PLANNING PANELS VICTORIA - bayside.vic.gov.au · 1. My name is Stuart Andrew McGurn and I am a Director of Urbis Pty Ltd which conducts its business at Level 12, 120 Collins Street,

PLANNING PANELS VICTORIA BAYSIDE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C126 76 - 78 BEACH ROAD SANDRINGHAM

STATEMENT OF TOWN PLANNING EVIDENCE

PREPARED BY STUART MCGURN

P0004467

November 2018

BAYSIDE AMENDMENT C126 – 76 – 78 BEACH ROAD SANDRINGHAM

1

INTRODUCTION 1. My name is Stuart Andrew McGurn and I am a Director of Urbis Pty Ltd which conducts its business

at Level 12, 120 Collins Street, Melbourne. My qualifications and experience are described at Appendix A.

2. I have been requested by DSA Law – Lawyers and Consultants on behalf of the owners of 76 -78 Beach Road, Sandringham to prepare a town planning assessment of Exhibited Amendment C126 to the Bayside Planning Scheme. My instructions require me to consider the implications of the Amendment on the subject land.

3. I note that I have been separately instructed to review the Amendment in relation to land in Bay Street, Brighton. My views with respect to that site are subject to a separate statement, however there is a degree of overlap between the content of my statements.

4. Amendment C126 seeks to implement the Bayside Small Activity Centres Strategy of 2014. This is proposed to be facilitated through:

Changes to the Municipal Strategic Statement and local planning policies;

The introduction of new schedules to the Design and Development Overlay;

The rezoning of some land; and

The inclusion of the Bayside Small Activity Centres Strategy 2014 as a reference document.

5. With respect to the subject land it deletes the existing Design and Development Overlay 1 and implements a new Design and Development Overlay DDO17.

6. In the course of preparing this evidence I have inspected the subject site and its environs and have reviewed the proposed amendment. In addition, I have read the relevant amendment documentation and background documents), the Council officer report, the Terms of Reference for the Panel/Advisory Committee hearing.

7. A summary of my opinions with respect to Amendment C126 as it applies to the subject land is as follows:

I support the removal of the existing Design and Development Overlay 1 and the addition of a new Design and Development Overlay which allows a more flexible approach to site redevelopment.

However, I consider that the building height and design requirements of Design and Development Overlay Schedule 17 are overly prescriptive and not appropriately justified.

The continued emphasis around the existing Commercial 1 Zone land at Georgiana Street and Beach Road as a ‘Centre’ is not strategically justified, potentially creating uncertainty for otherwise appropriate land use and development outcomes.

The proposed height of two storeys (discretionary) and three storeys (mandatory) is not justified and does not adequately recognise the strategic opportunities of the land.

The proposed modifications to the Municipal Strategic Statement and drafting of the DDO17 are poor and should be carefully reviewed.

8. I declare that I have made all the enquiries that I believe are desirable and that no matters of significance which I regard as relevant have, to my knowledge, been withheld from the Panel.

2 PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C126

SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDS 9. The subject site is located on the east side of Beach Road, Sandringham between Bridge Street and

Georgiana Street. The site is generally square with an irregular projection at the south western corner. The site has an area of approximately 1,963 square metres.

10. The site is occupied by a two storey commercial building in two main parts set back beyond open car parking. The buildings comprise a number of tenancies.

11. Surrounding land is generally used and developed as follows:

To the north is a service station and single storey store.

To the east are one and two storey single dwelling houses in Arthur Street.

To the west is Beach Road, over which is Rex Allum Reserve, beyond which is the Sandringham foreshore and yacht club.

To the south is a two storey commercial building fronting Beach Road, while the rear of the site is adjoined to the south by apartment buildings and an open car park area.

12. Beach Road in the surrounding locality is predominantly one and two storey dwellings and apartment buildings, interspersed by commercial buildings. Hampton Activity Centre (and train station) is located approximately 550 metres to the north, while Sandringham Activity Centre (and train station) is located approximately 650 metres to the south east along Beach Road and Abbot Street.

Figure 1: Aerial Photograph - Subject Site and Locality

Rex Allum

Reserve

Bridge Street

PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C126

3

Figure 2 – Photo of the Subject Site


BAYSIDE PLANNING SCHEME (CURRENT CONTROLS) 13. The subject site is currently covered by the following planning controls:

ZONE 14. The subject site is located within the Commercial 1 Zone (C1Z). The purposes of the zone are:

‘To implement the State Planning Policy Framework and the Local Planning Policy Framework, including the Municipal Strategic Statement and local planning policies.

To create vibrant mixed use commercial centres for retail, office, business, entertainment and community uses.

To provide for residential uses at densities complementary to the role and scale of the commercial centre.’

15. All retail uses, office and dwellings (subject to not exceeding a 2 metre ground level frontage) do not require a planning permit in the zone.

16. A planning permit is required to construct a building and construct or carry out works, with some exemptions. The Commercial 1 Zone does not include any height or site coverage restrictions.

Figure 3 – Zoning Map (Source: planning maps online)


5

OVERLAY PROVISIONS 17. The land is also subject to the following overlay controls:

Environmental Audit Overlay (Clause 45.03) – applying to the subject site and land immediately to the north. This overlay requires an environmental audit or statement to be prepared prior to works associated with a ‘sensitive’ use, such as residential development. This overlay is not relevant to Amendment C126.

Development Contributions Overlay 1 (Clause45.06) – which applies broadly to the surrounding area and requires contributions to be paid in accordance with a scheduled rate associated with new development. This overlay is not relevant to Amendment C126.

Design and Development Overlay 1 (Clause 43.02) ‘Building Height Control - Coastal’ - described below.

18. The DDO1 applies to the subject site and surrounding land. A permit is required for works under the overlay. Buildings must not exceed two storeys (excluding an attic or basement). It is proposed that this overlay be deleted from the land by Amendment C126 and replaced by new DDO17 described below.

19. The design objectives of DDO1 are:

‘To protect and enhance the foreshore environment and views of Bayside from Port Phillip Bay.

To relate the scale and form of any new development to the landform of the coast.

To maintain a pedestrian scale along Beach Road.

To maintain consistency with urban design and development objectives in the Bayside Coastal Strategy 1997 and the Victorian Coastal Strategy 2014.

To protect the foreshore from overshadowing.

To manage the increased pressure for higher buildings along the coast.

To protect the amenity and privacy of residential properties.’

20. Pursuant to Clause 2.0 a planning permit is not required for a building that does not exceed 2 storeys, provided that each floor is less than 3.5 metres (floor to floor) in height.

PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK 21. The Planning Policy Framework (PPF) seeks to foster planning outcomes for Victoria which

appropriately balance social, economic and environmental objectives. Planning Policy calls for the consideration of a range of issues in the determination of land use and development planning.

22. Policies of relevance to the subject site include:

Clause 11 – Settlement

‘Planning is to anticipate and respond to the needs of existing and future communities through provision of zoned and serviced land for housing, employment, recreation and open space, commercial and community facilities and infrastructure.” Clause 11

‘Develop a network of activity centres linked by transport; consisting of Metropolitan Activity Centres supported by a network of vibrant major and neighbourhood activity centres of varying size, role and function.’ Clause 11.01-21R

‘Create mixed-use neighbourhoods at varying densities, including through the development of urban-renewal precincts, that offer more choice in housing, create jobs and opportunities for local businesses and deliver better access to services and facilities.’ Clause 11.01-R

‘Locate new small scale education, health and community facilities that meet local needs I or around Neighbourhood Activity Centres.” Clause 11.03-1R


Clause 15 – Built Environment and Heritage

Planning should:

o ‘ensure all land use and development appropriately responds to its surrounding landscape and character, valued built form and cultural context;’

o ‘protect places and sites with significant heritage, architectural, aesthetic, scientific and cultural value;’

o ‘promote development that is environmentally sustainable and should minimise detrimental impacts on the built and natural environment.’

Clause 15 includes policy direction on building design, built environment, healthy neighbourhoods, neighbourhood character, urban design, sustainable development and heritage.

Clause 16 - Housing

Planning should:

o ‘provide for housing diversity, and ensure the efficient provision of supporting infrastructure.’

o ‘ensure the long term sustainability of new housing, including access to services, walkability to activity centres, public transport, schools and open space.’

o ‘include the provision of land for affordable housing.’

Clause 17 – Economic Development

‘Planning is to contribute to the economic well-being of the state and foster economic growth by providing land, facilitating decisions, and resolving land use conflicts, so that each region may build on its strengths and achieve its economic potential. ‘

This Clause seeks to locate commercial facilities in existing or planned activity centres.

Clause 18 – Transport

‘Planning should ensure an integrated and sustainable transport system that provides access to social and economic opportunities, facilitates economic prosperity, contributes to environmental sustainability, coordinates reliable movements of people and goods, and is safe. ‘

Municipal Strategic Statement 23. Clause 21.02 – Bayside Key Issues and Strategic Vision sets out the major components of the

strategic framework plan for Bayside around the following eight themes:

Settlement and Housing

Environmental Risks

Built Form and Heritage

Transport and Access

Environmental Values

Economic Development

Open Space

Infrastructure

24. The role of activity centres in the municipality is recognised, not only in terms of employment generation but in the provision of goods and services and a focus for community activity.

25. The Residential Framework Plan (Map 2) at Clause 21.02 identifies the Georgiana Beach Road area as ‘strategic redevelopment site – minimal residential growth’.


7

26. Clause 21.03 – Settlement and Housing identifies forecast population increases and the need to increase housing provision as a result. It states that “Activity Centres will play an increasingly important role in providing for future housing needs, particularly as opportunities diminish elsewhere due to neighbourhood character, heritage and environmental constraints”. Objective 2 is “to deliver increased housing densities and diversity of dwellings within activity centres”.

27. Clause 21.06 – Built Environment and Heritage includes a section on activity centres. Key (relevant) issues are identified as being:

‘Ensuring sufficient land is provided within activity centres for future retail and commercial development.’

‘Facilitating commercial and housing development within activity centres in a manner which supports the vision for the centre and avoids conflict with surrounding land uses.’

Strategies seek to:

‘Ensure new development is compatible with the vision for the centre and avoids materially altering the scale of the centre.’

‘Ensure that the interface between Activity Centres and adjacent residential areas is appropriate in terms of built form and amenity.’

28. Clause 21.07 – Economic Development seeks “to support the economic and social sustainability of activity centres”.

Local Policies

29. There are no local policies of relevance to Amendment C126.

Reference Documents

30. Bayside Housing Strategy September 2012 forms the basis of Bayside’s planning for the provision of housing until 2031. The Strategy identifies that the land is within a ‘minimal residential growth’ area where ‘the predominantly low density residential scale is to be maintained’. Within these areas are ‘small neighbourhood activity centres’ and ‘ strategic redevelopment sites’. Beach Road and Georgiana Street, Sandringham is identified as a ‘strategic redevelopment site’.

31. The Strategy assumes that redevelopment on this ‘strategic site’ would be in the form of two storeys. It appears that the basis of the Housing Strategy is the 2006 census data.


PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C126 BACKGROUND – BAYSIDE SMALL ACTIVITY CENTRES STRATEGY 2014 32. Planning for the smaller activity centres throughout Bayside commenced in 2005 (Bayside Small

Activity Centres Strategy 2014 P3), culminating in the Council’s adoption of the Bayside Small Activity Centres Strategy in 2014. This strategy has objectives to:

Develop a strategic and statutory framework defining and facilitating the evolution of the smaller order activity centres in Bayside.

Review the appropriateness of current Council planning policies and controls affecting the smaller order activity centres in Bayside and outline planning scheme changes and actions for Council to better manage these centres.

AMENDMENT C126 – EXHIBITION MARCH AND APRIL 2017 33. The recommendations of the 2014 strategy were to be implemented by this amendment (in an earlier

form). For the subject site, the amendment proposed:

Changes to the MSS;

Classification of the Beach and Georgiana Street Sandringham/Hampton as being a ‘Small Commercial Activity Centre – Mixed Use’;

The deletion of Design and Development Overlay, Schedule 1.

Application of a new Design and Development Overlay Schedule 17, which includes a maximum building height of 9 metres and two storeys, which can be exceeded with a permit to a mandatory maximum height of 11 metres and three storeys.

The inclusion of the Bayside Small Activity Centre Strategy (2014) as a reference document.

Retention of the existing Commercial 1 Zoning. I note that land immediately to the north (72 – 75 Beach Road, Hampton) is proposed to be partly rezoned from the Neighbourhood Residential Zone to the Commercial 1 Zone.

34. This was exhibited in March and April of 2017, resulting in 91 submissions.

AMENDMENT C126 – RE-EXHIBITION JUNE AND JULY 2018 35. Having reviewed the submissions, Council commissioned a Small Activity Centres Strategy –

Economic Analysis (SGS) and an Urban Design and Built Form Review (Echelon Planning).

36. As a result of these reports, Council made changes to the form of the planning scheme amendment. With particular reference to the ‘Beach Street and Georgiana Road Activity Centre’, the amendment updated changes to the MSS including by adding a strategic vision and including new strategies for ‘Small Commercial Activity Centres – Mixed Use’.

37. Updates were also undertaken to include a new Clause 21.11-9 for ‘Small Commercial Activity Centres – Mixed Use’ , including a role, vision, objectives, strategies, local area implementation and further strategic work.

38. The review of the Beach Road and Georgiana Street precinct indicates that the proposed DDO17 should continue to apply.


9

PROPOSED DDO17 – PANEL VERSION CIRCULATED 18 NOVEMBER 2017 39. Proposed DDO17 ‘Coastal Small Neighbourhood Activity Centres and Small Commercial Activity

Centres includes an objective that ‘new development respects the urban form and low rise character envisaged for the activity centre’. A copy of DDO17 is included at Appendix B.

40. The control includes a requirement that buildings ‘should not exceed 9 metres above natural ground level and should be no more than 2 storeys (excluding basement)’. Allowance is made for exceeding this to a height of 10 metres on certain gradients.

41. This building height requirement can be increased up to 11 metres and no more than 3 storeys (excluding basement). Allowance is made for exceeding this to a height of 12 metres on certain gradients. A planning permit cannot be granted to vary this requirement.

42. Any proposal to increase the building height beyond 9 metres must be justified in relation to:

‘Whether the amenity of any adjoining property can be protected;

Whether the site is a large site and/or will consolidate properties;

Whether the design provides architectural excellence;

Whether the proposal provides high quality restoration and adaptive reuse of a heritage building; and Whether the proposal provides a positive contribution to the enhancement of the public realm. ‘

43. Setbacks in the DDO apply which ‘should be met’, most notably;

A 2 storey street wall height with zero setback to the ‘primary’ frontage.

Side and rear setbacks to residential zoned land generally to meet Standard B17 of ‘Rescode’ – except for this precinct as noted below.

Third storeys to be set back from the front boundary a minimum of 5 metres.

44. And specifically in relation to the subject land the following applies for ‘side and rear setbacks’:

‘For land within the Beach Road and Georgiana Street Centre, where land shares a direct abuttal to land within the Neighbourhood Residential Zone, buildings should be set back:

3 metres at ground level.

5 metres at first floor.

10 metres at second floor.

45. Other selected requirements include:

Buildings should orient front facades and main entrances to the ‘primary’ street frontage.

Provide natural ventilation and cross ventilation where possible.

Create continuous laneway connections where land abuts a no through access laneway.

Ensure new developments sympathetic in design to the existing character of the centre and the surrounding residential community.

Architectural detailing and building form with a balance of horizontal and vertical elements.


PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS 46. In reviewing proposed Amendment C126 I have given consideration to the Strategic Assessment

Guidelines for Planning Scheme Amendments. The amendment itself is wide reaching across the Municipality as it relates to Bayside’s many ‘small’ activity centres. These are largely small areas of Commercial 1 and Mixed Use Zone land which apply to groups of older style shops, or areas of commercial development which are surrounded by areas of residential land.

47. In assessing the appropriateness of the proposed amendment, I have given consideration to the following matters:

Is the Planning Scheme Amendment strategically justified?

Are the changes to the Municipal Strategic Statement acceptable?

Is the proposed Design and Development Overlay 17 appropriate?

Does the Amendment respond appropriately to the Ministerial Directions and Planning Practice Notes and the Planning and Environment Act?

I have addressed each of these in turn as follows.

IS THE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT STRATEGICALLY JUSTIFIED? 48. The review of Bayside’s ‘Small Activity Centres’ was initiated as far back as 2005, with the proposed

reference document ‘Bayside Small Activity Centres’ adopted in 2014. Alongside this program, Melbourne’s population growth has been substantial, outstripping the projections contained within high level strategic planning documents such as Melbourne 2030 and the Melbourne at 5 million update.

49. The basis of these wider strategic documents (and by extension the Planning Scheme) has advocated for the agglomeration of uses and higher density development in and around activity centres. Within Bayside this has primarily been focussed around larger activity centres. Opportunities outside these centres have been limited by the widespread use of restrictive residential zones and the inclusion of smaller commercial centres in Design and Development Overlays with similarly low development controls.

50. The extent of recent growth in the broader Melbourne area has made it necessary to reconsider the role of smaller commercial areas for their potential to accommodate more intensive forms of development. Planning Scheme Amendment C126 purports to respond to these changing circumstances by providing guidance for Bayside’s smaller commercial centres.

51. The subject site is identified within the Housing Strategy 2012 as a ‘strategic redevelopment site’ in a ‘minimal change area’. Notwithstanding this it is subject to a two storey (plus attic) mandatory height control (DDO1) which applies broadly across the Municipality. It also applies to the properties in the Neighbourhood Residential Zone 3 immediately to the east. These controls are deficient in realising the potential development opportunities of commercial land as distinct from residential land and residential settings.

52. As such, I consider that a planning scheme amendment that seeks to provide up-to-date direction for commercially zoned land is appropriate and necessary.

53. That being said, I do not consider that the strategic work underpinning Amendment C126 has adequately justified the proposed policy changes and design controls proposed in DDO17 (and other DDOs as relevant).


11

54. The proposed amendment is based on the 2014 Bayside Small Activity Centres Strategy (although I note that an earlier 2013 draft is attached to the amendment). It is proposed that this document becomes a reference document within the Scheme. While further work was undertaken after this Strategy (Built Form Review and an Economic Analysis) it is not proposed that these be included as part of the Planning Scheme Amendment. This structure lacks clarity, particularly where there are differences between the documents and the controls.

55. The subject site comprises part of a small area of Commercial 1 Zone land on Beach Road. The zoning of the land is a historical outcome, rather than (in my opinion) one which reflects a critical land use outcome. This is evidenced by proximity to the Hampton and Sandringham Activity Centres and the absence of any real ‘critical mass’ of commercial uses.

56. The Role for the Centre outlined in the Small Activity Centre Strategy 2014 for Small Commercial Activity Centre – Mixed Use (and in proposed Clause 21.11-10) is ‘Small commercial areas comprising services, offices and limited retail uses, but lacking a convenience retail function’.

57. The corresponding vision for the future use and development for these Centres is that they:

‘….will provide office/business accommodation and specialised retail services. The Commercial role of these centres is valued and supported as is the provision of local convenience services that support these office/businesses.

Active ground floor frontages help to create a safe and attractive pedestrian environment, whilst shop top housing in keeping with the surrounding residential context is encouraged and provides activity and passive surveillance for the centre.’

58. In the case of the Beach Road and Georgiana Street Centre the basis of the classification as a ‘Small Commercial Activity Centre – Mixed Use’ is a broad description of remnant commercial uses which coexist but share little relationship to one another. I note that page 24 of the Draft Strategy 2013 indicates that centres with 2 shops or less previously included in the strategy were removed from the classification of ‘centre’. The subject site is one of only four properties within the ‘Centre’ which comprises a service station, marine and boating supply tenancies (the subject land), a small office, a kite surfing retailer and a first floor fitness studio. Realistically I question the need or real likelihood of the provision of office/business accommodation and specialised retail services in this location.

59. This potential for alternative uses was acknowledged in the 2017 Economic Analysis prepared by SGS Consultants which accompanied the re-exhibited amendment (but is not proposed to be a reference document). At page 25 the report indicates that should existing marine based businesses relocate ‘there would be limited economic justification of expanding the centre and Council could entertain alternative uses on site, such as residential.‘

60. As such I have a concern that the elevation of the Centre to a particular ‘category’ with a vision envisages outcomes that are unnecessary, not strategically justified and potentially difficult to achieve. Furthermore, the aspirations may be used to ‘shut out’ more realistic and useful development opportunities. Put simply I consider the attempt to classify and define future roles for ‘centres’ of this type puts too much weight on their urban role, potentially to the detriment of achieving the overarching strategic development opportunity.

61. On the other hand this commercial legacy and main road location has given rise to a built form context which supports buildings of a more robust nature, allowing development that takes best advantage of its location and delivers more intensive development outcomes. Inclusion of policy statements which prescribe active frontages and commercial land uses might serve to frustrate outcomes which are otherwise entirely appropriate with the zone and surrounding site context.

62. To this end I consider the proposed DDO17 is overly prescriptive and erodes the real opportunity provided by the site context. This is in concert with the absence of no real justification around the height controls which continue to be mandatory and which are of little strategic benefit over and above the surrounding residential zones.


63. The 2017 review by ‘Echelon Planning’ indicates that for the Beach Road and Georgiana Street Centre the height of two storeys should be maintained. Further, it states at page 24 ‘continue to apply DDO17 (2 storeys discretionary, 3 stories mandatory). It is noted that no opportunities for 3 storey development have been identified in this review.’

64. I cannot find the basis for this statement, or testing of alternative scenarios and consider that it precludes a proper analysis of potential future development outcomes. I have addressed this further in relation to proposed DDO17 and the policy revisions below.

65. In summary, while I consider that the Smaller Commercial Centres Review may have a role to play for other commercial areas throughout Bayside, I do not consider that the controls and policy provisions proposed for this site are adequately justified or appropriate.

ARE THE PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE MUNICIPAL STRATEGIC STATEMENT ACCEPTABLE? 66. Planning Scheme Amendment C126 includes changes to Clauses 21.02, 21.06, 21.07 and 21.11 of

the Municipal Strategic Statement. I have addressed above the broad strategic issues of Amendment C126 as it relates to the subject land. I have additional concerns with the drafting of the changes to the Planning Scheme (with a specific focus on this site) as follows:

Small Commercial Centre – Mixed Use

67. I do not support the classification of the commercial area for the reasons I have identified above.

Shop Top Housing

68. The term ‘shop top housing’ is used in the 2012 Bayside Housing Strategy and the 2014 Bayside Small Activity Centres Strategy and has followed though into the amendment itself within Clauses 21.02 (P4) and 21.11 (P28). This term does not have a definition within the Planning Scheme. It is outmoded in the context of contemporary apartment development and does not adequately convey the development potential of these strategic redevelopment sites.

69. Further, the Vision at Clause 21.11-10 for ‘shop top housing in keeping with the surrounding residential context…’, is a non-sensical statement.

Minimal Growth

70. Clause 21.02 states that ‘Small Commercial Activity Centres and the remainder of the established residential areas within the municipality, and those areas identified as Minimal Residential Growth Areas, will experience minimal change and maintain their existing low density character.’

71. The Residential Strategic Framework Plan shows the locality as ‘strategic redevelopment site – minimal residential growth’ (‘Residential Strategic Framework Plan’). There is a fundamental mismatch between the opportunities presented by commercial areas to provide a different character to surrounding residential areas and the policy descriptions and proposed DDO17. I have difficulty with the way in which this is presently expressed within the MSS. As such I do not support this statement and the treatment of residential areas and commercial areas as essentially the same.

Emphasis on commercial floorspace

72. Clause 21.07 (P1) includes a key issue which states that ‘the role and viability of activity centres will be strengthened by residential development, however it is important to ensure this residential development does not occur at the expense of commercial activities’.

73. This is continued to the strategies at Clause 21.07-1, which indicate for Small Commercial Activity Centres to ‘encourage the provision of local commercial and retail space for small business, specialist retail and local services.’ Similarly, Clause 21.11-9 includes objectives to ‘encourage uses which provide for community interaction at a local level’ and to ‘encourage the specialist marine based role of the Beach Road and Georgiana Street Centre’.


13

74. With respect to this policy direction, I consider that the statement regarding ‘community interaction’ is not clear and the direction regarding the ‘specialist marine based role’ of the Centre places too much emphasis on a specific commercial use that is unable to be influenced by the planning context.

75. Commercial and residential uses each play a role in providing a mix of uses as envisaged by policy. The heightened emphasis on active use and commercial floor space distorts the real opportunities of this area which I consider should remain more open, for the reasons I have highlighted in relation to policy considerations above.

Other matters

76. Other matters which require some resolution are as follows:

Clause 21.02 (P1/2) - includes a paragraph at the end of page 1/ start of page 2 which is repeated.

Clause 21.06 (P4) – includes an existing strategy to ‘maintain the spacious, low scale landscaped character of residential precincts, with residential buildings set back within vegetated gardens and streetscapes’. This strategy relates to activity centres, within which this character is not expected or appropriate. It should be made clear that this relates to adjacent areas, or alternatively this statement should be deleted.

IS THE PROPOSED DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY ACCEPTABLE? 77. As a starting point, I note that the existing Design and Development Overlay 1 which applies to the

subject site was applied to the site and surrounding area, prior to the introduction of the New Format Planning Scheme in 2000 (and has been subsequently revised).

78. The schedule was broadly applied along ‘coastal locations’ throughout the Bayside Municipality and seeks (among other things) ‘to preserve the existing character and amenity of the areas as low rise (up to two storeys) suburban areas with a strong garden character’. Presently it applies to the commercially zoned land which includes the subject site, as well as to the surrounding residential zoned land.

79. While I do not take issue with the general design objectives of DDO1 I consider that the mandatory two storey (plus attic) height control is unnecessary in this context. Since the time these blanket controls were imposed Melbourne has seen (and continues to see), substantial population growth. This has necessitated the reconsideration of forms of development, models of housing and planning controls which make provision for additional development opportunities. Given the particular context of the subject site on a main road, in a commercial area I support the removal of DDO1.

80. It is proposed that Schedule 17 to the Design and Development Overlay be imposed to manage future development within this ‘centre’. While this is in principle an appropriate outcome, it is important that the content of the control is thoroughly tested and justified. In my opinion the DDO17 will remain highly restrictive and will limit true redevelopment opportunities.

81. The proposition to ‘manage the increased pressure for higher buildings along the coast’ (an objective from DDO1), does not in my view need to be controlled to the extent of imposing the proposed mandatory three storey overall height requirement. I have addressed this further below.

82. The design objectives of DDO17 include ‘To ensure that new development respects the urban form and low rise character envisaged for the activity centre’. This is to be read in the context of the identification of the land in the local policy framework as a ‘strategic redevelopment site’. It is unclear whether it refers to existing or preferred character.

83. Ultimately, areas such as this which have the capacity for growth and change should reasonably be able to aspire to a new character which reflects their opportunity and context. The existing building types have little design or character merit, and my expectation is that in time they will all be replaced with new buildings which present the opportunity to provide new housing and commercial uses and contribute more positively to this context.


84. I have been provided with plans prepared by Ascui and Co on behalf of the land owner depicting a potential three storey residential redevelopment of the land. I have made reference to these plans in my assessment of the Amendment only as a means of ‘benchmarking’ the requirements of the proposed DDO. At a fundamental level I consider that this development demonstrates that (at least) a three storey development can be readily accommodated on this site.

85. I address the more specific components of DDO17 following.

Buildings and Works

86. As previously identified, I do not consider that the 11 metre (and 3 storey) mandatory height limit has been properly justified for this site context. The particular construct of DDO17 requires a permit to attain this height subject to certain justifications, with the default maximum being 9 metres and 2 storeys.

87. Putting aside the suitability of the mandatory height, my concern is that the control will be interpreted as allowing three storeys, only by exception. It is not clear whether the ‘justifications’ are all required to be met, or provide guidance as to the exercise of this discretion only. In particular the dot point which state ‘whether the proposal provides a positive contribution to the enhancement of the public realm’ may be interpreted as requiring a ‘contribution’ over and above simply a thoughtfully designed architectural response in order to achieve a three storey height.

88. This approach would not be warranted in my view given that the site is capable of supporting buildings that are clearly three storeys in height and potentially more. Individually the sites within this locality offer good opportunities for redevelopment which are to be preferred, and are distinct from surrounding residential areas. The suitability of individual (or indeed consolidated) site outcomes should be tested by design based performance standards that encourage contemporary and high quality architectural responses. A simple prohibition on height beyond essentially a traditional two storey domestic scale (and sometimes three storeys) is not in my view warranted, nor does it enable the broader policy objectives to be achieved.

89. I question also the need to express heights in both metres and storeys and also the adequacy of the overall height. In a scenario where three storeys of commercial development was provided (albeit this may be unlikely for the reasons I have identified regarding the policy aspirations of the centre) I expect that it would exceed 11 metres in height. In the plans prepared by Ascui and Co I note that the overall height is 11.4 metres in some locations, exceeding the proposed mandatory requirement. There is also no direction for whether building services or architectural features can exceed these heights which could conservatively be interpreted as prohibited.

90. A ‘relaxing’ of the proposed requirements would still require proposals to demonstrate their suitability when combined with specific guidance for the context. Notably, DDO17 does not presently include any statements or guidance which relate to the foreshore context. With a mandatory height of three storeys, that may well be acceptable, but might need to be revisited if greater heights were contemplated.

91. With respect to the tests for greater height detailed in the proposed control, I consider that:

The ‘protection’ of adjoining residential properties is a subjective and open ended ‘test’. I have made further comments in relation to the proposed side and rear setbacks below. At a commercial/ residential interface the balance between development expectations and amenity protection needs to be set to better balance the two strategic imperatives.

I consider the size of the subject site to be an appropriate consideration for additional height. For example this site has a wide main road frontage, is larger than surrounding residential properties and those smaller commercial properties allowing higher elements to be contained within the site, or expressed away from residential uses. The opportunities for renewal may also present some prospect of consolidation, and facilitating sites of sufficient dimensions to achieve greater heights, or varied heights in response to their context.

I do not consider design excellence to be a reason for the allowance of greater height. All developments should be seeking to achieve design excellence.


15

The dot point relating to heritage outcomes does not relate to this particular context.

Whether the development makes a positive contribution to the public realm could be a reason to allow greater height. However the control does not outline what types of positive contribution would be worthy of allowance for increased height. Further, as I have identified above this may be utilised to deny entirely acceptable development outcomes which are three storeys.

92. In addition to the above, I note that it is unclear whether a development is required to achieve all, some, or only one of the benefits in order to exceed two storeys.

Setbacks

93. Under Section 2.0 ‘Buildings and works’ the setback requirement indicates that ‘A building should achieve a 2 storey street wall height with zero setback to the primary street frontage.’ Where a third storey is proposed above this it ‘should be recessed or setback from the front boundary of the site a minimum of 5 metres’.

94. In this main road context, on land identified as part of a ‘strategic redevelopment site’ I consider that three storey building (and potentially more) could be comfortably expressed. Further, the requirement for a five metre setback above a two storey street wall is also unnecessarily generous.

95. Given the absence of a continuous street wall and active frontage (ie ‘a main street’) I consider that the set back of buildings from the street frontage would be entirely acceptable. While the setback ‘requirements’ are discretionary, I have a concern that along with the zoning and the desire to ‘increase’ and ‘support’ commercial use in this centre, there would be a tendency to apply them as mandatory.

96. The plans prepared by Ascui and Co show a landscaped front setback along the Beach Road frontage with slightly elevated ground floor residences and terraces above this. I consider this approach would be acceptable to the surrounding context but it is evidence of a development outcome that does not include a two storey street wall.

97. Within DDO17 generally ‘side and rear setbacks’ from residentially zoned properties are required to be provided in accordance with Standard B17 of Rescode. The Commercial1 Zone already requires ‘consideration’ of Clause 55, and I consider that this is an adequate way of assessing this interface. The focus on setbacks from residential zones, leads to an absence of consideration of how commercial sites relate to one another in terms of equitable development opportunities.

98. In the case of the subject land and the Beach Road and Georgiana Street area the requirement for properties with a direct abuttal to the Neighbourhood Residential Zone is increased to require:




99. It is unclear why these requirements (which are in my view significant) would apply within a Commercial Zone context where it is sought to provide increased opportunities for redevelopment. Further they impose setbacks that are similar to those which apply within the Neighbourhood Residential Zone Bayside Schedule 3, and more significant than the standard Rescode setbacks (B17) applicable within residential zones generally.


Design Detail

100. I consider the design detail section of the schedule to be generally cumbersome and I have made a series of observations to address this section as follows:

Policy Assessment

‘Provide active street frontages at ground level through:

Orienting the front façade of a building and the main entrance to the face of the primary street frontage.

Applying clear glazing to windows and entrances, particularly along the primary street frontage.

Providing passive surveillance from upper floors to the public realm, including laneways, footpaths and open space.

The first dot point is awkwardly worded. The deletion of the words ‘face of the’ makes the statement clearer.

The third dot point should exist separately rather than as a sub-category of “active street frontages at ground level”. This dot point deals with upper levels and passive surveillance of open space (which may not be a street frontage).

These guidelines in and of themselves could be satisfied by including visible habitable spaces within the ground floor level of buildings – as demonstrated in the plans prepared by Ascui and Co. However when read in concert with the policy statements and vision for the centre, this is not the manner in which I believe ‘active’ frontages with clear glazing will be interpreted.

‘Building massing and detail should demarcate key street corners and key street view lines through the following techniques:

Variations in parapet detail;

Suitable mix of complementary colours and materials;

Maintaining activation of ground floor;

Passive surveillance opportunities from upper floors;

Maintaining human scale proportions;

Incorporating focal points at building entrances;

Screening ancillary structures from public view;

Wrapping design treatments around building corners.

The purpose of these policy provision is, purportedly, to ‘demarcate key street corners and key street views.

In my view, these are all generalised urban design requirements that do not specifically relate to key street corners or key street views. They are also items that are addressed elsewhere within the design detail guidelines or in the Planning Scheme generally.

‘Retain and reinforce the pattern and rhythm of narrow building frontages within the streetscape and maintain human scale proportions.’

This is not a context where there is necessarily a pattern of narrow building frontages as evidenced by existing development and subdivision.

A preferred future character should be outlined, rather than simply referencing an existing character that may be of little or no value.


17

‘Distinguish key street corners and key street view lines as identified in the urban form concept plans through building massing and design.’

This policy provision is generally acceptable, although its relationship to the second dot point is unclear.

‘Acknowledge the parapets and roof forms of existing buildings on adjacent lots.’

I do not consider there is any merit in new buildings ‘acknowledging’ parapets and roof forms of existing buildings in areas which are expected to be redeveloped. This should be deleted.

‘Maximise views and connections to nearby public open space.’

This statement seems unnecessary and creates uncertainty. It does not not state who views are to be maximised for.

‘Maximise access to natural light, including orienting offices, habitable room windows and balconies to the northerly aspect wherever possible.’

While this is generally acceptable, I consider there to be a missed opportunity to provide clear direction on equitable development within these areas.

‘Provide natural ventilation, including cross ventilation where possible.’ This is acceptable.

‘Include external shading of windows where possible.’ This is acceptable.

‘Locate vehicle access to avoid or minimise disruption of pedestrian movement along a street by locating vehicle access to a property from a laneway or secondary street frontage.’

Not all sites have a secondary access point. This needs to be acknowledged.

‘Car parking should be located within a basement level at the rear of the building, or otherwise screened from view.’

Acceptable.

‘Create continuous laneway connections where land abuts a no-through access laneway.’

The location of these connections needs to be identified on the concept plans and this requirements needs to reference these locations.

‘Ensure new developments sympathetic in their design to the existing character of the centre and the surrounding residential community.’

I also do not consider there is a need for development in a commercial zone on a main road to be sympathetic to the character of the ‘surrounding residential community’.

This statement is unclear and it would be better to acknowledge that in commercial centres or on strategic redevelopment sites a different and contemporary character of high quality is encouraged.

‘Architectural detailing and building form should provide for a balance of horizontal and vertical elements.’

This should be deleted.


‘Utilise laneways as a physical break from future developments to adjoining residential areas.’

This statement is unnecessary and should be deleted as the presence of laneways (or not) is part of site context rather than an aspiration of design detail.

Decision Guidelines

101. I consider that the decision guidelines should be updated in the following ways:

Decision Guideline Assessment

‘Whether the layout, siting and design of new development is consistent with the urban form concept plan for the activity centre.’

This is acceptable.

‘Whether the development meets the design objectives and design detail. Requirements of this schedule.’

While this is generally acceptable, it is unclear why all sections of the overlay are referenced in the decision guidelines except the buildings and works section.

The impact of the use or development on any existing dwelling in a residential zone on an adjacent lot, including parking, traffic or building form.

The Design and Development Overlay does not deal with use and nor does it consider matters of traffic and car parking. These are properly considered elsewhere in the Planning Scheme.

Whether the proposal will detrimentally affect adjacent land within a Heritage Overlay.

This repeats the general decision guidelines of Clause 65 and is unnecessary.

Whether the development provides the transitional setbacks to nearby sensitive uses.

This is poorly worded and unnecessary given the third decision guideline.

Whether the development creates the new pedestrian thoroughfares outlined in the urban form concept plans.

This is acceptable.

Whether the development prevents the ability to extend laneways serving the activity centre.

As above, this should only apply where a concept plan has identified a preferred location for an extended laneway and could be combined with the previous decision guideline.

102. I further note that there are matters addressed through the policy for which decision guidelines are not provided, namely environmentally sustainable design and active frontages.

103. With the deletion of DDO1 from the land, there are now also no considerations relating to the site’s coastal context, however these would only really be of relevance for buildings of 3 storeys or more in height.


19

CONCLUSION 104. A summary of my opinions with respect to Amendment C126 as it applies to the subject land is as

follows:

I support the removal of the existing Design and Development Overlay 1 and the addition of a new Design and Development Overlay which allows a more flexible approach to site redevelopment.

However, I consider that the building height and design requirements of Design and Development Overlay Schedule 17 are overly prescriptive and not appropriately justified.

The continued emphasis around the existing Commercial 1 Zone land at Georgiana Street and Beach Road as a ‘Centre’ is not strategically justified, potentially creating uncertainty for otherwise appropriate land use and development outcomes.

The proposed height of two storeys (discretionary) and three storeys (mandatory) is not justified and does not adequately recognise the strategic opportunities of the land.

The proposed modifications to the Municipal Strategic Statement and drafting of the DDO17 are poor and should be carefully reviewed.

105. I declare that I have made all the enquiries that I believe are desirable and that no matters of significance which I regard as relevant have, to my knowledge, been withheld from the Panel.

APPENDICES


APPENDIX A STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE


APPENDICES

Name and Address Stuart Andrew McGurn Director Urbis Pty Ltd Level 12, 120 Collins Street MELBOURNE VIC 3000

Qualifications Bachelor of Arts 1984 Graduate Diploma Urban Planning 1986

Professional Experience Current Position: Director, Urbis Pty Ltd 2010-2015: Partner, Environmental Resources Management Australia Pty Ltd 1998 – 2010: Director, Fulcrum Town Planners Pty Ltd 1986 – 1998: Town Planner in local government – Cities of Broadmeadows and

Melbourne, including role as Principal Planner – City of Melbourne

Area of Expertise Statutory planning for local and state government on a range of residential, commercial and industrial

issues. Consulting advice to a wide range of commercial and local government clients addressing the

management of urban development and the statutory planning process. Extensive planning advice to architects, project managers and other professionals involved in a range of

projects and the built form and visual impact issues associated with the development of land.

Expertise to Prepare this Report Professional qualifications and expertise in town planning both in the public and private sectors.

Instructions which defined the Scope of the Report My instructions required me to undertake a town planning assessment of Planning Scheme Amendment C126 to the Bayside Planning Scheme. In so doing, I have relied upon those matters set down below.

APPENDICES


Facts, Matters and Assumptions Relied Upon I have relied upon the following in the preparation of this report:

Bayside Planning Scheme

C126 Amendment materials as exhibited

Submissions made to the exhibited material

Council officer reports regarding the Amendment

Ministerial Directions and Planning Practice Notes including Practice Note 46 ‘Strategic Assessment Guidelines for Preparing and Evaluating Planning Scheme Amendments’

Documents Taken into Account Relevant documents are described above.

Identity of Persons Undertaking the Work Stuart McGurn assisted by Christina McRae, Director.

Summary of Opinions A summary of my opinions in relation to this matter is included at the conclusion of my evidence. I have made all the inquiries that I believe are desirable and appropriate and no matters of significance which I regard as relevant have to my knowledge been withheld from the Panel. Stuart McGurn Urbis Pty Ltd


APPENDICES

APPENDIX B PROPOSED DDO17 (PANEL VERSION NOVEMBER 2018)

BAYSIDE PLANNING SCHEME

OVERLAYS - CLAUSE 43.02 - SCHEDULE 17 PAGE 1 OF 5

SCHEDULE 17 TO CLAUSE 43.02 DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY

Shown on the planning scheme map as DDO17.

COASTAL SMALL NEIGHBOURHOOD ACTIVITY CENTRES AND SMALL COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY CENTRES

1.0 Design objectives

2.0 To ensure that new development is consistent with the relevant urban form concept plan at

clause 7.0 of this schedule.

To ensure that new development respects the urban form and low rise character envisaged

for the activity centre.

To ensure that new development is designed to provide an appropriate transition to and

interface with adjoining and nearby residential development.

To ensure that new development contributes to safe and active streets with prioritised

pedestrian environments.

To ensure that environmentally sustainable design is incorporated into new development.

2.0 Buildings and works

Permit not required

A permit is not required for the construction of:

The installation of an automatic teller machine.

An alteration to an existing building façade provided:

The alteration does not include the installation of an external roller shutter.

At least 80 per cent of the building façade at ground floor level is maintained

as an entry window with clear glazing.

An awning that projects over a road if it is authorised by the relevant public land

manager.

Building height

A building should not exceed 9 metres above natural ground level and should be no more

than 2 storeys (excluding basement). Building height may extend to 10 metres where the

slope of the natural ground level at any cross section of the site of the building wider than

8.0 metres is 2.5 degrees or more.

Any proposal to increase the building height beyond 9 metres be justified in relation to:

Whether the amenity of any adjoining property can be protected;

Whether the site is a large site and/or will consolidate properties;

Whether the design provides architectural excellence;

Whether the proposal provides high quality restoration and adaptive reuse of a

heritage building; and

Whether the proposal provides a positive contribution to the enhancement of the

public realm.

A building must not exceed 11 metres above natural ground level and must be no more

than 3 storeys (excluding basement). Building height may extend to 12 metres where the

slope of the natural ground level at any cross section of the site of the building wider than

8.0 metres is 2.5 degrees or more. A planning permit cannot be granted to vary this

requirement.

--/--/20-- Proposed C126

--/--/20-- Proposed C126

--/--/20-- Proposed C126



The height of buildings within the Special Building Overlay is to be measured from the

applicable flood level (to Australian Height Datum) for the site as advised by the floodplain

management authority.

Setbacks

Primary street frontage

A building should achieve a 2 storey street wall height with zero setback to the primary

street frontage.

Setbacks from a side or rear boundary

Side and rear setbacks to residential zoned land should be in accordance with the Standard

B17 at Clause 55.04-1 except where a street wall height for a secondary street is specified

in the urban form concept plan.

Where a side or rear boundary is separated from a boundary of a property in a Residential

Zone by a laneway, the laneway width can form part of the setback distance at ground floor

level.

Land within the South Road and Esplanade Avenue Centre which adjoins the heritage

building at 2-6 Esplanade must be designed to provide appropriate setbacks to heritage

buildings.

Where a third storey is proposed it should be recessed or set back from the front boundary

of the site a minimum of 5 metres.

For land within the Beach Road and Georgiana Street Centre, where land shares a direct

abuttal to land within the Neighbourhood Residential Zone, buildings should be set back:




Design detail

A building should be designed to:

Provide active street frontages at ground level through:

Orienting the front façade of a building and the main entrance to the face

of the primary street frontage.

Applying clear glazing to windows and entrances, particularly along the

primary street frontage.

Providing passive surveillance from upper floors to the public realm,

including laneways, footpaths and open space.

Building massing and detail should demarcate key street corners and key street view

lines through the following techniques:

Variations in parapet detail;

Suitable mix of complementary colours and materials;

Maintaining activation of ground floor;

Passive surveillance opportunities from upper floors;

Maintaining human scale proportions;

Incorporating focal points at building entrances;

Screening ancillary structures from public view;

Wrapping design treatments around building corners.

Retain and reinforce the pattern and rhythm of narrow building frontages within

the streetscape and maintain human scale proportions.

Distinguish key street corners and key street view lines as identified in the urban

form concept plans through building massing and design.



Acknowledge the parapets and roof forms of existing buildings on adjacent lots.

Maximise views and connections to nearby public open space.

Maximise access to natural light, including orienting offices, habitable room

windows and balconies to the northerly aspect where possible.

Provide natural ventilation, including cross ventilation where possible.

Include external shading of windows where possible.

Locate vehicle access to avoid or minimise disruption of pedestrian movement

along a street by locating vehicle access to a property from a laneway or

secondary street frontage.

Car parking should be located within a basement level at the rear of the building,

or otherwise screened from view.

Create continuous laneway connections where land abuts a no-through access

laneway.

Ensure new developments sympathetic in their design to the existing character of

the centre and the surrounding residential community.

Architectural detailing and building form should provide for a balance of horizontal

and vertical elements.

Utilise laneways as a physical break from future developments to adjoining

residential areas.

3.0 Subdivision

None specified.

4.0 Advertising signs

None specified.

5.0 Application requirements

None specified.

6.0 Decision guidelines

Before deciding on an application the responsible authority must consider, in addition to

the decision guidelines elsewhere in the scheme which must be considered, as appropriate:

Whether the layout, siting and design of new development is consistent with the

urban form concept plan for the activity centre.

Whether the development meets the design objectives and design detail

requirements of this schedule.

The impact of the use or development on any existing dwelling in a residential

zone on an adjacent lot, including parking, traffic or building form.

Whether the proposal will detrimentally affect adjacent land within a Heritage

Overlay.

Whether the development provides the transitional setbacks to nearby residential

or sensitive uses.

Whether the development creates the new pedestrian thoroughfares outlined in the

urban form concept plans.

Whether the development prevents the ability to extend laneways serving the

activity centre.

--/--/20-- Proposed C126

--/--/20-- Proposed C126

--/--/20-- Proposed C126

--/--/20-- Proposed C126



7.0 Urban form concept plans

Beach Road and Georgiana Street Centre

Esplanade and Grosvenor Street Centre

--/--/20-- Proposed C126



Keys Street Centre

South Road and Esplanade Avenue Centre