Planning and Environment Act 1987
Panel Report Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C198 Casey Housing Strategy
23 November 2018
Planning and Environment Act 1987 Panel Report pursuant to section 25 of the Act Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C198 Casey Housing Strategy 23 November 2018
Sarah Carlisle, Chair Rachael O’Neill, Member
Tim Hellsten, Member
Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C198 Panel Report 23 November 2018
Contents Page 1 Introduction ...... 1 1.1 The Amendment ...... 1 1.2 Issues raised in submissions ...... 3 1.3 Proposed post-exhibition changes ...... 3 1.4 Amendments VC148 and VC143 ...... 6 1.5 Procedural issues ...... 6 1.6 Issues dealt with in this Report ...... 10 2 Planning context ...... 12 2.1 Plan Melbourne ...... 12 2.2 Planning policy framework ...... 12 2.3 Planning scheme provisions ...... 15 2.4 Ministerial Directions and Practice Notes ...... 17 3 Housing Strategy and related documents ...... 18 3.1 The Housing Strategy ...... 18 3.2 Housing Diversity Statement ...... 21 3.3 Housing Market Assessment ...... 21 4 General issues ...... 23 4.1 Economic and strategic justification ...... 23 4.2 Changes to local policy ...... 28 4.3 Adequacy of the consultation process ...... 7 4.4 Conclusions and recommendations ...... 29 5 Low Density Residential Zone ...... 30 5.1 What is proposed? ...... 30 5.2 The issues ...... 30 5.3 Context ...... 30 5.4 Relevant policies, strategies and studies ...... 33 5.5 General themes ...... 39 5.6 Exhibited LDRZ2 precincts ...... 42 5.7 Post-exhibition LDRZ2 precincts ...... 47 5.8 Precinct 1 (Lysterfield South) ...... 50 5.9 Precinct 2 (Endeavour Hills) ...... 55 5.10 Precinct 3 (Narre Warren North ‘A’) ...... 57 5.11 Precinct 5 (Narre Warren North ‘B’ – Jacques Road) ...... 59 5.12 Precinct 6 (Narre Warren North ‘B’ – Belgrave-Hallam Road) ...... 62 5.13 Precinct 10 (Narre Warren North Township) ...... 63 5.14 Precinct 13 (Berwick ‘A’ – Caserta Drive) ...... 65 5.15 Precinct 15 (Berwick ‘C’ – Buchanan Road)...... 67 5.16 Properties within a designated Bushfire Prone Area ...... 70 5.17 Conclusions and recommendations ...... 71
Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C198 Panel Report 23 November 2018
6 Neighbourhood Residential Zone ...... 75 6.1 What is proposed? ...... 75 6.2 The issues ...... 75 6.3 Context ...... 75 6.4 Relevant policies, strategies and studies ...... 76 6.5 Neighbourhood character ...... 78 6.6 Consistency with other strategic objectives ...... 80 6.7 Schedule provisions ...... 82 6.8 Recommendations...... 86 7 Residential Growth and General Residential Zones ...... 87 7.1 What is proposed? ...... 87 7.2 The issues ...... 88 7.3 Context ...... 88 7.4 Relevant policies, strategies and studies ...... 90 7.5 General themes ...... 91 7.6 Precincts exhibited in the RGZ3 and GRZ2 ...... 94 7.7 Proposed post-exhibition changes ...... 103 7.8 Recommendations...... 108 8 Opportunity sites ...... 109 8.1 The issues ...... 109 8.2 Context ...... 109 8.3 193 Golf Links Road, Narre Warren ...... 109 8.4 75 Central Road, Hampton Park ...... 115 8.5 A strategic approach to opportunity sites...... 116 9 Drafting issues ...... 119 9.1 The issues ...... 119 9.2 RGZ and GRZ schedules ...... 119 9.3 Local Planning Policy Framework ...... 123 9.4 Housing Strategy ...... 123 9.5 Recommendations...... 124
Appendix A Submitters to the Amendment Appendix B Parties to the Panel Hearing Appendix C Document list Appendix D Panel recommended version of Clauses 21.02 and 21.03
Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C198 Panel Report 23 November 2018
List of Tables Page Table 1 Plan Melbourne Outcomes, Directions and Policies ...... 12 Table 2 Criteria and zones for the different change areas ...... 19 Table 3 Proposed changes in LDRZ precincts ...... 30 Table 4 Extent of bushfire risk in LDRZ precincts ...... 30 Table 5 Summary of the Landscape Character Assessment ...... 36 Table 6 Summary of Panel’s conclusions in relation to LDRZ precincts ...... 72 Table 7 Proposed changes from GRZ1 to NRZ ...... 75 Table 8 Proposed changes – GRZ2 and RGZ3 areas ...... 87 Table 9 Proximity to Public Transport ...... 88 Table 10 Proximity to Activity Centres ...... 88 Table 11 Characteristics of incremental and substantial change areas ...... 89
List of Figures Page Figure 1 Casey’s established areas ...... 2 Figure 2 Proposed post-exhibition changes – Endeavour Hills West ...... 4 Figure 3 Proposed post-exhibition changes – Lyrebird Gardens, Timbarra Estate ...... 7 Figure 4 Proposed post-exhibition changes – Gloucester Avenue, Berwick ...... 4 Figure 5 Proposed post-exhibition changes – LDRZ Precincts 3A and 4 ...... 5 Figure 6 Proposed post-exhibition changes – LDRZ Precinct 11A ...... 6 Figure 7 Substantial, incremental and minimal change areas ...... 20 Figure 8 LDRZ precincts within the Casey Foothills ...... 32 Figure 9 Proposed post-exhibition changes – LDRZ precincts ...... 47 Figure 10 Zoning of 18-22 Leemak Crescent, Berwick ...... 66 Figure 11 Map of the Hoddle Grid...... 76 Figure 12 Proposed post-exhibition changes – RGZ3 and GRZ2 areas ...... 103 Figure 13 193 Golf Links Road, Narre Warren ...... 110
Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C198 Panel Report 23 November 2018
Glossary and abbreviations Act Planning and Environment Act 1987 BAL Bushfire Attack Level Biodiversity Ecological implications of proposed zone changes to Casey Assessment Planning Scheme (Amendment C198), August 2018 prepared by Ecology and Heritage Partners BMO Bushfire Management Overlay BPA Bushfire Prone Area CFA Country Fire Authority DELWP Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning DPO[number] Development Plan Overlay Schedule [number] Drafting Guidelines A Practitioners Guide to Victorian Planning Schemes GRZ[number] General Residential Zone Schedule [number] Landscape Character Casey Foothills Landscape Character Assessment, August 2018 Assessment prepared by Ethos Urban LDRZ[number] Low Density Residential Zone Schedule [number] MSS Municipal Strategic Statement Neighbourhood Berwick and Endeavour Hills Neighbourhood Character Character Assessment Assessment, August 2018 prepared by Ethos Urban NRZ1 Neighbourhood Residential Zone Schedule 1 PPN10 Planning Practice Note 10: Writing Schedules PPN28 Planning Practice Note 28: Using the Neighbourhood Character Provisions in Planning Schemes PPN37 Planning Practice Note 37: Rural Residential Development PPN43 Planning Practice Note 43: Understanding Neighbourhood Character PPN64 Planning Practice Note 64: Local planning for bushfire protection PPN78 Planning Practice Note 78: Applying the Residential Zones PPTN Principal Public Transport Network PSP Precinct Structure Plan RGZ3 Residential Growth Zone Schedule 3 SLO[number] Significant Landscape Overlay Schedule [number] VFRR Victorian Fire Risk Register VPP Victoria Planning Provisions
Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C198 Panel Report 23 November 2018
Overview
Amendment summary The Amendment Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C198 Common name Casey Housing Strategy Brief description Implementation of the Housing Strategy through: - the application of the Neighbourhood Residential, General Residential and Residential Growth Zones - changes to the minimum lot sizes in the Low Density Residential Zone - associated changes to local policy. Subject land The established areas within the City of Casey Planning Authority Casey City Council Authorisation 6 October 2017 Exhibition 11 November 2017 to 16 February 2018 Submissions 324 submissions (including nine petitions), plus 17 further submissions received in response to the further notification directed by the Panel. Submitters are listed in Appendix A.
Panel process The Panel Sarah Carlisle (Chair), Rachael O’Neill and Tim Hellsten Directions Hearing City of Casey, 3 August 2018 Panel Hearing Lynbrook Community Centre, 17– 21, 24 – 25 September 2018 Site inspections Unaccompanied, 11 September 2018 Appearances Refer to Appendix B Citation Casey PSA 198 [2018] PPV Date of this Report 23 November 2018
Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C198 Panel Report 23 November 2018
Executive summary
(i) Summary Amendment C198 to the Casey Planning Scheme (the Amendment) seeks to implement the City of Casey’s Housing Strategy, to differentiate the preferred future location, diversity and built form of housing in the established areas of the municipality. The Amendment does not affect the municipality’s growth areas. The Housing Strategy identifies substantial, incremental and minimal change areas within the conventional residentially developed land in Casey. Substantial and incremental change areas are identified according to locational criteria related to walkable distances from activity centres and public transport. The Housing Strategy encourages higher density residential development in substantial change areas, and well located incremental change areas. The Housing Strategy also seeks to protect areas with identified neighbourhood character, by nominating them as minimal change areas. The Housing Strategy also identifies a number of low density residential precincts across the municipality, and discourages any reduction in the minimum lot sizes in precincts that have significant landscape character, environmental or biodiversity values, significant bushfire risk, or servicing constraints (particularly sewerage services). The Amendment seeks to implement the Housing Strategy by: • introducing and applying new schedules to the General Residential Zone and Residential Growth Zone, to direct housing growth to strategically located land close to activity centres and transport • introducing and applying the Neighbourhood Residential Zone to the Hoddle Grid in Berwick, to limit residential growth and to protect an area with identified neighbourhood character • introducing and applying schedules to the Low Density Residential Zone, to differentiate the minimum lot size in low density residential precincts, and to allow smaller minimum lot sizes in areas that are connected to reticulated sewerage and that are relatively unconstrained by landscape character, environmental or biodiversity values. Council received a large number of submissions to the exhibited Amendment, which were both supportive and unsupportive of various aspects of the Amendment. Key concerns included: • whether the proposed application of the Residential Growth Zone Schedule 3 (RGZ3) and the General Residential Zone Schedule 2 (GRZ2) around activity centres and public transport nodes is appropriate and strategically justified • whether the boundaries of the proposed RGZ3 and GRZ2 areas are appropriate • whether the proposed application of the Neighbourhood Residential Zone to the Hoddle Grid is strategically justified • whether the proposed application of the schedules to the low density residential zone is strategically justified • impacts of housing growth on landscape and neighbourhood character
Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C198 Panel Report 23 November 2018
• amenity impacts of housing growth, such as loss of privacy, overlooking and overshadowing and traffic and parking congestion • impacts on property values and rates • whether existing infrastructure has the capacity to cater for housing growth. There is strong policy support at a state, regional and local level for directing more intensive housing development to appropriate sites that are close to activity centres and accessible to public transport. This approach allows for greater utilisation of existing transport infrastructure, more efficient use of land and infrastructure, and more sustainable development outcomes. The Panel considers that broadly speaking, the Housing Strategy has been prepared consistently with these policies, and with the principles outlined by the Managing Residential Development Advisory Committee and the Residential Zones Standing Advisory Committee. The Amendment represents a faithful translation of the Housing Strategy into the planning scheme and, apart from in a few isolated areas, is strategic in its approach to designating areas that will, over time, accommodate change. Overall, the Panel commends Council for the comprehensive and strategic approach it has taken in preparing the Housing Strategy and the Amendment. The Amendment: • acknowledges that housing needs in Casey are slowly changing, and supports the future delivery of a more diverse housing offering in the municipality that will cater to shifting demographics in the municipality • provides clear justification for the areas identified for substantial, incremental and minimal change, and appropriately aligns these with the suite of residential zones • provides certainty about the scale of growth in the suburbs and in the low density residential precincts • ensures an adequate supply of residential land for coming decades • appropriately protects areas with identified landscape and biodiversity value and identified neighbourhood character • appropriately directs housing growth away from areas affected by natural hazards such as flooding and bushfire. The Amendment is strategically justified, and should be supported subject to the recommendations in this Report.
(ii) Recommendations The Panel recommends that Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C198 be adopted as exhibited subject to the following changes: Remove the properties in Gloucester Avenue, Berwick shown in Figure 3 in this Report from the Amendment, and retain them in the current General Residential Zone Schedule 1. Remove the properties to the west of the Endeavour Hills Activity Centre shown in Figure 2 of this Report from the Amendment, and retain them in the current General Residential Zone Schedule 1. Remove properties surrounding Lynbrook Village and railway station that are located within the Hallam Road landfill buffer from the Amendment, and retain
Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C198 Panel Report 23 November 2018
them in the current General Residential Zone Schedule 1. Rezone the balance of the land in this precinct to Residential Growth Zone Schedule 3 and General Residential Zone Schedule 2 as exhibited. Rezone the properties north of the Parkhill Plaza Activity Centre shown in Figure 6 of this Report to the General Residential Zone Schedule 2, instead of the Residential Growth Zone Schedule 3. Extend the boundary of the Residential Growth Zone Schedule 3 to the east of Merinda Park Railway Station to satisfy the locational criteria of the Housing Strategy. Make the following changes to the application of the schedules to the Low Density Residential Zone: a) apply Schedule 1 to Precinct 9, instead of Schedule 2 b) pply Schedule 2 to Precincts 3A, 4 and 11A, instead of Schedule 1 c) pply Schedule 2 to Precinct 17 only if Council is satisfied that there are no fundamental impediments to the provision of the further infrastructure required to service a denser population in Precinct 17. If Council is not yet satisfied of this, defer the application of Schedule 2 until further investigations into the Development Plan Overlay Schedule 1 are complete. Review the recent changes to the designated Bushfire Prone Areas as they relate to land in the Low Density Residential Zone to ensure that the application of the proposed schedules is otherwise appropriate. Make the changes to Clauses 21.02 and 21.03 shown in Appendix D of this Report. Amend the Narre Warren Local Area Map in Clause 21.24 to: a) include that part of 193 Golf Links Road, Narre Warren within the General Residential 1 Zone as a residential area b) include a notation designating that part of the site as a Medium Density Housing site. Make the following changes to the Neighbourhood Residential Zone Schedule 1: a) modify the neighbourhood character objectives to more closely align with the language of the preferred character statement in the Berwick Neighbourhood Character Study b) review and update the decision guidelines to ensure they are appropriate, relevant and clear in meaning. Make the following changes to the General Residential Zone Schedule 2: a) delete the second neighbourhood character objective that refers to preserving the amenity of adjacent residential development b) update the remaining neighbourhood character objectives so that they clearly relate to the identified or preferred neighbourhood character c) update the decision guidelines to assist in consideration of whether the neighbourhood character objectives have been met.
Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C198 Panel Report 23 November 2018
Make the following changes to the Residential Growth Zone Schedule 3: a) delete the first design objective that refers to preserving the amenity of adjacent residential development b) update the remaining design objectives so that they clearly relate to matters of design c) update the decision guidelines to assist in consideration of whether the design or character objectives have been met. Make the following changes to the Housing Strategy: a) update it to reflect current data from the 2016 census and the 2018 updates to the Charter Keck Cramer Housing Market Analysis b) incorporate the updated Housing Diversity Statement c) include dwelling ‘Type F Apartment’ within the dwelling types accommodated within incremental change areas d) correct any other discrepancies and inconsistencies between the text and diagrams.
(iii) Further recommendations The Panel makes a number of recommendations for further work following the adoption and approval of the Amendment: Consider reviewing the provisions of the Housing Strategy relating to opportunity sites to: a) include criteria for their identification b) provide guidance as to how they are managed. Investigate whether further planning controls (overlays) should be applied to better protect the identified landscape, environmental and biodiversity values of the municipality’s low density residential areas. a) Further investigations in relation to Precincts 2, 3, 6, 10, 11 and 15 should have specific regard to the recommendations of the Biodiversity Assessment for the Casey Foothills prepared by Ecology and Heritage Partners in August 2018. b) Further investigations in relation to Precincts 5 and 10 should be undertaken prior to (or in conjunction with) Council’s planned review of the Narre Warren North Township Strategy and the continued application of the Development Plan Overlay Schedule 5, to better inform future development settings for this area. Prioritise the review of the Narre Warren North Township Strategy, the Development Plan Overlay Schedule 5, and the Development Plan Overlay Schedule 2 to bring the various planning controls affecting land in Precinct 10 into alignment. Prioritise the review of the Development Plan Overlay Schedule 1 to bring the planning controls affecting land in Precinct 17 into alignment. Consider a future review of the Significant Landscape Overlay Schedule 4 and the Neighbourhood Residential Zone Schedule 1 to:
Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C198 Panel Report 23 November 2018
a) better reflect the recommendations of the Berwick Neighbourhood Character Study in relation to front fence provisions and application requirements for landscaping plans and canopy tree planting b) ensure the two planning tools work effectively together to protect and respond to the identified and preferred neighbourhood character. In Council’s upcoming review of its Activity Centres Strategy and retail policy, consider: a) amending the Berwick Southern Areas Local Area Map in Clause 21.10 to identify the Berwick Waterways neighbourhood activity centre b) changes to the planning policy framework to deal with potential conflicts between residential and commercial uses.
Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C198 Panel Report 23 November 2018
1 Introduction
1.1 The Amendment
(i) Amendment description The purpose of the Amendment is to implement the Housing Strategy adopted by Council in 2015. While the Housing Strategy contains overarching housing objectives for the entire municipality, the Amendment is focused Casey’s ‘established areas’, which are: • not growth areas • already zoned for residential purposes • generally developed before 2000. The Amendment proposes to: • amend local planning policy to: - replace the Housing Strategy 2005 with the Housing Strategy 2015 as a Reference Document - replace the maps in local place based policies with new maps designating preferred housing density areas - make other strategy, implementation and further work changes • introduce the Residential Growth Zone Schedule 3 (RGZ3) and apply it to areas identified in the Housing Strategy as ‘substantial change’ areas • introduce the General Residential Zone Schedule 2 (GRZ2) and apply it to ‘incremental change’ areas close to activity centres or strategic transport routes • introduce the Neighbourhood Residential Zone Schedule 1 (NRZ1) and apply it to ‘minimal change’ areas (namely the Hoddle Grid area in Berwick) • introduce Schedules 1 and 2 to the Low Density Residential Zone (LDRZ) and apply them to low density residential areas to differentiate minimum lot sizes in accordance with the Housing Strategy.
(ii) The subject land The Amendment applies to Casey’s established areas, excluding Pearcedale and Tooradin. The established areas are shown in Figure 1 below.
Page 1 of 145 Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C198 Panel Report 23 November 2018
Figure 1 Casey’s established areas Source: Map 1 from the Housing Strategy
Page 2 of 145 Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C198 Panel Report 23 November 2018
1.2 Issues raised in submissions Many submissions to the Amendment and further submissions made to the Panel questioned the appropriateness of the proposed zone (or LDRZ schedule) for a particular area. Concerns related primarily to: • whether the proposed application of the RGZ3 and GRZ2 around activity centres and public transport nodes is appropriate and strategically justified • whether the boundaries of the proposed RGZ3 and GRZ2 areas are appropriate • whether the proposed application of the NRZ1 to the Hoddle Grid is strategically justified • whether the proposed application of the LDRZ Schedules 1 and 2 to low density residential areas is strategically justified • impacts of housing growth on landscape and/or neighbourhood character • amenity impacts of housing growth, such as loss of privacy, overlooking and overshadowing • traffic and parking • impacts on property values and rates • infrastructure capacity • whether consultation in relation to the Housing Strategy was adequate.
1.3 Proposed post-exhibition changes Council proposed several changes to the exhibited amendment in response to submissions. Post-exhibition changes are not formally part of the Amendment, and have no legal effect unless and until they are adopted by Council under section 29 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (the Act) after considering the Panel’s report. The Panel has considered the proposed changes, and provided advice to help inform Council’s decision as to whether or not to formally adopt the changes.
(i) West of Endeavour Hills Town Centre The exhibited Amendment proposed to rezone the area west of the Endeavour Hills Shopping Centre (shown in blue in Figure 2 below) from GRZ1 to GRZ2 (southern portion) and RGZ3 (northern portion). Submissions highlighted significant constraints relating to existing single dwelling covenants and the court bowl street network in the area west of Endeavour Hills Shopping Centre. In response, Council proposes removing the area from the Amendment, and retaining it in the GRZ1.
Page 3 of 145 Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C198 Panel Report 23 November 2018
Figure 2 Proposed post-exhibition changes – Endeavour Hills West Source: Explanation of post-exhibition map changes proposed by Council (Document 2)
(ii) Gloucester Avenue, Berwick The exhibited Amendment proposed to rezone the properties on the western side of Gloucester Avenue, between Langmore Lane and Berwick Station, to RGZ3. Submissions highlighted significant heritage and streetscape value in Gloucester Avenue, as well as concerns about the amenity impacts of higher density development in the area (particularly traffic impacts). Council now proposes removing those properties from the Amendment, and retaining them within the GRZ1, as shown in Figure 3.
Figure 3 Proposed post-exhibition changes – Gloucester Avenue, Berwick Source: Explanation of post-exhibition map changes proposed by Council (Document 2)
Page 4 of 145 Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C198 Panel Report 23 November 2018
(iii) LDRZ Precincts 3A and 4 The exhibited Amendment proposed applying the LDRZ1 to all of low density residential Precincts 3 and 4. The LDRZ1 allows a minimum lot size of 4,000 sqm. Submissions highlighted that the southern portion of Precinct 3, and Precinct 4, do not have the landscape character, environmental and other constraints that many of the other LDRZ precincts have, and that subdivision into 2,000 sqm lots should be allowed in these areas. In response, Council proposes creating a new Precinct 3A, and applying the LDRZ2 (which allows a minimum lot size of 2,000 sqm) to Precinct 3A and Precinct 4.
Precinct 3A
Precinct 4
Figure 4 Proposed post-exhibition changes – LDRZ Precincts 3A and 4 Source: Explanation of post-exhibition map changes proposed by Council (Document 2)
(iv) Precinct 11A The exhibited Amendment proposed applying the LDRZ1 (minimum 4,000 sqm lot size) to all of Precinct 11. Similar to Precincts 3A and 4, submissions highlighted that the south western portion of Precinct 11 is not subject to the same constraints as many of the other LDRZ precincts. Council now proposes creating a new Precinct 11A, and applying the LDRZ2.
Page 5 of 145 Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C198 Panel Report 23 November 2018
Precinct 11A
Figure 5 Proposed post-exhibition changes – LDRZ Precinct 11A Source: Explanation of post-exhibition map changes proposed by Council (Document 2)
1.4 Amendments VC148 and VC143 Amendment VC148 was gazetted on 31 July 2018. Among other things, it changed the structure and content of the planning policy framework in all planning schemes. The Panel requested Council to identify any changes required in response to Amendment VC148. Council identified several changes, which mainly involve inconsequential policy clause number changes. Council took this opportunity to update the exhibited GRZ2 to reflect the requirements of Amendment VC143, which took effect on 15 May 2018. Amendment VC143 introduced the ability for a GRZ schedule to provide an exemption from the mandatory garden area requirements in the GRZ (in Clause 32.08-4). Council’s proposed changes specify that no exemption applies, which achieves the same effect as the exhibited Amendment (in other words, the garden area requirements continue to apply).
(i) Lyrebird Gardens, Timbarra Estate The exhibited Amendment proposed to rezone the properties on the northern side of Lyrebird Gardens in the Timbarra Estate in Berwick to RGZ3, with the surrounding area to be rezoned GRZ2. Submissions highlighted concerns about the impact of higher density housing on neighbourhood character and amenity in the Timbarra Estate. In response, Council proposes changing the Lyrebird Gardens area from RGZ3 to GRZ2, as shown in Figure 6. It does not propose any changes to the GRZ2 zoning of the surrounding area.
Page 6 of 145 Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C198 Panel Report 23 November 2018
Figure 6 Proposed post-exhibition changes – Lyrebird Gardens, Timbarra Estate Source: Explanation of post-exhibition map changes proposed by Council (Document 2)
1.5 Procedural issues
(i) Adequacy of the consultation process Ms Walker was critical of Council’s consultation process and submitted that residents of Keys Court, Narre Warren were not consulted during the drafting of the Housing Strategy. She submitted that the Amendment should be rejected or delayed until more research and explicit community consultation performed, including community forums. Council detailed the background to the Amendment, including the consultation process, in its Part A submission. It undertook consultation during the preparation of the Housing Strategy using a dedicated community engagement page called ‘Casey Conservations’ on its website. It also published the technical reports that informed the draft Housing Strategy on this page. It submitted that extensive consultation was undertaken during the exhibition of the draft Housing Strategy, which ran for 6 weeks through June and July 2015, including an information page on the Council’s website, 10 informal community information sessions and drop-in sessions to meet officers. As a result, 324 responses were received, including 179 surveys and 145 submissions. The Amendment was exhibited between 9 November and 15 December 2017. Notice included publications in the local newspapers for two weeks, publication of a notice in The Age and the Government Gazette, posting of documentation and covering letters to 30,000 households, and five after-hours public information drop-in sessions. On the basis of Council’s summary of the exhibition and consultation that occurred during the preparation of the Housing Strategy and the Amendment, the Panel is satisfied that sufficient consultation has been undertaken.
Page 7 of 145 Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C198 Panel Report 23 November 2018
(ii) Further notification of the proposed post-exhibition changes Following the Directions Hearing, the Panel directed Council to provide further notice to affected landowners and occupiers of the proposed post-exhibition changes. In response to the further notice, 17 additional submissions were received. Four of those submitters participated in the Hearing. The Panel has considered all of the further submissions received in response to the proposed post-exhibition changes, whether or not the submitters appeared at the Hearing.
(iii) Further studies obtained by Council following exhibition Following exhibition of the Amendment, Council commissioned the following studies, largely to assess whether Council’s proposed post-exhibition changes are appropriate: • Casey Foothills Landscape Character Assessment, August 2018 prepared by Ethos Urban (the Landscape Character Assessment) • Ecological implications of proposed zone changes to Casey Planning Scheme (Amendment C198), August 2018 prepared by Ecology and Heritage Partners (the Biodiversity Assessment) • Berwick and Endeavour Hills Neighbourhood Character Assessment, 16 August 2018 prepared by Ethos Urban (the Neighbourhood Character Assessment). Mr Luppino made a submission at the Hearing on behalf of family members who own a property in LDRZ Precinct 15. Council proposes to apply the LDRZ1 to Precinct 15, thereby effectively maintaining the current minimum lot size of 4,000 sqm. Mr Luppino indicated that he had not received a copy of these further studies, two of which directly impact Precinct 15 (namely the Landscape Character Assessment and the Biodiversity Assessment). He requested and was granted time to provide further written submissions in relation to these studies. In a further written submission dated 3 October 2018 (Document 54), Mr Luppino raised concerns over the process adopted by Council in relation to the further studies: Naturally had we known that Council would be proposing to commission these reports after consideration of the submissions, and then rely on these reports as part of the panel hearing, our submission to the Panel last week would have taken on a different tact, including the possibility of calling expert evidence. Because of these events we believe we (and other submitters) have been denied the opportunity to put our best case forward to the Panel. He submitted that these studies should have been undertaken prior to the Amendment being prepared, and used to inform the Amendment. He submitted that all persons affected by the Amendment should have been provided the opportunity to comment on the further studies, not just those who chose to participate in the Panel hearing. He submitted: Is the Panel satisfied that by not providing these assessments as part of the originally exhibited amendment, that there has not been a denial of natural justice, in that those who are affected by the contents of the reports do not know they exist, have not been consulted, and have not been provided with the opportunity to comment.
Page 8 of 145 Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C198 Panel Report 23 November 2018
… In conclusion we strongly submit that there has been a serious failure (one could also say fatal error) of process that cannot be ignored and must be addressed by the Panel. It is our view that the additional assessments commissioned and tabled in support of the amendment by the City of Casey, should not be permitted as they were not relied upon in Council’s decision making, and nor did they form part of the amendment documentation. Another view (and one that is open to the Panel) is that the amendment should be abandoned due to these failures in process. The Panel agrees that it would have been preferable for these further studies to have been undertaken prior to the preparation and exhibition of the Amendment, rather than as part of what appears to be an attempt (at least in some instances) to bolster Council’s decision to put forward the proposed post-exhibition changes to the Panel. Nevertheless, the Panel does not regard this as fatal to the Amendment. The Landscape Character Assessment and the Biodiversity Assessment provide further detail and clarification of the values of parts of the Casey Foothills, of which Precinct 15 forms part. These values had already been identified in previous studies and strategies, and are currently recognised and protected in the local policy framework (in particular in Clause 21.14). Importantly, neither assessment identified new or additional values on which Council sought to rely to justify more restrictive controls than those exhibited. On the contrary, the assessments investigated whether the previously identified values were in fact as significant as first thought, and whether less restrictive controls may be justified in some areas. If Mr Luppino considered that the landscape and biodiversity values of Precinct 15 were insufficient to justify retaining the existing 4,000 sqm minimum lot size, he could have brought his own evidence to establish that fact. He chose not to do so. Council has relied on the further studies as providing further support for the application of the zones as proposed in the Amendment, and as clearly articulated in the Housing Strategy since 2015. The Panel does not consider that any party has been prejudiced by the findings in the further studies, or by Council’s reliance on them in the panel process. Council did not put the further studies forward as evidence, and they have not been weighted as such by the Panel. In considering the weight to apply to the further studies, the Panel considered: • whether the study introduces significant new material • the opportunity for members of the public or submitters to view it • the degree to which submissions have raised issues with its analysis and recommendations • the longer-term policy role of the study. As noted above, the Panel has found that the values identified in the further studies were largely recognised in earlier studies. The studies were publicly accessible as part of Council’s Part A submission and placed on Council’s website (although the Panel notes Mr Luppino’s submission that he did not receive copies). Council has not proposed to incorporate the further studies into the planning scheme, or introduce them as policy background
Page 9 of 145 Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C198 Panel Report 23 November 2018
documents. The further studies helped inform Council’s final position on the Amendment, and assisted the Panel in better understanding the values that are sought to be protected and the rationale for specific provisions proposed in the Amendment. For completeness, the Panel notes that Mr Luppino’s 3 October 2018 submissions went beyond the matters to which he was granted leave to respond, namely the Landscape Character Assessment and the Biodiversity Assessment. The Panel has disregarded these additional submissions in the interests of procedural fairness.
(iv) Response to Mr Ross’ evidence regarding bushfire risk in Precinct 3 Mr Elliot made a submission to the effect that a minimum lot size of 2,000 sqm should be allowed in LDRZ Precinct 3. He called Mr Ross to provide expert evidence in relation to the Bushfire Attack Level (BAL) rating and bushfire risk of properties in Precinct 3. Council cross examined Mr Ross in relation to his assessment of BAL ratings, and tabled a diagram prepared by Council’s consultants Bushfire Planning (Document 36A) that queried some of Mr Ross’s assumptions, particularly in relation to the upslope classification and the surrounding vegetation types. After the Hearing concluded, Mr Elliot requested the opportunity to respond to what he claimed were “factual errors” in Document 36A. The Panel agreed to this on the basis that Document 36A was not circulated prior to the Hearing, and Mr Elliot (and Mr Ross) had limited opportunity to respond to the material during the course of Council’s cross examination. Mr Ross provided further material on 2 October 2018 (Document 53), which in part sought to correct alleged factual errors in Document 36A. However Mr Ross also sought to introduce new material responding to Council’s criticisms of his evidence in Council’s reply (which is discussed in Chapter 5.10). To ensure procedural fairness, the Panel has not had regard to this additional material.
1.6 Issues dealt with in this Report
(i) Issues considered The Panel considered all written submissions made in response to the exhibition of the Amendment, observations from site visits, and submissions, evidence and other material presented to it during the Hearing. It has reviewed a large volume of material, and has had to be selective in referring to the more relevant or determinative material in the Report. All submissions and materials have been considered by the Panel in reaching its conclusions, regardless of whether they are specifically mentioned in the Report.
(ii) Site specific rezoning requests A number of submissions requested site specific rezonings (also referred to as ‘spot’ rezonings). Council has taken a precinct-based approach to the Amendment. The Panel supports the precinct-based approach, as it avoids a situation whereby specific sites within a precinct or area are zoned differently to the surrounding land. The Panel does not consider that spot rezonings constitute orderly planning for this Amendment, unless there are
Page 10 of 145 Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C198 Panel Report 23 November 2018
compelling reasons for doing so. Nevertheless, the Panel has considered submissions seeking site specific rezonings in the broader context of whether that precinct or area should be zoned differently to what Council proposed. These requests are discussed in the chapters dealing with the relevant zone.
(iii) Issues not considered Some submissions raised concerns about the Amendment potentially increasing rates or decreasing property values. Rates and property valuation issues are not valid planning considerations, and have not been further considered in this Report. Some submissions suggested that Council should stop immigration and suggested that higher density housing would attract undesirable people to the municipality and result in increased crime. There is no recognised connection between increased densities and increased crime, particularly the relatively modest density increases being contemplated by the Amendment. No evidence was provided in support of these claims. Concerns about immigration are well beyond the scope of the Amendment. These issues have not been further considered in this Report.
Page 11 of 145 Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C198 Panel Report 23 November 2018
2 Planning context
This chapter discusses the policy framework as it relates to the general approach adopted by Council in preparing the Housing Strategy and the Amendment. Policies that are more specifically relevant to the application of the zones or schedules are discussed in the relevant zone chapter.
2.1 Plan Melbourne Plan Melbourne 2017-2050 sets out strategic directions to guide Melbourne’s development to 2050, to ensure it becomes more sustainable, productive and liveable as its population approaches 8 million. It is accompanied by an implementation plan that is regularly updated and refreshed every five years. Plan Melbourne is structured around seven Outcomes, which set out the aims of the plan. The Outcomes are supported by Directions and Policies, which describe how the Outcomes will be achieved. Outcomes 2 and 6 are particularly relevant to the Amendment, and are summarised in Table 1: Table 1 Plan Melbourne Outcomes, Directions and Policies Outcome Directions and policies Outcome 2 - Melbourne provides - Manage the supply of new housing in the right locations to housing choice in locations close meet population growth and create a sustainable city to jobs and services - Support new housing in activity centres and other places that offer good access to jobs, services and public transport - Facilitate an increased percentage of new housing in established areas to create a city of 20-minute neighbourhoods (neighbourhoods in which people can meet most of their everyday needs within a 20 minute walk, cycle or local public transport trip from their home) - Provide certainty about the scale of growth in the suburbs - Provide greater choice and diversity of housing, and facilitate housing that offers choice and meets changing household needs Outcome 6 - Melbourne is a - Reduce the likelihood and consequences of natural hazard sustainable and resilient city. events and adapt to climate change - Mitigate exposure to natural hazards and adapt to the impacts of climate change.
2.2 Planning policy framework Council submitted that the Amendment is supported by various clauses in the Planning Policy Framework, which the Panel has summarised below.
Page 12 of 145 Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C198 Panel Report 23 November 2018
Victorian planning objectives The Amendment will assist in implementing State policy objectives set out in section 4 of the Act by encouraging increases in residential density in well-serviced areas, protecting areas of identified neighbourhood character and minimising an increase in natural hazards by limiting housing growth in higher risk low density residential areas. Clause 11 (Settlement) The Amendment: • increases the supply of residential land in appropriate locations, by facilitating higher density residential development in appropriate locations across the established areas of Casey to optimise the use of existing and proposed infrastructure, jobs, services and transport • responds to land capability and natural hazards (in particular bushfires risks), by directing growth to appropriate locations. Clause 12 (Environmental and landscape values) The Amendment preserves areas with recognised neighbourhood character and landscape values, by directing growth away from these areas. Clause 13 (Environmental risks) The Amendment: • considers potential fire risk in low density residential areas, and directs population growth to lower fire risk locations to ensure protection of human life is prioritised (13.02-1S) • directs population growth and facilitates housing development in low risk locations to ensure human life and property can be appropriately protected from the effects of flooding (13.03-1S). Clause 15 (Built environment and heritage) By directing growth away from sensitive areas through the application of the NRZ1 and LDRZ1, the Amendment seeks to: • ensure development responds to its context in terms of neighbourhood character and surrounding landscape values • promote development that is environmentally sustainable and minimises detrimental impacts on the built and natural environment. Clause 16 (Housing) The Amendment supports the objectives in Clause 16 by: • establishing a clear framework to guide housing growth and development and meet projected housing demand • preserving valued areas and facilitating increased housing yield at appropriate locations where services, jobs and public transport are accessible • providing guidance through the application of tailored zone schedules for an appropriate quantity, quality and type of housing to meet various household needs and improve housing affordability.
Page 13 of 145 Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C198 Panel Report 23 November 2018
Clause 19 (Infrastructure) The Amendment encourages the efficient use of infrastructure by directing growth to areas adjacent to activity centres and public transport infrastructure. Clause 21.02 (Key issues and strategic vision) The Amendment supports the objectives in Clause 21.02 by seeking to: • manage rapid urban growth to meet the social and physical needs of a diverse community • manage urban development and its impacts on surrounding rural areas and areas of landscape and environmental significance • protect and restore Casey’s biodiversity • protect Casey’s diverse local areas, townships and villages from inappropriate use and development • provide capacity for new suburban areas within the Urban Growth Boundary to cater for up to an additional 78,000 households, as of 2011 • deliver a mix of housing opportunities incorporating varied types of suburban housing, and low density rural lifestyle housing on different sized lots. Clause 21.03 (Settlement and housing) The Amendment supports the objectives in Clause 21.03 because it: • zones land to support and accommodate housing growth throughout the municipality in appropriate locations • facilitates the delivery of more diverse housing types to suit a range of households, recognising changing needs over time • retains LDRZ land and identifies areas where further subdivision should be limited to avoid further risk from natural hazards. Clause 21.04 (Environment) The Amendment supports the objectives in Clause 21.04 because it: • encourages residential growth in appropriate areas and away from areas with sensitive ecological systems and identified and valued landscape character • balances the demands placed on ecological systems in the Casey Foothills by creating opportunities for a more diverse form of rural residential development while protecting areas with recognised ecological and landscape values • reduces development pressure in areas with recognised ecological values by encouraging population growth in urban areas through the application of the GRZ2 and RGZ3. Clause 21.06 (Transport) The Amendment supports the objectives in Clause 21.06 because it: • facilitates residential development adjacent or close to activity centres and the Principal Public Transport Network (PPTN) • improves the accessibility of Casey’s urban structure • is the result of an integrated transport and land use planning process, in that it directs housing growth to areas that are well serviced by public transport.
Page 14 of 145 Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C198 Panel Report 23 November 2018
Clause 21.07 (Built environment) The Amendment supports the objectives in Clause 21.07 because it: • introduces planning controls that require residential development to be responsive and sensitive to the surrounding character and amenity • directs residential growth to areas with a less clearly defined character • provides certainty about the scale of residential growth within the municipality to ensure ad hoc development does not erode neighbourhood character • ensures, through the proposed zone schedules, that residential development preserves the amenity of neighbouring land uses and responds to identified neighbourhood character • protects, through the NRZ1, the identified and valued character of the ‘Hoddle Grid’ in Berwick by prohibiting subdivision of under 600 sqm and implementing controls that encourage appropriate landscaping and setbacks • allows, through the application of the LDRZ2, population growth and housing demand to be absorbed at strategically selected areas in the Casey Foothills with relatively less landscape value.
2.3 Planning scheme provisions
(i) Neighbourhood Residential, General Residential and Residential Growth Zones The reformed residential zones were introduced into the Casey Planning Scheme in June 2014 by Amendment C195, which applied the GRZ to most of the residential land in Casey’s established areas. The RGZ applies in limited areas. The purposes specific to the GRZ are: • To encourage development that respects the neighbourhood character of the area. • To encourage a diversity of housing types and housing growth particularly in locations offering good access to services and transport. The purposes specific to the RGZ are: • To provide housing at increased densities in buildings up to and including four storey buildings. • To encourage a diversity of housing types in locations offering good access to services and transport including activity centres and town centres. • To encourage a scale of development that provides a transition between areas of more intensive use and development and other residential areas. • To ensure residential development achieves design objectives specified in a schedule to this zone. The NRZ does not currently apply in Casey. The Amendment proposes to introduce it to the area known as the ‘Hoddle Grid’ in Berwick. The purposes specific to the NRZ are: • To recognise areas of predominantly single and double storey residential development.
Page 15 of 145 Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C198 Panel Report 23 November 2018
• To manage and ensure that development respects the identified neighbourhood character, heritage, environmental or landscape characteristics. Amendment VC110 made statewide changes to the NRZ, GRZ and RGZ in March 2017, following the Managing Residential Development Advisory Committee report. The main changes were: • in the NRZ: - increasing the default mandatory maximum height for residential development from 8 metres to 9 metres (2 storey maximum) - removing the restriction on the number of dwellings that can be built on a property - introducing mandatory garden area requirements. • in the GRZ: - increasing the default discretionary height limit for residential development from 9 metres to a mandatory maximum height of 11 metres (3 storey maximum) - introducing mandatory garden area requirements. The RGZ has a default height limit of 13.5 metres for residential development, which can be varied by a schedule to the zone. The RGZ does not contain garden area requirements.
(ii) Low Density Residential Zone Casey has extensive areas of LDRZ. The purpose of the LDRZ is: • To provide for low-density residential development on lots which, in the absence of reticulated sewerage, can treat and retain all wastewater. The default minimum lot sizes under the LDRZ are 0.4 ha (4,000 sqm) where reticulated sewerage is not connected, and 0.2 ha (2,000 sqm) where reticulated sewerage is connected. A schedule to the LDRZ can increase the default minimum lot sizes, but it cannot decrease the default minimum lot sizes.
(iii) Overlays A range of overlays extend across the areas affected by the Amendment including the Significant Landscape Overlay, Land Subject to Inundation Overlay, Special Building Overlay and the Bushfire Management Overlay. Heritage Overlays also apply to some limited areas.
(iv) Other provisions Clause 21.03 (Casey’s Municipal Strategic Statement) provides for a local area approach based on 17 local areas identified in Casey C21: A vision for our future. Each of these local areas has a local planning policy. Those relevant to the Amendment include: • Clause 21.09 Berwick Northern • Clause 21.10 Berwick Southern area • Clause 21.15 Cranbourne • Clause 21.16 Cranbourne North • Clause 21.19 Doveton/Eumemmerring • Clause 21.20 Endeavour Hills (Urban area)
Page 16 of 145 Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C198 Panel Report 23 November 2018
• Clause 21.21 Hallam • Clause 21.22 Hampton Park • Clause 21.23 Lynbrook/Lyndhurst • Clause 21.24 Narre Warren • Clause 21.25 Narre Warren South.
2.4 Ministerial Directions and Practice Notes Council submitted that the Amendment meets the relevant requirements of: • Ministerial Direction 9 – Metropolitan Strategy • Ministerial Direction 11 – Strategic Assessment of Amendments • Planning Practice Note 46: Strategic Assessment Guidelines • Ministerial Direction on the Form and Content of Planning Schemes under section 7(5) of the Act. Since the conclusion of the Hearing, DELWP published A Practitioners Guide to Victorian Planning Schemes (the Drafting Guidelines). Section 7.1 of the Drafting Guidelines provides guidance on applying the residential zones, informed by state and metropolitan policy about where to encourage housing growth, and protecting areas of recognised neighbourhood character or landscape or environmental significance. It states that the residential zones should be applied as follows: Low Density Residential Zone – intended for residential areas not serviced by reticulated sewerage systems. Residential Growth Zone – intended for locations near activity centres, train stations and other areas suitable for increased housing. Encourages medium density residential development in order to make optimum use of available services and facilities. General Residential Zone – generally the main zone to be applied in new or established residential areas where there are minimal constraints to residential development. It provides for moderate growth and diversity of housing. Neighbourhood Residential Zone – intended for areas where single dwellings prevail and minimal change is proposed, such as areas of recognised neighbourhood character or environmental or landscape significance. Chapter 4.1 contains a comprehensive strategic assessment of the Amendment, and discusses whether it is consistent with state, metropolitan and local policy. Council referred the Panel to several other Planning Practice Notes that are discussed in the relevant chapters.
Page 17 of 145 Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C198 Panel Report 23 November 2018
3 Housing Strategy and related documents
3.1 The Housing Strategy Council adopted the Housing Strategy in December 2015 following a period of community consultation and engagement between April and July 2015. The Housing Strategy was amended in September 2016 (in response to Amendment VC110 and the reformed residential zones) and again on 15 August 2017 with minor changes. The Housing Strategy identifies that: The City of Casey is one of the fastest growing regions in Australia with approximately 288,800 residents (2015). The City of Casey is forecast to increase to approximately 420,000 residents by 2031. Over the past 15 years, the City has changed dramatically resulting in a diverse community with a range of ages, backgrounds, interests, expectations and aspirations. As Casey's community transitions across different life stages, a range of housing options is required to respond to that demographic change. The Housing Strategy seeks to deliver housing types that support the changing and growing community, and to direct housing growth to appropriate areas. It describes Council’s Housing Vision as: Casey will offer a diversity of housing to meet the needs of its community both now and in the future. Residents will be able to find housing that suits their current and future needs in terms of type, tenure, size and cost. More diverse housing such as town houses, units and apartments will be located in locations with convenient access to shops, services, transport and open space, where it is easy to walk or cycle. Housing diversity will create a more self-sufficient city so that residents do not have to move outside Casey to find the housing they want. The Housing Strategy states that an analysis was undertaken to assess the capacity of the most accessible and sustainable locations to accommodate housing growth, and to assess whether there is adequate land to meet projected demand. The Strategy states that the municipality can accommodate the housing required to meet the needs of future residents to 2031. One of the main purposes of the Housing Strategy is to review and update how the reformed residential zones are applied to residential land within Casey. It identifies minimal, incremental and substantial change areas according to defined criteria, and proposes to apply the reformed residential zones accordingly, as set out in Table 2.
Page 18 of 145 Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C198 Panel Report 23 November 2018
Table 2 Criteria and zones for the different change areas Area Criteria Zone Minimal change - Identified significant neighbourhood character, heritage, NRZ environmental and landscape values Incremental - 400-800 metres (5-10 minutes walking distance) from activity GRZ2 change centres and train station - 400 metres from strategic bus routes Incremental - Greater than 800 metres (10 minute walk) from activity centres and GRZ1 change train station - Greater than 400 metres from strategic bus routes Substantial change - High density housing and mixed use development opportunities RGZ within commercial precincts in Metropolitan, Principal, Major or Neighbourhood Activity Centre should be encouraged - 400 metres (5 minutes walking distance) from Metropolitan, Principal, Major or Neighbourhood Activity Centre - 400 metres from train stations or strategic bus routes - Preference for sites with active frontages along strategic bus routes or directly abutting activity centres and train stations
Source: Panel, based on information contained in Table 4 in the Housing Strategy These areas are shown spatially in Figure 7 below, which extracts Map 6 from the Housing Strategy. The Housing Strategy also reviewed the municipality’s LDRZ precincts to establish the appropriate minimum subdivision size based on bushfire risk, landscape impact, access to services, infrastructure capacity and service agency advice. The Housing Strategy includes a number of policy directions, objectives, strategies and actions relating to housing diversity, housing choice, affordability, sustainable growth, quality of design and amenity, and neighbourhood character. There is a strong focus on housing diversity and choice, with key issues including: • the current housing stock in Casey is highly homogenous, with around 91 per cent of existing housing comprising single detached housing for families • a limited (3 year) supply of rural residential land. The Amendment is part of a suite of implementation actions arising from the Housing Strategy. Other future actions identified in the Strategy include: • conduct a staged program of neighbourhood character assessments to guide the future application of the NRZ • revise open space contributions through a future planning scheme amendment • create design objectives and guidelines for the minimal, incremental and substantial change areas • revise the Development Plan for the Pound Road area in LDRZ Precinct 17.
Page 19 of 145 Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C198 Panel Report 23 November 2018
Figure 7 Substantial, incremental and minimal change areas Source: Map 6 from the Housing Strategy
Page 20 of 145 Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C198 Panel Report 23 November 2018
The Housing Strategy was informed by a range of earlier strategic work and studies. The key documents are the Council’s Housing Diversity Statement, and the Housing Market Assessment prepared by Charter Keck Cramer. These are discussed below. Council’s closing submissions (Document 49) indicated that Council intends to update the Housing Strategy prior to adopting the Amendment, to: • incorporate up-to-date data from the 2016 census and the 2018 updates to the Housing Market Assessment • combine it with an updated Housing Diversity Statement.
3.2 Housing Diversity Statement The Housing Diversity Statement articulates Council’s goal to achieve a diverse range of housing types within Casey. It was prepared prior to the Housing Strategy, and was intended to inform the Strategy. The statement outlines key issues facing the municipality, including that the vast majority of housing stock in Casey consists of 3, 4 and 5 bedroom detached dwellings. It notes that emerging market segments including single parent families, multi- generational families, students, ‘empty nesters’ and elderly people are not well catered for in terms of the housing stock on offer in the municipality. The Housing Diversity Statement identifies the need to encourage greater diversity and choice for the Casey community, including housing that is easy for visitors to access, and suitable for those with impaired mobility. It states that Council encourages all new housing developments to provide a balanced mix of diverse housing options for the Casey community and to consider opportunities to provide alternative and innovative options, particularly based around tenure arrangements, which can assist in addressing housing affordability issues. The Housing Diversity Statement identifies a series of short, medium and long term objectives, some of which are related to the Amendment but many of which go beyond the scope of the planning system.
3.3 Housing Market Assessment The City of Casey Housing Diversity Strategy: Housing Market Assessment dated 4 March 2015, prepared by Charter Keck Kramer, provides an overview of the existing housing market in Casey, determines the demand for new housing into the future and the capacity within the municipality to meet the projected demand. Council requested Charter Keck Cramer to update the Housing Market Assessment prior to the Panel Hearing. Jonathan Mayes of Charter Keck Cramer attended the Hearing submission and spoke to the updated assessment as part of Council’s submission. The Assessment makes the following key findings: • Casey has a current housing mix typical of outer suburban locations, dominated by detached houses (in excess of 90 per cent, compared to a metropolitan Melbourne percentage of 72 per cent). • Historically and currently, housing in Casey is somewhat more affordable than metropolitan Melbourne averages, except in Narre Warren North. • Anticipated demand is for approximately 8,860 new dwellings by 2031.
Page 21 of 145 Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C198 Panel Report 23 November 2018
• Demand for semi-detached dwellings such as townhouses is anticipated to grow, to meet the needs of a wider demographic. • There is limited demand for higher density apartments, which are only anticipated in niche, strategic sites near larger activity centres until greenfield housing opportunities are exhausted and median house prices increase to reach the Melbourne median and the housing market matures. • There is a decline in construction and supply of rural lifestyle properties. The Assessment concludes that Casey has an adequate supply to accommodate anticipated residential growth into the future (to 2031). Housing renewal in the established areas will support greenfield land supply, which is doing the majority of the ‘heavy lifting’ in terms of housing supply in the municipality, although its ability to genuinely support greenfield land supply will depend on market factors. The Assessment recognises that housing preferences evolve and change over time, as does housing design, and that it can be difficult to predict what type of housing will be attractive to the different demographic segments of Casey’s future population.
Page 22 of 145 Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C198 Panel Report 23 November 2018
4 General issues
4.1 Economic and strategic justification
(i) Evidence and submissions Council submitted that the Housing Strategy identifies projected demand for housing into the future based on expected population growth, household type and an assessment of the local housing market. In noted in its Part B submission that the findings have been updated since the Australian Bureau of Statistics released data collected from the 2016 Census. Council called Chris McNeill of Essential Economics to give evidence in relation to the economic strategic justification for the Amendment. His evidence was that the municipality is projected to experience significant population and dwelling growth in the future, and that the existing planning controls in the established areas do not necessarily encourage greater residential densities and dwelling diversity in appropriate locations: Consistent with other growth area municipalities, Casey’s population is expected to both grow, and evolve, particularly in the municipality’s established urban areas where the population is expected to age. In these areas, it is anticipated there will be a growing demand for a diversity of dwelling types. In time, the municipality is also expected to consume its remaining broadhectare land stocks. Accordingly, there is a need to ensure valuable and increasingly scarce land, particularly in areas supported by existing infrastructure, is used in an economically efficient manner. Mr McNeill’s evidence was that the Amendment represents “a long term view” in relation to housing provision in the municipality: … the housing market in Casey will continue to evolve in ways that may not yet be apparent. It could be, for example, that with improvements to the public transport system, proposed change areas around activity centre served by train stations will prove particularly popular, perhaps at the expense of growth area housing. The reality is we don’t really know at this point in time. Accordingly, a long term view whereby areas around activity centres are identified for substantial or incremental change represents a positive and proactive approach to planning for future housing growth. Mr McNeill concluded that there is a strong economic justification for the general direction proposed by the Amendment, and that it provides “a positive and proactive approach to strategic planning, and an appropriate response to demographic change in the City of Casey”. He concluded that the Amendment promotes state planning policy objectives and supports Plan Melbourne (including the ‘20 minute neighbourhood’ principle) by: • encouraging increased residential density and housing diversity in and around established activity centres and transport nodes • seeking to utilise valuable and increasingly scarce urban land in an economically efficient manner • protecting areas of identified neighbourhood character
Page 23 of 145 Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C198 Panel Report 23 November 2018
• minimising the rise of natural hazards by limiting housing growth in identified higher risk low density residential areas. Reech Pty Ltd called Mark Woodland of Echelon Planning to give evidence in relation to the appropriate zoning for the site at 193 Golf Links Road Narre Warren. His evidence in relation to that site is dealt with in detail in Chapter 8.3. Mr Woodland briefly addressed the general strategic justification for the Amendment. He supported the Housing Strategy’s approach of promoting housing diversity and directing medium density housing to locations close to activity centres and public transport. He said that this approach would help give effect to state planning policy outcomes including: • facilitating an increased percentage of new housing in established areas to create a city of 20-minute neighbourhoods close to existing services, jobs and public transport • creating mixed-use neighbourhoods with varying residential densities • planning for a greater diversity of housing in growth areas, including townhouses and low-rise apartments. He also noted that state planning policy supports the identification of locations for minimal, incremental and high-change residential areas, to balance the need to protect valued areas against the need to ensure choice and growth in housing markets across the metropolitan area. Mr Halaliku appeared on behalf of HCPE Pty Ltd, which owns a large site in Central Road, Hampton Park. The site is in the GRZ1. Council does not propose to alter the zoning, or apply a different schedule, to the HCPE land, as Council does not consider that it meets the locational criteria set out in the Housing Strategy for applying the RGZ or the GRZ2, both of which encourage more intensive development than the GRZ1. He submitted that the Amendment, and the Housing Strategy, lacked strategic rigour. He submitted that any changes to zoning should be underpinned by a strategic assessment of character and housing capabilities, and submitted that the schedules to the residential zones should be “driven and further accompanied by recent, tested and adopted neighbourhood character studies (and/or relevant design guidelines or equivalent)”. Mr Halaliku was of the view that the Amendment was premature. He likened it to Amendment C140 to the Bayside Planning Scheme in that it has failed to respond to the following recommendations of the Residential Zones Standing Advisory Committee (RZSAC) in its Stage One Overarching Issues Report (June 2014): P4 The application of the residential zones should be based on a housing or similar strategy that specifically addresses where and how housing growth will be accommodated. P5 Strategic work (other than housing strategies) can be used to inform the application of the new zones. For example, this includes structure plans and the use of the principles and criteria in PPN78 as a guide, with reference to the zone purpose to clarify any ambiguity. P6 Municipal housing capacity analysis and targets for applying zones should not be the sole driver in implementing the new residential
Page 24 of 145 Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C198 Panel Report 23 November 2018
zones. However, capacity analysis should be undertaken to confirm that the strategy is workable and will meet projected future housing requirements. Mr Halaliku submitted that while Council has adopted Charter Keck Cramer’s growth scenario from the Housing Market Assessment, it has failed to translate the findings and recommendations of the Housing Market Assessment into planning controls that provide certainty to residents and developers. Ms Walker was also critical of the Housing Strategy, including its reference to the 2013 State of Supply Report, a 2011 report prepared by the Grattan Institute, and the Charter Keck Cramer Housing Market Assessment. She questioned whether the findings of the Grattan Institute report in relation to the mismatch between housing type demand and supply could be applied to the City of Casey. She was critical of the three growth scenarios outlined in the Housing Market Assessment, including the statement that the “further trend towards medium density housing and in particular townhouses … most closely aligns with what is likely to occur over the next 15-20 years”. Ms Walker submitted that: As neither the State of Supply Report nor the Housing Strategy point to any other figures corroborating the Grattan Institute’s claim, and its commissioned Housing Market Assessment presents its final conclusion with no apparent evidence, it must be concluded that the City of Casey has failed to adequately research its Housing Strategy as directed by Ministerial Direction 16 and its claim that “there needs to be more of these dwelling types to provide genuine choice” rests on a dubious factual basis. There is no evidence that the City of Casey has conducted or taken into consideration any similar such examination of its own population, whether current or anticipated.
(ii) Discussion The Panel agrees with Mr McNeill and Mr Woodland that the general approach of the Housing Strategy and the Amendment is strategically justified. The Managing Residential Development Advisory Committee had the following to say about housing strategies in its 2016 report (at page 75): … the Committee believes that a robust housing strategy should address/include the following matters: • consideration of the current housing policy context at a national, state, regional and local level • consideration of current zone and overlay controls • consultation and community engagement • assessment of the existing population and housing profile of a municipality • assessment of projected population growth • assessment of projected housing demand, including the mix of housing types • assessment of housing capacity • identification of key issues/challenges that emerge from the above issues • development of future housing objectives and strategies
Page 25 of 145 Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C198 Panel Report 23 November 2018
• assessment of the methods of implementation of the housing strategy, including clear directions around any proposed changes to the planning scheme, including the policy framework and the selection of residential zones, overlays and other VPP tools. The Panel considers that broadly speaking, the Housing Strategy (along with the Housing Diversity Statement and the Housing Market Assessment) has been prepared consistently with these principles. The Panel does not agree with Mr Halaliku that it is necessary to undertake a neighbourhood character assessment in every case to inform changes to zoning. Nor does it agree that the Amendment is premature, or can be likened to Bayside Amendment C140. As noted by the Panel, Bayside C140 was “a blanket approach to the protection of neighbourhood character and is not based on any detailed strategic analysis of geographic precincts.” On the contrary, this Amendment is not about ‘locking up the suburbs’ to preserve the existing character, housing typology or density. Apart from in a few isolated areas, the Panel considers that this Amendment is strategic in its approach to designating areas that will, over time, accommodate change and that will in turn provide for a new neighbourhood character. There is strong policy support at a State, regional and local level for directing more intensive housing development to appropriate sites that are close to activity centres and accessible to public transport. This approach allows for greater utilisation of existing transport infrastructure, and promotes greater activity in activity centres. The result should lead to a more economically efficient use of land and more sustainable development outcomes. The Amendment is consistent with state policy objectives of providing certainty about the scale of growth in the suburbs. The Amendment reflects the Housing Strategy’s identification of substantial, incremental and minimal change areas, and provides clear direction (through the zone purposes and schedules) about the scale of development that can be expected in these areas. Similarly, the LDRZ schedules provide a clear direction as to the scale of development that can be expected in the municipality’s low density residential precincts. The Housing Strategy acknowledges that housing needs in Casey are slowly changing. The municipality will experience a shift in demographics over the coming decades, and the Amendment should assist to facilitate greater choice and diversity of housing within Casey to cater for changing demographics, by applying zones and schedules that cater for a variety of housing typologies. That said, the Panel agrees with the Housing Market Assessment and Mr McNeill that the offering of alternative housing typologies is largely responsive to market conditions and changing preferences, and that these can be difficult to predict. There is significant opposition in many submissions to the proposed changes sought to be introduced by the Amendment. This is not unique to Casey, and is commonly experienced by councils preparing and implementing housing strategies. The following comments from the Yarra Ranges C97 Panel apply equally to Casey: The Panel appreciates the difficulties that any council faces in preparing a housing strategy. ‘Change’ can cause heartache to residents and communities
Page 26 of 145 Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C198 Panel Report 23 November 2018
and it is a recurring theme in many strategic planning exercises that there is often a deep seated resistance to any change. In this instance, while some part of the community had expressed a need for a broader range of household types, others resist this.1 The Yarra Ranges C97 Panel went on to criticise that council for bowing to community pressure, and changing its housing strategy to significantly reduce the change anticipated in the municipality’s residential areas. The Panel considered that the significant demographic shift the municipality is likely to experience over the next 25 years: … will not be assisted by decisions that are made today that are viewed only through the narrow prism of local opposition. Council has an obligation to identify and deliver a wide range of housing opportunities, and in the view of the Panel, the 2007 Strategy provided that framework whereas the 2009 Housing Strategy does not. While Council has sought to respond to submissions through its proposed post-exhibition changes, the Panel considers that these have maintained the integrity of the strategic approach while suitably acknowledging community concerns. In the Panel’s view, both the Housing Strategy and the Amendment provide a balanced approach to accommodating housing growth and changing demographics in the municipality to 2031. The Housing Market Assessment concludes that Casey has an adequate supply of land to accommodate anticipated residential growth into the future, and no evidence was presented to the Panel causing it to question this conclusion. The Housing Strategy and the Amendment are backed by independent strategic research that provides a balanced foundation for guiding housing directions in the municipality, and are supported by the independent evidence of Mr McNeill. The Amendment is consistent with policies that seek to protect areas with identified landscape and biodiversity value and neighbourhood character by limiting further development opportunities in areas with recognised value. The Panel considers that, broadly speaking, the Amendment strikes an appropriate balance between accommodating future growth, and protecting areas of identified value. One of the key issues identified in the Housing Strategy is the limited supply of low density residential land. The Panel considers that allowing further subdivision in appropriate low density residential precincts, and retaining the 4,000 sqm minimum lot size in more constrained precincts, is an appropriate response to this issue. It is also an appropriate response to policies that seek to minimise risks arising from natural hazards, as the Amendment limits further development opportunities in areas that are affected by fire and flood risk. In short, and subject to the Panel’s specific recommendations in the following chapters, the Amendment and Housing Strategy: • reflect and cater for the changing demographic characteristics of the municipality, by supporting the provision of diverse forms of housing in appropriate locations
1 Yarra Ranges C97 (PSA) [2011] PPV 119
Page 27 of 145 Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C198 Panel Report 23 November 2018
• provide clear justification for the areas identified for substantial, incremental and minimal change, and appropriately align these with the suite of residential zones • provide clear justification for identifying LDRZ precincts that are suitable for further subdivision, and those that are not • are supported by an appropriately prepared housing market assessment, including a capacity analysis, and an analysis of likely future demographic shifts and projected demands for housing numbers and types • are supported by appropriately prepared neighbourhood character, landscape character and bushfire risk studies (although the Panel notes that some of these studies were prepared after the Amendment, which is not ideal). Overall, the Panel commends Council for the comprehensive and strategic approach it has taken in preparing the Housing Strategy and the Amendment. Council officers demonstrated a sound and thorough knowledge of the municipality through Council’s submissions, and in their responses to the Panel’s questions during the Hearing. The Amendment has clearly been well thought through and carefully considered.
4.2 Changes to local policy The Housing Strategy outlines some ambitious objectives and strategies relating to housing diversity, housing affordability, sustainable growth, quality design and neighbourhood character. Early in the Hearing, the Panel asked Council whether it considered that the proposed changes to local policy provided adequate support for these objectives. Council responded to this in its closing submissions (Document 49), indicating that the Amendment was just one of a suite of measures needed to implement the objectives of the Housing Strategy. The implementation of the Strategy will be ongoing, and will require a range of statutory and non-statutory actions. Council provided a revised version of Clauses 21.02 (Key issues and strategic vision) and 21.03 (Settlement and housing) on the final day of the Hearing (Document 50). Document 50 proposes to: • add the underlined text “the provision of housing types and sizes to meet the needs of a changing community” as a key issue • add recognition of the need for housing diversity to cater for more single and dual person households into the future • add a further strategy to Clause 21.03, “to recognise and maintain areas with existing neighbourhood character, enhanced landscapes and vistas”. Even with these additional changes proposed in Document 50, the Panel regards the proposed changes to local policy as a ‘light touch’. That said, it accepts that the Amendment can only do so much to achieve the aspirations and objectives of the Housing Strategy. The Panel is particularly cognisant of the findings in the Housing Market Assessment, supported by Mr McNeill’s evidence, that a varied housing offering is more driven by the market than by planning controls. The Panel explored this issue in some detail with Mr McNeill. He expressed the view that it is not necessarily a problem if planning controls are put in place to facilitate a diverse housing offering ahead of when the market may be ready to deliver that diversity. In his view, this simply means that the planning scheme is providing
Page 28 of 145 Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C198 Panel Report 23 November 2018
well for the future, and when the market is ready and viable, the planning controls are already in place to support the delivery of a more diverse housing offering. He regarded this as a good planning outcome. The Panel agrees. The Panel is also cognisant of the advice from Mr Mayes of Charter Keck Cramer that house prices in Casey are substantially lower than the metropolitan Melbourne average, and have been for some time. Casey appears to be ‘doing its bit’ in terms of contributing to housing affordability in metropolitan Melbourne.
4.3 Conclusions and recommendations The Panel concludes: • The Amendment is strategically justified and should be supported, subject to addressing the specific issues discussed in the following chapters. • Although the proposed changes to local planning policy represent a ‘light touch’, they are adequate and appropriate to support the delivery of the Housing Strategy’s aspirations and objectives insofar as the planning system is able to do so. • The further changes to the local policy provisions outlined in Document 50 strengthen the policy support for the objectives in the Housing Strategy, and the Panel supports them.
The Panel recommends:
Adopt Amendment C198 with the following changes: a) the changes to Clauses 21.02 and 21.03 outlined in Appendix D b) the specific changes outlined in the following chapters.
Page 29 of 145 Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C198 Panel Report 23 November 2018
5 Low Density Residential Zone
5.1 What is proposed? The changes to low density residential land proposed by the Amendment are summarised in Table 3. Table 3 Proposed changes in LDRZ precincts Current Proposed LDRZ1 Proposed LDRZ2 Minimum lot size of 4,000 sqm No change Minimum lot size of 2,000 sqm if land connected to reticulated sewerage (otherwise 4,000 sqm) Outbuildings over 80 sqm or 3.6 Permit requirement for Outbuildings over 120 sqm metres high require a permit outbuildings removed require a permit
5.2 The issues Which of the various LDRZ precincts are suitable for a minimum lot size of 2,000 sqm? Specifically: • are the precincts proposed in the exhibited Amendment (Precincts 7, 8, 9, 17 and 18) suitable for a minimum lot size of 2,000 sqm? • are the additional precincts in Council’s proposed post-exhibition changes (Precincts 3A, 4 and 11A) suitable for a minimum lot size of 2,000 sqm? • are any other precincts raised in submissions suitable for a minimum lot size of 2,000 sqm?
5.3 Context Casey’s established areas currently have in the order of 2,300 low density residential lots across 20 precincts. All precincts currently have a minimum lot size of 4,000 sqm under the LDRZ, whether or not they are connected to reticulated sewerage. Several of the LDRZ precincts are subject to bushfire risk. Table 4 summarises the extent of each precinct that is within a designated Bushfire Prone Area (BPA) or Bushfire Management Overlay (BMO), and the fire risk rating for the precinct from the Victorian Fire Risk Register (VFRR), where available. Table 4 Extent of bushfire risk in LDRZ precincts Precinct Extent of BPA Extent of BMO Risk rating from VFRR 1 Whole precinct BMO3 applies at edges Extreme 2 Whole precinct Does not apply Very high 3 Majority of precinct BMO3 applies at eastern edge Very high except south west corner 3A Thin area in north west Does not apply corner
Page 30 of 145 Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C198 Panel Report 23 November 2018
Precinct Extent of BPA Extent of BMO Risk rating from VFRR 4 Thin area along the Does not apply eastern and southern edges of the precinct, along Eumemmerring Creek 5 Approximately half the Does not apply High western portion of the precinct, and thin areas along the northern edge of the western portion, and the western edge of the ‘teardrop’ shaped portion of the precinct east of Narre Warren North Road 6 Majority of precinct Does not apply except areas in south west 7 Thin area along north and Does not apply east edges 8 Does not apply Does not apply 9 Small strip in the south Does not apply west corner 10 Thin area along north and Does not apply High east edges, entire southern half 11 North, east and south Does not apply High outer edges 11A Does not apply Does not apply 12 Whole precinct BMO3 applies at eastern edge High 13 Thin area along north east Does not apply edge 14 Thin area along north edge Does not apply High 15 Along north, and thin area Does not apply High along east edge 16 Whole precinct Does not apply High 17 Narrow strips along Does not apply western and eastern edges 18 Narrow strip along Narrow strips along western northern edge and eastern edges
Page 31 of 145 Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C198 Panel Report 23 November 2018
Precinct Extent of BPA Extent of BMO Risk rating from VFRR 20 Majority of precinct Southern half of the precinct High except areas adjoining northern boundary
Source: the Panel, based on documents and maps produced by Council at the Hearing (Documents 4, 6 and 51). Most of the LDRZ precincts are located in the Casey Foothills, shown in green hatching in Figure 8. The Casey Foothills are recognised in local policy (Clause 21.14) as having distinctive and valued landscape character and biodiversity values.
Figure 8 LDRZ precincts within the Casey Foothills Source: Appendix 4 from the Low Density Residential Zone paper
Page 32 of 145 Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C198 Panel Report 23 November 2018
Statewide reforms were made to the LDRZ in July 2013 as part of Amendment VC100, which allowed a schedule to the LDRZ to enable a reduced minimum lot size of 2,000 sqm where land is connected to reticulated sewerage. Following these reforms, Council retained the minimum 4,000 sqm lot size in all precincts, to allow further strategic work to be undertaken before reducing the minimum lot size in any precinct. It conducted an incremental review in 2013 and 2014, followed by a fundamental review in 2015. The reviews assessed each precinct against eight criteria, including local policy, bushfire risk, landscape character, agency support or opposition, access to reticulated sewerage and the need for (and cost of) infrastructure improvements. The review process culminated in the preparation of the Low Density Residential Zone Position Paper (updated 16 June 2015), which recommended: • enable a reduction in the minimum lot size to 2,000 sqm in Precincts 7, 8, 17 and 18 where the land is connected to reticulated sewerage • retain the minimum lot size of 4,000 sqm in all other precincts. The recommendations of the Low Density Residential Zone Position Paper are largely reflected in the Housing Strategy, although the Housing Strategy also identifies one additional precinct (Precinct 9) as suitable for a minimum lot size of 2,000 sqm. Consistent with the Housing Strategy, the exhibited Amendment proposed applying the LDRZ2 (minimum lot size of 2,000 sqm) in Precincts 7, 8, 9, 17 and 18. In response to submissions to the Amendment, Council proposed to apply the LDRZ2 to three additional areas (Precincts 3A, 4 and 11A). Council proposes to apply the LDRZ1 (with a minimum lot size of 4,000 sqm) in all other precincts.
5.4 Relevant policies, strategies and studies
(i) Environment local policy Clause 21.04 of the Planning Policy Framework contains Council’s local environment policy. It states that the municipality contains natural places of state, national and international significance, including the Cardinia Creek Valley and the Churchill National Park and Lysterfield Lake environs, as well as clusters of remnant vegetation and associated wildlife, particularly around local waterways, wetlands, estuaries and creek systems. Clause 21.04-1 notes the challenge of restoring and enhancing Casey’s environmental assets within the framework of continuing rapid development in the municipality. Strategies of particular relevance include: • protecting and preserving significant vegetation and habitat, particularly remnant vegetation • protecting significant landscapes, including the Casey Foothills, Cardinia Creek environs and Berwick Village environs • protecting and enhancing areas of biodiversity significance, including Harkaway and Cardinia Creek Valley and the Churchill National Park and surrounds • providing strong regulatory protection for Cardinia Creek Valley to minimise further loss of natural values • creating and maintaining habitat links through the Cardinia Creek Valley.
Page 33 of 145 Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C198 Panel Report 23 November 2018
Implementation measures outlined in Clause 21.04-4 include applying overlays such as the Environmental Significance Overlay, the Significant Landscape Overlay and the Vegetation Protection Overlay to areas of identified significance.
(ii) Casey Foothills local policy The Casey Foothills local policy is contained in Clause 21.14. It describes the visual qualities of the area which contribute to a positive image of the municipality as a desirable place to live. Clause 21.14-1 seeks to protect the area for its “long-term environmental and landscape qualities that ensure the special rural character is not compromised”. Objectives and strategies include (in summary): • ensuring the long-term protection and enhancement of the Casey Foothills for its valued rural landscape and character, significantly exposed hilltops and ridge lines and vegetation that forms the green backdrop for Casey • maintaining the attractive lifestyle qualities of the low density and rural residential areas • protecting and restoring the area’s natural qualities, especially along ridgelines and in the Cardinia Creek Valley • protecting the open rural landscape character of the area so that it remains largely free of development • reinforcing Narre Warren North’s unique rural township that provides easy access to the full range of suburban services.
(iii) Narre Warren North Township Strategy The Narre Warren North Township Strategy, adopted by Council in June 2005, applies to the north western ‘tear drop’ shaped portion of Precinct 5, the whole of Precinct 10, and the township area in between these two precincts (which is in the Township Zone). The Township Strategy includes the following objectives: • to provide for limited growth of the township area • to encourage land use and development which is compatible with the character of the township area, and to maintain and enhance the township character • to protect the non-urban areas of Narre Warren North, including the northern foothills and their associated environmental and landscape qualities. The Township Strategy forms the approved development plan under Development Plan Overlay Schedule 5 (DPO5). DPO5 specifies a lot size “that appropriately reflects the low density residential character envisaged in the development plan; or, a minimum lot size of 1,000 square metres for all residential lots for land in the Township Zone”. The Township Strategy states as follows in relation to the low density residential areas that separate the township from urban areas: The demarcation between the urban area and the Township is considered important. If urban development continued north with little regard for the Township, the special qualities which set the Township apart from other residential areas would be lost. The continuation of low density development throughout the Township would threaten its overall character and identity.
Page 34 of 145 Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C198 Panel Report 23 November 2018
However, there may be some opportunity of low density development along the eastern boundary in order to provide a transition-barrier between the Township lots and the Landscape Interest land.
(iv) Cardinia Parklands Strategy Plan The Cardinia Parklands Strategy applies to Precincts 15 and 16, which are located to the immediate west of Cardinia Parklands. The objectives of the Strategy are to: • provide for the development of a rural residential environment adjacent to the parklands • ensure that development does not adversely impact on the parklands and the non- urban areas to the north • protect and enhance the high environmental quality of the area. Section 8 sets out a development strategy for the land in Precincts 15 and 16. It specifies lot sizes of: • southwest of Grasmere Creek – between 0.4 ha and 1.0 ha, with an average of 0.7 ha • north of Grasmere Creek – an average of 1.2 ha, with a minimum of 1.0 ha. Precincts 15 and 16 are also subject to the DPO4, which reflects the minimum lot sizes specified in the Strategy. section 8.5 Development guidelines in of the Strategy emphasise the need for development to respect the nature of existing development in Beaumont Road and Buchanan Road, the proximity to the parklands and the non-urban area to the north, to avoid visually dominant buildings, and to plant trees to soften the visual impact of development and create a treed residential environment.
(v) Casey Biodiversity Strategy The Casey Biodiversity Strategy guides the planning, protection, engagement and restoration of biodiversity throughout the municipality. It includes the following Vision Statement: The City of Casey has a green and sustainable natural environment where biodiversity is healthy and resilient, actively cared for, valued and used by the community. The Strategy identifies revegetation sites, nature reserves, offset sites and ‘biodiversity hotspots’ throughout the municipality. It identifies a number of challenges facing the municipality’s biodiversity, including population growth and development pressure, climate change and associated risks such as bushfire and drought, and planning decision-making. Opportunities include reviewing and updating planning controls and Council policies to support informed decision-making. Objectives of the Strategy include protecting remnant vegetation and biodiversity habitats in Casey.
(vi) Casey Foothills Landscape Character Assessment As noted in Chapter 1.5(iii), Council retained Ethos Urban to prepare the Landscape Character Assessment in response to submissions to the exhibited Amendment seeking a
Page 35 of 145 Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C198 Panel Report 23 November 2018
reduction in the minimum lot size in LDRZ precincts. It assessed the landscape character and values of all LDRZ precincts with the Casey Foothills other than Precincts 1, 2, 3, 6 and 16. These precincts were excluded because Council did not support further subdivision of those precincts on other grounds (primarily fire risk). The Landscape Character Assessment defined three landscape characters shared by the precincts assessed, based on the legislative and policy context, geology, geomorphology and topography, hydrology, vegetation and heritage. The outcomes of the Assessment are summarised in Table 5. Table 5 Summary of the Landscape Character Assessment Character type Precincts Sensitivity to change Foothills rural 10, 11, 13, 14 High sensitivity to change, based on highly visible crests, lifestyle and 15 undulating and rolling topography, visible hillslopes and valley edges. Lot sizes and the associated rural living use play a significant role in maintaining the existing landscape character. Suburban/rural 5 and 9 Moderate to high sensitivity to change. Additional built sweeping flats form poses a threat to the open character of the area. Large expansive open areas associated with the rural living use play a large role in maintaining the existing views of the surrounding rolling hills and valley edges. Suburban flats 3A, 4, 8 and Not particularly sensitive to change, given its relatively flat 11A topography and low to moderate tree coverage.
(vii) Biodiversity Assessment Council retained Ecology and Heritage Partners to prepare the Biodiversity Assessment, partly in response to submissions to the exhibited Amendment. The Biodiversity Assessment assessed the biodiversity values of all precincts within the Casey Foothills other than Precincts 1, 8 and 9. The Assessment concluded that the study area contained some remnant vegetation, albeit dramatically reduced from pre-European settlement levels. The waterway corridors are particularly important to the future protection and management of remnant native vegetation and associated fauna habitats. The Assessment concluded that the proposed reduction in minimum lot sizes from 4,000 sqm to 2,000 sqm in some precincts is likely to lead to several impacts to existing remnant vegetation and habitat values, including through additional bushfire defendable space and separation distance requirements that would accompany subdivision and construction of additional dwellings. It notes that the ecological impact of the reduction of minimum lot sizes could be minimised by applying Environmental Significance Overlays or Vegetation Protection Overlays, however: … the proposed reduction in minimum lot size from 4,000 to 2,000 square metres would result in native vegetation loss within Precincts irrespective of
Page 36 of 145 Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C198 Panel Report 23 November 2018
the implementation of planning controls to protect remnant native vegetation (eg overlays). The Assessment recommended: • maintaining and enhancing remnant vegetation connectivity along private land and waterways • protecting relatively large patches of native vegetation and some large trees in Precincts 2, 3, 10, 11 and 15 • protecting riparian native vegetation in Precincts 6, 11 and 15.
(viii) Designated bushfire prone areas Many of the LDRZ precincts are within a designated BPA. These areas are mapped, and homes constructed within a designated BPA must be constructed to minimum bushfire construction requirements under the building regulatory system. On 16 October 2018, after the Hearing concluded, the Minister determined that the BPA designation will be updated in 17 municipalities, including Casey. It appears to the Panel that the extent of designated BPAs in the LDRZ precincts affected by the Amendment did not substantially change with the updated mapping, but this is something Council should consider carefully before adopting the Amendment.
(ix) Planning scheme policies and provisions relating to bushfire Table 4 above shows the extent of the LDRZ precincts within a designated BPA or subject to a BMO. Table 4 was based on the bushfire prone area mapping prior to the update on 16 October 2018, but as noted above it does not appear to the Panel that the mapping changes substantially in the LDRZ precincts affected by the Amendment. The bushfire provisions in all planning schemes were updated with the introduction of Amendment VC140 following the Royal Commission into the Black Saturday bushfires. Clause 13.02 (Bushfire) applies to all planning and decision making relating to land within a designated bushfire prone area, subject to a BMO, or proposed to be used or developed in a way that may create a bushfire hazard. The objective of the policy is: To strengthen the resilience of settlements and communities to bushfire through risk-based planning that prioritises the protection of human life. Strategies include: • directing population growth and development to low risk locations and ensuring the availability of and safe access to areas where human life can be protected from bushfire • reducing the vulnerability of communities to bushfire through consideration of bushfire risk in decision making at all stages of the planning process • discouraging settlement growth and development in bushfire affected areas that are important areas of biodiversity. Strategies specifically directed at settlement planning include: • directing population growth and development to low risk locations • addressing bushfire hazard at a landscape, settlement, local, neighbourhood and site scale
Page 37 of 145 Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C198 Panel Report 23 November 2018
• assessing alternative low risk locations for settlement growth on a regional, municipal, settlement, local and neighbourhood basis • not approving any strategic planning document, local planning policy, or planning scheme amendment that will result in the introduction or intensification of development in areas with a BAL rating of more than 12.5. Clause 13.02-1S requires a Responsible Authority to consider bushfire risk when assessing applications for subdivisions of more than 10 lots in a designated bushfire prone area. Other relevant provisions include: • Clause 44.06 (the BMO), which details application requirements and decision guidelines that apply to permit applications for land subject to the BMO. They include a bushfire hazard site assessment, a bushfire hazard landscape assessment and a bushfire management statement. • Clause 53.02 (Bushfire planning), which sets out bushfire protection objectives and measures for development on land affected by a BMO.
(x) Lysterfield South Bushfire Planning Review An earlier iteration of the Amendment (pre-exhibition) proposed reducing the minimum lot size in Precinct 1 from 4,000 sqm to 2,000 sqm. Following the introduction of Amendment VC140, DELWP raised concerns about whether this was consistent with the new bushfire provisions, given Precinct 1’s proximity to Churchill National Park and Lysterfield Park. Council retained Bushfire Planning to further investigate the bushfire risk in Precinct 1. The Lysterfield South Bushfire Planning Review (2 March 2018) assesses the bushfire risk in Precinct 1 as high, with a potential to produce complex fire behaviour. Its findings and conclusions were: • the CFA does not support a planning scheme amendment that enables further subdivision in this area • the landscape bushfire risk cannot be mitigated, resulting in a potential for neighbourhood scale destruction and for houses to be lost from ember attack and localised sources of radiant heat and flame contact ignited by embers • enabling new lots in Precinct 1, when significantly lower risk alternatives are likely to be available, is inconsistent with state planning policy to direct population growth and development to low risk locations.
(xi) Planning Practice Notes Planning Practice Note 37: Rural Residential Development (PPN37) explains that rural residential development can have environmental, social and economic costs that are significantly higher than those of standard residential development. It requires a planning authority preparing an amendment to consider overall strategic alignment, housing need, location and subdivision design. Impacts on topography, road access, fire hazard, inundation, drainage, vegetation, views and other environmental factors should also be considered. Planning Practice Note 64: Local planning for bushfire protection (PPN64) provides guidance about local planning for bushfire protection. It states that local planning for bushfire
Page 38 of 145 Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C198 Panel Report 23 November 2018
protection should consider all bushfire hazards that can be potentially harmful, including grasslands and vegetation outside of land subject to the BMO. Bushfire should be considered when preparing strategic plans and policies for settlements, towns and rural areas, when preparing planning scheme amendments and when considering development proposals. PPN64 reiterates the need for planning authorities to consider the way in which the planning scheme assists to strengthen community resilience to bushfire, and ensure that the scheme prioritises the protection of human life.
5.5 General themes
(i) Evidence and submissions Council’s proposed geographic application of the LDRZ1 and the LDRZ2 is based on the criteria outlined in the Low Density Residential Zone Position Paper and the Housing Strategy, namely bushfire risk, landscape impact, accessibility to services, infrastructure limitations and agency concerns. Council submitted that this approach was appropriate and consistent with state and local policy objectives. Specifically: • Limiting residential development and population growth by maintaining a minimum lot size of 4,000 sqm in at-risk bushfire areas is consistent with: - Outcome 6 in Plan Melbourne, and the associated directions to reduce the likelihood and consequences of natural hazard events and mitigate exposure to natural hazards - the policy directions in Clause 13.02 and PPN64 to direct population growth to low risk locations within a municipality • Council’s proposed application of the LDRZ1 and LDRZ2 is consistent with the Landscape Character Assessment, in that the LDRZ1 is proposed for areas with moderate to high landscape value and sensitivity to change, whereas the LDRZ2 is proposed for precincts with lower landscape value that are less sensitive to change. Council indicated that it will consider additional planning controls to preserve landscape character following the adoption of the Amendment. Submissions were both for and against reducing the minimum lot size in low density residential areas. Submitters who supported reducing the minimum lot size said that this was consistent with the objectives in the Housing Strategy of increasing the supply of low density residential land in the municipality, providing increased housing choice and contributing to housing affordability. Many submitters from low density residential areas have lived in their homes for decades, and are finding it difficult and expensive to maintain such large lots, particularly as they get older and their children have left home. Several submitters wanted the option of downsizing to smaller rural residential lots, but were unable to afford to do so as smaller (2,000 sqm) low density residential lots in Casey generally sell for around the same price as larger lots. Applying the LDRZ2 would give these landowners a choice to subdivide and stay in their homes and the area that they love, without the considerable maintenance burdens associated with the larger lots. They submitted that not everyone will make this choice, and any changes to the character of the low density residential areas will inevitably be gradual.
Page 39 of 145 Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C198 Panel Report 23 November 2018
Submitters, including Mr Forrester and Ms Jakovljevic, noted that many of the lots are developed in a way that would allow construction of a second dwelling at the rear of the existing dwelling, resulting in minimal changes to the streetscape. Second lots would be large enough to provide plenty of garden space around the new dwelling, minimising any potential for overlooking or overshadowing neighbours. They submitted that this would help preserve the existing character of the areas. Several submitters, for example Ms Federici and Mr Amirdeen, told the Panel that subdividing would allow them to realise some additional value from their lots and assist their children (many of whom are struggling with housing affordability) to purchase a home, or to build a second home for family on their existing blocks. Ms Jakovljevic pointed to the broader economic benefits of allowing subdivision of low density residential land into 2,000 sqm lots. It would produce more opportunity for homes to be developed, more jobs, and more rate and land tax revenue to government, thereby contributing to the economy. Submitters opposed to reducing the minimum lot size were concerned that further subdivisions would increase traffic, compromise character, amenity and biodiversity, and put additional pressure on services and infrastructure. For example, Ms Browne was concerned that allowing 2,000 sqm lots in Narre Warren North would destroy the semi-rural character of the area, with more infrastructure being built, more vegetation being sacrificed, impacts on native flora and fauna from more people and domestic pets, and more traffic on narrow roads. Ms Kane submitted that the low density residential areas are generally not well served by public transport, and where bus services are provided they are not well utilised. She submitted that increasing densities in these areas will result in increased congestion as people are reliant on private vehicles to travel in and out of the area. She and others also submitted that the pattern of development in the low density residential areas meant that existing houses, many of which are substantial and not old, would be destroyed if the land were subdivided. Mr Foy pointed to the impacts of increased densities on the environment, including stormwater and native flora and fauna. He submitted that existing services in low density residential areas are already overloaded and are expensive and difficult to upgrade. Increased development would lead to less permeability, exacerbating current flooding and drainage problems in some areas and producing poor environmental outcomes with polluted runoff entering streams and waterways. Several submissions challenged Council’s justifications for retaining the minimum lot size of 4,000 sqm in particular precincts, submitting that landscape character and biodiversity will not be affected, services are available or could be readily connected in various precincts, and bushfire risk can be managed. Submissions in relation to specific precincts are addressed in the following parts of this Chapter.
(ii) Discussion The Housing Strategy discusses the low density residential areas in detail at page 37. It notes that the Housing Market Assessment found that there was ongoing demand for low density residential land, with just three years’ supply of vacant properties. It concludes that
Page 40 of 145 Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C198 Panel Report 23 November 2018
the supply of low density residential lots should be increased if possible, to provide a mix of housing types and sizes, a wide range of lot sizes, and opportunities for a more diverse community (all of which are consistent with the aims of the local policy framework). The Housing Strategy states: Council’s MSS (5 August 2014) includes policies to protect areas of high landscape value, and in particular the Casey Foothills policy area. The policy direction strongly discourages further subdivision in the Casey Foothills area and subdivision below the 4000 sqm minimum should be discouraged. It is therefore concluded that the current minimum subdivision for Low Density Residential Zoned areas be maintained at 4,000 sqm except Precincts 7, 8, 9, 17 and 18, where the minimum subdivision should be reduced to 2,000 sqm … The release of the above land for lower densities could potentially provide for over 1,900 new LDRZ lots which will go some way to meeting the identified shortage of ‘rural lifestyle’ and low density housing. The Panel accepts the findings of the Housing Market Assessment that LDRZ land is in relatively short supply, and the conclusion of the Housing Strategy that supply should be increased by allowing a reduction in the minimum lot size in appropriate precincts. Allowing some precincts to be subdivided into 2,000 sqm lots (if connected to reticulated sewerage) will increase the diversity of rural residential options in Casey, and will provide opportunities for some landowners who might otherwise have to move to remain in their communities throughout the different phases of their lives. The Panel supports Council’s general approach of determining which precincts are suitable for a minimum lot size of 2,000 sqm based on the criteria identified in the Low Density Residential Zone Position Paper and the Housing Strategy. It considers the criteria to be generally appropriate, consistent with state and local policy objectives, and consistent with the principles outlined in PPN37 and PPN64. The Panel notes submitters’ concerns about the potential for reduced minimum lot sizes to compromise character, amenity and biodiversity. The material presented to the Panel makes it clear that several of the LDRZ precincts possess significant landscape character, environmental and biodiversity values. While some of these areas are protected by existing overlays, many are not. Council indicated that it will consider additional planning controls to preserve landscape character in the Casey Foothills following the adoption of the Amendment. The Panel strongly supports this, and notes that it is consistent with the implementation measures outlined in Clause 21.04-4 of the Planning Policy Framework. The Panel also urges Council to consider the recommendations of the Biodiversity Assessment in relation to protecting biodiversity, particularly in Precincts 2, 3, 6, 10, 11 and 15. While the Panel recognises submitters’ concerns regarding increased traffic and pressure on services and infrastructure, the Panel does not consider that reducing the minimum lot size from 4,000 sqm to 2,000 sqm in limited low density residential areas will significantly add to these problems. Lots can only be subdivided to 2,000 sqm where they are connected to reticulated sewerage. Some of the parking and traffic concerns raised by low density area residents related to visitor traffic rather than traffic from residents. In any event, traffic
Page 41 of 145 Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C198 Panel Report 23 November 2018
impacts can be dealt with when permit applications for subdivision or development are made, as can the impacts of additional development like increased pressure on services, and reduced permeability.
(iii) Conclusions The Panel concludes: • It generally supports reducing the minimum lot size in appropriate LDRZ precincts to 2,000 sqm, to increase the supply of low density residential land in the municipality. • It supports the criteria developed by Council to guide where the 2,000 sqm minimum lot size should apply. • It encourages Council to pursue further planning controls to better protect the identified landscape, environmental and biodiversity values of the municipality’s low density residential areas. Council should have specific regard to the recommendations of the Biodiversity Assessment in this regard.
5.6 Exhibited LDRZ2 precincts The exhibited Amendment (and the Housing Strategy) proposed applying the LDRZ2 in five precincts (Precincts 7, 8, 9, 17 and 18). Two of those precincts – Precincts 8 and 9 – are in the Casey Foothills.
(i) Precinct 7 Precinct 7 is bounded by the Monash Freeway, Eumemmerring Creek and Belgrave-Hallam Road. The surrounding area is zoned for conventional residential development (GRZ1). It is serviced by bus routes along Belgrave-Hallam Road. A narrow strip of Precinct 7 along the Eumemmerring Creek is within a designated bushfire prone area, and the creek floodplain (which borders the eastern edge of the Precinct) is affected by a Land Subject to Inundation Overlay. No overlays apply within the precinct itself. Precinct 7 is outside the Casey Foothills, and is not recognised in the planning scheme for its landscape character. Council noted that no submissions were received from landowners within Precinct 7, and submitted that the precinct should be rezoned to LDRZ2 as exhibited. Precinct 7 appears to be relatively unconstrained by landscape character, bushfire risk or other environmental constraints such as flooding. Nothing presented to the Panel suggests that Precinct 7 contains any significant vegetation or biodiversity values. On the material before the Panel, Precinct 7 appears suitable for inclusion in the LDRZ2.
(ii) Precinct 8 Precinct 8 is located to the east of Precinct 7, on the other side of Belgrave-Hallam Road. It is serviced by bus routes along Belgrave-Hallam Road. DPO2 applies to the Precinct, which specifies a minimum lot size of 2,000 sqm. DPO2 also applies to the area north and east of the precinct, which is zoned GRZ1. No other overlays apply to the Precinct, and it is not within a designated bushfire prone area. Precinct 8 is within the Casey Foothills area. The Landscape Character Assessment found the precinct has a ‘suburban flats’ landscape character with a low sensitivity to change.
Page 42 of 145 Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C198 Panel Report 23 November 2018
Council noted that submissions from landowners within Precinct 8 were all supportive of the reduction in minimum lot size, and submitted that the precinct should be rezoned to LDRZ2 as exhibited. Precinct 8 appears to be unconstrained by bushfire risk or other environmental constraints such as flooding, and has access to some public transport services. It has relatively limited landscape character value and a low sensitivity to change. The Low Density Residential Zone Position Paper states that Precinct 8 has natural buffers to areas of high environmental and landscape values, with relatively better access to services and public transport. It abuts conventional residential lots, and a minimum lot size of 2,000 sqm will allow for a natural transition to the conventional residential development. No agencies consulted during Council’s low density residential zone review process objected to the reduction of minimum lot size in Precinct 8. It is unclear whether Precinct 8 contains any significant vegetation or biodiversity values. Precinct 8 was not included in the Biodiversity Assessment, which is somewhat curious given it is located within the Casey Foothills, an area which local policy recognises as having biodiversity value. Council’s closing submission (Document 49) did not provide a clear explanation as to why it was excluded. On the material before the Panel, Precinct 8 appears suitable for inclusion in the LDRZ2, although the Panel considers that it would have been helpful for Precinct 8 to have been included in the Biodiversity Assessment to provide a more complete picture of the biodiversity values of Precinct 8.
(iii) Precinct 9 Precinct 9 is in Narre Warren North, bordered by Belgrave-Hallam, Ernst Wanke, Glenwood and Narre Warren North Roads. The area to the north is proposed to be zoned LDRZ1 with a minimum lot size of 4,000 sqm. Areas to the south and west are developed with conventional residential densities. The precinct is located approximately 3 kms from two convenience activity centres, and is serviced by several bus routes. Precinct 9 is within the Casey Foothills. The Landscape Character Assessment found the precinct has a ‘suburban/rural sweeping flats’ landscape character with a moderate to high sensitivity to change. The precinct is not within a designated BPA apart from a small strip in the south west corner, and flooding is generally contained to open space areas. An ESO applies to a few scattered trees in the centre and north of the precinct. Council submitted that Precinct 9 has adequate access to services, and should be rezoned to LDRZ2 as exhibited. It submitted that any future subdivision or development will be required to be sensitive to the valued biodiversity and landscape character under Clauses 21.04 (Environment) and 21.14 (Casey Foothills) of the Planning Policy Framework. Ms Browne opposed the rezoning of Precinct 9 to LDRZ2. She submitted that traffic along Fox Road is already congested, largely due to visitors to the sports fields, and that access to and through the precinct is limited due to a high number of courts in the area. She submitted that Troupes Creek, which runs along the southern boundary of the precinct, poses a bushfire risk, as well as providing habitat for many species of flora and fauna. She queried why Precinct 9 was not included in the Biodiversity Assessment. She submitted that
Page 43 of 145 Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C198 Panel Report 23 November 2018
some of the reasons Council put forward to support retaining the minimum lot size of 4,000 sqm in other areas, such as landscape character and wanting to discourage battle axe lots, applied equally to Precinct 9, and it would be inconsistent to allow further subdivision in Precinct 9 and not those other precincts. The Panel has some concerns with the application of the LDRZ2 in Precinct 9. The Low Density Residential Zone Position Paper did not recommend Precinct 9 be included in the LDRZ2, noting that there were some agency objections to further subdivision in the precinct, and that it has ‘significant’ landscape constraints. This is consistent with the conclusion in the Landscape Character Assessment that the precinct has a moderate to high sensitivity to change. Council sought to address the Panel’s concerns in its closing submissions. It acknowledged that Precinct 9 was the only precinct with a moderate to high sensitivity to change that was proposed to be included in the LDRZ2. Nevertheless, Council submitted that: … with the absence of any significant agency concerns and no identified risk of bushfire, character considerations on their own, in this case, do not warrant a deviation from the Ministerial default for the zone schedule. Council understands that the findings identify that the significant vegetation and landscape values in the precinct is predominantly within the public realm and comprise of shelter belts and trees within road reserves and public land. Precinct 5 (to the immediate north of Precinct 9) shares similar landscape characteristics to Precinct 9. Council proposes that Precinct 5 retains the current minimum lot size of 4,000 sqm. Council acknowledged this apparent inconsistency in its closing submission, but indicated that Precinct 5 would be reviewed more holistically in the near future with the review of the Narre Warren North Township Strategy. Precinct 9 (like Precinct 8) was not included in the Biodiversity Assessment, despite being located in the Casey Foothills. It is not clear to the Panel why it was excluded. Precinct 9 is one of the more heavily vegetated precincts in the municipality. Often, the more heavily vegetated precincts tend to have higher biodiversity value, and in the Panel’s view it would have made sense to include Precinct 9 in the Biodiversity Assessment on that basis. Council noted that the Landscape Character Assessment identified that significant vegetation in the precinct is predominantly within the public realm. While the Panel acknowledges that this may be the case, it was not the purpose of the Landscape Character Assessment to assess biodiversity values. Further, the fact that the high value vegetation may be in the public realm does not necessarily mean that the precinct is suitable for further subdivision. The Panel is not persuaded that there is sufficient justification for reducing the minimum lot size in Precinct 9 at this stage. The Casey Foothills local policy refers to the need to protect the Foothills for its long-term environmental and landscape qualities, and to ensure the special rural character of the area is not compromised. Precinct 9 has an identified valued landscape character and moderate to high sensitivity to change (unlike Precinct 8, which has a low sensitivity to change). Further, the biodiversity values of Precinct 9 have not been
Page 44 of 145 Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C198 Panel Report 23 November 2018
comprehensively assessed. The Panel therefore does not support the application of the LDRZ2 to Precinct 9.
(iv) Precinct 17 Precinct 17 is located in Narre Warren South, between Pound Road, Shrives Road, Hallam Parklands and Narre Warren – Cranbourne Road. It is close to the Kirkwood Crescent Neighbourhood Activity Centre and has good access to the Fountain Gate Central Business District, including via bus routes. Areas to the north and west are developed for conventional residential development. Only small parts of the precinct are within a designated BPA, and the precinct is not affected by flooding. An area along Pound Road is covered by the DPO1 and the Narre Warren South Part A Development Plan, which require a minimum lot size of 4,000 sqm. According to Council, no amendment is proposed to the DPO1 at this stage, with further work required before the development plan is reviewed. Council noted that submissions from landowners in Precinct 17 all supported the proposed application of the LDRZ2, and submitted that the precinct should be rezoned given it is largely free from any bushfire or flooding risk. Council indicated it would review the development plan pending the adoption of the Amendment. On the material before the Panel, Precinct 17 appears to be relatively unconstrained by bushfire, landscape or other environmental constraints. It is well serviced by public transport, and has good access to nearby activity centres. On that basis, it appears to be suitable for inclusion in the LDRZ2. If the LDRZ2 is applied to Precinct 17, the area along Pound Road will be subject to inconsistent planning controls. The LDRZ2 will allow a minimum lot size of 2,000 sqm, but the DPO1 requires a minimum lot size of 4,000 sqm. The Panel does not consider that this constitutes orderly planning. Council indicated in its closing submission (Document 49) that it intends to review the DPO1 to “bring it into an up-to-date context and provide for the orderly delivery of required infrastructure to support future subdivision”. It also intends to conduct a general review of development plans and DPOs that restrict subdivision size, as the appropriate location for minimum lot sizes is in the zone rather than an overlay. Council has not committed to any particular time frame for reviewing the DPO1. It is not entirely clear to the Panel what further investigations are required in relation to the DPO1. If further investigations are needed to assess the suitability of Precinct 17 for minimum lot sizes of 2,000 sqm (for example because of constraints on the viability of providing further infrastructure), then the LDRZ2 should not be applied to Precinct 17 until those investigations are complete. If, on the other hand, Council is satisfied that infrastructure can be provided, and the further investigations are simply to assess what additional infrastructure will be required, then it may be appropriate to apply the LDRZ2 as part of this Amendment. If this occurs, the DPO1 review should be undertaken as soon as practicable to bring the planning controls for the precinct into alignment.
Page 45 of 145 Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C198 Panel Report 23 November 2018
(v) Precinct 18 Precinct 18 is located in Narre Warren South, along the eastern side of Narre Warren – Cranbourne Road and south of the Hallam Valley. It has good access to Casey Central to the south and the Fountain Gate Central Business District to the north. The precinct is bound by conventional residential development to the south and east. The precinct is not within a designated BPA apart from a very narrow strip along the northern edge, and is free from flooding. Other than a Heritage Overlay that applies to a single property in Greaves Road, the precinct is not affected by overlays. Council noted that the submissions from landowners within Precinct 18 are generally supportive of the LDRZ2, with one submission opposing the increased densities due to the potential financial impact on existing residents. Council submitted that Precinct 18 should be rezoned to LDRZ2 as exhibited. On the material before the Panel, Precinct 18 appears to be relatively unconstrained by bushfire, landscape or other environmental constraints, is well serviced by public transport, and has good access to nearby activity centres. On that basis, it is suitable for inclusion in the LDRZ2.
(vi) Conclusions The Panel concludes: • Precinct 7 – the Panel supports the application of the LDRZ2. • Precinct 8 – the Panel supports the application of the LDRZ2, although it would have been helpful for Precinct 8 to be included in the Biodiversity Assessment so as to provide a more complete picture of the possible biodiversity value of Precinct 8. • Precinct 9 – the Panel does not support the application of the LDRZ2 to Precinct 9, given its valued landscape character, moderate to high sensitivity to change, and the absence of any study confirming the biodiversity values of this relatively heavily vegetated precinct. • Precinct 17 – the Panel provides qualified support for the application of the LDRZ2 to Precinct 17 as part of this Amendment: - The LDRZ2 should only be applied now if Council is satisfied that there are no fundamental impediments to the provision of the further infrastructure required to service a denser population in Precinct 17. - If Council is not yet satisfied that the necessary infrastructure can be provided, it should defer the application of the LDRZ2 to Precinct 17 until further investigations into the DPO1 are complete. - If the LDRZ2 is applied to Precinct 17 now, Precinct 17 will be subject to inconsistent planning controls (2,000 sqm lots will be allowed under the LDRZ2, whereas the DPO1 will continue to require 4,000 sqm lots). This inconsistency, and the further investigations into the DPO1, will need to be resolved as soon as practicable. • Precinct 18 – the Panel supports the application of the LDRZ2.
Page 46 of 145 Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C198 Panel Report 23 November 2018
Some of the properties around the periphery of these precincts are located within a designated BPA. The Panel’s conclusions in relation to how these properties should be treated are dealt with in Chapter 5.16.
5.7 Post-exhibition LDRZ2 precincts Council’s post-exhibition changes propose applying the LDRZ2 in three additional areas, as shown in Figure 9 below. Precinct 3A
Precinct 11A
Precinct 4
Figure 9 Proposed post-exhibition changes – LDRZ precincts Source: Explanation of post-exhibition map changes proposed by Council (Document 2)
(i) Precinct 3A Precinct 3A is located north of Heatherton Road and east of Hallam Road North, encompassing Rockleigh Park Drive, Springbank Rise and Kanaru Court. The Heatherton Road Activity Centre is located directly west of the precinct. It is serviced by low frequency bus services along Heatherton Road and through the conventional residential area to the west of the precinct. A Special Building Overlay applies to a portion of the western side of the precinct. Council received 16 submissions from landowners within Precinct 3A, and a further two submissions as a result of the further notification of the post-exhibition changes directed by the Panel. All submissions supported reducing the minimum lot size in Precinct 3A to 2,000 sqm. Submitters identified the area as having good access to Heatherton Road Activity Centre, existing connections to services, infrastructure and sewerage, an ability to cater for lot diversity and 20 minute neighbourhoods, limited environmental constraints, and good access and traffic infrastructure. The Landscape Character Assessment identifies Precinct 3A as having a ‘suburban flats’ landscape character which has a low sensitivity to change. The Biodiversity Assessment states that Precinct 3 has large patches of remnant vegetation that should be prioritised for
Page 47 of 145 Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C198 Panel Report 23 November 2018
protection, but the report does not clearly distinguish (by mapping or description) whether the high quality vegetation is in Precinct 3A or the balance of Precinct 3. The Precinct is serviced by public transport, has good access to nearby activity centres and connections to existing infrastructure services. Smaller 2,000 sqm lots will provide a suitable transition between the conventional residential development to the immediate west, and the larger 4,000 sqm lots in the balance of Precinct 3 (to the north and east). Precinct 3A has a low sensitivity to change from a landscape character perspective. That said, Precinct 3A does have some constraints. Although Precinct 3A is not separately rated, Precinct 3 is rated as a high fire risk in the Victorian Fire Risk Register. The Panel infers that the predominant fire risk areas are located in the north of Precinct 3, where large areas are within a designated BPA, and a BMO applies. Portions of Precinct 3A are subject to flooding constraints, although those areas are relatively confined. It is difficult to ascertain from the Biodiversity Assessment whether any significant high quality habitat is present within Precinct 3A. On balance, the Panel considers that Precinct 3A, while not unconstrained, is suitable for inclusion in the LDRZ2. The Special Building Overlay will require flooding issues to be taken into account in any proposal for subdivision or development in the affected area (which is relatively small). Some properties around the northern and eastern edges of Precinct 3A are partially or wholly within a designated BPA. The Panel’s findings in relation to properties within a designated BPA are discussed in Chapter 5.16.
(ii) Precinct 4 Precinct 4 is located between Heatherton Road, Hallam North Road and Eumemmerring Creek. The precinct is close to the Heatherton Road Activity Centre. Low frequency bus services run along Heatherton Road, Hallam North Road, Belgrave Hallam Road (about 500 to 600 metres to the south of the precinct) and through the residential area to the west of the precinct. A Special Building Overlay applies to a portion of the north western side of the precinct. Properties on the north, east and south boundaries are within a designated BPA. The Landscape Character Assessment characterises Precinct 4 as part of the ‘suburban flats’ which has low sensitivity to change. The Biodiversity Assessment concluded in relation to Precinct 4: No remnant vegetation assessed. Based on historical aerial photo and site assessment there is a high level of confidence that the precinct is predominantly devoid of remnant native vegetation. Council received 10 submissions and one petition (with 51 signatures) from landowners in Precinct 4, most of which supported the LDRZ2. Following the further notification directed by the Panel in relation to the proposed post-exhibition change, a further eight submissions were received, five of which opposed the LDRZ2. Supporting submissions highlighted good access to Heatherton Road Activity Centre, and existing connections to services, infrastructure and sewerage. Ms Jovic submitted that 2,000 sqm would be an appropriate transitional lot size from the conventional residential
Page 48 of 145 Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C198 Panel Report 23 November 2018
development directly west of Precinct 4. She submitted that the area is already connected to reticulated sewerage and other services, and has good access to the freeway, local schools and the Endeavour Hills and Heatherton Village shopping centres. Further, much of the existing development in the precinct was sited in a way that would allow construction of a second dwelling to the rear of the existing lots, or side by side dwellings, without requiring demolition of the existing dwellings. Ms Jacovljevic told the Panel that Precinct 4 already has good access to Hallam Station and Endeavour Hills shopping centre, and that a section of Hallam North Road is proposed to be duplicated, which will provide better access to and from the precinct. Mr Forrester told the Panel he was one of the first to build a home in his estate, and has raised his family there and watched the area grow into a thriving supportive multicultural community. He submitted that residents should have the choice as to whether or not to subdivide. He submitted that many of the back yards in the area were empty and largely devoid of vegetation because the maintenance and upkeep was so demanding. He submitted that the existing infrastructure and spare space should be utilised for additional housing, resulting in a more efficient use of existing resources and providing a means for many of the residents to stay in the area. Opposing submissions raised concerns about impacts on amenity including a loss of privacy, traffic, wanting to preserve the character of the area, environmental considerations and concerns around additional demand on infrastructure associated with higher density. On the material before the Panel, Precinct 4 appears suitable for inclusion in the LDRZ2. Precinct 4 does not have significant landscape character, and is not particularly sensitive to change. It has no identified remnant vegetation, and limited identified biodiversity value. It is relatively well serviced by public transport, has good access to nearby activity centres and connections to existing infrastructure services. Only limited parts of the precinct are within the designated bushfire prone area, and no BMO applies. General issues around traffic, infrastructure and the like are largely addressed in Chapter 5.5. The Panel supports the application of the LDRZ2 to Precinct 4.
(iii) Precinct 11A Precinct 11A is the south west portion of Precinct 11, between Narre Warren North Road and Troupes Creek. It includes properties on Gori Court, Renda Court, Harries Court, and is bound to the north by Brundrett Road. The area is close to the activity centre in Ernst Wanke Road. Precinct 11A is outside the designated bushfire prone areas, and is not subject to a BMO. Council received seven submissions from landowners within Precinct 11A, all of which supported the LDRZ2. A further six submissions were received following further notification of the proposed post-exhibition changes directed by the Panel, three of which opposed the LDRZ2 and three of which supported the LDRZ2. Opposing submissions raised concerns about impacts on amenity, privacy, neighbourhood character, decrease in property values, and infrastructure issues associated with higher density in the area. These issues are largely addressed in Chapter 5.5.
Page 49 of 145 Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C198 Panel Report 23 November 2018
The Landscape Character Assessment identifies Precinct 11A as having a ‘suburban flats’ landscape character, with low sensitivity to change. The Biodiversity Assessment identifies Precinct 11 as containing large patches of remnant vegetation that should be prioritised for protection, but the report does not clearly distinguish (by mapping or description) precisely where the high quality vegetation is located. The biodiversity values of Precinct 11A are therefore not clearly understood. The precinct is not in a high bushfire risk area. The precinct has access to at least one nearby activity centre. The Panel was not informed about connections to existing infrastructure services, although it notes that the primary servicing limitation on reduced lot sizes relates to sewerage. Under the LDRZ2, land cannot be subdivided into 2,000 sqm lots unless it is connected to reticulated sewers. While the road network is not particularly permeable in Precinct 11A, good access to and from the precinct is available via Narre Warren North Road, Ernst Wanke Road and Brundrett Road. On balance, the Panel considers that Precinct 11A appears suitable for inclusion in the LDRZ2.
(iv) Conclusions The Panel concludes: • Precincts 3A and 11A – the Panel supports the application of the LDRZ2 to these sub-precincts, although more targeted information about the biodiversity values in these sub-precincts would have been helpful. • Precinct 4 – the Panel supports the application of the LDRZ2 to Precinct 4. Refer to Chapter 5.16 for properties within a designated BPA.
5.8 Precinct 1 (Lysterfield South) Precinct 1 was originally proposed to be subject to the LDRZ2, which would have allowed a minimum lot size of 2,000 sqm. After VC140, which updated the bushfire provisions in all planning schemes, DELWP raised concerns about the appropriateness of allowing further subdivision in Precinct 1, and requested Council to further investigate the risk bushfire risk in Precinct 1. Council retained consultants Bushfire Planning to prepare the Lysterfield South Bushfire Planning Review (refer to Chapter 5.4(x)), following which Council determined that the minimum 4,000 sqm lot size should be retained in Precinct 1.
(i) General description of Precinct 1 Precinct 1 is in Lysterfield South, bound by Churchill Park Drive to the south and Lysterfield Park to the north. Churchill National Park is located to the east of the precinct. The precinct has limited public transport and is around 4 kms by road from the Endeavour Hills Town Centre, and 2 kms from the Heatherton Road Neighbourhood Activity Centre. An area of GRZ1 splits the precinct. The GRZ1 land is covered by the Lysterfield South Development Plan which includes minimum subdivision sizes of 4,000 sqm around the north and east and 2,000 sqm through the centre. The BMO covers the northern portion of the precinct, and the entire precinct is within a designated BPA. A Special Building Overlay applies to a Melbourne Water site in the western portion of the precinct, and drainage corridors transect both sides of the precinct.
Page 50 of 145 Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C198 Panel Report 23 November 2018
(ii) Evidence and submissions Two submissions were received in relation to Precinct 1. One supported retaining the minimum lot size of 4,000 sqm, the other (a joint submission on behalf of several landowners in Forrest Hill Grove) sought minimum lot sizes of 2,000 sqm. Council submitted that allowing further subdivision in Precinct 1 would be inconsistent with State policy in relation to bushfire planning. It noted that the Victorian Fire Risk Register rated the fire risk in Precinct 1 as ‘extreme’, and referred the Panel to the findings of the Lysterfield South Bushfire Planning Review (summarised in Chapter 5.4(x) above). Council submitted that applying the LDRZ2 in Precinct 1 would introduce a new and entirely avoidable risk into the area, and would be unlikely to strengthen community resilience to bushfire. At the Panel’s request, Council provided some further detail in relation to the ‘extreme’ fire risk assessment for Precinct 1 in the Victorian Fire Risk Register. Advice from Council’s Acting Municipal Fire Prevention Officer dated 2 October 2018 stated: The risk assessment for the Lysterfield South Human Settlement is rated as Extreme with a 1A priority based on a Likelihood of Almost Certain with a Catastrophic Consequence. This is the highest rated Human Settlement Asset risk in the City of Casey. Landowners at 9, 10 and 11 Forrest Hill Grove made a joint submission seeking a minimum lot size of 2,000 sqm, to allow the land to be subdivided from three into six lots. Their submission to the Amendment explained that the three lots were previously subject to single dwelling covenants. The landowners had successfully applied to the Supreme Court to vary the covenants to allow two dwellings per lot, largely on the strength of earlier advice from Council officers prior to the Amendment being exhibited that Council would support a minimum lot size of 2,000 sqm in Precinct 1. The submission said that Council’s change in position was “a heavy handed knee jerk reaction” that “was not founded on any new evidence or data that would suggest a minimum lot size of 0.2 ha for the Forrest Hill Grove Precinct is unacceptable”. At the Hearing, Mr Bradley of Aitken Partners made submissions on behalf of the Forrest Hill Grove landowners. He submitted that it was not for the Panel to decide whether an application to subdivide the land would necessarily be successful, but whether an opportunity should be available for the owners to seek approval for a subdivision. Mr Bradley called planning evidence from Stephen O’Brien of Universal Planning and bushfire evidence from Sally van der Paverd of Fire Front Consultancies in support of his submissions. One of the owners, Mr Grasby, also made a presentation to the Panel. Mr Grasby submitted that he had taken significant action to reduce the bushfire risk on his land, and that further action could be taken if the land were further subdivided. He told the Panel there was a flood easement along the northern boundary of his land, which provides access for the landowners, Parks Victoria and the CFA from Forrest Hill Grove to Lysterfield Park. He has a significant static water supply on his property, and told the Panel that fire hydrants are located in Forrest Hill Grove, providing a good supply of water for fire fighting purposes. He pointed to the many benefits of allowing the subdivision of the Forrest Hill
Page 51 of 145 Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C198 Panel Report 23 November 2018
Grove lots, including enabling him and his wife to downsize and build their retirement home on the rear of their block. He submitted that the new dwelling, being constructed to modern bushfire standards, would be safer and would provide better protection from bushfire than the existing dwelling. He submitted that this would prioritise the protection of human life, consistent with the requirements in Clause 13.02. Mr O’Brien’s evidence was that the Forrest Hill Grove lots were fully serviced, largely clear of native vegetation, and free from overlays apart from the BMO. He stated that the lots are an available land resource within an established residential area that is well located to local and regional activity centres. His evidence was that Clause 13.02 represents a strategy rather than a mandatory requirement, and should not be interpreted to prevent further subdivision of the land. His evidence was that the bushfire provisions in the planning scheme are performance based, and should be interpreted to allow development applications that address the relevant policies and meet the relevant bushfire performance measures to be favourably considered. His evidence was that the Amendment “cuts across” the overriding intent of the VPP to allow a performance-based approach. Mr O’Brien noted the reference in the Housing Strategy to an undersupply of rural lifestyle lots and the need for increased diversity in housing type and population. His evidence was that “there is no nexus between the information presented in the Housing Strategy and the planning scheme amendment’s proposal to limit minimum subdivision size to 0.4 ha insofar as the sole planning scheme constraint identified for the site (being the Bushfire Hazard [sic] Overlay) is concerned”. His evidence was that the use of cleared manicured lawn to the rear of the lots “would have no impact whatsoever on the local landscape character values”, and that Council’s justification that the land is not well serviced “is merely a convenient one that cannot be considered as relevant in the context of an established low density residential area where existing lots are already averaging 2,000 sqm”. Ms van der Paverd prepared a report akin to an assessment of the proposed subdivision as if a planning permit application were being made under the BMO. Ms van der Paverd’s report included a Bushfire Hazard Site Assessment, a Bushfire Hazard and Landscape Assessment and a Bushfire Management Statement, and an assessment of the subdivision against the objectives and performance measures set out in Clause 53.02. Ms van der Paverd’s written evidence was that a BAL rating of 29 could be achieved on the land if the Parks Victoria fire access track around the north, east and west sides of the lots was able to be included in the defendable space requirements for the new dwellings. Her evidence was that a CFA officer had confirmed verbally that CFA would support the use of the fire break as defendable space. In oral evidence, Ms van der Paverd indicated that she thought some of the lots may in fact be able to achieve a BAL rating of 12.5, although she acknowledged that this would be difficult if the fire access track was not able to be included in the defendable space. Ms van der Paverd’s assessment was limited to whether the proposed six lot subdivision could achieve the requirements of the BMO. She confirmed that she had not considered the Amendment more broadly. In cross examination, Council asked Ms van der Paverd what additional considerations would need to be taken into account in considering an amendment
Page 52 of 145 Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C198 Panel Report 23 November 2018
as opposed to an individual subdivision proposal. She answered that Clause 53.02 contains all the relevant considerations. There was some discussion in the course of Ms van der Paverd’s evidence as to whether the settlement planning objectives and requirements in Clause 13.02 of the planning scheme (summarised in Chapter 5.4(ix) above) applied. Ms van der Paverd’s opinion was that they did not, as the proposed subdivision was less than 10 lots. She regarded the proposed six lot subdivision as infill development, not settlement planning. Council responded to Mr O’Brien and Ms van der Paverd’s evidence in closing (Document 49). It submitted that Mr O’Brien’s evidence failed to address Clause 13.02, including strategies to fully consider landscape bushfire risk, alternative locations for development, and the need to prioritise human life over all other considerations: Council’s primary consideration is not mitigating the bushfire risk alongside new development but whether the planning scheme should enable the creation of entirely new risk in the first place in areas subject to bushfire. The [Forrest Hill Grove land] is the highest risk location in the Lysterfield area, has extensive hazard on three sides, and is afforded only a limited fuel management buffer to the north. The development scenario envisages introducing entirely avoidable risk into the highest risk part of the locality and with a lot configuration that, due to existing dwellings, locates dwellings immediately adjoining the hazard. It submitted that Ms van der Paverd’s evidence should be given little weight for similar reasons, further noting that her evidence recommends that a BAL 29 is acceptable when Clause 13.02 clearly directs against allowing further intensification of development in areas with a BAL rating of more than 12.5.
(iii) Discussion The Panel agrees with Council that there is no strategic justification for allowing the further subdivision in Precinct 1. The Panel has had regard to the evidence and submissions on behalf of the Forrest Hill Grove landowners. However the Amendment is not about a site specific subdivision or development proposal. It is about the broad application of a Housing Strategy across the established areas of Casey. The strategic justification for the Amendment is necessarily quite different to the strategic justification that might be required for the subdivision of the three Forrest Hill Grove lots into six. The Amendment guides population growth and development across the municipality. Council (and the Panel) must have regard to the policy considerations in Clause 13.02, in particular the requirements to direct population growth and development to low risk locations, and to discourage settlement growth and development in bushfire affected areas that are important areas of biodiversity. Clause 13.02 requires Council to assess alternative low risk locations for settlement growth on a regional, municipal, settlement, local and neighbourhood basis.
Page 53 of 145 Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C198 Panel Report 23 November 2018
The fire risk rating for Precinct 1 is ‘extreme’ – the highest in the municipality. The entire precinct is within a designated BPA, and more than half the precinct is affected by the BMO3. The Lysterfield South Bushfire Planning Review found that the CFA does not support a planning scheme amendment that enables further subdivision in Precinct 1, and that the landscape bushfire risk in this precinct cannot be mitigated, resulting in a potential for neighbourhood scale destruction and for houses to be lost. It would be entirely inappropriate to allow intensification of development in the highest fire risk precinct within the municipality when other lower risk locations are available. This is particularly so given no compelling reason has been put before the Panel as to why Precinct 1 is more suitable for subdivision than other lower risk precincts. The debate about whether subdivisions of less than 10 lots are required to meet the settlement planning objectives and requirements in Clause 13.02 is moot. The Panel is not considering a proposal to subdivide three lots into six – it is considering the Amendment. The Amendment certainly constitutes settlement planning, and the settlement planning objectives and requirements are clearly relevant. Allowing further subdivision in Precinct 1 would, in the Panel’s view, be directly contrary to the objectives and strategies in Clause 13.02, including the strategy of not approving any planning scheme amendment that will result in the introduction or intensification of development in areas with a BAL rating of more than 12.5. The Panel does not agree with Mr O’Brien that the sole planning constraint on the land is the bushfire risk. Contrary to Mr O’Brien’s assertions, the land is relatively isolated, and is located some distance from public transport and activity centres. Mr O’Brien did not put forward any justification as to why the land was suitable for further subdivision, other than references in the Housing Strategy to the need to increase the supply of low density residential lots and increase housing diversity in the municipality. In the Panel’s view, these needs can be met by smaller lot sizes in other LDRZ precincts that are far more suitable for subdivision than Precinct 1. Precinct 1 is within the Casey Foothills, an area that the planning scheme seeks to protect for its long-term environmental and landscape qualities. It is one of the higher locations in the Casey Foothills, and (as the Panel observed on its site visit) is among the more heavily vegetated precincts in the municipality. It contributes significantly to the “green backdrop” and the “special rural character” that Clause 21.14 seeks to protect – more so than other precincts in lower lying areas with less vegetation. The Panel considers that allowing further subdivision in Precinct 1 could potentially compromise the significant landscape character and biodiversity values of the precinct (and the Casey Foothills area more broadly), and would be inconsistent with State and local policy seeking to protect those values. It would be inconsistent with the strategies specific to Lysterfield South set out in Clause 21.14, which include: • retain and enhance the bushland qualities of the major inter-suburban break between Endeavour Hills, Dandenong and Lysterfield. • recognise, protect and enhance the identified areas of biodiversity significance within the Churchill National Park, Lysterfield Park and surrounds.
Page 54 of 145 Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C198 Panel Report 23 November 2018
(iv) Conclusion The Panel concludes: • It does not support further subdivision (or the application of the LDRZ2) in Precinct 1, due to significant constraints including bushfire risk, landscape character and biodiversity value, as well as locational constraints.
5.9 Precinct 2 (Endeavour Hills)
(i) General description of Precinct 2 Precinct 2 is in Narre Warren North, and sits between Churchill Park Drive and the transmission line easement. It is within the Casey Foothills. The Precinct is not well serviced, with limited public transport. It is located around 3 kms by road to the Endeavour Hills Activity Centre, and 1.5 kms from the Heatherton Road Neighbourhood Activity Centre. Conventional residential development exists south of the transmission line. The entire precinct is within a designated BPA, and a small area in the south is affected by a Special Building Overlay.
(ii) Evidence and submissions Council received seven submissions regarding properties in Precinct 2, all supporting the LDRZ2. Council does not support further subdivision in Precinct 2 given the existing bushfire risk. Precinct 2 was not included in the Landscape Character Assessment because Council did not support further subdivision of Precinct 2 on fire risk grounds. The Biodiversity Assessment identifies Precinct 2 as containing large patches of moderate quality remnant vegetation and habitat that should be prioritised for protection, including low to moderate quality remnant Grassy Woodland EVC. Scattered trees remain in the centre of the precinct, with a possibility for remnant scattered trees in the south east of the precinct. Mr Yeoh made a detailed presentation to the Panel in support of his request for his block in Hallam North Road (which is around 4,000 sqm) to be rezoned to allow subdivision and development for 13 townhouses. He submitted that a townhouse development on his land would provide a good amenity outcome, as the block is large enough to accommodate 13 dwellings without resulting in overlooking, overshadowing or a loss of privacy. It would be a more economical and efficient use of the land, allowing the city to grow in numbers without expanding in area. It would also contribute to housing affordability. Mr Yeoh submitted that the land is easily accessible from Hallam North Road, and unlike many of the other lots in Precinct 2, is relatively flat and therefore suitable for medium density development. It has sufficient room for circulation space within the block to avoid the need for cars to reverse out of the driveway. Sewerage infrastructure is supplied but not yet connected. The block is connected to other services. He submitted that the land is close to Endeavour Hills shopping centre, is serviced by school buses, and is a 15 minute walk to the Heatherton Road Neighbourhood Activity Centre. Mr Yeoh told the Panel that his immediate neighbours had built large houses on their lots (which are also around 4,000 sqm in size) that were accommodating multiple generations of
Page 55 of 145 Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C198 Panel Report 23 November 2018
the one family, as well as workers employed in the owners’ businesses. Sheds on the blocks were being used to house equipment and materials used in the owners’ businesses. Mr Yeoh submitted that this is not low density residential, and if this is allowed, so should a medium density townhouse development.
(iii) Discussion The Panel agrees with Council that there is no strategic justification for allowing the further subdivision of lots in Precinct 2, including the property owned by Mr Yeoh. The fire risk rating for Precinct 2 is ‘Very High’. The whole precinct is within a designated BPA. For similar reasons as those discussed in relation to Precinct 1, the Panel does not consider that it would be consistent with state policy relating to bushfire risk to allow intensification of development in one of the higher fire risk precincts within the municipality, particularly where no compelling reason has been put before the Panel as to why Precinct 2 is more suitable for subdivision than other precincts that are not subject to the same level of fire risk. The Biodiversity Assessment identifies Precinct 2 as containing large patches of quality remnant vegetation and habitat that should be prioritised for protection, to assist in conserving the biodiversity values in the Casey Foothills. Although Precinct 2 was not included in the Landscape Character Assessment, it is identified in the Casey Foothills local policy (Clause 21.14) as having visual qualities which contribute to a positive image of the municipality as a desirable place to live. Clause 21.14 seeks to protect the area for its long- term environmental and landscape qualities that ensure the special rural character is not compromised. While the Panel acknowledges Mr Yeoh’s submissions about the nature of his particular site lending itself to a multi-unit development, the Panel does not support this. A medium density townhouse development would be incongruous with the character of the area. Mr Yeoh’s site is heavily treed, and contributes significantly to the character of the area. Much of this vegetation would necessarily need to be removed if the site were to be redeveloped for medium density development. Medium density development on Mr Yeoh’s site would likely compromise the landscape qualities and special rural character that Clause 21.14 seeks to protect. In any event, the Panel does not support site specific rezonings, for the reasons set out in Chapter 1.6(ii).
(iv) Conclusions The Panel concludes: • It does not support further subdivision (or the application of the LDRZ2) in Precinct 2, due to significant constraints including bushfire risk, landscape character, biodiversity value and locational constraints. • It does not support the rezoning of Mr Yeoh’s property for medium density townhouse development, as this would compromise the valued landscape character and special rural qualities of the area, as well as introducing increased density to an area with a very high fire risk rating.
Page 56 of 145 Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C198 Panel Report 23 November 2018
5.10 Precinct 3 (Narre Warren North ‘A’)
(i) General description of Precinct 3 Precinct 3 is in Narre Warren North, bound by Hallam North Road, Lysterfield Park, Churchill Park Drive and the Melbourne Water Pipe Track/Equestrian and Pedestrian trail. It is in the Casey Foothills. The majority of the precinct is within a designated bushfire prone area, and the eastern portion (along the boundary with Lysterfield Park) is within the BMO3. Parks Victoria maintains a 10 metre wide fire break along the eastern (Lysterfield Park) boundary of the precinct. A Special Building Overlay runs through the centre of the precinct. The transmission line easement transects the southern part of the precinct. The precinct has reasonable access to the Heatherton Road Neighbourhood Activity Centre, which is approximately 500 metres from the southern end of the precinct.
(ii) Evidence and submissions Six submissions were received in relation to Precinct 3, most of which supported a reduction in the minimum lot size to 2,000 sqm. One submission opposed any changes in the area, noting increased traffic and other impacts associated with increased subdivision. Council does not support further subdivision in Precinct 3 given the existing bushfire constraints, as well as landscape character, threats to biodiversity, and a lack of access to services. Precinct 3 was not included in the Landscape Character Assessment because Council did not support further subdivision of the precinct on fire risk grounds. The Biodiversity Assessment found that Precinct 3 contains large patches of native vegetation, including remnant Swampy Woodland, Valley Heathy Forest and Grassy Forest EVCs of low to moderate quality. Mr Elliot was involved in the original subdivision of the eastern part of Precinct 3, known as the Ebeli Estate, in the 1980s. He submitted that at that time, it was envisaged that the area would eventually be subdivided into 2,000 sqm lots. Council allocated two street numbers to each 4,000 sqm lot, and required two connection points for services such as water and sewerage for each lot. He submitted that the roads and services in the area have been “over-engineered” and have more than enough capacity to service the extra demand that would arise from allowing subdivision into 2,000 sqm lots. He submitted that there is no remnant vegetation in the area, as it was previously grazed farm land, and that landscape values could be adequately protected through section 173 agreements if required. Mr Elliot called Mr Ross to present evidence in relation to the fire risk in the Ebeli Estate. He assessed the BAL rating of two representative properties in Caithwill Court, one on the eastern side (the rear fences of which abut Lysterfield Park), and one on the north-west side of the court bowl. His evidence was that Caithwill Court is on the downhill side of the ridge that runs north-south in Lysterfield Park, and therefore has an ‘uphill’ classification when assessing the BAL rating. He assessed the BAL rating of the eastern property as 19, and the north western property as 12.5. His evidence was that fire risk is limited by the uphill classification, the presence of Lysterfield Lake on the other side of the ridge to the west of Caithwill Court, the Parks
Page 57 of 145 Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C198 Panel Report 23 November 2018
Victoria fire break, and the good water pressure and fire fighting services in the area including multiple hydrants. His recommendation was: It would therefore be reasonable to consider the private properties in this area to be suitable for residential development subject to the appropriate BAL construction requirements. Mr Elliot tabled notes of a meeting he had with Parks Victoria in relation to the maintenance of the fire break along the eastern boundary of Precinct 3 (Document 33), and submitted that Lysterfield Park was “probably one of the best managed parks in Victoria with low risk fire hazards, fire protection and managed woodland with minimal amount of fuel available”. Council’s closing submission made similar criticisms of Mr Ross’ evidence as those made against the evidence of Mr O’Brien and Ms van der Paverd in relation to Precinct 1. Ms Heard of Draeh Planning made a submission on behalf of the landowner of 33 Waterford Close (also in Precinct 3) that the 5,230 sqm property should be allowed to be subdivided into two minimum 2,000 sqm lots. She submitted that lots in the area are not uniform, consisting of a mix of regular, battle axe and irregular shaped lots ranging from 2,575 sqm to 8,795 sqm in size. She submitted that the property is accessed via fully constructed roads, connected to reticulated services, 3 kms from Endeavour Hills shopping centre, and 1 km from the nearest bus stop. She said that “it is not uncommon in a Low Density Residential Zone or even in a General Residential Zone that you may need to travel the above mentioned distances to access local amenities”. Ms Heard submitted that a two lot subdivision would not be assessed against Clause 13.02- 1S, as less than 10 lots would be created. Bushfire requirements would only apply under the Building Regulations. She submitted that landscape character could be maintained by a section 173 agreement requiring retention of the majority of the existing vegetation along the frontage of the site and surrounding the dam on the rear of the site.
(iii) Discussion The Panel agrees with Council that there is no strategic justification for allowing the further subdivision of lots in Precinct 3. The fire risk rating for Precinct 3 is ‘Very High’. Much of the precinct is within a designated BPA, and the eastern portion is affected by the BMO3. For similar reasons as those discussed in relation to Precincts 1 and 2, the Panel does not consider that it would be consistent with state policy relating to bushfire risk to allow intensification of development in one of the higher fire risk precincts within the municipality. Precinct 3 is within the Casey Foothills, and sits immediately below a ridgeline. The Panel observed on its site visit that the northern parts of Precinct 3 (excluding Precinct 3A) are among the more heavily vegetated precincts in the municipality. Precinct 3, like Precinct 1, contributes significantly to the “green backdrop” and the “special rural character” that Clause 21.14 seeks to protect. Strategies specific to the area in Clause 21.14 include: • retain and enhance the bushland qualities of the major inter-suburban break between Endeavour Hills, Dandenong and Lysterfield
Page 58 of 145 Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C198 Panel Report 23 November 2018
• enhance Lysterfield Park as an important regional passive parkland for Casey’s north • recognise, protect and enhance the identified areas of biodiversity significance within the Churchill National Park, Lysterfield Park and surrounds. The Biodiversity Assessment identifies Precinct 3 as containing large patches of high and moderate quality remnant vegetation and habitat. The Panel considers that allowing further subdivision in Precinct 3 would not be consistent with State and local policy in the planning scheme, and adopted Council policy supporting the protection and enhancement of the municipality’s areas with highly valued landscape character and biodiversity. The Panel was not persuaded by Ms Heard’s submission (which was unsupported by evidence) that landscape character could be adequately protected by the use of section 173 agreements. In any event, the Panel does not support site specific rezonings, for the reasons set out in Chapter 1.6(ii).
(iv) Conclusion The Panel concludes: • The Panel does not support the application of the LDRZ2 in Precinct 3, either on a site specific basis or on a precinct-wide basis. Precinct 3 is subject to significant constraints including, but not limited to, bushfire risk, landscape character and biodiversity value.
5.11 Precinct 5 (Narre Warren North ‘B’ – Jacques Road)
(i) General description of Precinct 5 Precinct 5 in Narre Warren North consists of two parts. The western portion is generally bound by Heatherton Road, Jacques Road, Belgrave-Hallam Road and Narre Warren North Road. The eastern ‘teardrop’ shaped portion is generally bound by Narre Warren North Road, Tom Jones Court and Randle Court. Precinct 5 is within the Casey Foothills. A large area of the precinct is occupied by the high voltage transmission lines. The teardrop shaped portion is close to the Narre Warren North township, but has limited access to services and public transport. Approximately half the western portion is within a designated BPA, along with strips along the northern edge of the western portion and the north western edge of the teardrop shaped portion. The Narre Warren North Township Strategy and the DPO5 apply to the teardrop shaped portion of Precinct 5, as well as the township itself and Precinct 10, which is located on the other side of the township. The Strategy includes the following requirement: A lot size for the subdivision that appropriately reflects the low density residential character envisaged in the development plan; or, a minimum lot size of 1,000 square metres for all residential lots for land in the Township Zone. The Narre Warren North Strategy Plan (which is the approved development plan under the DPO5) states that the minimum lot size within the low density residential zone is 4,000 sqm.
Page 59 of 145 Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C198 Panel Report 23 November 2018
(ii) Evidence and submissions Council received 12 submissions and one petition (with 9 signatures) in relation to Precinct 5, the majority of which supported the LDRZ2. Other submissions supported retaining the LDRZ1 and opposed increased densities. Council did not support further subdivision in Precinct 5 on landscape character and bushfire risk grounds. It submitted that it would be appropriate to further consider the appropriate minimum lot size in Precinct 5 as part of a more holistic review of the Narre Warren Township Strategy, which is upcoming. The Landscape Character Assessment found the precinct has a ‘suburban/rural sweeping flats’ landscape character, with a moderate to high sensitivity to change. The Landscape Character Assessment identified several threats to the landscape character, including continued encroachment of suburban style development, subdivision of large lots and tree clearing. The Biodiversity Assessment found that apart from a moderate quality patch of Swampy woodland remnant vegetation, very limited remnant vegetation was present in historic aerial imagery, although there was limited possibility for remnant scattered trees to remain throughout the precinct. Mr Nickas of Best Hooper made submissions at the Hearing on behalf of a group of landowners in Casdar Court and a neighbouring property at 284 Belgrave Hallam Road, known as the Casdar Court Collective. Casdar Court is located in the teardrop shaped portion of Precinct 5, just to the south west of the township. It is not within a designated BPA. Building on the submission to the Amendment made on behalf of the Casdar Court Collective by Reeds Consulting, Mr Nickas submitted that the Casdar Court land has good quality access roads, drainage capacity and connections to essential services. He submitted that maintaining a minimum lot size of 4,000 sqm would sterilise the land, and that there is no cogent reason why more land should not be released for subdivision given growth rates within Melbourne and Casey. He submitted that allowing 2,000 sqm lots in the Casdar Court area would maintain dwelling diversity by providing an alternative option to the 400-800 sqm conventional residential lots in much of the established areas. Mr Nickas conceded that Precinct 5 is within the Casey Foothills, but submitted that to the extent the area has a verdant quality, it has not been translated into any overlay that seeks to protect landscape character or vegetation. He submitted that the Casdar Court land is more appropriately considered an extension of Precinct 9 (which Council proposes to include in the LDRZ2), than part of Precinct 5. He submitted that subdivision of the Casdar Court land would not affect the streetscape, as side driveways would provide access to the second dwellings which would be constructed to the rear of existing dwellings. Ms Wheatley is a long term resident of Jacques Road, having lived there for 58 years. Some years ago she built a second dwelling (Dependent persons unit) at the rear of her block to accommodate her parents, but is unable to sell the second dwelling now that it is no longer used by her parents, due to subdivision restrictions. She raised many of the general themes discussed in Chapter 5.5 in her submission, including the opportunity that the LDRZ2 would
Page 60 of 145 Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C198 Panel Report 23 November 2018
provide to allow her to downsize and remain in the area, close to family, friends and her community.
(iii) Discussion Precinct 5 may not be as constrained as some of the other precincts in which Council proposes retaining the minimum 4,000 sqm lot size, such as Precinct 1. However, large parts of the precinct are within a designated BPA, and the precinct does have significant landscape value with a moderate to high sensitivity to change. Its landscape value is recognised not only in the Casey Foothills local policy (Clause 21.14), but also in the Narre Warren North Township Strategy, which seeks to protect the non-urban areas of Narre Warren North, including the northern foothills and their associated environmental and landscape qualities. The Biodiversity Assessment found that Precinct 5 contains some remnant vegetation (Swampy woodland EVC) in moderate condition, likely to be restricted to Eumemmerring Creek but extending along the creek line throughout the precinct. The Panel considers that the landscape character and biodiversity qualities of Precinct 5, albeit not as high as some other LDRZ precincts, are sufficient to justify retaining the minimum 4,000 sqm lot size. However Mr Nickas’ submission regarding the absence of any overlay that seeks to protect landscape character of vegetation in Precinct 5 is notable. The Panel encourages Council to further investigate whether overlays should be applied in Precinct 5 (or parts thereof), for the reasons set out in Chapter 5.5. Submissions from the Casdar Court Collective and others highlight that the area has good quality access roads, drainage capacity and connections to essential services. This was generally confirmed by the Panel’s observations on its site visit, although it notes that some of the smaller roads in Precinct 5 are not fully constructed with kerbs and channels. While parts of the precinct are well located to the Narre Warren North township, the precinct as a whole is not as well located as some other precincts in terms of access to public transport services and distance to larger activity centres. The Panel is also cognisant of the Narre Warren North Township Strategy, which describes the function of the LDRZ land as maintaining a clear demarcation between urban areas and the township. The Panel acknowledges Mr Nickas’ submission that allowing 2,000 sqm lots in the Casdar Court area would contribute to dwelling diversity by providing an alternative option to the 400-800 sqm conventional residential lots in much of the established areas. However, the Panel considers that this diversity can be delivered by applying the LDRZ2 in other more suitable precincts that are better located to transport and services, and with lesser landscape character and biodiversity value.
(iv) Conclusions The Panel concludes: • It does not support the application of the LDRZ2 in Precinct 5. The precinct has significant landscape character and moderate biodiversity value, and is not as well located as other precincts in terms of proximity to larger activity centres and access to public transport. • Council should further investigate whether overlays that protect landscape character or vegetation should be applied in Precinct 5. Ideally these investigations
Page 61 of 145 Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C198 Panel Report 23 November 2018
would be undertaken prior to (or in conjunction with) Council’s planned review of the Narre Warren North Township Strategy and the continued application of the DPO5, to better inform future development settings for this area.
5.12 Precinct 6 (Narre Warren North ‘B’ – Belgrave-Hallam Road)
(i) General description of Precinct 6 Precinct 6 is in Narre Warren North, bound by Eumemmerring Creek and Belgrave Hallam Road. The precinct is relatively distant from activity centres (particularly larger centres), and is not well serviced by public transport. Only small areas of the large lots along Belgrave Hallam Road are developable, as the rear (northern portion) of the lots are within the Urban Flood Zone which applies to the Eumemmerring Creek floodplain. Much of this area is also affected by the Land Subject to Inundation Overlay. The area to the south of Precinct 6 is zoned GRZ1, but is subject to the DPO2 which restricts lot sizes to 2,000 sqm. Much of Precinct 6 is within a designated BPA.
(ii) Evidence and submissions Council received six submissions in relation to Precinct 6, both in support of and against retaining the minimum lot size at 4,000 sqm. Precinct 6 was not included in the Landscape Character Assessment because Council did not support further subdivision due to bushfire risk and flooding constraints. The Biodiversity Assessment found that several patches of remnant native vegetation remain in Precinct 6 (Swampy woodland and Swampy Riparian woodland EVCs), but the quality of the remnant vegetation is low, and restricted to along the creek line of Eumemmerring Creek. Mr Amirdeen and his family have been residents of the area since 1987. Mr Amirdeen submitted that his property (which is in the south western part of the precinct, and backs onto the Eumemmerring Creek flood plain) should be allowed to be subdivided into 2,000 sqm blocks, consistent with the July 2013 reforms to the LDRZ which made 2,000 sqm the default minimum lot size for LDRZ land connected to reticulated sewerage. He pointed to the fact that Plan Melbourne characterises Melbourne as a global city of opportunity and choice. It acknowledges the rapid growth being experienced by the city (and Casey in particular), and calls for the redevelopment of underutilised land within existing communities to help accommodate this growth. Mr Amirdeen submitted that Precinct 6 is not a rural area, and there are many other more suitable options for those seeking a rural lifestyle. He submitted that his property is sewered, and well located with good road access to nearby employment opportunities and activity centres including Fountain Gate Shopping Centre. With the growth in online shopping he questioned whether the ‘20 minute neighbourhood’ principle in Plan Melbourne should continue to be understood as encouraging growth within 20 minutes of shopping centres. In his submission, the real heart of the 20 minute neighbourhood are other community facilities such as sporting fields, religious centres and community centres where people physically congregate together. He submitted that the mosque and the Romanian Pentecostal Church located near the corner of Belgrave Hallam Road and Hallam
Page 62 of 145 Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C198 Panel Report 23 November 2018
North Road are true community hubs, and should be considered as a focus for the 20 minute neighbourhood. Mr Amirdeen questioned Council’s description of the flood risk that applies along this part of the Eumemmerring Creek floodplain. In the many years since he and his family have lived adjacent to the floodplain, he had not experienced significant long-lasting flood events.
(iii) Discussion The Panel agrees with Council that there is no strategic justification for allowing a minimum lot size of 2,000 sqm in Precinct 6. Although the biodiversity values of the precinct do not appear to be particularly high, large parts of the precinct are within a designated BPA, and there are significant flooding constraints. Precinct 6 is within the Casey Foothills, which is an area recognised in local policy as having landscape character values (although the Panel acknowledges that the landscape value of Precinct 6 was not further assessed in the Landscape Character Assessment). While the Panel notes the differences in opinion between Council and residents regarding location and accessibility to nearby community facilities, activity centres and the like, the Panel accepts Council’s submission that there are other better located LDRZ precincts that are less constrained and therefore more suitable for subdivision than Precinct 6.
(iv) Conclusion The Panel concludes: • It does not support the application of the LDRZ2 in Precinct 6. The precinct is constrained by fire and flood risk, has some (albeit modest) biodiversity value, and is part of the Casey Foothills which is an area recognised for its landscape character value. Precinct 6 is less well located than some other precincts in terms of proximity to larger activity centres and access to public transport.
5.13 Precinct 10 (Narre Warren North Township)
(i) General description of Precinct 10 Precinct 10 sits to the east of the Narre Warren North township, between the township and the Urban Growth Boundary. It has access to limited services in the township, and poor public transport access. Most of the precinct is within a designated BPA. The Narre Warren Township Strategy and DPO5 apply north of Robinson Road (as well as to the township itself, and the teardrop shaped part of Precinct 5). As noted above, the approved development plan under the DPO5 requires a minimum lot size of 4,000 sqm. The area south of Robinson Road is affected by the DPO2 (which also applies to Precincts 6, 8 and 11), and a Heritage Overlay. The DPO2 requires a minimum lot size of 2,000 sqm.
(ii) Evidence and submissions Council received four submissions in relation to Precinct 10, all of which requested the LDRZ2 to allow subdivision down to 2,000 sqm. Council submitted that Precinct 10 should remain in the LDRZ1 as exhibited. It submitted that it does not support further fragmentation of lots in the Casey Foothills, and that state
Page 63 of 145 Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C198 Panel Report 23 November 2018
policy discourages increased densities in bushfire prone areas. Council indicated that the Township Strategy and the development plans under the DPO2 and DPO5 will be reviewed over the coming years, and submitted that changes to Precinct 10 should not be made until that review is complete. Precinct 10 is within the Casey Foothills. The Landscape Character Assessment found the precinct has a ‘foothills rural lifestyle’ landscape character, with a high sensitivity to change. The Biodiversity Assessment found that some patches of low quality remnant Grassy woodland remain in Precinct 10. There was very limited remnant vegetation present in historical aerial imagery. Although there is the potential for some limited linear patches, there is a low likelihood of any significant areas remnant vegetation present within private property.
(iii) Discussion The Panel agrees with Council that there is no strategic justification for allowing a minimum lot size of 2,000 sqm in Precinct 10 at this stage. Although the biodiversity values of the precinct do not appear to be particularly high, it has significant landscape character with a high sensitivity to change. The precinct is also significantly constrained by fire risk (rated as ‘High’ in the Victorian Fire Risk Register), and location. Strategies for the Narre Warren North area in Clause 21.14 (the Casey Foothills local policy) include reinforcing the identity, character, and sense of place of the Narre Warren North township by defining and maintaining a clear township boundary and enhancing landscaping quality. This is consistent with the Narre Warren North Township Strategy, which talks about the need to maintain a clear demarcation between urban areas and the township. That said, the Township Strategy does recognise that there may be some opportunity for low density development along the eastern boundary, to provide a transition or barrier between the township lots and the ‘Landscape Interest’ land to the east of Precinct 10. Ms Heard made a submission at the Hearing on behalf of landowners at 79 A’Beckett Road, requesting the LDRZ1 be applied to the site. The Panel does not support site specific rezonings, for the reasons set out in Chapter 1.6(ii). It further notes that a substantial portion of the land at 79 A’Beckett Road is within a designated BPA. The southern part of Precinct 10, south of Robinson Road is currently subject to inconsistent planning controls. The LDRZ requires a minimum lot size of 4,000 sqm, whereas the DPO2 allows a minimum lot size of 2,000 sqm. As noted above in relation to Precinct 17, the Panel does not consider that inconsistent controls constitute orderly planning. Council has indicated that it may reconsider the appropriate lot size in Precinct 10 after it has completed its planned review of the Narre Warren North Township Strategy and the development plans approved under the DPO2 and DPO5. The Panel urges Council to prioritise this work, to bring the planning controls applying to land in Precinct 10 into alignment.
(iv) Conclusions The Panel concludes: • It does not support the application of the LDRZ2 in Precinct 10, due to its significant landscape character, fire risk and locational constraints.
Page 64 of 145 Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C198 Panel Report 23 November 2018
• Council should prioritise the review of the Narre Warren North Township Strategy, the DPO5 and the DPO2 to bring the various planning controls affecting land in Precinct 10 into alignment.
5.14 Precinct 13 (Berwick ‘A’ – Caserta Drive)
(i) General description of Precinct 13 Precinct 13 is north of Berwick, bound by Harkaway Road, the Urban Growth Boundary and an area of conventional residential to the south. It is within the Casey Foothills. It is not particularly close to larger activity centres, but is located approximately 1.5 kms from Berwick township to the south and 1 km from Harkaway township to the north. A small strip of land along the Urban Growth Boundary is within a designated BPA. The precinct is largely free of overlays apart from a small strip of land through the centre of the precinct that is within the Land Subject to Inundation Overlay.
(ii) Evidence and submissions Council received two submissions in relation to Precinct 13, both of which supported the LDRZ2. Council does not support further subdivision in Precinct 13, due to its exemplary landscape and biodiversity character, and the threats posed by increased subdivision. The Landscape Character Assessment found the precinct has a ‘foothills rural lifestyle’ landscape character, with a high sensitivity to change. The Landscape Character Assessment notes that lot sizes and the associated rural living use of the land plays a significant role in maintaining the existing landscape character of the precinct. The Biodiversity Assessment found with a high level of confidence that the precinct is likely to be predominantly devoid of remnant native vegetation. Patches of remnant vegetation observed in historical aerial imagery is no longer present, although scattered trees may persist on private property. Ms North made a submission at the Hearing on behalf of the landowners at 18-22 Leemak Crescent. The land consists of two parcels, split by a strip of land that provides access to a retarding basin owned by Melbourne Water. The western parcel (approximately 3,400 sqm) is mostly zoned LDRZ, with a small portion in the south west corner zoned GRZ1. The eastern parcel (approximately 5,850 sqm) is zoned LDRZ. The land to the north of the site is zoned Green Wedge, and the land to the west is zoned GRZ. The entire western parcel is within a designated BPA, but only the north western corner of the eastern parcel is within the BPA.
Page 65 of 145 Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C198 Panel Report 23 November 2018
Melbourne Water retarding basin
Western parcel
Eastern parcel
Figure 10 Zoning of 18-22 Leemak Crescent, Berwick Source: Ms North’s submission (Document 14) Ms North submitted that the split zoning on the western parcel is a clear anomaly, and the entire parcel should be rezoned to GRZ (via a spot rezoning) to allow subdivision into three lots of around 1,000 sqm. She submitted that the eastern parcel should be allowed to be subdivided into two lots, one of around 2,000 sqm and the other (containing the existing dwelling which is located to the rear of the land) of around 3,800 sqm. She submitted that the site has good access to nearby activity centres, is 350 metres from the nearest bus route, and within 2 kms of public open space, schools, community facilities and other services. Both parcels are connected to reticulated sewerage.
(iii) Discussion The Panel agrees with Council that there is no strategic justification for allowing a minimum lot size of 2,000 sqm in Precinct 13. Although neither the fire risk nor the biodiversity values of the precinct appear to be particularly high compared to some other precincts, it has significant landscape character with a high sensitivity to change. Strategies for the Harkaway area in Clause 21.14 (the Casey Foothills local policy) include reinforcing the identity, character, and sense of place of the Harkaway village by defining and maintaining a clear village boundary and retaining the perception of a non-suburban area around the village. The Panel was not persuaded that the western parcel at 18-22 Leemak Crescent should be rezoned GRZ1. To the extent that the anomaly of the split zoning on the western parcel needs to be resolved, it makes more sense to the Panel to rezone the entire Parcel to LDRZ, to reflect the zoning of the bulk of the western parcel, and the abutting land to the east and south. The Panel considers that this would provide a better transition between the Green
Page 66 of 145 Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C198 Panel Report 23 November 2018
Wedge Zone to the north west and the LDRZ land to the south and east, and would better reflect the bushfire risk (noting that the entire western parcel is within a designated bushfire prone area). The Panel does not support a site specific rezoning of the eastern parcel to LDRZ2, for the reasons set out in Chapter 1.6(ii). This would create an anomaly between the site and the surrounding LDRZ1 land, which would not, in the Panel’s view, constitute orderly planning.
(iv) Conclusions The Panel concludes: • It does not support the application of the LDRZ2 in Precinct 13, due to its significant landscape character and locational constraints. Allowing further subdivision of land in Precinct 13 would also be inconsistent with the policy objectives in Clause 21.14 for the Harkaway area. • It does not support the rezoning of the western parcel of the site at 18-22 Leemak Crescent to GRZ1, due to its significant landscape character, location adjacent to the Green Wedge Zone and fire risk. Nor does it support the application of the LDRZ2 to the eastern parcel, as this would create an anomaly (given the surrounding land will be subject to the LDRZ1).
5.15 Precinct 15 (Berwick ‘C’ – Buchanan Road)
(i) General description of Precinct 15 Precinct 15 is north of the Berwick township, generally bound by Beaumont Road and Harkaway Road. It is within the Casey Foothills. The precinct is mostly built out with 4,000 sqm allotments, with a number of substantially larger allotments of up to 10,000 sqm. The northern section of the precinct is within a designated bushfire prone area, and small areas of flood prone land are located along the eastern boundary. Precinct 15 is affected by the DPO4, which implements the Cardinia Parklands Strategy Development Plan. The development plan restricts the minimum lot size in the area to 4,000 sqm, with an average lot size of 7,000 sqm. The northern portion of Precinct 15 is located within the Significant Landscape Overlay Schedule 3 (SLO3), the purposes of which include conserving and enhancing the character of significant landscapes. Key landscape elements identified in the schedule are: • the gently undulating topography of the area forms a transition from the Foothills in the north west to flatter land around Cardinia Creek to the south east • it provides both a landscape context for the Foothills and a picturesque landscape setting for the Cardinia Creek Park • the area is in part cleared for pasture and has in part a rural residential character. The Landscape character objectives for the SLO3 are: • conserve and enhance the existing pattern of vegetation to maintain landscape quality and remaining natural ecosystems • encourage development that is in harmony with the landscape of the Casey Foothills and compatible with protection of the picturesque landscape setting for Cardinia Creek Park
Page 67 of 145 Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C198 Panel Report 23 November 2018
• encourage protection and enhancement of riparian vegetation • encourage land management practices compatible with landscape conservation • protect the landscape value of Cardinia Creek Park.
(ii) Evidence and submissions The Landscape Character Assessment found the precinct has a ‘foothills rural lifestyle’ landscape character, with a high sensitivity to change. The Biodiversity Assessment found that some low to moderate patches of remnant vegetation (Valley grassy forest/herb-rich foothill forest complex and Plains grassland/plains grassy woodland mosaic EVCs) exist in the precinct, and should be prioritised for protection. It noted that very limited remnant vegetation was present in historical aerial imagery, although scattered patches in the south of the precinct still remain. Vegetation along Grasmere Creek appears to contain some remnant floristic values but is largely a result of supplementary planting for conservation purposes. The Biodiversity Assessment found a low likelihood of any significant remnant vegetation on private property. Mr Luppino made a submission in relation to a property in Buchanan Road that has been in his wife’s family for some years. The 7,284 sqm property has an original house on the front of the block, and a planning permit was issued in 2015 for the construction of a second dwelling at the rear. While the second dwelling has been constructed, the land has not been subdivided because it is not large enough to create two 4,000 sqm lots. The land is not connected to a reticulated sewer, and both houses are treating their effluent on site. Mr Luppino submitted that there is no longer any strategic basis to maintain a minimum 4,000 sqm lot size on the land. He submitted that lot sizes, biodiversity and landscape character are diverse within Precinct 15. He submitted that the land is not in a BPA, and is not subject to any overlays, including those protecting landscape character, vegetation or neighbourhood character. He submitted that there was nothing to stop landowners in the area ‘moonscaping’ their properties if they wanted to. He went on: So if the City of Casey is concerned about protecting biodiversity and landscape character in the precinct, how does limiting subdivision of [the subject site] to 0.4ha lots achieve this? What is the impact on the precinct by allowing the subdivision of [the subject site] into 2 equal lots of 3,642 sqm? Nothing. Mr Luppino referred the Panel to the discussion of Precinct 15 in the 2014 Low Density Residential Zone review, which highlighted (among other things) that: • Precinct 15 has a number of lots over 4,000 sqm that have subdivision potential • the precinct can reasonably access shops and services within Berwick Village • agencies including the CFA do not object to a minimum lot size of 2,000 sqm • the southern portion of the precinct is well located in terms of existing amenity and services, and officers “see a merit of investigating if it is appropriate to allow a minimum lot size of 2,000 sqm in the southern portion of this precinct”. He also directed the Panel’s attention to the statement of Council’s housing vision in the Housing Strategy, which includes providing housing diversity to “create a more self-sufficient city so that residents do not have to move outside Casey to find the housing they want”.
Page 68 of 145 Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C198 Panel Report 23 November 2018
He submitted that the current planning provisions that allow the construction of a second dwelling on LDRZ land, but not subdivision, are “outdated and at odds with current residential zone reforms”. He argued that the development of the land for a second dwelling has already taken place, and it can pose no further risk to the values of the area to allow the land to be subdivided into two lots. He submitted that further subdivision could be prevented by a section 173 agreement if required. Mr Luppino sought, and was granted, the opportunity to provide further written submissions in relation to the Landscape Character Assessment and the Biodiversity Assessment. His further submissions dated 3 October 2018 argued that the introduction of the assessments in the panel process raises serious process concerns, which are addressed in Chapter 1.4(i). In relation to the contents of the assessments, Mr Luppino submitted that: • the Landscape Character Assessment demonstrates how wide and varied the landscape character is throughout the different precincts • the Landscape Character Assessment does not provide any evidence that would suggest the landscape character in the southern portion of Precinct 15 is of high value • there is nothing in either report that would suggest that the further subdivision of the land would pose any threat to the precinct, or alter anything that the Council hasn’t already approved.
(iii) Discussion Precinct 15 has a ‘foothills rural lifestyle’ landscape character, with a high sensitivity to change. The Biodiversity Assessment found that there are low to moderate patches of remnant vegetation in the precinct that should be prioritised for protection. These findings are consistent with the identification and protection of the Casey Foothills landscape and biodiversity values in Clause 21.14 of the local policy framework, and with the application of the SLO3 to a significant portion of the precinct. The entire precinct is also subject to the Cardinia Parklands Strategy, which includes objectives of: • providing for the development of a rural residential environment adjacent to the parklands • ensuring that development does not adversely impact on the parklands and the non-urban areas to the north • protecting and enhancing the high environmental quality of the area. The Strategy specifies large minimum lot sizes of between 0.4 ha and 1.2 ha in support of these objectives. These minimum lot sizes are reflected in the DPO4, which also applies to the whole precinct. Clauses 21.09 and 21.10 sets out objectives and strategies for Berwick North and South, which include providing strong regulatory protection for the Cardinia Creek Valley’s natural places, to protect and restore the natural and environmental qualities of the valley and create and maintain habitat links through the valley. The Panel acknowledges that not all parts of Precinct 15 necessarily share the same level of landscape character, biodiversity or environmental values. That said, Council has taken a precinct based approach to the Amendment, which the Panel supports for the reasons set
Page 69 of 145 Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C198 Panel Report 23 November 2018
out in Chapter 1.6(ii). The Amendment is not about whether it is appropriate to allow further subdivision of particular properties in each LDRZ precinct. It is about what is appropriate for the precinct as a whole. Mr Luppino invited the Panel to conclude that there is no strategic justification for maintaining the current minimum lot size of 4,000 sqm in the southern portion of Precinct 15. This is not the question the Panel must consider. The question for the Panel is, is there strategic justification for reducing the minimum lot size? The Panel agrees with Council that reducing the minimum lot size in Precinct 15 is not strategically justified. The precinct has recognised landscape and biodiversity values that have been identified in the local policy framework, and in the SLO3, for some time. The Landscape Character Assessment and Biodiversity Assessment do not alter this fact. Rather, they confirm and provide more detail in relation to values that have already been identified and protected. The Panel is not persuaded by Mr Luppino’s submission that limiting subdivision (of his family’s property in Buchanan Road, or more broadly in Precinct 15) will do nothing to protect the landscape character, biodiversity or environmental values of the precinct. If further subdivision were to be allowed, it is not unreasonable to expect that further, more intensive development of the precinct would occur. This, by its very nature, has the potential to impact on these values. Reducing the minimum lot size would be contrary to the objectives of the Cardinia Parklands Strategy, and would create an inconsistency between the minimum lot size allowed under the zone, and that allowed under the DPO4. For reasons stated elsewhere in this Report, the Panel considers that inconsistent controls applying to the same land does not constitute orderly planning. Lot sizes of 2,000 sqm would be inconsistent with the existing predominant lot size of between 4,000 and 10,000 sqm, and would impact on the character of the area for that reason alone. Further, Precinct 15 is not particularly well located in terms of proximity to larger activity centres.
(iv) Conclusion The Panel concludes: • It does not support reducing the minimum lot size in Precinct 15, either in relation to the property in Buchanan Road that is the subject of Mr Luppino’s submissions, or more broadly.
5.16 Properties within a designated BPA
(i) Context Council recognised that properties on the edges of some precincts proposed to be included in the LDRZ2 are within a designated BPA. In its closing submission (Document 49), Council submitted that it “would be supportive of retaining properties which are largely affected by the bushfire prone area in the LDRZ1 and seeks the Panel’s view on this”. Council’s submission related specifically to Precincts 3A and 4, but the principle applies equally to a number of other LDRZ2 precincts.
Page 70 of 145 Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C198 Panel Report 23 November 2018
(ii) Discussion As noted in Chapter 1.6(ii), Council has taken a precinct-based approach to the amendment rather than a property-specific approach. Consistent with its precinct-based approach, Council has applied the bushfire risk criteria on a precinct-wide basis in considering whether a particular LDRZ precinct is suitable for further subdivision. Broadly speaking, where a substantial portion of a precinct is within a designated BPA, Council has determined that the fire risk for that precinct is higher, which is one factor that weighs against allowing further subdivision. Similarly, precincts with little or no designated bushfire prone areas are considered to have a lower fire risk, which is one factor weighing in favour of allowing further subdivision. This approach presents a potential dilemma. While a precinct with minimal designated bushfire prone areas may be regarded as a lower bushfire risk, individual properties within the precinct may have a higher bushfire risk. The Panel supports the precinct-based approach taken in preparing the Amendment. The Panel does not consider it orderly planning to have specific sites on the periphery of a precinct zoned differently to the balance of the precinct, unless there are compelling reasons for doing so. While bushfire risk is a significant factor, the Panel does not consider that bushfire risk alone is so compelling as to justify a departure from the precinct-based approach. Generally speaking, only relatively small numbers of properties are affected, and many of the affected properties are only partially within a designated BPA. Given existing lot sizes, many of the affected properties will not be able to be subdivided into more than one additional lot. The increase in potential population in these areas is therefore not likely to be substantial. Further, if affected properties were to be subdivided and developed with additional dwellings, the bushfire risk would not be ignored – it would be taken into account in the building permit process. Therefore, on balance, the Panel considers that properties on the periphery of LDRZ2 precincts that are within a designated BPA should also be zoned LDRZ2, consistent with the balance of the precinct.
(iii) Conclusion The Panel concludes: • Consistent with the precinct-based approach taken by the Amendment (which the Panel supports), properties on the periphery of LDRZ2 precincts that are located within a designated BPA should also be zoned LDRZ2.
5.17 Conclusions and recommendations The Panel’s conclusions in relation to each of the LDRZ precincts are summarised in Table 6 below. Conclusions that vary from the exhibited amendment are highlighted in red. The Panel’s conclusions are based on the designated BPA mapping as it applied prior to the 16 October 2018 updates. It does not appear that the mapping updates substantially changed the extent of bushfire prone areas in the LDRZ precincts, but Council should consider this carefully before adopting the Amendment.
Page 71 of 145 Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C198 Panel Report 23 November 2018
Table 6: Summary of Panel’s conclusions in relation to LDRZ precincts Precinct Conclusion Reasons 1 LDRZ1, as exhibited Significant constraints, primarily bushfire risk (‘Extreme’ rating in the VFRR, highest risk in the municipality), also landscape character and location/access to services. 2 LDRZ1, as exhibited Significant constraints including bushfire risk (‘Very High’ rating in the VFRR), landscape character, biodiversity value and location/access to services. 3 LDRZ1, as exhibited Significant constraints including bushfire risk (‘Very High’ rating in the VFRR), landscape character and biodiversity value. Among the more heavily vegetated precincts in the municipality that contributes significantly to the green backdrop and special rural character that Clause 21.14 seeks to protect. 3A LDRZ2, as per post- Not within a designated BPA. Landscape has low sensitivity to exhibition changes change. Well located to Heatherton Road activity centre, access to public transport, connections to existing infrastructure services. 2,000 sqm lots will provide a transition between the conventional residential development to the immediate west, and the larger 4,000 sqm lots in the balance of Precinct 3. More targeted information in relation to biodiversity values would have been helpful. 4 LDRZ2, as per post- Landscape has low sensitivity to change, and limited identified exhibition changes biodiversity value. Only limited parts of the precinct are within designated BPA. Relatively well serviced by public transport, good access to nearby activity centres, existing connections to infrastructure services. 5 LDRZ1, as exhibited Although not as constrained as some other precincts, large parts are within a designated BPA. Significant landscape value with a moderate to high sensitivity to change. Some moderate value remnant vegetation extending along the creek line. 6 LDRZ1, as exhibited Although not as constrained as some other precincts, large parts are within a designated BPA, and there are significant flooding constraints. Some (albeit low quality) remnant native vegetation along the creek line. There are other better located LDRZ precincts that are less constrained and therefore more suitable for subdivision. 7 LDRZ2, as exhibited Relatively unconstrained by landscape character, bushfire risk or other environmental constraints such as flooding. No suggestion of significant vegetation or biodiversity values.
Page 72 of 145 Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C198 Panel Report 23 November 2018
Precinct Conclusion Reasons 8 LDRZ2, as exhibited Relatively unconstrained by bushfire risk or other environmental constraints such as flooding. Relatively limited landscape character value with low sensitivity to change. Access to some public transport services. 2,000 sqm lots will allow for a natural transition to the abutting conventional residential development. That said, more detailed information in relation to the biodiversity values of Precinct 8 would have been helpful. 9 LDRZ1, contrary to Identified landscape value with moderate to high sensitivity to exhibited change. Submissions referred to biodiversity values which have amendment not been comprehensively assessed. Although it is serviced by some public transport, it is relatively distant from larger activity centres. 10 LDRZ1, as exhibited Significant fire risk (rated as ‘High’ in the VFRR). Significant landscape character with high sensitivity to change. Relatively poor location/access to services. 11 LDRZ1, as exhibited Significant fire risk (rated as ‘High’ in the VFRR). Locational constraints. 11A LDRZ2, as per post- Not within a designated BPA. Relatively limited landscape value exhibition changes with low sensitivity to change. Access to at least one nearby activity centre. Good access to the precinct via Narre Warren North Road, Ernst Wanke Road and Brundrett Road. More targeted information in relation to biodiversity values would have been helpful. 12 LDRZ1, as exhibited Significant fire risk (rated as ‘high’ in the VFRR). Locational constraints. 13 LDRZ1, as exhibited Significant landscape character with a high sensitivity to change. Not well located to larger activity centres. 14 LDRZ1 as exhibited Significant landscape character with high sensitivity to change. Not well located to larger activity centres. 15 LDRZ1 as exhibited Significant landscape character with high sensitivity to change. Policy directions to respect landscape character of the nearby Cardinia Creek Parklands. Low to moderate patches of remnant vegetation recommended for protection. 16 LDRZ1 as exhibited Significant fire risk (rated as ‘High’ in the VFRR). Policy directions to respect landscape character of the nearby Cardinia Creek Parklands. Locational constraints. 17 LDRZ2 as exhibited, LDRZ2 should only be applied if Council is satisfied that there are but with a no fundamental impediments to the provision of the further qualification infrastructure required to service a denser population in Precinct 17. If Council not yet satisfied of this, defer the application of the LDRZ2 until further investigations into the DPO1 are complete.
Page 73 of 145 Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C198 Panel Report 23 November 2018
Precinct Conclusion Reasons 18 LDRZ2 as exhibited Relatively unconstrained by bushfire, landscape or other environmental constraints. Well serviced by public transport, and good access to nearby activity centres. 20 LDRZ1 as exhibited Significant fire risk (rated as ‘High’ in the VFRR).
The Panel recommends: Apply the Low Density Residential Zone Schedule 1 to Precinct 9, instead of the exhibited Schedule 2. Apply the Low Density Residential Zone Schedule 2 to Precincts 3A, 4 and 11A, instead of the exhibited Schedule 1. Apply the Low Density Residential Zone Schedule 2 to Precinct 17 only if Council is satisfied that there are no fundamental impediments to the provision of the further infrastructure required to service a denser population in Precinct 17. If Council is not yet satisfied of this, defer the application of Schedule 2 until further investigations into the Development Plan Overlay Schedule 1 are complete. Review the recent changes to the designated Bushfire Prone Areas as they relate to land in the Low Density Residential Zone to ensure that the application of the proposed schedules is otherwise appropriate. The Panel makes the following recommendations for further work: Investigate whether further planning controls (overlays) should be applied to better protect the identified landscape, environmental and biodiversity values of the municipality’s low density residential areas. a) Further investigations in relation to Precincts 2, 3, 6, 10, 11 and 15 should have specific regard to the recommendations of the Biodiversity Assessment for the Casey Foothills prepared by Ecology and Heritage Partners in August 2018. b) Further investigations in relation to Precincts 5 and 10 should be undertaken prior to (or in conjunction with) Council’s planned review of the Narre Warren North Township Strategy and the continued application of the Development Plan Overlay Schedule 5, to better inform future development settings for this area. Prioritise the review of the Narre Warren North Township Strategy, the Development Plan Overlay Schedule 5, and the Development Plan Overlay Schedule 2 to bring the various planning controls affecting land in Precinct 10 into alignment. Prioritise the review of the Development Plan Overlay Schedule 1 to bring the planning controls affecting land in Precinct 17 into alignment.
Page 74 of 145 Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C198 Panel Report 23 November 2018
6 Neighbourhood Residential Zone
6.1 What is proposed? The changes associated with replacing the GRZ1 in the Hoddle Grid area of Berwick with the Neighbourhood Residential Zone Schedule 1 (NRZ1) are summarised in Table 7. Table 7 Proposed changes from GRZ1 to NRZ Current GRZ1 Proposed NRZ1 No minimum lot size 600sqm minimum lot size Minimum setback as per A3 & B6 Minimum setback as per A3 & B6 (no change) Private open space as per A17 & B28 Private open space variations to A17 - 80sqm or 20% lot area (not less than 40sqm) with minimum dimensions of 5m and B28 – generally as above and minimum dimensions for balconies and roof- top areas Maximum building height 11.0m and 3 storeys Maximum building height 9.0m and 2 storeys Garden area 25% - 35% Garden area 25% - 35% (no change)
6.2 The issues The issues are: • Does the neighbourhood character of the Hoddle Grid area warrant identification and protection? • Is the application of the NRZ contrary to other strategic objectives? • Are the proposed NRZ schedule provisions appropriate to protect the identified neighbourhood character objectives?
6.3 Context The area known as the Hoddle Grid (named after Robert Hoddle, who undertook the Berwick township survey utilising the street grid alignment) is located between the Berwick Town Centre to the west, High Street/Princes Highway, Cardinia Street, Allan and Brisbane Street and is currently zoned GRZ1. The area contains 1,082 lots with an average lot size of 680sqm. The Hoddle Grid is shown in purple in Figure 11.
Page 75 of 145 Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C198 Panel Report 23 November 2018
Figure 11 Map of the Hoddle Grid Source: Council’s Part B submission Most of the Hoddle Grid is covered by a Significant Landscape Overlay (SLO4) reflecting the special landscape character identified in the Berwick Township Significant Landscape Strategy 2008 discussed in greater detail at Chapter 6.4(ii). Site specific Heritage Overlays apply to several sites including the Wilson Street Avenue of Honour. The Hoddle Grid is identified as a minimal change area in the Housing Strategy, which proposes to apply the NRZ to the area. Schedule 1 to the proposed NRZ has been structured to apply specifically to the Hoddle Grid.
6.4 Relevant policies, strategies and studies
(i) Berwick Neighbourhood Character Study The Berwick Neighbourhood Character Study, January 2018 identifies two precincts, ‘Precinct 1 – Grand Garden Suburban’ and ‘Precinct 2 – Garden Court’. The Hoddle Grid is in Precinct 1. The study summarises Precinct 1 as being: … characterised by avenues of large canopy trees set within spacious road reserves, grand dwellings with large front setbacks and established gardens. The linear street layout, designed by the prominent surveyor Robert Hoddle, is a highly distinctive feature of the area, reinforced by formal street treatments with dwellings set behind the rows of mature trees forming a boulevard effect. Over time, the original subdivision layout has been fragmented in some locations and an increasing number of medium density developments have
Page 76 of 145 Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C198 Panel Report 23 November 2018
been constructed. While housing styles are mixed, consistency is achieved through the wide road reserves, generous front and rear setbacks and rows of mature canopy trees. While the study identifies a mixed architectural style of one and two storey dwellings with no dominant style or period of building, the more consistent elements include: • hipped and pitched roofs • generous front setbacks (around 9 metres for lots over 400 sqm) featuring landscaped gardens often with no front fence and with at least one canopy tree • dwellings generally offset from both side boundaries with average side setbacks of 3.6 metres for sites over 400 sqm • larger lots – average lot size is 680 sqm, or 975 sqm if lots less than 400 sqm are discounted. The study identifies the preferred character as: The eclectic mix of grand building forms and styles will be united by spacious siting that retains the dominance of the landscape setting. The provision of front and rear setbacks in new development, and adequate space for vegetation and canopy trees in gardens, will ensure that built form is recessive to the landscape. Dwelling entrances will be oriented towards the street to provide a sense of address. The spacious Hoddle Grid will be reflected in the strong avenue planting and enhanced by a lack of front fencing or the use of low visually permeable front boundary treatments. The study identifies further amendments to the SLO4, but these changes are not proposed in this Amendment or flagged by Council as further strategic work.
(ii) Berwick Township Significant Landscape Strategy The Berwick Township Significant Landscape Strategy, 15 April 2008 identifies the landscape values of the Berwick township and the Hoddle Grid. It identifies the area as having a ‘garden suburb’ landscape theme with wide streets and long view lines, a predominance of tall and mature canopy trees in the streetscape and within private lots, and a sense of openness. The strong grid pattern with wide nature strips, minimal crossovers and avenue planting along with informal gardens and few front fences provides a distinctive public realm character. The built form predominantly consists of single detached dwellings with generous 9 metre setbacks and building separation set within established gardens. The threats to the identified landscape values include large built form, high front fences, subdivision and overdevelopment, loss of vegetation and garden space and loss of the sense of openness. The Strategy identifies the application of a range of overlays and a preferred future character focused on retaining the grid framework, retaining tall and mature trees, discouraging front fences, maintaining the dominance of vegetation, providing minimum setbacks and encouraging low scale buildings.
Page 77 of 145 Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C198 Panel Report 23 November 2018
(iii) Planning Practice Notes Three Planning Practice Notes are relevant to the application of the NRZ: • Planning Practice Note 28: Using the Neighbourhood Character Provisions in Planning Schemes (PPN28) • Planning Practice Note 43: Understanding Neighbourhood Character (PPN43) • Planning Practice Note 78: Applying the Residential Zones (PPN78). These Practice Notes set out criteria and direction around understanding and identifying neighbourhood character, the appropriate application of the residential zones and schedules, and variations to the residential development standards of Clauses 54 and 55 to respond to identified and preferred character. PPN78 is no longer current, and much of its content has been translated into the Drafting Guidelines. Section 7.1 of the Drafting Guidelines states that the NRZ should be applied as follows: Neighbourhood Residential Zone – intended for areas where single dwellings prevail and minimal change is proposed, such as areas of recognised neighbourhood character or environmental or landscape significance.
6.5 Neighbourhood character
(i) Evidence and submissions Submissions were evenly supportive and unsupportive of the introduction of the NRZ1 to the Hoddle Grid. Council submitted that the application of the NRZ is consistent with PPN28 and PPN43, and reflects the intent of the Berwick Neighbourhood Character Study and the criteria of the Housing Strategy for minimal change areas. Supportive submissions identified the value attributed to wide streetscapes and large private open space surrounding dwellings, and concerns associated with extent of new development eroding the established character. Ms Edwards supported the NRZ1 (including its further application to Precinct 2 identified in the Berwick Neighbourhood Character Study, although this is not proposed by Council in the current Amendment). She submitted that stricter controls on removing large trees would provide “stronger discouragement to developers” and address recent development responses in Brisbane Street which had resulted in “moon- scaped” sites. Council responded that controls on vegetation removal are already in place through the application of the SLO4 over the Hoddle Grid. Unsupportive submissions identified that the precinct has undergone a change which has undermined the identified character values and that the zone changes are no longer appropriate. Ms Mahoney for example submitted that the Amendment was “too late” with much of the character already lost to recent development. Council’s response was that: Development that has occurred is not considered appropriate or consistent with the identified preferred neighbourhood character. The extent of development that has occurred has not so significantly altered the character
Page 78 of 145 Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C198 Panel Report 23 November 2018
of the area as to make retention and achievement of the preferred character unrealistic.
(ii) Discussion The Berwick Neighbourhood Character Study was finalised late in the Amendment process. Through its submissions to the Panel, Council has placed significant reliance on it as supporting the application of the NRZ1 to the Hoddle Grid. This is somewhat problematic given the proposed NRZ schedule had already been drafted and exhibited before the study was completed. That said, the Panel does not regard it as fatal to the Amendment that the study was prepared late in the Amendment process. The study is not the sole basis on which Council proposes to apply the NRZ to the Hoddle Grid. The application of the NRZ was clearly articulated in the Housing Strategy, and has been since 2015. The study builds on and provides more detail in relation to neighbourhood character values that had been previously identified, including in the Berwick Township Significant Landscape Strategy. The Panel considers it appropriate that the proposed application of the NRZ should be supported by a detailed neighbourhood character assessment, albeit one prepared after Council prepared the Amendment. The study has been prepared in a manner consistent with PPN28, in that it is thorough and involved a sufficiently rigorous analysis of the precinct. The Drafting Guidelines acknowledge that the NRZ can be applied (where strategically justified) to areas of landscape significance. Further, submissions do not take issue with the neighbourhood character assessment contained in the study, but rather on the extent of the NRZ application and its broader strategic implications on housing supply and development opportunity close to the Berwick Village town centre. The Panel observed on its site visit that the landscape and built form characteristics identified in the study, and in the earlier Berwick Township Significant Landscape Strategy, are still strongly prevalent in the precinct, notably the wide streets, planted avenues and large lots emphasising the grid subdivision pattern along with the generous front setbacks and garden surrounds of the existing detached dwellings. When the Panel inspected this precinct several development sites were quite evident, either recently cleared, under construction or newly completed. These sites were typically located to the edges of the Hoddle Grid and are not widely spread throughout the precinct. While the Panel did not form a view on the architectural merits of the new built form responses on these sites, the absence of vegetation and minimal side setbacks was apparent. The Panel considers that the level of intrusion and extent of recent development does not make it ‘too late’ to protect the character of the Hoddle Grid area. Nor does it warrant the reduction of the proposed extent of the character area. The character elements are still uniformly strong throughout the precinct, and there remains an important relationship between the street grid and boulevard character established by street trees and generous setbacks of properties on both sides of the roads within the Hoddle Grid.
Page 79 of 145 Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C198 Panel Report 23 November 2018
(iii) Conclusions The Panel concludes: • The Hoddle Grid possesses a consistent and established landscape and neighbourhood character, which appears unique in the context of Berwick and the established areas of the municipality. • The Berwick Neighbourhood Character Study and previous character studies which underpin the identification of this character clearly articulate the important neighbourhood character elements and a preferred character, consistent with established practice for undertaking neighbourhood character assessments.
6.6 Consistency with other strategic objectives
(i) Evidence and submissions Four submissions sought the retention of the GRZ near the Berwick town centre and on the periphery of the Hoddle Grid on the basis of the area’s proximity to services and public transport. These submissions also identified that the NRZ, particularly the 600 sqm minimum lot size requirements, reduce development opportunity and consequently impact on land values, affordability and housing diversity. In support of the 600 sqm minimum lot size, Council submitted that: … the amendment includes an adequate supply of appropriately zoned land (around Berwick Village and elsewhere in the municipality) to encourage greater diversity of dwellings which will assist in the provision of more affordable housing.
(ii) Discussion These submissions raise a key strategic consideration, namely whether the application of the NRZ compromises other strategic objectives such as increased housing diversity and density near activity centres and public transport nodes. Section 7.1 of the Drafting Guidelines states that the NRZ should be applied as follows: Neighbourhood Residential Zone – intended for areas where single dwellings prevail and minimal change is proposed, such as areas of recognised neighbourhood character or environmental or landscape significance. Extensive strategic work has been undertaken to identify the neighbourhood character of the Hoddle Grid. There is a predominance of single detached one and two-storey dwellings in the area. The landscape values of the area are also acknowledged through the application of SLO4. The application of the NRZ is not to be undertaken lightly. PPN28 identifies the high level of strategic justification required to support a neighbourhood character amendment, including consistency with (and not adversely impacting) state and local planning policy. PPN28 indicates that the NRZ should only be used where it is the most appropriate mechanism to achieve the desired outcomes (ahead of other tools such as policy).
Page 80 of 145 Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C198 Panel Report 23 November 2018
The Panel considers that the application of the NRZ1 is consistent with Clause 21.09 Berwick Northern Township area (which includes the Hoddle Grid). Clause 21.09 includes the following objectives: To maintain and enhance the character of Berwick as an established area with a green-treed country feel and character. To provide quality and diverse housing opportunities that add value to the residential character of the area. To protect key neighbourhood attributes and elements and create a special township housing character, including maintaining and enhancing the distinctive canopy tree cover of Berwick village and its immediate environs. The application of the NRZ1 is also consistent with strategies identified in Clause 21.09, which include: Reinforce the identity, character and sense of place of the older parts of residential Berwick and ensure new housing is complementary to these elements. Strengthen the established garden suburb environment, characterised by canopy trees, generous setbacks, a sense of openness and the dominance of the landscape setting. Protect the Berwick township and its immediate environs from development that threatens its distinctive canopy tree character. PPN28 identifies the value a Housing Strategy can play when considering the potential consequences of applying neighbourhood character controls on meeting future housing needs and diminishing housing diversity and choice. The Amendment proposes to apply the NRZ1 to directly implement the Housing Strategy, with explicit mapping to the Hoddle Grid area and reference to the area affected by the SLO4. Significantly, the Housing Strategy does not seek the widespread application of the NRZ. Rather, it proposes a staged application based on existing landscape and neighbourhood character assessments including the coastal villages of Blind Bight, Canon Creek, Pearcedale, Warneet and Tooradin. The Housing Strategy also anticipates that future neighbourhood character assessments would focus on: … a small number of areas including those identified in earlier neighbourhood character studies such as Harkaway Village, Narre Warren North Village and Berwick Township. This strategic approach is considered appropriate and consistent with the Drafting Guidelines in the strategic application of the suite of residential zones. The Panel acknowledges that parts of the Hoddle Grid area are close to local shopping, services and public transport. Indeed, sections of the area adjoin or are within 400 metres walking distance of the Berwick Village activity centre. This might present a strategic contradiction if other areas were not available to increase densities around the town centre and station, consistent with the criteria and objectives of the Housing Strategy.
Page 81 of 145 Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C198 Panel Report 23 November 2018
However, while Council proposes to remove the RGZ along Gloucester Avenue (discussed in Chapter 7.7(ii) below), the Amendment introduces extensive areas of GRZ2 to the north of the Berwick Village activity centre and south towards Berwick Station. These areas are also identified for higher density housing in the amended Clause 21.09-5 Berwick Northern Area, along with the Berwick Health and Education Precinct south of the station (which also anticipates higher density living outcomes and is the subject of Amendment C207 Part 2). The Amendment also retains the GRZ1 across the remaining Northern Berwick Area residential areas, supporting ongoing incremental housing change. The application of the NRZ1 to the Hoddle Grid area will not significantly impact on the achievement of the broader Housing Strategy objectives or the ability to meet future housing demand in and around Berwick. The application of the NRZ1 does not sterilise the Hoddle Grid, or prevent it from contributing to further housing diversification and opportunities. More modest infill development opportunities will still exist, albeit within more confined building envelopes. Using the NRZ to reflect and maintain the neighbourhood and landscape character also ensures that a unique housing product close to the town centre can be preserved. The NRZ1 also plays an important role in recognising and responding to the setting or context and the value attributed by the community to elements such as neighbourhood character and landscaping, and the role they play in establishing distinctiveness and community pride, both at the local and broader level. Considered at a municipal level, the application of the NRZ1 is likely to have minimal impact on achieving the desired housing supply outcomes. The Berwick Neighbourhood Character Study includes a sound analysis of the various zone and overlay options to implement the study. The NRZ1 will assist in providing greater guidance to promote appropriate built form outcomes. The Panel considers that the application of the NRZ1 in this case works ‘hand in glove’ with the SLO4 and existing local policy for Berwick which alone is insufficient to protect the built form character elements in the Hoddle Grid in a manner contemplated by the Housing Strategy.
(iii) Conclusions The Panel concludes: • The application of the NRZ1 to a limited extent within Berwick as part of a strategic application of the suite of residential zones provides an appropriate balance to achieving both the housing objectives for Berwick and the broader character and qualities sought for the town in local policy. • The application of the NRZ1 is an appropriate tool to apply to the Hoddle Grid to protect the identified built form character values and reflect the aspirations of the Housing Strategy.
6.7 Schedule provisions Clause 1.0 of the NRZ1 includes the following neighbourhood character objectives: To provide a mix of grand building forms and styles united by spacious setbacks that retains the dominance of the landscape setting.
Page 82 of 145 Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C198 Panel Report 23 November 2018
To provide appropriate front, side and rear setbacks and garden areas to allow for adequate space for landscaping, including canopy trees to protect the amenity of adjoining properties and contribute to the landscape character. To provide dwelling entrances oriented towards the street; providing a sense of address. To ensure that residential developments provide sufficient front setback vegetation enhanced by a lack of front fencing or the use of low, visually permeable front boundary treatments. The NRZ1 includes a minimum lot size of 600 sqm, and increases the minimum dimensions of private open space areas specified in Standards A17 and B28 in Clauses 54 and 55.
(i) Evidence and submissions Council submitted that this approach to the drafting of the NRZ1 implements the intent of recommendations in the Berwick Neighbourhood Character Study: c. Council believes that the strongest elements of character in the area proposed to be rezoned to NRZ1 is the presence of large lots with generous private open spaces and that this warrants a deviation to the standards at Clause 54 and 55 (ResCode). The neighbourhood character objectives at 1.0 of the NRZ1 provide a level of certainty that any new development must address these character elements. d. Council chose to implement the recommendations for side setbacks, landscaping and front fence height through the neighbourhood character objectives at 1.0 of the NRZ1 rather than varying the relevant standards of ResCode. This limits the prescriptiveness of the schedule and provides a level of flexibility in achieving the neighbourhood character objectives. When Ethos Urban finalised the Berwick Neighbourhood Character Assessment, Amendment VC110 had not been gazetted so at the time, variations to ResCode were the most practical means of ensuring these other character elements could be retained in new development. Ms Mahoney submitted that the provisions relating to lot size, open space and height, particularly on sloping lots, would impact her ability to subdivide, renovate or redevelop. She sought a reduction of the minimum lot size to 550 sqm. In response, Council submitted that: The proposed minimum lots size of 600 sqm ensures that the character of the area is retained. Limiting subdivision also reduces fragmentation of the streetscape which preserves the identified landscape and neighbourhood character elements of wide tree-lined streets and properties with generous street frontages and setbacks. Council did not propose any changes to the NRZ1 in response to submissions.
Page 83 of 145 Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C198 Panel Report 23 November 2018
(ii) Discussion The recommendations of the Berwick Neighbourhood Character Study form the basis for Council applying the 600 sqm minimum lot size and the private open space minimum dimensions to allow for canopy tree planting (although a more extensive open space provision is sought in the proposed schedule). Council has not, however, sought to apply the study’s recommended 3.0 metre side setback (standards A10 and B17), tree planting (standard B13) or 0.8 metre fence height (standards A20 and B32). While Council explained that the side setback provisions are not required in addition to the neighbourhood character objectives, Council has not identified why the other changes have not been included in the NRZ1. The minimum lot size of 600 sqm means that only sites greater than 1,200 sqm can be subdivided. The study identifies that only a small proportion of lots in the Hoddle Grid (mostly corner lots or lots closer to the town centre or edges of the precinct) are larger than 1,100 sqm. If the minimum lot size were reduced to 500 or 550 sqm, over 50 per cent of the precinct could be subdivided, potentially greatly impacting on its overall character. While on the face of it 600 sqm appears somewhat arbitrary, it reflects the average lot size in the area (which is between 680 sqm and 925 sqm). With the area’s typical lot depths around 50 metres, a 600 sqm lot would typically provide for a 12 metre wide frontage. This is less than the prevailing lot width but would provide for a consistent rectangular lot arrangement response consistent with the existing subdivision pattern in the Hoddle Grid. A 12 metre wide frontage could also accommodate a larger setback and capacity for canopy tree planting. Given the range of side setbacks throughout the precinct, the Panel agrees with Council that a nominated side setback provision is not appropriate or warranted. Relying on the neighbourhood character objectives to provide appropriate side setbacks will, in the Panel’s opinion, provide greater flexibility for more site responsive built form outcomes. The Berwick Neighbourhood Character Study identifies the limited use of front fencing, or more permeable or lower front fences, as a consistent element allowing for prominent front garden views. Although the NRZ head clause (Clause 32.09) allows for a front fence height to be nominated in a schedule, Council had not elected to do so, instead proposing a neighbourhood character objective that front setback vegetation is “enhanced by a lack of front fencing or the use of low, visually permeable front boundary treatments”. The Panel notes that the SLO4 requires a planning permit to construct a fence, with the relevant decision guideline being: Whether the proposed front fence is sympathetic to the open garden character of the area. In the Panel’s view, the neighbourhood character objective in the NRZ1, in combination with the permit trigger and decision guideline in the SLO4, may not provide sufficient guidance. The combination of controls means that a permit is required for a fence in all instances, rather than triggering a permit only for front fences that exceed 0.8 metres, as envisaged in the study. In the Panel’s view, the requirement for a permit for all fences, irrespective of height, appears somewhat heavy handed. While the Panel does not consider that the
Page 84 of 145 Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C198 Panel Report 23 November 2018
Amendment should necessarily be changed at this point, it does recommend that Council reconsider the fencing provisions of the SLO4 and the NRZ1 and how they might better work together. The Berwick Neighbourhood Character Study recommended the SLO4 be updated to include canopy tree planting requirements and the provision of a landscape plan. The Panel supports the proposed NRZ1 private open space variations to Standards A17 and B28, as they provide capacity for canopy and site landscaping consistent with the identified character objectives. However, the proposed application requirements are limited to a design response only. The SLO4 contains no application requirements for a landscaping plan or canopy tree provision. Again, while the Panel does not consider that the Amendment should necessarily be changed at this point in the Amendment process, it does suggest that Council give further consideration as to how the landscaping aspirations of the SLO4 and NRZ1 might be more fully achieved. While the proposed NRZ1 neighbourhood character objectives are reasonable, and relate to the Berwick Neighbourhood Character Study, the Panel considers that some fine tuning is appropriate to ensure the objectives relate more directly to the preferred character statement. This includes removing reference to the role of canopy trees in protection of adjoining amenity in the second objective. The study does not recognise the role of vegetation in protecting adjoining amenity (although it may well be one of many benefits of landscaping). The landscaping outcomes in the context of the NRZ1 should relate to the broader setting, rather than protecting adjoining amenity. Council does not propose making the Berwick Neighbourhood Character Study a Reference Document. The Panel agrees with this approach. If the neighbourhood character objectives in the NRZ1 align with the preferred character statement in the study, then the study has little value as a Reference Document. The Panel has noted that the decision guidelines contained in the NRZ1 include considerations which are inconsistent with the zone provisions or matters unlikely to be encountered in dwelling applications. For example: • dot point one requires consideration of amenity issues arising from varying the requirements of Clause 3.0 of the schedule (dwelling extension or a fence). As drafted, however, Clause 3.0 includes no requirements • dot point three is particularly focused on buildings above 9 metres, however the NRZ limits maximum height to 9.0 metres (with limited exceptions where the land slopes) • dot point four requires consideration of loading and unloading and off-street parking areas. Accordingly, the Panel recommends that the decision guidelines be reviewed and redrafted to ensure they are appropriate, relevant and clear in meaning.
(iii) Conclusions The Panel concludes: • A 600 sqm minimum subdivision size is appropriate in the Hoddle Grid.
Page 85 of 145 Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C198 Panel Report 23 November 2018
• The Private Open Space Standard variations are an appropriate response to provide for site landscaping and the protection and provision of canopy trees consistent with the character of the Hoddle Grid. There is value however in further reviewing the fencing, landscape plan and planting requirements identified in the Berwick Neighbourhood Character Study and how they might be applied across the SLO4 and NRZ1. • The neighbourhood character objectives of the NRZ1 should be further reviewed before adoption of the Amendment to ensure they more strongly align with the language of the preferred character statement in the Berwick Neighbourhood Character Study. • The decision guidelines in the NRZ1 should be reviewed and redrafted to ensure they are appropriate, relevant and clear in meaning.
6.8 Recommendations The Panel recommends: Modify the Neighbourhood Residential Zone Schedule 1 neighbourhood character objectives to more closely align with the language of the preferred character statement in the Berwick Neighbourhood Character Study. Review and update the decision guidelines in the Neighbourhood Residential Zone Schedule 1 to ensure they are appropriate, relevant and clear in meaning. The Panel makes the following recommendations for further work: Council should consider a future review of the Significant Landscape Overlay Schedule 4 and the Neighbourhood Residential Zone Schedule 1 to: a) better reflect the recommendations of the Berwick Neighbourhood Character Study in relation to front fence provisions and application requirements for landscaping plans and canopy tree planting b) ensure the two planning tools work effectively together to protect and respond to the identified and preferred neighbourhood character.
Page 86 of 145 Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C198 Panel Report 23 November 2018
7 Residential Growth and General Residential Zones
7.1 What is proposed? The Amendment proposes to introduce Schedule 2 to the GRZ and Schedule 3 to the RGZ, and apply the different controls to land currently zoned GRZ1 according to the locational criteria set out in the Housing Strategy. The proposed GRZ2 will be applied close to activity centres and strategic transport routes. The proposed RGZ3 will be applied adjacent to activity centres or strategic transport routes. The GRZ2: • includes neighbourhood character objectives • varies Standards A3 and B6 (minimum street setback and site coverage requirements) of Clauses 54 and 55 of the planning scheme • varies the maximum building height for a dwelling or residential building from 11 metres to 11.5 metres (3 storeys). The RGZ3: • includes design objectives • varies Standards A3 and B6 of Clauses 54 and 55. Council explained that the variations to the maximum height and Standards are to provide greater flexibility in the design of buildings (in particular roof lines), and to encourage the siting of buildings to preserve the amenity of adjoining residential development. The key changes are summarised in Table 8. Table 8 Proposed changes – GRZ2 and RGZ3 areas Current GRZ1 Proposed GRZ2 Proposed RGZ3 No neighbourhood character Neighbourhood character Design objectives that seek to objectives objectives that seek to preserve the amenity of encourage a preferred adjacent development; neighbourhood character of encourage smaller front increased residential density; setbacks; and encourage site and encourage site layout and consolidation massing that preserves the amenity of adjacent development No variations to street setback Variation to Standards A3 and Variation to Standards A3 and and site coverage Standards of A6 of Clauses 54 and 55 A6 of Clauses 54 and 55 Clauses 54 and 55 (allowing for either compliance (allowing for either compliance with the requirement of the with the requirement of the Standard or a 5 metre front Standard or a 5 metre front setback, whichever is the setback, whichever is the lesser) lesser)
Page 87 of 145 Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C198 Panel Report 23 November 2018
Current GRZ1 Proposed GRZ2 Proposed RGZ3 Mandatory maximum building Mandatory maximum building Discretionary maximum height of 11 metres and 3 height of 11.5 metres and 3 building height of 13.5 metres storeys2 storeys2 Mandatory garden area Mandatory garden area No garden area requirement requirement of between 25% requirement of between 25% and 35% of site area and 35% of site area
7.2 The issues The issues are: • Does the application of the GRZ2 and RGZ3 as exhibited have a strategic basis? • Do Council’s proposed post-exhibition changes have a strategic basis? • Have the proposed zone boundaries been appropriately set?
7.3 Context The Housing Strategy describes locational criteria that are used to identify substantial, incremental and minimal change areas, which in turn determines the appropriate zone to be applied. The criteria are described in Tables 9 and Table 10. Table 11 explains how the criteria translate to incremental and substantial change areas, the applicable zone in those areas, and the housing types that the Housing Strategy encourages in these areas. Minimal change areas are dealt with in Chapter 6. Table 9 Proximity to Public Transport Public transport criteria Distance Examples Railway stations Approx. 800m walkable Pakenham rail corridor catchment (10 minutes) Cranbourne rail corridor Strategic bus routes Approx. 400m walkable Princes Highway catchment (5 minutes) Narre Warren-Cranbourne Road
Table 10 Proximity to Activity Centres Activity Centre Distance Examples Metropolitan and Principal Approx. 800m walkable Fountain Gate-Narre Warren Activity Centres (which provide catchment (10 minutes) CBD (identified in Plan a regional level of retail, Melbourne) commercial, entertainment and Cranbourne Town Centre community services to residents, workers and visitors)
2 Clause 32.08-10 sets out circumstances in which a building may exceed the maximum building height and 3 storeys
Page 88 of 145 Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C198 Panel Report 23 November 2018
Activity Centre Distance Examples Major Activity Centres (which Approx. 800m walkable Berwick Village provide a wide range of retail, catchment (10 minutes) Casey Central commercial and community Endeavour Hills Town Centre goods and services for weekly and comparison shopping) Hampton Park Town Centre Neighbourhood Activity Centres Approx. 400m walkable Eden Rise, Berwick (which have a local focus and catchment (5 minutes) Parkhill Plaza, Berwick serve catchments where a Carlisle Park, Cranbourne majority of residents can access the centre on foot) with at least Thompsons Parkway, one full-line supermarket Cranbourne North Sandhurst Centre, Cranbourne West Autumn Place, Doveton Linden Place, Doveton Spring Square, Hallam Kirkwood Crescent, Hampton Park Lynbrook Village, Lynbrook Amberley Park, Narre Warren South
Table 11 Characteristics of incremental and substantial change areas Change area type Characteristics Housing types Incremental Change Areas Good access to activity centres Units, townhouses and some (including supermarket based apartments, encouraged through Neighbourhood Activity Centres) an appropriately drafted schedule and close to strategic transport to the GRZ. routes (bus services and arterial roads with high frequency bus routes). Substantial Change Areas High accessibility to railway Further opportunity to improve stations, larger activity centres housing diversity by providing and and sites immediately along delivering new housing products in strategic bus routes, where different forms and price points. opportunities for higher density, Higher density housing will be more diverse housing will be encouraged with an emphasis on supported. townhouses, units and apartments. Analysis and potential site consolidation may be required in order to optimise development opportunities. Parking, overshadowing, scale and built form considerations will be given careful attention at the
Page 89 of 145 Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C198 Panel Report 23 November 2018
Change area type Characteristics Housing types interface with sensitive areas.
Council’s Part B submission explained that the Housing Strategy has been translated into statutory controls in the following ways: • Substantial change areas adjoining Principal and Major Activity centres (and Neighbourhood Activity centres with a full-line supermarket) and the PPTN are to be rezoned RGZ3. • Incremental change areas close to activity centres, the Principal Public Transport Network (PPTN) and services are to be rezoned GRZ2. • Incremental change areas further from activity centres, transport and services are to remain in the GRZ1 with no change to the Schedule. After considering submissions to the Amendment, Council proposed post-exhibition changes to three precincts. It subsequently engaged Ethos Urban to review the neighbourhood and landscape character in these areas to support its position in relation the proposed changes. The proposed changes are: • Endeavour Hills western neighbourhood – remove land exhibited as RGZ3 and GRZ2, and retain in the GRZ1 • Gloucester Avenue, Berwick – remove land exhibited as RGZ3, and retain in the GRZ1 • Parkhill Plaza, Berwick – remove land in Lyrebird Gardens exhibited as RGZ3, and rezone to GRZ2 instead.
7.4 Relevant policies, strategies and studies
(i) Planning Policy Framework Existing local policy seeks to provide a framework for urban growth that supports medium and higher density housing in strategic locations, and provides housing diversity and choice that caters to different household types. In doing so, it recognises the need to provide protection of Green Wedge land, the Foothills and areas of landscape and environmental significance. It also seeks to ensure that new development respects and enhances neighbourhood character and minimises off-site amenity impacts. Clauses 21.09 to 21.24 of the planning scheme contain a series of specific policy objectives and strategies that apply to 17 local areas.
(ii) Berwick and Endeavour Hills Neighbourhood Character Assessment Council retained Ethos Urban to prepare the Berwick and Endeavour Hills Neighbourhood Character Assessment, August 2018 (the Neighbourhood Character Assessment) in response to submissions to the exhibited Amendment. It assessed the three areas in which Council proposes post-exhibition changes. The Neighbourhood Character Assessment establishes character types and preferred character objectives for the three precincts, and assesses the implications of the exhibited zoning and post-exhibition changes. It classifies Gloucester Avenue, Berwick as a ‘garden
Page 90 of 145 Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C198 Panel Report 23 November 2018
suburban’ type, Endeavour Hills western neighbourhood as a ‘garden court’ type, and the Parkhill Plaza surrounds as ‘master planned suburban’ type. The ‘garden suburban’ type is described as: Spacious residential areas with consistently sited dwellings in a garden setting and formal street pattern; generally modified grid and avenue style streets. The ‘garden court’ type is described as: Spacious residential areas in a garden setting (informal, generally curving street pattern with courts/cul-de-sac). The ‘master planned suburban’ type is described as: Residential areas with a consistent, often high quality, landscaped public realm and dwellings that share common characteristics that may include dwelling type, siting, massing or finishes. On the basis of these neighbourhood characteristics, the study sets preferred character objectives for each area and concludes that Council’s post-exhibition changes in relation to the three precincts are warranted.
7.5 General themes
(i) Amenity concerns The majority of submissions dealt with general concerns that they perceive will arise as a result of the proposed rezoning of land and in turn the realisation of new built form outcomes, including increased housing density. These issues include: • traffic and public transport and parking pressures • increased residential densities • overlooking • overshadowing • loss of neighbourhood character • loss of public open space • environmental impacts • insufficient existing infrastructure. Council addressed these issues in its Part A submission. In terms of the more direct impacts arising as a result of intensification of built form, the Panel observes that there is clear State and local planning policy support for and a need to accommodate an increasing population within established urban areas, and to limit pressure on the Urban Growth Boundary. There is also policy support to create 20-minute neighbourhoods and promote use of alternate modes of transport. It is inevitable that to achieve these objectives there will be changes to built form, neighbourhood character and housing typology. These changes will not necessarily occur in the short or even mid term. Nevertheless it is necessary, and indeed the planning scheme requires, that planning authorities plan for, anticipate and respond to the needs of existing
Page 91 of 145 Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C198 Panel Report 23 November 2018
and future communities through providing appropriately zoned and serviced land for housing. As and when new dwellings and developments are proposed, there will be a need for Council to assess site specific issues of neighbourhood character, parking, overlooking, overshadowing and off-site amenity impacts.
(ii) Retail policy and reverse amenity issues Mr Dickson prepared a submission on behalf of Vicinity Centres in relation to the Cranbourne Park Shopping Centre located in the Cranbourne Principal Activity Centre. Vicinity Centres was generally supportive of the Amendment but wished to ensure that existing commercial uses were not affected by the siting of higher density development nearby. He noted that Action 5.2.2 of the Housing Strategy recognises that guidelines for sensitive interfaces are required, and submitted that the policy framework needs to deal with the issue. He recommended changes be made to Clauses 21.07-2 and 21.15-3 to provide a suitable policy framework. As an aside, he also submitted that the plan at Clause 21.15 should be updated to reflect the recent redevelopment of the centre. Council advised the Panel that Ministerial authorisation has been sought for a separate amendment to the retail policy in the planning scheme. It submitted that “Council recognises that the intensification of residential development along the existing commercial interfaces poses potential conflict in uses and is open to considering changes to the LPPF and seeks the view of the Panel”. Council submitted that the issue may be best dealt with as part of the review of the retail policy. The Panel agrees that neighbouring residential development, particularly at a higher density, has the potential to give rise to conflict between uses and in particular amenity expectations of new residents versus the ability for commercial uses to continue to operate. The Panel also agrees with Council that the more effective way to thoroughly address these issues is through its review of the retail policy. The Panel observes that this review can also address, as required, changes to maps that form part of relevant clauses of the planning scheme. One of the future actions identified in the Housing Strategy is to develop design objectives and guidelines for the minimal, incremental and substantial change areas. The Panel suggests that Council consider whether the upcoming amendment reviewing retail policy should include guidelines for substantial change areas (which are located adjacent to activity centres) which address potential land use conflicts between housing and existing commercial uses.
(iii) Varied height limit in the GRZ2 Schedule 2 to the GRZ proposes a maximum building height for a dwelling or residential building of 11.5 metres and 3 storeys. Where there is no maximum building height or number of storeys specified in the Schedule, the head clause of the zone includes a mandatory height limit of 11 metres and 3 storeys (unless certain circumstances detailed at Clause 32.08-9 apply).
Page 92 of 145 Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C198 Panel Report 23 November 2018
The Minister’s authorisation for the preparation of the Amendment required that Council provide further information and justification for the 0.5 metre variation to the mandatory height limit. In turn, in its directions the Panel sought further justification of the proposed variation. Council submitted that the additional 0.5 metres would allow flexibility in design, and would accommodate good built form outcomes including more generous floor to ceiling heights and skillion or hipped roofs. It observed that these outcomes can be difficult to achieve within 11 metres. A building height study was included at Appendix C of Council’s Part B submission and Mr Islip, an urban designer at Council, addressed the Panel specifically on this issue during Council’s submissions. The study, prepared by r Architecture, reviewed potential three storey built forms on single and double lots, using 11 metres and 11.5 metres. Mr Islip observed that typically there is a tendency on the part of developers to maximise a building envelope. As such, he submitted that Council is attempting to use influence where it can to improve design outcomes and energy efficient design. In his view, hipped roofs often reached or exceeded the height control, so the response was to provide a flat roof. He submitted that this was not a good design response for thermal performance and advised that passive design is achieved through overhanging eaves. He referenced the skillion roof and its preference in Australian architecture, which was for its internal amenity, energy efficiencies and architectural expression. He submitted that this style of roof would typically exceed an 11 metre height limit. The Panel accepts Council’s submissions in relation to an 11.5 metre height limit. The Panel observes that the zone provision allows for a schedule to vary the default height limit, and that the proposed height is only 500mm greater than the default height limit in the zone. While it is a modest variation, the Panel agrees that it will provide greater flexibility in terms of design and built form outcomes. It will provide for enhanced internal amenity through the provision of more generous floor to ceiling heights and will encourage the provision of environmentally sustainable development. This issue is presumably not restricted to Casey. That said, the height limit will apply in areas identified to accommodate change and will therefore be applied in developments that will influence and be part of an evolution of neighbourhood character.
(iv) Conclusions The Panel concludes: • There is an imperative for Council to plan for future growth, and strong policy support for directing housing growth to appropriate locations. Council will consider and manage potential off-site amenity impacts during the permit application stage. There are sufficient guidelines within Clause 55 of the planning scheme and within the policy framework to ensure that this is the case. • Changes to the planning policy framework to deal with potential conflicts between residential and commercial uses are best addressed by the planning authority in its review of the retail policy. Council should consider including this in the upcoming amendment reviewing Council’s retail policy.
Page 93 of 145 Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C198 Panel Report 23 November 2018
• The variation of the mandatory height limit in the GRZ2 to 11.5 metres (3 storeys) is appropriate.
7.6 Precincts exhibited in the RGZ3 and GRZ2 The exhibited Amendment (and the Housing Strategy) proposed rezoning land to RGZ3 and GRZ2 around activity centres and transport nodes in the municipality’s established areas. The suitability of the proposed zoning for each area is addressed below, with the exception of the three areas where Council is proposing post-exhibition changes (which are discussed at Chapter 7.7). In summary, the Panel agrees with Council’s submissions in terms of its designation for the rezoning of land and finds that the Housing Strategy provides appropriate strategic direction for the application of zones on land that is proximate to activity centres and public transport.
(i) Beaconsfield Beaconsfield town centre and railway station are located in the neighbouring Cardinia Shire. A small pocket of nearby residential land, located between the Princes Freeway, Bryn Mawr Boulevard and the Pakenham rail line, are included in the Casey municipality. The area is presently zoned GRZ1. Apart from three trees included in the Environmental Significance Overlay, no overlays affect the land. Council noted that no submissions were received from landowners within this precinct. Based on its proximity to the Beaconsfield station and town centre, Council submits the land should be rezoned to GRZ2 as exhibited. On the material presented to the Panel, the land is proximate to the town centre and station, and appears suitable for inclusion in the GRZ2.
(ii) Berwick Village Activity Centre The Berwick Village Activity Centre is a Major Activity Centre located around the intersection of Princes Highway and Clyde Road/Lyall Road. Commercial properties are included in the Commercial 1 and 2 zones. Berwick railway station is located approximately 500 metres from the outer extent of the centre. A number of low-frequency bus services service Princes Highway. Land around the activity centre is proposed to be rezoned NRZ1, GRZ2 and RGZ3. The rezoning of the land in the Hoddle Grid to NRZ1 is addressed in Chapter 6 of this Report. Council noted that submissions from the balance of the area (beyond the Hoddle grid and Gloucester Avenue) raised issues concerned with increased densities, increased traffic, safety concerns increased noise, overlooking and overshadowing. On the material before the Panel, it appears that the residential land surrounding the activity centre is unconstrained and well located in terms of access to the activity centre and public transport. Land surrounding the activity centre will accommodate varied degrees of change, promoting housing diversity and choice through the application of the NRZ1, RGZ3 and GRZ2 in conjunction with the existing GRZ1 land. On that basis, the Panel agrees with the rezoning of GRZ1 land to RGZ3 and GRZ2 as exhibited, apart from Gloucester Avenue which is dealt with in Chapter 7.7.
Page 94 of 145 Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C198 Panel Report 23 November 2018
(iii) Casey Central Town Centre surrounds Casey Central Town Centre is a Major Activity Centre located at the intersection of Cranbourne Road and Littlecroft Avenue, Narre Warren South. The activity centre contains the Casey Central Shopping Centre and kindergarten. The activity centre is included in the Commercial 1 Zone, Development Contributions Plan Overlay and Development Plan Overlay. Land to the south of the centre is included in the Urban Growth Zone and is subject to the Casey Central Major Activity Centre Precinct Structure Plan (PSP). The PSP envisages development of in excess of 4,000 jobs, approximately 1,800 dwellings and approximately 80,000 square metres of commercial floor space. Land to the north, east and west of the centre is generally included in the GRZ1. Land adjoining the activity centre is proposed to be rezoned to RGZ3 and GRZ2. Council noted that two submissions were received, one opposing and one supporting the Amendment. The issues of concern relate to increased traffic and parking problems. On the material before the Panel, it appears that the residential land is unconstrained and well located relative to the activity centre. The residential land sited immediately east of the shopping centre will abut the retail and civic parts of the PSP, which will provide employment opportunities and services, and there are proposed links from two of the streets into that broader precinct. On that basis, the Panel agrees with the rezoning of GRZ1 land to RGZ3 and GRZ2 as exhibited.
(iv) Cranbourne Town Centre and Railway Station surrounds Cranbourne Town Centre is a Principal Activity Centre located along South Gippsland Highway/High Street, Cranbourne. The activity centre is included in the Activity Centre Zone. Various overlay controls apply throughout the centre, including the Environmental Audit Overlay to parts of land along South Gippsland Highway (near Cranbourne railway station), Heritage Overlay (including some heritage buildings, the Avenue of Honour and a cenotaph), Environmental Significant Overlay (to some significant trees) and the Land Subject to Inundation Overlay at the northern part of the activity centre. Land to the north, east, west and south-east is generally included in the GRZ1, while a small pocket of land to the south is in the LDRZ. The Hunt Club Neighbourhood Activity Centre is located to the east and some smaller convenience centres in the Commercial 1 Zone are located to the east and west. The Cranbourne Racecourse and Recreation Reserve is located to the south west of the centre. The Cranbourne railway line terminates in the north of the centre. It is also serviced by high frequency bus routes forming part of the PPTN, which run along Cranbourne/Frankston Road/Sladen Street to the South Gippsland Highway and north along the South Gippsland Highway, as part of a link between the Frankston Metropolitan Activity Centre and the Fountain Gate-Narre Warren CBD Metropolitan Activity Centre. Ten submissions were received, four of which opposed the Amendment. Four others requested changes to the Amendment, including rezoning land in Normanby Street to RGZ3 and in Clarendon Street to GRZ2, and changes to local policy to protect existing commercial
Page 95 of 145 Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C198 Panel Report 23 November 2018
uses. Submitters opposing the Amendment raised issues of the capacity of infrastructure to accommodate increased density. Changes to retail policy are discussed separately in Chapter 7.5. The land proposed for rezoning is well located in terms of accessibility to the commercial centre, railway station and the PPTN. There appears to be no constraints on the residential land to accommodate the proposed rezoning. On that basis, the Panel agrees with the rezoning to RGZ3 and GRZ2 as exhibited.
(v) Autumn Place surrounds Autumn Place Activity Centre is a Neighbourhood Activity Centre located at the intersection of Power Road and Autumn Place, Doveton. The centre comprises a supermarket, speciality shops and medical centres. It is included in the Commercial 1 Zone. Three low-frequency bus routes service the centre, providing connection to Dandenong Station and Fountain Gate shopping centre. Three submissions were received, all of which supported the Amendment and sought an extension of the application of the GRZ2 and RGZ3. Council submitted that the inclusion of these properties would extend the zone boundary across a road, and that boundaries should be based on obvious physical barriers such as roads, rivers or open space. It submitted that it is not appropriate to adopt mid-block boundaries. On the material before it, the land to be rezoned is well located relative to the activity centre. The Panel agrees with the exhibited rezoning as exhibited. The Panel agrees with Council’s submissions in relation to the boundary of the exhibited zones, and does not consider that the zone boundaries should be extended as proposed in submissions.
(vi) Eden Rise surrounds Eden Rise Neighbourhood Activity Centre is located south of Berwick Activity Centre. It contains the Eden Rise shopping centre and is included in the Commercial 1 Zone. Low- frequency bus routes service it. The surrounding residential area is included in the GRZ1 and Development Contribution Plan Overlay and Development Plan Overlay. The land is proposed for rezoning to GRZ2. No submissions were received. On the basis of the material presented to the Panel, it agrees with the proposed rezoning. The land is well located to the east and south of the activity centre. The relevant Development Plan Overlay schedule applies to ‘residential areas’ and does not pose a constraint or limitation in terms of the proposed rezoning. The GRZ2 is the appropriate zone given the smaller scale nature of the activity centre, and the fact that only low frequency buses service the area.
(vii) Endeavour Hills Activity Centre surrounds The Endeavour Hills Town Centre is a Major Activity Centre located at the intersection of Heatherton Road and Matthew Flinders Avenue, Endeavour Hills. The town centre comprises the Endeavour Hills Shopping Centre. It is included in the Commercial 1 Zone and the Public Use Zone, which includes a number of Council facilities and the police station. A
Page 96 of 145 Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C198 Panel Report 23 November 2018
number of low-frequency, off-peak and local bus services operate along Heatherton Road, Matthew Flinders Avenue and Raymond McMahon Boulevard. The surrounding residential land is included in the GRZ1 and is proposed for rezoning to RGZ3 and GRZ2. Submissions raised issues of increased traffic, increased noise, overshadowing, overlooking and concerns that infrastructure is at capacity. Other submissions supported the Amendment. The area west of the activity centre is one affected by proposed post-exhibition changes, and is discussed separately in Chapter 7.7. Excluding that land to the west, the exhibited Amendment proposes that land immediately abutting and wrapping around the activity centre will be included in the RGZ3, and the balance of land to the north, south and east will be included in the GRZ2. On the basis of the material before the Panel, it supports the proposed rezoning. The land is well located relative to a higher order activity centre, justifying the more intensive development encouraged under the RGZ3. It also has access to bus services.
(viii) Hampton Park Town Centre surrounds Hampton Park Town Centre is a Major Activity Centre located at the intersection of Somerville Road and Hallam Road, Hampton Park. The centre is included in the Commercial 1 Zone and Development Plan Overlay (presently under review). The activity centre includes the Hampton Park shopping centre, speciality shops and the Hampton Park Community Precinct, a library, youth information centre, Arthur Wren hall and community house. Seven low-frequency bus routes service the centre. The adjoining residential area is included in the GRZ1 and scattered Environmental Significant Overlays apply to significant trees. Land immediately abutting the centre to the north, south, east and west is proposed to be included in the RGZ3 and beyond that, extending to Pound Road, land is to be included in the GRZ2. One submission was received opposing the Amendment on grounds of increased pressure on traffic and parking. On the basis of the material before it, the land appears well located in terms of access to a higher order activity centre, services and public transport, and the Panel is supportive of the proposed rezoning.
(ix) Lynbrook Village and Railway station surrounds Lynbrook Village is a Neighbourhood Activity Centre located at the intersection of the South Gippsland Highway and Lynbrook Boulevard. The centre is included in the Commercial 1 Zone, Development Plan Overlay and Development Contributions Plan Overlay. The centre includes a full line supermarket, post office and speciality shops. Lynbrook railway station is located approximately 800 metres to the west of the centre. West of the centre is the Lynbrook Community Centre, Banjo Paterson Park and Lynbrook Primary School. The centre is also serviced by low-frequency bus services. Land adjacent to the activity centre and railway station is proposed to be RGZ3 and the balance of land within proximity to the activity centre and station is proposed for rezoning to GRZ2. Several submissions opposed the Amendment on grounds of traffic and parking problems, insufficient infrastructure capacity, overshadowing and overlooking and loss of large private gardens.
Page 97 of 145 Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C198 Panel Report 23 November 2018
Council submitted at the hearing that it realised during exhibition that the proposed rezonings had inadvertently been extended to approximately 70 properties included in the Hallam Road landfill buffer of 500 metres (noting the permit for the landfill has been extended to 2040). On the basis of Council’s submission, with the exception of the properties within the landfill buffer, the Panel supports the proposed rezoning. The land appears to be unencumbered and is well located in relation to the activity centre and public transport. The Panel notes that Clause 21.22-3, the local area policy for Hampton Park, includes a strategy of discouraging sensitive uses within 500 metres of the Hallam Road landfill, and agrees with Council that the 70 properties within the landfill buffer should be excluded from the Amendment and remain in the GRZ1. If further work undertaken in future indicates that the landfill is not affecting these properties, Council may wish to reconsider their rezoning.
(x) Merinda Park Railway station/Thompsons Parkway surrounds Thompsons Parkway Neighbourhood Activity Centre is located at the intersection of Thompsons Road and South Gippsland Highway, to the west of Merinda Park railway station. The centre is included in the Commercial 1 Zone and comprises a small supermarket, medical centres and some speciality shops. The Special Building Overlay affects the activity centre and land around the railway station and part of the land near the railway station is included in a Public Acquisition Overlay. The area is serviced by the PPTN, including the station and buses that run along South Gippsland Highway and Thompsons Road. The surrounding land is generally in the GRZ1, including the majority of land between the railway station and activity centre. Land to the west of the railway station is in the Urban Growth Zone and is included in the Cranbourne West PSP. Land uses between the station and activity centre include a primary school, learning and community centre and a skate park. A secondary school is located to the north. The Development Plan Overlay applies to land to the north-west and south-west of the railway station. Three submissions were received, including two opposing the Amendment on the basis of traffic congestion and overlooking. The supporting submission suggests extending the application of the RGZ3 to include properties near Ellery Court and Strzelecki Court. Council submitted that Strzelecki Court and Lonsdale Crescent form a logical eastern boundary to the RGZ3 and that there may be some merit in extending the proposed boundary to those streets. It observed that moving the boundary any further east would result in a mid-block boundary located well beyond 400 metres from the railway station. Council sought the Panel’s views in relation to these issues. The Panel heard a submission from Ms Hazendonk in support of extending the RGZ3 boundary to include properties in Ellery Court and Strzelecki Court. She submitted that there is state and local planning policy to support the application of the zone, and that it is the most suitable given the location and the characteristics of the surrounding area. The properties are within walking distance to a wide range of services and next to the train station, have access to regular bus services and are adjacent to two major transport routes, being the South Gippsland Highway and Thompsons Road. Ms Hazendonk observed that the properties in the area are generally larger, in the order of 700 square metres, than lots
Page 98 of 145 Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C198 Panel Report 23 November 2018
being created now, and accommodate housing that is almost 40 years old and ready for redevelopment. Ms Hazendonk observed that the area had initially being designated for the RGZ3 but this had been amended in Version 2 of the Housing Strategy. She submitted that the properties were 327 metres from the entrance to the railway station, 764 metres from the activity centre, 617 metres from the proposed Merinda Park activity centre and 847 metres from the Cranbourne West Employment Precinct. She confirmed to the Panel that some distances were based on walkability and some were ‘as the crow flies’ but the distance from the station was based on walkability. She advised the Panel that there is a direct pedestrian link between Endeavour Drive and the station. Ms Hazendonk submitted: Seeking only minimal housing targets in established areas where the circumstances warrant higher housing densities because we can rely on the growth area to provide the bulk of our housing targets is not good planning. She requested that the Panel recommend further strategic work be undertaken in relation to the area between the station and South Gippsland Highway. The Panel notes Council’s support for Ms Hazendonk’s position and agrees that the distance, and direct access to the railway station lends support to the extension of the RGZ3 boundary in this instance. The Panel is of the view that Council should review the boundary of the RGZ3, which would be consistent with the Housing Strategy criteria. Based on the material before it, the Panel observes that the balance of the land proposed for rezoning to RGZ3 and GRZ2 is appropriate. Although the Thompsons Parkway Neighbourhood Activity Centre is a lower order centre, the land is well located in terms of accessibility to the activity centre and the PPTN, and will be located close to potential employment once the Merinda Park Activity Centre is developed. There does not appear to be any constraints on the redevelopment of the land at the densities envisaged under the GRZ2 and RGZ3.
(xi) Amberly Park surrounds Amberly Park Shopping Centre is a Neighbourhood Activity Centre, located to the north-east of Ormond Road, Narre Warren South. It is included in the Commercial 1 Zone. Parkland is located to the north-east of the centre and a secondary school abuts its northern boundary. Buses service the activity centre. Surrounding land is in the GRZ1. No submissions were received. On the material before it, the Panel agrees with the exhibited application of the RGZ3 and GRZ2. The RGZ3 will be applied to land abutting the activity centre to the east, south and west and the GRZ2 will be applied to land beyond. The proposed zoning is consistent with the Housing Strategy in terms of proximity to Neighbourhood Activity Centres.
(xii) Fountain Gate - Narre Warren CBD and Narre Warren Railway Station surrounds The centre is a Metropolitan Activity Centre located around the intersection of Princes Highway and Narre Warren North Road/Cranbourne Road and is generally bound by Monash Freeway to the north and east, Pakenham railway line and Princes Highway to the south and
Page 99 of 145 Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C198 Panel Report 23 November 2018
Magid Drive to the west. The activity centre is presently in a number of zones and Amendment C224 (presently awaiting the Minister’s approval) implements the strategic directions of the Fountain Gate-Narre Warren CBD Structure Plan, 2016 and will rezone the centre to Activity Centre Zone. Various overlays affect the centre. The surrounding land is generally in the GRZ1 with some Industrial 1 Zone land to the south. The surrounding area is also affected by areas of Special Building Overlay, Land Subject to Inundation Overlay and Development Plan Overlays. The Centre Road Development Plan and Pound/Shrives Road Development Plan affect parts of the surrounding area. The centre is serviced by the PPTN with Narre Warren railway station located to the south of the centre, Fountain Gate interchange and buses servicing Cranbourne Road. Buses also operate along Princes Road and Narre Warren North Road providing connections to Berwick Village Activity Centre, Dandenong and Frankston Metropolitan Activity Centres, Cranbourne town centre and a range of neighbourhood centres. Thirty three submissions were received in relation to this area. Council advised that approximately half of submitters opposed the Amendment on the basis of neighbourhood character, density, traffic and parking congestion, overlooking and overshadowing and insufficient infrastructure capacity. Ms Walker opposed the proposed rezoning of her mother’s property to RGZ3, citing the erosion of neighbourhood character and the impact on existing infrastructure. Ms Walker submitted: The only justification offered for this development is that due to the expansion of the “activity centre” north of the Princes Highway, our area is now within 400m of this zone and thus an area for targeted “high density residential development”. We contend that this rezoning and any such development is inappropriate and based on an inadequately surveyed basis of factual demand and resident intent. For the reasons discussed earlier in this report, the Panel accepts the strategic basis for the Amendment and Housing Strategy, and finds that the criteria applied by the Housing Strategy to identify substantial change areas are sound. Accordingly, the Panel agrees with the proposed rezoning of the land surrounding this well-serviced Metropolitan Activity Centre close to the PPTN. The Panel acknowledges that there will be a change in neighbourhood character, however the designation of land for a higher order of development will, over time, create a new and consistent character. That in itself is not necessarily a bad thing. On the material before the Panel, it supports the proposed rezoning as exhibited.
(xiii) Parkhill Plaza surrounds and the Timbarra Estate Parkhill Plaza Neighbourhood Activity Centre is located at the intersection of Ernst Wanke Road and Parkhill Drive, Berwick. The centre is included in the Commercial 1 Zone and contains the Parkhill Plaza shopping centre. The activity centre is partially affected by the Special Building Overlay.
Page 100 of 145 Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C198 Panel Report 23 November 2018
Surrounding land is generally in the GRZ1. To the south of the activity centre is Timbarra P-9 College and Ryelands Drive Reserve. To the east is a Melbourne Water retarding basin. A Special Building Overlay applies to some road reserves and open space and there are some Environmental Significant Overlays affecting trees. The majority of the land surrounding the activity centre is proposed to be GRZ2, with small areas proposed to be rezoned to RGZ3 (including in Lyrebird Gardens, which is dealt with separately in Chapter 7.7 (iii)). Eight submissions were received, including a petition containing 49 signatures, objecting to the rezoning of the Timbarra Estate. Concerns related primarily to loss of neighbourhood character and traffic and parking congestion. Mr Foley represented residents of the Timbarra Estate at the hearing. He observed that the Timbarra Estate was a planned residential estate that comprises approximately 3,000 dwellings and in the order of 6,000 to 8,000 residents. He submitted that it has a distinct character comprising single storey dwellings with pitched roofs, consistent front setbacks, established open gardens, tree lined streets and narrow road pavements. The streets are narrow to deter through traffic and promote pedestrian movement. Mr Foley submitted that the estate was already well developed, and that Parkhill Plaza is only a small activity centre, which often has premises for lease. He told the Panel that public transport services are limited, and train and bus timetables rarely coincide. As such, the area is car reliant and has limited services within walking distance. He submitted that the proposed controls would erode the character of the area and place pressure on the road network. The Panel agrees with submitters that the Timbarra Estate has a distinct neighbourhood character. However, neighbourhood character of itself is not sufficient to justify retaining the land in the GRZ1. The GRZ2 requires any new development to respect existing neighbourhood character. The Panel observed on its site visit that many of the dwellings within the estate are of recent construction, and anticipates that the evolution of change in terms of density and character is likely to be slow in this area, perhaps more so than in areas where the housing stock is older. It also notes that the GRZ2 will be applied to the townhouse development to the east of the centre in Jerilderie Drive, that is reflective of the scale and built form typology expected under the GRZ2. The Panel agrees that the proposal to rezone the majority of the land to GRZ2 is appropriate in a strategic sense to facilitate change and growth over time. The designation of a small area of land to RGZ3 has been appropriately applied to land that abuts the activity centre. With the exception of the land in Lyrebird Gardens and Atlantic Place (which is dealt with in 7.7(iii)), the Panel agrees with the proposed rezoning from GRZ1 to RGZ3 and GRZ2.
(xiv) Springhill surrounds Springhill Convenience Activity Centre is located at the intersection of Thompsons Road and Narre Warren Road, Cranbourne. The centre is in the Commercial 1 Zone and contains the Springhill Plaza shopping centre. The centre is serviced by bus routes forming part of the PPTN, which run along Thompsons Road. Land immediately abutting the activity centre is proposed for RGZ3 and surrounding land that extends to Thompsons Road and Narre Warren Road is proposed to be GRZ2.
Page 101 of 145 Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C198 Panel Report 23 November 2018
Land surrounding the centre to the north, east and south is generally in the GRZ1. To the south of the centre is a park and primary school. Land to the east is primarily within buffers from uses with adverse amenity impacts (and not subject to rezoning). The Cranbourne East Development Plan applies to the land to the east. One submission was received opposing the Amendment, citing concerns in relation to neighbourhood character, traffic congestion and increased pressure on infrastructure. The Panel supports the proposed rezoning. The land is well located to services and transport, and does not appear to have any significant constraints that would limit the potential increased densities envisaged under the GRZ2 and RGZ3. It appears that the RGZ3 has been applied to land within the 400 metre walkable catchment, and the GRZ2 has been applied to land within the 800 metre walkable catchment, in accordance with the Housing Strategy.
(xv) Spring Square surrounds Spring Square Neighbourhood Activity Centre is located at the intersection of Princes Highway and Princes Domain Drive, Hallam. The centre contains a supermarket and speciality shops. Low frequency bus services operate on Princes Highway, Frawley Road and Hallam South Road. Land to the north, east and west of the centre is generally in the GRZ1. To the north-east of the centre are a number of parks and to the north-west is a primary and secondary school. West of the centre, at the intersection of Princes Highway and South Gippsland Freeway, is the Freeway Sports Convenience Activity Centre. Land to the south is in the Industrial 1 Zone. Six submissions were received, two submitters supported the Amendment, two submitters opposed it and two sought changes to the rezoning, including an extension of the RGZ3. The opposing submitters raised concerns relating to traffic, parking, overlooking and a reduction of public open space. Council submitted that the extent of the RGZ3 was sufficient and its siting along Princes Highway reflected its designation as a future high-frequency bus route corridor. On the material presented to it, the Panel supports the proposed rezoning.
(xvi) Conclusions The Panel concludes: • It supports the proposed rezonings to GRZ2 and RGZ3 as exhibited, subject to the following: - Lynbrook Village and railway station – Retain properties in the Hallam Road landfill buffer in the GRZ1 (rezone the balance of the land in this precinct as exhibited) - Merinda Park Railway Station/Thompsons Parkway surrounds – Prior to adopting the Amendment, the boundary of the RGZ3 should be extended to the east of the railway station to satisfy the locational criteria of the Housing Strategy and in turn the application of the RGZ3. The Panel’s findings in relation to land to the west of the Endeavour Hills Activity Centre, Gloucester Avenue (in the Berwick Village precinct) and Lyrebird Gardens (in the Parkhill Plaza precinct) are discussed below.
Page 102 of 145 Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C198 Panel Report 23 November 2018
7.7 Proposed post-exhibition changes Council’s post-exhibition changes propose: • removing land west of Endeavour Hills Activity Centre from the GRZ2 and RGZ3 and retaining the GRZ1 • rezoning land in Lyrebird Gardens, Timbarra Estate to GRZ2 instead of RGZ3 • removing land in Gloucester Avenue, Berwick from the RGZ3 and retaining the GRZ1. The affected land is shown in blue in Figure 12 below.
Figure 12 Proposed post-exhibition changes – RGZ3 and GRZ2 areas Council sought to rely on the Neighbourhood Character Assessment, which was prepared after the Amendment was exhibited in support of these proposed post-exhibition changes. During the hearing Council interposed Ms Riddell of Ethos Urban during its Part B submission to discuss its assessment and conclusions in relation to the three areas.
Page 103 of 145 Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C198 Panel Report 23 November 2018
As noted in Chapter 1.5(iii), the Panel acknowledges that it would have been preferable for the further studies relied on by Council during the hearing to have been prepared prior to the preparation and exhibition of the Amendment, however their subsequent preparation is not fatal to the Amendment. Whilst the Neighbourhood Character Assessment differs from the other further studies, in that it does not build on previous studies that looked specifically at these areas, the Panel generally agrees with the assessment and recommendations contained in the Neighbourhood Character Assessment. The Panel also considers it appropriate that the proposed post-exhibition changes should be supported by the detailed assessment, albeit one prepared after Council determined to support the changes.
(i) Endeavour Hills, western neighbourhood This precinct includes land to the west of the Endeavour Hills Activity Centre, bound by Heatherton Road to the north, Matthew Flinders Avenue to the east, Joseph Banks Crescent and the rear of properties fronting Peckover Court to the south and a linear open space reserve to the west. The Neighbourhood Character Assessment notes that: Whilst not expressed as distinct areas, the general trend of the study area is one of increasing dwelling size toward the south, with predominantly one storey in the area around Endeavour Crescent and increasing frequency of two storey dwellings further south. The area around Endeavour Crescent also has greater presence of vegetation and ‘bush garden’ aesthetic within front garden areas, with more formal gardens in the southern areas of the study area. The Neighbourhood Character Assessment concludes that retaining the area in the GRZ1 is appropriate: The study area is located within close proximity to both the Endeavour Hills shopping centre activity centre and public transport services along Heatherton Road and Matthew Flinders Avenue. However, the pattern of curvilinear streets of the Garden Court with cul-de-sacs or courts and properties that turn their back to these roads that contain the public transport reduces the walkability and permeability of this area and hence its suitability to increased densities. Submissions received during the exhibition period opposed the proposed rezoning largely based on neighbourhood character and opposition to three and four storey development, increased traffic, impacts on infrastructure that is already at capacity, increased noise, overlooking and overshadowing. No submitters from this precinct presented to the Panel during the hearing. Council submitted that applying the exhibited RGZ3 and GRZ2 to the land would potentially have an impact by creating a new character, including apartment developments up to four storeys and townhouses, whereas its preference is to achieve a preferred character that is largely based on existing characteristics. It submitted that, while the land is close to Endeavour Hills Activity Centre and public transport services, the street network limits permeability and makes the area less conducive to walking. Council did not support
Page 104 of 145 Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C198 Panel Report 23 November 2018
rezoning the whole area to GRZ2, as this would also impact the established, spacious and cohesive streetscape and preferred neighbourhood character. Council acknowledged that submissions from elsewhere in the Endeavour Hills town centre area were based on similar grounds, and that some submitters from within the Endeavour Hills western neighbourhood supported the proposed rezoning. Council noted that Endeavour Hills has experienced little population growth, and has in fact declined in population over the past two Census reporting periods. Having inspected the area, the Panel observes that, while ‘on paper’ the western neighbourhood appears to satisfy the criteria in the Housing Strategy, the land has features that do not necessarily lend themselves to the exhibited rezoning. In particular, the topography of the land and poor permeability limit accessibility and connectivity with the activity centre and public transport. Planning for the future only needs to go so far. The Panel does not consider that the retention of this area in the GRZ1 will significantly diminish the available land for higher order development. That said, the Panel observes that should the planning authority be looking at the supply of land in the future, then it may reconsider the zoning of the Endeavour Hills western neighbourhood area given that it meets the Housing Strategy’s locational criteria for rezoning (albeit with some constraints imposed by topography and a lack of permeability).
(ii) Gloucester Avenue, Berwick The precinct includes land on the western side of Gloucester Avenue, south of the former St John of God Hospital to the intersection with Reserve Street/Melville Park Drive. The Neighbourhood Character Assessment classified the character of the Gloucester Avenue area as ‘garden suburban’, and noted that: Adjoining lots to the west fronting Reserve Street share the Garden Suburban Character Type, however differ in that there is less cohesiveness in the characteristics that contribute to this character, in particular, with less formal and well-maintained garden areas, and increasing presence of built form; in particular toward Clyde Road where lesser setbacks, higher buildings and reduced vegetation within lots give greater prominence to the unit development within these lots. It concludes that retaining the area as GRZ1 is appropriate from a neighbourhood character perspective. Eleven submissions and three petitions were received in relation to Gloucester Avenue. All submitters opposed the application of the RGZ3 to the land, on the basis that the street has a distinct neighbourhood character that should be retained and protected. Council submitted that the street has a strong and consistent neighbourhood character, which is distinct from the less cohesive character of adjoining areas. Council submitted that the implication of proceeding with the exhibited RGZ3 would potentially have an impact by creating a new character that would reflect its status as a growth area and change its
Page 105 of 145 Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C198 Panel Report 23 November 2018
character to one of apartments and townhouses up to four storeys. In support of its post- exhibition position it submitted that: Retaining this small area in the GRZ1 would have very little impact on achieving Council’s objectives to increase housing diversity. Development which would result from rezoning the area to RGZ3 could have a significant impact on the established, spacious and cohesive streetscape and preferred character; it is considered that retaining the study area in the GRZ1 is appropriate from a neighbourhood character perspective. Mr Burrows represented 22 properties in Gloucester Avenue. He submitted that development of up to four storeys would erode the character of the neighbourhood. He cited reasons that residents had provided for living in the street, including its beautiful streetscape, avenue of trees, exceptional Berwick shopping village, low-rise buildings, heritage, the bird life, the diverse range of units and houses, and well-kept gardens. He submitted that retaining the GRZ1 would have little impact on Council’s objective to achieve housing diversity. Mr Burrows referred to the heritage significance of the precinct, and submitted that this contributed to the neighbourhood character which should be protected. He referred to a Victorian Heritage Database report of 6 December 2017 that emphasised Gloucester Avenue as one of Berwick’s significant precincts and highlighted the significance of the heritage buildings in the street, including St Margaret’s school and the former St John of God Hospital, that will become a rehabilitation hospital in 2019. In terms of the more recent development, he observed that the street already accommodates what he called high density housing, citing that 21 of the blocks are developed with townhouses, in amongst four detached houses and three commercial properties. He highlighted existing traffic problems, particularly at school drop-off and pick- up, due to the proximity to the activity centre and the school. The street is also a bus route. The Panel observed on its site visit that the overwhelming and unifying feature of the streetscape in Gloucester Avenue is the mature street trees and their canopies. What is also apparent, and as noted by Mr Burrows, is the predominance of properties that accommodate multi-dwelling developments. These include single and double storey dwellings. The dwellings reflect a traditional architectural style, predominantly constructed in brick with pitched tiled roofs. In the Panel’s view, they sit recessively in the streetscape, and contribute to the consistent neighbourhood character of the street. It appears based on the Panel’s observations during the site visit, and from the photographs tabled by Mr Burrows, that the dwellings in Gloucester Avenue have typically been constructed in the last 20 years. In a sense the locational benefits offered by the street, including its proximity to the activity centre and rail station have already been realised. Given the age of dwellings and the predominance of strata subdivision making site consolidation more difficult, it would seem to the Panel very unlikely for the development pattern to evolve further in the short to medium term. The Panel accepts Council’s submission that retaining the GRZ1 in this location would have little impact on Council’s strategic objectives. Within the Berwick Village Activity Centre
Page 106 of 145 Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C198 Panel Report 23 November 2018
precinct there will remain land that is zoned RGZ3 immediately adjacent to the rail corridor, with GRZ2 land beyond. The Panel accepts that Gloucester Avenue has a more cohesive character than the land to the west, and agrees that it should be protected by retaining the existing GRZ1.
(iii) Lyrebird Gardens, Timbarra Estate The area includes properties fronting Lyrebird Gardens and Atlantic Place to the north of Timbarra Park, Berwick. The Neighbourhood Character Assessment noted: Adjoining lots to the north fronting Allardice Parade and Lavender Place share the Masterplanned Suburban Character Type, and this character extends further north along Allardice Parade and Samuel Close/Caledonia Court, although lot sizes increase with larger dwellings and greater incidence of second storeys. The Neighbourhood Character Assessment concluded: The GRZ2 with the Zone purpose to respect neighbourhood character and only a marginally taller building height is an appropriate balance between recognising the strategic value of these properties and addressing the frontage to Timbarra Park, and respecting the existing neighbourhood character of the area. One submission opposed the rezoning of Lyrebird Gardens to RGZ3. This submitter did not appear at the hearing. Several other submissions were received from the broader Timbarra Estate area, which are discussed in Chapter 7.6(xiii) above. Council submitted that the study area has a consistent neighbourhood character that extends north. It submitted that: Changing the area proposed to be GRZ3 to GRZ2 would have little impact on Council’s objective to increase housing diversity and would provide for some increased density and diversity in an area close to an activity centre, public transport and fronting a regional open space. Council observed that the properties along Lyrebird Gardens had been recently developed with one and two storey dwellings that had smaller front setbacks, in the order of 5 metres, and side setbacks. It submitted that the application of the GRZ2 better reflects the existing built form than the RGZ3. Having inspected the area, the Panel observed that the land to the south east of the activity centre proposed for rezoning to RGZ3 has a more direct relationship with the centre than the land in Lyrebird Gardens, which is separated from the activity centre by the park. The land to the south east of the centre also has abuttal to Ernst Wanke Road and Parkhill Drive and is proximate to other non-residential uses including Timbarra College, Timbarra Reserve and indoor sports centre. The Panel considers that the RGZ3 is more suitable for the land to the south east of the activity centre than the Lyrebird Gardens land, and agrees that rezoning the Lyrebird Gardens study area to GRZ2 would satisfy Council’s strategic objectives.
Page 107 of 145 Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C198 Panel Report 23 November 2018
(iv) Conclusions The Panel concludes: • It supports the proposed post-exhibition changes for the Endeavour Hills western neighbourhood, Gloucester Avenue and Lyrebird Gardens.
7.8 Recommendations The Panel recommends: Remove properties surrounding Lynbrook Village and railway station that are located within the Hallam Road landfill buffer from the Amendment, and retain them in the current in the General Residential Zone Schedule 1. Rezone the balance of the land in this precinct to Residential Growth Zone Schedule 3 and General Residential Zone Schedule 2 as exhibited. Extend the boundary of the Residential Growth Zone Schedule 3 to the east of Merinda Park Railway Station to satisfy the locational criteria of the Housing Strategy. Remove the properties in Gloucester Avenue, Berwick from the Amendment, and retain them in the current General Residential Zone Schedule 1. Remove the properties to the west of the Endeavour Hills Activity Centre from the Amendment, and retain them in the current General Residential Zone Schedule 1. Rezone the properties north of the Parkhill Plaza Activity Centre in Lyrebird Gardens and Atlantic Place to the General Residential Zone Schedule 2 rather than the Residential Growth Zone Schedule 3. The Panel makes the following recommendations for further work: Council should consider changes to the planning policy framework to deal with potential conflicts between residential and commercial uses in its upcoming review of the retail policy.
Page 108 of 145 Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C198 Panel Report 23 November 2018
8 Opportunity sites
A number of submissions raised the issue of whether large ‘opportunity sites’ should be treated differently, rather than being captured holistically in the broader application of the residential zones based on criteria outlines in the Housing Strategy. These included 193 Golf Links Road, Narre Warren and 75 Central Road, Hampton Park.
8.1 The issues The issues are: • Should these sites be rezoned as part of this Amendment process? • How should opportunity sites be recognised strategically?
8.2 Context The Housing Strategy identifies at page 19 that “The City of Casey has a number of ‘opportunity sites’ that possess attributes that make them favourable for re-development”. There are approximately 170 such sites across the municipality, which are sites over 2,000 sqm with an average size of 3,900 sqm. The Housing Strategy notes that many of these sites, while large, are less accessible to convenient public transport, shops and services, which make them more appropriate for lower densities. The context and setting of the two sites specifically referred to in submissions are quite different, and they are therefore addressed separately. The Panel has also considered the recognition and role of opportunity sites more broadly.
8.3 193 Golf Links Road, Narre Warren
(i) The site 193 Golf Links Road is a 13.63 ha remnant parcel from the established residential estate to the north of Golf Links Road (refer to Figure 13 below). The flat, low lying site has a 750 metre frontage to Golf Links Road and is some 600 metres east of Cranbourne-Narre Warren Road (a future high frequency bus route identified in the Housing Strategy). The site’s southern boundary adjoins the Hallam Main Drain and wetlands to the west. A 5.6 ha portion of the site fronting Golf Links Road is zoned GRZ1, as is the land to the north and the residential estate to the south of the Hallam Main Drain. The balance of the land is zoned Urban Floodway Zone. The Amendment proposes no changes to the current zoning. For the purposes of further discussion, the term ‘the site’ is used to apply only to the 5.6ha residential zoned portion of the land. The site is subject to the Development Plan Overlay Schedule 11, Golf Links Road Residential Area (DPO11). DPO11 provides for a residential development of the area subject to a planning permit and approved development plan. The site is affected by the Land Subject to Inundation Overlay, along with the balance land in the Urban Floodway Zone. The site is also located within a designated Bushfire Prone Area, and a BMO applies to part of the site.
Page 109 of 145 Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C198 Panel Report 23 November 2018
Figure 13 193 Golf Links Road, Narre Warren Source: Woodland evidence The Narre Warren Local Area Map in Clause 21.24 does not identify the residential zoned portion of the site – rather, it shows the area as ‘Wetlands’ future land use comprising ‘Floodplain’ and ‘Future Open Space’ along with a notation to: Maintain and enhance the Hallam Valley Floodplain as an inter-suburban break and progressively develop it for passive parkland, while respecting its primacy as a floodplain. The site is located northwest of the Berwick Waterways Precinct Structure Plan Area (otherwise referred to as ‘Alira’), which is zoned Urban Growth Zone. The PSP provides for a 6,000 sqm local town centre (neighbourhood activity centre) including a supermarket. The town centre is yet to be constructed, although a planning permit has been issued. It is not currently identified in the Housing Strategy, Clause 22.01, Council’s Activities Areas and Non- residential Uses Strategy 2012 or in the Berwick Southern Area Local Area Map in Clause 21.10. Reech Pty Ltd (Reech) lodged a planning permit application and Development Plan for the residential development of the site in March 2018. In August 2018 an amended Development Plan and permit application were lodged with Council for 224 dwellings up to 10.5 metres in height. This represents a density of around 25 dwellings/ha.
(ii) Evidence and submissions Reech’s submission to the exhibited Amendment sought a rezoning of the site to RGZ. At the Hearing, the submission was supported by a detailed further submission from Mr Tobin of Harwood Andrews, and evidence from Mr Woodland of Echelon Planning. Other changes sought by Reech were:
Page 110 of 145 Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C198 Panel Report 23 November 2018
• update the Narre Warren Local Area Map in Clause 21.24 to identify the site’s residential zoning extent and as a medium density housing site • alternatively, include the part of the site within the RGZ to reflect an appropriate walking catchment from the Berwick Waterways neighbourhood activity centre, and the rest of the site in the GRZ with a tailored schedule allowing dwellings over 11 metres (up to 4 storeys), garden area exemptions and preferred character objectives. • amend the Housing Strategy to include the dwelling ‘Type F Apartment’ (identified at page 28) as a dwelling type found in the Incremental Change Area described at page 31 which anticipates “some apartments”. Both Mr Tobin and Mr Woodland identified that the site is proximate to a range of public transport routes and travel options, retail and other services and facilities and within an area undergoing a high degree of change and experiencing strong growth and housing activity. This made the site strategically significant as one of a limited number of large, single ownership sites that are serviceable with no particular character constraints in Narre Warren. As such, its ability to contribute to growth should be maximised, not limited. Reech submitted that the continued application of the GRZ1 to the site represented an overly conservative approach and had not reflected or fully translated the broader objectives of the Housing Strategy into the Amendment, including the application of zones to different walkable catchments (discussed in Chapter 7.3). It was put to the Panel that the zone should appropriately signal a vision or strategic intent. Mr Woodland’s evidence was that the application of the GRZ1 does not reflect the broader objectives of the PPF including Plan Melbourne policies supporting ‘20 minute neighbourhoods’, nor the Victorian Planning Authority’s (VPA) application of the RGZ to such locations, including Berwick Waterways. His evidence was that the GRZ1 on the site is inconsistent with the density, housing choice and diversity objectives of Clauses 21.02-4, 21.03 and 21.24, and does little to facilitate higher order development of well located land. The Reech submissions suggest that the Housing Strategy failed to recognise the location of the approved Berwick Waterways neighbourhood activity centre, which has the capacity to support a full-line supermarket. Mr Woodland’s evidence indicated Reech’s zoning request was not a ‘spot rezoning’ and that Council should have assessed the site against the Housing Strategy’s location criteria. According to Mr Woodland, even a strict application of the criteria would have meant that at least the eastern portion of the site should be located within the RGZ. Mr Tobin indicated that the current planning permit and development plan application, and discussions with Council, suggested a housing outcome for the site that is something more than an incremental change. He submitted that an approach that supports only an incremental change (including the non-inclusion of ‘apartment/typology type F’) was a ‘one- size fits all’ approach that potentially prejudices more nuanced site by site approaches, particularly if the permit application or development plan were in dispute at VCAT. Council responded that the Housing Strategy provides “a well-considered basis for the application of the reformed residential zones throughout the municipality” and as a result did not support rezoning the Reech site. It submitted that adequate planning scheme
Page 111 of 145 Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C198 Panel Report 23 November 2018
mechanisms such as DPOs or ResCode already exist to respond to sites such as the Reech site. In the context of future Berwick Waterways neighbourhood centre, Council indicated that the Housing Strategy supports the application of the RGZ only around Neighbourhood Activity Centres that have full-line supermarkets, such as Lynbrook Village. Berwick Waterways is not proposed to have a full-line supermarket. The Panel understands that this position is based on a recent planning approval rather than the PSP. In relation to Mr Woodland’s evidence, Council submitted that it did not support the creation of another GRZ Schedule. Council did not agree with Mr Woodland’s calculation of a 400 metre walkable distance from the proposed centre, and maintained that the “developable portion of the site, at its closest point, is almost 550 metres walk from the edge of the proposed Berwick Waterways activity centre” with the western edge over 1.2 kms from the proposed centre. Council did, however, indicate that it was open to receiving proponent-led requests for planning scheme amendments following the adoption of this Amendment where strategically justified. Council further submitted that it would support the application of the GRZ2 to that part of the site that could be demonstrated to be within a 400 metre walk from the proposed activity centre (possibly via a bridge crossing of the Hallam Main Drain). In relation to the Narre Warren Local Area Map at Clause 21.24, Council submitted that it would support a change to identify the residential portion of the site as residentially zoned, and designate it a ‘medium density housing site’ subject to the approval of a Development Plan. Council also indicated that it would support a change to the Berwick Southern Area Local Area Map at Clause 21.10 to identify the Berwick Waterways activity centre, but would prefer to do this as part of an upcoming wider review of its Activity Centres Strategy. Council’s submission also acknowledged the error in the Housing Strategy’s exclusion of the dwelling type ‘Type F Apartment’ within the dwelling typologies applied to incremental change areas, and stated that it would be corrected in an updated final version of the Strategy. Council submitted that site’s location within a Bushfire Prone Area was one of a number of constraints which potentially limited more intensive housing outcomes on the site, particularly given the policy objectives of Clause 13.02 and Clause 53.02. The Panel provided Reech with the opportunity provide a supplementary submission on this matter, which was received on 21 September 2018 (Document 52). The supplementary submission proposed that: • Clause 13.02 as a policy should be applied “flexibly and intelligently” and in a balanced manner with other policy • while Clause 53.02 applies to the construction of a single dwelling within a BMO and not a rezoning proposal, the defendable space requirements could be met within the site to achieve a BAL of 12.5 given the existing DPO setback provisions, land ownership arrangements and lot depth. • the Panel in the circumstances cannot be satisfied that development under an RGZ3 will not achieve a BAL of 12.5.
Page 112 of 145 Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C198 Panel Report 23 November 2018
(iii) Discussion The Panel accepts that the site represents a significant housing development opportunity site. Its large area, single land holding and relative proximity to a new neighbourhood centre, and an existing and developing residential area, mean that it should be optimised to accommodate a range of housing outcomes. That said, future development will need to respond to the localised drainage, fire and environmental constraints. The bushfire risk, along with other site constraints, should be more fully considered as part of the planning permit and Development Plan assessment process. The Panel acknowledges Council’s submission that a permit for development could be sought under the existing zone and ResCode (as in fact is currently proposed), and agrees with Council that other planning scheme tools such as the DPO11 point to the site’s residential potential. However, the Panel also agrees with Mr Tobin that the broad-brush approach taken in the Housing Strategy to identifying substantial change areas according to locational criteria underplays the role of larger sites like this to provide comprehensive and integrated housing outcomes. That said, rezoning the site to GRZ with a tailored schedule or RGZ need not be the only options. A review and refocusing of the existing DPO11, along with amending the Local Area Map at Clause 21.24, could present one way of providing strategic direction for the future redevelopment of the site. The Panel considers that splitting a large strategic site into two residential zones along a notional walking catchment arc is not good planning practice. Zone boundaries should reflect logical edges such as property boundaries, roads or environmental features. Splitting such a site into two residential zones does not acknowledge that the site should be planned in a holistic, site responsive and integrated manner. A single zone is the most appropriate zoning arrangement for the site, enabling a site design response which is likely to contain higher densities closer to the proposed neighbourhood centre and lower densities to the west where the flooding, fire and environmental considerations require a more careful interface. There was considerable discussion at the Hearing about the proposed Berwick Waterways neighbourhood centre, the size of the supermarket and its walkability from the site. While as a general rule it might be reasonable to limit the RGZ to around activity centres that provide a full-line supermarket, it may not be reasonable in all circumstances. While the proposed Berwick Waterways town centre supermarket might not be a full-line supermarket, there is nothing in the PSP that prevents a full-line supermarket in the future. The size of this particular centre anticipates a range of commercial activities to meet daily needs. The broad application of the full-line supermarket limitation does not reflect or allow for emerging retail opportunities, trends or changes in consumer behaviours. The Panel considers that the size of the centre, mix of services and associated employment opportunities is perhaps a more nuanced and more relevant measure. On balance, while the Panel recognises that the site presents an opportunity to deliver an integrated housing outcome providing for a range of dwelling types and densities, the Panel is of the view that rezoning the site to RGZ, GRZ2 or a mix of zones as part of this
Page 113 of 145 Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C198 Panel Report 23 November 2018
Amendment is not appropriate. The consideration of bushfire risk impacts in the context of the application of zones has been discussed in detail in Chapter 5. While the Panel acknowledges that the site characteristics could enable a site response that appropriately addresses bushfire risk (no evidence was provided by Council to suggest this is not the case), the Panel considers that Clause 13.02 calls for a precautionary approach. Further, a full analysis and assessment of the strategic merits and development responses to potential constraints of the site (including flooding and fire) has yet to be undertaken. This has not been possible within the time constraints and focus of the Amendment. Nor has the Amendment process enabled any referral agency inputs, community engagement, consultation or notification on the requested change. The Panel does, however, consider that it is appropriate and opportune to properly acknowledge the site’s residential and medium density housing role within the Local Area Map at Clause 21.24. It is also appropriate that, should Council consider a future rezoning request for the site, it take into account the site’s context and opportunities rather than confine itself to the locational criteria in the Housing Strategy. The Panel agrees with Council that changes to the Berwick Southern Areas Local Area Map at Clause 21.10 to recognise and include the Berwick Waterways neighbourhood centre is best done as part of the broader review of its Activity Centres Strategy.
(iv) Conclusions and recommendations The Panel concludes: • It is not appropriate to rezone 193 Golf Links Road, Narre Warren as part of this Amendment. • Large opportunity sites such as 193 Golf Links Road should be treated as unique opportunities to deliver significant housing diversity outcomes, and require site specific consideration. • Council should remain open to supporting an appropriate level of development on the site that reflects its ability to accommodate housing change and diversity, including through the use of a range of zoning and overlay tools. • The residential zoning of the site and its medium density housing role should be recognised in the Clause 21.24 Narre Warren Local Area Map. • The Housing Strategy should be corrected to include the dwelling ‘Type F Apartment’ within the dwelling types that could be accommodated in incremental change areas. The Panel recommends: Amend the Narre Warren Local Area Map in Clause 21.24 to: a) include that part of 193 Golf Links Road, Narre Warren within the General Residential 1 Zone as a residential area; and b) include a notation designating that part of the site as a Medium Density Housing site. Amend the Housing Strategy to include dwelling ‘Type F Apartment’ within the dwelling types accommodated within incremental change areas.
Page 114 of 145 Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C198 Panel Report 23 November 2018
The Panel makes the following recommendations for further work: Council consider a review of the Berwick Southern Areas Local Area Map in Clause 21.10 to identify the Berwick Waterways neighbourhood activity centre as part of the upcoming broader review and implementation of its Activity Centres Strategy.
8.4 75 Central Road, Hampton Park
(i) The site 75 Central Road, Hampton Park is a 2.0 ha site located in an established residential area within 800m of Hampton Park Town Centre (a Major Activity Centre) and the Lyndhurst Business Park. HCPE Pty Ltd (HCPE) is currently in pre-application discussions with Council for a development of 60 to 90 dwellings on the site. The Amendment proposes no change to the current GRZ1 that applies to the site and surrounds.
(ii) Submissions The submission from Mr Halaliku of David Lock and Associates for HCPE was at pains to point out that HCPE is not seeking a spot rezoning of the site, as this could amount to a transformative change to the Amendment. Rather, the submission recommended the application of “a site investigation or opportunity redevelopment status to the site to reflect the attributes of the site”, including its size, single ownership and proximity to the Hampton Park Town Centre. The submission offers a further perspective on opportunity sites: Whilst our client’s site is an example, all similar sized sites exhibiting the same locational attributes should be considered as investigation or opportunity sites and/or at the very least acknowledged within the [Amendment] as exhibiting such attributes. The HCPE submission does not indicate how this might be achieved. The submission also raised concerns about the exclusion of other types of activity centres from consideration in the Housing Strategy. Mr Halaliku submitted that the Strategy fails to recognise the employment role of Lynbrook Business Centre despite its designation as a ‘peripheral sales precinct’ within the Activity Centre hierarchy identified in Clause 22.01. Council did not support the application of a different zone to the HCPE site, noting that although it is large, it is not well serviced by public transport and is located some distance from the Hampton Park Town Centre. The HCPE submission raises broader issues about the strategic merit and approach taken in the Housing Strategy and the Amendment, which are discussed in Chapter 4.1.
(iii) Discussion As for the Reech site, the Panel acknowledges that it is appropriate to maximise the opportunities for housing choice and diversity presented by larger relatively unconstrained sites. However, the Panel does not consider that it is appropriate or necessary for 75 Central Road, Hampton to be specifically identified as an investigation or opportunity site through this Amendment. To do so would lack a broader strategic analysis and consistent approach
Page 115 of 145 Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C198 Panel Report 23 November 2018
for similar sites across the municipality. The Panel considers that the broad municipal wide approach adopted by Council to apply the GRZ1 to incremental change areas that are less proximate to activity centres, services and public transport should not be undermined by individual sites being designated as opportunity sites without a consistent criteria or policy direction being established to guide the identification of those sites. The development of a strategic approach to large sites is discussed in following Chapter.
(iv) Conclusion The Panel concludes that 75 Central Road, Hampton should not be specifically identified as an investigation or opportunity site through this Amendment.
8.5 A strategic approach to opportunity sites
(i) Discussion While the Panel does not support the requests made in the Reech or HCPE submissions as part of this Amendment, the submissions raise some important broader strategic issues. The Panel considers that the housing outcomes for large, relatively unconstrained sites with good access to services, facilities and infrastructure should be maximised in a site responsive manner. In the absence of any specific direction in local policy or in the Housing Strategy, the Panel has attempted to explore the question of what constitutes an opportunity site and how they might be identified spatially and in policy. Clause 16.01-2R Housing opportunity areas – Metropolitan Melbourne supports housing and mixed use development opportunities that are in residential growth areas, greyfield renewal, urban-renewal sites or in activity centres and near railway stations. These criteria are somewhat broad, and do not provide much guidance at a municipal or local level as to what constitutes a suitable opportunity for higher density housing. The Panel could find no other reference in the Local Planning Framework to the role or response to opportunity sites for residential purposes. In response to questions from the Panel about opportunity sites, Council indicated that it had mapped sites over 5,000 sqm, but considered that other planning scheme tools existed to enable consideration of development applications on large sites without needing to necessarily identify them or establish criteria for them in the Housing Strategy. One of the challenges outlined in the Housing Strategy is ‘opportunistic’ medium density development on large sites that are not in the right locations. Council has sought to respond to this challenge by clearly identifying the right locations in which higher housing densities are encouraged, and applying the GRZ2 and RGZ3 in those locations. While the Panel endorses this as a general approach, the Panel considers that larger sites have an important role to play in enabling a significant mix and diversity of housing outcomes to be achieved. Larger sites can also contribute in a meaningful way to housing supply in the established areas of Casey, supporting the growth areas. The Panel considers
Page 116 of 145 Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C198 Panel Report 23 November 2018
there is value in identifying the role that larger opportunity sites have, and a broad strategic approach to them, in the Housing Strategy (or in local policy). In the Panel’s view, simply mapping larger sites at a municipal wide level in the Housing Strategy offers little benefit, particularly when larger sites can be assembled at any time. Designating them on Local Area Maps is similarly not appropriate without further strategic work. That said, the Panel considers that it is appropriate to recognise the Reech site on the Local Area Maps given its large size, location and existing DPO. There was some discussion during the Hearing about possible criteria for identifying opportunity sites, including land size, extent of encumbrances, proximity and walkability to services, facilities and employment hubs. Generally, the Panel agrees that these are appropriate criteria. The Housing Strategy refers to sites around 2,000 sqm. Sites of this size are, at best, infill sites and ought be developed in a manner consistent with the prevailing zone provisions and in response to preferred neighbourhood character. The Panel considers that larger sites, in the range of 2 to 5 ha and which can achieve higher dwelling yields, are more suitably considered as potential opportunity sites. Mr Halaliku submitted that proximity to peripheral sales centres should be considered when identifying potential opportunity sites. While these centres have an employment role, they provide limited services to meet the daily needs of nearby residents. Such centres might be part of a broader consideration in identifying opportunity sites, but the Panel does not consider that this should be a primary consideration. As identified in Chapter 8.3, the Panel considers that only applying the GRZ2 or RGZ to activity centres which contain full-line supermarkets is unnecessarily restrictive. The retail classifications at Clause 22.01 characterise Neighbourhood Activity Centres as centres that “generally include a supermarket(s), specialty shops and related goods and services” and make no distinction as to the size or range of goods on offer at supermarkets. The Panel considers that the size of the centre, mix of services and associated employment opportunities are more appropriate criteria for identifying potential opportunity sites (or indeed for applying the GRZ2 and RGZ), and allow for flexibility and change of consumer attitudes and market offer. The Panel considers that criteria for identifying opportunity sites can (and should) be readily developed and included in the Housing Strategy. Other housing strategies (for example the Knox Housing Strategy) have established criteria which may provide some guidance in developing suitable criteria for Casey. The Panel also considers that it would be of value for the Housing Strategy (or local policy) to include guidance as to how such sites should be treated beyond the prevailing zone provisions, to provide a level of certainty as to which sites Council supports for higher density housing. It is not, however, appropriate for the Panel to nominate criteria or measures for identifying opportunity sites as part of this Amendment. This should follow a more strategic analysis of these opportunities and identification of the sort of outcomes Council is trying to achieve, including the opportunity to provide for affordable or social housing outcomes. This could
Page 117 of 145 Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C198 Panel Report 23 November 2018
be accommodated within a revised Housing Strategy as part of this Amendment, or flagged in the Housing Strategy as further work. Changes to local policy would carry more weight than changes to the Housing Strategy, although it may be appropriate for further consultation with the community through a formal amendment process before changing the policy framework.
(ii) Conclusions and recommendations The Panel concludes that there would be value in including greater guidance in the Housing Strategy around the identification and approach to managing large opportunity sites. This could be accommodated within a revised Housing Strategy document as part of this Amendment, or flagged in the Housing Strategy as further work. Council may wish to consider changes to local policy in relation to opportunity sites, in which case it should consider whether further consultation with the community is warranted. The Panel makes the following recommendation for further work: That Council review the provisions of the Housing Strategy relating to opportunity sites to: a) include criteria for their identification; and b) provide guidance as to how they are managed.
Page 118 of 145 Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C198 Panel Report 23 November 2018
9 Drafting issues
9.1 The issues The issues are: • Are the proposed design objectives and neighbourhood character objectives in the zone RGZ and GRZ schedules appropriate to facilitate the desired outcomes within the particular areas? • Are any changes are required to the local planning policy framework? • Are any other changes required to the Housing Strategy? Drafting issues specific to the proposed NRZ1 are addressed in Chapter 6.7.
9.2 RGZ and GRZ schedules
(i) Evidence and submissions Mr Halaliku submitted that Council had not complied with the Minister’s authorisation in preparing the Amendment, which included the following: The council should also consider taking this opportunity to review the Residential Growth Zone and the General Residential Zone [schedules] and whether design and neighbourhood character objectives could be inserted into these schedules as part of this amendment. Review all objectives to the proposed residential zones to ensure that the Residential Growth Zone objectives are explicit about the built form outcomes sought for the area and that the General Residential Zone and Neighbourhood Residential Zone objectives are clear about what is the character of the area. The council should liaise with the department when developing the objectives. Mr Halaliku submitted that Council had failed to action this in the documents exhibited with the Amendment and failed to satisfy the drafting principles in Planning Practice Note 10: Writing Schedules (PPN10). He submitted that there was no clear delineation of design and character between the proposed RGZ3 and GRZ2, and that the schedules should include design guidelines or equivalent based on adopted neighbourhood character studies. He submitted that the Panel needed to satisfy itself that the RZSAC principles established in relation to schedules and variations to Clauses 54 and 55 of the planning scheme had been satisfied. Mr Halaliku was critical of the proposed design and neighbourhood character objectives within the proposed schedules. He observed that the schedules contained the same purpose in relation to amenity, which has the potential to fetter the parent provisions of each zone, and that these matters were already adequately dealt with by Clauses 54 and 55 of the planning scheme. He also submitted that the proposed decision guidelines in the two schedules were not drafted to allow the decision maker to assess an application against a predetermined and clear outcome.
Page 119 of 145 Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C198 Panel Report 23 November 2018
Council submitted that officers discussed the conditions of authorisation with DELWP officers, and that DELWP officers were satisfied with Council’s proposed changes and it subsequently exhibited the Amendment. In Council’s closing submission, it also noted that it had received further advice from DELWP officers that the Amendment would not have been exhibited had it not had in-principle support. Both the RGZ3 and GRZ2 propose a variation to the requirement of Standards A3 and B6 of Clauses 54 and 55 of the planning scheme. The changes require a front setback of 5 metres or the setback required under the Standards, whichever is lesser. Council submitted that: • The changes to the front setback requirement in the GRZ2 seek to provide greater flexibility in the design of higher density housing types by encouraging buildings to be sited in such a way as to assist in the preservation of the amenity of adjoining residential development. • Allow for landscaping and the planting of a canopy tree within the front setback. • The variations to the schedule, together with the neighbourhood character objectives and decision guidelines provide clear direction about the type of development expected in the GRZ2. Council further submitted that a reduced front setback provides more area at the rear of a site to achieve greater rear and side setbacks relative to adjoining properties. The justifications apply equally to the RGZ3. The variation to the mandatory height limit in the GRZ2 is discussed in Chapter 7.5(iii).
(ii) Discussion Section 6.5 of A Practitioners Guide to Victorian Planning Schemes (the Drafting Guidelines) explains how to write a schedule. The Panel has reviewed this document as well as the relevant RZSAC principles established in relation to schedules and varied standards of Clauses 54 and 55 of the planning scheme. These include the following: Schedules P20 Zones should be selected having regard to local policy, overlays and other scheme provisions, and before developing local content in schedules. P21 Local content in a schedule must be justified in terms of the efficacy of the requirement and the implications for achieving policy objectives. P22 Schedules should be avoided where they apply new benchmarks for residential development without adequate justification. P23 Schedules should only be applied where there is a clearly defined need and it can be demonstrated that the provisions of Clause 54 and 55 are not adequate. P24 The use of local schedules should be minimised and schedules should preferably be applied on a broad scale rather than on a site specific basis.
Page 120 of 145 Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C198 Panel Report 23 November 2018
Clauses 54 and 55 P31 Variations to the Clauses 54 and 55 in the zone scheduled should be justified and should not be applied if the existing provisions of Clauses 54 and 55 are adequate. The Panel considers that schedules to the residential zones should clearly identify that they apply to different areas, based on different outcomes sought for the different areas. The GRZ1 is the default residential zone and schedule that is applied to the majority of the urban areas within the municipality, and as such the Panel considers that it is appropriate to identify particular areas where a more intensive built form is sought, compared with the balance of the GRZ1 areas. The provision of two schedules to the GRZ is consistent with Housing Strategy outcomes for incremental change areas that are located close to activity centres and public transport, and those that are not. Schedule 1 to the GRZ will continue to apply to areas that are more remote from public transport and services whereas Schedule 2 to the GRZ will apply to areas that have good access to activity centres and close to strategic bus routes. Consistent with the differentiation sought between the two GRZ schedules, Schedule 2 varies the mandatory height control and front setback requirements (whereas Schedule 1 does not). The Panel notes that while the increase in the mandatory height control will not in itself facilitate a more intense built form, it will allow more flexibility in architectural response. The proposed variation to the front setback in both the RGZ3 and the GRZ2 will promote a more efficient use of land that is not required for a larger front setback. The Panel agrees that this is appropriate and notes that it will inform a new neighbourhood character, with a more compact setting. The Panel considers that the application of the schedules and variation to Standards of Clauses 54 and 55 is consistent with the RZSAC principles. Specifically: • there is clear state and local policy that supports the application of more intense development in and around activity centres and with good access to public transport • the realisation of a different built form outcome is justified through the Housing Strategy, which in turn supports the provision of separate schedules • sufficient justification has been provided to demonstrate a need for, and to warrant the provision of, two new schedules • the schedules will be applied on a broad scale, and the number of new schedules has been minimised • variations to the Clause 54 and Clause 55 Standards are minimal and appropriately seek to facilitate more intensive built form and more efficient use of sites that is consistent with the intent of the schedules. The Panel does not consider that Council has departed from the Minister’s authorisation. As noted by Council, it had discussions with DELWP officers regarding the drafting of the schedules, and DELWP was satisfied for the Amendment to be placed on exhibition. Further, the schedules contain design and neighbourhood character objectives and decision guidelines. While there can be debate around whether the schedules are appropriately drafted, this does not constitute non-compliance with the authorisation.
Page 121 of 145 Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C198 Panel Report 23 November 2018
At the same time, the Panel agrees with Mr Halaliku that the drafting of the design and neighbourhood character objectives and decision guidelines could be improved. The RGZ3 includes the following design objectives: • To encourage site layout and building massing that preserves the amenity of adjacent residential development. • To encourage smaller front setbacks. • To encourage the consolidation of adjacent lots to facilitate design that minimises negative amenity affects (sic) upon surrounding land uses. The GRZ2 includes the following neighbourhood character objectives: • To encourage a preferred neighbourhood character of increased residential density, including townhouses and apartments, with smaller front setbacks. • To encourage site layout and building massing that preserves the amenity of adjacent residential development. The Drafting Guidelines note that a schedule should address the parent control from which it is derived, that there should be a clear planning objective being sought, that the local content should be strategically justified and that it should not duplicate other provisions. The Panel agrees with Mr Halaliku that amenity considerations are already dealt with in Clauses 54 and 55 of the planning scheme and also in policy, and that the first design objective in the RGZ3 and the second neighbourhood character objective in the GRZ2 are therefore not required. As such, the Panel considers that it would be appropriate to redraft the design objectives and neighbourhood character objectives so that they more clearly relate to matters of design (in the case of the RGZ3) and identified or preferred neighbourhood character (in the case of the GRZ2), and in turn redraft the decision guidelines, as appropriate, to assist in consideration of whether the design or character objectives have been met. For example, design objectives could relate to whether contemporary built form outcomes are desired, nominate the preferred building typology, support lot consolidation and support reduced front setbacks. Drafting issues specific to the proposed NRZ1 are addressed in Chapter 6.7.
(iii) Conclusion The Panel concludes: • The proposed zones and use of schedules, including the variation to the mandatory height in the GRZ2 and the variation to Standards A3 and B6 in both the RGZ3 and the GRZ2, are appropriate. • Prior to adopting the Amendment, the schedules should be amended to update the design objectives and decision guidelines of the RGZ3 and the neighbourhood character objectives and decision guidelines of the GRZ2.
Page 122 of 145 Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C198 Panel Report 23 November 2018
9.3 Local Planning Policy Framework Mr Tobin submitted that the Housing Strategy criteria had not been accurately translated into the proposed changes to Clause 21.03-5 (application of zones and overlays). He noted that while the Housing Strategy sought to apply the RGZ to areas within approximately 400 metres of an activity centre, the proposed text confines this to land “adjacent to” an activity centre. He submitted that: Properly read the Housing Strategy does not seek to provide hard and fast rules of 400m or adjacent to any other such notion but rather requires a nuanced approach. It cannot be expected that the planning authority will adopt a nuanced approach for each and every site within the entire city of Casey but where there is a sensible submission such as that put forward by Reech it is incumbent upon the Council to then properly consider what a nuanced response to site characteristics are. The Panel agrees that the local policy should clearly explain how the application of the zones aligns with the criteria in the Housing Strategy. Council submitted a tracked version of Clause 21.03 showing proposed changes to the sections dealing with the implementation of the zones and overlays, which the Panel supports. However, the Panel considers further changes are required to more closely align the text with section 6.1 of the Housing Strategy. For instance, the proposed change includes reference to ‘walkable distance’ from activity centres, train stations and community facilities, but does not define what the ‘walkable distance’ is or reference strategic bus routes, which is also one of the locational criteria. Chapter 4.2 discusses broader issues around whether the local policy framework effectively supports and implements the Housing Strategy’s objectives relating to housing diversity, housing affordability, sustainable growth, quality design and neighbourhood character. The Panel accepts Council’s submission that the Amendment is one part of the implementation process, and notes existing policy objectives that seek to promote housing diversity in well located areas and to respect and enhance neighbourhood character. It also notes that further work, which is referenced in a proposed change at Clause 21.03-5, includes preparing neighbourhood character assessments. These will inform preferred character for different areas. Subject to some recommended changes, the Panel is generally satisfied with the proposed changes to the local planning policy framework. The Panel has included further revisions to the tracked version of Clause 21.02 and Clause 21.03 in Appendix D.
9.4 Housing Strategy In its closing submission Council submitted that it intends to update the Housing Strategy to incorporate more current data, including the 2016 Census and the 2018 Charter Keck Cramer assessment prior to adopting the Amendment. Council also proposes to update the Housing Diversity Statement and combine this with the Housing Strategy. It has indicated that it will correct the discrepancies in the Housing Strategy noted by Mr Tobin, including the failure to include a clear reference to apartments in the text and building typology diagram for incremental change areas (at page 31).
Page 123 of 145 Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C198 Panel Report 23 November 2018
The Panel supports updating the Housing Strategy to reflect more current data and to correct discrepancies. The Housing Strategy will be a Reference Document in the planning scheme and, as such, its role is to provide information to assist in understanding the context of the changes to housing policy. The Panel is satisfied that, subject to some further refinement and ‘tidy ups’, the content of the Housing Strategy is generally supportive of the changes to the planning policy framework and the zone schedules which do the ‘heavy lifting’ in terms of implementing the Strategy.
9.5 Recommendations The Panel recommends: Prior to adopting the Amendment: a) in the Residential Growth Zone Schedule 3: • delete the first design objective that refers to preserving the amenity of adjacent residential development • update the remaining design objectives so that they clearly relate to matters of design • update the decision guidelines to assist in consideration of whether the design or character objectives have been met b) in the General Residential Zone schedule 2: • delete the second neighbourhood character objective that refers to preserving the amenity of adjacent residential development • update the remaining neighbourhood character objectives so that they clearly relate to the identified or preferred neighbourhood character • update the decision guidelines to assist in consideration of whether the neighbourhood character objectives have been met c) in the Neighbourhood Residential Zone Schedule 1: • modify the neighbourhood character objectives to more closely align with the language of the preferred character statement in the Berwick Neighbourhood Character Study • review and update the decision guidelines to ensure they are appropriate, relevant and clear in meaning. d) update Clauses 21.02 and 21.03 as shown in the Appendix D e) update the Housing Strategy to reflect current data and correct any discrepancies and inconsistencies between text and diagrams.
Page 124 of 145 Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C198 Panel Report 23 November 2018
Appendix A Submitters to the Amendment
No. Submitter No. Submitter 1 Alf Micalessi and Sharon Williams 35 Donna and Alvaro Gonzalez 2 Brian Elliott 36 Roland Stuart Winsall 3 Michael Hall 38 Abu Shihabuddin 4 Carol Clark 39 Mark Pocklington and Paula Cooke 5 Steven Hale 41 Lan, Elizabeth and Lucy Christian 6 Brian Jones 42 Graham Sexton 7 & 10 Tony and Angelda Del Vecchio 43 Steven Thoonen 8 Crystal Rosario 44 & 265 Andrew Forrester 9 Nicole Buskes 45 H A Sunil Perera 11 Brandon Wong 46 Xin Pei and Jun Chen 14 Michael and Petra Azzoapardi 47 Amy Jia Li Yuan 15 Tony Traikovski 48 Chris Clark 16 Anna Tsiloulis 49 Dona S Munasinghe 17 Debbie and Tin Soe Win 50 Sek Chew Yeoh 18 Henry Chiu 51 Kelvin John Gough 19 & 90 Lynette Browne 52 Krunal Patel 20 Noelle Stevens 53 Mateullah Azadzoi 21 Prash 54 Patrick Gueho 22 Abu Shihabuddin 55 Sheng Yin Wang 23 Jianfeng Li 56 Carmel Bennett 24 Marg Sabin 57 Michael Scott Parker 25 Pamela Chant 58 Wendy Twaddle 26 Eng Ling Ong 59 Keng Meng Lee 27, 95 & James O'Keefe 60 Graeme David McLeod 308 28 Keith Haggett 62 Sharon O'Donnell 29 Martin and Lesley Kingsley 63 Barbara Handasyde 30 Paris Kritharides 64 Christine Durham 31 & 32 Alexander Zulkarnain 65 Dominic Arcaro 33 Nicolae Tripon 66 Gamal and Fathia Hassan 34 Nazco Group 67 John Arcaro
Page 125 of 145 Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C198 Panel Report 23 November 2018
No. Submitter No. Submitter 68 Patricia Durham 103 & 323 Kameel Pty Ltd 69 Xiadong Fang 104 Saiyad I Hussain 70 Harry and Anthony Hatzis 105 Robert P Wator 71 Rosaire Mahony 106 Rebecca Lovelace 72 Peter Tisdale 107 Michelle and Robert De Koning 73 Rachael Sleeman 108 Mekand Kaur 74 Johanna Agatha Maria Kol 109 Justin Muir 75 Vjekoslav and Marie Majstorovic 110 John and Kay Newton 76 Richard and Prudence Hendrikx 111 A Robinson & T Harvie 77 Leigh and Jennifer Evans 112 Sandra and Mark Hatton 78 Kathryn Caldwell 113 Leslee and Laurel Hall 79 Gino Gerald Martin 114 Jack Boer 80 David Wesley McCracken 115 Angelo and Maria Materia 81 Matthew McCoy 116 Hardeep and Jaswinder Singh Sandhu 82 T & J Vella 117 Wendy Ednie 83 Wayne and Marie Grant 118 Duncan Lithgow Burrows 84 & 89 Gary Alexander Browne 119 Pei Ji Ye, Lin Shan, Tao Ye and Lujia Liu 85 South East Water 120 Kong Sing Ding 86 Katherine Veleta Harper 121 & 179 Janelle Buick and Darren Treweek 87 Rosina O'Neal 122 Anthony Langan 88 Graeme Malcolm Baker 123 Walter and Nadya Godlevsky 91 Carol Withers 124 Milka Strk 92 & 322 Erika Helen Alexander 125 Michael and Catherine Welk 93 John and Ilma Barbatiello 126 Ljubica M and Zlatko M Strk Marian Ruth and Martin Anton 94 127 Hardeep and Jaswinder Sandhu Schnuriger 96 Armando Solano 128 Susanne and Johannes Rutten 97 Sharon Blackney 129 & 133 Robert James Holloway 98 Ragini Sreerangaraju 130 Maria Federici 99 Ugur Hatibi 131 George Farag 100 Alfred J and Jean Raar 132 Tiziano Federici Sue and Wayne Peterken and Body 101 Faye Reardon 134 Corporate Christian Regis and Marie Marcia 102 135 & 147 Stephen Green and Pamela Chapman Danielle Alleaume
Page 126 of 145 Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C198 Panel Report 23 November 2018
No. Submitter No. Submitter 136 Scott Carter 169 Heather Irene MacGregor 137 Ruth A Brehaut 170 John Mitrea 138 Rodney DeHaan 171 Sze Yuen Chan 139 Hugh Marquis 172 Elaine Ivy Bust 140 Vicinity Centres 173 Laval Gilbert St Flour 141 & Emilia and John Cica 174 Anna Lay 199 142 Ahmad Al Musawi 175 Elpi Marcoulli 143 Bastiaan Swart 176 George Furlan 144 Allen and Annette Theobald 177 Jason Gloz 145 Walter and Renate Meyer 178 Ken Su Kiam Lay 146 Peter and Carolyn Hamill 180 Kate Greenwood and Ivan Urdih 148 Bruce and Michelle Chalk 181 Sarath Patabendige 149 Marcello Tiberi 182 Prue Blackburne 150 Donald Oliver 183 Confidential Evelyn Elaine Hughes and Body 151 184 Andy Perry Corporate 152 Anthony Holder 185 Cornel Buciu 153 Magda Straszkowski 186 Chan Ton 154 Mirela Gramnea 187 Ross William Eastwood 155 Phillip Herbert 188 Kanagasabai Radhakrishnan 156 Rita Violet Stewart 189 Gabriel Hermann Savanah 158 Andrew Van Bakel 190 Gerardo Perena Geraldine McKenzie and Muriel 159 191 Alois Tscheppe Frank 160 Dianne Jane Goujon 192 Bruno and Nancy Scarcella 161 Praparatana Visser 193 Najib Rahimi 162 Janet and Ivan Steers 194 Nesta Coldwell 163 Petition c/- Declan Joseph Foley 195 John and Janelle Verhaar 164 Michael Mihaly Lazar 196 Uswatta Liyanage Rasika Yasangi Silva 165, 242 Thomas Gregory Kinski 197 Wendy Ann Barratt & 309 166 Janet Frances Billing 198 Jacqui Andrews 167 Paul Raymond Hobbs 200 Aldo Emilio Traverso 168 Brian David Frary 201 Emin Imer
Page 127 of 145 Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C198 Panel Report 23 November 2018
No. Submitter No. Submitter 202 John Beekhof 232 Peter and Irene Malishev 203 John Gaiardo 233 Peter Houlahan Owners of land in Forrest Hill Grove, 204 Leonie Wheatley 234 Lysterfield South 205 Marine B Singh 235 Russell Vernon 206 & Omar El-Hissi 237 Ashley and Tricia White 236 207 Ranjan Samaranayaka 238 Owners of land in Gardiner Street, Berwick 208 Ronald and Catherine Braun 239 AGT Developments Pty Ltd Sarah, Melanie and Rosemarie 209 240 & 244 Teresa Anna and Gerarda Hazendonk Walker 210 Clint Allsop 241 Lucas Sheldon 211 Dean and Diane Ginns 243 Susan Bergman and Nick Gaal 212 David and Robin Estcourt 245 Reech Pty Ltd Janet Christina Trezise and Mary 213 246 Sharon Lois Kacew Blackwood Row 214 Brendan John Meagher 247 Rowena Gaal 215 Sefora Maria Caciur 248 Mohamed Nuhaim Amirdeen 216 Fawaz Elhassan 249 Luisa and Renato Meneghetti 217 Peter Klaaysen 250 Pauline Kinski 218 Geoffrey and Rosemary Meehan 251 Manbir Singh Mashli 219 John Ernest Foy 252 Alexander and Anastassia Trifonov 220 Antoinette Jobina Bulle 253 John Scanlon 221 & Marie France Marlene Kane 254 Konrad Kucianski 321 222 Anne Therase Reid 255 John Wu 223 Bill Reid 256 Valentino Porto Douglas William Carmichael and 224 257 Anton Hardisty Georgia Ouzounis 225 Paul and Milenka Nemarich 258 Dominic Russo 226 Christopher Gordon Pires 259 Silkwood Pty Ltd 227 John Karvelas 260 Kristyna Ovcar 228 Tina Maria Bonanno 261 Karen Goodwin 229 Ann Parry 262 Daphne Katherine Clements 230 Joseph James Pritchett 263 Jelena Jovic
Page 128 of 145 Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C198 Panel Report 23 November 2018
No. Submitter No. Submitter 264 Transport for Victoria 297 Shanil Wijewardena 266 Jacqueline Radford 298 Travis Barrington 267 Khalilullah and Shokria Aman Khalil 299 Shane Barrington 268 Raymond and Joan Byron 300 Jared Hall 269 Barbara May Allen 301 Sasha Barrington 270 Sande Dadov 302 Joshua Lawson 271 Mijo and Durda Hrastovcak 303 Wasil Azadzoi 272 Lilian Gochez 304 Sadiel Sheikh Christopher John and Martyn 273 305 Samia Sheikh Drysdale 274 Pauline Naismith 306 Roshan Sheikh 275 Wayne Hawthorn 307 Sydney Auwardt 276 Wendy Hart 310 Bryan Ferguson 277 Adrian Ludwig Tusek 311 Ross Tomlinson 278 & Josie Carmel Russell 312 Margaret E Chatfield 280 279 Ian William Bateman 313 Jennifer Connor and Peter Easton 281 Michael Van Dord and Sigrid Tusek 314 Marija Gal-Strmecki 282 Eric Vanderburgt 315 Ronald Keith Bradley 282 K Johnson 316 Kathryn Peel 283 Carmela Barbato 318 Space Development Group Pty Ltd 284 & Robyn Adelle Browne 319 Ruth and Nick Cameron 317 285 Peter and Nancy Arezzolo 320 Andrew Malynowsky 286 Dragica, Ivan and Jenny Jakovljevic 324 ACME Group 287 Denis Phillips 325 Roy and Susi Babbage 288 Luba and Peter Starchenko 326 Daniel Quadflieg Owners in Pound Road, Narre 289 Warren South 327 Maria and Tiziano Federici 290 Wendy Harris 328 Glen and Kathleen Turner 291 Ayatullah Safi 329 Carmela Spano 292 Mark Stephens 330 K and L Harmsworth 293 Cheryl Riley 331 Walter Vertriest 294 Chirag Patel 332 Jenny, Ivan and Dragica Jakovljevic 295 Ryan Barrington 333 Shirley Reardon 296 Jeremy Barrington 334 Ray and Dianne Smith
Page 129 of 145 Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C198 Panel Report 23 November 2018
No. Submitter No. Submitter 335 Darren Watson 339 Peter Clynes 336 John and Emilia Cica 340 Jelena Jovic 337 Kevin Chisholm 341 Samantha Watson 338 Vicki Gillespie
Page 130 of 145 Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C198 Panel Report 23 November 2018
Appendix B Parties to the Panel Hearing Submitter Represented by Casey City Council Ms Elena Spanos who called the following expert witness: - Chris McNeill of Essential Economics on Economics Reech Pty Ltd Mr Greg Tobin of Harwood Andrews assisted by Thomas Patereskos who called the following expert witness: - Mark Woodland of Echelon Planning on Strategic Planning R and N Evans Mr Robert Bradley, Aitkin Partners who called the A and S Grasby following witnesses: D and K Joyce - Sally Van der Paverd of Fire Front Consultancies on Bushfire Management Overlay - Stephen O’Brien of Universal Planning on Town Planning Brian Elliot Brian Elliot who called the following expert witness: - Brian Ross of EGBP Pty Ltd on Bushfire ACME Group Jonathon Halaliku of David Lock & Associates Casdar Court Collective Mr Panos Nickas, Best Hooper Lawyers Kameel Pty Ltd Ms Sarah North, Reeds Consulting Bruce and Michelle Chalk Ms Natasha Heard, Draeh Planning Nicolaie Tripon David Tripon David & Robin Estcourt Ms Natasha Heard, Draeh Planning Sarah Walker Robyn Browne Jean Raar John Wu Andrew Forrester Duncan Burrows Clint Allsop Teresa Hazendonk Raymond Edward Byron Declan Foley Leonie Wheatley Brian Green Sek Chew Yeoh
Page 131 of 145 Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C198 Panel Report 23 November 2018
Submitter Represented by Rosaire Mahoney Mohamed Nuhaim Amirdeen Keith Hendry Jelena Jovic John Foy Marie and Marlene Kane Roshan Sheikh Margaret Edwards Maria Federici Jenny Jakovljevic
Page 132 of 145 Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C198 Panel Report 23 November 2018
Appendix C Document list
No. Date Description Provided by 1 3/8/18 Explanation of mapping error in Explanatory Report Ms Spanos, Casey City Council 2 3/8/18 Explanation of post-exhibition map changes proposed Ms Spanos by Council 3 17/9/18 Council Part B submission Ms Spanos 4 17/9/18 Maps (attachments) Ms Spanos 5 17/9/18 Corrected map from the Berwick and Endeavour Hills Ms Spanos Neighbourhood Character Assessment prepared by Ethos Urban 6 17/9/18 LDRZ planning control and BPA matrix Ms Spanos 7 17/9/18 Casey foothills map Ms Spanos 8 17/9/18 Clause 21.14 Ms Spanos 9 17/9/18 Proposed zoning maps with submitter locations Ms Spanos 10 18/9/18 Casdar Court Collective submission Mr Nickas, Best Hooper Lawyers 11 18/9/18 Aerial photographs Mr Nickas 12 18/9/18 Photographs Mr Nickas 13 18/9/18 Clause 21.14 Mr Nickas 14 18/9/18 Submission Ms North, Reeds Consulting 15 18/9/18 Aerial photographs Ms Browne 16 18/9/18 LDRZ Ms Spanos 17 18/9/18 Development Plan Overlay areas map Ms Spanos 18 18/9/18 Submission Mr Amirdeen 19 19/9/18 Harwood Andrews documents folder Mr Tobin, Harwood Andrews Lawyers 20 19/9/18 Submission Mr Tobin 21 19/9/18 Casey Central Town Centre PSP Mr Tobin 22 19/9/18 Route 834 timetable Mr Tobin 23 19/9/18 Route 847 timetable Mr Tobin 24 20/9/18 Submission Mr Halaliku, David Lock Associates 25 20/9/18 Aerial photograph Mr Halaliku
Page 133 of 145 Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C198 Panel Report 23 November 2018
No. Date Description Provided by 26 20/9/18 Ministerial authorization Mr Halaliku 27 20/9/18 Submission Mr Foy 28 21/9/18 Submission Ms Hazendonk 29 21/9/18 Attachments – maps and aerial photographs Ms Hazendonk 30 21/9/18 Summary of adoption dates of Housing Strategy Ms Hazendonk 31 21/9/18 Submission Ms Kane 32 21/9/18 Submission Mr Foley 33 24/9/18 Parks Victoria – Code of Practice – Addendum Mr Elliot 34 24/9/18 Clause 13.02 Ms Spanos 35 24/9/18 Clause 53.02 Ms Spanos 36 24/9/18 BMO Ms Spanos 36A 24/9/18 Peer review – bush fire hazard site assessment Ms Spanos 37 24/9/18 Submission Mr Bradley, Aitken Partners 38 24/9/18 Submission Mr Grasby 39 24/9/18 Submission Ms Heard 40 24/9/18 Submission Ms Jovic 41 24/9/18 Planning Property report Ms Jovic 42 25/9/18 Submission Mr Burrows 43 25/9/18 Submission Ms Heard 44 25/9/18 Submission Mr Luppino 45 25/9/18 Copy of planning report – 59 Buchanan Road, Berwick Mr Luppino 46 25/9/18 Planning Permit PLN00534/15 Mr Luppino 47 25/9/18 Council response to submission 19 June 2018 Mr Luppino 48 25/9/18 Overlay maps Mr Luppino 49 25/9/18 Closing submission Ms Spanos 50 25/9/18 Tracked changes (further changes to Clauses 21.02 and Ms Spanos 21.03) 51 25/9/18 LDRZ summary Ms Spanos 52 21/9/18 Further submission on behalf of Reech Pty Ltd Mr Patereskos of Harwood Andrews 53 2/10/18 Response to Bushfire Planning assessment of fire risk Mr Elliot of properties in Caithwill Court
Page 134 of 145 Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C198 Panel Report 23 November 2018
No. Date Description Provided by 54 3/10/18 Further submission re: 59 Buchanan Road, Berwick Mr Luppino
Page 135 of 145 Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C198 Panel Report 23 November 2018
Appendix D Panel recommended version of Clauses 21.02 and 21.03
21.02 KEY ISSUES AND STRATEGIC VISION
09/02/2017
C250
21.02-1 Key issues
09/02/2017 The key issues facing Casey can be grouped into five strategic themes: Proposed C198 Settlement and housing
▪ The management of rapid urban growth to meet the social and physical needs of a diverse community. ▪ The management of urban development and its impacts on surrounding rural areas and areas of landscape and environmental significance. ▪ The provision of diverse housing types and lot sizes to meet the needs of a changing community.
Environment
▪ The protection and restoration of Casey’s biodiversity. ▪ The protection and management of areas of State, national and international significance. ▪ The protection of life and property arising from the impacts of climate change, flooding and wildfire. ▪ The protection and enhancement of significant rural landscapes. ▪ The formulation of ecologically sustainable land use and development practices.
Economic development
▪ The development of a diverse, prosperous and sustainable economic base for Casey. ▪ The development of a strong knowledge-based business sector. ▪ The need to support and strengthen existing businesses, including home-based businesses. ▪ The protection and sustainable use of agricultural land. ▪ The development of Casey’s tourism and eco-tourism potential.
Transport
▪ The development of a transport system that addresses Casey’s accessibility needs and provides for increased use of public transport. ▪ The need to upgrade regional transport routes in order to improve access for Casey’s residents to the major employment precincts to the west. ▪ The development of a multi-use trail network in Casey that links community places and other key destinations.
Built environment
▪ The protection and enhancement of local neighbourhood character.
Page 136 of 145 Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C198 Panel Report 23 November 2018
▪ The retention and maintenance of heritage places for the benefit of present and future generations. ▪ The protection of Casey’s diverse local areas, townships and villages from inappropriate use and development.
21.02-2 Casey’s land use vision
09/02/2017 The Casey C21: A vision for our future strategy (“Casey C21 Strategy”), which was adopted by
C250 Council on 3 September 2002, articulates the land use vision for Casey. It arose out of the recognition by Council that a holistic, long-term vision needed to be created for the municipality that complemented and strengthened the key directions of the City’s Council Plan. This vision was created from the “ground up”, comprising strategic directions that are based on a detailed understanding of the values of the Casey community and how those values vary in a spatial sense. It is about creating Casey’s own identity as a city by developing and strengthening its communities, protecting and enhancing its natural assets, improving the accessibility of its residents to services, and stimulating economic development by building on its advantages. Casey C21 – Building a Great City is an update of the Casey C21 Strategy that was adopted by Council on 19 July 2011. While retaining the direction and vision of the original strategy, it refines these into a form that is more accessible to the community and updates various references and actions arising from the implementation of the strategy. Any reference to the Casey C21 Strategy throughout the Local Planning Policy Framework of this planning scheme should therefore also be read as a reference to Casey C21 – Building a Great City.
21.02-3 Casey’s Municipal Strategic Statement
09/02/2017 The Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS) is based on the Casey C21 Strategy, which is the main C250 reference document of the Local Planning Policy Framework of this planning scheme. Only those aspects of the strategy relevant to land use, subdivision and development planning policy have been included in this MSS, but the responsible authority will have regard to all of the strategy in its decision-making. The conceptual model for Casey’s MSS examines the municipality using two discrete, but related, analytical approaches: ▪ A thematic approach, based on the development of strategic responses to key economic, social and environmental development and land use planning issues, comprising the following five themes (refer to Clauses 21.03-21.07): Settlement and housing. Environment. Economic development. Transport. Built environment. ▪ A local area approach, based on the analysis of the following 17 local areas derived from those identified in the Casey C21 Strategy (refer to Clauses 21.08-21.25): Berwick Northern Area (including part of Beaconsfield). Berwick Southern Area (including part of Clyde North). Botanic Ridge/Junction Village. Casey Coast (including Blind Bight, Cannons Creek, Tooradin, Warneet and part of southern Pearcedale). Casey Farm (including Clyde, part of Clyde North, Devon Meadows, Pearcedale and Cranbourne South). Casey Foothills (including Harkaway, Lysterfield South, Narre Warren North and part of Endeavour Hills and the northern area of Berwick).
Page 137 of 145 Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C198 Panel Report 23 November 2018
Cranbourne. Cranbourne East. Cranbourne North. Cranbourne West. Doveton/Eumemmerring. Endeavour Hills (Urban area). Hallam. Hampton Park. Lynbrook/Lyndhurst. Narre Warren. Narre Warren South. The two approaches are necessary, as a single approach fails to cover the full spectrum of planning issues. Some issues have widespread relevance to the municipality, whereas other issues are location-specific. The thematic approach set out in Clauses 21.03-21.07 complements the local area approach set out in Clauses 21.08 to 21.25. The combination of the two approaches ensures that both broad thematic issues and location-specific issues are addressed as part of Council’s longer term strategic vision, and also demonstrates how the broader thematic issues are translated into their local context. Both approaches respond to the issues in the form of objectives, strategies and implementation actions.
21.02-4 Casey’s Strategic Framework Plan
09/02/2017 Casey’s key strategic directions for future land use planning and development are illustrated by the C250 Strategic Framework Plan. The purpose of the Strategic Framework Plan is to identify locations where specific land use outcomes will be supported and promoted. It also identifies potential development opportunity areas where significant land use change may be expected, as well as areas where land use constraints may restrict future development. Separate Local Area Maps have also been prepared for each of the 17 local areas (refer Clauses 21.08-21.25). These maps advance the broad strategic directions shown on the Strategic Framework Plan. The major strategic directions identified on the Strategic Framework Plan are: ▪ A hierarchy of activity centres that caters for the growth of individual centres. ▪ Regional transport corridors supported by a “mile-grid” of arterial roads. ▪ An open space network to create linear corridors that link major destinations. ▪ Capacity for new suburban areas within the Urban Growth Boundary to cater for up to an additional 78,000 households, as of 2011. ▪ Green Wedge land that is afforded long-term protection from urban growth pressures. ▪ A mix of housing opportunities incorporating suburban and large-lot housing (“lifestyle living”). ▪ Land for future employment growth in a number of large new employment precincts. ▪ Environmental protection of conservation areas.
21.02-5 Reference documents
09/02/2017 Casey C21: A vision for our future, City of Casey, 2002. Proposed C198 Casey C21: Building a Great City, City of Casey, 2011. Casey Housing Strategy, City of Casey, 2005
Page 138 of 145 Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C198 Panel Report 23 November 2018
City of Casey Activity Centres Strategy, City of Casey, in association with Ratio Consultants Pty Ltd, 2006. City of Casey Biodiversity Enhancement Strategy, Ecology Australia Pty Ltd, 2003. City of Casey Conservation Strategy, City of Casey, in association with Environment Link Pty Ltd, 2002. City of Casey Open Space Strategy Technical Report, City of Casey, in association with EDAW (Aust.) Pty Ltd, 2001. Council Plan 2013-2017, City of Casey, 2015. Heritage Strategy, City of Casey, 2001. Housing Strategy, City of Casey, 2017. South East Growth Corridor Plan, Growth Areas Authority, 2012
Page 139 of 145 Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C198 Panel Report 23 November 2018
Page 140 of 145 Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C198 Panel Report 23 November 2018
21.03 SETTLEMENT AND HOUSING
21.03-1 Overview
09/02/2017 The sustained building and strengthening of communities will improve physical, social, 09C250/02/ 2017 environmental and economic outcomes for local areas. It will result in the identification and C250 articulation of the community’s vision for their area and ensure that land use planning and development decisions better reflect these local values and aspirations. Enhancing and strengthening the liveability of Casey’s communities will in turn provide an incentive for greater choice, quality and diversity within local areas. Casey is experiencing significant population increases associated with large numbers of young couples with young families moving into new residential estates. However, there are also a number of established suburbs with maturing populations. There is an increasing ethnic mix in some areas, and household type, income levels, education levels and other socio-economic characteristics vary widely across the municipality. Different communities of interest amongst Casey’s residents also extend across geographic boundaries (such as religious or sporting communities). There is need for housing diversity to cater for more single and dual person households into the future.
21.03-2 Objective 1
09/02/2017 To provide a framework for urban growth and development that will support and strengthen the C250 diverse communities in Casey.
Strategies
1.1 Create clear physical delineations between Casey’s communities. 1.2 Focus activity into identified activity centres and community places to create a sense of place, create physical community landmarks and focal points, and reinforce community identity. 1.3 Maintain, enhance and reinforce inter-suburban breaks, with an emphasis on the progressive development of the Hallam Valley Floodplain (‘Casey Valley Parklands’) as passive parkland accessible by the public. 1.4 Maintain key rural views. 1.5 To recognise and maintain areas with existing neighbourhood character, enhanced landscapes, views and vistas. 1.65 Discourage transition rural-residential lot sizes between suburban Casey and surrounding rural areas. 1.76 Encourage rural-residential and rural-living lots in identified locations, but not as a buffer or transition. 1.87 Provide for appropriate non-residential uses to establish in residential areas for the convenience of local residents. 1.98 Ensure all new development makes an appropriate contribution to upgrading local physical and community infrastructure. 1.109 Manage land release and development having regard to the South East Growth Corridor Plan. 1.1110 Provide a safe and convenient open space system that offers a variety of opportunities and caters for a wide range of community needs.
21.03-3 Objective 2
09/02/2017 To provide quality housing to accommodate significant population increases and to suit a range of Proposed C198 household types and lifecycle needs.
Page 141 of 145 Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C198 Panel Report 23 November 2018
Strategies
2.1 Encourage and facilitate diverse housing and lot sizes and lifestyle choice within Casey by providing a wide range of lot sizes to cater for different household types, particularly single and dual person households also recognising life cycle stages of households. 2.2 Encourage well designed higher density development in suburban residential areas that respects and enhances neighbourhood character, responds to its local landscape context, and minimises off-site amenity impacts. 2.3 Encourage higher-density housing, particularly one and two bedroom dwellings, on sites within easy approximately 400 metres to 800 metres walking distance of activity centres, community facilities and public transport. 2.4 Encourage consolidation of adjacent lots in the Residential Growth Zone to facilitate the development of more diverse and integrated housing solutions achieve the preferred intensity and scale of development and to facilitate efficient use of site. 2.5 Provide for properly serviced rural-residential and large-lot opportunities in appropriate areas that reflect local environmental attributes, and which contribute to the range of housing and lifestyle choices in Casey. 2.6 Plan new suburban subdivisions to ensure a range of lot sizes is provided throughout Casey’s growth areas. 2.7 Encourage the balanced provision of well located affordable housing to meet special housing needs within the community, including aged care, student housing, low-cost housing, social housing and public housing. 2.8 Encourage the redevelopment and renewal of existing public housing stock that meets local community needs and expectations. 2.9 To encourage the provision of well designed, adaptable, accessible and sustainable housing.
21.03-4 Objective 3
09/02/2017 To recognise, value, provide and facilitate a choice of facilities, including learning centres and
C250 services that reflect the diverse needs of the Casey community.
Strategies
3.1 Provide the community with a range of leisure and recreation opportunities to increase the overall participation by residents in leisure activities. 3.2 Provide a range of sports facilities and functions, using a hierarchy of provision (Regional, Municipal, District and Local) at multi-use, single-use or stand alone facilities. 3.3 Develop a diverse mix of quality arts facilities and performing arts facilities that service Casey and the region. 3.4 Recognise and protect the Old Cheese Factory (Berwick) as an opportunity to create an arts and cultural icon in Melbourne. 3.5 Facilitate the establishment of Places of Assembly/Worship around planned neighbourhood nodes in new residential areas, and close to similar non-residential uses where located on the periphery of an activity centre or commercial/industrial area. 3.6 Provide visible clusters of local facilities to encourage active participation in community life. 3.7 Develop a network of community-based learning centres throughout Casey ranging from pre-schooling to tertiary education, including community centres, neighbourhood houses and other local learning centres.
Page 142 of 145 Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C198 Panel Report 23 November 2018
3.8 Investigate future demand for new tertiary education facilities in designated growth areas. 3.9 Develop new double-unit pre-schools co-located with other community facilities, including primary schools, in Casey’s growing suburbs. 3.10 Encourage the establishment of new learning centres on, or with good accessibility to major public transport routes. 3.11 Provide for the master-planning of new learning centres to, among other things: ▪ Ensure access and car parking for learning centres is adequately provided on-site, or in the case of public schools, in a shared parking area in an abutting community place, where available. ▪ Ensure there are three road frontages to each new learning centre, with the fourth side adjoining parklands.
21.03-5 Implementation
09/02/2017 These strategies will be implemented by the following measures: C250 Policy guidelines Proposed C198 ▪ Using the Retail Policy at Clause 22.01 to consolidate the role of the Fountain Gate-Narre Warren CBD and Cranbourne Town Centre as Principal Activity Centres and the hierarchical development of all other designated activity centres. ▪ Using the Non-Residential Uses in Residential and Future Residential Areas Policy at Clause 22.02 to facilitate the provision of non-residential uses in appropriate locations where they do not detract from the amenity, character and function of existing and future residential land uses. ▪ Using the Non Agricultural Uses in Green Wedge Areas Policy at Clause 22.08 to protect Casey’s Green Wedge farm land from ad-hoc and inappropriate development. Application of zones and overlays ▪ Applying the Neighbourhood Residential Zone, Schedule 1 to areas where there is identified significant neighbourhood character, heritage, environmental and landscape values. ▪ Applying the General Residential Zone to established and committed residential areas that are capable of being fully serviced, including land within a walkable distance of activity centres, train stations and community facilities where increased housing density is encouraged. ▪ Applying the General Residential Zone, Schedule 1 to established residential areas, including land within an approximate walking distance of 800 metres from activity centres and train stations and within approximately 400 metres walking distance of a strategic bus route. ▪ Applying the General Residential Zone, Schedule 2 to established residential areas, including land within an approximate walking distance of between 400 metres and 800 metres from activity centres and train stations and within approximately 400 metres walking distance of a strategic bus route. ▪ Applying the Residential Growth Zone to designated areas identified for substantial change, including land adjacent to within approximately 400 metres walking distance of activity centres, and train stations and strategic bus routes and community facilities to facilitate the establishment of higher density housing. ▪ Apply the Neighbourhood Residential Zone to areas with identified neighbourhood character, or significant heritage, environmental or landscape characteristics. ▪ Applying the Low Density Residential Zone to established and committed residential areas where larger lots are appropriate, including areas that provide a transition to the Casey Foothills, and which may not be fully serviced but can treat and retain all wastewater. ▪ Applying the Low Density Residential Zone Schedule 1 to established low density residential areas that may not be fully serviced but can treat and retain all wastewater on-site.
Page 143 of 145 Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C198 Panel Report 23 November 2018
▪ Applying the Low Density Residential Zone Schedule 2 to established low density residential areas that that have access to services, are fully serviced with reticulated sewerage (or are capable of treating and retaining all wastewater on-site), and are not affected by bushfire risk, significant landscape character values or biodiversity values. ▪ Applying the Township Zone to the coastal and rural settlements of Blind Bight, Cannons Creek, Harkaway, Narre Warren North and Warneet to provide for a range of appropriate residential, commercial and industrial uses. ▪ Applying the Urban Growth Zone to undeveloped land designated for future urban purposes, to manage the transition from non-urban to urban in accordance with a precinct structure plan. ▪ Applying the Commercial 1 Zone to activity centres with a primary retail function, or with an office and commercial function. ▪ Applying the Commercial 2 Zone to activity centres with an office and manufacturing function, or with a restricted retail, manufacturing and service business function. ▪ Applying the Mixed Use Zone to activity centres with a mixed use function, including employment centres and community activity clusters. ▪ Applying the Priority Development Zone to provide for the use and development of land for projects of regional significance. ▪ Applying the Rural Living Zone to provide for residential development and living opportunities in a rural environment that are already developed for this purpose. ▪ Applying the Green Wedge Zone and Green Wedge A Zone to the rural areas of Casey outside the Urban Growth Boundary to recognise local agricultural and environmental attributes, maintain the viability of rural industry and facilitate sustainable land management practices. ▪ Applying the Farming Zone to non-urban land inside the Urban Growth Boundary, to protect it from use and development that may compromise any future use of the land for urban purposes. ▪ Applying the Public Use Zone to identify land required for the provision of public uses, services and facilities. ▪ Applying the Public Park and Recreation Zone to recognise, protect and conserve areas for recreation and open space. ▪ Applying the Special Use Zone to provide for the use and development of land for site-specific purposes. ▪ Applying the Development Plan Overlay to provide for the integrated and orderly planning of future and developing residential and employment areas, activity centres and other mixed use/commercial areas as appropriate. ▪ Applying the Public Acquisition Overlay to all land required for the future provision of public uses, services and facilities. ▪ Applying the Incorporated Plan Overlay to employment areas, activity centres and other mixed use areas to provide for the integrated and orderly development of the land through a plan incorporated in the planning scheme. ▪ Applying the Development Contributions Plan Overlay to future and developing residential areas, employment areas and activity centres to facilitate the timely delivery of appropriate transport, physical and community infrastructure. Further strategic work and other actions ▪ Undertaking a detailed program of further strategic work and other actions set out in the Casey C21 Strategy. ▪ Preparing new neighbourhood character assessments for Identifying areas identified as having with significant heritage, environmental or landscape characteristics, and preparing new neighbourhood character assessments for those areas. ▪ Developing and implementing “whole-of-community” plans throughout each of Casey’s local areas, where warranted, to deliver integrated community benefits.
Page 144 of 145 Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C198 Panel Report 23 November 2018
▪ Engaging the community in the development and implementation of Casey’s community development programs and policies, encouraging understanding and ownership of the processes and outcomes. ▪ Developing and facilitating community-based responses to local safety issues. ▪ Developing and implementing the concept of a ‘Casey Valley Parklands’ through a memorandum of understanding between Council, Melbourne Water and Parks Victoria and the preparation of a master plan.
21.03-6 Reference documents
09/02/2017 Casey C21: A vision for our future, City of Casey, 2002. C250 Casey C21: Building a Great City, City of Casey, 2011. Proposed C198 City of Casey Activity Centres Strategy, City of Casey, in association with Ratio Consultants Pty Ltd, 2006. City of Casey Open Space Strategy Technical Report, City of Casey, in association with EDAW (Aust.) Pty Ltd, 2001. City of Casey Stormwater Management Plan, City of Casey, in association with Kellogg Brown & Root Pty Ltd, 2004. Council Plan 2013-2017, City of Casey, 2015. Housing Strategy, City of Casey, 2017. South East Growth Corridor Plan, Growth Areas Authority, 2012.
Page 145 of 145