the City; and • prepared the Vegetation Character Assessment to facilitate the appropriate recognition and management of vegetation in the City. The result of this work has led to the Vegetation Protection Overlay for the Beaumaris/Black Rock area.
This Chapter of the Panel report includes a summary of the strategic analysis and the strategic basis underpinning the amendment. The Panel believes that it is important to summarise this research as it provides the context for the controls introduced by the amendment. The Panel has relied upon the detail provided in the explanatory reports accompanying the amendment for much of this summary.
2.2 City of Bayside Residential Strategy (1999) Ratio Consultants, in association with Council, prepared the Bayside Residential Strategy. The Strategy is derived from several related strategic assessments and research projects including the City of Bayside Urban Character Report (August 1999); the City of Bayside Vegetation Study (August 1999); the Bayside Heritage Review Study (July 1999); supporting assessments of Housing Markets and Needs (part of the Bayside Residential Strategy); and assessments of patterns of demography in the City. The Bayside Residential Strategy comprises:
• City of Bayside Housing Context Statement; • Residential and Environmental Management Plan for the City of Bayside; • Statement of Housing Need; • Supporting Planning and Management Policies; and • Implementation Strategy.
The component parts of the strategy are briefly summarised as follows:
The City of Bayside Housing Context Statement provides a comprehensive assessment of the municipality’s likely future housing requirements over the period 1996-2016. The Housing Context Statement envisages that household size will continue to decline in the City and that there is an increasing trend towards single person households, two person households and older households. The Statement
12 Bayside Planning Scheme: Amendment C2 Report of a Panel: August 2001 indicates that over the 20-year period 1996-2016 it is likely that an additional 6,620 households will require residential accommodation in the City. The Context Statement recognises that if current patterns of housing development are continued, then a total of approximately 7,000 existing houses will have been demolished over the period 1996-2016, to achieve a net increase of 6,620 households and a net population increase of 7,630 persons in the City in this period. The Strategy considers that this is a wasteful process in terms of impacts on existing housing stock in order to accommodate additional households and residential population. Council believes that the Bayside Residential Strategy seeks to provide a more effective, efficient and equitable means of meeting the City’s housing requirements and accommodating the additional households likely to seek to reside in the City in the foreseeable future.
The City of Bayside Residential and Environmental Management Plan provides a framework to accommodate the City’s housing needs over the period 1999-2016 and seeks to achieve the following:
• retention of the City’s distinctive urban character precincts; • take full account and regard of the City’s socially valued areas; • contribute to a diversity of housing choice in the City both in terms of affordability and in terms of dwelling and unit types available in the City of Bayside; • add to the net community benefit for present and future populations in the City; and • provide for progressive improvements to housing and environmental sustainability in the City.
The Plan indicates areas of varied management control and intent, together with identified areas for amenity improvements associated with housing change. The management areas identified in the Strategy are:
• heritage overlay demolition control areas. These areas were derived from the Bayside Heritage Review Study prepared by Allom Lovell & Associates; • areas of minimal development change. These areas have been identified as being least able to sustain residential development change into the future. They have been derived from the Urban Character Study prepared by Ratio Consultants earlier work involving public consultations and the City of Bayside Vegetation Study prepared by John Patrick Pty Ltd; • areas of managed development change. These areas, in the view of the consultants, are capable of sustaining managed development change generally consistent with the requirements of the Good Design Guide. The identification of these areas takes full account of urban character and vegetation values and the distribution of resources in the City; • environmental enhancement area. This area comprises precincts which have been identified for environmental enhancement and for the provision of opportunities for new housing; • activity centres. In the context of the Bayside Housing Strategy, the City’s major activity centres also provide an opportunity for increased housing density. • major public open spaces areas in the City. In the context of the Bayside Housing Strategy, improvements to amenities in the environment will necessarily involve the improvement of pedestrian linkages and connections to quality open space areas; • significant native bushland remnant areas. These areas were identified by Simon 13 Bayside Planning Scheme: Amendment C2 Report of a Panel: August 2001
Cropper (1996) and John Patrick Pty Ltd has incorporated the work in the Bayside Vegetation Character Assessment Study. The areas encompass extensive coastal reserves and form an important part of the Residential and Environmental Management Strategy. These areas have been classified as being of regional significance.
The Panel notes that while the above areas were represented in Amendment C2, there were significant changes proposed in Amendment C2* especially the deletion of the “environmental enhancement area” and modifications to the “managed development change” area. Both of these areas were originally identified as providing opportunities for new housing.
2.3 City of Bayside Urban Character Report (1999) The City of Bayside Urban Character Report was also prepared by Ratio Consultants and it aimed to identify community values and perceptions; identify urban character areas; assess the relative value, or contribution of the identified character; define the preferred future character of identified areas (Panel emphasis); and identify design guidelines to assist in the realisation of the preferred future character.
The City of Bayside adopted a two-tiered approach to the development of the Urban Character Report as it was recognised that the identification and assessment of urban character, the definition of appropriate objectives, and development of design guidelines is a complex task. The two stages were:
• Background Urban Character and Design and Development Guideline Studies; and • Resolution of the Urban Character Survey Work and Design Guidelines.
The background urban character and design guidelines work involved extensive field survey work and community consultation and provided the following outcomes:
• identification and assessment of the key factors that contribute to the creation of a particular character of identity within various areas of Bayside. • identification of the perceptions and values of Bayside residents. • identification of background character areas. • definition of the urban design guidelines to be employed in the management of the City of Bayside’s urban character.
14 Bayside Planning Scheme: Amendment C2 Report of a Panel: August 2001
Analysis of the information collected allowed the identification of eight Urban Character Areas that displayed relatively homogenous characteristics. A description of the character areas was developed and the elements that contribute to the creation of this character (ie. the contributor elements) were identified. In developing these character areas, the following issues were also assessed: -
• Identification of potential threats (Panel emphasis) to the character. Threats to areas and character were identified through reference to results of community consultation undertaken in previous stages of the process; and the site visits and survey techniques. • Assessment of the relative value of the character area and its contributory elements.
“Desired future character” statements were then derived as a result of the assessments undertaken. The existing urban character, the valued or significant elements, community values and perceptions, and threats to the character were considered throughout the development of these statements. “Design Guidelines” were also developed which required the identification of the conditions necessary to achieve the stated preferred character for a character area.
Throughout the study it was recognised that character areas would require differing management responses in order to achieve the desired future character. In order to clarify the required management response, a series of policy statements were developed to clearly define the intended influence of management within character areas.
2.4 City of Bayside Vegetation Character Assessment (1999) This study was undertaken by John Patrick Pty Ltd and the purpose of the study was to provide an overview of the vegetation character of the City. The study assessed the distribution characteristics of vegetation, the type and condition of that vegetation, its significance value, and its comparative significance covering both public spaces and private land within the municipality. The study adopted a layered approach of data collection and analysis. It involved an initial overview of the distribution and density of vegetation coverage, followed by the collection of detailed data on specific features or areas, to refine the level of information. Significance indicators were applied to the composite assessment to evaluate the relative value of vegetation. Management responses were then formulated for significant vegetation.
According to the study, the vegetation character of the City reflects a progression from a dominance of exotic species in the north and east (Brighton and Brighton East), to a mix of native and exotic species in the central suburbs (Hampton, Sandringham, Moorabbin/Highett). There are predominantly native and indigenous species in the south (Black Rock, Beaumaris).
15 Bayside Planning Scheme: Amendment C2 Report of a Panel: August 2001
The dominant vegetation contribution is generally located in the public space in the form of street tree planting (Panel emphasis). The exception is in the Black Rock and Beaumaris area where there is a high frequency of both private and public spaces contributing equally to vegetation character with similar or complementary species. Vegetation character was evaluated to identify its value or significance rating. The evaluations examined criteria including aesthetic values, habitat values, botanic values, soil stability, wind protection, heritage contribution and “comparative municipal presence”. On the basis of these evaluations, an overall significance rating was given to the street, and statements of significance prepared. Eight (8) streets were rated as “Highly Significant” and sixty eight (68) streets as “Significant”. A statement of significance was prepared for each.
The study analysed existing Council management responses and found that the native/indigenous vegetation character of the Black Rock/Beaumaris area was not adequately covered by existing measures, particularly in relation to the removal and management of vegetation on private land. The study recommended (amongst other things) that in the Black Rock/Beaumaris area a Vegetation Protection Overlay be introduced to the Planning Scheme to regulate the removal of native and indigenous vegetation from private land.
2.5 City of Bayside Height Control Study (2000) The Bayside Height Control Study was prepared for Council by Hansen Partnership. The purpose of the study was to provide a strategic basis to the application of height controls across the City of Bayside prior to the existing Height Control (formerly HC 77) expiring in December 2000. The Study outlined building height parameters to be taken into account when developing sites or extending existing premises in Bayside and sought to provide a sound basis for sensitive development that is responsive to the character of sites and neighbourhoods.
The Bayside Height Control Study commenced with a review of existing height controls along the coast and examined the pressures for increased building height in Bayside. It reviewed the strategic elements of the city, including the tension between the attraction of bay and coastal views, and the existing low height level of much of the built and natural form of the City. The consultants identified height control categories for residential areas, activity centres and the foreshore area adjoining the coast. The location of these areas draws directly from the Urban Character and Vegetation control areas identified in the City of Bayside Urban Character Report (1999) and City of Bayside Vegetation Study (1999). The recommended controls and guidelines proposed by the consultants included the following (pages 40, 42, 48, 52):
R8 A mandatory height control be imposed over foreshore areas. R9 A discretionary control be imposed over inland areas. R11 A maximum mandatory height of 3 storeys should be permitted in a limited number of locations, where properties fronting the Bay do not abut residential properties at the rear. These include: • In Brighton to the north of Wellington Street. • In Hampton, to the north of Orlando Street. • In Beaumaris, west of Reserve Road. R12 Opportunity for higher buildings at key nodes or focal points should exist along the Bay, these include: • Green Point – A 4 storey maximum as per the current permit. • Hampton – Small Street – A mandatory maximum of 3 storeys. 16 Bayside Planning Scheme: Amendment C2 Report of a Panel: August 2001
• Sandringham – Up to 3 and 4 storeys as identified in the Sandringham Urban Village Study. • Black Rock – Subject to preparation of an urban village study. R15 Adopt a maximum two storey building height throughout all inland residential areas in Bayside. This height would be discretionary and the ability would exist to apply for a planning permit to exceed that height. R25 In principle, commercial centres have the potential to be developed to a greater intensity and to have a greater building height than surrounding residential areas.
Generally these were translated into Amendment C2.
The Panel was provided with copies of all of the strategic research and it has had careful regard to them. Throughout the report, the Panel has quoted extracts from these reports and has included a page reference for the quote. It is understood that these page reference numbers are different in various versions of the studies. The references which appear in this report are those based on the copies of the documents provided to the Panel at the hearing in Folder Number 2.
17 Bayside Planning Scheme: Amendment C2 Report of a Panel: August 2001
3. THE AMENDMENT
3.1 The Exhibited Amendment C2 The exhibited amendment was provided in three parts which, respectively, addressed:
• Residential Strategy • Local Variations to the Good Design Guide • Height Control
Council submitted that each component of the amendment was supported by the strategic research conducted in the preceding two years as described in Chapter 2.
Part I of the Amendment proposes to make a series of changes to the Bayside Planning Scheme, and these were summarised by Council as follows:
Amend the Municipal Strategic Statement (Clause 21) to reflect the major outcomes of the Residential Strategy, Urban Character Report, Vegetation Character Assessment and Height Control Study. The proposed changes include:
• Updating of the population projections in the snapshot section of the MSS. • Amend the strategic framework plan to reflect the strategy plan set out in the Residential Strategy in particular by deleting reference to Residential Opportunities & Urban Character action areas. • Appropriate Amendments to the Housing Section of the MSS including reference to the Residential Strategy.
Introduce a Vegetation Protection Overlay (VPO) for the southern part of the municipality consistent with the findings of the Vegetation Character Assessment. The schedule to the overlay identifies that the significance of the vegetation in the area to which the overlay would apply is the relationship of the vegetation in the public domain to that in the private spaces. The VPO is proposed to specifically protect that character. The VPO has the effect of requiring a planning permit for the removal of all trees over two metres in height and with a trunk circumference of more than 0.5 metres up to one metre above ground level. The effect of the Amendment will be to preserve the extensive canopy cover of this section of the municipality, and the requirement to obtain a permit for the removal of trees will be a new requirement.
Introduce a Design and Development Overlay (DDO2) across the municipality to reflect the findings of the Residential Strategy, Urban Character Report and Vegetation Character Assessment. Specifically the Design and Development Overlay would introduce controls that would apply to single dwellings and multi-dwelling development alike and would relate to front setbacks, front fences and energy efficiency. The Design and Development Overlay has the effect of requiring a
18 Bayside Planning Scheme: Amendment C2 Report of a Panel: August 2001 planning permit for dwellings that propose a setback less than those prescribed in a table set out in the schedule to the overlay. The setback requirements will ensure that new residential development is respectful of the setback of other dwellings in the street in order to protect the garden character of the City. The schedule to the Design and Development Overlay will also require a permit to be obtained for front fences higher than 1.2 metres and dwellings that do not achieve a four star energy rating when assessed against the provisions of Energy Efficiency Victoria’s First Rate house energy rating system.
Introduce a local policy relating to Housing to reflect the findings of the Residential Strategy, and provide direction to aid in exercising and informing discretion to achieve justified land use outcomes with respect to housing. The Housing Policy applies to all of the municipality and recognises Bayside as a high quality living environment with identified areas of significant urban character and landscape value with extensive open space areas. The policy identifies that the City is experiencing residential development pressure and that there is a requirement to accommodate a need for additional houses generated by an increasing population and decreasing household size. The Housing Policy contains a Policy Basis setting the context for the policy, Policy Objectives and Guidelines to aid in the discretion of decision making. The Housing Policy has been derived from the City of Bayside Residential Strategy, 1999.
Introduce the Residential Strategy, Urban Character Report and Vegetation Character Assessment as reference documents in the Planning Scheme. The Amendment proposes to replace the Bayside Urban Character and Streetscape Study 1998, with the revised and updated Urban Character Report 1999 in those sections of the MSS and local policies where it is currently referenced. The Residential Strategy would be referenced in the Housing Section of the MSS and as a policy reference to the proposed Housing Policy.
Part 2 of the Amendment seeks to introduce local variations to the Good Design Guide for Medium Density Housing, the objectives of which are:
• To maintain and enhance the character of residential neighbourhoods within the City. • To encourage energy efficient residential accommodation that will assist in the reduction of use of fossil fuels. • To encourage new development which recognises the streetscape character of the locality, and particularly the relationships of front building line setbacks and front fencing. • To ensure appropriate car parking provision for new multi-dwelling development. • To encourage new development that recognises the role that existing mature vegetation makes to the character of different parts of the municipality.
19 Bayside Planning Scheme: Amendment C2 Report of a Panel: August 2001
The proposed local variations address the following issues.
• Density • Front Setbacks • Front Fences • Car Parking • Side by Side Development • Vegetation Character and Open Space
Part 3 of the Amendment introduces seven height control categories for residential areas, activity areas and the foreshore area adjoining the coast. Design and Development Overlay 1 (DDO1) relates to building height control and will provide building height parameters to be taken into account when developing sites or extending existing premises in Bayside. The location of these areas draws from the Urban Character Report and the City of Bayside Height Study. The DDO has the effect of requiring a planning permit for all building subject to exemptions. The Amendment replaces the existing Design and Development Overlay 1 (DDO1 - formerly Height Control HC77) relating to the coastal areas and which control expires in December 2001 and extends the control to other areas of the municipality. The model developed to determine appropriate height controls in Bayside is, according to Council, consistent with the City of Bayside Corporate Plan which, under the key result area, 'Urban Form', requires the introduction of new measures to guide and regulate planning and development in Bayside. Amendment C2 also introduces a local policy relating to building height to reflect the findings of the Height Control Study.
3.2 Amendment C2 in Summary
Council, in its submission to the Panel, neatly summarised Amendment C2 and said that the amendment firstly altered the MSS by:
• amending population projections and household size data; • amending the policy on Housing by again amending the population data and the housing needs data; • inserting a series of key objectives as identified by various strategic studies in particular the Residential Housing Strategy; • inserting a new map known as Residential and Environmental Management Strategy from the Bayside Residential Strategy; • identifying certain strategies or actions to implement the findings of the amended MSS namely, by applying D& D Overlays; and • substituting new reference documents (being all the strategies) for the singular Bayside Urban Character and Streetscape Study of March 1998.
The second thing which Amendment C2 did (according to Council) was to introduce a Vegetation Protection Overlay essentially to the southern 25% of the municipality from Beaumaris to the Red Bluff area.
20 Bayside Planning Scheme: Amendment C2 Report of a Panel: August 2001
Thirdly, Amendment C2 introduced a Design and Development Overlay – Schedule 2 (DDO2) in relation to single dwellings that introduced, (for the first time), standards concerning:
• Front fence heights; • Existence of front fences depending upon context; • Energy rating; and • Setback of front walls of buildings depending upon context.
Fourthly, Amendment C2 introduced a Design and Development Overlay – Schedule 1 (DDO1) that had the effect of altering an existing DDO concerning height in the foreshore areas (and a substantial distance inland) in a manner such that virtually the whole of the municipality is affected by one of seven height control areas. The proposed height controls were exhibited as follows:
• Bayside Residential A – 2 storeys maximum. (This was essentially the existing foreshore area although the area was reduced to about 500 metres inland); • Bayside Residential B – 3 storeys maximum, although a permit was required to exceed two storeys; • Bayside Commercial – Three storeys maximum (except where an urban village study specified a higher limit); • Minimal Change Areas (residential) - Two storeys although, a permit was required to exceed one storey and it was possible to exceed 2 storeys with a permit; • Managed Change Areas (residential) – Two storeys although, a permit was required to exceed one storey based on a complex formula that takes into account context and a permit could also be granted to exceed 2 storeys; • Environmental Enhancement Areas – Two storey maximum although a permit could be granted to exceed 2 storeys; and • Commercial Centres – Four storey maximum, although a permit could be granted to exceed this height.
Fifth, Amendment C2 proposed a number of Local Variations to the Good Design Guide. The Elements that had techniques varied included Density; Neighbourhood Character; Energy Efficiency; Building Envelope; Car Parking and Vehicle Access; Private and Communal Open Space and Site Facilities.
Sixth, Amendment C2 introduced two new local policies; one concerning housing, the other concerning building height.
Finally, Amendment C2 proposed to introduce all the various background strategies as “Reference Documents” into the new Scheme.
3.3 The Modified Amendment C2* As a consequence of the submissions received during the exhibition process, Council modified Amendment C2 at its meeting on 23 October 2000. This modification was referred to by Council as Amendment C2*. The minutes of that meeting, explaining in detail all of the agreed changes, are annexed at Appendix 4. For convenience, the Panel will include the summary of the major
21 Bayside Planning Scheme: Amendment C2 Report of a Panel: August 2001 changes as presented by Council to the Panel. According to Council, Amendment C2* is different from the exhibited amendment as follows:
• The MSS has been modified to reflect up-to-date figures in relation to expected population and dwelling projections. • The application of Vegetation Protection Control has not altered save that there is some clarification to when a permit is required. • C2* changes the height control regime from seven (7) height control areas to essentially four areas (plus those existing controls in the Scheme eg Sandringham Village). The new controls are essentially: • 2 storeys for all residential areas with no ability to seek a third level; (HC1 and HC4) • 2 storeys in minimal change areas although a permit is required for the second storey; (HC3) and • 3 storeys in commercial centres with no ability to seek a permit to go higher.(HC2) • Varied the Local Variation to Density (Element1) as proposed by C2 so that all residential areas were treated alike; ie a benchmark density of 1:400 applies to all residential areas. Those residential areas known as Environmental Enhancement Areas and Managed Change Areas are now to be known as Bayside Residential Density Area.
According to Council, other changes made by Amendment C2* are either consequential changes (such as those to the Building Height Policy) or insignificant. The Panel was informed that the changes made to Amendment C2 by the Council resolution of 23 October 2000 were informed by the feedback from public consultation meetings, the numerous written submissions, and the spirited debate on those issues which took place within the committee established by Council to guide the amendment. There are also a number of other changes to Amendment C2 proposed so as to improve drafting, layout and form. These are in the main simply drafting changes done at officer level. These changes were incorporated into the Amended Instruction Sheets which were provided to the Panel showing the effect of the Amendment C2* changes.
The Panel has taken the view that the modified Amendment C2* is a submission by Council on the exhibited amendment to the Panel. In all of its deliberations, the Panel has taken the exhibited amendment as its base document under consideration.
22 Bayside Planning Scheme: Amendment C2 Report of a Panel: August 2001
4. A SNAPSHOT OF BAYSIDE
The City of Bayside covers 27 square kilometres and comprises 10 suburbs being Elsternwick, Brighton, Brighton East, Hampton, Moorabbin, Highett, Beaumaris, Black Rock, Sandringham and Cheltenham. The population of the municipality was estimated at 87,430 persons in 1997 and it is expected to reach approximately 94,180 persons by the year 2016, representing an increase of about 8% or about 0.4% per annum over this period. The City of Bayside has a significantly high proportion of persons over the age of 60 years; single person households; and households with no dependant children. These elements are likely to increase in the future and Council acknowledges that future housing stock must meet the changing need of these demographic groups.
The City of Bayside enjoys a 17 kilometre coastline to Port Phillip Bay along its western and southern boundary. Thomas Street, Nepean Highway and Charman Road form its eastern boundary. Head Street, Glenhuntly Road, Nepean Highway and North Road form its northern boundary. This northern boundary is only eight kilometres south of Melbourne’s CBD.
Bayside is part of the north-south belt of suburbs extending through Melbourne’s middle eastern areas which share a high percentage of both higher income and professional households. In particular, the northern and western sections of the city share these characteristics. On the other hand, Highett and Cheltenham and the areas along Nepean Highway contain significant numbers of lower income households, households with higher unemployment, lower car ownership and rental dwelling stock, compared with the rest of the municipality.
The coastline is a major asset of the municipality as reflected in its name. The coastline contributes to its local character and is reflected in the coastal landscape and its generally low rise residential and commercial built form. These attributes of the City were highlighted in many of the technical reports and individual submissions presented to the Panel.
The City of Bayside is predominantly residential, with 74% of its area zoned for residential purposes. Only 3% of Bayside is zoned for industrial purposes and 11.5% is used as public open space and conservation areas. While single detached dwellings are the dominant residential form, semi-detached dwellings, row and town houses are common. Bayside is characterised by a wide range of architectural styles and housing forms varying from grand period homes to a range of public housing.
The City of Bayside contains seven main traditional “strip” shopping centres at Hampton Street, Bay Street, Martin Street, Church Street, Sandringham, Black Rock and Beaumaris. These centres focus on public transport facilities and comprise both convenience and comparative retail outlets and personal and professional services.
23 Bayside Planning Scheme: Amendment C2 Report of a Panel: August 2001
The Urban Character Report (Final report at page 16) has the following “snapshot” of the municipality which the Panel believes is an accurate summary of the attributes of the area.
• Bayside has clearly defined physical boundaries in the form of the coastal edge, the Nepean Highway and rail line……. • Bayside residential precincts retain relatively low level, street based retail shopping and transport interchange areas that maintain a ‘village’ atmosphere and a sense of local identity for many residents. • The City of Bayside may be characterised by a high degree of diversity, not only across the entire municipality, but also within individual streets. The diversity evident within individual streets introduces a ‘layering’ of architectural styles representing many different eras of development. The layering of styles is a valuable component of the urban character…... • Despite the diversity evident in architectural styles, Bayside residential precincts consistently present relatively low scale development with individual homes separated from neighboring homes and the street by a landscaped setback, with articulated facades and roof lines. • Vegetation provides an important defining and unifying characteristic across the municipality. Landscaping in the northern regions appears to be more formal and provides a mixture of both native and exotic plantings, while the southern regions of the municipality provide an increasingly natural and native appearance. Rear gardens often provide plantings of larger trees, which creates a green backdrop to the street. Many areas throughout the central sections of the municipality could benefit from the improvement of both public and private landscapes. • The Beaumaris area, with its combination of golf course reserves, native tree planting and unstructured road reserves is a visual ‘icon’ for many residents. Like the coast, this area functions as a reference point for those who do not necessarily live within that area, but who still have a psychological link to the area and consider its visual qualities to be a part of a wider group of residential values. • The coast is an important recreation, environmental and visual resource. Its value is linked to those features generally associated with coastal landscapes, but also reinforced by the differences in landform, geology, remnant vegetation and general landscape character qualities that differentiate the Bayside coastal reserve from areas to the south and north. The urban form present along many of the coastal areas differs to that of the inland areas of Bayside in regard to the scale and form of development. Coastal development, particularly toward the northern sections of Bayside, is characterised by substantial individual homes on larger allotments with well-established gardens.
It was common ground at the hearing that the urban fabric of Bayside is the subject of incremental change and that as a consequence, the “character” of the area is also changing. Redevelopment is already occurring throughout the city in the form of multi-dwelling units, dual occupancies, single dwellings and extensions to dwellings. The built form of the municipality is changing and over the past four years, significant forms of medium density development has occurred on former school sites and larger disused holdings. As these sites are used up, medium density housing has
24 Bayside Planning Scheme: Amendment C2 Report of a Panel: August 2001 turned to the smaller residential sites in the city.
However this response has occurred as a result of the demographic changes and household structures of Bayside. Even so it remains a predominantly residential area, with a variety of housing forms to match its housing needs. Bayside will continue to change in the future as its population ages and as pressures continue for redevelopment of land to accommodate both its own residents and new residents, many of whom will be attracted to the area because of its wide range of assets and attributes.
25 Bayside Planning Scheme: Amendment C2 Report of a Panel: August 2001
5. SUBMISSIONS AND HEARINGS
5.1 Exhibition and Submissions Amendment C2 was exhibited for a period of two months in June and July 2000. At the Panel hearing, Council advised that at the exhibition stage, the amendment did not have the full sanction of Council. It was an amendment based on the strategic research of the previous two years and Council’s position on Amendment C2 would be established after the consideration of submissions.
The amendment originally attracted 136 submissions which were reported on to a number of Council committee meetings culminating in the Council meeting of 23 October 2000. At that meeting, Council made a number of significant changes to the amendment in response to the submissions. These changes have come to be referred to as Amendment C2* and it is this version which now has the full support of Council.
So as to enable more community comment on the Council preferred option, Amendment C2* was informally exhibited as a result of the Directions Hearing on 6 February 2001. This attracted a further 236 submissions giving a total of 372 submissions to both versions of the amendment.
Council submitted that it undertook an extensive consultation process for the amendment and used both formal and informal consultation mechanisms which were as wide as possible. The amendment documentation was distributed to all interest groups in the community including those that advocated development. The Panel is satisfied with the level of consultation conducted by Council.
Both Amendment C2 and Amendment C2* have been referred to the Panel, as have all 372 submissions.
The Panel’s primary consideration is for Amendment C2 as exhibited. Amendment C2* is Council’s final view on the amendment based on its consideration of submissions. The Panel therefore regards Amendment C2* as Council’s “submission” to Amendment C2 and it will give it the same status as all other submissions made to Amendment C2.
5.2 Submissions Made to the Panel A Panel hearing for the amendment was held for a total period of eight days, being 7, 8, 9, 10, 14, 15, 16 and 22 May 2001 at the Council Offices of the City of Bayside, during which time the following parties were represented and/or heard:
City of Bayside (Planning Authority): Councillor Alex del Porto Councillor Nicholas Eden Mr Terry Montebello, Maddock Lonie and
26 Bayside Planning Scheme: Amendment C2 Report of a Panel: August 2001
Chisholm Mr Michael Top, Corporate Manager Sustainability Dr Phillip Johnstone, Strategic Planner Ms Carolyn Thomas, Strategic Planner Dr Jeff Wolinski, Ratio Consultants
Topspell Corporation: Ms Sally Macindoe, Deacons Mr Michael Barlow, urbis
Poci Bros: Mr Simon Molesworth AM QC Mr Frank Perry, F R Perry and Assoc.
Morris Jacobs Soft Furnishings: Mr John Moore, Coomes Consulting Group
Croft Health Care Pty Ltd: Mr Nick Hooper, Taylors Surveyors Planners
Kyhats Hotel, Primelife and Rayson Industries: Mr Phillip Bissett, Minter Ellison Ms Colleen Peterson, SJB Planning
Black Rock Association for Residential Development: Dr A Skoutarides Mr George Bennett
Beaumaris Conservation Society: Mr Ted Pearce Ms Lesley Winning Mr Keith Holmes
Brighton Residents for Urban Protection: Mr Barrie Shephard, President Mr Richard Rosen, Vice President
Royal Brighton Yacht Club: Mr Phil Edwards, Fastnet Consulting
Bayside Ratepayers Assoc.: Mr Chris Carroll
Individual Submittors: Mr Peter Efklidis Ms Lisa MacLeod Mr Barry Brooker Mr Mark Dymiotis Mr David Goodwin Mrs Kath Murray Ms Elizabeth Gorman Dr Annette Vandenbosch Mr David Scarr
27 Bayside Planning Scheme: Amendment C2 Report of a Panel: August 2001
Mr Paul Crompton Mrs Margaret Sinclair Mrs Shirley Joy Mr Derek Wilson Mr Neil Hunter Mr Brenn Barcon Dr Patricia Phair Mr George Phair Ms Cheryl May Mr Colin Still Mr Michael Norris Mr Peter and Mrs Caroline Shephard
The Panel would like to express its appreciation to the numbers of people who attended the hearing. It is gratifying to a Panel when people attend a hearing, even if their group or interest is not making a submission. In particular, the Panel appreciated the support given to presenters from the community groups, which on some occasions resulted in a very full gallery. The Panel does not doubt the level of community support for the amendment and it welcomed the contributions of the community.
The Panel particularly appreciated the manner and way in which the representatives of Bayside Council (especially Mr Montebello, Mr Top, Dr Johnstone and Ms Thomas) assisted the members of the community in the presentation of their submissions and their willingness to assist in administrative matters such as photocopying.
The Panel finally expresses its appreciation to Councillors Alex Del Porto and Nicholas Eden who were present for the opening session of the Panel hearing and, in their role as Councillors of the City of Bayside, expressed their views and opinions about the amendment. It is clear to the Panel that the Councillors were supporting the ultimate Council and community position on Amendment C2*.
However given the import and wide implications of Amendment C2 and even more so with Amendment C2*, and the imminent release of ResCode, the Panel is disappointed that the Department of Infrastructure did not attend the Panel hearing or make a submission to it. Ignoring the implication of ResCode for the moment, the Panel would be most concerned if the Department of Infrastructure made detailed comments about the amendment that had not previously been made to Council. In the view of the Panel, if the Department of Infrastructure had any concerns about the exhibited or modified amendment, then these comments should have been articulated and expressed at the hearing, by verbal or written submission. Also the Panel considers that some comments could have been made about ResCode and its implications for Amendment C2.
28 Bayside Planning Scheme: Amendment C2 Report of a Panel: August 2001
5.3 Summary of Key Issues The Panel has considered all written submissions, as well as submissions presented to it during the hearing. In addressing the issues raised in those submissions, the Panel has been assisted by the information provided to it as well as its own observations from inspections of specific sites. The Panel has identified a number of key threshold issues that need to be addressed as part of its considerations in this report, which can be broadly summarised as follows:
• Planning Context (including Strategic Assessment Guidelines). • Population and Housing. • Height. • Density. • Vegetation Protection.
The Panel will address these threshold issues in turn. In undertaking this work, the Panel has been cognisant of the Council submissions, the community submissions, references to other Panel and/or Advisory Committee reports and its own research. While it may not address each individual submission in detail, all submittors can be assured that the Panel has taken all matters raised into consideration.
The Panel was also greatly assisted by the work of Council who summarised the issues raised in the 372 individual submissions under the following headings:
• Demographic analysis • Housing policy • Density • Height • Vegetation • Siting • Fencing • Parking • Open Space provision • ResCode • Infrastructure
The Panel notes, not surprisingly, that there is a strong correlation between the threshold issues in Amendment C2 and the individual submissions. The Panel will therefore address individual submissions in the context of the threshold issues at Chapters 6 to 10 inclusive.
The Panel will not comment on each and every submission but will make reference to submissions as they are relevant to the discussion on the threshold issues. Reference should be made to Council’s submission to the Panel for their commentary on the individual submissions (see Folder Number 7).
The Panel particularly liked the balanced submission of Mr Chris Carroll of the
29 Bayside Planning Scheme: Amendment C2 Report of a Panel: August 2001
Bayside Ratepayers Association who seemed to capture very well the role of the Panel in considering this amendment. He said that in attempting to resolve the planning issues raised by Amendment C2 (or Amendment C2*), the Panel needs to consider a number of interest groups as follows:
1. The neighbours who see no further than their immediate area. 2. Community groups, seeking to preserve what could be best described as the status quo. Rightly or wrongly such groups are often seen as being anti-development. 3. Property owners, seeking to provide a more suitable environment for their families ..... These people may also be seeking to carry out alterations or additions rather than a full rebuild. 4. The professional developers, many of who look no further than the optimum bottom line. It is acknowledged that some developers do in fact take some pride in what they produce. Unfortunately, those in the former category appear in the majority, and (possibly unfairly) arouse community ire against the entire industry. 5. The Council, which seeks to maintain standards that have hopefully been built up over many years, whilst providing for innovation in design that are acceptable whilst being progressive, whilst working within planning laws. In walking this tightrope, Council frequently finds itself at odds with some (or possibly all) of the above interest groups. 6. The State Government, in pursuing its own interests whether they be in regard to urban consolidation, energy efficiency or some other issue. Containment of the urban sprawl is unsurprisingly regarded as a priority issue. However, it is difficult to reconcile an increased availability of housing stock in Bayside as having much to do with reducing or offsetting demand in areas such as Cranbourne, Werribee or Sydenham for example. 7. A number of other groups that may have an interest in a particular issue, such as tree retention, or in the case of a commercial site a potential business competitor.
The submission of Mr Carroll does recognise the complexity of the task facing the Panel.
The Panel has included some discussion about ResCode in the context of the key aspects of Amendment C2. It considered very carefully whether to acknowledge ResCode at all, but it concluded that at the end of the day, Council would be assisted by the Panel’s views on how the amendment fits with ResCode and how some translation work could be undertaken. It is important to recognise however, that the introduction of ResCode had no impact whatsoever on the way in which the Panel has developed its view, prepared its report or made its final conclusions and recommendations. ResCode, in its final form, has largely confirmed the recommendations of the Panel and in fact has made it easier for Council to take various aspects of Amendment C2, as exhibited, further.
30 Bayside Planning Scheme: Amendment C2 Report of a Panel: August 2001
6. PLANNING CONTEXT
This section of the report sets out the planning context for Amendment C2 to the Bayside Planning Scheme. It discusses new elements of State Policy (including ResCode); the State Planning Policy Framework (SPPF); the Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS); and the Local Planning Policy (LPP) that the Panel considers are relevant. It also examines relevant statutory provisions in zones and overlays currently applying or proposed to be applied to the municipality.
This section of the report also addresses the “Strategic Assessment Guidelines” of Planning Panels Victoria. It is now a requirement of all Panel’s considering amendments under new format planning schemes to consider the amendment against “Strategic Assessment Guidelines” to ensure consistency with the principles of the planning reform program. The Panel must be satisfied of the following:
• What is the strategic basis for the amendment? • Has the amendment properly considered the implication that it has for the SPPF or the LPPF? • How have changes to the MSS and/or local policies been dealt with in the amendment? • What would be the consequences of any changes to the MSS or local policies as a result of the amendment?
Chapter 2 provided a commentary on the strategic basis of the amendment. In addition to this, Council provided the Panel with a detailed response to the Strategic Assessment Guidelines. The Panel will address the planning context of Amendment C2, including an assessment of the guidelines under the respective headings of;
• ResCode • State Planning Policy Framework (SPPF) • Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS) • Local Planning Policy • Relevant Ministerial Directions
6.1 ResCode The Minister for Planning publicly released “ResCode” on 24 May 2001, two days after the conclusion of the Panel hearings. The Panel had already flagged at the Directions Hearing the likelihood of ResCode being introduced at some time during 2001 and had asked Council to consider whether or not it wished to proceed with Amendment C2 until such time as the detail of ResCode became clearer. Council advised that they preferred to have Amendment C2 heard as soon as possible. However given the timing of the release of ResCode, the Panel has taken the view that it would have been deficient if it did not consider Amendment C2 in the context of ResCode.
In the view of the Panel, ResCode has important implications for the future of Amendment C2, which will be addressed in this section of the report. Initially however, it is worth reflecting on the content of ResCode. The following are extracts from the “overview of ResCode” as provided by the Minister on the day of the launch. The Panel believes that it is important to include this overview as it is going to be the statutory context within which Amendment C2 will ultimately be 31 Bayside Planning Scheme: Amendment C2 Report of a Panel: August 2001 assessed.
The new residential code, ResCode, contains a number of new tools to better manage residential development. The new tools are:
• New provisions in the Victorian Building Regulations. • New provisions in the residential zones of planning schemes, including a schedule to allow councils to change key siting standards. • Three new residential clauses in the Particular Provisions of planning schemes. • A Neighbourhood Character Overlay available to use in planning schemes.
One dwelling
Under the new provisions of the residential zones a planning permit is required to construct or extend one dwelling on a lot of less than 300m2. However, a council may by amendment to the schedule to the zone, require a planning permit for one dwelling on a lot of less than 500m2. An application to construct or extend one dwelling on a lot must meet the requirements of Clause 54, which is a new clause in planning schemes that applies to single dwellings.
More than one dwelling on a lot
A planning permit is required to construct or extend more than one dwelling on a lot. An application must meet the requirements of Clause 55, which is a new clause in planning schemes that replaces the Good Design Guide for Medium Density Housing (‘GDG’).
Subdivision
A planning permit is required to subdivide land for residential development. An application to subdivide land must meet the requirements of Clause 56, which is a new clause in planning schemes that replaces the Victorian Code for Residential Development: Subdivision and single dwellings (‘VicCode1‘).
Schedule to residential zones
A schedule to the residential zones will be introduced that allows a council to:
• Specify that a planning permit is required to construct or extend one dwelling on a lot of less than 500m2. If no requirement is specified in the schedule, the ‘default’ lot size is 300m2. • Specify the requirements of selected siting standards of the Building Regulations and
32 Bayside Planning Scheme: Amendment C2 Report of a Panel: August 2001
• Clauses 54 and 55 of the planning scheme. The standards are limited to those set out in the schedule and any requirements specified apply to all land in the zone. The standards that a council can specify the requirements for in the schedule are:
- Building height - Setbacks from streets - Side and rear setbacks - Site coverage - Private open space - Front fence height.
A planning scheme amendment is required to insert provisions in the schedule to the residential zones.
(Res)Code introduces new residential clauses in the Particular Provisions of all planning schemes.
Clause 54
Clause 54 applies to any planning permit application to construct or extend one dwelling on a lot if the land is in a Residential 1 Zone, Residential 2 Zone, Mixed Use Zone or Township Zone. This includes any situation where a permit is required to construct one dwelling on a lot under any provision of the planning scheme, whether or not a permit is required by the zone. For instance, a permit may not be required by the zone, but may be required by a Heritage Overlay or Floodway Overlay. The objectives and standards of Clause 54 are arranged to follow the decision-making process, beginning with broad ‘macro’ planning issues and ending with detailed ‘micro’ issues such as fence design.
Clause 54 contains objectives, standards and decision guidelines for individual standards. An application must meet all the objectives of the clause.
Clause 55
Clause 55 applies to an application for two or more dwellings on a lot or a residential building, in the Residential 1 Zone, Residential 2 Zone, Mixed Use Zone or Township Zone. Like Clause 54, Clause 55 is structured to follow the decision-making process. It also contains objectives, standards and decision guidelines for individual standards. An application must meet all the objectives of the clause. Clause 55 is similar to Clause 54 except that it includes additional requirements that are relevant if more than one dwelling is proposed on a lot.
Clause 56
Clause 56 applies to an application to subdivide land in the Residential 1 Zone, Residential 2 Zone, Mixed Use Zone and Township Zone. Like Clauses 54 and 55, Clause 56 is structured to follow the decision-making process, beginning with community design and ending with public utilities. It contains objectives and standards. It also contains some general decision guidelines, but there are no decision guidelines for individual
33 Bayside Planning Scheme: Amendment C2 Report of a Panel: August 2001
standards. The objectives in Clause 56 should be met. However, it is not a requirement that all the objectives must be met because for many small scale subdivisions, this would be difficult or impossible to achieve.
Neighbourhood Character Overlay
The Code introduces a Neighbourhood Character Overlay (NCO). This overlay can be used to require a planning permit for:
• Single dwellings that do not require a planning permit under the zone or another provision of the planning scheme. • Demolition or removal of buildings. • Removal, destruction or lopping of trees.
A schedule to the overlay must contain:
• A statement of the value and key features of the character of the neighbourhood. • The neighbourhood character objectives to be achieved.
If the characteristics of an area mean that the siting requirements in the schedule to the zone would consistently fail to meet the neighbourhood character objectives of the area, then it may be appropriate to use the NCO to vary some standards for that particular area. The NCO can be used to vary most standards in Clauses 54 and 55 except the standards for neighbourhood character, residential policy, dwelling diversity, infrastructure, overshadowing, access to daylight and solar access to north-facing windows. The NCO cannot be used to vary the objectives or decision guidelines of the standards, however it can be used to apply additional neighbourhood character objectives and decision guidelines.
If a Council has specified siting requirements in the schedule to the zone, it may not be necessary to use the NCO to vary standards.
Local Planning Policy
It will not always be necessary to apply a Neighbourhood Character Overlay to trigger neighbourhood character consideration. Clauses 54 and 55 contain objectives and standards that require detailed consideration of the neighbourhood character. If a planning permit is already required under another provision of the scheme, a local planning policy may be used to apply more specific neighbourhood character considerations for an area.
At the launch of ResCode, the Minister for Planning outlined some of the more significant changes in the standards (formerly “techniques” in the Good Design Guide) as follows:
• Reducing the maximum height for all new houses from 12 to 9 metres to reduce the visual impact of new development on streetscapes;
34 Bayside Planning Scheme: Amendment C2 Report of a Panel: August 2001
• New provisions to prevent overshadowing of neighbours’ private open space by ensuring five hours of sunlight between 9am and 3pm for 75% of the neighbour’s private open space; • Four star energy standards to be phased in for all multi-unit developments by 1 March 2002; • All homes to be designed to maximise energy efficiency, with greater setbacks for north facing windows; • New limits on the amount of hard surfaces such as concrete and paving surrounding a house to reduce stormwater run-off to protect the environment; • Front setbacks to be consistent with its neighbours; • A 1.5 metre height limit on fences (except on arterial roads for noise reduction); and • New powers for councils to prevent the removal of trees and ‘moonscaping’ of housing lots.
In addition to the above, the Panel notes the following features of ResCode which will have a bearing on Amendment C2 in its exhibited (or modified) form.
Any application for one dwelling on a lot requires a planning permit if it is affected by an overlay. Under the provisions of Amendment C2, all of the residential areas of Bayside are to be affected by a Design and Development Overlay (DDO 2). If DDO2 were not to be introduced, some dwellings would still require a planning permit under ResCode owing to the fact that they are on land less than 300m2 or are covered by another overlay. The Panel notes the extent to which there are already a number of existing or proposed overlays covering the residential areas of Bayside including a Heritage Overlay, a Design and Development Overlay, a Vegetation Protection Overlay and a Special Building Overlay. In other words, many single dwellings in Bayside will already require a planning permit. Those dwellings which are not captured by a planning permit will always require building approval. Council could also introduce a further amendment pursuant to ResCode that requires a planning permit for development on lots of less than 500 square metres at a later date.
The range of considerations for Council in assessing an application for a single dwelling include all of the matters specified in ResCode (via Clause 54) of the planning scheme. These matters include the requirement for a “neighbourhood and site description” to be lodged with every application; as well as for a design response from the applicant explaining how (amongst other things) the design “…respects the existing neighbourhood character or contributes to a preferred neighbourhood character” (Panel emphasis) and how it “.responds to any neighbourhood character features for the area identified in a local planning policy or a Neighbourhood Character Overlay”.
Any application for more than one dwelling on a lot requires a planning permit under the Residential 1 zone. Under the terms of Amendment C2, all of the residential areas of Bayside are within the Residential 1 zone. Therefore under ResCode, all multi-dwellings will require a planning permit. The range of considerations for Council in assessing that application also includes all the matters specified in ResCode (via Clause 55) of the planning scheme. These matters once again include the requirement for a “neighbourhood and site description” to be lodged with every application; as well as for a design response from the applicant explaining how (amongst other things) the design “…respects the existing neighbourhood character or contributes to a preferred neighbourhood character” and how it “..responds to any neighbourhood character features for the area identified in a local planning policy or a Neighbourhood Character Overlay”.
In other words, even without the zoning and overlay regime of Amendment C2, Bayside Council now has a greater opportunity than ever before to require single and multi unit developments to 35 Bayside Planning Scheme: Amendment C2 Report of a Panel: August 2001 respect (or respond to) either the existing character of the neighbourhood or the preferred character of the neighbourhood. The Panel notes that this is one of the key distinguishing features between the “one-size-fits-all” Good Design Guide and the more “locally-tailored” ResCode. The primary consideration is neighbourhood character, and it is up to Council to identify whether it wants to maintain existing character; or identify a preferred character.
On the Panel’s analysis, Bayside is one of the very few Councils who has conducted a rigorous Urban Character Report which, amongst other things, breaks the municipality down into eight character areas and identifies a “desired” character for that area. In addition, it contains an array of extremely helpful design guidelines ranging from setbacks and fencing through to height and car parking. In the opinion of the Panel this may provide Bayside with all of the ammunition they need to competently assess planning applications in the context of ResCode.
Under ResCode, once a Council has established a strategic base such as the Character Report, then they should look to the variety of ResCode “tools” that might help implement that study so that they can deliver a “locally-tailored” outcome. The relevant tools appear to be:
• Do nothing, and treat each application in the context of the neighbourhood character features of the specific area as required by either Clause 54 or Clause 55; and/or • Prepare a local planning policy at Clause 22 which includes neighbourhood descriptions, a preferred character statement, and decision guidelines; and/or • Insert a schedule to the Residential 1 zone with new standards for street setbacks, building height, site coverage, side and rear setbacks, private open space, and front fence height; and/or • Prepare a Neighbourhood Character Overlay which specifies a statement of the neighbourhood character, the character objective to be achieved, and enables modifications to the standards of ResCode; and/or • “Incorporate” the Character Report and associated Guidelines into Clause 81 of the Bayside Planning Scheme so that they are part of the scheme and are unambiguously the principal local decision making tool.
In the opinion of the Panel, Bayside is in the position of seriously being able to look at all of these options owing to the breadth of strategic work they have recently done, especially the Urban Character Report. While all of the options have some merit, it
36 Bayside Planning Scheme: Amendment C2 Report of a Panel: August 2001 is the view of the Panel that the Planning Scheme should be kept as simple as possible for ease of use by all the community. With any of the options, the use of the Urban Character Report and its Guidelines is going to be the most important decision making mechanism to accompany ResCode.
A number of alternative methods appeal to the Panel. The first is to “incorporate” the Urban Character Report and Guidelines at Clause 81. The Panel notes that this document was exhibited as a “reference document” rather than as an “incorporated document”. The Department of Infrastructure Practice Note on the use of these two documents has now made it quite clear that if a document is going to be used in a day-to-day sense to determine applications then it must have “incorporated” status. The Panel believes that this is one way that the Character Report could be used in the context of the new ResCode. The Panel hastens to add that it has not yet seen a document such as this used in Clause 81. A second, and more attractive option is to “collapse” the Urban Character Report and Guidelines into local planning policies at Clause 22 for each area. Once an application is lodged under either Clause 54 or 55, the local planning policy would be triggered to give Council assistance in responding.
There is also the prospect of retaining the DDO over most of the municipality. This will capture a planning permit in all cases unless exempted. The Panel has analysed DDO2 in the context of ResCode. The Panel notes that the amendment (at Clause 21.05-3 – Implementation) states that this DDO is intended to “…protect the urban character of Bayside”. The Panel believes that ResCode has overtaken any need for this overlay especially if the Urban Character Report is given greater prominence in either local policy or as an Incorporated Document. The Panel is satisfied that the combination of the existing and proposed overlay controls in the residential areas of Bayside, ResCode, and an elevated status for the Urban Character Report is all that is needed to “protect the urban character of Bayside”. The Panel no longer sees the need for the far reaching DDO2 control as proposed.
The Panel recommends that the exhibited Design and Development Overlay No. 2 be abandoned.
The Panel will leave it to Council, in conjunction with the Department of Infrastructure to determine which of the tools best enables them to convert their research into a “ResCode- compliant” instrument.
The Panel concludes that Council should consider the use of either a Local Planning Policy; or the Incorporation of the Urban Character Report and Guidelines to accompany ResCode.
Two of the threshold issues in Amendment C2 are height and density. With respect to “height” the Panel notes that Clause 54 (single dwellings) and Clause 55 (multi-dwellings) have a specific building height objective which must be satisfied. This objective, in both instances, is to:
37 Bayside Planning Scheme: Amendment C2 Report of a Panel: August 2001
…ensure that the height of buildings respects the existing or preferred neighbourhood character.
There are then standards and decision guidelines that, amongst other things, address “graduated” changes in building height, slope, adjacent building heights and visual impact. Importantly, from the Panel’s point of view, it also requires reference to “any relevant neighbourhood character objective, policy or statement set out in this scheme”. Once again, it is the Panel’s view that if the Urban Character Report becomes either a local policy or is incorporated, then the detail of every application (including its height) will need to be assessed against the rigorous analysis provided in the eight character areas.
The Panel lastly notes that ResCode dispenses with any form of “density” control. In the public consultation workshops for ResCode following its release, the Department of Infrastructure explicitly noted the absence of “density” as a standard and advised that as there was to be no density standard in ResCode it was not possible to have a policy statement in a Planning Scheme specifying a “preferred density” provision.
The Panel appreciates that it has been a difficult task for Council and itself in assessing Amendment C2 while ResCode was being developed and finalised. However, as it has now been approved, ResCode provides the framework for the future. In the opinion of the Panel, the good strategic research of Council can best be translated into ResCode by the elevated reference to the Urban Character Report and the Guidelines. As far as possible, such translation work need not be the subject of a separate amendment process.
The Panel recommends that Council consider the use of either Local Planning Policy, and/or the Incorporation of the Urban Character Report and Guidelines to accompany ResCode.
6.2 State Policy Planning Framework The SPPF includes seven “principles of land use and development planning”. These principles refine the objectives of planning in Victoria as set out at Section 4 of the Planning and Environment Act. The principles describe the factors that influence decision-making in land use and development planning. A planning authority preparing amendments to a planning scheme, or a responsible authority administering a scheme, must consider these principles as well as the relevant specific policies in Clauses 14 to 19. The seven principles relate to:
• Settlement: • Environment; • Management of Resources; • Infrastructure; • Economic well-being; • Social Needs; and
38 Bayside Planning Scheme: Amendment C2 Report of a Panel: August 2001
• Regional Co-operation.
Some relevant details of these principles as they relate to Amendment C2 include:
Settlement
Planning is to recognise the need for, and as far as practicable, contribute towards (amongst other things) diversity of choice; a high standard of urban design and amenity; energy efficiency; and land use and transport integration. Clause 14.01 of the SPPF provides that:
Planning authorities should plan to accommodate projected population growth over at least a 10 year period, taking account of opportunities for redevelopment and intensification of existing urban areas as well as the limits of land capability and natural hazards, environmental quality and the costs of providing infrastructure. In planning for urban growth, planning authorities should encourage consolidation of existing urban areas and especially higher density and mixed use development near public transport routes (Panel emphasis).
One of the general implementation mechanisms of this principle is that “higher land use densities and mixed use developments should be encouraged near railway stations, major bus terminals, transport interchanges and tram and principal bus routes”. In addition, “.... nominated urban conservation areas, historic buildings and precincts should be protected from development which would diminish their environmental, conservation or recreation values”.
Clause 14.02 of the SPPF deals with Metropolitan Development and one of the key attributes this policy seeks to achieve is “…. enhanced environmental quality and liveability for the metropolitan population”.
The general implementation mechanisms of Clause 14 include:
Consolidation of residential and employment activities is encouraged within existing urban areas and designated growth areas. Development in existing residential areas should be respectful of neighbourhood character. ………. Higher land use densities and mixed use developments should be encouraged near railway stations, major bus terminals, transport interchanges and tram and principal bus routes.
Environment
With respect to heritage, planning authorities should identify, conserve and protect places of natural or cultural value from inappropriate development including important buildings, structures, parks, gardens, sites, areas, landscapes, towns and other places associated with the historic and cultural development of Victoria. With respect to energy efficiency planning authorities should: • Promote energy efficient building and subdivision design. • Promote consolidation of urban development and integration of land use and transport. • Encourage retention of existing vegetation or revegetation as part of development proposals. 39 Bayside Planning Scheme: Amendment C2 Report of a Panel: August 2001
Clause 15 of the SPPF addresses (at Clause 15.08) the protection of significant environmental features including the coast; while Clause 15.09 encourages the retention of native vegetation.
Clause 16 of the SPPF specifies objectives and implementation mechanisms for “Housing”. Clause 16.02-1 encourages the development of well-designed medium density housing which:
• Respects the character of the neighbourhood (Panel emphasis) • Improves housing choice • Makes better use of existing infrastructure • Improves energy efficiency of housing.
Clause 19.03 of the SPPF - Design and Built Form - seeks to achieve high quality urban design and architecture that:
• Reflects the particular characteristics, aspirations and cultural identity of the community. • Enhances liveability, diversity, amenity, and safety and public realm. • Promotes attractiveness of towns and cities within broader strategic contexts.
6.3 Strategic Assessment Guidelines – SPPF The Strategic Assessment Guidelines require the amendment to be assessed against the following:
• What aspects, if any, of the SPPF are relevant? • How does the amendment respond to the SPPF? • Is it consistent with the SPPF?
There are a number of relevant aspects of the State Planning Policy Framework which impact on Amendment C2 and these have been briefly noted above. Council addressed this issue in some detail in their submission so as to explain to the Panel the degree to which this aspect of the amendment had been satisfied. Council noted that:
Amendment C2 fundamentally responds to the SPPF in that it ensures that planning controls for Bayside reflect local circumstances in both residential development and development within activity centres.
40 Bayside Planning Scheme: Amendment C2 Report of a Panel: August 2001
While the Panel notes the consistency of the Amendment with many aspects of the SPPF including environment, vegetation, heritage and neighbourhood character, it is concerned that it potentially undermines any realistic increase in densities close to principal public transport routes. While Council noted that they have a very liberal density regime in their activity centres (1:50m2), this is counterbalanced by their imposition (especially in Amendment C2*) of very strict height controls in these centres. Moreover, residentially zoned land very close to public transport routes are not encouraged at all to achieve “higher density” outcomes especially with the proposed density regime of 1:400 square metres in Amendment C2*. These aspects of state government settlement policy are likely to be further refined in the soon to be released metropolitan strategy. The Panel does not know what the metropolitan strategy may reveal however as the SPPF currently stands, all the Panel can observe is that the settlement ambitions of Clause 14 are not satisfactorily resolved by Amendment C2.
More fundamental is the concern that the amendment does not really contribute to urban consolidation. In its closing submission to the Panel, Council stated that:
Urban consolidation policy at the state level is in a sense, a “motherhood” type policy statement which, if applied in its “blunt” form will continue to cause damage to urban consolidation irrespective of ResCode and irrespective of how much emphasis a Scheme places on neighbourhood character ………planning authorities should plan to accommodate projected population growth …taking into account opportunities for redevelopment and intensification of existing urban areas.
The Victorian State Government has been implementing the policy of urban consolidation for over two decades and it remains a key component of the SPPF in all Victorian planning schemes. The Panel believes that the City of Bayside must be considered in its metropolitan and state context as well as a local Council serving its local community. Local issues must be assessed and balanced against state and metropolitan issues. The Panel therefore does not agree that urban consolidation is a “motherhood” statement but is in fact a very real and relevant planning policy for Melbourne.
All metropolitan Councils have a role to play in implementing this important policy, particularly an established middle ring suburb such as Bayside which has such excellent access to the bay, public transport, schools, shopping and community facilities. These attributes of Bayside were recognised in all of the strategic work prepared for Council for Amendment C2.
While each municipality has a role to play in achieving urban consolidation, the different suburbs within a municipality may exercise this role in varying built form outcomes which have due regard to the existing and preferred neighbourhood character of each locality. Respect for the neighbourhood characteristics throughout a municipality’s various suburbs should result in a varied range of physical expressions of urban consolidation forms, all contributing to urban consolidation in metropolitan Melbourne.
41 Bayside Planning Scheme: Amendment C2 Report of a Panel: August 2001
The Panel concludes that while there is general support for the SPPF, Amendment C2 does not accord with important SPPF principles of urban consolidation and higher density housing near public transport routes.
6.4 Municipal Strategic Statement Council advised the Panel that the existing Bayside Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS):
• provides strategic directions for land use in the City of Bayside until the year 2011; • integrates with the City’s Corporate Plan: • provides an informed basis for the preparation of detailed strategies, local policies and action plans that will make up the Local Planning Policy framework for the municipality; • provides a strategic context for the implementation of a suite of development controls.
Clause 21.04 of the existing MSS provides Bayside’s “Vision and Overarching Goals”. The existing MSS then provides the following context with respect to housing in the City of Bayside at Clause 21.05.
Bayside is a municipality where residents can choose to spend their whole lives. The majority of properties in Bayside have been developed with single dwellings surrounded by ample outdoor living space designed to meet the needs of the traditional Australian family unit. This feature of Bayside will not be significantly altered, although the trend towards smaller household sizes and an aging population is increasing the demand for a greater variety of housing types and more affordable housing as well as smaller gardens. Given these circumstances and the need to promote sustainable economic growth, State Government policy advocates urban consolidation initiatives to maintain the present population. Whilst Council supports this policy, concern that poorly designed medium density development is eroding the character and quality of some residential areas is growing. The urban character of Bayside makes it an attractive residential choice with good public transport access, the “village feel” and convenience of shopping centres and the coastal environs. In seeking to balance the expectations of residents and development pressures, Council has undertaken an urban character study in an effort to ensure that the provision of new housing is well integrated.
The key housing issues which are identified in the existing MSS are:
• The total population of Bayside may not change significantly in the next ten to fifteen years but the continued reduction in household size projected for Bayside will result in the need for 2140 additional dwellings to be accommodated. • There are limited opportunities for large-scale residential developments such as those that have occurred on former school sites. • Housing preferences and behavioural patterns of market segments are changing and
42 Bayside Planning Scheme: Amendment C2 Report of a Panel: August 2001
influencing the number and type of dwellings produced. For example, empty nesters of all ages are seeking low maintenance units with good internal spaces and minimal gardens. Also, an increase in renting rather than purchasing is likely to occur. • Although market forces largely determine the supply of housing, there is no evidence to suggest that the match between housing supply and demand is meeting the needs of the whole community. • Development pressures in the City of Bayside due to its attractiveness as a place to live and its accessibility are eroding the urban character and quality of some residential areas. • Changes in the nature of residential areas through medium density housing policies may reduce and further fragment the significant habitat that is currently provided by established trees and gardens. • Recent community consultation has indicated the high value placed on residential character and environment (particularly vegetation) and on the need for appropriate planning controls, which maintain character and environment. • Changes in the financing and construction of public housing and an increasing focus on income support for housing and the private rental housing market is having an impact on low-income families. Currently, the demand for public housing in the Region is very high, and waiting times range from several years to indefinite.
Objectives and strategies for housing to achieve these are noted at Clause 21.05-3:
Objective 1 To maintain the current residential population levels through to the year 2011.
Strategies Strategies to achieve this objective include:
• Encourage higher density housing within and around commercial and community facilities, particularly those with good public transport networks. • Provide a range of housing choices to meet the diverse needs of the community. • Ensure an adequate supply of affordable housing and rental properties. Promote the renovation and restoration of shop top dwellings. • Plan for new housing within and close to Sandringham Urban Village. • Facilitate the conversion of redundant industrial land to residential use where appropriate.
Objective 2 To provide greater certainty to both residents and developers in relation to preferred higher density areas, key redevelopment sites and areas that require special treatment or greater protection.
Strategies • Identify the key development sites and preferred higher density areas. • Identify areas of significant urban character and environmental sensitivity which have limited capacity for higher density development. • Delineate appropriate boundaries for higher density areas having regard to
43 Bayside Planning Scheme: Amendment C2 Report of a Panel: August 2001
proximity of facilities and services, geographic influences such as ridgelines and watercourses, and the transitional characteristics of the built environment. • Identify areas which have limited capacity for higher density development because they may be liable to inundation by surcharge flows from the urban drainage system.
Implementation mechanisms identified in the existing MSS include the use of the Residential 1 zone; and the use of Design and Development Overlay No. 1 to limit the heights of buildings along the foreshore areas to a mandatory maximum of two storeys. The MSS also addresses Activity Centres (at Clause 21.06), Heritage (at Clause 21.09), and Streetscape Design (at Clause 21.10). There are also relevant local planning policies at Clause 22 including urban design policies for the Martin Street, Church Street and Bay Street Shopping Centres.
Lastly, the existing MSS at Clause 21.05 (Further Strategic Work) identifies the need to:
• Develop “Design and Development Guidelines” for urban character areas • Identify preferred development areas. • Develop a housing strategy • Investigate the need for local variations to the Good Design Guide
6.5 Strategic Assessment Guidelines - MSS The Strategic Assessment Guidelines require the amendment to be assessed against the following:
• How does the amendment accord with the MSS or seek to implement its strategies? • If the amendment does not accord with the MSS or seek to implement it in some way, is it proposed to change the MSS? • What is the strategic basis for any change to the MSS being sought? • If the amendment proposes to change the MSS, does the planning authority support the change? • What effect will any change to the MSS have on the rest of the MSS. - In its own right? - Cumulatively with other changes which may have been made to the MSS or other amendments?
Amendment C2, as exhibited, introduces relatively minor changes to the MSS. The Panel finds this surprising given the breadth of the further strategic work which has been done, and the significance of some of the proposed implementation mechanisms (ie mandatory height controls, density provisions etc). While the Panel is satisfied in principle that Amendment C2 is “strategy driven”, the modified MSS appears to be a bit “light on” in terms of articulating what Bayside is trying to achieve as a result of that strategic work. That is the job of the MSS. The connection between the modified MSS and the ultimate implementation mechanisms is unclear to the Panel.
44 Bayside Planning Scheme: Amendment C2 Report of a Panel: August 2001
As a consequence, Amendment C2 appears to be very much an “implementation” exercise rather than a strategy-led exercise. For instance, it is hard to identify from the modified MSS that “building height” is even an issue in Bayside, let alone an issue so critical that it warrants a level of control that few Councils around the state have even contemplated. Much the same can be said for density. What has prompted the implementation tools? Where is the link from strategy to implementation? This all remains a mystery to the reader of the MSS. In addition, it is noted that the “Vision and Overarching Goals” at Clause 21.04 are not to be modified at all.
Leaving aside for the moment the differences between Amendments C2 and C2*, and apart from some of the density and height implementation measures which are discussed in detail at Chapters 8 and 9 of this report, the Panel believes that there is much to commend arising from the strategic research which could and should find its way into the MSS. The Urban Character Report, the Residential Strategy, the Vegetation Study and the Height Control Study are all very thorough strategic documents which have been informed by research and community consultation. The important outcomes of these studies do not get sufficient attention in the modified MSS.
The Panel suggests that the threshold issues arising from the research (housing, population, density, height, and vegetation) need to be collapsed into the Planning Scheme so that they have their strategic origins in the MSS. At present the all-important link from research to strategy to implementation is not evident, even though the Panel believes that the various studies provide that link.
The Panel believes that if the amendment is to proceed, the modified MSS would need to be strengthened to take account of the recent strategic studies, and:
• Explain the vision and ambitions of Council; • Explain the housing directions of Council; • Justify having any height controls anywhere in Bayside; • Justifying having mandatory height controls over part of the municipality; • Justify the need for the vegetation controls; and • Justify the need for a density control (in the event that this mechanism is supported).
The Panel repeats that it believes that there is a great deal in the Height Control Study, the Residential Strategy, the Vegetation Study and the Urban Character Report that can be drawn on by Council for these justifications.
The Panel concludes that while the amendment supports the Strategic Assessment Guidelines with respect to the MSS, it does not go far enough. The MSS needs to be modified to give greater expression to the issue of housing, height, neighbourhood character and vegetation. The MSS will also need to be modified as a consequence of the Panel’s discussion on local policy.
The Panel recommends that the MSS be modified to give greater expression to the issues of housing, height, neighbourhood character and vegetation to provide the strategic link between it and the policies and controls.
45 Bayside Planning Scheme: Amendment C2 Report of a Panel: August 2001
6.6 Local Planning Policies The Strategic Assessment Guidelines require the amendment to be assessed against the following:
What local policies will the amendment affect or be affected by? If the amendment introduces or changes local policy: - why is this being done? Does it respond to a demonstrated need? - what is the discretion that the local policy will assist council in exercising? - how will the policy assist in the exercise of this discretion? - what does it add to the decision guidelines already in the planning scheme? - does it have a performance basis or is it prescriptive? - is there another better tool that could be used?
The proposed amendment seeks to introduce two new policies into Clause 22 being a “Housing” policy and a “Building Height” policy. These policies purport to implement the MSS strategies and objectives of Clause 21.05 but, as noted earlier, the justification and the connection are just not evident. In addition, both policies offend the basic principles of the DOI Practice Note on drafting a Clause 22 policy. This aspect surprised the Panel especially as the Practice Note has been in operation since late 1999.
Council’s submission on the housing policy at Clause 22.06 noted (page 21 of their submission):
The housing policy is necessary to firmly implant in the minds of decision makers the direction and mind set that must be adopted when dealing with housing issues in Bayside. While the MSS contains a fairly wholesome section dealing with Housing, it is by and large of a general nature and is more strategic. The local policy is intended to be more practical and designed to assist in the day to day management of proposals for housing in the municipality. The housing policy applies to all residential land and the basis of the policy is traced to the MSS. The objectives of the policy are quite wide and consideration is being given to whether the objectives can be stated more concisely.
The principal purpose of the policy in an everyday sense is to direct applicants and decision makers to the guidance given by and the outcomes sought in the Housing Strategy and the Urban Character Study. Some more general objectives are set out in the section dealing with discretion that provides some overall considerations.
In the opinion of the Panel, the exhibited policy fundamentally misunderstands the role of Clause 22. The Panel believes that all of above matters are MSS material and not Local Policy. The MSS should be the place where a user of the planning scheme
46 Bayside Planning Scheme: Amendment C2 Report of a Panel: August 2001 should go to find the outcomes of the Housing Strategy and the Urban Character Study. All that a local policy can do is help in the exercise of a discretion in the scheme. Some important aspects of housing, especially detached housing, may remain “as of right” under Amendment C2 and so resort is not always needed to be made to the policy. Council suggested another option for structuring policy and stated that:
An alternative would be to pick up the relevant parts of the two strategic studies and set those parts out in the local policy. For example, the desired future character statement of each of the various character areas could be set out in the local policy. In terms of the Housing Strategy, the main parts of that strategy could quite easily be pulled together into the local policy.
While the Panel does not support bringing the Housing Strategy into a policy (as it belongs in the MSS), the Panel does see some potential for “collapsing” the Urban Character Report into a series of individual local policies based around the eight character areas. This is because the detail in the Urban Character Report is so specific in the exercise of discretion for each of the identified character areas, and goes well beyond providing a strategic overview as found in the MSS. This is one of the options discussed earlier in this chapter with respect to ResCode.
On reading Amendment C2, the Panel wondered what had become of the Urban Character Report as it is camouflaged under layers of other material. A local policy based around each character area would give the applicant, the community and Council a very clear basis for decision making on a discretionary use in each of the eight character areas. The new ResCode suggests that local policy is one option available to Council to convert an Urban Character Report into a meaningful implementation tool. There is much in the Urban Character Report which will help inform decision making in Bayside so much more than the bland exhibited local policy on housing.
The Council submission on its housing policy finally contained reference to an “insurance policy” for density assuming that ResCode was to abandon density as a planning tool. The Council noted:
In terms of the housing policy, since there is no density control proposed in ResCode, the local variation to Element 1 will become redundant. Council is of the view that it should be picked up as part of the local policy on housing. That is the logical way of dealing with what would otherwise be a vacuum in terms of “benchmarking” density.
The Panel has made comment on density as a planning tool in Chapter 9 and believes that it has no place in the planning system. This is confirmed by the Department of Infrastructure’s public information sessions on ResCode. Now that ResCode has abandoned density as a planning tool, the last thing that should be contemplated is to retrieve it as a concept and to hide it away in a local policy. As to the Council comment that without a density figure there is a benchmarking vacuum, the Panel believes that this highlights the dangers in an obsession with arithmetic as the driver of decision-making. The Panel has commented on this in greater detail in Chapter 9.
In terms of the Building Height Policy, the Panel points to two examples of so-called “policy” which are in the exhibited material. Exhibited Clause 22.07 (Amended Instruction Sheet Change 7) says that it is policy that:
• Commercial areas in Bayside are essentially of a local nature and have a strong village feel. This limits the height of building and the intensity of development that is appropriate. • In principle, commercial centres have the potential to be developed to a greater intensity and to have a slightly greater building height than surrounding residential areas, with the 47 Bayside Planning Scheme: Amendment C2 Report of a Panel: August 2001
potential for three and possibly four storey buildings in appropriate locations.
Neither of these “statements” are policy; they are strategic positions of Council directly derived from the Height Control Strategy. They are valid positions to hold, but they belong in the MSS. Council’s submission appeared to acknowledge the limitations of this policy:
Even in terms of C2*, the building height local policy is of some assistance since the Schedule to the Overlay contains a listing of desired outcomes. However, there is considerably more discretion under C2 than C2* and to that end, as much guidance as possible would be desirable given the sensitive pressure point which height is in the municipality. It is felt however, that much of the height policy repeats the controls and it could be revised to improve its content by editing.
The Local Policy on “height” and DDO1 do much the same thing. For simplicity and greater certainty, the Panel believes that the objectives, detail and decision guidelines in the exhibited local policy on height should be redistributed into the MSS and into the Design and Development Overlay. For even greater simplicity, the Panel believes that the respective Design and Development Overlay’s for height should be re-numbered DDO1: Foreshore Area, DDO2: Commercial Areas, and DDO3: Nodal/Gateway Areas. The Local Policy on housing should be completely absorbed into the MSS.
Bearing in mind the above comments and bearing in mind the Panel’s recommendations at Chapter 8 on height, the Panel believes that it can assist Council by providing an example on how it believes that the height DDO might be finalised. The example is included at Appendix 5. The Panel adds that this is not necessarily the recommended DDO but is a guide as to how it might be finalised. At the very least this example Design and Development Overlay will need to be “separated” into three schedules as DDO1; DDO2; and DDO3.
The Panel concludes that the two local policies on Housing and Building Height should be abandoned and absorbed either into the MSS and/or the Design and Development Overlay.
48 Bayside Planning Scheme: Amendment C2 Report of a Panel: August 2001
The Panel recommends that the Local Policy on Height and Housing be deleted from Amendment C2 and their contents be incorporated into the MSS and the relevant Design and Development Overlays generally in accordance with the example at Appendix 5.
The Panel recommends that the Design and Development Overlay for height be split into three separate schedules using the example at Appendix 5 as a guide to the structure and detail.
6.7 Ministerial Directions – Local Variations The Strategic Assessment Guidelines also require the amendment to be assessed against any relevant Ministerial Direction. The only relevant direction is the Ministerial Direction No 8 which deals with Local Variations to the techniques of the Good Design Guide. The local variations proposed the substitution or introduction of various techniques relating to:
• Density, • Neighbourhood Character, • Energy Efficiency, • Building Envelope, • Car Parking and Vehicle Access, • Private and Communal Open Space, and • Site Facilities.
A number of submissions were received on these variations. Some individual submittors opposed the proposed fence controls under Clause E3.T1, citing circumstances where fences higher than 1.2 metres would be appropriate for issues such as the safety of children on a busy road (M&E MacLeod of Sandringham and L MacLeod of Brighton).
Other submittors supported the 4 star energy efficiency rating and some submittors supported the proposed front setback provisions including P Eden of Sandringham and D&J Boughton of Cheltenham. Submittors made varied comments on the proposed side and rear setback provisions, including a recommendation for a 10 metre setback for the rear boundary.
Some submittors support the proposed site coverage under Clause E6.T6 including the Mayer family of Beaumaris, while several residents opposed the provisions relating to side by side development including L MacLeod of Brighton who made a comprehensive submission to the Panel on side by side development and related design restrictions.
Submittors objected to the proposed car parking provisions, including T Pearce of the Beaumaris Conservation Society and N Kukovec of Brighton East who opposed single garages for side by side developments. Some submittors supported the open space
49 Bayside Planning Scheme: Amendment C2 Report of a Panel: August 2001 provisions proposed under Clause E9.T1 including S Raverty of Black Rock. Others opposed the lack of provision for large canopy trees in the open spaces eg D&E Boughton of Cheltenham.
A high number of submittors supported the 30% minimum permeable area for residential areas. A few submittors recommended a minimum 40% permeable area in a residential development including J Ablett of Beaumaris and the Black Rock and Sandringham Conservation Association.
The Panel has already noted that ResCode has now replaced the Good Design Guide and, in reality, all of these local variations are now redundant. However, it is noted that Council proposed the variations at a time when the Guide was operational. It is also noted that the new schedule to the Residential 1 zone will enable “variations” to the ResCode standards including some (but not all) of the above techniques. The Panel has already noted (in Chapter 6.1) that this schedule is one option for Council to seriously consider.
The Panel has provided some brief comments on the merits of Council pursuing modifications to the new standards in a schedule to the Residential 1 zone. The Panel believes that such a schedule (if required) would need to be part of a separate and future amendment to the Planning Scheme.
Density - In his final submission to the Panel, Mr Montebello advised that the density variation proposed under Amendments C2 and C2* must be removed given the likely format of ResCode, as adopted by the Minister for Planning. However, he did submit that the Planning Authority must be able to have the use of density as a strategic tool if nothing else at least. He further submitted that both Amendments C2 and C2* still rely on the different change areas (eg managed change area, minimum change area) under the Residential and Environmental Management Strategy in the Residential Strategy for directing development. Council believe these could be incorporated into the local housing policy under the Bayside Planning Scheme.
ResCode as adopted by the Victorian Government in May 2001 makes no reference to density as a planning tool for residential development. The Panel believes that Amendment C2 must be consistent with this key statewide planning document. A consistent approach to planning throughout the state is an important hallmark of the revised planning system in Victoria and Councils are strongly discouraged to introduce local variations which are contrary to the spirit and provisions of the state planning provisions, such as the recently adopted ResCode.
As mentioned, the Panel does not support any reference to density in the Amendment. The Bayside Urban Character Report is the policy document that will provide adequate strategic guidance to the responsible authority as to the design outcomes that should be achieved in development. The density of the development will be an outcome of that design exercise.
50 Bayside Planning Scheme: Amendment C2 Report of a Panel: August 2001
Neighbourhood Character - The only issue arising for the amendment and in submissions concerned front fences generally being no higher than 1.2 metres. Some submittors wanted higher fences up to 2 metres where they are of an open design style such as pickets, or where they are located on main roads. This will allow those private open space areas, especially those facing north to be used safely as a private play area for children and enjoyable outdoor areas throughout the year. Council stated in its final submission:
The Planning Authority does not intend that such fences are not permitted where they are appropriate. The variation could be amended to provide for that.
The proposed variation to the Good Design Guide is no longer relevant following the adoption of ResCode in May 2001. ResCode allows front fences 2 metres in height on streets in a Road Zone to provide protection from traffic noise and for safety purposes. For other streets the maximum front fence height is 1.5 metres. These standards have been adopted in the Code to meet the stated Front Fence Objective namely,
To encourage front fence design that respects the existing or preferred neighbourhood character.
Under ResCode, the standards are put forward as measures to meet the objectives of the Code, however such measures are not exhaustive and an alternative approach may be proposed and approved by the Responsible Authority if it meets the relevant objective. Different local standards adopted by the City of Bayside could be included in a schedule to apply to all land in the Residential 1 zone, which specifies varied front fence height and design requirements. This important provision in ResCode will make the appropriate allowance for higher front fences with an open design such as pickets throughout Bayside, where they complement the neighbourhood character and local streetscape.
The Panel believes that ResCode gives Council the flexibility which it has sought and it does not see a need to include further detail in any schedule at this stage. The Panel believes that the concerns of Bayside residents are now adequately addressed in the provisions of ResCode.
Energy Efficiency - This local variation to the Good Design Guide is also no longer relevant following the adoption of ResCode. The provisions relating to Energy Efficiency in the amendment are adequately adopted in the Energy Efficiency Protection Objectives of ResCode.
Building Envelope - An array of detailed variations were proposed in Amendment C2. Most of these are adequately addressed now in ResCode which fundamentally alters the Guide by requiring front setbacks to align with adjacent buildings. This is a significant change. ResCode introduces a street setback objective for both a single dwelling and more than one dwelling on a site, and Standard A3 and B6 both specify that:
51 Bayside Planning Scheme: Amendment C2 Report of a Panel: August 2001
Walls of buildings should be set back from streets:
• At least the distance specified in the schedule to the zone, or • If no distance is specified in the schedule to the zone, the distance specified in Table A1.
Under ResCode, it is open to Council to incorporate the different provisions in the proposed variation E6.T1 under Amendment C2 into a schedule to the Residential 1 zone. However the Panel sees no need for this variation as the ResCode setback provisions seem to satisfy Council’s objectives of relating the front setback to neighbouring properties.
In terms of site coverage, the Permeability Objectives of Clauses 54 and 55, require that at least 20% of the site should not be covered by impervious surfaces. Council may vary this provision by including a schedule to the Residential 1 Zone that specifies that at least 30% of the ground area should have a permeable surface. However, the Panel is again satisfied that the standard provision relating to “Permeability” as specified in the adopted ResCode is sufficient.
In terms of side and rear setbacks, the former provisions of E6.T4 of the Good Design Code have been transposed into Clause 55.04-1 - Side and Rear Setback Objective, under Standard B17, including a similar diagram (B1). To incorporate the additional Amendment C2 provisions into ResCode, Council would need to specify this different siting requirement in the schedule which applies to the Residential 1 zone. However, the Panel believes that the new objective of this provision is the critical element and that this should be tested before any variations are made. This same comment applies to Council’s proposed changes to side-by-side dwellings (E6.T11) which would have the effect of limiting such development on sites of less than 20 metres in width. The Panel sees no need for such a control and believes that ResCode’s “contextual” consideration is more relevant.
Car Parking and Vehicle Access - The main issue to emerge in the amendment and in submissions concerned tandem parking which, the Panel notes, is not uncommon throughout Bayside. Tandem parking is not specifically addressed in ResCode. The Panel believes that the suitability of tandem parking in a residential development on a site should be assessed on its merits for each planning application, with due regard being given to the existing streetscape and neighbourhood character as well as the spatial restrictions which apply to the site.
The Panel notes that under ResCode, car parking standards are required for single dwellings and multi-units. The Panel is satisfied that the ResCode standards provide an adequate control for Council.
There is also the matter of garages for side by side dwellings. Under ResCode Standard B14 for Access Objectives (Clause 55.03-9):
52 Bayside Planning Scheme: Amendment C2 Report of a Panel: August 2001
The width of accessways and or car spaces should not exceed: • 33% of the street frontage, or • if the width of the street is less than 20 metres, 40% of the street frontage.
No more than one single width crossover should be provided for each dwelling fronting a street.
The Panel notes that a relevant Decision Guideline is to assess the impact on the neighbourhood character and believes that use of the Urban Character Report in conjunction with ResCode gives a sufficient level of control on this issue.
Private and Communal Open Space - Council proposed a sliding scale of open space provision dependent on the number of bedrooms. The strategic basis of this provision is not clear to the Panel from the Amendment C2 research. Several submittors questioned the need for larger open space areas for larger dwellings, particularly for elderly residents. Many supported the open space provisions to allow scope for effective landscaping and for trees with spreading canopies, as well as outdoor areas for younger families. The proposed private open space provisions in Amendment C2 differ to those included in ResCode. The higher standards under Amendment C2 will need to be included in a schedule to the Residential 1 zone under the code if Council wish to pursue this. The Panel repeats that such a change would need a strong strategic basis which is lacking at present.
Site Facilities - The Panel is finally satisfied that Standard B30 under the Storage Objective (Clause 55.05-6) in ResCode requires the provision of adequate storage for each dwelling.
The Panel does not support any of the proposed variations at this stage. The Panel does not believe that Council should rush into any ResCode changes other than elevating the Urban Character Report as the principal decision making tool through the use of local policy or incorporation. The Panel believes that Council should see how the ResCode package enables them to influence built form outcomes in their residential areas before making any changes to it.
The Panel recommends that all of the exhibited local variations to the Good Design Guide be abandoned.
53 Bayside Planning Scheme: Amendment C2 Report of a Panel: August 2001
7. POPULATION AND HOUSING
A number of submissions were received concerning the population and housing projections in the exhibited Amendment C2 and the modified Amendment C2*. These are discussed in the context of the following section.
The Panel has already outlined in Chapters 2, 3 and 6 relevant population and housing material contained in the existing MSS; the strategic research reports; and the exhibited and modified amendment.
Dr Wolinski, on behalf of the City of Bayside, gave evidence to the Panel in relation to the City of Bayside Residential Strategy. Dr Wolinski discussed the Strategy and its contribution to Amendment C2 and also reviewed his evidence in relation to the revised Amendment C2* adopted by the Council in October 2000. It is noted by the Panel that the City of Bayside Residential Strategy:
….is directed to providing a framework to meet the housing needs of the City over the period 1999 – 2016, consistent with the established urban character of the City, community values and needs and the significant heritage and landscape values of the municipality.
Dr Wolinski submitted that this study was undertaken during a time when urban consolidation in the established suburbs of Metropolitan Melbourne was a strong component of State Government policy and medium density residential development was encouraged. The completed Residential Strategy includes the City of Bayside Housing Context Statement which provides a comprehensive assessment of the municipality’s likely future housing requirements over the period 1996-2016. The Statement envisages that households in Bayside will continue to decline and that there is an increasing trend towards single and two person households and older households. Key findings in the Statement are:
• The City continues to display ongoing pressures for residential development, reflecting its attraction as a residential environment. • Based on a sound strategic basis, there is limited scope for multiple unit development within the existing residential allotment stock of the City. The consolidation of sites for new multi-unit developments in appropriate areas is encouraged.
The total population of the City of Bayside is likely to increase marginally over the forecast period to 2016 from approximately 86,560 persons in 1996 to approximately 94,180 persons by 2016, an increase of about 9% over the period. Resident households are forecast to increase by approximately 6,600 over the forecast period or by about 21% over the 20 year period to 2016 due to falling household size. Average household size will continue to fall in the City from about 2.7 persons in 1996 to about 2.45 persons by the year 2016. This reflects an increasing trend towards both single, two person households and older households.
54 Bayside Planning Scheme: Amendment C2 Report of a Panel: August 2001
The Statement of Housing Needs found that:
• Residential households increased by 6620 from 1996 to 2016. • Net additional housing stock required from 1996 to 2016 is about 7,200 dwellings, based on current trends.
Dr Wolinski highlighted that over the past 5 to 10 years the Council has experienced a high level of housing stock loss for relatively little net gain in terms of population and the number of new dwellings. Following from the study, Ratio Consultants produced the “Residential and Environment Management Plan for the City of Bayside” which is directed at providing different “Residential Management Areas” throughout the City such as Minimum Change areas at Brighton; Managed Development Change Areas at East Brighton and Highett; and Environment Enhancement Areas at Cheltenham. Varying densities were adopted for each area and formed the basis of Amendment C2. For example the Minimum Change Area was designated a maximum density of 1:400 square metres, irrespective of lot size. The Managed Development Change areas were to adopt the Good Design Guide criteria; and the Environmental Enhancement Areas were to have a density “bonus”.
This Management Plan provided quite clear direction to all parties with regard to the areas which Council see as having potential for a modest increase in density to accommodate the anticipated population increases.
The Residential and Environment Management Plan focussed strongly on retaining the remaining residential character and landscape attributes of the City of Bayside. Arising from the Strategy, changes to the City of Bayside MSS were recommended to be incorporated as part of Amendment C2. Pursuant to Instruction Sheet Change 5 under Clause 21.02-4 (Demographic Statistics) changes are to be made by amending the population projections and household data by (in effect) substituting the need to integrate a further 2140 dwellings by 2011 with the need to accommodate 7200 dwellings by 2016.
Changes were also recommended for Clause 21.05 Housing including:
The total population of Bayside is forecast to increase from 87,430 persons in 1997 to 94,180 persons by the year 2016………Households are forecast to increase by 6,620 over the period 1996-2016, or by some 21% for the period………It is likely the City will need to accommodate approximately 7,200 net additional dwellings over the forecast period, 1996-2016.
The Residential and Environment Management Strategy Map as shown in Figure A1 for the Bayside Residential Strategy was also to be inserted into the MSS by Amendment C2. The Panel is satisfied that all of the exhibited Am. C2 changes to the MSS are directly derived from the strategic research.
Dr Wolinski was then asked by Council to review the Residential Strategy document and its conclusions in the light of the Council’s revised position following its adoption
55 Bayside Planning Scheme: Amendment C2 Report of a Panel: August 2001 of Amendment C2* on 23 October 2000. Following this review and an assessment of more recent housing data provided by Dr Johnson using Council’s new GIS system for building approval figures, Dr Wolinski emphasised two key conclusions which reflect a significant shift in his findings, namely:
• Following recent analyses of dwelling unit construction and demolition data for the City of Bayside from 1st January 1996 to 31st December 2000, for every net additional housing unit created, 0.774 of an existing dwelling was being lost, and for the Brighton area the ratio was 0.87. The process of medium density housing development is considered very wasteful by Dr Wolinski in terms of the loss of existing housing stock, in comparison to the net additions of dwelling stock through new housing. • The Residential strategy and associated documents reflect the need for a “strong ecologically based approach to residential quality and land management.” This principle of monitoring and enhancing the established values of the City’s built form and environment should be regarded as of “pre-eminent significance”. It should be the primary consideration in the assessment of future residential development. Urban consolidation must be placed within a “sustainable framework” in the context of Melbourne’s historic residential areas.
Dr Wolinski’s revised assessment of the housing needs of Bayside was viewed as conditional upon the City’s heritage areas, urban character and vegetation areas being protected and housing designed to protect the amenity and character of the Bayside area. As stated by Dr Wolinski:
There needs to be a check made in the steps between identifying required housing demand and the capacity to provide for that demand within the City.
In other words, the “ecologically based approach” inclusive of heritage, character, vegetation and the environment should be elevated as the key determinants in future residential development rather than housing needs.
Dr Wolinski submitted that he considered Amendment C2* to be a reasonable simplification of the intent and findings of the background studies to Amendment C2, particularly the Height Control Study and the adoption of four height control areas under the revised amendment. In terms of density, Council’s capacity to provide the required development of new dwellings, both single and multi-unit, will depend on the available land stock and the level of sustaining Bayside’s existing prevalent low density residential character through a major part of the municipality, by adopting a maximum density of 1:400 square metres throughout all residential areas of Bayside.
Dr Wolinski’s evidence makes it clear that housing supply is the most significant determinant of population level. Population growth from 86,400 in 1986 to about 90,000 in the year 2000 was essentially a function of the supply of new housing. Based on the two versions of the amendment, he contended that the number of net
56 Bayside Planning Scheme: Amendment C2 Report of a Panel: August 2001 new dwellings per year will be in the order of:
• Amendment C2 260 p.a. • Amendment C2* 180 p.a.
The statistical information provided to the Panel by Dr Johnson indicated a decline in the number of larger lots available for redevelopment. In January 2001, approximately 50% of lots in Bayside were less than 600 square metres, which is a relevant threshold minimum lot size considered under the Good Design Guide (and carried forward into ResCode).
The graphs prepared by Dr Johnson show a reduction in the availability of lots less than 600 square metres throughout Bayside. Following the adoption by Council of Amendment C2*, which proposes a blanket maximum density of 1:400 square metres for all of Bayside’s residential areas, it appears that the supply of lots of an appropriate size to use for multi unit development using this density tool (800 square metres plus) is decreasing, thus severely constraining the future supply of new multi-unit residential developments to meet future household needs.
According to Dr Wolinski’s 4171 multi units (gross) over 15 years (2001-2016) or approximately 278 per annum is the approximate capacity of the supply system after Amendment C2, as exhibited. However, the impact of Amendment C2* has also been reconsidered by Dr Wolinski. His assessment now indicates that the total potential is only 2,746 multi units (gross) over the same forecast period, assuming all development on sites less than 800 square metres are to be lost.
Dr Wolinski’s figures attempt to show the impact of a constrained supply of residential development under the revised density and design provisions under Amendment C2*, taking into account a range of additional factors which may also affect the future capacity of the residential supply system up to the year 2016 such as the likely take up in residential units from activity centres, non residential conversion, declining rates of absorption over time.
The Panel appreciates that the statistics put forward by Dr Wolinski for the forecast period 2001- 2016 are “forecasts” and can be affected by many external factors which influence population growth and the housing market. The full impact of the ResCode provisions will also affect the housing supply in Bayside in the future.
Throughout the Panel hearing, some confusion arose regarding the use of specific numbers and statistical data regarding dwelling units and population proposed for inclusion in Council’s MSS (refer Clause 21.02-4 Demographic Statistics and Clause 21.05 Housing), particularly in the light of the more recent data derived by Dr Wolinski from Council’s GIS technology and the likely impacts of Amendment C2*. As Mr Montebello stated in his final submission to the Panel:
57 Bayside Planning Scheme: Amendment C2 Report of a Panel: August 2001
The question is whether this type of information (in terms of projections) is appropriate to be included in a MSS? Frankly, the Planning Authority is not overly concerned about whether this type of information is in or out. However, what is necessary, is to make it clear that dwelling number targets are related to the extent to which the municipality can contain a particular level of development without unduly impacting on the valued characteristics of the municipality.
The Panel does not accept the revised “constrained” forecast data based on Amendment C2* regarding future residential development in Bayside, as presented by Dr Wolinski. The figures are derived from an analysis that focuses strongly on the retention of neighbourhood character and environmental considerations to the exclusion of Council’s obligations under the urban consolidation principles of the planning scheme. The Panel believes that Amendment C2 will allow greater potential supply of medium density housing development than Amendment C2*. Furthermore, the impact of ResCode, and its omission of density standards for future development, creates further uncertainty regarding future housing demand and supply levels in the City of Bayside.
Although Council’s MSS is subject to review every three years, the Panel is cautious about the inclusion of specific population and development targets for additional new dwellings over the 16 year forecast period from 2000. If a target for the required additional dwelling stock is to be set down in the MSS, the Panel believes that it should refer to an approximate figure, couched in terms of “in the order of 6,500 – 7000 net additional dwellings over the period 2000-2016”. There are too many factors which can interplay on the future level of additional new dwellings each year which make setting a future projection figure for housing supply up to the year 2016 in Bayside difficult to determine and possibly impracticable to implement and manage over time. If such data is considered important to guide the future development of Bayside then it could simply be in a reference document under the Bayside Planning Scheme, such as the Residential Strategy. The Panel further believes that the figures, once adopted, should be closely monitored and carefully assessed every three years when the MSS in the Bayside Planning Scheme is subject to a thorough review.
Dr Wolinski acknowledged that in Bayside the population is ageing, household occupancy rate is declining, and there is consequent need for additional residential accommodation in a variety of forms.
The Panel asked Dr Wolinski whether, taking into account Councils’ preferred density of 1:400 square metres; the existing (and proposed) Heritage Overlay areas; the Design and Development Overlay areas; the height control areas; the Vegetation Protection Overlay areas; and the current allotment sizes; – where is any new development likely to occur? His response was that he saw this being limited to the “Managed Change Areas” despite this term being abandoned in the Amendment C2* version which he prefers and despite there being a 1:400 square metre density regime proposed.
58 Bayside Planning Scheme: Amendment C2 Report of a Panel: August 2001
The Panel is not satisfied with this response. The Panel observed that the opportunity for the re- development of large sites was limited and in response to the Panel inquiring where such sites might be, Council indicated that it had not undertaken that level of detail. It seems to the Panel, that by virtue of the planning controls of Amendment C2*, Council is attempting to “freeze out” new residential development opportunities, and would rather maintain the status quo as it currently exists. Mr Brooker asked Dr Wolinski whether, in the context of it being the “states wish” to consolidate urban areas, whether Amendment C2* is more about preserving and protecting what is there in accordance with the community’s wishes. Dr Wolinski agreed that this is “exactly the point”.
It is the view of the Panel that if development is to be concentrated in certain areas only (ie on lots in excess of 800 square metres and not encumbered by other controls) it would place a significant amount of stress on those limited areas. While this may relieve the pressure from some areas in Bayside, it would shift pressures to other areas (including areas outside of Bayside), thus creating a range of new development and residential conflicts.
Based on an analysis of allotment sizes in the municipality, and Council’s proposed controls, it becomes clear to the Panel that under Amendment C2*, less than 20% of the municipality is suitable for increased development opportunities. This is contrary to the urban consolidation principles of the state government and the intent of the explicit urban consolidation policies of the Victorian Planning Provisions in the SPPF.
The Panel concludes that the exhibited Amendment C2 is a more balanced response to the housing and population demands likely to be experienced in Bayside over the next twenty years. Amendment C2 balances the environmental assets of the municipality with quite modest urban consolidation ambitions. This is an appropriate balance in the view of the Panel.
The Panel recommends that the broad range of population and housing projections based on the Amendment C2 research be included in the MSS.
The Panel recommends that the Residential and Environment Management Strategy Map as shown in Figure A1 for the Bayside Residential Strategy be included in the MSS.
59 Bayside Planning Scheme: Amendment C2 Report of a Panel: August 2001
8. HEIGHT
There were many submissions received to Amendments C2 and C2* concerning height, which together with density, was perhaps the most contentious issue in considering the amendment.
Nearly half of the submissions on Amendment C2 support one or two storey buildings in residential areas and a three-storey limit for buildings in commercial centres. These submittors are spread throughout the municipality. Many of these submittors also support a 4-metre setback for the third storey in activity centres, as proposed by Council in Amendment C2*. A number of submittors raised concerns regarding the definition of height and Mr B Whiteway of Beaumaris also recommended that height limits include any part of a basement above ground level and any structure on a roof garden, except guard rails.
A number of submittors objected to the opportunity for buildings of 3 storeys in height, even subject to a planning permit including D&S Joy of Sandringham, B&J Challenger of Beaumaris, P Eden of Sandringham, A Gibson of Beaumaris, and K&L Bennett of Brighton.
Some submittors (mainly from Hampton) opposed Amendment C2 and submitted that Height Control Area 5 – Managed Change Residential Areas should also cover Height Control Area 6 – Environment Enhancement Area. They also recommended protection from multi-storey developments which compromise privacy and overlook/overshadow single storey areas.
Dr Skoutarides, President of BARD, opposes any height provisions and recommends that an applicant demonstrate that buildings greater than 2 storeys in height will not have an undesirable impact on the amenity of the area.
Primelife Corporation Limited, via SJB Planning, opposes restrictions on height to 3 storeys in commercial areas, as it is considered contrary to town planning principles and State government policy.
The Bayside Ratepayers Association indicated general support for low-rise development throughout Bayside. They further said that three storeys are considered sustainable in shopping centres, with perhaps 4 storeys where warranted to protect the survival of the centres. This Association along with the Brighton Residents for Urban Protection (BRUP) support 2 storey height limit in residential areas to protect their low scale character. BRUP considers Council’s height controls for the Bayside shopping centres, being a mandatory limit of 3 storeys, with a third storey setback, an appropriate compromise to retain the “village” character of the centres. In addition, BRUP considers that future development at the coastal nodes should complement existing built forms and relate to buildings of local heritage value. 8.1 Existing Height Controls in Bayside The foreshore area of Bayside is currently covered by DDO1 in the Bayside Planning Scheme. This area was formerly known as Height Control 77 (HC 77). The main features of that control are as follows:
• It applies to the whole of the foreshore area of the City of Bayside, extending inland for a distance of about 1 kilometre in places. • It applies to all buildings, regardless of whether they are residential or commercial, 60 Bayside Planning Scheme: Amendment C2 Report of a Panel: August 2001
detached houses or medium density. • It specifies an absolute maximum building height of 6 metres or 2 storeys (excluding basement). • No discretion exists to consider a planning permit for buildings of three storeys or more in height. An amendment to the planning scheme is required to exceed two storeys • A permit is required if any storey is to be more than 3.5 metres in height.
Elsewhere in the City of Bayside, there are currently no mandatory height controls. Any controls that exist are discretionary or take the form of guidelines contained in planning documents. The issue of a planning permit can vary such height limits. The height of medium density housing or detached houses on lots of less than 300 square metres is currently controlled by the Bayside Planning Scheme and the Good Design Guide. No mandatory or absolute height limits apply. In assessing an application for a planning permit, the Good Design Guide must be taken into account. Element 6 of the Guide establishes the same building envelope requirements (i.e. height to setback) as VicCode 1. Because a planning permit is required Council can take into account the impact of the height of a building on the character of the street and on the amenity of surrounding residential properties.
8.2 Bayside Height Control Study The City of Bayside Height Control Study (2000) is a comprehensive analysis of building height in the context of Bayside. The Study addresses existing building height controls in Bayside, pressures for increased building heights in some areas, the features of Bayside and the context within which Bayside sits in the metropolitan area. The study also cross references itself to the Urban Character Study and speaks of some “tension points” in the municipality and notes (at page 31):
The primary transitions in built form, and those areas that are currently facing considerable height pressure are typically the large lot or consolidated lot parcels within the broad coastal corridor (St Kilda Street and Beach Road) and along the primary ‘boulevards’ of North Road and South Road. These are typically experiencing a progression from older 1 and 2 storey buildings on large lots to 2 and 3 storey contemporary developments with considerable site coverage. Other forms of urban consolidation, such as the current Urban Village program at Sandringham, and the evolving intensification of the strip centres of Martin, Bay, Church and Hampton Streets are collectively shifting the municipality from a consistently ‘low scale’ form towards a suburb with isolated pockets and corridors of denser built form presence.
Importantly, from the Panel’s point of view, the Study does not identify these same tensions as being evident in the inland areas of the municipality.
In determining an appropriate height regime for Bayside, the Height Control Study assessed local and contextual factors and noted that Bayside has a “low rise scale” of one and two storey buildings with some higher nodes interspersed. The study noted (page 37) that:
Within the context of the above it is the consultant’s view that policies regarding building height in Bayside should seek to respond to the existing urban form and character of the municipality rather than seek to substantially alter it. Urban character and residential amenity should be the main determinants of building height throughout the municipality (consultant emphasis). Increased building height in those locations likely to experience pressures (i.e. along the Bay and around commercial centres and on larger lots) should only be accommodated by planning policy where the established character and amenity of those areas will not be unreasonably affected…..there are 61 Bayside Planning Scheme: Amendment C2 Report of a Panel: August 2001
opportunities for buildings of more than two storeys in Bayside. However, even in the locations with such potential, the maximum height of buildings should be limited to a ‘reasonable height’ in view of the overall ‘low level’ of development in Bayside.
The study then proceeds to dissect the City into foreshore, inland, commercial and nodal areas and, on the Panel’s reading of the document, the study makes the following comments with respect to each area (pages 39-41; and pages 50-51).
Foreshore: It is considered that the pressures for increased building height along the Bay warrant the higher level of control inherent with a mandatory control. A real likelihood exists that the flexibility of a discretionary control would lead to a gradual increase in building height along the Bay, above that identified as appropriate in Council policies. Properties along Port Phillip Bay will continue to attract pressures for higher buildings due to the desirability of a seaside location and the opportunity for open coastal and city skyline views. The Esplanade and Beach Road also provide an important metropolitan “driving experience” and provide a context by which to see the pattern of suburban development of Melbourne evolve from inner areas such as Port Melbourne to lower density areas such as Bayside and beyond. The consultants consider that it is important that these properties retain a scale that reflects the residential (and suburban) areas in which they are located. In most cases, properties fronting these roads have direct residential abuttals at the rear which raises potential amenity considerations if buildings exceed two storeys. For these reasons the existing two storey building height should generally be retained along the Bay.(Panel emphasis).
Inland: Despite the lack of height controls over residential areas in Melbourne generally, it is considered appropriate to impose policies regarding height across the inland
62 Bayside Planning Scheme: Amendment C2 Report of a Panel: August 2001
residential areas of Bayside. The reasons for this approach are discussed below. Whilst the recommendations of this study are that residential development should generally occur within a two storey envelope, the opportunity should remain for a third storey or part third storey to be considered by Council in appropriate circumstances throughout the inland parts of the municipality. The imposition of a mandatory control across such a large residential area would invariably lead to situations of marginal non-compliance; as well as legitimate cases where taller buildings might be appropriate. A mandatory control is likely to necessitate repeated requests for minor planning scheme amendments. Unlike foreshore areas, it is not considered that the pressures for higher development warrant a mandatory control across the inland residential areas within the municipality.(Panel emphasis).
Nodes: As an exception to this general policy, it is considered that buildings of up to a mandatory maximum of three storeys may be permitted (subject to a permit application) in situations where properties fronting Beach Road and the Esplanade are separated from residential properties to the rear by non-residential uses such as a road, railway line, business zone etc. Locations where this occurs are limited to the following areas:
• In Brighton, to the north of Wellington Street. • In Hampton, to the north of Orlando Street. • In Beaumaris, west of Reserve Road.
Additional height may also be accommodated at key nodes or focal points along the Bay. These include:
Green Point — This location is presently occupied by a 5 storey residential building, hotel and a number of small scale commercial activities. The land currently holds a permit for a 4 storey building. It is relatively isolated from residential properties by the railway to the rear. Development up to a maximum of 4 storeys is considered appropriate in this location subject to sensitive treatment of urban design and heritage issues. This is consistent with Bayside’s new format planning scheme consent for buildings of up to 12m on the site. The hotel site (identified in the Bayside Heritage Review as the former Royal Terminus Hotel) is an important part of this coastal activity node and it is possible that this site also achieve some additional height (up to a maximum of 4 storeys) in the future. Any redevelopment to this site would require a site specific amendment and need to meet rigorous design and heritage guidelines.
Hampton — Small Street provides the potential to link the Hampton Street Shopping Centre to the Bay. Significant three storey residential redevelopment has already occurred on the rear of the site of the former Hampton Hotel whilst the refurbished hotel building is two storeys. An appropriately designed third floor on top of the former hotel building (current development proposal with Council), and a three storey building on the adjacent vacant site (responsively designed having regard to
63 Bayside Planning Scheme: Amendment C2 Report of a Panel: August 2001
neighbouring properties) would reinforce this nodal point.
Sandringham — The Urban Village Study identifies the potential for building heights of up to 3 to 4 storeys in this centre.
Black Rock — Building heights of three or possibly four storeys may be appropriate in this centre, subject to the preparation of an urban village study similar to that prepared for Sandringham.
A slightly higher built form than the surrounding residential development is supported at the above nodal points. It is considered that subject to good design higher built form can occur without adverse impact on the amenity of residential properties. A higher built form can reinforce the urban form of Bayside along Beach Road. These points are traditional features of the urban context of Bayside and provide landmarks and reference points to people travelling along the foreshore.
Commercial Areas: Commercial areas in Bayside are essentially of a local nature and have a strong village feel. This limits the height of building and the intensity of development that is appropriate. Nevertheless, the centres do have the potential for taller buildings and a greater intensity of development than surrounding residential areas, allowing for greater activity reinforcing the “village” feel of the centre. Each centre has its own characteristics and the most appropriate way in which to identify development potential is through the preparation of an urban village study. The urban village study prepared for the Sandringham centres identifies opportunities for buildings of up to 3 and 4 storeys in parts of the centres.
The height of new development in commercial streets should not exceed 3 storeys, however a height of 4 storeys may be accommodated in higher parts of traditional Victorian strip centres subject to design articulation and setback upper levels. New commercial development should generally be no greater than one (1) storey higher than adjoining buildings.
Having done this analysis of the four areas, the Study then neatly summarises the distinction between mandatory controls and discretionary controls (at page 39) noting:
For the purpose of this study, the consultants recommend a mandatory height control be imposed over foreshore areas only, but that a discretionary control be imposed over inland areas.
As previously mentioned, the relevant recommendations arising from the Study include:
R8 A mandatory height control be imposed over foreshore areas. R9 A discretionary control be imposed over inland areas. R11 A maximum mandatory height of 3 storeys should be permitted in a limited number of locations, where properties fronting the Bay do not abut residential
64 Bayside Planning Scheme: Amendment C2 Report of a Panel: August 2001
properties at the rear. These include: • In Brighton to the north of Wellington Street. • In Hampton, to the north of Orlando Street. • In Beaumaris, west of Reserve Road. R12 Opportunity for higher buildings at key nodes or focal points should exist along the Bay, these include: • Green Point – A 4 storey maximum as per the current permit. • Hampton – Small Street – A mandatory maximum of 3 storeys. • Sandringham – Up to 3 and 4 storeys as identified in the Sandringham Urban Village Study. • Black Rock – Subject to preparation of an urban village study.
The Panel believes that the Height Control Study is a robust analysis of the issue of height in Bayside and is based on sound strategic analysis. The recommendations of the study logically flow from the analysis. It is important to note that nowhere does this study identify a one storey preferred height for the Beaumaris area.
8.3 Bayside Urban Character Report The Urban Character Study identified 8 urban character areas. It included for each area:
• an urban character summary statement; • an urban character assessment; • a description of the dominant contributory elements; • a list of potential threats to the valued character of the area; • a desired future character statement;
Guidelines for new development are also provided in the Study. In relation to building height, the guidelines are structured as follows:
Objectives: • Ensure that the prevailing street rhythm of building scale and height are maintained. • Ensure that individual buildings do not dominate the streetscape.
Techniques: • New development or extensions should not exceed the height prescribed in the Design and Development Overlay. • Within the overall height restriction, limit the height of an infill development or building addition to the same height, or no more than one storey higher than adjoining dwellings. • In streetscapes of varying heights, new buildings should be no more than one storey above the height of the lower adjacent building. • An upper storey addition to an existing dwelling should generally be setback to conceal the change from street view and to maintain the appearance and character
65 Bayside Planning Scheme: Amendment C2 Report of a Panel: August 2001
of the streetscape.
Matters to avoid include: • ‘Box’ shaped dwellings with unarticulated roof forms, wall surfaces and bulk that sharply contrasts with the character of neighbouring properties. • Upper storey additions that visually dominate the front façade of the dwelling. • Roof forms that are flat or at inappropriate angles in relation to valued architectural forms. • Sharp visual contrasts in building bulk and form between new and existing buildings.
The Panel believes that the guidelines attached to the Urban Character Report provide decision makers with assistance in terms of assessing building height. The Panel notes the lack of mandatory controls in the above analysis in preference for a “performance based” approach.
8.4 Exhibited and Proposed Height Controls The proposed height controls in Amendment C2 were summarised by Council in its opening submission as follows:
• Bayside Residential A – 2 storeys maximum. (This was essentially the existing foreshore area although the area was reduced to about 500 metres inland) • Bayside Residential B – 3 storeys maximum, although a permit was required to exceed two storeys. • Bayside Commercial – Three storeys maximum (except where an urban village study specified a higher limit) • Minimal Change Areas (residential) - Two storeys although, a permit was required to exceed one storey and it was possible to exceed 2 storeys with a permit. • Managed Change Areas (residential) – Two storeys although, a permit was required to exceed one storey based on a complex formula that takes into account context and a permit could also be granted to exceed 2 storeys • Environmental Enhancement Areas – Two storey maximum although a permit could be granted to exceed 2 storeys. • Commercial Centres – Four storey maximum, although a permit could be granted to exceed this height.
The Panel believes that this is a reasonably faithful translation of the Bayside Height Control Study excepting for the minimal and managed change areas where there is a need to obtain a permit for a second storey. In addition, in the commercial centres, the study suggested that there be a three storey limit with discretion to go to a fourth “recessed” level.
As a result of the 23 October 2000 Council meeting, the height controls are now proposed to be rationalised pursuant to Amendment C2*. Once again, for completeness, these controls were summarised by Council as follows:
66 Bayside Planning Scheme: Amendment C2 Report of a Panel: August 2001
C2* changes the height control regime from seven (7) height control areas to essentially four areas (plus those existing controls in the Scheme eg Sandringham Village). The new controls are essentially:
• 2 storeys for all residential areas with no ability to seek a third level; (HC1 and HC4) • 2 storeys in minimal change areas although a permit is required for the second storey; (HC3) and • 3 storeys in commercial centres with no ability to seek a permit to go higher.(HC2)
The Panel notes that these outcomes are at variance with the Height Control Study other than for the foreshore areas. In the inland area, these outcomes are clearly inconsistent with the exhibited amendment which (amongst other things) has an objective to:
…establish discretionary height controls over inland residential areas so as to manage building heights in highly valued and sensitive areas whilst also creating the flexibility for marginally higher buildings and responsive design.
8.5 Height Controls and Residential Development Standards Over the last three years there have been a number of reports that have analysed building height. These reports have provided a reference point for this Panel in addressing the proposed building controls in Amendment C2. The Standing Advisory Committee on Local Variations to the Good Design Guide commented in its August 1999 report on, amongst other things, height control. They said (at page 141):
Height is one of the most contentious issues in planning. The question, ‘How high should a building be?’ has no absolute answer but depends on its context. There is nothing wrong with height per se. Rather it is the external impact which height may have on surrounding development in terms of overlooking or overshadowing, or its aesthetic impact when viewed within its surroundings, that will influence whether the height of a building is appropriate or not. (Panel emphasis)
Unfortunately, the frequent objection that a development is ‘too high’ is leading to an automatic perception that all height is bad. This manifests itself in views such as ‘only single storey development should be allowed in single storey areas’ or a rigid adherence to height limits in areas with height controls. It results in a lack of critical evaluation of the true impact of this feature of development. The potential benefits of height are rarely discussed, only the disbenefits. Height can lend a building dignity and grace. On the other hand, height can contribute to unacceptable bulk and dominance. In each case, it is the height in combination with other features that results in the outcome.
67 Bayside Planning Scheme: Amendment C2 Report of a Panel: August 2001
The perception of the height of a building when juxtaposed against a lower building will depend on the relativity of their respective heights. It is for this reason that in Element 3 of The Good Design Guide on Neighbourhood Character, E3.C5 states: “Significant changes of building height between existing dwellings and new development should be graduated.”
…..The issue of height will require independent assessment in each case, which can only be done through the planning permit process. Recent experience with The Good Design Guide indicates that both planners and designers are becoming more competent in handling this issue. In the case of single dwellings, the Standing Advisory Committee considers it is a case where the council must decide if it considers the situation requires the application of a Design and Development Overlay so that a planning permit can also be required for certain single dwellings as well as medium density development.
The Panel notes that the suggested approach is to relate building height to its context rather than to a prescriptive maximum. This is in contrast to Amendment C2 and especially C2*. In essence, the Standing Advisory Committee believed that height control in itself can be a blunt planning tool which may not always lead to an acceptable built form outcome. Height must be considered in the context of its adjoining and nearby development. On that basis, this Panel believes that a mandatory height control will rarely be flexible to accommodate the contextual variations that inevitably apply in most areas, unless the area exhibits “exceptional” built form consistency.
8.6 Height Controls in New Format Planning Schemes At much the same time as the Standing Advisory Committee report was released, there was also considerable discussion in the context of the preparation and implementation of new format planning schemes, especially concerning the role of height controls, both mandatory and discretionary. The new format Melbourne Planning Scheme was one of the first to be considered by a Panel in late 1997, which noted:
An objective of the planning reform program is to identify outcomes against which applications should be assessed. If an application is not contrary to an outcome, or will not undermine it, the philosophy is that (on this basis at least), it ought to be allowed. Height limits are not ends in themselves, but should be based on identifiable objectives or outcomes (Panel emphasis). They are a means to an end, not an end in themselves. …………………. Requiring that the height of new buildings reinforces or reflects existing built form does not in itself say anything about why this is appropriate or provide any guidance about when a height limit may be varied. To argue that a height limit should not be exceeded because it will not reflect existing form, without then saying what qualities or characteristics the existing built form possesses which makes it desirable or appropriate in this specific location to see it complemented or reinforced, is little
68 Bayside Planning Scheme: Amendment C2 Report of a Panel: August 2001
different to the existing situation where it is frequently argued that height limits should not be exceeded because they are the height limit. …………………. Reflecting existing built form is a strategy or a means of achieving some objective. Unless it is clear what that objective is, there is little to guide decision making when applications to exceed a height limit are made. Used judiciously, the Panel considers that height limits are an invaluable tool to achieve certain design objectives. But to operate effectively within the framework of the new format planning schemes, the objectives must be clear. The justifications must be apparent because the actual height limits are only a strategy: they are only a means to an end.
The Melbourne Planning Scheme Panel/Advisory Committee indicated that it did not support submissions that height limits in the Design and Development Overlays should be mandatory.
The issue of height control was taken a step further in the context of the use of a Design and Development Overlay in Amendments C5 and C14 of the Port Phillip Planning Scheme (December 1999). The Panel/Advisory Committee discussed “preferred heights” as opposed to a performance based approach and noted (from page 69):
The matter of height has preoccupied the community and developer submittors alike. Debate has extended, despite reliance in the amendment, on preferred maximum heights rather than purely prescriptive height controls, to the issue of whether it is necessary or appropriate to nominate preferred height in combination with performance based controls, rather than relying on performance based controls alone. The debate has also focussed on whether the higher degrees of certainty that may be afforded by the combination of the two, is warranted. ……………………... The Panel supports the view that such numerical height indicators have advantages over the sole use of objectives in certain circumstances, particularly where significant change is anticipated and there is a wide divergence of views amongst stake-holders as to what constitutes an appropriate outcome in terms of the scale of that change. In these cases, numerical indicators can increase the certainty and clarity about the range of options that are likely. ………………………. The key factor in accepting the validity of such numerical indicators, is however, that the reasons that underlie specific numerical outcomes, are explicitly and clearly linked to them. It is the Panel’s view that this will easier to achieve in those areas where some kind of formal exploration, modelling and testing is carried out at a precinct level and that process is used as a basis for planning controls. ……………………….. …. it is the Panel’s view that the use of preferred maximum heights is considered appropriate as the expression of Council’s preferences for the overall form of a place, where:
• significant change, or pressure for change is anticipated in a precinct; • where the form of that change overall has been identified at precinct level through
69 Bayside Planning Scheme: Amendment C2 Report of a Panel: August 2001
evaluation of a range of tested alternatives; • where the reasons that underlie the selected and preferred formal alternative can be clearly and directly related to the stated objectives in the planning scheme; and • where there is a specific reference made in the planning scheme to the ability to vary them and the objectives that need to be satisfied in order to do that. …………………………. The Panel does not support the application of Design and Development Overlays with preferred maximum heights where there is no identifiable strategic basis, or where the application of such a control is superfluous to existing planning provisions such as a Heritage Overlay.
The Panel observes that, once again, height controls were seen in the context of built form objectives rather than just being seen as an arbitrary prescriptive measure.
Since that time, there has been some reconsideration at the state level on the application of height controls especially as a result of the State Government Planning Agenda “A Sensible Balance” released by the Minister for Planning in December 1999. That report indicated that the Government would look favourably to limiting height around Port Phillip Bay through amendments to Planning Schemes. The Minister for Planning noted that:
A number of bayside Councils have asked the Minister to implement this new policy position through amendments to their planning schemes. The amendments will provide interim protection pending completion of the necessary strategic planning and local policy development, to justify the specification of preferred maximum building height and other requirements within their municipality.
The position of the government at that time was to protect foreshore areas. It did not refer to inland areas.
Most recently the Hobsons Bay Amendment C11 Panel and the Queenscliffe Amendment C7 Panel have both addressed the matter of height control and have reflected on some of the earlier Panel reports as well on the State Government agenda which contemplates mandatory height controls, subject to strategic research around Port Phillip Bay.
The Hobsons Bay Panel addressed the philosophy of height controls and said
The City of Hobsons Bay has proposed the use of Design and Development Overlays as a means in which to control the height of all new development along the foreshore. The application of overlays to control height is consistent with the State Planning Agenda and it takes the interim control approved by Amendment L21 a step further. While the interim control was largely a blanket control over the whole of the foreshore area, the key variation in this amendment is the identification of some areas within Hobsons Bay, and in particular Williamstown, which are proposed to allow up to three storeys subject to guidelines and objectives being satisfied. ………………………….
70 Bayside Planning Scheme: Amendment C2 Report of a Panel: August 2001
It is important to recognise that the Minister for Planning provided the opportunity for Council to take up an absolute height control as an interim measure until such time as Council had undertaken the necessary strategic work to maintain the control. Many submittors wanted the interim controls to remain as they were, however the Council was required to undertake the necessary strategic work to support and justify the controls. In undertaking this work, the Council found that some areas of the municipality would benefit from an increase from two to three stories.
While the Hobsons Bay Panel supported in principle the comments of the earlier Melbourne Panel, they also recognised that these comments were made in a different policy context to the situation now at Hobsons Bay where the Minister for Planning has allowed the introduction of (interim) mandatory height limits. In their concluding remarks, the Panel noted (page 50):
While the Design and Development Overlays prescribe height limitations, it is clear to the Panel that urban character, heritage values and residential amenity are to remain determinants in assessing development applications. This is reflected in the various design outcomes, design objectives and decision guidelines, which form part of the Design and Development Overlays.
The Queenscliffe Amendment C7 Panel also searched for a context and a strategic source for the imposition of the height controls. They concluded that there was a sound strategic reason for including some form of control and said that;
Leaving aside for a moment the issue of their mandatory nature, the Panel is satisfied that there is ample justification in the Urban Character Study, and on the Panels inspections, for the introduction of some form of height controls. Queenscliffe does exude special characteristics. The vision statement in the existing MSS goes so far as to describe them as “unique”, and it is not a misuse of this often misused term to describe Queenscliffe’s characteristics as “unique”. It has a natural and built environment and a very restricted size which jointly conspire to set it apart from all other municipalities. Those qualities are clearly under threat from inappropriate development which principally manifests itself by way of tall structures which (understandably) try and take advantage of the spectacular aspects of the bay, the Heads and Swan Bay. …….. This is to be contrasted with the findings of the Character Study. One of the identified elements which made up the overall character of the Borough was the prevailing “village scale” of the towns. That village scale is evident in both Queenscliff and Point Lonsdale even though it is for different reasons. In the opinion of the Panel that “village scale” will be eroded unless a limit is put on development height. There is ample evidence already of having an unregulated approach to development height. More of the same would quickly reduce the appeal of both towns. The scarce land resource of the Borough would be stretched by those seeking a view.
Having established the need for some form of height control, the Queenscliffe Panel then analysed the merits of the certainty of a mandatory height control versus the flexibility of a discretionary control. They stated that:
71 Bayside Planning Scheme: Amendment C2 Report of a Panel: August 2001
The other matter with respect to height is to consider whether or not there would be merit in having discretion to permit a taller building than the maximum specified. In other words, removing its mandatory aspects……..The Panel can see no circumstances in Queenscliffe which would warrant an application above the specified maximum. Indeed, by introducing flexibility, it would inevitably lead to this matter being tested time and time again at Council and at VCAT. Land is so scarce and expensive at Queenscliffe and views so sought after, that the Panel believes that a relaxed height regime would give rise to many applications attempting to “push the envelope”. The Panel is satisfied that Council has a clear vision; it is supported by strategic research; it is endorsed by many in the community; and it therefore should be sanctioned in the Planning Scheme.
The Queenscliffe Panel finally noted that:
Height controls introduce one of the few elements of certainty in the planning system. They should however, be the exception rather than the norm. The circumstances of Queenscliffe are, in the view of the Panel, exceptional.
Based on the deliberations of Panels over the last four years, and based on the practical implementation of various new format planning schemes as a result of the State Planning Agenda, this Panel concludes that the following principles should apply to the consideration of height controls in any area:
• Height controls are contemplated in new format planning schemes. • A “Design and Development Overlay” is the most appropriate mechanism to implement height controls. • There must be real evidence of demand for development exceeding the proposed height limits. • The height control must be soundly based and be the outcome of thorough strategic research. • Height controls must be seen in the context of built form outcomes and objectives rather than as just being a prescriptive tool. • While mandatory height controls are contemplated, they are the exception and must achieve a clear built form objective. • Discretionary height controls are the preferred way to deliver a performance based outcome.
The Panel will now apply these principles to the four candidate areas in Bayside being:
• Foreshore • Inland • Nodes • Commercial Areas
72 Bayside Planning Scheme: Amendment C2 Report of a Panel: August 2001
8.7 Foreshore Height Control From the Panel’s point of view, the proposed mandatory control emerges as a strong recommendation arising from the principal strategic work being the Height Control Study. This study supports a mandatory control. The study also suggests that “…a real likelihood exists that the flexibility of a discretionary control would lead to a gradual increase in building height along the bay…”. The Panel agrees with this assessment. On its inspections, the Panel noted the immediate change in built form at the boundary of Port Phillip and Bayside. On Beach Road (and to a lesser extent Brighton Road), multi-level buildings give way to a built form which is typically two storey and can be characterised as “low rise”. The change is abrupt. Even further along Beach Road in the Brighton “golden mile”, buildings retain this typically two storey characteristic with the only variations being some upper level viewing decks.
The Panel believes that without the height control over the last decade (as HC 77), one can only imagine that the foreshore areas would have been the battleground for many a dispute over tall buildings.
The Panel is further satisfied that there are “exceptional circumstances” along the foreshore areas. Like Hobsons Bay and Queenscliffe, this is a foreshore area where competition for a seaside aspect is intense.
Finally, while a preferred or discretionary height remains an option, the certainty provided, in this instance, by a mandatory control will avoid community uncertainty over what is a very clear and long held Council and community position.
The Panel concludes that the mandatory foreshore height control is both justified and warranted.
The Panel recommends that the mandatory height controls in the foreshore areas be approved as exhibited in Amendment C2.
8.8 Inland Height Control When applying these same principles to the inland areas, the Panel is unable to source the strategic justification for a mandatory height control in any of the research which has been undertaken. On the contrary, it is the quite clear need for a discretionary height limit which emerges from both the Hansen study and even Dr Wolinski’s own evidence. The Hansen report recommended that “…..a discretionary control be imposed over the inland areas” while Dr Wolinski stated in his evidence to the Panel that the important issue was the endorsement of the “low rise” nature of the municipality rather than a specific number of storeys.
The lack of justification for a mandatory control is even more pronounced when one assesses the strategic research in the Urban Character Report with respect to height. The Panel has already noted that this report needs to have an elevated status in Amendment C2. The municipality is split into eight “character” areas with each one analysed according to:
• Urban Character Summary Statement • Urban Character Assessment • Dominant Contributory Elements 73 Bayside Planning Scheme: Amendment C2 Report of a Panel: August 2001
• Other Contributory Elements • Potential Threats to the Identified Character and Contributory Elements • Desired Future Character Statement • Special Development Controls • Design and Development Guidelines
In each of the eight character areas, “Built Form Height” is discussed as a dominant contributory element and contains a description of the typical building heights found in the area. Importantly, from the Panel’s point of view, not one of the eight areas suggests that building height is a “potential threat” nor does any of the eight areas mention “height” in the context of the desired future character of the area. The Panel believes that it is a quantum leap to suggest that there is any strategic justification for a mandatory height control in the inland areas when the character study omits to suggest that the question of height poses any threat to any area in the municipality; or that the issue of height needs addressing in the context of the desired future character of any area.
With respect to the Beaumaris and Black Rock areas, the Panel again finds no support for the mandatory approach. On its inspections, the Panel noted the importance of vegetation to the “character” of these areas. However, apart from this, the variety of building stock, the height, bulk and scale of building is little different in Beaumaris and Black Rock than it is anywhere else in Bayside. The Panel was not provided with any logical or strategic reason why there needs to be a planning permit required for a two storey building in these suburbs when such a size of building is a perfectly normal occurrence in all metropolitan areas across Melbourne. On its inspections, the Panel observed countless examples of existing double storey dwellings in both Black Rock and Beaumaris which help make up the “character” of this area.
The Panel believes that the divergent characteristic of the Beaumaris/Black Rock is its vegetation which is adequately addressed by the VPO. The Residential Strategy (page 47) notes that the:
..... Beaumaris area, with its combination of golf course reserves, native tree planting and unstructured road reserves is a visual “icon” for many residents. Like the coast, this area functions as a reference point and psychological link to the wider group of residential values.
There is nothing about its built form which warrants exceptional treatment. A thorough analysis of the Urban Character Report confirms this. Character Area H covers the Beaumaris/Black Rock area. The following description of its “built form height” appears (page 45);
74 Bayside Planning Scheme: Amendment C2 Report of a Panel: August 2001
Dwellings are a combination of single and double storey, however renovations do create partial double storey building forms and there are locations where the topography or history of development has introduced three level or irregularly sites structures. Building extensions which preserve an articulated roof form and an upper storey setback, most effectively maintain the valued character of the area.
Height is not mentioned in this area as a “threat” or as having an influence on the “desired future character”.
At the rear of the Urban Character Report are the Design and Development Guidelines which list a number of requirements for any applicant to address in lodging an application with Council. The guidelines highlight the key issues as site layout, building envelope, privacy, density, open space, car parking and others. Height is not a specific issue highlighted in the guidelines. The assessment sheets accompanying the guidelines include (at page 56) an “Architectural Character” sheet which requires a consideration of the height of the adjacent buildings and a requirement for the applicant to specify how the design responds to this information. From the Panel’s point of view, this is a long way from specifying or justifying a mandatory height control. It simply does not emerge as a strong enough issue anywhere in Bayside other than in the foreshore areas. The Guidelines finally contain (at page 62) a performance based assessment of height including techniques which state that:
Within the overall height restriction, limit the height of an infill development or building addition to the same height, or no more than one storey higher than adjoining dwellings.
In streetscapes of varying heights, new buildings should be no more than one storey above the height of the lower adjacent building.
This performance based approach to the consideration of height is the preferred option of the Panel in the inland areas. This will require the applicant to justify the proposal in the context of the neighbourhood and the streetscape rather than on the basis of an arbitrary and unjustified height limit.
In terms of the requirement in some areas for a permit to exceed one storey, the Panel notes that, according to the community consultation conducted for the “Residential Strategy” (page 46 of report):
..... the community is prepared to accept increases in residential densities of a low scale: ie single storey and double storey dwellings,
and
.... the overall scale of residential development in Bayside is perceived as predominantly low scale and based on a range of one and two storey detached dwellings in garden settings and street based shopping strips.
75 Bayside Planning Scheme: Amendment C2 Report of a Panel: August 2001
These observations concur with the Panel inspections. The Panel agrees that both single and double storey buildings maintain this “low scale” of development. The Panel therefore queries the basis for the requirement that anything over one storey obtain a planning permit.
Finally, the Panel does not see a rash of applications emerging for three storey (or more) homes in Bayside. Apart from there being no justification for a mandatory two storey height limit in the inland areas, there is seemingly no need for it anyway. Buildings in excess of two storeys are rare in the inland area – indeed, other than at “Kyhats” in Wilson Street, the Panel was not directed to one example of a higher building in Bayside outside of the commercial areas. So long as the MSS and local policies makes it clear that the municipality is a “low rise” area which should be maintained, then any application which offends this principle will need to justify why that principle should be overturned.
The Panel has already noted that it believes that the strength of the MSS will be improved if the exhibited height policy is absorbed into the MSS to help send this message. Bearing in mind that the first purpose of every zone and overlay is to (amongst other things) implement the MSS, then the Panel is satisfied that a strong MSS which articulates the need to maintain a “low rise” area is all the ammunition Council needs to give direction in terms of height in the inland areas. With the introduction of ResCode and the importance it places on neighbourhood character, the proposed height control to preserve neighbourhood character is seen by the Panel as unwarranted and unnecessary. An unsupportable mandatory height control is not the preferred option of the Panel.
The Panel does not support any height control in the inland residential areas including Beaumaris and Black Rock as there is no justification for it. ResCode will enable Council to assess any application in the context of the Urban Character Report.
The Panel recommends that there be no height controls specified for the inland residential areas.
8.9 Commercial Area Height Control With respect to the commercial areas, the Panel believes that Amendment C2 accurately reflected the potential of the various commercial centres of Bayside. Amendment C2 (as exhibited) suggests a 4 storey discretionary maximum which was later changed in Amendment C2* to 3 storeys. Council requested that this proposed regime stay in place until such time as all of the activity centres have had the chance to conduct an Urban Village Study. The Panel rejects this approach especially as, on current trends, it will take many years for all of these studies to be implemented. A more realistic immediate level of Council direction is required and the Panel is satisfied that the Height Control Study delivers that outcome.
76 Bayside Planning Scheme: Amendment C2 Report of a Panel: August 2001
Urban villages around fixed rail commercial nodes are likely to prove an attractive residential option in the future. They maintain the vitality of the centres and they help ease pressures for residential redevelopment elsewhere. The Panel notes that the amended MSS (at Clause 21.05-3) encourages “.. higher residential densities within designated activity centres”. This suggests to the Panel a more significant built form than 3 storeys is anticipated. Yet the Panel is somewhat puzzled by Council’s attitude to key development proposals and a number of submittors presented at the hearing and expressed a degree of frustration about the lack of consistency with regard to interpretation of the planning scheme and the opportunities to develop in some of the key commercial centres, despite what was in the planning scheme. Some of these are detailed further below.
The Primelife site is a property located at 25 Wilson Street, on the corner of Bay Street and Asling Street, Brighton. It forms part of the Bay Street Precinct. It is proposed to develop the site as a serviced aged care facility, with a retail and commercial frontage to Bay Street. The Panel agrees with the submission of Ms Peterson that the site represents an excellent opportunity for infill development.
Under the exhibited Amendment C2, the DDO allowed for development of 3 to 4 stories, subject to meeting performance criteria. Under the modified Amendment C2*, the site would allow for a maximum of 3 stories. Both amendments propose a density ratio of 1:50 square metres. While the Panel is not in a position to comment on the merits of the Primelife proposal, the Panel is concerned that the Council considers that an urban village study should be prepared and finalised to inform the future direction of the Bay Street Precinct. The Panel would have some sympathy for this position if such an urban village strategy was underway, or imminent, but it is not. The Panel considers that the proposed height limit as exhibited under Amendment C2 is entirely appropriate for this site and the proposal should be assessed within that framework. Bay Street is an activity centre and the planning scheme provides appropriate mechanisms to deal with this area.
The population and housing data suggests an aging population structure for Bayside and well designed development in activity centres should be encouraged as far as possible to cater for different population needs. The Panel considers that Council should keep an open mind on development applications of this kind.
The Kyhats Hotel proposal involves the redevelopment of the hotel where the front of the property is proposed to be retained and the rear redeveloped as a new three storey apartment building. The hotel has no heritage listing and it is located within the Civic Precinct. The site was exhibited as an area of managed change, with a two storey height limit with the discretion to go to three. The modified amendment proposes an absolute two storey limit. The Panel can find no justification for the change and as mentioned it supports the exhibited amendment.
Mr Edwards represented the Brighton Yacht Club at the hearing and one of his key concerns was that the area around the yacht club and Grosvenor Street was not identified as a node as part of the strategic assessments undertaken by Council. Mr
77 Bayside Planning Scheme: Amendment C2 Report of a Panel: August 2001
Montebello conceded that this might have been an oversight. The Panel does not consider this area to be a key nodal site from a commercial perspective, although it is an important node from a landmark and activity perspective. Also it is an important part of the coastal landscape when viewed from the bay.
Mr Edwards further indicated that the yacht club was seeking to redevelop its premises and some of the land around it, and that a higher height limit should apply. The Panel can only lend support to what was exhibited as part of Amendment C2, but it does consider that further work should be undertaken as part of a Master Plan for this area, much in the same way as schools and other institutions are undertaking Master Plan work for incorporation into a planning scheme. This would allow for community involvement in the planning process and would allow for permits to be granted if they were in accordance with the overall master plan. In preparing such a master plan, Council and the community should be open and cognisant of the role of the yacht club in the development and history of the Brighton area.
Mr Hooper appeared on behalf of Croft Health Care, who are proposing to develop part of the former CSIRO site on Highett Road. He indicated that he supported Amendment C2 as exhibited, because it allowed development up to 4 stories. Amendment C2* allows a maximum of 3 storeys. Mr Hooper contended that his land could accommodate 4 storey development, particularly given its abuttals. The Panel is of the view that this site presents as an excellent redevelopment opportunity, and developments to 4 storeys would not compromise the neighbouring properties. With appropriate articulation, setbacks, landscaping and the like, it is one site in Bayside where the maximum height could be entertained.
The Council responded by indicating that an urban village study will be undertaken for Highett, but not for a few years. The Panel does not consider this is an appropriate response. Clearly this is an ideal redevelopment opportunity, and clearly 4 stories could be allowed. It is a nonsense to suggest that a much later urban village study should inform the design response for this area. The Panel supports the exhibited amendment with a height limit of 4 storeys for this area.
The Panel recommends that the height proposed for the Croft Health Care site should remain as exhibited in Amendment C2.
The Panel supports strong urban village growth and believes that a 4 storey discretionary height control for the commercial areas in the context of Bayside is not an overdevelopment.
The Panel recommends that the height limit in the commercial areas be a four storey discretionary control as exhibited in Amendment C2.
8.10 Node/Gateway Height Control There is lastly the contentious issue of nodes, gateways and activity centres. The Panel heard from many submittors on this aspect of the amendment and it is more than satisfied that the Height Control Study thoroughly analysed this issue to the point that it even highlighted nodal areas where residential interface was a concern.
Three submissions in particular presented strong cases in relation to this issue being Green Point, the Hampton Hotel and the Morris Jacobs site.
78 Bayside Planning Scheme: Amendment C2 Report of a Panel: August 2001
With regard to Green Point, Mr Barlow submitted that the area could sustain a higher building height and a more intensive form of development. It is not the role of this Panel to provide an opinion on a specific possible development outcome. However the Panel believes that if there is an opportunity for increased height and an increased form of development, such opportunities should be developed as a separate process in the form of a working party established in Port Phillip to resolve the future development of the Esplanade Hotel (although the Panel acknowledges that process was not overly successful).
Both Ms McIndoe and Mr Barlow submitted that the Green Point site is an exceptional site and advocated a site specific process for its resolution. While Mr Barlow did not support the controls proposed for the site, he acknowledged that within a building of 4 levels or a height of 12 metres, a building of high urban design and exceptional architectural integrity could be achieved.
Mr Barlow argued that with regard to the Height Control Study, the conclusions that the consultants reached indicated that height is not just an urban design issue, but it goes to the fundamental characteristics of the community, which want the low level character to be maintained. He conceded however that in considering what height controls were appropriate, one would need to have regard to community aspirations.
Ms McIndoe argued that in imposing a mandatory control for the Green Point site, it closes off a number of development opportunities. She considered Council should allow for an appropriate discretion, as the control as it currently stands may provide for a disappointing outcome for the site through prescriptive control. The Panel can see the merit of this argument.
The Panel finds that it is sometimes difficult to reconcile height when it is expressed in terms of levels or metres. It should be one or the other. In the case of Green Point, the Panel prefers that height be expressed in terms of the number of levels, an in this case it should be four levels. This would allow for greater architectural expression and articulation on this important site. Given its abuttals, a four storey building would contextually be appropriate.
Council supported the continuation of the existing control as exhibited with some minor variation to the wording to delete the word “flats”. It further indicated that Council would be prepared to talk with the developers about its proposals and the Panel supports such discussions.
79 Bayside Planning Scheme: Amendment C2 Report of a Panel: August 2001
The Panel recommends that the height proposed for the Green Point area should remain as exhibited in Amendment C2 subject to the replacement of the word “flats” with “accommodation” and the deletion of reference to 12 metres and its replacement with “four storeys”.
Mr Perry, on behalf of the Poci Brothers for the Hampton Hotel, raised the issue that an increase in height will enhance the gateway presented by the Hotel. The Panel rejects that assertion and considers that the use of gateways as a reason for somehow allowing development outside of adopted planning controls is expressed too frequently for it to have any real validity.
The overall concept of gateways has been over-abused and it seems that anything on a main road or an intersection is a gateway to somewhere. It is an overused planning term that seems to be going nowhere.
Having said that, the Panel notes that the height controls as exhibited allowed an extra level on the hotel based on the strategic research of the Height Control Study. The Panel has concluded already that it supports the exhibited C2 amendment with respect to height and therefore the Panel considers that the extra level is appropriate for this location.
The Panel recommends that the height proposed for the Hampton Hotel site should remain as exhibited in Amendment C2.
Mr Moore represented a landowner who already has a two storey building in the Brighton Beach group of shops located generally to the east of the rail line. Like many other submittors, Mr Moore took the view that this area is a “node”, and is part and parcel of the area which laps around into The Esplanade and includes Green Point. The Panel again looks to the height study for its direction and notes that the study isolated some “nodal” sites dependent on their site characteristics. The subject site was not amongst them. The Panel’s view is that no strategic reason or justification has been provided to depart from the conclusions of the Height Study. As with the Green Point submission, it remains open to the proponent to separately justify a 3 storey building on this site but this would need to be done as a separate amendment inclusive of the whole “node” area and not just the subject site.
The Panel recommends that there be no change to the exhibited Amendment C2 in respect to the Morris Jacobs site.
The Panel concludes that Amendment C2 accurately implements the Height Control Study with respect to nodes and gateways.
The Panel recommends that the exhibited Amendment C2 provisions be approved for the specified node areas, subject to the earlier recommendation about the Green Point area.
80 Bayside Planning Scheme: Amendment C2 Report of a Panel: August 2001
9. DENSITY
There were a number submissions received to Amendment C2 and to C2* concerning density.
More than half the submittors located throughout the various suburbs of the municipality, supported a mandatory maximum density for residential development for the whole of Bayside as proposed by Amendment C2*. These submittors, including C N Hunter of Sandringham, S Joy of Sandringham, C Mitchell of Brighton, D and S Salter of Brighton East, I and K Howson of Brighton East, L and D Irwin of Brighton East, are but a few of the many submittors supporting a maximum density of 1: 400 square metres in Bayside.
A number of residents associations who made submissions to the Panel also support the maximum density of 1:400 square metres throughout the City of Bayside including the Beaumaris Conservation Society.
In relation to density, Mr Barrie Shepherd for the Brighton Residents for Urban Protection strongly urged acceptance of Council’s Amendment C2* proposal and, at the very least the original Amendment C2 as exhibited. The Bayside Ratepayers Association suggested that a maximum residential density of 1: 400 square metres is regarded as a desirable outcome, but that flexibility of up to 50 square metres per site be allowed, as a compromise solution for the community on the density issue.
Several submittors, such as R Adams of Brighton supported a maximum density of 1: 400 square metres for Black Rock, Beaumaris and the Golden Mile in Brighton but supported a density of 1:350 square metres for the other areas of Bayside. The Black Rock Association for Responsible Development (BARD), represented by A Skoutarides and G Bennett supports Amendment C2*, as exhibited, and specifically strongly supports 1:400 square metres maximum density in the Areas of Minimal Change pursuant to the Residential Strategy such as Black Rock.
Several submittors considered the mandatory density provision of 1: 400 square metres as inappropriate and contrary to the VPPs. Some submittors considered the 1:400 square metres maximum density was too high and it would prevent appropriate medium density housing in Bayside, except on a limited number of sites over 800 square metres including Mr D Goodwin of Hampton who suggested a density as low as 1:350 square metres for some lots in Bayside.
One submitter, Mr D Wilson believes density levels should vary to encourage development in those areas where higher density residential development can be accommodated, such as the original Environmental Enhancement Areas like Highett. He submitted that these areas warrant a maximum density of 1:400 square metres while the original Minimum Development Change Areas should have their benchmark densities lowered to 1:500 square metres to restore balance in such areas as Brighton and Beaumaris.
9.1 Existing and Proposed Density Controls in Bayside There are no formal density controls in the Bayside Planning Scheme other than the “guideline” provisions of Element 1 of the Good Design Guide which apply to all Councils. Council has, however, had its own local assessment criteria since December 1997 - “Assessment Criteria for Multi Unit Residential Development”. The most recent version of this document (November 81 Bayside Planning Scheme: Amendment C2 Report of a Panel: August 2001
2000) notes with respect to density that:
Council has adopted a density of 1:400m2 for all residential properties within the municipality…..In activity centres, Council has adopted a base density of 1:50 sq. metres where no Shopping Centre Strategy is in place.
It is noted that this document has no official status in the Planning Scheme and Council did not claim it to have any. However the Panel is concerned about the status Council gives this document, and its role in determining planning applications at the Council level.
The Bayside Residential Strategy (1999) noted the following with respect to density:
The recommended benchmark residential development densities which form part of the Residential and Environment Management Plan for the City of Bayside:
• are maintained at 1:400 square metres for areas of minimal development change, irrespective of site size; • reflect the current Good Design Guide for Medium Density Housing requirements for areas of managed development change; and • provide for bonus development densities in areas of environmental enhancement change.
The exhibited density provision for Amendment C2 more or less reflect the findings of the Residential Strategy. The exhibited provisions are as follows:
Lot Size Areas of Minimal Environmental Areas of Managed Development Change* Enhancement Area* Development Change* (see notes) (see notes) (see notes) Smallest Street Smallest Street Smallest Street Frontage Frontage Frontage
Less than 17m or Less than 17m or Less than 17m or 17m greater 17m greater 17m greater
Less than 750m2 1:400 m2 1:400 m2 1:300m2 1:250m2 1:300m2 1:250m2 750m2 or greater 1:400 m2 1:400 m2 1:250m2 1:200m2 1:250m2 1:200m2
*Notes: 1. Proposed developments with densities marginally (5%) greater than 1:400 m2 in areas of Minimal Development Change and the respective densities in areas of Managed Change or Environmental Enhancement may be considered by Council on sites larger than 2500 m2. 2. In areas of Managed Change and Environmental Enhancement, densities may be marginally increased (5%) where it can be demonstrated that the objectives and criteria as a whole can be met. 3. Densities may be reduced where it can be demonstrated that the objectives or criteria as a whole will not be met or there will be unreasonable off site impacts. 4. Sites within Activity Centres will be considered using the objectives and strategic aims of Local Policy 22.04 (Sandringham Urban Village Policy) of the Planning Scheme as a guide.
In accordance with the formal resolution of the Council on 23 October 2000 the above proposed 82 Bayside Planning Scheme: Amendment C2 Report of a Panel: August 2001 density provisions were substituted with the following:
All Residential Zoned Land 1:400 square metres Activity Centres 1:50 square metres
The Panel notes that these provisions are, more or less, the same as the provisions in the Council “Assessment Criteria” (November 2000) for medium density housing.
9.2 Density Controls in New Format Planning Schemes The Panel considers that there is a threshold issue to consider on the principle of density as a planning tool before any analysis is needed of the arithmetic. Density has been a controversial issue for many years but unlike height, there are very few examples of density being brought into new format planning schemes. Like height however, the question of density has been addressed in recent Advisory Committee Reports dealing with both the “Good Design Guide” and “ResCode”.
In the context of these reports, and in the context of the newly released ResCode, it is interesting to reflect on the history of “density” as a planning tool in Metropolitan Melbourne. It will surprise many that “density” is a relatively new initiative in metropolitan planning. In the 1960’s when there was the first real “flat boom” in the metropolitan area, certain parts of Melbourne (St. Kilda, Hawthorn, Elwood etc) were targeted for attention. It appears that Bayside escaped much of this “flat boom” and retained its predominant detached house characteristic.
The so called “six packs” which were erected during this time were, in fact, done not by way of a planning permit but simply by building approval and by endorsement of a “car parking plan” by the then regional planning authority, the Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works (MMBW). In simple terms, a developer had to provide the MMBW with a plan showing that there was sufficient car spaces for the number of flats proposed. If that could be achieved, then no planning permit was required.
Community anger at these units (and perhaps at the process) led to the first attempt to standardise residential planning controls in Melbourne in what became known as
83 Bayside Planning Scheme: Amendment C2 Report of a Panel: August 2001
Amendment 30 to the Melbourne Metropolitan Planning Scheme (MMPS). This amendment introduced the requirement for a planning permit for almost all residential development, other than a detached house, and it enshrined in the metropolitan-wide planning scheme a raft of discretionary considerations such as open space, car parking, side setbacks, front setbacks and permissible height indicators. Significantly, density was not included as a consideration. This amendment, which manifested itself as Clauses 13A - L to the MMPS, existed throughout the metropolitan area until all schemes were “separated” after approval of the Planning and Environment Act in February 1988. Even then, Clause 13 was retained in much the same form (at Clause 21 of the Regional Section of all metropolitan schemes) until the advent of Vic Code 2 in 1992.
It is true that many Councils at this time devised their own “multi unit codes” which included a variety of provisions including density and “saturation” techniques. Mr Efklidis provided the Panel with a copy of the former Sandringham code which used these techniques. The current Bayside “Assessment Criteria” document is similar to these codes. It is also true however that these codes and policies had no legal status and were the subject of heated debate at Tribunal hearings during the seventies and eighties.
Mr Efklidis presented a very detailed submission where he advocated the introduction of “saturation policies” that had previously existed. The Panel indicated that this amendment could not do that, a point with which he agreed. He accepted that his street in Sandringham was an area designated with a 1:400 density, and he expressed the view that he would prefer that there be minimal development in Sandringham.
With the advent of VicCode 1 in 1992 it was felt that a complementary code was needed to address medium density housing. This gave rise to VicCode 2 and for the first time “density “ became a formal consideration. This density guideline figure was carried over, more or less, into the Good Design Guide in 1995 and it still exists in that guideline document today pending its abandonment by the recent approval of ResCode.
The Standing Advisory Committee set up to review both the Good Design Guide and VicCode 1 (Final Report – March 2000) discussed “density” in detail and looked at the practical reality of the density calculation. The Committee found that (page 138):
The techniques for density in The Good Design Guide were introduced as a means of lowering developer expectations in respect of standard suburban lots. Unfortunately, they have given rise to a new set of expectations that one dwelling per 300 m2 is an acceptable minimum in all circumstances. As the average size of individual dwellings has grown, so the benchmark of one per 300 m2 has become less effective in minimising off-site impacts and allowing adequate open space on a site.
84 Bayside Planning Scheme: Amendment C2 Report of a Panel: August 2001
The Standing Advisory Committee in March 2000 then looked at the history of the density provision dating it back to VicCode 2 in the early 1990’s and noted (page 138):
Density was not originally included as a performance measure in VicCode 2. Rather, a density of 1 unit per 200-250 square metres of site area was referred to in the Explanatory Memorandum and performance criteria as a guide to what was usually achievable without detrimentally affecting the neighbourhood or streetscape character. When VicCode 2 was first introduced, the issue of density was fiercely debated. Some councils felt that the original exhibited density of 1 dwelling per 200 square metres was too high, others felt it was too low. ……………….. The Panel, which considered the introduction of VicCode 2, concluded that density should not be included as a performance measure.
The VicCode 2 Review Panel recognised that it was the ‘bottom-line’ developments which often had the most severe impact on small standard infill sites. These were the developments that, despite meeting the performance measures of Vic Code 2, were nevertheless awkward and poorly resolved in the context of the site and the locality.
The solution proposed by the VicCode 2 Review Panel was to introduce benchmark densities as techniques in the new Good Design Guide based on the size and frontage of the site. They were intended to draw a ‘bottom line’ for stakeholders requiring certainty in the development process whilst recognising that good creative design could be rewarded by increased yields. The introduction of the possibility of local variations also meant that any benchmark densities set as performance measures could be substituted by local variations setting either a greater or lesser density.
The Standing Advisory Committee in March 2000 then reflected on the development experience over five years with the Good Design Guide and found that:
Unfortunately the reduction in densities introduced by The Good Design Guide has not necessarily resulted in the sort of improvements to bottom line developments that the VicCode 2 Review Panel envisaged. One reason for this has been the substantial increase in size of the average dwelling unit now being constructed and the growth in popularity of two-storey dwellings. Substantial three bedroom homes with double garages constitute many of the medium density developments being built compared to the one or two bedroom units with a single garage common in 1994 when the element on density was introduced into The Good Design Guide. This means there has been no overall reduction in site coverage, increased setbacks or more landscaping as a result of the lower densities.
A further reason has been the disappointing failure by that section of the development industry responsible for ‘bottom line’ developments ‘to lift its game’.
Notwithstanding the emphasis on site analysis and design response in The Good Design Guide, and the requirement that these documents must accompany any application for a medium density development, there is compelling evidence that
85 Bayside Planning Scheme: Amendment C2 Report of a Panel: August 2001
sections of the development industry have not fully embraced these concepts. Too frequently, the site analysis and design response are completed quite independently of the design process, often subsequently and by different consultants. The design is still not being informed by a true analysis of the site’s potential in terms of its attributes or context. Rather, the driving force is the number of units that can be obtained by applying the density technique in Element I of The Good Design Guide (Panel emphasis).
Without exception, councils responding to the Standing Advisory Committee’s expanded Terms of Reference, cited the tendency for developers to make economic decisions based on the benchmark densities of The Good Design Guide as the greatest single source of conflict in the consideration of medium density development proposals. Developers use the benchmarks to determine the dwelling yield of a site and then work to minimum standards to squeeze that number of units on the site.
The Advisory Committee in March 2000 finally reflected on the submissions that had been made to it and noted that:
The overwhelming recommendation made in submissions about density was that it should be removed as a technique. It is felt that an ‘appropriate’ density should be determined as a result of having undertaken a site analysis and consideration of factors such as streetscape, local character and site constraints and opportunities.
Without exception, submittors considered that appropriate density is best determined in the context of the site, not on the basis of allotment size and dimension as presented by El.TI of The Good Design Guide. Density should be an outcome of the application of other objectives and techniques.
The Standing Advisory Committee in March 2000 then recommended that (page 151):
• Density should be removed as a means of assessing whether residential development is appropriate. • The new Residential Code should not include any standards referring to density. It should be made clear in the Code and any supporting Planning Practice Notes, Ministerial Direction or other documentation that reference to densities as a means of assessing residential development is not acceptable either formally in any local provisions of a planning scheme or informally in any reference documents, which the responsible authority may rely upon.
As noted earlier in this report, ResCode has now been approved and will be operational towards the end of August 2001. It is relevant that, in line with the above recommendations, “density” has been abandoned as a planning tool. This alone disqualifies the density mechanisms suggested in both Amendments C2 and C2*.
86 Bayside Planning Scheme: Amendment C2 Report of a Panel: August 2001
9.3 Density Analysis On the basis of the above analysis, it is evident that “density” as a planning tool has only had a ten year shelf life and it has coincided with the most controversial ten year period in Melbourne’s residential development history. While it is much too simplistic to link the one with the other, there is anecdotal evidence to support the view that, in this period, it was the arithmetic of the density calculation based on either VicCode 2 or the Good Design Guide, which was the key factor in determining how many units a developer would seek to achieve. Other more important factors such as site context, character and streetscape played a secondary role to density.
In its submission to the Panel, Council alluded to the practical reality of the economic consequences of the density provisions. Council noted that;
It is also submitted that removing density simply ignores how decisions about land development are essentially made. Attendance at any auction of a development site or a potential development site ("STCA") clearly shows that everybody there interested in developing the site must at that stage make a prediction as to the potential yield of the site. This happens prior to purchase, not after it. Once the site is purchased based on the assumption, the economic pressures to maximise the yield exist and continue to influence the development proposed. That is not done by some type of site analysis and careful reading of council's policies and codes. It is done by applying the benchmark density and making some allowances for obvious constraints such as large trees etc. ………….. If it is seriously suggested that the expectation is that developers will not make some decisions based on benchmarks when purchasing land in the short time prior to an auction, then, with respect, the notion is fanciful.
The Panel is at a loss to understand what “benchmarks” these will be if there are no benchmarks specified. No prop at all will be provided to developers if the benchmarks are removed.
The Panel wonders what will have been achieved if this new C2 amendment, based on sophisticated research, and demanding quality site responsive designs, is reduced to banal calculations based on arbitrary and unsupported numbers. Planning by responsible design, rather than by a calculator, should be the objective of the next generation of unit developers.
At the rear of the Urban Character Report are the Design and Development Guidelines which list a number of requirements for any applicant in lodging an application with Council. The guidelines highlight the key issues of site layout, building envelope, privacy, density, open space, car parking and others. With respect to density, the Guidelines accompanying the Urban Character Report have the objective to:
Provide a wide range of residential densities and housing stock to cater for a variety of household types, and to reflect the objectives of the Neighbourhood Character and
87 Bayside Planning Scheme: Amendment C2 Report of a Panel: August 2001
Streetscape Study.
Encourage the design to respond to the objectives of the Neighbourhood Character Study.
Identify specific areas where proposals for developments of higher density will be considered, especially where they facilitate concentrations of population density around activity nodes such as:
• Shopping centres • Transport nodes • Other areas identified by Council policy
Neither Amendment C2 nor C2* implements this strategic finding. On the contrary, both Amendments C2 and C2* rely on arbitrary standards which will have the effect of severely limiting the prospects of anything other than a detached house on about 80% of all sites in Bayside. According to the Bayside Residential Strategy (page 61) “….less than 20% of the City’s residential land stock is likely to have any level of suitability for multiple unit housing”. That is a poor contribution to urban consolidation which, if repeated in all other municipalities, would completely undermine the state government policy of urban consolidation and would place undue development pressures on Councils adjoining Bayside.
Approval of the density provision would completely undermine the new ResCode as well. There is no evidence that the state is contemplating any change in its position on urban consolidation. The soon-to-be-released Metropolitan Strategy Discussion Paper may well explore this issue further.
The Panel recommends that any reference to density be deleted from Amendment C2.
88 Bayside Planning Scheme: Amendment C2 Report of a Panel: August 2001
10. VEGETATION PROTECTION OVERLAY
A number of submittors supported the proposed Vegetation Protection Overlay (VPO), many subject to qualifications as discussed below. A number of submittors opposed specific aspects of the overlay provisions such as no feasibility study regarding the best way to protect the foreshore from erosion; no reference to exotic trees; opposition to the lack of recognition of Green Point; and lack of analysis of contribution of vegetation to greenhouse effect.
A number of residents objected to the introduction of vegetation controls in Beaumaris and Black Rock only, and supported similar controls for the other suburbs of Bayside including Mr D Scarr of Hampton. Mr Scarr also submitted that many remaining canopy trees are located in road reservations and they should be protected and replanted as well. Ms N Kukovec of East Brighton considers that splitting up Bayside based on vegetation controls is inappropriate and somewhat elitist.
Ms J Talbot of Brighton, Co-ordinator of “Save the Trees” and Foundation member of Brighton Foreshore Preservation Association, believes that Brighton, Hampton, Moorabbin and Sandringham need similar controls as proposed under Amendment C2, just as much as Black Rock and Beaumaris. Gardens are an asset in Bayside, improve air quality and provide valuable habitats.
A few residents including T&E Gorman and A&K Murray of Brighton support the extension of the VPO to include the significant area of North Road, west of St Kilda Street to Brandon Avenue, which includes significant trees, including pines and mixed elms. Mr M Norris of Hampton also believes that the proposed VPO should extend to other key areas, such as all Council land with indigenous vegetation and all areas south of Bay Road, instead of Tulip Street.
BRUP and several individual submittors indicated strong objection to the “moonscaping” of sites for redevelopment and considered that the existing vegetation should be retained in the development process. This view was supported by J Talbot of Brighton, Co-ordinator of “Save the Trees”. BRUP supports the proposed VPO for southern Bayside, however a similar vegetation overlay should be tailored for the northern part of the City. Ms M Shelton of Sandringham suggested that a vegetation census of all properties be undertaken to ensure future controls. H &J and R&C Mayer of Beaumaris recommended that more street trees be planted and all subdivisions require the planting of at least 2 canopy trees per 400 square metres of site area. Ms N Brennan of Black Rock supports additional vegetation controls on Beach Road.
In support of VPO3 as proposed for Beaumaris and Black Rock, the Black Rock and Sandringham Conservation Association submitted that for any property in the overlay, a vegetation removal permit or a statement of non-removal must be obtained before a demolition, building or planning permit is issued. 10.1 Proposed Vegetation Protection Overlay Amendment C2 to the Bayside Planning Scheme introduces a Vegetation Protection Overlay (VPO) generally to the southern 25% of the municipality from Beaumaris to Red Bluff. It essentially covers the suburbs of Beaumaris and Black Rock. The amendment introduces changes to the schedules and maps relating to the existing VPO in the planning scheme. The maps to the scheme are amended and a VPO Schedule 3 is included into the scheme at Clause 42.02. The 89 Bayside Planning Scheme: Amendment C2 Report of a Panel: August 2001 details of the changes are outlined in revised Instruction Sheet 8, incorporating Amendment C2* as adopted by Council on 23 October 2000. In the areas affected by the proposed overlay, a permit will be required to remove, destroy or lop any:
Vegetation native to Australia except for the following purposes:
• The removal, destruction or lopping of vegetation which is less than 2 metres high or has a single trunk circumference of less than 0.5 metres at a height of one metre above ground level • The pruning of vegetation to remove that part of any branch which overhangs an existing dwelling or is within 2 metres of an existing dwelling.
Schedule 3 to the VPO introduces decision guidelines when assessing applications under this clause which requires the responsible authority to consider:
• The impact of the proposed vegetation removal would have on: • the character of the area • the presence of indigenous species in the locality • the appearance of the development • the habitat quality of any remaining vegetation and the fragmentation of wild life corridors and • any proposal to regenerate or plant indigenous vegetation on the site.
The proposed VPO under Amendment C2 is based on the Bayside Vegetation Character Assessment final report undertaken by John Patrick and Associates in March 2000 and also the Bayside Urban Character Report completed by Ratio Consultants in December 1999. The Panel is satisfied that both strategic studies have informed Amendment C2 to the Bayside Planning Scheme especially as the introduction of the native vegetation protection controls was one of the specific recommendations of the Patrick study.
As recognised in both studies and supported by most, if not all, submittors to the amendment, the existing vegetation, both native and exotic, in both private and public spaces and streetscapes, are intrinsic attributes of the City of Bayside and contribute significantly to its overall low density urban environment and its treed character.
The Patrick study developed an overview of the vegetation character throughout the City of Bayside. In broad terms, the vegetation character of the City reflects a
90 Bayside Planning Scheme: Amendment C2 Report of a Panel: August 2001 progression from a dominance of exotic species in the north and east (Brighton, Moorabbin, Highett), to a mix of native and exotic species in the central suburbs (Hampton, Sandringham) and native and indigenous species in the south (Beaumaris, Black Rock).
The assessment of urban character under the Urban Character Report, included the criteria of both “dominant” architectural style as well as the cultural and social importance of the landscape or environment to the population who have chosen to live in Bayside.
An in-centre survey of 200 Bayside residents identified that the important physical qualities in the Bayside environment are the amenity of the area (42% of the responses), which includes elements such as streetscape, housing style and quality, and the beach (26%) which was also identified as a valued element of the Bayside environment. Vegetation management in both the public and private realms was identified as an extremely significant element of the amenity of Bayside. Trees were clearly defined as an extremely important element of the streetscapes throughout the City, with 72% of the residents placing primary importance on vegetation. Issues of concern included the use of native and exotic species, tree replacement, tree clearing and maintenance of Crown land and weed control.
As stated in the Urban Character Report:
Residents perceptions of architectural character differences within Bayside are strongly linked to the landscape character across the municipality. This perception is based around a number of features including the overall level of garden development and the relationship between houses and gardens, the impact of gardens within large lots, the transition from more formal landscape styles in the north to more native style gardens in the south, the impact of roadside vegetation, the major visual impact of parks and golf courses is a visual “icon” for many Bayside residents.….. Its visual qualities are part of a wider group of residential values.
In the Urban Character Report, Character Area H includes Beaumaris, Black Rock and parts of Sandringham, including the golf courses (refer Figure1 – Urban Character Area, Bayside Housing Strategy November 1999). Its Urban Character Assessment identified that the “green” and “semi natural” character established by private gardens and street planting and the overall pattern of low scale, established detached housing within garden settings are characteristics of the area valued by the local community. Gardens contribute to the street landscape and open space reserves. Private gardens and public plantings also have important environmental values providing habitat for local wildlife species.
The desired future character statement for this area (page 42) states:
The area should retain its overall scale, building setbacks and garden development that is the character of the area.
91 Bayside Planning Scheme: Amendment C2 Report of a Panel: August 2001
Significant elements of public landscaping should be retained or enhanced and a program of street planting should be implemented to increase the visual consistency, local identity and habitat value of the public landscape and provide stronger links to areas of public open space.
Under the Vegetation Character Assessment, the vegetation character was assessed according to six contribution criteria being:
• Landscape (aesthetic values) • Environmental (habitat values) • Environmental (botanic values) • Environmental (soil stability, wind protection) • Heritage • Comparative municipal presence (local streets)
Eight streets are rated Highly Significant and 68 streets as Significant. Streets with significant vegetation character (refer Map 12 Vegetation Assessment Report) are scattered throughout the suburbs of Brighton, Hampton, Sandringham, Black Rock and Beaumaris. The Study found that they are generally absent in Moorabbin, Highett and Cheltenham. Streets with Highly Significant rating tend to be located in two principal areas, Sandringham and Brighton. Other occurrences are in Black Rock including St. Andrews Court, and in Brighton on North Road.
The combination of both public and private space vegetation also accounts for a substantial proportion of the City’s significant vegetation character. This category also includes the majority of streets rated Highly Significant. In general terms, there is a relative concentration of the combined public/private space category in the south of the municipality, especially Black Rock and Beaumaris (refer Map 14 Vegetation Character Assessment). Significant vegetation in private open space only is relatively infrequent and is clustered in Brighton (refer Map 15 Vegetation Character Assessment).
In recognition of significant vegetation being a major contributor to the urban character of Bayside and an important element in neighbourhood character and local environment throughout many parts of the City, the Panel was advised that the Council currently has many vegetation control strategies in place or in the process of being prepared such as the Bayside Street Trees Strategy, Heritage Landscape controls, a Significant Tree Register, the Bayside Coastal Strategy and a Local Law controlling the removal of mature trees.
One view is that the protection of significant vegetation in Bayside is adequately addressed under the above local policies and laws. However, a major finding of the John Patrick Study was that the native/indigenous vegetation character of the Black Rock and Beaumaris area is not adequately addressed by existing measures and planning controls, particularly in relation to the removal and management of vegetation on private land. As such, the Study has recommended the introduction of a Vegetation Protection Overlay under the Bayside Planning Scheme to regulate the
92 Bayside Planning Scheme: Amendment C2 Report of a Panel: August 2001 removal of native vegetation from private land in the above two suburbs, as shown in the map to accompany Schedule 3 to the Vegetation Protection Overlay under Amendment C2. The study also recommends in the Black Rock and Beaumaris areas:
• That community awareness of the significance of this vegetation be raised, especially in the development industry. • Advisory and information services be provided to assist landowners with the care and maintenance of vegetation.
The revised Amendment C2* specifies that a permit is required to remove, destroy or lop any vegetation native to Australia, as opposed to any vegetation, as specified in Amendment C2 to the Bayside Planning Scheme, as exhibited (Panel emphasis).
Many Beaumaris and Black Rock resident submittors support Amendment C2* and resident groups, such as the Bayside Ratepayers Association and the Beaumaris Conservation Society indicated their unequivocal support for the vegetation controls under the revised amendment, as set out in Instruction Sheet 8.
A number of submittors from Sandringham, Hampton, Brighton and North Brighton considered the proposed VPO somewhat discriminatory and they questioned why their suburbs are excluded from the VPO as proposed under Amendments C2 and C2*. Several residents such as J Talbot (Coordinator Save the Trees) and D Scarr of Hampton considered that the overlay controls should be extended to cover the whole municipality, the whole area south of Bay Street, along Beach Road or other key areas, and include deciduous trees. Mr Scarr submitted that:
The beach and the trees are what make Bayside a uniquely lovely area so why does Council allow overdevelopment of Brighton, Moorabbin, Hampton and Sandringham to rage on.
Other submittors suggested that it should be compulsory for existing trees to be included in proposed dwelling designs and several submittors consider the proposed tree controls for Black Rock and Beaumaris only, combined with the proposed density and height controls for these areas, are elitist. In addition, it was submitted that vegetation was crucial for all new subdivisions.
Several submittors referred to the significant street vegetation along North Road, Brighton, such as Mrs K.Murray, and considered the proposed VPO should be extended to include this road reserve, including a mix of elms and pines, extending west of St Kilda Street to Brandon Avenue.
BRUP applauded the proposed VPO for the southern part of the City however they submitted that the overlay should be tailored to apply to appropriate areas in the northern sections of the City also. One resident group, the Black Rock Association for Responsible Development who generally support Amendment C2 and C2*, would like the VPO to include reference to significant exotic trees as these provide a significant part of the mature urban landscape of Black Rock.
A number of individual submittors presented specific recommendations to improve the proposed controls for vegetation protection in Bayside, such as:
• Council undertake a vegetation census for all properties for future planning controls (Shelton of Sandringham); • Council require a planting of at least two trees per 400 square metres in subdivisions 93 Bayside Planning Scheme: Amendment C2 Report of a Panel: August 2001
(Mayer of Beaumaris); • Council require a planning permit to be approved prior to demolition – (May); • Council should encourage the planting of vegetation and fruit trees and not concentrate on the promotion of only native vegetation particularly in city areas and along city streetscapes, which are not always appropriate (Dymiotis of Hampton); • The significant role played by plants for the provision of oxygen must be recognised (Barcan of Brighton); • The important role played by native bushes and understorey to sustain native wildlife such as small birds and insects needs addressing in the controls (Norris of Hampton and Author of Local Birds of Bayside).
10.2 Vegetation Analysis Amendments C2 and C2* clearly recognise the significant vegetation attributes of parts of Bayside and the habitat values of Australian native and particularly indigenous vegetation for fauna and wildlife corridors, especially for local bird life. These qualities are under ongoing threat from inappropriate urban development and from the natural loss of aging vegetation.
The Panel supports the tightening up of the planning controls under the proposed VPO according to Amendment C2*, as outlined in Instruction Sheet Change 8, dated May 2001. The revised Clause 3 relating to permit requirements clearly states that “A permit is required to remove, destroy of lop any vegetation native to Australia” instead of “vegetation”.
Under Bayside City Council Environment Local law No.2 (Amendment No 1) introduced in August 1997, the overriding objective is to:
Prohibit, regulate and control activities which may endanger any identified significant tree and to protect existing canopies on private properties within the municipality ensuring they are maintained in accordance with the urban character and the local amenity.
Under Clause 35 of the Principal Local Law:
A person must not, except in accordance with a permit, cut, trim, prune, remove or allow to be cut, trimmed, pruned or removed:
94 Bayside Planning Scheme: Amendment C2 Report of a Panel: August 2001
(a) an identified significant tree, or (b) a tree with a trunk diameter greater than 45 centimetres, measured 1.5 metres above ground level.
In assessing such a permit application, the Council must already consider amongst other things, the effect on the aesthetics of the neighbouring area and safety issues.
The Panel was advised by several submittors, including BRUP, that this local law is difficult for Council to administer and it does not operate very well. The Panel believes that if this law was better promoted and administered, especially among the development and building industries, combined with more vigilant implementation of its provisions and penalties, the protection of mature trees on private land throughout Bayside may improve. As a result, the occurrence of “moonscaping” of sites for redevelopment may reduce. The Panel also suggests that Council Officers alert developers and builders of this local law at the beginning of the permit application process and tie its provisions in with the landscaping requirements associated with a planning permit application. Raising public awareness and promoting the law locally is an important role Council can play, in association with its community advisory services on vegetation care and maintenance.
The abovementioned Local law regarding the removal of significant vegetation, particularly on private land and the specific native vegetation controls on private land, is considered necessary to complement the various vegetation control strategies being addressed or adopted by the Council such as the significant tree register, heritage landscape controls, street tree strategy and a number of advisory services.
The issue of “moonscaping” was raised by a number of submitters such Mrs C May, Mr P Shepherd and local resident groups, such as BRUP. They are concerned with the clearing of vegetation on existing house sites for future residential redevelopment, particularly the loss of mature trees and well established gardens on the sites. This is referred to as the “moonscaping” of residential sites prior to their redevelopment. The loss of vegetation and the removal of mature trees is understandably a major concern of Bayside residents. The Panel notes that the approved ResCode addresses the issue of “moonscaping” and provides (at Clause 55.03-8 – Standard B13) that:
Development should provide for the retention or planting of trees, where these are part of the character of the neighbourhood.
Development should provide for the replacement of any significant trees that have been removed in the 12 months prior to the application being made.
The Panel believes that this provision will help provide a disincentive to developers contemplating “moonscaping” if, as a condition of ultimate approval, they are going to have to reinstate lost trees and provide a landscape regime consistent with the neighbourhood characteristics.
95 Bayside Planning Scheme: Amendment C2 Report of a Panel: August 2001
The Panel is satisfied that the proposed VPO under Amendment C2* responds correctly to the research work undertaken by the recent John Patrick Study and implements its recommendations. The study recognises that in the Beaumaris and Black Rock areas both the private and public spaces contribute equally to the native vegetation character of the suburbs, with similar or complementary species. However, this vegetation character is not adequately protected under existing planning and local measures, particularly in relation to the removal and management of vegetation on private land.
As shown clearly on Map 14 of the Bayside Vegetation Character Assessment, the combined public and private contribution by highly significant vegetation in Bayside is concentrated in the southern portion of the municipality. Only a limited number of similar locations are scattered throughout its northern portion such as North Road.
It is interesting to note that the study found that public space vegetation (usually street tree planting) is the most frequent location of significant vegetation character and planting themes, although the distribution of these streets tends to be concentrated in the northern sectors of the City, particularly Brighton. (Refer map 13 Vegetation Character Assessment).
The street trees and the vegetation of public reserves throughout Bayside are major attributes of the local environment and neighbourhood character. The Panel believes that their protection is as vital to the successful maintenance and enhancement of the character and local amenity of Bayside as is the protection of vegetation on private property. The Panel notes that the Ballarat Panel Report on Amendment C17 recommended that the VPO controls should extend to public as well as private land as the public realm of the streetscapes was so important.
The role of this Panel is to assess Amendment C2, as exhibited and the submissions referred to it, with due regard to any proposed changes to the amendment resulting from the exhibition process. This Panel is not able to recommend additional areas to be included in the proposed VPO under this amendment.
The Panel further notes that only a limited number of those areas classified as “Highly Significant” or “Significant” vegetation character in the northern portion of the municipality, as shown on Map 14 of the Patrick study, are included in the existing VPO under the current Bayside Planning Scheme. In addition, Amendment C6 to the Bayside Planning Scheme and the Heritage Overlay refers to the protection of the heritage value of individual properties and precincts in the northern section of Bayside, such provisions introducing controls over the removal of significant vegetation.
Many of the areas in the northern portion of Bayside shown on Map 14 are existing reserves such as Castlefield Reserve, Hampton. However, a number of streets shown as “Highly Significant” and “Significant” on Map 14 are also excluded from the existing Heritage Overlays under the planning scheme including parts of North Road
96 Bayside Planning Scheme: Amendment C2 Report of a Panel: August 2001
Brighton, parts of Nepean Highway, part of Outer Crescent Brighton, Parks Street Brighton and Lucas Street Brighton East.
The Panel believes that as part of their first review of the Planning Scheme, Council correlate those properties and streets affected by the Heritage Overlay and Amendment C6 to the Bayside Planning Scheme and the existing VPO with those areas and streets shown on Maps 12 and 14 of the Patrick Study as “Significant” or “Highly Significant” Vegetation Character. Any such areas or street excluded from the existing VPO, Heritage Overlay or Amendment C6 be re-assessed in terms of their vegetation significance. Any area rated “significant” in vegetation terms be reconsidered as a future candidate for inclusion in a VPO.
In particular, Council should reconsider the full extent of North Road, North Brighton which has impressive boulevard planting and was rated “Outstanding value” for landscape contribution, “highly significant” for vegetation character and “High” value for heritage contribution under the Patrick study. North Road is excluded from the exisitng VPO and only sections of the road are included in the Heritage Overlay and Amendment C6. Also, Bainfield Street Sandringham, Ralph Street Hampton, and the reserve at the western end of North Road also warrant further attention, each being classified as “Outstanding” under the above study.
Such a review is considered appropriate in recognition of the Patrick study as it relates to the northern portion of Bayside and would address the concerns of many residents.
The Panel finally notes that Maps 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the VPO under Amendment C2, as exhibited, includes those streets west of Bluff Road to the coastline. This area west of Bluff Road, north to Edward Street has been excluded from Figure A1 of the Bayside Housing Strategy under the Residential and Environmental Strategy Map in the Housing Strategy. This omission seems to be an error in mapping and requires correction in Amendment C2.
The Panel recommends that the exhibited VPO be approved subject to the changes in Amendment C2*.
The Panel recommends that, as part of this first review of the Planning Scheme, Council is to address all of the matters arising from the Patrick report which are not yet covered by the VPO especially those areas rated as “highly significant” and “significant” in the study.
The Panel recommends that the mapping anomaly under the VPO for the areas west of Bluff Road be corrected.
97 Bayside Planning Scheme: Amendment C2 Report of a Panel: August 2001
11. PANEL CONCLUSIONS
In considering Amendment C2 to the Bayside Planning Scheme, the Panel acknowledges that Council has undertaken an enormous amount of strategic planning work to get the amendment to the exhibition and Panel stage, and that it has modified its early work in recognition of concerns raised by the community, as well as by Council itself. The Panel is required to assess the amendment in the context of the state planning framework, as well as in the context of submissions made to it, including the position of Council. In doing this work, the Panel has taken the view that the amendment must not compromise the state planning framework or the principles behind it. The Panel recognises that the vision of the Council and the Bayside community may not always accord with the wider state vision, and that there may be some areas where agreement is not possible.
In saying this, the Panel largely supports the strategic work undertaken by Council and believes that it provides a sound strategic basis for the exhibited Amendment C2. Amendment C2 is generally consistent with the State Planning Policy Framework, excepting for Council’s lack of commitment to urban consolidation and the need for higher densities near public transport routes.
The MSS needs much stronger reference to the outcomes of the strategic work which has been undertaken. The amendment only partly links the MSS with detailed development controls and, in particular, there is insufficient justification provided in the MSS for the introduction of height controls. The Panel believes that the justification for localised mandatory and discretionary controls should be more clearly articulated in the MSS. The Panel can find no strategic justification for the density provisions and believes that these should be abandoned.
The Panel believes that the two exhibited local policies on Housing and Building Height should be abandoned and absorbed into either the MSS or the DDO. The Panel has therefore concluded that the exhibited Amendment C2 can be supported (with modifications) when considered against the Strategic Assessment Guidelines.
The Panel concludes that Amendment C2 represents a fairly balanced response to the housing and population demands likely to be experienced in Bayside over the next twenty years. Amendment C2 balances the environmental assets of the municipality with quite modest urban consolidation ambitions. This is an appropriate balance in the view of the Panel. The Panel expresses its strong reservations that the recommendations of Amendment C2* have not been justified by the strategic work that has been carried out.
The Panel however, does not accept the proposition of Council that it has “done its bit” for urban consolidation. Urban consolidation is an ongoing commitment of government and until suggested other wise, it will remain as a key consideration. The Panel also does not accept that Bayside should “lock up its municipality and then throw away the key”. If all municipalities adopted that approach, and indeed if Bayside was allowed to follow its preferred option of Amendment C2* through, then it would effectively shut the door on new development opportunities. It would also place unfair and significant development pressure on neighbouring municipalities.
The Panel makes the observation that across the City of Bayside there is very little building height, and as a whole, the city generally exhibits a “low scale”. The Panel supports a mandatory height control in the foreshore areas but can find no strategic justification for height controls in the 98 Bayside Planning Scheme: Amendment C2 Report of a Panel: August 2001 inland areas. The Panel agrees with the principle of nominating height in commercial centres and key nodal/gateway areas as a means of informing the design process. The Panel supports the exhibited Amendment C2 height controls for the foreshore, commercial and nodal areas, but it does not support any height control for the inland residential areas.
This Panel is satisfied that new format planning schemes (principally via the DDO) provide an opportunity for height control and allow them to be expressed as either a mandatory or discretionary provision. The key to their implementation, and the prescriptive nature of the controls, must however be sourced in strategic research. The Panel must be satisfied that any proposed control is properly sourced before it can sanction it. The strategic research needs to be reflected in the MSS and other policies.
The Panel believes that mandatory height controls are only to be used in exceptional circumstances to achieve well founded design outcomes and based on the real prospect of a threat to a strongly held strategic ambition of the Council. In this instance, for both historical and strategic reasons, the Panel supports the continuance of the mandatory height controls around the foreshore areas.
In all other residential areas of the municipality, no strong case has been made out for the imposition of any mandatory controls. That is not to say that Council cannot specify in its MSS an ambition to maintain the “low rise” nature of the municipality. It is just that there appears no need for a mandatory height control especially one which is devoid of any strategic justification. Mr Montebello noted that, in general, there has been little pressure for height around the foreshore areas as the existing controls have been successful. While the Panel accepts this, it is at a loss to understand the rationale for the importance of height controls throughout the rest of the municipality, particularly in the residential areas. A strong policy position or a strengthened MSS may be all that is required.
The Panel concludes that there should be no density provisions in the approved amendment. It is not supported by the research and it is patently inconsistent with the new ResCode. Density is an outcome of the planning process not an input. Density is the derivative of a considered assessment of all relevant matters pertaining to site design. Over the last ten years density has been elevated to the status of the benchmark consideration. Council’s submission conceded that this has been the mindset of developers. The Panel is of the view that so long as there is a number in a box, density will remain the same discredited input factor which it has been for the last ten years. The Panel is comforted by ResCode which has dismissed
99 Bayside Planning Scheme: Amendment C2 Report of a Panel: August 2001 density as a planning tool. All players in the residential market have been distracted by the density calculations over the last ten years and density should now be laid to rest.
Finally, the Panel concludes that the Vegetation Protection Overlay as exhibited by Amendment C2 (and modified by Amendment C2*) is supported by the strategic research and is an appropriate implementation response. The Study identified, and the Panel’s inspections confirmed, the importance of native vegetation to the character of Black Rock and Beaumaris. The Panel believes however that there is the potential to further utilise this research to inform further amendments to the Bayside Planning Scheme affecting both public and private land.
Overall the Panel supports the intent of the exhibited Amendment C2 to the Bayside Planning Scheme, with the exception of the proposed local variations and density provisions. ResCode has largely overtaken this amendment, and it is considered that Council has been caught up in the change of planning provisions for residential development in Victoria.
This should not be of concern to Council, as it has undertaken a range of strategic planning work that will fit comfortably with ResCode. The Council should now find itself in a position where it can move forward with its neighbourhood planning, and be comfortable with the work it has done and how it can be used. The work undertaken for Amendment C2 can also provide a good basis for the imminent review of the Bayside Municipal Strategic Statement.
100 Bayside Planning Scheme: Amendment C2 Report of a Panel: August 2001
12. PANEL RECOMMENDATIONS
For the reasons contained within this report, the Panel appointed to consider Amendment C2 to the Bayside Planning Scheme recommends that it BE ADOPTED AS EXHIBITED, subject to the following modifications:
Recommendation 1: Planning Context
1.1 That the MSS be modified to give greater expression to the issues of housing, height, neighbourhood character and vegetation.
1.2 That the Local Policy on height and housing be deleted from Amendment C2 and their contents be incorporated into the MSS and the relevant Design and Development Overlays generally in accordance with Appendix 5.
1.3 That the Design and Development Overlay for height be split into three separate schedules using the example at Appendix 5 as a guide to the structure and detail.
1.4 That Council consider the use of either a Local Planning Policy, and/or the Incorporation of the Urban Character Report and Guidelines to accompany ResCode.
1.5 That all of the exhibited local variations to the Good Design Guide be abandoned.
1.6 That Design and Development Overlay 2 be abandoned.
Recommendation 2: Population and Housing
2.1 That the broad range of population and housing projections based on the Amendment C2 research be included in the MSS.
2.2 That the Residential and Environment Management Strategy Map as shown in Figure A1 for the Bayside Residential Strategy be included in the MSS.
Recommendation 3: Height
3.1 That the mandatory height controls in the foreshore areas be approved as exhibited in Amendment C2.
101 Bayside Planning Scheme: Amendment C2 Report of a Panel: August 2001
3.2 That there be no height controls specified in the inland areas.
3.3 That the height limit in the commercial areas be a four storey discretionary control as exhibited in Am. C2.
3.4 That the exhibited C2 provisions be approved for the specified node areas.
3.5 That the height proposed for the Green Point area should remain as exhibited in Amendment C2 subject to the replacement of the word “flats” with “accommodation” and the deletion of reference to 12 metres and its replacement with “four storeys”.
Recommendation 4: Density
4.1 That any reference to density be deleted from Amendment C2.
Recommendation 5: Vegetation Protection Overlay
5.1 That the exhibited VPO be approved subject to the changes in Amendment C2*.
5.2 That as part of this first review of the Planning Scheme, Council is to address all of the matters arising from the Patrick report which are not yet covered by the VPO especially those areas rated as “highly significant” and “significant” in the study.
5.3 That the mapping anomaly under the VPO for the areas west of Bluff Road be corrected.
Recommendation 6: Other Recommendations
6.1 That the Council proceed with the Urban Village studies as soon as is practically possible.
Kathryn Mitchell John Keaney Pauline Semmens
August 2001
102 Bayside Planning Scheme: Amendment C2 Report of a Panel: August 2001
APPENDIX 1: PANEL TIMETABLE AND DIRECTIONS HEARING
103 Bayside Planning Scheme: Amendment C2 Report of a Panel: August 2001
TIMETABLE FOR PUBLIC HEARING: VERSION 2
BAYSIDE PLANNING SCHEME: AMENDMENT C2
PANEL: • MS KATHRYN MITCHELL (CHAIR) • MR JOHN KEANEY • MS PAULINE SEMMENS
DAY DATE VENUE
1 7 May 2001 Highett Room, Bayside Corporate Centre, R Avenue, Sandringham 2 8 May 2001 As above 3 9 May 2001 As above 4 10 May 2001 As above 5 14 May 2001 As above 6 15 May 2001 As above 7 16 May 2001 As above
DETAILS OF VENUE:
Highett Room, Bayside Corporate Centre, Royal Avenue, SANDRINGHAM
ANY QUERIES REGARDING THIS TIMETABLE SHOULD BE MADE TO: MISS DIANA MICHETTI PHONE (03) 9655 8744 FAX (03) 9655 8740
PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS TIMETABLE MAY BE AMENDED WITHOUT NOTICE.
104 Bayside Planning Scheme: Amendment C2 Report of a Panel: August 2001
BAYSIDE PLANNING SCHEME: AMENDMENT C2
TIMETABLE FOR PUBLIC HEARING VERSION 2
DAY 1 DATE: MONDAY 7 MAY 2001 VENUE: HIGHETT ROOM, BAYSIDE CORPORATE CENTRE, ROYAL AVENUE, SANDRINGHAM Time Name Time Requested 10:00am – 1:00pm City of Bayside (Terry Montebello, Maddock L 1.5 days and Chisholm) 1:00pm –2:00pm LUNCH 2:00pm – 4:30pm City of Bayside (Terry Montebello, Maddock L and Chisholm)
DAY 2 DATE: TUESDAY 8 MAY 2001 VENUE: HIGHETT ROOM, BAYSIDE CORPORATE CENTRE, ROYAL AVENUE, SANDRINGHAM Time Name Time Requested 10:00am – 1:00pm City of Bayside (Terry Montebello, Maddock L 1.5 days cont. and Chisholm) 1:00pm – 2:00pm LUNCH 2:00pm – 5:00pm Topspell Corporation (Sally Macindoe, Deacons) 2 – 3 hours (201)
DAY 3 DATE: WEDNESDAY 9 MAY 2001 VENUE: HIGHETT ROOM, BAYSIDE CORPORATE CENTRE, ROYAL AVENUE, SANDRINGHAM Time Name Time Requested 10:00am – 1:00pm Poci Bros (F R Perry and Associates) (3) 3 hours 1:00pm– 2:00pm LUNCH 2:00pm – 2:40pm Coomes Consulting Group (365) 40 mins 2:40pm – 3:40pm Peter Efklides (33) 1 hour 3:50pm – 4:50pm Croft Health Care Pty Ltd (Taylors Surveyors 1 hour Planners) (127)
105 Bayside Planning Scheme: Amendment C2 Report of a Panel: August 2001
DAY 4 DATE: THURSDAY 10 MAY 2001 VENUE: HIGHETT ROOM, BAYSIDE CORPORATE CENTRE, ROYAL AVENUE, SANDRINGHAM Time Name Time Requested 10:00am – 12noon Kyhats Hotel (Minter Ellison) (136) 2 hours 12:15pm – 1:15pm Primelife Corporation and Rayson Industries ( 1 hour Planning) (357) 1:15pm – 2:15pm LUNCH 2:15pm – 3:15pm Lisa MacLeod (49 & 367) 1 hour 3:30pm – 4:30pm
DAY 5 DATE: MONDAY 14 MAY 2001 VENUE: HIGHETT ROOM, BAYSIDE CORPORATE CENTRE, ROYAL AVENUE, SANDRINGHAM Time Name Time Requested 10:00am – 10:45am Barry Brooker (14) 45 mins 10:45am – 11:30am Mark Dymiotis (129) 30 – 45 mins 11:45am – 12:30pm David Goodwin (369) 45 mins 12:30pm – 1:30pm LUNCH 1:40pm – 2:00pm S Kwong (Hansen Partnership) (65) 20 mins 2:00pm – 3:00pm ALH Group (Hansen Partnership) (368) 1 hour 3:00pm – 3:30pm BARD (A Skoutarides and G Bennett) (315) 30 mins 3:45pm – 4:30pm Kath Murray (247) 45 mins
DAY 6 DATE: TUESDAY 15 MAY 2001 VENUE: HIGHETT ROOM, BAYSIDE CORPORATE CENTRE, ROYAL AVENUE, SANDRINGHAM Time Name Time Requested 10:00am – 10:20am T and E Gorman (12) 20 mins 10:20am – 11:20am Beaumaris Conservation Society (Ted Pearce and K 1 hour Holmes) (4) 11:30am – 11:45am Dr A Vandenbosch (215) 15 mins 11:45am – 12noon David Scarr (31) 10 – 15 mins 12noon – 12:10pm Paul Crompton (224) 8 mins 1:00pm – 2:00pm LUNCH 2:00pm – 2:15pm Peter Jewell (53) 15 mins 2:15pm – 2:30pm Margaret Sinclair (19) 15 mins 2:30pm – 2:45pm Shirley Joy (235) 15 mins 2:45pm – 3:15pm Derek Wilson (60) 30 mins 3:15pm – 3:30pm Neil Hunter (339) 15 mins
106 Bayside Planning Scheme: Amendment C2 Report of a Panel: August 2001
3:30pm – 3:50pm Bronn Barcon (15) 20 mins 4:00pm – 4:15pm Barrie Shephard (BRUP) (63) 15 mins 4:15pm – 4:25pm Mr G Phair (47 & 97) 5 – 10 mins 4:25pm – 4:35pm Dr P Phair (47 & 97) 5 – 10 mins
DAY 7 DATE: WEDNESDAY 16 MAY 2001 VENUE: HIGHETT ROOM, BAYSIDE CORPORATE CENTRE, ROYAL AVENUE, SANDRINGHAM Time Name Time Requested 9:00am – 10:00am Royal Brighton Yacht Club (Fastnet Consulting) (62 1 hour 10:00am – 10:30am Cheryl May (88 & 371) 30 mins 10:30am – 11:00am BRASCA (Paul White) (292) 30 mins 11:00am – 11:30am Bayside Ratepayers Assoc. (Chris Carroll) (370) 30 mins 11:45am – 12:15pm Colin Still (372) 30 mins 12:15pm – 12:45pm Michael Norris (42) 30 mins 12:45pm – 1:00pm Peter Shepard (208) 10 mins 1:00pm – 2:00pm LUNCH Council concluding comments and right of reply To be carried over to 22 2001
*** END OF HEARING ***
107 Bayside Planning Scheme: Amendment C2 Report of a Panel: August 2001
INFORMATION ABOUT THE HEARING
HEARING TIMETABLE The hearing timetable has been prepared on the basis of information supplied by persons who wish to be heard.
All hearings are open to the public. Submitters are requested to arrive at the hearings 15 minutes before their scheduled time of commencement.
Please ensure that you complete your submission within the time allocated. Extensions of time will not be possible. However, if you run out of time, any written material not addressed will still be considered by the panel.
If you are unable to be present, please notify the administrative support officer as soon as possible.
COPIES OF SUBMISSIONS If you intend to read from a written submission, please make six copies (two hole punched and unbound) available.
If you have any difficulty with supplying copies, please contact the administrative support officer.
All written material submitted at the hearings will be available for inspection and copying, at the expense of people requesting copies, during the course of the hearing.
WITNESSES’ REPORTS If you intend to rely on any expert witnesses, six copies of their reports or statements must be given to the Council officer by 4:00pm on Monday 30 April 2001, and three copies of the same report directly to the panel officers. The Council must make copies of these reports available at a public counter and at the hearing for perusal by interested members of the community. All submitted reports are to be presented unbound and two-hole punched.
QUESTIONS AT THE HEARING No cross-examination of submitters or their representatives (which includes the proponent) will be permitted. However, points of clarification may be directed to the chair who may ask the person to explain their submission. Questions to witnesses will only be permitted at the discretion of the panel. The following criteria will guide the panel in exercising their discretion: • Questions must be relevant • Questions must be of assistance to the panel. • Questions must be questions, not statements or arguments. If you disagree with a witness or wish to rebut something he/she has said, you should do this as part of your submission.
108 Bayside Planning Scheme: Amendment C2 Report of a Panel: August 2001
APPENDIX 2: EXHIBITED AMENDMENT C2
109
Bayside City Council Residential Neighbourhood Amendment
BAYSIDE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C2 Parts 1,2 & 3
4082#3
EXPLANATORY REPORTS
May 2000
Explanatory Report Part 1 – Amendment C2 Residential Neighbourhood Amendment
BAYSIDE CITY COUNCIL PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT ACT 1987 BAYSIDE PLANNING SCHEME Amendment C2
BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW
The new Bayside Planning Scheme was adopted by the Council in 1998 and gazetted by the Minister for Planning on 24 February 2000. Gazettal was preceded by the development of the new scheme by the Council, its exhibition to the community and hearings by an Independent Panel.
Important recommendations of the Panel include the need for further improvements to the Bayside Planning Scheme articulating the relationship between the MSS, zones, overlays and schedules which have been applied to enable a better understanding of the objectives and strategies.
This Amendment addresses some of the key recommendations of the Panel and is a further progression in the reform of the planning system in Bayside.
The Amendment relies on four studies undertaken during the last 12 months to provide the strategic basis for the proposed controls.
The City of Bayside Residential Strategy is directed to providing a framework to meet the housing needs of the City over the period 1999-2016 consistent with the established urban character of the City and community values and needs, while at the same time protecting the significant heritage and landscape areas of the municipality. It provides the framework by which change within the municipality will be managed and is the key strategic document for the City with respect to its development over the next 15 years.
The City of Bayside Urban Character Report is a comprehensive review and update of work previously undertaken by USE Consultants. The Urban Character Report provides a concise reference document that provides an understanding of the elements that comprise the Neighbourhood Character throughout the City, including those aspects valued by the community.
The Bayside Vegetation Character Assessment reviews the distribution characteristics of vegetation, the type and condition of that vegetation, its significance value and its comparative significance. It covers both public spaces and private land within the municipality.
The Bayside Height Control Study outlines building height parameters to be taken into account when developing sites or extending existing premises in Bayside and provides for a sound basis for sensitive development that is responsible to the character of sites and neighbourhoods.
In addition to these four studies, the Bayside City Council is completing studies relating to heritage and a review of height controls. These studies informed the Residential Strategy and in their own right will provide the basis for further Amendments to the Bayside Planning Scheme.
This Amendment has been prepared having regard to the objectives of planning in Victoria, the standing Advisory Committee’s report addressing Techniques and Performance Measures in the Good Design Guide and Vic Code 1 and is consistent with the Victoria Planning Provisions and Ministerial Direction No. 8.
May 2000 1 Explanatory Report Part 1 – Amendment C2 Residential Neighbourhood Amendment
Residential Neighbourhood Amendment C2 Part I - Bayside Planning Scheme Explanatory Report part 1
May 2000 2 Explanatory Report Part 1 – Amendment C2 Residential Neighbourhood Amendment
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT ACT 1987
BAYSIDE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C2 PART I -
EXPLANATORY REPORT
1 WHO IS THE PLANNING AUTHORITY?
This Amendment has been prepared by Bayside City Council. The planning authority for this Amendment is the City of Bayside.
2 LAND AFFECTED BY PART I OF THE AMENDMENT
The Amendment affects all land within the City of Bayside as shown on the maps included as part of this Amendment.
3 BACKGROUND
In 1998, Council placed the new format Bayside Planning Scheme on public exhibition. After consideration of submissions by an Independent Panel and final adoption of the Planning Scheme by Council, the new Bayside Planning Scheme was gazetted by the Minister for Planning on 24 February 2000.
One of the key aspects of the new format Planning Schemes is the need for a strategic basis for all planning controls.
For this reason, Council has spent the last two years preparing strategic planning documents to provide a sound strategic rationale for future housing provision within the city.
These studies and their major findings are as follows:
3.1 CITY OF BAYSIDE RESIDENTIAL STRATEGY (1999)
Ratio Consultants in association with Council prepared the Residential Strategy.
The Strategy is derived from several important contributory strategic assessments and research projects. These include: - • City of Bayside Urban Character Report (August 1999) • City of Bayside Vegetation Study (August 1999) • Bayside Heritage Review Study (July 1999) • Supporting assessments of Housing Markets and Needs (part of the Bayside
May 2000 3 Explanatory Report Part 1 – Amendment C2 Residential Neighbourhood Amendment
Residential Strategy) • Assessments of patterns of demography in the City (part of the Bayside Residential Strategy
The Strategy comprises: -
• City of Bayside Housing Context Statement; • Residential and Environmental Management Plan for the City of Bayside; • Statement of Housing Need • Supporting Planning and Management Policies • Implementation Strategy.
3.1.1 City Of Bayside Housing Context Statement: A Summary
The City of Bayside Housing Context Statement provides a comprehensive assessment of the municipality’s likely future housing requirements over the period 1996-2016.
The Housing Context Statement envisages that household size will continue to decline in the City and that there is an increasing trend towards single person households, two person households and older households.
The Statement indicates that over the 20-year period 1996-2016 it is likely those additional 6,620 households will require residential accommodation in the City. The Context Statement recognises that if current patterns of housing development are continued, then a total of approximately 7,000 existing houses will have been demolished over the period 1996-2016, to achieve a net increase of 6,620 households and a net population increase of 7,630 persons in the City in this period. The Strategy recognises that this is clearly a wasteful process in terms of impacts on existing housing stock in order to accommodate additional households and residential population. The Bayside Residential Strategy seeks to provide a more effective, efficient and equitable means of meeting the City’s housing requirements and accommodate the additional households likely to seek to reside in the City in the foreseeable future.
3.1.2 City Of Bayside Residential and Environmental Management Plan
The City of Bayside Residential and Environmental Plan provides a framework to accommodate the City’s housing needs over the period 1999-2016 and seeks to achieve the following: -
• retention of the City’s distinctive urban character precincts; • take full account and regard of the City’s socially valued areas; • contribute to a diversity of housing choice in the City (both in terms of affordability and in terms of dwelling and unit types available in the City of Bayside; • add to the net community benefit for present and future populations in the City
May 2000 4 Explanatory Report Part 1 – Amendment C2 Residential Neighbourhood Amendment
• provide for progressive improvements to housing and environmental sustainability in the City.
The Plan indicates areas of varied management control and intent, together with identified areas for amenity improvements associated with housing change. The management areas identified in the Strategy are: -
• heritage overlay demolition control areas. These areas were derived from the Bayside Heritage Review Study prepared by Allom Lovell & Associates for the City of Bayside;
• areas of minimal development change. These areas have been identified as being least able to sustain residential development change into the future. They have been derived from the Urban Character Study prepared by Ratio Consultants for the City of Bayside, earlier work undertaken by Council involving public consultations and the City of Bayside Vegetation Study prepared by John Patrick Pty Ltd for Council;
• areas of managed development change. These areas, in the view of Consultants, are capable of sustaining managed development change generally consistent with the requirements of the Good Design Guide. The identification of these areas takes full account of urban character and vegetation values and the distribution of resources in the City;
• environmental enhancement area. This area comprises precincts which have been identified for environmental enhancement and for the provision of opportunities for new housing;
• activity centres. In the context of the Bayside Housing Strategy, the City’s major activity centres also provide an opportunity for increased housing density. These are detailed in the Strategy;
• major public open spaces areas in the City. In the context of the Bayside Housing Strategy improvements to amenities in the environment will necessarily involve the improvement of pedestrian linkages and connections to quality open space areas;
• significant native bushland remnant areas. These areas were identified by Simon Cropper (1996) and John Patrick Pty Ltd has incorporated the work in the Bayside Vegetation Character Assessment Study. The areas encompass extensive coastal reserves and form an important part of the Residential and Environmental Management Strategy. These areas have been classified as being of regional significance.
May 2000 5 Explanatory Report Part 1 – Amendment C2 Residential Neighbourhood Amendment
3.2 THE CITY OF BAYSIDE URBAN CHARACTER REPORT
The City of Bayside Urban Character Report has been completed by Council.
3.2.1 Purpose of the Study
The document aims to provide clarity and certainty to those involved in the management and development of Bayside’s urban environment through the: -
• identification of community values and perceptions;
• identification of urban character areas, that is, areas displaying homogenous, or similar characteristics;
• assessment of the relative value, or contribution of the identified character;
• definition of the preferred future character of identified areas; and
• identification of design guidelines to assist in the realisation of the preferred future character.
3.2.2 Methodology
The City of Bayside adopted a two-tiered approach to the development of the Urban Character Study. A stepped approach was adopted as it was recognised that the identification and assessment of urban character, the subsequent definition of appropriate objectives, and development of design guidelines is a complex task. The two stages were: -
1. Background Urban Character and Design and Development Guideline Studies; and
2. Resolution of the Urban Character Survey Work and Design Guidelines.
Furthermore, it was recognised that the community and Council undergo a process of learning and reflection both throughout the study process, and as the influences of change, both positive and negative, become more apparent within the municipality. Additionally, Council sought to produce a development philosophy and set of guidelines, which responds to community concerns and has widespread community recognition and support. Therefore, a stepped process offered an appropriate degree of review by the Council and community to be undertaken prior to the next stage being commenced.
3.2.3 Stage 1 – Background Urban Character & Design Guideline
May 2000 6 Explanatory Report Part 1 – Amendment C2 Residential Neighbourhood Amendment
This report builds on 1997 studies regarding Urban Character and Design and Development Guidelines. These studies identify issues and outcomes relevant to the current study and involve the following: -
• A comprehensive Physical and Photographic Survey of the City of Bayside
• Urban Character Inventory
• In-centre surveys of the residents of Bayside
• Focus group meetings with residents of Bayside
• Policy Synthesis for the development of Design Guidelines
• Visual survey for the development of Design Guidelines
• Consultation for the Development of Design Guidelines including:- - Workshop with Council Planning and Building Staff - Focus Group Meetings - Community Meetings - Community Feedback
• Design Guidelines Document
The background urban character and design guidelines work provided the following outcomes:
• identification and assessment of the key factors that contribute to the creation of a particular character of identity within various areas of Bayside. • identification of the perceptions and values of Bayside residents.
• identification of background character areas.
• definition of the urban design guidelines to be employed in the management of the City of Bayside’s urban character.
3.2.4 Stage 2 – Urban Character Study & Urban Character Design Guidelines
3.2.4.1 Evaluation of the Background Studies
A review of the background urban character and design guidelines studies was undertaken. The purpose of the review was to assess the content, methodology and recommendations, in light of the changing environment of the City of Bayside. This review provided a valuable source of information and analysis for the further development of the Urban Character Study.
3.2.4.2 Field Work and Assessment
May 2000 7 Explanatory Report Part 1 – Amendment C2 Residential Neighbourhood Amendment
Field work and assessments were undertaken in order to define areas of homogenous urban character. This work comprised: -
• Aerial photography analyses, to identify patterns of development, lot sizes, patterns of land use, vegetation cover, site coverage and other elements that influence urban character. These analyses were considered to be the ‘first level’ evaluation of areas.
• Site visits and surveys. A sampling technique was adopted for the site survey, with 120 sites being selected for survey via the aerial photography surveys. Survey sites were selected on the basis of:-
1. being relatively evenly distributed through the municipality and across the identified urban character area;
2. representative of the diversity in urban form and character as assessed from the aerial photo survey.
The site surveys were supplemented with site visits to approximately 120 streets within the municipality to more closely determine the boundaries of urban character areas.
3.2.4.3 Definition Character Area
Synthesis of the information collected throughout the first two stages of the methodology allowed the identification of Urban Character Areas, or areas that displayed relatively homogenous characteristics. A description of character areas was developed and the elements that contribute to the creation of this character (ie. the contributor elements) were identified.
In developing these character area definitions, the following issues were also assessed: -
- Identification of potential threats to the character. Threats to areas and character were identified through: -
a) reference to results of community consultation undertaken in previous stages of the process; and
b) the site visits and survey techniques.
- Assessment of the relative value of the character area and its contributory elements.
3.2.4.4 Preparation of desired future character statements
The desired future character statements were derived as a result of the assessments undertaken in the previous stages. The existing urban character, the valued or
May 2000 8 Explanatory Report Part 1 – Amendment C2 Residential Neighbourhood Amendment significant elements, community values and perceptions, and threats to the character were considered throughout the development of these statements.
3.2.4.5 Review and resolution of design guidelines
The resolution of design guidelines required the identification of the conditions necessary to achieve the stated preferred character for a character area.
3.2.4.6 Policy control mechanisms
Throughout the study it was recognised that character areas would require differing management responses in order to achieve the desired future character. In order to clarify the required management response, a series of policy statements have been developed to clearly define the intended influence of management within character areas.
3.3 THE CITY OF BAYSIDE VEGETATION CHARACTER ASSESSMENT
This study was undertaken by John Patrick Pty Ltd.
3.3.1 Purpose of the Study
The purpose of the study is to provide an overview of the vegetation character of the City.
The study assesses the distribution characteristics of vegetation, the type and condition of that vegetation, its significance value, and it’s comparative significance. It covers both public spaces and private land within the municipality.
3.3.2 Methodology
The study adopted a layered approach of data collection and analysis. It involves an initial overview of the distribution and density of vegetation coverage, followed by the collection of detailed data on specific features or areas, to refine the level of information. Significance indicators were applied to the composite assessment to evaluate the relative value of vegetation. Management responses were then formulated for significant vegetation.
The following research was undertaken:
Air photo assessment
Vegetation canopy was mapped for the City from air photos. Four categories of canopy coverage were used: Closed, Moderate, Open/limited, and Non/sparse.
Native bushland remnants
May 2000 9 Explanatory Report Part 1 – Amendment C2 Residential Neighbourhood Amendment
The Cropper report on native bushland remnants within the City identifies six significant floristic communities. One is rated as being of State significance, and five others as regionally significant. Four of the five regionally significant native remnants are located along the foreshore.
Bayside Heritage Review
The City of Bayside Heritage Review identifies 50 sites of heritage significance. They include individual trees, streetscapes, road reserves, parks, public gardens and private gardens scattered across the City.
Significant trees
This study is in progress. To date, a number of trees located in the public domain, have been assessed as significant. Nominated trees on private lands are still being evaluated.
Field survey
Detailed field surveys were carried out for approximately 10% of streets in the City with data on vegetation character recorded on a street basis. The surveys addressed three aspects:
• Overall vegetation character: - dominant vegetation types, and location.
• Public space contributory vegetation:- type of public space, dominant vegetation species, age, canopy structure, shrub structure, and condition.
• Private space contributory vegetation:- assessment of prevailing land use, the dominant vegetation character, dominant species, age, canopy structure, shrub structure, condition, and relationship to street space vegetation.
3.3.3 Overview of vegetation character in the City
In broad terms the vegetation character of the City reflects a progression from a dominance of exotic species in the north and east (Brighton and Brighton East), to a mix of native and exotic species in the central suburbs (Hampton, Sandringham, Moorabbin/Highett). There are predominantly native and indigenous species in the south (Black Rock, Beaumaris).
The dominant vegetation contribution is generally located in the public space in the form of street tree planting. The exception is in the Black Rock and Beaumaris area where there is a high frequency of both private and public spaces contributing equally to vegetation character with similar or complementary species. The condition of trees is generally good.
3.3.4 Assessment of vegetation significance
May 2000 10 Explanatory Report Part 1 – Amendment C2 Residential Neighbourhood Amendment
Vegetation character was evaluated to identify its value or significance rating. The evaluations examined six criteria:
• Landscape contribution (aesthetic values)
This criterion was most significant for the City as a whole, with 74 streets being rated as significant. In general the streets are scattered through the suburbs of Brighton, Hampton, Sandringham, Black Rock and Beaumaris.
• Environmental contribution (habitat values)
This criterion is the second most frequent scorer of significance in the municipality with 20 streets being rated significant. They are generally concentrated in Beaumaris and Black Rock where there is a dense vegetation cover of indigenous and native species.
• Environmental contribution (botanic values)
This criterion is of minor importance with only 2 streets scoring High values.
• Environmental contribution (soil stability, wind protection)
This criterion is of minor importance with 6 streets being rated as having High value. Five of the six streets are located in Beaumaris.
• Heritage contribution
This criterion is of minor importance with 9 streets accorded heritage value. Most of these streets are located in two areas: the Sandringham/Hampton border and in Black / Beaumaris.
• Comparative municipal presence
Seventy-three streets were identified with this criterion as follows: - Rare examples (6 streets). - Uncommon or unusual examples (15 streets). - One of a number of such examples (55 streets).
Overall, these streets have a scattered distribution. However, the rare and uncommon/unusual values are concentrated in Sandringham, Black Rock and Beaumaris.
On the basis of these evaluations, an overall significance rating was given to the street, and statements of significance prepared.
Eight streets are rated as Highly Significant and 68 streets as Significant. A statement of significance was prepared for each.
Management responses
May 2000 11 Explanatory Report Part 1 – Amendment C2 Residential Neighbourhood Amendment
Retention of significant vegetation character requires a multi-strategy approach that covers:
- Control of unnecessary removal.
- Appropriate maintenance and care regimes with adequate resources.
- Long-term replacement strategy as vegetation becomes senescent.
- Provision of advice and information to all parties involved in management of significant vegetation – most particularly members of the community.
- Community awareness and support of significant vegetation character.
The City has already addressed many of these strategies or is in the process of preparing them. They include a street tree strategy, heritage landscape controls, significant tree register, the Bayside coastal strategy and the Cropper report recommendation for foreshore areas, control over the removal of large trees, and some advisory services.
However, the native/indigenous vegetation character of the Black Rock/Beaumaris area is not adequately covered by existing measures, particularly in relation to the removal and management of vegetation on private land.
The study recommends that in the Black Rock / Beaumaris area:
• A Vegetation Protection Overlay be introduced under the Planning Scheme to regulate the removal of native and indigenous vegetation from private land.
• That community awareness of the significance of this vegetation be raised – especially in the development industry.
• Advisory and information services be provided to assist land owners with the care and maintenance of vegetation. The service should include the lists of indigenous species and their requirements, recommended maintenance and care, and planting/revegetation encouragement (eg. plant costs, some free plants).
4 WHAT PART I OF THE AMENDMENT DOES
Part I of the Amendment proposes to make a series of changes to the Bayside Planning Scheme. These are summarised as follows:
4.1 Amend the Municipal Strategic Statement (Clause 21) to reflect the major outcomes of the Residential Strategy, Urban Character Report, Vegetation Character Assessment and Height Control Study.
4.1.1 What Amendments will be made to the MSS?
May 2000 12 Explanatory Report Part 1 – Amendment C2 Residential Neighbourhood Amendment
This section of the Amendment proposes to update the MSS (Clause 21), to reflect the findings of the various strategic studies including the Residential Strategy, Urban Character Report, Vegetation Character Assessment, Heritage Study and Height Control Study. The proposed changes include:
• Updating of the population projections in the snapshot section of the MSS;
• Amend the strategic framework plan to reflect the strategy plan setout in the Residential Strategy in particular by deleting reference to Residential Opportunities & Urban Character action areas.
• Appropriate Amendments to the Housing Section of the MSS including reference to the Residential Strategy.
With the exception of those modifications referred to above, the MSS will remain substantially unaltered.
4.1.2 What is and where will the Vegetation Protection Overlay (VPO) apply?
This section of the Amendment proposes to introduce a Vegetation Protection Overlay over the southern part of the municipality in accordance with the area specified in the Vegetation Character Assessment at Map 16 and as referred to as the Black Rock/Beaumaris Area.
The schedule to the overlay identifies that the significance of the vegetation in the area to which the overlay would apply is the relationship of the vegetation in the public domain to that in the private spaces and when combined the significance it has on the vegetative character of the area. The VPO is proposed to specifically protect that character.
The maps accompanying this Amendment identify the area to which the VPO is to apply.
4.2 Introduce a Vegetation Protection Overlay for the southern part of the municipality consistent with the findings of the Vegetation Character Assessment.
4.2.1 What is the effect of the Vegetation Protection Overlay?
The Vegetation Protection Overlay has the effect of requiring a planning permit for the removal of all trees over two metres in height and with a trunk circumference of more than 0.5 metres up to one metre above ground level.
The effect of the Amendment will be to preserve the extensive canopy cover of this section of the municipality and the requirement to obtain a permit for the removal of trees will be a new requirement.
4.3 Introduce a Design and Development Overlay across the municipality to reflect the findings of the Residential Strategy, Urban Character Assessment and Vegetation Character Assessment. Specifically the Design and Development
May 2000 13 Explanatory Report Part 1 – Amendment C2 Residential Neighbourhood Amendment
Overlay would introduce controls that would apply to single dwellings and multi-dwelling development alike and would relate to front setbacks, front fences and energy efficiency.
4.3.1 Where will the DDO apply?
This section of the Amendment proposes to introduce a Design & Development Overlay to the whole of the municipality. The schedule to the Design & Development Overlay would introduce controls for all residential development (including single dwellings) relating to front setbacks, front fences and energy efficient design.
4.3.2 What is the effect of the Design and Development Overlay?
The Design and Development Overlay has the effect of requiring a planning permit for dwellings that propose a setback less than those prescribed in a table set out in the schedule to the overlay. The setback requirements will ensure that new residential development is respectful of the setback of other dwellings in the street in order to protect the garden character of the City.
The schedule to the Design and Development Overlay will also require a permit to be obtained for front fences higher than 1.2 metres and dwellings that do not achieve a four star energy rating when assessed against the provisions of Energy Efficiency Victoria’s First Rate house energy rating system.
4.4 Introduce a local policy relating to Housing to reflect the findings of the Residential Strategy, provide direction to aid in exercising and informing discretion to achieve justified land use outcomes with respect to housing.
4.4.1 What is the Housing Policy?
The Amendment proposes to introduce a local policy relating to housing and which applies to the municipality as a whole. The Housing Policy recognises Bayside as a high quality living environment with identified areas of significant urban character and landscape value with extensive open space areas. The policy identifies that the City is experiencing residential development pressure and that there is a requirement to accommodate a need for additional houses generated by an increasing population and decreasing household size.
The Housing Policy contains a Policy Basis setting the context for the policy, Policy Objectives and Guidelines to aid in the discretion of decision making. The Housing Policy has been derived from the City of Bayside Residential Strategy, 1999.
4.4.2 What effect will the Housing Policy have?
The policy will form part of the Local Planning Strategic Policy Framework in the Planning Scheme and will form the basis for all planning decisions relating for residential development.
4.5 Introduce the Residential Strategy, Urban Character Report and
May 2000 14 Explanatory Report Part 1 – Amendment C2 Residential Neighbourhood Amendment
Vegetation Character Assessment as reference documents in the Planning Scheme.
4.5.1 What is the effect of the changes to the MSS?
The effect of the changes will be that the new strategic studies will be reference documents to the MSS instead of their preceding or previously non-existing documents.
4.5.1 Introduce height control categories for residential areas, activity areas and the zone adjoining the coast which will be included in the Bayside Planning Scheme, including as a Local Planning Policy, a Design and Development Overlay relating to building height control (Bayside Planning Scheme: DDO3).
Height control guidelines will be prepared to provide assistance to Council, applicants and the community on relevant issues to be taken into account.*** Also a variation to the Good Design Guide is required to introduce the changes to the setback of buildings from boundaries.
4.6.1 What is the effect of the Design and Development Overlay 3 relating to building height control?
The Design and Development Overlay 3 relating to building height control will provide building height parameters to be taken into account when developing sites or extending existing premises in Bayside and will provide for a sound basis for development.
4.6.2 Where will the DDO3 relating to building height control apply?
Height control categories have been identified for residential areas, activity centres and the zone adjoining the coast. The locations of these areas draws directly from the Urban Character and Vegetation control areas identified in the City of Bayside Urban Character Report (August 1999) and City of Bayside Vegetation Study (August 1999).
4.3.2 What is the effect of the Design and Development Overlay 3 relating to building height?
The Design and Development Overlay has the effect of requiring a planning permit for building over the limit applied to the subject area.
5 NEW REFERENCE DOCUMENTS
The Amendment proposes to replace the Bayside Urban Character and Streetscape Study 1998, with the revised and updated Urban Character Report 1999 in those sections of the MSS and local policies where it is currently referenced. The Amendment also replaces the existing Design and Development Overlay 1 (formerly Height Control HC77) relating to the coastal areas and which control expires in December 2000.
May 2000 15 Explanatory Report Part 1 – Amendment C2 Residential Neighbourhood Amendment
The Residential Strategy would be referenced in the Housing Section of the MSS and as a policy reference to the proposed Housing Policy.
6 ENVIRONMENTAL, SOCIAL & ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The present controls affecting residential development in the City are having a negative impact on the social fabric of the City. This is caused by the loss and potential loss of local physical and environmental attributes that are highly regarded by existing and potential residents, and by Council. The proposed Amendment will allow for a better recognition of these features in new development, and will have a positive social effect.
The proposed Amendment is not anticipated to have a significant economic impact.
Council considers that the Amendment will have positive environmental effects by ensuring the recognition and enhancement of the character of the City.
7 STRATEGY AND POLICY JUSTIFICATION
The Strategic and policy justification for this Amendment is contained in Council’s MSS, Urban Character Report, Vegetation Character Assessment and Residential Strategy.
8 WHERE YOU MAY INSPECT THIS AMENDMENT
The Amendment is available for public inspection, free of charge, during office hours at:
Department of Infrastructure City of Bayside Upper Plaza Royal Avenue Nauru House SANDRINGHAM VIC 3191 80 Collins Street and MELBOURNE Bayside libraries during library hours
May 2000 16 Explanatory Report Part 1 – Amendment C2 Residential Neighbourhood Amendment
Written submissions concerning the Amendment should be sent and addressed to:
Chief Executive City of Bayside PO Box 27 SANDRINGHAM VIC 3191
All submitters will be kept informed as to the progress of the Amendment. Further enquiries can be made by contacting Council on 95994444.
May 2000 17 Explanatory Report Part 2 – Amendment C2 Residential Neighbourhood Amendment
Residential Neighbourhood Amendment Part II
Local Variations to the Good Design Guide Explanatory Report part 2
May 2000 18 Explanatory Report Part 2 – Amendment C2 Residential Neighbourhood Amendment
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT ACT 1987
BAYSIDE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C2 PART II - LOCAL VARIATION TO THE GOOD DESIGN GUIDE FOR MEDIUM DENSITY HOUSING
EXPLANATORY REPORT
1 WHO IS THE PLANNING AUTHORITY?
This Amendment has been prepared by the City of Bayside. The City of Bayside (Bayside City Council) is the Planning Authority for this Amendment.
2 LAND AFFECTED BY PART II OF THE AMENDMENT
This Amendment affects residential land in the City as detailed in the maps that form part of this Amendment. In particular, the proposed variations relating to Benchmark Densities, Front Fences, Setbacks, Car Parking, Energy Efficiency, Open Space Requirements and Site Facilities would apply to all properties in the municipality.
3 PURPOSE OF THIS EXPLANATORY REPORT
The Amendment seeks to introduce local variations to the Good Design Guide for Medium Density Housing.
The objectives of the proposed local variations are:
• To maintain and enhance the character of residential neighbourhoods within the City. • To encourage energy efficient residential accommodation that will assist in the reduction of use of fossil fuels. • To encourage new development which recognises the streetscape character of the locality, and particularly the relationships of front building line setbacks and front fencing. • To ensure appropriate car parking provision for new multi-dwelling development. • To encourage new development that recognises the role that existing mature vegetation makes to the character of different parts of the municipality.
The proposed local variations address the following issues.
3.1 DENSITY
The City of Bayside Residential Strategy, inter alia, has identified those areas of the municipality that are more able to accommodate change and those that areas that are more sensitive to change. To reflect these findings the benchmark density provisions of the guide have been altered. For those sections of the municipality identified as being able to accommodate change benchmark densities are proposed that are considered will facilitate change. For those areas of the municipality that are less able to sustain change more conservative benchmark densities are proposed. Higher densities will be considered on larger consolidated sites and Council actively encourages this practice.
3.2 FRONT SETBACKS
May 2000 19 Explanatory Report Part 2 – Amendment C2 Residential Neighbourhood Amendment
Front setbacks are a strong character element in the City, and have a high level of consistency throughout the municipality. The substantial reductions of setbacks that can be allowed by the Good Design Guide can have a significant impact on the streetscape, and on the ability to retain existing significant gardens and vegetation or to plant new vegetation in that space.
It is proposed to replace the Good Design Guide technique relating to front setbacks with that contained in Council’s Urban Character Study.
3.3 FRONT FENCES
Low and unobtrusive front fencing is also a strong character element in the City. Many City streetscapes are being eroded by the use of high front fencing, crating visually hard streetscapes. There is also an increasing and undesirable reliance for multi-dwelling developments to use front yards as secluded private open spaces relying on high fences for that privacy. Finally there is an increasing body of evidence that links high front fences and low levels of public visibility to increased security problems.
It is proposed to include a new Good Design Guide technique based on Council’s Urban Character Report. This criteria links proposed fence heights to the prevailing fence heights in the locality.
3.4 CAR PARKING
The Residential Strategy has identified that the City has a high level of car ownership and that the standard car parking requirement of the Good Design Guide is deficient with respect to larger sized multi-dwellings. In this regard it is proposed to increase the on- site car parking requirements for multi dwellings that contain 3 bedrooms or more.
3.5 SIDE BY SIDE DEVELOPMENT
This form of development has been identified as having the potential to negatively impact on streetscapes and the amenity of adjoining properties, particularly with respect to the issue of bulk. In this regard, a series of local variations is proposed to ensure side by side developments are developed in a sympathetic manner.
3.6 VEGETATION CHARACTER & OPEN SPACE
The contribution of vegetation and large backyards to the character of the City is well documented.
The Urban Character Report identifies the importance throughout the whole City that the contribution of existing vegetation within generous front and rear gardens has to the identity of Bayside. Generally this occurs on land greater than 650m2 in area.
May 2000 20 Explanatory Report Part 2 – Amendment C2 Residential Neighbourhood Amendment
A common concern with new multi-dwelling development is that existing vegetation is lost, and limited space and opportunity is provided for new vegetation to grow. In this context, initiatives are proposed dealing with the dimension and area of open space in new multi-dwelling development as well as introducing a building site cover maximum.
This requirement has also been balanced against identified open space needs of different households. The Residential Strategy shows a correlation between numbers of bedrooms and household size and open space requirements. Based on this information and the need to retain sufficient areas for the planting of canopy trees, the open space requirements of the Good Design Guide are proposed to be modified.
It is proposed that minimum open space areas based on a sliding scale relating to number of bedrooms be introduced to better recognise and manage the vegetation canopy of the City and the future open space needs of residents. This outcome will not force the retention of vegetation or planting of new vegetation, but provides better opportunities to maintain existing or plant new vegetation reflective of the character of the City.
4 WHY THE AMENDMENT IS REQUIRED
Bayside provides a high quality urban environment for people who both live and work in the City. The City’s residential areas, many spacious and leafy, provide a high level of urban amenity, with the benefits of access to the Port Phillip Bay and an array of diverse local businesses, schools and community services. As such, the City is a place of high desirability for new residents, and a place much valued by existing residents.
These locational and environmental factors and structural changes, combined with an increase in residential development, the age of existing housing stock and the prevailing residential lot size within the City, have placed pressures on the residential fabric.
Change needs to be controlled and well managed to ensure that the very fabric of the residential areas of the City that attract existing and new residents alike are not lost in that new development.
Council anticipated many of these issues and subsequently commissioned the Urban Character Study, the Vegetation Character Study and the Residential Strategy to gain a thorough understanding of the make up of the City and the pressures that are being applied. The first part of this Amendment proposes to introduce changes to the Council’s Planning Scheme to embrace the key issues identified in the aforementioned strategic documents.
Several of the conflicts encountered with new medium density housing proposals are created by the standardised approach to development that has followed from the use of the Good Design Guide. The Urban Character Study, Vegetation Character Assessment and Residential Strategy have helped identify deficiencies in the Good Design Guide where the application of that Guide may lead to less appropriate planning outcomes.
May 2000 21 Explanatory Report Part 2 – Amendment C2 Residential Neighbourhood Amendment
In this regard, Council has, among other things:
• developed clear procedural and philosophical guidelines indicating to prospective developers Council’s views on what it considers to be quality design, and that a standard approach prepared without consultation with Council or neighbours will not be supported;
• prepared the Urban Character Study and Vegetation Character Assessment and proposed their reference in the Bayside Planning Scheme by way of Part 1 to this Amendment;
• developed a housing policy for the City proposed to be introduced in Part 1 of this Amendment; and
• prepared the Vegetation Character Assessment to facilitate the appropriate recognition and management of vegetation in the City. The result of this work has led to the Vegetation Protection Overlay for the Beaumaris/Black Rock area proposed to be introduced by Part 1 of this Amendment.
Whilst Council has and continues to develop and refine policy to respond to these issues, it is considered that this policy approach is limited by the existence of statutory techniques in the Good Design Guide which suggest less appropriate solutions.
As such, a further action undertaken by Council has been the exploration of the need for a local variation to the Good Design Guide to achieve better development and redevelopment outcomes. The product of this work has manifested itself in this, part of the proposed Amendment.
5 IMPACT OF THE AMENDMENT
The Amendment will facilitate development that recognises and enhances the character of the residential areas of the City, consistent with Council’s Municipal Strategic Statement, Urban Character Study, Vegetation Character Study and Residential Strategy.
6 SOCIAL, ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The present controls affecting multi-dwelling development in the City are having a negative impact on the social fabric of the City. This is caused by the loss and potential loss of local physical and environmental attributes that are highly regarded by existing and potential residents, and by Council. The proposed local variation will allow for a better recognition of these features in new development, and will have a positive social effect.
The proposed local variation is not anticipated to have a significant economic impact.
Council considers that the Amendment will have positive environmental effects by ensuring the recognition and enhancement of the character of the City.
May 2000 22 Explanatory Report Part 2 – Amendment C2 Residential Neighbourhood Amendment
7 MINISTER’S DIRECTION
The Amendment has been prepared with regard to Ministerial Direction No. 8.
8 STRATEGY AND POLICY JUSTIFICATION
The Strategic and policy justification for this Amendment is contained in Council’s MSS, Urban Character Report, Vegetation Character Report and Residential Strategy.
9 WHERE YOU MAY INSPECT THIS AMENDMENT
The Amendment is available for public inspection, free of charge, during office hours at:
Department of Infrastructure City of Bayside Upper Plaza Royal Avenue Nauru House SANDRINGHAM VIC 3191 80 Collins Street and MELBOURNE Bayside libraries during library hours
Written submissions concerning the Amendment should be sent and addressed to:
Chief Executive Bayside City Council PO Box 27 SANDRINGHAM 3191
All submitters will be kept informed as to the progress of the Amendment. Further enquiries can be made by contacting the Corporate Centre on 9599 4444:
May 2000 23 Explanatory Report Part 3 – Amendment C2 Residential Neighbourhood Amendment
Residential Neighbourhood Amendment C2 Part III - Building Height Control
Explanatory Report part 3
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT ACT 1987
BAYSIDE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C2 PART III - HEIGHT CONTROL
EXPLANATORY REPORT
1 WHO IS THE PLANNING AUTHORITY?
This Amendment has been prepared by the City of Bayside. The City of Bayside (Bayside City Council) is the Planning Authority for this Amendment.
2 LAND AFFECTED BY PART III OF THE AMENDMENT
Seven height control categories have been established for residential areas, activity centres and the area adjoining the coast. The locations of these areas draws directly from the Urban Character and Vegetation control areas identified in the City of Bayside Urban Character Report (August 1999) and City of Bayside Vegetation Study (August 1999).
3 PURPOSE OF THIS EXPLANATORY REPORT
The Amendment seeks to introduce variations to the Planning Scheme in relation to building height control.
The purpose of the study is to provide a strategic base to apply height control across the City of Bayside prior to the existing Height Control HC 77 expiring in December 2000. The Study outlines building height parameters to be taken into account when developing sites or extending existing premises in Bayside and provides for a sound basis for sensitive development that is responsible to the character of sites and neighbourhoods.
May 2000 24 Explanatory Report Part 3 – Amendment C2 Residential Neighbourhood Amendment
4 WHY THE AMENDMENT IS REQUIRED
Bayside provides a high quality urban environment for people who both live and work in the City. The City’s residential areas, many spacious and leafy, provide a high level of urban amenity, with the benefits of access to the Port Phillip Bay and an array of diverse local businesses, schools and community services. As such, the City is a place of high desirability for new residents, and a place much valued by existing residents.
These locational and environmental factors and structural changes, combined with an increase in residential development, the age of existing housing stock and the prevailing residential lot size within the City, have placed pressures on the residential fabric.
Change needs to be controlled and well managed to ensure that the very fabric of the residential areas of the City that attract existing and new residents alike are not lost in that new development.
Policies regarding building height in Bayside need to respond to the existing urban form, character and amenity of the municipality rather than seek to substantially alter it.
In this regard, Council has:
• developed clear procedural and philosophical guidelines indicating to prospective developers Council’s views on what it considers to be quality design, and that a standard approach prepared without consultation with Council or neighbours will not be supported;
• prepared the Height Control Study and proposed its reference in the Bayside Planning Scheme.
• developed a Height Control Policy to be incorporated into the Bayside Planning Scheme
Whilst Council has and continues to develop and refine policy to respond to these issues, it is considered that this policy approach is limited by the existence of statutory techniques in the Good Design Guide which suggest less appropriate solutions.
As such, a further action undertaken by Council has been the exploration of the need for a local variation to the Good Design Guide to achieve better development and redevelopment outcomes.
5 IMPACT OF THE AMENDMENT
The Amendment will facilitate development that recognises and enhances the character of the residential areas of the City, consistent with Council’s Municipal Strategic Statement, Height Control Study, Urban Character Study, Vegetation Character Study and Residential Strategy.
The controls and guidelines proposed are shown on the schedule to the Design and Development Overlay.
May 2000 25 Explanatory Report Part 3 – Amendment C2 Residential Neighbourhood Amendment
The model developed to determine appropriate height controls in Bayside is consistent with the City of Bayside Corporate Plan which, under the key result area, 'Urban Form', requires the introduction of new measures to guide and regulate planning and development in Bayside.
The Bayside Height Control Study commenced with a review of existing height controls along the coast and examines the pressures for increased building height in Bayside. It reviews the strategic elements of the city, including the tension between the attraction of bay and coastal views and the existing low height level of much of the built and natural form of the City.
The consultants have identified height control categories for residential areas, activity centres and the zone adjoining the coast. The locations of these areas draws directly from the Urban Character and Vegetation control areas identified in the City of Bayside Urban Character Report (August 1999) and City of Bayside Vegetation Study (August 1999).
The controls and guidelines proposed by the consultants are shown on the schedule to the Design and Development Overlay. In summary the controls and key areas impacted by the controls are
HC1 Bayside Areas 1 Mandatory Height Control (coastal fringe)
Maximum height two storeys or six metres Including (for a single storey building) (HC2) Bayside Areas 2 Planning Scheme Amendment required for developments within HC1 building height over two storeys HC3 Minimal Change Permit required for all buildings over one storey (houses and units) Maximum height two storeys or eight metres HC4a Managed Change Permit required for all buildings over two storeys (houses and units) HC4b Managed Change Permit required for all buildings over one storey where there is a predominantly single storey streetscape. Maximum height two storeys, subject to permit HC5 Environmental Enhancement VicCode 1 and the Good Design Guide applied (houses and units). Maximum height two storeys unless no adverse amenity effects can be demonstrated HC6 Activity Centres Prepare a Local Policy and separate Design and Development Overlay for each of the major activity centres in the same manner as the Sandringham Urban Village Policy (as adopted by Council).
May 2000 26 Explanatory Report Part 3 – Amendment C2 Residential Neighbourhood Amendment
The model is consistent with the City of Bayside Corporate Plan which, under the key result area, 'Urban Form', requires the introduction of new measures to guide and regulate planning and development in Bayside.
6 SOCIAL, ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The present controls affecting multi-dwelling development in the City are having a negative impact on the social fabric of the City. This is caused by the loss and potential loss of local physical and environmental attributes that are highly regarded by existing and potential residents, and by Council. The proposed local variation will allow for a better recognition of these features in new development, and will have a positive social effect.
The proposed local variation is not anticipated to have a significant economic impact.
Council considers that the Amendment will have positive environmental effects by ensuring the recognition and enhancement of the character of the City.
7 MINISTER’S DIRECTION
The Amendment has been prepared with regard to Ministerial Direction No. 8.
8 STRATEGY AND POLICY JUSTIFICATION
The Strategic and policy justification for this Amendment is contained in Council’s MSS, Bayside Height Control Study, as well as in the Urban Character Report, Vegetation Character Report and Residential Strategy.
9 WHERE YOU MAY INSPECT THIS AMENDMENT
The Amendment is available for public inspection, free of charge, during office hours at:
Department of Infrastructure City of Bayside Upper Plaza Royal Avenue Nauru House SANDRINGHAM VIC 3191 80 Collins Street and MELBOURNE Bayside libraries during library hours
All submitters will be kept informed as to the progress of the Amendment. Further enquiries can be made by contacting the Corporate Centre on 9599 4444:
May 2000 27 Bayside Planning Scheme: Amendment C2 Report of a Panel: August 2001
APPENDIX 3: SUBMITTORS TO AMENDMENTS C2 AND C2*
110
PART 3-LIST OF SUBMITTORS TO AMENDMENT C2
Please note: 1. Submission numbers with a # notation refer to submissions lodged to encourage Council to revise the exhibited Amendment (particularly to support the 1:400 sq m density control). 2. Submission numbers with a * notation refer to submissions lodged in response to notification of Council’s changed position following its 23 October 2000 resolution. 3. Submission numbers starting with a prefix ‘A’ refers to submissions lodged on a pamphlet titled ‘Have Your Say’ distributed by Council during exhibition of Amendment C2. 4. Submission numbers starting with a prefix ‘B’ refers to a pro forma petition from residents in Earlsfield Road, Hampton.
Sub. LIST OF NAMES – POSTAL Salutation No. Street name Suburb no. ADDRESS of RE: AMENDMENT C2 Res. addr ess 1 David & Shirley Joy Mr & Mrs 10 Abbott Street SANDRINGHAM 10 Abbott Street Joy SANDRINGHAM VIC 3191 2 Graeme MacQuarrie Mr 195 Ludstone HAMPTON 195 Ludstone Street MacQuarrie Street HAMPTON VIC 3188 3 Poci Bros Pty Ltd Mr Perry 56 Beach Road HAMPTON C/- Frank Perry, Director F R Perry & Associates Pty Ltd Level 2 60 Collins Street MELBOURNE VIC 3000 4 Ted Pearce Mr Pearce Beaumaris President Conservation Society Beaumaris Conservation Society Inc PO Box 7016 BEAUMARIS VIC 3193 5 Mr R J Stainforth Mr 57 Iona Street BLACK ROCK 57 Iona Street Stainforth BLACK ROCK VIC 3193 6 Alastair R Mitchell Mr Mitchell 6 Cromer BEAUMARIS Kereru 6 Cromer Road BEAUMARIS VIC 3193 7 Eugene Legat Mr Legat 41 Earlsfield HAMPTON 41 Earlsfield Road Road HAMPTON VIC 3188 8 Linda Doolan Ms Doolan 129 Charman HAMPTON 129 Charman Road Road BEAUMARIS VIC 3193 9 Barbara G Cook Ms Cook 21 Clonmore BEAUMARIS 21 Clonmore Street Street BEAUMARIS VIC 3193 10 Michael Patterson Mr Patterson 73 Landcox BRIGHTON EAST 73 Landcox Street Street BRIGHTON EAST VIC 3187 11 Barry & Judy Challenger Mr & Mrs 1 Margate Street BEAUMARIS 1 Margate Street Challenger BEAUMARIS VIC 3193 12 Terry & Elizabeth Gorman Mr & Mrs 31 North Road BRIGHTON 31 North Road Gorman BRIGHTON VIC 3186 13 Tony Wells Mr Wells 28 Landcox BRIGHTON EAST 28 Landcox Street Street BRIGHTON EAST VIC 3187 1
Sub. LIST OF NAMES – POSTAL Salutation No. Street name Suburb no. ADDRESS of RE: AMENDMENT C2 Res. addr ess 14 B Brooker Sir/Madam 5 Snooks Court BRIGHTON 5 Snooks Court BRIGHTON VIC 3186 15 Brenn Barcan Mr Barcan 6/35 Normanby BRIGHTON 6/35 Normanby Street Street BRIGHTON VIC 3186 16 Kanahoee Nominees Mr Overend 2-8 Church Street BRIGHTON D. A. C. Properties Pty Ltd Darren Overend Overend McIldowie & Co Pty Ltd 111 Collins Street MELBOURNE VIC 3000 17 Mr A Sidaway Mr Sidaway 70 Landcox BRIGHTON EAST 70 Landcox Street Street BRIGHTON EAST VIC 3187 18 Pamela Eden Ms Eden 25 Bamfield SANDRINGHAM 25 Bamfield Street Street SANDRINGHAM VIC 3191 19 Margaret & James Sinclair Mrs Sinclair 9 Rouen Street HAMPTON 9 Rouen Street HAMPTON VIC 3188 20 Sean Mathews Mr Mathews 7 Barnett Street HAMPTON 7 Barnett Street HAMPTON VIC 3188 Withdrawn 06/03/01 21 R W Davies Sir/Madam 32 Smith Street HAMPTON 32 Smith Street HAMPTON VIC 3188
22 D R & E J Boughton Mr & Mrs 4 Crawford CHELTENHAM 4 Crawford Street Boughton Street CHELTENHAM VIC 3192 23 Nichola Sanders Mr Sanders 14 North Road BRIGHTON 14 North Road BRIGHTON VIC 3186 24 Mrs K S Michael Mrs Michael 15 Bridge Street HAMPTON 15 Bridge Street HAMPTON VIC 3188 25 Kevin J Sharpley Mr Sharpley 170 Ludstone HAMPTON 170 Ludstone Street Street HAMPTON VIC 3188 26 Mr K Grover Mr Grover 1/5 Edinburgh HAMPTON 1/5 Edinburgh Street Street HAMPTON VIC 3188 27 Malcolm & Elizabeth MacLeod Mr & Mrs 41 Royal Avenue SANDRINGHAM 41 Royal Avenue MacLeod SANDRINGHAM VIC 3191 28 Vaughan Connor Mr Connor 3 Central BLACK ROCK Senior Planner Avenue Contour Consultants Australia Pty Ltd Level 1/283 Drummond Street CARLTON VIC 3053 29 Dr Alina Skoutarides Dr BARD President Skoutarides BARD
2
Sub. LIST OF NAMES – POSTAL Salutation No. Street name Suburb no. ADDRESS of RE: AMENDMENT C2 Res. addr ess PO Box 15 BLACK ROCK VIC 3193 30 Patrick J Largier Mr Largier 20 Edward Street SANDRINGHAM 20 Edward Street SANDRINGHAM VIC 3191 31 David Scarr Mr Scarr 2/1 Deakin Street HAMPTON 2/1 Deakin Street South South HAMPTON VIC 3188 32 Jenny Currie Ms Currie 12 Earlsfield HAMPTON 12 Earlsfield Road Road HAMPTON VIC 3188 33 P & C Efklides Mr & Mrs 10 Edward Street SANDRINGHAM 10 Edward Street Efklides SANDRINGHAM VIC 3191 34 Maureen & Ian Thompson Mr & Mrs 18 Bridge Street HAMPTON 18 Bridge Street Thompson HAMPTON VIC 3188 35 Georgi Abrahams Ms 42 North Road BRIGHTON 42 North Road Abrahams BRIGHTON VIC 3186 36 James Rigney Mr Rigney Suite Church Street BRIGHTON Architects 4, 2 Suit 4, 2 Church Street BRIGHTON VIC 3186 37 Bruce & Elizabeth Seaton Mr & Mrs 73 Bridge Street HAMPTON 73 Bridge Street Seaton HAMPTON VIC 3188 38 C. B. Bell Sir/Madam 206 South Road BRIGHTON EAST PO Box 1114 HAMPTON NORTH VIC 3188 B39 Jeremy Carroll Mr Carroll 1 Canterbury BRIGHTON VIC 1 Canterbury Place Place 3186 BRIGHTON VIC 3186 40 Jeff Cock/Hilary West Mr Cock & 3/9 Iluka Street BLACK ROCK 3/9 Iluka Street Ms West BLACK ROCK VIC 3193 41 Norma Kukovec Ms Kukovec 903 Hampton BRIGHTON EAST 903 Hampton Street Street BRIGHTON EAST VIC 3187 42 Michael Norris Mr Norris 5 Deakin Street HAMPTON 5 Deakin Street North North HAMPTON VIC 3188 43 Amir Shayan Mr Shayan 7 Campbell SANDRINGHAM 7 Campbell Street Street SANDRINGHAM VIC 3191 A43 M Shayan Sir/Madam 7 Campbell SANDRINGHAM 7 Campbell Street Street SANDRINGHAM VIC 3191 44 David Goodwin Mr Goodwin 8/860 Nepean MOORABBIN 8/860 Nepean Highway Highway MOORABBIN VIC 3189 45 John Langton-Bunker Mr Langton- 4 Bonleigh BRIGHTON 4 Bonleigh Avenue Bunker Avenue BRIGHTON VIC 3186 46 Susan E Raverty Ms Raverty 5 Rosemary BEAUMARIS
3
Sub. LIST OF NAMES – POSTAL Salutation No. Street name Suburb no. ADDRESS of RE: AMENDMENT C2 Res. addr ess 5 Rosemary Road Road BEAUMARIS VIC 3193 47 Patricia Phair Ms Phair 5 Boxshall BRIGHTON 5 Boxshall Street Street BRIGHTON VIC 3186 A47 Patricia Phair Ms Phair 5 Boxshall BRIGHTON 5 Boxshall Street Street BRIGHTON VIC 3186 48 Australian Leisure & Hospitality Mrs Hansen 118- Beach Road SANDRINGHAM Group (AHL) 120 C/- Roz Hansen, Director Hansen Partnership Pty Ltd Level 8 136 Exhibition Street MELBOURNE VIC 3000 49 Lisa MacLeod Ms 11 Wairoa BRIGHTON Design Director MacLeod Avenue LRM Design House 11 Wairoa Avenue BRIGHTON VIC 3186 50 A Shayan Sir/Madam 7 Campbell SANDRINGHAM 7 Campbell Street Street SANDRINGHAM VIC 3191 51 Joan Palmer Ms Palmer 132 Tramway BEAUMARIS 132 Tramway Parade Parade BEAUMARIS VIC 3193 52 Wendy Dowe Ms Dowe 152 Head Street BRIGHTON 152 Head Street BRIGHTON VIC 3186 53 Peter Jewell Mr Jewell 6 Maher Street BRIGHTON 6 Maher Street BRIGHTON VIC 3186 54 Janet & Alastair Inglis Mr & Mrs 4 Earlsfield HAMPTON 4 Earlsfield Road Inglis Road HAMPTON VIC 3188 55 A & K Murray Sir/Madam 3 Campbell BRIGHTON 3 Campbell Street Street BRIGHTON VIC 3186 56 Geoff & Moira Shepherd Mr & Mrs 25 Folkestone BEAUMARIS 25 Folkestone Crescent Shepherd Crescent BEAUMARIS VIC 3193 57 Anne Gibson Ms Gibson 90 Dalgetty Road BEAUMARIS 90 Dalgetty Road BEAUMARIS VIC 3193 58 Robert Vandestadt Mr 6 Holding Street BEAUMARIS 6 Holding Street Vandestadt BEAUMARIS VIC 3193 59 Keith Bennett & Lisa O’Shannessy Mr Bennett 54 Cole Street BRIGHTON 54 Cole Street & Ms BRIGHTON VIC 3186 O’Shanness y 60 Derek Wilson Mr Wilson 10 Victor Avenue CHELTENHAM 10 Victor Avenue CHELTENHAM VIC 3192 61 M Meehan Sir/Madam 3 Bruce Street BEAUMARIS 3 Bruce Street 4
Sub. LIST OF NAMES – POSTAL Salutation No. Street name Suburb no. ADDRESS of RE: AMENDMENT C2 Res. addr ess BEAUMARIS VIC 3193 62 Royal Brighton Yacht Club Mr Martyn Royal Brighton C/- Simon Martyn Yacht Club Manager Development Planner MacroPlan 70 Miller Street WEST MELBOURNE VIC 3003 63 Mr Barrie Sheppard Mr Sheppard BRUP President BRUP PO Box 2396 NORTH BRIGHTON VIC 3186 64 B T & J M Cunningham Sir/Madam Black Rock Black Rock PO Box 211 resident BLACK ROCK VIC 3193 65 Ms S L Kwong Ms Bethune 7 Bonleigh BRIGHTON C/- Julie Bethune Avenue Senior Planner Hansen Partnership Pty Ltd Level 8 136 Exhibition Street MELBOURNE VIC 3000 A66 Sibyl Hayton Ms Hayton 34 Hilton Street BEAUMARIS 34 Hilton Street BEAUMARIS VIC 3193 A67 Jane Marder Ms Marder 2 Oak Grove BRIGHTON 2 Oak Grove BRIGHTON VIC 3186 A68 D McP (Mac) Roberts Sir/Madam 28 Seaview BLACK ROCK 28 Seaview Crescent Crescent BLACK ROCK VIC 3193 A69 Maroa Shelton Ms Shelton 7 Abbott Street SANDRINGHAM 7 Abbott Street SANDRINGHAM VIC 3191
A70 Wendy Harding Ms Harding 23 Hilton Street BEAUMARIS 23 Hilton Street BEAUMARIS VIC 3193 A71 Mayer Family Mr Mayer 8 Hilton Street BEAUMARIS 8 Hilton Street BEAUMARIS VIC 3193 A72 David Tiller Mr Tiller 4 Canterbury BRIGHTON 4 Canterbury Place Place BRIGHTON VIC 3186 A73 Geoffrey Ewart Mr Ewart 80 Morey Road BEAUMARIS 80 Morey Road BEAUMARIS VIC 3193 A74 G A & M C Rose Sir/Madam 5 Margate Street BEAUMARIS 5 Margate Street BEAUMARIS VIC 3193 A75 Bianco Properties Sir/Madam 3/48 Esplanade BRIGHTON F & S Sicari 3/48 Esplanade BRIGHTON VIC 3186 A76 Michael Anderson Mr 124 Cole Street BRIGHTON 124 Cole Street Anderson 5
Sub. LIST OF NAMES – POSTAL Salutation No. Street name Suburb no. ADDRESS of RE: AMENDMENT C2 Res. addr ess BRIGHTON VIC 3186 A77 S Brook Sir/Madam 4/12 Canterbury BRIGHTON BEACH 4/12 Canterbury Place Place BRIGHTON BEACH VIC 3188 A78 M Van Staveren Mr Staveren 144 Oak Street BEAUMARIS 144 Oak Street BEAUMARIS VIC 3193 A79 Mrs Norma Brennan Mrs Brennan 1/25 Stanley Street BRIGHTON 1/25 Stanley Street BLACK ROCK VIC 3193 B80 Earlsfield Road Action Group Sir/Madam 9 Earlsfield HAMPTON 9 Earlsfield Road Road HAMPTON VIC 3188 B81 A M Clarke Sir/Madam 21 Prince Street HAMPTON 21 Prince Street HAMPTON VIC 3188 B82 Marjorie Griffith Mrs Griffith 16 Earlsfield HAMPTON 16 Earlsfield Road Road HAMPTON VIC 3188 B83 Mrs L Warner Mrs Warner 54 Kingston HAMPTON 54 Kingston Street Street HAMPTON VIC 3188 B84 Mr C B Manie & Ms J M Snyder Mr Manie & 202 South Road BRIGHTON EAST 202 South Road Ms Snyder BRIGHTON EAST VIC 3187 B85 Jean Complin Ms Complin 48 Earlsfield HAMPTON 48 Earlsfield Road Road HAMPTON VIC 3188 B86 Mrs J A Jones Mrs Jones 45 Earlsfield HAMPTON 45 Earlsfield Road Road HAMPTON VIC 3188 B87 Mrs D Scholes Mrs Scholes 172 Thomas Street HAMPTON 172 Thomas Street HAMPTON VIC 3188 88 Ms Cheryl May Ms May 3 Elwood Street BRIGHTON Secretary Save Our Suburbs Inc 3 Elwood Street BRIGHTON VIC 3186 B89 The Occupier Sir/Madam 16A Kingston HAMPTON 16A Kingston Street Street HAMPTON VIC 3188 B90 Ivy M Mann Ms Mann 28 Raynes Park HAMPTON 28 Raynes Park Road Road HAMPTON VIC 3188 B91 Mr T & Mrs P Chantzos Mr & Mrs 34 Earlsfield HAMPTON 34 Earlsfield Road Chantzos Road HAMPTON VIC 3188 B92 Mr G Shiels Mr Shiels 5 Carolyn Street HAMPTON 5 Carolyn Street HAMPTON VIC 3188 B93 Mrs B Brudenell Mrs 6 Bronte Court HAMPTON 6 Bronte Court Brudenell HAMPTON VIC 3188 B94 Marjorie Griffiths Mrs 16 Earlsfield HAMPTON 16 Earlsfield Road Griffiths Road 6
Sub. LIST OF NAMES – POSTAL Salutation No. Street name Suburb no. ADDRESS of RE: AMENDMENT C2 Res. addr ess HAMPTON VIC 3188 B95 Giuseppe Recchia Mr Recchia 139 Ludstone HAMPTON 139 Ludstone Street Street HAMPTON VIC 3188 B96 Angela Moore & Maria M Wallis Ms Moore & 62 Earlsfield HAMPTON 62 Earlsfield Road Ms Wallis Road HAMPTON VIC 3188 A97 George Phair Mr Phair 5 Boxshall BRIGHTON 5 Boxshall Street Street BRIGHTON VIC 3186 98 Ms L A Ennis Ms Ennis 1/2A Dendy Street BRIGHTON 1/2A Dendy Street BRIGHTON VIC 3186 99 J G & L M Malley Sir/Madam 25 Bridge Street HAMPTON 25 Bridge Street HAMPTON VIC 3188 B100 G Bastounis Sir/Madam 8 Poole Avenue HAMPTON E Savidis 8 Poole Avenue HAMPTON VIC 3188 B101 Colin & Kathleen Lewin Mr & Mrs 69 Fewster Road HAMPTON 69 Fewster Road Lewin HAMPTON VIC 3188 B102 Ms G V Reid Ms Reid 2/28 Ivy Street HAMPTON 2/28 Ivy Street HAMPTON VIC 3188 B103 G Thompson Sir/Madam 26 Raynes Park HAMPTON 26 Raynes Park Road Road HAMPTON VIC 3188 B104 K G & M M Cross Sir/Madam 57 Earlsfield HAMPTON 57 Earlsfield Road Road HAMPTON VIC 3188 B105 Z Golebiowski Mrs 17 Prince Street HAMPTON 17 Prince Street Golebiowski HAMPTON VIC 3188 B106 Adam Koch Mr Koch 40 Earlsfield HAMPTON 40 Earlsfield Road Road HAMPTON VIC 3188
B107 J Butcher Sir/Madam 10 Earlsfield HAMPTON 10 Earlsfield Road Road HAMPTON VIC 3188 B108 M Davey Sir/Madam 2/188 South Road BRIGHTON EAST 2/188 South Road BRIGHTON EAST VIC 3187 B109 Fred Fox Mr Fox 40 Raynes Park HAMPTON 40 Raynes Park Road Road HAMPTON VIC 3188 B110 Ms C M Baker Ms Baker 118 Ludstone HAMPTON 118 Ludstone Street Street HAMPTON VIC 3188 B111 Jaymie Spanos Ms Spanos 21 Ivy Street HAMPTON 21 Ivy Street HAMPTON VIC 3188 B112 Ms Sandra Jason Ms Jason 12 Prince Street HAMPTON 12 Prince Street 7
Sub. LIST OF NAMES – POSTAL Salutation No. Street name Suburb no. ADDRESS of RE: AMENDMENT C2 Res. addr ess HAMPTON VIC 3188 B113 M H M Murton Sir/Madam 3/188 South Road BRIGHTON EAST 3/188 South Road BRIGHTON EAST VIC 3187 B114 P & H Jeffery Sir/Madam 4 Ivy Street HAMPTON 4 Ivy Street HAMPTON VIC 3188 B115 J A Emmi Sir/Madam 2 Earlsfield HAMPTON 2 Earlsfield Road Road HAMPTON VIC 3188 B116 Lorna Warner Ms Warner 54 Kingston HAMPTON 54 Kingston Street Street HAMPTON VIC 3188 B117 G Demaria Sir/Madam 135 Ludstone HAMPTON 135 Ludstone Street Street HAMPTON VIC 3188 B118 Maria Ripepi Ms Ripepi 92 Ludstone HAMPTON 92 Ludstone Street Street HAMPTON VIC 3188 B119 Lorraine David Ms David 16 Bateman HAMPTON 16 Bateman Street Street HAMPTON VIC 3188 B120 Selma Macfarlane Ms 128 Ludstone HAMPTON 128 Ludstone Street Macfarlane Street HAMPTON VIC 3188 B121 G H Prem Sir/Madam 9 Earlsfield HAMPTON 9 Earlsfield Road Road HAMPTON VIC 3188 B122 Sarah & Tony Olaes Mr & Mrs 4A Prince Street HAMPTON 4A Prince Street Olaes HAMPTON VIC 3188 B123 Nance Clifford Ms Clifford 26 Earlsfield HAMPTON 26 Earlsfield Road Road HAMPTON VIC 3188 B124 Andrew Kitson Mr Kitson 15 Raynes Park HAMPTON 15 Raynes Park Road Road HAMPTON VIC 3188 B125 John S Buckley Mr Buckley 1 Prince Street HAMPTON 1 Prince Street HAMPTON VIC 3188 126 Jenny Talbot Ms Talbot 71 Champion BRIGHTON Brighton Foreshore Preservation Street Association Save the Trees Friends of Brighton Dunes 71 Champion Street BRIGHTON VIC 3186 127 Nick Hooper Mr Hooper Taylors Surveyors & Planners Building 5 303 Burwood Highway BURWOOD EAST VIC 3153 128 Natural Resources & Environment Mr Grace C/- David Grace Senior Statutory Planner - Port Phillip Region 8
Sub. LIST OF NAMES – POSTAL Salutation No. Street name Suburb no. ADDRESS of RE: AMENDMENT C2 Res. addr ess 30 Prospect Street BOX HILL VIC 3128 129 Mark Dymiotis Mr Dymiotis 21 Barnett Street HAMPTON 21 Barnett Street HAMPTON VIC 3188 130 W & D Hemming Sir/Madam 10 Canterbury BRIGHTON 10 Canterbury Place Place BRIGHTON VIC 3186 131 Fiona Brownlee Ms PO Box 1196 Brownlee TRARALGON VIC 3844 132 Mr H Hedges Mr Hedges 475 Bluff Road HAMPTON 475 Bluff Road HAMPTON VIC 3188 133 Katrina Woolfe Ms Woolfe Manager Housing Projects Sustainable Energy Authority Ground Floor 215 Spring Street MELBOURNE VIC 3000 B134 David Patten Mr Patten 146 Ludstone HAMPTON 146 Ludstone Street Street HAMPTON VIC 3188 135 Mr Clarence Mitchell Mr Mitchell 4 Elm Grove BRIGHTON 4 Elm Grove BRIGHTON VIC 3186 136 Resdale Pty Ltd Mr Lipson 23 & Wilson Street BRIGHTON C/- Steve Lipson & Phil Borelli & Mr 25 SJB Planning Borelli PO Box 1149 SOUTH MELBOURNE VIC 3205 137* Croft Health Care Pty Ltd Mr Hooper 294 Highett Road HIGHETT C/- Nick Hooper Taylors Surveyors & Planners Building 5 303 Burwood Highway BURWOOD EAST VIC 3151 138# Mr K & Mrs I Saunders Mr & Mrs 732 Hawthorn BRIGHTON EAST 732 Hawthorn Road Saunders Road BRIGHTON EAST VIC 3187 139# Ms V Varga Ms Varga 7a Gillard Street BRIGHTON EAST 7a Gillard Street BRIGHTON EAST VIC 3187 140# Mr J & Mrs S Saunders Mr & Mrs 4 Clinton Street BRIGHTON EAST 4 Clinton Street Saunders BRIGHTON EAST VIC 3187 141# Mr J Fisher Mr Fisher 10 Merton BRIGHTON 10 Merton Avenue Avenue BRIGHTON VIC 3186 142# Mr John & Mrs Christine Dever Mr & Mrs 27 South Road BRIGHTON 27 South Road Dever BRIGHTON VIC 3186 143# B. R. S. Comport Ms Comport 3 Laburnum BRIGHTON 3 Laburnum Street Street BRIGHTON VIC 3186
9
Sub. LIST OF NAMES – POSTAL Salutation No. Street name Suburb no. ADDRESS of RE: AMENDMENT C2 Res. addr ess 144# Mr & Mrs Zail Mr & Mrs 17 Comer Street BRIGHTON EAST 17 Comer Street Zail BRIGHTON EAST VIC 3187 145# Mr C Mitchell Mr Mitchell 4 Elm Grove BRIGHTON 4 Elm Grove BRIGHTON VIC 3186 146# Katrina Woolfe Ms Woolfe Manager Housing Projects Sustainable Energy Authority Ground Floor 215 Spring Street MELBOURNE VIC 3000 147# Mr P & Mrs K Patten Mr & Mrs 197 Were Street BRIGHTON EAST 197 Were Street Patten BRIGHTON EAST VIC 3187 148# Mr B & Mrs A Beardsley Mr & Mrs 14 Collington BRIGHTON 14 Collington Avenue Beardsley Avenue BRIGHTON VIC 3186 149# Mr & Mrs Nicolson Mr & Mrs 14 Roslyn Street BRIGHTON 14 Roslyn Street Nicolson BRIGHTON VIC 3186 150# Di & Jeremy Press Mrs & Mr 35 Park Street BRIGHTON 35 Park Street Press BRIGHTON VIC 3186 151# Richard Adams Mr Adams 9 Manor Street BRIGHTON 9 Manor Street BRIGHTON VIC 3186 152# Bruce M Young Mr Young 45 Binnie Street BRIGHTON EAST 45 Binnie Street BRIGHTON EAST VIC 3187 153# Mr D S & Mrs S L Salter Mr & Mrs 28 Cluden Street BRIGHTON EAST 28 Cluden Street Salter BRIGHTON EAST VIC 3187 154# Ian W & Karen Howison Mr & Mrs 101 Glencairn Ave BRIGHTON EAST 101 Glencairn Avenue Hawison BRIGHTON EAST VIC 3187 155# Allan, Gay Lucy & Amy Rudolph Mr Lucy & 6 Garden BRIGHTON EAST 6 Garden Avenue Mr Rudolph Avenue BRIGHTON EAST VIC 3187 156# David & Christine Griffiths Mr & Mrs 65 Glencairn BRIGHTON EAST Artha Publishing Griffiths Avenue 65 Glencairn Avenue BRIGHTON EAST VIC 3187 157# Anthony & Alison Fernie Mr & Mrs 68 Glencairn BRIGHTON EAST 68 Glencairn Avenue Fernie Avenue BRIGHTON EAST VIC 3187 158# Paul Roberts Mr Roberts 13 Hurlingham BRIGHTON EAST Upfront Presenters Street Media Services 13 Hurlingham Street BRIGHTON EAST VIC 3187 159# Roger & Susanne Clarke Mr & Mrs 34 Foote Street BRIGHTON 34 Foote Street Clarke BRIGHTON VIC 3186 160# Frederic & Trudy Azoor Mr & Mrs 15 Lansdown BRIGHTON EAST 15 Lansdown Street Azoor Street 10
Sub. LIST OF NAMES – POSTAL Salutation No. Street name Suburb no. ADDRESS of RE: AMENDMENT C2 Res. addr ess BRIGHTON EAST VIC 3187 161# Les & Diana Irwin Mr & Mrs 48 Asling Street BRIGHTON 48 Asling Street Irwin BRIGHTON VIC 3186 162# Gary Evans Mr Evans 67 Cole Street BRIGHTON 67 Cole Street BRIGHTON VIC 3186 163# JE Killmister Mr & Mrs 24 Summerhill BRIGHTON EAST 24 Summerhill Road Killmister Road BRIGHTON EAST VIC 3187 164# Greg Terry & Marie Peters-Terry Mr Terry & 65 South Road BRIGHTON 65 South Road Mrs Peters- BRIGHTON VIC 3186 Terry 165# Peter & Gillian Cameron Mr & Mrs 17 Montclair BRIGHTON 17 Montclair Avenue Cameron Avenue BRIGHTON VIC 3186 166# G W & I D Roberts M/- Roberts 230 North Road BRIGHTON EAST 230 North Road BRIGHTON EAST VIC 3187 167# D & J Burgoine Mr & Mrs 13 Caairnes BRIGHTON EAST 13 Cairnes Crescent Burgoine Crescent BRIGHTON VIC 3186 168# Brian & Joan Healey Mr & Mrs 13a Tennyson BRIGHTON 13a Tennyson Street Healey Street BRIGHTON VIC 3186 169# Adrian & Noela McKenzie Mr & Mrs 16 Lansdown BRIGHTON 16 Lansdown Street McKenzie Street BRIGHTON EAST VIC 3187 170# Kopp Family Ms Kopp 14 Foote Street BRIGHTON 14 Foote Street BRIGHTON VIC 3186 171# Anne & Geoff McGeary Mr & Mrs 6 Farleigh BRIGHTON 6 Farleigh Grove McGeary Grove BRIGHTON VIC 3186 172# Dr Douglas Macfarlane Dr 9 Camberdown BRIGHTON EAST 9 Camberdown Street Macfarlane Street BRIGHTON EAST VIC 3187 173# Diane Macfarlane Ms 9 Camberdown BRIGHTON EAST 9 Camberdown Street Macfarlane Street BRIGHTON EAST VIC 3187 174# Phillip & Christine Walker Mr & Mrs 23 Summerhill BRIGHTON EAST 23 Summerhill Road Walker Road BRIGHTON EAST VIC 3187 175# N & Y Schwalb Mr & Mrs 7 Egan Street BRIGHTON EAST 7 Egan Street Schwalb BRIGHTON EAST VIC 3187 176# Hedley & Helen Potts Mr & Mrs 31 Edro Avenue BRIGHTON EAST 31 Edro Avenue Potts BRIGHTON EAST VIC 3187 177# Vivienne Howe Ms Howe 5 Missouri BRIGHTON 5 Missouri Avenue Avenue BRIGHTON VIC 3186 178# Mr G J & Mrs D P O'Brien Mr & Mrs 7 Griffiths BRIGHTON EAST 7 Griffiths Grove O'Brien Grove BRIGHTON EAST VIC 3187 179# Roger Timms Mr Timms 5 Merton BRIGHTON 11
Sub. LIST OF NAMES – POSTAL Salutation No. Street name Suburb no. ADDRESS of RE: AMENDMENT C2 Res. addr ess 5 Merton Avenue Avenue BRIGHTON VIC 3186 180# Sue Stephens Ms Stephens 71 Cole Street BRIGHTON 71 Cole Street BRIGHTON VIC 3186 181# Verna van Wiingaarden Ms 47 Bourneville BRIGHTON EAST 47 Bourneville Avenue Wiingaarden Avenue BRIGHTON EAST VIC 3187 182# Ric & Joanne Sotelo Mr & Mrs 34 Binnie Street BRIGHTON EAST 34 Binnie Street Sotelo BRIGHTON EAST VIC 3187 183# Rosalie Triolo Ms Triolo 3 Mayrose BRIGHTON EAST 3 Mayrose Crescent Crescent BRIGHTON EAST VIC 3187 184# Michael J Taranto Mr Taranto 1 Baird Street BRIGHTON EAST 1 Baird Street BRIGHTON EAST VIC 3187 185# Graeme & Ann Kitney Mr & Mrs 2 Binnie Street BRIGHTON EAST 2 Binnie Street Kitney BRIGHTON EAST VIC 3187 186# Jennifer Coghlan-Bell `Ms 17 Park Street BRIGHTON 15 Park Street Coghlan- BRIGHTON VIC 3186 Bell 187# Ron & Sandra Cassano Mr & Mrs 55 Plantation BRIGHTON EAST 55 Plantation Avenue Cassano Avenue BRIGHTON EAST VIC 3187 188# H & R Sanderson Sir/Madam 39 Plantation BRIGHTON EAST 39 Plantation Avenue Avenue BRIGHTON EAST VIC 3187 189# Mr John Merkus & Mr Merkus 12A Lansdown BRIGHTON EAST Dr Sandra Allmand & Dr Street 12A Lansdown Street Allmand BRIGHTON EAST VIC 3187 190# Ian & Elizabeth Maratos Mr & Mrs 411 New Street BRIGHTON 411 New Street Maratos BRIGHTON VIC 3186 191# Ray Weatherby Mr 4 Missouri BRIGHTON 4 Missouri Avenue Weatherby Avenue BRIGHTON VIC 3186 192# Doug & Blanche Fox-Lane Mr & Mrs 27 Glencairn BRIGHTON EAST 27 Glencairn Avenue Fox-Lane Avenue BRIGHTON EAST VIC 3187 193# Judy Evans Ms Evans 37 Edro Avenue BRIGHTON EAST 37 Edro Avenue BRIGHTON EAST VIC 3187 194# Jack & Maie Jowett Mr & Mrs 10 Bayview Road BRIGHTON 10 Bayview Road Jowett BRIGHTON VIC 3186 195# Kevin & Beryl Hayes Mr & Mrs 53 Lucas Street BRIGHTON EAST 53 Lucas Street Hayes BRIGHTON EAST VIC 3187 196# Mr P & Mrs J Barrett Mr & Mrs 684 Hampton BRIGHTON VIC 684 Hampton Street Barrett Street 3186 BRIGHTON VIC 3186 197# Mrs E Bryant Mrs Bryant 5 Edro Avenue BRIGHTON EAST 5 Edro Avenue 12
Sub. LIST OF NAMES – POSTAL Salutation No. Street name Suburb no. ADDRESS of RE: AMENDMENT C2 Res. addr ess BRIGHTON EAST VIC 3187 198# AGW Sir/Madam 199# Michelle Bentley Ms Bentley 2 Grenville HAMPTON 2 Grenville Street Street HAMPTON VIC 3188 200# Philip & Hazel Ramsden Mr & Mrs 24 Haydens Road BEAUMARIS 34 Haydens Road Ramsden BEAUMARIS VIC 3193
201* Topspell Corporation Pty Ltd Ms 24 The Esplanade BRIGHTON c/- Sally Macindoe Macindoe Deacons Lawyers GPO Box 4592 MELBOURNE VIC 3001 202* Alan & Beverley Kermond Mr & Mrs 8 Glendon BRIGHTON 8 Glyndon Avenue Kermond Avenue BRIGHTON VIC 3186 203* Tony Wells Mr Wells 28 Landcox BRIGHTON EAST 28 Landcox Street Street BRIGHTON EAST VIC 3187 204* William & Elizabeth Lewis Mr & Mrs 31 Campbell BRIGHTON 31 Campbell Street Lewis Street BRIGHTON VIC 3186 205* Anthony & Alissa Roberts Mr & Mrs 17 South Road BRIGHTON 17 South Road Roberts BRIGHTON VIC 3186 206* J & G Dorset Sir/Madam 64 Asling Street BRIGHTON 64 Asling Street BRIGHTON VIC 3186 207* Heather Brown & Simon Frazer Sir/Madam 3A Binnie Street BRIGHTON EAST 3A Binnie Street BRIGHTON EAST VIC 3187 208* Peter Shepard Mr Shepard 26 Grosvenor BRIGHTON 26 Grosvenor Street Street BRIGHTON VIC 3186 209* Margaret & Peter Mudd Sir/Madam 57 South Road BRIGHTON 57 South Road BRIGHTON VIC 3186 210* Richard & Rysia Rozen Mr & Mrs 3/144 Were Street BRIGHTON 3/144 Were Street Rozen BRIGHTON VIC 3186 211* Graeme & Ann Kitney Mr & Mrs 2 Binnie Street BRIGHTON EAST 2 Binnie Street Kitney BRIGHTON EAST VIC 3187 212* Rosalie Triolo & Brian Meehan Ms Triolo & 3 Mayrose BRIGHTON EAST 3 Mayrose Crescent Mr Meehan Crescent BRIGHTON EAST VIC 3187 213* L & A Irving Sir/Madam 30 Downes BRIGHTON 30 Downes Avenue Avenue BRIGHTON VIC 3186 214* M & M Kapusi Sir/Madam 260 North Road BRIGHTON EAST 260 North Road BRIGHTON EAST VIC 3187 215* Dr A Y Van den Bosch Dr Van den 11 Landcox BRIGHTON EAST 11 Landcox Street Bosch Street 13
Sub. LIST OF NAMES – POSTAL Salutation No. Street name Suburb no. ADDRESS of RE: AMENDMENT C2 Res. addr ess BRIGHTON EAST VIC 3187 216* Greg & Kirsten Stephens Mr & Mrs 9 Mulgoa Street BRIGHTON 9 Mulgoa Street Stephens BRIGHTON VIC 3186 217* Ms Barbara Bruce Ms Bruce 3/3 Orchard Street BRIGHTON 3/3 Orchard Street BRIGHTON VIC 3186 218* Dr R & Ms B Fredman Dr & Ms 88 Halifax Street BRIGHTON 88 Halifax Street Fredman BRIGHTON VIC 3186 219* M Ward Sir/Madam 7A York Street BRIGHTON 7A York Street BRIGHTON VIC 3186 220* Pat Roberts Sir/Madam 38 Robinson BRIGHTON EAST 38 Robinson Street Street BRIGHTON EAST VIC 3187 221* Brian & Patricia Hutchinson Mr & Mrs 60 Landcox BRIGHTON EAST 60 Landcox Street Hutchinson Street BRIGHTON EAST VIC 3187 222* Mrs Barbara Brown Mrs Brown 1/16 Wairoa BRIGHTON EAST 1/16 Waiora Avenue Avenue BRIGHTON EAST VIC 3187 223* Barry Challenger Mr 1 Margate Street BEAUMARIS 1 Margate Street Challenger BEAUMARIS VIC 3193 224* Paul Crompton Mr 18 Tulip Grove CHELTENHAM 18 Tulip Grove Crompton CHELTENHAM VIC 3192 225* Marjorie Gowty Mrs Gowty 16 Ferleigh BEAUMARIS 16 Farleigh Avenue Avenue BEAUMARIS VIC 3193 226* Ernest W Barr Mr Barr 7 Exon Street BRIGHTON 7 Exon Street BRIGHTON VIC 3186 227* Virginia R Grant Ms Grant 38 Grosvenoe BRIGHTON 38 Grosvenor Street Street BRIGHTON VIC 3186 228* John Grant Mr Grant 38 Grosvenoe BRIGHTON 38 Grosvenor Street Street BRIGHTON VIC 3186 229* P V & C Selover Sir/Madam 45 Milroy Street BRIGHTON EAST 45 Milroy Street BRIGHTON EAST VIC 3187 230* Michael & Catherine Patterson Mr & Mrs 73 Landcox BRIGHTON EAST 73 Landcox Street Patterson Street BRIGHTON EAST VIC 3187 231* E McBain Sir/Madam 3 Normanby BRIGHTON 3 Normanby street Street BRIGHTON VIC 3186 232* Arthur W John Mr John 41 Olympic CHELTENHAM 41 Olympic Avenue Avenue CHELTENHAM VIC 3192 233* J Arkell Sir/Madam 62 Landcox BRIGHTON EAST 62 Landcox Street Street BRIGHTON EAST VIC 3187 234* Stephen Morey Mr Morey 4 Sims Street SANDRINGHAM 14
Sub. LIST OF NAMES – POSTAL Salutation No. Street name Suburb no. ADDRESS of RE: AMENDMENT C2 Res. addr ess 4 Sims Street SANDRINGHAM VIC 3191 235* David & Shirley Joy Mr & Mrs 10 Abbott Street SANDRINGHAM 10 Abbott Street Joy SANDRINGHAM VIC 3191 236* Belinda & Ian Robertson Mr & Mrs 3 Edward Street SANDRINGHAM 3 Edward Street Robertson SANDRINGHAM VIC 3191 237* Colin &Zandra Hill Mr & Mrs 1 Gilford Grove CHELTENHAM 1 Gilford Grove Hill CHELTENHAM VIC 3192 238* Angela & Malcolm Ellenport Mr & Mrs 1 Comer Street BRIGHTON EAST 1 Comer Street Ellenport BRIGHTON EAST VIC 3187 239* Barry Challenger Mr Barry 1 Margate Street BEAUMARIS 1 Margate Street Challenger BEAUMARIS VCI 3193 240* W.R. & L.M Scott Sir/Madam 1 Newbay BRIGHTON 1 Newbay Crescent Crescent BRIGHTON VIC 3186 241* Mr F.R. & Mrs I.L. Monotti Mr & Mrs 22 Dudley Street BRIGHTON 22 Dudley Street Monotti BRIGHTON VIC 3186 242* P.A. Martin & E. Martin Mr & Mrs 18 Comer Street BRIGHTON EAST 18 Comer Street Martin BRIGHTON EAST VIC 3187 243* J.A. Emmi Sir/Madam 2 Earlsfield Rd HAMPTON 2 Earlsfield Road HAMPTON VIC 3188 244* Mrs G. H. Prem Mrs Prem 9 Earlsfield HAMPTON 9 Earlsfield Road Road HAMPTON VIC 3188 245* J. Butcher Sir/Madam 10 Earlsfield HAMPTON 10 Earlsfield Road Road HAMPTON VIC 3188 246* Janet & Alastair Inglis Mr & Mrs 4 Earlsfield HAMPTON 4 Earlsfield Road Inglis Road HAMPTON VIC 3188 247* A. & K. Murray Mr & Mrs 3 Campbell BRIGHTON 3 Campbell Street Murray Street BRIGHTON VIC 3186 248* Arthur J. Sly Mr Sely 371 St Kilda Street BRIGHTON 371 St Kilda Street BRIGHTON VIC 3186 249* Glenn & Camille Giles Mr & Mrs 4 Gilford Grove CHELTENHAM 4 Gilford Grove Giles CHELTENHAM VIC 3192 250* Black Rock and Sandringham Sir/Madam 4a Fairleigh BEAUMARIS Conservation Association Avenue C/- Pat Silkin 4a Fairleigh Avenue BEAUMARIS VIC 3193 250* Bob Whiteway Mr 78 Abbott Street SANDRINGHAM 78 Abbott Street Whiteway SANDRINGHAM VIC 3191 251* Lee & Stephen Michell Mr & Mrs 12 Wattle BEAUMARIS 15
Sub. LIST OF NAMES – POSTAL Salutation No. Street name Suburb no. ADDRESS of RE: AMENDMENT C2 Res. addr ess 12 Wattle Avenue Michell Avenue BEAUMARIS VIC 3193 252* Elizabeth & Terry Gorman Mr & Mrs 31 North Road BRIGHTON 31 North Road Gorman BRIGHTON VIC 3186 253* Dr. R.S.P. Coutts & Mrs J.M. Coutts Dr & Mrs 75 Sandringham SANDRINGHAM 75 Sandringham Road Coutts Road SANDRINGHAM VIC 3191 254* Miss Tonia Morris Miss Morris 3 Georgiana SANDRINGHAM 3 Georgiana Street Street SANDRINGHAM VIC 3191 255* Andrew & Jill Symes Mr & Mrs 51 Sims Street SANDRINGHAM 51 Sims Street Symes SANDRINGHAM VIC 3191 256* Anne Pritchard Ms Pritchard 16 Comer Street BRIGHTON EAST 16 Comer Street BRIGHTON EAST VIC 3187 257* Marguerite Pritchard Ms Pritchard 16 Comer Street BRIGHTON EAST 16 Comer Street BRIGHTON EAST VIC 3187 258* Lou & Maureen Arthur Mr & Mrs 28 Grosvenor BRIGHTON ‘Yeovil” Arthur Street 28 Grosvenor Street BRIGHTON VIC 3186 259* H.P. & G.L. Hohnen Mr & Mrs 186 Beach Road SANDRINGHAM 186 Beach Road Hohnen SANDRINGHAM VIC 3191 260* E.H. & Nerida Fletcher Mr & Mrs 3 View Court BRIGHTON 3 View Court Fletcher BRIGHTON VIC 3186 261* John Hall Mr Hall 21 Kinane Street BRIGHTON 21 Kinane Street BRIGHTON VIC 3186 262* John & Gwen Warnock Mr & Mrs 9 Halifax Street BRIGHTON 9 Halifax Street Warnock BRIGHTON VIC 3186 263* Jim McKay Mr McKay 198 The Esplanade BRIGHTON 198 The Esplanade BRIGHTON VIC 3186 264* Dr. Michael Skinner Dr. Skinner 22 Edward Street SANDRINGHAM 22 Edward Street SANDRINGHAM VIC 3191 265* Susie Hall Ms Hall 21 Kinane Street BRIGHTON 21 Kinane Street BRIGHTON VIC 3186 266* Garry & Dorothy O’Brien Mr & Mrs 7 Griffiths BRIGHTON EAST 7 Griffiths Grove O’Brien Street BRIGHTON EAST VIC 3187 267* L. Graham & Susan L. Stanley Mr & Mrs 7 Collis Street BRIGHTON EAST 7 Collis Street Stanley BRIGHTON EAST VIC 3187 268* R.G. & Daisy Radford Mr & Mrs 12a Comer Street BRIGHTON EAST 12a Comer Street Radford BRIGHTON EAST VIC 3187 269* Andrew Stobart Mr Stobart 20 Elwood Street BRIGHTON 30 Elwood Street 16
Sub. LIST OF NAMES – POSTAL Salutation No. Street name Suburb no. ADDRESS of RE: AMENDMENT C2 Res. addr ess BRIGHTON VIC 3186 270* Rosalind Smith Ms Smith 47 Landcox BRIGHTON 47 Landcox Street Street BRIGHTON EAST VIC 3187 271* Robin & Susan Pickhaver Mr & Mrs 2 Avonbury BRIGHTON 2 Avonbury Court Pickhaver Court BRIGHTON VIC 3186 272* Mrs Marian French Mrs French 10 Grosvenor BRIGHTON 10 Grosvenor Street Street BRIGHTON VIC 3186 273* Louis J. Abrahams Mr 4 St Ninians BRIGHTON 4 St Ninians Road Abrahams Road BRIGHTON VIC 3186 274* Peter & Carole Johnson Mr & Mrs 5 Burwah BRIGHTON EAST 5 Burwah Avenue Johnson Avenue BRIGHTON EAST VIC 3187 275* Paul & Georgia Gildea Mr & Mrs 15 Wairoa BRIGHTON EAST 15 Wairoa Avenue Gildea Avenue BRIGHTON EAST VIC 3187 276* Peter & Jenny Murray Mr & Mrs 1 Avonbury BRIGHTON ‘Avonfield’ Murray Court 1 Avonbury Court BRIGHTON VIC 3186 277* Mrs Berwyn Jarrett Mrs Jarrett 19 Woff Street BEAUMARIS 19 Woff Street BEAUMARIS VIC 3193 278* Margaret R. Jenkin Mrs Jenkin 9 Henty Street BRIGHTON EAST 9 Henty Street BRIGHTON EAST VIC 3187 279* E. H. Fletcher Sir/Madam 3 View Street BRIGHTON 3 View Court BRIGHTON VIC 3186 280* Don Hendry Fulton Mr Fulton 152b Cochrane BRIGHTON 152B Cochrane Street Street BRIGHTON VIC 3186 281* Valerie M. Tarrant Ms Tarrant 47 Bayview Road BLACK ROCK “Shenvar” 47 Bayview Road BLACK ROCK VIC 3193 282* W. H. Crellin Sir/Madam 68 Stanley Street BLACK ROCK 68 Stanley Street BLACK ROCK VIC 3193 283* Tim Lewis Mr Lewis 14 Bews Parade BLACK ROCK 14 Bews Parade BLACK ROCK VIC 3193 284* Heather Hanstein Ms Hanstein 11 Hunter BLACK ROCK 11 Hunter Avenue Avenue BLACK ROCK VIC 3193 285* Frances Seidel Sir/Madam 1 Summerhill BEAUMARIS 1 Summerhill Road Road BEAUMARIS VIC 3193 286* I. Lam Sir/Madam 187 Beach Road SANDRINGHAM 187 Beach Road SANDRINGHAM VIC 3191 287* H.D. & G.L. Hohnen Mr & Mrs 186 Beach Road SANDRINGHAM 186 Beach Road Hohnen 17
Sub. LIST OF NAMES – POSTAL Salutation No. Street name Suburb no. ADDRESS of RE: AMENDMENT C2 Res. addr ess SANDRINGHAM VIC 3191 288* Helen & Keith Hook Mr & Mrs 47 Seaview BLACK ROCK 47 Seaview Crescent Hook Crescent BLACK ROCK VIC 3193 289* E.E. & D.S. Pearce Sir/Madam 20 Emily Street BEAUMARIS 20 Emily Street BEAUMARIS VIC 3193 290* Morna Brayshaw Ms 8/9 First Street BLACK ROCK 8/9 First Street Brayshaw BLACK ROCK VIC 3193 291* H. Scrivenor Sir/Madam 2/38 First Street BLACK ROCK 2/38 First Street BLACK ROCK VIC 3193 292* Pat Salkin Sir/Madam 26 Steven Street BLACK ROCK 26 Stevens Parade BLACK ROCK VIC 3193 293* Glenn Giles Mr Giles 4 Gilford Grove CHELTENHAM 4 Gilford Grove CHELTENHAM VIC 3192 294* Mrs A. McKay Mrs McKay 75 Iona Street BLACK ROCK 75 Iona Street BLACK ROCK VIC 3193 295* Camille Giles Ms Giles 4 Gilford Grove CHELTENHAM 4 Gilford Grove CHELTENHAM VIC 3192 296* Wilfred & Marilyn Last Mr & Mrs 31 Willis Street HAMPTON 31 Willis Street Last HAMPTON VIC 3188 297* Mrs Noel Futschik Mrs 99 Abbott Street SANDRINGHAM 99 Abbott Street Futschik SANDRINGHAM VIC 3191 298* Guenther & Hilde Klahn Mr & Mrs 1/33 Fourth Street BLACK ROCK 1/33 Fourth Street Klahn BLACK ROCK VIC 3193 299* Janet Ablett Ms Ablett 4a Fairleigh BEAUMARIS 4a Fairleigh Avenue Avenue BEAUMARIS VIC 3193 300* Barbara & David Bird Mr & Mrs 2/17 Ebden Avenue BLACK ROCK 2/17 Ebden Avenue Bird BLACK ROCK VIC 3193 301* M. Osborne Sir/madam 70 Abbott Street SANDRINGHAM 70 Abbott Street SANDRINGHAM VIC 3191 302* Mrs Lee Lang Mrs Lang 41 Potter Street BLACK ROCK 41 Potter Street BLACK ROCK VIC 3193 303* Ralph Henry Ling & Patricia Ling Mr & Mrs 7 O’Connor BLACK ROCK 7 O’Connor Street Ling Street BLACK ROCK VIC 3193 304* Steven & Edith Schutz Mr & Mrs 74 Iona Street BLACK ROCK 74 Iona Street Schutz BLACK ROCK VIC 3193 305* Mrs Norma Brennan Mrs Brennan 1/25 Stanley Street BLACK ROCK 1/25 Stanley Street BLACK ROCK VIC 3193 306* David Mc Pherson & Marjory F.D. Mr & Mrs 28 Seaview BLACK ROCK 18
Sub. LIST OF NAMES – POSTAL Salutation No. Street name Suburb no. ADDRESS of RE: AMENDMENT C2 Res. addr ess Roberts Roberts Crescent 28 Seaview Crescent BLACK ROCK VIC 3193 307* Mae & Cliff Ashworth Mr & Mrs 37 Seaview BLACK ROCK 37 Seaview Crescent Ashworth Crescent BLACK ROCK VIC 3193 308* Norma & Colin Vandersluys Mr & Mrs 38 Fourth Street BLACK ROCK 38 Fourth Street Vandersluys BLACK ROCK VIC 3193 309* Phyl McCarthy Mr 4 Cullinane BLACK ROCK 4 Cullinane Street McCarthy Street BLACK ROCK VIC 3193 310* H.V. & P.E. Davies Mr & Mrs 63 Abbott Street SANDRINGHAM 63 Abbott Street Davies SANDRINGHAM VIC 3191 311* Mrs Janet West Mrs West 1/54 First Street BLACK ROCK 1/54 First Street BLACK ROCK VIC 3193 312* E. Norman Sir/Madam 47 Stanley Street BLACK ROCK 47 Stanley Street BLACK ROCK VIC 3193 313* R. J. Stainforth Sir/Madam 57 Iona Street BLACK ROCK 57 Iona Street BLACK ROCK VIC 3193 314* H.W. Robbins Sir/Madam 16 Gilmore BLACK ROCK 16 Glenmore Crescent Crescent BLACK ROCK VIC 3193 315* A. & L.G. Skoutarides Mr & Mrs 11 Iona Street BLACK ROCK 11 Iona Street Skoutarides BLACK ROCK VIC 3193 316* R. & L. Coleman Mr & Mrs 34 Folkestone BEAUMARIS 34 Folkestone Crescent Coleman Crescent BEAUMARIS VIC 3193 317* M. Clark Sir/Madam 8 Georgiana SANDRINGHAM 8 Georgiana Street Street SANDRINGHAM VIC 3191 318* Richard Russell Mr Russell 22 Stanley Street BLACK ROCK 22 Stanley Street BLACK ROCK VIC 3193 319* Mrs Phyllis Boyd Mrs Boyd 5 Edward Street SANDRINGHAM 5 Edward Street SANDRINGHAM VIC 3191 320* Heather & Alistair Brown Mr & Mrs 1 Edward Street SANDRINGHAM 1 Edward Street Brown SANDRINGHAM VIC 3191 321* Owen Magee Mr Magee 14 Champion BLACK ROCK 14 Champion Street Street BLACK ROCK VIC 3193 322* H. Ward Sir/Madam 67 Iona Street BLACK ROCK 67 Iona Street BLACK ROCK VIC 3193 323* Mrs Evelyn Mulcaster Mrs 82 Stanley Street BLACK ROCK 82 Stanley Street Mulcaster BLACK ROCK VIC 3193 324* D. H. Wallace Sir/Madam 39 Ardofree BLACK ROCK 39 Ardofree Street Street 19
Sub. LIST OF NAMES – POSTAL Salutation No. Street name Suburb no. ADDRESS of RE: AMENDMENT C2 Res. addr ess BLACK ROCK VIC 3193 325* G. J. Llewelyn Sir/Madam 14 Prince Street EAST HAMPTON 14 Prince Street HAMPTON EAST VIC 3188 326* Dr. & Mrs W.L. Rait Dr. & Mrs. 6 Collington MIDDLE 6 Collington Avenue Rait Avenue BRIGHTON MIDDLE BRIGHTON VIC 3186 327* John & Wendy Campbell Mr & Mrs 30 North Road BRIGHTON 30 North Road Campbell BRIGHTON VIC 3186 328* Renate & Klaus Hubner Mr Hubner 20 Comer Street BRIGHTON EAST 20 Comer Street BRIGHTON EAST VIC 3187 329* Catherine Grant Ms Grant 39 Grosvenor BRIGHTON 38 Grosvenor Street Street BRIGHTON VIC 3186 330* Gwen Lamble Ms Lamble 13 Wairoa BRIGHTON EAST 13 Wairoa Avenue Avenue BRIGHTON EAST VIC 3187 331* Tim & Mary Adler Mr & Mrs 89 William Street BRIGHTON 89 William Street Adler BRIGHTON VIC 3186 332* Jasmine Brunner Ms Brunner 13 Glyndan BRIGHTON 13 Glyndan Avenue Avenue BRIGHTON VIC 3186 333* John Adler Mr Adler 89 William Street BRIGHTON 89 William Street BRIGHTON VIC 3186 334* Arlene Burrows Ms Burrows 9 Comer Street BRIGHTON 9 Comer Street BRIGHTON VIC 3186 335* R. Murray & M. Fielding Sir/Madam 15 Bamfield SANDRINGHAM 15 Bamfield Street Street SANDRINGHAM VIC 3191 336* Jennifer D. Sonncee Ms Sonncee 4 Comer Street BRIGHTON EAST 4 Comer Street BRIGHTON EAST VIC 3187 337* Amelia Burgess Ms Burgess 89 William Street BRIGHTON 89 William Street BRIGHTON VIC 3186 338* Lucinda Burgess Ms Burgess 89 William Street BRIGHTON 89 William Street BRIGHTON VIC 3186 339* C. N. Hunter Sir/Madam 2/5 John Street SANDRINGHAM 2/5 John Street SANDRINGHAM VIC 3191 340* Mrs Norma Kukovec Mrs 903 Hampton BRIGHTON 903 Hampton Street Kukovec Street BRIGHTON VIC 3186 341* Shirley Le Page Ms Le Page 12 Parliament BRIGHTON 12 Parliament Street Street BRIGHTON VIC 3186 342* B. Evans Sir/Madam 15 Meek Street BRIGHTON 15 Meek Street BRIGHTON VIC 3186 343* Patrick Largier Mr Largier 20 Edward Street SANDRINGHAM 20
Sub. LIST OF NAMES – POSTAL Salutation No. Street name Suburb no. ADDRESS of RE: AMENDMENT C2 Res. addr ess 20 Edward Street SANDRINGHAM VIC 3191 344* Mrs Phyllis Boyd Mrs Boyd 5 Edward Street SANDRINGHAM 5 Edward Street SANDRINGHAM VIC 3191 345* Mrs Valerie Thomson Mrs 7 Dudley Street BRIGHTON ‘Kinvara’ Thomson 7 Dudley Street BRIGHTON VIC 3186 346* Peter Hill Mr Hill Dendy Post BRIGHTON PO Box 3020 Office Dendy Post Office BRIGHTON VIC 3186 347* Caroline Shepard Ms Shepard 26 Grosvenor BRIGHTON 26 Grosvenor Street Street BRIGHTON VIC 3186 348* Annette Leonard Ms Leonard 4 Avonbury BRIGHTON 4 Avonbury Court Court BRIGHTON VIC 3186 349* Greg & Sylvia Brover Mr & Mrs 2 Orchard Street BRIGHTON 2 Orchard Street Brover BRIGHTON VIC 3186 350* B.E. & A.P. Adams Mr & Mrs 3/12 Grosvenor BRIGHTON 3/12 Grosvenor Street Adams Street BRIGHTON VIC 3186 351* Fleurette Cochaud Ms Cochaud 2 Bamfield SANDRINGHAM 2 Bamfield Street Street SANDRINGHAM VIC 3191 352* Mr & Mrs A. Ellenport Mr & Mrs 9 Comer Street BRIGHTON 9 Comer Street Ellenport BRIGHTON EAST VIC 3187 353* John & Gwen Warnock Mr & Mrs 9 Halifax Street BRIGHTON 9 Halifax Street Warnock BRIGHTON VIC 3186 354* Donna Shaw Ms Shaw 7 Mayrose BRIGHTON 7 Mayrose Crescent Crescent BRIGHTON EAST VIC 3187 355* Margaret Garner Ms Garner 11 Southey Street SANDRINGHAM 11 Southey Street SANDRINGHAM VIC 3191 356* Thomas G Warr & Beryl I Warr Mr & Mrs 63 First Street BLACK ROCK 63 First Street Marr BLACK ROCK VIC 3193 357* Primelife Corporation Limited Ms Peterson 259- Bay Street BRIGHTON C/- Colleen Peterson 279 Asling Street BRIGHTON SJB Planning 1 PO Box 1149 SOUTH MELBOURNE VIC 3205 358* Jedward Pty Ltd Mr Twite 198 The Esplanade BRIGHTON C/-Kel Twite SJB Planning PO Box 1149 SOUTH MELBOURNE VIC 3205 359* Neil & Jill Street Mr & Mrs 8 Avonbury BRIGHTON 8 Avonbury Court Street Court BRIGHTON VIC 3186 21
Sub. LIST OF NAMES – POSTAL Salutation No. Street name Suburb no. ADDRESS of RE: AMENDMENT C2 Res. addr ess 360* Miss Judith A Slater Miss Slater 5 Mayrose Cres EAST BRIGHTON 5 Mayrose Crescent EAST BRIGHTON VIC 3187 361* Mr Gordon Marshall & Mr Marshall 18 Edward Street SANDRINGHAM Ms Janet Blainey and Ms 18 Edward Street Blainey SANDRINGHAM VIC 3191 362* Mr C Mahony Mr Mahony 391 New Street BRIGHTON 391 New Street BRIGHTON VIC 3186 363* Mr D Fulton Mr Fulton 152B Cochrane BRIGHTON 152B Cochrane Street Street BRIGHTON VIC 3186 364* Mr Jonathan Freeman Mr Freeman 52 Nelson Street SANDRINGHAM 52 Nelson Street SANDRINGHAM VIC 3191 365* Mr R Hornibrook of Morris Jacobs Mr Moore 9 South Road BRIGHTON C/- Mr J Moore Coomes General Consulting Group Pty Ltd PO Box 305 SOUTH MELBOURNE VIC 3205 366* Primelife Corporation Limited Ms Peterson 259- Bay Street BRIGHTON C/- Colleen Peterson 279 SJB Planning PO Box 1149 SOUTH MELBOURNE VIC 3205 367* Lisa MacLeod Ms 11 Wairoa BRIGHTON Design Director MacLeod Avenue LRM Design House 11 Wairoa Avenue BRIGHTON VIC 3186 368* Australian Leisure & Hospitality Mrs Hansen 118- Beach Road SANDRINGHAM Group (AHL) 120 C/- Roz Hansen, Director Hansen Partnership Pty Ltd Level 8 136 Exhibition Street MELBOURNE VIC 3000 369* David Goodwin Mr Goodwin 8/860 Nepean MOORABBIN 8/860 Nepean Highway Highway MOORABBIN VIC 3189 370* Mr C Carroll Mr Carroll Bayside Ratepayers President Association Inc Bayside Ratepayers’ Association Inc. PO Box 2147 HAMPTON EAST VIC 3188 371* Ms Cheryl May Ms May 3 Elwood Street BRIGHTON 3 Elwood Street BRIGHTON VIC 3186 372* Mr Colin Still Mr Still PO Box 3037FF MELBOURNE VIC 3001
22 Bayside Planning Scheme: Amendment C2 Report of a Panel: August 2001
APPENDIX 4: MINUTES FROM COUNCIL MEETING 23/10/2000
111 Bayside Planning Scheme: Amendment C2 Report of a Panel: August 2001
ITEM 37 BAYSIDE PLANNING SCHEME – AMENDMENT C2 RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBOURHOOD AMENDMENT
Moved Cr O’Brien
That the Report and Recommendation of the Policy Committee Meeting held on 9 October, 2000 relating to item 37, be adopted.
The Motion lapsed for want of a Seconder
Moved Cr Eden Seconded Cr del Porto
That this item be separated into two parts to enable consideration of parts 1 to 2(k) and parts 2(l) to 8 CARRIED
Moved Cr del Porto Seconded Cr Russell
That Council grant the following listed people three (3) minutes each to speak in relation to this item: Mr John Warnock Mr Barrie Sheppard Mr Nicholas Atkins CARRIED
It is recorded that Mr Barrie Sheppard spoke for three (3) minutes in relation to this item.
Moved Cr O’Brien Seconded Cr del Porto
That the meeting be adjourned for five (5) minutes to obtain order in the gallery. CARRIED
It is recorded that the meeting was adjourned at 7.32pm.
Moved Cr del Porto Seconded Cr Eden
That the meeting be resumed. CARRIED
It is recorded that the meeting was resumed at 7.39pm.
It is recorded that Mr Nicholas Atkins and Mr John Warnock spoke for three (3) minutes each in relation to this item.
Moved Cr Eden Seconded Cr Beadle
112 Bayside Planning Scheme: Amendment C2 Report of a Panel: August 2001 1. That Council receive the report of the Development Control Review Committee on the submissions received in response to exhibition of Amendment C2.
2. That, having considered all submissions received, Council adopts the recommendations of the Review Committee as set out below, and provides direction with respect to (f) and (i) (a) adapt the City of Bayside Residential Strategy and Housing Policy to provide a framework to meet the housing needs to the City to 2016 consistent with the established urban character of the City. (b) adapt the MSS to reflect the findings of the Residential Strategy to meet Bayside’s housing requirements and accommodate the additional households likely to seek to reside in Bayside in the foreseeable future. (c) adopt the City of Bayside Urban Character Report and Design Guidelines as - y identification and assessment of the key factors that contribute to particular character within various areas of Bayside y identification of eight separate character areas as exhibited in map titled "Bayside Housing Strategy Character Areas, Fig.1" y urban design guidelines to be developed in the light of the State Government's proposed ResCode reforms y review the Urban Character of Gypsy Village at Sandringham to examine whether a separate overlay is required. (d) adopt the recommendations of the Bayside Height Control Study as exhibited and mapped at Figure 13 : Proposed Height Control Areas for – y HC1:Height Control Area 1 (Coastal strip) y HC2:Height Control Area 2 (Residential exceptions on coast) y HC3:Height Control Area 3 (Coast Commercial/urban village) y HC4:Height Control Area 4 (Beaumaris/ Black Rock ) (e) consolidate exhibited HC5 (Managed change- northern and central Bayside) & HC6 (environmental enhancement – eastern area of Bayside) areas into one area designated “Bayside Residential Density Area”, to be designated as HC5. That HC5 to comprise two storey maximum height. (f) that Council cap the maximum height of buildings in activity centres at three storey with 4 metre setback for the third storey. (g) note that density was not an area which was unanimously agreed by the Committee, however, adopts 1:400 sq.m. maximum in
113 Bayside Planning Scheme: Amendment C2 Report of a Panel: August 2001 areas of minimal development change as exhibited in Table E1.T1 and mapped in the Residential & Environmental Management Strategy and extends that area in Black Rock to continue along Park Road and Tulip Street to Bluff Road then north on Bluff Road to Edward and Harold Streets & thence to Beach Road. (h) integrate the Environmental Enhancement Area and Areas of Managed Development Change to achieve one Bayside Residential Density Area. (i) that Council adopts a greatest allowable density of 1:500m2 preferred across the municipality. (j) adopts appropriate densities for development in Activity Centres in each of its Strategy Plans with a base density of 1:50 sq.m. where no Strategy is in place. (k) while the comments of submitters have been noted, does not change the Exhibition documents on setbacks, with the exception of corner sites less than 1200 sq.m. Setback to the short side of such sites to respect the average setback of the side street and further, in the case of a 2-storey development, step back the upper storey to diminish overshadowing and visual bulk.
AMENDMENT
Moved Cr Heffernan Seconded Cr Andrews
That part 2 (f) be amended to read:-
That in Shopping Centres and Activity Centres Council determine that the possibility of four storey maximum building height is dependent on the adoption of a Strategy Plan by Council originated by a Shopping Centre Strategy Committee comprising of residents and traders for each commercial centre which designates zones or locations where buildings higher than three storeys but with a maximum height of four storeys, can be permitted.
Moved Cr Andrews Seconded Cr Russell
That Cr Heffernan be granted an extension of time for a period of one (1) minute.
CARRIED
The AMENDMENT was Put and a DIVISION was called.
114 Bayside Planning Scheme: Amendment C2 Report of a Panel: August 2001 DIVISION: For: Crs Heffernan, Andrews & Russell (3) Against: Crs Tucker, O’Brien, del Porto, Eden, Beadle & Disney (6)
LOST
The MOTION moved by Cr Eden and Seconded by Cr Beadle was Put and a DIVISION was called. DIVISION: For: Crs Beadle & Eden (2) Against: Crs Tucker, O’Brien, del Porto, Russell, Andrews, Heffernan & Disney (7) LOST
Moved Cr del Porto Seconded Cr Beadle
1. That Council receive the report of the Development Control Review Committee on the submissions received in response to exhibition of Amendment C2.
2. That, having considered all submissions received, Council adopts the recommendations of the Review Committee as set out below, and provides direction with respect to (f) and (i) (a) adapt the City of Bayside Residential Strategy and Housing Policy to provide a framework to meet the housing needs to the City to 2016 consistent with the established urban character of the City. (b) adapt the MSS to reflect the findings of the Residential Strategy to meet Bayside’s housing requirements and accommodate the additional households likely to seek to reside in Bayside in the foreseeable future. (c) adopt the City of Bayside Urban Character Report and Design Guidelines as - y identification and assessment of the key factors that contribute to particular character within various areas of Bayside y identification of eight separate character areas as exhibited in map titled "Bayside Housing Strategy Character Areas, Fig.1" y urban design guidelines to be developed in the light of the State Government's proposed ResCode reforms y review the Urban Character of Gypsy Village at Sandringham to examine whether a separate overlay is required. (d) adopt the recommendations of the Bayside Height Control Study as exhibited and mapped at Figure 13 : Proposed Height Control Areas but with an amendment to include all HC2 areas as having same control as HC1 areas as exhibited.
115 Bayside Planning Scheme: Amendment C2 Report of a Panel: August 2001
y HC1:Height Control Area 1 (Coastal strip) y HC2:Height Control Area 2 (Residential exceptions on coast) to have the same height control as HC1. y HC3:Height Control Area 3 (Coast Commercial/urban village) y HC4:Height Control Area 4 (Beaumaris/ Black Rock ) (e) consolidate exhibited HC5 (Managed change- northern and central Bayside) & HC6 (environmental enhancement – eastern area of Bayside) areas into one area designated “Bayside Residential Density Area”, to be designated as HC5. That HC5 to comprise two storey maximum height. (f) that Council cap the maximum height of buildings in activity centres at three storey with 4 metre setback for the third storey. (g) note that density was not an area which was unanimously agreed by the Committee, however, adopts 1:400 sq.m. maximum in areas of minimal development change as exhibited in Table E1.T1 and mapped in the Residential & Environmental Management Strategy and extends that area in Black Rock to continue along Park Road and Tulip Street to Bluff Road then north on Bluff Road to Edward and Harold Streets & thence to Beach Road. (h) integrate the Environmental Enhancement Area and Areas of Managed Development Change to achieve one Bayside Residential Density Area. (i) that Council adopts a density of 1:400m2 for all residential properties within the municipality. (j) adopts appropriate densities for development in Activity Centres in each of its Strategy Plans with a base density of 1:50 sq.m. where no Strategy is in place. (k) while the comments of submitters have been noted, does not change the Exhibition documents on setbacks, with the exception of corner sites less than 1200 sq.m. Setback to the short side of such sites to respect the average setback of the side street and further, in the case of a 2-storey development, step back the upper storey to diminish overshadowing and visual bulk.
The MOTION was Put and a DIVISION was called.
DIVISION: FOR: Crs Beadle, Eden, del Porto, O’Brien, Disney, Heffernan, Andrews, Tucker & Russell (9) AGAINST: Nil
CARRIED
116 Bayside Planning Scheme: Amendment C2 Report of a Panel: August 2001 Moved Cr Eden Seconded Cr Beadle
2. (l) adopt new Technique E3.T1 as exhibited (Front Fences). (m) adopt a new Technique E6.T1 (Building Envelope) as exhibited. (n) modify the recommended Height & Side & Rear Setbacks (E6 T4), to allow for zero lot line on side boundaries up to 50% of the depth of the allotment or 10 metres, whichever is the lesser. (o) agree that a minimum setback of 3 metres be established at the rear except where it can be demonstrated that a further encroachment can be justified without affecting the amenity of the immediate area. (p) adopt the Vegetation Character Assessment Report, the Vegetation Protection Overlay as exhibited (VPO3), having noted the requirements of Council at its 6 March 2000 meeting: y Requiring a planning permit for the removal of all (native and indigenous) trees over two metres in height and/or with a trunk circumference of more than 0.5 metres up to one metre above ground level. and bring forward the vegetation future works program to incorporate the Vegetation Study’s assessment of significant areas and recommendations for protecting significant avenues and Bayside’s Significant Tree Register, in a future planning scheme amendment extending (VPO3) to provide greater protection.
Furthermore adopt for all areas of streets of significance throughout Bayside, a requirement that the setback from the street be 8 metres on all residential lots: y This is to secure a habitat area for existing plants and to provide the opportunity for future plantings, by present or future owners, of bare areas and for successors to the vegetation already existing. There shall be a single driveway only, to either of a single carport or garage set back by from the front boundary by a least 4metres, or a double carport or garage set back by at least 8 metres, these being close to one of the side boundaries. (q) that a further report be presented on the extent of listing on the Significant Tree Register of the avenue of trees in North Road Brighton but there be no change to VPO3 pending that report. (r) adopt a new technique E6.T11 as exhibited
(s) adopt a new Technique for Side by Side Multi-Dwellings as exhibited E8.T15.
117 Bayside Planning Scheme: Amendment C2 Report of a Panel: August 2001 (t) adopt the new technique E8.T1 on car parking and vehicle access as exhibited, with the clarification that "parking may not be provided in tandem where the tandem space is provided in the street setback zone". (u) adopt the Technique E5.T1 as exhibited with the clarifications recommended by Sustainable Energy Authority Victoria in its submission of 25 August 2000 that – y the achievement of solar energy rating may be difficult in some locations of poor solar access y the achievement of a four star rating should be required for an extension even if it is difficult in a house with a poor energy rating y concessions may be allowed where west facing windows are required to address the street or where there are bay views to the south-west (v) adopt Element 10 Site Facilities as exhibited, by the addition of Techniques E10.T1 and E10.T2. (w) adopt the new Technique E9.T1 as exhibited. (x) include a 30% permeability element in the Amendment given Council's experience with the Special Building Overlay, Amendment C1 and the 20% requirement recommended by ResCode across the State
3. That prior to the panel hearing that Council's response to the issues raised in each submission be prepared in the context of recommendation 2 above, and reviewed by the Development Control Review Committee. 4. That Council note the Review Committee recommendations for future work and that a report be presented responding to these issues. 5. That Council request the Minister to extend the expiry date of the current Design and Development Overlay – Coastal Environs Character and Height controls which expires 31 December 2000, pending completion of the Amendment C2 process. 6. That Council request the Minister for Planning to appoint a panel to hear and review all submissions received in response to exhibition of Amendment C2. 7. That all submitters be advised of Council's discussion and that a panel has been requested. 8. That appropriate publicity and media release be issued advising of Council's decision. LOST
Moved Cr O’Brien Seconded Cr Andrews
118 Bayside Planning Scheme: Amendment C2 Report of a Panel: August 2001 2. (l) adopt new Technique E3.T1 as exhibited (Front Fences). (m) adopt a new Technique E6.T1 (Building Envelope) as exhibited. (n) modify the recommended Height & Side & Rear Setbacks (E6 T4), to allow for zero lot line on side boundaries up to 50% of the depth of the allotment or 10 metres, whichever is the lesser. (p) agree that a minimum setback of 3 metres be established at the rear except where it can be demonstrated that a further encroachment can be justified without affecting the amenity of the immediate area. (p) adopt the Vegetation Character Assessment Report, the Vegetation Protection Overlay as exhibited (VPO3), having noted the requirements of Council at its 6 March 2000 meeting: y Requiring a planning permit for the removal of all (native and indigenous) trees over two metres in height and/or with a trunk circumference of more than 0.5 metres up to one metre above ground level.
(q) that a further report be presented on the extent of listing on the Significant Tree Register of the avenue of trees in North Road Brighton but there be no change to VPO3 pending that report. (r) adopt a new technique E6.T11 as exhibited
(s) adopt a new Technique for Side by Side Multi-Dwellings as exhibited E8.T15. (t) adopt the new technique E8.T1 on car parking and vehicle access as exhibited, with the clarification that "parking may not be provided in tandem where the tandem space is provided in the street setback zone". (u) adopt the Technique E5.T1 as exhibited with the clarifications recommended by Sustainable Energy Authority Victoria in its submission of 25 August 2000 that – y the achievement of solar energy rating may be difficult in some locations of poor solar access y the achievement of a four star rating should be required for an extension even if it is difficult in a house with a poor energy rating y concessions may be allowed where west facing windows are required to address the street or where there are bay views to the south-west (v) adopt Element 10 Site Facilities as exhibited, by the addition of Techniques E10.T1 and E10.T2. (w) adopt the new Technique E9.T1 as exhibited.
119 Bayside Planning Scheme: Amendment C2 Report of a Panel: August 2001
(x) include a 30% permeability element in the Amendment given Council's experience with the Special Building Overlay, Amendment C1 and the 20% requirement recommended by ResCode across the State 3. That prior to the panel hearing that Council's response to the issues raised in each submission be prepared in the context of recommendation 2 above, and reviewed by the Development Control Review Committee. 4. That Council note the Review Committee recommendations for future work and that a report be presented responding to these issues. 5. That Council request the Minister to extend the expiry date of the current Design and Development Overlay – Coastal Environs Character and Height controls which expires 31 December 2000, pending completion of the Amendment C2 process. 6. That Council request the Minister for Planning to appoint a panel to hear and review all submissions received in response to exhibition of Amendment C2. 7. That all submitters be advised of Council's discussion and that a panel has been requested. 8. That appropriate publicity and media release be issued advising of Council's decision. CARRIED
120 Bayside Planning Scheme: Amendment C2 Report of a Panel: August 2001
APPENDIX 5: SUGGESTED HEIGHT DDO
121 Bayside Planning Scheme: Amendment C2 Report of a Panel: August 2001 SCHEDULE TO THE DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY BUILDING HEIGHT CONTROL Shown on the planning scheme maps as DDO 1; DDO 2, DDO 3.
1.0 Objectives
The following design objectives apply to all areas within this Schedule.
General
• To encourage development that achieves architectural and urban design outcomes that contribute positively to local urban character and enhance the public realm while minimising detrimental impact on neighbouring properties • To preserve the existing character and amenity of Bayside as a low level, middle ring suburban area, with a strong garden character • To maintain the prevailing streetscape rhythm, building scale and height of neighbourhoods throughout Bayside
Coastal • To protect and enhance the foreshore environment and views of Bayside from Port Phillip Bay • To relate the scale and form of any new development to the landform of the coast • To maintain a pedestrian scale along Beach Road • To maintain consistency with urban design and development objectives in the City of Bayside Coastal Strategy 1997 and the Victorian Coastal Strategy 1997 • To protect the foreshore from overshadowing • To manage the increased pressure for higher buildings along the coast.
Commercial/Activity Centres • To encourage designated commercial centres within Bayside to develop to a greater intensity and have a marginally greater building height than surrounding residential areas • To create opportunities for upper level activity in commercial areas without compromising the scale and image of centres
2.0 General Requirements
Application requirements All applications must be accompanied by a Site Analysis Plan and Design Response Report which demonstrates how the proposed building achieves the general design objectives and the specific area “desired outcomes”. A permit may be granted to replace a building or works existing before 24 February 2000 but which does not meet the height requirements of this clause. The replacement building or works may be higher than the requirement of this clause only if the responsible authority is satisfied an increased height improves the amenity of the area.
122 Bayside Planning Scheme: Amendment C2 Report of a Panel: August 2001
Permit not required A permit is not required to construct or carry out:
• Navigational aids. • A radio mast. • A television antenna. • A television mast associated with a building. • A building of not more than 2 storeys provided that each storey is less than 3.5 m measured from the floor level to the finished floor level of the floor above or if there is no floor above, to the ceiling • Buildings which are single storey provided they have a building height of not more than 6.0m. • Buildings or works on land at No 24 The Esplanade, Brighton (Certificate of Title Vol 9363 Fol 812) that are within 48 metres of the frontage to The Esplanade and constructed to a height not exceeding four storeys if the land is used only for accommodation.
Permit requirement
Buildings and works must be constructed in accordance with the following requirements: • Buildings must not exceed the maximum building height specified in the table to this schedule. • Buildings should not exceed the preferred building height specified in the table to this schedule. • A roof containing an attic must match typical roof details of the surrounding neighbourhood in terms of roof pitch, roof form and materials. A permit cannot be granted to construct a building or construct or carry out works, which are not in accordance with the above requirements.
3.0 General Guidelines
The following matters must be taken into consideration before deciding on an application, as appropriate: • The design objectives of this Schedule • Whether the proposed siting, height, design, building setbacks and landscaping, will be in keeping with the character of the area • The impact of the development on the coastal environment • The desired outcomes as set out in the tables to this Schedule For the purpose of this schedule building height is defined in clause 72
Policy References Bayside Height Control Study, Hansen Partnership March 2000 Bayside Urban Character Report, Ratio Consultants 1999
123 Bayside Planning Scheme: Amendment C2 Report of a Panel: August 2001 Bayside Coastal Strategy, Bayside City Council 1997 Victorian Coastal Strategy, 1997 Sandringham Urban Village Strategy, Bayside City Council March 1998
4.0 Specific Areas
DDO 1A – Foreshore Areas
4.1.1 Mandatory Requirements
The building height must not exceed the maximum height specified in the table below. The maximum height is a mandatory standard and a permit cannot be granted to vary this requirement.
Area Maximum Height Desired Outcomes
The prevention of high development 2 storeys around the Bay. DDO 1 A height of buildings around the Bay Foreshore that reflects the character of Bayside Areas as a low scale middle ring municipality.
Other Areas
4.1.2 Discretionary Requirements
The building height should not exceed the preferred height specified in the table below.
Area Preferred Height Desired Outcomes
DDO 2 4 storeys The prevention of high level development around the Bay. Commercial Areas Limited opportunities for increased upper level activity.
Taller buildings in accordance with an urban village study.
DDO 3 To be Specified Site Specific Built Form Outcomes
Nodes
124