Melbourne Airport Environs Safeguarding 12 Standing Advisory Committee Request to be Yes heard?: Full Name: Sarah Capenerhurst Organisation: City of Kingston Affected property: Attachment 1: Attachment 2: Attachment 3: Comments: Uploaded Submission Cover Sheet Kingston Submission for the AESSAC regarding Moorabbin Airport and Planning Provisions. The City of Kingston (Kingston) welcomes the opportunity to make a submission to the Melbourne Airport Environs Safeguarding Standing Advisory Committee (the Committee) on behalf of the Minister for Planning. Council has addressed this submission by way of putting forward a “Airport Policy Package’ with suggested outcomes to address the planning provision issues Council currently deals with. 1.0 Background Moorabbin Airport is located on a 294 hectare parcel of land owned by the Commonwealth Government, 21 kilometres east of the Melbourne CBD. Moorabbin Airport is recognised as one of the nation's busiest airports due the majority of flight movements being related to pilot training which results in concentrated aircraft activity in the vicinity of the airport. Aircraft movements are approximately 300,000 each year. The airport is operated by Moorabbin Airport Corporation (MAC), a private company, which in 1998 was granted a 50 year lease with a 49 year renewal option. The Airport has a significant non-aviation commercial centre including the Kingston Central Plaza, the Direct Factory outlet (DFO) and large format retailers such as Costco. The Kingston Planning Scheme uses two planning controls to ensure appropriate outcomes surrounding and near the Moorabbin airport: - Design and Development Overlay (Schedule 4 and 5) - Airport Environs Overlay (Schedule 1 and 2). Clause 22.03 ‘Moorabbin Airport Environs’ Local Policy also applies which covers a large part of the central area of the municipality as illustrated in the figure below. 1 Figure 1: Clause 22.03 Moorabbin Airport Enviros 2.0 Response to the Advisory Committee's Terms of Reference Section 18 of the Terms of Reference states that 'The Committee may provide advice on improvements to planning provisions, relevant guidance material and on any complementary tools and processes that may help safeguard other airport environs in Victoria, in addition to Melbourne Airport'. It is on this basis that Kingston would like to make its submission. The continuing balancing act between the needs of the airport, which holds an important role to the economy of Kingston, and that of the surrounding residential area, whereby it is a necessity to compromise minimising the number of people who will be affected by airport related noise and minimising the amount of land for which potential uses are restricted, through an integrated and responsible planning management strategies. It is considered that the airport has compromised its potential for future expansion, given the level of development for commercial/retail purposes that have occurred on Commonwealth land. With substantial warehouses at the base of the runway (north side of Lower Dandenong Road) and bound by retail to the north west, and east. The State Government agreed to the National Airports Safeguarding Framework in May 2012 at the meeting of the Standing Council on Transport and Infrastructure. Victoria's agreement was subject to the use of the alternative noise metrices, known as the 'n' contours, or 'number above' contours to inform strategic planning decision making only. 2 3.0 Background- 1998 New Format Planning Scheme (NFPS) To provide the Committee with a thorough background, it is important to discuss the introduction of the NFPS. In 1998, the Federal Airports Corporation (FAC) put forward a range of controls to be implemented into the Kingston Planning Scheme as a response to the Victorian State Government’s introduction of the Victorian Planning Provisions (VPPs). The State Planning Policy introduced several objectives regarding Airports and planning for areas around airports. Consequently, the FAC put forward to Council the following planning controls: - Clause 45.02 Airport Environs Overlay Schedule 1 and Schedule 2 - Design and Development Overlay schedules 4 and 5 - Clause 22.03 Airport Enviros Overlay (to replace the proposed Schedule 2). It was also a recommendation that the FAC and/or airport owner were to be a referral authority. Ultimately it was determined that the FAC should be a referral authority, an outcome to which they did not object at the time. 4.0 Clause 45.02 Airport Environs Overlay (AEO) The introduction of Clause 45.02 was through the NFPS (Panel Report- Attachment 1). When the FAC put forward their ‘airport package’ of planning controls, it initially contained two schedules AEO1 and AEO2. AEO2 was ultimately turned into the Moorabbin Airport Environs Policy (Clause 22.03) which is discussed later in the submission. The FAC sought to introduce the AEO due to historical issues where rezonings had occurred at State and Local level with the FAC being left out of that process (e.g. ‘residential developments close to the airport without adequate account being taken of detrimental noise effects’). At all levels of Government, there was an agreement that some form of control, specifying possible effects from airport noise and where those were likely to be, should be implemented into the Planning Scheme. The AEO was developed to be applied in accordance with the ANEF to ensure that appropriate standards for aircraft noise could be met by dwellings near airports. Specifically, the schedule was created to limit sensitive uses based on the 20- 25 ANEF contour as required by the Australian Standard. As per Clause 45.02, the parent header provision provides the following purpose(s): • To implement the Municipal Planning Strategy and the Planning Policy Framework. • To identify areas which are or will be subject to high levels of aircraft noise, including areas where the use of land for uses sensitive to aircraft noise will need to be restricted. • To ensure that land use and development are compatible with the operation of airports in accordance with the appropriate airport strategy or master plan and with safe air navigation for aircraft approaching and departing the airfield. • To assist in shielding people from the impact of aircraft noise by requiring appropriate noise attenuation measures in new dwellings and other noise sensitive buildings. • To limit the number of people residing in the area or likely to be subject to significant levels of aircraft noise. Under Clause 45.02-3 'Subdivision', a permit is required to subdivide land. Upon referring to Schedule 1 of Clause 45.02, there are a number of requirements listed which restrict land uses including accommodation: 3 'despite the provision of the zone, land must not be used and a permit must not be granted for accommodation (other than a dwelling)'. It further states: 'a permit is required to use the subject land for a dwelling provided no more than one is established on a lot'. 4.1 Issue As per the Ministerial Direction on the Form and Content of Planning Schemes under section 7(5) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, Council is unable to make any changes to Clause 45.02. Council has identified issues with the wording of this control and requests that the Committee make a recommendation to fix this anomaly. The Panel for the NFPS in 1998, stated ‘In AEO1, regardless of the zone provisions, land must not be used for sensitive uses such as childcare centre, school or hospital…in areas shown as AEO1 only one dwelling per lot will be permitted’. Council request that this provision is updated to avoid any future confusion. The drafting of the above is poorly written and creates confusion. The wording around one dwelling per lot, yet allowing subdivision is contradictory in its intent. Given the intent of this AEO and local policy (discussed further in the submission), it is clear these policies seek to control population density and limit the number of people living within the AEO1 thus limiting the potential impact of airport noise. Unlike other airport related overlays, this overlay does not include a minimum lot size requirement per dwelling, therefore there is no restriction on the minimum lot size associated with any dwelling on a site. Theoretically, an applicant could apply for a subdivision on a site within the AEO1 and this could be granted. This would obviously go against the intent of the control, but is an illustration of the confusion the current drafting creates. In the Council’s submission to the NFPS, it was stated ‘the effect of the control viz houses is not to prohibit them but to make them subject to a permit. Dual occupancy is prohibited’. It is requested that the drafting be updated to accurately reflect this. 4.2 Recommendation Similar to the Melbourne Airport Environs Overlay (MAEO), it is recommended that a clear policy which explicitly states prohibition on the use of land for more than one dwelling on a lot or more than one dependent person’s unit on a lot, should be drafted. Furthermore, to fall in line with the intent of the policy, a recommendation by the Panel as to whether subdivision should be permitted or not is sought. If the intent of the AEO is to only allow for one dwelling on a lot (parent or other), then it is logical that subdivision should be prohibited as well. This should be made explicitly clear to any user of the Kingston Planning Scheme. If such a change is supported, then the local policy should be further tidied up so that there is no confusion between policies. Council officers, in conjunction with HWL Ebsworth, have drafted a control which seeks to alleviate these issues and Council respectfully asks the Committee to review its content and drafting (Attachment 3). 5.0 Clause 43.02 Design and Development Overlay Schedules 4 and 5 Design and Development Overlay (DDO) Schedules 4 and 5 follow the Obstacle Limitation Surface (OLS) (as shown in the figure below) and are used as a complementary tool to the Commonwealth Regulations, to control development, to ensure there are no obstacles for take-off and landing.