Planning and Environment Act 1987
Panel Report Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Amendment C215 Greater Bendigo Residential Strategy 2014
13 November 2015
Planning and Environment Act 1987 Panel Report pursuant to Section 25 of the Act Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Amendment C215 Greater Bendigo Residential Strategy 2014
13 November 2015
Nick Wimbush, Chair Lucinda Peterson, Member
Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Amendment C215 Panel Report 13 November 2015
Contents Page Executive summary ...... i 1 Background ...... 1 1.1 The Amendment ...... 1 1.2 Background to the Amendment ...... 3 1.3 Exhibition and submissions ...... 4 1.4 The Panel ...... 4 1.5 Hearings and inspections ...... 5 1.6 Issues addressed in this report ...... 7 2 Planning context ...... 8 2.1 Policy framework ...... 8 2.2 Other relevant planning strategies and policies ...... 12 2.3 Planning scheme provisions ...... 12 2.4 Ministerial Directions and Practice Notes ...... 14 2.5 Discussion ...... 14 3 History of strategic planning in Bendigo ...... 15 3.1 Context ...... 15 3.2 Bendigo Residential Development Strategy (2004) ...... 16 3.3 Greater Bendigo Residential Strategy (October 2014) ...... 16 3.4 Other planning strategies ...... 19 3.5 Discussion ...... 20 4 Population growth and land supply ...... 21 4.1 Background ...... 21 4.2 Population growth ...... 21 4.3 Land supply ...... 23 5 Urban growth boundary ...... 31 5.1 Background ...... 31 5.2 Issues ...... 33 5.3 Submissions ...... 33 5.4 Discussion ...... 37 5.5 Conclusions and recommendations ...... 39 6 Sites outside the Urban Growth Boundary ...... 41 6.1 Kangaroo Flat South Investigation Area (Kangaroo Flat/Big Hill) ...... 41 6.2 Eaglehawk (Simpsons Road Investigation Area) ...... 44 6.3 Huntly (Bagshot Investigation Area) ...... 46 6.4 Kangaroo Flat (Lockwood Road Investigation Area) ...... 49 6.5 Maiden Gully ...... 52 7 Infill ‐ Consistency of policies and controls ...... 62 7.1 Background ...... 62 7.2 Submissions ...... 62 7.3 Discussion ...... 64 7.4 Conclusion and recommendations ...... 65
Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Amendment C215 Panel Report 13 November 2015
8 Infill areas ...... 66 8.1 Epsom (Bounded by Goynes Road, Buckland and Saade Streets and Montis Lane, Epsom) ...... 66 8.2 Espom (91 Howard Street, Epsom) ...... 67 8.3 Huntly (Lot 33G Sawmill Road, Huntly) ...... 70 8.4 Huntly (124 Pasley Street, Huntly) ...... 71 8.5 Maiden Gully ...... 72 8.6 White Hills ...... 75 8.7 Strathfieldsaye ...... 77 9 Key development sites ...... 86 9.1 Forest Park – 244 Edwards Road, Maiden Gully ...... 86 9.2 Former VicRoads Depot ‐ 39‐51 Lansell Street, Bendigo ...... 87 9.3 LaTrobe University ‐ Osbourne Street, Flora Hill ...... 88 10 Other ...... 90 10.1 Rural Residential ...... 90 10.2 Marong ...... 90 10.3 Frog Hollow, Strathdale ...... 92 10.4 Ascot ...... 93 10.5 Government and service agencies ...... 93
Appendix A List of Submitters Appendix B Record of procedural issues Appendix C Agreed statement on population growth and land supply
Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Amendment C215 Panel Report 13 November 2015
List of Tables Page Table 1 Parties to the Panel Hearing ...... 5 Table 2 Greater Bendigo population projections ...... 21 Table 3 Estimated years of major residential land supply – Bendigo Urban Area, 2012 ...... 25
List of Figures Page Figure 1 Exhibited Bendigo Urban Area Residential Growth Framework Plan ...... 3 Figure 2 Kangaroo Flat South and Furness Investigation Area ...... 42 Figure 3 Simpsons Road Investigation Area ...... 45 Figure 4 Bagshot Investigation Area ...... 47 Figure 5 Lockwood Road Investigation Area ...... 49 Figure 6 Location of 10‐54 Hermitage Road, Maiden Gully ...... 55 Figure 7 Wicks Road Investigation Area ...... 59 Figure 8 White Hills Investigation Area ...... 75
Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Amendment C215 Panel Report 13 November 2015
List of Abbreviations
BMO Bushfire Management Overlay CFA Country Fire Authority CLAC Commercial Land and Activity Centres Strategy DDO Design and Development Overlay DELWP Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning DPO Development Plan Overlay EPA Environment Protection Authority ESO Environmental Significance Overlay FZ Farming Zone GBRS 2004 Greater Bendigo Residential Strategy 2004 GBRS Greater Bendigo Residential Strategy 2014 GRZ General Residential Zone GWZ Green Wedge Zone IAC Independent Advisory Committee ITLUS Integrated Transport and Land Use Strategy LDRZ Low Density Residential Zone LPPF Local Planning Policy Framework MSS Municipal Strategic Statement MUZ Mixed Use Zone NRZ Neighbourhood Residential Zone OU Odour Unit PSP Precinct Structure Plan PUZ Public Use Zone RGP Loddon Mallee South Regional Growth Plan RGZ Residential Growth Zone RLSA Residential Land Supply Audit RLZ Rural Living Zone SPPF State Planning Policy Framework UDF Urban Design Framework UDIA Urban Development Institute of Australia UGB Urban Growth Boundary
Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Amendment C215 Panel Report 13 November 2015
VCAT Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal VIF Victoria in Future population projections VPO Vegetation Protection Overlay VPP Victoria Planning Provisions
Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Amendment C215 Panel Report 13 November 2015
Executive summary
Amendment C215 to the Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme proposes to implement the recommendations of the Greater Bendigo Residential Strategy 2014 (GBRS) that reinforces the strategic direction of promoting a compact urban form and the ‘Compact City’ and continuing to use the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). The Amendment also proposes a number of changes to zones and schedules for particular land. The Amendment was placed on exhibition between 15 February and 20 March 2015, with 71 submissions received by Council. The Hearings took place over 11 days in Bendigo and Melbourne during July, August and September. Most submissions support the strategic direction of the GBRS and the focus on promoting a Compact Bendigo. Submissions were received from the planning and development industry relating to land supply, resourcing, capacity to realise infill development and consistency in decision making and the application of the UGB. A number of submissions sought to have land included within the UGB, and other submissions requested further rezoning and overlay changes relating to individual parcels of land within the UGB. The history of land use planning and development in Bendigo is complex. The Panel accepts there are many legacy issues that Council is trying to resolve and fundamentally supports the strategic planning approach that Council is pursuing through the GBRS. The Panel strongly supports the GBRS Compact City model and notes the comprehensive background work that has gone into its preparation. The Panel also supports strong policy statements around the UGB but is not convinced there is enough land within it to provide flexibility to account for lead and lag times for development, especially in the context of fragmented land. The Panel is concerned that the UGB presented in this Amendment is a short to medium term proposition. Council’s upcoming strategic package of work including the implementation of the Integrated Transport Land Use Strategy (ITLUS), Housing Strategy and Commercial Land and Activity Centre Strategy is an opportunity to determine a longer term urban structure and UGB, based on a population projection of 200,000 to 2050 in line with the Loddon Mallee South Regional Growth Plan. A longer term approach to land supply should be considered to enable more flexibility to deal with either continuing high levels of demand, or bottlenecks in supply due to slowing infill rates. To ensure the success of the Compact City model, the Panel also recommends Council thoroughly review the current zones, overlays and, in particular, neighbourhood character policies that promote low density outcomes in locations which should be facilitating future infill development. The Panel recommends some discrete areas as logical inclusions, and recommends areas for potential future long term growth, to be further assessed via the Housing Strategy and ITLUS implementation. Furthermore, while the Panel supports strong policy around the UGB, it adds additional criteria in Clause 21.05 to consider rezoning for sites outside the UGB where it demonstrates the ‘10 minute neighbourhood’ principle. The Panel is impressed by the willingness of Council and the Bendigo planning and development community to work together on these issues and this collaborative approach is
Page i
Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Amendment C215 Panel Report 13 November 2015
to be commended. The Panel also commends Council on its continuing strategic planning program. Based on the reasons set out in this report, the Panel recommends in relation to the Amendment: Adopt Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Amendment C215 as exhibited subject to the following: 1. Amend Clause 21.05‐2 under ‘Urban Growth Boundary Objective’ to add the wording ‘To better manage the City’s growth by focusing development into designated growth areas, preventing development in areas which Council wants to protect, and discouraging proposals to expand the urban area except where consistent with the Bendigo Urban Area Residential Growth Framework’. 2. Amend Clause 21.05‐2 under ‘Strategies’ to change the wording: a) Dot point 1 – ‘Rezoning proposals for sites that are not contiguous with the Urban Growth Boundary are strongly discouraged and will not be supported unless they give effect to the Residential Development Objectives in the Greater Bendigo Residential Strategy 2014.’ b) Dot point 2 – ‘Rezoning proposals for sites outside but abutting the Urban Growth Boundary are discouraged with an assumption they will not be supported unless they are consistent with or give effect to the Residential Development Objectives in the Greater Bendigo Residential Strategy 2014. Consideration of any sites will be on the merits of the proposal and must be accompanied by a report that demonstrates the suitability of the land for urban development and addresses the following matters:’ 3. Amend Clause 21.05‐2 to include the following criteria when considering future rezoning: a) Whether the area is identified in the Bendigo Urban Area Residential Growth Framework as Potential Longer Term Growth. b) Whether the site assists in building the catchment for a township, neighbourhood centre or local school and supports the ‘10 Minute Neighbourhood principle’. c) Whether the site is within walking distance of a proposed or existing railway station or bus route. 4. Amend Clause 21.05 Framework Plan to include the Kangaroo Flat South Investigation Area (excluding Furness Street) within the Urban Growth Boundary and a notation ‘subject to detailed structure planning’. 5. Amend Clause 21.05 Residential Growth Framework Plan to identify the Simpsons Road Investigation Area as Potential Longer Term Growth. 6. Amend Clause 21.05 Framework Plan to include the land west of Schumakers Lane, north of Hermitage Road and south of the railway line, within the Urban Growth Boundary and a notation ‘subject to detailed structure planning’. 7. Amend the Neighbourhood Character section in Clause 21.02 to include: ‘The residents of Greater Bendigo value the neighbourhood character and as a consequence Council is committed to ensuring the neighbourhood character of
Page ii
Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Amendment C215 Panel Report 13 November 2015
Greater Bendigo is both protected and enhanced through new residential developments while furthering the objectives of the Greater Bendigo Residential Strategy 2014’. 8. Amend Clause 21.03‐5 Implementation to delete the reference to the ‘Residential Development Strategy, 2004’, insert ‘Applying the Residential Growth Zone to identified Key Development Sites’ and include ‘Prepare Structure Plans and a Housing Strategy’ under ‘Further strategic work’. 9. Replace the Incorporated Plan ‘City of Greater Bendigo Residential Growth Plan – (2009) (Amended 2012)’ with a plan consistent with the Bendigo Urban Area Residential Growth Framework Plan. 10. Change the legend for the ‘Bendigo Urban Area Residential Growth Framework Plan’ by replacing the words ‘Major Infill and Renewal Site’ with the words ‘Key Development Site’ to ensure clearer cross referencing with Clause 21.05. 11. For the ‘Forest Park’ development, 244 Edwards Road, Maiden Gully: a) Identify part of the site as a Key Development Site on the ‘Bendigo Urban Area Residential Growth Framework Plan’ in the Greater Bendigo Residential Strategy b) Amend Clause 21.05‐1 to include ‘and other activity centres, including the proposed Local Activity Hub at 244 Edwards Road, Maiden Gully’ as a Key Development Site. 12. For the Former VicRoads Depot, Lansell Street, Bendigo East: a) Identify the site as a Key Development Site on the ‘Bendigo Urban Area Residential Growth Framework Plan’ in the Greater Bendigo Residential Strategy b) Amend Clause 21.05‐1 to include ‘the former VicRoads Depot, Lansell Street, Bendigo East’ as a Key Development Site. 13. For the LaTrobe University land ‐ Osbourne Street, Flora Hill: a) Identify the entire University site as a Key Development Site on the ‘Bendigo Urban Area Residential Growth Framework Plan’ in the Greater Bendigo Residential Strategy. 14. Amend the extent of the General Residential Zone and Low Density Residential Zone at 29 Emu Street, Strathfieldsaye in accordance with the map in the City of Greater Bendigo Attachments to Submission – Response to Submission 5, as presented at the Panel Hearing. 15. Seek an amendment under Section 20(4) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 to rezone the land known as ‘Frog Hollow, Strathdale’ as Public Park and Recreation Zone, or Public Conservation and Resource Zone to reflect the role of the park or through the translation of the Residential Zones. The Panel also makes a number of recommendations in relation to future work that will be critical to ensuring Bendigo maintains its affordability and liveability advantages. The Panel recommends:
Page iii
Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Amendment C215 Panel Report 13 November 2015
16. The Urban Growth Boundary be reviewed as part of the upcoming Housing Strategy and Integrated Transport and Land Use Strategy implementation with a long term growth scenario of a population of 200,000 at 2041. 17. When preparing the upcoming Housing Strategy and Integrated Transport and Land Use Strategy implementation the City of Greater Bendigo should review the existing zoning, overlay and policy regime to facilitate infill development in strategic areas consistent with the Compact City principle within the GBRS. 18. In relation to specific properties the City of Greater Bendigo: a) Consider the properties bounded by Bendigo Creek, Buckland and Saade Streets and Montis Lane known as 1 Buckland Street and 20 Montis Lane, Epsom in the upcoming Housing Strategy with a view to future rezoning to General Residential Zone and applying the Land Subject to Inundation Overlay as required. b) Consider the property at 91 Howard Street, Epsom in the context of its Housing Strategy with a view to future rezoning of all or part of the land for residential use subject to detailed consideration of any buffer needs and environmental constraints. c) Review the zoning of 33G Sawmill Road and land fronting the Midland Highway, Huntly in the context of its Housing Strategy with a view to future residential use. d) The City of Greater Bendigo review the zoning of 698 Strathfieldsaye Road, Strathfieldsaye in the context of its Housing Strategy with a view to future residential use. e) The City of Greater Bendigo review the zoning of 467 Somerset Park Road, Strathfieldsaye in the context of its Housing Strategy with a view to future residential use. 19. The City of Greater Bendigo in its Housing Strategy undertake structure planning for the White Hills area. 20. The City of Greater Bendigo review the density provisions in the Strathfieldsaye Township Plan in relation to land outside Schedule 26 to the Design and Development Overlay in the preparation of the Housing Strategy, having regard to the Compact City principle in the GBRS.
Page iv
Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Amendment C215 Panel Report 13 November 2015
1 Background
1.1 The Amendment Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Amendment C215 (the Amendment) was prepared by the Greater Bendigo City Council as the Planning Authority. The Amendment implements the recommendations of the Greater Bendigo Residential Strategy 2014 (GBRS) into the Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme. The Amendment proposes strategy and policy changes to the Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS) to reinforce the strategic direction of promoting a compact urban form. It also proposes a number of changes to zones and schedules for particular land. Among the key changes to the MSS proposed by the Amendment are: Updating the ‘Key Issues and Influences’ clause to include issues such as liveability, transport integration and planning for health Combining the Housing and Settlement clauses into a new clause ‘Compact Bendigo’ Strengthening the provisions around the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) New strategies around 10 minute neighbourhoods, key development sites, housing density and diversity and design quality Inclusion of the GBRS as a Reference Document within the Planning Scheme. While the Amendment applies a policy context to all land in the City of Greater Bendigo, it specifically applies to 221 hectares of land in the following locations: Land to the north of Sawmill Road, Huntly that was identified for residential development in the Huntly Township Plan but not yet rezoned; Land to the south of Strathfieldsaye Road, Strathfieldsaye that was identified for residential development in the Strathfieldsaye Township Plan but not yet rezoned; Land bounded by Goynes Road, Buckland and Saade Streets and Montis Lane, Epsom adjacent to existing residential development; Land in ‘Precinct 6’ to the north of the Calder Highway, Maiden Gully; and Land on the corner of Taylors Lane and Bakers Lane, Strathfieldsaye. The Amendment proposes to: Rezone 44.5 hectares of land known as CA8 and 149 Sawmill Road, 17 Willis Road, Huntly from a Rural Living Zone to a General Residential Zone; Rezone 52.4 hectares of land known as 1, 13, 18 and 39 McCleans Road, 9, 31 and 57 Walmer Street, part of 29 Emu Creek Road and 475, 483 Somerset Park Road and part 1108 Strathfieldsaye Road, Strathfieldsaye from a Rural Living Zone to a General Residential Zone; Rezone 45.7 hectares of land known as part 1108, CA49 Strathfieldsaye Road, part 29, 85, 87, 89, 97 Emu Creek Road and 211 and Lot 1 LP 141858 Bakers Lane, Strathfieldsaye from a Rural Living Zone to a Low Density Residential Zone;
Page 1 of 100
Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Amendment C215 Panel Report 13 November 2015
Rezone 5.1 hectares of land known as CA 49A Walmer Street and CA1 Strathfieldsaye Road, Strathfieldsaye from a Rural Living and Public Use 6 Zone to a Public Conservation and Resource Zone; Rezone 6.2 hectares of land known as 4, 6‐16 and 20 Goynes Road, Lot 2 LP 79824 and 5 and 6 Montis Lane, Epsom from a Farming Zone to a General Residential Zone; Apply Schedule 6 to Clause 43.02 (Design and Development Overlay) from approximately 10.25 hectares of land known as parts 1, 18, 39 and 13 McCleans Road and part 29 Emu Creek Road, Strathfieldsaye; Delete Schedule 10 to Clause 43.02 (Design and Development Overlay) from approximately 61 hectares of land known as 596, 604, 606, 614, 620, 626, 638, 640, 646, 680, 706, 746 and 830 Calder Highway, 20, 36, 4 and 70 Durstons Road, 49 Homer Beacon Road and 30 and 89 Schumakers Lane, in ‘Precinct 6’ Maiden Gully; Delete Schedule 4 to Clause 43.04 (Development Plan Overlay) from approximately 7 hectares of land known as 89 and 92 Taylors Lane, 139 Bakers Lane and part of 49 Regent Street, Strathfieldsaye; Amend Clause 21.01 (Municipal Profile) to include updated population statistics, the current Council Vision and remove unnecessary information; Amend Clause 21.02 (Key Issues and Influences) by replacing Future Housing section and including the key strategic directions from the Greater Bendigo Residential Strategy including Urban Containment, 10 minute neighbourhoods and Inner City Living; Delete Clause 21.03 (Vision – Strategic Framework); Delete Clauses 21.05 (Settlement) and 21.06 (Housing); Insert a new Clause 21.05 (Compact Bendigo) that implements the key strategic direction of the Greater Bendigo Residential Strategy (2014) and transfers and updates relevant sections from the current Clauses 21.05 and 21.06; Amend Clause 21.10 to remove the Bendigo Residential Development Strategy (2014) as a Reference Document; Amend Clause 22.01 (Urban‐Forest Interface Policy) to reflect current Parks Victoria requirements in relation to access to crown land; Amend the Schedule to Clause 32.03 (Low Density Residential Zone) to specify a minimum subdivision area of 2 hectares for the land at 29 Emu Creek Road, Strathfieldsaye; Amend the Schedule to Clause 61.03 to insert new planning scheme maps 25DDO and 33DDO.1 The proposed Residential Growth Framework Plan is shown in Figure 1.
1 As described in Explanatory Report for C215
Page 2 of 100
Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Amendment C215 Panel Report 13 November 2015
Figure 1 Exhibited Bendigo Urban Area Residential Growth Framework Plan2 1.2 Background to the Amendment Due to the rate of residential development in Bendigo over the past 10 years, Council sought to review the Greater Bendigo Residential Strategy 2004 (GBRS 2004). Council prepared the GBRS which revised the strategic focus of residential development within the City, and reaffirmed the UGB to 2024. Accordingly, the Amendment is required to implement the key strategic directions from the GBRS into the Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme.
2 From exhibited Clause 21.05.
Page 3 of 100
Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Amendment C215 Panel Report 13 November 2015
In addition, the Huntly and Strathfieldsaye Township Plans recommended various parcels of land be rezoned for residential purposes over a period of time and in a specified sequence. The proposed rezonings included in the Amendment are based on the strategic direction of the GBRS and the Huntly and Strathfieldsaye Township Plans. The rezonings will create an additional 153.9 hectares of residential land within the UGB and will provide an additional 2 to 3 years of land supply. A small amount of land is also proposed to be rezoned in Strathfieldsaye to reflect the current use for public open space. The Amendment proposes to apply Schedule 6 to the Design and Development Overlay (DDO6) to land to be rezoned in Strathfieldsaye to apply controls to the Urban‐Forest interface to protect ecological values of the forested area on this parcel of land. The Amendment also proposes to remove Schedule 10 to the Design and Development Overlay (DDO10) from land in ‘Precinct 6’ Maiden Gully as the GBRS determined that this land can be developed at normal residential densities. 1.3 Exhibition and submissions The Amendment was placed on exhibition between 15 February and 20 March 2015, with 68 submissions received by Council. Two late submissions were accepted by the Panel prior to the Hearing and a submission from the Environment Protection Authority (EPA) was accepted during the Hearing. The major issues raised in submissions, as summarised by Council, were: Support for the strategic direction of the GBRS and the focus on promoting a Compact Bendigo Submissions seeking to have additional land included within the UGB at various locations around the City Inclusion of land as a Key Development Site Review of the zoning of individual parcels of land within the UGB Support and opposition for the zone and overlay changes proposed by the Amendment A submission regarding the lack of recreation facilities and clear strategic direction for Marong Submissions from service authorities regarding aspects of Clause 21.05 Submissions from the planning and development industry relating to land supply, resourcing, capacity to realise infill development and consistency in decision making and the application of the UGB. 1.4 The Panel At its meeting of 6 May 2015, Council resolved to refer the submissions to a Panel. As a result, a Panel to consider the Amendment was appointed under delegation from the Minister for Planning on 14 May 2015 and comprised Nick Wimbush (Chair) and Lucinda Peterson. A number of procedural issues are outlined in Appendix 2.
Page 4 of 100
Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Amendment C215 Panel Report 13 November 2015
1.5 Hearings and inspections A Directions Hearing was held in relation to the Amendment on 19 June 2015. The Panel then met at the City of Greater Bendigo Library and Offices on 20‐23 July, and 7‐ 12 August 2015 to hear submissions in relation to the Amendment. The Panel reconvened on 11 September 2015 at Planning Panels Victoria in Melbourne to consider submissions 31, 54 and L3 from the EPA in relation to 91 Howard Street, Epsom. Parties to the Panel Hearing are listed in Table 1. Unaccompanied site inspections were made by the Panel during the Panel Hearing days in July and August and a further set of inspections were made on 25 September 2015.
Table 1 Parties to the Panel Hearing Submitter Represented by City of Greater Bendigo Andrew Cockerall and Trevor Budge who called the following expert witness: ‐ John Henshall in strategic planning and land supply Ian and Rose Dean Sarah Porritt of Counsel instructed by Amber Li of Moray and Agnew Lawyers who called the following expert witnesses: ‐ Gregoria Todaro in planning ‐ Dr Terry Bellair in odour Villawood Properties (within UGB) Julian Perez Villawood Limited (Balgownie Estate Land) Mark Bartley of HWL Ebsworth Lawyers who called the following expert witnesses: ‐ Chris De Silva in background planning issues ‐ Rob Milner in planning ‐ Dale Stokes in land supply QOD Property Fiona Cotter of Provincial Matters D Brown Stephen Pole of Spiire Bendigo Golf Club Stephen Pole of Spiire assisted by Stephen Oliver of BGC Ian Castles Stephen Pole of Spiire G & D Pocock Stephen Pole of Spiire Elise Chapman Laurelle Brown Urban Development Institute of Australia Damien Tangey who called the following expert (Northern Chapter) witness: ‐ Chris McNeill in urban economics
Page 5 of 100
Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Amendment C215 Panel Report 13 November 2015
Mr and Mrs Alf Morris and Ors Alex Winfield of Conceptz Pty Ltd Law Serve (Bendigo) Pty Ltd Geoff Bowyer of Beck Legal Gavin Butler and Helen Nash Ben Wakefield Friends of Frog Hollow John Humphreys Alan and Christine Stephens Gill Rosier Bendigo and District Environment Council Mr Stuart Fraser Jacob and Janelle Stevens Big Hill Action Group Bruce Carpenter Tall Trees Pty Ltd William Kusznirczuk of Clement Stone Town Planners assisted by Jonathan Halaliku who called the following expert witnesses: ‐ Marianne Stoettrup in economics ‐ Marc Bellette in ecology ‐ Lincoln Kern in ecology and bushfire management ‐ David Klingberg in urban design Planning Practitioners Gary Pendlebury and Gerard Gilfedder of Sweett Group, Andrea Tomkinson of the Tomkinson Group and Stephen Pole of Spiire Lockwood Road Kangaroo Flat Gary Pendlebury of Sweett Group MG Estates Pty Ltd Gerard Gilfedder of Sweett Group Blue Bondi Pty Ltd Gerard Gilfedder of Sweett Group Coliban Water Andrew Sherman, Stefan Fiedler and William Bartley of Russell Kennedy who called the following expert witnesses: ‐ Tracy Freeman in odour ‐ John Glossop in planning issues LaTrobe University Jane Kelly of Urbis Andrea Metcalfe Judi Valentini Andrea Tomkinson of The Tomkinson Group Thomas McLean John Mooney Ron and Lyn Price Trevor Ludeman of Project Planning and Development Pty Ltd EPA Victoria Danny Childs and Sellathurai (Naren) Narenthiran
Page 6 of 100
Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Amendment C215 Panel Report 13 November 2015
1.6 Issues addressed in this report Having considered the submissions made in writing and at the Hearing, the Panel addresses the following issues in this report: Planning context History of strategic planning in Bendigo and Council’s strategic approach Population growth and land supply UGB and township growth directions Sites outside the UGB Infill – consistency of polices and controls Infill sites Key Development Sites Other issues - Rural Residential - Marong - Frog Hollow - Ascot - Government and service agencies feedback
Page 7 of 100
Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Amendment C215 Panel Report 13 November 2015
2 Planning context
Council provided a response to the Strategic Assessment Guidelines as part of the Explanatory Report. The Panel has reviewed the policy context of the Amendment and made a brief appraisal of the planning strategies and relevant zone and overlay controls. 2.1 Policy framework
(i) State Planning Policy Framework (SPPF) The following sections of the SPPF were identified as relevant to the Amendment: Clause 11.02‐1 Supply of urban land – this clause has the objective To ensure a sufficient supply of land is available for residential, commercial, retail, industrial, recreational, institutional and other community uses. This clause requires councils to ensure the ongoing provision of land and supporting infrastructure to support sustainable urban development and ensure that sufficient land is available to meet forecast demand. Specifically, this clause states that councils should plan to accommodate projected population growth over at least a 15 year period and provide clear direction on locations where growth should occur (Panel emphasis). Residential land supply should be considered on a municipal basis, rather than a town‐by‐town basis. Planning for urban growth should consider: Opportunities for the consolidation, redevelopment and intensification of existing urban areas Neighbourhood character and landscape considerations The limits of land capability and natural hazards and environmental quality Service limitations and the costs of providing infrastructure. This includes monitoring development trends and land supply and demand for housing and industry, and restricting low‐density rural residential development that would compromise future development at higher densities. Council submitted that the strategy and Amendment identifies sufficient land to accommodate more than 20 years growth within the municipality of Greater Bendigo in accordance with residential supply and demand forecasts. Preliminary estimates suggest that up to 22,000 dwellings can be provided for without rezoning any additional land outside the UGB. Clause 11.02‐2 Planning for growth areas – this clause requires councils …to locate urban growth close to transport corridors and services and provide efficient and effective infrastructure to create benefits for sustainability while protecting primary production, major sources of raw materials and valued environmental areas. Strategies include: Concentrate urban expansion into growth areas that are served by high‐ capacity public transport…(and)… implement the strategic directions within the Growth Area Framework Plans; Encourage average overall residential densities in the growth areas of a minimum of 15 dwellings per net developable hectare;
Page 8 of 100
Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Amendment C215 Panel Report 13 November 2015
Provide for significant amounts of local employment opportunities, including in some areas providing large scale industrial or other more regional employment generators; Create a network of mixed‐use activity centres and develop an urban form based on Neighbourhood Principles; Retain unique characteristics of established areas incorporated into new communities to protect and manage natural resources and areas of heritage, cultural and environmental significance; Create well planned, easy to maintain and safe streets and neighbourhoods. Clause 11.02‐4 Sequencing of development – this clause requires councils to manage the sequence of development in growth areas to ensure that services are available from early in the life of new communities. Clause 11.05‐1 Regional settlement networks – within this clause, Greater Bendigo has been identified as a major regional city with the expectation of facilitated growth. Clause 11.05‐4 Regional planning strategies and principles ‐ under ‘Distinct and diverse regional settlements’, this clause encourages growth and development of distinctive and diverse regional settlements by: Limiting urban sprawl and directing growth into existing settlements, promoting and capitalising on opportunities for urban renewal and redevelopment; Ensuring that the potential of land that may be required for future urban expansion is not compromised. Under ‘Liveable settlements and healthy communities’, this clause supports promoting liveable regional settlements and healthy communities by: Encouraging the development of compact urban areas which are based around existing or planned activity centres to maximise accessibility to facilities and services. Improving the availability of a diverse range of affordable accommodation, including social housing, in locations with good access to transport, commercial facilities and community services. Council submitted that the Amendment will ensure there is sufficient supply of appropriately located residential land to meet the needs identified at the regional level in the Loddon Mallee South Regional Growth Plan. Clause 11.12 Loddon Mallee South Regional Growth includes Clause 11.12‐1 Planning for growth, which has the objective To manage population growth and settlements. It includes the Strategy: Support Bendigo as the regional city and the major population and economic growth hub for the region, offering a range of employment and services. Council submitted the Amendment is consistent with the Loddon Mallee South Regional Growth Plan as the Plan acknowledges Greater Bendigo’s role as a regional city with the need to plan for its future growth.
Page 9 of 100
Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Amendment C215 Panel Report 13 November 2015
Clause 12.01‐1 Protection of biodiversity – this clause aims to ensure that strategic planning avoids and minimises significant impacts, including cumulative impacts, of land use and development on Victoria’s biodiversity. Council submitted that the Amendment supports this clause as the proposed rezonings will not have a significant impact on biodiversity, with development being contained within the existing UGB. Clause 12.01‐2 Native vegetation management – this clause has the objective To ensure that permitted clearing of native vegetation results in no net loss in the contribution made by native vegetation to Victoria’s biodiversity. Council submitted the Amendment supports this policy as it will not have a significant impact on biodiversity, with development being contained to within the existing UGB. Clause 13.05‐1 Bushfire planning strategies and principles – this clause has the objective To assist to strengthen community resilience to bushfire. Council submitted the Amendment deals with bushfire planning at a strategic level and that bushfire risk has been a key consideration throughout the development of the Bendigo Residential Strategy 2014 (GBRS). The GBRS adopts a three stage approach to planning for bushfire and this is supported by the CFA. Clause 18.01‐1 Land use and transport planning – this clause states that Planning should ensure an integrated and sustainable transport system that provides access to social and economic opportunities, facilitates economic prosperity, contributes to environmental sustainability, coordinates reliable movements of people and goods, and is safe. Council considers the Amendment recognises land use and transport planning are intrinsically linked and cannot be planned in isolation from each other.
(ii) Local Planning Policy Framework (LPPF) Council submitted that the Amendment supports the following local planning objectives: Clause 21.02 Key issues and influences is proposed to replace ’Future housing needs‘ with new sections on the UGB, 10 minute neighbourhoods, housing diversity, inner city living, key development sites and design quality to reflect the policy directions in the GBRS. Clause 21.05 Settlement and Clause 21.06 Housing – the current Clause 21.05 introduces the role of the UGB as a policy tool to manage growth within the City. These clauses are proposed to be combined under the new heading ‘Compact Bendigo’ and have been rewritten to reflect the GBRS. Council submitted all rezonings are within the UGB and the proposed rezonings in Strathfieldsaye and Huntly are within identified ‘New Development Areas’ and supported by structure plans. Clause 21.09 Infrastructure explains Council’s commitment to ensure the maintenance and enhancement of existing infrastructure and working with a range of service and government agencies to provide new infrastructure in line with the further development of the municipality.
Page 10 of 100
Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Amendment C215 Panel Report 13 November 2015
Clause 22.01 Urban Development at the Urban‐Forest Interface policy applies to land in the General Residential Zone (GRZ), Low Density Residential Zone (LDRZ) and proposed new development areas that abut forested areas. Council submitted that changes to the policy reflect Parks Victoria requirements regarding Crown Land. Inclusion of land within Strathfieldsaye within Schedule 6 to the Design and Development Overlay (DDO6) is giving this policy statutory effect. Council submitted that the Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS) (at Clause 21.05) notes the existence of the areas surrounding Bendigo as having ecological significance which provide environmental and economic benefits, and which make an important contribution to the City’s unique character. It states that mechanisms are needed to address the urban‐forest interface, principally through a ‘buffer zone’ and building setbacks. Clause 22.11 Greater Bendigo Residential Character Policy applies to development, (including subdivision) and works in the GRZ and Business 5 Zone (B5Z) in Central Bendigo. The policy implements the objectives and strategies contained in Clause 21.05 by ensuring that development enhances the character of urban areas, and achieve high standards of urban design and amenity. It also implements the findings of the City of Greater Bendigo Residential Character Study 2001. Objectives include: To ensure that development is responsive to the desired future character of the area in which it is located. To retain and enhance the identified elements that contribute to the character of the area. To implement the recommendations of the City of Greater Bendigo Residential Character Study 2001. Other clauses relevant to this Amendment include: Clause 22.12 (East Bendigo Residential Character Policy) Clause 22.13 (Eaglehawk Residential Character Policy) Clause 22.14 (Flora Hill Residential Character Policy) Clause 22.15 (Golden Square Residential Character Policy) Clause 22.16 (Heathcote Residential Character Policy) Clause 22.17 (Huntly Residential Character Policy) Clause 22.18 (Kangaroo Flat Residential Character Policy) Clause 22.19 (Ironbark/Long Gully Residential Character Policy) Clause 22.20 (North Bendigo Residential Character Policy) Clause 22.21 (Quarry Hill Residential Character Policy) Clause 22.22 (Strathfieldsaye Residential Character Policy) Clause 22.23 (Spring Gully Residential Character Policy) Clause 22.24 (Strathfield/Kennington Residential Character Policy) Clause 22.25 (West Bendigo Residential Character Policy) Clause 22.26 (White Hills).
Page 11 of 100
Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Amendment C215 Panel Report 13 November 2015
2.2 Other relevant planning strategies and policies
(i) Loddon Mallee South Regional Growth Plan (May 2014) The Loddon Mallee South Regional Growth Plan (RGP) is a policy guideline in the SPPF and seeks to establish a settlement pattern to support the sustainable growth of the region. It recognises the region’s important economic, social and environmental resources and that Bendigo will be the focus of population growth. It provides direction for accommodating growth. In relation to Greater Bendigo, the directions in the RGP are: The focus of growth will be on infill development The need to provide for higher density development The redevelopment of disused Crown Land (including former mine sites) and surplus golf courses should be investigated; The need to provide for student housing; and Redevelopment opportunities around the City Centre, Hospital and University precincts.3 The RGP sets an aspirational population target for Greater Bendigo of 200,000 over 30 years (from 2011).
(ii) Plan Melbourne (May 2014) Plan Melbourne contains a ‘State and Cities’ chapter that discusses the role that regional cities such as Bendigo can play in terms of accommodating population growth and builds on the work undertaken as part of the Regional Growth Plan. It endorses Greater Bendigo’s role to support increased levels of population growth and has an aspirational target for Bendigo of up to 200,000 people in the City by 2041. Other strategic planning provisions relevant to this Amendment are discussed in Chapter 4. 2.3 Planning scheme provisions
(i) Zones The Amendment identifies the following changes to zoning: Land identified in the Strathfieldsaye Township Plan and Huntly Township Plan that was identified for residential development but is yet to be rezoned. These areas are being rezoned from a Rural Living Zone to either a General Residential Zone or a Low Density Residential Zone. Inclusion of land off Goynes Road, Epsom in the General Residential Zone. The purpose of the General Residential Zone (GRZ) is to encourage development that respects the neighbourhood character of the area; to implement neighbourhood character policy and adopted neighbourhood character guidelines; and to provide a diversity of housing types and moderate housing growth in locations offering good access to services and transport.
3 Council submission p25.
Page 12 of 100
Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Amendment C215 Panel Report 13 November 2015
The purpose of the Low Density Residential Zone (LDRZ) is to provide for low‐density residential development on lots which, in the absence of reticulated sewerage, can treat and retain all wastewater. Unless specified in the schedule to the zone, if the land is not serviced with reticulated sewerage infrastructure, the minimum subdivision size is 4,000 square metres. If the land is serviced, the minimum subdivision size is 2,000 square metres.
(ii) Overlays The Bendigo urban area, and land at the interface, is subject to a series of overlays that need to be considered: Vegetation Protection Overlay (VPO) seeks to protect areas of significant vegetation; ensure that development minimises loss of vegetation; preserve existing trees and other vegetation; recognise vegetation protection areas as locations of special significance, natural beauty, interest and importance; maintain and enhance habitat and habitat corridors for indigenous fauna; and encourage the regeneration of native vegetation. The VPO includes Schedule 1 ‘Wildlife Corridor Protection’ (VPO1) and Schedule 2 ‘Significant vegetation’ (VPO2). Environmental Significance Overlay (ESO) seeks to identify areas where the development of land may be affected by environmental constraints and ensure that development is compatible with identified environmental values and includes Schedule 1 ‘Watercourse Protection’ (ESO1), Schedule 2 ‘Ground Water Recharge Protection Area’ (ESO2), and Schedule 5 ‘Protection of Remnant Vegetation’ (ESO5). Bushfire Management Overlay (BMO) seeks to ensure that the development of land prioritises the protection of human life and strengthens community resilience to bushfire; identifies areas where the bushfire hazard warrants bushfire protection measures to be implemented; and ensures development is only permitted where the risk to life and property from bushfire can be reduced to an acceptable level. Land Subject to Inundation (LSIO) identifies land subject to overland flooding in a 1 in 100 year flood event; ensures development does not impact on the free passage of water; and ensures the protection of new development from flooding. Design and Development Overlay (DDO) In particular Schedule 6 to the Design and Development Overlay ‘Urban‐Forest Interface’ (DDO6) ensures residential development protects and maintains the environmental values of adjoining forested areas surrounding Bendigo and seeks to protect ecological values of forested areas, by ensuring that adjacent development does not compromise these values and meets the requirements outlined below. The schedule applies a minimum subdivision size of 4,000 square metres. The Amendment applies DDO6 to part of land at 29 Emu Road, Strathfieldsaye. Schedule 10 to the Design and Development Overlay ‘Maiden Gully Structure Plan’ (DDO10) seeks to ensure residential development retains native vegetation; to retain the low density residential nature of the area by providing lot sizes at a size greater than traditional urban standards; and to ensure that subdivisions proposals will enable new buildings to be integrated within the site and surrounding area.
Page 13 of 100
Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Amendment C215 Panel Report 13 November 2015
The Amendment removes DDO10 from parts of ‘Precinct 6’ in Maiden Gully which currently requires a minimum subdivision size of 1,500 square metres. A minimum subdivision size also applies through other DDOs in urban Bendigo including parts of Huntly (where a minimum 700 square metre control applies) and in parts of Ascot (where a minimum subdivision size of 1,500 square metres applies). Development Plan Overlay (DPO) applies across parts of urban Bendigo and applies a range of minimum subdivision sizes, including Schedule 4 Low Density Residential Zone – Density Management Areas (DPO4) and Schedule 26 Strathfieldsaye (DPO26).
(iii) General provisions Incorporated document in Schedule to Clause 81.01 The Bendigo Residential Growth Plan, 2009 (Amended 2012) is currently included as an incorporated document. The Plan includes the current UGB as updated through Amendment C190 which extended the UGB to accommodate the ‘Forest Park’ development area. 2.4 Ministerial Directions and Practice Notes The following Ministerial Directions and Practice Notes are relevant to the consideration of this Amendment: Practice Note 04: Writing a Municipal Strategic Statement, June 2015 Practice Note 08: Writing a Local Planning Policy, June 2015 Practice Note 10: Writing a Schedule, May 2000 Practice Note 13: Incorporated and Reference Documents, June 2015 Practice Note 17: Urban Design Frameworks, July 2015 Practice Note 37: Rural Residential Development, June 2015 Practice Note 43: Understanding Neighbourhood Character, June 2015 Practice Note 46: Strategic Assessment Guidelines, June 2015 Practice Note 78: Applying the Residential Zones, June 2015 The relevant issues raised in Practice Notes are considered in Chapters dealing with specific issues. 2.5 Discussion The Panel concludes that the Amendment is supported by, and implements, the relevant sections of the State and Local Planning Policy Framework, particularly with regard to the strategy of consolidation, managing growth, integration of transport and land use and 10 minute neighbourhoods and continuing to use the UGB as a key policy tool. The Amendment does raise issues regarding the overall urban structure and how the proposed strategic directions and existing planning controls interact to achieve consolidation sought by Council and the strategic context of some individual sites raised in submissions.
Page 14 of 100
Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Amendment C215 Panel Report 13 November 2015
3 History of strategic planning in Bendigo
3.1 Context At the Hearing, Mr Budge provided an overview of strategic planning in Bendigo. In the 1990s an agreed strategic framework was brokered between five local governments and various State government departments, agencies and servicing authorities. He submitted that the plans were largely developer led, the integration of transport planning and land use was largely lacking, servicing authorities (water and sewerage) tended to define the shape and form of new development, and the three urban fringe Councils played an increasingly important role in setting the planning framework due to growth in those areas. He submitted that as a result of these forces, Bendigo’s urban development is defined by: An almost total reliance on the motor car The City Centre has retained its dominant commercial and retail role but the sprawling nature of the new residential development has started to disperse retail activity 47% of employment is focussed in and around the City Centre Most of the retail development, employment, schools and health facilities are located along the north south linear spine which is a dominant feature of Bendigo Industrial areas are generally fragmented (over 60 separate industrial areas) and many are compromised by nearby residential areas and some accessible only through residential areas Extensive areas around the urban area comprise of fragmented into small lots, on top of the small lot legacy associated with early settlement of Bendigo Very large areas of rural Bendigo have transitioned into rural living areas. The result is a fragmented urban form with limited large areas suitable for residential development and other sites are constrained in some way by bushfire and flooding risk, historical mining operations, native vegetation and/or soil contamination. Maiden Gully, Strathfieldsaye, Junortoun and Huntly were largely developed within this context. The formation of the City of Greater Bendigo in 1994 brought this fragmented land use pattern into one municipality. Referred to as the ‘City in the Forest’, Bendigo is defined by the proximity of forest to urban areas. Mr Budge explained this feature sets the City apart from most other regional cities in Victoria and defines both the current shape of Bendigo and its likely future settlement pattern. Urban Bendigo is defined by the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB), comprising built up urban areas, small towns and the major road network and its relationship with the hinterland. Considering these factors, Council’s strategic planning focuses on infill overexpansive greenfield development. Planning also focuses on existing transport spines rather than broad fronts of new urban development. Native vegetation, threat of bushfire and concentration of much of the urban development along water courses and the corresponding limitations caused by flooding is also significant in many locations.4
4 Council submission, pg 10
Page 15 of 100
Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Amendment C215 Panel Report 13 November 2015
3.2 Bendigo Residential Development Strategy (2004) The Bendigo Residential Development Strategy 2004 (GBRS 2004) established an UGB and set a strategic direction for residential development to 2024. Implemented into the Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme as part of Amendment C60, it has been used to guide residential development within Greater Bendigo over the last ten years. The GBRS 2004 identified four ‘New Development Areas’ (greenfield sites) within the UGB to accommodate demand, comprising Jackass Flat, Huntly, Strathfieldsaye and Maiden Gully North East. Strathfieldsaye and Huntly Township (Structure) Plans were then prepared and partially implemented into the scheme. Subsequently, approximately 633 hectares of land within these areas have been rezoned. Council undertook a 10 year review of the 2004 strategy and determined to prepare the Greater Bendigo Residential Strategy 2014 (GBRS). 3.3 Greater Bendigo Residential Strategy (October 2014) The GBRS establishes a ‘long term plan for Bendigo’s future residential development to meet the continuing needs of Bendigo and its community’. The GBRS: …builds on and extends the scope and coverage of the existing 2004 Residential Strategy. It has been designed to resolve a series of identified problems and emerging issues while building on and maximising Bendigo’s inherent strengths and the opportunities that will arise through future residential development.5 Prepared over 2 years, the GBRS was informed by the following pieces of work: Stage 1 Audit Report (January 2012) Physical Infrastructure and Natural Environmental Features Identification (August 2012) Demographic Background Paper (November 2012) Residential Land Supply Assessment (February 2013) Population and Household Forecasts 2011 to 2036 ‐ id consulting (undated) Issues and Options Paper (March 2013) Residential Investigations Areas Analysis, SED (November 2013) Housing Needs Analysis (March 2014) Residential Building Construction Economic Analysis (March 2014) Loddon Mallee South Regional Growth Plan (May 2014) Plan Melbourne (May 2014) Independent Advisory Committee Report (August 2014).
(i) Residential Investigations Areas Analysis (SED) (November 2013) During the exhibition of the Issues and Options Paper a number of submissions were received that sought to have particular parcels of land rezoned. Council commissioned SED
5 GBRS, pg 9
Page 16 of 100
Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Amendment C215 Panel Report 13 November 2015 consultants to undertake a desktop assessment of eight specific precincts to determine suitability for residential development and potential inclusion within the GBRS: Site 1 (Bagshot) Site 2 (Simpsons Road) Site 3 (White Hills) Site 4 (Wicks Road and Sparrowhawk Road) Site 5 (Lockwood Road) Site 6 (Kangaroo Flat South) Site 7 (Big Hill) Site 8 (Ravenswood). The assessment found that some areas were appropriate in the longer term for residential development subject to further investigation while other areas were not recommended for residential at all. The report concluded the focus for new residential growth should be inside the existing defined UGB area and it recommended further residential development of the City’s townships, in particular Marong, Elmore, Axedale and Heathcote.
(ii) Independent Advisory Committee (August 2014) Submissions to the draft GBRS were considered by an ‘Independent Advisory Committee’ (IAC) which was established to review a number of submissions. In summary the IAC found the following: The retention of the UGB was supported, but questions were raised about its alignment Questions were raised about the actual level of supply of residential land to accommodate growth into the future There are tracts of land within the UGB not zoned for urban purposes, such as Farming Zone (FZ), and this should be reviewed as they could make a significant contribution to land supply While it supported the view that land outside the UGB should not be rezoned, it acknowledged that there are various sites that are proximate to services, transport, or have rural living potential that are worthy of investigation for future residential development but at a lower priority than land within the UGB A number of ‘Investigation Areas’ that may be appropriate for development should be further examined. The IAC recommended: A robust review of land supply data within and outside the UGB is required The Council should determine how much land is required to accommodate an ultimate population of 200,000 (in accordance with the Loddon Mallee South Regional Growth Plan (RGP)) and how much can be accommodated within the UGB Areas should be prioritised for longer term growth based on ‘Investigation Areas’ identified in the IAC report Land within the UGB should be the highest priority for development. However there are sites outside the UGB that might be worth considering, although of a lower priority.
Page 17 of 100
Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Amendment C215 Panel Report 13 November 2015
(iii) Features of the Greater Bendigo Residential Strategy The GBRS is underpinned by four themes: Compact Bendigo, Connected Bendigo, Healthy Bendigo and Housing Bendigo. The themes underpin a series of objectives, directions and actions. A key aspect of the GBRS is the concept of ‘10 Minute Neighbourhoods’ where residents can access most of their daily needs such as employment, shops and schools. This policy setting requires a mix of uses, increasing densities, high quality public domain and open spaces and prioritising pedestrian and cycle movements. Essentially the GBRS seeks to: Plan for a 20 year population projection of 150,000, and indicate where 200,000 should be accommodated Maintain the existing UGB around urban Bendigo Focus new development within the existing UGB Progressively develop zoned land within the UGB Consider rezoning and redevelopment of land designated for future residential growth within the UGB Support urban renewal opportunities in nominated areas within the UGB Support infill and medium density development in nominated areas within the UGB that are convenient to all facilities Support the ’10 minute’ neighbourhood concept where residential growth is located in close proximity to commercial, transport, recreation and community facilities Support growth of towns including Marong and Strathfieldsaye Support a diversity of housing styles and types Strengthen policy wording with a presumption against rezoning land outside the UGB. Implementation includes: Urban Growth Boundary: - Retaining the existing UGB (initially established in 2004 and extended in Forest Park via C190) - Strengthening the role and function of the UGB through stronger local policy. Specific sites: - Identification of key infill sites - Actively investigate and support development on former mine sites. Land within the UGB and Logical Inclusions: - Continue to support infill development in existing residential areas - Undertake further rezoning to support existing structure plans for Huntly and Strathfieldsaye - Remove some overlays in the Maiden Gully area to remove the 1,500 square metres minimum subdivision size provision under Schedule 10 to the Development Plan Overlay (DDO10) - Review Low Density Residential (LDRZ) and FZ land as a medium priority - Consider land with longer term potential which is proximate to the UGB that may have longer term potential residential development, including: land to the north west of Maiden Gully including the former Eaglehawk Golf Course focussed on a
Page 18 of 100
Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Amendment C215 Panel Report 13 November 2015
longer term proposal for a railway station; possible extension of the Strathfieldsaye township to south and/or east; and land to the east and south of Huntly focussed on the proposed railway station - Prepare structure plans for Marong, Heathcote and Elmore to guide development - A rolling program of Urban Design Frameworks (UDFs) for centres to guide infrastructure investment and facilitate development - Revise Clause 21.05‐2 to set out objective and strategies to achieve 10 minute neighbourhoods. Other actions include the appointment of a Development Facilitator to assist with planning for ‘Key Development Sites’ and review the Residential Land Supply Audit in consultation with the development industry to determine the actual level of supply and commence the annual State of Housing report (2015/16).6 3.4 Other planning strategies Council explained a number of relevant strategic pieces of work have recently been undertaken or are currently underway.
(i) Integrated Transport and Land Use Strategy The Integrated Transport and Land Use Strategy (ITLUS) is Council’s principal strategy for managing land use and guiding where urban growth will take place. It plans for the type and level of transport infrastructure and services to be provided. Aligning with the GBRS theme ‘Connecting Bendigo’, it is a response to the preparation of the draft Bendigo Road Transport Strategy, March 2011, which attracted community criticism for its focus on road transport. ITLUS sets the framework and direction for: An integrated approach to transport and land use planning Reducing reliance on cars Making the best use of available infrastructure, including road space, to meet capacity demands Exploring opportunities to do things differently in transport and land use planning.7
(ii) Housing Strategy The GBRS provides an overall strategic direction to accommodate residential growth to 2030. Aligning with the GBRS theme ‘Housing Bendigo’, a Housing Strategy is currently being prepared which undertakes the following: Identify the City’s future housing needs (diversity of housing, not land supply) Assessment of the sites that have been identified for higher density housing Identify key infill sites within the UGB, including land zoned LDRZ and FZ Review the location of the UGB in accordance with the recommendations of the IAC Investigate the cost of different settlement patterns specific to the City of Greater Bendigo
6 GBRS, Implementation Plan, p. 13 7 ITLUS, Stage 4 Consultants Report for Community Engagement, Consultation and Comment, p. 2
Page 19 of 100
Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Amendment C215 Panel Report 13 November 2015
Consider the application of the Mixed Use Zone (MUZ) and the Green Wedge Zone (GWZ) Confirm the direction for longer term residential growth Investigate planning scheme tools and other inducements to promote housing affordability Strategically justify the application of the new residential zones.8 Council advised the Panel that the findings for Amendment C215 will be considered in the final development of the Housing Strategy.
(iii) Commercial Land and Activity Centre Strategy The Commercial Land and Activity Centre Strategy (CLAC) will forecast demand for future commercial land supply and floor space to 2031 and establish an Activity Centre Hierarchy, responding to demographic changes, innovations in retailing and changes to the local economy. The Draft was prepared in February 2015. 3.5 Discussion The history of land use planning and development in Bendigo is complex. The Panel accepts there are many legacy issues that the Council is trying to resolve and fundamentally supports the strategic planning approach that Council is pursuing through the GBRS. The Panel notes the significant and comprehensive background work that has gone into preparing the GBRS and notes that it is a first significant step in a wider strategic program to be undertaken by Council, including the much anticipated Housing Strategy. The Panel considers there are a number of elements and issues that require further consideration and comment in this report.
8 GBRS, Volume 2 – Analysis, Strategy and Implementation. p 77
Page 20 of 100
Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Amendment C215 Panel Report 13 November 2015
4 Population growth and land supply
4.1 Background Two fundamental inputs drive the spatial planning elements of the Greater Bendigo Residential Strategy (GBRS); population growth and land supply. For any given land supply, population growth and development density will determine how long the land supply will last. Conversely, with a given level of population growth over time, planning needs to provide appropriate land supply in suitable areas. 4.2 Population growth
(i) Introduction A summary of the population growth projections for .id and Victoria in Future (VIF) is provided in Table 2. The Panel has highlighted the latest two projections (.id forecasts and VIF2015) at 2031.
Table 2 Greater Bendigo population projections9
Population 2011 2016 2021 2026 2031 2036 projection .id forecasts 101,997 112,853 123,975 134,695 145,375 156,151 (May 2015) VIF2014 101,997 110,689 122,033 134,089 146,056 n/a (2011 based) VIF2015 102,009 110,497 121,185 132,734 144,751 n/a (2011 based)10 Previous .id 105,569 115,237 126,779 135,885 145,613 n/a forecasts (2011) VIF2012 105,563 113,948 122,602 131,357 139,837 n/a (2006 based)
(ii) Evidence and submissions A number of expert witnesses on population growth and land supply were called in the Hearing as follows: For Council – Mr John Henshall
9 Combines tables from Council opening submission para 82, closing submission para 3 and VIF2015 update (Document 42). 10 Also used updated ABS population projections at 30 June 2014.
Page 21 of 100
Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Amendment C215 Panel Report 13 November 2015
For Tall Trees Pty Ltd (50) – Ms Marianne Stoettrup For Villawood (44) – Mr Dale Stokes For the Urban Development Institute of Australia (UDIA) – Mr Chris McNeill. The Panel directed that the experts meet prior to the Hearing and produced an agreed statement. The statement was tabled in the Hearing as Document 8 and is shown in Appendix C. There was general agreement by the expert witnesses that the VIF figures are preferred as they are closest to the actual rate of change in Bendigo in recent years and that the .id figures understate what has actually occurred; although the .id forecasts are now getting closer to the VIF2014 trends.11 Mr Cockerall for Council submitted that the population growth rate in Bendigo over the past five years has been in the order of 1.5% per annum.12 Mr Cockerall reiterated that they prefer to use .id consulting projections as they are based on much more detailed analysis at the local level and have more ground truthing. He acknowledged that the population figure of both forecasts are not significantly different. Mr Cockerall also submitted that the Independent Advisory Committee (IAC) recommended that an eventual population of 200,000 should be planned for in accordance with the Loddon Mallee South Regional Growth Plan (RGP). Mr McNeill, in his evidence for the UDIA noted that the growth rate for the Bendigo Significant Urban Area (SUA) has been higher in recent years, with a rate of 1.73% per annum in the period 2011‐2014.13 He also noted that this growth rate, along with Ballarat, is significantly higher than other regional Victorian centres.
(iii) Discussion The Panel notes there is little difference in the current population projections for Bendigo with VIF2015 and .id projections at 2031 only being different by a population of 624. This is a very small difference across a 16 year projection period for a city of nearly 150,000 people and whichever projection is used it is unlikely to result in a substantially different outcome. Under Clause 11.02‐1 of the State Planning Policy Framework (SPPF), the VIF figures, as the official Victorian Government projections, are required to be considered. Given that there is little effective difference in the projections the Panel does not think this has any particular significance to the Amendment. The Panel notes the aspirational target of 200,000 by 2041 in the RGP is currently reflected in the Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS) at Clause 21.01 and is also reflected in the exhibited GBRS. An implementation action in the GBRS is: Commence preparation of a Housing Strategy that will: …
11 Noting that the expert meeting did not have the VIF2015 figures to review as they had not been released. 12 Document 4, para 81. 13 Mr McNeill EWS, para 4.2.
Page 22 of 100
Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Amendment C215 Panel Report 13 November 2015
Investigate the direction for longer term residential growth – to accommodate 200,000 persons – consistent with the Panel finding. … The Panel has noted elsewhere in this report that many issues are to be resolved through the forthcoming Housing Strategy. This longer term planning for a population of 200,000, which Council submitted is likely to occur in the early 2050’s at current growth rates, will be a critical task for this strategy.
(iv) Conclusions The Panel concludes that the population projections for Bendigo provided by .id and VIF2015 are broadly similar and not contested. Whilst the focus of the GBRS on the short to medium term provision of supply is supported, the Panel notes that planning for the eventual population needs to be actively pursued given Bendigo’s relatively high population growth rate. This is a task that the Panel supports as being a high priority in the preparation of the forthcoming Housing Strategy. 4.3 Land supply
(i) Introduction As discussed in the previous section, the population and land supply experts met and developed an agreed statement prior to the Hearing. Some of the points of agreement are relevant to land supply, and a summary includes: Assessing residential land supply in Bendigo is difficult due to dispersal of small, and in some cases undevelopable, parcels and fragmented ownership Development in Bendigo is unique given the high reliance on infill development Infill is occurring on the easier to develop land first and is primarily detached housing Firm targets for higher density development would assist in planning for this development Over the planning period to 2030 conventional detached housing will predominate whilst promoting higher density development will remain important General agreement that zoned supply of residential lots is in the order of 9,000 lots, with a further 6,000 unzoned lots within the UGB and 2,000 lots at Marong. Timing and supply is uncertain given fragmented ownership and unknown owner intentions 15% of supply is to come from outside the UGB, primarily at Marong General concern as to the timing and likely delivery of the 3,500 lots in the Maiden Gully NE Precinct Structure Plan (PSP) area given the fragmented and small lot ownership in this area Agreement that broadhectare residential land supply is in the range of 13 to 17 years within the UGB; but noting the concerns about the timely development of Maiden Gully PSP area
Page 23 of 100
Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Amendment C215 Panel Report 13 November 2015
Agreement that Council needs to assess the availability of broadhectare land within the municipality.
(ii) Evidence and Submissions Within the general points of agreement above, there were varying estimates of available lots and lot demand provided during the Hearing in evidence and submissions. Lot supply The Residential Land Supply Assessment 2013 (RLSA) concluded that at December 2012, 19,703 residential lots were available, comprising: 9,006 lots in land zoned residential (46% of supply) and classed as ‘major’ supply (i.e. over 1ha and estimated to yield over 10 lots per ha) 2,503 lots in land zoned residential (13%) and classed as ‘minor’ supply (ie under 1ha and estimated to yield under 10 lots/dwellings 8,194 lots (42%) in land that could be zoned residential in the future.14 As indicated in the joint statement, the experts generally agreed with the quantum of these numbers, the main concerns being around how quickly, and if, this supply might be bought to market. The SPPF contains the following two strategies in relation to urban land supply at Clause 11.02‐1: … Ensure that sufficient land is available to meet forecast demand. Plan to accommodate projected population growth over at least a 15 year period and provide clear direction on locations where growth should occur. Residential land supply will be considered on a municipal basis, rather than a town‐by‐town basis. In his evidence for the UDIA, Mr McNeill noted that he considered this supply to be required in the primary urban area of Bendigo and satellite towns. He also stressed that the policy requires at least 15 years supply; and in strongly growing areas he considers there should be substantially more than this amount provided.15 Mr Henshall, giving evidence for Council, also noted when considering years of available supply, that the supply needs to be continuously supplemented so that the supply is not run down.16 The RLSA summarised its finding based on two scenarios with major residential lot supply accommodating 51% and 80% of the growth as shown in Table 3.17
14 John Henshall expert witness statement p4. 15 Mr McNeill EWS, para 3.5. 16 Mr Henshall EWS, para 3.52. 17 All of the experts agreed that the focus of supply and demand should be on broadhectare lots, as this is where the bulk of housing demand is met.
Page 24 of 100
Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Amendment C215 Panel Report 13 November 2015
Table 3 Estimated years of major residential land supply – Bendigo Urban Area, 201218
51% share of growth 80% share of growth Zoned Future Zoned Future (Unzoned) (Unzoned) VIF12 DPCD 20 years 18 years 12 years 11 years ID Forecasts 24 years 22 years 14 years 13 years
In his evidence for Villawood, Mr Stokes noted that in the period 2006/2007 to 2014/2015, major residential supply (sites yielding more than 10 or more lots/dwellings) supplied 52% of lots constructed, which is low relative to other regional areas. He suggested: It is likely, given the historic and existing reliance of minor infill subdivision as a significant supply source that stocks are being depleted. This will likely result in a transfer of demand to major/broadhectare supply sources.19 As stated in the joint statement, the experts all agreed that actual broadhectare supply is in the order of 13‐17 years supply based on likely higher demand (discussed below) and the heavier reliance on broadhectare land than in the past. Mr Henshall, Council’s own expert, was at the lower end of this range. Council submitted that the figures put forward in the Amendment are conservative on the positive side of supply in that: It does not include the ‘Mum and Dad’ small lot subdivisions of 2 to 5 lots that have contributed strongly to land supply in the past. It does not include new housing in rural areas. It does not include a number of sites in the City Centre where there is strong developer interest in apartment style living. It does not include the Key Development Sites such as Chum Street and LaTrobe University land.20 Lot demand As with supply, there were a range of figures put forward in relation to lot demand. The RLSA estimated that the average annual demand from 2011 to 2031 using VIF2012 figures would be 947 lots per annum; and with .id forecasts 841 lots per annum.21 Council submitted that they have undertaken analysis of recent subdivision approvals around the number of lots created by subdivision, the location of subdivision activity and lot sizes being created. In terms of the number of lots created by suburb, Huntly, Jackass Flat and Strathfieldsaye have the highest number of lots approved. Along with this, small towns and rural areas have contributed.
18 Table 3 in the RLSA, page 35. 19 Mr Stokes EWS, page 5. 20 Council submission at Hearing para 186. 21 RLSA, page 32.
Page 25 of 100
Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Amendment C215 Panel Report 13 November 2015
Mr Henshall for Council in evidence noted that the analysis of residential dwelling approvals and lot construction highlights several key trends: An average 943 residential building approvals were issued per annum between 1996/97 and 2011/12, on a rising trend 92% of approvals were for separate dwellings, with only 8% for medium‐ density housing, based on ABS data.22 Ms Stoettrup giving evidence for Tall Trees Pty Ltd submitted that in 2012 and 2013 new dwellings built averaged 1,087 per year (permits issued) which is broadly consistent with the above figures.23 Mr McNeill suggested in his evidence that using VIF2014 figures annual dwelling demand may be in the order of 1,081 dwellings, with a consequent fall in the years of available supply. The UDIA in their submission noted that the Council’s own IAC recommended that the Council should err on the generous side for land supply given the ambitions of the RGP. In his submission for Mr Price, Mr Ludeman cited that part of the IAC Report which made the following observation: The IAC also finds it curious that with the population growth in Bendigo over the last ten years; with housing demand running at up to 1,000 dwellings per annum (albeit with many met by infill); and with increased bushfire and vegetation constraints on undeveloped land; that the UGB has not changed in any meaningful way in those ten years. … In that sense, the IAC thinks that the BRDS should be planning to accommodate much more than the 15 year land supply suggested by state policy within the UGB and on a number of different development fronts. Mr Chris De Silva provided planning evidence for Villawood in relation to Balgownie Estate. His view was that land supply assessments are increasingly becoming all‐consuming, overtaking a merits‐based approach and considering the policy framework. His evidence was that land supply assessments should not take away from the need to undertake sound land use planning. Mr Stokes also in his evidence warned the Panel that in his opinion land supply assessments are getting ‘too cute’ in identifying supply to within a specific number of years; that they are trying to provide the answer when they can only really be a tool to be used within the broader planning framework. All the experts in this area, and indeed most if not all submitters, supported Council’s approach in trying to encourage higher density development within the UGB, and particularly within the city centre.
22 John Henshall expert witness report para 3.13. 23 Ms Stoettrup EWS, page 10.
Page 26 of 100
Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Amendment C215 Panel Report 13 November 2015
A number of submitters suggested that whilst high and medium density development is occurring to a limited extent, the economics of such development are more challenging in Bendigo at the present time. Mr McNeill put it thus in his evidence: While there is little doubt there is a sustainable medium and higher density market in Bendigo, the depth of that market is, in my opinion, questionable at this point in time. The reasons relate to the willingness of households to shift from larger, detached forms of housing and the ability of the higher density market to provide genuinely appealing economic alternatives to detached housing in Bendigo; at this point in time.24 This sentiment was echoed by a number of developer‐submitters and the UDIA. Uncertainty All of the experts in this area agreed that Bendigo is a very difficult land supply assessment market. This is primarily due to the fragmented nature of land ownership, the layering of planning controls which do not necessarily support infill and the relatively large supply of lots from infill development. This supply from infill development presents its own issues, with the Panel advised that all the infill land is theoretically developable but it is difficult to know when the land will be ‘brought on’. Mr McNeill in his evidence noted that even in some broadhectare areas there is uncertainty around supply, or at least timing of supply. For example the Maiden Gully PSP plans for 3,500 lots, but given the fragmented ownership, development may occur over a 20 to 30 year period. The issue of inflexibility and timing in the planning process was also raised as contributing to uncertainty in supply. The local planning practitioners who submitted as a group (submission 38) were extremely sceptical of the ability of Council to respond rapidly to changes in the supply/demand equation, and gave examples of amendments and developments which have taken many years to come to fruition. In response to submissions and evidence around land supply, Council provided in their closing submission a suggested approach to ensure more active monitoring and response to market conditions. The approach as shown in paragraphs 13‐19 of that submission is reproduced below: A recommendation of the Greater Bendigo Residential Strategy (2014) was for the preparation of an annual “State of Housing” report. The preparation of the report has very strong support from the development industry. The intent of the report is to report to the community on the ongoing implementation of the Strategy and what has been happening in the housing market.
24 Mr McNeill EWS, page 2.
Page 27 of 100
Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Amendment C215 Panel Report 13 November 2015
It is suggested to the Panel that a detailed State of Housing Report be undertaken every two years and in the intervening years a more simple report prepared given the level of analysis involved. This has been agreed to by Council and the UDIA. The City has meet with representatives of the UDIA to explore how the State of Housing report should be prepared. The agreement reached, while still needing to have a number of elements finalised, is a significant step forward and represents the cooperative approach that exists between the City and the development industry represented by the Northern Chapter of the UDIA. It is suggested that such an approach is probably unique for a regional city in Victoria and that the Panel should give strong consideration to endorsing this approach. It was agreed that there are two forms of information that would go into the report: Quantitative (“the facts”) . recent housing developments – subdivision and dwelling construction by location and type . development approvals . tracking of Council and VCAT decisions in relation to housing developments . the recent demographic information . house and land prices . monitor housing affordability and housing/rental stress Analysis (“the interpretation”) . recent strategic work that may impact on housing . monitor land supply figures for: . greenfield . infill development . activity centres . small towns/rural areas . factors affecting household spending patterns . analysis of the rental market and vacancy rates . analysis of emerging trends . changes to regulation and policy . assessment on the timing of the review of the UGB The detailed State of Housing Report would include both the quantitative and analysis components referred to above and the intervening report would include just the quantitative information. It was also agreed that the State of Housing Report should be formally reported to the Council. With regard to the land supply a number of principles were agreed to: There needs to be a clear delineation between zoned and future (unzoned) land within the UGB The supply of land will be categorised as follows: . Available within 0‐5 years . Available within 5 to 10 years
Page 28 of 100
Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Amendment C215 Panel Report 13 November 2015
. Available within 10‐15 years . Available 15 years+ . Sites identified for development within the UGB need to be noted where landowners are unwilling to sell. Consideration needs to be given to the level of constraint that exists such as vegetation, flooding, etc. The land needs to be capable of being serviced It was also agreed that the first detailed report should be completed by the end of 2015 and that developer input into the analysis was critical. Should the land supply fall below the 15 year supply figure specified in the State Planning Policy Framework, the proposed 2024 review of the Greater Bendigo Residential Strategy should be brought forward as a matter of high priority.
(iii) Discussion and conclusion The issues around the UGB and its role in managing planning and development in Bendigo are discussed in Chapter 5. In relation to population growth and housing supply and demand, the Panel notes the broad agreement of the experts in these areas that there is in the order of 13 to 17 years of broadhectare residential land supply. Given the minimum 15 year target in the SPPF and the uncertainty around whether the identified supply can be delivered in a timely manner, the Panel considers that the broader level of supply is marginal in terms of land use planning for Bendigo. The Panel notes that Council’s own expert and the members of its IAC appear to be expressing concern that a more generous approach to identification of land supply should be considered to enable more flexibility to deal with either continuing high levels of demand, or bottlenecks in supply due to slowing infill rates. The Panel notes and accepts the submissions that identify Bendigo’s strength in providing a generally affordable housing product, and considers that maintaining the balance between containing the city limits, providing affordable product and increasing density will continue to be a significant challenge. The Panel considers the monitoring and feedback approach proposed by Council in consultation with the UDIA is a sound proposition and endorses the approach. However the Panel still has some doubt as to whether the State of Housing report approach can be as nimble as the Council submissions would seem to suggest. Nevertheless the approach is supported and the ‘proof will be in the pudding’. Coupled with recommendations for additional inclusions within the UGB as discussed in Chapter 6, the Panel is not of a mind to recommend a more serious intervention in this Amendment in terms of fundamental review of the UGB and the supply and demand equation. It does however recommend in Chapter 5 that the Housing Strategy consider planning in the context of a population of 200,000 to 2041.
Page 29 of 100
Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Amendment C215 Panel Report 13 November 2015
In conclusion on this issue, the Panel is impressed by the willingness of Council and the Bendigo planning and development community to work together on these issues. Whilst there are obvious disagreements and frustration, the general level of goodwill appears to be at a high point and is to be commended.
Page 30 of 100
Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Amendment C215 Panel Report 13 November 2015
5 Urban growth boundary
5.1 Background The Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) was initially set out in the 1997 Bendigo Urban Area Residential Development Strategy which identified the extent of Bendigo’s consolidated urban area. The UGB was reviewed and largely retained in the Bendigo Residential Strategy (GBRS 2004) and introduced via Amendment C60 to the Planning Scheme through the Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS) at Clause 21.05‐1, the Bendigo Urban Area Residential Growth Framework and the inclusion of the Incorporated Document ‘City of Greater Bendigo Residential Growth Plan’ (2009) (Amended 2014). The criteria for the location of the UGB within the BDRS 2004 originally relied upon the following criteria: Proximity of the land to the Greater Bendigo National Park; Proximity of the land to the Bendigo Regional Park; Presence of endangered or vulnerable Ecological Vegetation Classes (EVC); Presence/extent of existing environmental overlays (such as the ESO or VPO); Proximity of the land to incompatible land use or zones; Whether the land adjoins with the exhibited UGB or would result in leapfrogging; and Whether exclusion of the land would compromise the low density residential/density management overlay review. The Amendment C60 Panel recommended additional criteria including: Whether the land has an ‘urban’ zoning; Whether the land is contiguous with and consolidates existing urban areas or zones; and Whether the proposal constitutes a significant departure from the exhibited UGB (and consequently whether it should be re‐exhibited). The existing Clause 21.05‐1 explains the purpose of the UGB: …The role of the UGB is a policy tool to better manage the City’s outward growth by channelling development into designated growth areas and away from areas, which Council wants to protect. Unlike the Melbourne UGB the Bendigo UGB is not a hard statutory line but more of a policy tool to manage growth in the City which will need refinement over time to respond to changes in circumstances. Existing strategies include: Ensure that re‐zoning requests for rural land within the UGB but not identified for future expansion are assessed on their merits, including the contribution which they may make to defining existing zoned residential land, their limitations resulting from constraints to development (including Ecological Vegetation Class mapping) and their capability for agricultural land use.
Page 31 of 100
Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Amendment C215 Panel Report 13 November 2015
Discourage rezoning proposals that are outside the UGB unless proposals are: Generally consistent with the residential development objectives of the Residential Development Strategy 2004; Contiguous with the UGB; Exhibit sound ecologically sustainable development principles; and Generally consistent with the Development at the Urban‐Forest Interface Policy at clause 22.01. Since the introduction of the UGB within the Planning Scheme, site specific expansions have taken place. The 2014 Greater Bendigo Residential Strategy (GBRS) largely retains the existing UGB with the exception of realigning the boundary in the north east away from the Hy‐line Broiler farm. This Amendment proposes to strengthen the role of the UGB and policy statements in Clause 21.05‐1. While the existing policy states the UGB is not a hard statutory line but more of a policy tool to manage growth in the City which will need refinement over time to respond to changes in circumstances, the revised policy removes this description and provides stronger policy statements around changes to the UGB as follows: Rezoning proposals not contiguous with the UGB are strongly discouraged and will not be supported. Rezoning proposals for sites outside but abutting the Urban Growth Boundary are strongly discouraged with an assumption they will not be supported. Consideration will only be given where it can be demonstrated that they are required because they meet a shortfall in the supply of residential development. Consideration of any sites will be on the merits of the proposal and must be accompanied by a report that demonstrates the suitability of the land for urban development and address the following matters: An assessment of land supply at a local and municipal level; The provision of diversity in lot size and housing type; Proximity to and potential impacts on the arterial road network and connections to the public transport system; Accessibility for pedestrians and cyclists within and external to the site; Details of the conservation significance of any vegetation on the site (including Strategic Biodiversity Score and vegetation communities that are protected at a State and Commonwealth level) Proximity of the site to public land; Whether the rezoning would require Prescribed Burning to be undertaken on Crown Land; How the site will achieve a Bushfire Attack Level of at least 29 without significant removal of vegetation; Detailed assessment of any land hazards including but not limited to flooding, salinity and erosion; How the proposed development will achieve best practice ecologically sustainable development;
Page 32 of 100
Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Amendment C215 Panel Report 13 November 2015
Proximity of the site to any industry that is likely to cause amenity impacts; Consistency with the Urban‐Forest Policy; And any other relevant planning consideration, such as access to sewerage. 5.2 Issues The Amendment raises the following issues: The role and function of the UGB Whether the alignment of the UGB relates to the overall long term structure of Bendigo and is strategically justified Whether the changes to Clause 21.05‐2 in relation to the UGB are appropriate. 5.3 Submissions
(i) Submissions in support Council submitted that during the development of the GBRS, advice was received from the development industry that the current provisions around amending the UGB were unclear. Therefore the revised changes to Clause 21.05‐2 sought not only to strengthen the role and function of the UGB but to also provide greater clarity around the language about the process for review and Amendment. Council submitted there is strong community support for the UGB. The majority of submissions, even if they sought changes to the Amendment, supported the concept of the ’Compact City’. The Bendigo Sustainability Group (60) and other submissions (18, 20 and 24) supported the ‘Compact Bendigo’ strategy outlined in the new Clause 21.05 which includes a strong urban boundary, the concept of ‘10 minute neighbourhood’ and preventing sprawl and underserviced areas. Ms Rosier (59), who attended the Hearing outlined the challenges facing Bendigo regarding climate change, decreased rainfall, water security and social disadvantage and expressed support for the GBRS in that this strategic planning framework will improve Bendigo’s capacity to manage these issues. Bendigo and District Environmental Council (23) was concerned with the sustainability of Bendigo’s growth, in particular with impacts of urban growth on the Box‐Ironbark forests that surround the City. Mr Fraser submitted as a result of outward growth large areas of the forest will continue to be burnt to protect the housing developments that now push up against the reserves. With the decline in structure of the Box‐Ironbark forest, in the long term it will transform into grassy woodlands (including introduced grasses) and present as an extreme fire risk and Bendigo will end up as the ‘City in a Dead Forest’. He submitted the Compact City model will reduce the outward pressures on the remnant vegetation and the reserves. A denser population within inner Bendigo could be achieved through removing restrictive overlays to allow for higher density. The Panel questioned which would be a better environmental outcome – clear land within the UGB or avoid clearing land and go outside the UGB. Mr Fraser considered, in the context of the Compact City and protecting the forest in the hinterland, it would be preferable to see the areas within the UGB cleared than build next to the forest, which tends to lead to increased burning of the forest. Coliban Water (54) supported the UGB as it requires certainty to enable it to plan effectively.
Page 33 of 100
Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Amendment C215 Panel Report 13 November 2015
(ii) Strategic alignment of the UGB A number of submissions from the development industry and individual landowners questioned the strategic underpinning of the GBRS and the process of reviewing the UGB. Evidence Mr Milner, presenting planning evidence for Villawood (44), considered the GBRS has been developed with a ‘steady as you go’ approach rather than directing an emerging urban structure. His evidence was that a long term strategic plan such as this needs a top down approach, including higher level analysis, and Council has not investigated strategic opportunities for greenfield development or taken into account other land uses. He suggested instead it has been incremental in its approach and the strategy has the attributes of a gold dig where areas are worked over, then reworked and Council has not been prepared to look at new land. His view was, given the role of Bendigo, that approach is not consistent with the genuine spirit of Plan Melbourne which seeks to maximise growth opportunities in Bendigo, through its State of Cities strategy. He considered the Council’s strategy is Letting out the belt one notch but given urban growth pressures there is a sense that the belt is straining. Mr Milner considered that it is preferable for Council to take a broader strategic view to set the UGB and then prepare structure plans. He considered a more strategic overview of the UGB is required rather than the proposed scenario set up under Clause 21.05 where it is incumbent on the individual proponent to prove there is a supply issue before the UGB can be reviewed. Mr De Silva providing evidence for Villawood (44) considered the UGB came from a questionable strategic process which prima facie accepted the 2004 UGB and proposes to now further strengthen it through policy. He considered that the GBRS did not go through an active strategic investigation in terms of opportunity. In that context, Clause 21.05‐2 should allow future sites to be considered on their merits. He suggested the clause should include a simple criterion to facilitate sites where there is the potential to improve upon existing outcomes. On the matter of ‘leapfrogging’ Mr De Silva suggested this can be appropriate in strategic locations to drive infill in intervening fragmented areas. Furthermore, highly fragmented areas such as the Maiden Gully PSP will take much longer to develop than the 15 year timeframe and, without a release valve, would result in a reduced supply of housing. In his experience, land is rarely delivered sequentially and there is significant planning value in larger land holdings which can assist implementation and help overcome infrastructure challenges. He cited Mernda in the City of Whittlesea as an example. A significant landholding developed in a ‘leap frog’ situation was the catalyst for services and supported the development of fragmented land parcels between it and the established urban area. Mr De Silva questioned the need for the UGB in Bendigo as the forested areas can be used as an effective boundary. Service authorities need greater certainty, which is achieved when sites are included within the UGB. He considered that arrows (such as those proposed in the Residential Development Framework Plan to indicate potential long term growth) are not enough for service authorities and greater certainty is required.
Page 34 of 100
Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Amendment C215 Panel Report 13 November 2015
Mr Milner considered lead times are important. One land owner will drive the process very quickly. The converse is that the land ownership is so fragmented that there is no developer interest and no assurance of delivery. The lag time depends on the willingness of the parties to develop the worst case scenario can involve decades. Submissions Mr Bartley representing Villawood (44) questioned where the ’big picture vision’ in the GBRS for Bendigo is, in that the there is little strategic background to the 18 year old UGB which has been re‐stated over a number of years. He considered that the Strategy fails to address the conflict between urban consolidation and the existing overlay controls, overstates the proportion of apartments that will supply the required annual 1,100 dwellings and leaves the City with a shortage of large sites to allow for integrated development. Mr Kusznirczuk for Tall Trees (50) criticised the UGB as it was initially based on deals brokered by the five Councils prior to amalgamation. He considered the issue of timing of the land releases are subjective. In its submission, Council referred to comments from the IAC in its report25: While the IAC supports the principle of the UGB, it is clear that this is very arbitrary and does not seem to be based on any sound or consistent planning logic. The UGB generally follows urban zone boundaries (ie. residential/low density residential land). The UGB was introduced as part of Amendment C60 and was critically reviewed by the independent Panel appointed to consider the amendment. It is not clear to the IAC why, for instance, the UGB adopts some curious specific title boundaries and seemingly ignores more obvious infrastructure alignments like railway lines and major roads. Examples exist of the UGB splitting private property land holdings. The Housing Strategy which will be prepared as the preliminary to the implementation of new zones and provides an opportunity to review the UGB in more detail. The State government has indicated that Councils need to base the application of the new zones on a Council adopted Housing Strategy – substantial work has been undertaken already on the preparation of such a strategy and this will be prepared for Council consideration in 2015. The IAC also finds it curious that with the population growth in Bendigo over the last ten years; with housing demand running up at 1,000 dwellings per annum (albeit with many met by infill); and with increased bushfire and vegetation constraints on undeveloped land; that the UGB has not changed in any meaningful way in those ten years. There have been modifications to UGB in Strathfieldsaye, Jackass Flat and Huntly as a result of structure planning processes plus the Forest Park development at Maiden Gully is proposed to be included in the UGB.
25 The bold text is the IAC comment and plain text is the Council’s Strategy Unit comment. It appears in the reverse in page 3 of the Independent Advisory Committee Report, August 2014.
Page 35 of 100
Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Amendment C215 Panel Report 13 November 2015
Nevertheless, the IAC has taken the UGB as an immutable boundary (the purpose of the UGB is to manage outward growth and prevent urban sprawl – in that respect it has been successful) outside of which the BRDS does not contemplate development. That being the case, the IAC needs to be satisfied that there is a sufficient enough supply within the UGB. This will be done as part of the first biennial assessment of land supply in 2015. Council, in its reply, dismissed criticism that there have been very few changes to the UGB over the last 10 years and the real issue is the supply of urban lots required to meet demand has been adequately met from within the UGB. They submitted it is a key policy tool within the Planning Scheme and changes to it must be carefully considered and not made in an ad‐ hoc manner or simply because there is an expectation that changes should be made. Council submitted that advice from the development industry is that although ‘on paper’ there is sufficient supply of land; the reality is that landowners are not willing to sell at this stage or have unrealistic price expectations. While this may be true at this point in time it is not considered sufficient reason to open up further greenfield sites. The City first needs to investigate mechanisms to bring forward the sites that are currently zoned. With regard to the alignment of the UGB, the Council conceded that there are a number of discrete locations where the UGB should be revisited and this can be done in the context of the Housing Strategy and in the context of the process of annual/biannual land supply audit review which is being established.
(iii) Clause 21.05‐2 and future opportunities to review the UGB Mr Kusznirczuk was critical of the revised Clause 21.05‐2, suggesting that it turns the UGB into a hard line. He submitted there needs to be a clearer policy statement about the ability to review the UGB otherwise it may be considered that land outside the UGB will never be suitable. Likewise other submitters, such as Mr Pole from Spiire representing the Eaglehawk Golf Club (49), expressed concern that there is no mechanism within the Amendment to ensure periodic review of the UGB as recommended by the Amendment C60 Panel to enable consideration of additional land prior to the next 10 year review. Mr Pole remained concerned (referring to Council’s response that Kangaroo Flat South Precinct will be considered as part of the upcoming Housing Strategy) that there is no commitment to implement periodic reviews of the UGB, and there are still questions regarding how findings of the Housing Strategy will translate into adjustments to the UGB if required. Mr Pole requested this Amendment incorporate mechanisms to ensure periodic review of the UGB as recommended by the C60 Panel. Furthermore, Mr Pendlebury (39) submitted the policy statement Rezoning proposals for sites outside but abutting the Urban Growth Boundary are strongly discouraged with an assumption that will not be supported is not supportive of a merits based approach and places an excessively weighted assumption of non‐compliance before proven otherwise on rezoning proposals. He submitted that the wording in the UGB Objectives and Strategies in Clause 21.05‐2 should be softened to state that:
Page 36 of 100
Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Amendment C215 Panel Report 13 November 2015
Rezoning proposals outside but abutting the Urban Growth Boundary, while generally discouraged, should be assessed on their merit. Likewise, Mr Ludeman (L2) considered the Amendment presents a major change to Clause 21.05‐2 with regard to the UGB, making it too strict. He questioned why sites abutting the UGB should be precluded when they address the principles of the GBRS. Mr Bartley submitted a revised Clause 21.0526 (suggesting changes to the exhibited version) which maintains discouragement of rezoning outside the UGB but adding ‘unless they are consistent with or give effect to the strategic objective for the growth of the City’. His draft also proposes adding the following criteria for rezoning: Whether the site assists in building the catchment for a township, neighbourhood centre or local school. Whether the site is within walking distance of a proposed or existing railway station or bus route. Council maintained that strengthened policy statements around the UGB and rezoning proposals as proposed in the Amendment are required to provide certainty to the community and development industry. In its reply it supported some changes to Clause 21.05 proposed by Mr Bartley but with greater reference to the Bendigo Urban Area Residential Growth Framework. 5.4 Discussion The Panel observed, through its inspections and considering submissions and evidence, that Bendigo has a relatively large footprint with significant, albeit constrained, opportunities for infill development. It considers the UGB should continue to be a tool within the Planning Scheme and supports the GBRS strategy of urban consolidation reinforced through policy and a review of the existing zoning and overlay regime to achieve this outcome. Throughout Victoria UGBs or town/settlement boundaries are used as a tool to prevent isolated and unserviced development, and prioritise development in strategic areas and plan for physical and community services to support it. The Panel does not consider that the UGB in Bendigo has less legitimacy because it is not ratified by Parliament, as the Melbourne UGB is, and that strong policy statements regarding the role of the UGB in Bendigo in the MSS to provide certainty are entirely appropriate. That said, the Panel suggests there are some issues for Council to consider moving forward.
(i) The UGB should reflect all urban development, not just residential The UGB has been set in the context of a residential strategy. While residential land use is the largest component of urban development, the UGB should be set in the context of all urban land uses, taking into account environmental constraints, transport links, activity centres, access to transport and services and land use. While the GBRS, includes the sound
26 Circulated post Hearing via e‐mail on 31 August 2015.
Page 37 of 100
Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Amendment C215 Panel Report 13 November 2015 policy direction of 10 minute neighbourhoods, the UGB itself does not appear to be underpinned by a comprehensive strategic land use framework for the City and setting out a long term urban structure. The Panel notes that this is an outcome that is anticipated, and can be achieved through, the emerging strategic project, the Integrated Transport and Land Use Strategy (ITLUS).
(ii) The UGB should be a planning tool for long term growth Secondly, the Panel notes, in Council’s response to a number of individual submissions questioning the boundary, the strategy is very much focussed on development within the UGB in the short to medium term and there is a presumption against creating additional residential land outside of the UGB. The land supply assessment undertaken to date indicates that there is no immediate need to create additional residential land (Panel emphasis). Having regard to submissions and evidence, the Panel considers the UGB should operate as a long term policy tool. The development industry, service authorities and Council’s own infrastructure plans and long term investment require certainty into the future to plan. While the Panel accepts Council’s position that the UGB should not be moved just because there is an expectation that changes should be made, it is the Panel’s view that 2024 (9 years away) is not long term, nor are the land supply projections discussed in Chapter 4. While the firmer statements within revised Clause 21.05 strongly discouraging rezonings outside the UGB are appropriate, the boundary should be logical, rigorous and based on the longer term to provide flexibility in the delivery of zoned land. Considering the evidence of Mr Stokes and Mr De Silva in Chapter 4, while population and demand is an important indicator to manage the supply and allocation of land, it should be used as a tool in the mix alongside sound land use planning to support and reinforce a sustainable urban structure. Having regard to the short to medium nature of the UGB, the Panel understands the Council is seeking to operate responsively. During the Hearing, Council provided the Panel with a list of strategic work to be undertaken in the coming years. Many of the projects involve implementing aspects of the GBRS, implementing ITLUS, the CLAC and the Housing Strategy, undertaking Urban Design Frameworks, revising the statutory settings in the urban areas to accommodate infill and piecing together fragmented areas planned for residential growth such as the Maiden Gully PSP. In this context, the Panel is concerned that running the land supply with such a tight rein as proposed under Clause 21.05‐2 and relying on a timely response to the findings of the biannual Land Supply Audit will put pressure on the system and Council’s resources. While land audits are a useful tool, it is essentially an incremental ‘health check’. The UGB needs to include a longer term view based on an overall urban structure and prioritise zoning within the boundary. There is a significant risk in underestimating lead times associated with structure planning, rezoning, infrastructure delivery and developable lots. In this context some flexibility is needed within the existing UGB, and a possible future expanded UGB, to accommodate residential growth. The Panel strongly supports the Compact City model espoused in the GBRS. However it remains concerned that the UGB presented in this Amendment is a short to medium term
Page 38 of 100
Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Amendment C215 Panel Report 13 November 2015 proposition. The Panel notes the Council’s willingness and intention to review some sites subject to submissions to this Amendment in the context of the upcoming Housing Strategy (considering emerging information arising from the review of BMO mapping and the, yet to be implemented, Bendigo Flood Study). Considering the Panel’s discussion in Chapter 4 regarding land supply and population projections, the Panel considers Council’s upcoming strategic package of work including the ITLUS, CLAC and Housing Strategy should inform a longer term urban structure and UGB, based on a population projection of 200,000 over the next 30 years from 2011 (to 2041)27.
(iii) Consideration of the alignment of the UGB in Amendment C215 The UGB should be set using the sound criteria around protection of native vegetation, addressing bushfire risk, having regard to long term rollout of physical and community services (especially sewerage infrastructure) and, importantly, 10 minute neighbourhoods. This is the case with aspects of the UGB proposed in this Amendment, while there are also a number of anomalies. The Panel considers there are some logical inclusions that warrant consideration, and indeed not all the land within the UGB will necessarily be residential. The Panel is not suggesting a ‘free for all’ but where there are clear areas which address the criteria set out in the GBRS, they should be considered in this Amendment. This does not mean the land needs to be rezoned immediately or that all issues need to be resolved prior to being included in the UGB. Minute detail or matters beyond broad constraints do not need to be resolved at this point. But including those logical areas or at least acknowledging their longer term potential in the context of the UGB proposed under this Amendment can assist with the long term planning process. These sites will be considered in Chapter 6. 5.5 Conclusions and recommendations The UGB is an important and legitimate planning tool and has been used successfully within Bendigo to date. The Panel supports the role of the UGB to operate as a ‘hard boundary’ but it needs to have enough land within it to provide flexibility to account for lead and lag times for development, especially in the context of fragmented land. The proposed UGB as set out in the GBRS and this Amendment is a short to medium term proposition. Further strategic work is required through the Housing Strategy and ITLUS project implementation to accommodate 75% of the aspirational population of 200,000 to 2041. In addition, the long term UGB should be founded on overall urban development and structure and be revisited through Council’s ongoing strategic projects and have regard to the latest flooding, bushfire and native vegetation conditions. In the short term, the proposed Clause 21.05 should include additional criteria for considering rezoning regarding proximity to services and transport, as well as expand on the role of the areas for Long Term Potential Growth. On this point the Panel accepts some of
27 As identified in the Loddon Mallee South Regional Growth Plan.
Page 39 of 100
Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Amendment C215 Panel Report 13 November 2015 the wording suggestions put forward by Mr Bartley and has considered Council’s feedback on it. The Panel also considers that the UGB, through this Amendment, should include some discrete areas as logical inclusions, as well as areas for potential future long term growth, to be further assessed via the Housing Strategy and ITLUS implementation. Specific recommendations on this matter are made in Chapter 6. The Panel recommends: The Urban Growth Boundary be reviewed as part of the upcoming Housing Strategy and Integrated Transport and Land Use Strategy implementation with a long term growth scenario of a population of 200,000 at 2041. Amend Clause 21.05‐2 under ‘Urban Growth Boundary Objective’ to add the wording “To better manage the City’s growth by focusing development into designated growth areas, preventing development in areas which Council wants to protect, and discouraging proposals to expand the urban area except where consistent with the Bendigo Urban Area Residential Growth Framework”. Amend Clause 21.05‐2 under ‘Strategies’ to change the wording: a) Dot point 1 ‐ “Rezoning proposals for sites that are not contiguous with the Urban Growth Boundary are strongly discouraged and will not be supported unless they give effect to the Residential Development Objectives in the Greater Bendigo Residential Strategy 2014.” b) Dot point 2 ‐ “Rezoning proposals for sites outside but abutting the Urban Growth Boundary are discouraged with an assumption they will not be supported unless they are consistent with or give effect to the Residential Development Objectives in the Greater Bendigo Residential Strategy 2014. Consideration of any sites will be on the merits of the proposal and must be accompanied by a report that demonstrates the suitability of the land for urban development and addresses the following matters:” Amend Clause 21.05‐2 to include the following criteria when considering future rezoning: a) Whether the area is identified in the Bendigo Urban Area Residential Growth Framework as Potential Longer Term Growth. b) Whether the site assists in building the catchment for a township, neighbourhood centre or local school and supports the ‘10 Minute Neighbourhood principle’. c) Whether the site is within walking distance of a proposed or existing railway station or bus route.’
Page 40 of 100
Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Amendment C215 Panel Report 13 November 2015
6 Sites outside the Urban Growth Boundary
As discussed in Chapter 3, in preparing the GBRS several areas outside the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) were identified as ‘Site Investigation Areas’ within the ‘Residential Investigation Areas Analysis’ (SED report). A number of submissions were received to the Amendment for sites located within these areas. The Panel has considered these submissions within this framework. Council also submitted that it is seeking clear direction on the following sites outside the current UGB as they have been subject to protracted discussions over a number of years, having regard to various constraints on the land, and require resolution: Wicks Road, Maiden Gully Ravenswood Run Lockwood Road, Kangaroo Flat Land north of the ‘Bilkurra’ site in Huntly. 6.1 Kangaroo Flat South Investigation Area (Kangaroo Flat/Big Hill)
(i) Background Two submissions were received within the Kangaroo Flat South Investigation Area. This area is located to the west of the Calder Highway and bound by Granter Street to the north, Cherry Tree Lane to the south and Big Hill to the west and it adjoins the UGB. The area is approximately 37 hectares in 17 parcels. Zoned Farming Zone (FZ) land in this area is used as a combination of vacant land, low density residential development, the ‘A‐Line Holiday Park’ and scattered vegetation. The site is surrounded by: Low Density Residential Zone (LDRZ) to the north (opposite Granter Street), State Forest and General Residential Zone (GRZ) ‘Karinya Gardens retirement village’ LDRZ immediately to the south Big Hill State Forest, zoned as Public Conservation and Resource Zone (PCRZ) to the west Calder Highway (Road Zone Category 1) to the east with GRZ and a mix of conventional and lower density residential development, Big Hill Primary School and State Forest further east. The Bushfire Management Overlay (BMO) is located on the western portion of the land and Environment Significance Overlay (ESO1) ‘Water Protection’ along the eastern boundary. According to the Bendigo Flood Study part of the site area is affected by ‘waterway flooding’. The area immediately abuts the UGB, which runs along a portion of the Calder Highway.
Page 41 of 100
Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Amendment C215 Panel Report 13 November 2015
Figure 2 Kangaroo Flat South and Furness Investigation Area28
(ii) Submissions Mr and Mrs Pocock (48) sought inclusion of their 11 hectares as a logical inclusion within the UGB. They submitted: There is clear strategic planning support for the designation of the subject site within the UGB… The inclusion of the subject site will result in an appropriate planning outcome for the site and surrounds and will accord with the projected residential growth as outlined in the strategy.29 They submitted the land is a relatively small area completely bounded by existing urban development to the north and south, forest to the west and highway to the east. These existing boundary features provide a permanent and secure extension of the UGB.
28 From SED Residential Investigation Areas Analysis, November 2013. 29 Spiire submission (document 22) pg 3
Page 42 of 100
Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Amendment C215 Panel Report 13 November 2015
Mr Pole, representing the Pococks, explained that there has been a long history of seeking rezoning for the Pocock’s site. Council had previously resolved to rezone the land via Amendment C43. This process intersected with Amendment C60, but that Panel recommended that the proposal was best considered through Amendment C43 which, at the time, was already in train. Amendment C43 was later abandoned due to further information requests not being received by the Department in time. Mr Pole referred to the SED executive summary which recommended: Subject to further investigations around access arrangements to the Calder Highway and a suitable and careful design response to the requirements of the BMO, the Kangaroo Flat South [area] is considered for Residential 1 Zone incorporating alteration to the UGB near Granter Street, and Council adopt a Development Plan Overlay approach to each site to ensure greater co‐ordination of multiple land owners and a best management approach that responds to Bushfire hazards. Submission 26, located on the Calder Highway and adjoining the A‐Line Holiday Park, also requested to be included within the UGB and submitted the land is suitable for residential development given there is already housing in the area and the property adjoins the accommodation park. Council also referred to the SED desk‐top assessment which found: Bushfire risk is high The site is well located for future residential development Further investigations are required to determine if the bushfire risk can be appropriately managed to allow for residential development. Council submitted in some respects this area is a ‘logical inclusion’ to be incorporated into the UGB. However there are a number of unanswered questions regarding constraints around bushfire, access, sewerage and flooding. Council submitted at this stage the GBRS is focussed on development within the UGB in the short to medium term and there is a presumption against creating residential land outside the UGB. Council maintained the land supply data indicates there is no immediate need to create additional residential land. The IAC considered there may be sites outside the UGB that can satisfy the criteria for rezoning but noted they were of a lower priority than land inside the UGB. Council maintained that this would be appropriately reviewed as part of the Housing Strategy.
(iii) Discussion The Panel has inspected this Investigation Area and has considered the submissions and background reports provided by Council. It finds that the land is well located within proximity to local neighbourhood services, school and other residential development and is essentially an infill site constrained on its western side by public land comprising Box‐ Ironbark Forest. Presently within the FZ, the area is highly fragmented and is presently operating as rural residential land. It is noted however that the western side of the investigation area is highly vegetated and Council advised the CFA consider there is significant fire risk from the west.
Page 43 of 100
Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Amendment C215 Panel Report 13 November 2015
The Panel notes that Council concedes this area is a logical inclusion however numerous issues need to be resolved and would consider this area through the Housing Strategy. Having regard to the strategic attributes of the area, the Panel considers the Kangaroo Flat South Investigation Area warrants inclusion within the UGB as a logical extension as part of this Amendment, with rezoning to be considered at a later date. Further investigations in relation to native vegetation, fire and flooding can be undertaken in the future with and the appropriate planning tools put in place at that time to manage risk and environmental values.
(iv) Conclusions and recommendations The Panel considers that the area is a logical inclusion in the UGB and the forest is a natural boundary. The Residential Growth Framework Plan should identify the Kangaroo Flat South Investigation Area within the UGB with a recommendation that, prior to any rezoning, the land be subject to detailed structure planning and a planning regime that manages the issues of risk and environmental values. Amend Clause 21.05 Framework Plan to include the Kangaroo Flat South Investigation Area (excluding Furness Street) within the Urban Growth Boundary and a notation ‘subject to detailed structure planning’. 6.2 Eaglehawk (Simpsons Road Investigation Area)
(i) Background The Simpsons Road Investigation Area is located in the north west of Bendigo, and abuts recent residential development in Jackass Flat. The area is located to the north of Howard Street and adjoins the existing UGB. The area comprises a number of lots and adjoins the public land Whipstick Forest, located to the north and north‐west. Part of land is covered with remnant vegetation including Box‐ Ironbark Forest and Alluvial Terraces Herb‐rich Woodland. The area abuts the industrial land to the east, including the Bendigo Water Reclamation Plant.
Page 44 of 100
Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Amendment C215 Panel Report 13 November 2015
Figure 3 Simpsons Road Investigation Area30
(ii) Submissions Mr Butler (27) and Ms Nash (28) sought to have land in Goldsmiths Road included within the UGB. Located immediately north of the UGB, their land is in two parts with total of 12.9 hectares and currently zoned FZ. They submitted services are available to the area, there is good road access, the area adjoins the UGB and immediately abuts residential areas which have been developed over the last 10 to 25 years, landowners are willing to develop, and there is potential for 100 dwellings. Council submitted there has been strong landowner interest in developing this area over a number of years and conceded that there are positive attributes that lends suitability for residential development. Council explained this area was assessed in the Site Investigation Report within the ‘Simpsons Road Investigation Area’ which recommended: Development in the area would support the proposed neighbourhood centre Need to consider the impact of the buffer around the waste water treatment plant The vegetation would need to be assessed with particular regard to protected species Impact of fire would need to be considered Potential contamination of one of the sites would need to be considered. Council submitted currently the GBRS is focussed on development within the UGB in the short to medium term and there is a presumption against creating additional residential land
30 From SED Residential Investigation Areas Analysis, November 2013.
Page 45 of 100
Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Amendment C215 Panel Report 13 November 2015 outside of the UGB. The land assessment undertaken to date indicates there is no immediate need to create additional residential land. However Council also referred to the IAC findings which found there may be sites outside the UGB that can satisfy the criteria for rezoning. The strategy also notes a number of potential future growth fronts, however this is not one of those. That said, Council confirmed this area is also being considered as part of the Housing Strategy that is currently underway.
(iii) Discussion The Panel notes that a landowner agreement to rezone land has been struck among landowners, comprising 103 hectares. It is further noted this area abuts a recently developed growth area with a proposed neighbourhood centre. While land on the eastern side of the Simpsons Road Investigation Area is within proximity to the Bendigo Water Reclamation Plant, the western side is well clear and there is potential for this area to be extended and included within the UGB as an extended growth front delivering the ‘10 minute neighbourhood’ principles within the GBRS. The Panel notes the following recommendation in the executive summary of the SED report: The site is recommended for rezoning as a subsequent extension to the Urban Growth Boundary subject to absolute clarification of the extent of the Epsom Treatment Plant attenuation, appropriate bushfire management response and targeted ecological assessment. It is considered that the area should be designated as ‘Potential Future Growth’ with the Residential Growth Framework Plan identifying the area with arrows. Prior to being considered for inclusion within the UGB itself, issues such as proximity to the Waste Water Treatment Plant need to be resolved. It is noted that Council intends to reconsider this area through the Housing Strategy and the Panel supports this approach to ascertain if the land is included in the UGB in the long term.
(iv) Conclusions and recommendations This area abuts an area that is currently developing, to be supported with a neighbourhood activity centre. Given the size of the investigation area and the need to clarify the context of the Waste Water Treatment Plant, it is recommended that the Simpsons Road Investigation Area remain outside the UGB at this point in time but that it be identified as Potential Longer Term Growth in the Residential Growth Framework Plan. Amend Clause 21.05 Residential Growth Framework Plan to identify the Simpsons Road Investigation Area as for Potential Longer Term Growth. 6.3 Huntly (Bagshot Investigation Area)
(i) Background The total Investigation Area is 103 hectares and is located on the eastern edge of Huntly, south of the Midland Highway. The southern half comprises a 60 hectare property in one lot and is zoned Rural Living Zone (RLZ). It abuts the UGB and the recently residentially zoned land to the west (Bilkurra land). The balance of the area to the north comprises three lots
Page 46 of 100
Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Amendment C215 Panel Report 13 November 2015 and is zoned RLZ and includes the buffer area to cater for offsite impacts of the Hy‐Line Intensive Animal Husbandry (Broiler Farm). Land to the east is zoned RLZ and has been subdivided as such. The site area is cleared of native vegetation and its southern boundary abuts the railway line and railway station reserve. The Residential Growth Framework Plan depicts arrows over the site, identifying it as for ’Potential Longer Term Growth’.
Figure 4 Bagshot Investigation Area31
(ii) Submissions Mr Ludeman, representing Mr and Mrs Price (submission L2) explained at the time of the Huntly Township Plan 2008 Mr Price sought to include his 60 hectares within the plan. The Amendment C136 Panel, considering the Huntly Township Plan, recommended Council review the UGB to the east of the Bilkurra land. Mr Ludeman was highly critical of the SED assessment of the ‘Bagshot Investigation Area’ which found that the site is not recommended for rezoning or extension to the Urban Growth Boundary due to the intensive Animal husbandry in operation at 1650 Midland Highway, Bagshot. In that assessment, Mr Price’s 60 hectares of land was included in the assessment of a greater area which is located within the buffer zone of the Hy‐Line Broiler Farm. His 60 hectares (Lot 4) however, is outside the 700 metre buffer area. He submitted the land should be included in the UGB as it displays the following attributes: No vegetation, flooding or bushfire constraints Abuttal to the proposed Huntly station Abuts the UGB
31 From SED Residential Investigation Areas Analysis, November 2013.
Page 47 of 100
Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Amendment C215 Panel Report 13 November 2015
Development of the Huntly Township has been successful (280 lots since 2012) successful Opportunity for integration with the Bilkurra Development Plan to the west. Council submitted there is currently sufficient land supply in Huntly to satisfy growth and the site may have the potential for future growth when the Huntly railway station is developed, however this is a long term (25+ years) prospect as there is no State government commitment to a railway station in Huntly. In addition, Coliban Water have identified significant capacity issues. The IAC report found: The IAC noted the surprise of many submissions that the expansion of Huntly had been so successful with the market. In that context the opportunities to provide a varied lot yield and potentially denser development in close proximity to the centre of Huntly should be explored. Given the possible development of a rail station in the precinct, it would be prudent to also investigate the UGB to the immediate east to take advantage of land that is seemingly without the environmental constraints of other parts of Bendigo. Council maintained the GBRS is focussed on development within the UGB in the short to medium term and there is a presumption against creating additional residential land outside of the UGB. The land supply assessment undertaken to date indicates there is no immediate need to create additional residential land. The strategy does identify land with longer term potential for greenfield development and includes the subject land but this would require a commitment to a future railway station in Huntly. This site should be considered in the 2024 review of the Residential Strategy.
(iii) Discussion The Panel agrees with Mr Ludeman that the Price’s 60 hectares is well outside the intensive animal industry buffer. The GBRS clearly identifies the Price land as future potential long term growth and it is really a matter of sequential development/timing of land take‐up in this area, rather than whether the land is suitable for residential development. The Residential Growth Framework Plan shows the Huntly area as ‘Planned Residential Growth’ and it is clear that, with the recent rezoning, it is a part of Bendigo that is very well supplied with land, with much of the land within the UGB yet to be developed. The Price land is well positioned, especially in the context of the railway reserve and is in a single ownership. However, given the extent of land in Huntly currently available for development, it is considered at this stage identifying the site as ‘Potential Longer Term Growth’ is appropriate and provides enough direction for future services and land use planning.
(iv) Conclusions and recommendations Given the current land supply in Huntly, the Price land should remain identified as Potential Longer Term Growth.
Page 48 of 100
Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Amendment C215 Panel Report 13 November 2015
6.4 Kangaroo Flat (Lockwood Road Investigation Area)
(i) Background The Lockwood Road Investigation Area is bounded by Lockwood Road to the east, a developing residential area to the south, industrial land to the north/east and forested public and private land to the west and abuts the UGB which runs along Lockwood Road. A combined area of 50 hectares, it is zoned FZ and is partly covered by WMO and ESO1 (Watercourse Protection). The land contains stands of vegetation, dams and unformed government roads and is occupied by six dwellings.
Figure 5 Lockwood Road Investigation Area32
(ii) Submissions Mr Pendlebury represented P & B Savy and Ors (39) who seek to have their land 14 and 46 Manallacks Road and 138, 142 and 214 Lockwood Road, Kangaroo Flat included within the UGB and for it to be identified as being ‘Potential’ or ‘Future Urban’. He submitted: The subject site directly abuts the UGB on its southern and eastern boundary and is located within the Kangaroo Flat urban area; The site is an infill location close to employment areas, less than 1 km from schools, 1.8 kilometres from Kangaroo Flat shopping strip, community facilities, open space
32 From SED Residential Investigation Areas Analysis, November 2013.
Page 49 of 100
Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Amendment C215 Panel Report 13 November 2015
and public transport, including a potentially upgraded Kangaroo Flat Railway Station; The site has the potential to achieve the objective of a 10 minute neighbourhood; The site abuts a main road; There is potential for a broader range of uses, not just residential, if it is found that the site is not appropriate for residential; No other significant environmental, landscape character issues or natural resources warrant the retention of the site for non‐urban zone; Given its location the site warrants further analysis of opportunities and constraints, which will be enabled by its inclusion within the UGB and being designated as Future Urban. He explained the site has a complex planning history. A previous amendment (Amendment C116) to rezone the land with a combination of Development Plan Overlay, industrial/residential zoning and amend the UGB was considered by Council and abandoned in 2011, primarily on the basis of noise impacts from the existing industry on the proposed residential land and the EPA’s requirements for a 500 metre buffer into the subject site which would include most of the land proposed to be rezoned for residential purposes. Mr Pendlebury considered this matter should have proceeded to a panel and the merits of the issues have never been properly tested. He maintained existing industry should not stymie development and in this case a factory buffer is a poor outcome for genuine urban land in the context of Kangaroo Flat. The submission requested the Amendment be amended to: Change to the Bendigo Urban Area Residential Growth Plan in Clause 21.05 to include the whole of the area of the subject site within the UGB. This will also require a corresponding amendment to the Incorporated Document ‘City of Greater Bendigo Residential Growth Plan – (2009) (Amended 2012)’; The designation for the subject site as “future Urban” or “Urban Growth” with a strategy to require the preparation of a structure plan or master plan consistent with the strategies associated with the Urban Growth Boundary Objective in Clause 21.05‐2; The land is defined as an Infill Key Redevelopment Site on the Residential Growth Framework Plan and within the UGB; That in implementing the adopted Greater Bendigo Residential Strategy 2014, the subject land be included within the UGB and in an Urban Growth Zone. Council advised the SED assessment ‘Site Investigations Report’ found: The site is well located having regard to infrastructure and access. The risk from bushfire would need to be managed. Proximity of the site to industrial development is a significant constraint. No rezoning of the site is recommended. Council submitted this area has already been considered via Amendment C116 and a number of matters remain potentially unresolvable, in particular the nature of the ‘loud
Page 50 of 100
Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Amendment C215 Panel Report 13 November 2015 impulse noises’ associated with the neighbouring industrial enterprise which would mean barely any residential land could be developed for the project. In addition, there were objections from residences to the south against the industrial component of the proposal. Council submitted that there are a number of areas in Bendigo where the Green Wedge Zone could be applied but more strategic work needs to be done, most appropriately, as part of the Housing Strategy. Council maintained the view the GBRS identifies a number of sites not suitable for residential development and the Lockwood Precinct is one of these.
(iii) Discussion The Panel understands this area has a complex planning history. The Amendment C60 Panel considered this area in the following way: The Panel believes this area should be further investigated to determine the nature and extent of any interface issues and to identify any additional planning scheme responses that minimise such issues. This analysis should be undertaken by Council in association with DSE and Parks Victoria, and depending on the outcome of this process there may be grounds to consider an alternative zoning or overlay regime. In doing so, the emphasis should be firmly placed on addressing interface issues, rather than providing a development opportunity for the landowners. In fact, it may well be that the current planning scheme regime is the most appropriate approach to addressing interface issues (C60 Panel report, p.36) It is noted that this area was considered via Amendment C116 for a mix of industrial and residential uses however the Panel notes that neither the noise evidence from the proponent or the EPA’s submission was tested. The Panel notes that residential subdivisions have been approved immediately to the south of the industrial complex on land that is already zoned residential. The difference between allowing for this subdivision through the planning permit process on land zoned for residential purposes and consideration of the Lockwood Road Investigation Area is that in the latter case, there is a decision to be made about the long term strategic context of the site and it is at both this point in time (whether the land is included in the UGB) and then the next phase, rezoning, which guides the planning framework on the site. That said, the Panel considers that the land has good access, is close to schools, shops and activity centre and reticulated services are available. The Panel agrees with Council that there is an issue here to ensure that future land use and zoning regime does not set up a future issue of incompatible land uses. In the context of this Amendment, the UGB has been proposed for residential land use. As discussed in Chapter 5, the UGB should consider other uses and in this context, this area should be reviewed as part of the ITLUS and Housing Strategy projects.
(iv) Conclusions The Panel considers that, in the long term, land within the Lockwood Road Investigation Area has a role in Bendigo’s settlement however this needs to be considered within the
Page 51 of 100
Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Amendment C215 Panel Report 13 November 2015 constraints of the industrial use neighbouring the site. The area should be reviewed in the context of ITLUS implementation and the Housing Strategy and no change is recommended through this Amendment. 6.5 Maiden Gully
(i) Background Located seven kilometres from the City Centre, Maiden Gully has seen a rapid transformation over the last 30 years, from a sparsely settled rural residential area with mostly scattered residential homes in a bushland setting, it has evolved into a more consolidated and growing commuter suburb of Bendigo which retains a sense of rural and natural environmental character. One of Bendigo’s key growth areas, the Maiden Gully PSP has been prepared by Council to co‐ordinate the development of fragmented land over a 20‐ 30 year timeframe. With a population of 4,257 (2011 Forecast .id), it is projected to increase to 8,955 by 2036, with the number of dwellings increasing from 1,435 in 2011 to 3,196 in 2031.33 Three submissions were received, seeking to be included in the UGB.
(ii) Former Eaglehawk Golf Club site, 255 Golf Links Road, Maiden Gully Background Submission 49 (Bendigo Golf Club) relates to the former Eaglehawk Golf Club site which ceased operation in 2013 following the amalgamation of the Bendigo and Eaglehawk Golf Clubs. With an area of 40.33 hectares, the site comprises an 18 hole golf course and includes a club house and associated car parking, outbuildings, two large dams and a mix of native and exotic vegetation. The golf course is visible in the top centre of Figure 6 below. The land is zoned FZ and the north eastern edge of the site is included in the BMO. ESO1 ‘Water Protection’ runs along the southern edge of the site. Immediately to the north is a railway line, land to the south is part FZ and part Public Conservation and Resource Zone (PCRZ). Land to the east is low density residential development, and Public Use Zone 7 (PUZ7). The site is over one kilometre from Marist College, 2.5 kilometres from the Eaglehawk Train Station and Town Centre, three kilometres from Maiden Gully Town Centre and Maiden Gully Primary School. The site is not contiguous with the UGB. The GBRS identifies the land as ‘Potential Longer Term Growth’. Submissions Mr Oliver from the Bendigo Golf Club explained that the decision to amalgamate the Bendigo and Eaglehawk Golf Clubs was taken to provide economic sustainability for the combined clubs. The amalgamation was partly based on the premise that the Eaglehawk Golf Course (which has now ceased operation) would be considered in Council’s review of the GBRS for future urban development, and therefore be included within the UGB in the current Amendment.34 The submission suggested that the community benefit will only be
33 Doc 15, slide 17 34 Spiire submission, Document 17, page 16
Page 52 of 100
Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Amendment C215 Panel Report 13 November 2015 realised if the Eaglehawk Club land is considered for potential residential development within a reasonable timeframe. The Club is struggling to service the debt over the land and provide ongoing maintenance and security to the vacant Eaglehawk site.35 They stated in their submission: The last asset of the Eaglehawk Golf Club represents a once in a lifetime opportunity for the City of Greater Bendigo, Regional tourism and the sport of golf in Bendigo, to create the legacy described in the Golf Strategy report. Without a favourite decision to include the Eaglehawk Golf Club land inside the Urban Growth Boundary as part of this review, the Bendigo Golf Club will be unable to financially continue to support this project. The opportunity will be lost to a developer who is able to ‘land bank’ and bide time until this decision is eventually made.36 Mr Pole, representing the Club, submitted there is clear strategic planning support for the designation of the former golf course at this time: The site is well positioned between two growth areas expected to experience growth over the next 20 years – Eaglehawk and Maiden Gully The location of the site is a logical extension to the UGB and will strengthen the role of Bendigo, delivering affordable land in a timely manner The land is generally clear of significant vegetation but large enough that areas of remnant vegetation can be retained as part of the development where appropriate The land is of a size, and in a single ownership, allowing for a Master Planned development without the competing interests and fragmentation of ownership The land will not require the termination of agricultural production The existing club rooms could be retained and used as a community centre (or other community use) There is ample land on site to accommodate Coliban Water’s strategy for a major sewer pump station to service the Maiden Gully area. Mr Pole referred to the Maiden Gully PSP which included the recommendation to Investigate the location of the Eaglehawk Golf Course for its potential to be included within the Urban Growth Boundary, and articulate a strategic intent for the future use of the land (page 73 Maiden Gully PSP). The Club submitted that the arrows identifying ’long term potential residential’ are not enough, that they want to start the journey now and the first step is to include the land within the UGB. Without that, no one would be willing to take the project on. Coliban Water advised that a sewerage trunk main will go through the area in 5 to 10 years and it would prefer to have the site formally recognised as a future growth area. Council considered as there are three major growth fronts currently under development and with Maiden Gully North East about to commence the Amendment process, there is no pressing need to create additional greenfield growth fronts. The long term potential of the
35 Spiire submission, Document 17, page 9 36 Bendigo Golf Club submission, Document 18.
Page 53 of 100
Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Amendment C215 Panel Report 13 November 2015 site to accommodate growth has been identified in the GBRS given the site adjoins the railway (and has the potential for a future railway station) and is proximate to the Marist Brothers School and neighbourhood activity centre proposed off Patas Road. While the Residential Growth Framework Plan recognises this potential, inclusion of the site within the UGB at this stage is premature and instead ought to be considered as part of the 2024 review. Discussion and conclusion The Panel understands the Club no longer requires the land and seeks the opportunity to raise capital to reinvest in the Club in Bendigo. The issue here is timing. The Residential Growth Framework Plan clearly identifies the former golf course site as Potential Longer Term Growth. Having regard to this, long term planning for infrastructure, including the mooted railway station and services could commence. Given the proximity of the site to the UGB, it is not considered a ‘logical inclusion’ for the purpose of this Amendment which is applying a short to medium term UGB. Therefore the Panel does not recommend including the land within the UGB as part of this Amendment. However, having regard to the site characteristics and in line with the conclusions and recommendations in Chapter 5 regarding planning for a long term UGB (beyond 2024), the Panel encourages Council to consider this site in future strategic work and perhaps send a stronger message about it development potential in subsequent planning. In the meantime the designation of Potential Long Term Growth is appropriate and provides enough direction for future service planning to commence. No change is recommended.
(iii) 10‐54 Hermitage Road, Maiden Gully (Balgownie Estate) Background 10‐54 Hermitage Road, Maiden Gully is an 80 hectare parcel of land, currently used as a vineyard and winery. It is zoned FZ and has approximately 30% vegetation coverage. An ESO1 (watercourse protection), VPO2 (Significant vegetation), LSIO and BMO apply to parts of the site. The site is contiguous with the UGB and is immediately surrounded by railway line to the north, residential development to the south, the Maiden Gully PSP area to the east and public forest to the west. The site sits within a slightly larger area bounded by Schumakers Lane to the east, Hermitage Road to the south and the railway line to the north.
Page 54 of 100
Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Amendment C215 Panel Report 13 November 2015
Figure 6 Location of 10‐54 Hermitage Road, Maiden Gully37 Evidence and submissions One submission (44) was received regarding this site from Villawood and Mr C De Silva of Mesh Planning. Mr De Silva originally made a supporting submission to the Amendment and also appeared as an expert witness for Villawood. The Panel accepted Mr De Silva’s expert witness statement but noted at the Directions Hearing that it has afforded it less weight as Mr De Silva is advocating a particular position rather than providing an independent opinion. In his evidence Mr De Silva considered the Balgownie site had not been assessed by Council as part of the preparation of the GBRS most probably due to its historical and current use as a winery and was therefore essentially disregarded without serious consideration for residential development. Having regard to the location of the site he considered it is an ‘infill opportunity’, the missing piece in Maiden Gully and there is no logic not to include it. It has the capacity to assist in the infrastructure delivery within the growth area. In his opinion the land should be included within the UGB as the land is strategically located, close to the town centre, is accessible and adjoining the railway line to the north, demonstrates 10 minute neighbourhood principles and has the capacity to assist in the delivery of the wider growth area of Maiden Gully. He considered while the Maiden Gully PSP area to the east should continue to be supported, the PSP area faces complex planning conditions as ownership is highly fragmented, a significant number of lots contain a dwelling in the middle of their properties and the
37 Figure 2 from Mr Milner’s expert witness statement.
Page 55 of 100
Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Amendment C215 Panel Report 13 November 2015 catchment is divided making the delivery of sewerage infrastructure, in particular, difficult. Mr De Silva considered the Balgownie Estate land would help deliver land and infrastructure to the area. Mr Milner, presenting evidence for Villawood, considered the Balgownie Estate land is part of an emerging urban structure west of Bendigo. Marong is an important anchor for Bendigo and will be a major place of employment. Maiden Gully is an obvious commuter location in the context of Council’s strategies to increase employment land in Marong and, in a big picture sense, it is a timely reminder that the Strategy could have taken a broader view of Maiden Gully which has further potential than that foreshadowed by the present GBRS. Given proximity to the Maiden Gully town centre, the inclusion of the land is aligned to the ‘10 minute neighbourhood’ principle. It is logical that Maiden Gully should be a growth area and the Balgownie Estate land could be a catalyst in this process, contributing a substantial development and contribute to a more holistic plan for the area. Mr Milner considered that the Balgownie Estate land does not open up a growth front, it is like a closed question. Mr Perez for Villawood (submissions 9, 10, 35, 44 and 57) summarised the development market in Bendigo as follows: Relatively small land holdings – generally with residences on them and people holding onto them for superannuation; Ownership patterns and difficulty in securing sufficient sized development sites at commercial rates; Issues around native vegetation on private land; Increased setback and compliance issues to satisfy Bushfire management and safety requirements; Historical uses of the land affecting the suitability for development such as contamination and heritage; Implications of the DCP are unknown; Funding requirements from financial institutions; Increasing complexity and costs in servicing development, such as drainage, sewerage and water; Affordability as a result of the above factors. He said that master planned developments, they set aside some higher density development and also accommodate larger blocks. In the case of Maiden Gully PSP land, buying 2 and 4 hectare properties to achieve critical mass is expensive and will take time. Realistically development of this area is projected over a 20‐30 year timeframe, he said. Mr Perez explained Maiden Gully has considerable service issues that will drive the staging of development of the area and are critical to the whole supply issue. Given the land fragmentation of the area and the constraints on service authorities to rollout infrastructure, with multiple land owners, large sites such as the Balgownie Estate and Eaglehawk Golf Club have a critical role to play. Mr Bartley did not seek a rezoning in this Amendment but sought for the land to be noted as ‘Future Urban and a structure plan would follow. The site is ‘the last piece of the pie’, next to the railway line and the Maiden Gully centre, serviceable and with no constraints. Mr
Page 56 of 100
Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Amendment C215 Panel Report 13 November 2015
Bartley submitted there is still uncertainty with the Maiden Gully Development Contribution Plan and price expectations and lifecycle of property owners in Maiden Gully mean its likely implementation will be over a 20‐30 year timeframe (also acknowledged by Council). Balgownie Estate will be able to deliver densities and infrastructure needed within the shorter timeframe. He cited the Amendment C190 panel report (Forest Park Maiden Gully) which found that channelling all future residential development into designated growth areas within the UGB may not be feasible and thus resulting in a reduced supply of housing: The Panel accepts the evidence of Mr Sells that it is likely that the actual supply may be constrained for the various reasons put forward, and will therefore likely be less than the figure submitted by Council. The Panel believes that even at Council’s estimate the addition of the subject land does not create an oversupply, and if the evidence of Mr Sells is correct, then the zoning of further areas of residential land is even more desirable. The Panel considers that a 125 hectare site in a single ownership provides numerous benefits. This includes the ability to provide housing in the shorter to medium term (over 14 years) compared to smaller and non‐contiguous lots in the Maiden Gully PSP area that are more likely to appreciate in the longer term. At the hearing he presented proforma letters of support from the other landholders within the balance of area bounded by west of Schumakers Lane, north of Hermitage Road and south of the railway line. Council expressed concern that if the focus was put on land that is easy to develop, then this could undermine interest in more challenging sites, such as the more fragmented parts of Maiden Gully PSP. Council submitted that the land sits outside the UGB but is adjacent to residential development and while there is merit for this site, the extension of the UGB at this time is considered premature. They contended that with three major growth fronts currently under development, and, with the Maiden Gully North East PSP to commence the amendment process by the end of the year, there is no pressing need to create additional growth fronts. Council recommended that the extension of the UGB be considered as part of the 2024 review and the framework plan be amended to indicate the land having ‘potential longer term growth’. Discussion Having regard to the location of the land, the Panel agrees that the site forms part of a potential Maiden Gully residential catchment and is essentially an infill site having regard to the forest and railway line to the west and north. Its location supports the 10 minute neighbourhood principle given its location to the Maiden Gully town centre and proximity to the future railway station to the north. Predominantly in single ownership, site assembly is more straightforward, but the Panel considers the major benefit of the site is the ability to facilitate service infrastructure which would also support the delivery of the more fragmented Maiden Gully PSP area to the east.
Page 57 of 100
Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Amendment C215 Panel Report 13 November 2015
The Panel supports the approach by Council to prepare structure planning for the fragmented Maiden Gully land to the east and getting a critical mass to service the development will take time. However having regard to the evidence, the Panel considers that development to the west would support the Maiden Gully PSP area, which is expected to progressively develop over some 20 to 30 years. Conclusions and recommendations The Panel considers that the land west of Schumakers Lane, north of Hermitage Road and south of the railway line should be included within the UGB as a logical inclusion having regard to its location and attributes and a strategic inclusion to support service infrastructure delivery into the wider Maiden Gully PSP area. The Panel recommends: Amend Clause 21.05 Framework Plan to include the land west of Schumakers Lane, north of Hermitage Road and south of the railway line within the Urban Growth Boundary and a notation ‘subject to detailed structure planning’.
(iv) Maiden Gully (Wicks Road Investigation Area) Background The Site is currently zoned farming with ESO1 (Watercourse Protection), ESO2 (Groundwater Recharge), VPO2 (Significant Vegetation), WMO and HO in part.
Page 58 of 100
Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Amendment C215 Panel Report 13 November 2015
Figure 7 Wicks Road Investigation Area38 Evidence and submissions Submission 50 (Tall Trees Pty Ltd) sought to have 57 hectares of land in Wicks Road, Maiden Gully included within the UGB. Mr Kusznirczuk for Tall Trees submitted that Council’s assessment of the property should be given little weight as it is primarily based on SED’s desktop assessment that: the site is likely to function as a wildlife corridor it could support some low density residential but bushfire risk is an issue residential development is not considered suitable. Mr Kusznirczuk submitted that the land should be included in the UGB and demonstrates a number of important attributes that support this proposition, being the site: is contiguous with UGB is close to the Bendigo CBD is well located in relation to existing and proposed residential development has frontage to the Calder Highway has good access to infrastructure and services is surrounded by land where the owners are also interested in residential development can be developed to manage environmental constraints and values. In support of his submissions Mr Kusznirczuk called evidence from Mr Kern in ecology and bushfire planning, Dr Bellette in ecology, Mr Klingberg in urban design and Ms Stoettrup in population and land supply. Ms Stoettrup’s evidence is addressed in Chapter 4.
38 From SED Residential Investigation Areas Analysis, November 2013.
Page 59 of 100
Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Amendment C215 Panel Report 13 November 2015
Dr Bellette’s evidence was that the northern part of the lot is the least constrained for development in vegetation terms and that in relation to clearing on the property: The majority of the property has native vegetation that will attract requirements for the removal of native vegetation under the State Planning Scheme. This includes areas that are treeless but have adequate native understorey (grasses and herbs) to qualify as native vegetation. He identified a property on the Inglewood–Rheola Road as being potentially suitable for offsets generated. Mr Kern undertook a detailed assessment of the property in relation to bushfire risk. He concluded that: The conclusions within the Residential Strategy that the site was assessed as having significant environmental and bushfire issues and is not considered appropriate for residential development was based on cursory information. More detailed consideration of these issues identifies that environmental and bushfire issues do not preclude the potential for residential development across some areas of the site. He went on to conclude that further detailed investigation is needed to finalise a design response for the site. Mr Klingberg in his evidence highlighted the supportive planning framework for residential development on the site and commented favourably on the concept design prepared for Tall Trees by David Lock and Associates. In response, Mr Cockerall for Council reconfirmed that Council remains opposed to inclusion of the property within the UGB. In Council’s written response, he highlighted the statement in the strategy that as a matter of planning principle the wholesale clearance of vegetation is not considered to be an appropriate response to managing bushfire risk. Discussion The Panel has considered the submissions and evidence from Tall Trees carefully, and at face value considers that the planning arguments for including the site within the UGB as put by Mr Kusznirczuk are persuasive. It is tempting to contemplate an extension of the UGB perhaps south along Olympic Parade to ‘straighten up’ the boundary. Having viewed the evidence in ecology and fire, the Panel also accepts that the property could support some residential development, albeit with careful design to protect both vegetation and manage bushfire risk. However, the Panel on balance does not consider that this ‘could’ must translate to ‘should’ in this instance. The site remains heavily constrained and there is not in the Panel’s view a demonstrated imperative to extend the UGB into this environment at this time. Uptake of land within the UGB should continue to be the primary focus. This is in contrast to Hermitage Road area in Maiden Gully outside the UGB where the Panel is supporting its inclusion due to its largely unconstrained nature.
Page 60 of 100
Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Amendment C215 Panel Report 13 November 2015
Development of the Wicks Road site would entail significant impact on a large remnant parcel of vegetation outside the UGB and require a highly finessed bushfire response. The Panel is not satisfied that, in a net community benefit sense, realising the development potential of the site outweighs the potential impact on the natural environment. Conclusion The Panel does not support the inclusion of the property within the UGB at this time. No change is recommended to the Amendment.
Page 61 of 100
Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Amendment C215 Panel Report 13 November 2015
7 Infill ‐ Consistency of policies and controls
7.1 Background The GBRS introduces the Compact City model which prioritises residential development within infill areas and in particular medium and higher density development within the CBD and inner areas of Bendigo. 7.2 Submissions A presentation was made by local planning practitioners represented by Mr Pendlebury and Mr Gilfedder of Sweett, Ms Tomkinson of The Tomkinson Group and Mr Pole of Spiire. Their primary concern was how to implement the strategy of infill and increasing density within the City, considering the range of other policies and overlay controls within the Planning Scheme in place which undermine the ‘Compact City’ approach. They submitted there needs to be another level to the Strategy which clearly focusses how the Compact City principle will translate into actual development on the ground. Ms Tomkinson of the Tomkinson Group (52) submitted: The policy intent is very similar to 2004, however there is not sufficient strengthening of the mechanisms or wording of clauses in such a way as to improve outcomes. For example, ‘The Compact Bendigo’ Clause 21.05 includes a neighbourhood character evaluation that is totally contradictory to the intent of the ‘Compact Bendigo’ concept. We see this as a missed opportunity to strengthen the relevant policies in order to more reliably achieve the outcomes sought by the BRDS (2014) and Amendment C215. At present, and as will continue if C215 is implemented in its current form, policies of improved density and diversity are at direct loggerheads with Heritage and Neighbourhood Character policies.39 She further submitted that policies which contradict each other within the MSS or the LPP are bound to result in fractured decision making and inconsistent determinations. The Amendment also does not provide Council with a clear means of opening up alternative development fronts, should the density and diversity targets provide unreachable. This could ultimately lead to unforeseen housing affordability problems for Bendigo, which is not the intent of the Amendment. The Planning Practitioners submitted the statutory planners are not coming to the same conclusion as the strategic planners. They considered there have been many instances over the last ten years when applications for planning approval for units or small lots/dwellings have been made, but objector sentiment and Council and the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) decisions have overridden the GBRS 2004.
39 Submission 52
Page 62 of 100
Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Amendment C215 Panel Report 13 November 2015
The Planning Practitioners’ submission recommended that the neighbourhood character and heritage policies be reviewed and revised to provide statutory bodies, Councillors and VCAT with clearer direction on the relative merits of competing policy goals. The matter of neighbourhood character was of particular concern to a number of submitters. Mr Ludeman observed that the Council is going to have to look at the neighbourhood character policies which apply across the whole City. He submitted: There is a tension between existing urban areas, infill and neighbourhood character. In the early days of ResCode, many Councils were trying to define neighbourhood character and what has happened over time, every development complies with ResCode and then the neighbourhood card is pulled out. He cited the Greater Geelong Amendment C40 Panel observation’s that the exercise is not about defining special character everywhere and not every area has special character. Ms Tomkinson submitted: Amendment C215 promotes a compact Bendigo, and as such should be amended to clearly support the future development of character, rather than referring back to supporting established character. Support of established character, without reference to the requirement for character to change and evolve, will be interpreted as a contradiction of the Compact Bendigo intent. The Panel has a valuable opportunity to suggest changes to the proposed Clauses 21.02 and 21.05 that will provide clearer support for the progressive intent of the policy when weighed up along with older and less progressive policies.40 The Planning Practitioners’ submission made a number of suggested changes: The Neighbourhood Character section in Clause 21.02 is at odds with achieving a compact Bendigo and the wording should be amended to achieving character change that is respectful, creative and aspirational, rather than simply acknowledging existing character Consider weighting the policies Reference to the old character study should be removed Reference to new character should be included Consideration for resource and infrastructure efficiency could be added to Clause 21.02 Reference to climate change should be added to Clause 21.02 Housing Density and Diversity Objective in Clause 21.02 is to be commended but needs to include a directive that this objective inform the assessment of a proposal against other, older policies
40 Document 73 (Submission 43), page 16
Page 63 of 100
Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Amendment C215 Panel Report 13 November 2015
Infrastructure, such as street trees, footpath treatments, fencing, road reserves, are not subject to character considerations and should be There should be policy statements to guide future character and an acknowledgement that character will change. Council acknowledged that a substantial proportion of the urban area is covered by planning controls in the form of overlays or policies that manage issues around residential character and there is some conflict between planning controls and planning policies in terms of consolidation and neighbourhood character. However the Strategy does make a number of recommendations to address these issues but will take time to implement. Council said that there is not a single response to this issue. Responses may include revisions to the MSS, identification of Key Development Sites, use of the Residential Growth Zone and development of design guidelines. Also there is a role for education to build greater community acceptance of the need for increased densities and diversity in housing. Some changes can be made immediately, but others will take longer. Council submitted the GBRS identifies a number of key infill sites within the existing urban area that are suitable for higher density housing due to range of factors including land size, access to services, facilities and transport and are potentially candidates for the Residential Growth Zone. In addition, a number of sites have been listed in proposed Clause 21.05‐2 as Key Development Sites. In the past a number of these sites have constraints and have been in the ‘too hard basket’. The GBRS recommends the appointment of a ‘Residential Development Facilitator’ whose role would be to get these sites market ready. Council also submitted that the Neighbourhood Character Overlay is currently being pulled back in the hospital precinct and some Heritage Overlays are also being pulled back. This is an example of Council identifying precincts where future growth and change should be prioritised based on their strategic location. In its reply, Council indicated that, as part of the Housing Strategy, a local planning policy is being prepared to guide decision making involving neighbourhood character. It identifies activity centres and surrounding neighbourhoods, transport routes and interchanges and other residential infill opportunities where character is expected to change over time. Mr Gilfedder identified a number suggestions to refine Clause 21.05 to ensure consistent wording between the GBRS and the clause. Council supported these suggestions. 7.3 Discussion It is clear to the Panel that the core principle of the GBRS is to promote development within the UGB and to consolidate existing areas. By identifying Key Development Sites within the Planning Scheme and by appointing a Development Facilitator, the delivery of the Strategy will be assisted. Bendigo has some complex environmental constraints inside the UGB. However, it appears that over time the Planning Scheme has been layered with a series of zones (including the LDRZ and RLZ), overlays (in particular the Development Plan Overlay and Design and Development Overlays which promote lower densities) and neighbourhood policies which do not necessarily support the GBRS. This situation could significantly frustrate the delivery
Page 64 of 100
Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Amendment C215 Panel Report 13 November 2015 of land supply for the City, especially as incremental infill is relied upon to accommodate development. At this stage in the strategic planning cycle, and to ensure the success of the Compact City model, the ITLUS implementation and the Housing Strategy should set out an implementation strategy to thoroughly review the current planning framework in Bendigo that promotes low density outcomes and policies in locations which should be facilitating future infill and medium/higher density development. The preparation of a future policy to provide greater certainty around the balance of neighbourhood character and the Compact City policies as discussed in Council’s reply is also supported. It is encouraging that this is a potential outcome of the Housing Strategy. 7.4 Conclusion and recommendations With regard to this Amendment, the Panel recommends that Neighbourhood Character in Clause 21.02 should cross reference the GBRS. Furthermore, Neighbourhood Character should be included within Clause 21.05 and be reconciled with the Compact Bendigo strategic direction. Within Clause 21.05 Housing Density and Diversity, further emphasis on increased density should be included. The Panel recommends: Amend the Neighbourhood Character section in Clause 21.02 to include: ‘The residents of Greater Bendigo value the neighbourhood character and as a consequence Council is committed to ensuring the neighbourhood character of Greater Bendigo is both protected and enhanced through new residential developments while furthering the objectives of the Greater Bendigo Residential Strategy 2014’. Amend Clause 21.03‐5 Implementation to delete the reference to the ‘Residential Development Strategy, 2004’, insert ‘Applying the Residential Growth Zone to identified Key Development Sites’ and include ‘Prepare Structure Plans and a Housing Strategy’ under ‘Further strategic work’. Replace the Incorporated Plan ‘City of Greater Bendigo Residential Growth Plan – (2009) (Amended 2012)’ with a plan consistent with the Bendigo Urban Area Residential Growth Framework Plan. Change the legend for the ‘Bendigo Urban Area Residential Growth Framework Plan’ by replacing the words ‘Major Infill and Renewal Site’ with the words ‘Key Development Site’ to ensure clearer cross referencing with Clause 21.05. When preparing the upcoming Housing Strategy and Integrated Transport and Land Use Strategy implementation, the City of Greater Bendigo should review the existing zoning, overlay and policy regime to facilitate infill development in strategic areas consistent with the Compact City principle within the GBRS.
Page 65 of 100
Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Amendment C215 Panel Report 13 November 2015
8 Infill areas
Council submitted that an important aspect of having a ‘Compact Bendigo’ is to make better use of land within the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). Over the past 10 years residential development within existing residential areas has played a strong role in contributing to the supply of housing. While this form of development cannot continue indefinitely at the strong development rates of the past, it is expect that it will continue to play a significant role.41 Several submissions were received which sought further rezoning within the UGB to accommodate increased residential development. In addition some submissions were received both in support and against removing density controls. 8.1 Epsom (Bounded by Goynes Road, Buckland and Saade Streets and Montis Lane, Epsom)
(i) Background Land bounded by Goynes Road, Buckland and Saade Streets and Montis Lane, Epsom and adjacent to existing residential development, is proposed to be rezoned from Farming Zone (FZ) to General Residential Zone (GRZ).
(ii) Submissions Written submissions 42, 55, 56 supported the proposed rezoning of the land. Submission 65 objected to the rezoning and submitted infrastructure works including paths, kerb and channel associated with subdivision of land in proximity to Goynes Road should be completed before any other residential zoning is undertaken. One submission (53) relates to six hectares of land bounded by Bendigo Creek, Buckland and Saade Streets and Montis Lane, 1 Buckland Street and 20 Montis Lane. It was submitted that this land should be rezoned to GRZ. The site is zoned Farming with little vegetation on the site and could accommodate 75 to 80 dwellings. In response to submission 53, Council submitted the land was not included in the Amendment as the recently completed Bendigo Flood Study identified the land as partially flood prone. Council’s submission acknowledged the owner’s flood assessment which indicated flooding issues can be managed to the satisfaction of the North Central Catchment Management Authority (CMA) (who indicated support for the GRZ subject to the application of the Land Subject to Inundation Overlay (LSIO)). Despite this information, Council submitted it was not in a position to include the land within the Amendment and that the site would be further considered in the Housing Strategy.
41 Council submission, page 29
Page 66 of 100
Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Amendment C215 Panel Report 13 November 2015
(iii) Discussion The Panel considers completion of infrastructure is a matter for compliance as part of the subdivision process and is a separate issue to rezoning. The proposed rezoning as exhibited is appropriate and would facilitate infill residential development as supported by the GBRS. With regard to submission 53, considering the advice of the CMA, the Panel considers that the land should be rezoned and the ultimate development would be designed considering constraints on the site, such as flooding. However, having regard to proper notification this should not occur in this Amendment but be considered in a future amendment as part of the implementation of the Housing Strategy.
(iv) Conclusions and recommendations The Panel supports the proposed zoning as exhibited and the rezoning of the balance of the land in a future amendment. The Panel recommends: The City of Greater Bendigo consider the properties bounded by Bendigo Creek, Buckland and Saade Streets and Montis Lane, known as 1 Buckland Street and 20 Montis Lane, should be further considered in the upcoming Housing Strategy with a view to future rezoning to General Residential Zone and applying the Land Subject to Inundation Overlay as required. 8.2 Espom (91 Howard Street, Epsom)
(i) Background 91 Howard Street is currently in the Industrial 3 Zone (IN3Z). The land to the east and south is in the GRZ, to the west in the PCRZ and FZ, and to the north in the Public Use Zone 1 (PUZ1) for the Bendigo Water Reclamation Plant (BWRP). No overlays affect the land. The Wildfire Management Overlay (WMO) covers the forest to the west. The land is held in two titles and is within the UGB. The Amendment did not propose any changes to the zoning or future planning framework for the land. Substantial submissions were made in relation to the site from the owners, Mr and Mrs Dean (31), who wish the site to be rezoned for residential use, and from Council and Coliban Water (54), who consider the land unsuitable for rezoning, primarily because of its proximity to the BWRP. A late submission (L3) from the Environment Protection Authority (EPA) was received and accepted by the Panel.
(ii) Evidence and Submissions Ms Porritt for the Deans highlighted the suggested advantages of the site for urban development including: Within the UGB Adjacent to existing residential development Proximity to shops, schools, Epsom Train Station and other infrastructure Its size (approximately 16ha) and single ownership.
Page 67 of 100
Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Amendment C215 Panel Report 13 November 2015
Ms Porritt called Ms Todaro to give planning evidence and she reinforced the above points and outlined the State and local policy support for urban development at this location. Mr Allen was called to give fire evidence by the Deans and stated in summary that subject to detailed design, the fire risk issues should be able to be managed with a combination of buffers, subdivision design and suitable Bushfire Attack Level (BAL) ratings on the property within the parameters of Clause 52.47. He noted that as the BMO does not apply to the site these measures would need to be implemented through other measures, perhaps a section 173 agreement. A preliminary report on vegetation was also provided, prepared by Ecolink Consulting. This discussed the conditions and options for vegetation on site and concluded that some development could be contemplated, perhaps by protecting vegetation on the southern portion of the site as an offset. Council did not support any change to the planning framework for the land. Their response to the Dean’s submission indicated their main opposition stems from what they see as development constraints being: Primarily the buffer requirements for the BWRP to protect its current and future operations Significant fire and vegetation issues The need to buffer Industrial 1 Zone (IN1Z) land to the west. Council submitted that the land could be considered for green wedge zoning in the Housing Strategy. Coliban Water called planning evidence from Mr Glossop who outlined the State and local policy framework relating to the BWRP and 91 Howard Street. His planning assessment concluded that an appropriately drafted Environmental Significance Overlay (ESO) would the proper planning tool to acknowledge the buffer requirements of the BWRP. He also concluded that the planning case for 91 Howard Street to be residential requires further consideration of the issues and some of the land may be constrained by the ESO mentioned above. On the reconvened Panel day, evidence was called on the BWRP by both Coliban Water (Ms Freeman) and the Deans (Dr Bellair). The Environment Protection Authority (EPA) also provided a submission on buffer distances to the reconvened hearing. They emphasised the importance of buffers and outlined the approach set out in Publication 1518, Recommended Separation Distances for Industrial Residual Air Emissions. The two experts called by the parties and Mr Narenthiran from EPA all agreed that under Publication 1518, the separation distance required for a mechanical/biological plant is straightforward to calculate and largely dependent on a predicted population. The ranges presented in the expert witness statements were all in accord with the methodology and ranged from 470 metres for the current population up to 530 metres for a population of 150,000 in future. The EPA also suggested a buffer of up to 1,760 metres on the basis that lagoon storage of secondary treated wastewater could be used to capture untreated wastewater under upset conditions, and thus the lagoons should be categorised as ‘Aerobic ponds’.
Page 68 of 100
Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Amendment C215 Panel Report 13 November 2015
Ms Freeman for Coliban Water undertook site specific indicative odour modelling in her evidence which showed the 5 Odour Unit (OU) contour affecting 91 Howard Street under two upset condition scenarios; but not under the normal operating condition scenarios.42 Dr Bellair, called by the Deans, did not undertake his own dispersion modelling and did not take issue with the modelling or results provided by Ms Freeman. The experts diverged however on the policy and planning outcomes that might result from the odour modelling. Ms Freeman concluded that residential development on Howard Street might result in greater frequency of complaints under normal operating conditions, increased number of residents affected during upset conditions, increased upgrade costs at the BWRP, more difficulty in obtaining approvals for the upgrades to the BWRP and reduction in operation flexibility. She recommended that the land at 91 Howard Street not be rezoned for residential development. Dr Bellair on the other hand , in his characterisation of the uses at the BWRP, concluded that the existing separation distances are adequate and should not preclude rezoning of the site. He also noted that there is a low level of complaint from the existing residential areas in the vicinity and that improvements in odour control from the BWRP could be expected as the population and treatment increases. Mr Fiedler for Coliban Water made extensive submissions at the reconvened Hearing in relation to wastewater treatment buffers in other planning schemes, and outlined the relevant planning policy framework. Ms Porritt in submissions for the Deans emphasised the need to provide well located housing with good services, and that the BWRP will need to meet existing licence conditions in relation to odour. She submitted it should not be protected by the planning system against poor performance against those conditions.
(iii) Discussion The Panel notes that rezoning of the land at 91 Howard Street has not been exhibited as part of the Amendment and the Panel does not consider it could support such a proposal at this point without further consideration of the issues and the giving of further public notice. The Panel also notes that for all the talk of a buffer to the BWRP, there is not one in place through, for example, an ESO, nor a seriously entertained planning proposal to insert one so far as the Panel is aware. The Panel notes the non‐buffer constraints on the land such as native vegetation and fire, and considers that subject to further investigation they are unlikely to prevent some residential use and development of the property and has regard to the existing urban zone that applies to the land (IN3Z). The advantages of the site for some development as put by Ms Porritt are generally accepted by the Panel. This leaves two buffer issues: whether a buffer is needed for the IN1Z land to the west, and the buffer issue to the Coliban Water BWRP.
42 Using the CALPUFF model recommended by EPA.
Page 69 of 100
Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Amendment C215 Panel Report 13 November 2015
On the former, the Panel did not hear substantive submissions and this is an issue that would require further investigation. The Panel understands that the supply of IN3Z land is not constrained in Bendigo. In relation to the buffer to the BWRP, the Panel observes that establishing buffers to such facilities is important for the broader community to minimise the number of people affected by impacts such as odour, and to ensure that such facilities are provided in appropriate locations. The Panel also accepts that the ESO is an appropriate tool to establish such buffers and that this has commonly been used for other wastewater treatment plants. However, in establishing such buffers, the Panel considers that the interests of other landowners must be fairly considered, and that the imposition of an ‘off‐site’ buffer must be carefully weighed against other planning considerations. In this case, given the status of planning, the Panel does not need to conclude a position on where, or if, an off‐site buffer (which may affect 91 Howard Street) is required. The differing positions of the parties, and particularly the odour experts are noted, and if a firm proposal for a buffer, or indeed a rezoning of Howard Street comes forward, these positions will need to be explored in more detail. The questions that will need to be explored will include to what extent should the operation and perhaps location of new facilities on the Coliban Water site be constrained to points north to minimise off‐site impacts and what broader economic impact might this have on the Bendigo community compared to some level of constraint on 91 Howard Street.
(iv) Conclusions and recommendation The Panel concludes that 91 Howard Street is likely to have some residential development potential but there are significant planning issues to be resolved before such a proposal could be considered, including whether a buffer from the Coliban Water plant needs to affect the property. No change is required to the Amendment. The Panel recommends: The City of Greater Bendigo consider the property at 91 Howard Street in the context of its Housing Strategy with a view to future rezoning of all or part of the land for residential use subject to detailed consideration of any buffer needs and environmental constraints. 8.3 Huntly (Lot 33G Sawmill Road, Huntly)
(i) Background The Amendment proposes to rezone 44.5 hectares of land known as CA8 and 149 Sawmill Road and 17 Wills Road, Huntly from RLZ to GRZ. A submission was received which sought further rezoning in this immediate area.
(ii) Submissions Submission 12 (M Carr) submitted that Lot 33G Sawmill Road, located immediately to the west of the land subject to rezoning and currently zoned RLZ, should be included in the re‐
Page 70 of 100
Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Amendment C215 Panel Report 13 November 2015 zoning of the north side of Sawmill Road. The submission argued the parcel was identified in the Amendment C136 Panel report (for the Huntly Township Plan) but has not been considered in this Amendment. Council, in its response to submissions in the Council Minutes on 6 May 2015, responded that the land in question is outside the area identified for growth in the Huntly Township Plan. While the land may be suitable for residential development it cannot be included within the Amendment at this time as it was not exhibited.
(iii) Discussion The land in Huntly proposed to be rezoned by this Amendment comprises a series of large developable sites. The Panel notes that the portion of land to the north of Sawmill Road (including 33G Sawmill Road) and fronting the Midland Highway comprises much smaller lots, commensurate with lots on the western side of the Midland Highway, which are zoned GRZ. On the face of it, having regard to the size of the lots, proximity to other residential zones and considering the expansion of the GRZ immediately to the east under this Amendment, the zoning of RLZ does not make the most of the land for infill development and the land fronting Midland Highway and including 33G Sawmill Road could be appropriately considered for a zone which provides opportunities for infill development.
(iv) Conclusions and recommendations The Panel supports the consideration of 33G Sawmill Road for infill development. Given notification has not occurred this should be considered in a future Amendment with the implementation of Housing Strategy. The Panel recommends: The City of Greater Bendigo review the zoning of 33G Sawmill Road and land fronting the Midland Highway in the context of its Housing Strategy with a view to future residential use. 8.4 Huntly (124 Pasley Street, Huntly)
(i) Background The land is located within the UGB, is 1.9 hectares in area and is currently zoned LDRZ and subsequent Schedule 4 to the Development Plan Overlay (Density Management Controls) (DPO4). The land is not constrained by native vegetation nor drainage issues and is serviced with reticulated water and sewerage services. The site adjoins one neighbour who uses the parcel of land as a driveway access to their home at the rear of their land. All other boundaries are owned either by Coliban Water or the City of Greater Bendigo.
(ii) Submissions Mr and Mrs Stevens (34) sought to have the land included within the GRZ. They submitted the character and township of Huntly has changed and other developments many kilometres
Page 71 of 100
Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Amendment C215 Panel Report 13 November 2015 further away from Huntly and Bendigo townships have introduced more conventional residential sized lots. Council advised that under the LDRZ the minimum subdivision size is 0.2 hectares (2,000 square metres) if land can be connected to reticulated sewerage. While DPO4 generally specifies a larger minimum lot size, in this area the DPO4 does not specify any lot size. There is potential for the land to accommodate seven lots, including a new road, without a change in zoning. Council considered the submission supports the intent of the GBRS which focusses on infill development opportunities within the UGB, however they submitted the GBRS also recognises protection of the character of any area is important and in this instance that character is defined by larger residential lot sizes. Council submitted any changes would also need to go through a public consultation process and at this stage an isolated rezoning would not be supported. They also advised that the IAC considered that land within Epsom and Huntly should be further analysed for its long term potential in a similar way to White Hills, although this is not considered to be a short term priority.
(iii) Discussion The subject site is one lot within a larger developed area and in this context, an isolated rezoning of a single lot through this Amendment is not appropriate. Furthermore, in this instance, there is opportunity on this site for further development under the existing zone. However this example raises a number of issues for the Panel. The GBRS, with its core ‘Compact City’ policy and land supply projections rely heavily on Bendigo delivering infill development. While the Panel accepts that the LDRZ has a role in managing character and is also a mechanism to manage environmental constraints, given the strong policy direction in the GBRS for infill development, it is now time for Council to strategically review where those density controls ought to apply.
(iv) Conclusion The Panel does not recommend changes to the zoning for 124 Pasley Street, Huntly in this Amendment. However, having regard to its findings in Chapter 7, it recommends the zoning regime in this area be reviewed, whether through the upcoming Housing Strategy or further strategic work. 8.5 Maiden Gully
(i) Background The Maiden Gully PSP has been prepared to prioritise and facilitate infill development within part of Maiden Gully and Council advised an amendment will follow. This Amendment seeks to remove an existing Design and Development Overlay (DDO10) from Precinct 6 (part of the Maiden Gully Structure Plan Area adjacent to the Calder Highway) which currently applies a minimum subdivision size of 1,500 square metres per lot.
Page 72 of 100
Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Amendment C215 Panel Report 13 November 2015
(ii) Submissions Maiden Gully Structure Plan Area – Precinct 6 A number of submissions supported the Amendment (3, 7, 9, 10 and 32). Ms Cotter who appeared for QOD Property Group (32) submitted that the removal of the DDO is supported, as …it will facilitate the form and scale of development consistent with the objectives of the Maiden Gully Structure Plan, and Residential Strategy.43 However submissions 14 and 19, also located in Precinct 6 Maiden Gully, did not support removal of the DDO from the land between Maiden Gully Creek and Calder Highway. They were primarily concerned that the findings of the 2014 Bendigo Flood Study found most of the area is flood prone and more houses and development will increase flooding. In addition, there will be increases in traffic, rubbish and pollution as a result of more development, as well as an increase in rates. Submission 57 (Homer Beacon Properties c/‐ Villawood) supported the removal of DDO10 but expressed concern regarding the approach taken to managing native vegetation in growth areas and the resulting impact on lot yields, especially in reference to the cost of offsetting vegetation under the new vegetation framework. Mr Perez of Villawood submitted a more flexible approach is needed in managing vegetation in residential areas. Council submitted that the issues raised in this submission with regard to managing native vegetation management will need to be addressed as part of the Maiden Gully PSP Amendment that will be exhibited in the near future. 8 Settlers Place, Maiden Gully Submission 15 (S & E Brown and L & V White) referred to 8 Settlers Place. They explained that their property is located just outside Precinct 6 and therefore falls just outside the Maiden Gully PSP. They submitted the current DDO should be removed, bringing them in line with new subdivisions that are also outside the PSP area such as Lyndham Avenue and new subdivision at Edwards Road. They would like to subdivide their 2,800 square metre block into three lots comprising 930 square metres each. This would bring them in line with other properties in the area (ie. next door is 1,600 square metres and Lot 7 is 1,500 square metres ). In response to this submission, Council stated that the Amendment does not propose to remove the DDO10 from this part of Maiden Gully. Although the site is within the UGB and is zoned for residential purposes, and while increased densities within existing residential areas is supported as a matter of principle, this area is already developed as opposed to land in ‘Precinct 6’ which has a higher development potential. Council submitted that, given the siting of houses on lots in the immediate area, it is unlikely that there would be any significant yield from the area. In addition, Council submitted as the Amendment did not propose to remove the DDO10 over this area, it does not know what the views of the landowners would be. As the land was not included in the exhibited Amendment it cannot be included within the Amendment at this stage.
43 QOD Property Group submission at Hearing (document 16)
Page 73 of 100
Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Amendment C215 Panel Report 13 November 2015
137‐155 Edwards Road, Maiden Gully Written submission 16 (C Burns) requested the strip of properties 137‐155 Edwards Road, Maiden Gully be considered for rezoning in the current Amendment. This strip of seven houses is the only housing in the area zoned LDRZ, with other housing being GRZ. All are connected to town water and could be connected to a sewerage point at 153 Edwards Road. The area nearby also includes a farmlet type block, 131 Edwards Street, also zoned GRZ and land at 120 Edwards is the Villawood development, with a proposal for a 17 lot subdivision. The submission also referred to Forest Park. The zoning was said to be historical only and no longer consistent with current surroundings. Rezoning the small strip would provide consistency of planning across the Maiden Gully local area. Council considered the submission at its meeting of 6 May. The LDRZ was a likely translation from the pre‐amalgamation Planning Scheme and, under the current zoning, allows for subdivision to 2,000 square metres if the land is serviced. The site could be further considered as part of the Housing Strategy.
(iii) Discussion Maiden Gully Structure Plan Area – Precinct 6 The Panel understands the concerns of submitters with regard to the impacts of increased density and that the area will undergo change over time. However the GBRS strategically identifies Maiden Gully as a key growth area and the Panel agrees that removing the DDO10 for this area, which is zoned GRZ and in close proximity to the town centre, to allow subdivisions of less than 1,500 square metres will assist in delivering land supply and the ‘Compact City’ model. 8 Settlers Place, Maiden Gully With regard to 8 Settlers Place, the Panel understands why this area was not included within the Maiden Gully PSP area as it is substantially developed with a particular ‘bush suburban’ low density character. Given the development of the area, it is unlikely that substantial additional yield would be realised. In this context the DDO10 should continue to apply to this area. 137‐155 Edwards Road, Maiden Gully The Panel has inspected this area and, having reviewed the Planning Scheme maps, notes that the properties in question are affected by a series of environmental overlays including the VPO, ESO and BMO. The properties are heavily vegetated and are surrounded to the south and west by FZ. Given the environmental constraints on the site, no changes to the zoning are recommended.
(iv) Conclusions The removal of DDO10 as proposed in this Amendment is supported to assist in delivering infill development outcomes in the Maiden Gully area.
Page 74 of 100
Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Amendment C215 Panel Report 13 November 2015
It is recommended that the Council undertake a strategic review of its Low Density Residential areas and overlays within the UGB in line with discussion in Chapter 7. Council has made the case for infill over sprawl, and in that context, needs a zoning regime which supports this approach. However, at this stage, given the strong bush suburban character of the sites, the Panel does not support the rezoning or removal of the DDO10 at Settlers Place. Nor does that Panel support change to the zoning of properties at 137 to 155 Edwards Road, Maiden Gully and considers this is a matter for further review as part of the upcoming Housing Strategy. 8.6 White Hills
(i) Background A number of submissions were received requesting changes to zoning in the White Hills area to enable subdivision. The White Hills area is described in the SED report Residential Investigation Areas Report as a ‘conglomerate of sites’ and ‘represents the most complex future development opportunity given the diversity of property scales, large number of individual owners and established land uses’. The area is a mix of LDRZ, GRZ and FZ with a series of overlays based on character and environmental values and constraints.
Figure 8 White Hills Investigation Area44
(ii) Submissions Written submission 13 (PE and A Shanahan) requested that Council consider rezoning the White Hills area, including their land at 25‐47 Backhaus Street, to be consistent with land to
44 SED Report Residential Investigation Areas Analysis, November 2013
Page 75 of 100
Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Amendment C215 Panel Report 13 November 2015 the north and east. The site is able to be fully serviced, close to transport, schools, shopping, recreation and complies with the ’10 minute’ neighbourhood principle. The submission suggests the whole area of Plumridge Street to the south, Buckland Street to the north, St Killian Street to the east and Watson Street to the west are waiting to be developed for ‘much needed residential land’. Written submission 37 (Tomkinson Group on behalf of the Austin Family) requested the FZ and LDRZ land within the area be considered for immediate rezoning or Development Plan review under Amendment C215, as it is suitable for providing additional housing needs for Bendigo. Lot sizes are currently restricted to two hectares. The GBRS provides strategic support for rezoning this area to GRZ with a more suitable DPO. Mr Wakefield (64) submitted his property of combined lots of 10 hectares in Church and St Killian Streets is currently zoned LDRZ, is subject to a SLO (Bush Garden and Semi‐Bush Residential Areas): DPO4 (Density Management Area) with a minimum subdivision area of two hectares; and VPO2 (Significant Vegetation) with a 70% vegetation coverage. Reticulated services could be available. Mr Wakefield submitted that the blocks would be prime infill: they are serviced with public transport, within 300 metres of the Botanic Precinct and have access to the linear bike path and Weeroona College. He submitted the existing zoning and overlay is overly restrictive and should be revised. Submission 21 (A Slobodian) related to a 1.2 hectare property at 51‐59 Church Street, also zoned LDRZ with a DPO minimum subdivision size of two hectares. It was submitted that the GBRS provides strategic support for rezoning the area to GRZ and applying a more suitable DPO to maximise natural assets in the area while at the same time making use of existing infrastructure services and employing better management of land in the areas close to fire danger. The submission was accompanied by signatures from 12 landowners in support of undertaking strategic work to review the LDRZ and FZ zoning, stating that White Hills is a rapidly growing suburb with many subdivisions and new houses and supported by two primary schools, local shops and with easy access to the Epsom Shopping Centre. Most submitters referred to the findings of the IAC report which found that the White Hills area has been allowed to drift along with little direction. There is currently a range of historical planning controls based on existing subdivision size, and, having regard to the 10 Minute neighbourhood and the Compact City strategies, the existing two hectare minimum subdivision size needs to be revisited. In the view of the IAC, doing nothing is not an option. Council submitted that there is strong landowner interest within the White Hills area to further develop land, and the IAC recommended that the White Hills area be reviewed as a matter of priority. Council submitted the area will be assessed during the Housing Strategy to determine development opportunities. At the same time Council also noted the area has strong environmental values due to the vegetation coverage and therefore development opportunities may be limited.
Page 76 of 100
Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Amendment C215 Panel Report 13 November 2015
(iii) Discussion The White Hills area is a key example of the complex planning environment within urban Bendigo. The area is within the UGB and has very good access to facilities and development within the area would support the ’10 Minute neighbourhood’ principle within the GBRS. The existing planning controls do not allow this area to add to the residential supply of land within the UGB. It is noted that there are environmental and character overlays and potential constraints due to proximity of industrial uses. As part of the further analysis of this area, these issues need to be balanced against the benefits of the ‘Compact City’ model. While rezoning should not proceed under this Amendment, further strategic work should be undertaken as a matter of priority, including reviewing the existing density control (DPO4) to consider a more effective planning regime that will support infill development opportunities. The Panel notes Council’s intention to undertake this work in the upcoming Housing Strategy.
(iv) Conclusions and recommendations The Panel considers Council should undertake a PSP for White Hills, including development contributions and further planning work with Coliban Water. As with the Huntly and Maidens Gully areas, it is recommended that the Council undertake a strategic review of its Low Density Residential areas within the UGB. While character is an important factor, not all character needs to be protected. Council has made the case for infill over sprawl, and in that context, needs a zoning regime which supports this approach. The Panel recommends: The City of Greater Bendigo in its Housing Strategy undertake structure planning for the White Hills area. 8.7 Strathfieldsaye
(i) Background Strathfieldsaye is a small residential township and semi‐rural area located approximately 10 kilometres south east of Bendigo CBD. The town has a current population of 5,422 and a projected population of 10,000 by 2031 (forecast by .id.) It is expected that 1,400 new dwellings will be constructed in Strathfieldsaye by 2030. Facilities include shopping, a school and services. The Strathfieldsaye Township Plan 2009 (the Plan) was prepared and introduced in the Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme via Amendment C137. However the Plan for Strathfieldsaye was not fully implemented into the Planning Scheme and there are areas identified and planned for residential development that have not been rezoned at this point. The strategy recommended that these areas be rezoned as part of the implementation of the GBRS (other than the area within the buffer to an intensive animal industry).45 In Strathfieldsaye, the Amendment seeks to:
45 Greater Bendigo Residential Strategy, Vol 2. Page 71
Page 77 of 100
Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Amendment C215 Panel Report 13 November 2015
Rezone 52.4 hectares of land known as 1, 13, 18 and 39 McCleans Road, 9, 31 and 57 Walmer Street, part of 29 Emu Creek Road and 475, 483 Somerset Park Road and part 1108 Strathfieldsaye Road, Strathfieldsaye from a RLZ to a GRZ Rezone 45.7 hectares of land known as part 1108, CA 49 Strathfieldsaye Road, part 29, 85, 87, 97 Emu Creek Road and 211 and Lot 1 LP 141858 Bakers Lane from RLZ to LDRZ Rezone 5.1 hectares of land known as CA 49A Walmer Street and CA 1 Strathfieldsaye Road from RLZ and Public Use 6 Zone (PUZ6) to a Public Conservation and Resource Zone (PCRZ) Delete Schedule 4 to the Development Plan Overlay from approximately 7 hectares of land known as 89 and 92 Taylors Lane, 139 Bakers Lane and part of 49 Regent Street, Strathfieldsaye Apply Schedule 6 to the Design and Development Overlay (DDO6) to approximately 10.25 hectares of land known as parts 1, 18, 39 and 13 McCleans Road and part 29 Emu Creek Road. A number of submissions were received from property owners within Strathfieldsaye which requested further rezoning, changes to the configuration of zoning, or objected to the rezoning. VicRoads (33) referred to the rezoning of land in the vicinity of Bendigo‐Redesdale Road (Strathfieldsaye Road) from RLZ to GRZ and advised that the increase in housing density, and associated traffic demand, may require improvements to the Strathfieldsaye Road and Mannes Lane intersection. Further consideration should be given to forming and connecting internal road links in a way which minimises impact on the arterial road corridor. Contributions should be sought from developers.
(ii) 698 Strathfieldsaye Road, Strathfieldsaye Background The subject site, 0.5 hectares in size, is currently in two zones: partly within the GRZ and partly in the LDRZ. DPO4 applies to the part of the land zoned LDRZ with a two hectare minimum subdivision size (the LDRZ has a minimum subdivision size of 2,000 square metres if land is serviced). It is within the UGB. The land contains a single dwelling and dam at the rear of the property. Submissions Submission 4 (O and E Curnow) sought to have the balance of this land included within the GRZ and have the DPO4 control removed. Given their personal circumstances, the landowner requested the rezoning be considered as part of Amendment C215 instead of waiting for the finalisation of the Housing Strategy. Under the existing regime, three additional lots should be achievable. The proposal would result in residential development within the UGB consistent with the pattern of development immediately abutting the site. Mr Winfield for the owner submitted that the rezoning was justified as the land is within the UGB, forms part of the Strathfieldsaye Township and abuts GRZ land to the south and south east, the existing ESO1 (Watercourse Protection) runs in the area generally containing the dwelling and would have no impact on the proposed subdivision, there is minimal vegetation
Page 78 of 100
Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Amendment C215 Panel Report 13 November 2015 on site and all services are provided to the land. The owners made a submission to the draft GBRS but the land was not included in Amendment C215 and this was considered unreasonable. In response, Council consider that the site immediately abuts a residential area, is able to be serviced and is a logical extension to the GRZ. Issues around flooding could be considered at planning permit stage. Council stated that a rezoning should be supported, however it is unable to include the land within this Amendment. The submission should be considered as part of the Housing Strategy that is currently being developed. At the Hearing however, Council submitted that if the Panel saw fit to support the request, Council would not object. Discussion and conclusion It seems to the Panel there is general agreement that there is a residential future for this land and that planning controls should be able to manage any risks and protect environmental values. The Panel is reluctant to support direct rezoning of the land through Amendment C215 given it was not included in the Amendment and there has been no notice of it. However the Panel considers that Council could consider a site specific rezoning in advance of the Housing Strategy. The Panel recommends: The City of Greater Bendigo review the zoning of 698 Strathfieldsaye Road, Strathfieldsaye in the context of its Housing Strategy with a view to future residential use.
(iii) 29 Emu Creek Road, Strathfieldsaye Background Included within the UGB, the site comprises 43 hectares and is currently zoned RLZ. Affected by a WMO, VPO1 (Wildlife Corridor Protection), it has 70% vegetation coverage and is affected by DPO26 (Strathfieldsaye Township). The Amendment proposes to rezone approximately half of the land to GRZ and the remaining half to LDRZ. Submissions Mr McLean (5) sought to change the configuration of the proposed GRZ/LDRZ rezoning on the site, to increase the proportion of the GRZ. Council’s submission explained the land is included within the Strathfieldsaye Township Plan 2009 which identified that the cleared western half of the site fronting Emu Creek as suitable for residential development, while the remainder of the vegetated site to the east should be rezoned to a LDRZ with a minimum lot size of two hectares. The land was not rezoned as part of Amendment C137 as DPCD (now DELWP) advised that this would create an oversupply of residential land. It was the understanding at the time that there would be a future amendment to rezone this land.
Page 79 of 100
Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Amendment C215 Panel Report 13 November 2015
Council submitted that having inspected the site and reviewed the extent of vegetation, that the zone boundary could be shifted further to the east but not to the extent suggested in the submission. Council produced a ‘mud map’ showing the revised realignment compared with the exhibited version and that proposed by the submitter. Discussion The Panel made an unaccompanied inspection of the site and it is clear that much of the site is heavily vegetated. Given the size of the land and the vegetation on the site, the configuration proposed by Council in response to the submission is appropriate. Recommendation The Panel recommends: Amend the extent of the General Residential Zone and Low Density Residential Zone at 29 Emu Street, Strathfieldsaye in accordance with the map in the City of Greater Bendigo Attachments to Submission – Response to submission 5, as presented at the Panel Hearing.
(iv) 467 to 483 Somerset Park Road, Strathfieldsaye Background The site is included within the UGB. Two lots 475 and 483 Somerset Road (comprising four hectares) are proposed to be rezoned from RLZ to GRZ. 467 Somerset Road (immediately to the north) is zoned RLZ and is common property, and used for non‐potable water supply to farming enterprises in the area. Submissions Mr Perez of Villawood representing Mr D Arthur (35) supported the rezoning of land at 475 and 483 Somerset Park Road as proposed by the Amendment. The submission requested that the land at 467 Somerset Road also be rezoned to GRZ. It was submitted that in the future, once a reticulated potable water supply is connected to these lots, the supply dam will no longer be required and there may be an opportunity for part of the land to be made available for residential development. Council submitted that rezoning 467 Somerset Park Road as part of Amendment C215 is premature as other landowners affected by the common property rely on the land for water supply, generally for farm related purposes. The parcel is within the UGB and if at some future stage it is no longer required for water supply purposes, it would be appropriate to rezone the land. Discussion The Panel considers the zoning of the land should not turn on whether the land is within common property. Given the proximity of adjoining land to be rezoned to GRZ, and the development of the neighbouring parcels proposed to be rezoned under this Amendment. It is considered the land could be GRZ’ however, having regard to proper notification this should not occur in this amendment but be considered in a future Amendment with the implementation of Housing Strategy.
Page 80 of 100
Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Amendment C215 Panel Report 13 November 2015
Recommendation The Panel recommends: The City of Greater Bendigo review the zoning of 467 Somerset Park Road, Strathfieldsaye in the context of its Housing Strategy with a view to future residential use.
(v) 783‐797 Strathfieldsaye Road, Strathfieldsaye Background The submission relates to land on Strathfieldsaye Road that is currently in the GRZ with no density overlays. The Strathfieldsaye Township Plan (a reference document) recommends 1,500 square metres minimum lot sizes, however there are no overlays that require a particular density. Submissions Ms Tomkinson appeared for Ms Valentini (43) and explained the submission had been made to demonstrate the tensions between the various policies, zones and strategies in the Scheme, as discussed in Chapter 7 of this report. She explained Amendment C137, which implemented the Strathfieldsaye Township Plan, did not propose to rezone the land and the 1,500 square metres ‘preferred density’ is not referred to in the Planning Scheme but is included in an appendix in the Township Plan. Therefore, while the 1,500 square metres reference is found in the Strathfieldsaye Township Plan, it was never formally exhibited to the landowner, nor has it been translated into a statutory planning control. The owner is currently in the midst of a planning permit application to subdivide the land under the GRZ and the 1,500 square metres provision in the reference document is driving the assessment of the application. It was submitted that the development of 1,500 square metres lots is an under‐development of the site. The site is included within the UGB, is zoned for residential purposes, is proximate to the local primary school and demonstrates the 10 minute neighbourhood principles. The submission sought to have reference to this density removed so that residential development is consistent with the GBRS. Mr Mooney (submission L1) a neighbour to the subject site submitted that the land at 783‐ 797 Strathfieldsaye Road is not affected by Amendment C215 and therefore the Valentini submission should be disregarded. He outlined the background of the planning permit application from their point of view and advised that, as a result of participating in this process the number of lots have been reduced on their boundary. Council supported submission 43 and considered it to be consistent with the Amendment, in terms of the tenor of the GBRS. Council recommended the reference to 1,500 square metres should be removed from the Strathfieldsaye Township Plan and the site should be developed at conventional residential densities.
Page 81 of 100
Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Amendment C215 Panel Report 13 November 2015
Discussion This situation demonstrates the layering of policy, controls and changing in strategies over time. It is telling though that, while other parts of the City (such as Maiden Gully) have density controls applied as a statutory control (through DDO10), in Strathfieldsaye and for this site in particular no such controls apply. In addition DPO26, which implements the Strathfieldsaye Township Plan, does not apply to this site. The Panel considers that, while the 1,500 square metres may be a preferred subdivision size in the Strathfieldsaye Township Plan for this area, as it has not found its way into the Planning Scheme as a control, or even a policy under Clause 22, it should have little weight and the more relevant consideration should be the provisions of the zone, Clause 56 and the GBRS, with some reference to the Strathfieldsaye Township Plan. That said, it is considered that amending the content of the Strathfieldsaye Township Plan at this stage should involve further consultation with the community through the Housing Strategy and having regard to the Compact City principle in the GBRS. Conclusions and recommendations The 1,500 square metres reference in the Strathfieldsaye Township Plan for Precinct 7 ought to carry little weight as it has not been translated into a statutory control and is inconsistent with the GRZ and strategic focus of the GBRS for a Compact City. This reference ought to be reviewed as part of the Housing Strategy. The Panel recommends: The City of Greater Bendigo review the density provisions in the Strathfieldsaye Township Plan in relation to land outside Schedule 26 to the Design and Development Overlay in the preparation of the Housing Strategy, having regard to the Compact City principle in the GBRS.
(vi) 1108 Wellington Street, Strathfieldsaye Background The 4 hectare property at 1108 Wellington Street, Strathfieldsaye is within the UGB. It is zoned RLZ and the DPO26 applies (Strathfieldsaye Township Plan). The Amendment proposes to rezone the land from RLZ to part LDRZ (along the front of the site) and GRZ (along the rear of the site). Vegetation coverage on the site is 50%. Submissions Mr Castles (46) sought the rezoning of the entire property to GRZ as opposed to the proposal dual zoning of the property. Spiire on behalf of Mr Castles stated at the Hearing that: The inclusion of the entire site within the GRZ will result in an appropriate planning outcome for the site and surrounds and will accord with the projected residential growth as outlined in the Strategy and relevant background documentation;
Page 82 of 100
Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Amendment C215 Panel Report 13 November 2015
Other planning mechanisms, such as the application of a Vegetation Protection Overlay (VPO) and Development Plan Overlay (DPO), are already in place to protect the native vegetation on the site; The application of dual zoning to a site in the interests of protecting ecological amenity over ecological biodiversity is not practical nor a reasonable planning outcome for the site.46 Mr Pole provided a vegetation assessment, prepared by G and B Cheers, which concluded: The condition of vegetation on site is that it is degraded and of mostly low quality. Many life forms are missing in particular large trees and understorey components. If any vegetation is retained under LDRZ it will have little biodiversity value and only become more degraded with time. If the site is rezoned to GRZ all vegetation on site could be removed and an offset with biodiversity value obtained elsewhere’.47 The DPO26 (Strathfieldsaye Township) states: The objective for the development plan area is to deliver sensitively designed residential development that incorporates better quality vegetation within an integrated open space network which focuses on linkages to the various creek corridors. For the town centre the objective is to deliver a vibrant and accessible town centre and promote economic development. Specifically the schedule to the DPO states for the area relating to this site that: Larger lot sizes fronting Strathfieldsaye Road and connector roads to encourage generous front setbacks to create a sense of spaciousness. Larger lots than the minimum lot size permitted under the relevant zone provisions where necessary to protect native vegetation identified as having high conservation significance. Mr Pole submitted that while the intent behind retaining some LDRZ is to minimise removal of native vegetation the existing VPO and DPO will be just as effective in protecting vegetation, amenity and character. Mr Pole submitted that under the LDRZ, the land could be subdivided into 2,000 square metre lots and therefore native vegetation is considered ‘lost’ and must be offset in its entirety. Therefore this raises the question as to what the benefit would be of applying LDRZ to a portion of the site, once development occurs the vegetation is considered to be cleared. Applying the LDRZ would be contrary to Council’s strategic vision for the Strathfieldsaye Township and Bendigo with respect to residential growth and urban infill within the UGB. Council submitted that the Strathfieldsaye Township Plan recommended that the land be zoned part LDRZ and part GRZ. No evidence has been submitted that would warrant a review of this zoning regime. It submitted that the submission is not consistent with the Strategy, the Amendment or the Strathfieldsaye Township Plan.
46 Spiire submission, Document 21, p3. 47 Spiire submission, Document 21, Appendix 1
Page 83 of 100
Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Amendment C215 Panel Report 13 November 2015
Discussion It is clear to the Panel that, as with 29 Emu Road, the zoning regime on the site is proposed to respond to the site features, including vegetation. DPO26 clearly anticipates larger frontages within this area to contribute to the ‘sense of spaciousness’ and the contribution of vegetation. Despite this, the Amendment proposes to rezone land further along Strathfieldsaye Road as GRZ. Despite the zoning and lot size, the VPO would protect and guide decisions around the retention of native vegetation on the site. However the LDRZ will practically support the intent of the VPO and DPO26. Therefore no changes to the Amendment are supported for this site. Conclusion The proposed LDRZ along the front of the site will support the outcome proposed under DPO26, as well as the VPO. The Panel supports the zoning of part GRZ and LDRZ as proposed under the Amendment.
(vii) 57 Walmer Street, Strathfieldsaye Background The Amendment proposes to rezone the four hectares of land at 57 Walmer Street from RLZ to GRZ. Submissions Written submission 17 (P Hayes and S Slater) objected to the proposed rezoning from RLZ to GRZ. They considered their four hectare block has 50% native vegetation coverage, which is of equal or greater conservation value to other blocks which are proposed LDRZ. They would prefer for their land to be retained in LDRZ which would retain vegetation and their lifestyle. Furthermore, the submitters object to further areas being released in Strathfieldsaye which already has a significant amount of land to be developed at ‘Imagine’ and Tannery Lane. Infrastructure is not keeping up with current development with regard to public transport, schools and road and traffic management between Strathfieldsaye and Bendigo. The submission requested: land south of Walmer Street to be rezoned LDRZ; infrastructure issues should be addressed prior to the release of any additional land at Strathfieldsaye; and further land in Strathfieldsaye not be released until the majority of land currently available is developed. Council, in its consideration of submissions at its meeting on 6 May 2015, did not support the submission. The rezoning of the land as exhibited is consistent with the Strathfieldsaye Township Plan which is a reference document within the Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme. Discussion and conclusion The Panel has reviewed the submission and the site, and whilst having some sympathy with the submitters’ views, does not consider that the submission gives rise to a change in the Amendment. The Strathfieldsaye Township Plan has been in place since 2009 and the proposed rezoning is a logical part of the implementation of that plan.
Page 84 of 100
Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Amendment C215 Panel Report 13 November 2015
The rezoning does not require development of the land and vegetation issues can be addressed as necessary if development were to occur. No change is recommended to the Amendment.
(viii) 58 Mannes Lane, Strathfieldsaye Submissions Written submission 25 (D and H Higgins) is seeking to have 3.04 hectares at (Lot 1) 58 Mannes Lane, Strathfieldsaye rezoned as part of the Amendment. It was submitted that there will be no adverse impact on dwellings from the nearby poultry farm by noise or odour (given the current buffer), any issues with infrastructure provision can be managed and the site is within 500 metres of public transport and two kilometres of the Strathfieldsaye Shopping Centre. Council, in its consideration of submissions at its meeting on 6 May 2015 did not support the submission at this stage. Council submitted the Strathfieldsaye Township Plan identified that this land should be developed for residential purposes at such time as the intensive animal industry to the south ceases to operate. The purpose of this condition is to protect the buffer to this enterprise. It was submitted that they intend to have further discussions with the owner of the Intensive Animal Industry to determine if the buffer identified in the Strathfieldsaye Township Plan remains relevant. Discussion and conclusion The Panel considers while the Intensive Animal Industry remains and is active, an adequate buffer must be preserved and the zoning of the land should reflect this. Given Council’s response, it is understood that discussions will continue. In addition, having regard to proper notification, rezoning should not occur in this Amendment. The Panel does not support rezoning in this Amendment.
Page 85 of 100
Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Amendment C215 Panel Report 13 November 2015
9 Key development sites
9.1 Forest Park – 244 Edwards Road, Maiden Gully
(i) Background A submission was made in relation to the 122 hectare Forest Park development on Edwards Road, Maiden Gully. The site was recently rezoned as part of a privately sponsored Planning Scheme amendment (C190) which involved rezoning the land from FZ to GRZ with a DPO, BMO and an extension of the UGB. The site will accommodate approximately 1,400 lots and will include a small community hub. The Forest Park Master Plan, December 2013 is a reference document in the Planning Scheme and any development plan must have regard to it. An activity hub is proposed to be located centrally and structured as a mixed use precinct and community hub that includes community and commercial facilities required to support the local neighbourhood.
(ii) Submissions Mr Gilfedder represented MG Estates (submission 40) who sought to have the ’proposed Local Activity Hub’ at 244 Edwards Road Maiden Gully recognised as a Key Development Site within the GBRS and to make various changes to the MSS to reflect this. Mr Gilfedder submitted that, the extent of the land to be identified as a Key Development Site (and ultimately included in the RGZ) would include the activity hub and immediately adjoining medium density housing areas in line with the Masterplan. Council advised that a number of Key Development Sites are identified within the revised MSS and they were identified based on criteria such as land size, location, accessibility, proximity to services. They have the potential to be rezoned RGZ. Council supported the submission and considered this site satisfies the majority of criteria and should therefore be considered a Key Development Site. It recommended that the relevant change be made to the MSS.
(iii) Discussion The Forest Park Masterplan and DPO clearly anticipate a local activity area supporting a mix of commercial and higher density residential development. Having regard to the outcomes of the Masterplan, it is considered appropriate that area identified within it as the activity hub be identified as a Key Development Site within the GBRS and listed as Clause 21.05 to part of the Forest Park Estate.
(iv) Recommendations The Panel recommends: For the ‘Forest Park’ development, 244 Edwards Road, Maiden Gully: a) Identify part of the site as a Key Development Site on the ‘Bendigo Urban Area Residential Growth Framework Plan’ in the Greater Bendigo Residential Strategy
Page 86 of 100
Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Amendment C215 Panel Report 13 November 2015
b) Amend Clause 21.05‐1 to include ‘and other activity centres, including the proposed Local Activity Hub at 244 Edwards Road, Maiden Gully’ as a Key Development Site. 9.2 Former VicRoads Depot ‐ 39‐51 Lansell Street, Bendigo
(i) Background The former VicRoads depot at 39‐51 Lansell Street, Bendigo is a 2.6 hectare parcel of land within the UGB. It is currently zoned GRZ and is subject to DPO16 ‘Lansell Crest Estate’ which allows for 65 dwellings on the site and guides other matters such as access, staging of development and landscaping. A Statement of Environmental Audit has been prepared for the site, with which development must be consistent. The site adjoins VicRoads’ regional office to the east and the Bendigo/Kangan TAFE and community facilities to the west. It is surrounded by a mix of GRZ and PUZ.
(ii) Submissions Mr Gilfedder represented Blue Bondi Pty Ltd (41). He submitted the site should be considered a key development site within the GBRS given its size, proximity to Central Bendigo, the Hospital Precinct, the Bendigo Railway Station and bus routes. It adjoins the TAFE and is close to retail facilities. The site should be considered for inclusion within the RGZ to fully reflect its development potential. Further, he explained the existing DPO limits maximum development on the land to 65 dwellings and if this were to be increased it would allow greater ability for the site to achieve the goals of the Strategy. Mr Gilfedder argued that the current DPO was created in 2006 and reflects densities sought at that time in Bendigo, not the densities sought under the new GBRS. He advised that plans are in place to rezone the land and revise the DPO to remove reference to 65 dwellings. He requested the Panel consider listing ‘the former VicRoads Depot, Lansell Street, Bendigo East’ as a Key Development Site in Clause 21.05‐1 and identifying the site as a Key Development Site on the ‘Bendigo Urban Area Residential Growth Framework Plan’. Council agreed that the site complies with the majority of the RGZ criteria set out in GBRS and is suitable for higher density living. It also demonstrates the 10 minute neighbourhood principles, is highly accessible and proximate to the CBD. Council supported the submission and recommended changes be made to the MSS to include the site as a Key Development Site.
(iii) Discussion The Panel agrees with the submitter and Council that the site is an infill development site and ought to be referenced in the GBRS and on the Bendigo Urban Area Residential Growth Framework as a Key Development Site. It is understood that Council, through the upcoming Housing Strategy, will reconsider the zonings of all sites that are identified as Key Development Sites, including the potential of the RGZ. A review of the dwelling limits
Page 87 of 100
Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Amendment C215 Panel Report 13 November 2015 currently imposed by DPO16 is also supported given the higher strategic priority being set through the GBRS.
(iv) Recommendations The Panel recommends: For the Former VicRoads Depot, Lansell Street, Bendigo East: a) Identify the site as a Key Development Site on the ‘Bendigo Urban Area Residential Growth Framework Plan’ in the Greater Bendigo Residential Strategy b) Amend Clause 21.05‐1 to include ‘the former VicRoads Depot, Lansell Street, Bendigo East’ as a Key Development Site. 9.3 LaTrobe University ‐ Osbourne Street, Flora Hill
(i) Background The 12.34 hectare site at Osbourne Street, Flora Hill is owned by LaTrobe University. Part of the site was formerly used for student accommodation which has been relocated to the main campus and the remainder of the site is used as an athletics track complex which is licensed to Greater Bendigo City Council. The site identified in the GBRS and mapped in the ‘Bendigo Urban Area Residential Growth Framework Plan’ as a ’major infill and renewal site’.
(ii) Evidence and Submissions LaTrobe University (58) supports identification of the Osbourne Street land as a Key Development Site. Ms Jane Kelly representing the University explained that their initial submission sought to have the Osbourne Street site rezoned prior to the Housing Strategy and that a flexible planning framework for the site should be put in place to enable future development to respond to Council objectives, the University needs and market conditions. Their initial submission expressed concern over setting density targets in the GBRS ahead of further detailed strategic work at individual sites. At the Hearing, Ms Kelly acknowledged that rezoning to RGZ would not happen through this Amendment and was pleased with the recommendation from Council officers to remove the reference in the GBRS to a dwelling yield for the property. Ms Kelly submitted that she had been made aware more recently that the mapping of the Osbourne Street site in the Urban Framework Plan excludes the athletics track as part of the ‘Key Development Site’ area. She argued that the entire site should be treated as a single planning unit for the purpose of strategic directions and land use zoning. It is expected that LaTrobe University will seek to advance an amendment to facilitate the development of the surplus University land for residential purposes prior to the expiry of the athletics track licence. The future boundaries of the site for residential development would be confirmed at this time, either through subdivision or noted on a Development Plan. She submitted that the identification of the athletics track is important as it forms part of the existing single title that relates to the land. The use of the land for an athletics track cannot be confirmed beyond 2024 (lease expires January 2024). The athletics track can be
Page 88 of 100
Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Amendment C215 Panel Report 13 November 2015 accommodated within a residential zone and she provided a number of examples across Metro Melbourne where this is the case. Council submitted that the site is included as a Key Development Site and has the potential to be rezoned to RGZ (to be considered under the Housing Strategy). On the matter of the extent of the ‘Key Development Site’, in its reply Council explained that the City has been in negotiating with the University about the potential sale of the athletics track and associated parking area but the parties are yet to agree on the instructions for the Valuer General. The Council is seeking valuation under the existing Public Use Zone 2 (Education) or as a PPRZ. While the University wishes to sell the land with the zoning that would provide the highest value for the University, but this would be at a great cost to the community. Council submitted while it is supportive of the remainder of the site being rezoned to RGZ, the Athletics Track portion of the site should not be included as there is no intention that this land would be available for residential development.
(iii) Discussion The Panel will not be drawn on the issue of zoning and land valuation which is a matter for Council and the University. The Panel agrees with Ms Kelly that the land should be considered as a single planning unit as it is within one title and as such the entire site should be mapped on the Residential Growth Framework Plan as a Key Development Site. At this stage however, identifying the land as a Key Development Site does not lock in the site’s zoning regime nor its development framework (through the likes of a DPO) which is to be determined after this Amendment. Given the athletics track takes up over a quarter of the site it would be expected that the DPO, for example, would have reference to this recreation asset if it is to be retained, despite the ownership. In addition, the MSS can still refer to the strategic importance of the site as a recreation asset for the community.
(iv) Recommendation The Panel recommends: For the LaTrobe University land ‐ Osbourne Street, Flora Hill a) Identify the entire University site as a Key Development Site on the ‘Bendigo Urban Area Residential Growth Framework Plan’ in the Greater Bendigo Residential Strategy.
Page 89 of 100
Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Amendment C215 Panel Report 13 November 2015
10 Other
10.1 Rural Residential
(i) Background 14 Gray Street, Huntly is a 10 hectare property, zoned FZ with ESO1.
(ii) Submissions Mr and Mrs Stevens (51), sought to have their property rezoned from FZ to LDRZ or RLZ so that it can be subdivided into two hectare lots. They submitted the site is surrounded by Whipstick Forest, Bendigo Sewerage Farm or Bendigo Creek, and no residential zone connections are possible either now or into the future. The Stevens considered the GBRS is focussed on conventional residential development and does not cater for residents who wish to live on larger LDRZ or RLZ lots and that hobby farms and rural residential lots are self‐sufficient regarding water, sewerage and already have existing roads, thus causing minimal impact on Council’s resources. Mr Stevens sought Council to include land within the Strategy and prepare a ‘Local Environmental Plan’. Council submitted that the site is isolated from the UGB and is not consistent with the GBRS. A Rural Communities Strategy is currently underway, and Bendigo currently has approximately 80 years’ supply.
(iii) Discussion and conclusions The Panel understands the focus of the GBRS is on the provision and strategic direction for urban residential land, with a strategy to limit urban sprawl and consolidate development within a confined UGB. it is noted that Council is currently preparing a Rural Communities Strategy. Having regard to the strategic intent of the GBRS, the Panel considers this site is considerably isolated from the UGB and there is no strategic justification to rezone the property at 14 Gray Street, Huntly under this Amendment. Without determining the merit or otherwise, this matter should instead be considered in the context of the Rural Communities Strategy. 10.2 Marong
(i) Background The township of Marong is identified in the GBRS as accommodating approximately 8,000 people to 2031.
(ii) Submissions Ms Chapman (45)48 submitted her concern regarding the lack of commitment and timeframe for commencing a precinct structure plan for Marong. Ms Chapman was critical of Council’s response to providing open space and sport infrastructure within the established reserve in
48 Ms Chapman is a Councillor at Bendigo but was submitting in a private capacity.
Page 90 of 100
Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Amendment C215 Panel Report 13 November 2015
Marong and considered that it is not keeping up with the pace of residential development being allowed to develop in the town. In addition, Ms Chapman was particularly critical of, what she considered to be a lack of transparency and decisions around the future location of a site for regional open space which directly affects her and subdivision plans that she has prepared. Council explained the BRDS 2004 identified Marong as a future satellite township. The Marong Plan (2010) was prepared to provide an overarching framework for how the township can grow into the future. The Marong Plan is the precursor to a PSP that will guide the future growth of Marong in detail and identifies Ms Chapman’s land as being ‘proposed open space’. A Marong Recreational Land Needs Study was undertaken in 2011. The purpose of this study was to analyse the future sport and recreation land requirements for Marong with an ultimate population of 8,000. This study concluded that an additional eight hectares of land would be required to service Marong’s recreational needs and the study identified Ms Chapman’s land would best cater for these needs. Council submitted that the subdivision layout plan referred to by Ms Chapman is not consistent with the Marong Recreational Land Needs Study and would be directly opposite the Business Park to the west of the subject land near the intersection of the Calder Highway and Yorkshire Road. There would be potential for future land use conflicts. Council submitted: The IAC noted that the Bendigo Urban Area Residential Growth Framework Plan does not align with Council’s adopted Marong Plan (2001) in that it excluded acknowledging the ‘primary investigation area for regional open space’ to the west of town. The IAC recommends that the Framework Plan in the BRDS be modified accordingly. Council submitted it is committed to commencing the PSP for Marong in early 2016.
(iii) Discussion and conclusion The Panel was surprised with the extensive subdivision that has occurred in Marong to date and notes it seems to be undergoing ‘growing pains’. The Panel considers that, given the substantial growth experienced to date and planned for Marong in the GBRS, structure planning, community planning and provision of open space infrastructure and community services in the town is urgent. The Panel is not in a position to recommend the location of the new recreation reserve but encourages Council to resolve this issue as part of the 2016 PSP.
Page 91 of 100
Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Amendment C215 Panel Report 13 November 2015
10.3 Frog Hollow, Strathdale
(i) Background This park is currently zoned GRZ.
(ii) Submissions Mr Humphrey’s appeared for the Friends of Frog Hollow (68) and sought planning controls to protect the environmental amenity of the Frog Hollow Reserve and surrounding streets. He explained the original vision for the subdivision was that the community would have a central reserve of native bushland as an integral part of Strathdale. He submitted an environmental overlay is needed to ensure appropriate recognition of the importance of preserving it site’s existing environmental heritage and outlined the local community support to preserve and protect the park. Council advised that the Reserve was created by a public open space contribution as part of the Wildwood Drive estate and would be most appropriately zoned PPRZ. While the GBRS recognises the importance of protecting environmental assets and Frog Hollow is considered such an asset, the rezoning cannot happen under this Amendment. At present, rezoning is not considered a high priority as the reserve is not under any development pressure and as such this site should be considered as part of a future ‘clean up’ amendment.
(iii) Discussion The Panel considers that this the site is clearly set aside and functioning as public open space. There are many instances where, following the subdivision of land, the portion of land set aside for open space remains in its original ‘base zone’. This should not undermine the role of the park and it is a case where the zoning has not yet caught up. The Panel accepts that given the stage of the process of this Amendment, the land should not be rezoned under this Amendment. However the land should be rezoned when Council has the capacity to as part of a ‘corrections’ or ’clean up amendment’ and recommends Council seek an amendment to the Planning Scheme under 20(4) of the Planning and Environment Act.
(iv) Conclusion and recommendation The land should be rezoned in the future to PPRZ or another zone that appropriately reflects its function. The panel recommends: Seek an amendment under Section 20(4) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 to rezone the land known as ‘Frog Hollow, Strathdale’ as Public Park and Recreation Zone, or Public Conservation and Resource Zone to reflect the role of the park or through the translation of the Residential Zones.
Page 92 of 100
Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Amendment C215 Panel Report 13 November 2015
10.4 Ascot
(i) Submissions Ms Metcalfe (submission 30) sought to have the Neighbourhood Residential Zone (NRZ) applied to the Ascot area as the area does not have a density control. She submitted that it has a strong environmental character and is of low density, and single storey development and the character of the area should be protected. Ms Metcalfe outlined the history of two planning permit applications for a higher density development at 73 Howard Street Ascot, for 29 dwellings and 18 dwellings, which were both refused by Council and Council’s decision was upheld by VCAT. Upon the introduction of the reformed residential zones, Council had been requested to consider introducing the NRZ in this area. At that time Council indicated that this matter would be considered as part of the GBRS. Ms Metcalfe was critical that Council had not considered the GBRS report on this matter has but deferred it to the Housing Strategy which is yet to be undertaken. The area nearby is subject to Schedule 7 to the Design and Development Overlay (DDO7) with a minimum subdivision area of 1,500 square metres. Given two VCAT decisions have a acknowledged the intensity of development as being an issue for proposed development in this area, Ms Metcalfe suggested that a 1,000 square metre restriction could be applied in the area of the Strickland and Taylor Streets properties located to the east of Back Creek and the properties to the north of Howard Street, downstream of Back Creek. She sought the extension of DDO7, a new DDO or at the land be rezoned to NRZ. Council submitted that the Strategy notes the need to ensure that areas with heritage and neighbourhood character values need to be carefully managed, but this is not about restricting development. It said that the Strategy notes the need to ensure design standards for new development improve and that the community needs to understand that there should be a greater diversity in housing choice to respond to issues such as an aging population. It submitted that the Housing Strategy will assess whether this area requires specific character protection and what the most appropriate tool might be.
(ii) Discussion and conclusion The Panel has inspected the area identified in Ms Metcalfe’s submission, and the area subject to DDO7. It finds that the area does not have a distinct character worth preserving, the defining element of character is that it has no discrete cohesive character. There is no strategic justification within this Amendment to apply new controls which limit residential development within the UGB. 10.5 Government and service agencies
(i) Submissions Agencies including VicRoads (33), Department of Economic Development, Jobs, Transport and Resources (36), Country Fire Authority (61) and Department of Environment, Land,
Page 93 of 100
Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Amendment C215 Panel Report 13 November 2015
Water and Planning (66) generally supported the Amendment but made a range of submissions on relatively minor wording changes.
(ii) Discussion and conclusions The Panel has reviewed the suggested minor wording changes. The Panel does not consider any of these wording changes are substantive or determinative of the Amendment and is satisfied that Council can review them and make changes as appropriate. In particular, comments from the CFA in relation to updating Clauses 21 and 22 should be carefully reviewed in the context of the emphasis of Section 6.5 of the GBRS which deals with ‘Managing Risk’. The Panel also notes that ‘The Bendigo urban area is substantially impacted upon by the revised [Bushfire Management Overlay] mapping. The revised mapping is yet to be implemented but will provide important information to inform our growth area planning’.49 This is an issue that will need to be reviewed when mapping is made available.
49 GBRS – Volume 2 – Analysis, Strategy and Implementation , page 19
Page 94 of 100
Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Amendment C215 Panel Report 13 November 2015
Appendix A List of Submitters No. Submitter 1 S & J Forbes 2 N McHugh 3 R & M Wilkinson 4 O & E Curnow 5 T McClean 6 Neangar Park Golf Club 7,9 D Brown 8 Ella Pty Ltd 10 Condolezza Properties Pty Ltd 11 DEDJTR (mining) 12 M Carr 13 P E & A N Shanahan 14 A & N Wallace 15 S & E Brown and L & V White 16 C Burns 17 P Hayes & S Slater 18 G Verrinder 19 K & P Horkings 20 E Tubb 21 A Slobodian 22 Big Hill Action Group 23 Bendigo & District Environment Council 24 M Stevens 25 D & H Higgins 26 G Buchanan 27 H Nash 28 G Butler 29 B & J Carpenter 30 A Metcalfe 31 I & R Dean 32 QOD Property Group Pty Ltd
Page 95 of 100
Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Amendment C215 Panel Report 13 November 2015
33 VicRoads 34 J & J Stevens 35 D Arthur 36 DEDJTR (Transport) 37 Austin Family 38 Planning Practitioners (Sweett Group, The Tomkinson Group and Spiire) 39 P & B Savy and Ors 40 MG Estates 41 Blue Bondi 42 F Monti 43 J Valentini 44 Balgownie Estate 45 E Chapman 46 I Castles 47 Villawood Properties 48 G & D Pocock 49 Bendigo Golf Club 50 Tall Trees Pty Ltd 51 A Stevens 52 Tomkinson Group 53 P Goggin and Ors 54 Coliban Water 55,56 S Monti 57 Homer Beacon Properties 58 LaTrobe University 59 G & M Rosier 60 Bendigo Sustainability Group 61 Country Fire Authority 62 B & J Evans 63 C & K Corr 64 B Wakefield 65 J Allen 66 DELWP
Page 96 of 100
Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Amendment C215 Panel Report 13 November 2015
67 Urban Development Institute of Australia 68 John Humphreys L1 John Mooney L2 R & L Price L3 Environment Protection Authority
Page 97 of 100
Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Amendment C215 Panel Report 13 November 2015
Appendix B Record of procedural issues The following Hearing matters are recorded. 91 Howard Street Epsom, Odour Issues Mr Tim Pollock was due to give expert evidence on odour on behalf of the Deans for 91 Howard Street Epsom. Mr Pollock circulated his expert evidence statement but then approximately three business days prior to giving evidence advised his client that he could not attend as his firm, GHD, are also doing work for Coliban Water, an objecting party to the Dean submission. The Panel, with the parties agreement, reconvened on the 11 September 2015 in Melbourne to hear evidence on odour in relation to the Howard Street property, by which time the Deans had retained the services of Dr Terry Bellair. On 14 August 2015 the Panel received a request from EPA, via Council, to make a late submission to the Hearing in relation to odour from the Bendigo Water Reclamation Plant and Howard Street Epsom. The Panel accepted the submission, which while in the form of evidence, was clearly started by EPA to be a submission. The substantive issues around this property are considered in Chapter 8.
Page 98 of 100
Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Amendment C215 Panel Report 13 November 2015
Appendix C Agreed statement on population growth and land supply
Page 99 of 100
Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Amendment C215 Panel Report 13 November 2015
Page 100 of 100