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. The Regulations establish an application, approval and appeal process for buildings and works over a certain height in certain areas in the vicinity of the Airport (amongst other airports). Noncompliance with the Regulations is a strict liability offence with a penalty of 10 penalty units ($1652.20). Appeal
4 rights are available to the Federal Administrative Appeal Tribunal (AAT) pursuant to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (AAT Act).
Figure 2: OLS (cropped image- not show at fullsize)
DDO4 and 5 apply to a wide array of land affected by a variety of zones including: • General Residential Zone – Schedule 2 (11m) and Schedule 3 (9m); • Industrial 1 Zone; • Green Wedge Zone - Schedule 2; • Special Use Zone 1; • Public Use Zone 1 and 2; • Urban Flood Zone; and • Public Park and Recreation Zone.
Only the General Residential Zone includes a height restriction for buildings that are used as a dwelling or residential building. It is important to note that a flagpole and television antenna do not require a planning permit unless specifically required by the Scheme (refer to clause 62.02-2). It is argued that DDO4 and DDO5 should also address these structures.
5
In 1998, the then FAC proposed the DDOs to the Kingston Planning Scheme, to set out the height controls contained in the Civil Aviation (Building Control) regulations. There are several issues that Officers would like to raise with the Committee: 1) Repetition of Federal legislation. 2) Current wording of the Schedules. 3) Who should be a referral authority? 5.1 Repetition of existing federal legislation In 1998, as part of the NFPS, the FAC proposed the height controls in in the form of the current DDO4 and 5. Prior to the introduction of DDO4 and 5, building heights around airports were (and continue to be) regulated by the Civil Aviation (Building Control) Regulations. As part of the introduction of the control, the Panel stated the following; ‘The problem is that these Regulations are not well known and may be easily overlooked. The FAC proposed a Design and Development Overlay which sets out the height controls contained in the Regulations. This will ensure that these height controls are publicly available and known, can be used to ensure compliance with the height controls with one small exception….Developments which exceed the specified heights shown on the maps require planning approval and referral to the Federal Department of Transport’. Council supported these Schedules and on 2 April 1998 Council resolved to introduce the height controls through the DDO4 and 5. As part of these controls, developments which exceeded the specified heights would require planning approval and referral to the Federal Department of Transport (now the Commonwealth Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications (DITRDC). There is an argument to remove these Schedules as those same Federal Regulations discussed in the 1998 Panel Hearing for the NFPS , still exist to control building height. The issue from 22 years ago is still relevant today. Whilst the Regulations still apply, the issue that still remains today is that whilst these controls still exist, these are not widely known, with a lack of general awareness. It is still a repetition of existing legislation, something which is discouraged within the Planning Scheme. Council would like the Committee to further explore whether these Schedules still serve an important function. There are examples, where planning applications made within Kingston’s municipality, have not been covered by DDO4 and DDO5, as they are outside of the OLS, which would (had the developments been constructed as first submitted) have impinged upon flight paths as per the Regulations. A development application in Cheltenham’s Activity Centre, in 2012, was required to reduce the overall height (proposed as an 8 storey building) as the building did not comply with the Prescribed Airspace (as per PAN-OPS rather than the OLS) which limited development to 58 metres to Australian Height Datum (AHD). This was only picked up due to the Planning Officers experience. In the absence of a DDO or policy to control height which could affect flight paths/prescribed airspace there is a risk that this would be outside the scope of knowledge that could be expected of an applicant or planning officer. Proposals (whether that be building height or a crane for example) that could penetrate the protected airspace of leased federal airports must be approved before the proposal is permitted to occur. Those regulations require the DITRDC to assess applications to carry out controlled activities and to impose conditions on any approval granted. DIRDC may delegate the assessment and approval of temporary intrusions—of less than three months—to the relevant airport operator. DITRDC may also refuse to approve any activity that affects the safety or accessibility of aircraft operations at leased federal airports.
6
5.1.1 Recommendation There is an argument that DDO4 and DDO5 are a duplication of the approval process in the Regulations and can result in an inefficient and confusing approval process. As such, Council Officers have explored whether DDO4 and DDO5 are an efficient and appropriate use of the Victorian Planning Provisions (VPPs). Ultimately Council has come to the conclusion that until the time of either a practice note, advisory note or guideline, the Schedules should remain (however in a revised format).
Council advocates for the Committee to explore this further and whether there is an opportunity for the State Department to develop a practice note, advisory notes and guidelines to assist in guiding decision makers. Particularly in the circumstances where a DDO or AEO is not applicable to a site (such as the example provided earlier in the Cheltenham Activity Centre).
Examples include the Hobsons Bay land use planning around Major Hazard Facilities Guidelines which were prepared by Hobsons Bay City Council as an interim measure of addressing land use planning around major hazard facilities. While these guidelines address a completely different subject matter, they provide an example of an internal notification process to guide Council planners when considering planning permit applications in the vicinity of Major Hazard Facilities. Similar guidelines can be prepared for planning permit applications in areas affected by DDO4 and DDO5. However, it is acknowledged that generally, flagpoles, radio and television antennas and flood lights would most likely not be captured by this process due to the exemption at clause 62.02-2 of the Scheme and would fall under the Regulations.
5.2 Current wording of the Schedules Council acknowledges that this could be fixed up through a Planning Scheme Amendment, however in the interests of continuity, Officers recommend that this be part of the ‘Airport Package’ for the Committee to address. The current wording of the Schedules is ambiguous and causes confusion – particularly the note on the Schedules with reference to building height. These height controls over land surrounding the Moorabbin Airport trigger a permit for any buildings or works that exceed 16 m (Schedule 4) and 25m (Schedule 5). DDO4 and 5 are identical apart from the reference to height. The relevant parts of the Schedule are as follows: - To ensure that the height of all buildings and works are constrained within specified limits to avoid creating a hazard to aircraft in the vicinity of the Moorabbin Airport, and to facilitate safe aircraft operations. - To ensure that flight paths associated with the Moorabbin Airport are protected from the encroachment of inappropriate obstacles which may affect the safe and effective operation of the Airport.
Buildings and works
A permit is required to construct a building or construct or carry out works, which exceeds 16 metres in height.
7
An application for buildings and works must be referred in accordance with Section 55 of the Act to the referral authority specified in Clause 66.04 or a schedule to that clause unless in the opinion of the Responsible Authority the proposal satisfies requirements or conditions previously agreed in writing between the responsible authority and the Federal Department of Transport and Regional Services. A permit must not be granted for buildings and works which exceed the maximum building height specified in the table, unless with the consent of the Federal Department of Transport and Regional Services.
Note: Building height relates to height above sea level expressed as a reduced level. For the purposes of this clause buildings and works include radio masts, television antenna and flagpoles. The issue stems from the note ‘building height relates to height above sea level expressed as a reduced level’. Reduced level is not a defined term to calculate height. If this ‘note’ is referring to building height from the AHD, in which case many developments would be impinging into the maximum height permitted by the Schedules and makes little sense, particularly when one reviews building height that has been permitted on airport land at the base or near to the base of the runways. For example, a dwelling located on Parkers Road in Parkdale (located in the GRZ2 (11m) and DDO5 area), sits at 18m above AHD. An application for an 11metre dwelling would take the development to 29m above AHD. Based on very early legal advice, Council applied the note this way. Any application would be referred to the DITRDC (generally with no objection).
The 1998 Panel Report for the NFPS stated ‘the overlay controls are based on maps which show areas within which permits would be require for uses on developments which are proposed to exceed the specified heights. Developments which exceed the specified heights shown on the maps require planning approval and referral to the Federal Department of Transport’.
The maps that the Panel are referring to, are the OLS rather than the PAN-OPS. It would also be nonsensical to apply AHD and allow ordinary residential dwellings (9-11metres in height depending on the schedule to the zone) to not be permitted, when buildings far greater than 9-11metres have been constructed on airport land.
Referring to submissions made at the time of the NFPS Panel, it has become clear that the intention was not to create this confusion. The FAC main submission (three submissions were made, opening submission, their main submission and a closing submission) stated the following:
‘The proposed overlay area covers the whole municipality…two maps have been prepared showing areas within which permits are required for use or developments any component of which would exceed specified heights, and which also should be referred to the Airport owner or operator. The maps…show the proposed referral heights in 6 steps:
- All obstacles in the close in area i.e. exceeding 12m. - 25m and above - 58m and above - 80m and above - 100m and above - 159m and above
These height steps have nee adopted to simplify and clarify administrative procedures. The actual heights which would be used to assess proposed form a complex surface needing careful interpretation.
8
VCAT have made a number of decisions which state that a ‘note’ has the effect of a ‘footnote’ (Woodward v Kingston CC [2015] VCAT 1168 (3 August 2015)) and does not form part of the Planning Scheme based on the Interpretation of Legislation Act 1984. Council Officers believe that building height as referred to by the two Schedules, is to be taken as the height above Natural Ground Level (NGL). Lastly, in the 2015 Moorabbin Airport Master Plan (figure 3 below) which sets out Planning Policy and makes specific reference to DDO4 and DOO5, it is noted that this height is not applied as AHD but rather 16 and 25 metres respectively, in height.
Figure 3: DDO 4 and 5- Moorabbin Airport Masterplan 2015
5.2.1 Recommendation Attached to this submission (Attachment 4) Council has attached Schedules for the Committee to consider. Changes include inserting references to flood lights and radio antennas along with the removal of the note. 6.0 Referrals There are two main issues that Council wishes to put forward for the Committee’s consideration: 1) Is the DITRDC the appropriate referral authority (determining)? 2) If not the DITRDC, then who? Around leased federal airports, (airports regulated under the Airports Act 1996), the Airports (Protection of Airspace) Regulations 1996 also applies. When the AEO/DDO4 and DDO5 were introduced in 1998, the FAC initially put forward that the Airport owner should be a referral authority. Council and many submitters put forward that it was inappropriate for a private company to be making comments as a referral authority on land use decisions. It was submitted by Council in 1998 that ‘it was not clear how the public interest will be served by a private operator to act as a referral authority’. The Panel concluded:
9
“The Panel considers that it is inappropriate for a private commercial entity to have referral status, which it could exercise in the context of narrow commercial interests, and exclude legitimate community interest. The Panel wholly supports Council in calling for clause 45.02-3 to be amended to require referral to the Federal department of transport and Regional Development. Similarly, in Schedule 1 and 2 to the AEO, the referral authority should be the Federal Department of Transport and Regional Development”. The Regulations are currently administered by the DITRDC or an 'authorised person' being a person authorised in writing by DITRDC to administer the Regulations. It is unclear if the Airport Lessee (being MA Corporation) is an 'authorised person' for the purpose of the Regulations. The Panel in 1998 for the Kingston NFPS stated that: “It is unclear whether the term ‘airport owner’ means the registered proprietor of the land on which the airport is situated or whether it extends to the lessee of the airport business. The ambiguity in the AEO should be clarified by an amendment to the VPPs. In practice, the FAC will be given an opportunity to comment on land use proposals within the overlay areas to ensure that they are compatible with the operation of the airport”. As per the schedule to Clause 66.04 of the Kingston Planning Scheme (image below), the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development (DITRDC) is a determining referral authority. The Airport owner is also a determining referral authority. Views on the Airport Owner must be sought pursuant to section 55 of the Act with regards to subdivision of land within the AEO. Pursuant to the schedule to Clause 66.04, the Airport Owner is not a determining referral authority for subdivision.
Attached to this submission (attachment 2) is correspondence Council have received from the DITRDC with regards to the deletion of the DITRDC as a referral authority. To summarise the correspondence, the DITRDC have repeatedly requested that they are removed as a referral authority. Council Officers understand (although have not viewed) legal advice that the DITRDC have received, which stated to the effect that it questioned the origin and validity of the referral. The Panel in MVA Amendment C121 ultimately concluded after a lengthy discussion: ‘The Panel concludes that given the Commonwealth regulatory regime that exists over the Airport and the apparently effective operation of informal arrangements to date, it is not necessary to make EAPL
10 a referral authority in the planning scheme. The opportunity to provide compulsory notice to EAPL of applications through section 52(1)(c) is adequate in the Panel’s view to ensure applications are considered by EAPL and advice given to Council in considering permit applications, and for the Commonwealth processes to be triggered by EAPL as necessary. Effectively, if Section 52(1)(c) notice is required, it will simply provide a more formalised and rigorous continuation of the process that by all accounts works effectively now. 6.1 Recommendations Given the purpose of referrals is to ensure that the most appropriate planning decision is made on a particular application, Kingston’s position has not changed from 1998. It would be inappropriate for a private entity to be a determining referral authority. However, given the correspondence from the DITRDC, proposed changes have included removing the referral provision to DITRDC and replacing it with a notice requirement, pursuant to section 52(1)(c) of the Planning and Environment Act to the Airport Lessee (rather than Manager). It is recommended that Clause 66.06 of the Kingston Planning Scheme be amended to require notice to be provided to the Airport Lessee in accordance with section 52(1)(c) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. 7.0 Local Policy Clause 22.03 ‘ Moorabbin Airport Local Environs Policy’ As part of the NFPS and subsequent to the re-exhibition of the Planning Scheme, Council resolved to insert Clause 22.03 into the Scheme based on the 15-20 ANEF contour. Council took the view that the proposed AEO2 put forward by the FAC was too restrictive and cumbersome on the community which would result in an unacceptable outcome. This was ultimately turned into the Moorabbin Airport Environs Policy (Clause 22.03), so no additional construction costs on extensions or modifications to existing residential properties would be imposed. However new developments within the 20 ANEF contour would be required to meet the AS2021 standards. The list of sensitive uses in the policy are identical to the ones listed in the AEO2 by the FAC, however the decision guidelines in assessing permit applications differed slightly. The local policy continues to play an important role in managing the interface between surrounding land uses and the Airport. In order to align any changes made to the previous controls discussed in the submission, it is recommended that amendments are made to the Local Policy in order to give greater enforceability and direction. A revised Clause 22.03 is attached to this submission (attachment 5). Changes include removing reference to the DITRDC and replacing it with the Airport Lessee. 8.0 Moorabbin Airport Masterplan
Acknowledging this is out of the scope of the Committee, Council would like to make the following comments. Since the adoption of the last Master Plan the MAC have worked hard to develop its relationships with a range of community groups, expand the airports employment base and work with the Community Aviation Consultation Group on issues associated with Aircraft Noise. All these initiatives have been beneficial to the Kingston community and the current Master Plan recognises the importance of these initiatives continuing. As required by the Airports Act 1996 the current Master Plan, will be reviewed and revised with a new Master Plan to be implemented later this year/early in 2021. During preparation of the Master Plan, it is expected the MAC will consult with a broad range of stakeholders and agencies, to seek their views. Council have always taken an active role in this process, with the next revision to be no different. Council will continue to work actively alongside the MAC and all other relevant stakeholders.
11
Council will continue to advocate and seek to mitigate any external implications/encumbrances for surrounding property owners associated with aviation activity. This includes removing the AEO from numerous properties where the ANEF contours have shifted. The increase in retail tenancies at the airport has presented a number of difficulties and challenges for Council when attempting to undertake strategic planning on a municipal level. Planning decisions on federal airport land are controlled by the DITRDC so whilst this is outside the scope of the Committee, Council would like the following noted. It is a difficult task, advising the community on what one can and cannot do on their property. Speaking with members of the community, it is often stated to Officers about the ‘fairness factor’ or lack of, when it comes to what development can occur on private land verse what occurs on airport land. The AEO (whilst an important tool and Council are not suggesting it be removed), is a restrictive tool which prevents development on private sites. It is extremely difficult to explain to owners situated (for example) along Lower Dandenong Road, who are encumbered by the AEO and therefore cannot subdivide, that the Airport do not have the same restrictions and can therefore build large factories/warehouses metres from their boundary on airport land (Figure 4) thereby intensifying development (non-aviation).
Figure 4: Lower Dandenong Road looking north towards airport land
Council strongly advocate for appropriate measures and treatments on any development, whether that be airport land or not, to be consistent and up to date. This includes ensuring that the most up to date contours are used to reflect the AEO It is also noted that at the time of writing this submission, the Australian Transport Safety Bureau who are investigating the 2017 Essendon DFO crash are yet to release their ‘Part B’ report which was examining the building approval process from an aviation safety perspective, including any airspace issues associated with the development, to determine the transport safety impact of the development on aviation operations at Essendon. This report may have implications for the future planning for Moorabbin Airport and the development of surrounding areas. With this said, Council makes the above submission to the Committee to consider the planning controls, and other mechanisms, as the basis of meeting the needs of all stakeholders, while providing a sound basis for continuing future land use planning around the airport.
12
Attachment 1- New Format Planning Scheme Panel Report 1998
13
18/20805
Kingston New Format Planning Scheme 1 Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee, June 1998
KINGSTON
NEW FORMAT PLANNING SCHEME
REPORT OF THE PANEL AND ADVISORY COMMITTEE
JUNE 1998
1 18/20805
Kingston New Format Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee, June 1998
KINGSTON NEW FORMAT PLANNING SCHEME
REPORT OF THE PANEL AND ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Kathryn Mitchell (Chair)
.,.0w)i A Janet Horak
Egils Stokans
June 1998
2 18/20805
Kingston New Format Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee, June 1998
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No.
1. INTRODUCTION 5
2. STRATEGIC OVERVIEW 7 2.1 Overview of the Municipality 7 2.2 Strategic Planning Response 9 2.3 Key Issues 10 2.4 Making Changes to the Scheme 12 2.5 Overall Assessment of Kingston Planning Scheme 12 2.6 Recommendations 13
3. RESPONSE TO TERMS OF REFERENCE 14 3.1 Consistency 14 3.2 Municipal Strategic Statement 15 3.3 Local Planning Policy Framework 18 3.4 Zones, Overlays and Schedules 19 3.5 Local Policies 35 3.6 Incorporated Documents 36 3.7 Monitoring and Review 37 3.8 Recommendations 38
4. CONSIDERATION OF SUBMISSIONS 41 4.1 Zoning of Beach Road 41 4.2 Municipal Strategic Statement 49 4.3 Submissions from Authorities 59 4.4 Submissions on Overlays 73 4.5 Requests for Rezoning of Non-Urban Land 95 4.6 Other Rezoning Requests 109 4.7 Miscellaneous 124 4.8 Other Submissions 134
5. AIRPORT ENVIRONS OVERLAY 136 5.1 Introduction and Background 136 5.2 Aircraft Noise Assessment 137 5.3 Planning Framework 138 5.4 Proposed Moorabbin Airport Controls 140 5.5 Key Issues and Response to Submissions 143 5.6 Site Specific Issues 152 5.7 Conclusions 154 5.8 Recommendations 155
6. RECOMMENDATIONS 157 6.1 Before Adoption 157 6.2 After Adoption 163 6.3 Actions by Others 163
3 18/20805
Kingston New Format Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee, June 1998
APPENDICES
1. Terms of Reference.
i 2. Written submissions for Stage 1 hearing.
3. Written submissions for Stage 2 hearing.
•
i
4 18/20805
Kingston New Format Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee, June 1998
1. INTRODUCTION
The Panel and Advisory Committee appointed under Sections 151 and 153 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 to consider the New Format Kingston Planning Scheme comprised:
• Ms Kathryn Mitchell (Chair), • Ms Janet Horak, and • Mr Egils Stokans.
The Panel and Advisory Committee acted in accordance with a Terms of Reference, a copy of which is included as Appendix 1 to this report. The Panel held a Directions Hearing at Moorabbin on 11 February 1998 and as a result of issues raised at this hearing, it conducted its public hearing in two stages.
The Stage 1 hearing was essentially concerned with a range of general issues associated with the new format Planning Scheme, and was held over six days from 16 to 20, and 23 March 1998. A total of 154 submissions were considered at this part of the hearing and Appendix 2 provides a list of all parties who made a written submission. Parties which appeared before the Panel in relation to the Stage 1 Hearing included:
• City of Kingston • Department of Infrastructure • Department of Natural Resources and Environment • South East Regional Waste Management Group • Hayton Kosky for Adolph Kroll • Contour Consultants for Westfield Developments • Freehill Hollingdale and Page for Lend Lease • Parks Victoria • Mordialloc Beaumaris Conservation League • David Foran • David Normington • Mentone Bayside Residents Group • Foreshore Residents Association • Network Planning Consultants for Whelan Kartaway and Subud Melbourne • Watsons for Portland House Corporation • Leonard Le Page • Ratio Consultants for MDC Management • Harold Sztainbok • Mr Mann • Bowden Verhoeven for F & F Holdings • Custance & Assoc for K & S Waste • Dingley Village Community Assoc. • T M Ring & Assoc. For Tallahassee • Gerner Consulting for A J Baxter • Easton Consulting for A Farr, St Bede's College and Derek Barker
5 18/20805
A 18/20805
Kingston New Format Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee, June 1998
The Stage 2 hearing was held on 20 - 22 April 1998 to consider all submissions in relation to the proposed Airport Environs Overlay. In this regard the Panel considered a further 365 written submissions, including submissions from the City of Kingston, Department of Infrastructure and the Federal Airports Commission. A list of all submittors to this part of the Hearing is included as Appendix 3 while those who appeared before the Panel included;
• Department of Infrastructure • Federal Airports Commission, represented by Mr Ian Lonie, Clayton Utz • City of Kingston, represented by Mr Terry Montebello, Maddock Lonie Chisholm • Southern Health Care Network, represented by Ms Elizabeth McCallum • Moorabbin Airport Residents Association (MARA) • Andrew Farr • Peter Soding • Mr Mann • Greg Wilton MP • Geoff Leigh MP • CSR Readymix • Pioneer Concrete • Kellie Zimmek • Elizabeth Saunders • Eve & Ian Godsil • Max Sjostedt • Christine Chittick • Gary Cuthell • Dr J Spencer • Wanda Phillips • Yvonne Taylor • Reg Marlow • Susan Dobell
The Panel has considered all written submissions and all the documentation placed before it by Council and those who participated in the public hearing. In addition it has visited various parts of the municipality and has undertaken site inspections as it has deemed necessary. The following sections of this report is divided into five principal sections:
• strategic overview; • response to Terms of Reference; • consideration of general submissions; • airport environs overlay; and • recommendations.
6 18/20805
Kingston New Format Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee, June 1998
2. STRATEGIC OVERVIEW
2.1 Overview of the Municipality
The City of Kingston is a large and physically diverse municipality located in the south east of metropolitan Melbourne, comprising an area of almost 91 square kilometres. It combines substantial residential areas with vibrant commercial and retail activity centres, agricultural and non urban areas, as well as a prominent manufacturing and industrial sector. The City is made up of the former municipalities of Moorabbin, Mordialloc, Chelsea, part of Springvale and part of Oakleigh.
Kingston has a population of approximately 128,000 people, which is comprised of around 49,000 households. Its population is slightly older than the Melbourne average, with fewer people in the 0-39 age group and more people aged over 50 years, which reflects the City's trend towards an ageing population. Exceptions to this occur in the newer suburbs of Patterson Lakes and Aspendale Gardens, which support a younger population. It is expected that Kingston's population will increase slowly and peak in the year 2004 at around 133,200 people, after which it is forecast to fall slightly over the period to 2011.
The City's cultural blend is predominantly Anglo-Saxon, with over 70% of residents born in Australia and a further 8% born in other English-speaking countries. Clarinda and Clayton South have higher levels of ethnicity, with significant Greek and Vietnamese communities in each respective area.
The proportion of households in high and low income brackets is markedly different across the municipality. Generally the suburbs of Patterson Lakes, Dingley Village and Mentone have a higher proportion of high income households than the average for Kingston. Suburbs where household income is below the average include Chelsea, Edithvale and Clarinda.
Detached housing is the predominant housing form in Kingston, and although most of Kingston's residential areas are characterised by single detached dwellings on conventional lots, the City offers a range of housing choices, including medium and high density housing developments. Housing construction eras in Kingston vary from post war era homes in Moorabbin and Clayton South through to newer, and larger dwellings in Patterson Lakes and Aspendale Gardens.
Figures released by the Australian Bureau of Statistics indicate that around 53% households comprise one or two person households. This suggests that it may be necessary to pursue opportunities for consolidation and redevelopment of some existing housing stock as the broader trend towards smaller household size continues. Almost three-quarters of Kingston residents (72%) own or are purchasing their home.
Kingston's natural open space areas could be considered as one of Kingston's most highly valued resources. Open space areas in Kingston include major parklands, golf courses (of which there are ten), foreshore reserves, wetlands, and potential regional open space networks (to be provided though implementation of the Chain of Parks
7 18/20805 Kingston New Format Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee, June 1998
concept plan). A significant proportion of privately owned open space contributes to the landscape character and open space qualities of the City, provided through the range of private golf courses, agricultural holdings and non urban land. The City's major open space features include Braeside Park, Kingston Heath Reserve, Karkarook Park, Rowan Woodland Reserve, Bradshaw Park, the Grange, Edithvale/Seaford Wetlands, Mordialloc Creek, Bicentennial Park, Sir William Fry Reserve, Carrum Reserve, Keeley Park, Racecourse Reserve, and will include the proposed Chain of Parks.
Non-urban land in Kingston is located in the north and east of the City and includes the Heatherton and Braeside areas. Kingston's non-urban areas play an important role in servicing the southern suburbs of Melbourne and it forms part of the South East Non- Urban Area (extending into the municipalities of Casey, Frankston and Greater Dandenong). These areas fulfil a range of non urban and urban related roles, including agricultural production, recreation, scenic and landscape qualities, aircraft movements, sand production and waste disposal. A number of submissions at this hearing related to the non-urban areas of Kingston.
Implementation of the Chain of Parks project, which will ultimately result in the development of an integrated network of parks and habitat corridors will essentially be achieved within Kingston's non urban areas. Centrally located in the non urban area is the Moorabbin Airport, the third busiest airport in Australia and which is likely to grow in its significance to the City and the region. The airport has regional and state significance and is an important economic contributor to the municipality. Other areas of Kingston's non-urban land are zoned and have been used for extractive industry purposes, and as a consequence the area supports a high concentration of landfills.
Port Phillip Bay and the foreshore reserve are two of Kingston's most important environmental assets. The coastal areas contribute to the attractiveness of the area as a high quality residential environment and as a tourist destination. Other environmentally significant areas within Kingston include Karkarook Park, Bradshaw Park, Braeside Park, the Patterson River, the Mordialloc Creek, and the Edithvale/Seaford Wetlands, which are presently under consideration by RAMSAR for inclusion as an internationally significant wetland.
Kingston's retail and commercial activities are characterised by a diverse mix and size of activities, from numerous village shopping centres, to larger scale mixed commercial development flanking the Nepean Highway, and the major regional retailing presence of Westfield Southlands. This centre is the pre-eminent activity centre in Kingston and is currently undergoing a major expansion.
Kingston is one of the major manufacturing centres of Melbourne and includes the Moorabbin, Cheltenham and Braeside industrial areas and the Redwood Gardens and Woodlands Industrial Estates. The municipality has about 4,000 industrial premises and the greatest concentration of small to medium industrial enterprises in Melbourne. These businesses provide 25,000 jobs or about 10% of Melbourne's manufacturing jobs. Industrial activity in Kingston is generally characterised by a high degree of intra- regional trading, with the south east region of Melbourne recognised as a major contributor to Victoria's economic well-being.
8 18/20805
Kingston New Format Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee, June 1998
An extensive transport network serves the municipality, providing vital linkages to the wider metropolitan region. The significant roads that run through the municipality include the Mornington Peninsula Freeway, Boundary Road, Nepean Highway, Lower and Centre Dandenong Roads, Wanrigal Road, Clayton Road, Springvale Road/Edithvale Road, Westall Road, South Road, Old Dandenong Road, Wells Road, the Springvale Bypass and Beach Road. Of particular significance to the region is the pressure on the city's limited east-west transport linkages, which connect the established industrial areas in the east to the Nepean Highway and greater Melbourne in the west. Major future transport corridors within the City include the proposed Mornington Peninsula Freeway extension, Westall Road carriageway duplication, and proposed Dingley Freeway.
follows coastline and includes eight stations The Melbourne - Frankston railway line the through in the municipality, whilst the Melbourne - Dandenong railway line traverses the top north east corner with Westall station. Extensive bus services also link the City's established residential areas to its key activity centres and rail stations. Public transport services are less well provided for in the newer residential areas around Patterson Lakes and Aspendale Gardens.
It is considered that the City of Kingston is a well established residential area which has a good and productive economic base, a range of major environmental assets and a positive outlook.
2.2 Strategic Planning Response
In developing its Municipal Strategic Statement, the City of Kingston has clearly identified that the protection and enhancement of the its natural environment and urban character are key strategic directions for the City. In addition, protection and sustaining of its foreshore and non-urban areas, the creation of wetlands and implementation of the Chain of Parks concept are all important planning outcomes, as are the protection and enhancement of its urban character through promotion of good urban design in residential and commercial areas, key gateways and public places. Further, economic growth, particularly in the areas of manufacturing, retail activities and tourism are also seen as important.
In response to these key issues, the City has identified eight core land use elements as being integral to it's future land use planning and policy, these being:
• Residential Land Use; • Employment (Retail and Commercial, and Industrial); • Environment, Wetlands and Waterways; • Foreshore; • Open Space; • Non-Urban Land (Extractive Industry, Agriculture, Chain of Parks, and Moorabbin Airport); • Traffic and Transport; and • Urban Character.
9 18/20805
Kingston New Format Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee, June 1998
In recognising and describing each of the Core Land Use Elements, the Municipal Strategic Statement provides a statement about the environmental, social and economic issues which underpin Council's policy response, and a series of Core Objectives, Core Strategies and Locations for Implementation. At the conclusion of each of the Core Land Use elements, a list of relevant documents is provided for further reference.
As part of its Municipal Strategic Statement, the city prepared a Land Use Framework Plan, which illustrates the key strategic directions for the municipality. This plan indicates the broad land use directions, as well as identifying the village centres, the major retail and business in Cheltenham, major gateways and the area of tourism focus. It also indicated an urban/non-urban boundary. During the course of the hearing, the Panel informed Council that some improvements could be made to the Framework Plan •to more clearly provide strategic direction. Some of these issues have been responded to by the Council, who has already provided the Panel with some suggested modifications to the MSS. The Panel appreciates the prompt response to these issues from the Council and considers that such modifications will greatly enhance the City of Kingston Municipal Strategic Statement and its Planning Scheme.
As part of this further work, the Council has indicated that it may also consider developing separate land use framework plans for each of the land use elements of the MSS to simplify the presentation of its strategic objectives. The Panel endorses this suggestion. In addition the Panel would like to see a clearer relationship between the City of Kingston and its neighbouring municipalities and in this regard suggests that the inclusion of a regional map demonstrating key linkages external to its boundaries would be of some benefit.
It should be noted that while the Panel does not have any real concerns about the planning direction of the municipality, it considers that the way in which these key directions and land use elements have been expressed in the Municipal Strategic Statement needs further work. The Municipal Strategic Statement itself is too wordy and cumbersome and it does not provide a particularly clear direction.
Comments in this regard were made by the Panel during the Hearing process, and at the conclusion of the hearing, the City of Kingston presented the Panel with suggestions for a modified Municipal Strategic Statement which took into account some of the concerns raised by the Panel and submittors. The Panel appreciates those actions and considers that the City has understood the necessity of ensuring proper links between its Municipal Strategic Statement and the selection of zones, schedules and overlays to be included in the Scheme. There is further discussion of these aspects in Section 3 of this report.
2.3 Key Issues
The Panel sees the key issues facing Kingston as being the need to resolve existing uncertainty about the future of non-urban land, particularly in the Heatherton area, the protection and enhancement of the foreshore area, resolution of the proposed Airport Environs Overlay and the community concern about the zoning of Beach Road. These are briefly detailed as follows:
10 18/20805 Kingston New Format Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee, June 1998
1 (i) Non-Urban Land
With regard to the future of the non-urban land, the Panel considers that a clear policy direction is required to provide strategic certainty to landowners in the remaining non- urban land in the municipality. The Panel considers that in this respect a clear strategic direction for such land within Kingston and other surrounding municipalities has been lacking. It recognises the work carried out as part of the South East Non Urban Study, but considers that work did not provide a clear resolution to the municipalities and landowners involved. During the Hearing the Council placed great weight and reliance on a proposed future strategy for the Heatherton area, but currently there is a tenuous link or recognition with this in the MSS. This is an area that needs to be strengthened in the MSS and subsequent local policies.
(ii) Foreshore Area
The foreshore areas of Kingston, including Port Phillip Bay have rightly been recognised as a major asset to the City, but further planning work needs to be undertaken to realise that asset. The foreshore area and coastline of Kingston is quite extensive, stretching from Mentone through to Carnim. Through its Strategic Framework Land Use Plan, Council has designated the foreshore area as the "Bayside Environmental Areas" and has applied Design and Development Overlays over most of this area. Council is also undertaking a joint study with Bayside and Port Phillip municipalities to prepare a strategy plan for the foreshore areas. Foreshore areas are not just about planning, but rather more so about environmental management in the broadest sense. Good management would require good liaison and working relationships with a number of government departments, the community and user groups. The development of the Kingston MSS could assist in this process and provides the opportunity to put in place a number of mechanisms to ensure the foreshore areas of Kingston are enhanced and protected.
(iii) Airport Environs Overlay
Moorabbin Airport is a well established General Aviation airport with five runways and a substantial network of taxiways, aprons and helicopter landing sites. It is the third busiest airport in Australia, with 80% of its movements being related to pilot training. This results in concentrated activity in the vicinity of the airport, which is a source of great annoyance and frustration to local residents. Further, residential encroachment and a perceived increase in flight activity in and around Moorabbin Airport causes conflict at the Airport interface and the proposed introduction of an Airport Environs Overlay control has caused significant concern and confusion in the local communities surrounding this facility. This resulted in a separate hearing to deal with these issues, which is detailed in Section 5 of this report.
1 (iv) Zoning of Beach Road
Ninety submissions were made about the zoning of Beach Road as Road Zone 1, another issue which has caused concern and confusion in the community. This is discussed further in Section 3 (application of zones) and Section 4 (consideration of submissions). The Panel considers the Council's application of the Road Zone 1 to be the correct
11 18/20805
Kingston New Format Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee, June 1998
application to Beach Road and reiterates the Council's view that such an application will not change the status or function of Beach Road.
Council has also advised submittors that it would like to pursue the development of a strategy for Beach Road as a means of protecting and enhancing its status as a scenic boulevard of metropolitan significance. This would be undertaken in conjunction with the Cities of Bayside and Port Phillip and may encompass urban design, landscaping, treatment of Council owned facilities on the foreshore, use of the road and adjoining land and policy measures to enhance its overall status. The Panel endorses such an approach and considers this should be better articulated in the MSS.
2.4 Making Changes to the Scheme
The Panel considers that the City of Kingston made a good submission about its New Format Planning Scheme and that it has embraced the rigour of the planning reform process in a positive and proactive manner. The officers involved in this process on behalf of the City are to be commended for the way in which they represented their City and for their positive input into the process. In addition, the Panel was impressed with the level of consultation the Council had with its local community members and considers that such consultation has contributed to the development of a good planning scheme for Kingston.
The Council's response to a number of submissions and the concerns raised by the Panel has been positive and proactive. As mentioned the Panel appreciates the way in which the City of Kingston has responded to concerns raised and it considers that the adoption by the City of suggestions made will result in a more rigorous and workable Planning Scheme for the City.
2.5 Overall Assessment of Kingston Planning Scheme
The Panel's overall assessment of the Kingston Planning Scheme is that it is a balanced and forward looking response to the opportunities and challenges facing the municipality. Clear directions have been identified and the scheme has been formulated in a genuine attempt to respond to the expectations of the planning reform program. In its submissions to the Panel, the Council provided a good assessment of the relationship between the MSS and the zones, schedules and overlays but this assessment needs to be incorporated within the MSS. Tightening up of the Municipal Strategic Statement in the way the Panel has indicated, and rationalising local policies will further improve the scheme and make it more workable.
Articulating the relationship between the Municipal Strategic Statement and the zones, overlays and schedules which have been applied will not only respond to Section 12(A)(3)(c) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 but will improve overall understanding of the Council's objectives and strategies.
12 18/20805
Kingston New Format Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee, June 1998
2.6 Recommendations
The Panel makes the following recommendations with regard to the Strategic Overview:
• Restructure and reformat the Municipal Strategic Statement to clearly articulate and identify the links between it and the zones, schedules and overlays. • Provide further information on key land use links and activities immediately external to the municipal boundary on the Framework Plan. • Provide more detailed and informative maps and plans within the MSS, particularly as they relate to the Core Land Use Elements. • Following adoption of the Planning Scheme, Council undertake the strategic planning study of the Heatherton area as a matter of priority, and foreshadow this by articulating and reflecting this in the MSS.
13 18/20805
Kingston New Format Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee, June 1998
3. RESPONSE TO TERMS OF REFERENCE
The specific issues which the Panel has responded to in this section of the Report are taken from the amended Terms of Reference dated 19 February 1998, as provided in Appendix 1.
3.1 Consistency
The Kingston Planning Scheme is considered to be generally consistent with the Ministerial Direction on the form and content of planning schemes, and all relevant provisions and clauses from the VPPs have been applied with the following exceptions:
• Changes necessary as a result of Amendment V3 (including minor formatting and the structure of the schedules).
• Various minor errors and omissions.
These changes and omissions have been acknowledged by the City of Kingston, and will be incorporated into the Kingston Planning Scheme prior to adoption.
There are a number of Ministerial Directions which are directly relevant to the Kingston Planning Scheme, these being as follows:
• Direction No. 1 Potentially Contaminated Land
There are a number of sites within the City which Council has identified as potentially contaminated. In particular, the MSS promotes the re-use of a series of small industrial sites for housing purposes, subject to appropriate environmental standards The Planning Scheme applies the Environmental Audit Overlay to these sites and other potentially contaminated areas. The MSS and application of the Environmental Audit Overlay is consistent with Ministerial Direction No. 1.
• Direction No. 3 South East Growth Area Plan
Land within the City of Kingston does not form part of the South-East Growth Area (SEGA) Plan. There has historically been an explicit policy relationship between the SEGA and the south east non urban 'wedge', including non urban land within Kingston.
The Kingston Planning Scheme recognises the metropolitan implications of the SEGA and the need to ensure that future major residential growth occurs within the SEGA. As such the Kingston LPPF identifies an 'edge' between urban and non urban areas and supports the principles of the South East Non Urban Study (SENUS) as a means of ensuring that use and development in the south east non urban area does not prejudice the efficient utilisation of land in the SEGA.
. 14 18/20805
Kingston New Format Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee, June 1998
Major urban development in the non urban area is not supported by the SENUS and Council polices, due to its potential to impact on the SEGA and the achievement of State planning policies. The SENUS recommended that there be no major urban development in the non urban area unless there is an appropriate review of the SEGA plan.
• Direction No. 6 & 6A Rural Residential Development
There are limited areas within Kingston where the potential for rural residential development might exist. The Kingston LPPF does not support or promote rural residential development on land within the City's non urban areas. However, the schedule to the rural zone allows for subdivision of lots down to 2 hectares in some locations. This direction is therefore relevant. The policies of the LPPF are considered to be consistent with this direction.
• Direction No. 8 Local Variations to Techniques of the Good Design Guide for Medium Density housing Revision No. I, August 1997.
No local variations are proposed as part of this scheme. The LPPF supports the Good Design Guide as the appropriate assessment tool for medium density housing. Further consideration will be given to the development of local variations upon completion of the draft Kingston Residential Strategy.
Directions No. 2, 5 and 7 are not applicable to the Kingston Planning Scheme.
Generally, the Kingston Planning Scheme is considered to be consistent with the Manual for the Victoria Planning Provisions, even though the Manual has been updated since exhibition of the scheme. The Council advised that in reviewing the exhibited Kingston Planning Scheme with the Department of Infrastructure, a number of areas where the provisions of the scheme were inconsistent with the Manual were identified. These issues are discussed in appropriate sections of this report and are mainly concerned with provisions of overlays and schedules.
3.2 Municipal Strategic Statement
The objectives of planning in Victoria are set out in Section 4(1) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 and include:
(a) to provide for the fair, orderly, economic and sustainable use, and development of land; (b) to provide for the protection of natural and man-made resources and the maintenance of ecological and genetic diversity; (c) to secure a pleasant, efficient and safe working, living and recreational environment for all Victorian and visitors to Victoria; (d) to conserve and enhance those buildings, areas or other places which are of scientific, aesthetic, architectural, or historical interest, or otherwise of special cultural value;
15 18/20805
Kingston New Format Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee, June 1998
(e) to protect public utilities and other assets and enable the orderly provision and co-ordination of public utilities and other facilities for the benefit of the community; to facilitate development in accordance with the objectives set out in paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d), and (e); (g) to balance the present and future interests of all Victorians.
All of these objectives are applicable in Kingston and subject to the following discussion, all have been adequately responded to in the Municipal Strategic Statement. The Panel is satisfied that the MSS generally furthers the objectives of planning in Victoria and meets the requirements of the planning reform programme. The Panel considers that the strategic planning, land use and development objectives of the planning authority are a reasonable response to the characteristics, regional context, development constraints and opportunities of the municipality. With regard to the objectives of planning in Victoria and the objectives of the City of Kingston itself, the Panel does not consider there to be any important omissions or inconsistencies.
In terms of content, the Panel has already indicated that the MSS is a sound document which responds well to the issues faced by the City of Kingston as a planning authority. It brings together the basic elements of past strategic planning which are still valid and is internally consistent in that the overall objectives and strategies are elaborated by actions or implementation mechanisms in relevant ways.
One point to make though is that while the Panel understands the intent of the core objectives and strategies, it has difficulty in distinguishing any real differences between the two in the Municipal Strategic Statement. The objectives and strategies use a non- parallel structure and is confusing to the Panel principally because there appears to be no logical sequence of identifying the real continuum of objectives and strategies necessary to the future growth of Kingston. In addition, the objectives and strategies did not indicate any identifiable links with the proposed zones, schedules and overlays. For example, the Council has identified a number of areas that may be suitable for medium density development and it has applied a Residential 2 zone in an area near the Cheltenham Business area. However there is no link between the two in the MSS and no logical sequence for the designation of the R2 zone. The Panel recommends that these linkages be better addressed.
In early 1997 the City of Kingston embarked on the preparation of a new planning scheme for the municipality, as part of the State Government's broader program of reform to the Victorian Planning system. Tract Consultants Pty Ltd were appointed in March 1997 to assist Council in the preparation of the new planning scheme.
The new format City of Kingston Planning Scheme is based on the standard tools and provisions offered by the Victorian Planning Provisions, and incorporates a Local Policy Framework which identifies Council's strategic land use planning objectives for the municipality. The scheme has been prepared with close reference to the advice contained within the Manual for the Victorian Planning Provisions, and is considered to be consistent with the State Government's goals and objectives for planning scheme reform.
16 18/20805
Kingston New Format Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee, June 1998
The new Kingston Planning Scheme and Municipal Strategic Statement were developed in consultation with residents, community groups and relevant public authorities. The consultative process also included workshop sessions with Council's nine Village Committees, which provide a direct link to local issues and community opinion.
The Municipal Strategic Statement brings together many of Council's existing policies into a single strategic framework. Most of these existing policies were developed in close consultation with residents and community groups, hence the MSS also reflects the past collaboration which has taken place between Council and the community.
The draft Kingston Planning Scheme was on public exhibition from 7 July 1997 to 29 September 1997 and was widely available for inspection. An explanatory brochure on the new Kingston Planning Scheme was distributed to all property owners and occupiers in the City of Kingston. The brochure provided a brief explanation of the main features of the new scheme, and included details of the exhibition process. In addition, individual notification was also provided to all property owners and occupiers affected by any proposed major change in zoning or the introduction of new overlay controls under the new planning scheme. The Panel is satisfied that good opportunities for formal notification was provided.
In response to the exhibition of the new planning scheme a request was made by the Federal Airports Corporation (FAC) for an informal exhibition of revised Airport Environs Overlays. The submission by the FAC was prompted by the preparation of new noise contours for Moorabbin Airport, and was also made in response to amendments to the statewide Airport Environs Overlay provided in the Victorian Planning Provisions. At its meeting of 27 October 1997 Council agreed to an informal exhibition of a revised set of Airport Environs Overlays and this occurred between 3 December 1997 and 30 January 1998. Again the Panel is satisfied that appropriate notification procedures occurred.
A total of 491 submissions were received in response to the exhibition of the new Kingston Planning Scheme, of which 154 were concerned with the scheme in general and the remaining 337 concerned with the Airport Environs Overlay. The Panel is confident that the public has been provided with ample opportunity for involvement with the development of the Municipal Strategic Statement and the new format Planning Scheme for Kingston.
The City of Kingston submitted that its Municipal Strategic Statement is closely related to its Corporate Plan and that it focuses on management and implementation of the land use and development priorities of that plan. The Kingston Corporate Plan and the Municipal Strategic Statement share the same vision and the same key objectives, including:
• Resident and Community Planning • City Strategy and Economic Development • Environment and Infrastructure • Organisational Development
17 18/20805
Kingston New Format Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee, June 1998
Many of the core strategies included in the Kingston Municipal Strategic Statement are derived from the actions identified within the Corporate Plan. This plan provides the operating charter for the servicing functions of Council and is a more generalised document than the Municipal Strategic Statement. The Panel is satisfied that there are clear linkages between the Corporate Plan and the Municipal Strategic Statement, which builds on relevant objectives and key strategies within the Corporate Plan. The MSS adopts integrated planning principles which underpins Kingston's approach to planning for the future.
The local provisions of the Kingston Planning Scheme follow plain English principles and for the most part are easy to read. As mentioned there are aspects of the Municipal Strategic Statement and local policies that the Panel considers would benefit from being tightened up and these are addressed elsewhere in this report. Notwithstanding this, the Council submitted a revised version of the MSS at the conclusion of the hearing which included a number of suggestions to improve the MSS and its linkages with the overall selection of zones, schedules and overlays. The Panel does not propose to detail these as part of this report but it endorses the work undertaken by the Council and acknowledges that the modifications proposed will greatly enhance the Kingston MSS and new format planning scheme.
3.3 Local Planning Policy Framework
The City of Kingston exhibited four Local Policies as part of its new format Planning Scheme, these being:
Clause 22.01 Cheltenham Business Centre Clause 22.02 Springvale Industrial Park Area Clause 22.03 Chain of Parks Clause 22.04 Non Urban Land
Section 3.6 of this report discusses these policies in more detail, however it is noted that the exhibited policies are generally consistent with the SPPF. In preparing the Scheme, it was not Councils intention to repeat the state planning policies but to enhance them where appropriate with strategic directions and local policies. This approach recognises that the SPPF is an integral part of the scheme, and avoids the problem of duplication between the SPPF and the LPPF. The MSS and the local policies have a direct relationship to the SPPF and provide appropriate re-enforcement of state policies where they relate directly to issues effecting the City.
It is considered by the Panel that some of the local policies have been drafted with a performance based approach in mind although others have tended to be more prescriptive. This should be maintained in any redrafting of local policies and the preparation of new policies. As a result of consideration of submissions and the Panel hearing process, the Council has supported the inclusion of additional policies in the scheme and these are discussed later in the relevant sections.
18 18/20805
Kingston New Format Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee, June 1998
3.4 Zones, Overlays and Schedules
Subject to the comments below and specific recommendations arising from the consideration of submissions in Section 4 of this report, the Panel finds that the application of zones, overlays and schedules in the Kingston Planning Scheme is generally satisfactory and is a reasonable reflection of the strategic intentions set out in the Municipal Strategic Statement.
Section 12(A) of the Planning and Environment Act provides as follows:
A municipal strategic statement must contain: a) the strategic planning, land use and development objectives of the planning authority; and b) the strategies for achieving the objectives; and c) a general explanation of the relationship between those objectives and strategies and the controls on the use and development of land in the planning scheme; and d) any other provision or matter which the Minister directs to be included in the municipal strategic statement.
In developing its Planning Scheme, the City of Kingston has proposed to use a number of the VPP zones, overlays and schedules. For the most part, the Kingston Planning Scheme reflects previous zoning, particularly with respect to residential, business, industry and non-urban areas. However the Council was keen to ensure that the preparation of its new scheme was not just seen as a direct translation of zones, although generally that was inevitable.
However the Panel is concerned about the lack of definition in the Municipal Strategic Statement and the lack of clear linkages between the Municipal Strategic Statement and the application of zones, overlays and schedules proposed in the new format Kingston Planning Scheme. This emerged as a major issue of concern during the hearing process. While the Panel is satisfied that the general application of zones, overlays and schedules is correct, it considers that the links between these and the Municipal Strategic Statement needs strengthening.
For example, the Panel notes that the Residential 1 zone has been used appropriately to confirm the existing residential areas of the City and the Residential 2 zone has been applied an area adjoining the Cheltenham Business Centre. This seemingly has been applied to give effect to Council's Residential Land Use objectives and strategies, which include inter alia to provide diversity in housing stock, to recognise housing opportunities around key activity centres, promote opportunities for medium density housing, support increases in housing densities, and to encourage the development of mixed use and integrated developments within Kingston's activity centres. The core strategies and core objectives could be interpreted to indicate that these opportunities could occur in any area around any activity centre. In the Residential Land Use section of the Municipal Strategic Statement entitled "Locations for Implementation" the focus of opportunity is as follows:
19 18/20805
Kingston New Format Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee, June 1998
• Opportunities for medium density housing will focus on those residential areas surrounding the key activity centres in Kingston; • Major residential development opportunities will be encouraged on various sites on Wells Road, and a number offormer industrial sites and disused municipal tips; • Opportunities for residential and mixed use development will be encouraged in all key activity centres.
The Panel considers these Locations for Implementation to be repetitive of the core strategies and core objectives, and considers the Municipal Strategic Statement would have benefited by a more direct recognition of the application of the Residential 2 zone and specific identification of other areas to implement these strategies and objectives.
Using this as an example, the Panel considers that the Kingston Planning Scheme, and in particular the Municipal Strategic Statement, has not adequately explained the relationship between its core strategies and core objectives, and the application of zones, overlays and schedules, and where appropriate, particular local policies. In addition, other specific locations where residential development is considered by Council to be the preferred development option for any area should be identified through the Municipal Strategic Statement. This should not be seen as a fatal flaw, but it is an issue that must be rectified, through a review of the Municipal Strategic Statement, prior to adoption of the scheme. The Core Objectives need to be reviewed to clarify and tighten what the objectives are really seeking to achieve and to provide a more specific focus to each objective.
The Council does not have any option about whether it should comply with the aforementioned provisions of the Act and in any event, these provisions are expressed in mandatory language where the Minister should not approve any planning scheme which he does not consider meets the requirements of the Act. This may have later implications in the AAT where the validity of an MSS could be challenged on the basis that it did not comply with the Act. In recognition of some of these issues being raised at the Hearing, Council has already set these processes in train and the Panel supports the work done to date.
In developing its Planning Scheme, the City of Kingston has applied a number of zones and overlays generally consistent with the VPPs as follows:
• Residential Zones
The Residential 1 Zone has been applied to most of the existing established residential areas in Kingston. There is little opportunity for new residential areas of Kingston to be developed, except as part of a wider strategic review of areas such as the non-urban lands in the Heatherton area. The Panel received some submissions requesting a residential zoning, particularly in the Dingley (Submission 132) and Heatherton area (Submissions 129 -135 generally). These have been dealt with later in the report. Nevertheless it is the opinion of the Panel that the City was correct in not applying a residential zone to those areas as they are not, at this stage areas where residential development is contemplated.
20 18/20805
Kingston New Format Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee, June 1998
Council has applied the Residential 2 Zone to an area surrounding the Cheltenham Business area in recognition of the transitional nature of that area and the opportunity it presents for residential redevelopment, particularly with regard to long term renewal opportunities. As mentioned, the Panel does not have any particular concerns with the application of this zone, but considers it needs to be better linked with objectives and strategies within the MSS to provide a strategic basis for its designation. No submissions were received in respect to the Residential 2 zone. The Council anticipates that future rezoning of residential areas to a Residential 2 zone will be put forward pending further development and refinement of the draft Kingston Residential Strategy. As previously mentioned, this area should be designated as a medium density housing area on the Strategic Land Use Framework Plan.
The draft Residential Strategy will form the basis of much of the future strategic work in relation to future residential development and the Panel considers that while it is unfortunate that this work has not been completed in time for this Panel hearing, it will be completed by the time of the first major review. Council anticipates the completion and adoption of the strategy within six months and that further actions that may arise from the study include "Urban Village" strategies, and possibly local variations to the Good Design Guide. The Council has noted that its Residential Land Use elements may be updated in the light of the current review of its draft residential Strategy which is to be completed prior to the adoption of the MSS. As a result of this, additional comments may be included to identify Council's desire to pursue higher design standards for medium density housing development in Kingston.
The Strategic Land Use Framework Plan highlights those areas in Kingston that are generally zoned for residential purposes and also designates some areas as "Residential Opportunity", one of which is located around the Cheltenham Business area. The other areas are mainly located near existing activity centres, and although highlighted as areas of residential opportunity, there is little else in the MSS to support this. These areas are zoned generally as Residential 1, and the MSS needs to be stronger in its intent if the Council really envisages these areas as true residential opportunities. It is considered that the Council needs to better clarify how it intends to deal with the "Residential Opportunity" areas and the strategies to be pursued to facilitate the redevelopment of these areas.
Council has applied the Mixed Use Zone in locations where land currently within business zones provides limited opportunities for the creation of housing in smaller, older commercial centres where redevelopment opportunities exist. The Panel supports this designation at these locations. A further area has been designated as Mixed Use in the White Street horse stabling area, which is currently zoned for industrial purposes. The Council noted that the closure of the Epsom Training facility has resulted in significant redevelopment opportunities for this area, but constraints such as local flooding and aircraft noise will need to be overcome prior to permitting the development of housing in the area.
There are no local policies that apply to the residential zones however in the future some local policies may be developed as a result of further work on the Residential Strategy.
21 18/20805
Kingston New Format Planning Scheme , Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee, June 1998
In addition to the obvious direct translation of existing residential zones, Council has applied a Residential 1 zone, with an Environmental Audit Overlay to some small industrial sites where the long term future of such sites is seen to be residential. The Panel received some submissions on this issue, which are discussed in Section 4. However the Panel supports the intent of Council in this regard and considers that it has demonstrated a forward looking approach to isolated pockets of generally redundant or inappropriate industrial activity.
• Industrial Zones
Council has applied the Industrial 1 zone to the majority of existing industrially zoned land throughout its municipality. There are no industrial areas within Kingston which require the application of the Industrial 2 zone. A small pocket of an older industrial area in the north of the municipality has been zoned as Industrial 3, as it largely represents an area that has a sensitive interface with adjacent residential and other sensitive areas.
In addition, and following consideration by both the Council and the Panel, the application of an industrial zone on Wells Road, west of Springvale Road is recommended for inclusion in the Industrial 3 zone, particularly as the site has a direct interface with abutting residential areas. A further site on the corner of South Road and Warrigal Road is also recommended for inclusion in the Industrial 3 zone, as it is considered by Council to be a gateway to the City, and is opposite residential land in the city of Glen Eira. The Council noted that it believed that future design, siting and use of this land should be the subject of planning approvals to address these issues, a view which the Panel endorses. Amendment V3 to the VPPs resulted in changes to the purpose of the Industrial 3 zone, such that it is no longer required to be used in conjunction with the Industrial 2 zone.
The Council has applied a local policy at Clause 22.02 "Springvale Industrial Park Area" to land identified in the Springvale Industrial Parks Strategy Plan which has been adapted from existing planning scheme provisions.
As part of the consideration of industrial land issues, Council has applied the Mixed Use zone to a number of smaller sites currently zoned for industrial use, the application of which is intended to stimulate economic activity as well as providing opportunities for housing and other mixed uses to increase the viability of these centres.
As with residential issues, Council recognises that further strategic planning work needs to be carried out and in particular the adoption and implementation of the draft Kingston Industrial Strategy will ultimately lead to the development of local policies for the industrial areas. The MSS should include reference to the draft Kingston Industrial Strategy, with a discussion of how it will be used in the future development of policy statements and design guidelines for specific industrial precincts.
22 18/20805
Kingston New Format Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee, June 1998
• Business Zones
The new format Kingston Planning Scheme has used the five business zones provided by the VPPs, and in the opinion of the Panel has applied them appropriately throughout the municipality.
The Business 1 zone has been applied to the majority of commercial centres across the City, including larger and smaller shopping centres. A Design and Development Overlay which has been drawn from the existing Planning Scheme provisions, has been applied to the Parkdale Plaza Business Centre, which carries forward the strategic objective of promoting high amenity retail and commercial development and encouraging innovative retailing activity.
The Business 2 zone has been applied where Council seeks to promote and encourage office and associated development. Locationally it has been applied to some land within the Cheltenham centre, a small area within the Mentone shopping centre and land along the Nepean Highway, which is currently used for offices.
Council has applied the Business 3 zone in circumstances where a site is currently used as offices or industry, or where Council has identified a strategic planning benefit where the use of the zone would allow the development of integrated office and manufacturing uses. It has also been applied to a number of sites where its application might better facilitate redevelopment and encourage a broader mix of uses. Council noted that a technical error had occurred with the designation of the Business zones in that some industrial land on Nepean Highway, Mentone is incorrectly shown in two zones and that the Business 3 zone is the correct application.
Two Design and Development Overlays have been used in conjunction with the Business 3 zone, the first over the Melbourne Water site along Warrigal Road, and the second along land in Wells Road known as the "cigar land". Council considers this site to require a more complex set of planning controls relevant to the achievement of a high standard of urban design.
Kingston has a number of commercial sites with major frontages to Nepean Highway which are well located for bulky goods retailing. Some of these sites are inappropriately located within existing industrial zones, and the new scheme will better reflect these intent of these areas by placing them in the Business 4 zone.
The Business 5 zone has been used in locations where Council seeks to either reflect existing land uses or to encourage a mix of residential and office uses. In this regard the zone has been applied to land on the fringes of the Cheltenham centre and to smaller areas along Parkers Road, Parkdale and Centre Dandenong Road, Dingley.
Under the exhibited scheme, land at No. 2 Nepean Highway, Mentone was incorrectly shown in two zones (IN1Z and B3Z), while the correct zone for this land should be Business 3, consistent with adjoining land to the south.
Council has applied a local policy at Clause 22.01 "Cheltenham Business Centre" to implement the strategies of the MSS as it relates to the role and function of the
23 18/20805
Kingston New Format Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee, June 1998
Cheltenham Centre. Council noted that the policy has developed from a range of strategic studies over a 12 year period and that while the policy is derived from the former Planning Scheme it is of continuing relevance. However the policy needs to include additional statements to support the pursuit of specific policy objectives in the various precincts of the Cheltenham Business Centre, and Council needs to clarify its objectives for the specific role and function of each activity centre within the overall retail hierarchy.
Council has recognised that further work needs to be carried out in the form of completion of the Mordialloc Structure Plan, implementation of the Cheltenham District Centre Urban Design Study and other strategy plans affecting smaller centres in Kingston and the development of urban village strategies. This will lead to a possible review of the Business zones, particularly the Business 3 and 5 zones in the future. Nevertheless, at this stage, the Panel is satisfied that the Business zones have been correctly applied in the new format Kingston Planning Scheme.
• Rural Zones
Council has applied the Rural zone to all non-urban areas except those specifically designated for other non-urban uses such as parks, extractive industry, landfill sites and other uses. The Council has applied this zone to protect rural land for agricultural purposes until such time as strategic assessments and reviews indicate otherwise. A schedule has been included in this zone to differentiate minimum lot size and dwelling requirements, with the nomination of lot sizes being a direct translation of existing lot size provisions. Council indicated it had not taken any significant review of these lot size provisions, the carrying forward of which is considered as a "holding" measure until such time as detailed local structure plans are prepared for these areas. The Council indicated a strong commitment to the completion of structure plans for its non-urban areas and the Panel urges that the timing of these studies to occur after the scheme is gazetted.
The Panel has some reservations about the use of the rural zone as a holding mechanism, however it recognises that the suite of zones offered by the VPPs does not really allow a more viable option. One of the difficulties in the application of the Rural zone in the metropolitan area of Melbourne is that most of the land to which it is applied is clearly not rural in the truest intent of the definition, but rather it has a range of non-urban uses and developments. This was evident in the consideration of Submission No. 132 where the subject land in Dingley is currently in a Special Extractive 'A' zone, is proposed to be in a Rural zone, and the submittor is requesting a Residential 1 zone, due to location issues and the surrounding subdivision pattern. It may well be that the future use of the land is something other than rural, but at this stage of the process Council and the Panel have limited options for this site.
A policy for Non Urban Land has been included at Clause 22.04 to implement the objectives and strategies of the MSS relating to the need for structure planning in non- urban areas. This is a new policy which has been derived from earlier strategic studies and in the opinion of the Panel, is a starting point to assist in the resolution of the non- urban issues. It is anticipated that this policy will be amended or changed following the completion of the on-going non-urban land policy work being carried out by the Cities
24 18/20805
Kingston New Format Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee, June 1998
of Kingston, Greater Daridenong, Frankston and Casey which has resulted in a draft Memorandum of Understanding being prepared for these municipalities. Council anticipates its incorporation in the Planning Scheme, through the LPPF at a later date.
No other rural zones were applied in the Kingston Planning Scheme and the Panel considers that while the Rural zone is a best fit translation it is not the ideal planning outcome. However, the Council indicated to the Panel that the schedule to the Rural zone contains an error in respect to the description of one of the requirements of the schedule. In column 3 of the table, there is a requirement that any subdivision of land in Area c must be at least 2 hectares and located to the "west" of Springvale Road. The correct description should be to the "east" of Springvale Road.
• Public Zones
The Panel considers that Council has correctly applied the Public Use Zone to open space areas under the management of Melbourne Water including:
• land comprising the Edithvale -Seaford Wetlands, with an Environment Significance Overlay control. Melbourne Water is the manager of this area. • the section of the Mordialloc Creek comprising a trapezoidal drain, although advice from Melbourne Water indicated that this area should be included in a Stream and Floodway zone, to which the Council had no objections. • the section of the Patterson River which comprises artificial banks.
The Panel considers that Council has correctly applied the Public Park and Recreation Zone to:
• the majority of existing open space reserves in the municipality as the most appropriate means of implementing the open space objectives of the MSS. • the whole of Braeside Park, to recognise the regional conservation and recreational role of the park. • the Spring Valley Public Golf Course in Dingley. • the whole of the foreshore area as a reflection of its open space and recreational role, although discussions with various agencies has indicated that some of the foreshore area could be included in a Public Conservation and Resource zone.
However in the exhibited scheme land at 263 - 265 Spring Road Dingley was incorrectly included in the PPRZ. Although the ;and is in public ownership it is proposed to be developed as an institutional home and is therefore more appropriately accommodated in a Rural zone. Under the existing scheme the land is zoned Special Extractive A and hence the Rural zone is considered to offer a reasonably direct translation of the existing zone provisions.
Council has applied the Public Conservation and Resource Zone to the Grange reserve, which is a significant heathland community.
In the exhibited scheme, Council has applied Public Use zones for land owned by private utility providers, and the Practice Notes in the Manual make it clear that this is
25 18/20805
Kingston New Format Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee, June 1998
not appropriate. Submissions from a number of the utility providers have also requested a review of the exhibited zoning. This has also been picked up in Section 4. Further the Council has applied the Public Use 6 zone to the former municipal offices in Chelsea, and as Council has already disposed of this site, it is not appropriate to apply this zone to land in private ownership. Council has recommended it be placed in a Business 2 zone, and the Panel endorsed that.
It should be noted that Parks Victoria have requested parts of Braeside Park to be included in the Public Conservation and Resource zone. As discussed in the following section on the Special Use zones, Council may give some consideration to zoning the Spring Valley Public Golf Course as Special Use 1, to make it consistent with the other golf courses in the municipality. Apart from other specific issues raised, the Panel considers that Council has correctly applied the Public Use zones.
• Road Zones
The Road Zone 1 has been applied to all declared main roads in Kingston, which reflects the status of the road under the Transport act and which is consistent with the manual for the VPPs and the Ministerial directions.
The Road Zone 2 has been applied to all other major roads within the municipality to ensure that their function within the regional planning network is acknowledged and that works within these zones are consistent with their function as arterial roads.
It is noted that all other roads within the municipality are included within the relevant surrounding zoning.
In some instances a Public Acquisition Overlay has been applied to land which is intended to be acquired by VicRoads at a later date. It is noted that application of these overlays is consistent with advise and base maps from VicRoads and in all instances, an appropriate underlying zone has been nominated.
• Special Use Zone
The Special Use zone, using four different schedules, has been applied in the Kingston Planning Scheme for the following purposes:
• Schedule 1: Private Golf Courses
The purpose of this schedule is to recognise the use of private golf courses and associated uses, and this applies to nine golf courses in Kingston including the Patterson River Country Club, Capital, Rosslands, Commonwealth, Kingston Heath, Woodlands, Spring Valley, Kingswood, and Southern Golf Courses. A tenth course, the Spring Valley Public Golf Course in Dingley is currently zoned Public Park and Recreation.
The Department of Infrastructure has held a consistent view that private golf courses and private schools area not special uses that should be in a separate
26 18/20805
Kingston New Format Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee, June 1998
zone, but rather they should be accommodated in the underlying or surrounding zone. In its submissions to the Panel the Department stated:
Further consideration should be given to the application of a Special Use Zone to private golf courses and community and recreation facilities. The surrounding zoning may be more appropriate. If there is something particular about the private golf courses or community or recreation facilities, this could be detailed in the MSS or a local policy (which can contain strategic mapping). It may also be appropriate to apply an Incorporated Plan Overlay or Development Plan Overlay if it is necessary to specify the form and conditions of future use and development.
The MSS recognises the special significance of the Golf Courses of Kingston and acknowledges them as a key asset. Because there are so many courses within Kingston, they could be seen as part of the contributing character and "specialness" of the municipality and as such be recognised within the Special Use zone. The Panel supports the inclusion of the golf courses in a Special Use zone, however this could be further strengthened through additional recognition in the MSS.
The existing Special Use zone for golf courses under the current scheme specifically prohibits dwellings, and the exhibited scheme included dwelling as a Section 2 use, which the Council submitted was a technical error and wished it to be corrected. In this regard Council submitted that the proposed correction would not alter the existing use and development rights of golf courses in Kingston and would provide for a direct translation of the existing special use zone provisions into the new scheme.
• Schedule 2: Extractive Industry
Kingston has an extensive area of former and existing extractive industry operations, all at varying stages of filling or extraction. These areas are principally located in the Heatherton area, north of Heatherton Road, with two other areas further south. Council has recognised these areas by applying a Special Use 2 zone which the Panel considers is consistent with recent directions from the Department of Infrastructure. As such the Panel supports the use of this zone.
• Schedule 3: Community and Recreational Purposes
The Council has applied the Special Use 3 zone to two discrete parcels of land in the municipality, these being the area known as the "Subud" land in Heatherton and the area occupied by Petronis Reception Centre on Springvale Road, north of Dingley. The use of this zone for these purposes is questioned by the Panel. It is understood that the Petronis land was included in a Special Use 1 zone under the provisions of the existing scheme, and this really represents a direct translation. However the Panel considers that there may be a more appropriate zone for this land, but the difficulty with this area is that it is virtually surrounded by a Public
27 18/20805
Kingston New Format Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee, June 1998
Park and Recreation zone, with some Residential 1 to the west. Nevertheless a Residential 1 zone could be contemplated for the area, and Council should give some consideration to this. Alternatively, a Business or Industrial zone may be appropriate.
The Subud land is currently used as a place of assembly for a religious group but the landowners have expressed an intention to use the land for residential purposes in the future. The land is located in the non-urban area and abuts an existing quarry operation but it is also located at the interface of the urban area. Council has indicated support for its conversion to residential and has recommended that the Strategic Land Use Framework Plan be modified to show this land as a residential opportunity.
Council does not support its inclusion as a Residential 1 zone at this stage as it considers it to be premature. Council suggested the Special Use 3 zone be held in place as a holding zone until the complex buffer issues affecting the site are addressed in a strategic framework. These issues are further discussed in Section 4, submissions 117 and 118. While the Panel has reservations about this mechanism, it supports the intent of the Council in this regard.
• Schedule 4: Epsom Race Course
The Epsom Race Track which is now closed as a racecourse and showground, is currently zoned as Special Use 1 under the provisions of the existing scheme. The future use of the land is currently being determined and the MSS recognises future opportunities for the site by showing it as a "development opportunity" on the Strategic Land Use Framework Plan. The future potential of the land is also recognised in the Residential Land Use section of the MSS. Despite this, Council has applied a direct translation of the existing provisions into the new scheme as it considers that any change in zoning should occur in the context of a structure planning process. As with the Subud site the use of this zone is as a holding mechanism.
There area three specific instances where Council has applied a zone as a holding zone and the provisions of each of these zones differ. In each case the new zone has been as a direct translation of the existing provisions. All of the nominated intents are for mainly residential purposes and the Panel questions whether the use of zones for holding mechanisms is delaying the inevitable. But countered against that argument is the Councils strong view that there needs to be a proper strategic analysis of conversion of the zone from one major use to another, and that it would be inappropriate to effect a major rezoning until such a review is undertaken. While the Panel understands that this may not be the intent of the planning reform program, particularly with regard to the application of the new zones, in the absence of an alternative option, the Panel supports the view of Council.
28 18/20805
Kingston New Format Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee, June 1998
• Comprehensive Development Zone
This zone has been applied to the Whalers Cove Marina, and while the Department of Infrastructure did not have any real concerns about this application, it suggested that once the Marina is developed it could be rezoned to a Business zone, with the use of an Incorporated Plan Overlay or Development Plan Overlay. The Panel considers it appropriate to retain the exhibited zone at this stage, but to review this designation as part of the first major review of the scheme.
• Overlays
In the development of its new scheme the Council has applied a number of overlays, many of which have been questioned by the Department of Infrastructure due to the prescriptive provisions contained within the schedules. Some have been recommended for conversion to local policy.
• Environmental Significance Overlay 1: Edithvale - Seaford Wetlands
This overlay has been applied to protect the integrity and diversity of the Edithvale and Seaford wetlands and to preserve the area as a habitat for birdlife. It is part of a large and complex drainage scheme system and operates as flood storage and a retarding basin. The Panel supports the application of this overlay.
• Vegetation Protection Overlay 1: - Indigenous Vegetation Protection Area
This overlay has been applied to an area which contain significant local examples of scarce indigenous vegetation which make a positive contribution to the areas ecology and landscape. The Panel supports the use of this overlay.
• Heritage Overlay: H01, 1102, 1103, and H04
There are 4 properties listed for heritage protection through the provisions of the Heritage Overlay. The Department of Infrastructure expressed concern that there was no policy for heritage matters, particularly as the MSS refers to the need to retain places of heritage significance such as the foreshore and significant trees. Council recognises that it needs to undertake a full heritage study in order to protect future sites and properties as a matter of some priority.
• Design and Development Overlays 1 and 2: - Mentone/ Parkdale/ Mordialloc, and Aspendale/ Chelsea Urban Coastal Areas
These overlays have been applied to the foreshore areas of Kingston, essentially to protect and enhance the respective foreshore environments and to ensure new buildings and works complement the existing environment. These overlays adopt the Port Phillip height control areas in the current scheme and it is considered they will need to be reviewed by the Department and the Council in the light of the recently released Coastal Strategy at a later date. A consistent
29 18/20805
Kingston New Format Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee, June 1998
approach will need to be adopted for these height controls for all of the Bayside Councils. Notwithstanding this, the provisions of the two schedules to the overlays are similar and could be incorporated into one schedule.
• Design and Development Overlay 3: Patterson Lakes Residential Waterway Area
This overlay is a carry over of existing planning controls for the Patterson Lakes area and it is more fully discussed in Section 4 in the consideration of Submission zz. It contains detailed and prescriptive controls that relate to buildings and works within the waterfront boundary. The Panel later recommends that this overlay could be converted to a policy and as such the Panel recommends that a sunset time limit be placed upon this overlay.
• Design and Development Overlay 4: - Springvale Industrial Estates
This overlay is applied to promote innovation in industrial development, particularly in the form of managed estates. In some instances the overlay has been incorrectly applied, a matter which was raised in some submissions. The overlay should be removed from these sites and the affected landowners have been notified of this. Further this overlay deals with vegetation protection and Amendment V3 clarified that the DDO should not be used for this purpose. If council wishes to retain the vegetation controls a further overlay should be prepared.
• Design and Development Overlay 5: - South Road Industrial Gateway
This DDO is applied to promote high amenity industrial development on a key gateway site. The Manual emphasises that the new format schemes should rely on the LPPF as the main decision making tool for land use policy and the Panel considers that the design objectives of this overlay could be better expressed as a local policy, a view shared by the Department of Infrastructure. Also, as part of its requirements, it contains a "Use" provision which should not be specified in the overlay.
• Design and Development Overlay 6: - Enterprise Sites
This overlay relates to two areas along Heatherton Road and is applied to promote innovative and well designed development which complements the Chain of Parks concept. As with the previous overlay it contains "Use" provision which should be deleted.
• Design and Development Overlay 7: - Environmental Assessment Area
This overlay has been applied over land which may be developed for a sensitive use, however this is an inappropriate use of the overlay and it is inconsistent with Ministerial Direction No 1 which directs that Councils must apply the
30 18/20805
Kingston New Format Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee, June 1998
Environmental Audit Overlay to all land which is proposed to be changed from an industrial to residential zone.
• Design and Development Overlay 8: - Park Views Industrial Estate
This overlay has been applied to promote business and industrial development in a high amenity environment and attractive landscape setting that has regard for the amenity of nearby land and to ensure that development makes a positive contribution to a linked network of public open space. The Panel agrees with the Department that the requirements of this overlay would more appropriately be expressed as a local policy in the scheme.
• Design and Development Overlay 9: - Cheltenham Office and Commercial Precincts
This overlay has been applied to promote high amenity well designed development which integrates with the landscape and urban design themes of the centre and which complements the character of the Nepean Highway frontage. Again the Department has suggested that the requirements of this overlay would be better expressed as local policy, a point with which the Panel agrees.
• Design and Development Overlay 10: - Parkdale Plaza Business Centre
This overlay has been applied to promote high amenity retail and commercial development at Parkdale Plaza and to encourage innovative retailing activity at a range of scales to complement the diversity of uses of the centre. The Department is concerned that the requirements of this overlay are very prescriptive and suggests that Council assess whether it intends to keep the controls or place them elsewhere in the scheme.
• Development Plan Overlay 1: - Southland Development Plan
The floor space limitation of 108,000 square metres for the Southland Westfield Shopping Centre is specified in Schedule 1 to this overlay and the Panel notes that the floor space limitations for retail cenires should only be specified in the schedule to the Business 1 zone. Further the reference to permits is a matter that relates to the zone and should not be included in the overlay. In its consideration of submission No. 109 the Panel recommends that the DPO be replaced with as an Incorporated Plan and that a permit be granted, so in any event this overlay will no longer apply.
• Development Plan Overlays 2 and 3: - Capital Golf Course and Kingston Heath Golf Club
These Development Plan Overlays have been used to provide specific use and development rights for the Capital Golf Corse and Kingston Heath Golf Club. However in view of the recommendation to prohibit dwellings from the Special Use zone 1 for golf courses, these two DPOs become inappropriate as they
31 18/20805
Kingston New Format Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee, June 1998
cannot provide for uses which are prohibited by the zone. The existing site specific controls must then be preserved at Clause 52.03 of the scheme. It is understood that the Department of Infrastructure has indicated support for this change. As with the previous overlay, the reference to permits is a matter that relates to the zone and should not be included in the overlay.
It is further noted that the scheme has inappropriately incorporated development plans within the Development Plan overlays, and that Concept Plans should not be included in the schedules as any future variation to the plan would require an amendment to the planning scheme. The Council has acknowledged that the exhibited scheme has incorrectly used the "Exemptions" in the schedules to the Design and Development, and Development Plan Overlays, and the Manual • makes it clear that exemptions from buildings and works cannot be specified in these schedules, only exemption from notice requirements.
• Public Acquisition Overlays 1 (VicRoads), 2 (Parks Victoria) and 3 Melbourne Water.
These overlays have been applied for specific purposes and there is further discussion and recommendations about these in consideration of submissions.
• Airport Environs Overlay 1 and 2: -
Section 5 of this report discussed these overlays in some detail and it provides a number of recommendations in this regard.
• Potentially Contaminated Land Overlay
This overlay has now been changed to the Environmental Audit Overlay. Further the land comprising the municipal depot in Collins Street, Mentone, which was subject to the PCLO has been issued with a statement of Environmental Audit and all requirements for the Ministerial Direction No. 1 have been satisfied, consequently no overlay need apply on this land.
Some other issues include some incorrect use of the new definitions and in this regard the VPPs have introduced new standard definitions for floor space while some schedules in the exhibited scheme refer to old definitions. The Manual for the VPPs requires Councils to write "nil" in all schedules to zones which have no entry and therefor some of the schedules in the exhibited scheme is incomplete. A number of the overlays need to be restructured in line with the changes as a result of the V3 amendment and statements of significance need to be prepared for the environmental overlays prior to the adoption of the scheme. The Council is aware of these matters.
The Council has recognised that there is a need to develop additional local policies as part of its Planning Scheme in the future, and in this regard has nominated a number of ongoing and proposed strategic studies from which local policies could be developed. In many instances it is a matter of timing.
32 18/20805
Kingston New Format Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee, June 1998
The application of zones, overlays and schedules in the Kingston Planning Scheme is for the most part directly consistent with Council's strategic objectives for land use planning as enshrined in the Municipal Strategic Statement. Council advised that in preparing its new planning scheme, it was guided by the advice of the Department of Infrastructure who urged that the zone selection process not be undertaken as a simple translation exercise.
On this basis Council was keen to ensure that the translation of zones was supported by a secure strategic basis and that each application of zones, overlays and schedules in the new scheme could be traced back to a strategy or objective in the Municipal Strategic Statement. Hence, the Council submitted the method of zone selection relied heavily upon the objectives of the Municipal Strategic Statement to determine the most appropriate zoning of each site, rather than using the "best fit" approach from the existing zoning to the new zoning.
Notwithstanding this, the City of Kingston identified five instances where Council has applied zoning or overlay provisions which are not directly consistent with the long term strategic objectives of the Municipal Strategic Statement. These include:
• Wells Road, Aspendale Gardens • Special Use Zone No.3 • Epsom Race Track • Business zones and Heritage Overlays • Cheltenham Business Centre
In each of these cases: further work needs to be carried out to determine the most appropriate zone for these sites and uses and the Panel accepts that there is additional work that needs to be undertaken in this regard.
The City of Kingston shares municipal boundaries with the City of Greater Dandenong, City of Glen Eira, Bayside City Council and City of Frankston, and the interface issues with regard to the zones and overlays with each of these municipalities is as follows:
(i) City of Greater Dandenong
There has generally been a common treatment of the Keysborough non-urban area in terms of both policies and zone and overlay controls. The Department of Infrastructure identified that land in Springvale South along the proposed Dingley Freeway Reservation is included in a Rural zone in Kingston while in Greater Dandenong it is included in a Public Park and Recreation zone. This reflects that land in Kingston is privately owned but it is not considered by the Panel to be an interface issue.
Policy statements in respect to non-urban areas are consistent and while there is some variation in the application of zones, this is largely due to different land use circumstances. The future development of a regional non-urban policy and the Keysborough Structure Plan will reinforce the cross boundary policy development for this area.
33 18/20805 Kingston New Format Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee, June 1998
Further, zoning of the land around the Mordialloc Creek boundary differs in that in Kingston the creek is zoned Public Use Zone 1, with the surrounding land zoned as Rural. The creek in Greater Dandenong is zoned the same while the surrounding land is zoned as Urban Floodway. The Department of Infrastructure advised that this inconsistency can be explained by the availability of Melbourne Water data on land subject to flooding.
(ii) City of Glen Eira
This boundary is largely a residential land use interface, with the approach taken to the application of zones, and the development of residential objectives and strategies being generally consistent. Council has recommended the inclusion of some of the interface industrial land being included in an Industrial 3 zone to ensure minimum conflict with adjacent residential land.
(iii) Bayside City Council
Foreshore management is the common cross municipality issue and both Councils have carried forward overlay controls for the foreshore areas. Both Councils are committed to reviewing this approach to the achievement of good design outcomes in foreshore environments. Both Municipal Strategic Statements have substantial and compatible objectives in relation to foreshore management, and Kingston recognises that the approach to this issue by Bayside is more advanced due to the existence of a detailed foreshore strategy for their coastal areas.
Another issue is that Beach Road in Kingston is zoned as Road Zone Category 1 (which is in accordance with the Minister's Direction), while in Bayside it is zoned as Road Zone Category 2. This inconsistency will be clarified at the Bayside Panel Hearing.
(iv) City of Frankston
Common issues include foreshore management, wetlands and non-urban land and residential development. There is general consistency with the approach to these issues in the Municipal Strategic Statements of each Council. The application of the VPPs as a means of implementing these objectives is also consistent.
Work on the South East Non Urban Area will continue to be undertaken in conjunction with other member municipalities, including Frankston and Greater Dandenong.
The exhibited Kingston Planning Scheme does not contain any formal referrals in addition to those exhibited in the VPPs, however it is noted that Schedules 2 and 3 to the Development Plan Overlay include a requirement for Council to consider the comments of various authorities (Federal Aviation Corporation, Civil Aviation Authority, VicRoads, Melbourne Water) prior to the approval of a development plan for the sites (Capital Golf Course and Kingston Heath Golf Course). These requirements were carried through from existing site specific provisions and the Panel accepts that
34 18/20805
Kingston New Format Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee, June 1998
these requirements should be embodied in the Schedules to new Development Plan Overlay.
3.5 Local Policies
The Panel considers that the local policies are directed towards the implementation of the Municipal Strategic Statement and will ultimately assist in its overall effectiveness. However the policies could be enhanced by the inclusion of clear linkages to the MSS by articulating the strategic directions which have given rise to the policies.
The local policies are soundly based and justified, however the Panel shares the concern of the Department of Infrastructure that some of the policies contain controls and prescriptive standards which will need to be revised prior to the adoption of the scheme. The Department stated:
Local policies should be performance based and strategically justified. In instances such as these, if a specific setback, site coverage or other figure is included as a performance measure, there needs to be some explanation as to the reason why, particularly in circumstances where it has originated from the current scheme provisions.
The Panel endorses these comments and suggests that either the Council review its policies to remove the controls and prescriptive standards or provide the justification for such through the MSS or through additional statements in the policy itself. The Department also suggested that the Planning Scheme would benefit from the development of its core objectives and key strategies in the MSS into more local policies, once further strategic studies have been conducted. In this regard, the Council indicated that it was pursuing a number of strategic studies over the next three years, many of which would lead to the development of additional local policies.
Nevertheless, the local policies are well written and expressed and will assist in the day to day decision making about permit applications, along with the SPPF and the MSS.
The Cheltenham Business Centre Policy (Clause 22.01) has been derived from previous scheme provisions, through the strategic planning studies that have taken place over the past 12 years. Council indicated that it had not considered there was a need to review the strategic planning basis of this policy as part of this current review process due to its continued relevance.
The Springvale Industrial Park Area Policy (Clause 22.02) has also been adapted from previous scheme provisions, but Council strongly indicated that it is integral to the achievement of good design outcomes for the more prestigious industrial areas. A program for the development of further industrial policies has been established by Council. However the Council identified a problem with the policy in that it should be made clear that the policy only applies to land shown on the industrial park on the strategy plan. Council submitted that the exhibited policy is ambiguous in that it appears to apply to all land shown on the strategy plan, which is not Councils intention.
35 18/20805 Kingston New Format Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee, June 1998
In the past the provisions of the policy have been applied only to the designated industrial parks and it is not appropriate to extend its application to other areas which have not been previously subject to these provisions.
The Chain of Parks Policy (Clause 22.03) is considered by Council to be an integral component of the scheme which will be implemented through the application of the zones and the acquisition overlay controls. The objectives of this policy include the implementation of the Sandbelt Open Space Strategy and its associated development plan. In this regard a series of public acquisition overlays in favour of Parks Victoria are proposed for areas designated as forming part of the core open space elements of the chain of parks concept. There is further discussion of this in Section 4.
The Non Urban Land Policy (Clause 22.04) has been prepared to implement the non urban objectives and strategies of the MSS and it particularly emphasises the need for structure planning in non urban areas. This is a new policy and it has been derived from the South East Non Urban Study (1997) and the Ministers Advisory Committee who prepared the "Review of Issues on the Urban Fringe" in 1996. Through this policy, Council upholds the principle of retaining non urban land in rural zones, and defining an urban/non urban boundary, but recognises that future structure planning may lead to a change in policy and direction. Council has made it quite clear that it will not entertain any conversion of non urban land to urban related purposes until such structure planning has occurred, a position which the Panel fully supports.
During the hearing, the Council submitted a "South East Non-Urban Memorandum of Understanding" which has been developed between the Department of Infrastructure, and the municipalities of Kingston, Frankston, Greater Dandenong and Casey. This memorandum includes a policy statement which contains aims, objectives, outcomes, opportunities, processes, and a protocol for the structure planning process for the regional non urban area. The Panel considers this to be a significant step in the resolution of a preferred outcome for the non urban area and supports its development and inclusion as a key policy in the Planning Scheme once it is adopted by all four member Councils. Council anticipates its inclusion in the LPPF as soon as is practically possible, ie within a matter of months.
In addition, the imminent completion of the Keysborough Framework Structure Plan is the first in a series of structure plans to be prepared to deal with the non urban area and has indicated its intention to prepare similar plans for Heatherton and Dingley areas over the next 18 months. These plans will result in further policies for these areas. Council also proposes to prepare a Discretionary Uses Policy to provide guidance for development in the rural zones. The Panel supports the development of these policies.
3.6 Incorporated Documents
The exhibited Kingston Planning Scheme includes one Incorporated Document additional to those included in the VPPs. This document is the "Comprehensive Development Plan No. 1 - Whalers Cove Development (Formally referred to as Comprehensive Development Plan No. 12 - Whalers Cove Development in the former
36 18/20805
Kingston New Format Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee, June 1998
Chelsea Planning Scheme). It is referred to in the Comprehensive Development Zone provisions at Clause 37.02 of the Kingston Planning Scheme. The Council submitted that it is essential that the plan is an incorporated document as it forms the basis of the zone provisions for the Comprehensive Development Zone. The Panel is satisfied that this document is suitable for inclusion in the Comprehensive Development Zone as an Incorporated Document.
It is noted that the formatting of the Schedule to Clause 52.03 is incorrect, and that the summary sheet of site specific controls attached to this clause should be an incorporated document to the scheme.
There is a technical error in Clause 81 in that the incorporated documents for the Kingston Planning Scheme should not include the "Melbourne City Link Report".
3.7 Monitoring and Review
One of the purposes at the beginning of the Municipal Strategic Statement states:
In view of the dynamic nature of land use in Kingston, Council is committed to reviewing the statement at least every three years.
Further, Council submitted that there are a range of current and forthcoming strategic planning initiatives which will directly shape the direction of planning policy in Kingston.
At the moment Council's statutory and strategic planning functions operate from two separate geographic locations as part of two different teams. Council submitted that through its Strategic and Corporate Planning Team, it is proposed to closely monitor all planning applications after the new scheme comes into operation. In addition, an ongoing review will be undertaken during the first twelve months of operation of the scheme, which will culminate in a major review after the first 12 months which utilises information gathered from planning applications and Appeal decisions.
Council recognised that there are significant areas of land use policy yet to be established for the City of Kingston and at the conclusion of the hearing it submitted to the Panel a list of further strategic work that needs to be carried out. The Panel accepts that the City of Kingston is committed to strategic planning and that appropriate new policies will be added to the scheme as they are developed.
Notwithstanding these comments, the Panel is concerned that no specific mechanisms have been established or are proposed for reviewing the LPPF and the Planning Scheme apart from a statement in the Municipal Strategic Statement that it will be reviewed at least every three years. Section 12A(5) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 requires that a municipal Council must review its Municipal Strategic Statement at least once in every three years after it is prepared. The Panel considers that the lack of any formal mechanisms to facilitate a review of the Municipal Strategic Statement is a deficiency and should be put in place prior to the adoption of the scheme.
37 18/20805
Kingston New Format Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee, June 1998
The Panel notes that there is a technical error in Clause 61 which states that the Council is responsible for issuing planning certificates, not the Minister, this should be read to indicate that the Minister is responsible for the issue of planning certificates.
3.8 Recommendations
The Panel makes the following recommendations with regard to the Terms of Reference:
• All V3 amendment changes be incorporated into the scheme prior to adoption. • all schedules be reviewed to ensure all terms are consistent with the new standard definitions. • all schedules be corrected where there are no entries. • the schedules to all overlays be reviewed to ensure they are consistent with the V3 amendment.
• The Cheltenham Residential 2 area be identified as a medium density housing opportunity area.
• The Municipal Strategic Statement be reviewed and rewritten to specifically respond to the requirements of Section 12A(3) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, to better define its overall strategies, objectives and locations for implementation and a general explanation of the relationship between these objectives and strategies and the controls on the use and development of land in the Planning Scheme.
• The exhibited Industrial 1 zone be replaced by the Industrial 3 zone in the following locations:
• land on Wells Road at the corner of Springvale Road, Aspendale Gardens, and • land at the corner of Kings Way and South Road, Moorabbin.
• The Business 3 zone be applied to land at 2 Nepean Highway, Mentone so that it is consistent with adjoining land to the south.
• The schedule to the Rural Zone be amended to indicate that subdivision of land in Area C must be at least 2 hectares to the east of Springvale Road..
• The use of the Public Use zone be revised as it applies to private utility providers and that a zone be applied that is consistent with the surrounding zones.
• Land at 263 - 265 Spring Road, Din gley be placed in a Rural Zone, rather than the exhibited Public Park and Recreation Zone.
• The Public Use 6 zone be removed from the former municipal offices in Chelsea and that it be replaced with a Business 2 zone.
38 18/20805 Kingston New Format Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee, June 1998 1
• The table of uses in the schedule to the Special Use Zone No. 1 (Golf Courses) be altered to remove "dwelling" from Section 2 to Section 3.
• All golf courses in Kingston be placed in the Special Use zone and that the signcance of the golf courses be better articulated in the MSS. — • The Petronis land be placed in an underlying zone, rather than a Special Use zone.
• The Design and Development Overlays 1 and 2 be amalgamated into one schedule, and then be reviewed within three years.
1 • A two year sunset time limit be placed on the Design and Development Overlay 3 until such time that it could be investigated for conversion into local policy. ... a
• The mapping of the Design and Development Overlay 4 be reviewed to accurately reflect those properties to which the zone applies and that a separate Vegetation Protection Overlay be prepared to give effect to the vegetation controls.
• The Design and Development Overlay 5 be converted into a local policy.
• The Design and Development Overlay 6 be amended to remove the Use provisions.
• The Design and Development Overlay 7 be removed and be replaced with the Environmental Audit Overlay.
• The Design and Development Overlay 8 be converted as a local policy to the scheme.
• The Design and Development Overlay 9 be converted as a local policy to the scheme.
• The Council consider converting the Design and Development Overlay 10 to a local policy as part of its first review. As such it recommends that a three year sunset time limit apply to this overlay.
• The Schedules 2 and 3 to the Development Plan Overlays 2 and 3 be removed and that the existing use and development rights be preserved at Clause 52.03 of the scheme.
• The development plans attached to the schedules for Development Plan Overlays 2 and 3 be removed. Development plans should be endorsed and dated as an approved development plan.
• All schedules to all overlays be reviewed to ensure that they do not specify inappropriate exemptions.
39 18/20805 18/20805
Kingston New Format Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee, June 1998
• The Public Contaminated Land Overlay or Environmental Audit Overlay be removed from the municipal depot in Collins Street, Mentone.
• The Council review its policies to remove controls and prescriptive standards or provide the justification for the controls and standards through the MSS or through additional statements within the policy.
• The local policy for Springvale Industrial Estates (Clause 22.02) be amended to make it clear that the policy applies only to land shown as "Industrial Park" on the strategy plan.
• The summary sheet to Clause 52.03 be removed and be included as an Incorporated Document.
The reference to the Melbourne City Link Report be removed from Clause 81.
I.• Prior to the adoption of the Kingston Planning Scheme, Council establish a system for monitoring decisions made under the Planning Scheme and evaluating 3 them against the intentions of the LPPF. Further, the Council prepare a formal program for ongoing review of the scheme, culminating in the three year formal review.
• That Clause 61 be amended to state that the Minister be responsible for issuing planning certificates.
1
40 18/20805
Kingston New Format Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee, June 1998
4. CONSIDERATION OF SUBMISSIONS
The City of Kingston has provided a brief summary and strategic assessment of the 154 submissions as part of the Stage 1 process, and its response to each. The submissions have been grouped together around common issues and have been considered accordingly:
• Zoning of Beach Road (Submissions 1 -90);
• Municipal Strategic Statement (91 - 98);
• Submissions from Authorities (99 - 108);
• Submissions on Overlays (109 - 128);
• Requests for Rezoning of Non Urban Land (129 - 135);
• Other Rezoning Requests (136 - 144); and
• Miscellaneous (145 - 154).
The Panel would like to place on record that it considers the responses by Council to each of the following submissions has been extremely well researched and presented and it has provided a most useful guide to the Panel. As such, the Panel has generally adopted this material and in most cases has appended its own commentary at the end of each submission, although in many instances there has been little else the Panel could offer. Many of the submissions dealt with similar issues and in this regard the Panel has made some conclusive comments in its introduction to those sections. In these instances, the Panel has provided its comments and recommendations for one submission and then referred others to that submission by submission number.
4.1 Zoning of Beach Road
The Panel received some 90 submissions relating to this issue, and it understands that the same issue was raised in the Port Phillip New Format Planning Scheme hearing and is likely to be raised in the Bayside New Format Planning Scheme hearing in the near future. It is clearly an issue that has caused some concern within the local bayside communities, but it is not an issue which can be resolved through this particular planning process. Nevertheless the Panel sees this issue as a major area of concern for the Kingston community.
The Panel informed submittors that it had no power or authority to accede with the recommendation on the request of a change in the zoning of Beach Road and submittors were advised about the outcome of the recent Port Phillip Panel deliberation on the same issue by both the Council and the Panel. The Panel accepts that the City of Kingston has applied the correct zone to Beach Road.
41 18/20805
Kingston New Format Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee, June 1998
While the Panel acknowledges the concerns of the submittors made in this matter, it is unable to assist in resolving this issue. The Panel accepts the recommendation made by the Panel in the Port Phillip New Format Planning Scheme report, and endorses the Kingston Council's submission in this matter.
The Panel notes that both the Kingston Transport Strategy and the Kingston Bicycle Strategy were completed in 1997 and they were used as the basis of the development of objectives and strategies in the MSS. Further the Council has indicated that it would like to pursue the completion of an integrated strategy plan for the protection and improvement of the Beach Road corridor which will encompass urban design, landscaping, treatment of Council owned facilities on the foreshore, use of the land and adjoining uses. It is expected that this study will be carried out in conjunction with the Bayside and Port Phillip councils.
It is anticipated that specific consideration will be given to residents' concerns about Beach Road but in the meantime, additional objectives about the scenic boulevard function, including recognition of the role played by the road as a contributor to the social value of Beach Road could be included in the MSS. Further comment is required on the need to ensure that future development adjacent to Beach Road complements the character of the foreshore environment.
In addition, Council is currently preparing the Kingston Foreshore Strategy Plan, about which more could be included in the MSS. This strategy will set the framework for the preparation of more detailed design and development objectives for the management of land on both the foreshore and in adjacent residential areas.
SUBMISSION NO: 1 Submittor: City of Bayside Location: Beach Road Existing Zone: Secondary Road Reservation Exhibited Zone: Road Zone - Category 1 Requested Zone: Scenic Boulevard/ Road Zone - Category 2.
Summary of Submission: The submission objects to the proposed classification of Beach Road as a Road Zone - Category 1 under the new Kingston Planning Scheme. The submission discusses the recognition that the City of Bayside has accorded to Beach Road as a 'Scenic Boulevard' within its strategic policies. It also outlines the proposal by the City of Bayside to have third road created under the VPPs, to provide for 'scenic boulevards.' The a zone . purpose of this additional category would be to protect the scenic role performed by Beach Road via appropriate design, traffic and landscaping measures, and to discourage future increases in traffic using this road.
It is submitted that the City of Bayside has proposed to identify Beach Road as a Road Zone - Category 2 under the new Bayside Planning Scheme, pending a decision by the State Government on the proposed 'scenic boulevard' zone. The submission requests
42 18/20805
Kingston New Format Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee, June 1998
that Kingston review its classification of Beach Road and support the approach of adjoining coastal municipalities in respect to the zoning of the road.
Strategic Assessment: • Under the new Kingston Planning Scheme Council has proposed to include Beach Road within a Category 1 road zoning. This is directly consistent with the requirements of the VPPs in respect to the classification of Road Zones, and with Clause 17 of the Minister's Direction on the form and content of Planning Schemes, which provides that:
"A road which is a declared road under the Transport Act 1983 must be shown as a Road Zone - Category 1 on the planning scheme maps."
• According to VicRoads the section of Beach Road affected by the Kingston Planning Scheme is a declared main road under the Transport Act 1983. Hence it is considered that Council has no discretion to apply anything other than a Category 1 road zoning for Beach Road under the new planning scheme.
• Council's exhibited MSS acknowledges that Beach Road stands out as one of the city's most attractive scenic and tourist boulevards, offering uninterrupted vistas towards Port Phillip Bay and valuable scenic and landscape qualities. The MSS also recognises the important transport function served by the road, (as identified in the Kingston Transport Options and Accessibility Study), and discusses Council's objectives for balancing the important transport and scenic roles performed by the road.
• Whilst Council is supportive of the principles of the scenic boulevard concept, it is not considered that these objectives are best achieved through an arbitrary road classification. It is Council's intention to develop an integrated strategy plan for the road to give recognition to its scenic boulevard functions and guide the management of the Beach Road corridor in a more holistic manner. Council would desire that the strategy will be developed in partnership with the Eastern Bayside Council's Traffic Committee and that it addresses issues of urban design, landscaping and treatment of Council owned facilities on the foreshore.
• It is Council's understanding that the City of Bayside's proposal for a third road zone to recognise 'scenic boulevards' has been rejected by the Advisory Committee reviewing the VPPs.
• The proposed zoning of Beach Road has also been subject to discussion under the new format planning schemes for the Cities of Bayside and Port Phillip. It is Council's understanding that the Panel convened to hear submissions to the Port Phillip Planning Scheme has addressed the matter as follows:-
"Whatever the rights and wrongs of past actions or inaction on the part of authorities which has cumulatively contributed to the increase in traffic along the foreshore roads, it is not a matter which the Panel can assist in. The foreshore roads must, under Ministerial Direction, be included in a
43 18/20805 Kingston New Format Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee, June 1998
Road Zone - Category 1. It is only through other political processes and ' representations that this matter may be dealt with."
(p.44 Port Phillip New Format Planning Scheme - Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee - March 1998)
• On this basis Council does not support the submittor's request to review the zoning of Beach Road under the exhibited Kingston Planning Scheme.
Council Comment and Recommendation: • No change to exhibited zoning.
Panel Comment and Recommendation: See opening comments at Section 4.1.
The Panel recommends no change to the exhibited Planning Scheme arising from these submissions.
SUBMISSION NO: 3 Submittor: Foreshore Residents Association Location: Beach Road Existing Zone: Secondary Road Reservation Exhibited Zone: Road Zone - Category 1 Requested Zone: Scenic Boulevard/ Road Zone - Category 2.
Summary of Submission: The submission objects to the proposed classification of Beach Road as a Road Zone - Category 1 under the new Kingston Planning Scheme. The submission challenges the legal status of Beach Road as a 'declared main road', and questions the relevance of the Vic Roads hierarchy of roads to the planning system. The submission also makes reference to a 'Protocol' which was previously entered into between VicRoads, the Transport Workers Union, and the Victorian Road Transport Association to provide truck restrictions for the use of the road. The purpose of the protocol was to enshrine restrictions on the use of the road and to afford protection to the foreshore reserve and bayside residents. The submission concludes that the proposed classification of Beach Road under the Kingston Planning Scheme is contrary to the objectives of the protocol and will provide for a significant intensification of the use of the road.
Strategic Assessment: • Refer to Council's comments on Submission No. 1.
• The submittor has not provided any substantive evidence to indicate that Beach Road is not a declared road under the Transport Act 1983. It is also unclear as to how the proposed zoning will affect the provisions of the protocol for Beach Road as discussed in the submission. The Category 1 road zoning does not promote increases in traffic usage nor does it affect existing restrictions on truck usage.
44 18/20805
Kingston New Format Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee, June 1998
• It is Council's view that the proposed Category 1 Road Zone classification for Beach Road merely confirms its status as a main road under the Transport Act. It is not considered that this designation will change the status or functioning of the road and will not provide for any increase in traffic or truck usage of the road. It is a change in name only.
• On this basis Council does not support the submittor's request to review the zoning of Beach Road under the exhibited Kingston Planning Scheme.
Council Comment and Recommendation: • No change to exhibited zoning.
Panel Comment and Recommendation: See opening comments at Section 4.1. This group presented a very detailed submission to the Panel, which essentially questioned the legal status of Beach Road. Further the group was concerned about the detrimental impacts which heavy traffic along Beach Road had on safety and residential amenity. They were concerned that the zoning of Beach Road would reinforce the use of the road as a heavily trafficked route and expressed frustration at the limited opportunities to submit on these issues. The Panel can only reiterate that Beach Road must, under Ministerial Direction be included in a Road Zone - Category 1, and that the Council has applied the correct zone.
The Panel recommends no change to the exhibited Planning Scheme as a result of this submission.
SUBMISSION NOS: 2 - 90 Submittor: See Appendix 2 Location: Beach Road Existing Zone: Secondary Road Reservation Exhibited Zone: Road Zone - Category 1 Requested Zone: Scenic Boulevard/ Road Zone - Category 2.
Summary of Submission: These submissions object to the proposed classification of Beach Road as a Road Zone - Category 1 under the new Kingston Planning Scheme. These submissions argue that the proposed Category 1 zoning will upgrade the function of the road and provide for future road widening, and increased traffic and truck usage. The majority of these submissions request that the road be classified as a 'Scenic Boulevard' or a Category 2 Road Zone.
Strategic Assessment: As per submission Nos. 1 and 3.
Council comment and Recommendation: As per response to Submission Nos. 1 and 3
Panel Comment and Recommendation: See opening comments at Section 4.1.
45 18/20805
Kingston New Format Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee, June 1998
The Panel recommends no change to the exhibited Planning Scheme arising from these submissions.
SUBMISSION NO: 67 Submittor: David Foran Location: Beach Road Existing Zone: Secondary Road Reservation Exhibited Zone: Road Zone - Category 1 Requested Zone: Scenic Boulevard/ Road Zone - Category 2.
Summary of Submission: The submission objects to the proposed classification of Beach Road as a Road Zone - Category 1 under the new Kingston Planning Scheme. The submission argues that the proposed zoning for Beach Road will provide for an increase in traffic volumes and will encourage greater use by freight and heavy vehicles. It is submitted that the foreshore reserve requires careful protection as a result of its environmental significance, and on this basis Council should be endeavouring to reduce heavy vehicle usage of the road rather than encourage it. The submission concludes that the proposed zoning will undermine the community's objectives for protecting the foreshore and will threaten the integrity of this asset for future generations.
Strategic Assessment: • Refer to Council's comments on Submission Nos. 1 and 3.
• Council's MSS also deals extensively with Council's objectives for the management and protection of the foreshore, which aim to minimise the impact of surrounding land uses on the foreshore. It is noted that Council is currently preparing a Kingston Foreshore Strategy, which will deal with many of the issues raised by the submittor within a detailed strategic framework.
• On this basis Council does not support the submittor's request to review the zoning of Beach Road under the exhibited Kingston Planning Scheme.
Council Comment and Recommendation: • No change to exhibited zoning.
Panel Comment and Recommendation: See opening comments at Section 4.1. Further to these issues, this submittor presented quite a detailed argument in support of his contention that Beach Road should not be zoned as a Category 1 Road zone, and quoted parts of the MSS to support this view, particularly citing that Beach Road is a valuable foreshore asset and should be protected. The Council acknowledges this and quite clearly states that the foreshore area of Kingston is the subject of ongoing and further strategic planning, and that there will be extensive community consultation processes as part of the development of the strategy. The submittor objected to the road category/zone system used in the VPPs, nevertheless, the Council has applied the correct zone to Beach Road.
46 18/20805
Kingston New Format Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee, June 1998
The Panel recommends no change to the exhibited Planning Scheme arising from this submission.
SUBMISSION NO: 70 Submittor: Mordialloc Beaumaris Conservation League Location: Beach Road and Mordialloc foreshore Existing Zone: Secondary Road Reservation Exhibited Zone: Road Zone - Category 1 Requested Boulevard/ Zone: Scenic Road Zone - Category 2.
Summary of Submission: The submission makes general comment on the MSS in respect to Council's objectives for the foreshore, and raises a number of concerns in respect to the designation of Mordialloc as an 'activity node' in the MSS. In particular the submission questions the type of development envisaged by Council under the activity node status. The concerns discussed relate to issues associated with the form of future commercialltourist development at Mordialloc, the possible alienation of public open space on the foreshore reserve, and the potential for existing height limits to be exceeded.
The submission also objects to the proposed classification of Beach Road as a Road Zone - Category 1 under the new Kingston Planning Scheme. It is argued that the proposed zoning for Beach Road will provide for an increase in traffic volumes and will encourage greater use by freight and heavy vehicles. The submittor points out that the foreshore reserve requires careful protection as a result of its environmental significance, and on this basis Council should be supporting the approach of other coastal municipalities in their efforts to downgrade the classification of the road.
Strategic Assessment: • Refer to Council's comments on Submission Nos. 1 and 3.
• Council's MSS also deals extensively with Council's objectives for the management and protection of the foreshore. The Mordialloc foreshore is identified in the MSS as an activity node, which is consistent with its designation in the Victorian Coastal Strategy. The purpose of this designation is to recognise the significant pressures experienced by this area for commercial and tourist development, and to ensure that only sustainable uses with manageable impacts are allowed on the foreshore.
• Council is currently preparing a Foreshore Strategy for the municipality, which will deal with a number of the matters raised by the submittor in respect to the management and protection of the coastal asset, and access to public open space on the foreshore. Council will also be commencing the preparation of Structure Plan for Mordialloc within the next 6 months, which will establish clear objectives for the future development of the Mordialloc activity node within a comprehensive strategic framework. It is anticipated that detailed design and development guidelines will be developed for the foreshore and its environs through the structure planning process, to enshrine Council's specific objectives in relation to environmental, landscape and
47 18/20805
Kingston New Format Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee, June 1998
urban design issues. Council intends to undertake significant community consultation in the development of the Foreshore Strategy.
Council Comment and Recommendation: • No change to exhibited zoning for Beach Road; • No changes to MSS.
Panel Comment and Recommendation: See opening comments at Section 4.1. In addition to the issue of the zoning of Beach road, the Panel recognises that this association has concerns about the future planning of the Mordialloc foreshore area about which representatives of this group made a strong submission to the Panel. Their submission raised a range of concerns including such matters as the designation of Mordialloc as an Activity node, height limits, residential land use, traffic, transport and parking issues associated with new development and with Beach Road itself, and the implications of the greenhouse effects. There was a fear expresses by the group about potential development within the activity node at the Mordialloc Pier area, particularly as it appeared to be out of the height control area.
The Panel acknowledges that Council are currently preparing a foreshore study, and will commence preparation of a structure plan for Mordialloc in the near future. The Panel was impressed with Councils commitment to strategic planning and considers that the issues raised in this submission could be best addressed through the involvement of this group in those strategic processes. However there is a need to clarify Councils objectives in respect to future development of the Mordialloc activity node with respect to the form of commercial and tourist development envisaged.
The Panel recommends that Council clarify its objectives in respect to future development of the Mordialloc activity node and the form of commercial and tourist development envisaged.
SUBMISSION NO: 89 Submittor: Mentone Bayside Residents Group Location: Beach Road Existing Zone: Secondary Road Reservation Exhibited Zone: Road Zone - Category 1 Requested Zone: Scenic Boulevard/ Road Zone - Category 2.
Summary of Submission: The submission objects to the proposed classification of Beach Road as a Road Zone - Category 1 under the new Kingston Planning Scheme. The submission argues that the proposed zoning for Beach Road will provide for an increase in traffic volumes and will encourage greater use by freight and heavy vehicles. Concerns are raised that the zoning will also result in increased noise and pollution, and will threaten public safety and lower property values.
Strategic Assessment: Refer to Council's response to Submission Nos. 1 and 3.
48 18/20805
Kingston New Format Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee, June 1998
Council Comment and Recommendation: • No change to exhibited zoning.
Panel Comment and Recommendation: See opening comments at Section 4.1. Initially this group presented a submission to the Panel which raised issues well outside the scope of the Panel's deliberations, mainly to do with concerns about medium density development and the effect it may have on the Mentone Bayside area, public open space, mix of housing in the area, traffic, parking, existing character, infrastructure problems, recycling, staff attitudes and Beach Road. Upon invitation, the group made a further submission to the Panel which again raised concerns about medium density development and how it could be controlled.
The group made a number of suggestions about density and site control mechanisms that could be employed by the Council, some of which may have some validity. For example they raised the issue of impacts of new development on drainage and the Panel was informed by Council that it is currently undertaking a drainage study (which will not be completed for two years). However this Panel is not in a position to make recommendations through this planning scheme review on these matters, as the arguments raised are matters which need to be dealt with in a different forum, possibly through a review of Council's residential strategy and the possible preparation of local variations of the Good Design Guide. The Panel has confidence that the Council will seek to involve this group in any such studies.
The Panel recommends no change to the exhibited Planning Scheme arising from this submission.
4.2 Municipal Strategic Statement
A number of government agencies, statutory bodies and individuals have suggested specific wording changes to the local planning policy framework and Municipal Strategic Statement of the Kingston Planning Scheme.
This Panel will not make recommendations for specific wording or changes to wording of the Municipal Strategic Statement or local policies. These should be determined by Council in consultation with the Department of Infrastructure. The Panel has previously however recommended that the Municipal Strategic Statement be redefined to provide a more direct link between it and the zones, overlays and schedules contained within the scheme. This exercise provides the opportunity for Council to review and include any worthy contributions from these submissions. In considering the suggestions from the various submissions, Council should apply two broad tests:
• is it a matter that is adequately addressed in the SPPF or in the decision guidelines for relevant zones and in Clause 65? • Is it sufficiently "local" to be a valuable addition to the LPPF?
The SPPF contains references to various state environmental policies and catchment management strategies and the first purpose of each zone and overlay is to implement
49 18/20805
Kingston New Format Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee, June 1998
the SPPF. •- In addition, Clause 65 and many zones include a wide range of decision guidelines covering environmental considerations amongst other things. It is not therefore necessary to duplicate in the LPPF matters that are adequately addressed in the SPPF or other parts of the Planning Scheme. The Planning Scheme must be read as a whole. One of the main aims of the planning reform program is to streamline the planning system and this will not be met by unnecessary duplication of policies or controls on land use and development.
One of the purposes of the LPPF, which includes the Municipal Strategic Statement is to provide for local strategies and policies. While some objectives in the Municipal Strategic Statement may be quite general, strategies and local policies should be specifically relevant to the municipality. They should specify areas within the municipality which they seek to address. Proposals to add to the LPPF which amount to general policies or references which are applicable to other municipalities and do not have a distinctive purpose relevant to the municipality in question should be discussed with the Department of Infrastructure as possible candidates for inclusion in the SPPF.
The Panel has elsewhere recommended that the Municipal Strategic Statement be restructured and reworded. This provides the opportunity for Council to consider the inclusion of suggestions from this and other submittors.
The Panel therefore makes no specific wording recommendations to the LPPF and Municipal Strategic Statement arising from these submissions.
The Panel recommends that Council give consideration to suggested additions and changes to the LPPF and Municipal Strategic Statement made by John Luxton (Submission 91), Brett Donaldson (92), Emily Lee (93), David Normington (94), Kingston Conservation and Environment Coalition (95), Patterson Lakes Village Committee (96), Din gley Village Community Association (97), Watsons Pty. Ltd. (98), Aboriginal Affairs Victoria (99), Melbourne Water (100), Environment Protection Authority (101), Department of Natural Resources and Environment (102), Parks Victoria (103), Port Phillip Regional Catchment and Land Protection Board (104), National Trust Australia (106) and the Country Fire Authority (107).
SUBMISSION NO: 91 Submittor: John Luxton Location: Former F6 Freeway Reservation Existing Zone: Special Investigation Area Exhibited Zone: Part Public Park and Recreation Zone & Part Residential 1 Zone Requested Zone: Public Open Space
Summary of Submission: The submission deals with the proposed use and development of the former Route 6 Freeway Reservation in Cheltenham. The current proposal to use the site for part residential development and part public open space is discussed with reference to I Council's objectives for open space as identified in the MSS. Accordingly it is
50 18/20805
Kingston New Format Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee, June 1998
requested that the current proposal be reviewed to allow the whole of the site to be reserved for public open space.
Strategic Assessment: The current proposal for the site has recently been the subject of consideration by an independent Panel, appointed by the Minister under Section 97 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. It is noted that the submittor has already made representations to this panel. It is Council's understanding that the Minister has not yet made a formal determination on the recommendations of the Panel on this matter.
The zoning of the land under the exhibited Kingston Planning Scheme is consistent with the current proposal for the site (part Public Park and Recreation Zone and part Residential 1 zone). The proposed zoning is generally consistent with Council's strategic objectives as identified in the MSS. It is noted that Council has entered into an agreement with Parks Victoria, the owners of the land, to purchase around 40% of the site for public open space. The agreement is subject to the approval of the planning application for subdivision and residential development on the site.
Council Comment and Recommendation: No change to exhibited zoning.
Panel Comment and Recommendation: See opening comments at Section 4.2. In addition, this land has been the subject of a separate process through a recent Panel Hearing and report, and the issue is still to be resolved. In this regard, this Panel considers it inappropriate to make any further comment on these issues.
The Panel recommends no specific change to the exhibited Planning Scheme arising from this submission.
SUBMISSION NO: 92 Submittor: Brett Donaldson Location: Whole municipality Policies Affected: Most strategic directions of MSS Existing Zone: N/A Exhibited Zone: N/A
Summary of Submission: The submission makes various comments on the MSS, covering Council's strategic objectives in respect to residential and industrial land use, foreshore, open space, environment, wetlands and waterways, and non urban land use.
Strategic Assessment: The submission generally raises issues of clarification in respect to various statements made in the MSS, rather than requesting specific modifications. Council may give further consideration to these matter when carrying out its first review of the MSS after the adoption of the planning scheme.
51 18/20805
Kingston New Format Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee, June 1998
Council Comment and Recommendation: No change to MSS.
Panel Comment and Recommendation: See opening comments at Section 4.2. In addition, this particular submission makes a number of points in relation to the Municipal Strategic Statement, some of which request further information on how the strategies are to be realistically achieved. Some of the points raised are similar to the concerns already expressed by the Panel in Sections 2 and 3 of this report, and will be addressed in the review of the Municipal Strategic Statement prior to adoption of the Planning Scheme. Other issues have been further addressed by the Council, while those issues raised in respect of the non-urban land will be addressed through further strategic work to be carried out in the future. The other issues raised by this submission are generally addressed by the EPA and Council's Waste Minimisation Strategy.
The Panel recommends no specific change to the exhibited Planning Scheme arising from this submission.
SUBMISSION NO: 93 Submittor: Emily Lee Location: Whole municipality Policies Affected: Transport objectives of MSS Existing Zone: N/A Exhibited Zone: N/A
Summary of Submission: The submission makes comment on Council's 'Traffic and Transport' objectives identified in the MSS, specifically relating to bicycle networks and usage.
Strategic Assessment: The specific comments made in the submission on the need for bicycle lanes to be marked on arterial roads have been forwarded to Council's Traffic Engineering Department for review. It is Council's view that this matter requires further investigation to determine whether the suggested strategy is feasible and able to be readily implemented. No change to the MSS is therefore recommended at this stage.
Council Comment and Recommendation: No change to MSS.
Panel Comment and Recommendation: See opening comments at Section 4.2. The Panel endorses the Councils view on this submission and in addition, it notes the comments for Submission No. 91. Further the Panel understands that a Heritage Study is to be commenced for the municipality, which will pick up on the comments made about the Koori values in the Chain of Parks area and which will recommend various measures for protection of cultural as well as built form values.
52 18/20805 Kingston New Format Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee, June 1998
The Panel recommends no specific change to the exhibited Planning Scheme arising from this submission.
SUBMISSION NO: 94 Submittor: David Normington Location: Whole Municipality Policies Affected: Various strategic policies of MSS Existing Zone: N/A Exhibited Zone: N/A
Summary of Submission: The submission makes wide comment on the MSS, the local policy framework and a range of zoning issues. Comments on the MSS relate to issues of vegetation, wetlands and residential land use abutting the foreshore and Patterson River. Suggestions are also made for additional local policies on catchment protection, water conservation and the South East Purification Plant to be included in the local policy framework.
The submittor has also proposed additional areas to be included in Design and Development Overlay Nos. 1 and 2, which provide height controls for all buildings and works abutting the foreshore. A number of minor amendments to the provisions of the Comprehensive Development Zone are also requested.
Strategic Assessment: Most comments made on the MSS generally raise issues of clarification and do not require substantial modifications to the key objectives. The submittor has requested that all references to the 'Seaford wetland's be deleted from the MSS, on the basis that they are not actually located within the City of Kingston. A suggestion is also made that greater encouragement be given to the use of exotic plant species, however both of these suggestions conflict with comments made in the submission by the Department of Natural Resources and Environment. On this basis the proposed modifications are not supported.
The suggested local policies on catchment protection, etc, have been extracted from the City of Frankston's exhibited planning scheme, and are considered to duplicate a number of the key objectives already identified in Kingston's MSS. Various elements of the proposed policies may be used to strengthen the MSS, particularly with regard to the South East Purification Plant, however it is not considered that separate local policies are justified on these issues.
The minor modifications suggested to the schedule to the Comprehensive Development Zone are considered reasonable and will be incorporated.
The submission requests a number of extensions to the areas affected by the exhibited Design and Development Overlay Nos. 1 and 2. The design objective of these overlays is to provide restrictive height controls in sensitive areas to all new buildings and works. Council has applied these overlays as a reasonably direct translation of existing height controls affecting residential areas adjacent to the Kingston foreshore. The submittor
1 53 18/20805
Kingston New Format Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee, June 1998
has requested that the overlays be significantly extended to apply to residential areas abutting the Patterson River. The current Kingston Planning Scheme does not provide height controls for these areas, and it is Council's view that the introduction of such controls would require further strategic investigation and extensive consultation with affected residents. On this basis, the proposed extensions to the design and development overlays are not supported as part of the reform scheme process.
Council Comment and Recommendation: • No change to MSS or exhibited Design and Development Overlays • Minor changes to schedule to Comprehensive Development Zone
Panel Comment and Recommendation: See opening comments at Section 4.2. In addition to those comments, this submission raised a number of other issues, principally relating to perceived mapping errors in the Patterson Lakes area, the zoning of parks, the area of the proposed height controls, vegetation issues, the Mordialloc Main Drain and the Port Phillip Catchment and Land Protection Board. The Panel notes that some of the issues raised were of a detailed and specific nature and in response, it generally endorses the Council's strategic assessment and recommendations in respect to this submission.
The Panel recommends that Council update all of its Planning Scheme maps to ensure that public parks are appropriately zoned, that any other exhibition mapping errors are rectified and that minor changes to the schedule of the Comprehensive Development zone are made in accordance with this submission.
SUBMISSION NO: 95 Submittor: Kingston Conservation and Environment Coalition Location: Whole municipality Policies Affected: Environmental directions of MSS Existing Zone: N/A Exhibited Zone: N/A
Summary of Submission: The submission proposes a number of amendments to the core objectives of the 'Environment, Wetlands and Waterways' section of the MSS. An additional objective is also proposed to provide for tree retention on all private residential land within the municipality.
Strategic Assessment: The comments made in respect to floodplain and wetland protection, hydrological values and other environmental matters are considered to duplicate several of the objectives already stated in the MSS. Minor changes may be made to strengthen these objectives.
The proposal to incorporate restrictive tree controls in the MSS to apply to the whole municipality is not supported by Council. The state-wide policy on native tree removal in the State section of the planning scheme is considered to afford appropriate protection
54 18/20805
Kingston New Format Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee, June 1998
to most areas in Kingston, and on this basis it is not considered that a blanket tree control over the whole municipality can be justified. Officers have advised the submittor that the Vegetation Protection Overlays provided in the Victorian Planning Provisions offer a more appropriate tool for the achievement of specific tree protection objectives, and that Council may consider the introduction of new overlays to recognise significant trees in Kingston following the adoption of the planning scheme.
Council Comment and Recommendation: No change to MSS.
Panel Comment and Recommendation: See opening comments at Section 4.2. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Panel received a late submission from this group which basically expanded upon the issues raised in its first written submission. In response to issues raised about tree planting and tree removal, the Panel was informed that Council is currently undertaking a Flora and Fauna study (prepared by Ecology Australia) which will ultimately assist it in determining the appropriate boundaries for a Vegetation Protection Overlay. In addition Council proposes to undertake an Urban Character Study will assist in establishing a significant tree register. These are works yet to be completed or commenced, but will form the basis of future strategic assessments. In addition, the SPPF provides for the protection of natural resources and assets at a state policy level. Many of the other issues raised relate to long term corporate objectives of Council and education of local communities
The Panel recommends no specific change to the exhibited Planning Scheme arising from this submission.
SUBMISSION NO: 96 Submittor: Patterson Lakes Village Committee Location: Whole Municipality Policies Affected: Various strategic policies of MSS Existing Zone: N/A Exhibited Zone: N/A
Summary of Submission: The submission makes various comments on the MSS with particular emphasis on issues of transport and access, and residential development adjacent to the foreshore.
Strategic Assessment: Most comments made on the MSS generally raise issues of clarification and do not require substantial modifications to the key objectives. The submittor has made a number of recommendations on residential development adjacent to the foreshore, and has specifically requested that no further medium density housing be permitted in residential areas abutting the foreshore to the south of Mordialloc Creek. Further recommendations are also made in respect to height controls and public access to the foreshore.
55 18/20805
Kingston New Format Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee, June 1998
Council has advised the submittor that the recommendation to prohibit medium density housing would contravene State government policy on urban consolidation and is therefore unable to be supported. Other issues raised in the submission will be considered in the preparation of the City of Kingston foreshore strategy over the coming months.
Council Comment and Recommendation: No change to MSS.
Panel Comment and Recommendation: See opening comments at Section 4.2. Further, it is understood that Council has responded to the issues raised in this submission via a letter, and that the submittors will await the preparation of the previously mentioned Foreshore Strategy. The Panel agrees with the Council's assessment and endorses the recommendation.
The Panel recommends no specific change to the exhibited Planning Scheme arising from this submission.
SUBMISSION NO: 97 Submittor: Dingley Village Community Association Location: Whole municipality Existing Zone: N/A Exhibited Zone: N/A
Summary of Submission: The submission suggests a series of improvements to the style and structure of the MSS, the strategic directions identified on the Framework Plan, and a range of modifications to the key objectives and strategies relevant to residential, industrial and non urban land use in Kingston. A late attachment also forms part of the submission, which requests the application of a Design and Development overlay to land at the corner of Lower Dandenong and Centre Dandenong Roads, Dingley Village, to recognise the important gateway function performed by this site.
Strategic Assessment: Council generally supports the comments made on the style and structure of the MSS, and will consider incorporating a number of the suggested changes to the core residential and industrial land use objectives in the MSS. In respect to the submittor's comments on Council's objectives for non urban land use in Kingston, it is submitted that Council intends to incorporate a fairly rigorous local policy on non urban land use in the LPPF prior to the adoption of the planning scheme. It is envisaged that the policy will significantly strengthen Council's policy objectives for non urban land and will require that changes in land use only be considered as part of a detailed strategic review process.
The late attachment to the submission requests the application of a Design and Development overlay to land at the corner of Centre Dandenong and Lower Dandenong Roads, Dingley, to recognise its gateway function. Council intends to review this
56 18/20805
Kingston New Format Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee, June 1998
request in the coming months with a view to considering design and development overlays for key gateway sites where there is a sufficient landscape or urban design master plan for the site. It is noted that a Landscape Strategy Plan was prepared for Dingley Village in 1996 by Chris Dance Landscape Architects, which addresses the Dingley gateway in some detail. It is considered that this strategy could form the basis of a future design and development overlay for this site.
Council Comment and Recommendation: • Agree to minor changes to MSS and framework plan.
Panel Comment and Recommendation: See opening comments at Section 4.2. This submission raised a number of issues with respect to the "village" character of Dingley and its need for preservation as a discrete area of suburbia.
The submission criticises the Council's lack of direction in respect to identification of tourist facilities (one was identified on the Strategic Framework Plan), and the need for a better definition of a hard edge to the urban area of Dingley. This submission suggested it would be helpful if there were some more precises guidelines for the development of the Dingley area, in particular its significance as a major gateway site for the municipality. It was suggested that Dingley Village be identified as a key "Gateway Entrance" for the municipality and that this area be subject to a Design Development Overlay, particularly as the earlier strategic work has already been carried out through the preparation of the Landscape Strategy Plan. While the Panel considers this suggestion to have some merit, it holds no particular view as to the timing of this, and suggests that the Council determine this issue in the light of its ongoing program.
With regard to the issues already raised in relation to further development of the MSS and Framework Plan, the Panel agrees with the Council's assessment and endorses its recommendations.
The Panel recommends that consideration be given to the identification of additional gateways at the entrance of Dingley Village and other important entry points to the municipality.
SUBMISSION NO: 98 Submittor: Watsons Pty Ltd, on behalf of Portland House Corporation Location: Non urban land south of Governor Road, Braeside Policies Affected: Various strategic objectives of MSS Existing Zone: N/A Exhibited Zone: N/A
Summary of Submission: The submission makes general comment on the MSS in respect to residential land use, environment, wetlands and waterways, non urban land and open space. Although several minor modifications to the MSS are requested, the submission expresses overall support for the priorities identified in the MSS. The submission also uses the principles
57 18/20805
Kingston New Format Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee, June 1998
of the MSS to make a broad assessment of the opportunities for the creation of wetlands and the future use and development of non urban land to the south of Governor Road, Braeside. The submission concludes that the MSS is broadly supportive of such opportunities.
Strategic Assessment: The submission requests that Council clarify its objectives in the MSS in respect to structure planning for non urban areas. The submission suggests that the MSS should more clearly articulate the scope of the structure planning process required by Council, recognising that a major review of the whole sub-regional structure would not expected wherever a significant change to non urban land use is proposed.
As discussed earlier in Council's submission to the panel, the South East Non Urban Study makes a number of recommendations on the need for structure planning to be carried out prior to the consideration of changes to non urban land use. The Cities of Kingston, Greater Dandenong, Frankston and Casey are currently working towards the implementation of the SENUS study, and intend to introduce a new local policy on non urban land into the LPPF, following the adoption of the new format schemes. The draft local policy prepared by the Councils addresses the issue of structure planning in some detail, and it is therefore not considered appropriate to modify the MSS until this policy has been finalised. Several other minor changes are requested to the wording of particular statements made in the MSS which are generally considered reasonable.
Council Comment and Recommendation: Minor wording changes to MSS.
Panel Comment and Recommendation: See opening comments at Section 4.2. The land which is the subject of this submission by the Portland House Group is also the subject of Amendment L33 to the Kingston Planning Scheme, which was recently on public exhibition and is now awaiting a Panel hearing. Essentially this particular submission invites the Panel to conclude that neither the content of the new format Kingston Planning Scheme, nor the processes for its eventual approval inhibit the practical approval of Amendment L33, provided that it can be demonstrated that the proposal meets all state, regional and local planning objectives.
It is not the role of this Panel to make any comment on a major rezoning and development proposal outside of the ambit of its considerations, however it is acknowledged that in the light of earlier and subsequent comments about the need for a coordinated strategic approach to redevelopment of land in the non-urban area of Kingston, this proposal represents one where such an approach is deemed to be appropriate. The Panel agrees with the Council's assessment of the MSS issues raised in other parts of the submission and endorses its recommendations.
The Panel recommends no specific change to the exhibited Planning Scheme arising from this submission.
58 18/20805 Kingston New Format Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee, June 1998
4.3 Submissions from Authorities
The comments of the Panel in the introduction to Section 4.2 apply to this section on submissions from Authorities.
SUBMISSION NO: 99 Submittor: Aboriginal Affairs Victoria Location: Whole Municipality Policies Affected: Heritage elements of MSS Existing Zone: N/A Exhibited Zone: N/A
Summary of Submission: Aboriginal Affairs Victoria have requested that Council include a local policy in the LPPF to afford protection to all Aboriginal sites, places and objects located within the municipality. The draft policy provides the following:-
It is policy to promote the identification, protection and management of Aboriginal cultural heritage values.
It is policy that, in considering an application to develop or rezone land, the responsible authority will have regard to:
(i) the current Aboriginal heritage study document for the municipality; or
(ii) the Aboriginal cultural resource management grid map and guidelines provided by Aboriginal Affairs Victoria.
It is policy that applicants proposing to develop or rezone land in areas where there is a known site or the potential for Aboriginal archaeological sites to occur will be requested to include a report from a suitably qualified archaeologist demonstrating that the impact of proposed development on Aboriginal cultural heritage values has been addressed.
Strategic Assessment: The Victorian Planning Provisions already require planning authorities to consider aboriginal culture and various acts of Parliament related to aboriginal heritage. The proposed policy submitted by Aboriginal Affairs is considered to impose significant requirements on landowners particularly where 'the potential for Aboriginal archaeological sites to occur' is unknown.
The City of Kingston does not have a current Aboriginal heritage study for the municipality and hence the proposed policy would need to relate specifically to the Aboriginal cultural resource map grid and guidelines prepared by Aboriginal Affairs. Council has requested the submittor to provide a copy of the resource map and guidelines to enable further consideration of the proposed policy. Council is not willing
59 18/20805
Kingston New Format Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee, June 1998
to support the introduction of the policy at this stage as the requested information has not been forthcoming.
Council Comment and Recommendation: No change to LPPF.
Panel Comment and Recommendation: See opening comments at Section 4.2. The Panel considers that this aspect is adequately covered in the SPPF and it agrees with the Council's assessment and endorses its recommendations.
The Panel recommends no specific change to the exhibited Planning Scheme arising from this submission.
SUBMISSION NO: 100 Submittor: R.G. Harvey on behalf of Telstra Location: Telstra Exchanges at: a) 310-314 Kingston Road, Heatherton b) 31 Albert St, Mordialloc c) 325-327 Station St, Chelsea d) Bunney Road, Oakleigh South e) 1061-1063 Nepean Highway, Highett 0 315 Charman Road, Cheltenham
Existing/ Exhibited zone: a) Public Purpose to Public Use No 1. zone b) Residential C to Residential 1 zone c) Service Business zone to Business 1 zone d) Light Industrial zone to Industrial 1 zone e) Residential C zone to Residential 1 zone 0 Part Cheltenham District Centre Zone/part Cheltenham Residential Zone to part Business 2/part Residential 2 zone.
Requested zone: a) Rural b) Mixed Use c) definitional problems with exhibited zone d) acceptable e) Mixed Use 0 Business 2 zone
Summary of Submission: The submission requests changes to the exhibited for sites (b) (c), (e) and (f) zones , as 'definitional problems' are experienced with these zone provisions. The submission notes however that the outcome of changes to the VPPs may resolve these definitional issues, in which case the exhibited zones would become acceptable. (see also the comments in relation to submissions No 151 and 152).
60 18/20805
Kingston New Format Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee, June 1998
Strategic Assessment: It is Council's understanding that Amendment V3 to the Victorian Planning Provisions satisfactorily resolved the definitional issues associated with telecommunications facilities, and hence no change to the exhibited zoning for sites (b), (c), (d), or (e) is required. In light of further recommendations in V3 it is also clear that site (a) is not appropriate for inclusion in a public use zone, and hence Council proposes to include the site within a Rural zone, which is consistent with surrounding zoning.
Council does not support the proposal to include the whole of site (f) in a Business 2 zone, as it is not considered that the loss of residentially zoned land in this location is consistent with Council's strategic objectives for the Cheltenham Business Centre. The proposed Mixed Use zone for sites (b) and (e) is also not supported as the submittor has not supported the request with any clear justification for a change to the exhibited zoning.
Council Comment and Recommendation: • No change to exhibited zones for sites (b) - (f). • Remove Public Use No.1 zone from site (a) and apply the Rural zone.
Panel Comment and Recommendation: The revised VPPs have clarified the situation with regard to Telstra properties. Telstra is no longer considered to be a public body, and in accordance with the Ministerial Direction on the form and content of planning schemes, a public reservation for any of its properties is no longer applicable. The Panel generally concurs with the Council's assessment of the Telstra properties, but considers that more clarification from the Department of Infrastructure is needed to determine the appropriate zone for private utilities that are considered to be "large".
The Panel would seek clarification from the Department of Infrastructure as to whether an Environmental Audit Overlay should be applied on Telstra and other public utility land where it is proposed to be placed in a Residential zone as a result of the use of an underlying zone being applied.
The Panel recommends that the Telstra properties be placed in the following zones:
• Site 1: Rural • Site 2: Residential 1 • Site 3: Business 1 • Site 4: Industrial 1 • Site 5: Residential 1 • Site 6: Part Residential 2, Part Business 2
The Panel recommends that the Department of Infrastructure clarify whether an Environmental Audit Overlay is necessary for Telstra and other public utility that is to be placed in a residential zone.
61 18/20805 Kingston New Format Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee, June 1998
SUBMISSION NO: 101 Submittor: Melbourne Water Location: Whole Municipality Policies Affected: Various strategic policies of MSS Existing Zone: Various Exhibited Zone: Various Requested Zone: Public Use No 1 zone, Urban Floodway Zone.
Summary of Submission: The submission suggests a number of modifications to the MSS, relating to issues of floodplain and catchment management, and protection of waterways and wetlands. A draft local policy has also been submitted for inclusion in the LPPF, to provide guidelines on the management of stormwater quality across the municipality.
Melbourne Water has also requested that Council give recognition to all flood prone land in the municipality through the application 'Land Subject to Inundation Overlays.' To support the introduction of these overlays the submission makes reference to the State planning policy on Floodplain Management, which requires that 'land identified by the floodplain management authority as affected by flooding should be shown on the planning scheme maps.' Various changes are also requested to the exhibited zoning of Melbourne Water owned land across the municipality.
Strategic Assessment: All suggested changes to the MSS and LPPF are considered to strengthen the policy basis of the MSS and reinforce the environmental management objectives common to both Council and Melbourne Water. All changes are therefore supported. The proposed local policy on stormwater quality management is also considered to clearly express Council's objectives for achieving improved stormwater quality and providing for responsible stormwater management in Kingston.
The request to incorporate 'Land Subject to Inundation Overlays' has been discussed at length with Melbourne Water officers. As there are significant areas of private and publicly owned land affected by the proposed overlays, which are not currently subject to any form of flooding controls, it is Council's view that the overlays represent a significant imposition on landowners and therefore should not be introduced as part of the reform scheme process. It is envisaged that the introduction of such overlays would require a formal exhibition process and an extensive program of public consultation, and should therefore form the basis of a separate amendment to the new planning scheme once it is approved. Agreement with Melbourne Water has been secured on this matter on the basis that Council will proceed with the introduction of the overlays following the approval of the new planning scheme. Various statements have been incorporated into the MSS to recognise Council's commitment to the future introduction of these overlays.
• Melbourne Water has also requested changes to the exhibited zones of all Melbourne Water owned land in the municipality, so that all assets are contained in the Public Use . No. 1 zone. The requested changes are considered reasonable. A number of areas have
- . a
62 18/20805
Kingston New Format Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee, June 1998
also been identified for inclusion in the Urban Floodway zone, all of which are supported by Council.
Council Comment and Recommendation: • Agree to all requested changes to MSS • Agree to incorporate local policy on `Stormwater Quality Management' in LPPF; • Agree to modify MSS to recognise future introduction of 'land subject to inundation overlays.' • Agree to all requested zone changes for Melbourne Water owned land.
Panel Comment and Recommendation: See opening comments at Section 4.2. The Melbourne Water submissions made a number of comments and suggestions about improvements to the waterway environment through the inclusion of additional statements in the MSS and LPPF. The Panel endorses the recommendation of Council in relation to these suggested changes to the MSS, and the LPPF for the Non-Urban Land Policy.
Melbourne Water also recommended that an additional policy be included on Stormwater Quality and the Council has supported its inclusion. At this stage it is understood that this issue is being addressed by the Department of Infrastructure as a state issue, and while the Panel does not have any particular concerns about its inclusion, it would prefer to await the outcome of this process before it makes a formal recommendation.
With regard to the proposed Land Subject to Inundation Overlay, the Panel supports the view of Council that because over 15% of the land in the municipality may be subject to the application of this overlay, its consideration should be as part of a separate process and amendment. The timing of this depends on the Council and Melbourne Water. However the Panel supports the recommendation to strengthen the MSS to make it clearer that a substantial part of the municipality is subject to inundation and that additional controls will be required to properly address this. It must be noted that the Panel is concerned that there are no interim controls with regard to inundation and these should be pursued as a matter of some urgency.
It is noted that the Council supports all of the proposed zoning changes by Melbourne Water with regard to publicly owned land and that essentially these lands should be included in either a Public Use zone or be subject to a Public Acquisition Overlay. In some cases it may be appropriate to apply an Urban Floodway zone. It is suggested that the final details of these zonings be clarified between Council and Melbourne Water.
With regard to the recommendations in relation to privately owned land, Melbourne Water has suggested that Council undertake a direct translation of land from the existing Stream and Floodway zone to an Urban Floodway zone to recognise its drainage function. Council supports this request and the Panel concurs with the view that it represents an appropriate direct translation.
63 18/20805 Kingston New Format Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee, June 1998
The Panel recommends that Council:
• give regard to the suggested changes by Melbourne Water to the MSS; • modify the MSS to give recognition to the fact that there will be a significant portion of land that will be subject to inundation and that this will be addressed by a future amendment, which should be prepared and pursued as a matter of some urgency; • adopt the zone changes on land publicly owned by Melbourne Water; • include land that is currently in a Stream and Floodway zone under the provisions of the existing Planning Scheme in an Urban Floodway zone.
SUBMISSION NO: 102 Submittor: Environment Protection Authority Location: Whole Municipality Policies Affected: Residential/Industrial elements of MSS Existing Zone: N/A Exhibited Zone: N/A
Summary of Submission: The submission makes very general comment on the need for the new planning scheme to give consideration to buffers at the interface of residential and industrial zones. A number of specific industrial sites are identified where there is the potential for adverse amenity on adjacent land, for information purposes only.
Strategic Assessment: The submission by EPA provides information only and does not request any changes to the MSS or Council's application of zones or overlays.
Council Comment and Recommendation: No changes to MSS or planning scheme.
Panel Comment and Recommendation: See opening comments at Section 4.2. As noted by the Council the submission by the EPA raised a number of issues in relation to buffers and the need to protect residential areas from potential noise, odour and other amenity impacts from industrial neighbours. The Panel considers that Council should be cognisant of these issues and provide further information in the MSS about potential land use conflicts at the interface of residential and industrial areas. The EPA did not request any specific changes to the Planning Scheme, however the Panel notes that Council has applied some Industrial 3 zones, and recommended others as a result of this process to deal with these buffer issues. Generally the Panel considers that the selection of zones, overlays and schedules in the Kingston Planning Scheme are consistent with the issues raised in this submission.
The Panel recommends no specific change to the exhibited Planning Scheme arising from this submission.
64 18/20805 Kingston New Format Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee, June 1998
SUBMISSION NO: 103 Submittor: Department of Natural Resources & Environment Location: Whole Municipality Policies Affected: Various strategic policies of MSS Existing Zone: N/A Exhibited Zone: N/A
Summary of Submission: The submission requests a number of modifications to the MSS, relating to issues of flora and fauna, non urban land, and protection of coastal and wetland assets. An extension to the exhibited Environmental Significance overlay is also requested, to include a significant wetland area to the south of the Patterson River. DNRE has also made comment on Council's application of zones and overlays to coastal areas, and has suggested that the exhibited PPRZ zone on the foreshore reserve be extended 600 metres seaward of high water mark.
Strategic Assessment: Council has discussed the submission in some detail with officers of the Department of Natural Resources and Environment. Agreement has been secured on a number of changes to the MSS. Council has agreed to review the application of the Environmental Significance Overlay, subject to the affected landowner, Melbourne Water, offering no objection to the proposed extension of the overlay. The proposal to extend the PPRZ on the foreshore reserve 600 metres seaward is consistent with the approach of adjoining councils and advice of the Department of Infrastructure and the Coastal Council Board, is therefore supported.
Council Comment and Recommendation: • Agree to changes to MSS; • Agree to extend the Exhibited Environmental Significance Overlay, subject to Melbourne Water's agreement; • Agree to extend the exhibited PPRZ on the foreshore reserve.
Panel Comment and Recommendation: See opening comments at Section 4.2. The Panel generally supports the changes suggested by DNRE and Council, particularly with regard to the MSS. Further the Panel considers that greater recognition in the MSS should be given to the role that extractive industry plays in the municipality, and its strategic significance as an industrial base and resource.
DNRE recommends that the Environmental Significance Overlay 1 be extended to include the Chelsea Heights Wetland south to the Patterson River, the inclusion of views of DNRE for applications under this ES01 and the provision of an additional reference document under this overlay. The Panel generally supports the recommendation of Council in this regard, but only to the extent that the overlay applies to publicly owned land.
The issue of the extension of the Public Purpose and Recreation zone to 600 metres of the high water mark is also supported but considers that this issue needs to be clarified
65 18/20805
Kingston New Format Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee, June 1998
with Department of Infrastructure prior to adoption of the scheme to ensure it is consistent with other bayside municipalities. It is understood that some Councils have applied the PPRZ to within 600 metres of the low water mark, while others have used the high water mark. The proposed new Coastal Overlay control may clarify this issue and while this issue can be seen as part of the new format process, it does not mean it will be a lost opportunity if it is not dealt with immediately.
The Panel recommends that Council: • generally adopt the proposed changes to the MSS as suggested by DNRE; • extend the Environmental Significance Overlay to land including the Chelsea Heights Wetlands owned by Melbourne Water, subject to their compliance; • seek advice and clarification from Department of Infrastructure about the proposed Coastal Overlay, whether it should apply to the low or high water mark, and the timing of its introduction.
SUBMISSION NO: 104 Submittor: Parks Victoria Location: Whole Municipality, and all land referred to in submissions 110-114, 116-117, & 119 Policies Affected: Various strategic policies of MSS Existing Zone: Various Exhibited Zone: Various
Summary of Submission: The submission by Parks Victoria makes general comment on Council's objectives for open space, the foreshore, and the Chain of Parks concept as identified in the MSS. The submission also requests that a Public Conservation and Resource zone be applied to areas of environmental significance within Braeside Park. Other matters discussed in the submission relate to Council's application of zoning and overlay controls for the foreshore, and the translation of existing site specific controls affecting Parks Victoria into the new format scheme.
A number of Public Acquisition overlays have been applied through the municipality in favour of Parks Victoria, to further the implementation of the Chain of Parks strategy. The submission by Parks Victoria confirms their overall commitment to the application of these overlays. In response to a number of submissions made by landowners affected by these overlays, Parks Victoria have submitted a late attachment tO their submission (received on 26/2/98). The attachment includes a revised plan of the proposed public acquisition boundaries, to reflect agreements which have been negotiated with affected landowners following the exhibition of the overlays.
Strategic Assessment: The suggested changes to the MSS are considered acceptable and have been incorporated as per the summary table of changes to the MSS. The proposed Public Conservation and Resource Zone for part of Braeside Park is considered to afford greater protection to the areas of environmental significance within the park and is therefore supported by Council. In respect to comments made on the translation of
66 18/20805
Kingston New Format Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee, June 1998
existing site specific controls into the new format scheme, it is submitted that Parks Victoria's role as a referral authority for these sites has been directly translated into the new scheme, via schedule provisions or planning permit conditions.
A number of submissions were received to the new planning scheme from landowners affected by the proposed Public Acquisition overlays in favour of Parks Victoria. In most cases submittors were objecting to the future acquisition of their land based on their intentions for the long term use of the land. In an effort to resolve these issues prior to the panel hearing, Council conducted a series of meeting in late January, involving affected landowners and Parks Victoria. Based on these negotiations Parks Victoria have submitted a revised plan showing the proposed changes to the overlay boundaries, to accommodate the majority of requests made by affected landowners.
Parks Victoria has also requested that the overlay be removed from all Council owned land forming part of the Chain of Parks Strategy. Council does not support the removal of the overlay from these sites, as Council has always envisaged that Parks Victoria would be responsible for the future management of all sites within the Chain of Parks Development Plan. In view of the liabilities and future maintenance responsibilities associated with these sites following their rehabilitation for public open space, Council does not wish to retain ownership of these sites in the long term. It is Council's expectation that the land could be transferred to Parks Victoria via an agreement which exempts Parks Victoria from the usual compensation requirements associated with land acquisition. Until this matter is resolved with Parks Victoria Council is not willing to support the removal of the overlay from Council owned land. It is Council's intention to pursue this matter with Parks Victoria prior to the adoption of the new planning scheme.
Council Comment and Recommendation: • Agree to requested changes to MSS; • Agree to apply Public Conservation and Resource zone within Braeside Park; • Retain exhibited Public Acquisition overlays on Council owned land; • Agree to modify application of Public Acquisition overlays as requested by Parks Victoria except on Council owned land.
Panel Comment and Recommendation: See opening comments at Section 4.2. Parks Victoria made their submission via a number of letters and also through presentation of a submission to the Panel. It would appear that most of the issues raised by the authority are able to be resolved with the Council with the exception of one or two matters. Generally the Council has supported changes to the MSS, and has agreed to apply the Public Conservation and Resource zone on an area of land within Braeside Park. The Panel is satisfied that there is strategic justification for this.
With regard to the application of a Public Acquisition Overlay on land held in private ownership as part of the proposed Chain of Parks, the Panel commends the way in which Council, Parks Victoria and the landowners have worked together to resolve these concerns, which has resulted in Parks Victoria agreeing to remove the proposed PAO. These include land subject to submissions from McIntosh (111), Turner (112), Johns (114), Lofts Quarries (110), and Pro11 (113). Parks Victoria consider that these lands are
67 18/20805
Kingston New Format Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee, June 1998
not critical to the future of the park, are not essential for access to it and do not affect the open space corridor to Braeside. Current and future uses are compatible with the proposed park. The Lofts Quarry site however will require a change in the boundary of the proposed PAO.
There was some debate at the Panel hearing about the removal of the PAO on Council owned property that forms part of the Chain of Parks Strategy and the Council submitted that it was keen to retain the overlay so that the land could be transferred to Parks Victoria for it to then manage. The Panel (reluctantly) agrees with the Parks Victoria submission in that as it does not wish to be nominated as the acquiring authority, it is no longer appropriate that the PAO be applied to this land. However the Panel notes that in the absence of this, it inhibits Council achieving its broad strategic objective for the Chain of Parks concept. , Parks Victoria submitted that there should be a consistent framework for assessing and referring coastal applications within Port Phillip Bay and in the absence of a coastal overlay it would be appropriate to include the referral provisions within one of the overlay provisions. The authority cited the Port Phillip Planning Scheme hearing, where that Council included an additional schedule (14) to the Design and Development Overlay known as the Port Phillip Coastal Area Overlay. Conversely the Shire of Mornington Peninsula used a schedule known as the Port Phillip Coastal Overlay to the Environmental Significance Overlay. Parks Victoria submitted that:
In the absence of specific supporting documentation in the MSS, it may be most appropriate in the interim to translate the provisions by virtue of a Design and Development Overlay.
The Panel has already made comment about the proposed Coastal Overlay in the consideration of the previous submission (DNRE) but as an interim measure the Panel does not have any particular concerns if the Council prepared an additional schedule to the DDO for inclusion in the scheme as an interim measure, prior to adoption of the scheme.
The Panel recommends that Council: • generally agree to requested changes to the MSS; • apply a Public Conservation and Resource zone within part of Braeside Park; • remove the exhibited Public Acquisition Overlay on Council owned land; • remove the Public Acquisition Overlay on land indicated as "blue" on the submitted plan by Parks Victoria entitled "Proposed Sandbelt Acquisitions" and generally related to submissions 110 to 114 inclusive. • prepare an additional schedule to the Design and Development Overlay, consistent with Port Phillip and other bayside municipalities to reflect proposed coastal controls as an interim measure until the Department of Infrastructure and others have prepared a Coastal Overlay as part of the VPPs.
1
68
1 18/20805
Kingston New Format Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee, June 1998
SUBMISSION NO: 105 Submittor: Port Phillip Regional Catchment and Land Protection Board Location: Whole Municipality Policies Affected: Environmental objectives of MSS Existing Zone: N/A Exhibited Zone: N/A
Summary of Submission: The submission requests a number of modifications to the MSS, relating to issues of catchment protection, water quality, non urban land, and protection of coastal assets. The submission also requests that the exhibited Public Park and Recreation Zone for Braeside Park be replaced with a Public Conservation and Resource zone in those areas of the park which are of environmental significance.
Strategic Assessment: The proposed changes to the MSS are consistent with those made by the Department of Natural Resources and Environment. Council supports the majority of requested changes to the MSS, except those which make recommendations on 'pet ownership in the community. (It is not considered that such statements are appropriate for inclusion in the MSS). The request to apply a Public Conservation and Resource Zone to part of Braeside Park is consistent with the submission by Parks Victoria and is supported by Council.
Council Comment and Recommendation: • Agree to majority of changes to MSS; • Agree to apply PCRZ to part of Braeside Park.
Panel Comment and Recommendation: See opening comments at Section 4.2. This submissions is noted and the comments of the Council are endorsed. The Panel notes that there is nothing in this submission which conflicts with other submissions from other authorities. The Panel has previously suggested that the stormwater policy issue be clarified by the Department of Infrastructure.
The Panel recommends no specific changes to the exhibited Planning Scheme arising from this submission.
SUBMISSION NO: 106 Submittor: Vie Roads Location: Whole Municipality Existing Zone: Various Exhibited Zone: Various Requested Zone: Various
Summary of Submission:
69 18/20805
Kingston New Format Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee, June 1998
The submission by Vic Roads requests a number of corrections to the mapping of road zones across the municipality and Public Acquisition Overlays in favour of Vic Roads. The suggested modifications are as follows:
Map 1 • Keys Road is a declared main road under the Transport Act and should therefore be shown as RDZ1; Map 2 • All land which forms part of the proposed Dingley Freeway should be shown as PA01. Land which is principally in the ownership of Vic Roads should be zoned Road Zone 1, and other land which is not in Vic Roads ownership should be shown as the underlying zoning.
Map 3 • Remove PA01 from Osborne Avenue, except on corner allotment; • Apply PA01 to west side of Westall Road to indicate future road widening.
Map 5 • Remove all PA01 at the corner of Warrigal Road and Centre Dandenong Roads, Cheltenham, as all required widenings have been carried out; • Remove PA01 at the intersection of Boundary and Lower Dandenong Roads, Braeside, and from the intersection of White Street and Boundary Road, Braeside.
Map 6 • Apply PA01 to represent the proposed Mornington Peninsula Freeway; • Correct alignment of Boundary Road;
Map 7 • Remove PA01 from corner of Governor Road and Wells Road.
Map 8 • Remove PA01 on main drain; • Apply PA01 to north and south of Governor Road.
Strategic Assessment: All mapping corrections are considered acceptable and are supported by Council.
In those cases where Vic Roads has requested that an additional PA01 be applied to land in private ownership (ie: Westall Road, Clayton and Governor Road, Braeside), Council notified all affected landowners of the proposed new overlays shortly after the commencement of the exhibition of the Kingston Planning Scheme. It is noted that no submissions have been received on these proposed overlays.
Council Comment and Recommendation: • Amend maps as per requested changes.
70 18/20805 Kingston New Format Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee, June 1998
Panel Comment and Recommendation: The Panel recognises that the request made by VicRoads are in the main technical mapping issues and as such it notes and endorses the comments and recommendations of Council.
The Panel recommends that the following changes be made to the exhibited Planning Scheme: Map 1 • Keys Road is a declared main road under the Transport Act and should therefore be shown as RDZ1; Map 2 • All land which forms part of the proposed Din gley Freeway should be shown as PA 01. Land which is principally in the ownership of Vic Roads should be zoned Road Zone 1, and other land which is not in Vic Roads ownership should be shown as the underlying zoning. Map 3 • Remove PA01 from Osborne Avenue, except on corner allotment; • Apply PA01 to west side of Westall Road to indicate future road widening. Map 5 • Remove all PA01 at the corner of Warrigal Road and Centre Dandenong Roads, Cheltenham, as all required widenings have been carried out; • Remove PA01 at the intersection of Boundary and Lower Dandenong Roads, Braeside, and from the intersection of White Street and Boundary Road, Braeside. Map 6 • Apply PA01 to represent the proposed Mornington Peninsula Freeway; • Correct alignment of Boundary Road; Map 7 • Remove PA01 from corner of Governor Road and Wells Road. Map 8 • Remove PA01 on main drain; • Apply PA01 to north and south of Governor Road.
SUBMISSION NO: 107 Submittor: National Trust Australia Location: Whole Municipality Policies Affected: Heritage objectives of MSS Existing Zone: N/A Exhibited Zone: N/A
Summary of Submission: The submission requests that the MSS be significantly strengthened in respect to Council's heritage objectives for the municipality. It is recommended that Council undertake a heritage study to identify significant historical and cultural assets and provide for their protection.
71 18/20805
Kingston New Format Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee, June 1998
Strategic Assessment: The request by the National Trust to give greater recognition to heritage issues within the MSS is well supported by Council. The preparation of a Heritage Study for the municipality will therefore be identified as a core objective of the MSS.
Council Comment and Recommendation: • Agree to changes to MSS.
Panel Comment and Recommendation: See opening comments at Section 4.2. The Panel endorses the view that a heritage study should be prepared for the municipality and that its preparation should be foreshadowed in the MSS.
The Panel recommends no specific change to the exhibited Planning Scheme arising from this submission.
SUBMISSION NO: 108 Submittor: Country Fire Authority Location: Whole Municipality Policies Affected: Fire Protection Existing Zone: N/A Exhibited Zone: N/A
Summary of Submission: The submission requests that a new local policy be incorporated into the LPPF to provide for fire protection within the municipality.
Strategic Assessment: Council regards the promotion of responsible fire management practices in Kingston as a relatively important objective for the municipality. Although the requirements of the proposed policy are not considered to impose any unreasonable requirements on Council or private land owners, fire management is not considered to be a major issue in land use planning in Kingston and Council is therefore unsure that a specific local policy is warranted. Council would be interested in the views of the panel on this matter.
Council Comment and Recommendation: • No change to LPPF.
Panel Comment and Recommendation: See opening comments at Section 4.2. The Panel considers that the issues raised in this submission are already covered by the SPPF, and there is no need to duplicate these in the LPPF. The Panel accepts the view of Council that the municipality is not subject to a fire management issues and it endorses its submission.
The Panel recommends no specific change to the exhibited Planning Scheme arising from this submission.
72 18/20805
Kingston New Format Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee, June 1998
4.4 Submissions on Overlays
In addition to the issues raised in the previous sections .(4.2 and 4.3), a number of other submissions were made about exhibited overlays in the Kingston Planning Scheme. The consideration of these issues is as follows.
SUBMISSION NO: 109 Submittor: Contour Consultants Location: Westfield Shoppingtown Southland 1156 and 1239 Nepean Highway, Cheltenham Existing Zone: Cheltenham District Centre Zone No. 7 Exhibited Zone/Overlay: Business 1 zone with Development Plan overlay (DP01) Requested Zone/Overlay: Business 1 zone with Development Plan overlay (DP01)
Summary of Submission: The submission requests that the maximum leasable shop floor area for the Westfield Southland Shopping centre specified in the exhibited Development Plan Overlay for the site, be relocated into the schedule to the Business 1 Zone.
Strategic Assessment: The exhibited schedule to the Development Plan Overlay (DP01) for Westfield Southland currently provides that the gross leasable floor area of buildings on the land must not exceed 108,000m2(except with a permit). This represents a direct translation of the existing site specific provisions for Westfield as contained in the current Kingston Planning Scheme.
Upon review of the Development Plan Overlay schedule it is considered that the Business 1 zone schedule offers a more appropriate mechanism to deal with floor space limitations in the planning scheme. The request by the submittor to specify the current floor space limitation for Westfield in the schedule to the Business 1 zone is therefore considered appropriate. Accordingly the floor space requirement should be removed from the schedule to the Development Plan Overlay.
In reviewing the provisions of the Development Plan Overlay for Westfield the Department of Infrastructure has advised that the format of the overlay does not allow exemptions from permit requirements for buildings and works, hence it is proposed that clause 3 of the exhibited schedule be deleted.
Council Comment and Recommendation: • Specify maximum leasable floor area for shop in the schedule to the Business 1 zone. (108,000m2). • Delete clause 3 of the exhibited schedule to DP01.
Panel Comment and Recommendation: The Westfield site currently has a site specific planning control (Clause 110-3) which is based on the comprehensive development zone principle of a building envelope (ie a concept plan), a procedure for the approval of development plans without a permit and
73 18/20805
Kingston New Format Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee, June 1998
requirements for a traffic plan, management plan and a Section 173 agreement. In its submission to the Panel, Westfield maintained that it should be permitted to retain its existing development entitlements of:
• 108,000 square metres of shop floor area which may be increased by permit; • 15,000 square metres of office floor area which may be increased by permit; • expansion of the center within the limits of the Concept Plan (November 1994) without a planning permit or the potential for exposure to third party notice and appeal; and • provision for the prescribed car parking rates for shop and office to be varied by agreement with the responsible authority.
The Panel accepts this position and agrees with Council that the maximum leasable floor area of 108,000 square metres for shop should be included in the schedule to the Business 1 zone, rather than as part of the Development Plan Overlay as it recognises that this represents a direct translation of the existing site specific provisions for Westfield as contained in the Kingston Planning Scheme.
In their further submission to the Panel, Westfield Shoppingtown, Mr Biacsi submitted that the development of Westfield is almost complete however the existing plan needed to be given status through the new format Planning Scheme. The question for Westfield and the Panel is how this should be undertaken. Mr Biacsi was seeking the application of an Incorporated Plan Overlay over the centre, which would include the approved concept and building plans. He submitted it would set the parameters for the centre's future use and development and the TOwould give the centre its proper legitimacy. All other requirements which are presently addressed by provisions relating to development plans, traffic plans, management plans legal agreements and the like will be covered through the permit process.
In translating to a new planning scheme, some existing shopping centres have directly translated into a permit their existing site specific provisions and development rights. There is a body of opinion that this is the an appropriate way to deal with most site specific translations, particularly with regard to shopping centres. The Department of Infrastructure considers that if there are existing rights, it is preferable that these be directly converted to a permit. However because of the particulars of the existing Westfield controls, the Department agreed at the hearing that the Incorporated Plan Overlay will work perfectly well although a permit will still be required for development, so long as it is consistent with the Concept Plan to be incorporated as part of the IPO.
The Panel is of the view that the existing approved Concept Plan (which includes provision for the overpass) should be an Incorporated Plan in Clause 81 of the Scheme. This sets the basic approved framework for development of the centre which cannot be changed except by an amendment to the Scheme. Within this framework, two things need to be done. Firstly to include the approved floorspace limits in the schedule to the Business 1 zone to establish the existing development rights, and secondly a permit should be issued for the detailed development as currently approved. The first condition of that permit should require a detailed development plan generally in accordance with
74 18/20805
Kingston New Format Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee, June 1998
the incorporated plan (ie the approved Concept Plan) to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. This permit can include all other conditions relating to traffic, parking, landscaping and the like.
The Panel notes that permits under the Business 1 zone for building and works do not give rise to notification and appeal rights, so while a permit is required, provided it is within the parameters of the incorporated plan and requires a detailed development plan, it is in effect no different from requiring such approval to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
This arrangement provides both the Council and the developer with assurances over their existing development rights, and allows the developer to pursue additional development opportunities by permit. It is also consistent with the principles of the planning reform program to streamline the planning schemes as far as possible.
The Panel recommends that: • the Development Plan Overlay for Westfield be replaced with an Incorporated Plan to Clause 81 of the Scheme which includes the approved and dated Concept Plan for the centre. • the maximum leasable floor area of 108,000 square metres for shop and 15,000 square metres for office previously in the Development Plan Overlay should be provided for in the schedule to the Business 1 zone. • that a planning permit be issued for Westfield to legitimise its current development entitlements.
SUBMISSION NO: 110 Submittor: Lofts Quarries Location: a) 632-642 Clayton Road, Clayton South b) 448-450 Heatherton Road, Heatherton c) 217-227 and 239 Kingston Road, Heatherton Existing/ Exhibited Zone: a) Reserved Light Industrial to Industrial 1 zone with Public Acquisition overlay in favour of Parks Victoria b) Special Use 14A zone to Rural zone c) Special Extractive A zone to Special Use No.2 zone
Summary of Submission: The submission by Lofts Quarries supports the proposed Industrial 1 zoning for Site (a) but objects to the application of a Public Acquisition overlay to this site. The submission also expresses general support for the proposed zoning for sites (b) and (c).
Strategic Assessment: In respect to Site (a), the land owner has expressed an intention to continue the existing commercial quarrying activities on the site in the long term. The submission therefore strongly objects to the application of the proposed Public Acquisition overlay in favour of Parks Victoria to the site. In an effort to resolve this matter Council arranged a meeting between the land owner and Parks Victoria in early January. The submittor
75 18/20805 Kingston New Format Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee, June 1998
reiterated that as the current activities on the site are not based on the extraction of resources from the site, the use of the site for commercial purposes could potentially continue in the long term.
It is Council's understanding that Parks Victoria has reviewed its position following this meeting, and has agreed to remove the proposed Public Acquisition overlay from this site to accommodate the submittor's request. In respect to Site (b), it is noted that the existing site specific provisions affecting this land are proposed to be dealt with via a planning permit, which will be forwarded to the land owner for comment prior to the approval of the new scheme.
Council Comment and Recommendation: • Agree to remove proposed Public Acquisition overlay from 632-642 Clayton Road, Heatherton, in accordance with revised overlay plan submitted by Parks Victoria.
Panel Comment and Recommendation: There were a number of submissions made in respect to the imposition of a Public Acquisition Overlay by Parks Victoria on land in part of the Heatherton area. This issue is the subject of Submissions Nos 110, 111, 112, 113 and 114 and the commentary . from the Panel is consistent for each of these submission. The Panel generally endorses the strategic assessment of the Council and accepts that Parks Victoria has agreed to the removal of the Public Acquisition Overlay.
The Panel recommends that the Public Acquisition Overlay in favour of Parks Victoria be removed from land at 632 - 642 Clayton Road, Heatherton, in accordance with the revised overlay plan submitted by Parks Victoria.
SUBMISSION NO: 111 Submittor: C.& C. McIntosh Location: 171 Old Dandenong Road, Heatherton Existing Zone: Special Extractive A zone Exhibited Zone: Special Use No. 2 Zone with Public Acquisition Overlay in favour of Parks Victoria.
Summary of Submission: The submission by C.& C. McIntosh objects to the application of a Public Acquisition overlay (in favour of Parks Victoria) to this site.
Strategic Assessment: The site is presently used for the commercial growth of flower bulbs. The submittor has objected to the proposed Public Acquisition overlay on the site based on his intentions to continue the current activities on the site in the long term. In an effort to resolve this matter Council arranged a meeting between the land owner and Parks Victoria in early January. It is Council's understanding that Parks Victoria has reviewed its position following this meeting, and has agreed to remove the proposed Public Acquisition overlay from this site to accommodate the submittor's request.
76 18/20805 Kingston New Format Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee, June 1998
Council Comment and Recommendation: • Agree to remove proposed Public Acquisition overlay from 171 Old Dandenong Road, Heatherton, in accordance with revised overlay plan submitted by Parks Victoria.
Panel Comment and Recommendation: See the Panel's comments for Submission No. 110.
The Panel recommends that the Public Acquisition Overlay in favour of Parks Victoria be removed from land at 171 Old Dandenong Road, Heatherton, in accordance with the revised overlay plan submitted by Parks Victoria.
SUBMISSION NO: 112 Submittor: I. Turner Location: Cnr Old Dandenong and Kingston Roads, Heatherton Existing Zone: Special Extractive A zone Exhibited Zone: Special Use No. 2 Zone with Public Acquisition Overlay in favour of Parks Victoria.
Summary of Submission: The submission by Mr. Turner objects to the application of a Public Acquisition overlay (in favour of Parks Victoria) to this site.
Strategic Assessment The site is presently used as a passionfruit nursery. The submittor has objected to the proposed Public Acquisition overlay on the site based on his intentions to continue the current use of the site in the long term. In an effort to resolve this matter Council arranged a meeting between the land owner and Parks Victoria in early January. It is Council's understanding that Parks Victoria has reviewed its position following this meeting, and has agreed to remove the proposed Public Acquisition overlay from this site to accommodate the submittor's request.
Council Comment and Recommendation: • Agree to remove proposed Public Acquisition overlay from the corner of Old Dandenong and Kingston Roads, Heatherton, in accordance with revised overlay plan submitted by Parks Victoria.
Panel Comment and Recommendation: See the Panel's comment for Submission No. 110.
The Panel recommends that the Public Acquisition Overlay in favour of Parks Victoria be removed from land at the corner of Old Dandenong and Kingston Roads, Heatherton, in accordance with the revised overlay plan submitted by Parks Victoria.
77 18/20805
Kingston New Format Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee, June 1998
SUBMISSION NO: 113 Submittor: F. Pro11 Location: Kingston Road, Heatherton (east of Deals Road) Existing Zone: Special Extractive A zone Exhibited Zone: Special Use No. 2 Zone with Public Acquisition Overlay in favour of Parks Victoria.
Summary of Submission: The submission by Mr. Pro11 objects to the application of a Public Acquisition overlay (in favour of Parks Victoria) to this site.
Strategic Assessment: The site has been used in the past for the extraction of resources from the site. The submittor has objected to the proposed Public Acquisition overlay on the site based on future intentions for the site. In an effort to resolve this matter Council arranged a meeting between the land owner and Parks Victoria in early January. It is Council's understanding that Parks Victoria has reviewed its position following this meeting, and has agreed to remove the proposed Public Acquisition overlay from this site to accommodate the submittor's request.
Council Comment and Recommendation: • Agree to remove proposed Public Acquisition overlay from the Pro11 site on Kingston Road, Heatherton, in accordance with revised overlay plan submitted by Parks Victoria.
Panel Comment and Recommendation: See the Panel discussion for Submission No. 110.
The Panel recommends that the Public Acquisition Overlay in favour of Parks Victoria be removed from the Proll land on Kingston Road, Heatherton, in accordance with the revised overlay plan submitted by Parks Victoria.
SUBMISSION NO: 114 Submittor: Mr. & Mrs G. Johns Location: 187 Kingston Road, Heatherton Existing Zone: Special Extractive A zone Exhibited Zone: Special Use No. 2 Zone with Public Acquisition Overlay in favour of Parks Victoria.
Summary of Submission: The submission objects to the application of a Public Acquisition overlay (in favour of Parks Victoria) to this site.
Strategic Assessment: The site is presently occupied by a dwelling and is principally used for residential purposes. The submittor has objected to the proposed Public Acquisition overlay on the site based on their future intentions for the site. In an effort to resolve this matter
78 18/20805
Kingston New Format Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee, June 1998
Council arranged a meeting between the land owner and Parks Victoria in early January. It is Council's understanding that Parks Victoria has reviewed its position following this meeting, and has agreed to remove the proposed Public Acquisition overlay from this site to accommodate the submittor's request.
Council Comment and Recommendation: • Agree to remove proposed Public Acquisition overlay from 187 Kingston Road, Heatherton, in accordance with revised overlay plan submitted by Parks Victoria.
Panel Comment and Recommendation: See the panel discussion for Submission No. 110.
The Panel recommends that the Public Acquisition Overlay in favour of Parks Victoria be removed from land at 187 Kingston Road, Heatherton, in accordance with the revised overlay plan submitted by Parks Victoria.
SUBMISSION NO: 115 Submittor: Ratio Consultants on behalf of Bredix Pty Ltd Location: 292 Warrigal Road, Cheltenham Existing Zone: Restricted Business zone Exhibited Zone: Business 1 zone with Public Acquisition Overlay in favour of Vic Roads. Requested Zone: Business 1 zone with no overlay controls
Summary of Submission: The submission objects to the application of a Public Acquisition overlay in favour of Vic Roads to this site, on the basis that the proposed road widening has already been carried out.
Strategic Assessment In response to the submittor's request Council has reviewed the application of this overlay, and based on advice from Vic Roads it would appear that the application of the overlay was a technical error. Vic Roads has confirmed that the road widening has already been carried out in this location and that no further part of the submittor's land is required for road widening purposes. Vic Roads has therefore directed that the overlay be removed from this site.
Council Comment and Recommendation: • Agree to remove proposed Public Acquisition overlay in favour of Vic Roads from 292 Warrigal Road, Cheltenham, in accordance with the directions of Vic Roads.
Panel Comment and Recommendation: The Panel accepts that the application of this overlay has been mistakenly applied and as such, is a technical error.
The Panel recommends that the Public Acquisition Overlay in favour of VicRoads be removed from land at 292 Warrigal Road, Cheltenham.
79 18/20805 Kingston New Format Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee, June 1998
SUBMISSION NO: 116 Submittor: CSR Readymix Location: 101 Old Dandenong Road & Bunneys Lane, Heatherton Existing Zone: Special Extractive A zone Exhibited Zone: Special Use No. 2 Zone with Public Acquisition Overlay in favour of Parks Victoria.
Summary of Submission: The submission objects to the application of a Public Acquisition overlay (in favour of Parks Victoria) to this site.
Strategic Assessment: The site is presently used for the purposes of extractive industry. The submittor has objected to the proposed Public Acquisition overlay on the site. In an effort to resolve this matter Council arranged a meeting between the land owner and Parks Victoria in early January. It is Council's understanding that the submittor has clarified the implications of the overlay with Parks Victoria and no longer objects to the application of the overlay. In the revised plan submitted to Council from Parks Victoria, the Public Acquisition overlay has not been removed from this site.
Council Comment and Recommendation: • No change to exhibited Public Acquisition overlay on land at 101 Old Dandenong Road and Bunneys Lane, Heatherton.
Panel Comment and Recommendation: The Panel understands that there has been no further written advice in relation to this submission and that the Council is awaiting confirmation from the submittor that the submission is to be withdrawn. At this stage the Panel endorses the Council's submission and accepts that there should be no change to the exhibited scheme.
The Panel recommends no change to the exhibited Planning Scheme arising from this submission.
SUBMISSION NO: 117 Submittor: Network Planning Consultants on behalf of Whelan Kartaway Pty Ltd Location: Lot 8 Elder Street, Clayton South Existing Zone: Special Extractive A zone Exhibited Zone: Special Use No. 2 Zone with Public Acquisition Overlay in favour of Parks Victoria. Requested Zone: Part Public Use zone, part Residential 1 zone, with no overlay controls affecting the site.
Summary of Submission: The submission strongly objects to the application of a Public Acquisition overlay in favour of Parks Victoria to this site, based on the owner's intentions for the future use
80 18/20805
Kingston New Format Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee, June 1998
and development of the site. These intentions are enshrined in a previous legal agreement entered into between the owner of the land and the former City of Moorabbin, in regards to the future reclamation, subdivision, ownership and use of the land both during and following the completion of quarrying and landfill operations on the site. It is argued that the application of a public acquisition overlay over the whole of the site would not be consistent with the spirit and purpose of the agreement and should therefore be removed.
In addition, the submission requests the application of a Residential 1 zone to the northern portion of the site. The rezoning would provide for the future development of the land for residential purposes, consistent with the spirit of the legal agreement. It is also requested that the southern part of the site be included in a Public Use Zone rather than the exhibited Special Use No.2 Zone, as it has been previously sold to Council for future open space.
Strategic Assessment: The site is presently used as a non putrescible land fill. A narrow section of land to the north of the site acts as a buffer between the land fill and adjoining land. Following exhibition of the new planning scheme it was brought to Council's attention that the owner of the land had entered into an agreement with the former City of Moorabbin in 1995, which provided for the subdivision of the land and subsequent disposal of the southern portion of the site to Council, for the purpose of future public open space. The agreement also provided for the landowner to lease this part of the site from Council until the completion of the quarrying and landfill operations on the site.
At the time of preparing the agreement the owner also entered into discussions with the City of Moorabbin in regards to a proposed residential use of the northern portion of the site. Although this proposal was not explicitly provided for in the agreement, there was a clear expectation that the northern portion of the site would be considered for residential use following the completion of the landfill activities. In light of these arrangements Council has reviewed the zoning and overlay controls for the site and its response is as follows:
• Based on the disposal of the southern portion of the land to Council in 1995 for the purpose of future open space (at no cost to Council), it is evident that the northern portion of the site should not be subject to future acquisition. Council has discussed the request to remove the overlay from the northern portion of the site with Parks Victoria and they have agreed to the request.
• Council does not intend to remove the overlay from the southern portion of the site as it is Council's intention that Parks Victoria assume responsibility for the future management of the land as part of the Chain of Parks project.
• The submittor has requested that the southern portion of the site be included in Public Use zone. Council does not support the request as it would not reflect the existing use of the site for extractive purposes. It is considered that the exhibited Special Use 2 zone should remain in place until the completion of the landfill operations on the
81 18/20805 Kingston New Format Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee, June 1998
site. It is Council's intention to apply a Public Park and Recreation zone to the site following completion of the landfill activities to facilitate its use for open space.
• In respect to the submittor's proposal to include the northern portion of the site in a Residential 1 zone, it is Council's view that any such rezoning would be premature at this stage. The introduction of a residential zoning for this part of the site may compromise the existing landfill operation on the southern part of the site, particularly with respect to achieving compliance with EPA buffer requirements between the landfill and the residential zoning. On this basis it is not considered practical to introduce a residential zoning until the landfill operations are completed on the site.
• A residential rezoning at this point in time would also require the application of additional overlay controls to the site, including a Potentially Contaminated Land Overlay and Development Plan Overlay.
• Given that the existing Section 173 Agreement affecting the site prevents the future subdivision, development or disposal of the northern portion of the site prior to the full completion of the landfill activities on the site, it is evident that a residential rezoning could not bring forward a residential development on the site. It is Council's understanding that the landfill operations are likely to be completed in approx. 6 years, at which time Council would give consideration to a residential rezoning of the northern portion of the site.
• In discussions with the landowner Council has agreed to identify its long term objectives for the future residential development of the site in the MSS. Council also intends to represent the site as a future residential development opportunity on the Strategic Land Use Framework Plan in the MSS.
Council Comment and Recommendation: • Agree to remove the proposed Public Acquisition overlay from the northern portion of Lot 8 Elder Street, Clayton South; • Include additional statements in the MSS to identify Council's objectives for future residential development on the site; • Show the site as a future residential development opportunity on the Strategic Land Use Framework Plan in the MSS.
Panel Comment and Recommendation: This submission was heard together with Subud Australia (118) and relates to land that is nearing the end of its life as a site for extractive industry and is in fact undergoing a process of filling and reclamation.
It has been requested that Council, through its MSS give recognition to these sites as "residential opportunity areas" which will enable positive acknowledgment of the future uses of these sites. It is apparent to the Panel that this land has been the subject of long and continued negotiations between the owners and the former Council, and that there is an understanding that the land has been designated for some type of residential development and land exchange once the landfilling and reclamation is complete. The
82 18/20805
Kingston New Format Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee, June 1998
submission requests that the designation of the land as non-urban on the Strategic Framework Plan be replaced with a recognition that the land is a residential opportunity area. The Panel does not have any particular concern with this, and this could be undertaken as an action either before or after adoption of the scheme.
The Panel considers that once the landfill is complete, it would then be appropriate to look at a residential rezoning for the site and the Panel agrees with submissions that rezoning of the land to an appropriate residential zone should be the subject of a separate process and amendment. The Panel endorses the removal of the Public Acquisition Overlay from part of the site.
The Panel recommends that: • the Public Acquisition Overlay be removed from the northern portion of Lot 8, elder Street Clayton; • the MSS recognise the potential of this land as a residential opportunity in the future.
SUBMISSION NO: 118 Submittor: Subud Australia Location: 164 Elder Street, Clayton South Existing Zone: Special Use Zone No. 1 (Sports grounds, religious and educational uses) Exhibited Zone: Special Use Zone No.3 (Community and Recreation) Requested Zone: Residential 1 zone Summary of Submission: The submission firstly requests clarification on whether the site is affected by a Public Acquisition overlay for public open space. The submission also discusses the implications of the proposed Special Use Zone No. 3 for the site, and requests that a Residential 1 zone be applied to the site to provide for the future development of the land for residential purposes. It is submitted that as the site directly adjoins an existing residential area to the north, it is appropriate for inclusion in a residential zoning.
Strategic Assessment: The site is presently occupied by a church building and associated outbuildings, with the majority of the site being vacant. The land is used as a place of assembly for Subud Melbourne which is a non-denominational spiritual organisation. Council's assessment of the submission is as follows:
• It is confirmed that the site is not affected by a public acquisition overlay.
• The stated purpose of the Special Use Zone No. 3 is to recognise the use of private and community facilities. Although the use of land for a dwelling is discretionary under this zone, Council does not consider that the purpose of the zone is to provide for intensive residential development on the site.
• On this basis Council would require the land to be included in a residential zoning prior to giving consideration to a residential redevelopment of the site. It is noted
83 18/20805
Kingston New Format Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Cotrurdttee, June 1998
that the submission requests consideration of a residential zoning for the site, however this is not considered to be directly consistent with Council's MSS.
• The exhibited Land Use Framework Plan in the MSS shows the site as part of the non urban area, but located at the edge of the urban/non urban interface. Any proposal to rezone the site to an urban zoning would therefore require a review of the non urban boundary. In view of the proximity of the site to operational landfill activities which abut the site to the south, any proposed residential use of the site would be also need to consider EPA buffer requirements. If such requirements could not be met Council would not be willing to contemplate a residential zoning for the land until after the completion of the current landfill activities.
• On this basis it is considered that the Special Use Zone No.3 provides the most appropriate zoning for the site until the issues of buffer requirements and the non urban edge are addressed in a strategic framework. As the Subud land directly adjoins the Whelan Kartaway site discussed in Submission No. 117, it is clear that a resolution of the buffer and contamination issues associated with the Whelan boundary is required prior to determining an appropriate urban edge .for future residential development on these sites.
• In discussions with the landowner and the owner of the adjoining landfill site to the south (Whelan Kartaway), Council has agreed to identify its long term objectives for the future residential development of both of these sites in the MSS. Council also intends to represent the site as a future residential development opportunity on the Strategic Land Use Framework Plan in the MSS.
Council Comment and Recommendation: • No change to exhibited zoning; • Include additional statements in the MSS to identify Council's objectives for future residential development on the site; • Show the site as a future residential development opportunity on the Strategic Land Use Framework Plan in the MSS.
Panel Comment and Recommendation: This site currently acts as a buffer for the adjacent landfill and it is understood that the EPA would not support a residential rezoning at this time, even though the land would not be developed for residential purposes until the landfill ceases to operate. At this stage the submittor is seeking a recognition through the MSS that the land will be suitable for residential purposes at a later date and that in the meantime the site should be designated as a future residential site on the Strategic Framework Plan. The Panel understands that the recommendations of the Council in this matter are acceptable to this submittor.
As a further point, if it is established that the land can be reasonably rezoned to residential prior to the completion of the landfill operation of the adjacent Whelan land, then a separate amendment should be initiated. 18/20805
Kingston New Format Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee, June 1998
The Panel recommends that the Council include additional statements in the MSS to identify it's objectives for future residential development of the site, and show the site as a future residential development opportunity on the Strategic Land Use Framework Plan in the MSS.
SUBMISSION NO: 119 Submittor: South East Regional Waste Management Group Location: 654-718 Clayton Road, Clayton South Existing Zone: Special Extractive A zone Exhibited Zone: Special Use No. 2 Zone with Public Acquisition Overlay in favour of Parks Victoria.
Summary of Submission: The submission by the South East Regional Waste Management Group objects to the application of a Public Acquisition overlay (in favour of Parks Victoria) to this site. The submission also requests changes to the Incorporated Document No. 3 at Clause 52.03 of the scheme, which provides for the existing site specific controls affecting the site.
Strategic Assessment: The site is presently used as a regional landfill, but also incorporates significant areas of unfilled land. A small part of the site is also leased to Dumpmaster for the purpose of a vehicle store, which is affected by a site specific control in the current Kingston Planning Scheme. The submittor has objected to the proposed Public Acquisition overlay on the site based on future intentions for a possible commercial/industrial the site. It is requested that the overlay be partly relocated on the site to allow continued access to the site at the existing access point. In an effort to resolve this matter Council arranged a meeting between the land owner and Parks Victoria in early January. It is Council's understanding that Parks Victoria has reviewed its position following this meeting, and has agreed to realign the proposed Public Acquisition overlay on this site to accommodate the submittor's request.
In response to a request by the submittor Council has also reviewed the way it proposes to deal with the existing site specific controls affecting this site under the new planning scheme. The exhibited scheme proposes to include the controls at Clause 52.03 of the scheme, however upon review it is considered that the controls can be appropriately provided for through a planning permit. The submittor's request to modify several of the technical provisions of the site specific control is also supported.
Council Comment and Recommendation: • Agree to modify the proposed Public Acquisition overlay affecting the site in accordance with the revised plan submitted by Parks Victoria. • Remove Incorporated Document No. 3 from Clause 52.03 of the scheme and issue a planning permit for the use of the land for a vehicle store.
Panel Comment and Recommendation: This land is owned by the City of Stonnington with other Councils (Boroondara, Whitehorse, Monash and Glen Eira) having a caveat interest in the land. It has sub-
85 18/20805
Kingston New Format Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee, June 1998
leased a part of the site to Dumpmaster as a transport depot. The key concern of this submittor is that the exhibited overlay was placed across the entrance to the site, which is the only unfilled area of the site and which will form part of an area for a major transfer station in the future. The submittor has met with Parks Victoria to develop an agreement about the application of the Public Acquisition Overlay for the site and has indicated that it has no objection to an overlay being placed on part of the site. This will be done in accordance with a revised plan submitted by Parks Victoria.
The Panel recommends that the proposed Public Acquisition Overlay in favour of Parks Victoria for this land be modified in accordance with the revised plan submitted by Parks Victoria. Further, the Panel recommends the removal of Incorporated Document No. 3 from Clause 52.03 of the scheme and that a planning permit be issued for the use of the land for a vehicle store.
SUBMISSION NO: 120 Submittor: Kiwi Brands Pty Ltd Location: 580-650 Heatherton Road, Clayton South Existing Zone: General Industrial zone Exhibited Zone: Industrial 1 zone
Summary of Submission: The submission requests clarification in respect to the proposed Public Acquisition overlay in favour of Vic Roads which abuts this site to the south.
Strategic Assessment: In exhibiting the new planning schem Council incorrectly advised the submittor that the above land was affected by a Public Acquisition Overlay in favour of Vic Roads. The submittor has provided subdivision plans to Council which show a previous land swap between Vic Roads and the owner of the land, to provide for the future construction of the Dingley Freeway immediately to the south of the submittor's land. Vic Roads has confirmed that no further part of the submittor's land is required for road construction purposes. Council intends to correct its base maps to reflect the land swap made by Vic Roads and the land owner. It is confirmed that the site is not affected by a public acquisition overlay.
Council Comment and Recommendation: • No change to exhibited zones or overlays; • Amend base maps to reflect new site boundaries.
Panel Comment and Recommendation: This submission was made as a result of an incorrect notification of a Public Acquisition Overlay in favour of VicRoads on the site. There have been subsequent discussions with the submittor and Council and it is understood that VicRoads have confirmed that no further part of the submittor's land is required for road construction purposes. The Panel accepts that Council will correct its base maps to reflect the land swap made by VicRoads and the submittor.
86 18/20805
Kingston New Format Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee, June 1998
The Panel recommends no change to the exhibited Planning Scheme arising from this submission, however it recommends Council amend its base maps to reflect the correct site boundaries.
SUBMISSION NO: 121 Submittor: P. Grinwald Location: Governor Road, Braeside Existing Zone: Reserved General Industrial Exhibited Zone/Overlay: Industrial 1 zone with Design and Development Overlay No. 4. (Springvale Industrial Estates) Requested Zone: Industrial 1 zone with no overlay controls.
Summary of Submission: The submission objects to the application of Design and Development Overlay No. 4 to the site, which provides specific design controls for new industrial development. It is submitted that the site has not been subject to such controls in the past and the overlay should therefore be removed.
Strategic Assessment: Council has advised the submittor that the application of the Design and Development Overlay No. 4 to the above land was in fact a technical mapping error. The purpose of the overlay is to provide for the specific siting and design requirements of the existing Garden Industrial zone in the current Kingston Planning Scheme. It is Council's intention to apply the overlay only to those sites which are currently zoned Garden Industrial in the existing scheme. The submittor's land is presently included in a Reserved General Industrial zone, and is not currently subject to the specific design requirements provided in the overlay. The request to remove the overlay from this site is therefore considered reasonable.
Council Comment and Recommendation: Agree to remove proposed Design and Development Overlay No. 4 from industrial land on Governor Road, Braeside.
Panel Comment and Recommendation: The comments and recommendations for this submission also apply to Submission Nos. 122, 123 and 126. These sites are yet to be developed and Council advised that this submittor's land (and also land the subject of submission Nos. 122, 123 and 126) are not affected by the Design and Development Overlay No.4 nor are they affected by the Springvale Industrial Estates Policy at Clause 22.02. They had inadvertently been included in this area as result of a mapping error and it was never intended to include this area as part of a key policy area. The Panel accepts and endorses the Councils submission in this matter.
The Panel recommends that the proposed Design and Development Overlay No. 4 (Springvale Industrial Estates) be removed from industrial land on Governor Road, Braeside, and that the local policy on the Springvale Industrial Estates at Clause 22.02 of the scheme be amended to delete any reference to this land. 18/20805
Kingston New Format Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee, June 1998
SUBMISSION NO: 122 Submittor: Ratio Consultants on behalf of Heland Pty Ltd Location: Governor Road, Braeside Existing Zone: Reserved General Industrial Exhibited Zone/Overlay: Industrial 1 zone with Design and Development Overlay No. 4. (Springvale Industrial Estates) Requested Zone: Industrial 1 zone with no overlay controls.
Summary of Submission: The submission objects to the application of Design and Development Overlay No. 4 to the site, which provides specific design controls for new industrial development. It is submitted that the site has not been subject to such controls in the past and the overlay should therefore be removed. The submittor has also requested a minor amendment to the Springvale Industrial Estates Policy contained at Clause 22.02 of the LPPF.
Strategic Assessment: Council has advised the submittor that the application of the Design and Development Overlay No. 4 to the above land was in fact a technical mapping error. The purpose of the overlay is to provide for the specific siting and design requirements of the existing Garden Industrial zone in the current Kingston Planning Scheme. It is Council's intention to apply the overlay only to those sites which are currently zoned Garden Industrial in the existing scheme.
The submittOr's land is presently included in a Reserved General Industrial zone, and is not currently subject to the specific design requirements provided in the overlay. The request to remove the overlay from this site is therefore considered reasonable. Council also supports the request to amend the local policy on the Springvale Industrial Estates as it will clarify the area to which the policy applies.
Council Comment and Recommendation: • Agree to remove proposed Design and Development Overlay No. 4 from industrial land on Governor Road, Braeside. • Agree to amend local policy on Springvale Industrial Estates at clause 22.02 of the scheme.
Panel Comment and Recommendation: See the Panel commentary and recommendations for Submission No. 121.
The Panel recommends that the proposed Design and Development Overlay No. 4 (Springvale Industrial Estates) be removed from industrial land on Governor Road, Braeside, and that the local policy on the Springvale Industrial Estates at Clause 22.02 ofthe scheme be amended to delete any reference to this land.
SUBMISSION NO: 123 Submittor: Asset Solutions Group Location: Woodlands Industrial Estate Existing Zone: Reserved Light Industrial
88 18/20805
Kingston New Format Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee, June 1998
Exhibited Zone/Overlay: Industrial 1 zone with Design and Development Overlay No. 4.(Springvale Industrial Estates) Requested Zone: Industrial 1 zone with no overlay controls.
Summary of Submission: The submission requests clarification on the proposed zoning and overlay controls affecting the site.
Strategic Assessment: Council has provided advice to the submittor in respect to the implications of the proposed Industrial 1 zoning for the site. The submittor has also been advised that the application of the Design and Development Overlay No. 4 to the above land was in fact a technical mapping error. The purpose of the overlay is to provide for the specific siting and design requirements of the existing Garden Industrial zone in the current Kingston Planning Scheme. It is Council's intention to apply the overlay only to those sites which are currently zoned Garden Industrial in the existing scheme.
The submittor's land is presently included in a Reserved Light Industrial zone, and is not currently subject to the specific design requirements provided in the overlay. It is therefore Council's intention to remove the overlay prior to the adoption of the scheme.
Council Comment and Recommendation: Agree to remove proposed Design and Development Overlay No. 4 from industrial land at Woodlands Estate, Braeside.
Panel Comment and Recommendation: See the Panel commentary and recommendations for Submission No. 121.
The Panel recommends that the proposed Design and Development Overlay No. 4 (Springvale Industrial Estates) be removed from industrial land at Woodlands Estate, Braeside, and that the local policy on the Springvale Industrial Estates at Clause 22.02 of the scheme be amended to delete any reference to this land.
SUBMISSION NO: 124 Submittor: W. Stanhope Location: 172-176 Old Dandenong Road, Heatherton Existing Zone: Special Extractive A zone Exhibited Zone: Special Use No. 2 Zone
Summary of Submission: The submission requests clarification as to whether the site is affected by a Public Acquisition overlay in favour of Vic Roads.
Strategic Assessment In exhibiting the new planning scheme Council incorrectly advised the submittor that the above land was affected by a Public Acquisition Overlay in favour of Vic Roads. Council has since advised the submittor that the land is not affected by any overlays.
89 18/20805
Kingston New Format Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee, June 1998
Council Comment and Recommendation: • No change to exhibited zones or overlays.
Panel Comment and Recommendation: The land was not exhibited with a Public Acquisition Overlay, however the submittor was advised it was. The Panel accepts the issues raised by this submittor and accepts that Council has advised the submittor of its error.
The Panel recommends no change to the exhibited Planning Scheme arising from this submission.
SUBMISSION NO: 125 Submittor: Easton Consulting on behalf of D. Barker Location: 10 Manhattan Court, Patterson Lakes Existing Zone: Residential C Zone Exhibited Zone/Overlay: Residential 1 zone with a Design and Development Overlay No. 3 (Residential Waterway Area)
Summary of Submission: The submission requests changes to the provisions of the exhibited Design and Development Overlay No. 3. The purpose of the request is to allow the mandatory setback requirements of the overlay to be varied for the above site.
Strategic Assessment: The site presently enjoys abuttal to the Patterson Lakes waterfront boundary, and is subject to a residential waterway control under the existing Kingston Planning Scheme. The purpose of the control is to require a 6 metre setback for all buildings and works from the waterfront boundary. It is Council's understanding that an illegal deck and retaining wall have been constructed on the site which do not comply with the existing overlay requirements.
The submission requests that the provisions of the overlay be modified to allow a general discretion in the control. Alternatively, it is requested that the site be specifically referred to in the schedule as an exemption to the requirements of the overlay. Council's response to these requests are as follows:
• Based on Council's design objectives for the Patterson Lakes residential waterway area Council does not support the proposal to alter the provisions of this schedule to allow the encroachment of buildings and works within 6 metres of the waterfront boundary. It is considered that the inherent purpose of the overlay control is to protect the character and appeal of the waterway environment through the strict maintenance of a uniform 6 metre building setback. Compliance with this setback ensures that no property owner is compromised by a loss of views and that the open vista between building setbacks and the waterfront boundary is maintained. The introduction of general discretion into this schedule is considered to defeat the over- riding purpose of the control.
90 18/20805
Kingston New Format Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee, June 1998
• Council does not support the request to identify the subject land in the schedule as a specific exemption to the overlay control. It is considered that this would set a clear precedent for further exemptions to the schedule and may encourage the construction of other non-conforming structures.
• It is noted that Council has approved two site specific amendments to the Kingston Planning Scheme in the past to allow minor variations to the waterway setback control. These have been referred to in the schedule as exempt from the requirements of the overlay.
• It is Council's view that no legitimate planning arguments have been offered by the submittor to justify the exemption of this site from the requirements of the schedule. It is considered that the land owner should apply to legalise the matter through an amendment to the planning scheme.
Council Comment and Recommendation: • No change to provisions of schedule to exhibited Design and Development Overlay No. 3.
Panel Comment and Recommendation: The Panel acknowledges that this submission has raised some difficult issues that are not easily resolved. On the one hand it could be noted that the breach of the existing control is so minor and inoffensive that there is little point in pursuing a change to the provisions of the proposed overlay control, while on the other hand clearly the existing controls, which are to be the subject of Design and Development Overlay No. 3 have had great success in the Patterson Lakes area. The Council advised that while it recognises the submittor is in breach of the existing controls, it has not undertaken any enforcement action. At the same time it does not want to set a precedent in this area by allowing breaches of the specific controls to be set aside.
The two previous site specific amendments referred to in the Councils assessment of this matter both went through the public exhibition process and both were properly argued. The Council considers that this submittor should also proceed through the amendment and public exhibition process if he is to pursue the exemption. It argued that if something does get built illegally, it should not be made easy for the developer to get away with. (The Panel notes that this arguments contrasts significantly with the argument of Council in regard to Submission No. 146).
The Council indicated that within the Patterson Lakes area, this control is one that has a high level of community acceptance which is one of the reasons why it has been directly translated into the new format scheme. It further indicated that if discretion is to be contemplated, then the issue should still go through the public consultation process.
The Panel takes the view that a consistent approach is required to resolve this matter, and that because the Council has pursued site specific amendments for other breaches of the waterway control, it has no option but to recommend the same process for this breach, although it acknowledges that the material impact on other properties in the area is minimal.
91 18/20805
Kingston New Format Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee, June 1998
One of the options that could be considered is to prepare a local policy based on the intent of the controls as part of the work to be carried out after the adoption of the scheme, but prior to the completion of the first three year review. This would enable the Council to work with the Patterson Lakes community in preparing the policy and lessen the need for rigid and tight planning controls.
The Panel recommends no change to the exhibited Planning Scheme arising from this submission but recommends that Council pursue the development of a policy to provide a performance based approach to planning controls at Patterson Lakes.
SUBMISSION NO: 126 Submittor: Stokes Planning on behalf of R. P. Shearer Pty Ltd Location: 214 Governor Road and 24 Industrial Drive, Braeside Existing Zone: Reserved Light Industrial Exhibited Zone/Overlay: Industrial 1 zone with Design and Development Overlay No. 4. (Springvale Industrial Estates)
Summary of Submission: The submission objects to the provisions of the Design and Development Overlay No. 4 which has been applied to the site.
Strategic Assessment: Council has advised the submittor that the application of the Design and Development Overlay No. 4 to the above land was in fact a technical mapping error. The purpose of the overlay is to provide for the specific siting and design requirements of the existing Garden Industrial zone in the current Kingston Planning Scheme. It is Council's intention to apply the overlay only to those sites which are currently zoned Garden Industrial in the existing scheme.
The submittor's land is presently included in a Reserved Light Industrial zone, and is not currently subject to the specific design requirements provided in the overlay. It is Council's intention to remove the overlay from the site prior to the adoption of the planning scheme.
Council Comment and Recommendation: • Agree to remove proposed Design and Development Overlay No. 4 from industrial land at 214 Governor Road and 24 Industrial Drive, Braeside.
Panel. Comment and Recommendation: See the Panel commentary and recommendations for Submission No. 121.
The Panel recommends that the proposed Design and Development Overlay No. 4 (Springvale Industrial Estates) be removed from industrial land at 214 Governor Road and 24 Industrial Drive, Braeside, and that the local policy on the Springvale Industrial Estates at Clause 22.02 of the scheme be amended to delete any reference to this land.
92 18/20805
Kingston New Format Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee, June 1998
SUBMISSION NO: 127 Submittor: McDonald Slater and Lay Solicitors on behalf of Chelsea Machinery Pty Ltd Location: 8 Irish Court, Bonbeach Existing Zone: Light Industrial Exhibited Zone/Overlay: Residential 1 zone with Potentially Contaminated Land Overlay.
Summary of Submission: The submission objects to the proposed residential zoning of the site and the application of a Potentially Contaminated Land overlay to the whole of the site. It is argued that the proposed rezoning will compromise the current and future industrial activities on the site, such that only non-conforming use rights are retained. The submission also objects to the application of the Potentially Contaminated Land overlay, on the basis that there is no evidence of any existing contamination on any part of the site.
Strategic Assessment The site is presently used for the storage of general building materials and vehicles, and for the repair and resale of earth moving equipment. The site forms an isolated industrial zone which is surrounded by established residential areas and areas of public open space. Council's response to the submission is as follows:
• The proposed application of a residential zoning to the site is in direct response to Council's future strategic objectives for residential and industrial land use as expressed in the MSS. The MSS recognises the amenity conflicts which arise when isolated pockets of industrial land are located within predominantly residential areas, and supports the review of the zoning of such land under the new format planning scheme. The MSS does not support the long term use of such sites for industrial purposes.
• Despite the current use of the site, it is considered that the application of the Residential 1 zone best meets the long term policy objectives of Council and the community for the future development of this area.
• In order to ensure that the land is suitable for a residential or sensitive use, Council has applied the potentially contaminated land overlay (now known as the environmental audit overlay) to the whole of the site. It is considered that the application of this overlay is in accordance with the Minister's Directive No. 1 relating to potentially contaminated land.
• Council therefore does not support the request to remove the environmental audit overlay from the site.
Council Comment and Recommendation: • No change to exhibited zone or overlay
93 18/20805 Kingston New Format Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee, June 1998
Panel Comment and Recommendation: Currently the land is used for a variety of industrial activities and it is of very low amenity. The land could be described as an industrial junk yard. The Panel recognises that it is an isolated pocket of industrial land in a residential area and the Panel considers that the Council has applied the correct zone as being the best interpretation of the future long term use of the site. It is not strategically consistent to leave a small pocket of industrial land in a predominantly residential area.
It is understood by the Panel that one of the key concerns of this submittor is in relation to a potential increase in rates as a result of the change in the zoning of the property. Council has indicated that an agreement can be reached with this submittor to ensure that there will be no increase in rates until the environmental audit is carried out. Because the land is zoned and used for industrial purposes, an Environmental Audit Overlay must be applied, in accordance with Ministerial Direction No. 1.
The Panel recommends no change to the exhibited Planning Scheme arising from this submission.
SUBMISSION NO: 128 Submittor: Hoban Hynes Pty Ltd Location: Kinross Avenue, Edithvale Existing Zone: Part Restricted Light Industrial, part Residential C zone. Exhibited Zone/Overlay: Residential 1 zone with Potentially Contaminated Land Overlay.
Summary of Submission: The submission requests the removal of the proposed Potentially Contaminated Land overlay from the site, on the basis that an Environmental Site Assessment has been carried out for the land which confirms that the site is not affected by any contamination.
Strategic Assessment: The site has recently been the subject of a planning scheme amendment, which rezoned the northern portion of the site from Restricted Light Industrial to Residential C. The amendment requires that an Environmental Audit be carried out for this part of the site prior to the commencement of any sensitive use on the site. It is Council's understanding that an Environmental Assessment has been carried out for the rezoned portion of the site, which confirms that this part of the site is not affected by any contamination.
Under the exhibited Kingston Planning Scheme Council has also proposed to rezone the southern section of the site to a Residential 1 zoning, to provide for the whole of the site to be used for residential purposes. In accordance with Ministerial Direction No. 1 Council has included the southern section of the site in a Potentially Contaminated Land Overlay. The overlay has not been applied to the northern portion of the site as this land has already been subject to an Environmental Assessment. Council therefore does not support the submittor's request to remove the PCLO from the southern portion of the
94 18/20805 Kingston New Format Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee, June 1998
site, as the requirements of Minister's Directive No. 1 have not been satisfied for this part of the site.
Council Comment and Recommendation: • No change to exhibited zone or overlay
Panel Comment and Recommendation: The strategic issues raised in this submission are similar to those raised in the previous submission (No. 127), and again Council has resolved to zone an isolated pocket of industrial land as residential. This submission does not object to the proposed residential zone, but is opposed to the application of the Environmental Audit Overlay. As previously stated, the application of this overlay is in accordance with the Minister's Direction no.1, and it is unable to be removed until an environmental audit has been completed.
The Panel recommends no change to the exhibited Planning Scheme arising from this submission.
4.5 Requests for Rezoning of Non-Urban Land
The Panel considered a number of submissions which sought changes to the exhibited Planning Scheme in the non-urban area to allow for more intense subdivision and development in the Heatherton, Dingley and Cheltenham area. Some submissions requested a residential zone, while others requested an industrial zone. The non-urban area was one of the key areas of contention for the Kingston new format Planning Scheme, and it has previously been identified by the Panel as a key issue facing the City of Kingston. This general commentary relates to the following Submission Nos: 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134 and 135. Panel comments on these other submissions in the non-urban area will be referred back to this submission.
Most of the land in the submissions 129 to 135 form part of the identified non-urban area of the wider metropolitan area of Melbourne, and the City of Kingston has recognised this by identifying the land in a non-urban zone. The subject parcels of land have all been part of a number of strategic planning studies, the most recent being the regional South East Non Urban Study (SENSUS) (1996), which was jointly conducted by Kingston and three other municipalities in conjunction with the Department of Infrastructure, and the Heatherton Dingley Agricultural and Non Urban Land Use Strategy (1995). While neither study has been formally adopted by Council, both studies have formed the basis of further ongoing work and has resulted in policy development work in at least two of those municipalities.
One of the concerns of the Panel in relation to the non-urban area of Kingston is the lack of a clearly defined strategic direction for landowners and occupiers in the area. The Council's MSS has recognised the non-urban area as being strategically significant and notes that:
95 18/20805
Kingston New Format Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee, June 1998
Kingston's non-urban land plays a key role in servicing the southern suburbs of Melbourne. It provides for agricultural production, recreation, scenic and landscape qualities, air craft movements, sand production and waste disposal. Some of these urban support uses are not compatible with the urban area but are required in close proximity to service the urban area.
The MSS has non urban land as one of its key land use elements and in particular it discusses the important role of extractive industry, the Chain of Parks, agriculture, and Moorabbin Airport in the municipality. In its review of the MSS, Council has indicated that this section of the MSS will need to be strengthened to include the requirement for the preparation of structure plans for all non urban areas prior to any rezoning of land, its own commitment to preparing structure plans and taking a lead role in this regard and the introduction of additional objectives, strategies and policies as a result of work to date and the proposed structure planning process. The Panel supports all of these endeavours.
While on a broader regional scale, the Panel understands the Council's strategic intent and significance of this area, such a strategic view does not rest well with individual landholders, many of whom wish to develop their land. The Panel detected a level of frustration by many submittors in this regard who considered that the economic capacity of such an area has reached its limit. Further, there has been a lack of action by the Council to prepare well developed, properly researched and forward looking framework plans for the future. Much of the land is held by former market garden operators who wish to subdivide for more intensive purposes. Many submissions expressed concern about the use of the Rural zone as a holding mechanism, a concern that the Panel shares.
In assessing these submissions, the Panel is guided by the Council's MSS. It is not the role of the Panel to critically review the detailed content and direction of the MSS, but rather to review their form and structure. In this regard, the Council has articulated its direction quite clearly, and has not indicated any substantive change in use for its non- urban lands. It has attempted to nominate a urban/non-urban boundary through its Strategic Framework Plan, and has suggested that further work in the MSS needs to be carried out to more clearly articulate its future directions. Further it has suggested that structure plans for the Keysborough Heatherton, and Dingley area (in that order) will be completed within the next three years. Many of the Councils' recommendations about the non urban land were based on the imminent preparation of the structure plans and the Panel would be keen to see these plans prepared as soon as practically possible. While the Panel considers that there could be future changes in the management of Kingston's non-urban lands, this current planning process is not the vehicle for this to be effected.
Nevertheless, consistent with its earlier comments (see Section 2 and 3), the Panel considers the development of structure plans for the non-urban area of Kingston to be of critical importance. Indeed, some of the strategic direction could emanate from larger landholders, who should not sit back and wait for the Council to initiate action.
The Panel recommends that the Structure planning process for the non urban area be articulated in the MSS and be commenced as soon as is practically possible.
96 18/20805 Kingston New Format Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee, June 1998
SUBMISSION NO: 129 Submittor: Adrian Atkins & Associates on behalf of Royena Nursery P/L, Pellicano Building Contractors and Leenurs P/L. Location: Land bounded by Centre Dandenong Rd, Boundary Rd, Old Dandenong Road and the proposed Mornington Peninsula Freeway. Existing Zone: Intensive Agriculture D zone Exhibited Zone: Rural Requested Zone: Industrial 1 zone
Summary of Submission: The submission objects to the proposed Rural zone for the site and requests the application of an appropriate industrial zoning. It is argued that the site is not appropriate for inclusion in a non urban zone and should be considered for urban use. This would allow the future use and development of the site for industrial purposes. The basis of the request is formed around the following arguments:
• The site has no agricultural significance and is unable to sustain agricultural pursuits; • The site does exhibit any non urban attributes of value and does not contain any significant environmental features; • Previous strategic reports support the establishment of urban uses on the site; • The development of the site for industrial purposes is not inconsistent with surrounding development.
The submission concludes that the inability of the site to support viable agricultural uses together with the recent studies which have reviewed the non urban area warrant a change to the non urban designation of the land.
Strategic Assessment: The land is contained in four allotments and is predominantly vacant. There are two dwellings located on the site and a small part of the site is used for limited agricultural pursuits. Council's response to the submission is as follows:
• Under the exhibited planning scheme Council has proposed to include the land within a Rural zone. The land is identified in Council's Strategic Land Use Framework as part of the non urban area, and the application of a rural zone to the site is considered to reflect Council's strategic objectives for non urban land in the Heatherton area, as expressed in the MSS. The inclusion of the site in a rural zone is considered an appropriate translation given the strategic directions of the MSS.
• Any proposal to rezone the land to an urban zoning would directly contradict Council's strategic objectives for non urban land use as identified in the MSS.
• The submission argues however that the application of Council's non urban strategies are not relevant to this site. It is suggested that a number of previous studies which reviewed the non urban area have given support to the establishment of urban uses on the site. Both the Heatherton Dingley Agricultural and Non Urban Land Use Strategy
97 18/20805
Kingston New Format Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee, June 1998
(1995) and the South East Non Urban Study (1997) are cited as providing a strategic basis for the urban conversion of the site.
• Council submits that the Heatherton Dingley Agricultural and Non Urban Land Use Strategy (1995) has not been adopted by Council as its recommendations for the significant conversion of large tracts of non urban land are not generally supported. Although Council has not formally adopted the SENUS study its findings have been used as a basis for the policy statements of the LPPF and the strategic directions set out in the MSS. The local policy on non urban land which has been incorporated in the LPPF is of direct relevance to this submission. The policy sets out Council's objectives for the management of non urban land and promotes a strategic and structured planning approach for the consideration of land use proposals in the non urban area.
• It therefore Council's view that any significant changes in land use in the non urban area should only be considered in the context of detailed structure planning for the wider area. This approach enables proper assessment of the physical capabilities of the land, the impact of the rezoning on surrounding land, etc within a secure strategic context. It is not considered that these issues can be reasonably addressed within the current reform process.
• Council acknowledges that the proposal could be further considered as part of a structure planning process. It is Council's intention to commence a structure planning process for the Heatherton area within the next 6 months, which will involve a detailed review of the submittor's land.
• In the absence of a detailed structure plan for the Heatherton area, the current rezoning request for this site under the reform scheme process is considered to be premature and is therefore not supported by Council.
Council Comment and Recommendation: • No change to exhibited zoning.
Panel Comment and Recommendation: See opening comments at Section 4.5. The author of the submission is acting for a number of landowners who apparently have been seeking a rezoning of this site for some time. With regard to this particular submission, the Panel recognises its strategic location and its current level of amenity as being of significance to its future development potential. Clearly the land is in a run down state which detracts from the wider environment. But the Panel is not mindful to recommend an industrial zoning for the land on the basis of the submission, but suggests that it might well be the subject of a future amendment once the proposed Heatherton strategic review is carried out. In the meantime, the Panel suggests that the landholders take the basis of its submission further by developing its own fully supported strategic plan for the site.
The Panel recommends no change to the exhibited Planning Scheme arising from this submission.
98 18/20805
Kingston New Format Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee, June 1998
SUBMISSION NO: 130 Submittor: Gerner Consulting Group on behalf of A. J. Baxter Pty Ltd Location: Boundary Rd, Heatherton Existing Zone: Intensive Agriculture D zone Exhibited Zone: Rural Requested Zone: Industrial / Business zone
Summary of Submission: The submission objects to the proposed Rural zone for the site and requests the application of an appropriate business or industrial zoning. It is argued that the site is not suitable for agricultural use in the long term as a result of its history of use for extractive industry. The application of an appropriate urban zone for the site would allow its future use for commercial or industrial purposes following landfill rehabilitation of the site. The submission concludes that the inability of the site to support viable agricultural uses together with a recent planning scheme amendment which recommended a review of the zoning of this land, warrants a change to the exhibited rural zone.
Strategic Assessment: The land is presently used for the extraction of sand resources, however it is understood that the reserves will soon be exhausted. The landowner has expressed an intention to fill the land with clean fill and compact the site so as to maximise the opportunities for future development following its rehabilitation.
It is noted that the current zoning of the land (Iptensive Agriculture D zone) prohibits the filling of the land, however the proposed Rural zone will allow the filling of the site subject to a planning permit. Council's response to the submission is as follows:
• Under the exhibited planning scheme Council has proposed to include the land within a Rural zone. The land is identified in Council's Strategic Land Use Framework as part of the non urban area, and the application of a rural zone to the site is considered to reflect Council's strategic objectives for non urban land in the Heatherton area, as expressed in the MSS. The site is also considered appropriate for inclusion in a rural zone by virtue of its existing non urban zoning and use.
• Any proposal to rezone the land to an urban zoning would therefore directly contradict Council's strategic objectives for non urban land use as identified in the MSS.
• The submission argues however that the application of Council's non urban strategies are not relevant to this site. It is submitted that the future zoning of the site has been given previous consideration by an independent panel as part of a recent planning scheme amendment (L67 to the Kingston Planning Scheme, which dealt with a proposed realignment of Boundary Road). The submittor cites the panel's recommendation in respect to this site :
99 18/20805
_ I 18/20805 ) Kingston New Format Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee, June 1998
"...the panel agrees with the contention by Mr Gerner that the City of Kingston review the zoning in the area around and involving the Baxter land."
• The exhibited local policy on non urban land in the LPPF provides very clear directions on how such 'zoning reviews' should be managed in the non urban area. The policy requires a strategic and structured planning approach for the consideration of land use proposals in the non urban area, and hence it is Council's view that any significant changes in land use in the non urban area should only be considered in the context of detailed structure planning. This approach enables proper assessment of the physical capabilities of the land, the impact of the rezoning on surrounding land, etc within a secure strategic context. It is not considered that these issues can be reasonably addressed within the current reform process.
• Council acknowledges that the proposal could be further considered as part of a structure planning process. It is Council's intention to commence a structure planning process for the Heatherton area within the next 6 months, which will involve a detailed review of the submittor's land.
• In the absence of a detailed structure plan for the Heatherton area, the current rezoning request for this site under the reform scheme process is considered to be premature and is therefore not supported by Council.
Council Comment and Recommendation: • No change to exhibited zoning.
Panel Comment and Recommendation: See opening comments at Section 4.5. This submission did not object to the Rural zone as it allows landfill, but it was contended that a business zone would be more appropriate, a point with which the Panel disagrees. The proposed Heatherton structure planning process will provide the opportunity for the future of this and other land in the area to be fully assessed and will allow a broader strategic review to be undertaken.
The Panel considers that the Rural zone should be upheld, however it is important to recognise in the MSS that the general non urban characteristics of these areas could change as the long term future of the land is realised. As it is, the MSS does not correctly reflect the role of this area and there is a need to better reflect the transitional nature of the Heatherton area from what was a rural area to one now of a very mixed character.
The Panel recommends no change to the exhibited Planning Scheme arising from this submission.
SUBMISSION NO: 131 Submittor: Gerner Consulting Group on behalf of Boral Resources. Location: 136 Osborne Ave, and Clayton Road, Clayton Existing Zone: General Industrial
100 18/20805
Kingston New Format Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee, June 1998
Exhibited Zone: Industrial 1 zone
Summary of Submission: The submission expresses general support for the proposed zoning of the above properties under the new Kingston Planning Scheme.
Strategic Assessment: Submission does not request any changes.
Council Comment and Recommendation: • No change to exhibited zone.
Panel Comment and Recommendation: The Panel endorses the Council's comments in this regard and makes no further assessment.
The Panel recommends no change to the exhibited Planning Scheme arising from this submission.
SUBMISSION NO: 132 Submitter: Hayton Kosky P/L (on behalf of A & L Kroll & Others) Location: 151 Spring Road, Dingley Policies Affected: Non Urban Land Existing Zone: Special Extractive 'A' Exhibited Zone: Rural
Summary of Submission: 1. The subject land be included in a Residential 1 zone;
2. The subject land should be clearly excluded from the boundaries of the non urban land in the Local Planning Policy (LPP) of the proposed new format scheme;
3. Given the capacity, subdivision pattern and current use of the subject land its proposed Rural zoning is inappropriate having regard to:
• The State Planning Policy Framework (SPPF), the local planning Policy Framework (LPPF) and the purpose to be achieved by such a zone; and • The absence in the Local Planning Policy of any statement of how non urban rural use of the subject land is to be achieved to bring it into consistency with the SPPF, LPPF and zone purpose.
Strategic Assessment: The subject land is located on the east side of Spring Road, Dingley. It is some 5.3 hectares in area and comprises five separate titles, each in separate ownership. There five dwellings the are on subject land - it is understood that these dwellings were constructed at least 30 years ago. Land to the west Spring Road is currently zoned for
101 18/20805
Kingston New Format Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee, June 1998
Reserved Living and is the effective boundary between Kingston's urban and non urban areas.
The land is considered by Council to be characterised as non urban in both its zoning and use. Strategies and policies relevant to this submission include the following:
Kingston MSS: The subject land is broadly identified as being located within the non urban area in the Kingston Land Use Framework Plan. Section 4.8 (Non-Urban Land) of the MSS is therefore of direct relevance to the consideration of this submission.
The Non Urban Policy: This policy seeks to implement the above aims and objectives of the MSS. promotes a strategic and structured planning approach for the non urban area, and includes a series of policy statements relating to management of non urban areas.
Council provided a written response to the initial submission made by Adolf Kroll on 29th September, 1997. A follow up submission was made by Hayden Kosky P/L in February 1998. Council has met with this submittor on three occasions over the past month, and on request from the submittor has reviewed its initial response to this submission. The following comments are now made: • The subject land is currently zoned for non urban purposes (`Special Extractive A' zone). In preparing the Kingston MSS and new format planning scheme, Council has applied a Rural zone to the subject land. This zone was selected for the following reasons:
• the land remains within the non urban area of Kingston as defined by the Kingston Framework plan and Non Urban Policy plan. • the land is unlikely to be used for sand extraction purposes
• The extent of sand resources on the site has not been established. However, the current use and development on the subject land and surrounding land significantly restricts opportunities for sand extraction and subsequent land filling activities.
• The limitations for the economically viable pursuit of conventional agricultural activities on the subject land are acknowledged. However Council does not believe that the existing subdivision and development pattern necessarily limits opportunities for the pursuit of non urban activities (or activities compatible with non urban areas - refer SENUS) on the subject land.
• It has been suggested to Council that the subject land is in fact already urban in its use and character. Council does not support this view. The current development on the subject land in its local and regional context is of a very low density (approximately one dwelling per 10,000 square metres). The urban and landscape character of the subject land is similar to a number of areas within Heatherton and Keysborough.
102 18/20805
Kingston New Format Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee, June 1998
• Council is aware of the principle of regarding rural residential development as urban development (as expressed in Ministerial Direction No. 6). However, this principle should not be relied on as a basis of altering the existing development pattern of the subject land from one dwelling per hectare to between twelve and fifteen dwellings per hectare. The essential character of the subject land remains non urban. The use of Ministerial Direction No. 6 to define areas such as the subject land as urban in character and use is simplistic and inappropriate.
• It is therefore Council's view that the application of a Residential 1 zone to the subject land would result in the conversion of currently non urban land to an urban use.
• The rezoning of land within non urban areas to urban zones is contemplated by Council's MSS and non urban policy, but only under very specific circumstances. The preparation of structure plans for the City's non urban areas is regarded as an essential step in determining appropriate locations for rezoning of non urban land for urban development purposes. Further, such structure plans are essential tools for outlining appropriate conditions under which conversion might be acceptable.
• Consideration of the appropriateness of applying a Residential 1 zone to the subject land in the absence of a strategic framework for the land around Dingley Village is considered inappropriate. • In additional to the need for a land use framework to support urban development of the subject land, a range of other site and area specific issues would need to be addressed in deciding to rezoning the land. Such issues include infrastructure provision, impacts on (and from) surrounding land uses, agricultural land quality, appropriateness and viability of alternative non urban uses, land capability, traffic and access, urban and landscape design, open space linkages, development contributions, etc.
• Council is concerned that these issues cannot reasonably be addressed through the current planning scheme reform process. Addressing these matters through the application of overlay controls would similarly require significant investigation and review.
• The application of a rural zone to the subject land is to a degree acknowledged as a 'holding' mechanism, pending the completion of appropriate strategic planning for the area as a whole. Any decision to apply a residential zone in the absence of a strategic planning framework for the area is regarded by Council as premature, and potentially prejudicing the outcomes of future strategic planning for the area.
• Council acknowledges the change in local circumstances which influence consideration of the best use of the subject land. However, Council has concluded that these circumstances do not warrant the need to bring forward resolution of the long term of the site part of the current planning reform As such use as process. , Council submits that the land should continue to be treated as part of the non urban area in strategic planning terms and that the Rural zone is therefore the most appropriate zone for the site.
103 18/20805 Kingston New Format Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee, June 1998
Council Comment and Recommendation: • No change to exhibited zone
Panel Comment and Recommendation: See opening comments at Section 4.5. The Panel generally accepts the assessment of the Council in this matter although it does recognise that there are some difficulties in the application of the Rural zone to this land. Clearly this land is in a state of transition where it is moving from being an extractive zone to another use. What the ultimate end use of the site will be is yet to be determined, and this current planning process is not the best way to determine that.
The Panel supports the view of Council that until a proper strategic framework is developed for this land and its surrounds, it would be inappropriate to zone this land as Residential 1 particularly as it has previously been zoned as Special Extractive 'A'. While the Panel also recognises that a Rural zone may not reflect the long term use of the land, it maintains the status quo as it currently exists. However the Council should ensure that it undertakes a full strategic review of this area as part of its review of the scheme within the next three years, in consultation with the affected land owners.
The Panel recommends no change to the exhibited Planning Scheme arising from this submission.
SUBMISSION NO: 133 Submittor: Easton Consulting on behalf of A. & S. Farr Location: Farm Road, Cheltenham Existing Zone: Part Special Use Zone No.1, part Intensive Agriculture D Exhibited Zone/Overlay: Part Special Use Zone No. 1, part Rural zone, with Airport Environs Overlay No.1 Requested Zone: Residential 1 zone or Comprehensive Development Zone
Summary of Submission: The submission objects to the proposed Rural and Special Use zones for the site and requests the application of a Residential 1 zone or Comprehensive Development zone. It is argued that the proposed Special Use zone is inappropriate as it is intended to relate to the golf course which adjoins the site. The proposed Rural zone for the site is also considered inappropriate, on the basis that the sites makes no contribution to rural issues and is not used for such purposes. The submittor requests the application of a residential zone to provide for the future development of the site for residential purposes.
Strategic Assessment: The land is presently occupied by a dwelling, with the majority of the site being undeveloped. Council's response to the submission is as follows:
• Under the exhibited planning scheme Council has proposed to include part of the site in Special Use zone No.1, which would appear to be a technical mapping error as this zone is intended to apply to the adjoining golf course. Council has requested that the
104 18/20805
Kingston New Format Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee, June 1998
submittor provide a recent copy of title for the site to enable Council to correct this matter on the planning scheme maps.
• The balance of the submittor's land has been included in a Rural zone. This land is identified in Council's Strategic Land Use Framework as part of the non urban area, and the application of a rural zone to the site is considered to reflect Council's strategic objectives for non urban land in the Heatherton area, as expressed in the MSS. The site is also considered appropriate for inclusion in a rural zone by virtue of its existing non urban zoning and the surrounding non urban uses.
• Any proposal to rezone the land to an urban zoning would therefore directly contradict Council's strategic objectives for non urban land use as identified in the MSS.
• The submission argues that in view of a recent approval to allow a residential subdivision on the adjoining golf course to the north of the site, it is inappropriate to continue to regard the subject land as non urban. The submission argues that a residential development of the subject land would form a logical extension to the recently approved residential subdivision to the north, and would create opportunities for a north-south road link.
Council does not consider that the submittor's comments provide substantive justification for a review of the non urban designation of the subject land at this time.
• Notwithstanding the non urban issues related to the site, the land is also affected by the proposed Airport Environs Overlay No.1 under the new planning scheme. The purpose of this overlay is to identify areas which will be subject to high levels of aircraft noise and to limit the numbers of persons residing in such affected areas. The schedule to this overlay prohibits the construction of more than one dwelling on a lot, and required that any subdivision of land be referred to the airport owner. It is Council's understanding that any proposed residential subdivisions on land affected by this overlay would not be supported by the airport owner.
• Hence, further residential development on land within this overlay is not considered appropriate. On this basis, Council does not support the submittor's request to include the land within a residential zoning as it is directly inconsistent with the purpose of the LPPF and the intent of the Airport Environs Overlay.
Council Comment and Recommendation: • Amend boundaries of Special Use zone affecting the site. • No change to exhibited Rural zoning.
Panel Comment and Recommendation: See opening comments at Section 4.5. This submission was made on behalf of five land owners in the Farm Road area who were concerned that the Rural zone designation no longer reflected the purpose and intent of their land. The land is bound by two Golf Courses, both of which have a Special Use zoning, public open space and some residential development. In addition the land is affected by the proposed Airport
105 18/20805
Kingston New Format Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee, June 1998
Environs Overlay which would have implications for residential development. At the hearing the submittor requested that all the land be placed in a Special Use zone however that would be inappropriate given that dwellings would be prohibited.
It was argued that due to the isolated nature of the land, it is not suitable for inclusion in the Rural zone and some form of residential development would provide the best option for the future of the land. While the Panel agrees that this argument may have some merit it reiterates its earlier views that this particular mechanism is not the appropriate forum for this to be realised and that a wider strategic review will need to be undertaken. As such it is not appropriate to zone this land residential at this time. The Panel accepts and endorses the Councils submission.
As a result of this particular submission, Council realised that there was an error in an exhibited zone to the south of this property and that a section of former Intensive Agricultural land was zoned as Special Use when it should have been designated as Public Park and Recreation. The Council proposes to correct this error.
The Panel recommends that the Special Use zone boundary be clarified and amended to properly reflect the Golf Course and that there be no change to the Rural zone. Further a section of Council owned land to the south of Farm Road be placed in the Public Park and Recreation zone rather than the Special Use zone.
SUBMISSION NO: 134 Submittor: L. Le Page Location: Heatherton Existing Zone: Various (mostly Intensive Agriculture D, & Special Use) Exhibited Zone: Various (mostly Rural and Special Use) Requested Zone: Residential
Summary of Submission: The submission objects to the general application of Rural zones through the Heatherton area. The submittor requests that a residential zoning be considered for the area with a minimum lot size of around 0.5 acre to provide for lower density residential development.
Strategic Assessment: Although the submittor does not make reference to a specific site or location, it is Council's understanding that the submission generally relates to existing non urban areas of Heatherton which are presently zoned for Intensive Agriculture under the existing planning scheme. Under the new planning scheme Council has generally applied a direct translation of such non urban zones into the new Rural zone.
The submission argues that the proposed Rural zone is not an appropriate zoning for the majority of the Heatherton area, based on the diminishing viability of agricultural industries in this area. It is requested that a residential zoning be applied to the area, to provide for low density residential development. The proposal would also allow
106 18/20805
Kingston New Format Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee, June 1998
existing agricultural landowners to obtain a higher use for their land and claim what they perceive to be their 'superannuation.' Council's assessment of the request is as follows:
• The MSS and exhibited Land Use Framework Plan recognise the Heatherton area as an important part .of the non urban area. The area supports valuable agricultural industries and contributes to the open landscape character of the non urban area. Any proposal to rezone the area to an urban zoning would directly contradict Council's strategic objectives for non urban land use as identified in the MSS.
• In the schedule to the proposed Rural zone Council has sought to preserve the existing subdivision controls affecting this area in the new planning scheme. It is considered that the existing subdivision controls play an important role in protecting the 'rural' character of the non urban area and ensuring that land use development is compatible with existing agricultural and rural activities in the area. Without such controls it is considered that the area could be subject to inappropriate, high impact development which is entirely inconsistent with Council's policy objectives for this area. On this basis Council is not willing to support any change to the subdivision controls affecting this area.
• Council has prepared a draft local policy on non urban land which requires that any significant changes in land use should only be considered in the context of detailed structure planning for the wider area. It is Council's intention to commence a structure planning process for the Heatherton area within the next 6 months, which will involve a detailed review of the land discussed by the submittor.
• Council does not support the submittors request to apply a residential zoning to this area under the new planning scheme.
Council Comment and Recommendation: • No change to exhibited zoning.
Panel Comment and Recommendation: See opening comments at Section 4.5. This area will come under review in the proposed Heatherton structure planning process and it would be inappropriate to designate this land for anything but rural until that process has been completed. The Panel accepts and endorses the Councils assessment and recommendation in this regard.
The Panel recommends no change to the exhibited Planning Scheme arising from this submission.
SUBMISSION NO: 135 Submittor: Sainsbury Reed on behalf of the Anglican Church Location: Cnr Tootals Road & Old Dandenong Road, Dingley Existing Zone: Special Use 14A zone. Exhibited Zone: Rural zone Requested Zone: Residential zone
107 18/20805
Kingston New Format Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee, June 1998
Summary of Submission: The submission objects to the proposed Rural zone for the site and requests the application of residential zoning. No substantive reasons have been put forward by the submittor to justify the proposed change in zoning.
Strategic Assessment: The land is presently zoned to provide for a range of non urban land uses, including the extraction and filling of land. It is understood that the submittor's land is generally vacant. The landowner has expressed an intention to develop the site for residential purposes, as an extension to existing residential areas in Dingley Village. Council's response to the submission is as follows:
• Under the exhibited planning scheme Council has proposed to include the land within a Rural zone. The land is identified in Council's Strategic Land Use Framework as part of the non urban area, and the application of a rural zone to the site is considered to reflect Council's strategic objectives for non urban land in the Dingley area, as expressed in the MSS. The site is also considered appropriate for inclusion in a rural zone by virtue of its existing non urban zoning and use.
• Any proposal to rezone the land to an urban zoning would therefore directly contradict Council's strategic objectives for non urban land use as identified in the MSS.
• The submittor has not presented any clear strategic justification to support a change in the designation of the site from a non urban to an urban zoning. • The exhibited local policy on non urban land in the LPPF provides very clear directions on the manner in which such rezoning requests should be managed in the non urban area. The policy requires a strategic and structured planning approach for the consideration of land use proposals in the non urban area, and hence it is Council's view that any significant changes in land use in the non urban area should only be considered in the context of detailed structure planning. This approach enables proper assessment of the physical capabilities of the land, the impact of the rezoning on surrounding land, etc within a secure strategic context. It is not considered that these issues can be reasonably addressed within the current reform process.
• Council acknowledges that the proposal could be further considered as part of a structure planning process. It is Council's intention to commence a structure planning process for the Dingley non urban area within the next 6-12 months, which will involve a detailed review of the submittor's land.
• In the absence of a detailed structure plan for the Dingley area, the current rezoning request for this site under the reform scheme process is considered to be premature and is therefore not supported by Council.
Council Comment and Recommendation: • No change to exhibited zoning.
108 18/20805
Kingston New Format Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee, June 1998
Panel Comment and Recommendation: See opening comments at Section 4.5. The comments of the earlier submissions in this section apply here and the Panel accepts and endorses the Councils recommendations in this regard. One point to make however is that while this land is in Dingley and the structure planning process will include a plan for Dingley, the Council may find it useful to include the non urban area of Dingley in the Heatherton area as it may be difficult to properly separate the two areas.
The Panel recommends no change to the exhibited Planning Scheme arising from this submission.
4.6 Other Rezoning Requests
This Section discusses a range of submissions that requested a different zone to that which was exhibited and it canvasses a range of issues for which the responses and recommendations of the Panel vary according to the issue.
SUBMISSION NO: 136 Submittor: Paul Sleep Location: 16 Levanto Street, Mentone Existing Zone: Public Use - Commonwealth Exhibited Zone: Commonwealth Requested Zone: Residential 1 zone Summary of Submission: The submission requests the application of a residential zoning to the site, on the basis that the land is no longer in the ownership of the Commonwealth.
Strategic Assessment: The subject land is presently occupied by a residential dwelling and is located on the corner of a park owned by the Department of Defence. The site was subdivided in 1992 and the submittor purchased the residential allotment from the Department of Defence at this time. The submittor's request to include the land in a residential zoning is supported by Council.
Council Comment and Recommendation: • Agree to remove Commonwealth zoning from land at 16 Levanto St, Mentone and apply a Residential 1 zone to the site.
Panel Comment and Recommendation: The Panel accepts the Council's submission and recognises that this property is a former caretakers residence and as it is no longer located on Commonwealth land, it is appropriate to remove the Commonwealth zoning.
The Panel recommends the removal of Commonwealth zoning from land at 16 Levanto Street, Mentone and the application of a Residential 1 zone to the site.
109 18/20805 Kingston New Format Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee, June 1998
SUBMISSION NO: 137 Submittor: Bowden Verhoeven on behalf of Savoia & Antonuccio Location: 5 Centre Way, Mordialloc Existing Zone: Residential C Exhibited Zone: Residential 1 zone Requested Zone: Mixed Use zone
Summary of Submission: The submission objects to the proposed Residential 1 zoning and requests the application of a Mixed Use or appropriate Business zone to the site. It is argued that the residential amenity of the site is presently compromised by the intensity of surrounding retail activities and is therefore appropriate for inclusion in an alternative zone.
Strategic Assessment The site is presently occupied by a dwelling, and adjoins residentially zoned land on three sides. Council's response to the submission is as follows:-
• The exhibited Residential 1 zoning for the site represents a direct translation of the existing zone provisions affecting the site. It is considered that the application of this zone is well supported by Council's strategic objectives in the MSS, which encourage a mix of housing types on the periphery of existing activity centres to maximise the use of existing infrastructure.
• Council acknowledges that the submittor's request may have some merit, however it is not considered that the submittor has put forward any substantive reasons as to why a change in zoning should occur under the current reform scheme process. Given that the site adjoins existing residential development on three sides it is considered that any significant change in the zoning of the land would require formal exhibition through a separate amendment process. It is also considered that the proposed loss of residential land would require significant strategic consideration as it is not consistent with State Government policy on urban consolidation.
• It is noted that Council will be preparing an integrated structure plan for the Mordialloc Shopping Centre and foreshore environs in the coming months. The structure plan will involve a detailed review of the existing zoning and land use mix of the centre. It is envisaged that the submittor's proposal may be further advanced as part of the structure planning process.
• Council does not support the application of a Mixed Use or Business zone to the site at this time.
Council Comment and Recommendation: • No change to exhibited zoning.
Panel Comment and Recommendation: The Panel agrees that there is some merit in the argument of this submittor, however a broader strategic review is required for this area of land. The Council has indicated that
110 18/20805
Kingston New Format Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee, June 1998
this area will be the subject of further study in the coming months and the Panel supports the view that the submittors land should be examined in a wider context.
The Panel recommends no change to the exhibited Planning Scheme arising from this submission.
SUBMISSION NO: 138 Submittor: Van Hoof & Byrne on behalf of Mr. & Mrs. Rowdon Location: Wells Road, Aspendale Gardens Existing Zone: Garden Industrial Zone, with DD04 Exhibited Zone: Industrial 1 zone Requested Zone: Residential zone
Summary of Submission: The submission objects to the proposed Industrial 1 zoning and requests the application of a residential zone to the site.
Strategic Assessment Although the land is presently zoned for industrial purposes it has not been developed under this zoning, and is generally only used for horse agistment. The submittor has argued that the land is appropriate for residential use given the established residential areas to the south and west of the site. Council's assessment of the submission is as follows:
• The exhibited planning scheme proposes a translation of the existing Garden Industrial provisions affecting the site into an Industrial 1 zone. Council has since reviewed the exhibited zone and considers that an Industrial 3 zoning is a more direct translation of the existing zone provisions.
• In respect to the submittor's request to rezone the site to provide for a residential development of the site, it is acknowledged that the proposed residential zoning would not be inconsistent with Council's strategic objectives for this area as identified in the MSS.
• Despite the possible synergies between the requested residential zoning and the MSS, Council has advised the submittor that it would not be willing to support a residential zoning for the site until a number of critical issues are addressed. Council is aware that the site is affected by a number of serious constraints, which may well preclude a residential development on the site. The most notable of these constraints is the proposed Mornington Peninsula Freeway which bisects the site. It is Council's understanding that the freeway is required to be constructed above natural ground level in this location to satisfy flooding requirements, which raises further issues of buffering, screening, noise attenuation and other technical issues relating to the design, engineering and construction of the road. Council has advised the submittor that detailed investigation into these issues and consultation with VicRoads would be essential before a residential use of this site can be seriously entertained.
111 18/20805
Kingston New Format Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee, June 1998
• The submittor has not supported the rezoning request with any substantial strategic justification and hence Council is not willing to support a change in zoning under the reform scheme process. Council has advised the submittor that it would be willing to consider the proposal as a separate amendment to the new planning scheme.
Council Comment and Recommendation: • Change exhibited zoning from Industrial 1 to Industrial 3 zone.
Panel Comment and Recommendation: The response of the Panel to this submission also applies to Submission Nos. 139 and 140. The lands in question occupy a large undeveloped area of Aspendale Gardens which have previously been zoned for "Garden Industrial" purposes, but is as yet, undeveloped. The land abuts a residential area and it may well be suitable for residential development in the future. However it is not the purpose of this planning scheme review to recommend changes to the zoning designation of land in the absence of a proper strategic basis. This area should be subject to a detailed structure planning process and it is understood that the group of landowners involved have already met with the Department of Infrastructure, VicRoads and others to advance the issue.
The Council submitted to the Panel at the Hearing that it considered applying an Industrial 3 zoning for the sites in question because it allowed greater control of the types of industrial uses and activities that may be located within the sites. The Design and Development Overlay No. 4 would still apply. Because of the likely further strategic work to be carried out on these sites, the Panel supports this request.
The Panel recommends that the exhibited zoning on this land change from Industrial 1 to Industrial 3, with the application of Design and Development Overlay No. 4.
SUBMISSION NO: 139 Submittor: Aspendale Gardens Residents Association Location: Wells Road, Aspendale Gardens Existing Zone: Garden Industrial Zone, with DD04 Exhibited Zone: Industrial 1 zone Requested Zone: Residential zone
Summary of Submission: The submission objects to the proposed Industrial 1 zoning and expresses support for the request by the landowners to include the site in a residential zoning. It is argued that a residential zoning for the site would be well supported by the majority of the Aspendale Gardens community. The submission also requests the removal of the proposed Special Use 2 zone on land immediately to the north of this site, at the corner of Governor Road and Springvale Road, Braeside. It is submitted that the use of the land for extractive purposes would cause significant detriment to the surrounding community and hence the special use zone should be removed.
Strategic Assessment Council's assessment of the submittor's request for the Wells Road site is as follows:
112 18/20805
Kingston New Format Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee, June 1998
• The exhibited planning scheme proposes a translation of the existing Garden Industrial provisions affecting the site into an Industrial 1 zone. Council has reviewed the exhibited zone and considers that an Industrial 3 zoning is a more direct translation of the existing zone provisions.
• In respect to the submittor's request to rezone the site to provide for a residential development of the site, it is acknowledged that the proposed residential zoning would not be directly inconsistent with Council's strategic objectives for this area as identified in the MSS.
• Despite the possible synergies between the proposed zoning and the MSS, Council has advised the submittor that it would not be willing to support a residential zoning for the site until a number of critical issues are addressed. Council is aware that the site is affected by a number of serious constraints, which may well preclude a residential development the site. The most notable of these constraints is the , on i proposed Momington Peninsula Freeway which bisects the site. It is Council's 1 understanding that the freeway is required to be constructed above natural ground level in this location to meet flooding requirements, which raises further issues of buffering, screening, noise attenuation and other technical issues relating to the design, engineering and construction of the road. Council has advised the landowners that detailed investigation into these issues and consultation with VicRoads would be essential before a residential use of this site can be seriously entertained.
• Council has advised the submittor that it is not willing to support a change in zoning under the reform scheme process, but has given encouragement to the owners of the land to pursue the proposal as a separate amendment to the new planning scheme.
In respect to the submittor's request regarding land on the corner of Governor Road, and Springvale Road, Braeside, Council has advised the submittor that it does not support the request to remove the Special Use No. 2 zone from this site. The removal of this zone would compromise the existing use and development rights of this landowner and it is likely that this owner would lodge serious objection to this proposal. The request to remove this zone is therefore not supported.
Council Comment and Recommendation: • Change exhibited zoning on Wells Road site from Industrial 1 to Industrial 3 zone.
Panel Comment and Recommendation: Refer to the Panels response to Submission No. 138. With regard to the application of the Special Use No. 2 zone to the north of the site, the Panel does not support its removal. The Council would need to liaise with the affected landowner to take this matter any further.
The Panel recommends that the exhibited zoning on this land change from Industrial 1 to Industrial 3, with the application of Design and Development Overlay No. 4.
113 18/20805
Kingston New Format Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee, June 1998
SUBMISSION NO: 140 Submittor: Anne Duncan Location: Wells Road, Aspendale Gardens Existing Zone: Garden Industrial Zone, with DD04 Exhibited Zone: Industrial 1 zone Requested Zone: Residential zone
Summary of Submission: The submission objects to the proposed Industrial 1 zoning and requests the application of a residential zone to the site.
Strategic Assessment Although the land is presently zoned for industrial purposes it has not been developed under this zoning, and is generally only used for horse agistment. The submittor has argued that the site is appropriate for residential use given the established residential areas to the south and west of the site. Council's assessment of the submission is as follows:
• The exhibited planning scheme proposes a translation of the existing Garden Industrial provisions affecting the site into an Industrial 1 zone. Council has reviewed the exhibited zone and considers that an Industrial 3 zoning is a more direct translation of the existing zone provisions.
• In respect to the submittor's request to rezone the site to provide for a residential development of the site, it is acknowledged that the proposed residential zoning would not be directly inconsistent with Council's strategic objectives for this area as identified in the MSS.
• Despite the possible synergies between the proposed zoning and the MSS, Council has advised the submittor that it would not be willing to support a residential zoning for the site until a number of critical issues are addressed. It is noted that the site is affected by a number of serious constraints, which may well preclude a residential development on the site. The most notable of these constraints is the proposed Mornington Peninsula Freeway which bisects the site. It is Council's understanding that the freeway is required to be constructed above natural ground level in this location to meet flooding requirements, which raises further issues of buffering, screening, noise attenuation and other technical issues relating to the design, engineering and construction of the road. Council has advised the submittor that detailed investigation into these issues and consultation with VicRoads would be essential before a residential use of this site can be seriously entertained.
• The submittor has not supported the rezoning request with any substantial strategic justification and hence Council is not willing to support a change in zoning under the reform scheme process. Council has advised the submittor that it would be willing to consider the proposal as a separate amendment to the new planning scheme.
Council Comment and Recommendation: • Change exhibited zoning from Industrial 1 to Industrial 3 zone.
114 18/20805
Kingston New Format Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee, June 1998
Panel Comment and Recommendation: Refer to the Panels response to Submission No. 138.
The Panel recommends that the exhibited zoning on this land change from Industrial 1 to Industrial 3, with the application of Design and Development Overlay No. 4.
SUBMISSION NO: 141 Submittor: T.M. Ring & Associates Location: 147-149 & 153 & 157 Park Road, Cheltenham, and other nearby land within the Cheltenham Business Centre Existing Zone: Various Cheltenham District Centre Zones Exhibited Zone: Various (including Business 5 and Residential 1 zone) Requested Zone: Business 2 zone
(This assessment includes the response by Council Officers to a late written submission to the Kingston Planning Scheme lodged by Mr. Terry Ring on 27 March, 1998.
Summary of Submission: The submission principally objects to the proposed Business 5 and Residential 2 zoning for land bounded by Park Road, Hall Street, Maude Street and Charman Road, and requests that the land be included in a Business 2 zone. The submission also makes broader comment on the application of zones for the Cheltenham Business Centre, and challenges the manner in which Council has translated the existing zone provisions for the centre into the new format planning scheme. It is argued that the premise and rationale supporting the existing strategic framework for the centre should be reviewed prior to its incorporation into Council's Local Planning Policy Framework and new format planning scheme. More specifically, the submission requests the following zoning and policy changes:
a) Rezone subject land, and land on the south side of Park Road in the vicinity of the railway line, from Business 5 to Business 2 zone;
b) Rezone land in the vicinity of Maude Street and Hall Street from Residential 2 zone to Business 2 zone;
c) Remove all references to 'small scale' in the exhibited local policy for the Cheltenham Business Centre as contained within the LPPF;
d) Remove setback controls from Cheltenham Business Centre local policy;
e) Remove reference to 'Cheltenham District Centre Urban Design Plan' (Loder and Bayly) from local policy for Cheltenham Business Centre.
The submission concludes that the strategic basis of the exhibited local policy framework and the application of zones for the Cheltenham Business Centre should be based on Council's future vision for the centre as opposed to a direct translation of the existing policy framework.
115 18/20805
Kingston New Format Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee, June 1998
Strategic Assessment: Council's response to the submission is as follows:-
• Under the existing Kingston Planning Scheme Council's objectives for the future use and development of land within the Cheltenham District Centre are enshrined in nine separate District Centre zones, each of which is designed to perform a specific function in supporting the core retailing role of the centre. The current zoning promotes the development of a range of commercial, community, administrative and residential functions in defined precincts around the periphery of the centre, to allow the concentration of the core retail functions along the Charman Road spine.
• Under the exhibited Kingston Planning Scheme, Council has proposed to translate the broad objectives of the nine district centre zones into a comprehensive local policy, which addresses Council's objectives for the whole of the centre. The policy is also constructed from the principles of the Cheltenham District Centre Framework Plan, which is an incorporated document in the current Kingston Planning Scheme. Although the exhibited local policy generally reflects the objectives of the existing district centre zones, it is important to note that Council did not approach this matter as a simple translation exercise.
• Council has used the framework plan and the newly developed local policy as a strategic basis for the application of zones for the Cheltenham Business Centre under the new format planning scheme.
• The submittor has challenged the legitimacy of the existing strategic framework for the centre, and has questioned Council's approach in translating the existing zones provisions. In response, Council wishes to briefly summarise the background to the existing strategic framework:
• The Cheltenham District Centre Zones were introduced in May 1992, representing the culmination of a planning process which started in 1985 with the designation of Cheltenham as a District Centre. During that time Council and the Department of Planning and Housing jointly funded and completed a number of major reports and projects for the centre, including:-
* The draft Cheltenham District Centre Structure Plan (1986), based on the Wolinski Plan (1986) which reported on the strategic and policy issues for the development of Cheltenham up to 2001; * Henshall Hansen feasibility report (1988); * Cheltenham District Centre Structure Plan (1989), a review of the 1986 plan; * Cheltenham District Centre Urban Design Plan (1992) - Loder & Bayly Consultants.
• Public consultation through this process was extensive. The exhibition of the original Structure Plan alone involved an extensive series of public meetings, surveys, and the creation of a working group to review submissions and to oversee the preparation of future strategies for the centre.
116 18/20805 Kingston New Format Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee, June 1998
• It is evident that a secure strategic framework was established for the Cheltenham Centre under the existing planning scheme, which Council has attempted to preserve under the new format scheme.
In response to the submittor's more specific rezoning requests, Council's response is as follows:-
• Under the new planning scheme Council has proposed to include the subject land and land to the south of Park Road, Cheltenham within a Business 5 zone, which is consistent with the stated policy objectives for these parts of the centre in the Cheltenham Business Centre local policy. The existing zoning for the subject land provides for small scale offices and health facilities, which is comparable to the objectives of the Business 5 zone which encourage the co-location of offices and residential development.
• The submittor's request to include this land within a Business 2 zone is not supported by Council as it is considered to undermine the core retail function of the Charman Road spine. The requested zone is also considered to provide for a significant intensification of use and development in what is essentially a transitional area between the core retailing activity and nearby residential development. Although Council has applied the Business 2 zone to other parts of the business centre (ie: on Charman Road), these areas perform a significantly different function to the subject land, and have traditionally accommodated more intensive, larger scale commercial development. The strategic framework for the centre acknowledges the different roles played by each precinct within the centre, and hence gives further support for the application of different zones for specific precincts, where appropriate.
• In respect to the land to the south of Park Road in the vicinity of the railway station (parcel 4), the submittor has argued that the application of the Business 5 zone is illogical given that 'transport terminal' is a prohibited use within the zone. The submittor argues that a Business 2 zone would more appropriately provide for intensive commercial development on the site. Council does not support this proposal, as this area is identified in Council's local policy as suitable for small scale office and residential development. The policy also promotes the concentration of larger scale commercial development in the well established office precincts in Charman Road and Nepean Highway, and as the railway area bears no relationship to the identified precincts, the proposed Business 2 zone is not considered appropriate. It is noted that the railway land is primarily occupied by a railway line and car park associated with the Cheltenham Railway Station, both of which are permissible uses within the Business 5 zone.
• The submission requests the application of a Business 2 zone to residential land in the vicinity of Maude Street. Council does not support this request on the basis that any such loss of residential land would contravene State Government policy on urban consolidation.
117 18/20805 Kingston New Format Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee, June 1998
In response to the submittor's requested changes to the local policy for the Cheltenham Business Centre as contained in the LPPF, Council's response is as follows:-
• The submittor has requested that all references to the 'Cheltenham District Centre Urban Design Plan' (Loder and Bayly) be removed from the local policy for the Cheltenham Business Centre, on the basis that the district centre plan applies to land within the business centre as well as surrounding land. Since the new local policy applies only to the business centre, the submittor has argued that references to the district centre plan will create confusion. The submittor also contends that there are ample zone provisions in the new scheme to assess land use development proposals in the Cheltenham centre without the need for the additional guidelines provided by the district centre plan framework.
• Council does not support the submittor's request to remove references to the urban design plan from the exhibited local policy. Although the urban design plan deals with limited peripheral areas around the business centre which do not form part of the new local policy, the main focus of the plan is to provide a strategic framework for the business centre. Given that the objectives and framework offered by the urban design plan directly underpin the new local policy, the plan should clearly be acknowledged in the policy as a reference document. The Urban Design Plan remains a critically relevant document to the Cheltenham Business Centre and will be used by Council to assess applications for land use development within the centre. Council therefore does not support the submittor's request.
• The submittor has also requested that all references to 'small scale' in the local policy be deleted, on the basis that it will lower property values and affect the development potential of land within the zone. Council submits that this reference is an important translation of the existing zone and policy provisions affecting specific areas on the periphery of the Cheltenham Centre. As these areas often adjoin sensitive residential areas, the objective of limiting the scale of development is considered logical. The reference to small scale is also a reflection of the principles of the Cheltenham District Centre Urban Design Plan (1992), which established clear directions for the future form of development in the centre. Council's objectives for promoting 'small scale' development in this area have been discussed by the submittor in previous panel hearings, and Council has consistently justified the merits of this objective. On this basis Council does not support submittor's request to remove the references to 'small scale' in the local policy.
• The late submission also discusses the issue of height controls as outlined in the recommendations of the urban design plan, which support three storey development in appropriate parts of the centre. The submittor argues that the references to 'small scale' in the local policy for the subject land are inconsistent with these objectives, and hence the reference should be removed. Council does not support this request, as the urban design plan clearly establishes that three storey developments should be encouraged only in locations where there is minimal impact on surrounding properties, and where larger scale development is compatible with the surrounding built form (ie: Nepean Highway, parts of Charman Road). It is not considered that
118 18/20805 Kingston New Format Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee, June 1998
the subject land provides an appropriate context for large scale development and hence Council would be unlikely to support a three storey development on this land.
• The late submission makes reference to a number of comments made in the Department of Infrastructure's submission to the new planning scheme, which relate to the provision of setback controls in the local policy for the Cheltenham Centre and in the Design and Development overlay No. 9. The submission by the DOT recommends that prescriptive controls should not be included in the LPPF, and instead should be replaced by more general performance based objectives. Council notes however that this is not consistent with the Department's advice on setback controls in the exhibited design and development overlays, where it recommends that such controls be included in the LPPF. It is Council's understanding that the Department does not encourage the use of mandatory setback controls in the new format schemes, however their overall approach to this matter remains unclear.
• Council does not agree with the advice of the Department on this matter. It is Council's view that the setback controls provided in the exhibited LPPF and DD09 are an important tool in the achievement of high quality urban design outcomes in the built environment of the Cheltenham centre. The setback controls perform a specific function in providing opportunities for landscaping to improve the presentation of buildings within the centre. The controls are also intended to achieve a higher quality pedestrian environment, as a means of reinforcing the pedestrian or 'street level' focus encouraged throughout the centre. Council acknowledges the need to more clearly articulate these over-riding objectives in the local policy to explain purpose of the setback controls. It is Council's intention to include additional statements in the local policy to better justify the setback controls.
Council Comment and Recommendation: • No change to exhibited zoning. • Minor modifications to Cheltenham Business Centre Local Policy to explain the design objective of the setback controls.
Panel Comment and Recommendation: It is apparent to the Panel that this issue has been ongoing with the submittor for quite some time and that it could be seen as an ongoing saga. The Council has provided an extensive and detailed appraisal of this submission, for which it is to be commended, and the Panel is satisfied that it has fully assessed the key issues raised by this submittor. The way in which the Council has responded indicates to the Panel that the strategic justification for the application of the zones to the Cheltenham Business Centre has been fully thought out and based on strategic principles.
The Panel recommends no change to the exhibited Planning Scheme arising from this submission but recommends that the Cheltenham Business Centre Local Policy be modified to explain the design objectives of the setback controls.
119 18/20805 Kingston New Format Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee, June 1998
SUBMISSION NO: 142 Submittor: Easton Consulting on behalf of De La Salle Location: St Bedes Secondary College, 2 Mentone Pde, Mentone Existing Zone: Residential C zone Exhibited Zone: Residential 1 zone Requested Zone: Special Use zone
Summary of Submission: The submission objects to the proposed Residential 1 zone and requests the application of a Special Use zone to the site and its immediate residential environs, to recognise its use as a major school.
Strategic Assessment: The submission argues that it is inappropriate that the school and its environs be retained in a residential zoning, given that it is unlikely that the school site would be used for residential purposes in the foreseeable future. It is argued that other substantial land uses in Kingston are recognised within special use zones, which gives clear expectations to surrounding land owners for the long term use of the site.
The submission also requests that the special use zone be applied to both the school site and to a limited number of surrounding private residential properties, to allow for the future expansion of the school. Council's assessment of the request is as follows:
• The majority of existing private schools in Kingston are presently included in Residential C zones. In preparing the new Kingston Planning Scheme officers applied a direct translation of the existing zoning into the new Residential 1 zone. The development of a specific Special Use zone to provide for schools and educational facilities was given consideration by Council but was ultimately rejected for the following reasons:-
* The demarcation of a special use zone around the existing boundaries of a school property may cause future difficulties where the use is proposed to be extended beyond the boundaries of the Special Use zone; * Council would not support the inclusion of adjacent residential properties within the Special Use zone, given the implications for the property values of these adjoining properties. * Some schools may object to the rezoning of their land from a residential to a special use zoning, as this may be perceived as a loss of development rights. * Unless an approved masterplan for the school is in place the special use zone is not considered to offer significant advantages for the future use and development of the school.
This approach is consistent with the advice contained within the Manual for Victorian Planning Provisions, which recommends that special use zones are only used where all other zones offered by the VPPs are unable to provide for Council's specific objectives for an area. It is considered that the Residential 1 zone offers an appropriate zoning for
120 18/20805 Kingston New Format Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee, June 1998
the school and hence the application of a special use zone cannot be justified in this instance.
The submission also requests the removal of all existing restrictions affecting land bounded by Palermo Street, Naples Street, Dixon Street, Beach Road and Mentone Parade, provided at clause 52.02 of the new scheme. Council has advised the submittor that it requires further information on the specific restrictions referred to before giving support to the request. This information has not been forthcoming and hence no change to Clause 52.02 is recommended.
Council Comment and Recommendation: • No change to exhibited zoning; • No change to Clause 52.02.
Panel Comment and Recommendation: The application of zones to private schools throughout Victoria is one of the most perplexing issues confronting Councils and the Department of Infrastructure, and to date there have been various views and applications. The DOT has expressed the view that private schools should be zoned the same as its immediate surrounding area, ie the underlying zone, which in metropolitan Melbourne is usually a Residential 1 zone. In many cases it reflects a previous residential zone in the former scheme. The Panel considers that the application of a Special Use zone in this case is not justified, particularly as the school area is surrounded by residential development, and further no compelling reasons were put forward to justify a special zone.
The Panel supports the contention that a residential zone with a design and development overlay, based on a properly developed Master Plan would provide more certainty for the future of the school and its site, both for the school and for the surrounding residential community. The rights of the surrounding local community also need to be considered in the preparation of the master plan. It is understood that the issues in relation to the removal of existing restrictions affecting the land provided at Clause 52.02 of the new scheme has been resolved and that no further action is required.
The Panel recommends no change to the exhibited Planning Scheme arising from this submission.
SUBMISSION NO: 143 Submittor: Design 79 Pty Ltd on behalf of H. Sztainbock Location: 169 Nepean Highway, Mentone Existing Zone: Light Industrial Exhibited Zone: Business 4 zone Requested Zone: Business 1 zone
Summary of Submission: The submission objects to the proposed Business 4 zoning and requests the application of a Business 1 zone to the site.
121 18/20805
Kingston New Format Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee, June 1998
Strategic Assessment: Under the new planning scheme Council has proposed to include the site within a Business 4 zoning, which is broadly consistent with Council's MSS and represents a reasonably direct translation of the existing zone provisions affecting the site. The submittor has requested the application of a Business 1 zone to the site to allow increased flexibility in the use and development of the site and its future conversion to a mix of smaller retail tenancies.
The submittor's justification for a change in zoning is based on the insufficient range of uses offered by the Business 4 zone for this site. It is noted that retailing activity on the site is presently prohibited by virtue of the existing Light Industrial zone. Council's assessment of the submission is as follows:
• Council's MSS recognises the important economic and social function of the municipality's local retail centres and is keen to support their ongoing viability. In this respect the ad hoc application of Business 1 zones to sites which have not been previously used for intensive retailing activity and are not part of the local retail hierarchy, is considered to undermine the viability of existing centres.
• On this basis, it is considered that a proposed Business 1 zoning for the subject land would not be consistent with the broader retailing objectives of Council's Municipal Strategic Statement.
• It is Council's view that the proposed Business 4 zone offers a much wider range of uses than the current Light Industrial zoning and will provide significantly increased development opportunities for the site. The proposed zoning is also consistent with the intentions of the MSS in respect to introducing greater flexibility in the use of commercial sites to support the retail hierarchy.
• The proposal to apply a Business 1 zone to the site is therefore not supported by Council as part of the reform scheme process, as it is considered that Council would be required to undertake a significant review its strategic objectives for this area prior to contemplating a zone change of this significance.
• It is noted that the submittor does not necessarily represent the views of other landowners affected by the proposed Business 4 zone, and that the proposed application of Business 1 zone to this area may not be supported by other landowners using their land for industrial purposes.
Council Comment and Recommendation: • No change to exhibited zoning.
Panel Comment and Recommendation: This site accommodates an existing Freedom Furniture store and is adjacent to a group of approximately 20 - 30 shops, including a Safeway supermarket, which is to be zoned as Business 1 under the provisions of the new format scheme. Generally it is not a well presented centre, and it could benefit from some urban design improvements.
122 18/20805
Kingston New Format Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee, June 1998
The Panel however, considers that there is no strategic basis for a change of zoning, and that more work would need to be carried out by the submittor and other land holders to justify a change in zoning. Indeed, the proposed zoning allows for a wider range of uses 1 at the site, and the submittor well find that his options for the site much broader may are than that currently existing.
The Panel recommends no change to the exhibited Planning Scheme arising from this submission.
SUBMISSION NO: 144 Submittor: A.T. Cocks on behalf of Pentaco Oil Pty Ltd Location: 625-643 Lower Dandenong Road, Dingley Village Existing Zone: Reserved Living Exhibited Zone: Residential 1 zone Requested Zone: Business zone
Summary of Submission: The submission objects to the application of the Reserved Living zone to the site and requests that Council apply an appropriate business zoning under the new format scheme. It is argued that the site is unable to offer appropriate standards of residential amenity by virtue of its location at the intersection of two major roads, and hence is more appropriate for inclusion in a business zone.
Strategic Assessment: The site has recently been the subject of a planning application to use the site for the purpose of a petrol filing station, convenience shop and car wash. The matter has been considered by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, the Supreme Court, and most recently has been the subject of a Ministerial Advisory Committee Hearing, held on the 12th February, 1998. Amongst other things, the terms of reference of the Advisory Committee included:
To advise in relation to the most appropriate zone for the land, having regard to the external factors which influence the possible use and development of the site and the ability of the new Victorian Planning provisions to introduce local overlay controls to guide the future use and development of the site.
Council's submission to the advisory committee advised that a Residential 1 zone has been applied to the site for the following reasons:-
• The site is one of the largest parcels of undeveloped residential land in Dingley Village. The Kingston MSS identifies the appropriateness of retaining the subject site for future residential purposes. The application of a residential zoning was therefore the most appropriate expression of this strategic intent.
• The Residential 1 zone was nominated for the site as it was the most direct translation of the existing Reserved Living zone and carries forward the strategies and intent of the MSS.
1 123 18/20805 Kingston New Format Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee, June 1998
It is Council's understanding that the Advisory Committee has recommended that the proposed Residential 1 zoning for the site under the new planning scheme is the most appropriate zoning for the site.
Council Comment and Recommendation: • No change to exhibited zoning;
Panel Comment and Recommendation: As indicated by Council, this site has been the subject of a recent Advisory Committee report which recommended that the site is suitable for a Residential 1 zone designation. It would be inappropriate for this Panel to comment any further on this issue.
The Panel recommends no change to the exhibited Planning Scheme arising from this submission.
4.7 Miscellaneous Submissions
This section of the report discusses a number of other submissions to the exhibited scheme which canvass a wide range of issues.
SUBMISSION NO: 145 Submittor: Brendan McGrath Location: White Street, Mordialloc Existing Zone: Secondary Road Reservation Exhibited Zone: Road Zone - Category 1 Requested Zone: Road Zone - Category 2
Summary of Submission: The submission objects to the application of a Road Zone - Category 1 to White Street, Mordialloc, on the basis that this classification increases the threat of future road widening.
Strategic Assessment Council's application of a Category 1 road zone to White Street is considered to be consistent with the directions of the Victorian Planning Provisions in respect to the classification of roads. It is noted that Direction No. 17 of the revised Ministerial Direction on the form and content of planning schemes (Oct. 1997) states that:-
"17. A road which is a declared main road under the Transport Act 1983 must be shown as a Road Zone - Category I on the planning scheme maps."
VicRoads has advised Council that White Street is a declared main road, and hence the proposed category 1 zoning for the road is considered appropriate.
124 18/20805
Kingston New Format Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee, June 1998
Council Comment and Recommendation: • No change to exhibited zoning.
Panel Comment and Recommendation: The same comments apply to this submission as those for the group of submissions for Beach Road (see Section 4.1). This is an issue which the Panel is unable to resolve.
The Panel recommends no change to the Planning Scheme arising from this submission.
\ SUBMISSION NO: 146 Submittor: Bowden Verhoeven on behalf of F. & F. Holdings Location: Aspendale Gardens Shopping Centre Narelle Drive, Aspendale Gardens Existing Zone: Restricted Business Exhibited Zone: Business 1 zone
Summary of Submission: The submission requests that the schedule to the Business 1 zone be modified to correctly reflect the actual office and shop floor areas which have been developed within the Aspendale Gardens Shopping Centre. It is acknowledged that the existing floor area of the shopping centre exceeds the existing maximum floor areas for the centre specified in the current Kingston Planning Scheme. The proposed modifications to the Business 1 schedule will therefore correct an existing anomaly and will allow the retail use of the site to commence.
Strategic Assessment: The exhibited schedule to the Business 1 zone currently provides a maximum shop floor area of 2990 m2 for the site, which is a direct translation of the existing site specific controls for the site under the existing Kingston Planning Scheme.
Following the completion of the shopping centre in 1996 it was discovered that the floor area of the constructed centre actually exceeded the maximum floor area requirements allowed by the planning scheme. The owner of the site attempted to resolve this matter through an amendment to the Kingston Planning Scheme in early 1997. Council indicated support for the proposed amendment and requested that the Minister exempt the application from all notification requirements, since the amendment would not result in any change to the constructed building on the site. The request for exemption from notice however was not supported by the Minister. It is Council's understanding that the owner determined to take no further action on the amendment until other financial matters associated with the centre had been resolved.
The owner has now made a submission to the exhibited Kingston Planning Scheme requesting that the floor area anomaly be corrected in the schedule to the Business 1 zone. This would allow the use of the whole of the site to commence, and would resolve the long standing uncertainties over the legality of the constructed centre. The proposal is to allow a total floor area of 4302.4m2 for the site, comprising a maximum
125 18/20805
Kingston New Format Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee, June 1998
shop floor area of 4133.4m2 and maximum office floor area of 269m2. It is argued that the existing car parking at the site satisfies the requirements of the scheme in respect to the amended floor areas.
Council generally supports the proposed request and considers it appropriate to deal with this matter under the new format scheme process. Council has previously endorsed Amended plans for the centre which allow a total floor area of 4286.5 m2, hence the current request to increase the floor area to 4302.4 m2 is not considered to represent a significant intensification of the use. It is noted that the owner will be required to submit amended plans for Council's approval showing the amended floor areas and car parking for the site.
Council Comment and Recommendation: Council recommends that the schedule to the Business 1 zone be amended as follows:-
"Maximum leasable floor area for office: 269m2 Maximum leasable floor area for shop: 4133.4 m2"
Panel Comment and Recommendation: The Panel does not support the Council's recommendation in regard to this submission. This shopping centre has been built in breach of its permit conditions, even though the Council has previously endorsed some amended plans for the site. It is understood that the developer has encroached on internal floor spaces to increase the floor area and that the total number of car parking spaces would be reduced.
A request had previously been made to the Department of Infrastructure for an amendment to the Planning Scheme to rectify this situation, with an exemption from notice, however the Minister declined and considered the proposal should be fully tested in the community. The Panel agrees with the Department that the existing built centre is a significant increase in floor area to what has been approved. While the Council submitted that the existing centre would not materially affect anyone, the Panel takes a different view. The Panel visited the centre as part of its site inspections and observed that a Chemist and Hot Bread shop were open and trading. It is understood that the centre is able to be leased, but only to the extent of its current planning permit conditions.
The Panel observes that the Schedule to the zone was exhibited with the current maximum permissible floor area, and the Council wishes to increase this floor area as part of this process. The Panel disagrees and considers that this planning reform process should not be used as a vehicle to "sweep under the carpet" major planning anomalies that have not gone through due process.
The Panel recommends no change to the exhibited Planning Scheme arising from this submission.
126 18/20805 Kingston New Format Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee, June 1998
SUBMISSION NO: 147 Submittor: S. Custance & Associates on behalf of K. & S. Waste Location: 544 Boundary Road, Heatherton Existing Zone: Intensive Agriculture D zone Exhibited Zone: Rural zone
Summary of Submission: The submission expresses general support for the proposed zoning of the above property under the new Kingston Planning Scheme.
Strategic Assessment: Submission does not request any changes.
Council Comment and Recommendation: • No change to exhibited zone.
Panel Comment and Recommendation: This submission generally supports the exhibited scheme, but requests greater acknowledgment and recognition of any further expansion of the zone. The proposed structure planning process for the Heatherton area will assist to highlight any future intentions for further expansion in the area.
The Panel recommends no change to the exhibited Planning Scheme arising from this submission.
SUBMISSION NO: 148 Submittor: Contour Consultants on behalf of Property Leasing Limited Location: Moorabbin Police Complex 1009-1013 Nepean Highway, Moorabbin Existing Zone: Special Use Zone No. 10 Exhibited Zone: Business 2 zone
Summary of Submission: The submission expresses general support for the proposed zoning of the above property under the new Kingston Planning Scheme, on the basis that a planning permit will be issued to provide for the existing site specific controls affecting the land.
Strategic Assessment Submission does not request any changes. Council intends to issue a planning permit for the site.
Council Comment and Recommendation: • No change to exhibited zone.
Panel Comment and Recommendation:
127 18/20805 Kingston New Format Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee, June 1998
As this issue relates to as site specific control, the Panel supports the Council in issuing a planning permit for the site, the details of which will be negotiated between the two parties after adoption of the scheme but prior to gazettal.
The Panel recommends no change to the exhibited Planning Scheme arising from this submission.
SUBMISSION NO: 149 Submittor: Hansen Planning Consultants on behalf of MDC Management Location: Parkdale Plaza Shopping Centre Nepean Highway, Parkdale Existing Zone: Mordialloc Special Peripheral Business Zone Exhibited Zone/Overlay: Business 1 zone with Design and Development Overlay No. 10.
Summary of Submission: The submission expresses general support for the proposed zoning and overlay controls for the above land under the new Kingston Planning Scheme.
Strategic Assessment: The submission does not request any changes to the exhibited zone or overlay. The application of the design and development overlay to the site is intended to provide for specific buildings and works and floor area requirements for the shopping centre, which are reflected in the current zone provisions for the site.
Council has applied the Business 1 zone and design and development overlay to the site as a means of promoting high amenity retail and commercial development on the site and providing increased flexibility in the use and development of the centre.
Council Comment and Recommendation: • No change to exhibited zone and overlay.
Panel Comment and Recommendation: It is considered that the Business 4 zone would have been the most direct translation of the existing zone, but it would appear that discussions between the two parties indicated that the preferred zone form the perspective of the shopping centre was the Business 1 zone, which will give the centre more flexibility. A number of adjacent properties were notified of this proposed zone for the Parkdale centre.
The Panel recommends no change to the exhibited Planning Scheme arising from this submission.
SUBMISSION NO: 150 Submittor: Capital Club Pty Ltd Location: Capital Golf Course
128 18/20805 Kingston New Format Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee, June 1998
Existing Zone: Intensive Agriculture D zone Exhibited Zone/Overlay: Special Use Zone No.1 (Golf Courses) and Airport Environs Overlay
Summary of Submission: The submission makes comment on the proposed Development Plan Overlay and Airport Environs Overlay provisions affecting the above land under the new Kingston Planning Scheme. A number of minor changes to the overlay provisions are suggested.
Strategic Assessment: The proposed Development Plan Overlay for the Capital Golf Course represents a direct translation of the existing site specific controls affecting the site under the existing Kingston Planning Scheme. Following the exhibition of the scheme Council has reviewed the purpose of this overlay and it is considered that Clause. 52.03 of the scheme offers a more appropriate way of dealing with the existing site specific controls. This will not affect the existing use and development rights of the golf course. The submittor's comments can be summarised as follows:-
• The submission makes reference to Clause 1.2 of the schedule to the Development Plan Overlay, which requires the development plan for the site to show Australian Noise Exposure Forecasts for Moorabbin Airport. The submittor argues that there is no approved ANEF in place for the airport at present, and hence the relevant ANEC should be annexed to the schedule.
• The submission also comments on Clause 1.3 of the schedule to the Development Plan Overlay which deals with referral authorities, and requests a number of technical changes to the names of the authorities listed.
• A number of comments are also made on the provisions of the Airport Environs Overlays.
Councils' response to the above matters is as follows:-
• It is Council's understanding that an approved ANEF will be in place for the Moorabbin Airport before the approval of the planning scheme, and hence Clause 1.2 should not require modification;
• The suggested changes to the referral authorities are generally supported.
• Council is unable to consider the submittor' s comments on the provisions of the Airport Environs Overlay as they request changes to the standard clauses of the Victorian Planning Provisions.
Council Comment and Recommendation: • Remove Schedule No. 2 to the Development Plan Overlay (Capital Golf Course) from the planning scheme and include existing site specific provisions for the golf course at Clause 52.03 of the scheme; • Agree to minor corrections to referral authorities listed in the site specific provisions.
129 18/20805
Kingston New Format Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee, June 1998
Panel Comment and Recommendation: Golf courses are a major feature of Kingston and the Capital Golf Course is one of the most recently developed. It is not located in an existing urban zone and it currently forms part of the Heatherton non-urban area. It is located adjacent to the north west boundary of Moorabbin Airport. The Panel considers that in this regard, the Special Use Zone No. 1 is the appropriate designation for the golf course. Other issues and recommendations relating to the Capital Golf Course are further discussed in Section 5.
SUBMISSION NO: 151 Submittor: Beveridge Williams on behalf of GPU Powernet Pty Ltd Location: Terminal Stations at:- a) Warrigal Road, Moorabbin b) Cnr Mills Road and Boundary Roads, Mordialloc Existing/ Exhibited zone: a) Part Public Purpose No.13 part Light Industrial to part Public Use No 1 and part Industrial 1 zone. b) Public Purpose No.13 to Public Use No.l. Requested zone: a) Special Use zone b) Special Use zone
Summary of Submission: The submission requests the application of a special use zone to the above sites as GPU Powemet is no longer a public utility.
Strategic Assessment: Council recognises the need to review the exhibited zoning of these sites as the manual to the VPPs makes it clear that it is not appropriate to include land in private ownership in a public use zone. The request to include the sites in special use zones is not supported by Council as the Manual to the VPPs clearly discourages the use of special use zones for utility installations, except where the adjoining zone is inappropriate. It is considered that as these sites are located within established industrial areas the Industrial 1 zone provides the most appropriate zoning for these sites.
Council Comment and Recommendation: • Remove exhibited Public Use zones for both sites and apply Industrial 1 zone.
Panel Comment and Recommendation: The Ministerial Direction on the form and content of planning schemes makes it clear that the public use zones should not be used for utilities which are no longer public authorities. The Manual for the Victoria Planning Provisions indicates that minor utility installations such as electricity substations do not require specific zoning recognition in the Planning Scheme. They will either be exempt buildings and works as set out in Clause 62.01 or they will fall into the definition of minor utility installation which is a Section 1 use in most zones.
The Panel supports the assessment provided by the Council in this regard, and endorses the general principle of applying the underlying or surrounding zoning to privately
130 18/20805
Kingston New Format Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee, June 1998
owned utilities where appropriate. In both of these cases, the sites are surrounded by an Industrial 1 zone.
The Panel recommends that the exhibited Public Use zones for both sites be removed and be replaced with the Industrial 1 zone.
SUBMISSION NO: 152 Sub mittor : Beveridge Williams on behalf of United Energy Location: Terminal Stations at:- a) Clarinda Road, Clarinda b) Cnr Tootals & Heatherton Roads, Clayton South c) McLeod Road, Carrum; d) Cnr Savona & Riviera Streets, Mentone e) Cnr White Street & Warren Road, Mordialloc 0 Cnr Warrigal & Kingston Roads, Heatherton Existing/ Exhibited zone: a) - f) Public Purpose No.13 to Public Use No 1 Requested zone: Special Use zone
Summary of Submission: The submission requests the application of a special use zone to the above sites as United Energy is no longer a public utility.
Strategic Assessment: Council recagnises the need to review the exhibited zoning of these sites as the manual to the VPPs makes it clear that it is not appropriate to include land in private ownership in a public use zone. In respect to sites a) and b) it considered that as these sites are located within established industrial areas the Industrial 1 zone provides the most appropriate zoning for these sites under the new planning scheme.
The remaining sites are generally located within residential areas. The practice notes in the manual to the Victorian Planning Provisions provide that special use zones should only be used where the utility installation occupies such a large area that the adjoining zoning is inappropriate (such as a large site in a residential area). Council has indicated preliminary support for the application of a special use zone to these sites, however Council would be guided by the panel on whether these sites are of sufficient size to warrant a special use zoning.
Council Comment and Recommendation: • Remove exhibited Public Use zones for all sites; • Apply Industrial 1 zone to sites a) and b) • Apply Special Use zone to sites c) - f)
Panel Comment and Recommendation: The comments of the Panel from the previous submission also apply to this one, but the Panel does not generally support the stand taken by Council for some of these recommendations. The Panel does not support the Special Use zone for sites c), d), and e), but it does however consider that site f) on the corner of Warrigal and Kingston
131 18/20805
Kingston New Format Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee, June 1998
Roads, Heatherton to be of a sufficiently large scale to warrant a Special Use zone, particularly it is difficult to properly determine the underlying zoning.
The Manual to the VPPs acknowledges that a Special Use zone may be appropriate for some utility installations depending upon their character and extent. It says:
A Special Use Zone should only be applied where the utility installation occupies such a large area that the adjoining zoning is inappropriate (such as a large site in a residential area).
The Manual does not indicate what constitutes "large" and the Panel considers this to be very subjective and subject to value judgements, which may vary from municipality to municipality. Hence there is bound to be inconsistencies in the way in which this could be interpreted and the Panel suggests that the Department of Infrastructure revisit this aspect of the new format planning schemes. While this establishes the principle, it still leaves room for judgement as to what constitutes a large site and when the adjoining zoning is considered to be inappropriate. In this regard the Panel has formed the view that the terminal station located at the corner of Warrigal and Kingston Roads, Heatherton should be included in the Special Use zone with an appropriate schedule.
The Panel recommends that the exhibited Public Use zones for all sites be removed from all of the above sites and be replaced with the following:
• Site a): Industrial I zone • Site b): Industrial I zone • Site c): Residential I zone • Site d): Residential 1 zone • Site e): Residential 1 zone • Site f): Special Use zone.
Further the Panel recommends that the Department of Infrastructure provide additional advice to Councils and utility providers on the most appropriate designation of zones where they are deemed to be "large".
SUBMISSION NO: 153 Submittor: SJB Planning on behalf of Reg Hunt Pty Ltd Location: 970 Nepean Highway, Moorabbin Existing Zone: Light Industrial Exhibited Zone: Business 4 zone Requested Zone: Mixed Use zone
Summary of Submission: The submission objects to the proposed Business 4 zoning and requests the application of a Mixed Use zone to the site.
132 18/20805 Kingston New Format Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee, June 1998
Strategic Assessment: The site is presently occupied by Reg Hunt Holden, and is surrounded by a range of light industrial and public uses. Under the new planning scheme Council has proposed to include the site within a Business 4 zoning, which is broadly consistent with Council's MSS and represents a reasonably direct translation of the existing zone provisions affecting the site. The submittor has proposed the application of a Mixed Use Zone to the site to enable part of the site to be used for residential purposes. It is argued that this zone would support State Government objectives for urban consolidation and the provision of a range of dwelling types in close proximity to an established activity centre.
The proposal to apply a Mixed Use zone to the site is not supported by Council as part of the reform scheme process, as it is considered to represent a significant change to the zoning and strategic objectives for the area. The Mixed Use zoning principally represents a residential zoning, and Council would therefore be required to review its strategic objectives for this area prior to contemplating such a significant zone change.
Council has advised the submittor that it may give consideration to the request as a separate amendment to the new planning scheme. It is noted however that the location of the site adjacent to a railway line, existing industry and other major commercial activities would necessarily limit the opportunities for residential development on this site.
Council Comment and Recommendation: • No change to exhibited zoning.
Panel Comment and Recommendation: The Panel considers that this is a proposal that warrants greater strategic consideration and this process is not able to contribute to that more detailed strategic assessment. The proposal may have some merit but the issues need to be fully explored by Council and other parties as part of a separate process. The Council has recognised that the request has some merit but it has also identified some locational constraints. The Panel supports the position of the Council in its consideration of this matter. It should be noted that the Panel received a late written submission from the submittor on this matter which provided more detail on its proposal. Such a major zoning change should be the subject of a full amendment and exhibition process, with proper consideration of all issues. This planning scheme review is not the mechanism to do this, particularly as the site was not exhibited as Mixed Use.
The Panel recommends no change to the exhibited Planning Scheme arising from this submission however it supports the exhibition of an amendment to rezone the site to Mixed Use subsequent to this process.
SUBMISSION NO: 154 Submittor: Freehill Hollingdale and Page on behalf of Lend Lease Pty Ltd Location: Westfield Shoppingtown Southland
133 18/20805 Kingston New Format Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee, June 1998
1156 and 1239 Nepean Highway, Cheltenham Existing Zone: Cheltenham District Centre Zone No. 7 Exhibited Zone/Overlay: Business 1 zone with Development Plan overlay (DP01)
Summary of Submission: The submission requests that the schedule to the Business 1 zone be modified to specify a maximum leasable shop floor area for the Westfield Southland Shopping centre, to reflect the provisions of the existing site specific controls for Westfield as contained in the current Kingston Planning Scheme.
Strategic Assessment: The exhibited schedule to the Development Plan Overlay (DP01) for Westfield Southland currently provides that except with a permit, the gross floor area of buildings on the land must not exceed 108,000m2. This represents a direct translation of the existing site specific provisions for Westfield as contained in the current planning scheme.
Upon review of the schedule it is considered that the Business 1 zone schedule offers a more appropriate mechanism to deal with floor space limitations in the planning scheme. The request by the submittor to specify the current floor space limitation for Westfield in the schedule to the Business 1 zone is therefore considered appropriate. Accordingly the floor space requirement should be removed from the schedule to the Development Plan Overlay.
The submission points out that the existing floor area requirements for Southland currently relate to 'gross leasable floor area,' a term which has been superseded in the VPP standard definitions by 'leasable floor area.' Council has examined the two definitions and considers that the existing 108,000 m2 GLFA limit in the current scheme reasonably equates with a 108,000 m2 leasable floor area requirement for inclusion in the schedule to the Business 1 zone. The submission also makes a number of comments in respect to the standard provisions of the Development Plan Overlay as contained in the VPPs. It is noted that the suggested modifications to the standard VPP overlay provisions are beyond the scope of Council's consideration.
Council Comment and Recommendation: • Specify maximum leasable floor area for shop in schedule to the Business 1 zone. (108,000m2).
Panel Comment and Recommendation: The comments and recommendations of the Panel to Submission No 109 apply to this submission.
4.8 Other Submissions
In addition to the listed submissions, the Panel heard an additional submission from Mr Mann who currently has property in the Heatherton area. He was seeking a rezoning from the exhibited Rural zone to a Residential 1 zone, on the basis that his property
134 18/20805 Kingston New Format Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee, June 1998
comprises land which he submitted was non viable agricultural land. The Panel could not support this submission for the reasons that it has given in its introduction to Section 4.5.
A further late submission was received by Councillor Salisbury who made a number of points about environmental issues. The Panel is satisfied that the Kingston Planning Scheme responds well to environmental issues, and that the MSS in particular picks up on key environmental themes. The work that Council is undertaking as part of its Foreshore Study will also add to that. Indeed it is important to recognise that in each of its eight Core Land Use elements, Council has provided a statement about Environmental Social and Economic issues which underpin each of these elements. ,
135 18/20805
Kingston New Format Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee, June 1998
5. AIRPORT ENVIRONS OVERLAY
5.1 Introduction and Background
Moorabbin Airport is a well established General Aviation (GA) airport with 5 runways and a substantial network of taxiways, aprons, and helicopter landing sites. It is the third busiest airport in Australia. In 1997 there were 363,000 aircraft movements, with the peak being in 1989 with 402,000 movements. It has been estimated that 523,000 aircraft movements is the practical limit of the airport, although a theoretical limit of 686,000 GA movements and 11,000 commuter aircraft movements was indicated by the Port Phillip Region Airport and Airspace Study in 1991.
A distinguishing feature of Moorabbin Airport is that eighty percent of its movements are related to pilot training, which involves student pilots undertaking touch and go manoeuvres and circuits of the airport. This results in concentrated aircraft activity in the near vicinity of the airport, which is a source of annoyance to local residents. Moorabbin is the only GA airport in Australia which has Regular Public Transport services (RPT). Currently two airlines service mainland Tasmania, King, and Flinders Islands transporting approximately 35,000 passengers per year.
The Federal Aviation Corporation (FAC) is planning for likely services to destinations such as Sydney, Adelaide, Canberra and Tasmania using aircraft ranging from Turbo prop aircraft (40 seats) to regional jets such as the SAAB or the BAE 146 (60 - 80 seats). For such services to be viable, the use of such jet aircraft as the BAE 146 will be necessary. Currently the runways are unable to accommodate BAE 146 aircraft, but runway 17L/35R could be lengthened to accommodate such aircraft.
The contribution that Moorabbin Airport makes to the local and regional economies is well recognised. The value of existing infrastructure, both public and private, is approximately $44 million. There are approximately 70 businesses operating from the airport employing approximately 750 people. Of these, 59 are aviation oriented (eg flying schools, charter, aircraft maintenance, RPT). Moorabbin, Cheltenham, and Dandenong are important manufacturing areas, and the south eastern suburbs are experiencing an increasing number of office and industrial. park type developments. This, together with the fact that the demographic centre of Melbourne is nearby, makes the location of Moorabbin Airport strategically significant.
The Steering Committee reporting to the Commonwealth and Victorian Governments on airports and airspace in the Port Phillip region, recommended that Moorabbin Airport • continue in its existing role in the region as a primary focus for medium and light air transport and general aviation. (Port Phillip Region, Airport and Airspace Study).
As mentioned in Section 1, there was a separate process for notification and receipt of submissions about the proposed controls and the Panel is satisfied that the community was provided with sufficient opportunity in which to respond. As a result of the submissions, FAC sought ways to reduce the noise impacts over residential areas, particularly north west of the airport, where increased noise could occur as a result of the
136 18/20805
Kingston New Format Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee, June 1998
introduction of the added RPT services. The means used to reduce the noise impacts on the residential areas was:
• the proposed use of the turbo-prop SAAB 2000 aircraft for 3500 RPT movements was replaced by a similar amount of BAE 146 movements ie to 12,500. • the flight path for BAe146 aircraft taking off to the north-west on Runway 35L was changed to introduce a 15 degree turn to the right immediately after take off to reduce the noise impacts in the Farm Road area.
The ANEF was modified to take these changes into account. It has subsequently been certified by Commonwealth Air Services Australia (CASA) and is now the official ANEF for Moorabbin Airport.
5.2 Aircraft Noise Assessment
(i) The ANEF System
The method used in Australia for assessment of aircraft noise in the vicinity of airports and land use planning in relation to that noise is the Australian Noise Exposure Forecast (ANEF) system. It comprises two distinct components:
• the evaluation of aircraft noise exposure around an airport, and • the application of that noise exposure in determining compatible land uses.
The ANEF chart is a map showing contours of aircraft noise exposure around an airport. The noise exposure is due to an average days aircraft movements calculated over a 9-12 month period. The noise exposure levels take into account:
• the sound level, frequency spectrum and duration of the noise produced by each aircraft type of each phase of the take off or landing procedure; • the location of flight paths associated with each runway; • the forecast number of movements by each aircraft type on each flight path, and the operating weight of the aircraft; and • the time of day or night at which the aircraft movement takes place.
The result of the ANEF calculations is a set of contours joining points of equal aircraft noise exposure around the airport.
(ii) Australian Standard A52021
The second part of the ANEF system is the use of the calculated noise exposures to determine compatible land uses around an airport. The procedures for use of the ANEF system and the land use compatibility recommendations are contained in Australian Standard AS2021-1994 Acoustics - Aircraft Noise Intrusion - Building Siting and Construction
137 18/20805 Kingston New Format Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee, June 1998
In 1982 the National Acoustics Laboratory published its results of a major socio- acoustic investigation to assess the impact of aircraft noise on residential communities in Australia. Personal interviews were conducted with residents around the major airports in Sydney, Adelaide, Perth and Melbourne and the RAAF base at Richmond.
From the social survey responses and noise exposure data which was collected, a dose response curve was derived. That curve which is reproduced in A52021, shows for each ANEF noise level the percentage of the community which will be moderately or seriously affected by aircraft noise. At the 20 ANEF level, about 44% of the population will be moderately affected and about 10% will be seriously affected. At the 25 ANEF level about 55% of the population will be moderately affected and about 20% will be seriously affected.
A520201 recommends that sites below 20 ANEF are acceptable for all building types. Between 20 and 25 ANEF, sites became conditional for the most noise - sensitive building types (residential, schools, hospitals). Above 25 ANEF is rated as unacceptable for the construction of the building types. Above 35 ANEF, sites are treated as unacceptable for the construction of all building types other than industrial buildings.
For sites rated conditional for residential use, A52021 advises land use authorities to incorporate noise control features in the construction of residences. The acceptability criteria are by necessity a compromise between minimising the number of people who will be affected by the noise, and minimising the amount of land for which the potential uses are restricted.
The Australian standard urges caution in the evaluation of locations using the 20 ANEF contour, and in that context makes particular mention of airports at which a significant number of training circuits occur. This is due principally due to the positioning of flight paths being less accurately shown as a result of the inexperience of trainee pilots deviating from designated courses.
5.3 Planning Framework
(i) State Planning Policy Framework
The SPPF covers strategic issues of State importance, comprising general principles for land use and development and specific policies, including clause 18.04 Airfields.
Clause 18.04 Air Fields
The objective of this clause is:
To facilitate the siting of airfields and extensions to airfields, restrict incompatible land use and development in the vicinity of airfields, and recognise and strengthen the role of airfields as focal points within the State's economic and transport infrastructure.
138 18/20805 Kingston New Format Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee, June 1998
This is a broad objective, and contemplates not only the siting of new airfields, but facilitates extensions to existing airfields. General implementation principles relevant to the present circumstances include:
• Planning for areas around airfields should: - Preclude any new use or development which could prejudice the safety or efficiency of an airfield. - Take into account the detrimental effects of aircraft operations (such as noise) in regulating and restricting the use and development of affected land. - Preclude any new use or development which could prejudice future extensions to an existing airfield or aeronautical operation in accordance with an approved strategy or Master Plan for that airfield.
These provisions are sufficiently wide to justify controls on existing residential development, and even extensions to existing development.
(ii) Municipal Strategic Statement and Local Policy Planning Framework
The MSS recognises the importance of Moorabbin Airport when it states:
The city's regional prominence is also heightened by the presence of the Moorabbin Airport, which is recognised as the third busiest airport in Australia
The potential for the airport to expand is also acknowledged:
Centrally located in the non urban area is the Moorabbin Airport, which is likely to grow in its significance to the region, depending on the future role of "Essendon Airport".
Moorabbin Airport is recognised as a core non-urban land use and the MSS identifies the interface between residential development and the airport as a key issue for Kingston:
In those residential areas which share an interface with environmentally sensitive areas or particular special uses, including the foreshore environment, the non urban interface and the Moorabbin airport, it is important that new residential development acknowledges the unique constraints of these areas.
Another stated key issue for Kingston is:
Residential encroachment around Moorabbin Airport and changes in nearby land use have also brought about conflict at the airport interface. It is considered that the airport due to its major impact on the regional economy needs to be adequately protected to ensure it can develop to reach its full potential without adversely affecting current activities, and as such any
139 18/20805 Kingston New Format Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee, June 1998
opportunities for further residential development in this area are necessarily limited.
The section of the MSS relating to Non-Urban Land contains core objectives for Moorabbin Airport:
• Protection of the Moorabbin Airport flight paths and their immediate environs from development or use which may compromise the long term viability of the airport or prejudice its safety and efficiency; • Reservation of suitable buffers at the Moorabbin Airport interface and in any surrounding areas likely to be affected by high levels of aircraft noise, to minimise its impact on surrounding uses and the overall health and welfare of the community.
The Panel considers that the role of the Airport to the economy of Kingston has perhaps been understated in the MSS and the Panel considers that additional comments could be included in Economic and Core Objectives sections of Element 8 (Non Urban Land) to reinforce Councils objectives for balancing the needs of both the airport and the surrounding residential areas through more integrated and responsible planning, including improved management strategies. Further the MSS could include additional strategies relating to the introduction of planning provisions and policies to recognise noise affected areas around the airport.
The LPPF contains a Non Urban Land Policy and Clause 22.04-2 states that within non- urban land it is policy that:
The Moorabbin Airport should be protected from development in the vicinity of its flight paths which may compromise the continuing viability of the airport and its potential for further expansion.
It is significant that clause 22.04-2 seeks to protect the airport from development which may compromise its potential for future expansion but the MSS needs to articulate this better through the specific objectives, strategies and policies.
5.4 The Proposed Moorabbin Airport Controls
Following the FAC's request to incorporate the revised AEO controls into the Kingston Planning Scheme, Council resolved to support an Airport Environs Overlay shown as AE01 with the controls as set out in Schedule 1 based on the 25 ANEF contour. Subject to cadastral adjustments the AE01 overlay boundaries coincide with ANEF contours 20 and 25 for residential land use as required by Australian Standard A52021.
(i) Clause 45.02 - Airport Environs Overlay
The purpose of the AEO is:
140 18/20805
Kingston New Format Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee, June 1998
• To implement the State Planning Policy Framework and the Local Planning Policy Framework, including the Municipal Strategic Statement and local planning policies. • 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 the safe air navigation for aircraft approaching and departing the
• To assist in shielding people from the impact of aircraft noise by requiring appropriate noise attention 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.
The AEO requires that any new building must be constructed so as to comply with any noise attenuation measures required by Section 3 of Australian Standard AS 2021. A permit is required to subdivide land and must be referred to the airport owner under section 55 of the Planning and Environment Act unless otherwise exempt. Decision guidelines include:
• Whether the proposal will result in an increase in the number of dwellings and people affected by aircraft noise. • Whether the proposal is compatible with the present and future operation of the airport in accordance with the appropriate airport strategy or master plan. • Whether the design of the building incorporate appropriate noise attenuation measures. • The views of the airport owner.
The Airport Environs Overlay contains two schedules, AE01 and AE02. AE01 normally applies to land between Australian Noise Exposure Forecasts contours 25 and 3, whilst AE02 applies to land between 15-20 ANEF contours. In AE01, regardless of the zone provisions, land must not be used for sensitive uses such as childcare centre, school or hospital. A permit is required for a number of nominated uses including dwelling, hotel, office and residential hotel. All applications to use land under this overlay must be referred to the airport owner. In areas shown as AE01 only one dwelling per lot will be permitted.
Overlay control AE02 does not prohibit any land uses within AE02 (apart from uses which are prohibited by the relevant zone controls). Where a permit is required for certain land uses under the relevant zone provisions in an AE02 area, applications must be referred to the airport owner for approval. The AE02 control does not impose restrictions on the use or development of single dwellings on land zoned for residential purposes.
141 18/20805
Kingston New Format Planning Scheme ri Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee, June 1998
No compensation rights exist as a result of the introduction of the proposed overlay control.
(ii) Moorabbin Airport Environs Policy
Subsequent to the re-exhibition of the Planning Scheme, Council resolved to insert Clause 22.05 Moorabbin Airport Environs Policy into the scheme based on the 20 ANEF contour, instead of applying an AE02. Unlike the AE02 control, it would not impose any additional construction costs on extensions or modifications to existing residential properties. The policy does however require any new developments within the contour to meet A52021 standards. Council took the view that AE02 contains several requirements which are unacceptable because:
• the AE02 overlay requires referral to a private corporation for comment. • the control requires new buildings to comply with AS2021 yet neither Council nor building surveyors have the skills to ensure compliance. • the control is poorly drafted and difficult to enforce. • extensions or renovations to existing dwellings would have to comply with AS2021m regardless of whether the existing structure was noise attenuated.
The Policy objectives are:
• To ensure that land use in areas of significant air craft noise impact are recognised and managed so that the impacts on the city's residents are minimised and the effective operation of the Airport is maintained. • To ensure that the development and effective operation of Moorabbin Airport and its surrounding environs protects its role as an economic asset for Victoria and Kingston.
The list of sensitive uses in the Policy are identical to the ones listed in AE02 but the decision guidelines in assessing permit applications differ slightly. The present and future airport operations must be considered in accordance with the approved ANEF's (not in accordance with the appropriate airport strategy or master plan as required by AE02). Council is required to consider the views of the Federal Department of Transport, not the views of the airport owner.
The local policy also provides for all rate notices to contain an advice that:
the property is in the vicinity of Moorabbin Airport. The City of Kingston has a local policy, the Moorabbin Airport Environs Policy at Clause 22 of the Kingston Planning Scheme which is relevant to this property.
The proposed Moorabbin Airport Environs Policy makes it quite clear that between 15 ANEF - 20 ANEF contours new buildings should be constructed to comply with As2021, but specifically excludes extensions and modifications to existing dwellings. The main difference between the Policy and AE02 is that the policy does not apply to extensions and/or modifications to dwellings that were in existence at the approval date
142 18/20805
Kingston New Format Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee, June 1998
of this scheme. However new buildings will only have to comply with AS2021 under the policy when a planning permit is required for use. Therefore, all as of right uses in the R1 zone including new dwellings will not be caught by AS 2021.
(iii) Height Controls
Currently building heights around airports are regulated by the Civil Aviation (Building Control) Regulations. The problem is that these Regulations are not well known and may be easily overlooked. The FAC proposed a Design and Development Overlay which sets out the height controls contained in the Regulations. This will ensure that these height controls are publicly available and known, and can be used to ensure compliance with the height controls with one small exception. Council supports the height controls as proposed by the FAC. On 2 April 1998 Council resolved to introduce height controls within the municipality to protect the safety and efficiency of the Airport through a Design and Development Overlay.
The overlay controls are based on maps which show areas within which permits would be required for uses on developments which are proposed to exceed the specified heights. Developments which exceed the specified heights shown on the maps require planning approval and referral to the Federal Department of Transport.
5.5 Key Issues and Response to Submissions
Unlike the other sections of this report where each submission is dealt with on an individual basis, the Panel has dealt with the submissions about the proposed overlay controls on an issues basis.
Concerns Relating to the Existing Operations of Moorabbin Airport
Many submittors used the current process as a forum to express their dissatisfaction with the current operations of the airport. Increasing noise levels, frequency or constancy of the aircraft noise, low flying, safety concerns and frustration from what residents saw as a lack of response to their complaints by Council and FAC were issues sought to be raised by submittors. The airport is located on land owned by the Federal Government and is currently exempt from state and local planning and environmental controls.
There is little this Panel can do about the submissions relating to the existing operations of the airport. The airport is an existing use, and not subject to State Planning controls. Such submissions go beyond the Panel's Terms of Reference. The conduct of the operation of the airport is germane and is an important issue which should be rigorously pursued in the development of the proposed airport Master Plan.
(ii) The Appropriateness of ANEF Contours
Dr J Spencer and Mr P Soding challenged the use of the ANEF contours as a basis for imposing land use controls. They pointed to "the sheer fickleness of these contours and some flawed suppositions they are based on". AS2021 acknowledges that there are -
143 18/20805
Kingston New Format Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee, June 1998
some limitations to the ANEF system but it is the basis of the current Australian Standard. The Moorabbin Airport ANEF has now been formally certified and according to A52021, the ANEF chart is the only chart which is intended to have status in land use planning decisions. Its use is specifically required by the Airport Environs Overlay and therefore the Panel must accept the validity of the certified ANEF. Its application, and the assumptions on which it is based is another matter.
Moorabbin Airport Residents Association (MARA) submitted that it is inappropriate to use imprecise ANEF data to impose finite and financially damaging planning controls on existing residents when it is unnecessary. Mr Soding contended there is a fundamental flaw in the policy whose basis is a noise footprint which is generated by an aircraft which is not able to operationally use Moorabbin Airport.
These submissions overlook:
• Clause 18.04 of SPPF which requires that planning around all airfields should: — preclude any new use or development which could prejudice future extensions to an existing airfield or aeronautical operations in accordance with an approved strategy or master plan for that airfield. • Clause 22.05-2 of the LPPF which requires the responsible authority take into account the present and future airport operations in accordance with the approved ANEF. • Clause 45.02 of the LPPF which requires the responsible authority when deciding on a permit application to consider whether the proposal is compatible with the present and future operation of the airport in accordance with the appropriate airport strategy or master plan.
All of these clauses contain requirements that not only the current use and operation of the airport, but also the future operation of the airport be considered in making land use decisions. Therefore, even though BAE1466 jet aircraft do not currently use Moorabbin Airport it is conceivable, (and possible) that some time in the future they may (wish to) use the airport and therefore SPPF requires that planning should take that factor into account. To do otherwise would be to permit development which could preclude jet use of the airport in the future. The rationale for this policy is the practical difficulty of finding suitable new sites for airports.
The airport should be protected where possible against constraint on the future use of the airport to the detriment of the important role it plays at a local and regional level.
Dr Spencer argued that the ANEF assumes greater traffic volumes than the new lease holder expects and assumes a different mix of aircraft. In support of this conclusion a letter dated 3 March 1998 from Mainland Properties Pty. Ltd., the new operator of the airport to MARA was tabled. The letter states:
It is not our intention to extend runways necessary to permit jets to land at the airport and this has been confirmed to Council Officers and the Mayor today.
144 18/20805
Kingston New Format Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee, June 1998
That may not remain the leaseholders position in the future. There is ample strategic support for protecting the future operations of the airport by imposing controls now. The airport, due to its major impact on the regional economy needs to be protected to ensure that it can develop to reach its full potential without adversely affecting activities which can be avoided.
(iii) The Proposed Controls are Premature
In accordance with section 71(2) of the Commonwealth Airports Act 1996, the new operator of the airport is required to produce an Airport Master Plan which offers an opportunity to develop a strategy plan which facilitates development and formally documents the controls relating to published development strategies. This process incorporates an integrated approach to planning for the airport involving State and Local Government, the aviation industry and the community in its preparation and review. Essentially, the Master Plan will be an airport planning scheme in the VPP format, including an airport strategic statement and the application of zones and overlays.
The Master Plan is a document which will detail progressive planning options for the airport. In order for it to be a truly integrated document it will need to reflect State planning, zoning and development legislation, refer to relevant State and Local Government Strategies and provide a regional content to enable identification of complimentary opportunities that benefit both the airport and surrounding region. The Master Plan must specify:
• the lessees development objectives for the airport; • the lessee's assessment of the future needs of civil aviation users of the airport, and other users of the airport; • the lessees proposals for land use and related development of the airport site; • the lessees plans developed following consultations with the airlines that use the airport and local government bodies in the vicinity of the airport, for managing aircraft noise intrusion in areas forecast to be subject to exposure above the significant ANEF levels.
There is quite a detailed public consultative process associated with the development of a Master Plan which requires advertising and inviting members of the public to give written comments within 90 days after the publication of the notice. State and local governments and other airport users must be consulted.
If the lessee is planning a major airport development such as a runway extension, the Commonwealth Airports Act 1996 also requires the lessee to submit a major development plan to the Minister. The requirements for public comment, ministerial approval and publications of the approved major development plan are similar to those relating to airport master plans.
It was contended by a number of submittors that the AEO controls should not be adopted pending the production of a master plan as required by Section 71 of Commonwealth Airports Act 1996 and the purposes of the overlay itself which includes
145 18/20805
Kingston New Format Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee, June 1998
a decision guideline that the responsible authority must consider whether a proposal is in accordance with the appropriate airport strategy or master plan.
Mr Soding submitted that the proposed planning scheme proposes what is in effect an extension to the airport without the benefit of an approved strategy plan or master plan for the airfield. He said it is incumbent to have in place an approved strategy or master plan prior to proposing an amendment that may seriously prejudice residentially zoned and developed land.
Preparing a master plan without any parameters in place could lead to a situation more detrimental to the residential amenity of the existing areas than is currently proposed under AE01. The Panel prefers the approach suggested by both Council and FAC. The ANEF will provide the parameters within which the airport operator will have to operate the airport and thus the master plan. The Panel considers that it is preferable that the planning context be in place to guide the limits of the master plan.
The approved ANEF should not be seen as pre-empting an expansion of the activities at Moorabbin airport. The Panel agrees with Mr Lonie when he said:
The increase in air traffic at Moorabbin can occur whether or not the AEO controls are included in the Planning Scheme. What it is doing is seeking to include a mechanism in the new Planning Scheme which recognises the role and importance of Moorabbin the likelihood that there will be an increase in air traffic, and to provide a mechanism in the Planning Scheme to both recognise this and deal with it.
In any event, increasing air traffic movements as proposed will not significantly alter the ANEF contours. There is little change in the contours with increasing the light aircraft movements from 370,000 a year to 530,000 a year. Similarly the introduction of 12,500 RPT's movements per year do not change the contours significantly. The contour caused by the BAe146 movements extends the contour slightly to the north west and south east of the airport essentially over non urban land. Changes from the initial FAC proposal to incorporate a 15 degree turn to the right in a northerly take off on runway 31L, has minimised properties included in the ANEF contours.
(iv) Applicability of Airport Environs Overlay to Kingston
A more difficult issue raised by submittors was whether the Airport Environs Overlay should be applied to developed residential areas. It was submitted that clause 18.04 SPPF does not deal adequately with a situation where existing airport and residential uses coexist. The core strategies of the MSS relate to residential development in the non urban area rather than land currently zoned and developed for residential purposes. MARA claims it is unfair to suddenly impose controls and restrictions on private property that has co-existed with the airport since its inception. MARA recommended that the AEO apply only to the development of newly subdivided vacant land or subdivisions with less than 50% of the land developed. MARA contended that the AEO should not apply to existing domestic buildings or their modification, otherwise compensation should be paid. MARA argued that EA0 (clause 45.02) should apply only to greenfield sites. They asserted:
146 18/20805
Kingston New Format Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee, June 1998
The above contention is supported by logic. The application of the ANEF contours to existing developed or substantially developed sites leads to ridiculous outcomes which are a triumph of form over substance. If the few vacant blocks in a substantially developed residential area have homes constructed under the proposed AE01 controls, the owners will have visited upon them substantial expense for noise attenuation works only to live 'cheek by jowl' with neighbours who have no such noise attenuation improvements. If the new homes are only fit for habitation within the 25 contour with the required noise attenuation modifications, it is patently illogical to allow existing residents to live in homes without such modifications. Similarly, if it is acceptable for existing residents to live without such noise attenuation facilities then it is patently ridiculous to impose additional costs on new homes added to a well developed area or to extensions and modifications to existing homes. Furthermore, in Australian conditions, doors and windows will be open for a large part of the year which will largely negate the noise attenuation measures. This, together with outdoor activity, will equalise conditions between "new" and "old" residences.
On similar reasoning, it is illogical that extensions to existing homes require noise attenuation measures.
A note in AS2021 reads:
the land use recommendations in Table 2.1 are most readily applicable to new development on undeveloped land around aerodromes. In those areas around some of the major Australian airports where established residential development has existed for some considerable time, it is generally not feasible to apply appropriate land use criteria unless the opportunity for rezoning of individual properties arises.
An argument could be made that clause 18.04-2 is directed towards the control of new use or development which could prejudice the safety or efficiency of an air field, or prejudice future extensions. However, the second dot point reads:
Take into account the detrimental effects of aircraft operations (such as noise) in regulating and restricting the use and development of affected land.
This direction can easily be applied to existing residential development and so justify the application of noise attenuation measures to existing dwellings. Although one of the purposes of the Airport Environs Overlay is:
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,
The second purpose of the Airport Environs Overlay states:
147 18/20805
Kingston New Format Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee, June 1998
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 need to be restricted.
This clearly contemplates that both existing and future uses of land sensitive to aircraft noise will need to be restricted. Although the second dot point in clause 18.04.2 allows controls on existing residential development and extensions to existing houses, the question remains whether it is fair to do so. (Most of the Airport Policy is directed towards new use or development).
The Report of the Senate Select Committee on Aircraft Noise in Sydney in its report 'Falling on Deaf Ears' observes at page 177:
Other significant factors which affect noise impact include attitudes to the source of a noise, familiarity with the noise, personal characteristics of the individuals exposed to the noise, the activities being disturbed and the level of background noise. The introduction of a new noise source into a relatively quiet area might be expected to have a greater impact. The introduction of a noise source of which people "approve" might be expected to have a lower impact.
Mr Osborne gave evidence that in one year, the FAC had received 59 complaints about aircraft noise. The Panel suspects that this low level of complaint indicates that existing residents have got used to aircraft noise, and have learned to cope with it. Alternatively, they may feel powerless to change the situation and have stopped complaining. The National Acoustic Laboratory's findings of a community survey published in 1982 included:
whether or not an individual takes active complaint action against noise is a poor guide to the extent to which s/he is affected; willingness to complain appears to be related to socio-economic variables. (page 182 Falling on Deaf Ears).
The introduction of a new noise source in a quiet area will have a greater impact on residents than a similar noise source in a noisy environment. The NAL's survey results seem to suggest that persons newly subjected to a given noise source will generally have a higher level of annoyance than persons who are used to such noise. In the Panel's opinion it is preferable that the residents of new buildings have the protection which the standard provides. It will eliminate the possibility of a groundswell of new residents commencing a movement against the airport operations. Furthermore, over a period of time as existing housing stock is replaced, all dwellings within AE01 will eventually be noise attenuated.
There is no reason why new buildings in existing developed areas subject to AE01 should not incorporate noise protection in accordance within AS 2021, just as new buildings have to comply with improved standards in other areas.
(v) The Scope of the Airport Environs Overlay Control is Too Wide
148 18/20805
Kingston New Format Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee, June 1998
Mr O'Leary, who appeared for Pioneer (Vic) Pty Ltd argued that whilst the intent of the AEO control is to protect residents from aircraft noise, the overlays could be construed as an opportunity to control operations of non residential uses and development such as a landfill or extractive industry. The third purpose of the AEO is:
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.
Mr O'Leary said this raises the objection to the use of ANEF contours to provide AEO boundaries in which to control airport issues other than noise. The Panel notes that although the AEO is generally directed towards controlling noise sensitive uses in the vicinity of the airport it is not limited to noise issues. It should be noted that the first purpose of the AEO is:
to implement the State Planning Policy Framework and the Local Planning Policy Framework including the Municipal Strategic Statement and local planning policies.
Clearly this is far wider than noise issues and includes notions of compatibility between land uses, orderly and proper planning. The Panel agrees with Mr Lonie that the use of the ANEF plan is a useful and convenient method of identifying those areas where issues in relation to the impact of use and development on airport operations should be considered.
(vi) The Airport Owner as Referral Authority
All applications to subdivide land in an AE01 area are required to be referred to the airport owner under section 55 of the Planning and Environment Act. In addition, applications for a number of specified noise sensitive uses must also be referred to the airport owner. Before deciding on any other application the responsible authority must consider the views of the airport owner.
Many submittors complained that it was inappropriate for a private company to be making comments as a referral authority on land use decisions. Mr Soding submitted that it is not clear how the public interest will be served by a private operator to act as a referral authority.
It is unclear whether the term "airport owner" means the registered proprietor of the land on which the airport is situated, or whether it extends to the lessee of the airport business. This ambiguity in the AEO should be clarified by an amendment to the VPPs. In practice, the FAC will be given an opportunity to comment on land use proposals within the overlay areas to ensure that they are compatible with the operation of the airport.
The Panel considers that it is inappropriate for a private commercial entity to have referral status, which it could exercise in the context of narrow commercial interests, and exclude legitimate community interests. The Panel wholly supports Council in calling for clause 45.02-3 to be amended to require referral to the Federal Department of
149 18/20805
Kingston New Format Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee, June 1998
transport and Regional Development. Similarly in Schedule 1 and 2 to the AEO, the referral authority should be the Federal Department of Transport and Regional Development. There is little the Panel can do to change the content of the Overlay, but recommends that this issue be referred to the Department of Infrastructure and be included in the next revue of the VPPs.
(vii) Fall in Property Values
A number of submittors asserted that the introduction of the proposed controls in particular would result in a fall in property values. This assertion is based on the belief that the controls will intensify the existing airport use, and hence expose them to increasing levels of noise, reducing amenity, and thereby price. Secondly, the requirement contained in the Moorabbin Airport Environs Policy that rate notices contain an advice that the property is in the vicinity of the airport will act as a disincentive to potential purchasers.
The proposed controls do nothing to intensify the existing use of the airport, they simply control land use around the airport. Use of Moorabbin Airport will intensify regardless of whether the proposed controls are in place.
It is most unlikely that the advice on rate notices will be the factor which alerts prospective purchasers to the fact that the subject property is in the vicinity of Moorabbin Airport, and is therefore in itself unlikely to have any additional influence on them. In the absence of any credible evidence on the question of the impact of the proposed controls on property values, the Panel is unable to form any views on this matter.
(viii) Airport Environs Overlay 2 v Moorabbin Airport Environs Policy
Australian Standard A52021 contemplates, in its simplest form, the use of the 20 ANEF and 25 ANEF contours as the basis for land use controls. The recent revision of the VPPs introduced a revised Airport Environs Policy supported by two schedules based on the above mentioned ANEF contours. The problem with AE02 is that it is inflexible. Any extensions to an existing dwelling in AE02 would require noise attenuation. This is an unreasonable requirement and would serve no useful purpose in the absence of Council having the power to require noise attenuation in all existing dwellings.
Council claims that it does not have the expertise to determine compliance with A52021. The Panel notes that Council will not be able to avoid this responsibility because it will be obliged to determine such compliance in regard to new dwellings within the AE01 area. The Panel doubts that A52021 could ever be complied with where noise attenuated additions are made to existing dwellings which do not have noise attenuation. This would give rise to insurmountable difficulties in relation to enforcement.
The other problem with AE02 is that it requires referral to the airport owner, which in the opinion of Council, many submittors, and the Panel is inappropriate. For these reasons, Council is proposing a local policy instead of AE02. The FAC considers that the use of AE02 is preferable to the policy because it is the format adopted by the
150 18/20805 Kingston New Format Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee, June 1998
Minister for Planning in V3, but indicated that it would support the use of the Policy if that was the Panel's preference.
Ms Katz said that a policy would not have the same status of an overlay in the eyes of potential home purchasers, but acknowledged that the policy would be a feasible alternative to the AE02 overlay. In this case, Council prefers to use a policy which responds to the SPPF, and the MSS, and is consistent with AS2021. With the use of the policy, residents are not made to bear the brunt of controls which benefit the airport.
The Airport Environs Policy does not make it mandatory to apply AE02 with AE01 although this was clearly contemplated. There is no technical reason why a local policy could not be used to achieve the same purposes as AE02, nor would the technique be contrary to AS2021.
The VPPs provide sufficient flexibility to enable Council to achieve a particular outcome via a number of different techniques. Council has sound reasons for not wishing to implement an AE02 control. There is no reason why a policy cannot be used in these circumstances. Accordingly, the Panel endorses Council's approach of using an Airport Environs Policy in the place of an AE02.
(ix) Sale of Moorabbin Airport
The Panel was advised that the lease of Moorabbin Airport had recently been sold to Metropolitan Airports Corporation Pty. Ltd. The Panel considers that the sale of the airport is not a relevant planning issue. It is the existence of the airport rather than the question of who uses or manages it which is relevant in land use terms In any event, the sale of the airport will trigger the need for a master plan which will result in additional control over the use of the airport following a consultative process.
(x) Compensation
A number of submittors suggested that they be compensated for the increase in noise that will result from the certification of the new ANEF, and because of the requirement for noise attenuation which would increase building costs. submittors were also concerned that the advice shown on rate certificates would act as a disincentive to potential buyers resulting in loss of property values. The present controls provide no legal basis for compensation for loss of property values or noise attenuation costs. There is no right to compensation in the present circumstances.
(xi) Boundary Issues
The ANEF contours identify areas which may contain certain land uses which may require some protection from noise impacts.
Mr Montebello suggested that contours should not run through a lot. Rather they should either fully include or fully exclude a lot. Where the contour falls such as to include more than 50% of the land area within the overlay, the land should be totally included within the overlay and vice versa. Council's overlay maps have therefore been adjusted to take into account cadastral boundaries.
151 18/20805 Kingston New Format Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee, June 1998
An issue arose as to where the boundary of AE01 and the Moorabbin Airport Environs Policy area pass through one title, should the more restrictive provisions automatically apply. Clause 2.1.1 of AS2021 suggests that this is the approach to be taken. The Panel recommends that the boundaries of AE01 and the Moorabbin Airport Environs Policy be drawn accordingly.
5.6 Site Specific Issues
(i) Capital Golf Course
Clause 126-6B of the Kingston Planning Scheme is a site specific control relating to the Capital Golf Course which permits:
• an 18 hole golf course, practice fairways and greens, driving range and other golfing facilities; • a club house including bars, dining rooms and professional shop; • golf lodge units up to a maximum number of 195 units; • other ancillary facilities.
Clause 126-6B evolved out of two previous planning scheme amendments. Amendment L11 permitted a golf lodge providing temporary accommodation with a maximum of 200 bedrooms. Subsequent correspondence between the owner of the golf course and Council refers to "a resort type development" and "golf lodge units", although there is no indication in the correspondence that the accommodation would only be used for short term accommodation.
Although the earlier version of the proposed development clearly indicated the temporary nature of the accommodation, subsequent modifications made by Amendment L35 have made the nature of the accommodation proposed unclear, and reference to the units being for temporary accommodation was deleted. The end result is that there is considerable uncertainty about the definition of "golf lodge unit."
In the exhibited Planning Scheme, the golf course is included within a Special Use Zone covered by Schedule 2 of the (Schedule 1 - Private Golf Course). The golf course is also Development Plan Overlay which is merely a direct translation of the site specific provisions of clause 126-6B of the planning scheme. Council now proposes to translate the site specific control into a site specific consent at Clause 52.03 of the new Planning Scheme.
In order to take account of the new ANEF, an alternative proposal was suggested by the FAC. It was submitted that the Capital Golf Course be divided into 3 separate sections and:
• Within Area A housing would be prohibited. • Within Area B up to 195 residential golf lodge units, the occupation of which would be of a temporary nature and linked with the golf course, could be carried out without further planning permission.
152 18/20805
Kingston New Format Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee, June 1998
• Within Area C development not sensitive to aircraft noise and related to the use of the Club facilities would be allowed subject to a planning permit.
Given that the owner of the golf course was not present, and may not be aware of the FAC position, it would be a denial of natural justice for the Panel consider the FAC proposal further.
Translating clause 126-6B of the current planning scheme into a site specific clause as a schedule to clause 52.03 of the new planning scheme is appropriate given the unusual nature of the "residential" component in the overall development, the statutory framework within which the land lies, and the history of the development controls applicable to the site.
Adopting such a course however still leaves two unresolved issues. Firstly the term „golf lodge units" requires clarification, and secondly the need to relocate some of the existing approved golf lodge units to a more suitable location to take account of the new ANEF contours.
The Panel concurs with the responsible authority that the resolution of these issues is not easy. Questions of existing use rights, compensation and orderly and proper planning may arise. Council should continue its dialogue with the owner of the golf course in an endeavour to reach a negotiated settlement. If the matter cannot be resolved in this manner, then declaratory proceedings at the Administrative Appeals Tribunal will become necessary.
Kingston Centre
The Kingston Centre is on the corner of Kingston Road and Warrigal Road, Heatherton. The site contains the Kingston Centre, and the recently decommissioned Heatherton Hospital. The Kingston Centre is a facility delivering aged care services to the people of south east Melbourne, and is about to undergo extensive refurbishment. The Heatherton Hospital and the area of the site not required for the continued operation of the Kingston Centre total approximately 40 hectares. These lands have been designated as surplus to the Governments' operational requirements and will be disposed of by the Victorian Government Property Group (VGPG).
Consultants have been engaged to find the best land use options for the property. Preliminary assessment indicates that land of that area could result in a mix of uses with the potential for approximately 300 dwellings. VGPG fears that the impact of the airport overlay control may severely impact on the redevelopment potential of the land.
Under the 1977 ANEF which the Panel was advised was based on 500,000 aircraft movements, all of the former Heatherton Hospital and most of the Kingston Centre were within the 25ANEF contour, and some of the land currently being considered for residential development was in the 30 ANEF contour.
Within the proposed Kingston Planning Scheme the land is currently zoned PU23- Public Use Zone Health and Community. Within this zone a permit is not required to
153 18/20805 Kingston New Format Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee, June 1998
use land or construct a building or to construct or carry out works provided the use and works are related to health and community purposes.
Ms McCallum, who represented the Kingston Centre expressed concern that any redevelopment of the type proposed would require the acquiescence of the airport operator, and submitted that it is inappropriate for a tenant operating the airport to have this degree of control.
As most of the existing centre appears to be outside AE01, and a permit is not required under the zone control, no referral to the airport owner is required. Hence as far as the Kingston Centre's planned refurbishment is concerned, the Kingston Centre's concerns are groundless. Only part of the remainder of the site, not intended to be used by the Kingston Centre is within the 20 ANEF contour. The Moorabbin Airport Environs Policy will impact on the redevelopment potential of the land, but that is precisely what the Policy is designed to do.
If it is the intention of the owners to redevelop the site for residential uses, then they should be subject to the same constraints as any other property developer within the environs of the airport.
(iii) Pioneer Concrete (Vic) Pty. Ltd.
Mr O'Leary submitted that the Purpose and Decision Guidelines in clause 45-02 give substantial scope for the owner operator of the airport to extend its influence on planning decisions outside noise protection issues.
Pioneer is concerned that the owner of the airport will apply a broad interpretation of clause 45.02, and will seek to place restrictions on Pioneer's operations. Mr O'Leary contended that Clause 45.02 provides an opportunity for the airport owner to control the use and development of his client's land. This submission shows a misunderstanding of the Airport Environs Overlay.
Under AE01, the airport owner is a Section 55 referral authority only in the case of an application to subdivide land, or where a permit is required for designated sensitive uses such as dwelling, residential, hotel or office. It is proposed that Pioneer's land be included in a Special Use 2 zone to facilitate extractive industry. Under the Special Use 2 zone, any use or development ancillary to extractive industry does not require a permit. Therefore the airport owner would not be a referral authority for the uses contemplated by Pioneer and CSR.
In all other cases the overlay only requires the responsible authority to consider the views of the airport owner.
5.7 Conclusions
Residential encroachment around Moorabbin Airport has already brought about conflict at the airport interface. Delay in the introduction of controls will only exacerbate that
154 18/20805
Kingston New Format Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee, June 1998
situation. Therefore, there is no justification for the do nothing approach. The proposed suite Moorabbin Airport controls comprises:
• an Airport Environs Overlay 1; • Moorabbin Airport Environs Policy; and • Design & Development Overlay - Aviation Obstacle Referral and Height Area,
have compelling strategic justification. The State Planning Policy Framework, Municipal Strategic Statement, and Local Planning Policy Framework, each in their own way recognise the importance of Moorabbin Airport to the region's economy, and seek to protect the present and future use of the airport by precluding present and future use or development which could prejudice the safety, viability or efficiency of the airfield.
Although the general thrust of the package of controls sought are acceptable some refinement is necessary. Mr Montebello made a number of suggestions which he considered would improve the controls including:
• Modifying the Airport Environs Overlay to make it clear that the purpose of the overlay is to deal with the impact of aircraft noise only. This would require removal of the first purpose of the overlay which is common to every zone and overlay control found in the VPPs. The Panel does not favour such an approach. • Clause 45.02-2 should make it clear that the requirement does not apply to modifications or extension to existing buildings. The Panel does not favour such an approach.
The Panel supports the use of the Design and Development Overlay to control height within the municipality. Aviation safety rules have standards in relation to the height of objects around airfields. The proposed controls give effect to those safety requirements.
The height control in the Design & Development Overlay needs to be amended. The maximum height permitted in Area 1 without a permit is 12 metres RL. As Moorabbin Airport is at 12 metres RL, every building in area 1 would require a permit. This is undesirable and would result in the responsible authority being flooded with applications. The maximum height in Area 1 which does not require a permit should be amended to 16 metres RL.
5.8 Recommendations
In regard to the Airport Environs Overlay, the Panel recommends the following:
• The proposed suite of Moorabbin Airport controls comprising:
• Airport Environs Overlay, • Moorabbin Airport Environs Policy,
155 18/20805
Kingston New Format Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee, June 1998
• Design & Development Overlay - Aviation Obstacle Referral Height Area.
be approved subject to the following:
• the maximum height of buildings and works in area 1 of the Design & Development Overlay - Aviation Obstacle Referral Height Area be increased from 12 metres RL to 16 metres RL.
• Clause 45.02-3 and its two schedules which require referral to the airport owner under Section 55 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 be revised by the next review of the Victoria Planning Provisions.
• Schedule 2 of the proposed Development Overlay relating to Capital Golf Course be deleted.
• A site specific provision be inserted in Clause 52.03 by a direct translation of Clause 126-6B of the Kingston Planning Scheme.
• Council attempt to negotiate an agreement with the owner of Capital Golf Course as to the definition of "golf lodge units" and the relocation of some of the approved golf lodge units to take account of the new ANEF contours.
• Where the boundary of AE01 or the Moorabbin Airport Environs Policy area pass through one title, the more restrictive provisions should apply to the whole of the land.
• The Land Use Framework Plan in the MSS be amended to show the Kingston Centre as a residential opportunity rather than existing residential.
156 18/20805 Kingston New Format Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee, June 1998
6. RECOMMENDATIONS
In developing its recommendations the Panel has indicated which actions need to be undertaken by Council prior to adoption of the Scheme, which actions could be undertaken within the timeframe of its first review and which actions should be undertaken by other parties, eg. Department of Infrastructure. Many of the recommendations are technical issues and most of which should be undertaken prior to adoption of the scheme.
Many of these recommendations have been foreshadowed by the Council who, in the opinion of the Panel have embraced the planning reform process positively and enthusiastically and have worked extremely well with their community to get their Planning Scheme to this stage. In particular, the Council Officers involved are to be congratulated for their foresight and vision in getting this scheme to this point.
6.1 Before Adoption
1. Review and restructure the MSS to specifically respond to the requirements of Section 12A(3) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, to better define its overall strategies, objectives and locations for implementation and a general explanation of the relationship between these objectives and strategies and the controls on the use and development of land in the Planning Scheme and to clearly articulate and identify the links between it and the zones, schedules and overlays.
2. Provide further information on key land use links and activities immediately external to the municipal boundary on the Framework Plan. 3. Provide more detailed and informative maps and plans within the MSS, particularly as they relate to the Core Land Use Elements.
4. Incorporate all V3 amendment changes into the scheme prior to adoption:
• all schedules be reviewed to ensure all terms are consistent with the new standard definitions. • all schedules be corrected where there are no entries. • the schedules to all overlays be reviewed to ensure they are consistent with the V3 amendment.
5. Identify the proposed Cheltenham Residential 2 area as a medium density housing opportunity area.
6. Replace the exhibited Industrial 1 zone by the Industrial 3 zone in the following locations: • land on Wells Road at the comer of Springvale Road, Aspendale Gardens, and • land at the comer of Kings Way and South Road, Moorabbin.
157 18/20805
Kingston New Format Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee, June 1998
7. Apply the Business 3 zone to land at 2 Nepean Highway, Mentone so that it is consistent with adjoining land to the south.
8. Amend the schedule to the Rural Zone to indicate that subdivision of land in Area C must be at least 2 hectares, to the east of Springvale Road.
9. Revise the Public Use zone as it applies to private utility providers to a zone that is consistent with the surrounding zones.
10. Place land at 263 - 265 Spring Road, Dingley in a Rural Zone, rather than the exhibited Public Park and Recreation Zone.
11. Replace the Public Use 6 zone from the former municipal offices in Chelsea with a Business 2 zone.
12. Alter the table of uses in the schedule to the Special Use Zone No. 1 (Golf Courses) to remove "dwelling" from Section 2 to Section 3.
13. Place all golf courses in Kingston in the Special Use zone, and better articulate the significance of the golf courses to the municipality in the MSS.
14. Place the Petronis land in an underlying zone, rather than a Special Use zone.
15. Amalgamate the Design and Development Overlays 1 and 2 into one schedule, and then be review the use of these overlays within three years.
16. Place a two year sunset time limit on the Design and Development Overlay 3 until such time that it could be investigated for conversion into a local policy.
17. Review the mapping of the Design and Development Overlay 4 to accurately reflect those properties to which the zone applies and prepare a separate Vegetation Protection Overlay to give effect to the vegetation controls.
18. Convert the Design and Development Overlay 5 to a local policy to the scheme.
19. Amend the Design and Development Overlay 6 to remove the Use provisions.
20. Remove the Design and Development Overlay 7 and replace it with the Environmental Audit Overlay.
21. Convert the Design and Development Overlay 8 to a local policy to the scheme.
22. Convert the Design and Development Overlay 9 to a local policy to the scheme.
23. Consider converting the Design and Development Overlay 10 to a local policy as part of the first major review of the scheme. As such apply a three year sunset time limit to this overlay.
158 18/20805
Kingston New Format Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee, June 1998
24. Remove the Schedules 2 and 3 to the Development Plan Overlays 2 and 3 and preserve the existing use and development rights at Clause 52.03 of the scheme.
25. Remove the development plans attached to the schedules for Development Plan Overlays 2 and 3 and endorse and date these as approved development plans.
26. Review all schedules to all overlays to ensure that they do not specify inappropriate exemptions.
27. Remove the Public Contaminated Land Overlay or Environmental Audit Overlay from the municipal depot in Collins Street, Mentone.
28. Review policies to remove controls and prescriptive standards or provide the justification for the controls and standards through the MSS or through additional statements within the policy.
29. Amend the local policy for Springvale Industrial Estates (Clause 22.02) to make it clear that the policy applies only to land shown as "Industrial Park" on the strategy plan.
30. Remove the summary sheet to Clause 52.03 and include it as an Incorporated Document.
31. Remove the reference to the Melbourne City Link Report from Clause 81.
32. Establish a system for monitoring decisions made under the Planning Scheme and evaluating them against the intentions of the LPPF. Further, prepare a formal program for ongoing review of the scheme, culminating in the three year formal review.
33. Amend Clause 61 to state that the Minister be responsible for issuing planning certificates.
34. Clarify objectives in respect to future development of the Mordialloc activity node and the form of commercial and tourist development envisaged.
35. Give consideration to suggested additions and changes to the LPPF and Municipal Strategic Statement made by John Luxton (Submission 91), Brett Donaldson (92), Emily Lee (93), David Normington (94), Kingston Conservation and Environment Coalition (95), Patterson Lakes Village Committee (96), Dingley Village Community Association (97), Watsons Pty. Ltd. (98), Aboriginal Affairs Victoria (99), Melbourne Water (100), Environment Protection Authority (101), Department of Natural Resources and Environment (102), Parks Victoria (103), Port Phillip Regional Catchment and Land Protection Board (104), National Trust Australia (106) and the Country Fire Authority (107).
159 18/20805 Kingston New Format Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee, June 1998
36. Update Planning Scheme maps to ensure that public parks are appropriately zoned, that any other exhibition mapping errors are rectified and that minor changes to the schedule of the Comprehensive Development zone are made.
37. Give consideration to the identification of additional gateways at the entrance of Dingley Village and other important entry points to the municipality.
38. Place the Telstra properties in the following zones: • Site 1: Rural • Site 2: Residential 1 • Site 3: Business 1 • Site 4: Industrial 1 • Site 5: Residential 1 • Site 6: Part Residential 1, Part Business 2
39. Seek clarification from the Department of Infrastructure on whether an Environmental Audit Overlay is necessary for Telstra and other public utilities to be placed in a residential zone.
40. With regard to the Melbourne Water submission: • give regard to the suggested changes by Melbourne Water to the MSS; • modify the MSS to give recognition to the fact that there will be a significant portion of land that will be subject to inundation and that this will be addressed by a future amendment, which should be prepared and pursued as a matter of some urgency; • adopt the zone changes on land publicly owned by Melbourne Water; • include land that is currently in a Stream and Floodway zone under the provisions of the existing Planning Scheme in an Urban Floodway zone.
41. With regard to the DNRE submission: • generally adopt the proposed changes to the MSS as suggested by DNRE; • extend the Environmental Significance Overlay to land including the Chelsea Heights Wetlands owned by Melbourne Water, subject to their compliance; • seek advice and clarification from Department of Infrastructure about the proposed Coastal Overlay, whether it should apply to the low or high water mark, and the timing of its introduction.
42. With regard to the Parks Victoria submission: • generally agree to requested changes to the MSS; • apply a Public Conservation and Resource zone within part of Braeside Park; • remove the exhibited Public Acquisition Overlay on Council owned land; • remove the Public Acquisition Overlay on land indicated as "blue" on the submitted plan by Parks Victoria entitled "Proposed Sandbelt Acquisitions" and generally related to submissions 110 to 114 inclusive. • prepare an additional schedule to the Design and Development Overlay, consistent with Port Phillip and other bayside municipalities to reflect proposed coastal controls as an interim measure until the Department of Infrastructure and others have prepared a Coastal Overlay as part of the VPPs.
160 18/20805 Kingston New Format Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee, June 1998
43. With regard to the VicRoads submission, make the following changes: Map 1 • Keys Road is a declared main road under the Transport Act and should therefore be shown as RDZ1; Map 2 • All land which forms part of the proposed Dingley Freeway should be shown as PA01. Land which is principally in the ownership of Vic Roads should be zoned Road Zone 1, and other land which is not in Vic Roads ownership should be shown as the underlying zoning. Map 3 • Remove PA01 from Osborne Avenue, except on corner allotment; • Apply PA01 to west side of Westall Road to indicate future road widening. Map 5 • Remove all PA01 at the corner of Warrigal Road and Centre Dandenong Roads, Cheltenham, as all required widenings have been carried out; • Remove PA01 at the intersection of Boundary and Lower Dandenong Roads, Braeside, and from the intersection of White Street and Boundary Road, Braeside. Map 6 • Apply PA01 to represent the proposed Mornington Peninsula Freeway; • Correct alignment of Boundary Road; Map 7 • Remove PA01 from corner of Governor Road and Wells Road. Map 8 • Remove PA01 on main drain; • Apply PA01 to north and south of Governor Road.
44. With regard to the Westfield Southland submission: • replace the Development Plan Overlay for Westfield with an Incorporated Plan to Clause 81 of the Scheme which includes the approved and dated Concept Plan for the centre. • provide the maximum leasable floor area of 108,000 square metres for shop and 15,000 square metres for office previously in the Development Plan Overlay in the schedule to the Business 1 zone. • issue a planning permit for Westfield to legitimise its current development entitlements.
45. Remove the Public Acquisition Overlay in favour of Parks Victoria from land in Heatherton at the following locations, in accordance with the revised overlay plan submitted by Parks Victoria: • 632-642 Clayton Road • 171 Old Dandenong Road • the corner of Old Dandenong and Kingston Roads • the Pro11 land on Kingston Road • 187 Kingston Road
161 18/20805 Kingston New Format Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee, June 1998
46. Remove the Public Acquisition Overlay in favour of VicRoads from land at 292 Warrigal Road, Cheltenham.
47. Remove the Public Acquisition Overlay in favour of Parks Victoria from the northern portion of Lot 8, Elder Street Clayton and the ensure the MSS acknowledges the potential of this land as a residential opportunity in the future.
48. Include additional statements in the MSS to identify it's objectives for future residential development of the Subud site, and show it as a future residential development opportunity on the Strategic Land Use Framework Plan in the MSS.
49. Modify the proposed Public Acquisition Overlay in favour of Parks Victoria for land at 654-718 Clayton Road, Clayton South in accordance with the revised plan submitted by Parks Victoria. Further, remove the Incorporated Document No. 3 from Clause 52.03 of the scheme and issue a planning permit for the use of the land for a vehicle store.
50. Amend base maps to reflect the correct site boundaries for the Kiwi land at 580- 650 Heatherton Road, Clayton South.
51. Remove the proposed Design and Development Overlay No. 4 (Springvale Industrial Estates) from the following sites in Governor Road, Woodlands Estate and Industrial Drive, Braeside and amend the local policy on the Springvale Industrial Estates at Clause 22.02 to delete any reference to these lands:
52. Articulate the structure planning process for the non urban area in the MSS and seek to commence the preparation of this plan as soon as is practically possible.
53. Clarify and amend the Special Use zone boundary abutting Farm Road to properly reflect the Golf Course and that there be no change to the Rural zone. Further place a section of Council owned land to the south of Farm Road in the Public Park and Recreation zone rather than the Special Use zone.
54. Remove Commonwealth zoning from land at 16 Levanto Street, Mentone and apply a Residential 1 zone to the site.
55. Change the exhibited zoning on land at Wells Road, Aspendale from Industrial 1 to Industrial 3, and apply a Design and Development Overlay No. 4 to the site.
56. Modify the Cheltenham Business Centre Local Policy to explain the design objectives of the setback controls.
57. Remove and replace the exhibited Public Use zones for both GPU Powernet Terminal Stations sites with the Industrial 1 zone.
58. Remove the Public Use zones for all sites from all United Energy Terminal sites and replace with the following: • Site a): Industrial 1 zone
162 18/20805 Kingston New Format Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee, June 1998
• Site b): Industrial 1 zone • Site c): Residential 1 zone • Site d): Residential 1 zone • Site e): Residential 1 zone • Site f): Special Use zone.
59. With regard to the Airport Environs Overlay, the proposed suite of Moorabbin Airport controls comprising the Airport Environs Overlay, the Moorabbin Airport Environs Policy and the Design and Development Overlay - Aviation Obstacle Referral Height Area be approved subject to the following: • the maximum height of buildings and works in area 1 of the Design & Development Overlay - Aviation Obstacle Referral Height Area be increased from 12 metres RL to 16 metres RL • Clause 45.02-3 and its two schedules which require referral to the airport owner under Section 55 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 be revised by the next review of the Victoria Planning Provisions. • Schedule 2 of the proposed Development Overlay relating to Capital Golf Course be deleted. • A site specific provision be inserted in Clause 52.03 by a direct translation of Clause 126-6B of the Kingston Planning Scheme. • Negotiate an agreement with the owner of Capital Golf Course as to the definition of "golf lodge units" and the relocation of some of the approved golf lodge units to take account of the new ANEF contours. • Where the boundary of AE01 or the Moorabbin Airport Environs Policy area pass through one title, apply the more restrictive provisions to the whole of the land. • The Land Use Framework Plan in the MSS be amended to show the Kingston Centre as a residential opportunity rather than existing residential.
6.2 After Adoption
60. Pursue the development of a policy to provide a performance based approach to planning control at Patterson Lakes as a replacement for the Design and Development Overlay No. 3.
61. Undertake the strategic planning study of the Heatherton area as a matter of priority, and foreshadow this by articulating and reflecting this process in the MSS.
6.3 Actions by Others
62. Seek more definitive advice from the Department of Infrastructure to enable Councils and utility service providers to determine what constitutes a "large" private utility for the purposes of designation as a Special Use zone.
163 18/20805 Kingston New Format Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee, June 1998
63. Seek direction from the Department of Infrastructure as to whether Telstra and other public utility sites which are to be placed in a Residential zone as an underlying zone should be subject to an Environmental Audit Overlay.
64. The Department of Infrastructure monitor the use of the Rural zone as a holding zone for small parcels of non urban land in urban fringe areas and seek to develop alternative zone options for land used for this purpose.
164 18/20805
\ ..
\
of Reference Appendix 1: Terms 18/20805
The Terms of Reference approved by the Executive Director, Planning, Building and Development on 19 November 1997 are substituted as follows:
CITY OF KINGSTON NEW FORMAT PLANNLNG SCHEME
TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR ADVISORY COMMITTEE
The three key objectives of the current program of planning reform in Victoria are:
• To establish a focus on state and local strategic directions which provide the bases for controls in planning schemes and guidance to decision-making.
• To provide a consistent set of statewide planning scheme controls and provisions.
• To test the system's effectiveness by annual monitoring and review.
The introduction of new format planning schemes for every municipality in Victoria presents a unique opportunity to put in place a complete set of consistent new schemes which express clear and implementable strategic objectives, eliminate unnecessary controls and display a high standard of statutory drafting.
The program also provides an opportunity to begin to build into schemes performance measurement criteria as a basis for the evaluation of the longer term effectiveness of each scheme and the effectiveness of individual policy initiatives.
To achieve these outcomes, it is very important that each scheme be examined and enhanced wherever possible to ensure that it is strategically well founded, well constructed and as technically correct as possible at the time of approval. In particular, a scheme should:
• Be consistent with statutory requirements, Ministerial Directions and the guidance given about the use of the Victoria Planning Provisions.
• Be consistent with the State Planning Policy Framework.
• Be constructed to actively implement the Municipal Strategic Statement and local policies, rather than being a best fit translation of the previous scheme.
• Only include clearly justified local policies.
• Use performance based or outcome based requirements wherever practicable.
An advisory committee appointed under Section 151 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 provides a means to assess schemes in these terms and to develop a comparative understanding of schemes on a statewide basis. 18/20805
The development and use of new format planning schemes will be a learning process. Good ideas which emerge from this review of schemes will be able to be passed on for the benefit of all planning authorities: similarly with lessons.
There is a potential for planning authorities to use the Victoria Planning Provisions in a way which may make planning schemes unduly cumbersome. Experience with using the VPPs will overcome many of these problems, however this opportunity should be taken to identify if there are schemes that are overly cumbersome and whether there are more appropriate approaches which could overcome this.
'
The task of the Advisory Committee is to evaluate schemes and recommend modification or improvement to achieve a high standard statutory and strategic document.
It is not intended that the Advisory Committee re-examine the principles underlying the reforms to the planning system, the approval of the Victoria Planning Provisions, the structure of new planning schemes or any other matter introduced under the Planning and Environment (Planning Schemes) Act 1996.
The Advisory Committee must hold a public hearing at which it will give the planning authority an opportunity to respond to the specific matters identified in Part E. It may hear from any other person with respect to these matters also.
The Advisory Committee must prepare a report in accordance with Part D which responds to the matters set out in Part C.
The Advisory Committee must undertake its task in conjunction with its role as a panel appointed to consider submissions about the planning scheme under Section 153 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.
1:511OOIFJE$J.:00
1. Consistency
Is the planning scheme consistent with: • the Ministerial Direction on the Form and Content of Planning Schemes under section 7(5) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987; • Ministerial Directions under section 12 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987; • the Manual for the Victoria Planning Provisions?
2. Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS)
Does the MSS further the objectives of planning in Victoria to the extent that they are applicable in the municipal district? 18/20805
Are the strategic planning. land use and development objectives of the planning authority a reasonable response to the characteristics, regional context, development constraints and opportunities of the municipal district?
Considering the objectives of planning in Victoria and the planning authority's objectives, are there any important omissions or inconsistencies?
Does the MSS contain realistic and reasonable strategies for achieving the objectives?
What were the processes used in aniving at the MSS?
Are there satisfactory links with the corporate plan?
Are local provisions clearly expressed and written following plain English principles?
3. Local Planning Policy Framework (LPPF)
Is the LPPF and other local provisions consistent with the SPPF?
4. Zones, Overlays and Schedules
Are there clearly defined linkages between the MSS and the application of zones, overlays and schedules?
Is the application of zones, overlays and schedules the most appropriate of the VPP techniques to achieve the stated outcomes?
Are overlays and schedules being used when it may be more appropriate to use local policies?
If there are situations where the application of zones, overlays and schedules are not clearly linked to the MSS, is reasonable justification provided and is it considered acceptable?
Are the zones, overlays and schedules reasonably compatible at the interface with adjoining schemes?
Do local provisions adopt a performance based approach?
Have local provisions introduced referral requirements additional to those in the VPP?
5. Local Policies
Are local policies directed towards implementation of the MSS?
Are local policies soundly based and reasonably justified?
Will local policies be of practical assistance in day-to-day decision making about permit applications?
To what extent have local policies been created as part of the new planning scheme and to what extent are they a replication of previous local policies? 18/20805
6. Incorporated Documents
Does the planning scheme include incorporated documents apart from those in the VPP?
What is the basis for incorporating any such documents?
Can the intentions of the planning authority in using incorporated documents be better achieved by other techniques in the VPP such as local policies?
7. Monitoring and Review
Has the planning authority established appropriate mechanisms for: • monitoring decisions made under the planning scheme; • evaluating decisions against the intentions of the LPPF; • reviewing the LPPF and other local provisions and the planning scheme generally?
The reports of a panel and an advisory committee in respect of any new format scheme and submissions to it should be combined.
The Advisory Committee must prepare a report which:
• Addresses the terms of reference. • Recommends appropriate modifications (either generally or specifically) to the exhibited scheme. • Identifies matters which warrant ongoing review or monitoring, including the need for time limits or "sunset clauses" for such matters. • Recommends matters or issues to be considered as part of a further review of either the scheme or the Victoria Planning Provisions. • Addresses or recommends any other matters which the Committee considers appropriate.
The report should be structured in the following way:
• The first part should be a general overview including a brief appraisal of the municipality and its strategic planning response to its circumstances. Any major strategic issues which have not been sufficiently addressed or emphasised should be identified together with any major inconsistencies or apparent anomalies. This part of the report should also evaluate:
— whether or not the scheme is in line with the expectations of planning reform — whether the scheme is an improvement on the old format scheme — options for further improvement in the short and long term.
• The second part should contain the Advisory Committee's responses to the matters set out in Part C, together with any discussion and recommendations arising from this part of its task. In 18/20805
doing this, the Committee should take into consideration the responses from the council under Part E.
• The third part should deal with all submissions and recommendations arising from them.
• The fourth part should assembld all the recommendations and divide them into two sections:
— those which, in the opinion of the Panel/Advisory Committee, should be implemented before the planning scheme is adopted and approved. This will include any recommendations for rezoning etc. which arise from consideration of individual submissions. — those which can be considered as part of a further review or a proposed amendment following adoption and approval of the planning scheme. This will include any suggestions for revision of the VPPs.
Without limiting the ambit of recommendations which a Panel/Advisory Committee may make, the following actions are open to a Panel/Advisory Committee when making recommendations about a planning scheme:
— Change the zone or overlay applying to land. — Modify a schedule. — Recommend that the scheme be approved with identified modifications to the MSS or other parts of the LPPF. — Recommend that the scheme be approved with a "sunset clause" applying to certain provisions which require further consideration. reviewed — Recommend that the scheme not be approved until certain matters are or done by the planning authority, or certain changes are made to the scheme.
The Panel/Advisory Committee should leave the drafting of modifications to the planning authority unless there is a specific reason for recommending a particular wording. In particular, the Panel/Advisory Committee should avoid attempts to rewrite any part of the council's MSS or local policies.
When identifying matters which warrant further review or ongoing monitoring, the Panel/Advisory Committee should con5ider the need to specify a time limit within which such review or monitoring should be carried out.
A copy of the report must be submitted to both the Minister and the planning authority within two months following the last day of hearings. A copy of the report must also be provided to the Minister and the planning authority on disk in MS Word format.
The Panel/Advisory Committee report will be available to the public 28 days after it is received by the planning authority or earlier if the planning authority agrees. 18/20805
sPARTI .;7 RESPONSES REQUIRED FROM COUNCILS .
The Panel/Advisory Committee will rely heavily on the material presented to them by Council. It is important that this material assist the Panel/Advisory Committee to fulfil its terms of reference and, in particular, to respond to the matters set out in Part C. Council's submission should respond to the following matters.
E.1. THE PLANNING SCHEME
1. What are Council's strategic planning, land use and development objectives?
This responds to section 12.4(3)(a) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 and essentially answers the question, "What are we trying to achieve"? This section should identify the key issues in the municipality and explain how the objectives were arrived at.
2. What are the strategies for achieving these objectives?
This responds to section 12A(3)(b) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 and essentially answers the question, "What are we going to do to reach the objectives?" This is the core of the Municipal Strategic Statement and sets the framework for the application of zones, overlays and schedules, and the development of local policies. The response is likely to contain a mixture of sectoral (eg. housing, industry,) and geographical (eg. activity centres, foreshore) statements identifying what Council intends to do and where it intends to do it.
3. How are the strategies to be implemented?
This is an important step in explaining how the planning scheme has been developed. Some strategies or parts of strategies will be implemented through the application of zones, overlays, schedules and local policies and the subsequent administration of the planning scheme. Some strategies or parts of strategies may require actions or budgetary commitments through other Council programs and services, eg. tree planting programs, capital works programs, traffic management schemes. There are therefore likely to be two aspects to the response.
For those strategies that are to be implemented through the planning scheme, it will be necessary to explain the relationship between the strategic action and the application ofzones, overlays and schedules (where appropriate) and the relationship with particular local policies. One way of working through this exercise is to think of it in terms of the following matrix.
'!Stigiekjr: ' '''jZolirei' - Overlay .-- Schedzilelr: ..-°-,Lo—eal poliiy. ..,,,,, ° , . • •• , , • I ? etc
The components of the matrix would only be filled in as required. Not every strategy will require overlays and schedules nor have a specific local policy.
The matrix is only a tool; it is not necessary to include a matrix in Council's submission. What is necessary, however, is to explain to the Advisory Committee the relationship between the 18/20805
elements of the strategy and the zones (with any overlays or schedules) and local policies which are to be used in the planning scheme to implement the various elements of the strategy.
It is expected that this explanatio-z will include reference to maps in order to explain where the zones etc apply.
This explanation responds to section I2,4(3)(c) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.
For those strategies that will be implemented, wholly or in part, through other activities of Council, it will be necessary to explain how they fit in with Council's corporate plan; what actions will be taken and when; and whether there is any budget commitment if one is necessary.
This explanation can be provided in the form of a simple matrix. It responds to section 12A(4) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.
StraiegY :. 'Relevant • 'Council Actiink•. ' - .Thine.line::. Ilitdget , . . ,corporate program „si..<,,,,.;.;: commamentz:. ,___, , . . • - ,,• ... - ..,„... . I 2 etc
4. Explain any particular or special situations where zones, overlays, schedules or local policies have been included in the planning scheme which do not bear a direct relationship with Council's municipal strategic statement.
5. What mechanisms have been established or are proposed for: • Monitoring decisions made under the planning scheme and evaluating them in terms of the MSS and local policies? • Reviewing strategy and policy within the planning scheme and the planning scheme generally?
6. Are there any: • Inconsistencies with the Ministers Directions under sections 7(5) and 12 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987? • Inconsistencies with the Manual for the Victoria Planning provisions? • Technical corrections which Council has made or wishes to make to the exhibited planning scheme?
7. • How does the planning scheme relate to those of adjoining municipalities, particularly with reference to the compatibility of zones etc and local policies across municipal boundaries?
8. Are there any incorporated documents in the planning scheme in addition to those included in the VPPs and, if so, what is the basis for their incorporation?
9. Are there any referrals in the planning scheme in addition to those included in the VPPs and, if so, what is the ba3is for their incorporation? 18/20805
E.2 SUBMISSIONS TO THE PLANNING SCHEME
Councils should provide a response to ALL submissions received resulting from exhibition of its planning scheme. The response should include the following sections: • submission number • submittor's name • address of property (if relevant) • existing zone (if relevant) • exhibited zone (if relevant) • requested zone (if relevant) • brief summary of submission • strategic assessment • Council comment and recommendation • Panel comment and recommendation (to be left blank)
E.3 OTHER MATTERS
Councils may raise any additional issues as part of their overall submission which they consider appropriate.
APPROVED:
LEIGH P LIPS ACTING EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR PLANNING, BUILDING AND DEVELOPMENT
DATED: 18/20805
,
1
Appendix 2: Submissions to New Format Kingston Planning Scheme I 18/20805
APPENDIX 2: LIST OF SUBMISSIONS TO KINGSTON PLANNING SCHEME
No. Nature of Submission Name & Address 1. Objection to RDZ1 classification for City of Bayside Beach Road PO Box 27 Sandringham 3191 2. A. & C. Baird 166 Beach Road Parkdale 3195 . 3. Foreshore Residents Association PO Box 641 Elsternwick 3184 4. Hazel Anderson . 14A Herbert Street Parkdale 3195 5. E. A. Pine 10/130 Beach Rd Parkdale 3195 6. R. & V. Maier 2 Herbert St Parkdale 3195 7. J. Raphael 8 Mc Indoe Pde Parkdale 3195 8. Dr. D. Hennelly 75 Beach Road . Mentone 3194 9. L. & T. DeHoedt 5/188-190 Beach Rd Mordialloc 3195 10. P. Robertson 7 Latona St Mentone 3194 11. I. Lewis 18/138 Beach Road Parkdale 3195 12. R. Brown 1/4 Parkers Road Parkdale 3194 13. J. Hall 6/160 Beach Rd Parkdale 3195 14. Flaskis & Family 187 Beach Road Mordialloc 3195 15. V. & L. Mitchell 1/188 Beach Rd Mordialloc 3195 16. C. Lalor 2/204 Beach Road Mordialloc 3195 17. Mrs. L. Agg 114 Beach Rd Mentone 3194 18. D. Wylie 18/20805
2A Foam St Parkdale 3194 19. Mrs. R. Dobson 15/130 Beach Road Parkdale 3195 70. T. & K. Reilly 14/s130 Beach Road Parkdale 3195 71. H. & J. B laver c/- Chic Metalworks P/L 192 Chesterville Rd Moorabbin 3189 -r). B. Macauley 140 Beach Rd Mentone 3194 23. B. Timewell 6/70 Beach Rd Mentone 3194 24. J. Jenins 2/10 Parkers Rd Parkdale 3195 25. J. Angwin 177 Beach Rd Mordialloc 3195 26. , Mr. & Mrs. P. Roberts 5 Sea Pde Mentone 3194 27. D. Graham 91 Beach Rd Mentone 3194 28. J. & D. Coppinger 203 Beach Rd Mordialloc 3195 29. Y. & L. Westen 9 Parkers Rd Parkdale 3195 30. I. Bardsley 1/6 Birdwood Dt Mentone 3194 31. J. Travers Johnson 192 Beach Rd Mordialloc 3195 32. J. Pelletier 7/78 Beach Rd Mentone 3194 33. M. Davies 12/78 Beach Rd Mentone 3194 34. W. Cooper 16 Yamala Dye Frankston 3199 35. Mr & Mrs R. Laurie 8/14 Warrigal Rd Mentone 3195 36. B. Fairless 125 Beach Rd Parkdale 3195 18/20805
37. Mr & Mrs P Beattie 31 Antibes St Parkdale 3195 38. K. & B. Aldenhoven 2/1SS Beach Rd Nlordialloc 3195 39. Mrs. K. Johnson 6 Plummer Rd Mentone 3194 40. B. Johnstone 130 Beach Rd Parkdale 3195 41. C. Torresan 4 Epsom Rd Nlordialloc 3195 42. L. Sheridan 159 Beach Rd Parkdale 3195 43. C. Wills 146 Beach Rd Parkdale 3195 . 44. Mr. & Mrs. P. Havard 16A Rennison St Nlordialloc 3195 45. T. Summerfield c/- BTS Real Estate 17th Floor, 500 Collins St Melbourne 3000 46. E. Cullin 46 Birdwood St Parkdale 3195 47. K. Weeks 8/137 Beach Rd Parkdale 3194 48. M. L'Hullier Address unknown 49. C. Burley 1/78 Beach Rd Mentone 3194 50. R. Locke 1/137 Beach Rd Mentone 3194 51. M Tillbrook 5/78 Beach Rd Mentone 3194 52. B. Allan 4/1 Rosella Rd Mordialloc 3195 53. N. Barker 83A Beach Rd Mentone 3194 54. L. Bowkett 11/14 Warrigal Rd Mentone 3194 55. K. Mc Credden 117 Mentone Pde Mentone 3194 18/20805
56. R. & J. Summerfield 1 Coronet Gve Beaumaris 3193 57. P. & E. Giliberto 2/42 Beach Rd Mentone 3194 58. R. Garraway 27 Ti Tree Gve Parkdale 3195 59. D. Segall 23 Ti Tree Gve Parkdale 3194 60. M. Webster 1/25 Ti Tree Gve Parkdale 3194 61. Mrs. G. Gentle 25 Ti Tree Gve Parkdale 3194 62. F. Farrar 13 Rennison St Mordialloc 3195 63. B. Hayes 82 Beach Rd Mentone 3194 64. A. & M. O'Sullivan 16 The Corso Parkdale 3194 65. C. Glasson 21 Antibes St Parkdale 3194 66. K. McCleary 1/157 Beach Rd Parkdale 3195 67. D. Foran 156 Beach Rd Parkdale 3195 68. J. Pullar 6 Marina Rd Mentone 3194 69. S. Calvert Smith 75 Beach Rd Mentone 3194 70. M. Rimmington Mordialloc Beaumaris Conservation League 1 Montgomery St Mordialloc 3195 71. Parkdale Yacht Club PO Box 75 Mentone 3194 72. C. & R. O'Neill 155 Beach Rd Parkdale 3195 73. J. Lapthome 3/78 Beach Rd Mentone 3194 74. R. Kilpatrick 24 Warrigal Rd 18/20805
Mentone 3194 75. P. Kavanaugh 655 Nepean Hwy Carrum 3197 76. M. Andrew 176 Beach Rd Mordialloc 3195 77. P. Dawson 2/194 Beach Rd Mordialloc 3195 78. K. & L. Manders 4A Birdwood St Parkdale 3195 79. J. & M. Neil 21 Albert St Mordialloc 3195 80. R. Truscott 14 Montgomery St Mordialloc 3195 81. H. Williams 2 Monaco St Parkdale 3195 82. F. Pain 10/183 Beach Rd Mordialloc 3195 83. R. Phillips 26 Rosella Rd Mordialloc 3195 84. M. Revill 115 Beach Rd Parkdale 3195 85. R. & S. McCallum 80 Beach Rd Mentone 3194 86. C. Meyer 3/60 Beach Rd Mentone 3194 87. N. Haeger 2/135 Beach Rd Parkdale 3195 88. P. Graham 139 Beach Rd Parkdale 3195 89. D. Booth & D. Forbes 5 Marina Rd Mentone 3194 90. Port Phillip Conservation Council c/- 20 Hudson Ave Frankston 91. Comments on MSS J. Luxton 5/163 Centre Dandenong Rd Cheltenham 92. " B. Donaldson 1/17 Higham Rd Cheltenham 93. 41. E. Lee 11 Chadwell Gve 18/20805
Bonbeach 94. General comments on MSS; D. Normington Comments on zone and overlay PO Box 75 provisions; Mentone 95. Comments on MSS and vegetation Kingston Conservation & Environment Coalition controls S Somme Pde Edithvale 96. Comments on MSS and various Patterson Lakes Village Committee overlay controls. 97. • Comment on MSS; Dingley Village Community Association Request for additional Design and Marcus Rd Development overlay. Din2ley Village 98. Comments on MSS. Watsons P/L (on behalf of the Portland House Corporation) PO Box 171 Mornington 99. Proposed new local policy and Aboriginal Affairs Victoria overlay controls to protect 115 Victoria Pde Aboriginal cultural heritage values Fitzroy 100. Comments on application of zones R. G. Harvey (on behalf of Telstra) for Telstra properties GPO Box 1490N Melbourne 101. • proposed new local policies and Melbourne Water overlays for incorporation into 630 Church St the scheme; Richmond • Comment on application of zones for Melbourne Water owned land. 102. General comments on application of Environment Protection Authority zones in new scheme 45 Princes Hwy 103. Comment on MSS and application Department of Natural Resources & Environment of zones and overlays 30 Prospect St Box Hill 104. • Comment on application of Parks Victoria 'Public Acquisition Overlays' in Private Bag 8 favour of Parks Victoria; Kew • Comment on local policy framework and MSS Comment on application of zones for land owned by Parks Victoria. 105. Comments on MSS and local Port Phillip Regional Catchment & Land Protection policies. Board PO Box 48 Frankston 106. Comment on application of Road Vic Roads zones and Public Acquisition Private Bag 4 Overlays in favour of Vic Roads. Mt Waverley 107. Comments on MSS and application National Trust Australia of heritage overlays Tasma tce, 4 Parliament PI Melbourne 108. Request to include new local policy Country Fire Authority 120-122 Princess Hwy Dandenong 109. Comments on proposed overlay Contour Consultants controls for Southland Shopping Level 1, 96 Pelham St Centre Carlton 18/20805
110. Comments on new zone and overlay Lofts Quarries provisions affecting existing 632-642 Clayton Rd quarrying operations Clayton South 111. Objection to application of 'Public C. & C. Macintosh Acquisition Overlay' for open 171 Old Dandenong Rd space. Heatherton 112. Objection to application of 'Public I. Turner Acquisition Overlay for open space Nellie Kelly Passionfruit Nurseries Cnr Kingston & Old Dandenong Rds Heatherton 113. Objection to application of 'Public F. Pro11 Acquisition Overlay' for open space Golf Sands P/L 100 Gorge Rd South Morang 114. Objection to application of 'Public Mr & Mrs. G. Johns Acquisition Overlay' for open space 187 Kingston Rd Heatherton 115. Objection to application of 'Public Ratio Consultants (on behalf of Bredix P/L) Acquisition Overlay' for Vic Roads 649 Bridge Rd Richmond 116. Objection to application of 'Public CSR Readymix - PBM Acquisition Overlay' for open space PO Box 31 World Trade Centre 117. • Objection to application of Network Planning Consultants (on behalf of 'Public Acquisition Overlay' for Whelan Kartaway P/L) open space; 51-55 City Rd Southbank • Request for rezoning. 118. Request for rezoning Subud Australia P/L 164 Elder St Clayton South 119. Objection to application of 'Public South East Regional Waste Management Group Acquisition Overlay' for open PO Box 167 space. Glenhuntly
120. Comment on application of 'Public Kiwi Brands P/L Acquisition Overlay' for Vic Roads PO Box 50 Heatherton 121. Objection to proposed overlay P. Grinwald 408 Glen Eira Rd Caulfield 122. Comment on application of overlay Ratio Consultants provisions (on behalf of Heland P/L) 649 Bridge Rd Richmond 123. Comment on application of overlay Asset Solutions Group provisions 19 Business Park Dye Notting Hill 124. Comment on Public Acquisition W. Stanhope Rd Overlay for Vic Roads 172 - 176 Old Dand. Heatherton 125. Objection to provisions of overlay Easton Consulting control (on behalf of D. Barker) PO Box 991 Ringwood 126. Comment on application of overlay Stokes Planning P/L provisions 532 Hampton St Hampton 18/20805
127. Comment on application of zone Nlc Donald Slater & Lay and overlay provisions (on behalf of Chelsea Machinery) 136 Balcombe Rd Nlentone 128. Comment on proposed Potentially Hoban Hynes Pit Contaminated Land Overlay 3/364 Main St Mornington 3931 129. Request for rezoning Adrian Atkins & Assoc. • 175 Boronia Rd Boronia 130. Request for rezoning Gerner Consulting Group (on behalf of A.J.Baxter) 117 Church St Hawthorn 131. Comment on application of zone Gerner Consulting Group provisions (on behalf of Boral Resources P/L 117 Church St Hawthorn 132. Request for rezoning A. Kroll 5 Como Crt Springvale 133. Request for rezoning Easton Consulting (on behalf of A. Farr) PO Box 991 Ringwood 134. Request for rezoning/ change to L. Le Page subdivision controls in Rural zone. 431 Centre Dandenong Rd Heatherton 135. Request for rezoning Sainsbury Reed Group PO Box 163 Abbotsford 136. Rezoning request P. Sleep 16 Levanto St Mentone 137. Request for rezoning Bowden Verhoeven (on behalf of Savoia & Antonuccio) 180 Albert St Windsor 138. Request for rezoning Van Hoof & Byrne PO Box 309 Mt Eliza 139. Request for rezonings Aspendale Gardens Residents Association 7 Beeteng Crt Aspendale Gardens 140. Request for rezoning A. Duncan `Chowar' via Deniliquin PO Box 5135 Mordialloc 3195 141. Request for rezonings and T. M. Ring & Associates amendments to local policy. 2 Burgundy Dye Doncaster 142. Request for rezoning Easton Consulting (on behalf of De La Salle) PO Box 991 Ringwood 143. Request for rezoning M. Walter Design 79 Pit 18/20805
143B Como Pde West Parkdale 144. Request for rezoning A.T. Cocks Consulting (on behalf of PentacO Oil) 25 Flinders Lane Melbourne 145. Objection to RDZ1 classification for B. McGrath White St, Mordialloc Woodlands Golf Club White St Mordialloc 146. Comment on application of zone Bowden Verhoeven provisions for the Aspendale (on behalf of Aspendale Gardens Shopping Centre) Gardens Shopping Centre 180 Albert St Windsor 147. Comments on application of zone J. Custance & Associates provisions (on behalf of K.&S.Waste) 20 Collins St Melbourne 148. Comment on application of zone Contour Consultants provisions for Moorabbin Police (on behalf of Moorabbin Police complex) Complex 96 Pelham St Carlton 149. Support for new zones for Parkdale Hansen Planning Consultants Plaza PO Box 681 Mt. Eliza 150. Comments on overlay provisions Capital Club P/L affecting Capital Golf Course 99 Queensbridge Street Southbank 151. Comments on zone provisions for Beveridge Williams GPU Powernet assets (on behalf of GPU Powernet P/L) 1075 High St Annadale 152. Comments on zone provisions for Beveridge Williams United Energy assets. (on behalf of United Energy) 1075 High St Armadale 153. Request for rezoning SIB Planning (on behalf of Reg Hunt P/L) PO Box 1149 South Melbourne 3205 154. Comments on zone and overlay Freehill Hollingdale & Page provisions affecting Southland (on behalf of Lend Lease Property Management) Shopping Centre. Level 43, 101 Collins St Melbourne 3000 18/20805
Appendix 3: Submissions to Airport Environs Overlay 18/20805
LATE SUBMISSIONS TO THE KINGSTON PLANNING SCHEME (Airport Environs Overlay)
NO. NAME ADDRESS SUBURB PoserConE RECEIVED
Al. R. J. Scott 39 Scarlet Street MORDIALLOC 3195 17 December, 1997 A2. E. Sakkas 33 Scarlet Street MORDIALLOC 3195 24 December, 1997 A3. C. Reese 29 Lawborough Avenue PARKDALE 3195 28 December, 1997 A4. r H. Blanche 181 Parkers Road PARKDALE 3195 3 January, 1998 AS. A. Duncan 181 Parkers Road PARKDALE ' 3195 2 January, 1998 A6. J Bastion 20 Verbena Street MORDIALLOC 3195 6 January, 1998 A7. K. Arthurson 46 Allandale Road MENTONE 3194 2 January, 1998 A8. R. Carseldine 12 Balmoral Drive PARKDALE 3195 8 January, 1998 A9. D. Warner 20 Lawborough Avenue PARKDALE 3195 8 January, 1998 A10. A. c.c. K. Zimmek 26 Verbena Street MORDIALLOC 3195 /1 January, 1998 All. J. & N. Hand 22 Verbena Street MORDIALLOC 3195 6 January, 1998 Al2. l'il( A. Kellock 6 Lord Avenue DINGLEY VILLAGE 3172 12 January, 1998 A13. G. & T. Phillips 1 O'Brien Close DINGLEY 3172 12 January, 1998 A14. J. O'Brien 9 Woods Avenue MORDIALLOC 3195 12 January, 1998 AI5. J. Spencer 1 Lendor Court CHELTENI CAM 3192 12 January, 1998 AI6. I leatherton Progress Association C/o O. Mann HEATHERION 3202 12 January. 1998 I- 11 Pine Lane A17. Mrs V. Hellyer 71 Keith Street PARKDALE 3195 12 .January. 1998 A18. Mr G. Powell 28 Merrigum Crescent CLAYTON SOUTH 3169 12 January, 1998 A19. N. & C. Bickham 246 Lower Dandenong Road MORDIALLOC 3195 16 January, 1998 A20. R. Charles & I.,. Scales 11 Keefer Street MORD! ALI ,OC 3195 16 January, 1998 A21. .R. & I. Troup 44 McKay Street MORD! A LI ,OC 3195 January 1998 A22. B. & M. Kane 2/10 Reid Street -MORDIALLOC 3195 January 1998 -A23. I. & M. McHaffie 36 Hawke Street PARKDALE 3195 January 1998 A24. V. & D. Paul 43 Bradshaw Street MORN/111,0C 3195 12 )anuary, 1998 A/5. N. Brown 7 Allandale Road MENTONE 3194 15 January, 1988 —A26. L. Watson 19 Wyndarra Crescent DINOLUY VII,I.AC& 317/ 16 .January, 1998 A27. G. & D. Wendt 37 Averrza Street mENTaicii7. — — ---31,1 — • 16 January, 19i-)8
0.(iFNiltAIASI.ISAN\NIARK\FACSIIIIS2.DOC ['age I 18/20805Prra A28. F. Keen 9 Verbena Street MORDIALLOC 3195 16 January, 1998 A29. R. & B. Rogers 4 Paljan Court CHELTENHAM 3192 16 January, 1998 A30. E. Saunders 3/144 Warren Road MORDIALLOC 3195 16 January, 1998 A31. G. Gamin 23 Clare Street MORDIALLOC 3195 20 January, 1998 A32. M. Druitt 18 Clare Street PARKDALE 3195 20 January, 1998 A33. J. Borradale 42 Brownfield Street MORDIALLOC 3195 20 January, 1998 A34. B. Hunter 25 Morris Street PARKDALE 3195 20 Sanitary, 1998 A35. C. & A. Provis 21 Verbena Street MORDIALLOC. 3195 20 January, 1998 A36. M. & J. Taylor 47 White Street PARKDALE 3195 16 January, 1998 A37. E. Wheeler 66 Evan Street PA RK DALE 3195 19 January, 1998 A38. I. Donald 32 Golf-view Road - flEATHERTON 3202 19 January, 1998 A39. W. Fitzgerald 2 Lawborough Avenue PARKDALE 3195 19 January, 1998 A40. W. & G. McPherson 77 Davey Street PARKDALE 3195 19 January, 1998 A41. Lues Carla Nominees Pty Ltd 455 South Road MOORAB BIN 3189 19 January, 1998 A42. G. Biviano 4 Jetske Court D1NGLEY VILLAGE 3172 19 January, 1998 A43. L. & S. Rogers 4 Paljan Court CI IELTENHAM 3192 19 January, 1998 A44. D. & E. Matthews 2 Paljan Court CHELTENHAM 3192 19 January, 1998 A45. Mr & Mrs A Dilwar 5 Helen Court CHELTENHAM 3192 19 January, 1998 A46. C. Bateman 37 Elliot Street MORDIALLOC 3195 19 January, 1998 A47. R. & J. Lehmann 1 Collocott Street MORDIALLOC 3195 19 January, 1998 A48. J. & M. Horstead 3 Coral Court CHELTENI1AM 3192 19 January, .1998 A49. J. & G. Philp 5 Paljan Court ' CHELTENIIAM 3192 19 January, 1998 MO. H. Clarke 22 Waratah Avenue MORD1ALLOC 3195 19 January, 1998 A51. D. Marchant 2 Margaret Street MORDIALLOC 3195 19 January, 1998 A52. K. & M. Yamada 17 Keiller Avenue PARKDALE 3195 19 January, 1998 A53. G. & R. Woodbridge 30 Verbena Street MORDIALLOC 3195 19 January, 1998 A54. H. Buckingham 95 McDonald Street MORD1ALLOC 3195 19 January, 1998 A55. D. & J. Patrick 36 Chute Street MORDIALLOC 3195 19 January, 1998 A56. D. & A. Nancarrow 2/32 Clare Street PARKDALE 3195 20 January, 1998 A57. II. & T. Schreuders 5 Jetske Court D1NGLEY 3172 20 January, 1998 A58. A. "thompson 14 Lawborough Avenue PARKDALE 3195 20 January, 1998 A59. C. Bartholomeusz 18 Caine!la Grove CHELTENHAM 3192 20 January, 1998
CACiENER Al,\SIJSAN \MA RKWACSUBS2.1)0C Page 2 18/20805
A60. L. Frederiksen 22 Rosella Road MORDIALLOC 3195 20 January, 1998 A61. J. Johnson 46 Brownfield Street MORDIALLOC 3195 20 January, 1998 A62. C. Carp 142 Lower .Dandetiong Road MORDIALLOC 3195 20 January, 1998 A63. L. Murphy 13 Dallas Street MENTONE 3194 20 January, 1998 A64. Mr & Mrs C Harris 7 Elliot Street PARKDALE 3195 20 January, 1998 A65. G.Barfoot 27 Stewart Avenue PARKDALE 3195 20 .January, 1998 A66. A. Vermaas 84 Farm Road CHELTENHAM 3192 20 January, 1998 A67. B. Hunter 25 Morris Street PARKDALE 3195 20 January, 1998 A68. N. Platanos 25 Brownfield Street MORDIALLOC 3195 20 January, 1998 A69. R. Griffin 7 Cavendish Drive HEA'FFIERTON 3202 20 January, 1998 A70. P. Lawicki 14 Balcombe Place 1)1NGLEY 3172 20 January, 1998 A71. A. & H. Bricknell 41 Bundora Parade MENTONE 3194 20 January, 1998 A72. M. & T. Barfoot 57 Fifth Street PARKDALE 3195 20 January, 1998 A73. I. & E. Godsil 25 Monaco Street PARKDALE 3195 20 January, 1998 A74, C & M Michalas 48 Brownfield Street MORDIALLOC 3195 20 January, 1998 A75. D.& T. Ryan 6 Paljan Court C11ELTENHAM 3192 20 January, 1998 A76. F. Puddy 69 Brownfield Street MORDIALLOC 3195 20 January, 1998 - A77. Mr Geoff Leigh MLA Suite 5A, 10 :Jamieson Street CHELTENHAM 3192 20 January, 1998 Member for Mordialloc A78. J. & J. Timmons 6 Brownfield Street MORDIALLOC 3195 20 January, 1998 A79. Mr & Mrs K Beaumont 46 Davey Street PARKDALE 3195 20 January, 1998 A80. A. Dusting 24 Scarlet Street MORDIALLOC 3195 20 January, 1998 , A81. 1. Timmons 1 Tylden Court MENTONE 3194 20 January, 1998 A82. W. & M. Greig & W. & J. Greig 99 Station Street ASPENDALE 3194 20 January, 1998 A83. R. Winfield 57 Davey Street PARKDALE 3195 20 January, 1998 A84. W. & B. Ballard 1 Brownfield Street MORD1A1.1XX: 3195 20 January, 1998 A85. R. & L. Turville 33 Herbert Street PARKDALE 3195 20 January, 1998 - A86. T. & E. Uren 4 Brownfield Street MORDIALLOC 3195 20 January, 1998 - A87. A. Emanuel 2 Brownfield Street MORDIALLOC 3195 20 January, 1998 A88. M. & J. Callanan 16 Kubis Avenue ASPENDA1,E 3195 20 January, 1998 A89. P. Buckley 9/5 Collocott Street MORDIALLOC 3195 20 January, 1998 A90. R. & R. Haslemore 8 Brownfield Street MORDIALLOC 3195 20 January, 1998
CAGENFRAIASIJSANNMARKWACSUBS;LDOC 1'4N: .1 18/20805
A91. E. Gerloff 24 Carrier Avenue MORDIALLOC 3195 20 January, 1998 A92. J. & K. then 12 Kubis Crescent D1NGLEY 3172 20 January, 1998 A93. E. & L. Oussoren 16 Gardenia Crescent CHELTENHAM 3192 20 January, 1998 A94. A. & L. Clark 70 Beatrice Street Ci I ELTENHA M 3192 20 January, 1998 A95. V. Hickey 7 Riviera Street MENTONE 3194 20 January, 1998 A96. M. Sjostedt 16 Rivette Street MORDIALLOC 3195 21 January, 1998 A97. H. & K. Michaelis 11 MeSwain Street PARKDALE 3195 21 January, 1998 A98. P. Winfield 57 Davey Street PARK DALE 3195 21 January, 1998 A99. N. Cox 3/5 Krone Street MORDIALLOC 3195 21 January, 1998 A100. P. Blyth 20 Wheatland Crescent DINGLEY 3172 21 January, 1998 A101, P. Knight Warren Road MORDIALLOC EAST 3195 21 January, 1998 Parkdale Secondary College A102. K. & K. Gregson 21 Rivette Street MORDIALLOC 3195 21 January, 1998 A103. P Eriksen South Metropolitan Region DANDENONG 3175 15 January, 1998 Environment Protection Authority 45 Princess Highway A104. P. & J. Soding, 69 Benkel Avenue CHELTENIIAM 3192 19 January, 1998 A105. F. & L. Giles 2 Hicks Street MORDIALLOC 3195 21 January, 1998 A106. .13. Gray 53 Bradshaw Street PARKDALE 3195 21 January, 1998 A107. S. & B. White 91 Benkel Avenue CHELTENHAM 3192 23 January, 1998 A108. L. & T. Millard 64 Benkel Avenue a it-mTENIIAM 3192 27 January, 1998 A109. E. Leitch 14 Waratah Avenue MORDIALLOC 3195 27 January, 1998 A110. T. Ward 27 Bradshaw Street MORDIALLOC 3195 27 January, 1998 A111. S. Hark 57 Benkel Avenue CIIELTENIIAM 3192 27 January, 1998 A112. J. Newman 42 Renowden Street CHELTENIIAM 3192 27 January, 1998 A113. M. & K. Kondovasis 50 Benkel Avenue CHELTENI IAM 3192 27 January, 1998 A114. P. Clancy 11 Waratah Avenue MORDIALLOC 3195 28 January, 1998 A115. P. Stephens 58 Farm Road CI1ELTENHAM 3192 28 January, 1998 A116. E. Linardakis 33 Benkel Avenue CI1ELTENHAM 3192 28 January, 1998 A117. M. & J. Everest 34 Kingston Street MORDIALLOC 3195 28 January, 1998 A118. R. Watson 3 Shannon Court DING LEY VILLAGE 3172 28 January, 1998 A119. L. Gray 5 Carla Court ASPENDALE GARDENS 3195 28 January, 1998 A120. B. Quinn 99 Beatrice Street Nil IAM 3192 28 Janwry, 1998 A121. E. Sayers 11 Helen Court CHELTENI(AM 3192 28 January,_ 1998
GlGENLRAIASIJSAN\MARK\FACS1113S2.1)0C 18/20805
A122. M. Montague 75 Farm Road CHELTENHAM 3192 28 January, 1998 A123. B. Budgen 117 Beatrice Street CHELTENHAM 3192 28 January, 1998 - A124. F. Heber 109 Beatrice Street CHELTENHAM 3192 28 January, 1998 A125. C. Livingstone 11 Waratah Avenue MORDIALLOC 3195 28 January, 1998 A126. S. & K. CaIlanan 111 Beatrice Street CHELTENHAM 3192 28 January, 1998 A127. R. Fleming 97 Beatrice Street CHELTENHAM 3192 28 January, 1998 A128. M. Brown 76 Beatrice Street CHELTENHAM 3192 29 January, 1998 A129. J. & M. Easden 31 DeMlle Avenue MENTONE 3194 29 January, 1998 A130. A. Williamson 9 Dorrington Court DINGLEY 3172 29 January, 1998 A131. W. Huntington 72 Evesham Road CHELTENHAM 3192 29 January, 1998 9SS A132. A. Tsiantoulas 6 Lendor Court CHELTENHAM 3192 29 January, 1998 tZtt A133. K. & V. Mackie 74 Beatrice Street CHELTENHAM 3192 29 January, 1998 A134. 11. & D. Cuno 78 Beatrice Street CHELTENIIAM 3192 29 January, 1998 , A135. J. Lee 3 Verbena Street MORDIALLOC 3195 29 January, 1998 A136. D. & A. Parker 101 Beatrice Street CHELTENI1AM 3192 29 January, 1998 A137. R. Se_ B. Young 105 Beatrice Street CHELTENHAM 3192 29 January, 1998 - A138. G. & L. Dick 9 McSwain Street PARKDALE 3195 29 January, 1998 A139. T. Tripdidis 79 Beatrice Street CHELTENHAM 3192 29 January, 1998 - A140. R. & D. hill 8 Cormorant Place D1NGLEY VILLAGE 3172 29 January, 1998 A141. Mr & Mrs R. Gascoyne 21 Lawborough Avenue MORDIALLOC 3195 29 January, 1998 A142. S. McGettigan 5613enkel Avenue CHELTENHAM 3192 29 January, 1998 A143. S. & L. Ironside 10 Waratah Avenue MORDIALLOC 3195 29 January, 1998 A144. L. Lourdes 38 Barclay Drive CHELTENHAM 3192 29 January, 1998 A145. -1). Dumble Acme Engineering MORDIALLOC 3195 29 January, 1998 161 Warren Road A146. D. Pooley 121 Beatrice Street CHELTENHAM 3192 29 January, 1998 A147. E. & F. Valsarnis 46 Beatrice Street CHELTENHAM 3192 29 January, 1998 A148. S. Prentis 22 Gainsborough Road MENTONE 3194 29 January, 1998 A149. S. & V. Kalabakas 87 Beatrice Street CHELTENHAM 3192 29 January, 1998 A150. D. & R. Williams 103 Beatrice Street CHELTENHAM 3192 29 January, 1998 A151. S. & P.Fordham 8 Craigmore Avenue _ MENTONE 3194 30 January, 1998 - Al 52. M. 'Thompson 19 flouston Street M [WONF 3194 30 January, 1998
G\0ENERAL\SUSAN\MARk\FACSUBS2.DOC Pare S 18/20805pri
Co
A153. L. &C. James 424 Como Parade PARKDALE 3194 30 January, 1998 A154. A. Menglet 45 Keith Street PARKDALE 3195 30 January, 1998 A155. B. Cains 26 Scarlet Street MORDIALLOC 3195 30 January, 1998 • A156. A. Hope 10 Davey Street PARKDALE 3195 30 January, 1998 A157. J. Chase 2/6 Keefer Street MORDIALLOC 3195 30 January, 1998 A158. M. Byerley 4/17 Mac Crescent MORDIALLOC 3195 30 January, 1998 A159. D. Norman 34 Brownfield Street MORDIALLOC 3195 30 January, 1998 A160. C. Coma 26 Bondi Road BON BEACH 3196 30 January, 1998 A161. R. Atkins 148 Lower Dandenong Road PARKDALE 3195 30 January, 1998 . A162. A. & J. Dow 49 Evan Street PARKDALE 3195 30 January, 1998 A163. D. & K. Storey 21 Houston Street MENTONE 3194 30 January, 1998 A164. II. & D. Torgersen 3 Houston Street MENTONE 3194 30 January, 1998 A165. M. Berger 11 The Corso PARKDALE 3195 30 January, 1998 A166. M. Douglas 146 Parkes Road PARKDALE 3195 30 January, 1998 A167. S. Hardy 9 Sharan Avenue MENTONE 3194 30 January, 1998 A168. M. Cowdell 44 Allandale Road MENTONE 3194. 30 January, 1998 A169. A. & F. Prins 58 Allandale Road MENTONE 3194 30 January, 19-9-8 A170. L. Cunningham 4 Cormorant Place D1NGLEY 3172 30 January, 1998 A171. L. Lefevre 16 Brownfield Street MORDIALLOC 3195 30 January, 1998 A172. Williams Winter & Iliggs 377 Lonsdale Street MELBOURNE 3000 30 January, 1998 (on behalf of B. Ingmire) A173. M. & K. Rennison 4 Allandale Road MENTONE 3194 30 January, 1998 A174. M. Gourlay 34 Barclay Drive CHELTENHAM 3192 30 January, 1998 A175. S. Green 5 McGregor Court DINGLEY VILLAGE 3172 30 January, 1998 A176. P. & T. Barlow 35 Allandale Road MENTONE 3194 30 January, 1998 A I 77. P. Potts 5 Booth Street MORDIALLOC 3195 30 January, 1998 A178, C. Bateman 37 Elliot Street MORDIALLOC 3195 30 January, 1998 A179. D. Willetts 19 Wheatland Crescent DINGLEY 3172 30 January, 1998 A180. C. & J. Wells 48 Elliot Street MORDIALLOC 3195 30 January, 1998 A181. D. Savoini 18 Broome Avenue MEN'FONE 3194 30 January, 1998 A 182. ' P. CI i ffion Cnr. Robert & McSwain PARK.DALE 3194 3 February, 1998 Principal Streets Parktone Primary School
CAGFNERAL\SUSAN\MARKWACSLIBS2.1)0C Page 6 18/20805
A183. R. Benton 30 Edro Avenue EAST BRIGHTON 3187 30 January, 1998 A184. Peter Thompson 72 Beatrice Street CHELTENHAM 3192 30 January, 1998 A185. H. & B. Lei 44 Barclay Drive CIIELTENHAM 3192 30 January, 1998 A186. A. & M. Frame 17 McSwain Street PARKDALE 3195 30 January, 1998 A187, L. Eagleton 68-74 Farm Road CHELTENHAM 3192 30 January, 1998 A188. D. Emmerton 89 Beatrice Street CHELTENHAM 3192 30 January, 1998 A189. V. Wilson 60 Beatrice Street CHELTENHAM 3192 30 January, 1998 A190. C. Papadimitriou 12 Lendor Court CHELTENHAM 3192 30 January, 1998 A191. The Micelli Family 19 Farm Road CHELTENHAM 319-) 30 January, 1998 A192. The Kotantonis Family 49 Beatrice Street CIIELFENIIAM 3192 30 January, 1998 A193. J. Lay 29 Weyman Street CHELTENHAM 3192 30 January, 1998 A194. D. Billings 54 Allandale Road MENTONE 3194 30 January, 1998 A195. M. 84 P. Osboldstone 29 DeMlle Avenue MENTONE 3194 30 January, 1998 A196. G. & P. Moulton 28 Gainsborough Road MENTONE 3194 30 January, 1998 A197. J. Cramer 481Al1anda1e Road MENTONE 3194 30 January, 1998 A198. V. Hickey 7 Riviera Street MENTONE 3194 30 January, 1998 A199. T. Dickson 13 Norma Avenue CHELTENHAM 3192 30 January, 1998 A200. R. Shaw 31 Lawborough Avenue PARKDALE 3195 30 January, 1998 A201. D. Pastra 56 Beatrice Street CHELTENHAM- 3192 30 January, 1998 - A202. M. & J. Burke 119 Beatrice Street CHELTENHAM 3192 30 January, 1998 A203. T. & P. Smith 7 Helen Court CliELTEN HAM 3192 30 January, 1998 A204. Mr & Mrs R Csoto 6 Blythe Court DINGLEY 3172 30 January, 1998 A205. F. Westphal 35 McClure Road DING1,EY 3175 30 January, 1998 A206. K. Barea 30 McClure 'Road -LANGLEY 3172 30 January, 1998 A207. M. Woolie 13 Wheatland Crescent D1NGLEY 3172 30 January, 1998 A208. A. & P. Vitena 1 Bogart Close DlNIGI,EY 3172 30 January, 1998 A209. C. Paulusz 9 Margaret Street PARKDALE 3172 30 January, 1998 _ A210. The Farfarakis Family 4 Glengala Court MENTONE 3194 30 January, 1998 A211. The Parasekvas Family 9 Lachlan Street MENTONE 3194 30 January, 1998 A212. K. loannidis 15 Cedar Street MENTONE 3194 30 January, 1998 -A213. S. Kakavoules 52 Allandale Road MENTONE 3194 30 January, 1998 A214, The Kakavoules Family 6 Glengala Court MENTONE 3194 30 January, 1998
CAGENERAL\SUSAN \ MARK FACSUBS2.DOC l'agc 7 18/20805
A215. Dr Jack Spencer 1 Lendor Court CHELTENHAM 3192 30 January, 1998 A216. Dr C Beeby 2 Lendor Court CHELTENHAM 3192 30 January, 1998 A217. A. Smith 49 Bead Avenue CHELTENHAM 3192 30 January, 1998 A218. S. Maitland 4 Lendor Court Cl lELTENHAM 3192 30 January, 1998 A219. B. Jackson 10 Floor, 1 Macarthur Street MELBOURNE 3002 30 January, 1998 Department of Treasury & Finance A220. P. & J. Peterson 82 Beatrice Street CHELTENHAM 3192 30 January, 1998 A221. B. White 91 Benkel Avenue CHELTENHAM 3192 30 January, 1998 A222. K. & J. Kelly 105 Benkel Avenue CHELTENHAM 3192 30 January, 1998 A223. P. & A. Considine 58 Balmoral Drive PARK DALE 3195 30 January, 1998 A224. R. Kavanagh 5 Kallista Court CHELTENHAM 3192 30 January, 1998 A225. I. & M. Parker 76 Farm Road CHELTENHAM 3192 30 January, 1998 A226. R.& B. Rogers 4 Paljan Court CHELTENHAM 3192 30 January, 1998 A227. A. & C. Georgakis 143 Lower Dandenong Road MENTONE 3194 30 January, 1998 A228. R. & 1). Hancock 28 Blackburn Drive CHELTENHAM 3192 30 January, 1998 A229. N. Owen 5 Allandale Road MENTONE 3194 30 January, 1998 A230. J. Davey 3 Mandate Road MENTONE 3194 30 January, 1998 A231. S. & J. Hardy 9 Sharan Avenue MENTONE 3194 30 January, 1998 A232. M. Collins PO Box 97 MENTONE 3194 30 January, 1998 A233. R. Piper 2/78 Warren Road MORD1ALLOC 3195 30 January, 1998 A234. K. Bond 15 Atherton Close ASPENDALE GARDENS 3196 30 January, 1998 A235. N. & W. Phillips 64-66 Farm Road CHELTENHAM 3192 30 January, 1998 A236. L. Nicholls 6 Helen Court CHELTENIIAM 3192 30 January, 1998 A237. R. & I. Pritchard 48 Evan Street P ARKDAL E 3195 30 January, 1998 A238. W. & P.Brown 7 Seville Court CHELTENHAM 3192 30 January, 1998 A239. B. Paice 555 Collins Street MELBOURNE 3000 30 January, 1998 Department of Human Services (on behalf of Kingston Hospital) A240. M. & K. Hannan 18 Vialls Avenue PAR KDALE 3195 30 January, 1998 A241. S. Grange Boundary Road DINGLEY 3172 30 January, 1998 City of Kingston Public Golf Course A242. Mr & Mrs W Russell 16 Allandale Road MENTONE 3194 30 Jasnuary, 1998 A243. W. Bardoel PO Box 94 DINGLE)! 3172 30 January, 1998
G\GENEILALASUSAN\MARK \I:ACM.1162.1)0C l'.11•A: 8 18/20805
Kingston Rise Pty Ltd A244. R. Barnes 26 Lawborough Avenue PARKDALE 3195 30 January, 1998 A245. P. Rak Kingston Road CHELTENHAM 3192 30 January,/1998 Kingston Heath Golf Club A246. A. & M. Bennett 77 Kingston Road HEATHERTON 3202 30 January, 1998 A247. C. & A. Perry-Bolt 1Temora Street MORDIALLOC • 3195 30 January, 1998 A248. S. & G. Keen 95 Benkel Avenue CHELTENHAM 3195 30 January, 1998 A249. M. Sjostedt 16 Rivette Street MORDIALLOC 3195 30 January, 1998 - A250. A. Davidson 31 Scarlet Street MORDIALLOC 3195 30 January, 1998 A251. R. Bowden 22 Lawborough Avenue PARKDALE 3195 30 January, 1998 A252. - A. & F. Palmer 165 Lower Dandenong Road MORDIALLOC 3195 30 January, 1998 A253. P. Summers 2 Allandale Road MENIONE 3194 30 January, 1998 A254. B. Hampel 8 Somme Parade EDITHVALE 3196 30 January, 1998 A255. B. Famelos 83 Beatrice Street CI IELTENIIAM 3192 30 January, 1998 _ A256. W. & J. Brooks 23 MacGregor Street PARKDALE 3195 30 January, 1998 A257. D. Hobby Warrigal Road CHELTENI1AM 3192 30 January, 1998 Kingston Centre A258. D. Walstab 17 Vialls Avenue PARKDALE 3195 30 January, 1998 A259. D. & B. Winter 100 Farm Road CHELTENHAM 3192 30 January, 1998 A260. S. Coombes 30 Barclay Drive CHELTENHAM 3192 30 January, 1998 A261. M. Cooper 6 Seville Court CHELTENHAM 3192 30 January, 1998 A262. C. Stephens 58 Farm Road CHELTENHAM 3192 30 January, 1998 A263. L. & C. French 1 Kingston Street MORDIALLOC 3195 30 January, 1998 A264. R. & M.Breckenridge 22 Barclay Drive CHELTENHAM 3192 30 January, 1998 A265. G. & L. Mill 61 Brownfield Sleet MORDIALLOC 3195 30 January, 1998 A266. K. Carter 32 Verbena Street MORDIALLOC 3195 30 January, 1998 A267. J. & A. Freeman 20 Delville Avenue MENTONE 3194 30 January, 1998 A268. G. & W. Davis 59 Marriott Street PARKDALE 3195 30 January, 1998 A269. M. & A. Malyaris 36 Allandale Road MENTONE 3194 30 January, 1998 A270. R. Cahill 34 Allandale Road M EN FON E 3194 30 January, 1998 - A271. J. & M. Phillips 32 Allandale Road M ENTONE 3194 30 January, 1998 A272. J. & E. Guce 34 Rivette Street MORDIALLOC 3195 30 January, 1998 A273. D. & J. Winchester 14 Balmoral Drive PARKDALE 3195 30 January, 1998
CAGENERM,\SUSANWARKWACSUBS2.DOC 18/20805
A274. M. Stewart 10 Gainsborough Road MENTONE 3194 30 January, 1998 A275. P. & J. Sullivan 4 Broome Avenue MENTONE 3194 30 January, 1998 A276. D. & N. White 13 McSwain Street .PARKDALE 3195 30 January, 1998 A277. C. Stephens 58 Farm Road CHELTENHAM 3192 30 January, 1998 A278. J. Wrenn 42 Davey Street PARKDALE 3195 30 January, 1998 A279. V. & U. Hill 23 Allandale Road MENTONE 3194 30 January, 1998 A280. 1 R. Marlow 24 Milan Street MENTONE 3194 30 January, 1998 A281. C. &J. Chittick 57 Marriott Street PARKDALE 3195 30 January, 1998 A282. A. Papatsanis 67 Beatrice Street CHELTENHAM " 3192 2 February, 1998 A283. R. Peck 10 Rivette Street MORDIALLOC 3195 2 February, 1998 A284. B. & H. Sonntag 19 Collocott Street MORDIALLOC - 3195 2 February, 1998 A285. T. Blackburn 5 Temora Street MORDIALLOC 3195 2 February, 1998 A286. P. & G. McGann 1 Paljan Court CHELTENHAM 3192 2 February, 1998 A287. S. & M. Carydias 5 Sharan Avenue MENTONE 3194 2 February, 1998 A288. C. Flack 6 Vial's Avenue PARKDALE 3195 2 February, 1998 A289. M. Piper 2/78 Warren Road MORDIALLOC 3195 2 February, 1998 A290. D. Stephenson 55 Benkel Avenue CHELTENHAM 3195 2 February, 1998 A29I. P. & J. Lewis-Williams 40 Allandale Road MENTONE 3194 2 February, 1998 A292. The Groves Family 5 Verbena Street CIIELTENHAM 3192 2 February, 1998 A293. The Occupier 15 McSwain Street PARKDALE 3195 30 January, 1998 A294. CSR Limited Building D, Level 3, MELBOURNE 3000 3 February, 1998 World Trade Centre Murphy 40 Davey Street PARKDALE 3195 3 February, 1998 A295. L. . A296. K. Gilmour 51 Bradshaw Street MORDIALLOC 3195 3 February, 1998 A297. M. Guccione 73 Farm Road CHELTENHAM 3192 3 February, 1998 A298. R. Bailey Unit 2 MORDIALLOC 3195 3 February, 1998 18 Keefer Street A299. W. Flux 12 Waratah Avenue MORDIALLOC 3195 3 February, 1998 A300. S. MacRae 19 Rivette Street MORDIALLOC 3195 3 February, 1998 A301. E. McMurtrie 115 Beatrice Street CHELTENHAM 3192 3 February, 1998 A302. M. Clark 21 Evan Street PARKDALE 3195 3 February, 1998 A303. Mr & Mrs '1'. Richards 19 Gainsborough Road MENTON'''. 3194 3 February, 1998 A304. G. Stalls 8 Lisa Court MORDIALLOC 3195 3 February, 1998 _ CAGENIEltAL\SUSAN\NIARK\FACSUBS2.DOC l'Jgc 18/20805
C.0
0 A305. L. Boyd 7 Lisa Court MORDIALLOC 3195 3 February, 1998 A306. B. Borg 18 Robert Street PARKDALE 3195 3 February, 1998 A307. M. & D. McShane r- 1 Callaghan Court CHELTENHAM 3192 3 February, 1998 A308. L. Blanche 28 Morris Street PARKDALE 3195 3 February, 1998 A309. J. Morrison 4 Cronin Court CHELTENHAM 3192 3 February, 1998 A310. M. Mielnik 31 Clare Street PARKDALE 3195 3 February, 1998 A311. A. Baltas 23 Barclay Drive CHELTENHAM 3192 3 February, 1998 A312. R. Manks 42 Elliot Street MORDIALLOC 3195 3 February, 1998 A313. Y. Taylor 8 Raymond Street BEAUMARIS 3193 3 February, 1998 A314. G. Cuthell 169 Warren Road PARKDALE 3195 3 February, 1998 A315. B. & L. Henry 9 Lisa Court MORDIALLOC 3195 3 February, 1998 A316. J. Hardiman 41 Benkel Avenue CHELTENHAM 3192 3 February, 1998 A317. F. & D. Morabito 18 Pietro Road HENTHERION 3707 3 February, 1998 A318. M. Smith No address given 3 February, 1998 A319. E. Arthur 5 Lendor Court CHELTENI1AM 3192 4 February, 1998 A320. 0. Murphy 1 Maple Court CHELTEN 1-1 A M 3192 4 February, 1998 A321. 0. & L. Cleggett 24 Hawke Street PARKDALE 3195 5 February, 1998 A322. Mr Greg Wilton MP PO Box 5607 CRANBOURNE PARK 3977 5 February, 1998 A323. B.Rule Level 10 MELBOURNE 3000 5 February, 1998 - Schwartz Hart 227 Collins Street A324. G. Thompson 1 Fredman Court D1NGLEY 3172 6 February, 1998 A325. A. Herrick 52 Antibes Street PARKDALE 3194 _ 6 February, 1998 A326. S. Dobell 50 Swinden Avenue CHELTENHAM 3192 6 February, 1998 A327. He Ma & Li-Ching Chcng 34 Scarlet Street MORDIALLOC 3195 9 February, 1998 A328. W. Hatch 30 Ellen Street PARKDALE 3194 9 February, 1998 A329. P. :Perazzo 27 Ellen Street PARKDALE 3194 9 February, 1998 A330. C. Romeo 29 Ellen Street PARKDALE 3194 9 February, 1998 A331. D. Alberton 8B Ellen Street (Chandler) PARKDALE 3194 9 February, 1998 A332. P. Lawicki 14 Balcombe Place DINGLEY V1LLAGE 3172 10 February, 1998 A333. D. Parker 24 Charman Road M ENTON 1..,, 3194 9 February, 1998 A334. Heatherton Christian Resource 316-322 Kingston Rd HEATHERTON 3202 12 February, 1998 Centre A335. Mordialloe Baptist Church PO Box 5017 MORDIALLOC 3195 12 February, 1998
CAGENERAL\SUSAMMARKWACSUBSIDOC P ge I I 18/20805
A336. Capital Club Ply Ltd 99 Queensbridge St SOUTHBANK A337. Clayton urz 333 Collins St MELBOURNE 3000
CAGENEKAIMUSAN \ MARK \ FACSIJI3S2.1)0C l'agc 12 18/20805
I
FURTHER LATE SUBMISSIONS TO THE KINGSTON PLANNING SCHEME (Airport Environs Overlay)
NO. TITLE INITIAL SURNAME ADDRESS SUBURB POSTCODE RECEIVED
A338 Mrs Z Lobanov 36 Scarlet Street MORD1ALLOC 3195 17 February, 1998 :a) A339 Mr S Buckingham 5/84 Chute Street MORDIALLOC 3 I 95 23 February, 1998
A340 Mr & L Belden 77 Benkel Avenue CHELTENIIAM 3192 23 February, 1998 cn Mrs A341 Mr 8c F McGowan 12 Allandale Road MENTONE 3194 24 February, 1998 Mrs A342 Mr & C Cattermole 9 Balmoral Drive PARKDALE 3195 26 February, 1998 Mrs A343 Mr R Barry 14 Gainsborough Road MENTONE 3194 26 February, 1998 , A344 Mrs W Little /3 Houston Street MENTONE 3194 26 February, 1998 A345 Ms L Pesudovs 3/2 Houston Street MENTONE 3194 2 March, 1998 A346 Mr/Ms L Baldy 27 McS,wain Street PARKDALE 3195 3 March, 1998 A347 Mr/Ms E Jenkins 50 Edmond Street PARKDALE 3195 3 March, 1998 A348 Mr .1 Moore 23 Lawborough Avenue PARKDALE 3195 4 March, 1998 A349 Mr/Ms L White 5 Keiller Avenue MORD1ALLOC 3195 5 March, 1998 . • A350 Mr & J Richmond 70-72 Scarlet Street MORD1ALLOC 3195 5 March, 1998 Mrs A351 Mr/Ms Cunningham 157 Warren Road MORD1ALLOC 3195 5 March, 1998 ., A352 Mr & J Nees 189 Lower Dandenong Road MORD1ALLOC 3195 6 March, 1998 Mrs A353 Ms L Belmont 25 Bundora Parade MEN'IONE --3-194 6 March, 1998 A354 Ms 2 Bridger 54 Robert Street PARKDALE 3195 10 March, 1998 A355 Mr J Stanhope 18 Ivy Street PARKDALE 3195 11 Nlareli, 1998 --A-356 Mr H Cumming 43 Scarlet Street MORD1ALLOC 3195 13 March, 1998
G\GENERMASLISAN\MARKWACSUBS3DOC Page I 18/20805
A357 Mrs K Coady 4 Scarlet Street MORDIALLOC 3195 13 March, 1998- A358 Ms S Colbey 59 Scarlet Street MORDIALLOC 3195 13 March, 1998 A359 Ms C Stevenson 3/167 Warren Road MORDIALLOC 3195 10 March, 1998 A360 Mr & T Rotton 8 Verbena Street MORDIALLOC 3195 18 March, 1998 Mrs A361 Mr/Mrs G Watson 1 Dallas Street MENTONE 3194 23 March, 1998 A362 Mr & B Maher 95 Warren Road MORDIALLOC 3195 20 March, 1998 Mrs A363 Mrs E Anderson Hon. Sec. Friends of Braeside Park MORDIALLOC 3195 25 March, 1998 PO Box 608 A364 Mr/Mrs D Boyce 50 Cedric Street MORDIALLOC 3195 27 March, 1998 A365 Mr & S I Fitchet 15 Belle Crescent MORDIALLOC 3195 30 March, 1998 Mrs A366 Mr J SallSOM Chairman, Residents' Liaison Comminee CHELTEMIAM 3192 31 March, 1998 62-76 Cavanagh Street A367 Mr John Garlick 64 Evan Street PARKDALE 3195 r 7 April, 1998 _
G\GENERAIASUSAMMARKWACSUBS3.1)0C Page 2 Attachment 2- Correspondence from DITRDC 2012 letters x 2
14
Attachment 3- Clause 45.03 Revised
15
45.02 AIRPORT ENVIRONS OVERLAY 31/07/2018 VC148 Shown on the planning scheme map as AEO with a number.
Purpose 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.
45.02-1 Use of land 19/01/2006 VC37 Any requirement in a schedule to this overlay must be met.
45.02-2 Construction of buildings 26/11/2015 VC107 Any new building must be constructed so as to comply with any noise attenuation measures required by Section 3 of Australian Standard AS 2021-2015, Acoustics - Aircraft Noise Intrusion - Building Siting and Construction, issued by Standards Australia Limited.
Note: In Section 3 of Australian Standard AS 2021-2015, Table 3.3 refers to both building types and activities within those buildings. Each building type listed has its ordinary meaning and should not be interpreted as defined in this scheme.
45.02-3 Subdivision 19/01/2006 VC37 A permit is required to subdivide land. An application to subdivide land must be referred to the airport owner under Section 55 of the Act unless in the opinion of the responsible authority the proposal satisfies requirements or conditions previously agreed in writing between the responsible authority and the airport owner.
45.02-4 Exemption from notice and review 31/07/2018 VC148 An application under this overlay is exempt from the notice requirements of section 52(1)(a), (b) and (d), the decision requirements of section 64(1), (2) and (3) and the review rights of section 82(1) of the Act.
45.02-5 Decision guidelines 31/07/2018 VC148 Before deciding on an application, in addition to the decision guidelines in Clause 65, the responsible authority must consider, as appropriate: The Municipal Planning Strategy and the Planning Policy Framework. Whether the proposal will result in an increase in the number of dwellings and people affected by aircraft noise. Whether the proposal is compatible with the present and future operation of the airport in accordance with the appropriate airport strategy or master plan. Whether the design of the building incorporates appropriate noise attenuation measures.
Page 1 of 2 The views of the airport owner.
Page 2 of 2
KINGSTON PLANNING SCHEME
23/05/2019 SCHEDULE 1 TO CLAUSE 45.02 AIRPORT ENVIRONS OVERLAY C183king Shown on the planning scheme map as AEO1.
Use of Land 1.0
Use of land for a Dwelling or Dependent Person's Unit
A permit is required to use land for a:
• A single Dwelling on a lot.
• A single Dependent Person's unit on a lot.
Other Use of Land
A permit is required to use land for:
Art and craft centre Bar Display home centre.
Host farm.
Hotel. Office. Place of assembly (except Drive-in theatre).
Research and development centre.
Research centre. Residential hotel. Restricted recreation facility.
2.0 Prohibition relating to certain uses Despite the provisions of the zone, land must not be used and a permit must not be granted for and of the following uses: ▪ Accommodation (other than one Dwelling on a lot, one Dependent persons unit on a lot, Host farm and Residential hotel). ▪ Drive-in theatre.
▪ Education centre.
▪ Hospital.
▪ Two or more Dwellings on a lot.
▪ Two or more Dependent person's units' on a lot.
3.0 Buildings and works
A permit is required to construct a building or construct or carry out works for a use in clause 1.
4.0 Subdivision
Any subdivision of land which would increase the number of Dwellings which the land could be used for is prohibited. This does not apply to the subdivision of land to create a lot for a Dwelling in respect of which a permit has been granted.
5.0 Notice
In accordance with Section 52 (1) (c) of the Act, notice of an application under this schedule must be given to the Moorabbin Airport Lessee in accordance with the Airport Act 1996 (Cth) unless in the opinion of the Responsible Authority the proposal satisfied requirements or condition previously agreed to in writing between the Responsible Authority and the Moorabbin Airport Lessee.
Attachment 4- Schedules 4 and 5 to Clause 43.05- Revised
16
KINGSTON PLANNING SCHEME
SCHEDULE 4 TO CLAUSE 43.02 DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY
Shown on the planning scheme map as DDO4
AVIATION OBSTACLE REFERRAL HEIGHT AREA NO 1
1.0 Design objectives
▪ To ensure that the height of all buildings and works are constrained within specified limits to avoid creating a hazard to aircraft in the vicinity of the Moorabbin Airport, and to facilitate safe aircraft operations. ▪ To ensure that flight paths associated with the Moorabbin Airport are protected from the encroachment of inappropriate obstacles which may affect the safe and effective operation of the Airport.
2.0 Buildings and Works
Permit Requirements A permit is not required to construct a building or construct or carry out works (including Radio or Television Antenna, Flood Light and Flagpole) unless the building or works exceed 16 metres in height. A permit is required to construct a building or construct or carry out works, which exceeds 16 metres in height.
An application for buildings and works must be referred in accordance with Section 55 of the Act to the referral authority specified in Clause 66.04 or a schedule to that clause unless in the opinion of the Responsible Authority the proposal satisfies requirements or conditions previously agreed in writing between the responsible authority and the Federal Department of Transport and Regional Services.
A permit must not be granted for buildings and works which exceed the maximum building height specified in the table, unless with the consent of the Federal Department of Transport and Regional Services.
Notes: Building height relates to height above sea level expressed as a reduced level.
For the purposes of this clause buildings and works include radio masts, television antenna and flagpoles Application Requirements Any application for buildings and works must be accompanied by the following information: • Natural ground levels across the site to Australian Height Datum (AHD). • Northings and eastings (geographic coordinates). • The heights of the highest point and the outer corners of the building or works. Notification Requirements In accordance with Section 52 (1) (c) of the Act, notice of an application under this schedule must be given to the Moorabbin Airport Lessee pursuant to the Airports Act 1996 (Cth) (Lessee) unless in the opinion of the Responsible Authority the proposal satisfied
DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY - SCHEDULE 4 PAGE 1 OF 1
KINGSTON PLANNING SCHEME
requirements or condition previously agreed to in writing between the Responsible Authority and the Moorabbin Airport Lessee.
3.0 Subdivision
None specified.
4.0 Signs
None specified.
5.0 Application requirements
None specified.
3.0 Decision guidelines
Before deciding on an application for buildings and works the responsible authority will consider the views of the Federal Department of Transport and Regional Services. Before deciding on an application the responsible authority must consider: • The views of the Moorabbin Airport Lessee. • The Airport’s Obstacle Limitation Surfaces plan. • The location and height of the proposed development. • The need to prevent buildings or structures from being built which could interfere with and cause a safety hazard to aircraft operations. • The need to include a condition requiring a Construction Management Plan so as not to interfere with or cause a safety hazard to aircraft operations.
DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY - SCHEDULE 4 PAGE 2 OF 1
KINGSTON PLANNING SCHEME
SCHEDULE 5 TO CLAUSE 43.02 DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY
Shown on the planning scheme map as DDO5
AVIATION OBSTACLE REFERRAL HEIGHT AREA NO 2
1.0 Design objectives
▪ To ensure that the height of all buildings and works are constrained within specified limits to avoid creating a hazard to aircraft in the vicinity of the Moorabbin Airport, and to facilitate safe aircraft operations. ▪ To ensure that flight paths associated with the Moorabbin Airport are protected from the encroachment of inappropriate obstacles which may affect the safe and effective operation of the Airport.
2.0 Buildings and Works
Permit Requirements A permit is not required to construct a building or construct or carry out works (including Radio or Television Antenna, Flood Light and Flagpole) unless the building or works exceed 25 metres in height. An application for buildings and works must be referred in accordance with Section 55 of the Act to the referral authority specified in Clause 66.04 or a schedule to that clause unless in the opinion of the Responsible Authority the proposal satisfies requirements or conditions previously agreed in writing between the responsible authority and the Federal Department of Transport and Regional Services.
A permit must not be granted for buildings and works which exceed the maximum building height specified in the table, unless with the consent of the Federal Department of Transport and Regional Services.
Note: Building height relates to height above sea level expressed as a reduced level. For the purposes of this clause buildings and works include radio masts, television antenna and flagpoles. Application Requirements Any application for buildings and works must be accompanied by the following information: • Natural ground levels across the site to Australian Height Datum (AHD). • Northings and eastings (geographic coordinates). • The heights of the highest point and the outer corners of the building or works. Notification Requirements In accordance with Section 52 (1) (c) of the Act, notice of an application under this schedule must be given to the Moorabbin Airport Lessee pursuant to the Airports Act 1996 (Cth) (Lessee)Manager unless in the opinion of the Responsible Authority the proposal satisfied requirements or condition previously agreed to in writing between the Responsible Authority and the Moorabbin Airport ManagerLessee.
3.0 Subdivision
DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY - SCHEDULE 5 PAGE 1 OF 1 Error! Unknown document property name.Doc ID 760130583/v1 KINGSTON PLANNING SCHEME
None specified.
4.0 Signs
None specified.
5.0 Application requirements
None specified.
3.0 Decision guidelines
Before deciding on an application the responsible authority must consider: • The views of the Moorabbin Airport LesseeManager. • The Airport’s Obstacle Limitation Surfaces plan. • The location and height of the proposed development. • The need to prevent buildings or structures from being built which could interfere with and cause a safety hazard toor aircraft operations. • The need to include a condition requiring a Construction Management Plan so as not to interfere with or cause a safety hazard to aircraft operations.
DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY - SCHEDULE 5 PAGE 2 OF 1 Error! Unknown document property name.Doc ID 760130583/v1
Attachment 5- Clause 22.03 Revised
17
KINGSTON PLANNING SCHEME
22.03 MOORABBIN AIRPORT ENVIRONS POLICY C132king Thispypp policy applies to all land shown on the local pyppolicy map which forms part of this clause (excluding(excluding land affected by an Airport Environs Overlay control)control)..
22.03-1 Policy basis C132king The Municipal Strategic Statement recognises the signi¿cant role played by the Moorabbin Airport in the local and regional economy and in the state’s transport infrastructure. This policy is based on the principles of the Airport Environs Overlay and has arisen from the need to ensure that the use and development of land around the Moorabbin Airport is sensitive to the long term operation of the airport. The Council, in conjunction with the Commonwealth Department of Infrastructure and Transport, the operators of Moorabbin Airport and the State Government will develop a set of agreed principles to apply to referral of applications.
22.03-2 Objectives C132king 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 the use and development of land within the policy area is compatible with the operation of airports in respect to the impact of aircraft noise on sensitive uses, and is consistent with any approved Australian Noise Exposure Forecast (ANEF) as contained in the appropriate airport strategy or master plan for the airport. 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 signi¿cant levels of aircraft noise.
22.03-3 Policy C132king It is policy that:
Use of land Consideration be given to the potential impacts of aircraft noise in the assessment of the following uses:
Accommodation Office Art & craft centre Place of assembly Child care centre Research & development centre Display home Research centre Education centre Restricted recreation facility Hospital Tavern Hotel When considering applications for any of the above uses, the responsible authority:
– Take into account the present and future airport operations in accordance with the approved Australian Noise Exposure Forecast for Moorabbin Airport (2015) as amended from time to time.
– Consider the views of theCommonwealth Department of Infrastructure and Transport, unless in the opinion of the responsible authority the proposal satis¿es requirements or conditionspygg previously agreed in writing between the responsible p authority and the CCommonwealthommonwealth Department of Infrastructure and TransporTransport.t
Subdivision of land When considering applications for subdivision of land, the responsible authority:
Page 1 of 3 KINGSTON PLANNING SCHEME
– Take into account the present and future airport operations in accordance with the approved Australian Noise Exposure Forecast for Moorabbin Airport (2015) as amended from time to time.
– Consider the views of theCommonwealth Department of Infrastructure and TransporTransport,t unless in the opinion of the responsible authority the proposal satis¿es requirements or conditionspygg previously agreed in writing between the responsiblep authority and the CCommonwealthommonwealth Department of Infrastructure and Transpo Transport.rt.
New buildings New buildings be constructed so as to comply with any noise attenuation measures required by Section 3 of Australian Standard AS 2021 - 2000, Acoustics - Aircraft Noise Intrusion - Building Siting and Construction, issued by the Standards Association of Australia, to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.
Note: This policy does not apply to modi¿cations to a dwelling that was in existence at the approval date of this scheme.
Page 2 of 3 KINGSTON PLANNING SCHEME
Map 1: Moorabbin Airport Environs.
Page 3 of 3