Page 1 of 24
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT Agenda Item 5.3 COMMITTEE REPORT
3 May 2005 APPLICATION OF THE RESIDENTIAL 3 ZONE AND MANDATORY HEIGHT CONTROLS TO RESIDENTIAL AREAS
Division Sustainability & Innovation
Presenter Con Livanos, Acting Principal Officer Development Planning
Purpose
1. For the Committee to consider the State Government’s recent proposal to introduce a new Residential Zone that includes mandatory height controls over residential areas.
Recommendation
2. That the Planning and Environment Committee:
2.1. not pursue the 9 metre mandatory height limit as provided for in the Residential 3 Zone, and;
2.2. write to the Minister for Planning requesting that a further Residential Zone option be prepared, with a mandatory 12 metre height limit, to account for the prevailing conditions in the inner city.
Key Issues and Conclusion
3. The State Government has recently introduced a new Residential 3 Zone into the suite of zones available for Councils to use in their Planning Scheme. It has been introduced as part of the State Government’s commitment to Melbourne 2030. The aim is to help further protect Melbourne's suburbs and ensure Melbourne 2030's objective of protecting neighbourhood character is met.
4. The Residential 3 Zone replicates the existing Residential 1 Zone with the exception that it includes provisions that limit building height in the Zone to a maximum of 9 metres, or 10 metres on sloping sites or a maximum of 3 storeys (see Attachment 1). The proposed controls would prohibit residential building heights over 9 metres. Only areas in the Residential 1 and 2 Zone may be translated into the Residential 3 Zone. The proposed height controls would only apply to dwellings and residential buildings and not to non-residential buildings. (Further detail on how the Residential 3 Zone works is provided in the “Background” section of this report.)
5. The Minister has made an offer to all Councils to fast track the introduction of the zone via a Ministerial Amendment. This will occur where a Council can define and strategically justify the inclusion of those residential areas that require the application of a 9 metre height limit. Community consultation is also required before a request is made to the Minister (see Attachment 2).
6. In deciding whether to apply the Residential 3 Zone to the City of Melbourne’s Residential 1 and 2 areas, the impacts of the mandatory height controls have been explored. The following provides a summary of the key issues that were considered. (These issues are further explored under the “Comments” section of this report). Page 2 of 24
7. This report discusses:
7.1. the benefits of and issues with mandatory versus discretionary height limits;
7.2. the degree to which the City of Melbourne’s planning policy expresses the expected height and scale of development in established residential areas;
7.3. the number of planning applications received for buildings over 9 metres in the Residential 1 areas;
7.4. the potential impacts of height controls on heritage policies in the Planning Scheme; and
7.5. whether the proposed height controls provide opportunities for alterations or additions over 9 metres or the replacement of buildings which already exceed the mandatory control.
8. This report also explores whether the Residential 1 and 2 Zones are appropriate for inclusion in the Residential 3 Zone.
9. The findings of this report are that it is considered that the controls and policy already in place provide planners, residents, developers and the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) with a high degree of certainty about what form of development is suitable for the residential areas in the City of Melbourne.
10. There is a high level of protection for neighbourhood, heritage and amenity impacts within the current planning controls and planning policy. The few applications that are received for building heights over 9 metres in the Residential 1 Zone are dealt with on a case by case basis.
11. Given the high proportion of buildings in residential zones in the City of Melbourne which already exceed 9m and the inflexibility of the mandatory controls and potential conflicts with heritage outcomes at this stage, the present level of protection is considered adequate and there is no need or urgency for the City of Melbourne to apply a mandatory 9m height limit.
12. As an alternative, Council should request the Minister to consider making the mandatory height limit 12 metres. This height limit now exists for the South Yarra residential area and all heritage buildings in Residential 1 Zone would be below that limit.
Comments
Benefits of the height controls in re sidential areas
Creating certainty
13. Mandatory height controls will provide clarity and certainty for investors, the community and Council about residential buildings heights. (The issue of mandatory versus discretionary height controls is further discussed in Paragraph 41.)
Reinforcing Melbourne’s planning policy
14. The State Government has reinforced ResCode to ensure that Melbourne 2030’s objective of protecting neighbourhood character is met. The proposed height controls will assist in limiting development in sensitive residential areas while at the same time promoting housing in other locations close to shops and public transport.
2 Page 3 of 24
15. This approach is supported by the City of Melbourne Local Planning Policy Framework. Council’s adopted Municipal Strategic Sta tement (part of Melbourne Planning Scheme Amendment C60) identifies areas where residential development is encouraged, for example, significant population growth in the Central City, Docklands and parts of Southbank. Other areas such as St Kilda Road, other parts of Southbank, Carlton, North and West Melbourne will accommodate residential growth to varying degrees. It also identifies stable areas where little growth is envisaged. These are the Residential 1 zoned areas of South Yarra, Parkville, Carlton, East Melbourne and Jolimont and other parts of North and West Melbourne. (Further strategic direction in the Municipal Strategic Statement is discussed in Paragraph 23.)
16. The proposed height control would support the strategic intent for the Residential 1 Zoned areas. It would provide a numerical value that would further reinforce these areas as stable low rise areas where minimal residential growth is envisaged.
Buildings over four storeys
17. ResCode does not apply to a development of two or more dwellings which is 4 or more storeys in height (excluding a basement). This means that buildings of 4 storeys or more can be applied for in the Residential 1 Zone. Such proposals are not subject to the provisions of ResCode, however the Design Guidelines for Higher Density Residential Developments apply. The proposed mandatory 9 metre height limit would mean that a building of over 9 metres would be prohibited.
Are the controls necessary in the City of Melbourne?
Is there a problem?
18. Evidence from the 2003 and 2004 calendar years is that Council receives very few applications for buildings over 9 metres in the Residential 1 Zone. In the 2003 and 2004 calendar years, a total of 17 applications for such developments were lodged. These applications were spread throughout the City.
19. Of the 17 applications lodged in the 2003 and 2004 calendar years:
19.1. seven permits were granted;
19.2. five were refused; (Of these three went to VCAT, two of the decisions were upheld and one was overturned)
19.3. one was withdrawn; and
19.4. four applications have not yet been determined for a variety of reasons.
20. After reviewing the planning reports for these applications, it becomes clear that a combination of amenity impacts resulted in the refusals (for example, a combination of inappropriate building bulk on boundaries or at the rear of properties). Height alone was not a reason for refusal.
21. In other cases, buildings over 9 metres were approved. The building heights approved varied from just over 9 metres to 12 metres. (These buildings would be prohibited if new control was applied). The approvals of the higher building heights took into account building context (ie the existing heights of buildings in the street/neighbourhood), the height of the existing building itself, whether the height is graduated across and down a site and whether there were limited adverse amenity impacts such as overshadowing and overlooking.
Protection through policy
22. The City of Melbourne has a detailed level of policy in the adopted Municipal Strategic Statement which clearly expresses the strategic intent for the City’s established residential areas.
3 Page 4 of 24
23. The adopted Municipal Strategic Statement provides a clear indication of the building scale and form that is expected in the established residential areas. Figure 5 – Housing Opportunities and Clause 21.04-1 Housing and Community clearly indicates that in the Residential 1 zoned areas of the city, residential development is restricted to sensitive infill. Figure 10 – Built Form Character and Clause 21.05-2 Structure and Character identifies Residential 1 areas as areas where existing built form character should be maintained (see Attachment 3). The scale, massing and bulk of new developments should respect the scale and form of nearby buildings.
24. Clause 21.08 – Local areas, provides policy guidance specific to each of the local areas. In each local area, a number of statements have been included relating to the scale and form of development in the Residential 1 areas.
25. For example, for Carlton’s Residential 1 zoned areas it is policy to:
“Support limited residential development which maintains the low scale nature of heritage streetscapes and buildings in areas [1] and [2] in Figure 18.” (1.1)
26. It is also policy to:
“Maintain the predominately low scale and ensure sympathetic infill redevelopment and extensions that complement the scale, character of the areas around Carlton Gardens, Lygon Street and residential areas included in the Heritage Overlay.” (1.43)
27. Similar policies that apply to the Residential 1 Zone in other parts of the Municipality are included in the adopted Municipal Strategic Statement.
28. The clear intention of these policy statements is to ensure that residential building heights are compatible with and respect the established neighbourhood character and scale. While these policy statements do not provide an absolute height limit expressed as a number, it is considered the Municipal Strategic Statement provides a clear direction that only low scale sympathetic development is acceptable.
Relationship with the Heritage Overlay
29. 94% of properties that are within the Residential 1 Zone are covered by a Heritage Overlay. While the Heritage Overlay does not provide specific height controls, a building’s height significantly contributes to whether it respects the characte r and scale of adjoining buildings and the streetscape. Building height and façade heights are key considerations in Clause 22.05 Heritage Places Outside the Capital City Zone, the local policy in the Planning Scheme that describes how the planning applic ations for heritage places within the Heritage Overlay should be considered.
30. The mandatory height control would cause some conflicts with the Heritage Policies within the Planning Scheme. Clause 22.05, “Designing New Buildings and Works or Additions to Ex isting Buildings” states that buildings should respect the character and scale of adjoining buildings and the streetscape. New buildings should not exceed in height specified adjoining buildings in Level 1 and 2 streetscapes. Conversely the height of the façade should not be significantly lower than the typical heights of the streetscapes.
31. A mandatory height control could have an impact on the ability to achieve this outcome. For example, where a redevelopment site has existing 12 metre high dwellings on either side (eg some Victorian terraces), the policy encourages the new building to match this height. A mandatory height control would mean that a building of 9 metres would have to be constructed resulting in an inappropriate outcome.
4 Page 5 of 24
32. Clause 22.05 also requires that the external shape of new buildings or additions within a Level 1 or 2 streetscape are respectful (i.e. a design approach in which historic building size, form and proportions are adopted). A mandatory height limit of 9 metre could affect the ability to achieve matching proportions. For example, in historic buildings the floor to floor proportions are much larger than current floor to floor proportions.
Relationship with Design and Development Overlays
33. Some Residential 1 Zoned properties are also affected by Design and Development Overlays (DDO) (see Attachment 4). The Design and Development Overlays identify maximum building heights for specific locations. Some of these controls are mandatory while others are discretionary.
34. It would be inappropriate to apply the 9 metre height control to any of the areas currently within the Residential 1 Zone and the Design and Development Overlay as these height controls have been specifically developed to meet specific built form outcomes for those locations.
Alteration, additions and replacement buildings
35. Experience has shown that it is useful when applying mandatory height controls to have a clause that allows for alterations, additions and the replacement of buildings which already exceed the mandatory control being introduced.
36. The purpose of such a clause is to allow for the reconstruction of an existing building at its existing height. This preserves an existing development right and allows for reconstruction of a building that is destroyed by fire or the construction of a new building in place of a dilapidated one.
37. The provisions can also allow for further limited additions above the height of an existing building that already exceeds the mandatory height, subject to improved amenity and enhanced urban character. Examples of this in the past include the addition of a small amount of new floor space to surround unsightly roof equipment or the enclosure of rooftop equipment that is causing noise complaints.
38. Under the mandatory height control, a replacement building and minor additions would not be permitted. The Residential 3 Zone only allows for the extension of dwelling or residential building that already exceed 9 metres as long as the extension does not exceed the existing building height.
39. It is suggested that should the Residential 3 Zone be pursued, then a request is made to include a clause that allows for replacement buildings at their current height and for increases in height to existing buildings that are already over the mandatory height. This would be conditional on the Responsible Authority being satisfied that the additions would improve amenity and enhance urban character.
Mandatory versus discretionary height limits
40. Many discussions in the past have taken place on the advantages and disadvantages of imposing discretionary or mandatory height controls. It is often argued that mandatory height controls provide for certainty over the amount of change and development that can occur in an area.
41. Recently the Minister for Planning approved Melbourne Planning Scheme Amendment C94 which altered Schedule 15 to the Design and Development Overlay which applies to the area surrounding the Royal Botanic Gardens in South Yarra. The amendment reinstated the mandatory 12 m height control which was imposed in 1972 but in 1999 was converted to a discretionary control with the introduction of the new format Planning Scheme. The control was reintroduced to deliver greater effectiveness to planning permit decision making in this area.
5 Page 6 of 24
42. On the other hand, it can be argued that height controls by themselves will not achieve land use objectives or built form outcomes and that other factors such as siting, design and heritage need to be considered. In some cases, mandatory height limits can be too restrictive. Mandatory height limits do not provide the flexibility which is required to deal with the constraints and opportunities of individual sites.
43. Discretionary height limits do not mean no limits. If proposals seek to exceed a discretionary height, then Council must be satisfied that the proposal will not undermine the amenity, character and heritage outcomes sought. Discretionary controls also recognise the legitimate development opportunities. It should also be added that the Heritage Overlay incorporates additional controls over built form outcomes.
44. One of the shortcomings of discretionary controls is that the ultimate decision rests with VCAT and there have been a limited number of bad examples where VCAT decisions have undermined the discretionary performance based approach.
Non-residential buildings
45. In the Residential 1 Zone, non-residential uses and buildings and works require a planning permit. The proposed mandatory building height would only apply to dwellings or residential buildings and not to non-residential buildings. Therefore non-residential uses such as a medical centre or child care centre could be applied for, where a building is proposed to be over 9 metres in height.
46. However, the adopted Municipal Strategic Statement in Clause 21.05-2 Structure and character requires that non-residential developments meet the objectives of ResCode in relation to building height, setbacks, walls on boundaries, overshadowing and overlooking.
Large redevelopment sites in the Residential 1 Zone
47. A further issue to consider is large redevelopment sites where building heights of over 9 metres are appropriate. For example, the Kensington Housing Estate is in the Residential 1 Zone and under this proposal much of the recent development would not have gone ahead and a significant redevelopment site would be underutilised. Another Office of Housing site in Carlton is earmarked for redevelopment in the long term. These sites should be excluded from the Residential 3 Zone if a decision is made to proceed.
Residential 2 zoned areas
48. The new Residential 3 Zone can also be applied to existing Residential 2 zoned land. There are small pockets of the Residential 2 Zone in the City of Melbourne. The Residential 2 Zone is located in:
48.1. College Square, student accommodation on the corner of Lygon and Princes Streets, Carlton;
48.2. Former Queen Elizabeth Hospital site, bounded by Lytton, Keppel, Cardigan and Swanston Streets, Carlton; and
48.3. Part of the Commonwealth Games site.
49. The Residential 2 Zone is designed to “encourage residential development at medium or higher densities.” In practice, land is zoned Residential 2 to accommodate higher density development. Generally this development is higher than 9 metres.
6 Page 7 of 24
50. As with the large strategic redevelopment sites in the Residential 1 Zone, it would be inappropriate to apply the Residential 3 Zone to any of the Residential 2 Zoned land. The Residential 2 zoned area of the Commonwealth Games site is outside the jurisdiction of the City of Melbourne as the Minister for Planning is the Responsible Authority for this land. College Square is already fully developed. Only the Queen Elizabeth Hospital site is undeveloped. This site has been earmarked for future redevelopment and no direction has been finalised on the height and form of its development. It would inappropriate to place a 9 metre height limit on it. In any event, this site is in a Heritage Overlay area.
Defining where the controls would apply
51. The Department of Sustainability and Environment Advisory Note (Attachment 2) advises that in selecting areas for the application of the Residential 3 Zone, regard should be had to existing building heights and the slope of the land. The Department in “Frequently Asked Questions” also advises that “It would not be appropriate to apply these controls in areas where existing houses or apartments are already over 9m, such as larger period homes in Toorak or apartment precincts.” There are parts of the municipality in the Residential 1 Zone such as in East Melbourne, Parkville, North Melbourne and South Yarra where some existing terrace houses, apartment and flats are over 9 metres in height.
52. In preparing this report, a broad review of the municipality has been undertaken to determine the suitability of the Residential 1 and 2 Zone for inclusion in the Residential 3 Zone. This has involved a small amount of survey work in the field and some building measurements.
53. As discussed above, it is considered that the Residential 2 zoned areas and Residential 1 Zone areas that are also within a Design and Development Overlay should not be included in the Residential 3 Zone.
54. It can also be argued that sites within the Heritage Overlay should also be excluded from the Residential 3 Zone. It is considered that the proposed height control would be contrary to adopted heritage policies.
55. There small pockets of properties within the Residential 1 Zone that are not within a Design and Development Overlay or a Heritage Overlay. These areas have been reviewed to determine whether they could be included in the Residential 3 Zone (see Attachment 5).
56. These areas include:
56.1. properties fronting Manningham Street, West Parkville ;
56.2. the Juvenile Justice Centre on the corner of Oak and Park Streets, Parkville ;
56.3. parts of Kensington (ie sites not included in the Kensington Heritage Precinct – mainly north of Bangalore Street);
56.4. blocks bounded by Dryburgh, Wood, Haines and Abbotsford Streets, North Melbourne;
56.5. Area generally bounded by Cemetery Road/Princes Street, Cardigan Street, Nell Street, Rathdowne Street, Carlton; and
56.6. Kensington Banks (area within Comprehensive Development Zone).
57. It is not considered that a mandatory height control should be applied to these areas. On the whole the Clauses in the Municipal Strategic Statement, Clause 19, Clauses 54 and 55 (ie ResCode) in the Planning Scheme and existing conditions provide an appropriate level of guidance to ensure that neighbourhood character and amenity is protected. Some of these areas are characterised by existing development that is over 9 metres (eg existing blocks of flats), whereas other areas contain new development where redevelopment in the future is unlikely.
7 Page 8 of 24
58. It should also be noted that part of the Eastside site in Jolimont (that part which contains the existing development) and the Commonwealth Games Village sites also contain land in the Residential 1 Zone and in the case of the Commonwealth Games Village, the Residential 2 Zone. In both cases, the Minister for Planning is the Responsible Authority for these sites. In the case of Eastside, while a planning application to develop part of the site is in train, a development of over 9 metres would be appropriate on this site. (However a final building height is still under discussion.) In terms of the Commonwealth Games site, under Clause 52.03 of the Melbourne Planning Scheme the provisions of the Planning Scheme do not apply. For both these sites, inclusion in the Residential 3 Zone is not considered appropriate.
59. If a decision is taken by Committee to pursue the proposed height control, a key task will be to identify the exact areas where the Residential 3 Zone would be applied.
60. This work would include identifying:
60.1. areas where a large number of buildings that are higher than 9 metres predominate (eg whole street blocks). These areas would then be excluded from the Residential 3 Zone and would remain in the Residential 1 Zone;
60.2. large potential redevelopment sites in the Residential 1 Zone and Residential 2 Zoned sites where a mandatory height control may not be appropria te (eg Office of Housing sites); and
60.3. any current planning applications or proposals that would be affected by the height limit. (The Department of Sustainability and Environment in its Advisory Note on the Residential 3 Zone requires consideration of current applications.)
61. Apart from the existing Residential 1 zoned areas, Kensington Banks which is currently zoned Comprehensive Development Zone should be considered when examining areas for inclusion in the Residential 3 Zone. The Comprehensive Development Zone was created to specifically facilitate the development of the area and since development is nearly complete, rezoning the area to an appropriate Residential Zone has been resolved by Council.
Time Frame
62. There are no specific timeframes involved with this report. The Minister for Planning has not outlined a timeframe in which a Ministerial Amendment to introduce the Residential 3 Zone into the Planning Scheme should be applied for.
Consultation
63. Some consultation has been undertaken with other Councils in Melbourne to determine the level of interest. There are mixed views in relation to the proposed height controls. As outlined in Attachment 6, several Councils are considering the proposal; whereas many are not.
64. No consultation has been undertaken to date on this issue with owners and occupiers, community associations and the development industry. Their views are unknown at this stage.
65. As outlined above, before Council could proceed with the Residential 3 Zone, community consultation should be undertaken. The Department of Sustainability and Environment Advisory Note (Attachment 2) specifically requires that residents, property owners, developers and other interested parties in the community have the opportunity to make written submissions. The Advisory Note recommends a minimum 28 day submission period. The Advisory Note also requires that Council consider the response from the community before forwarding the amendment request to the Minister. (It should be noted that the consultation that the Department of Sustainability and Environment requires is not a formal statutory notice.)
8 Page 9 of 24
66. The following community consultation to gauge the community’s views on the mandatory height control is suggested, should this be necessary in light of the Report recommendations:
66.1. develop a fact sheet or similar material outlining the changes that are proposed and what they mean;
66.2. mail out material to the Residents Associations;
66.3. send material to developers who frequently develop in the municipality, professional bodies etc;
66.4. place ads in local papers, at libraries etc; and
66.5. place material on Council’s website.
67. There is an estimated 20,000 properties in the Residential 1 Zone. Individually notifying each owner, while highly desirable , would be impractical, as well as costly and time consuming.
Finance
68. If Council chooses to introduce the new Residential 3 Zone there will be costs in the order of $10,000 involved in further survey and mapping work and the required community consultation.
Legal
69. Section 20(4) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 provides that the Minister may be exempted from the giving of notice in respect of a planning scheme amendment in certain circumstances.
Sustainability
70. The height controls themselves do not introduce positive or negative impacts in terms of energy efficie ncy, waste and water environmental considerations. Introduction of the height control would primarily deals with urban design and building form.
Background
71. The new Residential 3 Zone will only be available for areas that are currently zoned Residential 1 or Residential 2. To implement the mandatory height control, parts of the Residential 1 and 2 Zones would have to be rezoned. The State Government’s proposal does not address the Mixed Use Zone. (However the majority of Mixed Use Zoned areas in the City of Melbourne are covered by Design and Development Overlays that specify building heights.)
72. The proposed controls would prohibit residential building heights over 9 metres. However the controls allow for the extension of a dwelling or residential build ing that already exceeds 9 metres provided the extension does not exceed the existing building height. Buildings with valid planning or building permits for heights over 9 metres are also exempt.
73. At present, height controls for residential developments are found in ResCode (Clauses 54 and 55 of the Planning Scheme). Under these clauses, buildings should not exceed a height of 9 metres (Clause 54.03-2 – Standard A4 and Clause 55.03-2 – Standard B7). It provides for a 10 metre height limit where the land is sloping. The standards in ResCode are discretionary and can be varied depending on the circumstances such as the visual impact of the building or height of existing buildings. Decision Guidelines provide guidance on the circumstances.
9 Page 10 of 24
74. It should be noted that ResCode provisions do not apply to single dwellings on lots over 300 square metres. In these situations, the Building Regulations provide the controls. These controls have been written to align with ResCode.
75. Should it be resolved to pursue the Residential 3 zoning, Councils can apply to the State Government in a streamlined process through a Ministerial Amendment. A Ministerial Amendment (under Section 20(4) of Planning and Environment Act 1987) means that there is no formal notice and exhibition of the Amendment or Panel Hearing.
76. To apply for the proposed height controls Councils would need to define the area where controls would apply and demonstrate to the State Government that:
76.1. the application of the height limit is consistent with their Local Planning Policy Framework and with Melbourne 2030;
76.2. an area requires a height control to be applied;
76.3. there has been a process of community consultation; and
76.4. Council is committed to constructive participation in the Regional Housing Working Group.
Attachments: 1. Residential 3 Zone provisions 2. Advisory Note – Applying the Residential 3 Zone 3. Extracts of the adopted Municipal Strategic Statement: Figure 5- Housing Opportunities and Figure 10 – Built Form Character 4. Areas within the Residential 1 Zone and Design and Development Overlay 5. Areas within the Residential 1 Zone but not within a Heritage Overlay or Design and Development Overlay 6. What other Councils are doing 10 Page 11 of 24 Page 12 of 24 Page 13 of 24 Page 14 of 24 Page 15 of 24 Page 16 of 24 Page 17 of 24 Page 18 of 24 Page 19 of 24 Attachment 4 Agenda Item 5.3 Planning and Environment Committee 3 May 2005
Areas within the Residential 1 Zone and Design and Development Overlays
Area Height control Design and Development Overlay
South of Elgin Street 10.5 metres (mandatory) DDO48 and west of Rathdowne Street, Carlton
The Avenue, Parkville 8-14 metres depending on location DDO 35 – A1 (mandatory)
South Parkville 9 metres or 10 metres (depending on DDO 35-A2 proximity to Gatehouse Street and Royal Parade) (discretionary)
Part of West Parkville 14 metres (discretionary) DDO 35-A3
Victoria Parade/Albert Height limits vary (some are based on DDO 20 – A11, Street, East Melbourne overshadowing, others on an approved A43, A51 building envelop while in another area it is 9 metres) (discretionary)
Clarendon Street, East 39 metres (discretionary) DDO21 - A20 Melbourne Under C93 - 11-12 metres depending on location (mandatory)
Jolimont 9 metres (discretionary) DDO22-A11
South Yarra 12 metres (discretionary) DDO 12
Under C94, recently adopted by Council - 12 metres (mandatory).
Southbank Village 14 metres (mandatory) DDO41
Pasley Street and Park 9 metres (discretionary) DDO9 Place, South Yarra
Page 20 of 24 Attachment 5 Agenda Item 5.3 Planning and Environment Committee 3 May 2005 Areas within the Residential 1 Zone but not within a Design and Development Overlay or Heritage Overlay
Area within the Residential 1 Description of Strategic intent for the Assessment of potential for Zone but not within a Design development within the area Residential 3 Zone and Development Overlay or area Heritage Overlay West Parkville – properties The area has a mixed Clause 21.08-8 Parkville 1.1 There have been very few fronting Manningham Street character of established - Ensure that the Residential applications for to more recent buildings. zoned areas of South redevelopment in the area. It generally consists of Parkville, Parkville West low scale ie one and two and North Parkville Height controls were storey dwellings and maintain their residential considered for this area as part flats. It is in close character, predominantly of Planning Scheme proximity to the City low scale nature and Amendment C20 and not Link freeway and the heritage context. considered necessary. Commonwealth Games Village. It is considered that the MSS and Clauses 54 and 55 will deal with any development pressures and that the Residential 3 Zone is unnecessary.
Corner of Oak and Park Streets, This site is the location of MSS does not provide any This is a Government site. It is Parkville the Melbourne Juvenile specific strategy for this unlikely this site will be Justice Centre. area. redeveloped in the near future. Development on the site The application of the already exceeds 9 metres Residential 3 Zone is in height. considered unnecessary at this stage.
Also under the DSE Advisory Note, buildings on this site are already over 9 metres, it therefore should not be considered for inclusion in the Residential 3 Zone.
Blocks bounded by Dryburgh, This area is mainly Clause 21.08-9 North and Under the DSE Advisory Note Wood, Haines and Abbotsford characterised by flat West Melbourne as this area is already Streets, North Melbourne developments of over 4 1.1 - Ensure development in developed with buildings over storeys. The area is the Residential Zone in 9 metres, it should not be densely developed. North and West Melbourne considered for inclusion in the is sensitively designed so Residential 3 Zone. It is also that it maintains the considered that there is little generally low scale heritage redevelopment potential in this streetscapes and buildings. area in the short/medium term.
Area generally bounded by The area to the west of Clause 21.08-7 Carlton The area has existing Cemetery Road/Princes Street, Lygon Street has existing 1.1 - Support limited buildings that are 4 storeys Cardigan Street, Neil Street, four storey apartment residential development and higher. There is some Rathdowne Street, Carlton buildings located on it as which maintains the low potential for redevelopment well as a VicRoads scale nature of heritage within this Residential 1 area. office. streetscapes and buildings.
On the eastern side of 1.2 – Support The height of this Lygon Street, high rise redevelopment of the redevelopment should not be Housing Commission Rathdowne and Nicholson limited to 9 metres. Higher flats are located. Street Public Housing buildings could be considered Estates for a mix of social particularly on the Rathdowne Page 21 of 24
housing, including medium Street housing site. The MSS scale development. identifies some medium scale development as being appropriate. Parts of Kensington The area north of Clause 21.08-10 Flemington The area while attractive for (This area of Kensington is made Westbourne Street is part and Kensington some new dwellings, second up of properties that are not of the Kensington Banks 1.1 - Ensure development in storey additions and a few included in the Heritage Overlay. development is unlikely the residential zoned area of some multi-dwelling Properties within the Heritage to be redeveloped. Kensington maintained its developments has not Overlay are interspersed with generally low scale nature experienced a demand for other properties.) The rest of the area is of heritage streetscapes and multi-storey dwellings above 9 mainly single storey with buildings. metres. some two storey 1.20 – Encourage dwellings. There has sympathetic infill and It is considered that the been some redevelopment and existing low scale redevelopment for second extensions that complement neighbourhood character, storey additions and the architecture, scale and interspersed with heritage some two storey multi- character of Flemington homes as well as the dwelling developments. and Kensington. combination of the MSS and Clauses 54 and 55 will deal Lot sizes are generally with any development narrow and with some pressures. deep lots with potential room for a second It should also be noted that the dwelling to the rear lane. extent of the Heritage Precinct is being reviewed for this area. It is proposed that this whole area (south of Westbourne Street) be included in the Heritage Overlay rather than individual buildings dotted throughout the area. This area would then be subject to the Heritage Policy and should not be considered for inclusion in the Residential 3 Zone.
Kensington Banks (area within Development heights Clause 21.08-10 Flemington It is unlikely that major Comprehensive Development vary within Kensington and Kensington redevelopment will occur in Zone) Banks. The majority of 1.2 – Ensure development in Kensington Banks in the near development is 2 storeys Kensington Banks maintains future. The area is currently in however there is some its generally low scale the Comprehensive limited development of 3 nature. Development Zone - a zone or more storeys. set up to facilitate the development of the area. A report to the Planning and Environment Committee in February 2005 resolved to change this zoning to an appropriate residential zone.
With development complete, the Residential 1 Zone is considered appropriate. There does not appear to be a need to apply a mandatory height control to the area.
Page 22 of 24 Attachment 6 Agenda Item 5.3 Planning and Environment Committee 3 May 2005
What other Councils are applying the Residential 3 Zone
Bayside · Are adopting a wait and see approach. · Have not progressed sufficiently with their Housing Strategy to consider the Residential 3 Zone just yet. · Bayside has a form of height controls in the coastal areas through a Design and Development Overlay (DDO)
Kingston · Are pursuing Residential 3 Zone for all of their ‘Incremental Change’ areas. They see this as more simply differentiating between the different residential areas with their different standards. · Currently asking for submissions on the Residential 3 Zone.
Monash · Not proceeding with Residential 3 Zone – too many unanswered questions about this zone, its interface with other zones, how the tribunal will use it, etc.
Stonnington · Have commissioned a consultant to undertake a study on the Residential 3 Zone. · Will report to Council after that.
Moonee · Reported to Council on the new zone late last year. Valley · Are pursuing Residential 3 Zone. · Have asked DSE for further clarification on what strategic justification is needed. · Have also asked for funding from DSE. · Undertaking a study and will report back to Council once a study has been undertaken.
Maribyrnong · Officers not planning to pursue the Residential 3 Zone. · Maribyrnong have identifie d areas where growth is being encouraged eg around Highpoint and the Transit City project at Footscray. Currently developing structure plans for these areas. Predetermines the future situation when studies not complete. · Feel there would be difficulties in identifying where they should apply it. Little development pressure on some areas, while in other area mid-rise development is desirable eg 7 storeys at Edgewater.
Port Phillip · Are investigating the issue and are yet to report to Council.
Yarra · Officers have had preliminary discussions with Councillors. Officers are not supportive of applying the zone in Yarra.
Moreland · Are investigating the issue and are yet to report to Council.
Whitehorse · Whitehorse has presented the matter to Council and Council has resolved to undertake consultation on the Residential 3 Zone. · Once comments are received a report will be presented to Council prior to making a request to the Minister. · Whitehorse has received requests from Residents Groups. · The Residential 3 Zone will be applied to Minimal Change areas and Natural Change areas
Page 23 of 24 Agenda Item 5.3 Planning and Environment Committee 3 May 2005
FINANCE ATTACHMENT
APPLICATION OF THE RESIDENTIAL 3 ZONE AN D MANDATORY HEIGHT CONTROLS TO RESIDENT IAL AREAS
There are no direct financial implications arising from the recommendation contained in this report.
Joe Groher Manager Financial Services
Page 24 of 24 Agenda Item 5.3 Planning and Environment Committee 3 May 2005
LEGAL ATTACHMENT
APPLICATION OF THE RESIDENTIAL 3 ZONE AN D MANDATORY HEIGHT CONTROLS TO RESIDENT IAL AREAS
Section 20(4) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 provides that the Minister may exempt himself or herself from the requirements of the Act whic h govern the normal statutory process for amending a planning scheme:
‘if the Minister considers that compliance with any of those requirements is not warranted or that the interests of Victoria ….make such an exemption appropriate.’
Instrument of Delegation
On 16 December 2004 the Council resolved to delegate to the Planning and Environment Committee the power, duties and functions directly relating or ancillary to Strategic Planning.
Alison Lyon Manager Legal & Governance