Agenda of Council - 28 February 2017

Ordinary Council Agenda Tuesday 28 February 2017

6. Officers' Reports

6.1 Planning and Major Projects

6.1.1 37 DAVID STREET, LALOR - CONSTRUCTION OF THREE DWELLINGS

File No: 716169

Attachments: 1 Locality Maps ⇩

2 Development Plans ⇩

Responsible Officer: Director Planning & Major Projects

Author: Planning Officer

APPLICANT: MS Designer Living Pty Ltd

COUNCIL POLICY: Nil

ZONING: General Residential Zone

OVERLAY: Development Contributions Plan Overlay

REFERRAL: Nil

OBJECTIONS: One

RECOMMENDATION: That Council approve the application.

Report

EXECUTIVE Summary

The applicant proposes to demolish the existing dwelling and construct three double storey dwellings on the subject land. The existing concrete crossing located along the north and west property boundaries is to provide vehicular access to Dwelling No. 1 and a new crossing is to be constructed along the north and east property boundaries for Dwelling for Dwelling Nos. 2 and 3.

Advertising of the proposal resulted in one objection being received. The grounds of objection relate to the height of the proposed development, overlooking and impact on the privacy for adjoining owners.

The proposal demonstrates a satisfactory level of compliance with the provisions of Clause 55 of the Whittlesea Planning Scheme. All objectives of Clause 55 can be met. A small number of standards have not been met but can be addressed through conditions of any permit that may be issued.

The Housing Diversity Strategy (HDS) nominates the site as being within the Neighbourhood Interface Change Area. The proposal complies with the preferred density and design principles of this change area and is considered to be an acceptable development in an appropriate location as nominated by the HDS.

On the basis of the Clause 55 assessment and the proposal’s general compliance with both State and Local Planning Policy Frameworks including the HDS, it is recommended that Council approve the application.

SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA

The subject site is a residential property located on the southern side of David Street, approximately 500m west of Dalton Road, Lalor (see Attachment 1). The site is rectangular in shape and provides a frontage to David Street of 15.2m and a depth of approximately 44.0m, providing a total site area of 673m². The site is relatively flat and contains a detached single storey weatherboard dwelling with a tiled hipped roof, and a garage located to the rear of the dwelling. Vehicular access to the site is provided via a single concrete crossing located along the north and west property boundaries. There is no vegetation of significance contained within the site.

The surrounding area is generally characterised by residential land uses with existing single storey dwelling being typical of the prevailing built form. There are a number of multi-dwelling developments within the immediate vicinity, in particular abutting the subject site to the west at 35 David Street (4 semi-detached town houses) and to the east at 51 and 53 David Street (both sites contain dual occupancies). The abutting site immediately to the south contains a medium density housing site comprising three dwellings.

The subject site is located in proximity to the following sites, services and infrastructure:

· Lalor Primary School (300m north).

· Lalor Secondary College (400m east).

· St Lukes Primary School (450m west).

· Vasey Avenue Park (450m northwest).

· Lalor Library (500m direct southwest).

· Lalor Living and Learning Centre – Occasional Care (500m southwest).

· Lalor Shopping Precinct (750m west).

· Lalor Train Station (1km northwest).

restrictions and easements

The Certificate of Title for the property shows that the site is not affected by any restrictive covenants or Section 173 Agreements. The site is however encumbered by a 1.83m wide drainage and sewerage easement along the southern property boundary.

Proposal

It is proposed to construct three double storey dwellings (see Attachment 2). The existing dwelling is to be demolished.

The dwellings will each comprise a similar floor plan with a varied configuration.

Dwelling No. 1 will have street frontage to David Street and comprise an open plan kitchen/meals/living area, alfresco area, a powder room and laundry facilities at ground level. At first floor level, the dwelling will contain three bedrooms (master with ensuite and walk-in-robe) and a separate bathroom. Dwelling No 1 will be serviced by a separate driveway which will access a single garage and provide the opportunity for an extra tandem car space in the driveway.

Dwelling No. 2, at ground level, the dwelling will contain an open plan kitchen/meals/family area, a powder room and a laundry. At first floor level, the dwelling will contain three bedrooms (master with ensuite and built-in-robe) and a separate bathroom. This dwelling will have a double garage located to the rear of the dwelling.

Dwelling No. 3 will be located at the rear of the property. At ground level, the dwelling will contain an open plan kitchen/meals/family area, a powder room, laundry facilities and a bedroom. At first floor level, the dwelling will contain one bedroom (master with ensuite and walk-in-robe) and a separate rumpus. Dwelling No. 3 will have a single garage that is located towards the front of the dwelling and adjoining the garage of Dwelling No 2.

All three dwellings will be provided with private open space and secure external storage accessible from their respective living areas.

Details of the proposed development are outlined in the following table:

	Height/Scale	Number of Bedrooms	Setbacks	Private Open Space	Car Parking	Maximum Height
Dwelling No. 1	Double storey	3	7.5m front (north), 6.5m side (east) and 0m side (west).	95m²(including 34m² secluded private open space).	Single garage (6.6m x 3.5m) plus an open car space in tandem.	7.2m (overall)
Dwelling No. 2	Double storey	3	4.0m side (east) and 2.5m side (west).	47m² (all secluded private open space)	Double garage (6.0m x 5.5m)	7.2m (overall)
Dwelling No. 3	Double storey	2	0m side (east); 3.0m side (west) and 2.0m rear (south).	53m² (all secluded private open space)	Single garage (6m x 3.5m)	7.2m (overall)

Public Notification

Advertising of the application has resulted in one objection being received. The grounds of objection can be summarised as follows:

1. Height.

2. Overlooking resulting in a loss of privacy.

HOUSING DIVERSITY STRATEGY

The Housing Diversity Strategy (HDS) provides a strategic framework for future residential development in the established areas of the municipality for the next 20 years. It aims to guide the future location and diversity of housing stock and identifies areas of housing growth and change, including areas where future housing growth will not be supported. In general, it aims to encourage higher residential densities and a diversity of housing types and sizes into areas within convenient walking distance to public transport and activity centres.

The HDS is now a reference document in the Whittlesea Planning Scheme and an assessment against it is provided under Standard B2 of the Clause 55 assessment.

ASSESSMENT AGAINST CLAUSE 55 OF THE WHITTLESEA PLANNING SCHEME

The following table provides details on whether the proposal complies with the requirements of Clause 55 of the Whittlesea Planning Scheme. Under these provisions a development:

· Must meet all of the objectives

· Should meet all of the standards

If Council is satisfied that an application for an alternative design solution meets the objective, the alternative design solution may be considered.

	ü - Compliance × - Non compliance	Objectives	Standards	Comments
B1	Neighbourhood Character	ü	ü	The surrounding area is characterised by a mixture of single and multi-dwelling developments of both double and single storey scale. Developments within the area range in style from 1950s and 1960s single storey brick and weatherboard to recent infill development generally incorporating both brick and render elements in a contemporary style. Housing in the area typically is low scale with generous front setbacks and very limited built form on the boundary (garages and sheds in the rear open spaces are the exception). Where a second storey is provided these are typically well recessed from the ground floor frontage. The proposed dwellings are considered to be of a scale and form that respects and will integrate well with the existing housing stock.
B2	Residential Policy	ü	ü	The proposal is consistent with State and Local Planning Policy Frameworks in that it provides for moderate housing growth and diversity to the existing housing stock within a location offering good access to services and transport. The subject site is located within the Neighbourhood Interface Change Area within the HDS. This Change Area encourages a range of low to medium building heights that can be integrated with existing housing stock. Moderate front setbacks are encouraged to allow activation of the street while also allowing for sufficient landscaping. Site coverage objectives seek to facilitate a balance between increased densities and landscape opportunities. Provision of attractive landscaping to complement medium density built form is encouraged. The proposed development is generally consistent with the preferred density and key design principles outlined in the HDS. The indicative landscape areas shown on the plans submitted allow sufficient private open space to accommodate a small to medium canopy tree within the rear setback for each dwelling which will soften the impact of the proposed built form. The generous front setback can also accommodate a large canopy tree or a number of medium canopy trees to replace the existing tree on site and further enhance the streetscape.
B3	Dwelling Diversity	N/A	N/A	Only applicable to developments of ten (10) or more dwellings
B4	Infrastructure	ü	ü
B5	Integration with the street	ü	ü
B6	Street setback	ü	ü
B7	Building height	ü	ü
B8	Site coverage	ü	ü
B9	Permeability	ü	ü
B10	Energy efficiency	ü	ü
B11	Open space	N/A	N/A	Only applicable if public or communal open space is to be provided on site or adjacent to the development
B12	Safety	ü	ü
B13	Landscaping	ü	×	The indicative landscape areas shown on the plans submitted allow sufficient private open space to accommodate a small to medium canopy tree within the rear setback for each dwelling which will soften the impact of the proposed built form. A detailed landscape plan has not been provided with the application. To ensure the proposal is acceptable, a condition requiring a landscape plan will be included on any permit that is issued.
B14	Access	ü	ü
B15	Parking location	ü	ü
B17	Side and rear setbacks	ü	ü
B18	Walls on boundaries	ü	ü
B19	Daylight to existing windows	ü	ü
B20	North-facing windows	ü	ü
B21	Overshadowing open space	ü	ü
B22	Overlooking	ü	ü
B23	Internal views	ü	ü
B24	Noise impacts	ü	ü
B25	Accessibility	ü	ü
B26	Dwelling entry	ü	ü
B27	Daylight to new windows	ü	ü
B28	Private open space	ü	ü
B29	Solar access to open space	ü	ü
B30	Storage	ü	ü
B31	Design detail	ü	ü
B32	Front fences	ü	ü
B33	Common property	ü	ü
B34	Site services	ü	ü

CAR PARKING

Clause 52.06 of the Whittlesea Planning Scheme prescribes the rate and design standards for car parking spaces required on site. Pursuant to this clause the following car spaces are required:

Dwelling No.	No. of bedrooms	Car spaces required	Car spaces provided	Complies
1	3	2	2	Yes
2	3	2	2	Yes
3	2	1	1	Yes

DEVELOPMENT CONTRIBUTIONS PLAN OVERLAY (SCHEDULE 3)

The site is affected by the Development Contributions Plan Overlay. Pursuant to Clause 45.06 of the Whittlesea Planning Scheme, the Development Contributions Plan Overlay enables the levying of contributions for the provision of works, services and facilities prior to development commencing. Schedule 3 to the overlay requires contributions for drainage infrastructure for medium density residential development at a current rate of $2.19 per square metre of the total site area. This requirement must be included as a condition on any planning permit that is issued.

Comments on Grounds of Objection

1. Height

The proposed double storey nature of the dwellings will integrate well with the existing housing stock in the area and is similar to that provided on a number of medium density developments within the immediate vicinity. Additionally, the proposal is consistent with the key design principles set out in Council’s HDS which encourages a range of low to medium building heights that support some housing diversity within the ‘Neighbourhood Interface’ change area.

2. Overlooking resulting in a loss of privacy

The use of ‘hi-lite’ windows and fixed obscure glazing to habitable room windows at first floor level will ensure that there will be no overlooking into neighbouring properties in accordance with the standard requirements of Clause 55.04-6 of the Whittlesea Planning Scheme.

Declarations of Conflicts of Interest

Under section 80C of the Local Government Act 1989 officers providing advice to Council must disclose any interests, including the type of interest.

The Responsible Officer reviewing this report, having made enquiries with the relevant members of staff, reports that no disclosable interests have been raised in relation to this report.

Conclusion

The application has been assessed against the Whittlesea Planning Scheme and in particular the objectives and standards of Clause 52.06, Clause 55 and the State and Local Planning Policy Frameworks including the Housing Diversity Strategy. The proposal demonstrates a satisfactory level of compliance subject to conditions. It is considered that the proposal will not have a detrimental impact on the character of the neighbourhood nor on existing surrounding residential properties and accordingly approval of the application is recommended.

Recommendation

THAT Council resolve to approve Planning Application No. 716169 and issue a Notice of Decision to Grant a Permit for the construction of three dwellings at 37 David Street, Lalor in accordance with the endorsed plans and subject to the following conditions:

1. Prior to the endorsement of the plans required under Condition No. 3 of this permit, the permit holder must pay to Council a contribution for drainage pursuant to Clause 45.06 (Schedule 3) of the Whittlesea Planning Scheme. The drainage contribution will be subject to the Consumer Price Index (CPI) applicable at the time of payment.

2. (a) Prior to the endorsement of the plans required under Condition No. 3, or at such later date as the Responsible Authority may approve in writing, there shall be lodged with the Responsible Authority an amount of $600 as security deposit for the satisfactory completion and maintenance of the landscaping works hereby permitted.

(b) Upon completion of the landscaping works to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, the Responsible Authority will refund the security deposit to the then owner of the subject land.

3. Before the development starts, three copies of a revised plan must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority showing a printed sample/schedule of all external colours and materials to be used in the construction of the dwellings.

4. Before development commences, three copies of a landscape plan prepared by a suitably qualified landscape designer to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the plan will be endorsed and will then form part of this permit. The plan must show:

(a) Details of landscaping for the front setbacks and private open space areas, including a schedule of all proposed trees, shrubs and ground covers;

(b) Designation of areas throughout the site for garden beds, grass, paths, decks paved areas;

(c) The identification of any vegetation to be retained including tree protection zones;

(d) The provision of canopy trees (minimum two metres in height when planted) within the front setback and rear setback of each dwelling;

(e) Paving, retaining walls, fence design details and other landscape works including areas of cut and fill;

(f) Consistency with the City of Whittlesea Landscape Guidelines (Residential Development).

5. Prior to commencement of any works, a Construction Management Plan must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The plan must include details in relation to:

(a) Vehicle access to the site.

(b) Parking of construction vehicles.

(c) Storage of materials/goods.

6. All requirements of the Construction Management Plan must be undertaken to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

8. The development allowed by this permit and shown on the plans and/or schedules endorsed to accompany this permit shall not be amended for any reason without the consent of the Responsible Authority.

9. Once the development has started it must be continued and completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

10. Prior to the occupation of the dwellings hereby approved, landscaping works shown on the endorsed plan must be completed and then maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

11. Prior to the occupation of the dwellings hereby approved, the car parking areas and access ways must be drained, fully sealed and constructed with asphalt, interlocking paving bricks, coloured concrete or other similar materials to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

12. In areas set aside for car parking, measures must be taken to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority to prevent damage to fences or landscaped areas.

13. Vehicular access to the site must be by way of a vehicle crossing constructed in accordance with Council’s Vehicle Crossing Specifications to suit the proposed driveway(s) and the vehicles that will be using the crossing(s). The location, design and construction of the vehicle crossing(s) must be approved by the Responsible Authority. Any existing unused or redundant crossing(s) must be removed and replaced with concrete kerb, channel and naturestrip to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. All vehicle crossing works are to be carried out with Council supervision under a Road Opening Permit.

14. Before starting any buildings or works, engineering plans showing a properly prepared design (with computations) for the internal drainage and method of disposal of stormwater from all roofed and sealed areas, including the use of an on-site detention system, must be submitted to Council for approval. These internal drainage works must be completed to Council’s satisfaction prior to using or occupying any building on the site.

15. Prior to the occupation of the dwellings hereby approved, the permit holder is required to construct at no cost to Council, drainage works between the subject site and the Council nominated point of discharge. Such drainage works must be designed by a qualified engineer and submitted to and approved by Council. Computations will also be required to demonstrate that the drainage system will not be overloaded by the new development. Construction of the drainage system must be carried out in accordance with Council specifications and under Council supervision.

16. Prior to the occupation of the dwellings hereby approved, reticulated (water, sewerage, gas and electricity) services must be constructed and available to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

17. The permit holder shall be responsible to meet all costs associated with reinstatement and/or alterations to Council or other Public Authority assets deemed necessary by such Authorities as a result of the development. The permit holder shall be responsible for obtaining prior specific written approval for any works involving the alteration of Council or other Public Authority assets.

18. Prior to occupation of any dwelling on the subject site, a letter box and house number to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority shall be provided for each dwelling.

19. At all times during the construction phase of the development, the permit holder shall take measures to ensure that pedestrians are able to use with safety any footpath along the boundaries of the site.

20. Upon completion of all buildings and works authorised by this permit the permit holder must notify the Responsible Authority of the satisfactory completion of the development and compliance with all relevant conditions.

21. Any litter generated by building activities on the site shall be collected and stored in an appropriate enclosure which complies with Council’s Code of Practice for building/development sites. The enclosures shall be regularly emptied and maintained such that no litter overspills onto adjoining land. Prior to occupation and/or use of the building, all litter shall be completely removed from the site.

22. During the construction phase, a truck wheel washing facility or similar device must be installed and used to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority so that vehicles leaving the site do not deposit mud or other materials on roadways. Any mud or other materials deposited on roadways as a result of construction works on the site must be cleaned to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority within two hours of it being deposited.

23. In accordance with the Planning and Environment Act 1987 a permit for the development expires:

(a) the approved development does not start within 2 years of the date of this permit; or

(b) the approved development is not completed within 4 years of the date of this permit.

The responsible authority may extend the periods referred to above if a request is made in writing. This request must be made before or within 6 months after the permit expiry date where the development has not yet started and within 12 months after the permit expiry date where the development allowed by the permit has lawfully started before the permit expires.

NOTES

Advanced Trees

An advanced tree under this permit shall generally constitute the following:

· Evergreen – minimum container size 45 litre spring ring, calliper at ground level 50mm.

· Deciduous – minimum calliper at ground level 65mm, minimum height 2 metres.

Easements

No structure may be built over an easement on the subject site without the consent of the relevant Responsible Authority.

Property Numbering

Please note that property addresses and numbering is allocated by Council. This is usually formalised at the time of the subdivision, however it is Council’s intention to number the proposed allotments/apartments/dwellings as follows:

Dwelling 1 1/37 David Street, Lalor

Dwelling 2 2/37 David Street, Lalor

Dwelling 3 3/37 David Street, Lalor

Please check with Council’s Subdivision Department to verify all street numberings.

Ordinary Council Agenda Tuesday 28 February 2017

6.1.2 21 WESTALL STREET, THOMASTOWN - CONSTRUCTION OF THREE DWELLINGS

File No: 716002

Attachments: 1 Locality Maps ⇩

2 Development Plans ⇩

Responsible Officer: Director Planning & Major Projects

Author: Planning Officer

APPLICANT: DC Building Design Studio

COUNCIL POLICY: Clause 21.09 - Housing

ZONING: General Residential Zone

OVERLAY: Development Contributions Plan Overlay

REFERRAL: Nil

OBJECTIONS: Two

RECOMMENDATION: That Council approve the application

Report

EXECUTIVE Summary

The applicant proposes to demolish the existing dwelling and construct three double storey dwellings on the subject land. The existing concrete crossing located along the north and east property boundaries is to provide vehicular access to Dwelling Nos. 2 and 3 and a new crossing is to be constructed along the north and west property boundaries for Dwelling No. 1.

Advertising of the proposal resulted in two objections being received. The grounds of objection relate to the height of the development, overlooking, overdevelopment and inadequate side setbacks from the existing dwellings abutting the site.

On the basis of the Clause 55 assessment and the proposal’s general compliance with both the State and Local Planning Policy Frameworks including the HDS, it is recommended that Council approve the application.

SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA

The subject site is a residential property located on the southern side of Westall Street, approximately 200m west of High Street and 400m southwest of the Station Street shopping area (see Attachment 1). The site is rectangular in shape and provides a frontage to Westall Street of 15.8m and a depth of approximately 42.0m, providing an overall site area of 667m². The site is relatively flat and contains a detached single storey brick dwelling with a tiled hipped roof, a garage and shedding located towards the rear of the dwelling. Vehicular access to the site is provided via a single concrete crossing located along the north and east property boundaries. There is no vegetation of significance contained within the site.

The surrounding area is generally characterised by residential land uses with existing single storey dwelling being typical of the prevailing built form and some double storey built form to the east of the site. There are a number of multi-dwelling developments within the immediate vicinity to the south and west of the site.

The subject site is located in proximity to the following sites, services and infrastructure:

· Bus Route 555 – Northern Hospital to Northland Shopping Centre along High Street (250m west).

· High Street Thomastown Shopping Strip (300m south west).

· Main Street Reserve and Edgars Creek (350m east).

· Lalor Woolworths (350m northwest).

· Thomas Street Recreation Reserve (360m west).

· Lalor Shopping Precinct (400m northwest).

· Lalor Library (500m northwest).

· Thomastown Train Station (600m south west).

restrictions and easements

The site is legally described as Lot 287 on Plan of Subdivision 013050. Covenant 2715489 applies to the land and relates to the removal of any earth, clay, stone, gravel or soil from the site for purposes other than building. A 3.05m wide drainage and sewerage easement exists along the southern property boundary. There are no restrictions on title that preclude Council from determining the application.

Proposal

It is proposed to construct three double storey dwellings (see Attachment 2). The existing dwelling is to be demolished.

Dwelling No. 1 will have street frontage to Westall Street and will contain an open plan kitchen/meals/living area, a master bedroom (walk-in-robe and ensuite), a powder room and laundry facilities at ground level. At first floor level, the dwelling will contain three bedrooms, a study nook and a separate bathroom, the second bedroom will have an ensuite.

Dwelling Nos. 2 and No. 3 will be attached and located to the rear of Dwelling No. 1.

Dwelling No. 2 will contain an open plan kitchen/meals/living area, a powder room and laundry facilities at ground level. At first floor level, the dwelling will contain two bedrooms, an open retreat and a separate bathroom.

Dwelling No. 3 will contain an open plan kitchen/meals/living area, a bedroom, a powder room and laundry facilities at ground level. At first floor level, the dwelling will contain two bedrooms (master with ensuite and walk-in-robe) and a separate bathroom.

All three dwellings will be provided with an attached single space garage/carport, private open space and secure external storage accessible from their respective living areas. Dwelling Nos. 1 and 3 will both also provide an extra private car space in tandem configuration in front of the garage.

Details of the proposed development are outlined in the following table:

	Height/Scale	Number of Bedrooms	Setbacks	Private Open Space	Car Parking	Maximum Height
Dwelling No. 1	Double storey	4	7.4m front (north), 3.5m side (east) and 0m side (west).	67m² (including 25m² secluded private open space).	Single garage (6.0m x 3.6m) plus an open car space in tandem.	6.9m (overall)
Dwelling No. 2	Double storey	2	4.1m side (east) and 3.9m side (west),	40m²(all secluded private open space).	Single garage (6.0m x 3.5m).	6.9m (overall)
Dwelling No. 3	Double storey	3	3.5m side (east), 1.2m side (west) and 3.28m rear (south).	57m² (all secluded private open space).	Single open carport (6.0m x 3.5m).	6.9m (overall)

Public Notification

Advertising of the application has resulted in two objections being received. The grounds of objection can be summarised as follows:

1. Height and bulk/overdevelopment of the site.

2. Overlooking/overshadowing.

3. Inappropriate side setbacks.

HOUSING DIVERSITY STRATEGY

The HDS is now a reference document in the Whittlesea Planning Scheme and an assessment against it is provided under Standard B2 of the Clause 55 assessment.

ASSESSMENT AGAINST CLAUSE 55 OF THE WHITTLESEA PLANNING SCHEME

The following table provides details on whether the proposal complies with the requirements of Clause 55 of the Whittlesea Planning Scheme. Under these provisions a development:

· Must meet all of the objectives

· Should meet all of the standards

If Council is satisfied that an application for an alternative design solution meets the objective, the alternative design solution may be considered.

	ü - Compliance × - Non compliance	Objectives	Standards	Comments
B1	Neighbourhood Character	ü	ü	The surrounding area is characterised by a mixture of single and multi-dwelling developments of both double and single storey scale. Developments within the area range in style from 1950s and 1960s single storey brick and weatherboard to recent infill development generally incorporating both brick and render elements in a contemporary style. Housing in the area is typically low scale with generous front setbacks and limited built form on the boundary (garages and sheds in the rear open spaces are the exception). Where a second storey is provided these are typically well recessed from the ground floor frontage. The proposed dwellings are considered to be of a scale and form that respects and will integrate well with the existing housing stock.
B2	Residential Policy	ü	ü	The proposal is consistent with State and Local Planning Policy Frameworks in that it provides for moderate housing growth and diversity to the existing housing stock within a location offering good access to services and transport. The subject site is located within the Neighbourhood Interface Change Area within the HDS. This Change Area encourages a range of low to medium building heights that can be integrated with existing housing stock. Moderate front setbacks are encouraged to allow activation of the street while also allowing for sufficient landscaping. Site coverage objectives seek to facilitate a balance between increased densities and landscape opportunities. Provision of attractive landscaping to complement medium density built form is encouraged. The proposed development is generally consistent with the preferred density and key design principles outlined in the HDS. The indicative landscape areas shown on the plans submitted allow sufficient private open space to accommodate a small to medium canopy tree within the rear setback for each dwelling which will soften the impact of the proposed built form. The generous front setback can also accommodate a large canopy tree or a number of medium canopy trees to replace the existing tree on site and further enhance the streetscape.
B3	Dwelling Diversity	N/A	N/A	Only applicable to developments of ten (10) or more dwellings
B4	Infrastructure	ü	ü
B5	Integration with the street	ü	ü
B6	Street setback	ü	ü
B7	Building height	ü	ü
B8	Site coverage	ü	ü
B9	Permeability	ü	ü
B10	Energy efficiency	ü	ü
B11	Open space	N/A	N/A	Only applicable if public or communal open space is to be provided on site or adjacent to the development
B12	Safety	ü	ü
B13	Landscaping	ü	×	The indicative landscape areas shown on the plans submitted allow sufficient private open space to accommodate a small to medium canopy tree within the rear setback for each dwelling which will soften the impact of the proposed built form. A detailed landscape plan has not been provided with the application. To ensure the proposal is acceptable a condition will be added to the final permit issued.
B14	Access	ü	ü
B15	Parking location	ü	ü
B17	Side and rear setbacks	ü	ü
B18	Walls on boundaries	ü	ü
B19	Daylight to existing windows	ü	ü
B20	North-facing windows	ü	ü
B21	Overshadowing open space	ü	ü
B22	Overlooking	ü	ü
B23	Internal views	ü	ü
B24	Noise impacts	ü	ü
B25	Accessibility	ü	ü
B26	Dwelling entry	ü	ü
B27	Daylight to new windows	ü	ü
B28	Private open space	ü	ü
B29	Solar access to open space	ü	×	The standard requires the southern boundary of secluded private open space to be set back from any wall on the north of the space at least (2 + 0.9h) metres, where ‘h’ is the height of the wall. Dwelling No. 1 fails to meet this standard. Notwithstanding, the deletion of bedroom 4 at first floor level will allow adequate solar access into the secluded private open space of the dwelling. This requirement can be addressed via a condition on any permit that is issued
B30	Storage	ü	ü
B31	Design detail	ü	ü
B32	Front fences	ü	×	It is proposed to demolish the existing front fence and construct a new 1.0m high brick fence with a setback of 1.5m from the front (north) property boundary. Detailed elevations should be submitted at a scale of 1:100 showing proposed construction materials, external finishes and the height of each component of the fence as measured above natural ground level. This requirement can be addressed via a condition on any permit that is issued.
B33	Common property	ü	ü
B34	Site services	ü	ü

CAR PARKING

Clause 52.06 of the Whittlesea Planning Scheme prescribes the rate and design standards for car parking spaces required on site. Pursuant to this clause the following car spaces are required:

Dwelling No.	No. of bedrooms	Car spaces required	Car spaces provided	Complies
1	4	2	2	Yes
2	2	1	1	Yes
3	3	2	2	Yes

DEVELOPMENT CONTRIBUTIONS PLAN OVERLAY (SCHEDULE 3)

Comments on Grounds of Objection

1. Height and bulk/overdevelopment of the site

The proposed double storey nature of the dwellings will integrate well with the existing housing stock within the area and is similar to that provided on a number of medium density developments within proximity to the subject site. The proposed setbacks from title boundaries at both ground level and first floor level comply with the standard requirements of Clause 55. The proposed variation in external colours and materials to be used in the construction of the dwellings will minimise the effect of visual bulk. Additionally, the proposal is consistent with the key design principles set out in Council’s HDS which encourages a range of low to medium building heights that support some housing diversity within the ‘Neighbourhood Interface’ change area

2. Overlooking/overshadowing.

The shadow diagrams submitted with the application show that the level of overshadowing into the secluded private open space of neighbouring properties will be minimal and in accordance with the standard requirements of Clause 55.04-5 of the Whittlesea Planning Scheme.

Declarations of Conflicts of Interest

Under section 80C of the Local Government Act 1989 officers providing advice to Council must disclose any interests, including the type of interest.

The Responsible Officer reviewing this report, having made enquiries with the relevant members of staff, reports that no disclosable interests have been raised in relation to this report.

Conclusion

Recommendation

THAT Council resolve to approve Planning Application No. 716002 and issue a Notice of Decision to Grant a Permit for the construction of three dwellings at 21 Westall Street, Thomastown in accordance with the endorsed plans and subject to the following conditions:

(b) Upon completion of the landscaping works to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, the Responsible Authority will refund the security deposit to the then owner of the subject land.

3. Before the development starts, three copies of a revised plan must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority, showing:

(a) The deletion of bedroom 4 of Dwelling No. 1.

(b) Elevations of the proposed 1.0m high front fence, including proposed construction materials, external finishes and the height of each component of the fence as measured above natural ground level.

(a) Details of landscaping for the front setbacks and private open space areas, including a schedule of all proposed trees, shrubs and ground covers.

(b) Designation of areas throughout the site for garden beds, grass, paths, decks paved areas.

(c) The identification of any vegetation to be retained including tree protection zones.

(d) The provision of canopy trees (minimum two metres in height when planted) within the front setback and rear setback of each dwelling.

(e) Paving, retaining walls, fence design details and other landscape works including areas of cut and fill.

(f) Consistency with the City of Whittlesea Landscape Guidelines (Residential Development).

5. Prior to commencement of any works, a Construction Management Plan must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The plan must include details in relation to:

(a) Vehicle access to the site.

(b) Parking of construction vehicles.

(c) Storage of materials/goods.

6. All requirements of the Construction Management Plan must be undertaken to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

7. The development allowed by this permit and shown on the plans and/or schedules endorsed to accompany this permit shall not be amended for any reason without the consent of the Responsible Authority.

8. Once the development has started it must be continued and completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

9. Prior to the occupation of the dwellings hereby approved, landscaping works shown on the endorsed plan must be completed and then maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

10. Prior to the occupation of the dwellings hereby approved, the car parking areas and access ways must be drained, fully sealed and constructed with asphalt, interlocking paving bricks, coloured concrete or other similar materials to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

11. In areas set aside for car parking, measures must be taken to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority to prevent damage to fences or landscaped areas.

12. Vehicular access to the site must be by way of a vehicle crossing constructed in accordance with Council’s Vehicle Crossing Specifications to suit the proposed driveway(s) and the vehicles that will be using the crossing(s). The location, design and construction of the vehicle crossing(s) must be approved by the Responsible Authority. Any existing unused or redundant crossing(s) must be removed and replaced with concrete kerb, channel and naturestrip to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. All vehicle crossing works are to be carried out with Council supervision under a Road Opening Permit.

13. Before starting any buildings or works, engineering plans showing a properly prepared design (with computations) for the internal drainage and method of disposal of stormwater from all roofed and sealed areas, including the use of an on-site detention system, must be submitted to Council for approval. These internal drainage works must be completed to Council’s satisfaction prior to using or occupying any building on the site.

14. Prior to the occupation of the dwellings hereby approved, the permit holder is required to construct at no cost to Council, drainage works between the subject site and the Council nominated point of discharge. Such drainage works must be designed by a qualified engineer and submitted to and approved by Council. Computations will also be required to demonstrate that the drainage system will not be overloaded by the new development. Construction of the drainage system must be carried out in accordance with Council specifications and under Council supervision.

15. Prior to the occupation of the dwellings hereby approved, reticulated (water, sewerage, gas and electricity) services must be constructed and available to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

16. The permit holder shall be responsible to meet all costs associated with reinstatement and/or alterations to Council or other Public Authority assets deemed necessary by such Authorities as a result of the development. The permit holder shall be responsible for obtaining prior specific written approval for any works involving the alteration of Council or other Public Authority assets.

17. Prior to occupation of any dwelling on the subject site, a letter box and house number to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority shall be provided for each dwelling.

18. At all times during the construction phase of the development, the permit holder shall take measures to ensure that pedestrians are able to use with safety any footpath along the boundaries of the site.

19. Upon completion of all buildings and works authorised by this permit the permit holder must notify the Responsible Authority of the satisfactory completion of the development and compliance with all relevant conditions.

20. Any litter generated by building activities on the site shall be collected and stored in an appropriate enclosure which complies with Council’s Code of Practice for building/development sites. The enclosures shall be regularly emptied and maintained such that no litter overspills onto adjoining land. Prior to occupation and/or use of the building, all litter shall be completely removed from the site.

21. During the construction phase, a truck wheel washing facility or similar device must be installed and used to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority so that vehicles leaving the site do not deposit mud or other materials on roadways. Any mud or other materials deposited on roadways as a result of construction works on the site must be cleaned to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority within two hours of it being deposited.

22. In accordance with the Planning and Environment Act 1987 a permit for the development expires if:

(a) the approved development does not start within 2 years of the date of this permit; or

(b) the approved development is not completed within 4 years of the date of this permit.

NOTES

Advanced Trees

An advanced tree under this permit shall generally constitute the following:

· Evergreen – minimum container size 45 litre spring ring, calliper at ground level 50mm.

· Deciduous – minimum calliper at ground level 65mm, minimum height 2 metres.

Easements

No structure may be built over an easement on the subject site without the consent of the relevant Responsible Authority.

Property Numbering

Dwelling 1 1/21 Westall Street, Thomastown

Dwelling 2 2/21 Westall Street, Thomastown

Dwelling 3 3/21 Westall Street, Thomastown

Please check with Council’s Subdivision Department to verify all street numberings.

Ordinary Council Agenda Tuesday 28 February 2017

6.1.3 31 Settlement Road, Bundoora - Construciton of six dwellings

File No: 715963

Attachments: 1 Locality Maps ⇩

2 Development Plans ⇩

Responsible Officer: Director Planning & Major Projects

Author: Senior Planner

APPLICANT: Planning and Design

COUNCIL POLICY: Clause 21.09 - Housing

ZONING: Residential Growth (Schedule 1)

OVERLAY: Development Contributions Plan Overlay

REFERRAL: VicRoads

OBJECTIONS: Two

RECOMMENDATION: That Council refuse the application

Report

EXECUTIVE Summary

The applicant proposes to demolish the existing dwelling and construct six double storey dwellings on the subject land, as well as seeking a reduction in the standard parking requirements of one (1) visitor space.

Advertising of the proposal resulted in two objections being received. The grounds of objection relate to bulk, mass, overlooking, damage to property, noise, dust, overshadowing, neighbourhood character and impact on the amenity of the surrounding houses.

The zoning of the site indicates that it is suitable for development, however the proposal does not demonstrate a satisfactory level of compliance with the provisions of Clause 55 and 52.06 of the Whittlesea Planning Scheme.

The Housing Diversity Strategy (HDS) nominates the site as being within the Neighbourhood Renewal Change Area. The proposal complies with the preferred density; however responds poorly to the design principles of this change area.

On the basis of the Clause 55 assessment and the proposal’s response to the State and Local Planning Policy Frameworks including the HDS, it is recommended that Council refuse the application.

SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA

The subject site is a residential property located on the southern side of Settlement Road approximately 250m east of Plenty Road, Bundoora (see Attachment 1). The site is rectangular in shape and provides a frontage to Settlement Road of 19.2m and a depth of approximately 38.0m, providing a total site area of 731m². The site is relatively flat and contains a detached single storey brick dwelling with a tiled hipped roof, a garage and a bungalow located to the rear of the dwelling. Vehicular access to the site is provided via a single concrete crossing located at the eastern end of the frontage. There is no vegetation of significance contained within the site.

The immediate surrounding locality is characterised by the Bundoora Neighbourhood Activity Centre, an ageing residential housing stock and pockets of medium density residential development present. The character of the area is made up of older single and double storey dwellings typically from the 1960s onwards, with examples of newer infill development dispersed throughout.

The subject site is located in proximity to the following sites, services and infrastructure:

· Bundoora Activity Centre (including shopping centre, with Coles, Woolworths and various specialty shops (160m north-east).

· Yulong Park (300m east).

· St Damian’s Primary School (50m east)

· Northpark Private Hospital (900m northeast).

· Bus Route 902 - SMARTBUS Service Chelsea to Airport West (along Settlement Road).

· Principal Public Transport Network including tram and bus access along Plenty Road within approximately 250m (Bus Route 955 - Night Bus – City – Brunswick – Ivanhoe – Bundoora – Mill Park – South Morang – Mernda; Bus Route 566 – Epping Plaza Shopping Centre – Northland Shopping Centre via Keon Park; and Bus Route 382 – Whittlesea – Northland Shopping Centre via South Morang Station and Tram Routes).

restrictions and easements

The site is legally described as Lot 94 on Plan of Subdivision 025185. The Certificate of Title for the property shows that the site is not affected by any restrictive covenants, easements or Section 173 Agreements.

Proposal

It is proposed to demolish the existing dwelling and construct six double storey dwellings (see Attachment 2).

The dwellings will be attached side-by-side along a north-south orientation for the length of the site. The dwellings will each comprise a similar floor plan with a varied configuration. At ground level, the dwellings will contain a single bedroom, separate toilet and garage. At first floor level, the dwellings will contain a second bedroom, open plan kitchen/meals/living space and separate bathroom. All six dwellings will be provided with a private balcony and secure external storage accessible from their respective living areas.

All dwellings, save for dwelling 1, will have pedestrian access to entries along the western boundary and vehicle access to the rear of the dwellings via a common accessway along the eastern boundary. No ground level private open space is provided with the exception of a front yard to dwelling 1.

Details of the proposed development are outlined in the following table:

	Height/Scale	Number of Bedrooms	Setbacks	Private Open Space	Car Parking	Maximum Height
Dwelling No. 1	Double storey	Two	6m (north) 5.5m ground / 3m first floor (east) 2.3m (west)	81.6m² total including front yard and 9.5m² balcony	Single garage (6m x 3.7m)	7.4m (overall)
Dwelling No. 2	Double storey	Two	2.3m (west) 5.5m ground / 3m first floor (east)	9.9m²balcony	Single garage (6m x 3.6m)	7.6m (overall)
Dwelling No. 3	Double storey	Two	2.3m (west) 5.5m ground / 2.3m first floor (east)	9.6 m²	Single garage (6m x 3.6m)	7.6m (overall)
Dwelling No. 4	Double Storey	Two	2.3m (west) 5.5m ground / 2.3m first floor (east)	9.6 m²	Single garage (6m x 3.6m)	7.5m (overall)
Dwelling No. 5	Double Storey	Two	2.3m (west) 5.5m ground / 2.3m first floor (east)	9.6 m²	Single garage (6m x 3.6m)	7.6m (overall)
Dwelling No. 6	Double Storey	Two	1.2m (south) 2.3m (west) 5.5m ground / 3m first floor (east)	24.4m² total area including 9.4m²balcony	Single garage (6m x 3.7m)	7.6m (overall)

Public Notification

Advertising of the application has resulted in two objections being received. The grounds of objection can be summarised as follows:

1. Height and bulk of the development is inappropriate

2. Overlooking into neighbouring properties

3. Overdevelopment of the site and inappropriate design response

4. Dust and noise associated with construction

5. Impact on foundations and stability of adjoining properties

6. Loss of sunlight and overshadowing

7. Concern regarding car parking waiver.

HOUSING DIVERSITY STRATEGY

The HDS is now a reference document in the Whittlesea Planning Scheme and an assessment against it is provided under Standard B2 of the Clause 55 assessment.

ASSESSMENT AGAINST CLAUSE 55 OF THE WHITTLESEA PLANNING SCHEME

The following table provides details on whether the proposal complies with the requirements of Clause 55 of the Whittlesea Planning Scheme. Under these provisions a development:

· Must meet all of the objectives

· Should meet all of the standards

If Council is satisfied that an application for an alternative design solution meets the objective, the alternative design solution may be considered.

	ü - Compliance × - Non compliance	Objectives	Standards	Comments
B1	Neighbourhood Character	x	x	The site is within a Neighbourhood Renewal Change Area within the HDS and the housing capacity assessment process undertaken as part of the preparation of the HDS supports this area for medium and high density housing because of its close proximity to the Bundoora Activity Centre and public transport. Although acknowledged that this site is suitable for increased densities based on both zoning and local policy, developments must also be functional, respond to the existing and preferred neighbourhood character and provide appropriate amenity. The existing character is largely defined by an ageing dwelling stock that is already seeing change through newer infill developments typically ranging between 2 and up to 3 or 4 storeys in some instances. This change brings with it an emerging new character resulting in a variety of built forms and materials used, which is not uncommon with the existing predominantly 1960s single and double storey forms. The proposed development generally responds to the emerging character through a contemporary design with skillion rooves and varying materials. There are existing canopy trees both in the public and private realm that form part of the character with limited provision available on the site, save for the front yard. Although providing a balanced approach between increased densities and neighbourhood character, there are concerns with the extent of development including, the layout, the location of entrances, the amount of hard paving, lack of permeable surface and landscaping opportunities that all contribute to the existing and preferred character of the area.
B2	Residential Policy	x	x	The proposed development has some support at both the State and Local Policy level for increased densities located within proximity of public transport and other services. This however must also not be at the expense of a development that does not address amenity of both on and off site properties, appropriate design, neighbourhood character or other objectives of Clause 55. The HDS encourages medium and higher density housing that is appropriate in a neighbourhood context such as townhouses, multi-units, small scale apartments, shop-top housing, and mixed use developments. It encourages medium-higher site coverage to facilitate a balance between increased densities and landscape opportunities. The proposed development is generally consistent with the preferred density as outlined in the HDS. However, the design allows for limited landscape areas and will result in insufficient private open space area for attached townhouse development. The dwellings will have little to no integration with street creating poor visibility and safety concerns in relation to both the entrances and vehicles access.
B3	Dwelling Diversity	N/A	N/A	Only applicable to developments of ten (10) or more dwellings
B4	Infrastructure	ü	ü
B5	Integration with the street	x	x	The proposed dwellings do not integrate well with Settlement Road. Only dwelling 1 will have a frontage and address Settlement Road, whereas dwellings 2-5 have all been designed to front the western side boundary, achieving setbacks of only 2.3m with a 1m wide path and each door is screened from the next through architectural pillars. The development has a poor sense of address, is confusing for visitors to the site given the wide driveway on the other side of the building away from the entrance and no visitor parking. The proposal has not demonstrated an appropriate design response in this regard and fails to meet this objective and standard..
B6	Street setback	ü	x	A front setback of 9m is required by the standard and a setback of approximately 6m is proposed. A variation would be necessary to this standard should the application be supported and a setback of approximately 6m would be appropriate and generally consistent with newer infill development and the preferred emerging character.
B7	Building height	ü	ü
B8	Site coverage	ü	ü	Site coverage is proposed at approximately 50%.
B9	Permeability	x	x	The proposal indicates that 21% permeability is being achieved for the development which would only just satisfy the standard, however it is noted that there is a reliance on permeable paving to achieve this standard which indicates a poor design response and brings into question the level of permeability of the paving and whether the standard is actually being met. The lack of permeability proposed is also symptomatic of the lack of private open space that could be planted with vegetation to help integrate the proposed development into the surrounding area.
B10	Energy efficiency	x	x	The orientation of the site comprises the built form outcomes proposed in the application as the east-west design of the dwellings limits the capacity for the development to provide passive solar outcomes for the first floor lining spaces. This design will result in significant cooling through air conditioning in the summer months and is considered to be a poor outcome from an energy efficiency perspective. Screening to balconies has attempted to assist providing some shade to these areas, however almost completely encloses them reducing internal amenity.
B11	Open space	N/A	N/A	Only applicable if public or communal open space is to be provided on site or adjacent to the development
B12	Safety	x	x	Dwelling entrances are hidden and obscured from Settlement Road and also along the walkway due to architectural pillars, whilst no passive surveillance will be achieved along either side through a lack of windows to the driveway, overhanging upper level and screened balconies to the western side.
B13	Landscaping	x	x	The proposal includes minimal areas that could be landscaped with appropriate vegetation other than the frontage setback. This area would however also include a large expanse of hard surfaces including the proposed driveway, concrete path and other concreted/paved areas. The surrounding area generally displays well landscaped front yards, with many properties having canopy trees and other above-ground vegetation that portray a landscape theme in the surrounding area that often softens existing development. Many properties have low or no front fencing with large or medium canopy plantings which the proposed development has failed to respect. The areas that are proposed are considered to be too small and of inadequate dimensions so as to accommodate meaningful landscaping that would offer filtered views of the proposed development. The proposed inadequate landscaping areas would also result in a landscape theme that does not help the proposal integrate with the character of the surrounding area. The lack of planting opportunities is further diminished by the proposed site coverage and high level of impermeable surfaces as well as ground level open space. There is a distinct lack of space available to plant contributory vegetation and the side setbacks proposed would be largely occupied by other built form elements i.e. driveways, footpaths and cantilevered buildings and balconies.
B14	Access	ü	ü
B15	Parking location	ü	ü	Refer to response below under Clause 52.06.
B17	Side and rear setbacks	ü	ü
B18	Walls on boundaries	ü	ü
B19	Daylight to existing windows	ü	ü
B20	North-facing windows	ü	ü
B21	Overshadowing open space	ü	ü
B22	Overlooking	ü	ü
B23	Internal views	ü	ü
B24	Noise impacts	ü	ü
B25	Accessibility	x	x	Consideration has not been given to people with limited mobility in the design of the overall development. The configuration of the dwellings provides for a design that has a garage and one bedroom on the ground floor and living area on the first floor. Whilst the dwelling entry of the ground floor would be accessible to people with limited mobility the living areas within the dwelling would be inaccessible.
B26	Dwelling entry	x	x	The proposed entrances to the dwellings 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 are not particularly well defined. They are located on the side of the building and situated more towards the boundary of the site than the front, resulting in poor visibility and definition of the main pedestrian access point from the street. The pedestrian access point to the building is merely a walkway on the side boundary with no other design detail features that would assist in it being identified as the entry point to the dwellings. Furthermore, the proposed garage accessway could be confused as leading to the front door, given the actual main pathways to the door entries are far less obvious and visible. This is not considered to be an appropriate outcome.
B27	Daylight to new windows	x	x	The west facing balconies (Dwelling Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6) are not supported as the primary light source for the upper storey living areas. The screening which is proposed on the to the balconies will result in almost completely internalising dwellings. This screening will provide limited to no visual connection to the outside and will compromise any required level of amenity for the upper level living spaces. The proposed design will result in minimal natural light to all internal areas of the dwellings Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 which is considered to be inappropriate and will result in poor amenity outcomes for future residents.
B28	Private open space	x	ü	All dwellings are provided with a balcony and no ground level open space. As these are in a townhouse layout, it is reasonable to expect that one or more may provide some ground level open space consistency with the character of the area, rather than all containing reverse living similar to an apartment development. The site is not located in an activity centre or in a more dense area where a lesser amount of ground level private open space might be appropriate. It is noted that the site is located in close proximity to the Bundoora Activity Centre but this area is designated to provide for dwelling densities that will appropriately respond to the subject site and surrounding neighbourhood. A location within an activity centre might provide such a platform and justification, however, that is not the case with the subject site that is located in a residential area. It is therefore considered that the lack of ground level open space is inconsistent with the character of the surrounding area and contributes to the sense of overdevelopment of the site.
B29	Solar access to open space	x	ü	Shadow diagrams provided do not accurately illustrate the shading that will occur within the property. It is considered that the first floor balconies will be in shade during the morning and with the screening provided to obscure view will result in significant shade in afternoons. This will not allow a sufficient amount of solar access into the secluded private open space of new dwellings.
B30	Storage	x	x	Confirmation would be needed that 6m3 of space could be achieved under the stairs of dwellings 1,3,4 &5, whilst it is unclear where storage for dwelling 2 and 6 is proposed as it is shown over the top of the laundry under the stairs. In its current form, the proposal does not meet this standard or objective and may have difficulty in meeting it under the current design.
B31	Design detail	ü	ü
B32	Front fences	ü	ü
B33	Common property	x	ü
B34	Site services	x	x	A private waste collection would be required and no provision has been made for turning of collection vehicles on site, meaning reversing would occur onto a road in a Road Zone Category 1. Alternatively, collection would be from Settlement road that would see some 12 bins placed over a 6m area that may not be appropriate in terms of spaces or holding up traffic.

CAR PARKING

Clause 52.06 of the Whittlesea Planning Scheme prescribes the rate and design standards for car parking spaces required on site. Pursuant to this clause the following car spaces are required:

Dwelling No.	No. of bedrooms	Car spaces required	Car spaces provided	Complies
1	2	1	1	Yes
2	2	1	1	Yes
3	2	1	1	Yes
4	2	1	1	Yes
5	2	1	1	Yes
6	2	1	1	Yes
Visitor	Per 5 dwellings	1	0	No

Garages should be at least 6.0m long and 3.5m wide for a single space and 5.5m wide for a double space (measured inside the garage or carport). The proposal complies with these requirements.

As part of the planning application a car parking waiver has been sought for one (1) visitor carpark in accordance with the provisions of Clause 52.06. The car parking waiver has been considered by Council’s Traffic Engineer who believe the waiver is inappropriate in this instance because a clear-way exists fronting the subject site and this would restrict on-street availability for visitors to the site. In this instance the proposed development is considered non-compliant with the provisions of this clause.

DEVELOPMENT CONTRIBUTIONS PLAN OVERLAY (SCHEDULE 3)

land adjacent to a road zone, category 1 or a public acquisition overlay for a category 1 road

The purpose of this particular provision is to ensure appropriate access to identified roads. In determining an application that is adjacent to a road zone category 1 the decision guidelines state that the following must be considered;

· The views of the relevant road authority.

· The effect of the proposal on the operation of the road and on public safety.

· Any policy made by the relevant road authority pursuant to Schedule 2, Clause 3 of the Road Management Act 2004 regarding access between a controlled access road and adjacent land.

This application was referred to VicRoads who have consented to the application subject to conditions.

Comments on Grounds of Objection

1. Height and bulk of the development is inappropriate

The height, mass and bulk proposed is considered to be generally appropriate for the area.

2. Overlooking, Overshadowing and loss of sunlight into neighbouring properties.

Through the use of ‘hi-lite’ windows and obscure glazing, the applicant has ensured that there will be no overlooking into neighbouring properties. The shadow diagrams submitted with the application show that the level of overshadowing experienced by neighbouring properties will be minimal and in accordance with the relevant standards and objectives of Clause 55 of the Whittlesea Planning Scheme.

3. Overdevelopment of the site and inappropriate design response

The development fails to provide appropriate on and off site amenity, integration with street, opportunities for landscaping and permeable surface to name, indicating that the development is an overdevelopment of the site based on the current layout and design and is an inappropriate design response for the site.

4. Dust and Noise associated with construction

This is a short term issues that could be partly addressed through a construction management plan, however is also controlled through various other legislation and processes.

5. Impact on foundations and stability of adjoining properties

It is unlikely that construction works with little excavation would affect the foundations of adjoining dwellings based on the setbacks, however this is a matter dealt with under Building legislation through protection notices and not within the planning system.

6. Car parking waiver is inappropriate

This concern is equally shared by officers and it is considered inappropriate to waive the visitor space required by Clause 52.06.

Declarations of Conflicts of Interest

Under section 80C of the Local Government Act 1989 officers providing advice to Council must disclose any interests, including the type of interest.

The Responsible Officer reviewing this report, having made enquiries with the relevant members of staff, reports that no disclosable interests have been raised in relation to this report.

Conclusion

While the application meets the intent of the Residential Growth Zone and has support at both the State and Local policy levels, including Council’s HDS, the application has failed to provide a functional development that responds to the site and area. The development fails to achieve compliance with a number of objectives of Clause 55 of the Whittlesea Planning Scheme, resulting in an overdevelopment of the site. For the reasons outlined within the assessment, it is recommended that Council refuse the application.

Recommendation

THAT Council resolve to Refuse Planning Application No. 715963 and issue a Refusal to Grant a Planning Permit for the construction of six dwellings, a reduction of car parking requirements and alteration of access to a road in a Road Zone Category 1, at 31 Settlement Road Bundoora, on the following grounds:

1. The proposal does not appropriately balance and achieve consistency with the relevant objectives of the State and Local Planning Policy Frameworks, in particular through the response to urban design, neighbourhood character and the context in which the site sits.

2. The proposal does not comply with clause 21.09-4 in that it does not achieve an appropriate design response for medium and higher density housing in Neighbourhood Renewal Change Areas that is appropriate in its neighbourhood context.

3. The proposal does not comply with Clause 55.02-1 (Standard B1) in relation to Neighbourhood Character, resulting in a poor response to the existing and preferred character of the area.

4. The proposal does not comply with Clause 55.02-2 (Standard B2) due to the poor response to the Key Design Principals set out in the Housing Diversity Strategy.

5. The proposal does not comply with Clause 55.02-5 (Standard B5) due to the poor integration with the street.

6. The proposal does not comply with Clause 55.03-4 (Standard B9) due to the inadequate permeability being provided on site.

7. The proposal does not comply with Clause 55.03-5 (Standard B10) due to the poor energy efficiency design response.

8. The proposal does not comply with Clause 55.03-7 (Standard B12) due to the poor response provided to safety.

9. The proposal does not comply with Clause 55.03-8 (Standard B13) due to the poor response to landscaping opportunities on site.

10. The proposal does not comply with Clause 55.05-1 (Standard B25) due to the poor response to accessibility being provided.

11. The proposal does not comply with Clause 55.05-2 (Standard B26) due to the poor response to dwelling entries being provided.

12. The proposal does not comply with Clause 55.05-3 (Standard B27) due to the poor response daylight to windows of the living areas of the new dwellings.

13. The proposal does not comply with Clause 55.05-4 (Standard B28) due to the poor response to private open space being provided.

14. The proposal does not comply with Clause 55.05-5 (Standard B29) due to the poor solar access to the balconies.

15. The proposal does not comply with Clause 55.05-6 (Standard B30) due to the inadequate provision of storage for each dwelling.

16. The proposal does not comply with Clause 55.06-4 (Standard B34) due to the inadequate waste management proposed.

17. The proposal does not comply with the requirements of Clause 52.06 in that a visitor car park is not provided onsite and a car parking waiver is deemed inappropriate.

Ordinary Council Agenda Tuesday 28 February 2017

6.1.4 96 CURTIN AVENUE, LALOR - CONSTRUCTION OF A DWELLING TO THE REAR OF an EXISTING DWELLING

File No: 716135

Attachments: 1 Locality Maps ⇩

2 Development Plans ⇩

Responsible Officer: Director Planning & Major Projects

Author: Planning Officer

APPLICANT: Mr A Vivarini

COUNCIL POLICY: Housing Diversity Strategy

ZONING: Neighbourhood Residential Zone

OVERLAY: Development Contributions Plan Overlay

REFERRAL: Nil

OBJECTIONS: One

RECOMMENDATION: That Council approve the application.

Report

EXECUTIVE Summary

The applicant proposes to construct a single storey dwelling to the rear of the existing single storey dwelling on the subject land.

Advertising of the proposal resulted in one objection. The grounds of objection relate to overdevelopment of the site, increase in traffic, lack of on street car parking and a lack of recreational facilities in proximity to the site.

The proposal demonstrates a satisfactory level of compliance with the provisions of Clause 55 of the Whittlesea Planning Scheme. While the objectives of Clause 55 have been met, some changes are required as conditions of permit to achieve compliance with relevant standards.

The Housing Diversity Strategy (HDS) nominates the site as being within the Suburban Residential Change Area. The proposal complies with the preferred density and design principles of this change area and is considered to be an acceptable development in an appropriate location as nominated by the HDS.

On the basis of the Clause 55 assessment and the proposal’s general compliance with the HDS, it is recommended that Council approve the application.

SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA

The subject site is a residential property located on the northeast corner of Curtin Avenue and Derna Crescent, approximately 350m west of Dalton Road, Lalor (see Attachment 1). The site is a regular shaped allotment and provides a frontage to Curtin Avenue of 15.8m and a depth of approximately 42.7m, providing a total site area of 675m². The site is relatively flat and contains a single storey brick dwelling with a tiled hipped roof and outbuildings at the rear of the site. Vehicular access to the site is provided via a double crossing common to the subject site and the adjoining property to the east along Curtin Avenue. There is no vegetation of significance within the site.

The surrounding area is generally characterised by residential land uses with the existing single storey brick dwelling being typical of the prevailing built form. Double storey dwellings are also present within the immediate surrounds. Examples of medium density developments in proximity to the subject land are located along Curtin Avenue, Edmondson Street, Cherry Court and Hamilton Court. The adjoining property to the east of the subject site comprises a single storey brick dwelling and the abutting property to the north is occupied by Lalor North Primary School.

The subject site is located in proximity to the following sites, services and infrastructure:

· Lalor North Primary School (immediately to the north).

· Bus Route 559 – Thomastown Railway Station to Lalor Railway Station via Curtin Avenue (230m southwest).

· Partridge Recreation Reserve & Sports Pavilion (320m northwest).

· Bus Route 556 – Epping Plaza Shopping Centre to Northland Shopping Centre via Dalton Road (350m southeast).

· Lalor Recreation Reserve – Bowling Club and Football Pavilion (370m west).

· Lalor North Secondary College (560m northeast).

· Rochdale Shopping Centre (620m southwest).

restrictions and easements

The Certificate of Title for the property shows that the site is not affected by any restrictive covenants or Section 173 Agreements. The site is however encumbered by a 3.05m wide drainage and sewerage easement along the northern property boundary.

Proposal

It is proposed to construct a single storey dwelling to the rear of the existing single storey dwelling (see Attachment 2).

Dwelling No. 1 (existing) has street frontage to Curtin Avenue and contains four bedrooms, a living area, a kitchen/meals area, a bathroom and laundry. Dwelling No. 1 will be provided with a single space carport and tandem open car space accessible via the existing vehicle crossing on Curtin Avenue.

Dwelling No. 2 (proposed) will contain one bedroom with an ensuite, an open plan kitchen/meals/living area, a study, a powder room and laundry. The existing garage on site will be converted into a combined single space garage and storage area/ workshop for Dwelling No. 1 and will be accessible via a newly constructed vehicle crossing along the west property boundary (Derna Crescent).

Each dwelling has been provided with private open space and external storage accessible from their respective living areas.

In terms of design, the proposed dwelling will be constructed in a modest contemporary style with brick external walls, a 20 degree pitched Colorbond roof and aluminium windows and doors. The proposed carport for Dwelling No. 1 is to be constructed in treated pine and corrugated iron sheeting. A printed sample/schedule of proposed colours has not been provided with the application.

Details of the proposed development are outlined in the following table:

Height/Scale

Number of Bedrooms

Setbacks

Private Open Space

Car Parking

Maximum Height

Dwelling No. 1

Single storey

8.0m front (south),

3.5m side (east),

1.2m side (west) and

18.0m rear (north).

134m² (including 52m² of secluded private open space).

Single space carport ( 6.0m x 3.5m) plus an open car space in tandem

4.6m (overall)

Dwelling No. 2

Single storey

3.0m front (west),

3.2m side (north),

30.5m side (south) and 1.0m rear (east).

76m² (including 52m² of secluded private open space).

Single space within existing garage (5.6m x 4.65m).

4.3m (overall)

Public Notification

Advertising of the application has resulted in one objection being received. The grounds of objection can be summarised as follows:

1. Overdevelopment of the site.

2. Increased traffic/car parking.

3. Lack of recreational facilities in proximity to the site.

HOUSING DIVERSITY STRATEGY

The HDS is now a reference document in the WPS and an assessment against it is provided under Standard B2 of the Clause 55 assessment.

ASSESSMENT AGAINST CLAUSE 55 OF THE WHITTLESEA PLANNING SCHEME

The following table provides details on whether the proposal complies with the requirements of Clause 55 of the Whittlesea Planning Scheme. Under these provisions a development:

· Must meet all of the objectives

· Should meet all of the standards

If Council is satisfied that an application for an alternative design solution meets the objective, the alternative design solution may be considered.

	ü - Compliance × - Non compliance	Objectives	Standards	Comments
B1	Neighbourhood Character	ü	ü	Development within the area generally comprises single storey dwellings from the 1960s in ‘Cream brick’ style. Large double storey brick dwellings are also present however this type of development is minimal within the immediate surrounds. The existing housing stock comprises generous front and rear setbacks with garages and sheds generally to the rear of dwellings. Carports, where present, are of a ‘verandah’ style and either attached or semi-attached to dwellings and located within front setbacks. Front gardens typically contain low level vegetation of an exotic variety. Front fences are common and constructed in brick, wrought iron or timber materials. The surrounding area also comprises recently constructed medium density development constructed in a contemporary style incorporating both brick and render elements. The proposed dwelling is considered to be of a scale and form that is consistent with the prevailing single storey housing stock within the immediate area.
B2	Residential Policy	ü	ü	The proposal is consistent with State and Local Planning Policy Frameworks in that it provides for moderate housing growth and diversity to the existing housing stock within a location offering good access to services and transport. The subject site is located within the Suburban Residential Change Area within the HDS. This Change Area encourages standard density housing consisting of single dwellings or dual occupancies/duplexes with low building heights to reflect the existing suburban scale and character. Front setbacks are encouraged to allow for significant landscaping and large canopy trees to create a sense of openness to the street. Site coverage objectives seek to facilitate increased side and rear setbacks to provide for building separation and an increased area of private open space to allow for significant landscaping including an extra-large canopy tree in the rear setback. The proposed development is generally consistent with the preferred density and key design principles outlined in the HDS. The proposal will result in a low level building height that is consistent with the prevailing single storey built form within the immediate surrounds. The proposed setbacks from title boundaries and the common boundary between the proposed and existing dwelling provides for building separation, increased private open space areas and generous landscaping throughout the development (including canopy trees).
B3	Dwelling Diversity	N/A	N/A	Only applicable to developments of ten (10) or more dwellings
B4	Infrastructure	ü	ü
B5	Integration with the street	ü	ü
B6	Street setback	ü	ü
B7	Building height	ü	ü
B8	Site coverage	ü	ü
B9	Permeability	ü	ü
B10	Energy efficiency	ü	ü
B11	Open space	N/A	N/A	Only applicable if public or communal open space is to be provided on site or adjacent to the development
B12	Safety	ü	ü
B13	Landscaping	ü	×	A landscape plan has not been provided with the application. It is considered that this can be dealt with by a condition on any permit that is issued.
B14	Access	ü	ü
B15	Parking location	ü	ü
B17	Side and rear setbacks	ü	ü
B18	Walls on boundaries	ü	ü
B19	Daylight to existing windows	ü	ü
B20	North-facing windows	ü	ü
B21	Overshadowing open space	ü	ü
B22	Overlooking	ü	ü
B23	Internal views	ü	ü
B24	Noise impacts	ü	ü
B25	Accessibility	ü	ü
B26	Dwelling entry	ü	×	The front entry of Dwelling No. 2 should be provided with a portico so that this area is easily identifiable from the street and to provide shelter, a sense of personal address and a transitional space around the entry in accordance with the standard requirements. This can be dealt with by a condition on any permit that is issued.
B27	Daylight to new windows	ü	ü
B28	Private open space	ü	ü
B29	Solar access to open space	ü	ü
B30	Storage	ü	×	Dwelling No. 1 has not been provided with 6m³ of external secure storage as required by the standard. The design response shows that there is sufficient private open space to accommodate this requirement and it is therefore considered that this can be dealt with by a condition on any permit that is issued. Additionally, the external storage located within the existing easement for Dwelling No. 2 should be deleted as sufficient storage area is provided within the internal storage area/ workshop.
B31	Design detail	ü	×	The applicant has not provided a schedule/ printed samples of all external materials and colours to be used for the construction of the proposed dwelling and the proposed carport for Dwelling No. 1. It is considered that this can be addressed via a condition on any permit that is issued.
B32	Front fences	ü	ü
B33	Common property	ü	ü
B34	Site services	ü	×	Mailboxes, clotheslines and bin storage areas have not been provided on the plans in accordance with the standard requirements however it is considered this can be addressed via condition on any permit that is issued.

CAR PARKING

Clause 52.06 of the Whittlesea Planning Scheme prescribes the rate and design standards for car parking spaces required on site. Pursuant to this clause the following car spaces are required:

Dwelling No.	No. of bedrooms	Car spaces required	Car spaces provided	Complies
1	4	2	2	Yes
2	1	1	1	Yes

Garages should be at least 6.0m long and 3.5m wide for a single space and 5.5m wide for a double space (measured inside the garage or carport). An open car space should be at least 4.9m long and 2.6m wide. Additionally, Clause 52.06-8 of the Scheme provides a responsible authority, discretion on any variation to these design standards. The garage for Dwelling No. 2 does not quite meet the required 6.0m in length, however it is considered that the proposed length of 5.6m for this car space is acceptable given the standard requirements for an open car space abutting a wall requires a length of 5.4m. The elevations submitted do not accurately depict the proposed roller door and will need to be revised accordingly. This can be addressed via a condition on any permit that is issued.

Pursuant to Clause 52.06-8 of the Scheme, access ways must have a corner splay or area at least 50% clear of visual obstructions extending at least 2.0m along the frontage road from the edge of an exit lane and 2.5m along the exit lane from the frontage, to provide a clear view of pedestrians on the footpath of the frontage road. The area clear of visual obstructions may include adjacent entry or exit lane where more than one lane is provided, or adjacent landscaped areas, provided the landscaping in those areas is less than 900mm in height. A revised plan must be submitted showing a visibility splay on either side of the access ways. This requirement can be addressed via a condition on any permit that is issued.

DEVELOPMENT CONTRIBUTIONS PLAN OVERLAY (SCHEDULE 3)

Comments on Grounds of Objection

1. Overdevelopment of the site.

The proposed single storey nature of Dwelling No. 2 is consistent with the existing housing stock within the area. The proposed setbacks from title boundaries comply with the standard requirements of Clause 55 and the proposal is also consistent with the key design principles set out in Council’s HDS which encourages a range of low building heights that reflect the existing suburban scale and character with increased area of private open space to allow for significant landscaping within front and rear setbacks within the ‘Suburban Residential’ change area.

2. Increased traffic/car parking.

The proposed development is not expected to generate a significant increase in the number of vehicles along Curtin Avenue or Derna Crescent and therefore will not cause an adverse impact on the volume of traffic within the surrounding road network. Based on the RTA Guide to Traffic Generating Developments (RTA 2002), a single dwelling generates 9.0 daily vehicle trips. Therefore two dwellings would be expected to generate 18 vehicle trips per day. The existing road network can accommodate this increase in vehicle movement.

The proposed crossing for Dwelling No. 2 will result in the loss of one on-street car parking space. The loss of this car space can be absorbed within the surrounding road network. A site visit by planning officers revealed that there is no lack of on-street car parking along Curtin Avenue and given the existing restricted traffic conditions along the east side of Derna Crescent, the proposed development will not impact on school traffic associated with the existing school abutting the subject site.

3. Lack of recreational facilities in proximity to the site.

The subject site is located within proximity to a number of recreational reserves and sporting facilities. The Partridge Recreation Reserve and sports pavilion is located 320m to the northwest and Lalor Recreation Reserve which includes a bowling club and football pavilion is within 370m to the west of the subject site.

Declarations of Conflicts of Interest

Under section 80C of the Local Government Act 1989 officers providing advice to Council must disclose any interests, including the type of interest.

The Responsible Officer reviewing this report, having made enquiries with the relevant members of staff, reports that no disclosable interests have been raised in relation to this report.

Conclusion

Recommendation

THAT Council resolve to approve Planning Application No. 716135 and issue a Notice of Decision to Grant a Permit for the construction of a dwelling to the rear of the existing dwelling at 96 Curtin Avenue, Lalor in accordance with the endorsed plans and subject to the following conditions:

1. Prior to the endorsement of the plans required under Condition No. 2 of this permit, the permit holder must pay to Council a contribution for drainage pursuant to Clause 45.06 of the Whittlesea Planning Scheme. The drainage contribution will be subject to the Consumer Price Index (CPI) applicable at the time of payment.

2. Before the development starts, three copies of a revised plan must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority showing:

(a) Visibility splays in accordance with Clause 52.06-8 of the Scheme.

(a) Dimensions of the open car space for Dwelling No. 1 in accordance with design standards in Clause 52.06-8 of the Scheme.

(b) The provision of a roller door on the west elevation for Dwelling No. 2.

(c) A printed sample/schedule of all external colours and materials to be used in the construction of Dwelling No. 2 and the carport for Dwelling No. 1.

(d) A portico to the entry of Dwelling No. 2.

(e) A minimum of 6m³ of external secure storage for Dwelling No. 1.

(f) The deletion of the external storage for Dwelling No. 2.

(g) Mailboxes and clotheslines and bin storage areas for each dwelling.

3. Before development commences, three copies of a landscape plan prepared by a suitably qualified landscape designer to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the plan will be endorsed and will then form part of this permit. The plan must show:

(a) Details of landscaping for the front setbacks and private open space areas, including a schedule of all proposed trees, shrubs and ground covers.

(b) Designation of areas throughout the site for garden beds, grass, paths, decks paved areas.

(c) The identification of any vegetation to be retained including tree protection zones.

(d) The provision of canopy trees (minimum two metres in height when planted) within the front setback and rear setback of each dwelling.

(e) Paving, retaining walls, fence design details and other landscape works including areas of cut and fill.

(f) Consistency with the City of Whittlesea Landscape Guidelines (Residential Development.

4. The development allowed by this permit and shown on the plans and/or schedules endorsed to accompany this permit shall not be amended for any reason without the consent of the Responsible Authority.

5. Once the development has started it must be continued and completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

6. Before the use of the development allowed by this permit starts, landscaping works shown on the endorsed plan must be completed and then maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

7. Before the use of the development starts, the car parking areas and access ways must be drained, and fully sealed and constructed with asphalt, interlocking paving bricks, coloured concrete or other similar materials to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

8. In areas set aside for car parking, measures must be taken to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority to prevent damage to fences or landscaped areas.

9. Vehicular access to the site must be by way of a vehicle crossing constructed in accordance with Council’s Vehicle Crossing Specifications to suit the proposed driveway(s) and the vehicles that will be using the crossing(s). The location, design and construction of the vehicle crossing(s) must be approved by the Responsible Authority. Any existing unused or redundant crossing(s) must be removed and replaced with concrete kerb, channel and naturestrip to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. All vehicle crossing works are to be carried out with Council supervision under a Road Opening Permit.

10. Before starting any buildings or works, engineering plans showing a properly prepared design (with computations) for the internal drainage and method of disposal of stormwater from all roofed and sealed areas, including the use of an on-site detention system (if required), must be submitted to Council for approval. These internal drainage works must be completed to Council’s satisfaction prior to using or occupying any building on the site.

11. Prior to using or occupying any building on the site, the permit holder is required to construct at no cost to Council, drainage works between the subject site and the Council nominated point of discharge. Such drainage works must be designed by a qualified engineer and submitted to and approved by Council. Computations will also be required to demonstrate that the drainage system will not be overloaded by the new development. Construction of the drainage system must be carried out in accordance with Council specifications and under Council supervision.

12. Before the use of the development commences, reticulated (water, sewerage, gas and electricity) services must be constructed and available to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

13. Prior to the occupation of any building hereby approved, the permit holder must meet all costs associated with reinstatement and/or alterations to Council or other Public Authority assets deemed necessary by such Authorities as a result of the development. The permit holder shall be responsible for obtaining prior specific written approval for any works involving the alteration of Council or other Public Authority assets.

14. Prior to occupation of any dwelling on the subject site, a letter box and house number to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority shall be provided for each dwelling.

15. At all times during the construction phase of the development, the permit holder must take measures to ensure that pedestrians are able to use with safety any footpath along the boundaries of the site.

16. Upon completion of all buildings and works authorised by this permit the permit holder must notify the Responsible Authority in writing on the satisfactory completion of the development and compliance with all relevant conditions.

17. Any litter generated by building activities on the site shall be collected and stored in an appropriate enclosure which complies with Council’s Code of Practice for building/development sites. The enclosures shall be regularly emptied and maintained such that no litter overspills onto adjoining land. Prior to occupation and/or use of the building, all litter shall be completely removed from the site.

18. During the construction phase, a truck wheel washing facility or similar device must be installed and used to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority so that vehicles leaving the site do not deposit mud or other materials on roadways. Any mud or other materials deposited on roadways as a result of construction works on the site must be cleaned to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority within two hours of it being deposited.

19. This permit will expire if:

(a) the approved development does not start within two years of the date of this permit; or

(b) the approved development is not completed within four years of the date of this permit.

The Responsible Authority may extend the periods referred to above if a request is made in writing. This request must be made before or within 6 months after the permit expiry date where the development has not yet started and within 12 months after the permit expiry date where the development allowed by the permit has lawfully started before the permit expires.

NOTES

Advanced Trees

An advanced tree under this permit shall generally constitute the following:

· Evergreen – minimum container size 45 litre spring ring, calliper at ground level 50mm.

· Deciduous – minimum calliper at ground level 65mm, minimum height 2 metres.

Easements

No structure may be built over an easement on the subject site without the consent of the relevant Responsible Authority.

Property Numbering

Existing Dwelling (1) 96 Curtin Avenue, Lalor

Proposed Dwelling (2) 2A Derna Crescent, Lalor

Please check with Council’s Subdivision Department to verify all street numberings.

Ordinary Council Agenda Tuesday 28 February 2017

6.1.5 12 Clancy Way, Doreen - Construction of two dwellings

File No: 716120

Attachments: 1 Locality Maps ⇩

2 Development Plans ⇩

Responsible Officer: Director Planning & Major Projects

Author: Senior Planner

APPLICANT: Planning and Design

COUNCIL POLICY: N/A

ZONING: General Residential Zone

OVERLAY: Development Plan (Schedule 5)

Incorporated Plan (Schedule 1)

REFERRAL: Nil

OBJECTIONS: Nil

RECOMMENDATION: That Council refuse the application

Report

EXECUTIVE Summary

The applicant proposes to construct two double storey dwellings on the proposed site to be known as 12 Clancy Way (Lot 111) Doreen, which is located within the recently developed Bridge Inn Rise estate.

It is considered that the proposal does not generally accord with the Development Plan for the area of Cookes Road. The Development Plan identifies specific areas for development at different densities. The subject land is located in an area described as standard density (lot size 450 – 700m²) and currently meets this requirement with an overall area of 510m². The proposed development would represent a density of 1 dwelling per 255m² which is twice the density prescribed by the development plan. Because the proposal does not accord with an approved development plan, the application was not advertised.

Given the proposals non-compliance with the provisions set out in the Incorporated Plan Overlay (IPO), Development Plan (DP) and some objectives of Clause 55 of the Whittlesea Planning Scheme, it is recommended that Council refuse the application.

SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA

The subject site is a residential property located on the southern side of Clancy Way, Doreen (see Attachment 1). Titles have not yet issued for the site, however it is proposed to be rectangular in shape and provides a frontage to both Clancy Way (approximately 13m) and Hessel Avenue of 29m and a depth of approximately 16m, providing a total site area of 510m². The site has a fall from the north west to the south east of approximately 2m or 1 in 16 and there is no vegetation of significance contained within the site.

The surrounding area is generally characterised by residential land uses and development. Land to the west has been developed with residential dwellings, whilst land to the east will form part of the current stage of subdivision and is therefore currently vacant.

The subject site is located in proximity to the following sites, services and infrastructure:

· Bus Route 572 (1km north along Overland Drive), Bus Route 562 (1.5km west along Schotters Road).

· Hazel Glen School (approximately 100m north)

· Ivanhoe Grammar School – Plenty Campus (800m south west)

· Bridge Inn Road (350 m south)

· Laurimar Town Centre (1.6km directly north east)

restrictions and easements

The Certificate of Title for the property shows that the property shows that the site is affected by a Section 173 Agreement AL571472B which is in relation to works that were required to be undertaken onsite for the broader subdivision. The S173 Agreement does not preclude Council from making a decision with respect to the proposed development.

There is also an easement located along the southern boundary which will not be impacted by the proposal.

Proposal

It is proposed to construct two double storey dwellings (see Attachment 2).

Dwelling No. 1 will have street frontage to Clancy Way and comprise an open plan kitchen/meals area, alfresco area, a separate toilet and laundry facilities at ground level. At first floor level, the dwelling will contain three bedrooms (master with ensuite and walk-in-robe) and a separate bathroom.

Dwelling No. 2 will have street frontage to Hessel Avenue and comprise an open plan kitchen/meals area, alfresco area, a separate toilet and laundry facilities at ground level. At first floor level, the dwelling will contain three bedrooms (master with ensuite and walk-in-robe) and a separate bathroom.

Both dwellings will be provided with an attached double space garage, private open space and secure external storage.

Details of the proposed development are outlined in the following table:

	Height/Scale	Number of Bedrooms	Setbacks	Private Open Space	Car Parking	Maximum Height
Dwelling No. 1	Double storey	Three (3)	- 4m front (north); - Garage will be built to the boundary on side (west) boundary; - 3m side (east); - Dwelling wall will be built abutting boundary for rear (southern) boundary.	57.68m²	Double garage	Approx. 7.5m
Dwelling No. 2	Double storey	Three (3)	- 3m front (east); - 3m side (south); - 1.15m rear (west) - 1.15m approx. (north)	79.28m²	Double garage	Approx. 7.5m

Height/Scale

Number of Bedrooms

Setbacks

Private Open Space

Car Parking

Maximum Height

Dwelling No. 1

Double storey

Three (3)

- 4m front (north);

- Garage will be built to the boundary on side (west) boundary;

- 3m side (east);

- Dwelling wall will be built abutting boundary for rear (southern) boundary.

57.68m²

Double garage

Approx. 7.5m

Dwelling No. 2

Double storey

Three (3)

- 3m front (east);

- 3m side (south);

- 1.15m rear (west)

- 1.15m approx. (north)

79.28m²

Double garage

Approx. 7.5m

Public Notification

No public notification was undertaken. An application which is generally in accordance with the Development Plan is exempt from notice, however any permit issued must be in accordance with the Development Plan.

Section 52(1A) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 outlines that if an application is being refused, notice of the application does not need to occur.

ASSESSMENT AGAINST CLAUSE 55 OF THE WHITTLESEA PLANNING SCHEME

The following table provides details on whether the proposal complies with the requirements of Clause 55 of the Whittlesea Planning Scheme. Under these provisions a development:

· Must meet all of the objectives

· Should meet all of the standards

If Council is satisfied that an application for an alternative design solution meets the objective, the alternative design solution may be considered.

	ü - Compliance × - Non compliance	Objectives	Standards	Comments
B1	Neighbourhood Character	x	x	The Development Plan for this area articulates the areas that should be developed for medium density and defines typically lot sizes. This site is not located within the designated areas for medium density development and will result in lot sizes smaller than what is envisaged by the Development Plan. This is therefore inconsistent with the preferred character for this estate.
B2	Residential Policy	x	x	The proposal does not provide an appropriate response to both the State and Local Planning Policy Frameworks through responding to Councils clear policy objectives for sites within the Mernda Incorporated Plan or the Cookes Road Development Plan.
B3	Dwelling Diversity	N/A	N/A	Only applicable to developments of ten (10) or more dwellings
B4	Infrastructure	ü	ü
B5	Integration with the street	ü	ü
B6	Street setback	ü	ü
B7	Building height	ü	ü
B8	Site coverage	ü	ü
B9	Permeability	ü	ü
B10	Energy efficiency	ü	ü
B11	Open space	N/A	N/A	Only applicable if public or communal open space is to be provided on site or adjacent to the development
B12	Safety	ü	ü
B13	Landscaping	x	x	Although not complying through the absence of a detailed landscape plan, this could be addressed through a condition on any permit issued.
B14	Access	ü	ü
B15	Parking location	ü	ü
B17	Side and rear setbacks	ü	ü
B18	Walls on boundaries	ü	ü
B19	Daylight to existing windows	ü	ü
B20	North-facing windows	ü	ü
B21	Overshadowing open space	ü	ü
B22	Overlooking	ü	ü
B23	Internal views	ü	ü
B24	Noise impacts	ü	ü
B25	Accessibility	ü	ü
B26	Dwelling entry	ü	ü
B27	Daylight to new windows	ü	ü
B28	Private open space	ü	ü
B29	Solar access to open space	ü	ü
B30	Storage	ü	ü
B31	Design detail	ü	ü
B32	Front fences	ü	ü
B33	Common property	ü	ü
B34	Site services	ü	ü

CAR PARKING

Clause 52.06 of the Whittlesea Planning Scheme prescribes the rate and design standards for car parking spaces required on site. Pursuant to this clause the following car spaces are required:

Dwelling No.	No. of bedrooms	Car spaces required	Car spaces provided	Complies
1	3	2	2	Yes
2	3	2	2	Yes

Incorporated Plan Overlay Scheudle 1 – Mernda strategy plan

The purpose of the Incorporated Plan Overlay relevant to this application, is to identify areas which require the form and conditions of future use and development to be shown on an incorporated plan before a permit can be issued to be granted to use or develop the land.

Council’s Mernda Strategy Plan was approved in October 2004 and amended in January 2008. The plan provides guidance to the development of land in the Plenty Valley Growth Corridor and sets out an Incorporated Plan (broken into Precincts). The ‘Precinct Plan’ contained within the Mernda Strategy Plan is designed to be read and interpreted in conjunction with the Key Objectives and Strategic Actions.

development Plan overlay schedule 5 – approved 150 cookes road, doreen development plan

The site is affected by the approved development plan for ‘150 Cookes Road, Doreen’. Approved in 2012 the Development Plan sits as a guiding planning tool for the subject site and surrounding estate. The Cookes Road Development Plan’s layout was informed by the Mernda Strategy Plan, within which it is identified that the site be located within Precinct 2A in an area described as standard density (lot size 450 – 700m²). The subject site has an overall area of 527m². The proposed development would represent a density of 1 dwelling per 263m² which is twice the density prescribed by the development plan. There is an area within the Cookes Road Development Plan which outlines an area for medium density however, the subject site is not within this area. The application has not been able to demonstrate why the proposal is generally in accordance with the provisions set out in Development Plan (DP).

Comments on Grounds of Objection

This application was not advertised as noted above.

Declarations of Conflicts of Interest

Under section 80C of the Local Government Act 1989 officers providing advice to Council must disclose any interests, including the type of interest.

The Responsible Officer reviewing this report, having made enquiries with the relevant members of staff, reports that no disclosable interests have been raised in relation to this report.

Conclusion

The application has been assessed against the Whittlesea Planning Scheme and in particular the objectives and standards of Clause 55, Clause 52.06 and the State and Local Planning Policy Frameworks. Additionally, consideration was given to the Incorporated Plan Overlay for Mernda and Development Plan for 150 Cookes Road. While a number of objectives and standards of Clause 55 have been satisfactorily met, an application that is inconsistent with a Development Plan cannot be supported which has created non-compliance with Neighbourhood Character objectives.

It is considered that the proposal does not provide a solution of greater design merit than suggested in either of the Plans and undermines the core principles of Council’s strategic intent for the area. It is considered that the proposal will result in a detrimental impact on the defined character of the neighbourhood and accordingly refusal of the application is recommended.

Recommendation

THAT Council resolve to Refuse Planning Application No. 716120 and issue a Refusal to Grant a Planning Permit for the construction of two dwellings at 12 Clancy Way Doreen, on the following grounds:

1. The proposed development is contrary to the Incorporated Plan Overlay Schedule 1 (Mernda Strategy Plan) and Development Plan Overlay Schedule 5 (Mernda Development Plan – Cookes Road Development Plan)

2. The proposed development does not satisfactorily respond to Residential Policy or respect the preferred character of the neighbourhood.

3. The proposed development does not achieve satisfactory compliance with Clause 55.02-1 (Neighbourhood Character)

4. The proposed design response fails to comply with State policy objectives and standards relating to Clause 55.03-5 (Energy Efficiency)

5. The proposed development does not achieve satisfactory compliance with Clause 55.03-8 (Landscaping)

Ordinary Council Agenda Tuesday 28 February 2017

6.1.6 24 Belmont Rise, Doreen - Construction of two dwellings

File No: 716123

Attachments: 1 Locality Maps ⇩

2 Development Plans ⇩

Responsible Officer: Director Planning & Major Projects

Author: Senior Planner

APPLICANT: Planning and Design

COUNCIL POLICY: N/A

ZONING: General Residential Zone

OVERLAY: Development Plan (Schedule 5)

Incorporated Plan (Schedule 1)

REFERRAL: Nil

OBJECTIONS: Nil

RECOMMENDATION: That Council refuse the application

Report

EXECUTIVE Summary

The applicant proposes to construct two double storey dwellings on the proposed site to be known as 24 Belmont Rise (Lot 119) Doreen, which is located within the recently developed Bridge Inn Rise estate.

It is considered that the proposal does not generally accord with the Development Plan for the area of Cookes Road. The Development Plan identifies specific areas for development at different densities. The subject land is located in an area described as standard density (lot size 450 – 700m²) and currently meets this requirement with an overall area of 527m². The proposed development would represent a density of 1 dwelling per 263m² which is twice the density prescribed by the development plan. Because the proposal does not accord with an approved development plan, the application was not advertised.

SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA

The subject site is a proposed residential property located on the southern side of Belmont Rise, Doreen (see Attachment 1). Titles have not yet issued for the site, however it is proposed to be rectangular in shape and provides a frontage to both Belmont Rise (approximately 14m) and Hessel Avenue of 21m and a depth of approximately 18m, providing a total site area of 527m². The site has a fall from the north west to the south east of approximately 2m or 1 in 16 and there is no vegetation of significance contained within the site.

The subject site is located in proximity to the following sites, services and infrastructure:

· Bus Route 572 (1km north along Overland Drive), Bus Route 562 (1.5km west along Schotters Road).

· Hazel Glen School (approximately 250m north)

· Ivanhoe Grammar School – Plenty Campus (650m south west)

· Bridge Inn Road (200 m south)

· Laurimar Town Centre (1.6km directly north east)

restrictions and easements

The Certificate of Title for the property shows that the site is affected by a Section 173 Agreement AL571472B which is in relation to works that were required to be undertaken onsite for the broader subdivision. The S173 Agreement does not preclude Council from making a decision with respect to the proposed development.

There is also an easement located along the southern boundary which will not be impacted by the proposal.

Proposal

It is proposed to construct two double storey dwellings (see Attachment 2).

Dwelling No. 1 will have street frontage to Belmont Rise and comprise an open plan kitchen/meals area, one bedroom, a separate toilet and laundry facilities at ground level. At first floor level, the dwelling will contain three bedrooms (master with ensuite and walk-in-robe) and a separate bathroom.

Dwelling No. 2 will have street frontage to Hessel Avenue and comprise an open plan kitchen/meals area, one bedroom, a separate toilet and laundry facilities at ground level. At first floor level, the dwelling will contain three bedrooms (master with ensuite and walk-in-robe) and a separate bathroom.

Both dwellings will be provided with an attached double space garage, private open space and secure external storage.

Details of the proposed development are outlined in the following table:

	Height/Scale	Number of Bedrooms	Setbacks	Private Open Space	Car Parking	Maximum Height
Dwelling No. 1	Double storey	Four (4)	- 4m front (north); - Garage will be built to the boundary on side (west) boundary; - 2.2m side (east); - Dwelling wall will be built along boundary for rear (southern) boundary.	69.39m²	Double garage	Approx. 6.8m
Dwelling No. 2	Double storey	Four (4)	- 3m front (east); - 3m side (south); - 3m rear (west) - 1m approx. (north)	45.06m²	Double garage	Approx. 6.8m

Height/Scale

Number of Bedrooms

Setbacks

Private Open Space

Car Parking

Maximum Height

Dwelling No. 1

Double storey

Four (4)

- 4m front (north);

- Garage will be built to the boundary on side (west) boundary;

- 2.2m side (east);

- Dwelling wall will be built along boundary for rear (southern) boundary.

69.39m²

Double garage

Approx. 6.8m

Dwelling No. 2

Double storey

Four (4)

- 3m front (east);

- 3m side (south);

- 3m rear (west)

- 1m approx. (north)

45.06m²

Double garage

Approx. 6.8m

Public Notification

Section 52(1A) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 outlines that if an application is being refused, notice of the application does not need to occur.

ASSESSMENT AGAINST CLAUSE 55 OF THE WHITTLESEA PLANNING SCHEME

The following table provides details on whether the proposal complies with the requirements of Clause 55 of the Whittlesea Planning Scheme. Under these provisions a development:

· Must meet all of the objectives

· Should meet all of the standards

If Council is satisfied that an application for an alternative design solution meets the objective, the alternative design solution may be considered.

	ü - Compliance × - Non compliance	Objectives	Standards	Comments
B1	Neighbourhood Character	x	x	The Development Plan for this area articulates the areas that should be developed for medium density and defines typically lot sizes. This site is not located within the designated areas for medium density development and will result in lot sizes smaller than what is envisaged by the Development Plan. This is therefore inconsistent with the preferred character for this estate.
B2	Residential Policy	x	x	The proposal does not provide an appropriate response to both the State and Local Planning Policy Frameworks through responding to Councils clear policy objectives for sites within the Mernda Incorporated Plan or the Cookes Road Development Plan.
B3	Dwelling Diversity	N/A	N/A	Only applicable to developments of ten (10) or more dwellings
B4	Infrastructure	ü	ü
B5	Integration with the street	ü	ü
B6	Street setback	ü	ü
B7	Building height	ü	ü
B8	Site coverage	ü	ü
B9	Permeability	ü	ü
B10	Energy efficiency	x	x	Both dwellings do not have living areas configured to capitalise on the northern aspect of the site. The dwellings have not been designed so that solar access to north facing windows are maximised.
B11	Open space	N/A	N/A	Only applicable if public or communal open space is to be provided on site or adjacent to the development
B12	Safety	ü	ü
B13	Landscaping	x	x	Although not complying through the absence of a detailed landscape plan, this could be addressed through a condition on any permit issued.
B14	Access	ü	ü
B15	Parking location	ü	ü
B17	Side and rear setbacks	ü	ü
B18	Walls on boundaries	ü	ü
B19	Daylight to existing windows	ü	ü
B20	North-facing windows	ü	ü
B21	Overshadowing open space	ü	ü
B22	Overlooking	ü	ü
B23	Internal views	ü	ü
B24	Noise impacts	ü	ü
B25	Accessibility	ü	ü
B26	Dwelling entry	ü	ü
B27	Daylight to new windows	ü	ü
B28	Private open space	ü	ü
B29	Solar access to open space	ü	ü
B30	Storage	ü	ü
B31	Design detail	ü	ü
B32	Front fences	ü	ü
B33	Common property	ü	ü
B34	Site services	ü	ü

CAR PARKING

Clause 52.06 of the Whittlesea Planning Scheme prescribes the rate and design standards for car parking spaces required on site. Pursuant to this clause the following car spaces are required:

Dwelling No.	No. of bedrooms	Car spaces required	Car spaces provided	Complies
1	4	2	2	Yes
2	4	2	2	Yes

Incorporated Plan Overlay Scheudle 1 – Mernda strategy plan

development Plan overlay schedule 5 – approved 150 cookes road, doreen development plan

Comments on Grounds of Objection

This application was not advertised as noted above.

Declarations of Conflicts of Interest

Under section 80C of the Local Government Act 1989 officers providing advice to Council must disclose any interests, including the type of interest.

The Responsible Officer reviewing this report, having made enquiries with the relevant members of staff, reports that no disclosable interests have been raised in relation to this report.

Conclusion

Recommendation

THAT Council resolve to Refuse Planning Application No. 716123 and issue a Refusal to Grant a Planning Permit for the construction of two dwellings on a lot at 24 Belmont Rise Doreen, on the following grounds:

2. The proposed development does not satisfactorily respond to Residential Policy or respect the preferred character of the neighbourhood.

3. The proposed development does not achieve satisfactory compliance with Clause 55.02-1 (Neighbourhood Character)

4. The proposed design response fails to comply with State policy objectives and standards relating to Clause 55.03-5 (Energy Efficiency)

5. The proposed development does not achieve satisfactory compliance with Clause 55.03-8 (Landscaping)

Ordinary Council Agenda Tuesday 28 February 2017

6.1.11 60 Sackville Street, Mernda - Removal of Native Vegetation

File No: 716369

Attachments: 1 Locality Maps ⇩

2 Vegetation removal plan ⇩

3 Subdivision layout plan ⇩

4 Photos of trees to be removed ⇩

Responsible Officer: Director Planning & Major Projects

Author: Senior Planning Officer

APPLICANT: National Pacific Properties Australia Pty Ltd

COUNCIL POLICY: 22.10 River Redgum Protection Policy

ZONING: General Residential Zone

OVERLAY: Development Contributions Plan Overlay (Schedule 8)

Development Plan Overlay (Schedule 5)

Incorporated Plan Overlay (Schedule 1)

Vegetation Protection Overlay (Schedule 1)

REFERRAL: Parks and Open Space

Sustainability Planning

OBJECTIONS: Nil

RECOMMENDATION: That Council resolve to approve Planning Permit No. 716369 to allow for the removal of native vegetation.

Report

EXECUTIVE Summary

The subject site is located within the Mernda West Development Plan area and the Mernda Strategy Plan area on the south-west corner of Sackville Street and William Street, Mernda (see Attachment 1). According to the Mernda West Development Plan, the site is identified for residential development. A permit for development or use may be granted if it is consistent with the Mernda West Development Plan and if it will not prejudice the future use or development of the land for the purpose of the zone as intended by the Mernda Strategy Plan.

Planning Application No. 716121 is being assessed concurrently by Council and seeks permission for the multi-lot subdivision of the same land (60 Sackville Street, Mernda). This application for subdivision is yet to be determined, however is well advanced and is generally consistent with the Mernda West Development Plan.

A flora and fauna assessment of the vegetation on site has identified the need for the removal of all vegetation from the site including 0.305 hectares of Valley Grassy Forest (EVC 47) and Plains Grassy Wetland (EVC 125), ten (10) planted River Red Gum trees (Eucalyptus camaldulensis), 95 planted native Victorian plants and 44 Non-Victorian Australian species in order to facilitate the proposed subdivision of the land. It is noted that only 18 of the 95 planted native Victorian plants proposed to be removed are indigenous to this part of Victoria and that a planning permit is not required to remove the 44 Non-Victorian Australian species. The assessment also identified that the River Red Gums proposed to be removed were planted and have fair to good health with poor to fair structure.

Council’s Sustainability Planning Unit and Parks and Open Space Department support the removal of the vegetation except for six River Red Gums (Tree Nos 73, 83A, 83, 84, 89 and 90) and 11 native Victorian trees comprising Yellow Box and Spotted Gum (Tree Nos 70, 74-78, 80-82, 85 and 86) noting that the subdivision layout could be amended to retain the vegetation within an open space reserve. Three Non-Victorian Australian natives comprising Rusty Gums (Tree Nos 71, 72 and 79) can also be retained within the open space area as they are located in proximity to the other native Victorian vegetation.

In accordance with Council’s advice, the applicant amended the subdivision layout plan to reflect the retention of the vegetation as shown in Attachments 2 and 3. Accordingly, it is recommended that Planning Permit No. 716369 be approved to allow for the removal of the remainder of the vegetation including 0.305 hectares of Valley Grassy Forest (EVC 47) and Plains Grassy Wetland (EVC 125), four planted River Red Gum trees (Trees 15, 16, 65 and 92), 84 planted Victorian native trees (of which only 13 are indigenous to this part of Victoria) and 41 Non-Victorian Australian species from the land. Conditions on any permit that issues will require the provision of native vegetation offsets in accordance with the provisions of the ‘Biodiversity Assessment Guidelines (DEPI 2013) and Native Vegetation Gain Scoring Manual (DEPI 2013)’.

SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA

The subject site is located on the south-west corner of Sackville Street and William Street, Mernda, is rectangular in shape and covers an area of approximately 2.425 hectares (see Attachment 1). The site has a frontage to Williams Street (north) of 210.045m, a 114.57m frontage to Sackville Street (east) and a 114.168m frontage to Wellington Street (west).

The locality has undergone significant change over the past five years from rural living and agricultural uses to a more urban character. Surrounding developments include the Fashoda and Cambridge Rise Estates to the north, the Wellington Rise Estate to the south, and the Fairview Estate to the west which is under construction. A series of remnant rural-residential land parcels adjoin the site to the east.

The site contains a dwelling and shed to the east and a small dam towards the north-western corner of the property. A flora and fauna assessment was undertaken of the site which identified that the site supports a number of planted Victorian native and Non-Victorian Australian natives, including:

· Ten (10) River Red Gum trees (Eucalyptus camaldulensis) grown as tubestock from non-local provenance seed;

· 95 planted Victorian natives such as Spotted Gum, Blue Gum and Red Ironbark. It was noted that only 18 of the 95 Victorian native plants identified on site are indigenous to this part of Victoria and include Yellow Box, Silver Wattle, Narrow Leaved Peppermint, Blackwood and Manna Gum; and

· 44 Non-Victorian Australian natives such as Lemon-scented Gum and River Oak which do not require a planning permit for their removal.

In addition, the site supports Valley Grassy Forest (EVC 47) and Plains Grassy Wetland (EVC 125). Ten modified examples of these vegetation types occur on the site as remnant patches, measuring a total area of 0.305 hectares.

restrictions and easements

The site is legally described as Lot 1 on Title Plan 836259G of Volume 08782 Folio 228. There are no restrictions on Title that preclude Council from determining this application.

BACKGROUND

The subject site is located within the Mernda West Development Plan and Mernda Strategy Plan areas. The Mernda West Development Plan identifies the site for residential use. A permit for development or use may be granted if it is consistent with the Mernda West Development Plan and if it will not prejudice the future use or development of the land for the purpose of the zone as intended by the Mernda Strategy Plan.

Planning Application No. 716121 is being assessed concurrently by Council and seeks permission for the multi-lot subdivision of this same land. This application for subdivision is yet to be determined however is well advanced and is generally consistent with the Mernda West Development Plan.

It should be noted that the initial application to subdivide the land had originally requested the removal of all vegetation from the site, however Council’s assessment has identified that the layout plan may be amended so that six River Red Gums (Tree Nos 73, 83A, 83, 84, 89 and 90), 11 native Victorian trees comprising Yellow Box and Spotted Gum (Tree Nos 70, 74-78, 80-82, 85 and 86) and 3 Non-Victorian Australian natives comprising Rusty Gum (Tree Nos 71, 72 and 79) could be retained in an open space reserve.

The applicant subsequently amended the subdivision layout to reflect the retention of this vegetation as shown in Attachment 2. The remainder of the vegetation on site comprising 0.305 hectares of Valley Grassy Forest (EVC 47) and Plains Grassy Wetland (EVC 125), four River Red Gum trees (Trees 15, 16, 65 and 92) and 84 Victorian native trees (of which only 13 are indigenous to this part of Victoria) are required to be removed in order to allow for the orderly development of the site. Forty one Non-Victorian Australian species are also proposed to be removed, however a planning permit is not required to remove this vegetation.

Proposal

The applicant proposes the removal of 0.305 hectares of Valley Grassy Forest (EVC 47) and Plains Grassy Wetland (EVC 125), four (4) planted River Red Gum trees (Eucalyptus camaldulensis) and 84 planted Victorian native trees of which only 13 are indigenous to this part of Victoria containing the subject site (see Attachments 2 and 4).

As mentioned above, ten modified examples of Valley Grassy Forest (EVC 47) and Plains Grassy Wetland (EVC 125) occur on the site as remnant patches, measuring a total area of 0.305 hectares. A summary of these habitat zones is described below:

Habitat Zone Identification No.	EVC	Area (ha)
A	Valley Grassy Forest (EVC 47)	0.133
B	Valley Grassy Forest (EVC 47)	0.004
C	Valley Grassy Forest (EVC 47)	0.004
D	Valley Grassy Forest (EVC 47)	0.006
E	Valley Grassy Forest (EVC 47)	0.018
F	Valley Grassy Forest (EVC 47)	0.104
G	Plains Grassy Wetland (EVC 125)	0.007
H	Plains Grassy Wetland (EVC 125)	0.001
I	Valley Grassy Forest (EVC 47)	0.017
J	Valley Grassy Forest (EVC 47)	0.006
Total extent		0.305

Details of the four (4) planted River Red Gums proposed to be removed on the site are outlined in the following table:ne EVC Area

Tree Identification No.	Common Name (Species)	Diameter of Trunk over bark at Breast Height (cm)	Height and Width (m)	Health
15	River Red Gum (Eucalyptus camaldulensis)	49	17 x 8	Good health. Fair/poor structure.
16	River Red Gum (Eucalyptus camaldulensis)	41	18 x 7	Fair/good condition. Fair structure.
65	River Red Gum (Eucalyptus camaldulensis)	28	13 x 4	Fair condition. Fair/poor structure.
92	River Red Gum (Eucalyptus camaldulensis)	23	11 x 4	Fair condition. Poor structure.

The application also proposes the removal of 84 planted Victorian native trees such as Spotted Gum, Blue Gum and Red Ironbark. As mentioned above, only 13 of the 84 planted Victorian natives are indigenous to this part of Victoria and are outlined in the following table:

Tree Identification No.	Common Name (Species)	Diameter of Trunk over bark at Breast Height (cm)	Height and Width (m)
5	Yellow Box (Eucalyptus melliodara)	32	15 x 9
9	Silver Wattle (Acacia dealbata)	13, 15 (twin stemmed)	6 x 5
52	Narrow Leaved Peppermint (Eucalyptus radiata)	23	8 x 5
58	Narrow Leaved Peppermint (Eucalyptus radiata)	23, 26 (twin stemmed)	6 x 5
112	Blackwood (Acacia melanoxylon)	14	10 x 8
141 (group of 8)	Manna Gum (Eucalptus viminalis) x 8	28 37 30, 39 (twin stemmed) 37 42 25, 32 (twin stemmed) 33 26	7-11 x 5-7

The Vegetation Retention and Removal Plan submitted with the application also identifies the removal of 41 Non-Victorian Australian species from the land, however a planning permit is not required to remove this vegetation.

Public Notification

The site is covered by the Development Plan Overlay – Schedule 5 (DPO5) and the Incorporated Plan Overlay – Schedule 1 (IPO1) which both exempt planning permit applications from the notice requirements of Section 52(1)(a), (b) and (d) of the Planning and Environment Act, 1987, provided that the application is generally in accordance with the associated incorporated or approved plan.

PLANNING CONTEXT

State Planning Policy Framework

Clause 12.01-1 Protection of Biodiversity

Clause 12.01 of the Whittlesea Planning Scheme relates to biodiversity and the protection of Victoria’s natural habitat. The objective of this clause is to assist the protection and conservation of Victoria’s biodiversity, including native vegetation retention and provision of habitats for native plants and animals and control of pest plants and animals.

Clause 12.01-2 Native Vegetation Management

This clause seeks to ensure that the permitted clearing of native vegetation results in no net loss in the extent and quality of native vegetation. The strategy to achieve this is to apply the risk-based approach to managing native vegetation as set out in Permitted clearing of native vegetation – Biodiversity assessment guidelines (Department of Environment and Primary Industries, September 2013). These are:

· Avoid the removal of native vegetation that makes a significant contribution to Victoria’s biodiversity.

· Minimise impacts on Victoria’s biodiversity.

· Where native vegetation is permitted to be removed, ensure that an offset is provided in a manner that makes a contribution to Victoria’s biodiversity that is equivalent to the contribution made by the native vegetation to be removed.

LOCAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK

Clause 22.10 River Red Gum Protection Policy

Clause 22.10 of the Whittlesea Planning Scheme relates to Council’s River Red Gum Protection Policy. This policy applies to the protection of River Red Gums located in urban and rural areas. The objective of this policy is “to ensure that the development of urban and rural areas takes into account the presence, retention, enhancement and long term viability of Red Gums in urban areas.” The key policy directions are to:

· Recognise the intrinsic value of River Red Gums in establishing character and identity in urban and rural areas.

· Request a comprehensive site analysis and arborist’s report with any planning proposal for development on land which contains one or more remnant River Red Gums.

· Encourage that the majority of River Red Gums proposed for retention are sited in public open space reserves and/or road reserves.

· Ensure that, where a tree is to be located in a lot, the lot is large enough to accommodate a suitable development envelope that does not disturb the tree or its root system.

· Ensure that, where feasible, areas of significant River Red Gum regeneration are protected in any development proposal.

· Encourage tree removal to be generally limited to only those trees independently assessed as presenting a danger to people and property.

· Appropriately protect trees identified for retention during the construction phase, and thereafter ensure that their health is regularly monitored by an appropriate environmental consultant where located on public land.

· Ensure that any tree nominated on a development and/or subdivision plan for protection is located within an appropriate tree protection zone. The protection zone must be large enough to ensure that the trunk and canopy remain intact and that the root system is not severely damaged or destroyed during the construction phase.

When assessed against the relevant decision guidelines of this policy and in the context of the level of remnant River Red Gums being retained across the site as a whole, the proposed removal of the four planted River Red Gum trees and 84 planted Victorian native trees of which only 13 are indigenous to this part of Victoria is considered acceptable. Whilst River Red Gum trees contribute to the landscape character of the surrounding area, Trees 15, 16, 65 and 92, which are proposed to be removed are of fair-poor structure, and have all been determined to be planted for amenity or woodlot purposes which is consistent with the Mernda West Development Plan, a document which does not identify any remnant trees within the subject site.

Furthermore, as the alignment of the proposed roads is largely set and required under the Mernda West Development Plan, retaining this vegetation would significantly compromise the future development of the site and surrounding area. Notwithstanding, Council’s Parks and Open Space Department considers that six River Red Gums (Tree Nos 73, 83A, 83, 84, 89 and 90), 11 native Victorian trees comprising Yellow Box and Spotted Gum (Tree Nos 70, 74-78, 80-82, 85 and 86) and 3 Non-Victorian Australian natives comprising Rusty Gums (Tree Nos 71, 72 and 79) may be retained in an open space reserve as shown in the applicant’s proposed subdivision layout.

Consequently, it is considered that the removal of 0.305 hectares of Valley Grassy Forest (EVC 47) and Plains Grassy Wetland (EVC 125), four planted River Red Gums and 84 planted Victorian native trees (of which only 13 are indigenous to this area of Victoria) is consistent with the overarching objectives and decision guidelines of Clause 22.10 of the Whittlesea Planning Scheme.

ZONE AND OVERLAY DECISION GUIDELINES

The subject site is located within the General Residential Zone. The land is also affected by the Vegetation Protection Overlay (Schedule 1), Incorporated Plan Overlay (Schedule 1), Development Contributions Plan Overlay (Schedule 8) and Development Plan Overlay (Schedule 5). Pursuant to Clause 32.08 of the Whittlesea Planning Scheme, a planning permit is not required to remove native vegetation from land within a General Residential Zone.

Of particular relevance to this application is the Vegetation Protection Overlay - Clause 42.02 of the Whittlesea Planning Scheme, which requires a planning permit for the removal, destruction and lopping of native vegetation on land affected by the overlay. Schedule 1 to this overlay relates to the River Red Gum Grassy Woodland region within the Mernda, Doreen and South Morang areas, where the subject site is located. This schedule has the following objectives:

· To preserve and maintain significant vegetation and the character of the area;

· Maintain soil qualities and minimise the impacts of erosion; and

· Preserve natural habitat for flora and fauna.

Particular Provisions

Clause 52.17 – Native Vegetation

Pursuant to Clause 52.17 of the Whittlesea Planning Scheme, planning approval is required to remove, destroy or lop native vegetation, including dead vegetation, on land that together with all contiguous land in one ownership, has an area greater than 0.4 hectares. This does not apply:

· If the table to Clause 52.17-6 specifically states that a permit is not required.

· To the removal, destruction or lopping of native vegetation specified in the schedule to this clause.

· To an area specified in the schedule to this clause.

Under the exemptions of Clause 52.17-6, a planning permit is not required for the removal of planted native trees described above. However, a planning permit is required for the removal of the 0.305 hectares of Valley Grassy Forest (EVC 47) and Plains Grassy Wetland (EVC 125).

REFERRALS

Internal

The application was referred internally to Council’s Parks and Open Space Department and Sustainability Planning Unit.

Council’s Parks and Open Space Department considered the application and offered no objection to the removal of 0.305 hectares of Valley Grassy Forest (EVC 47) and Plains Grassy Wetland (EVC 125), four (4) planted River Red Gum trees (Eucalyptus camaldulensis) and 84 planted Victorian native trees of which only 13 are indigenous to this part of Victoria as these trees will be significantly impacted upon as a result of road works and service provision associated with the proposed subdivision. Council’s Parks and Open Space Department also stated that the trees had all been planted for amenity or woodlot purposes which is consistent with the Mernda West Development Plan which does not identify any remnant trees within the subject site. However, Council’s Parks and Open Space Department notes that six River Red Gums (Tree Nos 73, 83A, 83, 84, 89 and 90), 11 native Victorian trees comprising Yellow Box and Spotted Gum (Tree Nos 70, 74-78, 80-82, 85 and 86) and 3 Non-Victorian Australian natives comprising Rusty Gum (Tree Nos 71, 72 and 79) could be retained within an open space reserve.

Council’s Sustainability Planning Unit advises that the proposal to remove the vegetation from the land is acceptable subject to the inclusion of conditions on any permit that issues.

PLANNING COMMENTS

Council acknowledges the importance of native vegetation, and in particular River Red Gum trees, as a visual and environmental feature within the municipality. In this instance, the removal of 0.305 hectares of Valley Grassy Forest (EVC 47) and Plains Grassy Wetland (EVC 125), four planted River Red Gum trees (Trees 15, 16, 65 and 92) and 84 planted Victorian native trees (of which only 13 are indigenous to this area of Victoria) is considered acceptable given that it will allow a positive subdivision design outcome and will maximise the longer term protection of six River Red Gums, 11 other native Victorian trees and 3 Non-Victorian Australian natives.

The removal of the vegetation is required to facilitate the proposed subdivision and road layout in accordance with the provisions of the Mernda West Development Plan. It is extremely problematic to produce a development layout that maximises tree retention whilst providing a subdivision layout which ensures appropriate integration, lot size diversity, efficient open space provision, movement, and appropriate streetscape design. In this instance, it is considered that the proposed subdivision layout makes efficient use of the site and produces a positive design outcome which includes the:

· Protection of the most significant trees within the public realm within an open space tree reserve rather than in a body corporate area.

· Provision of a range of residential lot sizes.

· Provision of a subdivision layout which promotes allotment frontage to roads (rather than side/rear fences).

· Provision of a subdivision layout which integrates with the surrounding area.

· Provision for public road connectivity and permeability within and external to the subject site.

A number of trees proposed to be removed are also located within proposed residential allotments. These trees will be significantly impacted by earthworks, road works, crossovers and filling. Even if these trees could be retained, they will invariably grow very large and may represent a significant hazard to private property and people in the future. The fact that these trees appear to be located in private lots would also mean Council would not be able to access the trees to undertake maintenance, including hazard reduction, pruning etc.

The arboricultural and ecological assessments provided by the applicant confirm that the River Red Gums earmarked for removal are of poor to fair structure. In addition, the four planted River Red Gum trees and 84 planted Victorian native trees have all been determined to be planted for amenity or woodlot purposes, which is consistent with the Mernda West Development Plan which does not identify any remnant tress within the subject site.

The removal of the removal of 0.305 hectares of Valley Grassy Forest (EVC 47) and Plains Grassy Wetland (EVC 125), four planted River Red Gum trees (Trees 15, 16, 65 and 92) and 84 planted Victorian native trees (of which only 13 are indigenous to this area of Victoria) is considered appropriate in this instance as it will allow a balanced outcome to be provided by facilitating development that accords with the relevant policies of the Whittlesea Planning Scheme and Mernda West Development Plan.

It is considered that the relevant policy objectives relating to Clauses 22.10 (River Red Gum Protection Policy), 42.02 (Vegetation Protection Policy Overlay Schedule 1), and 52.17 (Native Vegetation Removal) of the Whittlesea Planning Scheme have been appropriately addressed in the planning assessment. Offsets in accordance with the provisions ‘Biodiversity Assessment Guidelines (DEPI 2013) and Native Vegetation Gain Scoring Manual (DEPI 2013)’ may be required as a condition on any permit that issues.

Declarations of Conflicts of Interest

Under section 80C of the Local Government Act 1989 officers providing advice to Council must disclose any interests, including the type of interest.

The Responsible Officer reviewing this report, having made enquiries with the relevant members of staff, reports that no disclosable interests have been raised in relation to this report.

Conclusion

It is considered that the removal of 0.305 hectares of Valley Grassy Forest (EVC 47) and Plains Grassy Wetland (EVC 125), four planted River Red Gum trees and 84 planted Victorian native trees is in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Whittlesea Planning Scheme. The removal of four planted River Red Gum trees of fair to poor structure and 84 planted Victorian native trees is acceptable given the support by Council’s Parks and Open Space Department and Sustainability Planning Unit and the retention of six River Red Gums, 11 native Victorian trees and 3 Non-Victorian Australian natives in an open space reserve. The vegetation removal is justified given the need to facilitate the construction of the subdivision and road network in order to provide for efficient access to a planned community.

Accordingly, it is recommended that the application for the removal of native vegetation be supported subject to appropriate conditions.

Recommendation

THAT Council resolve to approve Planning Application No. 716369 and issue a Planning Permit for the removal of native vegetation at 60 Sackville Street, Mernda in accordance with the endorsed plans and subject to the following conditions:

1. No native vegetation may be removed until such time as a planning permit has been issued for the multi-lot subdivision of land at 60 Sackville Street, Mernda (Application No. 716121).

2. No trees, dead or alive, or remnant vegetation, other than that shown on the endorsed plan, shall be destroyed, felled, lopped, ring barked or uprooted, without the consent of the Responsible Authority.

3. Prior to the commencement of the tree removal works, all scattered trees and remnant vegetation to be retained must be protected in the following manner:

a) Trees are to be protected in accordance with the Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) to the standards requirements by the City of Whittlesea (SDL.2.01) and areas of native vegetation to be retained must be temporarily fenced. Fencing must comply with the Australian Standard for the protection of trees/native vegetation on development sites (AS4970-2009).

b) Fencing must be signposted as ‘Tree Protection Zone’ or “No Go Zone” and must remain in place for the entire construction period.

4. In order to offset the removal of native vegetation (habitat hectares and scattered tree) approved as part of this permit, the applicant must provide a native vegetation offset that is in accordance with the Permitted Clearing of Native Vegetation – Biodiversity assessment guidelines and the Native Vegetation Gain Scoring Manual. The offset must contribute a gain of the required general biodiversity equivalence units, be located within the boundary of the Whittlesea municipality or the Port Phillip and Westernport Catchment Management Authority area, and have a strategic score of at least 80 per cent of the strategic biodiversity score of the native vegetation approved for removal. Before any native vegetation is removed, evidence that an offset has been secured must be provided to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

5. Prior to removal, the subject trees must be inspected by a suitably qualified and experienced zoologist to determine the presence of animals living or nesting in the tree. Should any native animals be detected, reasonable steps must be taken to capture and relocate such animals as recommended by the zoologist.

6. Each tree nominated for removal must be suitably marked prior to the commencement of any works and an inspection arranged with an appropriate Council officer to verify that the trees marked accords with this permit.

7. The applicant must contact Council’s Parks and Open Space Department to arrange for an appropriate officer to be present on site to supervise the removal of the trees.

8. The project manager is to ensure that tree removal is carried out in a safe manner.

9. The project manager is to locate all services either above or below ground prior to the commencement of any works.

10. Stumps and any surface roots are to be ground down below ground level. Ground and chipped material to a depth of 50mm is to be removed from site at the direction of the project manager. The project manager must supply and replace suitable topsoil and seed the area making certain that the reinstated ground surface is level, even and safe.

11. All stumps not removed immediately after removal of the tree are to be paint marked with a suitable bright yellow reflective marking paint.

12. All stumps must be removed within 14 days of removal of the tree.

13. After a tree has been felled, the tree must be protected from firewood harvesting via temporary fencing and signage to the satisfaction of Council until such time as the tree has been relocated for habitat or mulched.

14. Wherever possible and appropriate, native trees to be removed should be retained for use in core conservation areas for habitat purposes or reused in open space as urban art, park furniture and/or other uses determined appropriate by the Responsible Authority.

15. All timber greater than 300mm in diameter that cannot be reused as habitat, furniture or another use determined as appropriate by the Responsible Authority shall be hammer milled and shredded for reuse as mulch within the subject site.

16. All timber less than 300mm in diameter and branch/leaf material shall be shredded for re-use as mulch within the subject site.

17. At the completion of the works, the applicant is to arrange for an appropriate Council officer to inspect the site to ensure compliance with the planning permit.

18. No buildings or works, including loading and unloading, storage of materials, dumping of waste, vehicle access, parking and other construction activity is to occur within a tree protection zone without the written consent of and to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

19. The permit for tree removal expires if it is not commenced and completed within two years after the issue of the permit. Before the permit expires or within three months afterwards, the owner or occupier of the land to which it applies may ask the responsible authority for an extension of time. The Responsible Authority may extend the time within which the use or development or any stage of it may be started or any stage of it is to be completed.

Notes:

Prior to the removal of the trees, the permit holder must notify all adjacent landholders that the trees are to be removed with Council consent.

A consulting arborist must be employed to supervise works which may impact upon trees marked for retention on the approved plan.

The consulting arborist must conduct an induction of all personnel involved in construction that may impact on tree protection zones.

Any works within the tree protection zone should be completed or supervised by the consulting arborist.

The area inside the tree protection zone should, where considered relevant by the consulting arborist, be modified in the following manner to enhance the growing environment of the tree and to help reduce stress or damage to the tree:

· the area within the tree protection zone may require mulch with wood chips or compost matter to a depth of 150 millimetres.

· trees may require supplementary watering, with the amount to be assessed by the consulting arborist and determined by the extent of disturbance to the trees roots and climatic conditions.

· where severing of roots (greater than 50 millimetres in diameter) is required directly adjacent to the exclusion zone they must be cut cleanly. Where possible this is to be completed at the beginning of development of the site. Roots are not to be left exposed, but back-filled or covered with damp hessian.

The storing or disposing of chemicals or toxic materials must not be undertaken within 10 metres of any tree protection zone. Where the slope of the land suggests these materials may drain towards a tree protection zone, the storing or disposing of these materials is strictly forbidden.

Tree protection envelope fencing is to be constructed to the following requirements:

· Ring lock wire mesh (or equivalent) no less than 1.2 metres high.

· Main posts 100mm treated pine (TP).

· Intermediate posts steel star pickets (SP).

· The corner posts are to be TP with TP stays.

· Every third post is to be TP.

· SP to be placed intermediately between the TP at 3m intervals.

· The ring lock mesh to encircle the structure and be firmly secured at each post.

· Posts must be sunk into the ground by 450mm (there is to be no concrete to secure posts as this may affect p.H. levels).

· The tree protection zone is to be clearly sign posted in accordance with the condition titled Tree Protection Zone fencing.

With the agreement of the responsible authority, tree protection zone fencing may not be provided where permanent reserve fencing is introduced prior to construction. The specification of the permanent fencing must be to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

Ordinary Council Agenda Tuesday 28 February 2017

6.1.14 310 & 290A Bridge Inn Road, Mernda - Use and Development of a childcare centre

File No: 715886

Attachments: 1 Locality Maps ⇩

2 Development Plans ⇩

3 Development Plan Overlay - Schedule 27 (Fairview Development Plan) ⇩

Responsible Officer: Director Planning & Major Projects

Author: Manager Development Assessment

APPLICANT: Watersun Homes

COUNCIL POLICY: Clause 22.05 Child Care Centre Policy

ZONING: General Residential Zone

OVERLAY: Incorporated Plan Overlay (Schedule 1)

Development Plan Overlay (Schedules 5 and 27) Development Contributions Plan Overlay (Schedule 5)

Vegetation Protection Overlay (Schedule 1)

REFERRAL: Nil

OBJECTIONS: The application was not required to be advertised.

RECOMMENDATION: That Council refuse the application.

Report

EXECUTIVE Summary

An application has been received to use and develop land for the purpose of a 107-place childcare centre within an area proposed for future residential subdivision. The subject land, comprising an area of 2,015m², is located on the southwest corner of Bridge Inn Road and Wellington Street, Mernda. The proposed site is located at the western edge of the Mernda urban growth area and adjacent to the current Urban Growth Boundary. The site occupies a gateway location to a Green Wedge area and the proposed Quarry Hills Park.

This report was presented to the Council meeting of 11 October 2016, with Council resolving to defer the application.

This report provides an assessment of the application under provisions of the Whittlesea Planning Scheme. It concludes that the use and development is not generally in accordance with incorporated and development plans forming part of the Whittlesea Planning Scheme. Where an application is found not to be generally in accordance with an incorporated or development plan, Council has no ability to issue a planning permit.

An assessment of the planning merits of the application has also shown that the proposal is unable to adequately comply with planning scheme policies relating to childcare centre use and development. The development is also premature as a subdivision framework is yet to be approved for the area. This report recommends that the application be refused.

SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA

The subject site is located on the southwest corner of the Bridge Inn Road and Wellington Street, Mernda (see Attachment 1). The land is located within Stage 9 of the Fairview Estate in which subdivision works have recently commenced (see Attachment 2). The subject land comprises three proposed residential lots (2 and 4 Wellington Street and 40 Georgia Drive) comprising a combined area of 2,015m². The land falls 7.7m from the rear of the site (195.0 AHD) towards the front (Wellington Street) at 187.3 AHD. The subject site is currently vacant. There are no trees or native vegetation within the area proposed for development.

The subject land occupies an elevated area and the proposed western boundary of the land is defined by the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). Land outside the UGB is currently being included within the Quarry Hills Park. The western boundary will abut a small hilltop reserve which will form part of the proposed park.

The UGB extends across Bridge Inn Road directly north of the subject land where it continues along a defined contour level. In this context the subject land occupies a gateway leading into and out of the Mernda/ Doreen growth area - separating the growth area with non-urban Green Wedge land. Land to the north is rural in character and not currently proposed for urban development.

A small number of larger lots and associated dwellings are proposed south of Bridge Inn Road and west of the subject land (between the hilltop park referred to above and the UGB/ Quarry Hills Park interface). These lots will be set back from Bridge Inn Road via a service road arrangement. In contrast, the lots proposed on the subject land will protrude close to the Bridge Inn Road corridor making the site prominent.

Land to the east, opposite Wellington Street, comprises the Fashoda homestead heritage place (1B Wellington Street) which is of State heritage significance and contained within a Heritage Overlay. The extent of the registration area was originally approved having regard to the view lines to the heritage place from the west along Bridge Inn Road. Dwellings recently constructed on 5-13 Wellington Street are within the heritage registration area and a Heritage Overlay and are subject to design requirements. The land between 5 Wellington Street and Bridge Inn Road (directly opposite the subject land) cannot be developed with further dwellings to ensure that view lines into the heritage place are not compromised.

The land to the south of the subject site comprises established dwellings associated with Stage 1 of the Fairview Estate although the immediate lot to the south (No. 8) is currently vacant and in private ownership. This landowner has not been notified of the application proposal because, as discussed, further in this report, planning provisions exempt third party notification.

SUBDIVISION CONTEXT

Planning Permit No. 711997 was issued for the subdivision of Fairview Estate in 2010. At that time the UGB ran through the subject land terminating approximately at the corner of Bridge Inn Road and Wellington Street. Not long after the permit was issued, the UGB was extended to allow further land to be included within a residential zone in lieu of the transfer of other land into the Quarry Hills Park. The additional residential land is known as Stage 9. The proposed development is located within this stage.

The subject land is affected by two development plans. The eastern portion of the land (east of the former UGB) is with Development Plan Overlay Schedule 5 (DPO5) and the western portion of the land (west of the former UGB) is within Development Plan Overlay Schedule 27 (DPO27). Development plans have been approved by Council for each respective schedule area. Because the current proposal straddles both DPO areas, the requirements of each approved plan must be met. The extent to which the application proposal is generally in accordance with each respective approved development plan is discussed further in this report.

Stage 9 of the Fairview Estate was approved as an amendment to the existing subdivision permit. However, this permit lapsed on 13 April 2016 because as of that date Stage 9 had not been certified. A request to extend this permit was received and following subsequent legal advice indicating an ability to consider the matter, was approved on 22 November 2016 as there had been no change in circumstance and a majority of the subdivision works had been completed out on site.

The permit holder was advised at the same time that the requirements of the subdivision, specifically design and development guidelines for all lots that remained outstanding must be completed prior to the issuing of a Statement of Compliance that may necessitate amending the subdivision permit.

The implications of the subject land not having a title are discussed further in this report.

restrictions and easements

A Section 173 agreement AK037024V is registered on the parent title. The agreement relates to transfer of open space relating to the Quarry Hills Park, payment of development contributions and requires that development be in accordance with the approved development plan. Further restrictions are likely to be placed on titles approved under a subdivision permit.

Proposal

It is proposed to use and develop part of the land for the purpose of a childcare centre (see Attachment 2). The centre is anticipated to accommodate 107 children and associated staff and will operate between 6.30am and 6.30pm Monday- Friday.

The proposal includes a car park at the front of the site which accommodates 25 parking spaces including one ‘access for all’ space. A single crossover is proposed from Wellington Street.

Due to the fall of the land, the proposed building will be split level. On the ground level at the front of the site is undercover parking and above that is the main part of the centre, which includes all the playrooms, reception and amenities. On the upper level are ‘staff only’ areas. Service plant will also be accommodated on the upper level (to avoid the plant being placed in the roof). The outdoor play areas will be provided along the sides and rear of the site with direct access from the playrooms. To achieve level play areas significant fill will be required.

The overall height of the building will vary with extensive site cut and fill to deal with the fall of the land. From the front of the site (Wellington Street) the building will be 10.0m in height. From the north (Bridge Inn Road) the building will appear to be 7.8m in height. The building will result in 48 percent site coverage. The building form includes a pitched roof and external materials including face brickwork on the lower level, render finish for the upper level and sections of painted ‘Axon’ cladding. At the frontage of the site there will be retaining walls and 3.7m high screening of ‘Alucobond’ cladding and feature screens provided where the building and undercroft parking commences.

The proposed building will address Wellington Street, with the access point leading to stairs and a lift to the reception area from the parking area (beneath the main floor level).

Public Notification

Pursuant to Clause 43.03-2 and 43.04-2 of the Whittlesea Planning Scheme, an application which is generally in accordance with an incorporated plan and a development plan is exempt from the notice requirements of Section 52(1)(a), (b) and (c) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.

PLANNING ASSESSMENT

The following State and local planning policies and particular provisions contained within the Whittlesea Planning Scheme are considered relevant to this application.

State Planning Policy Framework

Clause 10.04 ‘Integrated Decision Making’ encourages planning authorities and responsible authorities to endeavour to integrate the range of policies relevant to the issues to be determined and balance conflicting objectives in favour of net community benefit and sustainable development for the benefit of present and future generations. There is concern that the proposed use and development has failed to achieve a balance as set out below.

Clause 15.01-1 (Urban design) sets out strategies to require that development respond to its context and to ensure that transport corridors are integrated with land use planning. For the reasons further set out in this report, it is considered that the site occupies a gateway location and that the height, scaling and massing of development on the site will be out of keeping with the intended lower density objectives for this area.

Local Planning Policy Framework

Clause 21-08-1 (Urban design) requires that planning decisions pay particular emphasis to major gateways and main roads in future urban areas where quality outcomes are a key objective. Maintenance of the image in areas that have been excluded from urban development is also of vital importance. Objectives seek to upgrade the image and appearance of the city through strategies which require service road treatments or other frontage treatments and substantial landscape setbacks along main and other significant roads (other than in activity centres) (Strategy 1.5); protection of the visual qualities of the Quarry Hills (Strategy 1.8) and improvements in appearance at major entrances (Strategy 1.9).

Local Planning Policies

Child Care Centre Policy (Clause 22.05)

The objective of this policy is to ensure that childcare centres are appropriately located and well-designed, have a minimal impact on the amenity of the area and serve the needs of the community. An assessment of the proposal under the policy is provided below:

Encourage child care centres to locate adjacent to or in proximity to other community support facilities such as schools, pre-schools, open space, medical centres, and recreational facilities.

The nearest features to the subject land are:

§ Parkledge Park (400m south)

§ Gilson College (350m east)

§ St Josephs Primary School (2.1km northeast)

§ Mernda Primary School (2.4km northeast)

§ Bus Route 572 – University Hill to Doreen (1.8km northeast)

In contrast to the assertions made in the application submission, it is considered the subject land is poorly located to the range of facilities and services (both existing and proposed) referred to in the policy. A significant portion of the proposed catchment will comprise non-urban land. While ultimately some of this land will form part of the Quarry Hills Park, it is not proposed to be developed as a key destination that would support the childcare centre proposal.

Encourage child care centres to locate in proximity to public transport routes.

The nearest public transport to the site is Bus Route 572 which travels between University Hill and Doreen (1.8km northeast). While a future route along Bridge Inn Road may be provided at a future date, the subject land, located at the edge of the growth area, will lack appropriate integration with public transport services.

Minimise impacts on residential amenity and enhance access, corner sites are preferred locations for child care centres. Establishment of child care centres within cul-de-sacs and on main roads is discouraged.

Bridge Inn Road is a designated arterial road which will accommodate a high volume of traffic within a four lane divided carriageway. As access will not be possible via this main road, all access and parking will be required via a single crossover on Wellington Street (a residential street).

Ensure that the scale and appearance of purpose built child care centres is consistent with surrounding land use, site characteristics, and site location. In residential areas child care centres should have a residential scale, height and building form, which is sympathetic to the character of adjoining dwellings and the streetscape.

The scale of the built form is not consistent with surrounding character (existing and proposed). Due to the slope of the site combined with the need/ desire to have all the care rooms on the same level and outdoor play space also on the same level, a very large built from will be visible when viewed from the front and sides of the building. The scale is not respectful of the emerging character of the area. The overall height is in excess of 10m, essentially presenting a triple storey built form on land that protrudes onto the Bridge Inn Road corridor.

The Coordinator Urban Design within Council’s Strategic Planning and Design Department has undertaken a review of the proposal and supports the above assessment.

Ensure that access to and from the site is to be designed in such a way as to allow for the safe and efficient movement of vehicle and pedestrian traffic, including safe set down areas.

The car park provides for the required number of parking spaces. However there are concerns with the safe and efficient movements of vehicles and pedestrians and there is no continuous pedestrian path provided within the car parking area. Additionally, there is no loading bay provided or turning area. The car parking area has the limitation of low clearance where provided in the form of an undercroft. Additionally, there is no direct separated footpath area for pedestrian or bicycles into the site from the site frontage.

Ensure proposals fulfil a demonstrated need.

At this stage there are a number of proposed childcare centres that have been approved in better and more accessible locations within the surrounding growth area. These developments are still yet to commence thus it is difficult to determine whether there is demonstrated need.

Based on the assessment of the criteria above, it is considered that the proposal responds poorly to the Child Care Centre Policy. Opportunities were provided to address a number of these issues as part of requests for further information. However, the applicant response disagreed with the officer position.

General Residential Zone

The subject site is located within the General Residential Zone (GRZ1). Pursuant to Clause 32.08-1 of the Whittlesea Planning Scheme, a childcare centre is a section 2 use (permit required). The relevant decision guidelines for non-residential uses and development under the Zone are outlined below:

Whether the use or development is compatible with residential use.

A childcare centre is compatible with residential uses in a general sense. The proposed centre is likely to create some noise (children playing), however given the general nature of childcare centres, the peak times for outdoor play are not in the earlier or later hours of operation. Noise generated from the arterial road corridor is likely to be a greater noise source within this particular context.

Whether the use generally serves local community needs.

See previous comments in this report.

The scale and intensity of the use and development.

The childcare centre will operate from 6.30am to 6:30pm, Monday to Friday with up to 107 children. Impacts on the area are likely to be experienced in the form of traffic movements. The capacity of 107 children and a likely matching number of parents/carers dropping off and collecting children is a relevant consideration when determining impacts on the residential nature of the site. The subject land is remote from activity centres and there are likely to be higher levels of amenity expected in this area by future residents.

The design, height, setback and appearance of the proposed buildings and works.

It is considered the design, overall height, setbacks and general appearance of the building will result in an unacceptable outcome that is inconsistent with the existing and proposed residential character and scale of the area. For reasons discussed earlier, the building design coupled with issues of site fall and need for cut and fill will contribute to an adverse outcome.

The proposed landscaping.

A concept landscape plan was submitted as part of the application. Council’s Parks and Open Space Department raised concerns about the quality of the plan, however this could potentially be addressed through conditions if any permit were to be issued.

The provision of car and bicycle parking and associated accessways.

Details of car and bicycle parking are discussed within later sections of this report.

Any proposed loading and refuse collection facilities.

It is anticipated that deliveries to the site will be via smaller vehicles for supplies and food. While most supplies may be via a small van, based on other childcare centres it is considered unlikely that all deliveries will be made in this way. There is no loading bay provided to accommodate larger deliveries and possibly inadequate space for a larger vehicle to turn and leave the site. Additionally, it should be noted that since half the car park is beneath the building there may be limitations in accessing this area due to clearance heights. Pedestrian safety within the site is also a concern with the movement of these vehicles.

Concerns have been raised regarding waste collection. Private waste collection should occur from within the site. Undertaking this activity on the roadway has the potential to result in adverse impacts.

The safety, efficiency and amenity effects of traffic to be generated by the proposal.

The application was referred internally to Council’s City Design and Transport Department which did not raise concerns about safety issues relating to external movements (apart from the waste collection issue). The concerns about amenity of residents through the number of movements at peak drop off and collection times have been raised earlier in this report.

Consideration of Application Prior to Subdivision Approval

As noted previously in this report, the application has been lodged prior to resolution of a number of key subdivision requirements. The previous subdivision approval relating to Stage 9 has only recently obtained an extension with outstanding requirements relating to design guidelines amongst others. The need to address the preferred design treatment for this prominent location including requirements relating to mass, height, setback, view lines and context are critical and must be resolved before this application can progress. In this respect the application is premature until such time as the broader subdivision approval has been fully resolved including the new titles issued.

Contamination and archaeological investigations and requirements under the subdivision permit are also still yet to be resolved in relation to Stage 9 further demonstrating the premature nature of the application.

Incorporated Plan Overlay – Schedule 1 (Mernda Strategy Plan)

The part of the subject land within the former UGB is subject to the Mernda Strategy Plan (MSP) incorporated document. The use and development of the land must generally be in accordance with this plan. The subject land is designated within a low density residential interface. The MSP also designates the land within a ‘visually sensitive design area’. It is a requirement of the MSP that ‘visually sensitive areas are to be protected by limiting building height and mass. Building materials and colours should reflect local landscape and environmental character.’ The planning permit for subdivision (if extended) is required to address these matters.

While the MSP does not prescribe the location of childcare centres, it is considered the development proposal is not in accordance with the low density interface and does not satisfy the requirement seeking to limit building height and mass.

Development Plan Overlay – Schedule 5 (Mernda West Development Plan)

This Development Plan has been prepared in accordance with the MSP incorporated document. It encourages low density residential development in and around the Quarry Hills interface. General design principles seek to ensure that visually sensitive areas (as defined in the MSP) are protected by limiting building height and mass. Lower density housing is to provide a buffer to surrounding rural land uses and the Quarry Hills (p.28) and protection of key high points (p. 40). The Development Plan does not prescribe the location of childcare centres.

Development Plan Overlay – Schedule 27 (Fairview Development Plan)

A more recent Development Plan has been prepared and approved by Council for Stage 9 of the Fairview Estate and includes the subject land. This plan is more prescriptive in terms of outcomes compared with the Mernda West Development Plan. Relevant details of the approved plan as they relate to the site and surrounds are set out below:

§ The plan provides for the creation of 78 lots for single dwelling development.

§ The plan supports conventional density residential development.

§ The development plan responds to the natural topography of the site through preferred orientation of roads and lots to avoid extensive earthworks and reliance on large retaining wall structures.

§ The plan designates a large 800m²+ lot on the western portion of the subject land and nominates the other proposed lots comprising the subject land as 500-600m² lots.

§ Schedule 27 of the DPO requires that the Development Plan show the ‘designation of specific land uses, including non-residential land uses and their integration with existing or future development on land abutting the site.’ The approved Development Plan ‘supports the creation of residential and public open space land uses’. It does not designate a non-residential land use on the subject land.

§ The Development Plan (section 5) states: ‘The site is not located in close proximity to a neighbourhood activity centre or other activity node which supports an increased density but is located to adjoin an Urban Growth Boundary on the western fringe of the Mernda growth area.’

§ The plan ‘clearly details the intended subdivision layout.’ (Section 5).

§ The proposed road network will not support any level of public transport provision.

It is considered the proposed use and development is not in accordance with the detailed Fairview Development Plan (see Attachment 3). This plan would need to be amended to allow consideration of the outcome sought. Such a request has not been made either as part of, or subsequent to, the application being made. (It is the view of the applicant that the current proposal is in accordance with an approved Development Plan). Where an application is not in accordance with a development plan, Council has no discretion to grant a planning permit.

Because there is an exemption from notification of an application on land affected by a DPO, It is reasonable that existing and future residents have some certainty about the form and conditions of use and development under an approved development plan such as that approved under DPO27.

It is the recommendation of this report that the application be refused primarily on the basis that the proposal is not generally in accordance with approved incorporated and development plan. However, because what constitutes ‘generally in accordance with’ is subject to legal challenge, it is considered appropriate that the application also be refused on secondary grounds relating to the merits of the proposal which in summary are:

· Non-compliance with Child Care Centre Policy.

· Detrimental impact on the amenity of the area because of the location, scale and height of the proposed development.

· Inadequate space for refuse collection.

· Non-compliance of State and local planning provisions relating to urban design and protection of gateway locations.

Development Contributions Plan Overlay – Schedule 8

Planning approval is not required pursuant to this Overlay, however contributions would be payable in the event that a use and development was approved prior to any subdivision approval.

CAR PARKING

Pursuant to Clause 52.06 of the Whittlesea Planning Scheme, the following car parking rates are required for the proposed development:

Proposed Use

Clause 52.06

Car Parking Rate

Size/No.

No. of Spaces required

No. of Spaces provided

Total Planning Scheme Shortfall

Child care

0.22 spaces per child

107 children

nil

The proposal meets the onsite parking requirement in terms of number of spaces provided.

Declarations of Conflicts of Interest

Under section 80C of the Local Government Act 1989 officers providing advice to Council must disclose any interests, including the type of interest.

The Responsible Officer reviewing this report, having made enquiries with the relevant members of staff, reports that no disclosable interests have been raised in relation to this report.

Conclusion

The application has been assessed against relevant provision of the Whittlesea Planning Scheme including the Child Care Policy (Clause 22.05). It is considered that the proposed use and development is premature, does not adequately accord with approved incorporated and development plans, is inadequately integrated with public transport and services and will have an adverse impact on the amenity of the area which occupies an urban-rural interface and gateway location. For the above reasons it is recommended that the application refused.

Recommendation

THAT Council resolve to Refuse Planning Application No. 715886 and issue a Refusal to Grant a Planning Permit for use and development of a child care centre at 290A and 310 Bridge Inn Road, Mernda on the following grounds:

1. The use and development is not in accordance with the Mernda Strategy Plan incorporated document which designates the area for low density development and requires that visually sensitive areas be protected by limiting building height and mass.

2. The use and development is not in accordance with the approved Fairview Development Plan approved pursuant Clause 43.04 (Schedule 27) of the Whittlesea Planning Scheme.

3. The proposal does not adequately demonstrate compliance with Clause 22.05 (Child Care Policy) of the Whittlesea Planning Scheme. In particular the proposal is:

a. Not located in reasonable proximity to other community facilities.

b. Not located in proximity to or adequately connected with existing or proposed public transport infrastructure.

c. Of a scale, mass and appearance that is not consistent with the existing and preferred character of surrounding land uses and streetscape.

d. Not designed to provide for safe and efficient vehicle and pedestrian movements.

4. The development will have a detrimental impact on the amenity of the residential area contrary to the decision guidelines at Clause 32.08 relating to non-residential uses, particularly in relation to the scale and intensity of the proposed development and having regard to the context of the land.

5. The proposal does not provide adequate space for refuse collection within the site; or for delivery vehicles to park, unload and leave the site in a forward direction without causing internal traffic and parking issues.

6. The development is inconsistent with State (Clause 15.01-1) and Local (Clause 21-08-1) frameworks relating to good urban design and does not have adequate regard to the context of the site within a gateway and rural-urban interface location.

7. The proposal is premature until such time as the existing subdivision permit relating to Stage 9 of the Estate has been resolved including resolution of all conditions and requirements, especially relating to design and development guidelines and new titles being issued.

Ordinary Council Agenda Tuesday 28 February 2017

6.1.15 1-3 & 5 ALLAN AVENUE, SOUTH MORANG - USE AND DEVELOPMENT OF A VETERINARY CENTRE AND THE DISPLAY OF BUSINESS IDENTIFICATION SIGNAGE

File No: 716124

Attachments: 1 Locality Maps ⇩

2 Development Plans ⇩

Responsible Officer: Director Planning & Major Projects

Author: Planning Officer

APPLICANT: Mill Park Animal Hospital Pty Ltd

COUNCIL POLICY: Medical Centre Policy

ZONING: General Residential Zone

OVERLAY: Development Contributions Plan Overlay

REFERRAL: AusNet Transmission Group Pty Ltd

OBJECTIONS: Two

RECOMMENDATION: That Council approve the application

Report

EXECUTIVE Summary

It is proposed to demolish an existing veterinary centre located at 1-3 Allen Avenue, South Morang and construct a new purpose built veterinary centre on the land. The existing centre was approved under Planning Permit No. 704104 on 22 January 1998. It is proposed to expand the use to the adjoining land at 5 Allen Avenue which is currently vacant. The proposal also includes business identification signage along the site’s two street frontages to Allen Avenue and the Plenty Road service road.

Advertising of the proposal resulted in two objections being received. The grounds of objection relate to traffic and on street car parking issues along Allen Avenue.

The proposal demonstrates a satisfactory level of compliance with the provisions of the General Residential Zone, Clause 52.05 (Advertising signs), Clause 52.06 (Car parking) and is consistent with both State and local planning policies and on this basis, it is recommended that Council approve the application.

SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA

The subject site comprises two adjoining properties located at 1-3 and 5 Allen Avenue, South Morang. The site is situated on the southwest corner of Allen Avenue and Plenty Road approximately 460m southwest of McDonalds Road, South Morang (see Attachment 1). The site has a combined site area of 1,489m² with a primary street frontage to Allen Avenue of 41.76m and 21.20m along the secondary frontage to Plenty Road. The land at 1-3 Allan Avenue contains an established veterinary centre use with six car parking spaces on site. Vehicular access is provided via two existing concrete crossings along each of the two street frontages. Three native trees are located within the site’s landscape buffer along the two street abuttals. The land at 5 Allen Avenue is currently vacant.

The surrounding area is generally characterised by residential development comprising single and double storey dwellings to the northeast and southeast of the site. Two medical centres are located directly opposite the site along the Plenty Road service road at 774 and 776 Plenty Road, South Morang. Abutting the site to the south is a high voltage electricity transmission line corridor and a plant nursery (Aumann’s Building and Garden Supplies). The wider surrounding area to the south and west is occupied by various commercial land uses.

restrictions and easements

The Certificate of Title for the property shows that the site is not affected by any registered Covenants or 173 Agreements. The land is however encumbered by a 2.4m wide drainage and sewerage easement. There are no buildings and works proposed within this easement.

Proposal

Use

It is proposed to demolish the existing veterinary centre and construct and new purpose built centre on the subject land at 1-3 Allen Avenue and 5 Allen Avenue, South Morang. The centre will operate with two veterinarians and one veterinary nurse on site at any one time and provide a full range of services and facilities associated with the treatment of animals.

The existing operating hours approved under Planning Permit No. 704104 for the established veterinary centre use at 1-3 Allen Avenue are to be maintained for the expanded site. These operating hours are:

Monday to Friday 7.00am to 8.00pm

Saturday 8.00am to 6.00pm

Sunday and Public Holidays 9.00am to 5.00pm

Buildings and works

The proposed building will maintain a residential appearance and will provide a single storey built form with an overall height of 5.4m. In terms of siting, the building will be set back 7.6m from the northeast (front) boundary along Allan Avenue, approximately 30m from the northwest (side) boundary along the Plenty Road service road, 1.2m from the southeast (side) boundary and 2.7m from the southwest (rear) property boundary. The external walls will be constructed using face brickwork and rendered features to the façade and the hipped roof form will be constructed using Colorbond materials with an 18^o pitch.

The proposed internal layout includes a waiting room, office, four veterinary rooms, a surgery, a dispensary, x-ray room, dog and cat kennels (for recovery of animals under treatment), a pre-operation area, a laboratory, indoor rehabilitation area, storage, a lunchroom and toilet facilities (including one accessible toilet).

An outdoor rehabilitation area comprising synthetic grass and a pool is proposed to the northwest of the building and will be enclosed by a 2.1m high internal aluminium ‘slat’ style fence.

Car parking

It is proposed to provide a total of 12 car spaces on site. Eleven car spaces are to be located within the side (northwest) setback that will be accessible via the existing crossings along Allan Avenue and the Plenty Road service road. One car space is to be provided along an internal driveway with access provided via a newly constructed crossing along Allen Avenue and to the east of the proposed building. The established landscaping including the large canopy trees located along the street abuttals will be maintained and enhanced with additional landscaping throughout the site. An assessment against the relevant car parking requirements is provided further in this report.

Advertising signs

Two business identification signs are proposed to be displayed on site. One sign is to be oriented towards the Allan Avenue street frontage and the other sign towards the Plenty Road service road. The signs will be mounted on supporting structures in a ‘V’ form and will be elevated 1.4m above the existing landscape buffer on site. An assessment against the relevant provisions for advertising signs is provided further in this report.

Public Notification

Advertising of the application has resulted in two objections being received. The grounds of objection relate to traffic and on street car parking issues.

PLANNING ASSESSMENT

State and Local Planning Policy Framework

The following State and Local Planning Policies are considered relevant to the application.

Clause 17.01-1 - Business

The objective of this clause is ‘to encourage development which meets the communities’ needs for retail, entertainment, office and other commercial services and provides net community benefit in relation to accessibility, efficient infrastructure use and the aggregation and sustainability of commercial facilities’.

The proposal will provide a purpose built veterinary centre that will benefit the local community by way of delivering a comprehensive range of services for the treatment of animals.

While the planning scheme does not include a local policy for veterinary centres, Council’s Medical Centre Policy (Clause 22.07) can be used as a guide in assessing the design and location of the proposed Veterinary centre.

Clause 22.07 – Medical Centre Policy

The objective of this policy is ‘to achieve well designed, quality medical centres, which are suitably located and do not have a negative impact on residential amenity’.

An assessment of the proposal against the requirements of this policy is detailed below:

· Medical Centres that serve the local population are encouraged to locate within residential areas. Larger multi practice medical centres that serve a broader population catchment are encouraged to locate within or near activity centres.

The veterinary centre is of a residential scale and will serve the local population. The site is within close proximity to the Axis Homemaker Centre, the South Morang Activity Centre and surrounding retail and commercial land uses along Plenty Road.

· Co-location and integration of medical centres with local activity centres and other non-residential land uses in residential areas is encouraged. Medical Centres are encouraged to locate adjacent to or in proximity to other community support facilities such as schools, pre-schools, open space, child care centres, and recreational facilities.

The site is located in proximity to a range of services and facilities.

· 24 hr Medical Centres are not encouraged within residential areas but rather should be part of an activity centre.

The proposal is not for a 24 hour veterinary centre. The existing operating hours will be maintained and include; 7.00am to 8.00pm Monday to Friday, 8.00am to 6.00pm Saturday and 9.00am to 5.00pm Sunday and Public Holidays.

· To minimise impacts on residential amenity and enhance access, establishment of Medical Centres on main roads and collector roads are encouraged. Establishment of Medical Centres within cul-de-sacs is discouraged.

The proposed veterinary centre is located on the corner of an arterial road and main road i.e. Allan Avenue and Plenty Road.

· Medical Centres should be located in proximity to public transport routes.

The veterinary centre is located in proximity to a number of bus routes namely 386 and 387 along Bush Boulevard, 383 along Plenty Road and 901 along McDonalds Road.

· The scale and appearance of the Medical Centre is to be consistent with the site characteristics and location and surrounding land uses. In residential areas medical centres should have a residential scale, height and building form, which is sympathetic to the character of adjoining dwellings and the streetscape.

The single storey element of the medical centre is consistent with the single storey residential scale, height and building form of the surrounding land uses.

· Access to and from the site is to be designed in such a way as to allow the safe and efficient movement of vehicle and pedestrian traffic.

It is proposed to use the existing concrete crossings along the Allan Avenue street frontage and the service road along Plenty Road. A new concrete crossing is proposed to the east of the building and will provide access to an additional car space along the internal driveway.

· Adequate car parking for staff and patients is to be provided on-site to eliminate any demand for off-site and on-street car parking.

Pursuant to Clause 52.06 (Car Parking) of the Scheme, a veterinary centre requires five car spaces for the first person providing animal health services plus three car spaces to every other person providing animal health services. The veterinary centre will operate with two veterinarians and one nurse on site at any one time. The veterinary centre will provide a total of 12 car spaces and therefore provides sufficient car parking on site.

· Landscaping be provided to protect the amenity of adjoining and nearby residential dwellings. Landscaping of car parking areas should also aim to screen any car parking areas adjacent to residential boundaries.

It is proposed to retain the existing native vegetation on site and provide additional landscaping throughout to soften the appearance of the proposed hard surface areas on site. The existing low level steel fence along the site’s street frontages to Allan Avenue and Plenty Road is to be removed and will not be replaced.

· Car parking is encouraged to be located in the front setback of the medical centre.

It is proposed to contain the principal car parking within the street setbacks to Allan Avenue and Plenty Road and away from the sensitive interface with the existing residential development to the northeast and southeast of the veterinary centre.

· Any signage is to be sympathetic to the surrounding area.

The existing business identification signage along the street frontages to Allan Avenue and Plenty Road will be removed and replaced with two new signs. The signs will continue to be mounted on supporting structures at a height of 1.4m above established landscaping and will not be internally illuminated or floodlit signs.

· Proposals should fulfil a demonstrated need.

There is an established demand for the veterinary centre within the local community. The centre has been operating on the subject site for approximately 15 years and is expanding its services with an additional veterinarian on site.

Zoning

The subject site is located within the General Residential Zone (GRZ1). Pursuant to Clause 32.08-1 of the Whittlesea Planning Scheme, a veterinary centre is an unspecified Section 2 use and requires a planning permit.

While Planning Permit No. 704104 for the use and development of a veterinary centre at 1-3 Allan Avenue remains current, it does not extend to the land at 5 Allan Avenue. Therefore, a fresh permit is required to use 5 Allan Avenue for a veterinary centre. All permit conditions associated with Planning Permit No. 704101 will be superseded and will be replaced with new conditions should a planning permit be issued for this current application.

Pursuant to Clause 32.08-6 of the Scheme, a permit is required to construct a building or construct or carry out works for a Section 2 use. Therefore, the proposed buildings and works also require a planning permit.

The General Residential Zone provisions specify that Category 3 advertising controls apply. An assessment of the proposed business identification signage against the requirements of Clause 52.05 (Advertising signs) is provided further in this report.

Overlay Controls

Clause 45.06 – Development Contributions Plan Overlay (DCPO3)

The Development Contributions Plan Overlay enables the levying of contributions for the provision of works, services and facilities prior to development commencing. Schedule 3 to the overlay requires contributions for drainage infrastructure for non-residential development at a rate of $4.02 per square metre of any additional impervious floor area created. This rate is subject to the Consumer Price Index at the time of payment. As additional floor area is to be created, this levy is applicable to this proposal and will be addressed via a condition on any permit that is issued.

Particular provisions

Clause 52.05 – Advertising Signs

The purpose of the Advertising Provision is:

· To regulate the display of signs and associated structures.

· To provide for signs that are compatible with the amenity and visual appearance of an area, including the existing or desired future character.

· To ensure signs do not contribute to excessive visual clutter or visual disorder.

· To ensure that signs do not cause loss of amenity or adversely affect the natural or built environment or the safety, appearance or efficiency of a road.

The General Residential Zone provisions specify that Category 3 – High amenity areas, advertising controls apply.

Category 3 – High Amenity Areas (Medium Limitation)

The purpose of this category is to ensure that signs in high amenity areas are orderly, of good design and do not detract from the appearance of the building on which a sign is displayed or the surrounding area.

The proposed advertising consists of the following:

Sign type	Description	Size
Business Identification (non-illuminated)	Single sided and mounted on supporting structures with a height of 1.4m oriented towards Allan Avenue/Plenty Road service road.	2.75m x 1.50m = 4.12m².
Business Identification (non-illuminated)	Single sided and mounted on supporting structures with a height of 1.4m oriented towards Plenty Road.	2.75m x 1.50m = 4.12m².
Total advertisement area		8.24m²

Pursuant to Clause 52.05-9 of the Whittlesea Planning Scheme a business identification sign in a high amenity area (General Residential Zone) requires a planning permit.

The proposed (replacement) signage is of an appropriate scale and form and will not cause any visual detriment to the surrounding land uses. The signage will not compromise any important views and vistas and will not be illuminated or floodlit so as to cause any detrimental glare/illumination particularly to the surrounding residential properties located to the northeast and southeast of the site. The proposed signage should therefore be supported subject to appropriate conditions being included on any permit that is issued.

Clause 52.06 – Car Parking

Pursuant to clause 52.06 of the Whittlesea Planning Scheme, the following car parking rates are required for the proposed development:

Proposed Use

Clause 52.06

Car Parking Rate

Size/No.

No. of Spaces required

No. of Spaces provided

Total Planning

Scheme Shortfall

Veterinary centre

5 spaces to the first person providing animal health services plus 3 spaces to every other person providing animal health services

Two veterinarians and one nurse

Based on the above assessment, the proposal will provide adequate on-site car parking.

Pursuant to Clause 52.06-8 of the Scheme, accessways must have a corner splay or area at least 50% clear of visual obstructions extending at least 2.0m along the frontage road from the edge of an exit lane and 2.5m along the exit lane from the frontage, to provide a clear view of pedestrians on the footpath of the frontage road. The area clear of visual obstructions may include adjacent entry or exit lane where more than one lane is provided, or adjacent landscaped areas, provided the landscaping in those areas is less than 900mm in height. A revised plan must be submitted showing a visibility splay on either side of the accessways. This requirement can be addressed via a condition on any permit that is issued.

REFERRALS

AusNet Transmission Group

The application was referred to AusNet Transmission Group pursuant to Clause 66.02-4 of the Whittlesea Planning Scheme as the proposed buildings and works are within 60 metres of a high voltage electricity transmission line. The determining authority offered no objection to the proposal subject to appropriate conditions being included on any permit that is issued.

Comments on Grounds of Objection

Traffic and on street car parking issues

Concerns have been raised with respect to an increase in traffic and a lack of on street car parking along Allen Avenue, as a result of the established medical centres located within the immediate area. Along with the established veterinary centre at 1-3 Allen Avenue, two medical centres operate within the immediate locale at 774 and 776 Plenty Road, South Morang. These centres are currently occupied by a chiropractor and podiatrist and each provide car parking on site however patrons associated with these medical centres have been utilising the on street car parking within the surrounding road network instead of the parking provided on site causing traffic flow and car parking issues for the local residents.

The proposal provides adequate car parking on site in accordance with the requirements of Clause 52.06-5 of the Whittlesea Planning Scheme and is therefore not expected to cause any adverse amenity impact to the surrounding land uses or road network. Additionally, Council’s traffic engineers have advised that there is no record of traffic or on street car parking issues within this area and any such issues can be addressed as a separate matter by Council’s traffic engineers.

Declarations of Conflicts of Interest

Under section 80C of the Local Government Act 1989 officers providing advice to Council must disclose any interests, including the type of interest.

The Responsible Officer reviewing this report, having made enquiries with the relevant members of staff, reports that no disclosable interests have been raised in relation to this report.

Conclusion

The application has been assessed against the planning zone provisions and other relevant planning provisions, including the State and Local Planning Policy Frameworks of the Whittlesea Planning Scheme, and is considered to be consistent with the relevant policies and strategies of the Planning Scheme. It is considered that the proposed use and development and business identification signage will not cause any adverse amenity impact on the surrounding land uses and will deliver a purpose built veterinary centre that will benefit the local community by providing a comprehensive range of services for the treatment of their animals. Therefore, it is recommended that a Planning Permit be issued, subject to appropriate conditions.

Recommendation

THAT Council resolve to approve Planning Application No. 716124 and issue a Notice of Decision to Grant a Permit for the use and development of a Veterinary centre and the display of business identification signage at 1-3 and 5 Allen Avenue, South Morang in accordance with the endorsed plans and subject to the following conditions:

2. Within two months from the date of issue of this Permit, or at such later date as the Responsible Authority may approve in writing, there must be lodged with the Responsible Authority an amount of $1,000.00 as security deposit for the satisfactory completion and maintenance of the landscaping works hereby permitted.

Upon completion of the landscaping works to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, the Responsible Authority will refund up to 50% of the security deposit to the payee;

Subject to satisfactory maintenance of the landscaping works for a period of two years after the completion of such works, the Responsible Authority will refund to the payee the balance of the security deposit; and

In the event that the landscaping works are not completed or maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, the Responsible Authority may complete and / or maintain the landscaping work and deduct the cost thereof (including supervision) from any security deposit lodged pursuant to this permit.

3. Before the use and development starts, three copies of a revised plan must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority showing visibility splays along each accessway in accordance with Clause 52.06-8 of the Scheme.

4. Before the use and development commences, Lot 82 and Lot 83 on Plan of Subdivision 082069 must be consolidated under the Subdivision Act 1988.

5. Before the use and development commences, three copies of a landscape plan prepared by a suitably qualified landscape designer to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the plan will be endorsed and will then form part of this permit. The plan must show:

(a) Details of landscaping for the front, side and rear setback including a schedule of all proposed trees, shrubs and ground covers;

(b) Designation of areas throughout the site for garden beds, grass, paths, decks paved areas;

(c) The identification of any vegetation to be retained including tree protection zones;

(d) The provision of canopy trees with a mature height of two metres planted at a semi-advanced state within the front and rear setback;

(e) Paving, retaining walls, fence design details and other landscape works including areas of cut and fill;

(f) Consistency with the City of Whittlesea Landscape Guidelines (Non-Residential Use in residential area).

6. The use and development allowed by this permit and shown on the plans and/or schedules endorsed to accompany this permit shall not be amended for any reason without the consent of the Responsible Authority.

7. Once the use and development has commenced it must be continued and completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

8. The use may operate only between the hours of:

Monday to Friday 7.00am to 8.00pm

Saturday 8.00am to 6.00pm

Sunday and Public Holidays 9.00am to 5.00pm

9. The use hereby permitted shall be restricted to a maximum of two veterinarians and one veterinary nurse on the premises at any one time, unless with the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority.

10. The amenity of the area must not be detrimentally affected by the use or development through the:

(a) Transport of materials, goods or commodities to and from the land;

(b) Appearance of any building, works or materials;

(c) Emission of noise, artificial light, vibration, smell, fumes, smoke, vapour, steam, soot, ash, dust, waste water, waste products, grit or oil;

(d) Presence of vermin.

11. The permit holder should be aware that the operation of the use is at all times required, pursuant to the Environmental Protection Act 1970, to meet the requirements of the State Environment Protection Policy (Control of Noise from Commerce, Industry and Trade) No. N-1. The onus to demonstrate compliance with this policy in the event of request will lie with the permit holder.

12. Noise emissions from any equipment for refrigeration, air conditioning, heating, ventilation and the like must comply with State Environment Protection Policy (Control of Noise from Commerce, Industry and Trade) No. N-1 and/or Environment Protection (Residential Noise) Regulations 1997 and/or Environment Protection Authority Noise Control Guidelines TG 302/92, whichever is deemed to be appropriate by the Responsible Authority.

13. Before starting any buildings or works, engineering plans showing a properly prepared design (with computations) for the internal drainage and method of disposal of stormwater from all roofed and sealed areas must be submitted to Council for approval. These internal drainage works must be completed to Council’s satisfaction prior to using or occupying any building on the site.

14. Prior to using or occupying any building on the site, the permit holder is required to construct at no cost to Council, drainage works between the subject site and the Council nominated point of discharge. Such drainage works must be designed by a qualified engineer and submitted to and approved by Council. Computations will also be required to demonstrate that the drainage system will not be overloaded by the new development. Construction of the drainage system must be carried out in accordance with Council specifications and under Council supervision.

15. Before the use commences, the area(s) set aside for the parking of vehicles and access lanes as shown on the endorsed plans must be:

(a) Constructed;

(b) Properly formed to such levels that they can be used in accordance with the plans;

(c) Surfaced with an all-weather sealcoat or treated to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority to prevent dust and gravel being emitted from the site;

(d) Drained and maintained;

(e) Line marked to indicate each car space and all access lanes;

(f) Clearly marked to show the direction of traffic along access lanes and driveways;

to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Car spaces, access lanes and driveways must be kept available for these purposes at all times, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

16. In areas set aside for car parking, measures must be taken to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority to prevent damage to fences or landscaped areas.

17. A sign to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be provided directing drivers to the area set aside for car parking and must be maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The sign must not exceed 0.3 square metres in area.

18. Vehicular access to the site must be by way of a vehicle crossing constructed in accordance with Council’s Vehicle Crossing Specifications to suit the proposed driveway(s) and the vehicles that will be using the crossing(s). The location, design and construction of the vehicle crossing(s) must be approved by the Responsible Authority. Any existing unused or redundant crossing(s) must be removed and replaced with concrete kerb, channel and naturestrip to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. All vehicle crossing works are to be carried out with Council supervision under a Road Opening Permit.

19. Vehicles under the control of the operator of the use or the operator’s staff must not be parked on nearby roads.

20. The loading and unloading of goods from vehicles must at all times be carried out within the specified loading area on the site.

21. At all times during the construction phase of the development, the permit holder must take measures to ensure that pedestrians are able to use with safety any footpath along the boundaries of the site.

22. The site shall at all times be kept in a neat and tidy condition to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Any litter shall be immediately removed from the site and surrounding area at the written direction of the Responsible Authority.

23. Any litter generated by building activities on the site shall be collected and stored in an appropriate enclosure, which complies with Council’s Code of Practice for building/development sites. The enclosures shall be regularly emptied and maintained such that no litter overspills onto adjoining land. Prior to occupation and/or use of the building, all litter shall be completely removed from the site.

24. During the construction phase, no mud or other material is to be deposited on roadways by vehicles leaving the site. Any mud or other materials deposited on roadways as a result of construction works on the site must be cleaned to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority within two hours of it being deposited.

25. The permit holder must promptly remove or obliterate any graffiti on the subject site which is visible to the public and keep the site free from graffiti at all times to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

26. All external lighting must be designed, baffled and located so as to prevent adverse effect on adjoining land, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

27. Air-conditioning and other plant and equipment installed on the subject building(s) shall be positioned and baffled so that noise disturbance is minimised, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

28. All swimming pool equipment (including pumps and filters) shall be positioned, screened and baffled so that noise disturbance is minimised to neighbouring land, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

29. All security alarms or similar devices installed on the land must be of a silent type approved by the Standards Association of Australia and be connected to a registered security service.

30. Adequate provision shall be made for the storage and collection of garbage and other solid wastes within the curtilage of the site. This area shall be properly graded and drained, and screened from public view to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

31. The permit holder must ensure that all prescribed medical waste be disposed of via an authorised collection/disposal agency, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

Signage Conditions (Conditions 32 to 37)

32. The location and details of the signs, including supporting structures, as shown on the endorsed plans, must not be altered unless with the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority.

33. The signs must not contain any flashing or moving light, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

34. The signs must not be illuminated by external or internal light.

35. The signs must be constructed and maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

36. No bunting, streamers, windvanes or the like shall be displayed unless with the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority.

37. This permit so far as it relates to the signage expires 15 years from the date of issue.

AusNet Transmission Group Conditions (Conditions 38 to 45)

38. No part of the proposed buildings, including eaves, awnings, canopies, shelters and the like, is permitted on AusNet Transmission Group’s easement.

39. Any services traversing the easement must be installed underground.

40. All trees and shrubs planted on the easement must not exceed 3 metres maximum mature growth height.

41. The storage of flammable materials is not permitted on the easement.

42. Natural ground surface levels on the easement must not be altered by the stockpiling of excavated material or by landscaping without prior written approval from AusNet Transmission Group.

43. Vehicles and equipment exceeding 3 metres operating height are not permitted on the easement without prior written approval from AusNet Transmission Group.

44. Scaffolding is not permitted on the easement.

45. Details of all future works within the easement must be submitted to AusNet Transmission Group and approved in writing prior to the commencement of work on site.

46. In accordance with the Planning and Environment Act 1987, this permit will expire if:

(a) the approved development does not start within two years of the date of this permit; or

(b) the approved development is not completed within four years of the date of this permit and/or

(c) the approved use is not commenced within two years of the completion of the development.

(d) the use is discontinued for a period of two years.

Ordinary Council Agenda Tuesday 28 February 2017

6.1.16 Thomastown Industrial Area Strategy

File No: 190305

Attachments: 1 Location Map ⇩

2 Strategy ⇩

Responsible Officer: Director Planning & Major Projects

Author: Strategic Planner

RECOMMENDATION: THAT Council adopt the Strategy

Report

EXECUTIVE Summary

The Thomastown Industrial Area Strategy has been prepared to develop a framework to guide development of the Thomastown Industrial Area for the next 20 years. The Strategy outlines actions that will enhance the functionality and appearance of the area, encourage investment and support the ongoing availability of local jobs.

To inform the preparation of the Strategy, three rounds of consultation and engagement were conducted. An advisory group was also created and consulted with on a regular basis. This group was made up of external stakeholders from State Government departments, local business owners and Council officers. These two methods of engagement were vital in constructing the aims, objectives and actions of the final Strategy.

The Implementation Plan contains the actions and projects that are required to be undertaken. Examples of the actions include creating partnerships with the local businesses to working with VicRoads to improve traffic conditions.

The Strategy will be a Council document that requires actions in the Implementation Plan for internal departments to prioritise and project manage over time. At this stage, no amendments to the Whittlesea Planning Scheme are proposed to implement the strategy.

This report seeks Council adoption of the Thomastown Industrial Area Strategy.

introduction

The Thomastown Industrial Area is an existing industrial area located along the southern side of the Metropolitan Ring Road (see Attachment 1). The boundaries include Mahoneys Road to the west and Settlement Road to the east. The study area also includes some smaller pockets to the north including Trawalla Avenue, Dalton Road North (includes Meridian Park) and McKimmies Road (the land behind Dyson’s Bus Depot).

The area is well established with majority warehousing built between the 1970’s to 1990’s with some Commercial uses along Dalton Road. The area has a strong manufacturing sector that also holds the highest employment in the City of Whittlesea.

This Strategy (see Attachment 2) was developed to provide a long term vision for the area to ensure it continues to be attractive for investment and provide local jobs for communities. It will be used to provide future direction and actions to deliver upgrades to the area. These actions are broken into four themes that include Land Use, Economic Development, Transport and Sustainability.

This report will cover why the Strategy has been undertaken and the three stages that informed the Strategy. This includes a summary of the consultation that assisted in the development of the Strategy. This report also provides an overview of the Strategy and its implementation.

Background

The Thomastown Industrial Area is a major economic generator for the municipality and the northern region. Businesses in the area benefit from convenient access to major transport infrastructure, a local catchment of workers, and co-location with complementary manufacturers, catchment-based industries, major wholesalers and distributors.

Council’s Municipal Strategic Statement and the State Government’s Metropolitan Planning Strategy, Plan Melbourne, recognise the importance and significance of the area in providing business and employment opportunities. Changes in the economic environment have seen pressure to use parts of the land for other uses including residential/mixed use through rezoning requests. To date, the precinct has developed with little policy to guide appropriate development, which in some areas, has resulted in poor outcomes.

From consultation with relevant stakeholders it became apparent that the area is a desirable economic hub, however, in order for the area to remain competitive some improvements need to be made. In this context it was determined that a strategy was necessary to guide the future of this precinct. In preparing the Strategy, and ensuring that the strategies and actions are underpinned by robust evidence and expert advice, the following steps were undertaken:

§ Background research and review: This included extensive background research, preparation of an Urban Design Review and production of an Economic and Market Analysis Report. Targeted consultation with businesses and key stakeholders was also undertaken.

§ Issues and opportunities assessment: This step identified a range of issues and opportunities to be explored with key stakeholders and formed the basis for further investigations.

§ Preparation of draft Strategy: The final step involved bringing together the information from background research and investigations and expert technical reports contained in the Transport Recommendations and Feasibility Studies. This stage included stakeholder advice and input to develop a vision, a range of strategies and principles for development.

As outlined above, the Strategy before Council has undergone an extensive consultation and preparation process. This process has ensured that the Strategy is robust and meets the requirements of local employers. The Strategy sets out a vision to ensure that the industrial area continues to play an important role in providing jobs for the local community and is attractive for future investment. The implementation framework prepared sets out how the Strategy will be achieved through statutory mechanisms, economic development initiatives and infrastructure upgrades and projects. It also includes delivery mechanisms in terms of timing, prioritisation and responsibility and how it will be monitored.

the strategy

Overview

The Strategy sets out the land use and development vision for Thomastown Industrial Area for the next 20 years. The Strategy is a forward plan with the principle role of guiding future development, providing a plan for infrastructure upgrades to support the ongoing viability of the area and sets out initiatives to improve and raise the profile of the area.

It is important to note that the Strategy is not a statutory document that will be incorporated into the Planning Scheme. Rather it’s a Council Strategy that identifies actions that are to be implemented by a variety of Departments within Council.

Structure

The Strategy comprises of the following five sections:

§ Strategic context outlines the policy context, key drivers and strategic strengths of the area.

§ Strategy aims and vision sets out what the strategy seeks to achieve and provides a vision statement about what the area will look and feel like in 2035.

§ Strategic directions outlines the objectives and strategies for identity and economic development; land use and development; transport, access and infrastructure; and environment and sustainability.

§ Precinct plan and opportunity areas identifies the general direction in terms of the role and function of eight precincts and highlights the “opportunity areas” that have the greatest potential to enhance the area and capacity for development activity and change.

§ Implementation framework incorporates statutory mechanisms to give effect to the strategy; it also includes economic development and partnership initiatives; outlines infrastructure and public realm upgrades and projects; and sets out approaches relating to requirements for regular monitoring and enforcement.

Key outcomes

The outputs of the Strategy focus on delivering improvements to the area largely from an economic and traffic perspective. It has the aim of creating an area that is visually and economically viable for businesses to invest.

Some of the key outcomes of the Strategy include:

§ Providing certainty to existing and future investors/businesses/employees in the area by outlining Council’s long term vision for the area.

§ Supporting and encouraging economic investment and local employment opportunities to enhance ability for local residents to access jobs close to where they live.

§ Encouraging urban renewal around Keon Park Station and High Street to improve the profile and image of the area.

§ Promoting a greater diversity of land uses, improved connectivity and access and significant landscape enhancements and visual amenity improvements.

§ Elevating the importance of the removal of level crossings through grade separation to enhance movement and encourage pedestrian and cyclist.

§ Identifying key infrastructure projects that will improve accessibility for transport vehicles.

In outlining the key outcomes, the Strategy is focused on how Council and the State Government can help improve the area. It does not mandate existing businesses or landowners to redevelop or upgrade their premises, nor does it require existing businesses to comply retrospectively with any new planning controls or guidelines that may be introduced.

Consultation

The consultation program for this project sought to achieve many objectives including:

§ To gain a strong understanding about how the area functions and operates now, what people value about Thomastown Industrial Area and what they perceive the key challenges to be.

§ To gain an understanding of the priorities for the area and what is realistic and achievable for a planning strategy.

§ To gain an understanding about what people would like to see the area look and feel like in the future and achieve support for the vision and direction for the Industrial Area.

§ To target and structure the consultation process so that meaningful and useful engagement occurred.

§ To ensure consultation focused on the issues within the scope of the project.

§ To identify the most appropriate and effective ways for continued engagement with stakeholders.

The consultation program for the project was carried out over three stages.

Stage 1

Undertaken between September and November 2013 and sought to understand public and stakeholder views on the area and to provide feedback on the issues and opportunities the area presents. It was targeted primarily at business operators, land owners and government departments and agencies.

A summary of the key findings indicated businesses:

- Are long standing operators and were satisfied with the area;

- Choose the area due to the suitable sized land and buildings;

- Noted it was a desirable location given transport access;

- Required the need for clearer strategic direction on building design;

- Agreed with the need to investigate and determine how to retain existing businesses.

Stage 2

The consultation undertaken in September 2014 built upon the earlier consultation. It enhanced the on-going role of the Thomastown Industrial Area Advisory Group and tested the initial issues and opportunities identified to inform the vision and key directions that were to underpin the draft strategy. This engagement established an understanding of priorities and principles with key stakeholders, including businesses and landowners, developers, key agencies, government bodies. The results were reported to Council on 15 September 2015 and was adopted by Council allowing Stage three to proceed.

Stage 3

The final stage of consultation was undertaken over a four week period commencing in November, 2015. For the final round of consultation, a draft version of the strategy was produced by the project team outlining the Vision, Objectives, Precincts and Actions. The purpose of Stage 3 was to inform all owners and occupiers of the draft strategy and to allow the community and key stakeholders the opportunity to provide feedback on the draft document.

Stage 3 sought to ensure that all the issues and opportunities that were raised were captured with a view to determining whether they would be addressed as actions in the implementation plan. It included pulling out the overall vision of the strategy and the relevant identified issues in each area. Discussions were individualised as well as broadened to the overall area.

Over 3,000 letters were sent, followed up with 20 interviews, and numerous meetings and phone calls with local businesses and other community members. A small number of other groups, including some residents who live just outside the municipality, also made submissions to Council. Over 50 responses were received.

Key findings showed that generally the most agreed upon actions were landscape upgrades, beautification of the area and major intersection upgrades. For example, adjoining Darebin residents strongly agreed with landscaping enhancements along Mahoneys Road to assist with beautifying the area and creating a buffer between residential and industrial. The Dalton Road and Settlement Road intersection was consistently raised as an intersection of concern. In light of the feedback received, changes were made to the Strategy.

NEXT STEPS

Should the Strategy be adopted by Council, the Implementation Plan will be actioned. Offices will begin by prioritising the short term actions. This will include working with relevant internal departments, communicating with relevant statutory authorities and drawing up achievable timeframes.

Financial Implications

The implementation plan sets out a preferred timeline and the anticipated financial implications of the plan over a 20 year period. The financial implications will need to be considered as part of future budgetary processes and additional funding opportunities will be investigated for higher order projects.

Policy strategy and legislation

Plan Melbourne sets out the Victorian Government’s vision for the city to 2050. It contains a number of directions relating to the delivery of investment and jobs by creating a city structure that drives productivity, supports investment through certainty and creates more jobs. The Thomastown Industrial Area is identified within the Northern Industrial Precinct which is one of the metropolitan area’s three identified State Significant Industrial Precincts. A number of potential Urban Renewal Sites are identified in the Plan including Keon Park Station, which is within the Thomastown Industrial Area.

The Whittlesea Planning Scheme guides land use and development within the municipality. There are several provisions in the scheme that are relevant to this Strategy. In addition, zones, overlays, particular and general provisions affect land use and development. The Thomastown Industrial Area is identified in the Scheme as strategically significant industrial and employment precinct in the municipality.

Other Council related strategies include:

Whittlesea Council Plan 2013-2017 - outlines a number of key initiatives and programs to make the City of Whittlesea a better place to live.

Environmental Sustainability Strategy – sets policy direction for building fit outs and actions for Sustainable development assistance programs.

Open Space Strategy – identifies areas in the Thomastown Industrial Area for new local spaces as well as improvements to local pipe tracks to improve connections.

Whittlesea Bicycle Plan 2016-2020 – provides policy to increase cycling participation at the City of Whittlesea by providing safety improvements, promotional initiatives and improvement to the current network. Identified cycle paths have been included in the Strategy and will be implemented in accordance with the strategy.

Links to the CoUNCIL Plan

FUTURE DIRECTION Growing our economy

Theme Economic development

Strategic Objective We have strategies that encourage new business investment

Declarations of Conflicts of Interest

Under section 80C of the Local Government Act 1989 officers providing advice to Council must disclose any interests, including the type of interest.

The Responsible Officer reviewing this report, having made enquiries with the relevant members of staff, reports that no disclosable interests have been raised in relation to this report.

Conclusion

The Thomastown Industrial Area Strategy sets out a range of strategies and actions to create an attractive place for businesses. These strategies and actions were informed by the three stages of consultation with the community and major stakeholders. It is anticipated that the strategies and actions prepared will enhance the functionality and appearance of the industrial precinct and assist with Council being more proactive in encouraging investment. Existing business activity and developers in the area will be able to plan and invest with greater certainty with a clear vision and future direction for the area. This kind of economic investment in the locality will support employment opportunities and enhance local resident’s ability to access jobs close to where they live.

It is therefore recommended that the draft Thomastown Industrial Area Strategy (February 2017) be adopted by Council.

Recommendation

THAT Council resolve to adopt the Thomastown Industrial Area Strategy (February 2017) as attached to the report.

Ordinary Council Agenda Tuesday 28 February 2017

6.1.17 815-835 Yan Yean Road Development Plan

File No: 194669

Attachments: 1 Locality Plan ⇩

2 Mernda Strategy Plan ⇩

3 Precinct 2B Plan from Mernda Strategy Plan ⇩

4 Development Plan map only ⇩

5 Tree Removal Plan ⇩

6 Summary of Submissions ⇩

7 Plan outlining proposed changes for 815 Yan Yean Road, Doreen ⇩

Responsible Officer: Director Planning & Major Projects

Author: Strategic Planner

Report

EXECUTIVE Summary

A Development Plan submission has been lodged by Head and Humphreys Land Consultants for three contiguous properties at 815, 825 and 835 Yan Yean Road, Doreen for Council consideration. The Development Plan area is bounded by existing residential development to the north, south and west, and Yan Yean Road to the east.

The Development Plan proposes residential development consisting of standard density development along with a small pocket of medium density development adjoining open space and lower density development abutting Yan Yean Road. There are reserves proposed to retain native vegetation on site.

The Development Plan was informally exhibited to adjoining properties and external agencies for a period of 28 days from 14 November 2016 to 9 December 2016. In this period seven landowner submissions were received. One of the submissions was from a landowner who chose not to be involved in the preparation of the original Development Plan application. Submissions were also received from three services authorities, neither of whom objected to the proposed Development Plan.

The proposed Development Plan is generally in accordance with the Mernda Strategy Plan and Development Plan Overlay Schedule 5. It provides guidance to the future development of the site. As such it is recommended that the Development Plan is approved by Council, subject to the officer changes as proposed in the report.

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this report is to consider the 815-835 Yan Yean Road Development Plan. The Development Plan has been prepared for the three contiguous properties of 815, 825 and 835 Yan Yean Road, Doreen. The subject sites can be seen in the locality plan provided as Attachment 1.

The purpose of this Development Plan is to provide greater certainty about the future use and development of these parcels of land. The submitted Development Plan has been prepared in accordance with the provisions of the General Residential Zone, Development Plan Overlay Schedule 5 and Incorporated Plan Overlay Schedule 1 as well as Vegetation Protection Overlay Schedule 1.

This Development Plan is the last Development Plan required for Precinct 2B of the Mernda Strategy Plan.

The 815-835 Yan Yean Road Development Plan has been prepared following analysis and consideration of the landscape and vegetation elements of the site.

PLANNING ASSESSMENT

Zone

The subject land is zoned General Residential Zone. The primary purpose of the zone is to facilitate residential development, along with other associated land uses. The Development Plan is consistent with the requirements of the zone by providing for residential development with a mix of densities, road connectivity and open space.

Overlays

The subject land is affected by the following overlays:

· Incorporated Plan Overlay Schedule 1;

· Development Plan Overlay Schedule 5;

· Development Contributions Plan Overlay Schedule 6; and

· Vegetation Plan Overlay Schedule 1.

The Mernda Strategy Plan is an Incorporated Document within the Whittlesea Planning Scheme and applies to all land shown in the Incorporated Plan Overlay Schedule 1. The overall Mernda Strategy Plan is provided as Attachment 2. It is noted that the Mernda Strategy Plan is the primary policy document guiding and informing the preparation of Development Plans for the Mernda-Doreen Growth Area. The Mernda Strategy Plan is divided up into sub-precincts, each of which provide additional detail and context to that area. The relevant sub-precinct in which these sites are in is known as Precinct 2B (Attachment 3).

Schedule 5 of the Development Plan Overlay requires the preparation of a Development Plan that further refines the requirements of the Mernda Strategy Plan. The proposed Development Plan is required to address the requirements of the Mernda Strategy Plan and is required to be generally in accordance with this plan. The assessment against the Mernda Strategy Plan is included later in the report.

Schedule 6 of the Development Contributions Plan Overlay requires development in the Mernda-Doreen Growth Area to contribute towards higher order local infrastructure required to service urban growth, as specified in the Mernda Strategy Plan Development Contributions Plan (the DCP). This predominantly includes transport and community infrastructure projects such as signalised intersections, community centres, and open space. These contributions are required to be provided in cash, and where designated infrastructure items fall on a particular parcel of land, in land and/or works in lieu of cash payments. In relation to the subject land, the site will pay development and open space contributions at time of subdivision in accordance with the DCP.

Schedule 1 of the Vegetation Protection Overlay requires a planning permit to remove all native vegetation. It is used as a tool to maximise the retention of native vegetation within urban developments within the Mernda-Doreen Growth Area. The Development Plan was accompanied by an arborist report which assessed all of the trees on site. The overall Development Plan proposes the retention of the more significant native vegetation located on the site. This will be expanded on further later in the report.

KEY FEATURES OF THE PLAN

The overall layout plan of the 815-835 Yan Yean Road Development Plan which was placed on non-statutory exhibition is provided as Attachment 4.

The following section will provide greater detail on the following:

· Road layout;

· Density;

· Vegetation and Open Space;

· Interface to Yan Yean Road;

· Building on sloping lots; and

· Additional application requirements for 815 Yan Yean Road.

Road layout

The Development Plan proposes a grid style layout involving the extension of already existing roads. The proposed road layout also allows for each property to develop individually without relying on each other for access. All roads are designed to meet Council standard requirements.

The proposed road network is logical and allows for vehicle and pedestrian access throughout the locality. Barak Parade runs north-south through the Development Plan area and connects into Orchard Road which then provides a connection onto Yan Yean Road. Yan Yean Road can be accessed to the south via the existing road network. A Neighbourhood Activity Centre, Community Activity Centre and Active Open Space reserve will be located to the west in the Plenty River Estate. The Development Plan also provides east-west roads allowing for access to these destinations.

Orchard Road is defined under the Mernda Strategy Plan as a ‘collector road’. The road pavement is already constructed, with a footpath, nature strip and indented parking located on the north side of the road. The developer of 835 Yan Yean Road will be required to install indented parking bays, footpath and nature strip planting on the south side of Orchard Road as part of developer works. This has been reflected within the Development Plan.

Density

The majority of the Development Plan area is proposed to be standard residential development between 300 square metres and 800 square metres per lot. The only areas which are the exception to this are the lots abutting Yan Yean Road, which are required to be over 800 square metres in area, and the lot abutting the reserve on Orchard Road which is proposed for medium density.

The proposed density mix is considered to be generally in accordance with the Mernda Strategy Plan. While it is acknowledged that Precinct 2B of the Mernda Strategy Plan does not show medium density in this location, Clause 3.6.1 of the Mernda Strategy Plan does indicate that ‘lot size variation can be used to protect remnant vegetation and create visual interest within a subdivision’. The Development Plan meets this requirement as it proposes areas of medium density housing abutting reserves.

The Development Plan Overlay Schedule 5 also lists opportunities for a diverse range of allotment densities and dwelling types to be included within a future Development Plan. Again, the mix of densities proposed within the overall Development Plan is considered to meet this requirement.

Vegetation and Open Space

The Development Plan area has a large amount of vegetation which includes exotic and native vegetation. The significant vegetation has been considered as part of the assessment of the Development Plan.

Development Plan Overlay Schedule 5 requires a Development Plan to include the retention and integration of individual and stands of mature trees, particularly River Red Gums. The site is also affected by Vegetation Protection Overlay Schedule 1, which has the following objectives:

· To preserve and maintain significant vegetation and character of the area;

· Maintain soil qualities and minimise the impacts of erosion; and

· Preserving natural habitat for flora and fauna.

The Development Plan shows the retention of mature trees and River Red Gums in the following locations for 825 and 835 Yan Yean Road, Doreen:

· Four River Red Gums in a reserve south of Orchard Road;

· One River Red Gum along Orchard Road in the landscape buffer near the intersection of Yan Yean Road and Orchard Road; and

· Eight mature trees (which are a mix of indigenous and non-indigenous natives, and a range of smaller exotic trees within the landscape buffer to Yan Yean Road. This includes a cluster of five remnant Yellow Boxes which offer landscape and biodiversity value to the area.

The Development Plan does show the removal of a total of six River Red Gums, plus a row of eight juvenile River Red Gums near Orchard Road.

· The two River Red Gums proposed to be removed located along Orchard Road do not offer any significant contribution to the amenity of the area given their small size.

· The removal of the two River Red Gums near the existing dwelling on 835 Yan Yean Road is necessary in order to ensure a logical development outcome and neither tree offers any significant landscape or biodiversity value to the area.

· The River Red Gum proposed to be removed west of Barak Parade shows a large open wound in its main trunk which is likely to have resulted in major stem failure. The long term prospects of this tree is low and if it were to be retained, it may present a future public liability risk, hence why its removal is recommended.

· The small River Red Gum also west of Barak Parade offers limited contribution to the amenity of the area and its retention was virtually impossible given the proposed removal of the larger tree nearby.

· The juvenile River Red Gums near Orchard Road are small and have self-sown along the south eastern edge of the existing dam. However they will not be able to survive once the dam is removed, and therefore their removal is recommended.

A summary of the proposed River Red Gum removal is provided in the following table.

Table 1: Summary of tree removal and retention of River Red Gums (RRGs)

Tree No	Location	H (m)	DBH (cm)	Health	Structure	Retention Rating and recommendation
2	835 YYR	4	6.4	Fair	Fair	Remove
3	835 YYR	19	125.2	Fair	Fair	Remove
89	835 YYR	12	30.9	Good	Fair-Poor	Remove
62	835 YYR	11	42.4	Good	Good	Remove
27	825 YYR	21	199.4	Good	Good	Remove
29	825 YYR	7	39	Good	Good	Remove
Juvenile RRGs	835 YYR	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	Remove

It is noted that any tree shown to be removed on the ‘Tree Retention and Removal Plan’ (Attachment 5) is indicative and still subject to a future planning permit application. The future planning permit application would also include an assessment on the relevant offsets required for the vegetation that is approved to be removed.

Interface to Yan Yean Road

The site abuts Yan Yean Road, which is identified in the Mernda Strategy Plan as a sensitive interface. The Mernda Strategy Plan recommends that lower density residential development is appropriate for this area given that Yan Yean Road forms the Urban Growth Boundary.

The proposed Development Plan addresses this interface as follows:

· A 10 metre wide landscaping buffer running along Yan Yean Road is proposed which will include a footpath. This buffer increases in width along the boundary of 825 and 835 Yan Yean Road in order to retain significant River Red Gums; and

· Lots abutting Yan Yean Road will be a minimum of 800 square metres. This provides a transition from standard density to the rural development east of Yan Yean Road which is outside of the Urban Growth Boundary.

It is noted that the Mernda Strategy Plan does prescribe a minimum of 1000 square metre lots abutting Yan Yean Road. However the lot area of this size also includes a landscape buffer of approximately 10 metres in private ownership. While smaller than recommended, the current proposal is beneficial to Council as the landscape buffer along Yan Yean Road will be in Council ownership, not private, therefore allowing greater control over the landscaping as well as the allowing space for the construction of a shared path.

It is considered that both of these measures satisfactorily meet the requirements of the Mernda Strategy Plan and the requirements of transition and interface design treatments as specified within Development Plan Overlay Schedule 5.

Building on sloping lots

The site’s contours rise significantly in the south east corner of the Development Plan area.

The Development Plan includes provisions to address these requirements which are consistent with the provisions within other Development Plans. These provisions include encouraging split level homes to minimise cut and avoiding large retaining walls along the street frontage.

Additional application requirements for 815 Yan Yean Road

The proposed Development Plan applies for all three lots being 815, 825 and 835 Yan Yean Road, Doreen. However, the applicant was unable to obtain consent from the landowner at 815 Yan Yean Road to become party to the original Development Plan preparation. As such, some of the background reports submitted do not include a detailed assessment of this site.

As explained earlier, these three parcels of land are the only sites left within Precinct 2B of the Mernda Strategy Plan. Having a Development Plan that only affected two of these three sites was not considered to allow for the orderly development of the area and therefore not supported by Council officers.

It must be acknowledged that Development Plan submissions can be prepared and submitted by anyone. In scenarios where fragmented land ownership is prevalent, it is preferable that all parties are involved but that can be difficult to achieve and not mandatory. In assessing and approving a Development Plan, Council just needs to ensure that the Development Plan meets the requirements of the relevant Schedule irrespective of who prepares it.

The owner of this property was originally not party to the Development Plan submission, and as such the preparation of the Development Plan happened proposing caveats to this particular property for additional reports to be required at the time of a planning permit application. These reports were an Arborist report, Environmental Risk Report and Drainage report. Since the exhibition of the Development Plan, the landowner has prepared and submitted an Arborist Report. Out of the three outstanding reports, the Arborist report is considered to be the most significant as it has implications on the tree retention/ removal requirements on this site, as well as the proposed road network.

This has since been submitted and the results of the Arborist Report will be discussed later in the report. Council officers consider it satisfactory that the other two reports are submitted with any future planning permit application.

CONSULTATION

The Development Plan Overlay provisions within the Whittlesea Planning Scheme do not include a requirement for statutory exhibition of a Development Plan. Notwithstanding, non-statutory exhibition of Development Plans provide an important opportunity for affected landholders and referral authorities to raise issues that would ordinarily be identified at a later stage in the approval process. As such, the DP was placed on non-statutory public exhibition for a period of one month between 14 November 2016 and 9 December 2016.

The draft Development Plan was sent to adjoining owners and occupiers as well as relevant service authorities.

In response to this notice, Council received seven submissions from landowners in the area and two submissions from external service authorities. A full summary of the landowner submissions is provided as Attachment 6.

The following section discusses the key themes of these submissions accompanied by an officer response.

Table 1: Thematic Issues Raised by Submissions to Development Plan

*Issues and Matters Raised*	*Officer Response*
Yan Yean Road · Seek clarification on the configuration of widening of Yan Yean Road; · Requesting that the nature strip/ tree reserve between Yan Yean Road and the proposed development should be at least 100m wide to allow for future road expansion and/ or to allow for a public footpath or shared bicycle path.	Yan Yean Road is planned to be duplicated in the future by VicRoads. The widening for this duplication will occur on the east side of the road in Nillumbik Shire Council. Development within this DP area is required to contribute land for widening around the intersection of Orchard Road with Yan Yean Road, which is likely to remove the roundabout and provide signals at an undetermined point in the future. The development does allow for a shared path along Yan Yean Road. It is shown dashed in the ‘tree reserve’ which directly abuts Yan Yean Road. This tree reserve is 10 metres with additional widening in parts to keep significant trees. A road reserve width of 100 metres is more consistent with a road such as the Hume Freeway. *Officer recommendation:* No further change necessary to the Development Plan.
Dam near Orchard Road · Raise concern over the removal of the existing dam due to potential loss of habitat and recreation purposes.	The existing dam is required for drainage for the current house. Once the area is developed, this dam is not required for drainage purposes. The Mernda Strategy Plan Development Contributions Plan (which affects this area) shows where credited open space is to be provided, and this DP area is not required to deliver open space, other than land that may be required to retain site features as part of the design process, i.e. significant vegetation. *Officer recommendation:* No further change necessary to the Development Plan.
Additional housing · Raise concern in relation to density and additional houses in the area. · Concern in providing more houses in the area without adding the necessary infrastructure in to support them.	This area has already been designated for residential growth as part of the Mernda Strategy Plan which was approved in 2004. This Development Plan is the next stage of strategic planning to occur before the residential development happens. Local infrastructure was planned for as part of the Mernda Strategy Plan. There is a school proposed along Orchard Road to the south-west to the site. A Neighbourhood Activity Centre across from the school site has planning approval, and a large active open space reserve is going to be located in this precinct as well. However, these are all outside of this DP area. Orchard Road is currently served by a bus (Route 381) with an existing bus stop adjacent to 835 Yan Yean Road. Council is also advocating for the expansion of bus services and the duplication of arterial roads in the growth areas of the municipality to address these types of concerns. *Officer recommendation:* No further change necessary to the Development Plan.
Submit that larger lots should be mandated for the DP area ranging from 500-800 square metres: · One suggestion that all the plots are at minimum 800m2, this could be sold as an elite development for those people who want larger houses and a garden/pool for growing families. · Another was a minimum of 500 square metres in order to keep with the existing area	The exhibited Development Plan shows the area being developed for mainly standard density lots, except for the one area of medium density near the tree reserve on Orchard Road and the larger lots abutting Yan Yean Road. This is in accordance with the Mernda Strategy Plan which is the higher order strategic plan already done for the area. Any approved Development Plan must accord with the Mernda Strategy Plan. It is also noted that the proposed densities are not significantly different from the surrounding area. *Officer recommendation:* No further change necessary to the Development Plan.
Traffic calming measures · Request that traffic calming measures be included to reduce the potential for ‘hooning drivers’ and to reduce traffic speed i.e. roundabouts at all cross roads; · Request that a nature strip/divide is used up the centre of the roads, as used elsewhere on the estate, for example at Elation Boulevard	The roads that are to be constructed in this development are local roads and not collector roads like Elation Boulevard. As such, a centre divide/ median is not required for these roads. A roundabout will be provided by the developer at the intersection of Barak Parade and Counthan Terrace. This is shown on the Development Plan. If any other traffic calming measures are needed for long stretches of road, this will be determined as part of the future planning permit applications. It should be noted that the road layout has been designed to minimise through movements and include shortened street lengths. This will also assist in minimising the need for traffic management devices. It is also acknowledged that Council has previously dealt with a petition from residents along Orchard Road regarding road safety and traffic at its meeting on 24 February 2015. A follow up report was tabled at the 27 October 2015 meeting which resolved (among other matters) to install raised road pavements in Orchard Road between Garden Road and Yan Yean Road. It is noted that these road pavements have been installed. *Officer recommendation:* No further change necessary to the Development Plan.
Advises that existing vegetation from one of the parcels of land has not been maintained and has caused damage to the submitter’s property.	This is not a planning matter. However, the matter has been forwarded to the landowner for separate discussion between the parties.
Requests that the development is planned in a ‘thoughtful’ way and considers the slope of the land.	The Development Plan layout has been designed to connect into the existing street network with densities consistent with the surrounds. There are provisions within the written text of the Development Plan regarding the construction on slope to ensure good built form outcomes. *Officer recommendation:* No further change necessary to the Development Plan.
Concern that ‘poor planning’ will affect the property values in the area.	It has been consistently upheld by the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) that loss of property values are not relevant planning considerations. *Officer recommendation:* No further change necessary to the Development Plan.
Seek clarification on the timing of the development.	The applicant has proposed the following timeframes for the development of the land within the text of the DP document: · 825 Yan Yean Road is flagged as Stage 1 and is likely to commence construction in 2017 pending planning and construction approval; · 835 Yan Yean Road is marked as Stage 2 and will likely proceed once Stage 1 is developed. Potential completion date would be late 2018 pending planning and construction approval; and · 815 Yan Yean Road will develop the western side of their land first with no clear timeframe proposed when this will occur. Ultimately development staging will be up to the individual landowner/ developer of each parcel. It is noted that all three landholdings have the ability to connect adjoining residential developments and commence independently. *Officer recommendation:* No further change necessary to the Development Plan.
Native Vegetation · Request that other gums are protected on site as they have bird life within them. · Raise concern that the DP requires the removal of natural vegetation and this will ruin the bird and animal life in the precinct.	The Development Plan indicates that indigenous vegetation (including four significant trees) will be retained on site along Orchard Road and within the Yan Yean Road landscape buffer (including 12 significant trees). Three significant trees are also to be retained in reserves proposed on 815 Yan Yean Road, Doreen *Officer recommendation:* No further change necessary to the Development Plan.
Medium Density Housing · Objection to the proposed medium density site near Orchard Road as the Mernda Strategy Plan shows the area as standard density housing and it is located outside of an activity centre as per Plan Melbourne (the Metropolitan Planning Strategy) requirements.	Clause 3.6.1 of the Mernda Strategy Plan does indicate that ‘lot size variation can be used to protect remnant vegetation and create visual interest within a subdivision’. In this site specific location as a design response, the Development Plan meets this requirement as it is abutting a reserve which has been created to protect River Red Gums and its location near Orchard Road provides a visual interest when entering the Development Plan area. As such it is considered that the density requirements of the Mernda Strategy Plan have been met. In terms of Plan Melbourne, the focus of encouraging higher density housing (in the form of apartments) is more around areas such as an Activity Centre. It also has an initiative to ‘develop more diverse housing in growth areas’ (Initiative 2.1.4) to accommodate a changing population and assist affordability. As such, the provision of medium density in this location is not considered to be contrary to Plan Melbourne. *Officer recommendation:* No further change necessary to the Development Plan.
Reserve F · Request that the reserve marked F on the exhibited Development Plan is provided notwithstanding the outcomes of the arborist findings.	The exhibited Development Plan showed two trees in a reserve marked “F” with a note stating that ‘extent of reserve subject to Arborist report of tree significance’. As the Mernda Strategy Plan does not show open space to be provided in this Development Plan area, Council cannot mandate open space to be provided if the site is not required to protect native vegetation. *Officer recommendation:* No further change necessary to the Development Plan.
Lots of 300 square metres · Raise concern with the proposed lot sizes of 300 square metres and clarification of the location of these sized lots within the Development Plan area.	300 square metre lots are to be limited through the DP area and located more towards the centre of the precinct. The intent is to maintain lot density and widths along the extension of existing roads to maintain a consistent character along these streets. The wording of the Development Plan will be amended to provide further clarity in this respect. *Officer recommendation:* Amend Section 4.3 – Density and Uses within the document to provide further detail as to the location of 300 square metre lots within the Development Plan area.
Objection to the connection of Von Guerrard Parade into this development on the grounds that it will: · increase traffic flow and noise; · create congestion and safety issues; · potentially attract speeding hoons and burnouts; · create hazards and increase the potential for serious injury; · ruin and overwhelm the character of the street and the estate and the peace and serenity currently there.	Von Guerrard Parade was developed in accordance with the Orchard Park Development Plan which applied to that area. One of the objectives of the Orchard Park Development Plan was to: ‘provide road connections to adjoining properties as required to ensure orderly road connectivity for the precinct’ (page 9). Von Guerrard Parade was constructed with this purpose. The intention of a through road can be seen in both its name and that a formal turnaround area was not provided. The same can be said for Counthan Terrace (to the north of Von Guerrard Parade) and Kossatz Terrace (to the south of Von Guerrard Parade). The extension of these roads is also necessary to provide a logical connection into the existing development to the immediate west. Speeding and hooning are a matter for Victoria Police. The Police have already been referred these matters in the locality as part of the resolution for the raised road pavements along Orchard Road (see the response to ‘Traffic Calming Measures’ as outlined in detail above). *Officer recommendation:* No further change necessary to the Development Plan.
The submitter object to the development of these three parcels of land as the current non-developed area is viewed by them as: · being a ‘greenfield’ area; · adding character to the neighbourhood; · creating a peaceful and tranquil atmosphere; and · offering a pleasant view for all residents with a ‘country feel environment’.	The land is shown on the Mernda Strategy Plan for residential development. It is also zoned General Residential Zone and is also within the Urban Growth Boundary. It has the same planning provisions as the existing residential subdivision to the west, south and north which have already been developed. *Officer recommendation*: No further change necessary to the Development Plan.
Concern that if approval is granted then there will be other issues to contend with associated with construction (noise, dust, debris, ingoing and outgoing trucks etc.) and consideration should be made to how this will inconvenience and impact the residents.	Matters in relation to construction access and minimising amenity impacts to residents will be dealt with via permit conditions. *Officer recommendation:* No further change necessary to the Development Plan.
Suggestion of a proposal that uses the site for a recreational space with park furniture, retention of vegetation which can be enjoyed by all of the community.	The site is shown on the Mernda Strategy Plan for residential development. The Mernda Strategy Plan allocates areas for large scale open space and the developer is not obliged to provide this land to Council for this purpose. The land is in private ownership and has been nominated as being suitable for urban development with the same statutory framework as applied to all adjoining land. *Officer recommendation:* No further change necessary to the Development Plan.
A number of verbal and written enquiries as to the provision for the NBN as part of this development and whether it would be available to the overall neighbourhood.	Again, this is not a planning matter. The provision of NBN is a matter for NBN Co. It is noted that Council does have Local Planning Policy in relation to Telecommunication Conduits and that any subdivision within this Development Plan area will need to ensure that at minimum, conduits will be installed which will enable the optic fibres to be installed by NBN Co. in the future if it is planned for this locality.

Issues and Matters Raised

Officer Response

Yan Yean Road

· Seek clarification on the configuration of widening of Yan Yean Road;

· Requesting that the nature strip/ tree reserve between Yan Yean Road and the proposed development should be at least 100m wide to allow for future road expansion and/ or to allow for a public footpath or shared bicycle path.

Yan Yean Road is planned to be duplicated in the future by VicRoads. The widening for this duplication will occur on the east side of the road in Nillumbik Shire Council.

Development within this DP area is required to contribute land for widening around the intersection of Orchard Road with Yan Yean Road, which is likely to remove the roundabout and provide signals at an undetermined point in the future.

The development does allow for a shared path along Yan Yean Road. It is shown dashed in the ‘tree reserve’ which directly abuts Yan Yean Road. This tree reserve is 10 metres with additional widening in parts to keep significant trees.

A road reserve width of 100 metres is more consistent with a road such as the Hume Freeway.

Officer recommendation:

No further change necessary to the Development Plan.

Dam near Orchard Road

· Raise concern over the removal of the existing dam due to potential loss of habitat and recreation purposes.

The existing dam is required for drainage for the current house. Once the area is developed, this dam is not required for drainage purposes.

The Mernda Strategy Plan Development Contributions Plan (which affects this area) shows where credited open space is to be provided, and this DP area is not required to deliver open space, other than land that may be required to retain site features as part of the design process, i.e. significant vegetation.

Officer recommendation:

No further change necessary to the Development Plan.

Additional housing

· Raise concern in relation to density and additional houses in the area.

· Concern in providing more houses in the area without adding the necessary infrastructure in to support them.

This area has already been designated for residential growth as part of the Mernda Strategy Plan which was approved in 2004. This Development Plan is the next stage of strategic planning to occur before the residential development happens.

Local infrastructure was planned for as part of the Mernda Strategy Plan. There is a school proposed along Orchard Road to the south-west to the site. A Neighbourhood Activity Centre across from the school site has planning approval, and a large active open space reserve is going to be located in this precinct as well. However, these are all outside of this DP area.

Orchard Road is currently served by a bus (Route 381) with an existing bus stop adjacent to 835 Yan Yean Road.

Council is also advocating for the expansion of bus services and the duplication of arterial roads in the growth areas of the municipality to address these types of concerns.

Officer recommendation:

No further change necessary to the Development Plan.

Submit that larger lots should be mandated for the DP area ranging from 500-800 square metres:

· One suggestion that all the plots are at minimum 800m2, this could be sold as an elite development for those people who want larger houses and a garden/pool for growing families.

· Another was a minimum of 500 square metres in order to keep with the existing area

The exhibited Development Plan shows the area being developed for mainly standard density lots, except for the one area of medium density near the tree reserve on Orchard Road and the larger lots abutting Yan Yean Road.

This is in accordance with the Mernda Strategy Plan which is the higher order strategic plan already done for the area. Any approved Development Plan must accord with the Mernda Strategy Plan.

It is also noted that the proposed densities are not significantly different from the surrounding area.

Officer recommendation:

No further change necessary to the Development Plan.

Traffic calming measures

· Request that traffic calming measures be included to reduce the potential for ‘hooning drivers’ and to reduce traffic speed i.e. roundabouts at all cross roads;

· Request that a nature strip/divide is used up the centre of the roads, as used elsewhere on the estate, for example at Elation Boulevard

The roads that are to be constructed in this development are local roads and not collector roads like Elation Boulevard. As such, a centre divide/ median is not required for these roads.

A roundabout will be provided by the developer at the intersection of Barak Parade and Counthan Terrace. This is shown on the Development Plan.

If any other traffic calming measures are needed for long stretches of road, this will be determined as part of the future planning permit applications.

It should be noted that the road layout has been designed to minimise through movements and include shortened street lengths. This will also assist in minimising the need for traffic management devices.

It is also acknowledged that Council has previously dealt with a petition from residents along Orchard Road regarding road safety and traffic at its meeting on 24 February 2015. A follow up report was tabled at the 27 October 2015 meeting which resolved (among other matters) to install raised road pavements in Orchard Road between Garden Road and Yan Yean Road. It is noted that these road pavements have been installed.

Officer recommendation:

No further change necessary to the Development Plan.

Advises that existing vegetation from one of the parcels of land has not been maintained and has caused damage to the submitter’s property.

This is not a planning matter. However, the matter has been forwarded to the landowner for separate discussion between the parties.

Requests that the development is planned in a ‘thoughtful’ way and considers the slope of the land.

The Development Plan layout has been designed to connect into the existing street network with densities consistent with the surrounds. There are provisions within the written text of the Development Plan regarding the construction on slope to ensure good built form outcomes.

Officer recommendation:

No further change necessary to the Development Plan.

Concern that ‘poor planning’ will affect the property values in the area.

It has been consistently upheld by the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) that loss of property values are not relevant planning considerations.

Officer recommendation:

No further change necessary to the Development Plan.

Seek clarification on the timing of the development.

The applicant has proposed the following timeframes for the development of the land within the text of the DP document:

· 825 Yan Yean Road is flagged as Stage 1 and is likely to commence construction in 2017 pending planning and construction approval;

· 835 Yan Yean Road is marked as Stage 2 and will likely proceed once Stage 1 is developed. Potential completion date would be late 2018 pending planning and construction approval; and

· 815 Yan Yean Road will develop the western side of their land first with no clear timeframe proposed when this will occur.

Ultimately development staging will be up to the individual landowner/ developer of each parcel. It is noted that all three landholdings have the ability to connect adjoining residential developments and commence independently.

Officer recommendation:

No further change necessary to the Development Plan.

Native Vegetation

· Request that other gums are protected on site as they have bird life within them.

· Raise concern that the DP requires the removal of natural vegetation and this will ruin the bird and animal life in the precinct.

The Development Plan indicates that indigenous vegetation (including four significant trees) will be retained on site along Orchard Road and within the Yan Yean Road landscape buffer (including 12 significant trees). Three significant trees are also to be retained in reserves proposed on 815 Yan Yean Road, Doreen

Officer recommendation:

No further change necessary to the Development Plan.

Medium Density Housing

· Objection to the proposed medium density site near Orchard Road as the Mernda Strategy Plan shows the area as standard density housing and it is located outside of an activity centre as per Plan Melbourne (the Metropolitan Planning Strategy) requirements.

Clause 3.6.1 of the Mernda Strategy Plan does indicate that ‘lot size variation can be used to protect remnant vegetation and create visual interest within a subdivision’.

In this site specific location as a design response, the Development Plan meets this requirement as it is abutting a reserve which has been created to protect River Red Gums and its location near Orchard Road provides a visual interest when entering the Development Plan area. As such it is considered that the density requirements of the Mernda Strategy Plan have been met.

In terms of Plan Melbourne, the focus of encouraging higher density housing (in the form of apartments) is more around areas such as an Activity Centre. It also has an initiative to ‘develop more diverse housing in growth areas’ (Initiative 2.1.4) to accommodate a changing population and assist affordability. As such, the provision of medium density in this location is not considered to be contrary to Plan Melbourne.

Officer recommendation:

No further change necessary to the Development Plan.

Reserve F

· Request that the reserve marked F on the exhibited Development Plan is provided notwithstanding the outcomes of the arborist findings.

The exhibited Development Plan showed two trees in a reserve marked “F” with a note stating that ‘extent of reserve subject to Arborist report of tree significance’.

As the Mernda Strategy Plan does not show open space to be provided in this Development Plan area, Council cannot mandate open space to be provided if the site is not required to protect native vegetation.

Officer recommendation:

No further change necessary to the Development Plan.

Lots of 300 square metres

· Raise concern with the proposed lot sizes of 300 square metres and clarification of the location of these sized lots within the Development Plan area.

300 square metre lots are to be limited through the DP area and located more towards the centre of the precinct.

The intent is to maintain lot density and widths along the extension of existing roads to maintain a consistent character along these streets.

The wording of the Development Plan will be amended to provide further clarity in this respect.

Officer recommendation:

Amend Section 4.3 – Density and Uses within the document to provide further detail as to the location of 300 square metre lots within the Development Plan area.

Objection to the connection of Von Guerrard Parade into this development on the grounds that it will:

· increase traffic flow and noise;

· create congestion and safety issues;

· potentially attract speeding hoons and burnouts;

· create hazards and increase the potential for serious injury;

· ruin and overwhelm the character of the street and the estate and the peace and serenity currently there.

Von Guerrard Parade was developed in accordance with the Orchard Park Development Plan which applied to that area.

One of the objectives of the Orchard Park Development Plan was to:

‘provide road connections to adjoining properties as required to ensure orderly road connectivity for the precinct’ (page 9).

Von Guerrard Parade was constructed with this purpose. The intention of a through road can be seen in both its name and that a formal turnaround area was not provided.

The same can be said for Counthan Terrace (to the north of Von Guerrard Parade) and Kossatz Terrace (to the south of Von Guerrard Parade). The extension of these roads is also necessary to provide a logical connection into the existing development to the immediate west.

Speeding and hooning are a matter for Victoria Police. The Police have already been referred these matters in the locality as part of the resolution for the raised road pavements along Orchard Road (see the response to ‘Traffic Calming Measures’ as outlined in detail above).

Officer recommendation:

No further change necessary to the Development Plan.

The submitter object to the development of these three parcels of land as the current non-developed area is viewed by them as:

· being a ‘greenfield’ area;

· adding character to the neighbourhood;

· creating a peaceful and tranquil atmosphere; and

· offering a pleasant view for all residents with a ‘country feel environment’.

The land is shown on the Mernda Strategy Plan for residential development. It is also zoned General Residential Zone and is also within the Urban Growth Boundary.

It has the same planning provisions as the existing residential subdivision to the west, south and north which have already been developed.

Officer recommendation:

No further change necessary to the Development Plan.

Concern that if approval is granted then there will be other issues to contend with associated with construction (noise, dust, debris, ingoing and outgoing trucks etc.) and consideration should be made to how this will inconvenience and impact the residents.

Matters in relation to construction access and minimising amenity impacts to residents will be dealt with via permit conditions.

Officer recommendation:

No further change necessary to the Development Plan.

Suggestion of a proposal that uses the site for a recreational space with park furniture, retention of vegetation which can be enjoyed by all of the community.

The site is shown on the Mernda Strategy Plan for residential development. The Mernda Strategy Plan allocates areas for large scale open space and the developer is not obliged to provide this land to Council for this purpose.

The land is in private ownership and has been nominated as being suitable for urban development with the same statutory framework as applied to all adjoining land.

Officer recommendation:

No further change necessary to the Development Plan.

A number of verbal and written enquiries as to the provision for the NBN as part of this development and whether it would be available to the overall neighbourhood.

Again, this is not a planning matter. The provision of NBN is a matter for NBN Co.

It is noted that Council does have Local Planning Policy in relation to Telecommunication Conduits and that any subdivision within this Development Plan area will need to ensure that at minimum, conduits will be installed which will enable the optic fibres to be installed by NBN Co. in the future if it is planned for this locality.

SUBMISSION FROM LANDOWNER AT 815 YAN YEAN ROAD, DOREEN

The following table outlines the issues raised in the submission from the landowner at 815 Yan Yean Road, Doreen. This land is within the Development Plan area and as indicated above, did not elect to be involved with the original submission.

As indicated earlier in the report, Development Plan submissions can be prepared and submitted by anyone. In scenarios where fragmented land ownership is prevalent, it is preferable that all parties are involved but that can be difficult to achieve and not mandatory. In assessing and approving a Development Plan, Council just needs to ensure that the Development Plan meets the requirements of the relevant Schedule irrespective of who prepares it.

This submission is being considered in isolation as it holds additional weight given that this landowner does have a right of appeal to the Development Plan and this document will form guidance on how their own land can be developed.

Issue	Officer Response
1. Significance of existing trees on 815 Yan Yean Road: · The exhibited DP provided a Section as to the additional reports required to be submitted for this property · At the time of the submission, the proponent indicates that an Arborist report was being undertaken · The submission requested that should the assessment determine that the trees are not suitable for retention, that Council revisit the size of the proposed open space area and potentially remove it entirely from the plan if none of the trees are determined as being significant.	Since the submission to the Development Plan was lodged on behalf of this landowner in December 2016, an arborist report has now been prepared for the trees on 815 Yan Yean Road. This report has been submitted and reviewed by Council officers. The outcome of the report determined that: · No trees on this site were identified as River Red Gums. · The trees shown on the DP map east of Barak Parade are Long Leaved-Box trees (Eucalyptus goniocalyx) and are either dead or have significant structural issues. Council officers support the removal of these trees; · The large trees shown in the reserve marked as “F” on the exhibited Development Plan map are actually two trees identified as Yellow Box trees (Eucalyptus melliodora). These trees are indigenous and are highlighted as important to the area by the Vegetation Protection Overlay Schedule and identified as being of high retention value. As such, their retention is recommended; · The smaller tree in Reserve “F” is a Long Leaved-Box tree (Eucalyptus goniocalyx). This tree has significant decay and its removal is recommended; · On the basis of the above, Council officers recommend that the reserve on 815 Yan Yean Road can be reduced, however there still must be a connection of a sufficient width provided for a footpath which links between ‘South Rise’ and Barak Parade without encroaching on the Tree Protection Zones. The reserve still must be provided between South Rise and Barak Parade to allow for pedestrian connectivity; · A further tree which was not shown on the original DP map has been identified and it is recommended to be retained. This tree is a Yellow Box (Eucalyptus melliodora) and is located near ‘South Rise’ where it crosses from 825 Yan Yean Road to 815 Yan Yean Road. A small tree reserve or extended road reserve will be necessary to ensure the tree is retained on public land. This will require ‘South Rise’ to be realigned between the trees, and some road narrowing may be necessary. However this detail can be determined at the planning permit application stage. A note has been added to the plan to show this detail. *Officer Recommendation* · Amend the DP map to show the revised tree removal and retention for this site as per the following: - Delete the two trees east of Barak Parade and their associated reserve; - Delete the small tree in the south-east corner of the reserve in 815 Yan Yean Road - Reduce the size of the reserve in 815 Yan Yean Road. Show an indicative footpath running through the reserve to the south of the large tree but outside of the TPZ. - Show a tree to the east of South Rise and show the area around the tree as a reserve; - Realign South Rise to go between the two trees and add a note in relation to potential road narrowing in this location. · Add new text and a new Figure in Section 3.2 – Vegetation to reflect the outcomes of the Arborist Report for 815 Yan Yean Road; · Remove requirement for Arborist report in Section 7.1 for 815 Yan Yean Road; · Amend Section 7.3 to include a summary of the outcomes of the Arborist Report for 815 Yan Yean Road; and · Include the 815 Yan Yean Road Arborist report as an appendix to this Development Plan.
2. Designation of Medium Density Areas · It is suggested that further medium density areas are identified on the DP in areas directly overlooking public open space · The suggested areas are the Type A residential areas directly north and south of the reserve on 815 Yan Yean Road · If the reserve is not required then all of the area is requested to be shown as Standard Density Residential.	As per the above, an Arborist report has now been completed for this site. Given that it is proposed that the two significant trees and the overall reserve are to be retained (albeit reduced in size and shape than originally proposed), Council officers support the notion of medium density housing being provided on the north side of the reserve only. Medium density housing (MDH) can provide opportunities to front the reserve and the street as well as addressing the significant slope on the land. Medium density on the south side of the reserve is not supported by Council officers and has been accepted by the submitter. *Officer Recommendation:* · Amend DP Plan to show the area north of the reserve in 815 Yan Yean Road to be medium density housing · Amend Section 4.3 sentence for MDH fronting reserve to reference this open space reserve and this particular site; · Include a requirement in Section 4.3 to guide development on these medium density sites.
3. Justification of Type C Residential (Lots greater than 800m2): The submission proposes a more ‘consistent’ approach to the nomination of Type C housing (lots greater than 800m2). A consistent distance from Yan Yean Road would appear more appropriate and ensure uniformity between the three properties.	Council officers support this suggestion. It is recommended that a consistent approach is taken for all three properties and that all of the area south of the tree reserve which is located on the corner of Yan Yean Road and Orchard Road shown on the Development Plan map for low density lots. This ensures consistency with other lots along Yan Yean Road. *Officer recommendation:* Amend the Development Plan map to show low density along Yan Yean Road for all areas south of the tree reserve on Orchard Road.
4. Justification of Tree Reserve to Yan Yean Road: · The exhibited DP shows a widened section of the tree reserve with no justification · It is requested that the section is narrowed to be consistent with the south-eastern section of the property.	The widened tree reserve was provided in order to protect both the existing trees on 825 Yan Yean Road and the grouping on 815 Yan Yean Road. The submitted Arborist report indicates that the tree on 825 Yan Yean Road is the most significant one of this grouping and that it should be retained. In a practical sense, this means that the tree reserve only needs to be wide enough to encompass that tree and its Tree Protection Zone (it overhangs onto 815 Yan Yean Road) and that the other trees in this grouping do not need to be retained in this reserve. This reserve is then able to taper back into a 10 metre reserve, consistent with the other three properties. The 10m wide tree reserve is consistent with the other properties in the Development Plan and also allows for the retention of other indigenous and non-indigenous trees. *Officer recommendation* Amend the Development Plan map to realign the tree reserve on 815 Yan Yean Road to encompass the significant tree on 825 Yan Yean Road then taper back into a 10 metre road reserve.
5. Eastern extent of 815 Yan Yean Road cannot be developed until 825 Yan Yean Road has been developed: · Further detail in the text relating to staging specifying that 825 Yan Yean Road will be developed first and in its entirety is requested. · This will avoid a scenario where the eastern extent of 815 Yan Yean Road is landlocked as the proposed internal road network prevents access to the eastern half of the property unless 825 Yan Yean Road is developed first.	The current Development Plan does include a staging plan. However it is recommended that additional text is provided within the body of the document to require 825 Yan Yean Road to include a provision that ensures ‘South Rise’ is constructed in the first stage of the subdivision of 825 Yan Yean Road, Doreen to avoid a ‘landlocking’ outcome. *Officer recommendation* Amend Section 6 – Development Staging to include additional text in relation to 825 Yan Yean Road and including the construction of ‘South Rise’ as per the DP map in Stage 1 to ensure that no ‘landlocking’ occurs.
6. Suggested Changes to the document text The following suggestions are recommended for inclusion/ amendment within the DP text: a) Including a summary of how the Development Plan accords with the overall Mernda Strategy Plan (MSP) and its key objectives. b) Including the Precinct 2B Plan from the MSP in the document to demonstrate some of the key design elements derived from the MSP. c) Revising Figure 1 to clearly designate the three properties and their boundaries within the surrounding context. d) Including a slope analysis plan that nominates the areas of steep topography to provide increased clarity as to where the development is most suited for development. e) Including an indicative lot yield for overall Development Plan Area and Individual Properties. f) Inclusion of Conclusion to the document which has a summary of the overall objectives and the anticipated process for future subdivision and permit applications to be lodged for the subject properties. g) Requesting that a habitat assessment should also be undertaken for all three properties for consistency. This requirement has been shown for 815 Yan Yean Road only in the current text, although it was not submitted as part of the DP application for 825 and 835 Yan Yean Road, Doreen.	The changes as suggested in a)-d) and f) are considered to be reasonable and are supported by Council officers. The inclusion of indicative lot yield figures is not supported as it can lead to unrealistic expectations from developers, particularly if the more detailed design as required within the Planning Permit applications leads to changes in these figures. The habitat assessment as proposed by g) is not considered to be necessary given that these forms of assessments were done with the Mernda Strategy Plan and areas of high conservation value were protected as part of the overall urban framework for the area. It should be noted that this does not remove the need for a vegetation report which determines appropriate offsets for any native vegetation which is proposed to be removed. *Officer recommendation* · Include in Section 1.1 – Mernda Strategy Plan a summary of the key objectives of the MSP as well as the key elements of the relevant Precinct Plan, and the relevant precinct map; · Include in Section 1.3 – Role of Development Plan detail as to how the DP accords with the MSP as well as the key objectives of the Precinct. · Amend Figure 1 – Sub regional context to make it clearer where the subject land lies; · Include a slope analysis plan as part of Section 4.7 – Buildings and Infrastructure on Slopes to clearly designate which areas this section applies to; · Include a new section within the written text at the end of the document which provides a conclusion to the document

Issue

Officer Response

1. Significance of existing trees on 815 Yan Yean Road:

· The exhibited DP provided a Section as to the additional reports required to be submitted for this property

· At the time of the submission, the proponent indicates that an Arborist report was being undertaken

· The submission requested that should the assessment determine that the trees are not suitable for retention, that Council revisit the size of the proposed open space area and potentially remove it entirely from the plan if none of the trees are determined as being significant.

Since the submission to the Development Plan was lodged on behalf of this landowner in December 2016, an arborist report has now been prepared for the trees on 815 Yan Yean Road. This report has been submitted and reviewed by Council officers.

The outcome of the report determined that:

· No trees on this site were identified as River Red Gums.

· The trees shown on the DP map east of Barak Parade are Long Leaved-Box trees (Eucalyptus goniocalyx) and are either dead or have significant structural issues. Council officers support the removal of these trees;

· The large trees shown in the reserve marked as “F” on the exhibited Development Plan map are actually two trees identified as Yellow Box trees (Eucalyptus melliodora). These trees are indigenous and are highlighted as important to the area by the Vegetation Protection Overlay Schedule and identified as being of high retention value. As such, their retention is recommended;

· The smaller tree in Reserve “F” is a Long Leaved-Box tree (Eucalyptus goniocalyx). This tree has significant decay and its removal is recommended;

· On the basis of the above, Council officers recommend that the reserve on 815 Yan Yean Road can be reduced, however there still must be a connection of a sufficient width provided for a footpath which links between ‘South Rise’ and Barak Parade without encroaching on the Tree Protection Zones. The reserve still must be provided between South Rise and Barak Parade to allow for pedestrian connectivity;

· A further tree which was not shown on the original DP map has been identified and it is recommended to be retained. This tree is a Yellow Box (Eucalyptus melliodora) and is located near ‘South Rise’ where it crosses from 825 Yan Yean Road to 815 Yan Yean Road.

A small tree reserve or extended road reserve will be necessary to ensure the tree is retained on public land. This will require ‘South Rise’ to be realigned between the trees, and some road narrowing may be necessary. However this detail can be determined at the planning permit application stage. A note has been added to the plan to show this detail.

Officer Recommendation

· Amend the DP map to show the revised tree removal and retention for this site as per the following:

- Delete the two trees east of Barak Parade and their associated reserve;

- Delete the small tree in the south-east corner of the reserve in 815 Yan Yean Road

- Reduce the size of the reserve in 815 Yan Yean Road. Show an indicative footpath running through the reserve to the south of the large tree but outside of the TPZ.

- Show a tree to the east of South Rise and show the area around the tree as a reserve;

- Realign South Rise to go between the two trees and add a note in relation to potential road narrowing in this location.

· Add new text and a new Figure in Section 3.2 – Vegetation to reflect the outcomes of the Arborist Report for 815 Yan Yean Road;

· Remove requirement for Arborist report in Section 7.1 for 815 Yan Yean Road;

· Amend Section 7.3 to include a summary of the outcomes of the Arborist Report for 815 Yan Yean Road; and

· Include the 815 Yan Yean Road Arborist report as an appendix to this Development Plan.

2. Designation of Medium Density Areas

· It is suggested that further medium density areas are identified on the DP in areas directly overlooking public open space

· The suggested areas are the Type A residential areas directly north and south of the reserve on 815 Yan Yean Road

· If the reserve is not required then all of the area is requested to be shown as Standard Density Residential.

As per the above, an Arborist report has now been completed for this site.

Given that it is proposed that the two significant trees and the overall reserve are to be retained (albeit reduced in size and shape than originally proposed), Council officers support the notion of medium density housing being provided on the north side of the reserve only.

Medium density housing (MDH) can provide opportunities to front the reserve and the street as well as addressing the significant slope on the land.

Medium density on the south side of the reserve is not supported by Council officers and has been accepted by the submitter.

Officer Recommendation:

· Amend DP Plan to show the area north of the reserve in 815 Yan Yean Road to be medium density housing

· Amend Section 4.3 sentence for MDH fronting reserve to reference this open space reserve and this particular site;

· Include a requirement in Section 4.3 to guide development on these medium density sites.

3. Justification of Type C Residential (Lots greater than 800m2):

The submission proposes a more ‘consistent’ approach to the nomination of Type C housing (lots greater than 800m2).

A consistent distance from Yan Yean Road would appear more appropriate and ensure uniformity between the three properties.

Council officers support this suggestion.

It is recommended that a consistent approach is taken for all three properties and that all of the area south of the tree reserve which is located on the corner of Yan Yean Road and Orchard Road shown on the Development Plan map for low density lots. This ensures consistency with other lots along Yan Yean Road.

Officer recommendation:

Amend the Development Plan map to show low density along Yan Yean Road for all areas south of the tree reserve on Orchard Road.

4. Justification of Tree Reserve to Yan Yean Road:

· The exhibited DP shows a widened section of the tree reserve with no justification

· It is requested that the section is narrowed to be consistent with the south-eastern section of the property.

The widened tree reserve was provided in order to protect both the existing trees on 825 Yan Yean Road and the grouping on 815 Yan Yean Road.

The submitted Arborist report indicates that the tree on 825 Yan Yean Road is the most significant one of this grouping and that it should be retained.

In a practical sense, this means that the tree reserve only needs to be wide enough to encompass that tree and its Tree Protection Zone (it overhangs onto 815 Yan Yean Road) and that the other trees in this grouping do not need to be retained in this reserve. This reserve is then able to taper back into a 10 metre reserve, consistent with the other three properties.

The 10m wide tree reserve is consistent with the other properties in the Development Plan and also allows for the retention of other indigenous and non-indigenous trees.

Officer recommendation

Amend the Development Plan map to realign the tree reserve on 815 Yan Yean Road to encompass the significant tree on 825 Yan Yean Road then taper back into a 10 metre road reserve.

5. Eastern extent of 815 Yan Yean Road cannot be developed until 825 Yan Yean Road has been developed:

· Further detail in the text relating to staging specifying that 825 Yan Yean Road will be developed first and in its entirety is requested.

· This will avoid a scenario where the eastern extent of 815 Yan Yean Road is landlocked as the proposed internal road network prevents access to the eastern half of the property unless 825 Yan Yean Road is developed first.

The current Development Plan does include a staging plan. However it is recommended that additional text is provided within the body of the document to require 825 Yan Yean Road to include a provision that ensures ‘South Rise’ is constructed in the first stage of the subdivision of 825 Yan Yean Road, Doreen to avoid a ‘landlocking’ outcome.

Officer recommendation

Amend Section 6 – Development Staging to include additional text in relation to 825 Yan Yean Road and including the construction of ‘South Rise’ as per the DP map in Stage 1 to ensure that no ‘landlocking’ occurs.

6. Suggested Changes to the document text

The following suggestions are recommended for inclusion/ amendment within the DP text:

a) Including a summary of how the Development Plan accords with the overall Mernda Strategy Plan (MSP) and its key objectives.

b) Including the Precinct 2B Plan from the MSP in the document to demonstrate some of the key design elements derived from the MSP.

c) Revising Figure 1 to clearly designate the three properties and their boundaries within the surrounding context.

d) Including a slope analysis plan that nominates the areas of steep topography to provide increased clarity as to where the development is most suited for development.

e) Including an indicative lot yield for overall Development Plan Area and Individual Properties.

f) Inclusion of Conclusion to the document which has a summary of the overall objectives and the anticipated process for future subdivision and permit applications to be lodged for the subject properties.

g) Requesting that a habitat assessment should also be undertaken for all three properties for consistency. This requirement has been shown for 815 Yan Yean Road only in the current text, although it was not submitted as part of the DP application for 825 and 835 Yan Yean Road, Doreen.

The changes as suggested in a)-d) and f) are considered to be reasonable and are supported by Council officers.

The inclusion of indicative lot yield figures is not supported as it can lead to unrealistic expectations from developers, particularly if the more detailed design as required within the Planning Permit applications leads to changes in these figures.

The habitat assessment as proposed by g) is not considered to be necessary given that these forms of assessments were done with the Mernda Strategy Plan and areas of high conservation value were protected as part of the overall urban framework for the area. It should be noted that this does not remove the need for a vegetation report which determines appropriate offsets for any native vegetation which is proposed to be removed.

Officer recommendation

· Include in Section 1.1 – Mernda Strategy Plan a summary of the key objectives of the MSP as well as the key elements of the relevant Precinct Plan, and the relevant precinct map;

· Include in Section 1.3 – Role of Development Plan detail as to how the DP accords with the MSP as well as the key objectives of the Precinct.

· Amend Figure 1 – Sub regional context to make it clearer where the subject land lies;

· Include a slope analysis plan as part of Section 4.7 – Buildings and Infrastructure on Slopes to clearly designate which areas this section applies to;

· Include a new section within the written text at the end of the document which provides a conclusion to the document

A plan which summarises the spatial changes as proposed within the above table for 815 Yan Yean Road, Doreen is provided as Attachment 7.

AUTHORITY SUBMISSIONS

The following table outlines submissions from external agencies:

*Authority*	*Officer Response*
Melbourne Water – offered no objection to the proposed Development Plan and provided a range of conditions more in line with a planning permit application.	The submission provides conditions more relevant to a planning permit application and not a Development Plan. These conditions can be addressed by the applicant post permit approval. *Officer Recommendation* No further change necessary to the Development Plan.
Public Transport Victoria – offered no objection to the proposed Development Plan. However they indicated that the DP document doesn’t discuss the existing bus route that travels along Orchard Road and indicated that the bus stops near this site may need to be upgraded in the future.	The submission from Public Transport Victoria (PTV) is noted. Any future planning permit application which meets the thresholds of Clause 52.36 – Integrated Public Transport Planning will be referred to PTV for comment. *Officer Recommendation* No further change necessary to the Development Plan.
VicRoads – offered no objection to the proposed Development Plan and suggested the following point should Council approve the Development Plan: ‘indication of tree screening along the boundary of lots adjoining the Yan Yean Road reservation as indicated in Figure 3.4 of the Mernda Strategy Plan, to be included in the Development Plan for 815-835 Yan Yean Road in order to protect the integrity of the road reservation for road purposes.’	The submission from VicRoads is noted. As indicated earlier in the report, it is noted that the Mernda Strategy Plan does prescribe a minimum of 1000 square metre lots abutting Yan Yean Road. However the lot area of this size also includes a landscape buffer of approximately 10 metres in private ownership. While smaller than recommended, the current proposal is beneficial to Council as the landscape buffer along Yan Yean Road will be in Council ownership, not private, therefore allowing greater control over the landscaping as well as the allowing space to construct a shared path. Yan Yean Road is proposed to be duplicated with this widening to occur on the east side of the road in Nillumbik Shire Council. As such it is considered that the proposed Development Plan still generally accords with the Mernda Strategy Plan and also does not affect the ability of future upgrades to Yan Yean Road or the functionality of the road reservation. *Officer Recommendation* No further change necessary to the Development Plan.

DISCUSSION

The subject land is the last area within Precinct 2B of the Mernda Strategy Plan area proposed for development.

The proposed Development Plan offers a logical road network which connects into the existing streets provided to the west and the south. The Development Plan will also retain a significant amount of vegetation on site.

The preparation of the Development Plan will provide Council, and future residents, with a greater level of certainty about the nature of development and what will occur on the land. This has been a difficult process given the fragmented nature of the landholdings.

The review and referral process which has been undertaken in order to prepare the Development Plan has been extensive with several versions of the document being prepared following officer review and feedback.

As outlined in the report, the following key changes are recommended which have been done following the non-statutory exhibition period:

· Amendments in relation to the tree retention on 815 Yan Yean Road, Doreen which provides a clear way forward for development;

· Further clarity in regards to the location of lots around the 300 square metre mark within the ‘standard density’ parts of the Development Plan to be located more centrally within the Development Plan area and not necessarily associated with the continuation of existing roads;

· Further detail as to the key elements of the Mernda Strategy Plan and how the Development Plan complies with them; and

· A greater consistency in the application of the low density lots abutting Yan Yean Road for all affected property owners.

The proposed Development Plan is considered to be in accordance with the Mernda Strategy Plan (MSP) as:

· It is providing for a lower density transition to Yan Yean Road, which is the Urban Growth Boundary and defined as a ‘sensitive interface’;

· The majority of the development will be standard density residential with pockets of medium density abutting open space;

· There is no direct vehicle access onto Yan Yean Road;

· It allow for the provision of a landscape buffer to Yan Yean Road; and

· It is encouraging medium density housing of different forms abutting open space, which adds diversity and interest to the area.

Policy strategy and legislation

As discussed earlier in the report, the proposed Development Plan is consistent with the Mernda Strategy Plan which is the primary policy document affecting this area.

Consistency with the Mernda Strategy Plan also means that the proposed Development Plan meets the objectives and requirements of the State Planning Policy Framework and the Local Planning Policy Framework.

Links to the CoUNCIL Plan

FUTURE DIRECTION Places and spaces to connect people

Theme Planning our space

Strategic Objective Our urban design helps build connection to place and the community

The proposed Development Plan addresses the existing site conditions and proposes a layout which will complement the existing character of the neighbourhood and provide connectivity in the general locality in line with the existing surrounding road network.

Declarations of Conflicts of Interest

Under section 80C of the Local Government Act 1989 officers providing advice to Council must disclose any interests, including the type of interest.

The Responsible Officer reviewing this report, having made enquiries with the relevant members of staff, reports that no disclosable interests have been raised in relation to this report.

Conclusion

The 815-835 Yan Yean Road Development Plan has been subject of extensive officer assessment which has refined the plan and associated written document significantly. The Development Plan has been exhibited and referred externally to relevant agencies with seven landowner submissions received. This Development Plan represents the ‘last piece of the puzzle’ in terms of development and subdivision within Precinct 2B of the Mernda Strategy Plan area.

The Development Plan is consistent with the Mernda Strategy Plan, the relevant provisions of Development Plan Overlay Schedule 5 as well as the relevant policies and strategies of the Whittlesea Planning Scheme.

To this end it is recommended that Council approve the exhibited 815-835 Yan Yean Road Development Plan, subject to the changes discussed in the submissions sections of this report.

Specifically they are as follows:

a) Amend the Development Plan as follows:

i. Show low density lots (minimum 800 square metres) along Yan Yean Road for all areas south of the tree reserve on the corner of Orchard Road and Yan Yean Road;

ii. Delete the two trees east of Barak Parade and the associated reserve;

iii. Show all of the area between Barak Parade and South Rise north of the reserve in 815 Yan Yean Road as Medium Density Housing (D – Blue);

iv. Reduce the width of the reserve in 815 Yan Yean Road from the south and delete the small tree in the south east corner. The reserve must be maintained between South Rise and Barak Parade;

v. Show a footpath between South Rise and Barak Parade through the reserve to the south of the trees. Include an additional note to the plan indicating that this footpath must be outside of the Tree Protection Zones for the tree;

vi. Show the existing tree to the east of South Rise on the plan and indicate it is located within a reserve;

vii. Realign South Rise to go between the two trees, and include an additional note on the plan to indicate a non-standard road treatment in this location which will be determined at the planning permit stage, subject to Council’s satisfaction; and

viii. Realign the Yan Yean Road tree reserve so that the ‘bulge’ area only encompasses the trees to be retained on 825 Yan Yean Road and their associated Tree Protection Zones and then tapers back to 10 metres.

b) Include in Section 1.1 – Mernda Strategy Plan a summary of the key objectives of the MSP as well as the key elements of the relevant Precinct Plan, and the relevant precinct map;

c) Include in Section 1.3 – Role of the Development Plan, a paragraph on how the Development Plan accords with the Mernda Strategy Plan and the key objectives of this precinct;

d) Amend Figure 1 – Sub regional context to make it clearer where the subject land lies;

e) Add new text and a new figure in Section 3.2 – Vegetation to reflect the outcomes of the Arborist Report for 815 Yan Yean Road;

f) Amend Section 4.3 – Density and Uses within the document to:

i. provide further detail as to the location of 300 square metre lots within the overall Development Plan area;

ii. reference all open space reserves and medium density housing as per the Development Plan map;

iii. include design principles to guide the future development of the identified medium density lots.

g) Include a slope analysis plan as part of Section 4.7 – Buildings and Infrastructure on Slopes to clearly designate which areas this section applies to;

h) Include an additional figure within the Development Plan document which outlines the tree removal and retention for 815 Yan Yean Road in accordance with this report;

i) Amend Section 6 – Development Staging to include additional text in relation to 825 Yan Yean Road and including the construction of ‘South Rise’ as per the DP map in Stage 1 to ensure that no ‘landlocking’ occurs.

j) Remove the requirement under Section 7.1 – 815 Yan Yean Road for an Arborist report for 815 Yan Yean Road to be submitted with the future planning permit application;

k) Amend Section 7.3 – Vegetation Removal to summarise the outcomes of the Arborist Report for 815 Yan Yean Road;

l) Include an additional requirement in Section 7.3 – Vegetation Removal for a Biodiversity Report to be submitted with any planning permit application to develop and/ or subdivide;

m) Include a new section within the written text at the end of the document which provides a conclusion to the document; and

n) Include the Arborist Report for 815 Yan Yean Road as an appendix to the Development Plan.

RECOMMENDATION

THAT Council resolve to:

1. Approve the 815-835 Yan Yean Road Development Plan as exhibited, subject to the following changes;

a) Amend the Development Plan as follows:

i. Show low density lots (minimum 800 square metres) along Yan Yean Road for all areas south of the tree reserve on the corner of Orchard Road and Yan Yean Road;

ii. Delete the two trees east of Barak Parade and the associated reserve;

iii. Show all of the area between Barak Parade and South Rise north of the reserve in 815 Yan Yean Road as Medium Density Housing (D – Blue);

iv. Reduce the width of the reserve in 815 Yan Yean Road from the south and delete the small tree in the south east corner. The reserve must be maintained between South Rise and Barak Parade;

vi. Show the existing tree to the east of South Rise on the plan and indicate it is located within a reserve;

b) Include in Section 1.1 – Mernda Strategy Plan a summary of the key objectives of the MSP as well as the key elements of the relevant Precinct Plan, and the relevant precinct map;

c) Include in Section 1.3 – Role of the Development Plan, a paragraph on how the Development Plan accords with the Mernda Strategy Plan and the key objectives of this precinct;

d) Amend Figure 1 – Sub regional context to make it clearer where the subject land lies;

e) Add new text and a new figure in Section 3.2 – Vegetation to reflect the outcomes of the Arborist Report for 815 Yan Yean Road;

f) Amend Section 4.3 – Density and Uses within the document to:

i. provide further detail as to the location of 300 square metre lots within the overall Development Plan area;

ii. reference all open space reserves and medium density housing as per the Development Plan map;

iii. include design principles to guide the future development of the identified medium density lots.

g) Include a slope analysis plan as part of Section 4.7 – Buildings and Infrastructure on Slopes to clearly designate which areas this section applies to;

h) Include an additional figure within the Development Plan document which outlines the tree removal and retention for 815 Yan Yean Road in accordance with this report;

j) Remove the requirement under Section 7.1 – 815 Yan Yean Road for an Arborist report for 815 Yan Yean Road to be submitted with the future planning permit application;

k) Amend Section 7.3 – Vegetation Removal to summarise the outcomes of the Arborist Report for 815 Yan Yean Road;

l) Include an additional requirement in Section 7.3 – Vegetation Removal for a Biodiversity Report to be submitted with any planning permit application to develop and/ or subdivide;

m) Include a new section within the written text at the end of the document which provides a conclusion to the document; and

n) Include the Arborist Report for 815 Yan Yean Road as an appendix to the Development Plan.

2. Advise the applicant and submitters of the above decision.

Ordinary Council Agenda Tuesday 28 February 2017

6.1.18 REDEVELOPMENT OF THE MILL PARK LEISURE CENTRE - SCHEMATIC DESIGN UPDATE

File No: .

Attachments: 1 Mill Park Leisure Centre Schematic Design ⇩

2 Mill Park Leisure Centre - Proposed Budget Additions ⇩

3 Access Advice ⇩

4 Consultation ⇩

5 YMCA Response ⇩

6 MPLC Pool Schedule ⇩

7 MPLC Options Analysis ⇩

Responsible Officer: Director Planning & Major Projects

Author: Team Leader Infrastructure Programs

Report

executive Summary

This report provides an update to Council on the current design process underway for the redevelopment of the Mill Park Leisure Centre. It seeks endorsement from Council on the schematic design and the proposed project changes.

Background

The redevelopment of the Mill Park Leisure Centre is identified in Council’s Major Leisure and Aquatic Facility Strategy 2014 (MLAFS). The redevelopment will provide water play features, a warm water pool, learn to swim pool, improved strength training and cardio areas, new change room facilities and improved access for people with a disability.

A feasibility study was undertaken in 2015 that investigated a range of options incorporating a range of features to meet the community needs. The final feasibility study and cost estimate were endorsed by Council at its meeting on 23 February 2016. At that meeting Council resolved to;

1. Endorse the Final Concept Plan for a draft budget of $21,500,000 for the redevelopment of the Mill Park Leisure Centre to be expended over four financial years.

2. Direct officers to commence the next stages of the project – design development and documentation.

A design contract was subsequently awarded to Mantric Architecture Pty Ltd (Mantric) on 7 June 2016 to undertake the detail design of the Mill Park Leisure Centre redevelopment. Mantric subsequently prepared a schematic design to enable more accurate costing to be undertaken and allow further consultation to proceed (refer Attachment 1). The schematic diagrams, revised costing and consultation outcomes were subsequently presented to the Council Forum on the 29^th November 2016. The following key items were suggested for consideration in the design:

· Additional shower(s) in the change village;

· Options for the outdoor recreation space;

· Suitable material selection and finishes;

· Privacy in the gym layout;

· Period of closure of the existing aquatic centre; and

· Accessibility options including hoist, pool pod and ramp.

sUMMARY

A number of actions were raised at the Council Forum meeting on the 29 November 2016 and these actions including the ramp consideration were subsequently reported back to Council Forum on the 31 January 2017. Further key actions were raised at the Council Forum on the 31 January 2017 and are addressed as follows:

1. Investigate likely utilisation of a ramp into the 25 metre pool based on population figures and anecdotal information from the aquatic industry.

Statistical or evidence based information regarding the likely use of a ramp in the 25m pool is not available at this time.

The facility operator, the Whittlesea YMCA were unable to provide any actual data of disability users at the Thomastown Recreation and Aquatic Centre (TRAC), which has ramps to both the warm water pool and the 25 meter pool. However, they advised anecdotally that the majority of users with a disability utilise the warm water pool at TRAC, rather than the cooler 25 meter pool. The Whittlesea YMCA fully support the accessible options to all water spaces at Mill Park Leisure Centre (MPLC) as part of the redevelopment.

Officers also followed up with Council’s Access team to gain further information and insight to the use and requirements for a ramp. The Access team advised that the inclusion of a ramp and assisted lifting equipment is in keeping with Council’s current Disability Action Plan, Federal Disability Discrimination Act (1992) and industry best practice. Refer to Attachment 3 for more information.

Further consultation has also been conducted by Officers with regards to the options for a 25 metre ramp with Sport Recreation Victoria, the Whittlesea YMCA and the Mill Park Swim Club including a suburb profile of their membership base. Refer to Attachment 4 for a summary of the 25 metre pool ramp consultation.

2. Report back on the YMCA and Sport Recreation Victoria (SRV’s) position with regards to the ramp in the 25 metre pool.

At a meeting with SRV on 7 February 2017 with the Acting Assistant Director Community Infrastructure and Regional Facilitation and other SRV representatives, SRV suggested that the inclusion of a ramp is best practice and would auger well for success in a very competitive grant environment. Whilst they didn’t state that the development without a ramp would not be considered, it was suggested that if we were successful in receiving ‘Better Pools’ funding that the quantum of the grant may be impacted.

It was also suggested that the inclusion of a ramp in the design for the 25 metre pool would be looked at more favourable by other State Government funding opportunities.

3. Report back on the YMCA’s position regarding staged construction verses total closure.

At a meeting on 3 February 2017 with Whittlesea YMCA Chief Executive, Glyn Davies, the YMCA demonstrated a strong preference to work with Council to redevelop the facility in a staged approach. The Whittlesea YMCA stated a full shutdown would disenfranchise the members and users, who would either find alternative options and with a significant amount not returning or disengaging completely. A partial shutdown, whilst inconvenient, would allow the YMCA and Council to manage the site and ensure that continuity of service and membership is maintained for as many patrons as possible.

There is also a concern that a full shutdown may result in significant costs to the YMCA as they are liable for a significant redundancy issue. This is different to a loss of contract as generally most operators pick up the majority of the existing staff and redundancy issues are minimised. Refer to Attachment 5 for the detailed response provide by the YMCA.

4. Report back to Council on the cost apportionment of the $1.7M cost estimate for the provision of a ramp and building extension for the 25 metre pool.

The cost apportionment of the $1.7M estimate for the provision of a ramp and building extension for the 25 metre pool is broken down as follows:

· Cost to construct the required building extension $930,000

· Cost to construct the ramp $490,000

· Contingency Cost $140,000

· Additional Design Cost $140,000

Total $1,700,000

The cost to construct the ramp within the existing pool shell will be in the order of $450,000, but is not recommended as it will reduce the capacity of the 25 metre pool by one and a half lanes (ie from 8 lanes to 6.5 lanes).

5. Report back to Council on the utilisation levels for the 25 metre pool.

The Whittlesea YMCA has provided the current utilisation levels (refer Attachment 6) which shows a wide variety of programming by a variety of user types and groups across the 25 metre and learn to swim pools, including groups that have disability access requirements such as the Plenty Valley Community Centre and Mill Park Community House.

The table highlights the consistent programming of lap swimming and recreational lanes reserved as per the current contractual arrangement between Council and the YMCA (i.e. two recreation/casual lanes and two dedicated lap swimming lanes are reserved for the public at most times). The remaining four lanes (or half of the 25 metre pool) are generally available for programming during peak times, which must accommodate the swim club, schools, learn to swim program and other activities such as sporting clubs and community groups.

The information indicates that the current usage levels are high, but has not factored in the possible change in usage modelling that may be brought about by the inclusion of the new learn to swim, warm water and leisure pools as part of the redevelopment program of works. Aqua-aerobics or gentle exercise is also programmed in the main 25 metre pool at present, but may be spread across the 25 metre pool and new warm water program pool on completion of the redevelopment as the warmer pool may be too hot for high intensity exercising. Refer to Attachment 6 for the table as provided by the MPLC YMCA.

6. Report back to Council on the accessibility options for the 25 metre pool along with a preferred option.

In considering the accessibility options for the 25 metre pool, an independent accessibility options study was prepared and presented to the Council Forum on the 31st January 2017. The accessibility report presents three options to provide access into the 25 metre pool, being:

· a ramp;

· zero depth entry (which is not applicable here); and

· a swimming pool lift (eg pool pod).

Based on the limitations of swimming pool ramps for people with a disability, the independent access consultant recommended the installation of a ‘pool pod’ as a minimum as it provided the most dignified means of achieving access into the 25 metre swimming pool.

However, the comments received from Sport Recreation Victoria at the meeting on the 7 February 2017 were that the inclusion of a ramp is best practice and would auger well for success in a very competitive grant environment. In addition the comments received from both the Whittlesea Disability Network and Council’s access team are that they are both in favour of providing a ramp. The Mill Park Swim Club are supportive of a ramp outside of the existing pool shell and not within the current pool shell.

In light of all of the above stakeholder comments supporting the installation of a ramp, it is the officers opinion that a ramp should be provided to the 25 metre pool, in addition to providing one pool pod to the 25 metre pool and a hoist to both the warm water pool and the 25 metre pool. The provision of all three of these items will provide the most independent swimming pool access to the greatest extent possible for the broadest scope of occupants.

7. Preference is for the redevelopment works to proceed without delay (once approved by Council) and for the facility to remain open by way of a stage construction program.

The Council preference for staging the works to keep the facility open has been noted by Council Officers and will be included in the tender documents for construction.

8. Report back to Council following the consultation of the various options for the outdoor recreation area.

Upon the completion of the community consultation on the external landscape options, the results of the consultation will be reported back to Council prior to the detail design phase for this component.

Proposal

A draft schematic design plan (See Attachment 1) has been prepared. It is consistent with the concept plan endorsed in the feasibility study and includes:

· New leisure pool;

· New learn to swim pool and warm water program pool;

· Family change facilities;

· Group change options;

· Crèche / Occasional care upgrade;

· Spa and sauna;

· Expansion of the Café and foyer area;

· Expansion of the gymnasium and program rooms;

· Universal design principles incorporated in the redevelopment, including pool pod access into the existing 25 meter pool, ramps into the new pools and improved disability change facilities;

· Outdoor recreation area, including BBQ/picnic area, play areas, shaded seating and landscaping;

· New forecourt; and

· Reconfigured and extended car park with water sensitive drainage system (which will be undertaken as a separate project).

During the schematic design development process, additional assessment by the design consultant team identified a number of additional items that require further scoping, including:

· Changing Places toilets – to meet the needs of disability users;

· All works to the existing 25 metre pool and pool hall (includes pool concourse and mechanical ductwork);

· Refurbishment of dry change room; and

· Staging of construction works.

Refer to Attachment 2 for a detailed list of changes for consideration.

The feasibility study report endorsed by Council on 23 February 2016 identified that the construction works can be staged to enable some of the aquatic areas to remain open during the works. Further assessment by the design consultant has identified a significant amount of demolition and construction work in the aquatic areas, which will require a short period of closure of approximately four months. This is required to ensure a safe workplace and to avoid a lengthy construction period and excessive construction costs. Further information will be provided regarding the construction methodology during the detail design phase and confirmed after the appointment of the building contract.

25 metre pool accessibility

There are two options to provide a ramp to the 25 metre pool. A ramp can be constructed within the pool or beside the existing pool.

The option to construct a ramp in the 25 metre pool will require the existing water space to be reduced from eight (8) lanes to six and a half (6.5) lanes to accommodate the ramp within the existing pool structure. While this is a cost effective option to provide a ramp (approximately $450,000), it will reduce the number of lanes available and have an adverse impact on the use of the pool for lap or squad swimming.

The alternative option to extend the pool structure to accommodate a ramp will require the adjoining building wall structure to be demolished and the building extended. This is a more costly option (approximately $1.7M) and will require the pool to be closed for an additional two months on top of the expected four month closure, which will may also have an impact to the financial operational performance of the centre. The benefit of retaining the existing pool capacity has been explained above.

Council officers have also investigated the inclusion of an overhead support rail and hoist from a change room for people with disabilities to the warm water as well as the 25 metre pool. This will meet the needs of people with severe disabilities and is supported by Sport and Recreation Victoria and the Whittlesea Disability Network and is considered best practice.

Critical Dates

The current timeframe for construction is expected to commence in March 2018 and be completed in March 2020. This timeline does not cater for the inclusion of a ramp to the 25 metre pool, which will add several more months.

Dates for the staging of works will be identified during the detailed design phase and key stakeholders will be consulted to minimise impact to operation of the centre and inconvenience to users.

The current option in the YMCA contract ceases in June 2018. The works were originally proposed to commence in March 2018, which would result in a lower YMCA financial return to Council than usual (ie approximately $70,000). The would also be a risk, however unlikely that the YMCA could seek compensation. However, the delay in receiving Council endorsement of the schematic design plus the additional time to design a ramp into the 25 metre pool, will most likely result in the works to commence in June 2018. This would avoid the risks above and simplify the YMCA contract management process.

Financial Implications

Council endorsed the final feasibility study concept plan draft budget of $21,500,000 (excluding the cost of the car park) for the redevelopment of the Mill Park Leisure Centre on the 23 February 2016. As a result of the schematic design process, the project changes as outlined in Attachment 2 totals $1,455,489, which, if added in full would take the total project budget to $22,955,489.

If a ramp is added to the existing 25 metre pool, the preferred works will require the extension of the building adjacent to the 25 metre pool to provide the required width to build the ramp. The indicative cost of these works would be in the order of $1.7 million, bringing the total project budget to $24,655,489. In addition, delaying the works to commence in July 2018 will add a further construction escalation cost in the order of $300,000 to the project, resulting in a total project budget of $24,955,489.

Please refer to the attached options analysis spread sheet (Attachment 7) that summarises the various options for the redevelopment of the Mill Park Leisure Centre, including timeframe, capital and operational cost impact.

The project is intended to be funded from borrowings. External funding opportunities of up to $3,000,000 are being actively pursued with Sport and Recreation Victoria under the Victorian Government’s ‘Better Pools’ Program. A representative from Sport and Recreation Victoria has been included in the Project Working Group to provide comment on the design and ensure the project meets Sport and Recreation Victoria’s funding criteria. Other funding opportunities are also being investigated including the Growing Suburbs Fund program.

Policy strategy and legislation

The project delivers on key objectives of the following Council Policies and Plans:

· Whittlesea 2030 Strategic Community Plan

· Council Plan 2013 – 2017

· Municipal Public Health and Wellbeing Plan 2013-2017

· Disability Action Plan 2013-2016

Links to the CoUNCIL Plan

FUTURE DIRECTION Places and spaces to connect people

Theme Leisure & recreation

Strategic Objective Our recreation facilities and open spaces are accessible and respond to local need

Declarations of Conflicts of Interest

Under section 80C of the Local Government Act 1989 officers providing advice to Council must disclose any interests, including the type of interest.

The Responsible Officer reviewing this report, having made enquiries with the relevant members of staff, reports that no disclosable interests have been raised in relation to this report.

Conclusion

The schematic design plan provided and the proposed project changes are generally consistent with the previous Council endorsed concept plan.

In response to consultation with the Whittlesea Disability Network, Sport and Recreation Victoria, and considering the disability consultants report, it is preferable to provide a ramp for the 25 metre pool, a pool pod and a hoist as it will service the broadest scope of occupants.

The project changes and the ramp for the 25 metre pool will add to the project cost and shut down periods for the pool as described above.

RECOMMENDATION

THAT Council resolve to:

1. Endorse the current schematic design plan with proposed project additions and a ramp to be added to the 25 metre pool for a revised total project budget of $24,955,489 for the redevelopment of the Mill Park Leisure Centre.

2. The project commencement date be delayed to commence in July 2018 to align with the end of the current YMCA contract option and that the facility remain open with a staged construction program.

3. Refer the additional project budget allocation to the 2017/18 Council Budget process for the construction phase.

4. Report back to Council upon the completion of the detailed design process.

5. Upon the completion of the community consultation on the external landscape options, the results of the consultation will be reported back to Council.

Ordinary Council Agenda Tuesday 28 February 2017

6.1.19 Plenty Valley Town Centre Structure Plan - Proposed Planning Scheme Amendment

File No: 193260

Attachments: 1 Site Context Plan ⇩

2 Precincts Plan ⇩

3 Plenty Valley Town Centre Structure Plan, February 2017 (distributed separately - refer to p.7) ⇨

4 Stage 2 Consultation Submission Summary Table ⇩

5 Plenty Valley Town Centre Parking Precinct Plan ⇩

Responsible Officer: Director Planning & Major Projects

Author: Strategic Planner

Report

EXECUTIVE Summary

The draft Plenty Valley Town Centre Structure Plan (the Structure Plan) has been prepared to provide a strategic framework and guide development and investment in the Town Centre in accordance with the vision for the Centre.

The Plenty Valley Town Centre is identified by the State Government as an ‘Activity Centre’ however it requires an updated holistic strategic planning framework to achieve this vision. The current planning controls affecting specific areas were progressively put in place and need revision to ensure they provide for a more coordinated approach to planning, development and infrastructure provision across the Town Centre.

The Structure Plan provides a holistic plan to guide development and investment in the Town Centre for the next 20 plus years. The Structure Plan identifies the strategies and actions to be implemented to realise the vision for an attractive, accessible and vibrant Town Centre. The plan will oversee a change in the development focus throughout the Town Centre as the Centre matures from a predominantly retail/ commercial basis to a more mixed use outcome.

The Structure Plan project has been ongoing for a number of years and Council has been regularly briefed and updated at key milestones of the project. The project has also incorporated a broader community and stakeholder engagement process which has included two stages of community consultation.

Stage 1 consultation was held in May-June 2014 and was designed to get an understanding of how people use the area and their ideas and aspirations for its future. The draft Structure Plan document was prepared based on the key themes and issues received in Stage 1 consultation as well as the key findings from the Structure Plan’s Background Report.

The Stage 2 consultation occurred in March-April 2016 and involved engaging with the community and other key stakeholders to obtain community feedback on a draft Structure Plan document. The feedback from the community has been reviewed and some changes have been made to the draft document in response to the feedback received. The updated Structure Plan document is attached to this report.

The next stage of the project is the implementation phase. A Planning Scheme Amendment is required to make necessary amendments to the Whittlesea Planning Scheme to implement the Structure Plan. This includes (but is not limited to):

· rezoning of majority of land in the Town Centre to the Activity Centre Zone (ACZ)

· the application of a Parking Overlay (PO) to provide guidance for parking in the Town Centre

· the application of a Development Contributions Plan Overlay (DCPO) to require contributions to be made towards infrastructure in the Town Centre

· the removal of controls which will be superseded by the Plenty Valley Structure Plan (i.e. Development Plan Overlays).

To provide for the implementation of the Plenty Valley Town Centre Structure Plan, Council needs to approve the request to seek authorisation to prepare and exhibit the Planning Scheme Amendment. The exhibition will provide stakeholders and the community an opportunity to view, and make a submission on, the updated draft Structure Plan document.

A report will be presented to Council following the public exhibition process outlining the outcomes of the exhibition period and explaining the next steps forward.

The report was originally presented to Council at its meeting of 7 February 2017 where its determination was deferred pending further clarification in relation to commuter parking in the Town Centre. This clarification has been received and the report has now been placed before Council again for consideration.

It is therefore recommended that the request to seek authorisation from the Minister for Planning to prepare and exhibit the amendment is approved in order for the Plenty Valley Town Centre Structure Plan to commence its next step in terms of implementation.

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this report is to:

· Provide a background on the Structure Plan project including key milestones and dates;

· Provide detail on the draft Plenty Valley Town Centre Structure Plan document;

· Provide an overview of the consultation to date, with particular focus on the most recent Stage 2 Consultation. This includes outlining the Key Findings arising from the consultation period which occurred in March-April 2016 and how the Structure Plan has been updated upon review and consideration of the feedback received; and,

· Request to seek authorisation from the Minister for Planning to prepare and exhibit a future Planning Scheme Amendment in order to implement the Structure Plan into the Whittlesea Planning Scheme.

BACKGROUND

The Plenty Valley has long been a significant growth corridor in the north of Melbourne. In 1989, the Plenty Valley Strategic Plan was approved for the growth corridor, which identified the area of South Morang, Mernda and Doreen as playing a key role in meeting the housing needs of Melbourne’s expanding population. The plan rezoned 7000 hectares of land and established the regional activity centre to service the entire Plenty Valley in South Morang. This is the area currently known as the Plenty Valley Town Centre (Attachment 1).

In recent years, it has been identified as an ‘Activity Centre’ in the Northern Growth Corridor Plan and Plan Melbourne. The Plenty Valley Town Centre comprises important business, retail, community and transport facilities and activities servicing the wider region. However, to date the Town Centre is without a higher order plan to guide and promote development.

The preparation of a Structure Plan for Activity Centres is a key priority of the previous and current metropolitan planning strategies for managing growth and change in metropolitan Melbourne. Council’s Municipal Strategic Statement also highlights the need to ensure that effective planning is undertaken for Whittlesea’s Activity Centres to provide our growing community with local jobs, more diverse housing options, an expanded and broader range of retail uses and increased leisure and entertainment options.

The South Morang Activity Centre Overall Development Plan (ODP) was approved in 1998. This ODP provided more specific guidance as to the development of the Plenty Valley Town Centre from the Plenty Valley Strategic Plan as its current regional hub and formed the basis of the multiple Development Plans which are prevalent throughout the Town Centre. Each Development Plan applies to a small discrete area and was produced in response to a specific site context and a particular set of desired outcomes at the time of their production, noting that the oldest Development Plan dates back to 2001. As such, strategic planning and the development outcomes throughout the Plenty Valley Town Centre have varied significantly. Some parts of the Town Centre lack any site-specific direction, while others contain information and policy which needs to be updated.

Since the approval of the South Morang Activity Centre Overall Development Plan in 1998, there have been significant changes to the Plenty Valley Town Centre which have increased investment interest and opportunities, as well as changing the focus of the Town Centre. These include (but are not limited to) the development of the Westfield Plenty Valley Shopping Centre and the rail extension from Epping to South Morang.

Large areas of undeveloped land within the Town Centre provide development potential, andit is important that a strategic framework is provided to guide this development and ensure that Council’s vision for the Plenty Valley Town Centre is realised.

The current zoning in the Plenty Valley Town Centre is also limiting its development as a fully mixed use centre. Much of the Town Centre is zoned either Commercial 1 or Commercial 2 which limits to an extent the ability to develop a fully mixed use precinct and also allows for uses which may not necessarily be desirable in the Town Centre. Zoning changes have previously been made to the Whittlesea Planning Scheme to support development opportunities, however they have not dealt with the overall precinct. Council has been advised by the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP) that until a Structure Plan is prepared for the Town Centre, there will be no support for further rezoning or other amendments to the Whittlesea Planning Scheme in this area.

THE PLENTY VALLEY TOWN CENTRE STRUCTURE PLAN

Once approved, the Plenty Valley Town Centre Structure Plan (the Structure Plan) will be the strategic policy that will set out land use and development objectives for the Town Centre, and provide guidance to the local community, Council and the private sector on the appropriate development of the area for the next 20 plus years. It will satisfy Council’s obligation to provide a strategic framework for a recognised Activity Centre.

In keeping with the vision for the centre, the Structure Plan is guided by the following themes:

· An Attractive Town Centre – protecting and enhancing the landscape and built form character of the Town Centre, as well as improving public spaces more generally.

· An Accessible Town Centre – improving access to, and within, the Town Centre by a range of transport modes, but focussing in particular on better provision for walking, cycling and public transport.

· A Vibrant Town Centre – concentrating a greater range of activities within the Town Centre by promoting a diversity of housing, providing more social gathering places and expanding employment opportunities.

The Structure Plan has a section on centre wide strategic directions which correlate with the above themes and principles, before specifying five distinct precincts which then have a more defined focus and outcomes.

The five precincts are defined as:

1. Civic Precinct

2. Transport Hub Precinct

3. Central Shopping Precinct

4. Live and Work Precinct

5. Employment Precinct

A map of the Overall Precincts Plan is provided as Attachment 2 and the updated Structure Plan document is included as Attachment 3.

The final section of the Structure Plan includes an implementation section which outlines the key actions as identified within the Structure Plan, as well as the infrastructure requirements necessary to meet the key aspects of the Structure Plan.

The following table provides a background on the process to date:

Key Milestone	Date
Commencement of Project	2013
Stage 1 Consultation	May-June 2014
Background Report	August 2015
Draft Structure Plan	February 2016
Stage 2 Consultation	March-April 2016
Updated Draft Structure Plan	February 2017 – (we are here)

As indicated above, Council officers have to date undertaken two stages of consultation relating to the Structure Plan. The outcomes of both stages of consultation have informed the content of the current Structure Plan. The Structure Plan will be finalised following the public exhibition during the Planning Scheme Amendment process.

As part of the updated Structure Plan, Council officers have also prepared a draft Parking Precinct Plan for the Town Centre. Parking (particularly commuter parking) is a significant issue within the Town Centre and as a nominated Activity Centre, it must be considered in conjunction with other inter-related factors such as existing and future land uses, public transport, road networks and employment in the Town Centre.

The draft Parking Precinct Plan is designed to ensure that sufficient levels of parking are provided within the Plenty Valley Town Centre, identify further actions to manage parking while encouraging the increased use of active and sustainable travel modes in and around the Town Centre. The plan will require Green Travel Plans to be prepared for large developments to promote the use of sustainable transport modes. The plan also encourages the provision of parking in multi-level facilities and provides guidelines for at-grade car parking so that they are sleeved by built form and appropriately landscaped. Implementing the plan will ensure sufficient parking is provided whilst reducing its visual impact.

SUMMARY OF COMMUNITY CONSULTATION KEY FINDINGS AND DOCUMENT UPDATES

The Stage 1 consultation was held in May/June 2014 with its objectives to:

· Inform the community and relevant stakeholders that Council is preparing a Structure Plan for the Plenty Valley Town Centre;

· Understand how the community currently uses the Plenty Valley Town Centre; and

· Understand the community’s vision for the future development of the area.

The consultation was extensive and a range of methods were used. These included (but were not limited to) staffed information stands at Westfield Plenty Valley, the distribution of approximately 4,500 brochures, display stands at 10 community facilities in the area, ads in the Whittlesea Leader and internet resources such as the Community Voice website and Facebook posts.

The draft Structure Plan document was produced on the basis of the key themes and issues received in Stage 1 consultation as well as the key findings from the Structure Plan’s Background Report.

The Stage 2 community consultation occurred over a four week period in March/ April 2016 and involved engaging with the community as well as key other stakeholders and obtaining feedback on the draft Structure Plan document.

The Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (who will ultimately process the future planning scheme amendment) and other government agencies have also been consulted in respect to the proposal.

A variety of engagement methods were used to consult with all stakeholders who may be interested in the Structure Plan.

The methods included:

· Project Brochure – distributed via mailouts and at information stands.

· Community Voice Project Webpage – materials distributed on the project webpage (Inc. accessible version), with an associated comments forum.

· Social Media – Facebook posts on Council’s page.

· E-mail out to various stakeholders and Government agencies.

· Information ‘pop ups’ with project officers held during afternoon, evenings and weekends at Westfield Plenty Valley and South Morang Train Station.

· Drop-in sessions with project officers at Council offices (Civic Centre)

· Print Media – Advertisements and articles in Whittlesea Leader, Whittlesea Review and Business E-Newsletter

· Targeted consultation with youth, community and transport groups.

· Ensuring information was accessible to vision impaired and multi lingual

Feedback was invited via a variety of means including:

· Written submissions via email or mail

· Response to on-line forum questions

· Response to social media posts

· Completion of forms or verbal feedback provided at information stands and at drop in sessions.

From the feedback received from the community, industry, business, developers and State Government agencies, the key findings from the consultation were:

· Largely positive feedback and ‘in principle’ support for the Structure Plan;

· Support for the greater provision of public space outlined in the Structure Plan;

· Support for a greater variety of shops and entertainment options including restaurants, cinema and clothing stores;

· Concern with proposed connection of local streets, such as Peyton Drive and Stillman Drive to the Civic Drive extension, due to traffic and safety issues;

· Support for the Route 86 tram extension - Ferres Boulevard route preferred;

· Concern with increased numbers of multi-level buildings regarding their visual impact and generation of increased traffic in the local street network; and

· A range of site specific matters and technical issues with the document were also raised.

In light of the feedback received, a number of changes were made to the exhibited version of the Structure Plan. This feedback has now been incorporated into the updated Structure Plan document which is provided with this report.

The following table provides a summary of the issues, actions and responses to the consultation. A summary of each of the submissions received and response to the issues raised is included as Attachment 4.

Table 1: Consultation Issues Summary

Issue Arising from Stage 2 Consultation	Response in Updated Draft Structure Plan, November 2016
Vision Largely positive feedback and in principle support for the Structure Plan.	The vision and principles in the updated plan remain consistent with the exhibited version. Minor updates have been made to make it clearer.
Public Space Support for the greater provision of public space outlined in the Structure Plan.	Strategies for additional and improved public spaces have been retained. These strategies have been implemented into the infrastructure plan and will be included in the planning controls.
Retail and Entertainment Support for greater variety of shops and entertainment options including restaurants, cinema and clothing stores.	Strategies for additional retail and entertainment options have been retained. These strategies have been reflected in the planning controls to support these land uses particularly in the Central Shopping and Transport Hub precincts.
Street Network and Traffic Concern with connecting local streets, such as Peyton and Stillman Drives to the Civic Drive extension (east) due to traffic and safety issues.	A review of the street network proposed as part of previous plans and the draft Structure Plan was undertaken including additional traffic counts. The street network has been revised to reduce the potential of ‘rat running’, including staggering the intersections and relocating the signalised intersections from connecting with local streets. This will still provide important connection for local residents but discourage non local traffic from using the connection.
	The Road Network plan has been reviewed and revised to clearly show the proposed road hierarchy.
	A Glossary of has been inserted into the Appendices of the Structure Plan to provide a definition of ‘key terms’ including different road types.
	Additional strategies have been added into the Structure Plan requiring that the design of the local road connections to the Civic Drive extension addresses the concerns raised by local residents including traffic volumes and safety. This has also been added as a project to the Infrastructure Plan. The cross section of Civic Drive has also been revised to improve its streetscape and better reflect its role in the road network.
Tram Network Extension Support for Route 86 tram extension along Ferres Blvd route.	The possible extension of Route 86 north of the Town Centre to Lakes Boulevard and Plenty Road has been updated on the plans.
	The plans have been updated to show the route along Ferres Boulevard as the proposed tram route north of McDonalds Road, with option of the tram running along Civic Drive option as a possible alternative.
Density and Design Concern with increased numbers of multi-level buildings in the relation to their visual impact and generation of increased traffic in the surrounding local street network.	The building heights and built form controls have been reviewed to ensure that they are appropriate for the context of the activity centre and its interfaces. Additional controls have been inserted where development is proposed with a sensitive interface (in proximity to residential development). These will be included in the draft planning controls. (refer to Attachment 4) for further information.
	The clarity of the built form controls has been improved by using simple tables. Terms such as ‘key marker building’ have been defined in the Glossary.
Environment Further inclusion of environmental concepts and their related benefits.	Additional strategies have been added in respect to environmentally sustainable design and development. Requirements for sustainable development have been included in the draft planning controls.
Other A range of site specific matters and technical issues raised.	A range of general updates have been made to the Structure Plan. An Implementation section including proposed infrastructure items has been included to outline the infrastructure required to support the development of the centre. It is proposed that contributions will be collected to fund some of these items.

PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT

The Structure Plan is proposed to be an ‘Incorporated Document’ in the Whittlesea Planning Scheme. Therefore, in order to implement the Structure Plan a Planning Scheme Amendment is required.

As well as implementing the Plenty Valley Town Centre Structure Plan, it is necessary to update the zoning and overlay framework applying to this precinct. As such the Planning Scheme Amendment will deal with these issues driven by the overall direction set by the Structure Plan.

In summary, the Planning Scheme Amendment proposes to:

· Incorporate the Plenty Valley Town Centre Structure Plan, or relevant parts, into Whittlesea Planning Scheme;

· Insert a new Schedule to the Activity Centre Zone (ACZ) to be introduced for the Structure Plan area (this is the zone which applies to the Epping Central Activity Centre) which will replace a number of Development Plan Overlays in the Town Centre;

· Insert a new Parking Overlay (PO) for the Structure Plan area to implement the Parking Precinct Plan prepared for the Town Centre, consistent with other Activity Centres including Epping Central;

· Apply the Development Contributions Plan Overlay (DCPO) to deal with required infrastructure contributions;

· Amend the Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS) to reflect the new Structure Plan;

· Delete the following planning scheme controls as they will be superseded by this amendment:

o existing Development Plan Overlays which apply to the area;

o Clause 22.15 which is the Local Planning Policy regarding the current South Morang Activity Centre (SMAC); and

o Design and Development Overlay (DDO) Schedule 7 for two sites within the SMAC. Site 1 as identified by the DDO is made up of four parcels of land being 323 McDonalds Road, 351 McDonalds Road, 355 McDonalds Road and 391 McDonalds Road all in Epping. Site 2 identified by the DDO is addressed as 37-29 Buick Crescent, Mill Park; and

o Abandoning Planning Scheme Amendment C84 which proposed to apply a Development Contributions Plan Overlay (DCPO) to land north and south of McDonalds Road. The continuation of this amendment is unnecessary as this will be superseded by the proposed controls.

An explanation of these aspects is provided below.

Incorporated Document

It is proposed that the Plenty Valley Town Centre Structure Plan, or relevant parts of the plan, will become an Incorporated Document within the Whittlesea Planning Scheme.

Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS)

The MSS establishes the strategic framework for the municipality. The Whittlesea MSS will be amended and updated to include relevant strategies from the Structure Plan.

Activity Centre Zone (ACZ)

The ACZ will replace the current residential and commercial zones. The ACZ is considered the most appropriate zone to be used in activity centres. The zone provides land use and development guidelines for the entire town centres and more specific directions for each of the five precincts. The zone provides the flexibility to deliver the mixed use land use and development objectives envisaged by the Structure Plan which is not possible using other existing single purpose zones.

Parking Overlay (PO)

The PO is to be applied to implement relevant content from the Plenty Valley Parking Precinct Plan (Attachment 5).

As indicated earlier in the report, the draft Parking Precinct Plan is designed to ensure that sufficient levels of parking are provided within the Plenty Valley Town Centre, identify further actions to manage parking while encouraging the increased use of active and sustainable travel modes in and around the Town Centre.

The PO and Parking Precinct Plan adopts standard parking provisions which are appropriate for Activity Centres. These rates are in accordance with ‘Column B’ of Clause 52.06 – Carparking. The provisions also require one parking space to be provided for each dwelling regardless of the number of bedrooms. It should be noted that these are minimum rates with no maximum rates stipulated. The PO also includes a number of standards for the design of car parks.

The PO also includes a requirement for significant developments to prepare and submit a Green Travel Plan. The Green Travel Plan is required to incorporate design and behavioural change initiatives that will support the use of sustainable transport in the Town Centre.

Development Contributions Plan Overlay (DCPO)

The system for infrastructure contributions is currently being reformed by the State Government. The new system is based on standard levies in particular development settings. The new system has recently commenced for greenfield growth areas.

The new system in the future will also apply to strategic development areas. These are locations in existing urban areas planned for significant growth and change such as activity centres. The Plenty Valley Town Centre is considered a ‘strategic development area’.

The new system is currently being finalised and will set a standard levy for residential, commercial and retail developments. The levy will be determined by the Minister for Planning and formalised through a Ministerial Direction. It is expected that this will occur towards the end of 2017.

The new system will require an Infrastructure Contributions Plan (ICP) to be prepared to identify the infrastructure which the contributions collected will be used to fund. The updated draft Structure Plan includes Section 4.4 which identifies infrastructure which could potentially be funded via a future ICP. This section will support the preparation of a future ICP.

It is considered that adopting the new system is the more appropriate manner to support the provision of new infrastructure in the Town Centre. The adoption of standard levies is considered fair for landowners and developers in the centre as the levy amount is set by the Minister for Planning. The system also reduces the level of information and analysis required to be prepared by Council to support an alternative developer contributions rate.

As an interim measure it is proposed that a DCPO be applied to require contributions to be made prior to the preparation of an ICP. This approach has been adopted in other circumstances where a structure plan has preceded the new system for infrastructure contributions and is supported by the DEWLP. The DCPO will require developers to enter into a section 173 agreement with Council to make contributions to infrastructure in the Town Centre prior to the issue of a planning permit. It is expected that the contributions made would be comparable to draft levies which were recommended in background reports for the new system.

Upon commencement of the new system it is expected that an ICP will need to be prepared and that the DCPO will convert to an Infrastructure Contributions Plan Overlay (ICPO). The process for how this occurs will require further discussion with the DELWP.

Removal of existing planning scheme controls

The Structure Plan and the associated zones and overlays will become the primary planning controls for the area. Therefore it is proposed to remove the following provisions which will be superseded by the new controls:

· The existing Development Plan Overlays (DPOs) which affect the area;

· Clause 22.15 which is the Local Planning Policy regarding the current South Morang Activity Centre (SMAC); and

· Design and Development Overlay (DDO) for the two key sites within the SMAC. Site 1 Affected by the DDO is made up of four parcels of land being 323 McDonalds Road, 351 McDonalds Road, 355 McDonalds Road and 391 McDonalds Road, all in Epping (Public Transport Victoria owned land). Site 2 affected by the DDO is 37-39 Buick Crescent, Mill Park.

The existing Development Plans have been progressively approved over time and do not apply to the full Structure Plan area. The Plenty Valley Town Centre Structure Plan and the schedule to the proposed Activity Centre Zone will replace the function of the Development Plan, supersede their content and provide for a co-ordinated planning framework across the Town Centre.

The Local Planning Policy applying to the overall Plenty Valley Town Centre and DDO Schedule applying to the specific sites listed above are interim planning controls until the Structure Plan is finalised. These controls will be superseded by the new controls. The relevant content from these controls, including providing for a sensitive interface between existing residential properties and new development, has been translated in the new controls.

Abandonment of C84 – Application of a Development Contributions Plan Overlay

Planning Scheme Amendment C84 proposed to apply a Development Contributions Plan Overlay (DCPO) to land north and south of McDonalds Road. The purpose of the DCPO was to apportion costs for a signalised intersection at McDonalds Road and Wealthiland Drive.

Following extensive exhibition and an Independent Panel hearing, the Planning Scheme Amendment was ultimately adopted by Council on 27 July 2010. Ultimately, it was not approved by the Minister for Planning.

As the amendment is superseded by the proposed planning controls for the Plenty Valley Town Centre Structure Plan, it is no longer required. Therefore, it is recommended that the Amendment C84 be abandoned.

PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT EXHIBITION

The proposed Planning Scheme Amendment will be exhibited in accordance with statutory requirements once the Minister for Planning has provided authorisation. This exhibition period will allow stakeholders and members of the community an opportunity to comment on both the updated Structure Plan as well as the proposed planning scheme controls and make a formal submission. If supported by Council, it is envisaged that this exhibition process will commence in April/May 2017.

Policy strategy and legislation

The Structure Plan and future Planning Scheme Amendment is consistent with State Government metropolitan planning strategy Plan Melbourne.

The plan is supportive of State and Local policies and strategies in respect to Activity Centre planning and the development of the Plenty Valley Town Centre (South Morang Activity Centre).

The plan has been prepared in accordance with State Government requirements for activity centre planning. The planning scheme controls have been prepared in accordance with the State Government Planning Practice notes which are designed to provide ongoing advice about planning schemes, as well as a range of planning processes and topics. In particular, the ordinate is consistent with the requirements of PPN56: Activity Centre Zone, PPN5: The Parking Overlay and PPN: 60: Height and Setback Controls for Activity Centres.

Links to the CoUNCIL Plan

FUTURE DIRECTION Places and spaces to connect people

Theme Planning our space

Strategic Objective Our urban design helps build connection to place and the community

The Plenty Valley Town Centre Structure Plan aims to improve the design and amenity of the Town Centre. Features such as River Red Gums, viewlines to Quarry Hills, open space areas and civic spaces are incorporated into the plan to build the connection to place and community. The plan focuses on using good urban design to improve the public realm and to create places where people want to live, work and visit.

Declarations of Conflicts of Interest

Under section 80C of the Local Government Act 1989 officers providing advice to Council must disclose any interests, including the type of interest.

The Responsible Officer reviewing this report, having made enquiries with the relevant members of staff, reports that no disclosable interests have been raised in relation to this report.

Conclusion

The Plenty Valley Town Centre Structure Plan (the Structure Plan) has been prepared to provide a strategic framework and to guide development of the Town Centre in accordance with the vision of being the community, civic, economic and cultural heart of the Plenty Valley. The plan identifies the strategies and actions to deliver this vision.

The overall precinct has been subject to extensive development and investment over the years with transformative projects such as the rail extension from Epping to South Morang providing a change of focus as to the overall set of uses possible in the Plenty Valley Town Centre. To accommodate and plan for current and future growth appropriately, it is necessary to review the existing strategic and statutory framework for the centre. It is also noted that the need for this work was also identified by the State Government.

The Structure Plan has been developed in consultation with the community and relevant stakeholders. It has been revised based on feedback through various consultation processes.

In order to implement the Structure Plan a Planning Scheme Amendment is required to the Whittlesea Planning Scheme. The Planning Scheme Amendment will incorporate the relevant aspects of the Structure Plan into the Planning Scheme including Planning Scheme zone and overlay changes.

The Planning Scheme Amendment process will include a public exhibition process. The Structure Plan will be finalised following this process. It is recommended that Council resolve to request authorisation to prepare and exhibit the Planning Scheme Amendment from the Minister for Planning. In this context, it is recommended that Council also notes the updated Structure Plan at Attachment 3 of this report as the current version for purposes of exhibition.

Finally, it is recommended that Council also requests the Minister for Planning abandon Planning Scheme Amendment C84 given it is not required to be pursued as it will be superseded by the proposed planning scheme controls for the Structure Plan.

RECOMMENDATION

THAT Council resolve to:

1. Note the updated draft Plenty Valley Town Centre Structure Plan (as provided in Attachment 3) and draft Parking Precinct Plan (as provided in Attachment 5) for the purposes of public exhibition;

2. Seek authorisation from the Minister for Planning to prepare and exhibit an amendment to the Whittlesea Planning Scheme to implement the Plenty Valley Structure Plan in accordance with the Planning and Environment Act 1987;

3. Request that the Minister for Planning abandon Planning Scheme Amendment C84 to the Whittlesea Planning Scheme; and

4. Advise the affected stakeholders of the above and of any decisions by the Minister for Planning.

Ordinary Council Agenda Tuesday 28 February 2017

6.1.20 AURORA PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT: REZONING OF 239-255 CRAIGIEBURN ROAD, WOLLERT FROM FARMING ZONE TO COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT ZONE

File No: 195394

Attachments: 1 Aurora Comprehensive Development Plan (July 2007) ⇩

2 Locality Plan ⇩

3 Aurora Development Plan Part 2 ⇩

Responsible Officer: Director Planning & Major Projects

Author: Strategic Planner

Report

EXECUTIVE Summary

An application has been lodged seeking to rezone land at 239-255 Craigieburn Road, Wollert, from its current Farming Zone to Comprehensive Development Zone. The proposed amendment is required to facilitate the use and development of the site in accordance with the approved Aurora Comprehensive Development Plan (Attachment 1) and the Aurora Development Plan Part 2 which sets out the strategic direction for the area. The rezoning of the land is predicated upon signing the requisite legal agreement for Council to secure development contributions when the land is subdivided. This approach has been consistently applied to other similar landholdings within the Aurora area.

The report was originally presented to Council at its meeting of 7 February 2017 where determination was deferred pending additional information regarding the history of the strategic planning framework within the Aurora Precinct. This information has been provided and the report has been placed before Council again for consideration.

The proposed amendment is implementing the approved Council framework for the land, therefore it is considered procedural in nature. As such, it is recommended that the Council provide support for a limited exhibition process under Section 20(2) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this report is to discuss a proposed planning scheme amendment at 239-255 Craigieburn Road, Wollert. Tract Consultants Pty Ltd are acting on behalf of the landowner Lenncomm Group Pty Ltd and are seeking an amendment to rezone the subject site 239-255 Craigieburn Road, Wollert from Farming Zone to Schedule 4 of the Comprehensive Development Zone.

The subject site is located to the southern side of Craigieburn Road in Wollert and is approximately four hectares in size (Attachment 2). The site is rectangular in shape and is undeveloped with the exception of a single dwelling and associated outbuildings. The present use of the site is in keeping with its designation as Farming Zone which allows for a range of agricultural and associated uses appropriate to a rural context.

The subject site sits adjacent to the Aurora estate which forms part of the Epping North Growth Corridor. As a result, the surrounding area is the subject of significant urban development. This process is guided by the Aurora Comprehensive Development Plan (ACDP), which was approved as part of Amendment C41 (Part 1) in November 2007. The ACDP covers a far larger area than just the Aurora estate (approximately 592 hectares) and includes a number of smaller landholdings including the subject site. The ACDP is bounded by O’Herns Road to the south and Craigieburn Road to the north, with the Hume Freeway forming the western boundary and pre-existing lot boundaries to the east. The subject site is located approximately midway along the northern boundary of the overall precinct with frontage to Craigieburn Road.

The Aurora Comprehensive Development Plan established the basis for the more detailed Aurora Development Plan: Part 2 by establishing a set of detailed design and development principles for the development of the area (Attachment 3). Together these documents set out the strategic guidance required to facilitate the urban development of the precinct which will ultimately be home to approximately 25,000 residents.

The subject site is identified within the above mentioned strategic documents as being suitable for residential development.

PLANNING ASSESSMENT

Council and the Minister for Planning agreed at the time of the original rezoning of the ACDP area (C41 Part 1) that the rezoning of the ‘balance’ individual parcels of land not forming part of the Aurora estate would be contingent upon landowners signing an agreement pursuant to Section 173 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. The agreement would essentially formalise the requirements for developer and open space contributions. Aurora’s majority landholder at the time, Places Victoria, entered into such an agreement as part of the original rezoning. This unilateral undertaking enabled the largest part of Aurora to be rezoned and for key infrastructure works to proceed over time.

A number of smaller landholders opted not to sign agreements and were subsequently left out of the rezoning at that time. Several of these landowners have subsequently entered into agreements with Council and have had their land rezoned. These amendments (C41 Part 2, 3 and 4) were all approved by the Minister for Planning under Section 20(4) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. This was on the basis that the strategic merit of the wider proposal had already been considered as part of a large public process (C41 Part 1).

Recently, the landowner at 239-255 Craigieburn Road, Wollert has sought to commence the rezoning process in accordance with the established strategic framework. To this end, the landowner has signed the requisite Section 173 Agreement. In this context, the current request to amend 239-255 Craigieburn Road, Wollert should be considered as a procedural step in implementing this approach.

A number of planning overlays were applied to 239-255 Craigieburn Road as part of C41 Part 1 and require no alteration as part of the proposed amendment. They include:

· Schedule 23 of the Development Plan Overlay. This overlay provided the basis for the preparation of the Aurora Development Plan (Part 2); and

· Schedule 2 of the Vegetation Protection Overlay. The intention of this overlay is to ensure that suitable assessment of vegetation takes place during forward planning and detailed proposal assessment stages of the planning process.

NOTIFICATION

The strategic intent of Amendment C41 has already been extensively considered and subsequent parts to the amendment have been approved in recent years without formal exhibition. In the past, Council has sought the Minister for Planning’s consideration and approval of the proposed amendment under Section 20(4) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. However, Council officers have been advised that Planning Scheme Amendments seeking full Ministerial intervention are unlikely to be supported in this instance.

Notwithstanding, given that the strategic justification for the land has already been determined and the longstanding process for these ‘balance’ lots established, it is considered appropriate that the amendment be considered using the provisions of Section 20(2) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. The provisions of Section 20(2) allows the Minister for Planning to grant an exemption from the requirements relating to giving notice of an amendment, except for those notice requirements for any Minister as listed within the Regulations which cannot be exempted. It is considered that this approach will have a better chance of support from the Minister for Planning and in so far as it streamlines aspects of the notification process, it is considered appropriate to advance this request in this instance.

Notwithstanding, it is recommended that any Council resolution should provide for a full exhibition process in the event that the Minister does not support the Section 20(2) request. Whilst not providing the full notification exemption of a 20(4) process, it is still considered a more streamlined approach to deal with this amendment which is of a procedural nature.

DISCUSSION

The subject site is located within the ACDP area and identified as part of this strategic plan as being suitable for urban development. The current Farming Zone affecting the property is essentially a ‘holding zone’ until appropriate infrastructure arrangements can be agreed. It is considered that this proposal implements Council’s long term strategic vision for the area as directed by ACDP and ADP2.

Prior to considering this amendment, the land owner was required to enter into a legal agreement to ‘lock in’ development and open space contributions applicable to the ACDP area, consistent with other ‘balance’ landowners in the area. As indicated earlier in the report, this continues on a well-established process for rezoning ‘balance’ parcels of land within the ACDP.

Once rezoned (if supported by Council) and once all other relevant approvals are obtained, these ‘balance’ parcels are able to be developed and integrated into the broader area. In particular, the subject land once subdivided will connect into the existing Aurora estate which is currently being developed by Lend Lease.

The timing of ‘balance’ landholdings entering into legal agreements is completely dependent on the landowner and not dictated by Council. It is the preference of Council officers to include more than one landholding into a Planning Scheme Amendment as it has been the case in previous amendments, but this is not always possible given the differing individual circumstances of each landholding.

In order to ascertain interest, Council officers wrote to the remaining Farming Zone properties in the Aurora area soon after this proposal was lodged, however no response was received to these letters. Now that this landowner has signed the legal agreement, there are only three parcels of land remaining in the ACDP area where development and open space contributions have not been secured.

Policy strategy and legislation

The Aurora Comprehensive Development Plan was adopted by Council and the Minister for Planning in 2007. It sets the long term strategic direction for the area and is the approved council framework for the wider area. The proposal is intended to facilitate the ongoing development of Aurora and is necessary to achieve the overall aims and objectives of the Aurora Development Plan (Part 2).

Links to the CoUNCIL Plan

FUTURE DIRECTION Places and spaces to connect people

Theme Planning our space

Strategic Objective Our urban design helps build connection to place and the community

The proposed amendment will contribute toward the strategic objective of the Council Plan to use Urban Design in order to build connection to place and the community by enabling the strategic aims of the Aurora Comprehensive Development Plan to be achieved. It will also contribute towards the strategic objective to establish a road network that provides adequate access to the municipality.

Declarations of Conflicts of Interest

Under section 80C of the Local Government Act 1989 officers providing advice to Council must disclose any interests, including the type of interest.

The Responsible Officer reviewing this report, having made enquiries with the relevant members of staff, reports that no disclosable interests have been raised in relation to this report.

Conclusion

Rezoning the land at 239-255 Craigieburn Road, Wollert from Farming Zone to Comprehensive Development Zone will implement the objectives envisaged in the Aurora Comprehensive Development Plan and the Aurora Development Plan Part 2. The landowner has entered into the necessary infrastructure agreement for the site which removes the impediment for the rezoning process to occur. This reflects the longstanding implementation framework for rezoning of these smaller ‘balance’ landholdings and their integration into the overall Aurora precinct.

It is considered that this proposal implements Council’s long term strategic vision for the area as directed by ACDP and ADP2.This amendment is a procedural process to rezone the land for urban development following execution of the relevant Section 173 Agreement enshrining applicable development and open space contributions.

Given the procedural nature of the amendment, it is considered appropriate to request from the Minister for Planning a more ‘streamlined’ approach to the consideration of this amendment.

It is therefore recommended that Council support the amendment and seek authorisation from the Minister for Planning to prepare and exhibit the planning scheme amendment to rezone the land in accordance with Section 20(2) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. If the request for consideration under Section 20(2) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 is not supported, then a full amendment would be required.

RECOMMENDATION

THAT Council resolve to:

1. Seek authorisation from the Minister for Planning to prepare and exhibit the amendment to the Whittlesea Planning Scheme for the rezoning of 239-255 Craigieburn Road, Wollert from Farming Zone to Comprehensive Development Zone under Section 20(2) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.

2. Seek authorisation from the Minister for Planning to prepare and exhibit the amendment to the Whittlesea Planning Scheme in accordance with the Planning and Environment Act 1987 should the Minister for Planning not consent to the exhibition of the amendment under Section 20(2) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.

3. Advise the affected stakeholders of the above and any decisions of the Minister for Planning.

Ordinary Council Agenda Tuesday 28 February 2017

6.2 Community Services

6.2.1 2017 Winter Season Sports Ground Allocation Report

File No: 151226

Attachments: 1 Attachment 1 ⇩

Responsible Officer: Director Community Services

Author: Sports Club & Facilities Coordinator

Report

EXECUTIVE Summary

The purpose of this report is to present the 2017 Winter Season Sports Ground Allocations for consideration.

All applications received for this winter season are from established sports clubs seeking similar allocations to previous winter seasons.

Attachment 1 details the proposed ground allocations for the 2017 winter season.

The 2017 Winter Season Sports Ground Allocations are subject to a club’s timely payment of all fees and charges. Clubs with significant outstanding debts of over 90 days will have their allocation withheld until a full payment or a debt instalment program is agreed.

Background

Winter sports ground allocations are provided on a seasonal basis upon completion of the ‘Application for Seasonal Use of a Reserve by a Sporting Club’. The winter season is conducted for the period from 1 April to 30 September annually.

Allocations are undertaken in accordance with Council’s Sports Club Manual, Section 2.3. Sports grounds are allocated on a seasonal basis to clubs that have established or are establishing themselves as City of Whittlesea based clubs.

Winter Season Sports Ground Allocations cover home and away fixtures only (not including finals). If grounds are required for finals, the governing association is required to make a separate application for use of the grounds.

Allocation Process

In allocating sports grounds, Council will give consideration to:

· A club’s previous history with the facility.

· A club’s previous record with:

- timely payment of fees

- cleanliness of pavilion

- support of Council objectives

- care of the sports ground.

· Teams based within the municipality.

· Keeping clubs at one venue (or nearby) to retain club unity.

· Number of players from the previous season and the projected numbers of the club for the current season.

Winter sports clubs are notified late in the previous year advising them of the winter allocation process and the documentation required to apply for the allocation of a reserve. The applications are reviewed and any anomalies or limitations are discussed and negotiated with the clubs.

In developing the 2017 Winter Season Sports Ground Allocations schedule, specific club and reserve issues have been taken into consideration.

Proposal

It is proposed that the 2017 Winter Season Sports Ground Allocations be considered and endorsed by Council.

Soccer Allocations

Findon Reserve

Mill Park Soccer Club (MPSC) is continuing to experience a healthy growth in participation. There has been significant works undertaken at Findon Reserve throughout the summer season to prepare the pitches to accommodate the increasing growth of the Club. MPSC will also be allocated the use of Mill Park Secondary College Multipurpose Synthetic sports ground to further cater for the participation growth.

Thomastown East Recreation Reserve

Whittlesea United Soccer Club (WUSC) has indicated that they only require the north field for junior soccer competition during the 2017 season; therefore, to accommodate the growing demand for the provision of cricket facilities during winter, the south field will be retained for cricket and be allocated by Council officers as required. The Sports Co-ordination team will continue to work closely with Cricket Victoria to plan for the future demands of winter cricket facilities being generated through the diverse multicultural communities throughout the municipality.

Partridge Street Reserve

Whittlesea Ranges Football Club (WRFC) will continue to play in the National Premier League (NPL). Consequently, the Thomastown Raiders Football Club (TRFC) will retain the local community soccer club status within the local area. Both clubs have strong participation and will be allocated Partridge Street Reserve as a shared home base. To best manage the shared use of Partridge Street, it will be necessary to have both clubs train at various alternative overflow facilities throughout the season.

It is proposed that the WRFC be allocated the south turf pitch at Harvest Home Road as an overflow training facility. This allocation continues to service WRFC without detriment to other soccer clubs within the municipality.

Harvest Home Road

Harvest Home Road Soccer facility will be managed in conjunction with FFV as a shared use facility as per the existing endorsed management plan.

Epping Soccer Stadium (ESS)

In accordance with the management plan for ESS, the highest ranked team within the municipality has priority to play their home matches and conduct a weekly training session at the stadium.

All soccer clubs residing within the City of Whittlesea were invited to submit an Expression of Interest (EOI) for use of the facility throughout the 2017 winter season. Whittlesea Ranges Football Club (WRFC) was the only EOI received through this process.

The Club has met all EOI criteria and as such it is proposed that WRFC’s NPL team be allocated the use of ESS in accordance with the current ESS management plan conditions.

The Sports Co-ordination team will also manage any additional booking requests for ESS throughout the 2017 winter season to ensure compliance with the facility’s existing terms and condition of use and without detriment to WRFC’s requirements.

Mill Park Secondary College Multipurpose Synthetic Sports Ground

Mill Park Secondary College Multipurpose Synthetic Sports Ground will be managed as a shared use facility as per the endorsed management plan.

Australian Rules Football Allocations

Mill Park Lakes Recreation Reserve (MPLRR)

The east sports field synthetic conversion and pavilion redevelopment incorporating female friendly design features have been completed. The Sports Co-ordination team will continue to work with the South Morang Football Netball Club (SMFNC) and AFL Victoria to promote this reserve as a benchmark community AFL and cricket facility.

Over the past four winter seasons, the South Morang Auskick Program were allocated Mill Park Secondary College Multipurpose Synthetic Sports Ground to run their program as the increased use demand of MPLRR restricted availability of the facility for Auskick activities.

As a result of the synthetic conversion project, the Auskick program will be able to return to the reserve to further develop the player pathway between Auskick and the SMFNC.

W.A. Smith Reserve and Huskisson Reserve

Officers have been investigating opportunities for allocating both WA Smith and Huskisson Reserves through the 2017 winter season to ensure the best outcomes for the community.

The Victorian Social Football League (VSFL) had been allocated WA Smith Reserve over the past three winter seasons; however, they only require minimal use every third weekend.

The Mernda Dragons Rugby League Club (MDRLC) had been allocated Huskisson Reserve over the past two winter seasons; however the Club has aspirations to relocate their activities to a facility that can better manage their growing junior participation and interest in establishing senior teams.

Whilst the MDRLC have aspirations of a future facility within the Mernda/Doreen precinct, WA Smith Reserve can in the interim assist the Club to further establish their activities within the municipality.

It is proposed to allocate the MDRLC to WA Smith Reserve.

With the relocation of MDRLC to WA Smith Reserve, Huskisson Reserve will be allocated to VSFL for their competition days this winter season.

Both the MDRLC and VSFL have been consulted and are favourable of this proposed 2017 winter season allocation.

Huskisson Reserve will be also be used as an overflow training facility for clubs throughout the municipality.

Mernda Recreation Reserve (MRR)

Mernda Recreation Reserve will be managed by Council’s Sports Co-ordination team as multi-sport overflow training ground to assist clubs such as the Mernda Dragons Rugby and Laurimar Football Netball Clubs to accommodate their growth and emerging female participation.

BASEBALL/SOFTBALL ALLOCATIONS

Mill Park Reserve

In 2016, Mill Park Reserve was successfully shared between Plenty Valley Baseball Club, Northern Districts Softball and Diamond Valley Junior Baseball Association.

All three applicants have applied for allocation again in 2017 and it is considered that a similar shared used arrangement can be achieved.

Council officers will continue to work with all three applicant Clubs throughout the season to manage the shared use of this reserve.

All other reserves in the municipality have no allocation issues. Attachment 1 details the proposed schedule for the 2017 Winter Season Ground Allocation.

Consultation

Consultation with sports clubs has been undertaken via the sports ground allocation process including submission of formal application forms as well as follow up conversations to clarify or verify information provided.

Critical Dates

The 2017 Winter Season opens on 1 April 2017.

Financial Implications

The 2017 winter season allocations are subject to a club’s timely payment of all fees and charges. The Sports Debtor Report is included in this Council Agenda.

In accordance with the outcome of the Sports Debtor Report, clubs with significant outstanding debts of over 90 days will have their allocation withheld until a full payment or a debt instalment program is agreed.

Policy strategy and legislation

The seasonal allocation of sports grounds provides access to community activity and meeting venues which is one of the six key directions of Shaping Our Future – Whittlesea 2025, Strategic Community Plan – Place and Spaces to connect people.

Links to the CoUNCIL Plan

FUTURE DIRECTION Places and spaces to connect people

Theme Leisure & recreation

Strategic Objective Our recreation facilities and open spaces are accessible and respond to local need

Council recognises the importance of ensuring there are adequate opportunities for residents to have access to, and participate in a diversity of community sport and active recreation pursuits. To assist in achieving this objective, Council is committed to managing the fair and equitable allocation of sports facilities to support community sport and active recreation opportunities and to guide their immediate and long-term management across the municipality.

Declarations of Conflicts of Interest

Under section 80C of the Local Government Act 1989 officers providing advice to Council must disclose any interests, including the type of interest.

The Responsible Officer reviewing this report, having made enquiries with the relevant members of staff, reports that no disclosable interests have been raised in relation to this report.

Conclusion

The provision and allocation of Winter Sports Grounds ensures that winter sports clubs have access to appropriate facilities to play, and that Council’s sports grounds are used to best effect. The allocation of the Winter Sports Grounds for 2017 meets these goals.

RECOMMENDATION

THAT Council resolve to:

1. Endorse the 2017 Winter Sports Ground Allocation from 1 April 2017 to 30 September 2017 as per Attachment 1.

2. Notify all clubs of their 2017 Winter Sports Ground Allocation under the terms and conditions of the Sports Club Manual.

3. Reserve the right to withdraw sports grounds from use at any time throughout the season to protect the playing surface, for maintenance works, due to poor weather conditions or as a result of water restrictions where use may be considered a safety risk to users or detrimental to conditions of the playing surface.

4. Withhold allocation to sports clubs with significant outstanding debts of over 90 days until full payment or a debt instalment program is agreed.

Ordinary Council Agenda Tuesday 28 February 2017

6.3 City Transport and Presentation

6.3.1 Station Street - Parking and Traffic Management

File No: 104544

Attachments: 1 Station Street Locality Plan ⇩

Responsible Officer: Director City Transport & Presentation

Author: Traffic Engineer

Report

Executive Summary

This report discusses a petition tabled at the Council Meeting held on the 20 September 2016, requesting Council to install timed 4 hour (4P) parking restrictions, a 40km/h speed limit and speed humps in Station Street, Lalor.

The report concludes that parking restrictions are not appropriate due to the close proximity to the train station and the importance placed on public transport by the community as their third most important community concern. The request for a 40km/h speed limit and speed humps are also not justified as a stand-alone treatment in this section of Station Street, Lalor.

Background

Petitioners from eight (8) residential properties located on the east side of Station Street, between Anderson Street and Paschke Crescent, Lalor (Attachment 1) raised the following:

We, as the residents of Station Street – from Paschke Crescent to Anderson Street request that the car parks in front of our houses have a four hour time limit that is monitored.

We request this for the valid reason that there no parking available for any of our guests that visit our homes from Monday through to Friday from 8am to 6pm. There isn’t even the option of parking our own cars on street as many houses in the area and within the City of Whittlesea have the opportunity to do so.

We also request that the speed limit be lowered to 40km as the increased traffic on Station Street is a safety concerns especially as residents drive in and out of the driveway with traffic doing 60km. Perhaps a speed hump would accommodate.

We feel as though the City of Whittlesea have neglected their Duty of Care to provided reasonable considerations to the Station Street residents. There isn’t parking for the residents that reside on Station Street and the current speed limit does not accommodate to the increased traffic which is a safety hazard.

DISCUSSION

Scope of Investigation

As all of the petitioners reside in the section of Station between Anderson Street and Paschke Crescent, the focus of the investigations and this report is on that section of the street.

Road Network and Layout

Station Street is a north-south collector road, approximately 2.6 kilometres (km) in length, which connects to Childs Road (in the north) and Heyington Avenue (in the south) and services a variety of land use functions (residential, retail, commercial and light industrial).

The section between Anderson Street and Paschke Crescent is approximately 225 metres (m) in length, with residential development on the east side of the street and the Lalor Railway Station and station car park on the west side. The roadway varies between approximately 7.6m and 8.8m in width, which is adequate to allow parking on the east side of the road and two-way traffic to pass unimpeded.

This section of Station Street forms part of the 556 bus route and has a 50 km/h speed limit.

Traffic calming devices (asphalt road cushions) were installed in Station Street between Kingsford Street and Child Road in October 2006. In May 2005 prior to the road cushions being installed in 2006, the average speed in this section was 48km/h, the 85^th%ile¹ speed of vehicles was 58km/h, and 42% of all vehicles exceeded the speed limit.

Note: The 85^th percentile speed is a speed at which 85% of vehicles are travelling at or below; it is a factor used in determining the safe operating speed of a road.

Traffic Conditions

Results of the past and recent traffic surveys conducted in the area specific to the petitioners concerns i.e. between Anderson Street and Paschke Crescent are summarised below:

Location (Property / House No.)	Date	24 hour Volume	Speeds (km/h)		Number of Vehicles Over
Location (Property / House No.)	Date	24 hour Volume	Average	85%ile	40 km/h	50 km/h
456	Jun 2006	3,684	45	53	2,999 (81%)	763 (21%)
446	Oct 2016	3,250	46	53	2,502 (77%)	787 (24%)

The above results indicate that current traffic conditions in this section of Station Street are acceptable, and in particular:

· Traffic volumes have decreased in the past 10 years.

· The average speed (46km/h) is acceptable and below the posted 50km/h speed limit, and;

· The 85^th percentile speed (53km/h) is only 3km/h in excess of the posted speed limit;

Whilst any speed in excess of the speed limit cannot be condoned, current speeds are not at a threshold where Council would normally intervene with the installation of traffic management or speed calming devices.

Road Safety

There are no crashes recorded in VicRoads’ “CrashStats” database for this section of Station Street. It is worth noting, however, that south of the investigation area (i.e. between Paschke Crescent and Heyington Avenue) Station Street has a poor safety record with a total of 17 crashes over the past five (5) years recorded in Vic Roads CrashStats database.

This poor safety record classifies this section of Station Street (between Paschke Crescent and Heyington Avenue), as an Accident Blacklength, and as a result, an application has been submitted to VicRoads for Accident Blackspot Funding.

The submission proposes a range of traffic calming devices (in this case, road cushions due to the street being used as a bus route) along the entire length of Station Street, inclusive of the petitioners area of concern, between Paschke Crescent to Anderson Street.

Although the Black Length funding submission includes road cushions for the length of Station Street, it is not proposed to install road humps as a stand-alone traffic response for the investigation area as it is far more preferable from a traffic management and street scape amenity perspective to have a consistent treatment for the full length of the street. There are no localised reasons why this section should be treated independently.

Speed Limit

The existing speed limit along this section of Station Street is 50 km/h. A reduction in this speed limit is not warranted given the traffic analysis, and notwithstanding this is not possible as the current conditions do not meet VicRoads’ criteria for a 40km/h speed limit.

Parking Conditions

No Stopping signs were installed on the west side of the road in the early 2000’s due to concerns raised by the bus company about traffic congestion and bus service delays.

Parking bays (22 in number) were line-marked on the east side of Station Street, between Partridge Street and Paschke Crescent, in November 2008 due to concerns about vehicles parking too close to driveways and to ensure that the limited parking was used efficiently.

Parking restrictions in the form of 4 hour Parking (4P) 9am to 6pm Monday to Friday have been installed in other sections of Station Street, eg. between Alexander Avenue and Heyington Avenue, and between Paschke Crescent and Newton Crescent.

Surveys and on site observations have identified that commuters regularly park all day in the 22 parking spaces on the east side of Station Street between Anderson Street and Paschke Crescent and therefore some form of restrictions on this side of the street would be required to address the petitioners requests for visitor and residential parking access. Parking restrictions (4P, 8am to 6pm Monday, to Friday) on Station Street, between Anderson Street and Paschke Crescent would as a result displace 22 commuter vehicles and It is probable that the drivers of these vehicles will disperse and park in other local streets in close proximity to the station. Considering this area is directly opposite the Lalor Train station and public transport is considered by the Whittlesea community as its third most important issue in the 2016 Annual Household Survey (with parking listed at No. 5), it is not considered appropriate to implement 4 hour parking restrictions in a section of the street that will provide a direct disincentive to public transport users and erode access to this service.

Consultation

The petitioners represent 57% (eight of the 14 properties) of the houses along this section of Station Street. A letter and questionnaire with a reply paid envelope was circulated to all residents in this section of Station Street, seeking feedback and comments on the proposed parking restrictions (4P, 8am to 6pm, Monday to Friday) on the east side of Station Street.

A total of 8 responses were received. A summary of the responses received is as follows:

Letters

Sent

Responses

Received

Response Rate

Support for 4P Restrictions

Number (%)

Yes

Did not Respond

57%

6 (43%)

2 (14%)

6 (43%)

These results indicate that from the residents who responded to the questionnaire there is only moderate support for 4 hour parking restrictions on the east side of Station Street. It is worth highlighting that the original petition received support from eight of the 14 properties surveyed.

Financial Implications

The cost to install parking restriction signs is estimated at $800 which can be funded from Council’s operational budget.

Policy strategy and legislation

City of Whittlesea, Municipal Road Safety Strategy, 2004: Action Plan 3. Ensure that a safer road environment is developed and maintained.

City of Whittlesea, Integrated Transport Strategy, 2014: Action RF 2.2. Manage local roads to improve amenity and safety for users.

Links to the CoUNCIL Plan

FUTURE DIRECTION Accessibility in, out and around our city

Theme Transport

Strategic Objective Our road network provides adequate access to the Advocate municipality and beyond

The management of on-street parking and vehicle speeds are critical components of an accessible road network that is accepted by the community.

Declarations of Conflicts of Interest

Under section 80C of the Local Government Act 1989 officers providing advice to Council must disclose any interests, including the type of interest.

The Responsible Officer reviewing this report, having made enquiries with the relevant members of staff, reports that no disclosable interests have been raised in relation to this report.

Conclusion

Traffic surveys indicate that current traffic conditions in Station Street between Anderson Street and Paschke Crescent currently do not justify the installation of speed cushions as a stand-alone treatment in this section of the street, or a 40km/h speed limit.

Parking surveys and on site observations have confirmed petitioners and residents’ concerns that commuters regularly park all day in Station Street between Anderson Street and Paschke Crescent and there is a moderate level of support from the total of 14 properties affected who support 4 hour parking restrictions (between 8am to 6pm, Monday to Friday). It is also noted that public transport and access to public transport services is one of the most important issues for the Whittlesea community and any disincentive for commuters in accessing these important services will erode the liveability of the municipality and therefore parking restrictions in this location are not considered appropriate.

RECOMMENDATION

THAT Council resolve to:

1. Not Install 4 hour parking restrictions ‘4P, 8am to 6pm (Monday to Friday)’ on the east side of Station Street between Anderson Street and Paschke Crescent;

2. Not install speed treatment devices or a 40km/h speed limit on Station Street between Paschke Crescent and Anderson Street in isolation as part of a localised approach to this section of road.

3. Advise the residents of Station Street between Anderson Street and Paschke Crescent of Council’s decision on this matter.

Ordinary Council Agenda Tuesday 28 February 2017

6.3.4 LOCAL AREA TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT (LATM) 20 - MILL PARK

File No: SU/194852

Attachments: 1 Traffic Data ⇩

2 Proposed Traffic Management Plan ⇩

3 Examples of proposed traffic calming devices ⇩

4 Community Consultation results summary ⇩

5 Detailed discussion on community responses ⇩

Responsible Officer: Director City Transport & Presentation

Author: Traffic Engineer

Report

EXECUTIVE Summary

This report outlines the Local Area Traffic Management (LATM) 20 study in Mill Park and presents a Draft Traffic Management Plan (TMP) for Council approval.

Background

The purpose of the Local Area Traffic Management program is to review and improve road safety, local traffic movement and pedestrian connectivity within a specific LATM area. To ensure consistency in the development of LATM schemes, in 1996 Council adopted a LATM Priority Program for the selection of LATM study areas. This program is based upon an evaluation and ranking of casualty road crashes, traffic speed and volume data for individual roads and resident concerns (over a preceding five year period) within the assigned LATM area. All data is updated and tabulated to determine annual LATM rankings for future delivery in the Council New Works program.

LATM 20 is the area bounded by Childs Road (to the north), McKimmies Road (south), Betula Avenue (east), and the E6 Road reservation (west), as indicated in Attachment 1. This area was ranked the highest LATM priority when assessed in 2014/15, due to poor crash history, higher than desirable traffic speeds and the number of concerns raised by residents.

Discussion

Scope of Study Area

The study area is limited to the local road and footpath network in the area bounded by Childs Road, McKimmies Road, Betula Avenue, and the E6 Road reservation. As Betula Avenue is a collector road, it was included in the study; however Childs Road and McKimmies Road were excluded due to them being major arterial roads under VicRoads responsibility.

Road Network and Neighbourhood Conditions

The arterial road network external to the LATM area; ie. Plenty Road and Childs Road, as well as the Childs Road / Plenty Road intersection, are not adequate for the current traffic demand along the Plenty corridor, and this results in traffic “rat-running” and cutting through the LATM area and along Betula Avenue.

The road network within the LATM area is generally curvilinear in nature consisting of mainly local streets, cul-de-sacs and courts. Whilst the curvilinear nature of main collector roads somewhat limits permeability within the local road network, it still provides for the unwanted situation where “rat-running” of through traffic is present (i.e. Betula Avenue, Cuthbert Drive, Garden Grove Drive and Roycroft Avenue). This situation results in an increase in the carrying capacity of these thoroughfares, causing localised nuisances and a diminishing road safety environment.

Collector roads such as Roycroft Avenue and Garden Grove Drive typically have 2 x 3.0m wide traffic lanes and 2 x 1.8m wide parking lanes, other streets have a road pavement approximately 7.2 m in width.

Traffic management treatments in the form of roundabouts, traffic islands, road cushions/humps have already been installed in a number of streets, including; Appletree Drive, Crampton Crescent, Cuthbert Drive, Grenda Drive, Garden Grove Drive (between Betula Avenue and Roycroft Avenue), Jasmine Drive (between Norwood Drive and Roycroft Avenue), in previous years. This was on an as may arise, smaller scale basis to address road safety and traffic operational concerns in those individual streets.

LATM 20 is predominantly residential in nature with the exception of the Findon Recreation Reserve and the Findon Primary School. The area contains approximately 2,400 residential properties.

Public Transport

The 564 bus operates along Garden Grove Drive (between McKimmies Road and Roycroft Avenue) and Roycroft Avenue; the 382 bus operates along Betula Avenue.

Road Safety

CrashStats (VicRoads casualty crash database) indicates that from 2011 to 2016, eight casualty crashes were recorded in the study area, with five crashes on Betula Avenue (four at the Roycroft Avenue intersection, one at the Belmont Way intersection), two crashes in Roycroft Avenue (one at the Konrads Crescent intersection, and one between Chestnut Road and Protea Court), and one crash in Konrads Crescent.

Traffic Data & Conditions

Traffic surveys have been undertaken on local streets and collector roads over many years. The results of the most recent and relevant are summarised in Attachment 1, and indicate that whilst traffic speeds and volumes are “generally acceptable” in most streets, they are unacceptable in several streets. In this case, “generally acceptable” is considered to be where traffic speeds, average 85th percentile (the speed at which 85% of the traffic is travelling at, or below) are not exceeding the speed limit; “unacceptable” is where traffic speeds are well in excess of the speed limit. In LATM 20, Roycroft Avenue, Garden Grove Drive and Mimosa Road have “unacceptable” excessive speeds.

It is worthwhile noting that the current traffic conditions on Konrads Crescent is acceptable, however, there is a likelihood that traffic speeds and volumes will increase where traffic calming measures are installed on Roycroft Avenue, and drivers opt to use Konrads Crescent to avoid these new installations.

The survey results also indicate that traffic volumes on local roads in the LATM 20 area range from less than 100 vehicles per day (vpd) in some cul-de-sacs and local streets, to approximately 4,000 vpd in Roycroft Avenue and 6,300 vpd in Garden Grove Drive (just north of McKimmies Road).

The lane width and parking arrangements in these more heavily used streets adequately cater for traffic volumes in excess of these figures (eg. Centenary Drive in
Mill Park has a similar road cross-section and lane configuration, and currently caters for approximately 10,000vpd). The current traffic volumes and incidences of speeding exceed the residents’ expectations however give rise to many of the resident’s concerns below.

Resident Concerns

Council Customer Request Management (CRM) records database indicates that the number of residents who have contacted Council averaged 11 times per year through 2009 to 2014, and 5 times per year through 2015 to 2016. This decline is likely to be at least partly due to the opportunity residents have had to provide feedback in the initial LATM community consultant process (579 responses were received).

Throughout the community consultation process the key concerns raised were:

· Current traffic conditions in Konrads Crescent (this may worsen if traffic management is installed on Roycroft Avenue and motorists use Konrads Crescent as an alternative route to avoid the new traffic management devices).

· Some drivers are negotiating the roundabouts at the Garden Grove Drive / Mimosa Road, Roycroft Avenue and Sycamore Street, and the Roycroft Avenue / Cuthbert Drive intersections, too fast and often mount the flat central islands and kerbs.

· Poor driver behaviour at the Garden Grove Drive / Roycroft Avenue intersection.

· Hoon driver behaviour in a number of streets and locations.

· Poor bus stop locations and safety in Garden Grove Drive north of McKimmies Road intersection.

· Lack of sufficient, quality pedestrian and bicycle links.

· Traffic congestion at the Childs Road / Cuthbert Drive intersection.

Some form of intervention is necessary to mitigate speeds and volumes, the potential for future casualty crashes, and the risk of injury to road users resulting from incidents of hoon driving. If these reductions can be achieved it will result in improved local residential amenity.

Options to Address Resident Concerns

Council has the ability to install traffic management and traffic calming measures to address the concerns raised regarding road safety and traffic operational matters, and where possible, opportunities can be taken for some streetscape improvements to be integrated with the traffic management and traffic calming measures.

Community Consultation

A rigorous and thorough community consultation process was undertaken that involved; two LATM area wide mail outs (to approximately 3,000 owners and / or occupiers of properties in the study area), questionnaires with reply paid envelopes, a public meeting, a series of LATM working group meetings and the ongoing opportunity for residents to provide valued input via the City of Whittlesea’s website, social media and at other public events during the investigation period.

Community Meetings

In October 2015, a letter was circulated to property owners and occupiers in LATM 20, advising that an LATM study was to be conducted, and inviting residents to attend a public meeting. The public meeting was also promoted through the local newspaper and on social media. Community members that were not able to attend the meeting were also afforded an opportunity to provide feedback / input via the Council’s Community Voice website and on social media.

The public meeting was held at the Findon Primary School (within the LATM area) on
11 November 2015. This was attended by 25 residents, South East Ward Councillors and Council Officers.

At the meeting, community representatives were invited to form a Working Group (with Councillors and Officers) to investigate concerns, consider available traffic management options and develop a preliminary TMP. The Working Group met on three occasions and this resulted in a Draft TMP being prepared.

As the investigations progressed, it became apparent to the Working Group that a number of minor improvements could be implemented immediately.

These were:

· Bus stop upgrades in Garden Grove Drive.

· Duplicate STOP signs and advance warning signs at the Garden Grove Drive / Roycroft Avenue intersection to improve visibility and safety.

· Upgrade of existing gravel or sub-standard 1.5m wide concrete footpaths to 2.5m concrete shared (pedestrian and cyclist) paths.

· “Keep Clear” pavement line marking at the Childs Road / Cuthbert Drive intersection.

These upgrades were completed in 2016.

Consultation on the Draft Traffic Management Plan

The Draft TMP was circulated to approximately 3,000 property owners and occupiers in August 2016 with a questionnaire and a reply paid envelope. The overall response rate was 18%, with a 28% response rate received from owners and occupiers of directly affected properties.

To improve the response rate Council officers telephoned and then visited owners or occupiers who had not responded to solicit a response. A copy of the questionnaire and a note to call Council officers was left if residents were not at home. This resulted in boosting the overall response rate to 21%, but more importantly the response rate from the directly affected property owners and occupiers increased to 45%.

Community feedback on the Draft TMP saw, on average, 80% (see Attachment 4) of the overall respondents indicating support for the range of traffic management devices proposed.

Discussion on Resident Concerns

Resident feedback has been reviewed in detail, and has resulted in the modification of a number of proposed treatments.

Further details on the residents’ concerns and officers’ response to the concerns are summarised in Attachment 5.

Bus Company Consultation

Dysons Bus Services were consulted and have advised that it would prefer not to have any additional traffic calming devices on its bus routes, however if traffic management is to be installed, the proposed road cushions would be tolerated, subject to careful design when installed close to a bus stop.

Dysons have indicated their support for the indented bus bays in Garden Grove Drive.

Emergency Service Consultation

The Metropolitan Fire Brigade (MFB) indicated that:

· Raised pavements are not preferred in local streets and other traffic management options should be investigated. However, in the event that other traffic management options are not available, raised pavements should be installed in the least intrusive manner.

Ambulance Victoria has advised that:

· It does not have any policy regarding traffic management devices, in particular raised pavements.

· The paramedics are advised to choose a route without, or with less raised pavements, if there is a choice.

· It supports any traffic management system that helps to slow motorists, reduces crashes or the impact of crashes.

Draft Traffic Management Plan

The Draft Traffic Management Plan (TMP), Attachment 2, was prepared with the general agreement of the Working Party and following consultation with the community, it involves a range of traffic management devices to enhance the safety and operation of the road network, addresses residents’ concerns, and provides an opportunity to improve the streetscape and the residential amenity of the neighbourhoods.

Betula Avenue

Road safety and traffic operational concerns have been raised in the past and by the Working Group, as well as in the community consultation phase of the study, with specific requests for new or modified roundabouts. Based on this feedback, crash data and speed and volume traffic surveys identified that traffic speeds in Betula Avenue are unacceptable and the following treatments are suggested:

· A new roundabout at Belmont Way.

· A new roundabout at Garden Grove Drive.

· A modified roundabout at Roycroft Avenue (modification involves replacing the fully mountable outer perimeter of the roundabout central island with a bus friendly semi-mountable perimeter).

Garden Grove Drive

Concerns regarding safety and unacceptable speeds along Garden Grove Drive have been expressed by the Working Group and in the community consultation phase. Survey data substantiated these concerns, identifying that traffic speeds are unacceptable in the 500m section between McKimmies Road and Roycroft Avenue intersection.

The following treatments are suggested:

· 3 x Road Cushions.

· Roundabout to be modified at Mimosa Road.

Roycroft Avenue

Roycroft Avenue is 2.2km in length. Concerns regarding safety and unacceptable speeds have been expressed by the Working Group and in the community consultation survey data phase. Survey data substantiated these concerns, identifying that traffic speeds are unacceptable.

The following treatments are suggested:

· 14 x sets of Road Cushions.

· Roundabout to be modified at Sycamore Street.

· Roundabout to be modified at Crampton Crescent.

· Roundabout to be modified at Cuthbert Drive.

The roundabout modifications at Betula Avenue, Garden Grove Drive and Roycroft Avenue comprise replacing the fully mountable outer perimeter of the roundabout central island with a bus friendly semi-mountable perimeter.

Mimosa Road

Concerns regarding safety and unacceptable speeds have been expressed by the Working Group and in the community consultation survey data phase. Survey data substantiated these concerns, identifying that traffic speeds are unacceptable.

The following treatments are suggested:

· 1 x Raised Pavement

· 1 x Raised Pedestrian Crossing

· 1 x Raised Intersection with a pedestrian crossing

Konrads Crescent

There is a likelihood traffic speeds and volumes will increase if traffic calming measures are installed on Roycroft Avenue, with one crash already occurring in Konrads Crescent and the following treatments are suggested:

· 4 x Raised Pavements

Off road path connections

· Between Citrus Court and Konrads Crescent (completed).

· Between Henricks Court and Roycroft Avenue (completed).

· Between Kardella Close and Winter Close (completed).

· Between Freeman Crescent, Devitt Court and Childs Road

· Easement link between Transmission Line Path and Tonelli Crescent

In addition to the above, any existing T-intersections currently without Stop or Give Way line-marking will be line-marked.

The suite of devices in the proposed TMP is expected to result in a significant reduction in traffic speeds, improved lane discipline at intersections, enhanced road safety, and generally improved residential amenity and liveability of the neighbourhood areas.

Examples of devices proposed can be seen in Attachment 3.

Financial Implications

It is estimated that $995,000 of works will be required to implement the proposed LATM 20 Traffic Management Plan. $220,000 in funding for these works is available in the 2016 / 2017 New Works Program. The remaining works will be installed in future new works programs proposed over the next two financial years.

Policy strategy and legislation

The LATM investigation accords with Council’s Community Plan (CP) and Road Safety Strategy 2004 (RSS), in particular:

· Engage and consult with our community, stakeholders and customers in a meaningful way.

· Deliver road safety improvement projects to the satisfaction of authorities and residents.

· RSS – Action Plans 2 (relating to community consultation on road safety matters), 4 (pedestrian safety), 7 (children and road safety), 8 (older persons and road safety) & 9 (speed management).

Links to the CoUNCIL Plan

FUTURE DIRECTION Health and Wellbeing

Theme Safety

Strategic Objective Our built form incorporates safety design

The TMP will result in a reduction in vehicle speeds, clearer definition of intersection priorities, improvements to existing devices and improved traffic conditions at a number of pedestrian crossing locations, a reduction in the number of motor vehicle crashes in the LATM area and an opportunity for streetscape improvements to be implemented.

Declarations of Conflicts of Interest

Under section 80C of the Local Government Act 1989 officers providing advice to Council must disclose any interests, including the type of interest.

The Responsible Officer reviewing this report, having made enquiries with the relevant members of staff, reports that no disclosable interests have been raised in relation to this report.

Conclusion

A comprehensive technical assessment, community consultation and investigation of the road safety and traffic conditions in the LATM 20 area has been conducted and this has resulted in a LATM 20 proposed TMP being prepared.

There is a good level of community support for the Draft Traffic Management Plan. An average of 80% of all respondents supported the devices proposed.

The proposed LATM 20 TMP is expected to result in a significant reduction in traffic speeds, enhanced road safety, improved lane discipline at intersections and generally improve the residential amenity and liveability of the neighbourhood area.

RECOMMENDATION

THAT Council resolve to:

1. Adopt the proposed Traffic Management Plan (TMP) for LATM 20 and implement the following devices:

a) Betula Avenue

· New roundabout at Belmont Way.

· New roundabout at Garden Grove Drive.

· Roundabout to be modified at Roycroft Avenue.

b) Garden Grove Drive

· 3 x Road Cushions.

· Roundabout to be modified at Mimosa Road

c) Roycroft Avenue

· 14 x Road Cushions

· Roundabout to be modified at Sycamore Street

· Roundabout to be modified at Crampton Crescent

· Roundabout to be modified at Cuthbert Drive

d) Mimosa Road

· 1 x Raised pavement

· 1 x Raised pedestrian crossing

· 1 x Raised intersection with a pedestrian crossing

e) Konrads Crescent

· 4 x Raised pavements

f) Off road path connections

· Between Freeman Crescent, Devitt Court and Childs Road Easement link

· between Transmission Line Path and Tonelli Crescent

2. Advise the Local Area Traffic Management (LATM) 20 community of Council’s decision on the matter.

3. Within six months of completion of implementation of the Traffic Management Plan (TMP) evaluate the effectiveness of the TMP and provide advice to the Mayor and Councillors on this matter.

Letters Sent	Responses Received Number (%)	Support for 4P Restrictions Number. (%)		Support for Line-marked Parking Bays
Letters Sent	Responses Received Number (%)	Yes	No	Yes	No
20	7 (35%)	6 (85%)	1 (15%)	6 (85%)	1 (15%)

Mayoral Allowance	Councillor Allowance
Up to	Minimum	Maximum
$94,641 p.a.	$12,367 p.a.	$29,630 p.a.

Topic/Session	Speakers
Tuesday 11 April 2017
Site Tour	· Walking Tours in Launceston. · Civic Reception hosted by the Mayor of Launceston.
Wednesday 12 April 2017
Welcome	· ALGWA National President Cr Coral Ross. · Her Excellency Professor the Honourable Kate Warner AM (Official Opening).
Keynote speaker	· Helene Chung, first female posted overseas by ABC and the first Chinese-Australian journalist to be appointed to China.
Workshop Options	· Collective Impact: Discussion from two Collective Impacts Project Groups on how their methodology could be used in our municipal area. · Age Friendly Cities: Aging population issues and a presentation on Clarence City Council’s Positive Ageing Committee Program.
An update on the Status of Women and Girls	· Professor Megan Alessandrini, University of Tasmania Gender and Policy Strategy Group.
Speakers	· Kate Jenkins, Australian Sex Discrimination Commissioner. · Ben Milbourne, star of Master Chef, writer on how he balances fame and living in rural Tasmania.
Thursday 13 April 2017
Speakers	· Darren Hine, Commissioner of Police and Secretary of the Department of Police, Fire and Emergency Management. · Dr Joan Webb, Creativity with the frail aged.
Panel Discussion: What does Climate Change mean for Councils?	· Moderated by Professor Jean Palutikof, National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility.
Speakers	· Dr Daryl Peebles, Profession career in corporation communications and human resource management. · Rob Edwards, Company Director for 20 years in the health and well-being industry where he designs and develops staff development programs.

Session	Topic
Tuesday 4 April 2017
Keynote Presentation:	The Uberfication of Everything: How Uber is changing the way the world moves David Rohsheim, CEO Uber Australia & New Zealand
Concurrent Study Tours
Study Tour 1:	From Quay to CBD
Study Tour 2:	East Perth Pedal Power
Study Tour 3:	Southern Sights
Study Tour 4:	Northern Neighbourhoods
Study Tour 5:	North Easter Highlights
Study Tour 6	Innovative Affordable & Social Housing
Wednesday 5 April 2017
Congress Welcome	The Right Honourable the Lord Mayor of Perth Lisa Scaffidi
Keynote Presentation	Future Cities – Where We Want to Live Ryan Gravel, Urban Planner, Designer and Author, Sixpitch, USA Launch of the State of the Land Report Robert Papaleo, National Executive Director Research, Charter Keck Cramer
Concurrent Sessions
1 - Affordability: New ways to deliver affordable homes
2 - Market Trends: What you need to know
3 - Liveable Communities: Creating places and spaces
4 - Technological Innovation and Infrastructure
Concurrent Sessions
A. Built Form for the Next Generation
B. Doing it Better: Opportunities for Urban Design Renewal
C. Managing Environment Outcomes
D. Innovation in Infrastructure Financing
Keynote Presentation	Transforming Cities – The Australian Government’s Cities Policy Angus Taylor MP, Federal Minister for Cities
Keynote Presentation	No, They’re not Aliens They’re Millenials – Understanding the Next Generation of Home Buyers Holly Ransom, CEO, Emergent
Thursday 6 April 2017
Keynote Presentation	Delivering Affordability through Growth in the City of Houston, USA Patrick Walsh, Director of Planning, City of Houston USA
National President’s Address	Michael Corcoran, UDIA National President
Panel Discussion	The Rise of International Investment in Capital Markets – Will it Last? Nigel Satterley, Managing Director & Chief Executive, Satterley Property Group John Poynton, Director, Linc Property Michael Corcoran, UDIA National President
Keynote Presentation	What happens when normal planning rules don’t apply? Enabling revitalisation through Pink Zones in the City of Detroit, USA Maurice Cox, Director Planning and Development, City of Detroit, USA

Initials	Title of Officer	Initials	Title of Officer
CEO	Chief Executive Officer – Michael Wootten	DPMP	Director Planning & Major Projects – Steve O’Brien
DCS	Director Community Services – Russell Hopkins	MG	Manager Governance – Michael Tonta
DCRS	Director Corporate Services – Helen Sui	TLSPP	Team Leader Strategic Planning Policy – Denise Turner
DCTP	Director City Transport and Presentation– Nick Mann	SPP	Senior Policy Planner – Victor Ng
DPE	Director Partnerships and Engagement – Liana Thompson	TLBI	Team Leader Business Improvement – Robert Kisgen
CP	Corporate Planner – David Echeverry	MCAP	Manager Corporate Accountability and Performance – Frank Joyce

Year	Operating Budget	Capital Budget	Total Budget	Percentage increase from previous period	CEO delegation
2017	$192M	$43M	$235M	11.9%	$150,000 goods and services $200,000 works
2015	$171M	$39M	$210M	21.4%	$150,000 goods and services $200,000 works
2010	$129M	$44M	$173M	61.7%	$150,000 goods and services $200,000 works
2005	$85M	$22M	$107M	40.7%	$100,000 goods and services and works
2000	$63M	$13M	$76M	N/A	$100,000 goods and services and works

Council	Annual Budget	Financial Delegation	Comments
Banyule	$134M	$500,000	For both goods and services and works
Hume	$253M	$500,000	For both goods and services and works
Moreland	$183M	$700,000	For both goods and services and works
Mitchell	$62M	$300,000	For both goods and services and works
Nillumbik	$108M	$150,000 $200,000	$150,000 in relation to goods and services and $200,000 for works - note: excludes the payment of insurance premiums and contracts
Wyndham	$354M	$1,000,000	For both goods and services and works