planning and environment panel report · knox planning scheme amendments c131 and c133 panel report...

Planning and Environment Act 1987

Panel Report Knox Planning Scheme

Amendments C131 and C133

3 November 2014

Planning and Environment Act 1987

Panel Report pursuant to Section 25 of the Act

Knox Planning Scheme Amendments C131 and C133

Trevor McCullough, Chair Michael Kirsch, Member

Knox Planning Scheme Amendments C131 and C133 Panel Report 3 November 2014

Contents

Page

Executive Summary .............................................................................................................. i

1 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 1 1.1 The Amendment Process ........................................................................................ 1 1.2 The Panel Process .................................................................................................... 1

2 Amendments Description ........................................................................................... 5 2.1 Amendment C131 .................................................................................................... 5 2.2 Amendment C133 .................................................................................................. 12

3 Identification of Issues .............................................................................................. 13 3.1 Summary of issues raised in submissions ............................................................. 13 3.2 Issues dealt with in this Report ............................................................................. 14

4 Strategic Planning Context ........................................................................................ 15 4.1 Policy framework ................................................................................................... 15 4.2 Planning scheme provisions .................................................................................. 23 4.3 Other planning strategies ...................................................................................... 25 4.4 Planning Scheme Amendments ............................................................................ 27 4.5 Ministerial Directions ............................................................................................ 28 4.6 Practice and Advisory Notes .................................................................................. 29 4.7 Strategic Assessment ............................................................................................. 29

5 Amendment C131 Issues ........................................................................................... 30 5.1 Strategic issues ...................................................................................................... 30 5.3 Zone schedule issues ............................................................................................. 44 5.4 The zoning of specific sites .................................................................................... 60 5.5 Strategic sites ........................................................................................................ 70 5.6 Rowville Plan issues ............................................................................................... 78 5.7 Other issues raised in submissions ........................................................................ 84 5.8 The Mountain Gate Shopping Centre ................................................................... 86 5.9 Other components of Amendment C131 .............................................................. 86

6 Amendment C133 Issues ........................................................................................... 89 6.1 Background ............................................................................................................ 89 6.2 Strategic justification ............................................................................................. 89 6.3 Clause 22.06 .......................................................................................................... 91 6.4 DDO7 ..................................................................................................................... 93 6.5 Review of the Boronia Structure Plan ................................................................... 94 6.6 Recommendations ................................................................................................ 95


Appendix A List of Submitters

Appendix B Document List

Appendix C Amendment C131 Council’s proposed post exhibition changes

Appendix D Panel preferred DDO12

Appendix E Proposed amendments to Figure 1 of Clause 22.06

List of Tables

Page

Table 1 Parties to the Panel Hearing ................................................................................... 3

Table 2 Application of new residential zones (Amendment C131 Explanatory Report) ................................................................................................ 6

Table 3 Summary of proposed height controls ................................................................ 48

Table 4 Summary of Open Space requirements ............................................................... 53

Table 5 Summary of Landscaping requirements .............................................................. 57

Table 6 Proposed Canopy Tree requirements .................................................................. 58

Table 7 Strategic Sites (adopted from Council submission to Panel Hearing) ................................................................................................................. 70

Table 8 Summary of Panel response to exhibited components of Amendment C131 ................................................................................................. 87

List of Figures

Page

Figure 1 Housing Framework Plan from exhibited Clause 21.05 Housing .......................... 8

Figure 2 Strategic Sites identified in the Draft Knox Housing Strategy 2013 ..................... 9

Figure 3 Rowville Activity Centre (from proposed Clause 22.13) ..................................... 11

Figure 4 Knox Housing Strategic Framework ..................................................................... 19

Figure 5 Plan to Clause 22.01 ............................................................................................. 21

Figure 6 Map 33 Eastern Subregion, Plan Melbourne ....................................................... 26


List of Abbreviations

B3Z Business 3 Zone

BAC Bayswater Activity Centre

C2Z Commercial 2 Zone

DDO Design and Development Overlay

DPO Development Plan Overlay

DSE Department of Sustainability and Environment

DTPLI Department of Transport, Planning and Local Infrastructure

ESO Environmental Significance Overlay

GRZ General Residential Zone

KHS Knox Housing Strategy

LDRZ Low Density Residential Zone

LPP Local Planning Policy

LPPF Local Planning Policy Framework

MAC Major Activity Centre

MSS Municipal Strategic Statement

MUZ Mixed Use Zone

NAC Neighbourhood Activity Centre

NRZ Neighbourhood Residential Zone

PN Practice Note

PPTN Principal Public Transport Network

R1Z Residential 1 Zone

R3Z Residential 3 Zone

RDG Residential Design Guidelines

RGZ Residential Growth Zone

RZSAC Residential Zones Standing Advisory Committee

SLO Significant Landscape Overlay

SPPF State Planning Policy Framework

UGB Urban Growth Boundary

VCAT Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal

VPO Vegetation Protection Overlay

VPP Victoria Planning Provisions


Page i

Executive Summary

(i) Summary

Amendment C131 to the Knox Planning Scheme proposes to implement the draft Knox Housing Strategy 2013, draft Residential Design Guidelines and the Rowville Plan 2013 by introducing new residential zone schedules, new and revised overlays and by making a number of other supporting changes to the local planning policy. Amendment C133 proposes to change the planning provisions relating to the Boronia Structure Plan in the local planning policy and related Design and Development Overlay Schedule 7.

Exhibition of Amendments C131 and C133 in February and March 2014 attracted 400 and 19 submissions respectively. Council was unable to resolve all submissions and requested the Minister for Planning to appoint an independent panel to consider submissions and make recommendations in respect to the Amendments. The Panel consists of Trevor McCullough (Chair) and Michael Kirsch. The Panel conducted public hearings over eight days between Tuesday 26 August and Friday 5 September 2014, with a further half day hearing on 6 October 2014, receiving presentations on behalf of 36 submitters.

The submissions raised a wide range of issues, with some submitters supporting the proposed changes to residential planning controls, some saying the controls didn’t go far enough, and others submitting that the controls were overly onerous and would unnecessarily restrict development.

In ‘Knox Neighbourhood Areas’, many submissions raised concerns about controls being too restrictive and the negative impacts on housing affordability.

In ‘Local Living Areas’, the key issues raised by submitters were: maximum building heights should be reduced; and issues regarding the boundaries of the Local Living Areas.

In ‘Bush Suburban Areas’, there were many supporting submissions, but also objecting submissions in relation to proposed mandatory height limits and the proposed mandatory minimum lot size of 500sqm, as well as concerns about the application of the ‘Bush Suburban’ designation in some areas.

Aged care providers raised the need for greater flexibility in controls applying to aged care facilities to enable aging in place; and, in some cases requested different zone controls to apply to specific sites.

A number of submissions related to the Strategic Sites identified in the Knox Housing Strategy, with some supporting submissions, objection to some sites being designated as strategic sites, and concerns about proposed zones for some sites.

In addition, the Panel reviewed a number of submissions that related to specific sites, including:

Responses to the Rowville Structure Plan;

Responses to proposed changes to the Boronia planning provisions; and

Concerns about the application of specific controls to specific sites.

The key issue for the Panel in relation to Amendment C131 was the proposed application of the zones and zone schedules to the residential areas across Knox. The Panel is generally supportive of the approach taken by Council in developing the strategic foundation for the


Page ii

Amendment and applying the zones and schedules. The major thrust of the Amendment is therefore generally supported.

In view of the State significance of the Dandenong Foothills area, the Panel supports the application of the Neighbourhood Residential Zone to that area. The Panel also supports the application of the General Residential Zone (with appropriate schedules) to the majority of the residential areas outside the Dandenong Foothills area. The Panel is not, however, convinced about the appropriateness of applying the Neighbourhood Residential Zone to the ‘Bush Suburban’ areas outside of the Dandenong Foothills area. The Panel is not convinced that Council had demonstrated broad strategic justification and nor has it been demonstrated that the current controls in these areas are failing to deliver the Council’s objectives.

The Panel does not support the widespread adoption of more restrictive mandatory controls where it was not clearly demonstrated how they were justified. In particular, the Panel does not believe the application of lower mandatory height controls (8m) as proposed by Council in the GRZ2 (Knox Neighbourhood) and GRZ3 (Local Living) have been adequately justified, and recommends that the existing (9m) controls be retained. The Panel also does not support the proposed mandatory 7.5m height limit in the NRZ1, and prefers the ‘default’ mandatory height in the Neighbourhood Residential Zone of 8m be adopted.

The Panel has made recommendations with respect to private open space, landscaping and other provisions proposed in the residential zone schedules. Not all of the proposed provisions are supported for the reasons set out in this report.

The Panel has reviewed the submissions made to it in relation to identified Strategic Sites, sites in the Rowville Plan area and other specific sites, and has made a number of recommendations in relation to how each site should be referred to in the local policy and/or the most appropriate zone to apply to the site in question.

The Panel supports Amendment C133 in relation to the Boronia Structure Plan, and supports (subject to some minor changes) the proposed changes to the local policy and the related Design and Development Overlay Schedule 7.


Page iii

(ii) Recommendations

Based on the reasons set out in this Report, the Panel makes the following recommendations.

In relation to Amendment C131:

The Panel recommends that Knox Planning Scheme Amendments C131 and C133be adopted as exhibited subject to the following changes:

1. Apply the General Residential Zone Schedule 2 (including the recommended changes) to the areas proposed for the Neighbourhood Residential Zone Schedule 2.

2. Identify and address any consequential changes resulting from the deletion of the Neighbourhood Residential Zone Schedule 2.

3. Remove the references to Design and Development Overlays and Development Plan Overlays from the Residential Growth Zone Schedule 2 and the General Residential Zone Schedule 4.

4. Prior to adopting Amendment C131, Council discuss the drafting of the residential zone schedules with the Department of Transport, Planning and Local Infrastructure to confirm that the proposed provisions are consistent with the head clauses.

5. Modify Clause 5.0 in the Neighbourhood Residential Zone Schedule 1 to provide for a maximum height of 8m (or 9m where the slope of the natural ground level at any cross section wider than 8m of the site of the building is 2.5 degrees or more) and exemptions for ‘architectural features to the satisfaction of the responsible authority’, and ‘residential aged care facilities’.

6. Modify Clause 3.0 in the General Residential Zone Schedule 2 to provide for a maximum height of 9m (or 10m where the slope of the natural ground level at any cross section wider than 8m of the site of the building is 2.5 degrees or more) consistent with the existing General Residential Zone 2.

7. Modify Clause 3.0 in the General Residential Zone Schedule 3 to provide for a maximum height of 9m (or 10m where the slope of the natural ground level at any cross section wider than 8m of the site of the building is 2.5 degrees or more) consistent with the existing General Residential Zone Schedule 2.

8. Modify Clause 3.0 (Requirements of Clause 54 and Clause 55) in the exhibited Neighbourhood Residential Zone Schedule 1 to include the ‘Private open space’ ‘Requirements’ of the existing General Residential Zone Schedule 2.

9. Modify Clause 2.0 (Requirements of Clause 54 and Clause 55) in the exhibited General Residential Zone Schedule 2 to include the ‘Private open space’ ‘Requirements’ of the existing General Residential Zone Schedule 2.

10. Modify Clause 2.0 (Requirements of Clause 54 and Clause 55) relating to Standard B13 (Landscaping) in the exhibited General Residential Zone Schedules 2, 3 and 4 to exclude the width of one driveway from the calculation of the number of canopy trees in the front setback.

11. Modify Clause 1.0 (Requirements of Clause 54 and Clause 55) relating to Standard B13 (Landscaping) in the exhibited Residential Growth Zone Schedules 1, 2 and 3 to


Page iv

exclude the width of one driveway from the calculation of the number of canopy trees in the front setback.

12. Review the workability and necessity for the variations to Clause 55 Standard 18 in the relevant residential zone schedules once they have been in operation and their performance has been monitored.

13. Apply the Mixed Use Zone to 343 and 355‐357 Stud Road Wantirna South.

14. Make reference to Strategic Sites 1 and 2 in both the Housing Framework Plan in Clause 21.05 and the Economic Framework Plan in Clause 21.07.

15. Remove the words ‘Private dwellings are not supported in this location’ in relation to Strategic Sites 1 and 2 from both the Knox Housing Strategy and the Economic Framework Plan in Clause 21.07.

16. Apply the General Residential Zone Schedule 1 to Strategic Sites 1 and 2.

17. Change all references to ‘Strategic Sites’ in the Municipal Strategic Statement to ‘Strategic Investigation Sites’.

18. Identify the Waverley Golf Course and adjoining sites as a Strategic Investigation Site in Clause 21.05 but with a different notation on the Housing Framework Plan to read: ‘Review UGB and future development options’.

19. Make changes to the Knox Housing Strategy and other reference documents as required to ensure consistency with the final form of the planning provisions.

20. Adopt the revised Design and Development Overlay Schedule 12 as amended post‐exhibition as shown in Appendix D to this report.

21. Delete the references to discouraging dwelling types in Clause 22.07


25. Make other relevant necessary changes to the wording of Clauses 21 and 22, zone schedules, overlay schedules and maps as may be required to ensure consistency with the final form of the Amendment.

In relation to Amendment C133:

The Panel recommends that Knox Planning Scheme Amendments C131 and C133be adopted as exhibited subject to the following changes:

26. Amend Figure 1 of Clause 22.06 as shown in Appendix E of this panel report;

27. Delete reference to ‘Map 1’ in the relevant dot point in Clause 22.06.2 by deleting the words ‘as shown at Map 1 of this clause’ from the end of the dot point;.

28. Amend the last (newly added) dot point under Clause 1 Design Objectives of DDO7 to read ‘…building heights as shown at Map 1 of this schedule.’


Page 1 of 128

1 Introduction

1.1 The Amendment Process

1.1.1 Amendment C131

Amendment C131 was prepared by the Knox City Council as Planning Authority. As exhibited, the Amendment proposes to implement the draft Knox Housing Strategy 2013 (KHS), draft Residential Design Guidelines (RDG) and the Rowville Plan 2013.

The Amendment was authorised by the Department of Transport, Planning and Local Infrastructure (DTPLI) on 14 January 2014. The letter of authorisation noted that ‘mandatory height controls should only be applied in exceptional circumstances’ and suggested that Council review the wording or the residential zone schedule prior to exhibition.

The Amendment was placed on public exhibition during February and March 2014, and commenced with a municipal wide mail out to approximately 77,000 owners/occupiers. In addition, Council held 18 information sessions across all of the suburbs in the Municipality.

The Amendment attracted 400 submissions and, at its meeting of 24 June 2014, Council resolved to refer the submissions to a Panel.

Following its consideration of submissions, Council resolved to make a number of changes to the exhibited Amendment.


Amendment C133 was prepared by the Knox City Council as Planning Authority. As exhibited, the Amendment proposes to change the planning provisions relating to the Boronia Structure Plan.

The Amendment did not require authorisation.

The Amendment was placed on public exhibition during February and March 2014, and commenced with a mail out to all owners and occupiers in the Boronia Activity Centre.

The Amendment attracted 19 submissions.

At its meeting of 24 June 2014, Council resolved to refer the submissions to a Panel.

Following its consideration of submissions, Council resolved to make a number of changes to the exhibited Amendment.

1.2 The Panel Process

1.2.1 The Panel Hearing

A Panel to consider both Amendments was appointed under delegation from the Minister for Planning on 4 July 2014 and comprised Ms Kathryn Mitchell (Chair) and Mr Michael Kirsch. Ms Mitchell was subsequently unable to chair the Hearing and the Panel was reconstituted on 6 August 2014 to include Mr Trevor McCullough (Chair) and Mr Michael Kirsch.


Page 2 of 128

A joint Directions Hearing was held on Monday 21 July 2014 at the City of Knox.

The joint Panel Hearing was held over eight days between Tuesday 26 August and Friday 5 September 2014, with a further half day hearing held on 6 October 2014. The Hearing was held at the Planning Panels Victoria office in Melbourne and in a conference centre in Scoresby.

Those in attendance at the Panel Hearing are listed in Table 1.

Submitter Represented by

City of Knox Mr Travis Reid (Spiire), instructed by Ms Sarah Lane, Ms Claire Anderson, Mr Jonathon Wright, Ms Kim Rawlings and Ms Julia Wyn‐Willis of Council

Ms Maria Marshall of Maddocks represented Council in relation to the Recycal Pty Ltd submission only on 6 October 2014

Mr Sid Jager and Mr Michael Partoglou

Glengollan Village Mr Stephen Bitmead (Fastnet Consulting)

Healthscope Limited Mr Stephen Bitmead (Fastnet Consulting)

Retirement Alliance Pty Ltd Ms Sarah Porritt of Counsel

Knox Active Ageing Advisory Committee Ms Siah‐Chuan Lim

Ms Yuk Tin Lee Mr Russell Patterson

Knoxbrooke Incorporated Ms Sarah Horsfield (Urbis)

Mr John Rundell Mr Russell Joseph (The Construction Managers)

Black T Developments Mr Peter O’Leary (Polplan)

Robertson Industries Pty Ltd Mr Graeme Dickson (Graeme Dickson Partners Pty Ltd)

Jenkins Family Mr Stuart Morris QC

Waverly Golf Club Ms Maria Marshall (Maddocks)

Scope Pty Ltd Mr Tom Pikusa (of Counsel) who called the following expert witnesses:

- Mr Maugan Bastone, Planning (Urbis) - Mr John Henshall, Economics (Essential

Economics)

Ms Andrea and Mr Darren Harris Mr Barnaby Chessell (of Counsel)

Mr David Wood

Ms Margaret Lancefield

M F and D Investments Mr Frank Garrubba

Mr Ian Cameron


Page 3 of 128

Mr Adrian Grandinetti

Villa Maria Society Ms Angela Roennfeldt

Appropriate Development for Boronia Group Ms Karin Kaufman

Ms Catherine Kruse

Ms Lisa Reid

Mr David Dawson

Mr Anthony Searle

Mr John Mortimer

Ms Maree Bowker

Mr Niall Quinn

Mr Hans Hahnemann

Mr Gerard Bateson

Mr Nenad Stanojevic

Mr Tommy Milutin

Mr H Heinen

Idrousa Constructions Mr Peter O’Leary (Polplan)

Recycal Pty Ltd Mr Stuart Morris (QC) and Mr Matthew Townsend (of Counsel), instructed by Catherine Ballantine of Madgwicks Lawyers and calling expert evidence from Mr Rob Milner of 10 Consulting

Lend Lease Mr Nick Touzeau (Urbis)

Table 1 Parties to the Panel Hearing

The Panel undertook unaccompanied inspections of various sites and general areas referred to in submissions before and during the Panel Hearing.

1.2.2 Procedural Issues

The Panel provided a list of 18 questions for Council on day four of the hearing. Council provided a preliminary response to the questions during the course of the hearing and a more formal written response (Document 59) was provided on 19 September 2014.

On 30 September 2014, the Panel received a request from Madgwicks Lawyers, on behalf of Recycal Pty Ltd occupiers of 1060 Stud Road Rowville, to reconvene the hearing to consider their late submission. The Panel referred the matter to Council, which in turn requested the Panel reconvene to consider the matters. The Panel reconvened on 6 October 2014 to consider the submission and Council’s response. In view of the short timeframe open to consider the submission and the expert witness statement from Mr Milner, Council requested to be given time to provide a written response. This was granted and Council’s written response was received by the Panel on 8 October 2014.


Page 4 of 128

1.2.3 Submissions

The Amendments generated a total of 419 submissions. It has not been possible to refer to all submissions individually and the Panel has necessarily had to look for broader themes and issues in reviewing many of the submissions. All submissions have been reviewed by the Panel and have assisted in informing its conclusions and recommendations.

1.2.4 The Panel’s approach to issues and submissions

A number of submitters sought rezonings for sites or areas that are not subject to rezoning proposals in the Amendments, for example a number of submitters sought a rezoning from LDRZ to another residential zone. The Panel cannot consider rezonings for these sites given that they were not exhibited as part of the Amendments, and potentially affected parties have not had the opportunity to comment. Similarly, some submitters sought changes to existing planning scheme provisions, such as overlay schedules, that were not part of the Amendments.

The Panel has adopted the exhibited version of all documents as the basis for its consideration. Where changes have been made post‐exhibition, the Panel has provided commentary on whether it supports the changes.

The Panel notes that many of the submissions involve comments on reference documents and supporting policy documents rather than the proposed changes to the planning provisions. The changes to reference and supporting documents are not technically part of the Amendments and so the Panel has not made specific recommendations in relation to these documents. In order to assist the Council, however, the Panel has indicated in its conclusions where it believes that changes to the reference documents may be appropriate. Generally such changes are supported where they aid clarity in interpreting the planning provisions. The Panel has also made a general recommendation that reference documents be updated to reflect the approved amendments.


Page 5 of 128

2 Amendments Description

2.1 Amendment C131

2.1.1 Overview

Amendment C131 seeks to implement the Knox Housing Strategy, 2013; the Knox Residential Design Guidelines, 2013; the Rowville Plan, 2013; and the new residential zones.

Specifically, the exhibited Amendment:

Amends the Municipal Strategic Statement by replacing Clause 21.01 (Municipal Profile), Clause 21.02 (Key Influences), Clause 21.05 (Housing), Clause 21.07 (Economic Development), Clause 21.09 (Reference Documents) and Clause 21.10 (Monitoring and Review).

Removes all references within Clause 21.05 and 21.07 to Mountain Gate being a Major Activity Centre and reclassifies this Centre as a Neighbourhood Activity Centre.

Replaces the Housing Strategic Framework Plan at Clause 21.05 of the Municipal Strategic Statement, with a new map which demonstrates the direction of the Knox Housing Strategy, 2013.

Amends the remaining maps in the Municipal Strategic Statement (at Clauses 21.03, 21.04, 21.06, 21.07 and 21.08) to improve legibility. Most changes are policy neutral.

Replaces Clause 22.07 (Neighbourhood Character) and Clause 22.10 (Housing) with a new policy (Development in Residential Areas and Neighbourhood Character) at Clause 22.07.

Inserts a new local planning policy, ‘Residential Land Use and Development within the Commercial 1 Zone’, at Clause 22.12.

Inserts a new local planning policy, ‘Rowville Activity Centre’, at Clause 22.13.

Applies the Neighbourhood Residential Zone, General Residential Zone and Residential Growth Zone to areas zoned General Residential Zone.

Rezones 1060 Stud Road, Rowville to a Residential Growth Zone.

Deletes Development Plan Overlay (DPO1) ‘Stud Park Shopping Centre’.

Applies a Development Plan Overlay (DPO12) to commercial land within the Rowville Activity Centre.

Applies a Design and Development Overlay (DDO9) to residentially zoned “Opportunity Sites” within the Rowville Activity Centre.

Amends various provisions of the Knox Planning Scheme (Clause 3 of DDO1, DDO2, DDO3, DDO5, DPO4 and the schedule to Clause 52.01) to correct references to the relevant residential zones.

Updates the planning scheme maps in accordance with the application of the new residential zones.

The Amendment applies the new residential zones that were introduced into the Victoria Planning Provisions (VPPs) on 1 July 2013. Some existing ‘residential’ zones such as the Low Density Residential Zone (LDRZ) and the MUZ will be retained.

The GRZ became the default residential zone on 1 July 2014 for those Councils (such as Knox) that had not introduced the new zones.


Page 6 of 128

The residential zones are intended to be applied in Knox as shown in Table 2 below.

Residential Area Proposed Zone and Schedule

Bush Suburban – within the Dandenong Foothills

Neighbourhood Residential Zone, Schedule 1

Low Density Residential Zone and Mixed Use Zone (existing zones to be retained)

Bush Suburban – outside of the Dandenong Foothills

Neighbourhood Residential Zone, Schedule 2

Low Density Residential Zone (existing zones to be retained)

Knox Neighbourhood General Residential Zone, Schedule 2

Local Living General Residential Zone, Schedule 3

Activity Areas – outside of major activity centres

Residential Growth Zone, Schedule 1

Activity Areas – Knox Central and Rowville


General Residential Zone, Schedule 2 (Knox Central)

General Residential Zone, Schedule 3 (Rowville)

Activity Areas – Bayswater and Boronia activity centres


General Residential Zone, Schedule 4

Mixed Use Zone (existing zones to be retained)

Site specific application of zones Proposed Zone and Schedule

Stamford Park and Harcrest General Residential Zone, Schedule 5

Knox Private Hospital Residential Growth Zone, Schedule 3

Rowville Structure Plan Area – Opportunity Sites


Table 2 Application of new residential zones (Amendment C131 Explanatory Report)

2.1.2 Post exhibition changes

At its meeting on 24 June 2014, Council considered the submissions that had been received and resolved to support various changes to the Amendment as well as various changes to the associated reference documents. The elements of the Amendment proposed to be changed include:

the schedules in the RGZ1, RGZ2, GRZ2, GRZ3, GRZ4, GRZ5, NRZ1 and NRZ2

the schedule in the DPO12

Clauses 22.07‐4, 22.07‐5, 22.06‐6, 22.07‐7

Clauses 21.05 (Residential Policy Map) and 21.07

In addition, Council identified a number of sites that it believed had been incorrectly zoned in the Amendment. It subsequently advised affected landowners and received a further twenty three submissions, including additional comments from five previous submitters.

Following the June 2014 Council meeting, further changes were adopted under delegation.


Page 7 of 128

These changes are listed in Appendix C of this report.

2.1.3 Background reports

(i) Draft Knox Housing Strategy, November 2013

The Draft Knox Housing Strategy (KHS) provides the basis for applying the residential zones in the Amendment and adopts what it describes as a ‘scaled approach to housing’:

This approach identifies the role that different areas in Knox will play in the provision of new housing, and helps to achieve the balance between our future housing needs and preserving Knox’s important characteristics.

The strategy identifies preferred housing types for the existing residential areas in Knox.

The KHS identifies the following four residential area typologies:

Bush Suburban (including Dandenong Foothills) areas that have ‘distinctive and significant biological values’. These areas are intended to continue as ‘low scale neighbourhoods, characterised mostly by detached houses, where significant indigenous and native vegetation is retained and complemented’. Preferred housing types are detached dwellings and some dual occupancies on larger sites.

Knox Neighbourhood areas that are predominantly ‘low scale neighbourhoods’, characterised by detached houses and dual occupancies, with villa units on larger lots. Preferred housing types are detached houses and dual occupancies, with villa units on larger lots (lots larger than 1,000 sqm).

Local Living areas that are ‘focussed around larger local villages’ (Wantirna Mall, Studfield, Scoresby Village, Mountain Gate and Stud Park. Preferred housing types are dual occupancies, villa units and town houses.

Activity Centres (including Knox Central, Bayswater and Boronia) that will provide greater housing change than other areas. Preferred housing types are villa units, townhouses and apartments.

These areas are shown on Figure 1 below.


Page 8 of 128

Figure 1 Housing Framework Plan from exhibited Clause 21.05 Housing


Page 9 of 128

The KHS also identifies fourteen ‘Strategic Sites’ that are not currently used for residential purposes but that have potential for residential development in the future.

These sites are shown on Figure 2 below.

Figure 2 Strategic Sites identified in the Draft Knox Housing Strategy 2013


Page 10 of 128

The KHS outlines a number of factors that that will need to be considered before the sites can be confirmed for residential development. The Strategy also includes discussion of other housing issues, including:

Housing for older people

Affordable housing

Supporting investment in services and infrastructure.

The KHS includes an ‘Implementation’ section that describes the role of the Residential Design Guidelines, outlines the planning scheme changes that are required to implement the Strategy and other implementation actions.

The Strategy was informally exhibited with Amendment C131.

(ii) Residential Design Guidelines, November 2013

The Residential Design Guidelines (RDG) were prepared in conjunction with the KHS and also informed the preparation of the Amendment.

The Guidelines document describes ‘what types of housing can be built where’ and provides a set of ‘preferred housing types and design requirements’ for:

Bush Suburban (limited change)

Knox Neighbourhood (incremental change)

Local Living (moderate change)

Activity Centres (substantial change)

Elements of the RDG have been included in the residential zone schedules included in the Amendment. The Amendment also includes the RDG as a ‘reference document’.

The Guidelines document was informally exhibited with Amendment C131.

(iii) The Rowville Plan, November 2013

The Rowville Plan is intended to replace the Stud Park Structure Plan (Stages 1 and 2) which defined and guided development in the Stud Park, Rowville Major Activity Centre as defined in Melbourne 2030.

The Plan includes sections that describe:

Shared vision for Rowville’s future

Key directions

Context

Key influences

It also includes ‘Objectives, Strategies and Actions to Consider’ under the themes:

Healthy, connected communities

Prosperous, advancing economy

Vibrant and sustainable built and natural environments

Culturally rich and active communities

Democratic and engaged communities

It includes a ‘Proposed Land Use Map’ which identifies three ‘residential change’ designations (Knox Neighbourhood, Local Living and Activity Areas) and two ‘opportunity


Page 11 of 128

site’ designations. The Map has been used to inform the proposed zones to be applied in Amendment C131, along with revised DDO schedules on key sites.

The Amendment adds a new local policy at Clause 22.13 (Rowville Activity Centre) and includes the Rowville Plan as a ‘reference document’. The proposed policy identifies proposed land uses and eight opportunity sites as shown in Figure 3 below.

Figure 3 Rowville Activity Centre (from proposed Clause 22.13)


Page 12 of 128

2.2 Amendment C133

2.2.1 Overview

Amendment C133 implements the Boronia Structure Plan adopted by Council in October 2006.

The exhibited Amendment:

Modifies Clause 22.06 (Boronia Major Activity Centre Local Policy) by making minor wording changes to provide clearer guidance on use and development within the Boronia Major Activity Centre.

Modifies Design and Development Overlay Schedule 7 (DDO7) by making minor wording changes to provide clearer guidance on desired built form outcomes within residential areas in the Boronia Major Activity Centre.

2.2.2 Post exhibition changes

At its meeting on 24 June 2014, Council considered the submissions that had been received and resolved to support changes to the exhibited Land Use Framework at Clause 22.06. These changes included designating eleven additional properties as ‘Dispersed Infill Residential’ and one additional property as ‘Established Residential’. The proposed changes are as shown in Appendix E to this report.

Council advised that affected parties were notified of these proposed changes following the June 2014 Council meeting and that no additional submissions were received.

2.2.3 Background

The Boronia Structure Plan was initially implemented by Amendment C62 that was approved in February 2012 following a Panel Hearing. Amendment C62 introduced Clause 22.06 and the DDO7.

The implementation of these provisions identified some ‘policy conflicts’ relating to residential development. Consequently, Council requested that the Minister for Planning prepare and approve an ‘interim’ amendment under section 20(4) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 to address these concerns. The Minister agreed to the request and approved Amendment C95 in November 2013. Amendment C95 introduced changes to Clause 22.06 and DDO7 on an interim basis until 15 December 2015.

Amendment C133 seeks to implement these changes on a permanent basis.


Page 13 of 128

3 Identification of Issues

3.1 Summary of issues raised in submissions

The key issues raised in the submissions of the various parties are briefly summarised as follows:

(i) Knox Neighbourhood Areas

The key issues raised by submitters were:

Controls are too restrictive or not restrictive enough; and

Negative impacts on housing affordability.

(ii) Local Living Areas


Maximum building heights should be reduced (in response to this Council determined post‐exhibition to reduce the mandatory building height in Local Living Areas from 9m to 8m); and

Issues regarding the boundaries of Local Living Areas.

(iii) Bush Suburban Areas


Objection to the proposed mandatory minimum lot size of 500sqm; and

Concerns about the application of the Bush Suburban designation in some areas.

(iv) Issues raised by aged care providers

The key issues raised by aged care providers were:

Need for greater flexibility in controls applying to aged care facilities to enable ageing in place; and

Requests for different zone controls to apply to specific sites.

(v) Strategic Sites


Objection to some sites being designated as strategic sites; and

Concerns about proposed zones.

(vi) Site specific issues


Responses to the Rowville Structure Plan;

Responses to proposed changes to the Boronia planning provisions; and

Concerns about the application of specific controls in some areas.


Page 14 of 128

3.2 Issues dealt with in this Report

The Panel considered all written submissions, as well as submissions presented to it during the Hearing. In addressing the issues raised in those submissions, the Panel has been assisted by the information provided to it as well as its observations from inspections of specific sites.

This report deals with the issues under the following headings:

Strategic Planning Context

Amendment C131 Issues: - Strategic Issues - The selection and application of zones - Zone schedule issues - The zoning of specific sites - Strategic Sites - Rowville Plan Issues - Other Issues - Other components of Amendment C131

Amendment C133 Issues: - Strategic justification - Clause 22.06 - DDO7 - Review of the Boronia Structure Plan


Page 15 of 128

4 Strategic Planning Context

The Panel has reviewed the policy context of the Amendments and made a brief appraisal of the relevant zone and overlay controls and other relevant planning strategies.

4.1 Policy framework

4.1.1 State Planning Policy Framework

The Panel had had regard to the following key elements of the State Planning Policy Framework (SPPF).

Clause 11 (Settlement), including:

Clause 11.01‐1 (Activity centre network) that supports activity centres as a focus for development.

Clause 11.01‐2 (Activity centre planning) that encourages the concentration of major retail, residential, commercial, administrative, entertainment and cultural developments into activity centres.

Clause 11.02‐1 (Supply of urban land) that seeks to ensure a sufficient supply of land is available for residential, commercial, retail, industrial, recreational, institutional and other community uses.

Clause 11.02‐3 (Structure planning) that supports the orderly development of urban areas.

Clause 11.04‐2 (Housing choice and affordability) that supports diversity of housing in defined locations that cater for different households and are close to jobs and services. It includes the strategies:

Understand and plan for expected housing needs.

Reduce the cost of living by increasing housing supply near services and public transport.

Facilitate the supply of social housing.

Facilitate the supply of affordable housing.

Clause 12 (Environmental and landscape values), including:

Clause 12.04‐1 (Environmentally sensitive areas) that supports the protection of environmentally sensitive areas with significant recreational value such as the Dandenong Ranges.

Clause 12.04‐2 (Landscapes) that supports the protection of landscapes and significant open spaces that contribute to character, identity and sustainable environments.

Clause 15 (Built environment and heritage), including:

Clause 15.01‐1 (Urban design) that supports urban environments that are safe, functional and provide good quality environments with a sense of place and cultural identity.

Clause 15.01‐2 (Urban design principles) that promotes architectural and urban design outcomes that contribute positively to local urban character.


Page 16 of 128

Clause 15.01‐5 (Cultural identity and neighbourhood character) that supports the recognition and protection of cultural identity, neighbourhood character and sense of place.

Clause 16 (Housing), including:

Clause 16.01‐1 (Integrated housing) that promotes a housing market that meets community needs. It includes the strategies:

Increase the supply of housing in existing urban areas by facilitating increased housing yield in appropriate locations, including under‐utilised urban land.

Ensure that the planning system supports the appropriate quantity, quality and type of housing, including the provision of aged care facilities.

Clause 16.01‐2 (Location of residential development) that supports new housing being located in or close to activity centres and employment corridors and at other strategic redevelopment sites that offer good access to services and transport. It includes the strategy:

Increase the proportion of housing in Metropolitan Melbourne to be developed within the established urban area, particularly at activity centres, employment corridors and at other strategic sites, and reduce the share of new dwellings in greenfield and dispersed development areas.

Clause 16.01‐3 (Strategic redevelopment sites) that supports the identification of strategic redevelopment sites for large residential development.

Clause 16.01‐4 (Housing diversity) that supports the provision of a range of housing types to meet increasingly diverse needs. It includes the strategies:

Ensure housing stock matches changing demand by widening housing choice, particularly in the middle and outer suburbs.

Encourage the development of well‐designed medium‐density housing which:

Respects the neighbourhood character. Improves housing choice.

Makes better use of existing infrastructure.

Improves energy efficiency of housing

Clause 16.01‐5 (Housing affordability) that promotes more affordable housing closer to jobs, transport and services.

Clause 16.02‐3 (Residential aged care facilities) that supports the timely development of residential aged care facilities to meet existing and future needs. It includes the strategies:

Ensure local housing strategies, precinct structure plans, and activity centre structure plans provide for residential aged care facilities.

Encourage planning for housing that:

Delivers an adequate supply of land or redevelopment opportunities for residential aged care facilities.

Enables older people to live in appropriate housing in their local community.


Page 17 of 128

Clause 16.02‐4 (Design and location of residential aged care facilities) that encourages well‐designed and appropriately located residential aged care facilities. It includes the strategies:

Recognise that residential aged care facilities contribute to housing diversity and choice, and are an appropriate use in a residential area.

Recognise that residential aged care facilities are different to dwellings in their purpose and function, and will have a different built form (including height, scale and mass).

Ensure that residential aged care facilities are located in residential areas, activity centres and strategic redevelopment areas, close to services and public transport.

Clause 17 (Economic development), including:

Clause 17.01‐1 (Business) that encourages development which meet 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.

4.1.2 Local Planning Policy Framework

The Panel had had regard to the key elements of the Local Planning Policy Framework (LPPF) that are described below, but notes that Amendment C131 proposes to change and update many elements of the LPPF.

(i) Municipal Strategic Statement

Clause 21.01 (Municipal profile) discusses the regional context and profile of the municipality. It notes that Council is a member of the Eastern Regional Housing Working Group that prepared a Regional Housing Statement.

Clause 21.02 (Key influences) highlights the key influences on housing within Knox, including:

The need to redirect a significant amount of housing into activity centres and strategic redevelopment sites.

Urban consolidation imperatives that will not outweigh the need for protecting the landscape and environmental sensitivities of the Dandenong Foothills.

The changing demographic profile with increasing numbers of older persons and couple, lone and older households that will create demand for different forms and types of housing.

Mixed community perceptions of medium density and higher density development.

Clause 21.04 (Urban Design) introduces the Knox Urban Design Framework 2020, 2003 and highlights Knox’s landscape setting and proximity to the Dandenong Ranges.

Clause 21.05 (Housing) is proposed to be substantially revised and updated as part of Amendment C131. However, the current clause includes various strategies that are relevant to the Amendment and the Knox Housing Strategy, including:


Page 18 of 128

Direct significant growth in housing stock to locations outside of the Dandenong Foothills area to ensure the protection of the sensitive environmental and landscape qualities of the foothills.

Require new housing development to preserve natural landscape features and create habitat

Encourage the provision of apartment and multi‐storey mixed use residential development within principal and major activity centres.

Encourage medium density development on sites with direct access to the principal public transport network where it provides frequent and reliable public transport.

Support development that respects the existing or preferred residential neighbourhood character.

Encourage a gradual stepping up of built form at the interface of existing low‐rise development and proposed higher rise development.

Ensure the height, materials and design of new housing development in the Dandenong Foothills blends with and is below the dominant tree canopy height.

Require that housing in association with neighbourhood centres in the Dandenong Foothills demonstrate a positive contribution to local character.

Clause 21.05 also includes the Housing Strategic Framework Plan shown at Figure 4.


Page 19 of 128

Figure 4 Knox Housing Strategic Framework


Page 20 of 128

Clause 21.06 (Environment) highlights Knox’s environmental assets (including the Dandenong Foothills) and introduces the report: Sites of Biological Significance in Knox – 2nd Edition, 2010. This report informed the development of the Knox Housing Strategy and Amendment C131.

Clause 21.07 (Economic development) describes Knox’s activity centre hierarchy and includes the following strategies that provide guidance for their future development:

Reinforce the role of the Knox Central Principal Activity Centre as a regional activity centre serving as the civic, retail, commercial, cultural and entertainment focus for the municipality and the region by using the Knox Central Principal Activity Centre local policy to ensure that development is consistent with the Knox Central Urban Design Framework.

Support consolidation, investment and change in retail, office, service and increased residential activities within Major Activity Centres.

Support appropriate development in larger Neighbourhood Centres, including Wantirna Mall, Wellington Village, Studfield, Scoresby Village, Rowville Lakes, Knox Gardens and Knoxfield that is well designed and respects and complements the local character, including height.

Support appropriate development in Neighbourhood Centres in the Dandenong Foothills (Alchester Village, The Basin, Ferntree Gully and Upper Ferntree Gully) that responds positively to the landscape and environmental sensitivities of the area and is well designed and respects and complements the local character, including height.

(ii) Local Planning Policy

Clause 22.01 (Dandenong Foothills) applies to the ‘five key landscape areas that make up the Dandenong Foothills area’. These areas are shown on Figure 5 below.

The Policy includes overarching objectives and planning permit application requirements, together with a set of design guidelines for each landscape area. This policy is to be retained.


Page 21 of 128

Figure 5 Plan to Clause 22.01


Page 22 of 128

Clause 22.04 (Knox Central Principal Activity Centre) includes various objectives and policies, including the following housing related policies:

Encourage the intensification of the level of activity throughout the area and provide opportunities for people to live and work in, and close to, the Centre.

Encourage the diversification of the mix of activities in the area, with a particular focus on achieving high density residential and employment uses on and adjacent to the Knox City Shopping Centre site.

Encourage built form that respects the character and amenity of existing residential areas where development occurs adjacent to residential areas.

This policy expires on 30 July 2016.

Clause 22.05 (Bayswater Major Activity Centre including key development sites) provides overarching objectives and strategies for the centre and identifies six ‘key redevelopment sites’. Housing related strategies include:

Encourage sites along Mountain Highway, west of the retail core to be redeveloped for large scale mixed use developments with offices/showrooms at ground level and residential above.

Promote higher and medium residential development within and around the centre to increase the number of people and level of activity within the centre.

Encourage medium density housing in residential areas immediately surrounding business zoned areas, yet ensure that neighbourhood character and the landscape significance of the Significance Ridgeline Area is protected.

Clause 22.06 (Boronia Major Activity Centre Local Policy) is the subject of Amendment C133 and provides overarching objectives and policies for the centre. It also provides a set of policies for each of the six ‘precincts’ within the centre.

The key housing related policy is:

Ensure residential development reflects the following:

Established Residential Environs include locations which are not within convenient walking distance of the Boronia commercial environs or the Principal Public Transport Network.

Dispersed Infill Residential include locations which adjoin open spaces and reserves and are within convenient walking distance of the Boronia commercial environs and the Principal Public Transport Network.

Increased Residential Density include locations within immediate proximity of the Boronia commercial environs and which will provide a transition between the commercial environs and the adjoining Dispersed Infill Residential areas.

Clause 22.07 (Neighbourhood character) applies to residential areas within Knox and implements the findings of the City of Knox Neighbourhood Character Study 1999, including the Addendum dated 7 December 2000.


Page 23 of 128

It includes ‘statements of desired future character’, ‘design objectives’ and ‘design responses’ for six sets of ‘character precincts’.

Amendment C131 proposes to delete much of this policy and replace it with material drawn from the Knox Housing Strategy and Residential Design Guidelines.

Clause 22.10 (Housing) applies to all new residential use and development within the urban growth boundary and is based on the Knox Housing Statement, 2005 and the Eastern Regional Housing Statement, 2006. The policy largely repeats the housing related strategies described elsewhere in the LPPF. Amendment C131 proposes to delete this policy.

4.2 Planning scheme provisions

(i) Zones

Amendment C131 proposes to apply the NRZ, GRZ and RGZ. In addition to implementing the SPPF and LPPF, these zones have the following purposes:

Neighbourhood Residential Zone

To recognise areas of predominantly single and double storey residential development.

To limit opportunities for increased residential development.

To manage and ensure that development respects the identified neighbourhood character, heritage, environmental or landscape characteristics.

To implement neighbourhood character policy and adopted neighbourhood character guidelines.

To allow educational, recreational, religious, community and a limited range of other non‐residential uses to serve local community needs in appropriate locations.

General Residential Zone

To encourage development that respects the neighbourhood character of the area.

To implement neighbourhood character policy and adopted neighbourhood character guidelines.

To provide a diversity of housing types and moderate housing growth in locations offering good access to services and transport.


Residential Growth Zone

To provide housing at increased densities in buildings up to and including four storey buildings.


Page 24 of 128

To encourage a diversity of housing types in locations offering good access to services and transport including activities areas.

To encourage a scale of development that provides a transition between areas of more intensive use and development and areas of restricted housing growth.


(ii) Overlays

Development Plan Overlay

Amendment C131 proposes to apply a new DPO12 to commercial land within the Rowville Activity Centre.

In addition to implementing the SPPF and LPPF, this overlay has the following purposes:

To identify areas which require the form and conditions of future use and development to be shown on a development plan before a permit can be granted to use or develop the land.

To exempt an application from notice and review if it is generally in accordance with a development plan.

Design and Development Overlay

Amendment C131 proposes to apply a new DDO9 to residentially zoned ‘Opportunity Sites’ within the Rowville Activity Centre.

In addition to implementing the SPPF and LPPF, this overlay has the following purpose:

To identify areas which are affected by specific requirements relating to the design and built form of new development.

Notably, a suite of DDO schedules is currently applied within the Dandenong Foothills area, including schedules 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. Amendment C131 updates the references in these schedules to the new residential zones.

Other Overlays

Although the Significant Landscape Overlay (SLO) and Environmental Significance Overlay (ESO) are not included in either amendment, it is notable that a suite of schedules is currently applied in various residential areas within Knox, and particularly within the Dandenong Foothills area. In addition to implementing the SPPF and LPPF, these overlays have the following purposes:

Significant Landscape Overlay

To identify significant landscapes.

To conserve and enhance the character of significant landscapes.


Page 25 of 128

Environmental Significance Overlay

To identify areas where the development of land may be affected by environmental constraints.

To ensure that development is compatible with identified environmental values.

4.3 Other planning strategies

4.3.1 Plan Melbourne

Plan Melbourne was adopted by the State Government in May 2014 and was implemented in Victorian Planning Schemes through Amendment VC106.

Plan Melbourne includes Directions and Initiatives under the themes: Delivering jobs and investment; Housing choice and affordability; A more connected Melbourne; Liveable communities and neighbourhoods; Environment and water; and a State of Cities.

Key Directions and Initiatives that are relevant to Amendments C131 and C133 include:

Direction 1.5 (Plan for jobs closer to where people live), including: - Initiative 1.5.3 (Support planning of other activity centres)

Direction 2.1 (Understand and plan for expected housing needs), including: - Initiative 2.1.1 (Apply the reformed residential zones) - Initiative 2.1.3 (Investigate and plan for expected housing needs across

Melbourne’s five subregions)

Direction 2.2 (Reduce the cost of living by increasing housing supply near services and public transport), including:

- Initiative 2.2.3 (Deliver housing close to jobs and transport)

Direction 2.3 (Facilitate the supply of social housing)

Direction 2.4 (Facilitate the supply of affordable housing)

Direction 4.1 (Create a city of 20‐minute neighbourhoods), including: - Initiative 4.1.1 (Support a network of vibrant neighbourhood centres)

Direction 4.2 (Protect Melbourne and its suburbs from inappropriate development), including:

- Initiative 4.2.1 (Protect our unique neighbourhoods from residential densification) that includes the short term actions ‘Deliver the Neighbourhood Residential Zone across at least 50 per cent of Melbourne’s residential‐zoned land’ and ‘Ensure municipal housing strategies address the need to protect neighbourhoods’.

- Initiative 4.2.2 (Protect Melbourne’s neighbourhood centres, including provision for mandatory controls.

Direction 4.4 (Plan for future social infrastructure)

Direction 4.5 (Make our city greener)

Direction 5.1 (Use the city structure to drive sustainable outcomes in managing growth), including:

- Initiative 5.1.1 (Accommodate the majority of new housing in established areas within walking distance of the public transport network).

Direction 5.2 (Protect and restore natural habitats in urban and non‐urban areas)


Page 26 of 128

The Implementation section provides an overview of the ‘eastern subregion’ that includes the City of Knox. It also includes a plan that represents the ‘structural elements of Plan Melbourne’, shown as Figure 6 below. The key elements within Knox include:

the Knox Private Hospital ‘health precinct’

the Bayswater, Boronia, Mountain Gate, Rowville‐Stud Park, and Wantirna South‐Knox central Activity centres.

Figure 6 Map 33 Eastern Subregion, Plan Melbourne


Page 27 of 128

4.4 Planning Scheme Amendments

A number of previous amendments to the Knox Planning Scheme that are relevant to Amendments C131 and 133 are discussed below. These amendments have provided the Panel with an understanding of the existing planning scheme provisions and the context that they provide for Amendments C131 and 133.

4.4.1 Amendment C40

Amendment C40 was approved in November 2006 following a Panel Hearing and introduced a new Dandenong Foothills LPP together with new DDO and SLO schedules. The LPP and overlays form the basis for the current Clause 22.01, the SLO1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, and the DDO1, 2, 3 and 5.

Notably, the exhibited amendment proposed a mandatory maximum building height of 7m in the DDO schedules, however, in the approved amendment this was replaced by a discretionary maximum building height of 7.5m in Clause 22.01.

The approved clause 22.01 also includes various other discretionary provisions, while the DDO schedules include a number of mandatory provisions relating to site coverage and subdivision.

Various elements of Clause 22.01 and the DDO schedules have been carried over or used to inform the content of the proposed residential zone schedules in Amendment C131.

4.4.2 Amendment C46

Amendment C46 was approved in November 2006 following a Panel Hearing and implemented elements of the Knox Housing Statement. It introduced a new Housing LPP and applied the Residential 3 Zone (R3Z) (exhibited as a revised R1Z) that included a number of variations to clauses 54 and 55.

Notably, the head clause of the R3Z provided for a mandatory maximum dwelling and residential building height of 9m (subject to some exemptions). The schedule included variations to private open space and front fence height standards in Clauses 54 and 55.

The R3Z was applied to most residential areas in the municipality and effectively became the ‘default’ residential zone.

Although the C46 Panel did not support various elements of the R3Z schedule, including variations to Clause 54 and 55 standards, they were subsequently approved.

Various elements of the R3Z have been carried over or used to inform the content of the proposed residential zone schedules in Amendment C131.

4.4.3 Amendment C49

Amendment C49 was approved in April 2013 following a Panel Hearing and implemented elements of the Sites of Biological Significance in Knox, Volumes 1 and 2, 2010. It updated and relaced various VPO and ESO schedules, as well as removing the VPO from various areas.

The report and amendment were used to inform the delineation of residential area types and the subsequent application of residential zones and schedules in Amendment C131.


Page 28 of 128

4.4.4 Amendment C62

Amendment C62 was approved in February 2012 following a Panel Hearing and implemented the Boronia Structure Plan. The Amendment introduced changes to the LPPF, including a new LPP for the Boronia Major Activity Centre, together with various zoning changes and a new DDO7.


Amendment C129 was submitted for approval in June 2014 but had not been decided by the time this report was completed. The amendment proposes to implement the Knox Ferntree Gully Village Structure Plan and includes various policy, zone and overlay components. Although the two amendments do not overlap, Amendment C129 will (if approved) provide context for the surrounding residential areas that are subject to Amendment C131.

The exhibited Amendment C129 proposes that the Village will have a limited neighbourhood activity centre function in response to its setting and character. It also proposes to apply the GRZ1 (with a mandatory maximum building height of 8m and 11m for 38 Station Street) to two areas on the periphery of the centre. It also proposes to apply a DDO8 to the Village that includes mandatory maximum heights and mandatory minimum setbacks, together with various discretionary design provisions.

4.5 Ministerial Directions

4.5.1 Ministerial Direction No 16: Residential Zones

This Direction applies to planning authorities in metropolitan Melbourne and requires (amongst other things) that:

6 A planning authority must apply the residential zones in either the following two ways:

a) by applying the General Residential Zone to all residential land in a municipality (other than to land zoned Mixed Use, Township or Low Density Residential), or

b) by applying the three residential zones

It also requires that:

7 A planning authority must use a housing strategy to inform the balanced application of the three residential zones as detailed above in point 6 b).

9 At least 50 percent of metropolitan Melbourne’s residential zoned land (other than land zoned Mixed Use, Township or Low Density Residential) must comprise of the Neighbourhood Residential Zone.

The Panel is satisfied that the approach taken by Council in undertaking the strategic foundation work for this Amendment and seeking to apply the residential zones in the way proposed complies with this Ministerial Direction.


Page 29 of 128

4.6 Practice and Advisory Notes

The Panel has had regard to the following Practice and Advisory Notes.

Practice Note 78: Applying the Residential Zones, December 2013 (PN78)

PN78 guides the implementation of the residential zones.

Advisory Note 50: Reformed residential zones, July 2013 (AN50)

AN50 was issued when the new zones were introduced into the VPP through Amendment V8.

Practice Note 28: Using the neighbourhood character provisions in planning, July 2004 (PN28)

PN28 provides guidance to planning authorities about how to plan for neighbourhood character and how to apply neighbourhood character provisions when preparing amendments to planning schemes.

Practice Note 10: Writing Schedules, May 2000 (PN10)

PN10 provides the following principles to guide the drafting and use of local content in schedules, irrespective of the task that the schedule is to perform:

Schedules must be read with other planning provisions.

Local content should help to implement SPPF objectives.

Local content should help to implement Local Planning Policy Framework objectives.

Local content should not duplicate other provisions.

Local content can only do what its ‘parent provision’ enables it to do.

Local content should be strategically justified.

Local content should have a legally certain meaning.

Local content should be easy to read.

Practice Note 59: The role of mandatory provisions in planning schemes, September 2010 (PN59)

PN59 identifies circumstances when the use of mandatory provisions, such as maximum heights and setbacks, are appropriate. It indicates that discretionary provisions should normally apply and significant justification is required to apply mandatory provisions.

4.7 Strategic Assessment

The Panel concludes that the Amendment complies with and implements the relevant sections of the State and local planning provisions and appropriately considers relevant strategic documents, ministerial directions and planning practice and advisory notes. Subject to the discussion of issues in the following Chapters, the Panel is satisfied that the Amendment is broadly strategically justified.


Page 30 of 128

5 Amendment C131 Issues

This section of the report discusses the issues raised in submissions and evidence, specifically in relation to Amendment C131.

5.1 Strategic issues

5.1.1 The Draft Knox Housing Strategy

(i) The issue

The issue is whether the Knox Housing Strategy (KHS) provides adequate strategic justification for the overarching housing framework proposed in the Amendment.

(ii) Submissions

Council provided a detailed explanation of the background to the KHS, its development and purpose, and submitted that it builds on the current residential planning framework. As discussed in section 2.1.3 (if) of this report, the KHS reflects Council’s ‘scaled approach’ to housing in the municipality, which includes:

…directions for more intense development within the activity centres of the municipality (the upper level of the ‘development hierarchy’) and the areas for little development which require protection being the Dandenong Foothills and other areas of biodiversity significance (the lowest level in the ‘hierarchy’). The draft Housing Strategy essentially deals with the areas in between these two rungs and provides guidance as to the preferred level of development.

Many submitters supported the KHS, although some believed that it did not go far enough in limiting what was perceived as inappropriate development and prescribing preferred outcomes. Others were critical of the KHS, arguing that it was too restrictive and was not representative of, or consistent with, existing development in many areas. Some argued that it was inconsistent with the SPPF, particularly the State strategies that promote housing diversity and affordability, and urban consolidation.

Some submitters, such as Mr Jager and Mr Partoglou (Submission 222) provided detailed commentary on the KHS (as well as Residential Design Guidelines and zone schedules) that have assisted the Panel’s understanding of various issues.

(iii) Discussion

The Panel acknowledges and agrees with Council that the general principles that underpin the KHS, together with the policy framework that it provides, are generally consistent with, and build on, Council’s current approach to its residential areas. The Panel also acknowledges that Council has been proactive in seeking to protect the character of its residential areas, as well as the landscape and environmental features that contribute to that character.


Page 31 of 128

The Panel also notes that the KHS was not developed in isolation, but was derived from a range of contributory studies and investigations, including population and growth projections, and extensive community consultation.

For all of these reasons, the Panel supports the broad framework in the KHS, and the designation of different areas for different dwelling types and densities. At this broad level, the Panel is satisfied that the KHS has provided Council with a sound basis on which to consider how the new residential zones and the other VPP tools should be applied.

The key issues that arise from the KHS are implementation issues that include the selection of zones and the content of schedules. Foremost of these issues is whether mandatory or discretionary provisions are warranted. Council’s approach to these issues has largely been drawn from the RDG, as discussed in the following section.

(iv) Conclusions

The Panel concludes that the KHS provides a sound basis for planning and managing the residential areas in Knox. However, the implementation of the KHS raises a number of issues associated with residential zone selection and the content of schedules.

5.1.2 Residential Design Guidelines, November 2013

(i) The issue

The issue is whether the Residential Design Guidelines (RDG) provides adequate strategic justification for the selection of residential zones and the content of the zone schedules.

(ii) Submissions

Council submitted that RDG was developed to implement the KHS ‘at a site level and guide assessment of development against the identified roles and requirements in that residential area type’. Council also submitted that the RDG ‘build on the existing controls already applying to Knox’s residential areas through a mix of residential zone schedules, policies and overlays’.

Many submitters supported the RDG (and the zones and schedules), believing that that were an appropriate response to the perceived character of the residential areas and reflected broader community aspirations for those areas. Some believed that they did not go far enough in limiting what was perceived as inappropriate development and prescribing preferred outcomes. Others were critical of the RDG, arguing that it was too onerous and that many prescriptive elements had not been adequately justified. For example, Mr O’Leary (on behalf Black T Developments [submission 112] and Idrousa Constructions [submission 139] described it as a flawed ‘aspirational’ document based on inadequate research.

(iii) Discussion

As discussed in section 2.1.3 (ii) of this report, the RDG provides the basis for many of the detailed provisions included in the residential zone schedules, and also influenced the selection of those zones.


Page 32 of 128

The RDG is a succinct document that lists various development requirements for each of the residential areas identified in the KHS. It does not include detailed justification for individual requirements nor does it include any detailed discussion of factors such as:

Strengths and weaknesses of the current residential provisions Options for achieving Council’s desired outcomes

Mandatory versus discretionary provisions

The relationship between zone and overlay schedules.

In light of directions and questions from the Panel about these issues, Council provided additional explanatory material during the course of the Hearing and in supplementary material provided after the Hearing.

Having reviewed that material, the Panel has a better understanding of the rationale for various ‘guidelines’, but has reservations about whether all of the RDG content has been adequately justified and whether it should automatically be translated into zone schedules. Similar concerns were raised in some submissions and these issues are discussed further in sections 5.2 and 5.3 of this report.

(iv) Conclusions

The Panel concludes that the RDG is useful in assessing and selecting appropriate residential zones and assessing potential content of zone schedules, but that it lacks explicit justification for many of the specific ‘guidelines’. For this reason, the Panel believes the guidelines should not automatically be included zone schedules.

5.1.3 The use of mandatory and discretionary provisions

(i) The issue

The issue is whether the choice of residential zones and the selection of content in zone schedules have taken into account the relative merits of mandatory and discretionary provisions.

(ii) Submissions

Council submitted that the Amendment is predominantly ‘performance based’ and that the mandatory provisions are intended to provide certainty to the community and development industry. Council noted that mandatory provisions are a legitimate VPP tool, particularly in the context of the new residential zones that either include or make provision for mandatory requirements.

Council also submitted that mandatory provisions will achieve the outcomes sought by Council and the KHS and will not compromise the capacity to meet future population demand within the municipality.

Many submitters supported the use of mandatory provisions and the certainty that they provide. Some of these also supported additional mandatory provisions or more stringent provisions.

Other submitters opposed mandatory provisions, arguing that they unnecessarily restricted development potential and that their inflexibility did not allow site or neighbourhood


Page 33 of 128

responsive design. Some argued that various mandatory provisions were inconsistent with broader residential policies and the relevant Practice Notes.

(iii) Discussion

The Panel agrees with Council that the introduction of the new residential zones (particularly the NRZ) has given greater legitimacy to the use of mandatory provisions in residential areas than was arguably the case under the former residential zones. The Panel also acknowledges that mandatory provisions provide certainty, something that many submitters sought.

However, the Panel is also mindful that the Victorian planning system remains a ‘performance based’ system and that PN59: The role of mandatory provisions in planning schemes still applies. It follows that mandatory provisions need to be clearly justified and should only be applied where discretionary provisions are not able to achieve the desired outcomes.

Mandatory provisions can also have profound implications when applied across large areas (such as the NRZ1 and GRZ2 in the Amendment) that do not have a uniform character and where there will be sites and areas that can support variations to mandatory requirements.

(iv) Conclusion

The Panel concludes that the use of mandatory provisions needs to be explicitly justified, otherwise discretionary provisions should be used.

5.1.4 Housing affordability and property values

(i) The issue

The issues are whether the Amendment will have negative impacts on housing affordability and whether the Amendment (specifically the proposed zones and schedules) will decrease property values.

(ii) Submissions

Some submitters expressed concern that the Amendment would decrease property values in situations where it restricts development potential or where it allows more intensive development that will negatively impact on existing character. A number of submitters also raised concerns that various restrictions in the zones and schedules would impact on the ability of landowners to subdivide lots and to fund retirement plans. Other submitters argued that the KHS (and the Amendment) should have a greater focus on housing affordability.

Council submitted that ‘property values are not a planning consideration’, but agreed that development potential in the Knox Neighbourhood and Bush Suburban areas would be reduced by the Amendment. However, Council noted but that it was difficult to predict the long term effects on property values.


Page 34 of 128

Council acknowledged the concerns relating to housing affordability and subdivision, but argued that it had struck an appropriate balance between protecting character and providing development opportunities.

(iii) Discussion

The Panel agrees with Council that potential impacts on individual property values is not typically a ‘planning consideration’. The Panel’s findings are primarily focussed on planning issues and the planning merits of the proposed Amendment.

In relation to ‘housing affordability’, the Panel notes that the SPPF identifies this as an issue and that it includes the strategy ‘Facilitate the supply of affordable housing’.

Although the Panel was not presented with evidence or detailed analysis of affordability issues, it agrees with Council that elements of the Amendment would reduce development potential, particularly provisions that establish minimum lot sizes, and limit the number of dwellings on a lot and the height of buildings. The Panel expects that these ‘restrictions’ will have ‘affordability’ implications although it is difficult to determine the extent of those implications.

The Panel agrees with submitters that ‘affordability’ is a legitimate issue and is one of the factors to be taken into account when assessing the merits of Council’s housing strategy and the restrictive elements of the proposed residential zones and schedules.

(iv) Conclusion

The Panel concludes that housing ‘affordability’ is an important issue and is a relevant consideration when assessing the merits and impacts of the Amendment.

5.1.5 Residential aged care facilities

(i) The issue

The issue is whether there should be flexibility in the residential zone schedules for the expansion and redevelopment of residential aged care facilities.

(ii) Submissions

Submissions were received from five aged care providers relating to seven individual sites. One of these sites (Glengollan Village) is in the Dandenong Foothills area and is discussed in section 5.4.4 of this report. The submission from Villa Maria related to the underlying zoning and is discussed in section 5.4.2 of this report. These submissions generally supported the KHS, but were concerned that the redevelopment or expansion of existing facilities might be hampered by the provisions in the exhibited zones and schedules.

Following its consideration of submissions, Council proposed to change some of the zone schedules to provide greater clarity about the exemptions from mandatory requirements.

These include the RGZ1, RGZ2, GRZ2, and GRZ3 for which Council proposed the following exemption from maximum building heights:


Page 35 of 128

The requirements of this clause do not apply to a building used for the purpose of a Residential Aged Care Facility or Nursing Home. The requirements of clause 54 and 55 apply.

Council did not support a similar exemption being provided in the NRZ1 and NRZ2, believing that the need to protect the environmental and landscape significance of the Dandenong Foothills area was a higher priority than facilitating the redevelopment or expansion of residential aged care facilities.

The Panel also notes that ‘nursing home’ is nested within ‘residential aged care facility’ and need not be specified for the purposes of the exemption.

(iii) Discussion

The SPPF supports the provision of residential aged care facilities and highlights the desirability of these facilities being well designed and appropriately located. In this context, the Panel does not believe that the selection of zones or content of their schedules should unnecessarily constrain the expansion or redevelopment of these sites.

The Panel supports the flexibility that Council has proposed in relation to the height of these facilities in the RGZ1, RGZ2, GRZ2, and GRZ31. This recognises the importance of providing opportunities for the development and redevelopment of residential aged care facilities in these areas.

In relation to the NRZ, the Panel does not agree with Council that protecting the environmental and landscape significance of the Dandenong Foothills area is necessarily a higher ‘priority’ than facilitating residential aged care facilities. The Panel believes that a balance needs to be struck between these potentially competing policies, and that they will often need to be considered in the context of a specific site or neighbourhood. The Panel does not believe that a blanket maximum height (for example) in the NRZ is warranted and that there should be a degree of design flexibility. This is discussed further in relation to the Glengollan Village in section 5.4.4 of this report.

The Panel notes that there has been some debate in relation to other amendments that there may not be an ability to provide an exemption to the mandatory height in the NRZ schedule. This is discussed further in Section 5.3.1 of this report.

(iv) Conclusions

The Panel concludes that the application of residential zones and schedules should not restrict the expansion and redevelopment of residential aged care facilities unless there is clear and specific justification for the restrictions.

The Panel also concludes that if a mandatory maximum height is to be applied in the NRZ (as proposed in the exhibited Amendment), the same exemptions should apply for residential aged care facilities as applies in other residential zone schedules (subject to advice from DTPLI on how this might be achieved – see Section 5.3.1).

1 Height requirements relating to the other RGZ and GRZ schedules are provided in DDO schedules.


Page 36 of 128

5.2 The selection and application of zones

5.2.1 Bush Suburban areas

(i) The proposed zone

The issue

The issue is whether the NRZ is an appropriate zone for the Bush Suburban areas.

The Bush Suburban areas are described in the KHS as areas that have ‘distinctive and significant biological values’. These areas are intended to continue as ‘low scale neighbourhoods, characterised mostly by detached houses, where significant indigenous and native vegetation is retained and complemented’. Preferred housing types are detached dwellings and some dual occupancy on larger sites.

The typology has been applied to the Dandenong Foothills (NRZ1) and to five discrete areas to the west (NRZ2).

These areas are currently zoned GRZ2 (formerly R3Z) and LDRZ. Amendment C131 proposes to replace the current GRZ2 with the NRZ1 and the NRZ2, while the LDRZ is to be retained.

The current GRZ2 includes a mandatory maximum building height of 9m (with some exemptions) together with variations to some Clause 54 and 55 standards.

Notably, these areas (particularly the Dandenong Foothills) are subject to a range of overlays, including various schedules of the DDO, ESO, VPO and SLO.

The exhibited NRZ1 includes a default maximum of two dwellings per lot and a maximum building height for a dwelling or residential building of 7.5m (with some exemptions). It also includes some variations to Clause 54 and 55 standards relating to private open space and front fence heights. In relation to the ‘minimum subdivision area’, the schedule refers to ‘relevant’ DDO schedules.

The exhibited NRZ2 includes a default maximum of two dwellings per lot and a default maximum building height for a dwelling or residential building of 8m (with some exemptions). It also includes some variations to Clause 54 and 55 standards relating to minimum street setback, site coverage, permeability, landscaping, private open space and front fence height.

Following its consideration of submissions, Council proposed various changes to the schedules in relation to open space, building heights and canopy trees. Council also proposed to limit the number of dwellings on a lot in the NRZ to one.

Submissions

Council submitted that applying the NRZ to Bush Suburban areas was recommended in the KHS and was consistent with the existing planning frameworks that apply to these areas. In relation to the NRZ1, Council submitted that it is consistent with the Dandenong Foothills policy, the GRZ2 and the various design and environmental overlays that are applied throughout the area. In relation to the NRZ2, Council submitted that it is the appropriate zone to apply to areas of identified biological significance in conjunction with the existing


Page 37 of 128

VPO4 and ESO2 that were implemented through Amendment C49. These areas are also currently zoned GRZ2.

Some submitters supported the proposed NRZ1 and NRZ2, although some sought more restrictive provisions in the schedules. Others opposed these zones arguing that they were too restrictive and would impact on property values, affordability and development flexibility. Some submitted that the ‘horse had bolted’ in these areas and it was unfair to restrict subdivision and development potential, given the extent of redevelopment that has occurred in recent years. Some argued that this was particularly so in various areas proposed for the NRZ2.

Discussion

NRZ1 (Bush Suburban ‐ Dandenong Foothills)

The Panel agrees that the NRZ is a legitimate candidate for the Dandenong Foothills area and that its use would be consistent with the zone’s purposes and the criteria in PN78. As Council noted, the comprehensive planning framework that already applies to this area includes various development restrictions in recognition of the environmental, vegetation and landscape significance of this area. Notably, the importance of this area and its values are recognised at the State level.

While the Panel is satisfied that the NRZ is a suitable zone for this area, the proposed schedule raises a number of issues that are discussed in following sections of this report. Foremost of these concerns is how prescriptive or restrictive it needs to be in light of the extensive range of overlays that have already been applied to address environmental, landscape and vegetation issues in the area. This concern has influenced the Panel’s views about various elements of the NRZ1, particularly provisions that are mandatory or that seek to vary clause 54 and 55 standards significantly beyond what is in the existing GRZ2. The Panel has been reluctant to support these types of provisions where their justification has not been clear or where they are not a translation of an existing provision.

NRZ2 (Other bush suburban areas)

The proposed NRZ2 areas (to the west of the Dandenong Foothills area) are subject to the VPO4 or ESO2 introduced through Amendment C49. In contrast, the Foothills area is subject to a more comprehensive set of overlays including DDOs, ESOs, SLOs and VPOs that often overlap. The Foothills area is also within an area of State significance as part of the broader Dandenong Ranges area. The Panel believes that the characteristics and challenges presented by the NRZ1 and NRZ2 areas are quite different, and while it accepts that the NRZ is a suitable zone for the Foothills area, it is not convinced that it is suitable for the areas to the west.

It is not clear to the Panel why the NRZ needs to be applied to areas outside the Foothills, although it understands Council’s rationale and the background to the proposal. The Panel also notes that these areas are currently subject to the GRZ2 and its mandatory maximum building height of 9m.

Council argued that the ESO2 and VPO4 are inadequate by themselves to enhance tree canopy and vegetation cover, and that applying the NRZ2 would address this and be consistent with PN78. However, it has not been made clear to the Panel how or why the


Page 38 of 128

current overlays are deficient (particularly in regard to protecting the environmental values identified in the Sites of Biological Significance in Knox report) and why they would need to be augmented with the NRZ.

In relation to PN78, the Panel agrees with Council that it identifies overlays as a criterion for applying the NRZ, however it also notes that the RZSAC2 concluded that the existence of an overlay did not automatically justify the NRZ.

On balance, the Panel is not satisfied that the NRZ needs to be applied in conjunction with the VPO4 and ESO2 and believes that its justification fails on three counts:

It is not a translation of existing controls It lacks specific strategic support It has not been demonstrated that the current controls are failing to deliver Council’s

objectives.

The Panel believes that the GRZ2 (including the Panel’s recommended changes to the schedule) should be applied to these areas, instead of the NRZ2, given that it is the zone of closest fit to the current zone and would be consistent with the recommended zone in the surrounding areas.

Deleting the NRZ2 will require consequential changes to the various elements of the Amendment that need to be identified and addressed by Council prior to adopting the Amendment.

Conclusions

The Panel concludes that the NRZ is appropriate for the Bush Suburban areas in the Dandenong Foothills area given the landscape and environmental significance of this area, and the current zoning and overlay regime that applies.

The Panel concludes that the need to apply the NRZ2 to the Other Bush Suburban areas has not been adequately justified. The GRZ2 should apply to these areas.

Recommendation

The Panel recommends:

1. Apply the General Residential Zone Schedule 2 (including the recommended changes) to the areas proposed for the Neighbourhood Residential Zone Schedule 2.

2. Identify and address any consequential changes resulting from the deletion of the Neighbourhood Residential Zone Schedule 2.

2 Residential Zones Standing Advisory Committee, Stage One Overarching Issues Report.


Page 39 of 128

(ii) Applying the NRZ2 to Other Areas Subject to the ESO2 and VPO4

The issue

The issue is whether the NRZ2 should be applied to additional areas subject to the VPO4 and ESO2.

Submissions

Following its consideration of submissions, Council identified a number of areas currently subject to the VPO4 or ESO2 that it believed warranted the application of the NRZ2 rather than the exhibited GRZ. Council submitted that these sites were ‘erroneously omitted at exhibition’ and that it had advised affected parties of the proposed zoning changes and invited submissions to Council and the Panel. Council advised that no submissions were received.

Discussion and conclusions

For the reasons outlined in the preceding section, the Panel does not support the application of the NRZ2 to sites subject to the ESO2 or VPO4 and identified in the Sites of Biological Significance in Knox report.

These sites should be zoned in accordance the exhibited amendment.

5.2.2 Knox Neighbourhood


The issue

The issue is whether the GRZ is an appropriate zone for the Knox Neighbourhood areas.

The Knox Neighbourhood areas are described in the KHS as ‘typical Knox’ and are characterised by ‘green and leafy streets, backyards and mostly detached houses’, predominantly single or double storey housing. This is the most common housing typology in the municipality.

Preferred housing types are detached houses and dual occupancies, with villa style development on larger lots that are 1,000sqm and above.

These areas are currently zoned GRZ2 (formerly R3Z) and Amendment C131 proposes to apply a new schedule to this zone.

The current GRZ2 includes a mandatory maximum building height of 9m (with some exemptions) together with variations to some Clause 54 and 55 standards.

The exhibited GRZ2 includes a maximum building height for a dwelling or residential building of 8m (with some exemptions, including nursing homes, hostels, and residential aged care facilities). It also includes some variations to Clause 54 and 55 standards relating to street setbacks, landscaping, private open space and front fence heights.

Following its consideration of submissions, Council proposed various changes to the schedule in relation to landscaping, private open space and building heights. It also proposed changes that would clarify the height provisions relating to residential aged care facilities and nursing homes.


Page 40 of 128

Submissions

Council described the GRZ2 as the ‘keystone’ of its housing strategy and submitted that it was consistent with the KHS and elements of the current GRZ2 (former RGZ3). Council also submitted that the restrictions in the schedule were generally consistent with community expectations that had been expressed through Knox@50 and other consultation processes.

Some submitters supported more restrictive controls in the schedule, while others believed that the NRZ should be applied to all or parts of these areas. These submissions generally sought additional protection of what was perceived as an existing low density, low scale neighbourhood character.

Alternatively, some submitters believed that elements of the schedule were too restrictive and would impact negatively on property values, affordability and development flexibility.

Discussion

The Panel agrees that the GRZ is a legitimate candidate zone for the Knox Neighbourhood areas and that its use would be consistent with the Council’s vision for these areas, the zone’s purposes and the criteria in PN78. The Panel does not believe that the NRZ would be suitable for these areas because there is no justification for applying its more restrictive provisions (particularly the default limit of two dwellings per lot). The Knox Neighbourhood areas do not have the same character or landscape and environmental significance as the Dandenong Foothills which the Panel is satisfied warrants the NRZ.

Nevertheless, submissions raised a number of issues relating to the proposed schedule that are discussed in Section 5.3 of this report.

Conclusions

The Panel concludes that the GRZ is an appropriate zone for the Knox Neighbourhood areas.

5.2.3 Local Living


The issue

The issue is whether the GRZ is an appropriate zone for the Local Living areas.

The Local Living areas are focussed around ‘larger local villages’ and the KHS describes them as locations where residents are able to walk to shops and facilities. The preferred housing types are ‘well designed dual occupancies, villa units and town houses’.

These areas are currently zoned a mixture of GRZ1 (formerly R1Z) and GRZ2 (formerly R3Z), and the Amendment proposes to apply a new GRZ3.

The current GRZ1 relies on the default zone provisions while the current GRZ2 includes a mandatory maximum building height of 9m (with some exemptions) together with variations to some Clause 54 and 55 standards.

The exhibited GRZ3 includes a maximum building height for a dwelling or residential building of 9m (with some exemptions, including nursing homes, hostels, and residential aged care


Page 41 of 128

facilities). It also includes some variations to Clause 54 and 55 standards relating to street setbacks and landscaping.

Following its consideration of submissions, Council proposed to reduce the maximum building height from 9m to 8m. It also proposed changes that would clarify the height provisions relating to residential aged care facilities and nursing homes.

Submissions

Council submitted that the zones have been applied in order to implement the preferred character, housing types and design guidelines for the Local Living areas specified in the KHS.

Some submitters preferred the application of the NRZ to these areas or supported more restrictive controls in the GRZ schedule.

Alternatively, some submitters believed that elements of the schedule were too restrictive and would impact negatively on property values, affordability and development flexibility. Some noted that the proximity to activity centres and other infrastructure warranted a more flexible zoning approach.

Discussion

The Panel agrees that the GRZ is a legitimate candidate zone for the Local Living areas and that its use would be consistent with the Council’s vision for these areas, the zone’s purposes and the criteria in PN78.

The GRZ purposes include providing ‘a diversity of housing types and moderate housing growth in locations offering good access to services and transport’. This is reflected in the PN78 principles and criteria for applying the GRZ.

The Panel does not support the application of the NRZ to these areas given that it would restrict development in locations where higher density and other forms or residential development should be facilitated.

For these reasons, the Panel also has concerns about including mandatory or overly restrictive requirements in the schedule to the GRZ and these issues are discussed in section 5.3 of this report.

Conclusion

The Panel concludes that the GRZ is an appropriate zone for the Local Living areas.

(ii) Changing the Local Living area boundaries

The issue

The issue is whether the Local Living area (and GRZ3) boundaries should be modified.

Submissions

A number of submitters raised concerns about the extent of the Local Living areas, with some seeking an expansion and others seeking a contraction of their boundaries.

Council supported the proposed Local Living area boundaries and the exhibited GRZ3. It acknowledged that the Knox Housing Statement provides for ‘medium density housing’ over a larger area (generally 400m around each activity centre) than the designation of Local


Page 42 of 128

Living in the KHS which is applied to ‘smaller discrete areas’. These smaller areas reflected a community concern that recent development (particularly townhouses and apartments) were inconsistent with protecting neighbourhood character.

Council concluded that:

The reduced size of this residential area designation is a reflection of the need to find a balance between the provision of housing density and diversity and the protection of character in line with community expectations.

Discussion

The Panel does not agree with submitters who sought a contraction of the Local Living area designation and the GRZ3 boundaries. These areas are in proximity to local activity centres and there should be opportunities for higher density development in these locations. The Panel also notes that Council has taken a conservative approach to defining these areas in comparison to the approach in the Knox Housing Statement.

The Panel believes that there is scope to review and potentially expand the Local Living area boundaries, but is constrained in recommending zoning changes given that stakeholders should have the opportunity to consider such changes. Nevertheless, the Panel believes that Council should review this issue as part of a future review of the GRZ3 or as part of a broader review of the KHS or the application of the residential zones.

Conclusions

The Panel concludes that the exhibited GRZ3 (and Local Living area) boundaries should proceed as part of Amendment C131, but that Council should review them in the future.

5.2.4 Activity areas

(i) The proposed zones

The issue

The issue is whether the proposed zones to be applied in and around Activity Centres are appropriate.

For Knox Central and Rowville, the proposed zones include the RGZ1, GRZ2 and GRZ3. For Bayswater and Boronia, the proposed zones include the RGZ2 and GRZ4.

The KHS applies the Activity areas designation to areas either located on a SmartBus route or close to regional infrastructure. They are intended to provide for a ‘greater change in housing styles’ and more ‘intensive development’ while retaining the ‘green and leafy character’. The preferred housing types are ‘villa units, town houses and apartments’.

These areas are currently zoned a mixture of GRZ1 (formerly R1Z) and GRZ2 (formerly R3Z).

The current GRZ1 relies on the default zone provisions while the current GRZ2 includes a mandatory maximum building height of 9m (with some exemptions) together with variations to some Clause 54 and 55 standards.


Page 43 of 128

Submissions

Council submitted that the zones have been applied in order to implement the preferred character, housing types and design guidelines for the Activity areas.

Some submitters supported more restrictive controls in these areas, while others sought more flexibility in recognition of their proximity to activity centres and other infrastructure, and the locational advantages that they offer. Some submitters sought adjustments to zoning boundaries, arguing that additional areas or sites should be included in the Activity areas.

Discussion

The Panel agrees that the RGZ and GRZ are legitimate candidate zones for the Activity Areas and that their use would be consistent with the Council’s vision for these areas, the zone’s purposes and the criteria in PN78.

The GRZ purposes include providing ‘a diversity of housing types and moderate housing growth in locations offering good access to services and transport’. This is reflected in the PN78 principles and criteria for applying the GRZ.

The RGZ purposes include encouraging ‘a diversity of housing types in locations offering good services and transport including activity areas’ and ‘a scale of development that provides a transition between areas of more intensive use and development and areas of housing growth’. These are also reflected in the PN78 principles and criteria for applying the RGZ.

As discussed in relation to the Local Living Areas and the GRZ3, the Panel believes that there would be merit in undertaking a future review of Activity area boundaries and associated zonings as part of a future review/s of the activity centres or as part of a broader review of the KHS or the application of the residential zones.

Conclusion

The Panel concludes that the RGZ and GRZ are appropriate zones for the Activity areas, but that Council should review the zone boundaries in the future.


Page 44 of 128

5.3 Zone schedule issues

5.3.1 The drafting of schedules

(i) The issue

The issue is whether the local provisions relating to the number of dwellings on a lot and building heights in the relevant schedules to the RGZ GRZ and NRZ have been correctly drafted.

(ii) Discussion

The head clauses relating to various provisions in the RGZ, GRZ and NRZ provide for a ‘number’ to be specified’ in associated schedules. The exhibited (and revised) schedules include additional or alternative text:

Minimum subdivision area

The NRZ1 includes ‘Refer to the relevant Design and Development Overlay schedule’.

The NRZ2 includes additional text relating to the proposed minimum lot size of 500 sqm.

Building heights

The RGZ1, GRZ2, GRZ3, NRZ1 and NRZ23 include additional text relating to the proposed maximum building height.

The RGZ2, GRZ4 includes ‘Refer to the relevant Design and Development Overlay schedule’.

The GRZ54 includes ‘Refer to the relevant Design and Development Overlay schedule or Development Plan Overlay’.

There is a view that these schedules should only specify a number and that any additional text would be inconsistent with the head clauses and the schedule templates.

This approach would have implications for various elements of the recommended schedules including the proposed exemptions relating to residential aged care facilities. The Panel has drafted its recommendations on the basis that they are strategically justified and that the schedules can accommodate this additional material. However, it acknowledges that this has been raised as an issue in relation to other Amendments and recommends that Council discuss this issue with DTPLI before adopting the Amendment.

(iii) Conclusions

The Panel believes that the references to DDOs or DPOs need not be included in the schedules and recommends that they be deleted.

In relation to text that qualifies a ‘number’ and the proposed exemptions for aged care facilities, the Panel has proceeded on the basis that this approach is permissible, although it recommends that Council discuss this issue with DTPLI before adopting the Amendment.

3 The Panel has recommended that the NRZ2 be deleted from Amendment C131. 4 The Panel has recommended that the GRZ5 be deleted from Amendment C131.


Page 45 of 128

(iv) Recommendations

The Panel makes the following recommendations:

3. Remove the references to Design and Development Overlays and Development Plan Overlays from the Residential Growth Zone Schedule 2 and the General Residential Zone Schedule 4.

4. Prior to adopting Amendment C131, Council discuss the drafting of the residential zone schedules with the Department of Transport, Planning and Local Infrastructure to confirm that the proposed provisions are consistent with the head clauses.

5.3.2 The number of dwellings per lot

(i) The issue

The issue is how many dwellings should be permissible on a lot in the NRZ1 and NRZ2.

The exhibited NRZ1 and NRZ2 relied on the default maximum of two dwellings per lot. The Panel has recommended that the NRZ2 be deleted from the Amendment.

(ii) Submissions

Following its consideration of submissions, Council resolved to include a variation in the NRZ1 and NRZ2 schedules limiting each lot to one dwelling. This was justified on the basis that the change would ‘minimise confusion relating to lot sizes and development potential’.5

Council submitted that:

Through its exhibition of the draft Housing Strategy, Council found that a certain level of confusion arose within the community regarding Council’s support (or otherwise) for dual occupancies within the Dandenong Foothills. The ‘preferred housing types’ matrix shows that preferred dwelling types for Bush Suburban areas are single dwellings and dual occupancies (without any disclaimer regarding lot size). For many Foothills residents, this sent the message that dual occupancies were now ‘on the table’ for all sites in the Foothills, which is not the case. A small number of sites within the Foothills can support a second lot, where they can satisfy the existing subdivision requirements.

Council is concerned that the default control ‘two dwellings on a lot’ would send an equally confusing message to landowners within the Foothills, particularly when read independently of the relevant DDO schedule. This provision opens the door to consideration of two dwellings on a lot where, in most cases, this would not be supported by Council due to the existing DDO provisions.

Council is seeking to maximise transparency and clarity in the planning scheme provisions which affect this area, by aligning development controls with existing

5 The exhibited NRZ1 relies on the default subdivision provisions (no minimum lot size) and the various

requirements of the DDOs. The exhibited NRZ2 introduces a minimum lot size of 500sqm.


Page 46 of 128

subdivision controls. This approach seeks to minimise any perceived conflicts which may arise in the zone and overlay provisions.

Council’s proposed approach to this provision would necessitate permit applications for development and subdivision together, such that an approval can be granted (where possible) to create two lots each containing one dwelling. Conversely, applications for subdivision prior to development may increase.

… the existing subdivision controls mean that the majority of lots within the proposed NRZ1 have no subdivision potential under the existing Design and Development Overlay subdivision controls. Only 10% of lots could be subdivided to accommodate a second dwelling. The majority of lots within the Dandenong Foothills area only accommodate one dwelling under the existing controls.

Regarding exhibition of this change, Council is of the view that this would have negligible impact on development within the Foothills, given the existing and well‐known limitations on subdivision.

In relation to the NRZ2 areas, Council submitted that:

In Bush Suburban areas outside of the Foothills, Council is seeking to achieve a dwelling ratio of one dwelling per 500sqm. In this regard, the minimum lot size is the key clause in the zone schedule. The ultimate outcome sought is one dwelling per lot, with each lot being a minimum of 500sqm in area.

As noted above regarding the Dandenong Foothills, Council is seeking to maximise transparency and clarity in the planning scheme provisions which affect this area, by aligning development controls with subdivision controls.

Council’s proposed approach to this provision would necessitate permit applications for development and subdivision together, such that an approval can be granted (where possible) to create two lots of 500sqm, each containing one dwelling. Conversely, applications for subdivision prior to development may increase.

A number of submissions raised issues about what were perceived as overly restrictive provisions and unnecessary constraints on development potential, including subdivision sizes and limits on the number of dwellings. The Panel expects that these submitters would oppose this post exhibition change. Other submitters believed that the amendment needed to be more prescriptive and restrictive, and provide greater certainty and clarity. The Panel expects that these submitters would support the proposed change.

(iii) Discussion

There is currently no limitation on the number of dwellings in the areas proposed for the NRZ1 and NRZ2 (except for the relatively small area covered by DDO46), although there are various mandatory subdivision minima in the various DDOs that apply within the proposed NRZ1 area.

6 Former Ferntree Gully quarry


Page 47 of 128

As Council noted, the KHS identifies the preferred housing types in the Bush Suburban areas as ‘detached dwellings and some dual occupancies on larger sites’. The RDG recommends a mandatory dwelling ratio of 1 dwelling per 500sqm in these areas, which Council argued was consistent with the intent of the subdivision minima in the existing DDOs.

In relation to the NRZ1 areas, Council provided an assessment of the number of lots (by lot size) in the DDO1, DDO2, DDO3 and DDO5 areas which indicated that although most lots were not capable of further subdivision, there was some, albeit limited, scope for further subdivision. We also note Council’s view that larger lots can be subdivided or there can be joint applications for subdivision and development as a means of addressing the issues with large lots.

Nevertheless, a mandatory limit of one dwelling per lot is inflexible and won’t allow applications to be considered for two dwellings regardless of whether they might be appropriate in the site and neighbourhood context.

The Panel does not support this change to the exhibited amendment and is satisfied that retaining the default maximum of two dwellings per lot in the NRZ provides an appropriate degree of flexibility. In forming this view, the Panel notes that the zone purposes and the extensive range of overlays provide a strong framework within which Council can manage applications for two dwellings on a lot.

While the Panel acknowledges that limiting lots to one dwelling would provide the degree of certainty that Council and some in the community seek, it does not believe that this factor outweighs the benefits of having a more flexible approach and providing opportunities for two dwellings where they would be appropriate in the site and neighbourhood context.

In relation to the NRZ2 areas, the Panel has recommended that the NRZ2 be deleted from the Amendment. Nevertheless, the Panel notes that the arguments for limiting lots to one dwelling in the NRZ2 are even less compelling than for the NRZ1 given that these areas are not subject to mandatory subdivision minima applied through DDOs. For this reason, it cannot be argued that there is an implied expectation that these areas are (or should be) subject to a dwelling density control. In addition, the Panel was not presented with any evidence that limiting lots to one dwelling was necessary to achieve the environmental objectives of the ESO2 and VPO4 that apply to these areas.

(iv) Conclusions

The Panel concludes that two dwellings should be permissible on a lot in the NRZ1, consistent with the exhibited NRZ1. The proposed post‐exhibition change is not supported.


Page 48 of 128

5.3.3 Building heights

A number of submissions raised issues with the proposed maximum building heights in exhibited zone schedules prompting Council to support various changes. These provisions are summarised in Table 3 below to provide a reference for the following discussion.

Zone schedule Exhibited maximum building height Council’s proposed post exhibition change

NRZ1 7.5m in schedule No change

NRZ2 8m default 8m in schedule

GRZ2 8m in schedule No change to height

GRZ3 None specified 8m

GRZ4 Refer to relevant DDO schedule No change

GRZ5 Refer to relevant DDO schedule No change

RGZ1 9m in schedule No change

RGZ2 Refer to relevant DDO schedule No change

RGZ3 Refer to relevant DDO schedule No change

Table 3 Summary of proposed height controls

(i) NRZ1 and NRZ2

The issue

The issue is what maximum building height should apply in the NRZ1 and NRZ2.

The exhibited NRZ1 includes a mandatory maximum building height of 7.5m for a dwelling or residential building, subject to some exemptions. The exhibited NRZ2 relies on the default mandatory maximum of 8m, also with some exemptions. Following its consideration of submissions, Council resolved to retain the 8m maximum in the NRZ2 but to include an exemption for ‘architectural features’ in the schedule.

The Panel has recommended that the NRZ2 be removed from the Amendment.

Submissions

Submissions raised issues with the proposed maximum building heights, with some arguing that they were too restrictive. Others supported the heights on the basis that that were consistent with existing neighbourhood character.

In relation to the NRZ1, Council submitted that:

In specifying 7.5m, Council is seeking to be consistent with the existing direction given in existing controls and policy applying to the Dandenong Foothills area.

The existing 7.5m height limit in the Foothills is well understood by the local community and development industry. As such, the majority of applications ‘comply’ with this albeit discretionary limit.

Council is keen to maintain 7.5m as the prevailing maximum height in the Foothills. It is Council’s view that a mandatory 8m height would be taken as a


Page 49 of 128

‘given’ by permit applicants and as such would erode the efficacy of the current discretionary controls.

In relation to the NRZ2, Council submitted that the 8m maximum height was appropriate in light of the overlays that apply to these areas. Council also noted that the existing GRZ2 (former R3Z) that applies to these areas includes a 9m maximum height.

Discussion

The RDG propose a mandatory maximum height of 8m (maximum of two storeys) in Bush Suburban areas. The default mandatory maximum height in the NRZ is 8m. The current GRZ2 (former R3Z) includes a maximum 9m height.

The Dandenong Foothills policy (Clause 22.01) includes a policy that buildings should not exceed 7.5m within three of the five areas identified in the policy. There is no preferred height specified in the other two areas.

Two of the DDOs that apply in the proposed NRZ1 area use the 7.5m building height as a permit trigger to extend an existing dwelling or construct buildings and works ancillary to a dwelling. Two others do not have any height references, while the DDO4 has a mandatory maximum height of 7.5m, albeit to the limited area of the former Ferntree Gully quarry.

The Panel does not believe that a case has been made for a mandatory maximum height of 7.5m throughout the Dandenong Foothills area. In forming this view, the Panel notes that a 7.5m height is inconsistent with:

The 8m recommended in the RDG

The 9m included in the current GRZ2 (and former R3Z).

The Panel also notes that there is a range of different height requirements in the Dandenong Foothills policy and in the various DDOs that apply in the Foothills area. In light of this variation, it cannot be argued that a mandatory maximum height of 7.5m reflects or is consistent with the existing provisions.

Given that the Panel does not believe that the 7.5m height has been justified, it has had to consider alternative approaches, including applying 8m (as recommended in the RDG and applied as the default maximum height in the NRZ) or 9m (consistent with the current GRZ2 [and former R3Z]) as the maximum height.

On balance, the Panel supports the 8m maximum height given its view that the appropriate zone for the Foothills area is the NRZ and that the default maximum height should be applied unless an alternative approach is justified. Although the existing GRZ2 applies a 9m maximum height, the Panel believes that the argument for retaining this is offset by the support for an 8m height limit in the RDG.

However, the Panel’s support for an 8m height is contingent on the schedule including exemptions for architectural features (as proposed for other schedules) and for residential aged care facilities (as discussed in section 5.1.5 of this report). The Panel believes that this additional flexibility is warranted.

The Panel also notes that the existing DDOs will continue to apply and where relevant they will continue to influence decisions about building height.


Page 50 of 128

If Council wishes to pursue a reduced maximum building height in the future, it should do so following a more rigorous analysis of preferred building heights in particular areas, including a review of the content and application of the DDOs and other overlays that might be relevant to building height.

Conclusion

The Panel concludes that the NRZ1 should rely on the default maximum building height of 8m included in the zone.

Recommendation


5. Modify Clause 5.0 in the Neighbourhood Residential Zone Schedule 1 to provide for a maximum height of 8m (or 9m where the slope of the natural ground level at any cross section wider than 8m of the site of the building is 2.5 degrees or more) and exemptions for ‘architectural features to the satisfaction of the responsible authority’, and ‘residential aged care facilities’.

(ii) GRZ2 (Knox Neighbourhood Areas)

The issue

The issue is what maximum building height should apply in the GRZ2.

The exhibited GRZ2 includes a mandatory maximum building height of 8m for a dwelling or residential building, subject to some exemptions. This limit does not apply to a nursing home, hostel, or residential aged care facility.

The current GRZ2 (and the former R3Z) that applies to most of the Knox Neighbourhood areas includes a 9m mandatory maximum height.

Following its consideration of submissions, Council resolved to clarify the height provisions relating to residential aged care facilities and nursing homes.

Submissions

Submissions raised issues with the proposed maximum building height, with some arguing that it was too restrictive and would unreasonably constrain development. Others supported the height on the basis that it is consistent with existing neighbourhood character.

Council submitted that the 8m height limit would:

…allow for the preferred 1‐2 storey scale of Knox Neighbourhood areas, with preferred housing types of detached houses, dual occupancies and villa units (on large lots).

Council also submitted that the 8m limit would reflect past development trends and that there was little, if any, development pressure for three storey buildings in these areas. Council also noted that the RDG recommend a mandatory maximum height of 8m (maximum of two storeys). In addition, Council advised that have not been any applications


Page 51 of 128

for residential development of more than two storeys since Amendment C46 introduced the R3Z in November 2006.

Council concluded that the 8m height reflects the status quo and will not ‘restrict a form of development which would otherwise be delivered by the market’.

Discussion

As discussed in section 5.1 of its report, the Panel generally supports Council’s vision for the Knox Neighbourhood areas and the application of the GRZ, but is reluctant to support mandatory controls or controls that are more restrictive than currently apply unless there is clear strategic justification.

In relation to building height, the Panel is not satisfied that Council has adequately demonstrated why an 8m height limit should replace the existing 9m limit, or why development should be limited to two storeys throughout the Knox Residential areas.

A perceived lack of demand is not in itself a justification for limiting development to two storeys. Obviously, if there is no (or limited) demand for three storey development then the anticipated threat to residential character is also limited. It would seem that this has been borne out by the lack of applications since 2006 and leads the Panel to query why the change is necessary.

More importantly, however, the Panel believes that there are sites and areas within the Knox Neighbourhood areas that are capable of supporting well designed three storey buildings without compromising existing character or Council’s vision for these areas. These include sites and areas that are proximate to activity centres and public transport (in addition to the Local Living and Activity Areas being rezoned in the Amendment), as well as those that because of their size, topography, vegetation or local context can support a higher form of development. Providing this opportunity is consistent with the broader policy imperatives to provide greater flexibility for higher density housing and to achieve urban consolidation.

In the absence of compelling arguments in support of an 8m height limit in the Knox Neighbourhood areas, the Panel recommends that the existing 9m height (from the former R3Z) be included in the schedule. The schedule should also include the proposed exemptions for ‘architectural features to the satisfaction of the responsible authority’, and ‘residential aged care facilities’ (Subject to the advice of DTPLI as discussed in Section 5.3.1).

Conclusion

The Panel concludes that the existing 9m maximum building height should be applied Knox Neighbourhood areas and the GRZ2.

Recommendation

6. Modify Clause 3.0 in the General Residential Zone Schedule 2 to provide for a maximum height of 9m (or 10m where the slope of the natural ground level at any cross section wider than 8m of the site of the building is 2.5 degrees or more) consistent with the existing General Residential Zone 2.


Page 52 of 128

(iii) GRZ3 (Local Living areas)

The issue

The issue is what maximum building height should apply in the GRZ3.

The exhibited GRZ3 does not specify a mandatory maximum building height and relies on the default reference to Clauses 54 and 55 in the zone. The current GRZ1 (and the former R1Z) that applies to most of the Local Living areas does not specify a maximum height. The current GRZ2 (former R3Z) applies to a limited area and includes a maximum building height of 9m.

Following its consideration of submissions, Council resolved to introduce a maximum building height of 8m for dwellings and residential buildings, subject to some exemptions, including residential aged care facilities and nursing homes.

Submissions

Council advised that the proposed 8m height limit was in response to submissions and was consistent with the preferred housing types in Local Living areas.

Some submissions opposed the lack of a maximum height in the GRZ3, prompting Council’s post exhibition decision to support an 8m limit.

Discussion

The exhibited schedule does not specify a mandatory maximum height, although the RDG recommend a 9m maximum. Council now proposes that an 8m maximum height be applied. The GRZ3 has been applied sparingly (in five areas) and in association with ‘local villages’.

The Panel agrees that while development should be encouraged around activity centres, there is a clear distinction between the local villages and the major activity centres. The Panel also understands Council’s desire to protect the character of these villages and to limit the height and intensity of residential development.

In these circumstances, the Panel agrees that there should be a height limit in these areas; although it supports the 9m limit recommended in the RDG rather than the 8m limit subsequently proposed by Council. A 9m limit would strike a better balance between the benefits of locating more intensive development in association with the villages and acknowledging their character and lower scale of development.

The schedule should also include the proposed exemptions for ‘architectural features to the satisfaction of the responsible authority’ and ‘residential aged care facilities’.

Conclusion

The Panel concludes that a 9m maximum building height should apply within the Local Living areas and the GRZ3, consistent with the RDG.

Recommendation

7. Modify Clause 3.0 in the General Residential Zone Schedule 3 to provide for a maximum height of 9m (or 10m where the slope of the natural ground level at any cross section wider than 8m of the site of the building is 2.5 degrees or more) consistent with the existing General Residential Zone Schedule 2.


Page 53 of 128

5.3.4 Private open space

(i) The issue

The issue is whether there is adequate justification for the proposed variations to the private open space provisions in the NRZ1, NRZ2 and GRZ2.

The Panel has recommended that the NRZ2 be deleted from the Amendment.

The exhibited NRZ1, NRZ2 and GRZ2 schedule includes variations to Standards A17 and B28 in clauses 54 and 55 with the key changes highlighted in Table 4 below.

Standard being varied

Clause 54 and 55 Standard

Existing GRZ2 Exhibited NRZ1, NRZ2 and GRZ2

Council’s proposed post‐exhibition changes

A17

Area of open space

80sqm 80sqm 100sqm n/a

A17

% of open space

20% 20% n/a n/a

A17

Minimum area of open space

40sqm 60sqm n/a n/a

A17

Minimum area of secluded private open space

25sqm with minimum 3m dimension



n/a

B28

Area of open space

40sqm 60sqm 100sqm n/a

B28

Minimum area of secluded private open space

25sqm with minimum 3m dimension; or a balcony of 8sqm with a minimum width of 1.8m; or a roof top area of 10sqm with a minimum width of 2m.

40sqm with minimum 5m dimension or a balcony of 8sqm with a minimum width of 1.8m; or a roof top area of 10sqm with a minimum width of 2m.

60sqm with minimum 5m dimension or a balcony of 8sqm with a minimum width of 1.8m; or a roof top area of 10sqm with a minimum width of 2m.

Remove references to balconies and roof tops from NRZ1, NRZ2 and GRZ2.

Table 4 Summary of Open Space requirements


Page 54 of 128

(ii) Submissions

Private open space requirements

Council explained the rationale for the increased open space requirements, highlighting that this approach was consistent with the KHS and the community’s vision for a ‘green and leafy Knox’.

Council explained that it had undertaken a review of the performance of the open space requirements in the R3Z and concluded that they ‘are not sufficient to achieve the required canopy tree planting in most cases’ and that the ‘prevalence of features such as decks, verandas, sheds etc. in backyards, which are often added to a development after completion, mean that canopy trees are either not retained or planted in the first place, or are removed’.


….non‐compliance with landscape plans and personal preferences for use of space will be an ongoing issue. The proposed open space requirements seek to maximise the space available to accommodate canopy tree planting alongside other uses of private open space. A larger backyard will create the best opportunity for accommodating recreation and service needs with canopy tree retention and/or planting in appropriate areas.

Some submitters supported the open space provisions, while others believed they were excessive and unjustified. Some argued that the open space issues that were of concern to Council could be addressed by better design within the existing requirements and more diligent enforcement of permit conditions.

Standard B28

Council submitted that:

As drafted, the zone schedules suggest that a balcony or roof top area may be provided instead of the larger area specified.

This is not reflective of the objectives sought in these locations or of the outcomes sought by the draft Residential Design Guidelines: Minimum area of private open space including balcony or roof top garden =

100sqm Minimum side/rear area of secluded private open space accessible from a

living room (excluding balconies) = 60sqm

A balcony or roof top garden may contribute to the total amount of private open space required, but must not be in lieu of the required area of 100sqm.

It may be appropriate to draft the requirements in the zone schedule as follows:

“Private open space consisting of: An area of 100 square metres with one part of the private open space to

consist of secluded private open space at the side or rear of the dwelling or residential building with minimum area of 60 square metres with a minimum dimension of 5 metres of secluded private open space with convenient access from a living room, or


Page 55 of 128

Private open space may include: A balcony of 8 square metres with a minimum width of 1.8 metres and

convenient access from a living room, or A roof‐top area of 10 square metres with a minimum width of 2 metres and

convenient access from a living room.”

Some submitters opposed this change, arguing that it was unnecessary and overly restrictive.

(iii) Discussion

Private open space

A number of factors are relevant to the Panel’s consideration of issues associated with the private open space standards:

The open space standards in Clauses 54 and 55 and in the zone schedules are discretionary, and Council has the opportunity to seek a smaller or larger area of open space depending on the individual circumstances of a site and an application.

Some of the open space standards in the current GRZ2 (the former R3Z) are already more onerous the Clause 54 and 55 standards.

It seems that the main rationale for the increased open space provision is the proposition that if there is more open space, it is more likely that canopy trees will be planted and maintained.

The retention of canopy trees is dependent on a number of factors, including compliance with planning permits and owner/occupier preferences for how open space is used.

The Panel is not satisfied that Council has adequately demonstrated why there needs to be a further variation of the open space standards. The proposed standards in the NRZ1 and GRZ2 go significantly beyond the standards in Clauses 54 and 55, and could potentially have a range of negative impacts on housing diversity, affordability and design, with no guarantee that the issues relating to canopy trees will be resolved.

A more successful strategy might involve a combination of planning permit enforcement, education and better design and assessment.

In light of this, the Panel believes that the open space standards in the NRZ1 and GRZ2 should replicate the standards in the current GRZ2.

Standard B28

The Panel notes Council’s advice that the exhibited provision does not reflect the intent of the RDG which includes balconies and roof tops as part of the total open space rather than alternative open space areas. Standard B28 has the three open space areas as alternatives and the existing GRZ2 has a similar approach although it varies the total open space and secluded open space areas.

Setting aside the confusion about what is intended in the RDG, the Panel is not satisfied that Council has adequately demonstrated why the variations in the current GRZ2 need to be changed and why they need to be more onerous, particularly because the exhibited provisions are a significant departure from how Standard 18 and the existing GRZ2 operate.


Page 56 of 128

For these reasons the Panel supports the provisions in the exhibited NRZ1, NRZ2 and GRZ2 and does not support the post‐exhibition changes proposed by Council.

(iv) Conclusion

The Panel concludes that The NRZ1 and GRZ2 open space standards should be consistent with the standards in the current GRZ2.

(v) Recommendations


8. Modify Clause 3.0 (Requirements of Clause 54 and Clause 55) in the exhibited Neighbourhood Residential Zone Schedule 1 to include the ‘Private open space’ ‘Requirements’ of the existing General Residential Zone Schedule 2.

9. Modify Clause 2.0 (Requirements of Clause 54 and Clause 55) in the exhibited General Residential Zone Schedule 2 to include the ‘Private open space’ ‘Requirements’ of the existing General Residential Zone Schedule 2.

5.3.5 Landscaping

(i) The issue

The issue is whether there is adequate justification for the canopy tree requirements in the exhibited Amendment.

These requirements are summarised in Table 5 below to provide a reference for the following discussion. The existing GRZ2 (and other existing schedules) do not include variations to the landscaping standard.

The relevant schedules also include:

Each tree should be surrounded by 20sqm of permeable surface with a minimum radius of 3m. Up to 50% of the permeable surface may be shared with another tree.

Following its consideration of submissions, Council resolved to exclude one driveway from the measurement of site width within each schedule and to replace the Standard B13 requirements in the GRZ5 with ‘none specified’. It also resolved to include a definition of canopy tree in the KHS and RDG.

The Panel has recommended that the NRZ2 and GRZ5 be deleted from the Amendment.


Page 57 of 128

Residential Area Zone Schedule Proposed variations to standard B13

Bush Suburban NRZ1 None specified

NRZ2 Minimum of one canopy tree per 150sqm, including one canopy tree in each secluded private open space area and one canopy tree within the front setback per 5m of site width.

Knox Neighbourhood and Activity areas

GRZ2 Minimum of one canopy tree per 175sqm, including one canopy tree in each secluded private open space area and one canopy tree within the front setback per 5m of site width.

Local Living and Activity areas

GRZ3 Minimum of one canopy tree per 200sqm, including one canopy tree within the front setback per 5m of site width.

Activity areas GRZ4, RGZ1, RGZ2 Minimum of one canopy tree per 250sqm, including one canopy tree within the front setback per 5m of site width (including the DDO6 area).

Stamford Park and Harcrest

GRZ5 Minimum of one canopy tree per 20sqm, including one canopy tree within the front setback per 5m of site width.

Rowville Structure plan Opportunity Sites and Knox Private Hospital

RGZ3 None specified

Table 5 Summary of Landscaping requirements

(ii) Submissions

Council submitted that the landscaping requirements were a consistent unifying element across all of the proposed residential areas in the KHS. The ratio of canopy trees to open space is part of the ‘scaled approach’ to housing development in the KHS and recognises that all areas of Knox contribute to the green and leafy character, but in differing ways. Council noted that the canopy tree ratio is greater in the Bush Suburban and Knox Neighbourhood areas, because of the greater open space requirements, where landscape and neighbourhood character outcomes are considered to outweigh dwelling diversity outcomes.

Council added that specific requirements for canopy trees were not required within secluded private open space in Activity areas and Local Living areas in order to provide more flexibility and in recognition of the limitations of achieving canopy tree planting within smaller areas of secluded private open space.

Council advised that:

The concept of a scale of tree ratios was first established in Council’s pilot study, undertaken by The Planning Group in 2010. The establishment of tree ratios was based on a number of criteria being: The available space as specified by site coverage and private open space

requirements; Maintaining current levels of tree cover;


Page 58 of 128

Providing sufficient levels of tree cover to assist in reducing the heat island effect.

And recognised: The benefits of providing additional trees in areas which contain sites of

biological significance The ability to utilise/borrow from tree planting within the public realm (eg

wide reserves and landscape easements on main roads) which is particularly relevant to Local Living and Activity Areas.

Council also relied on an assessment of case studies (Document 11) which it argued demonstrated the poor outcomes that were being achieved under the current GRZ2 (R3Z).

Council also submitted that its on‐the‐ground road testing demonstrated that the outcomes on typical sites are not unreasonable. It provided the following table to demonstrate the overall level of canopy tree planting for each area.

Lot dimensions Bush Suburban Knox Neighbourhood Local Living Activity Area

18m x 58m = 1044sqm 7 6 5 4

18m x 50m = 900sqm 6 5 5 4

17m x 43m = 731sqm 5 4 4 3

Table 6 Proposed Canopy Tree requirements


All permit applications for multi‐unit developments require the approval of a landscape plan, which is assessed by Council's Landscape Assessment Officers. Through this process, officers assess the appropriateness of proposed canopy trees, in the context of the size of the space available, proximity to buildings and impervious surfaces, etc. The inclusion of these requirements in zone schedules ensures that site responsive approaches to landscaping and canopy tree planting can be achieved through the application of the canopy tree ratios, which are discretionary requirements, at the design concept stage.

A number of submitters, such as Mr Jager and Mr Partoglou (Submission 222) and Mr O’Leary (Submissions 112 and 139) argued that the canopy tree requirements were unnecessary and too onerous.

(iii) Discussion

The proposed standards relating to landscaping (canopy trees) are linked to the proposed private open space standards discussed earlier, but are not dependant on them. Although the Panel recommended that the existing GRZ2 private open space standards be retained, it is satisfied that there is merit in the proposed landscaping standards relating to the provision of canopy trees. These standards are consistent with the KHS and RDG, as well as the broader objective of maintaining the ‘green and leafy Knox’ advocated by Council.


Page 59 of 128

The Panel notes that these standards only apply to two or more dwellings on a lot and that Clause 55.03‐8 (Standard B13) includes comprehensive landscaping objectives and standards that provide a basis for assessing whether a lesser provision of canopy trees is justified.

There will be situations where the proposed standards will be problematic given the size of the lot, the area of open space and the configuration of the proposed development, but they are a discretionary provision and Council has the opportunity to vary them in response to specific sites and applications. In this context, the Panel sees these standards as aspirational rather than fixed or universally applicable requirements.

The Panel believes that these provisions should be reviewed once they have been in operation to establish whether they are necessary and workable, particularly in light of the Panel’s recommendations to retain the existing provisions relating to private open space.

(iv) Conclusions

The Panel concludes that the proposed variations to Standard B13 in the exhibited residential zone schedules are generally appropriate as a guide to the provision of canopy trees, but that Council should monitor and review their performance.

(v) Recommendations


10. Modify Clause 2.0 (Requirements of Clause 54 and Clause 55) relating to Standard B13 (Landscaping) in the exhibited General Residential Zone Schedules 2, 3 and 4 to exclude the width of one driveway from the calculation of the number of canopy trees in the front setback.

11. Modify Clause 1.0 (Requirements of Clause 54 and Clause 55) relating to Standard B13 (Landscaping) in the exhibited Residential Growth Zone Schedules 1, 2 and 3 to exclude the width of one driveway from the calculation of the number of canopy trees in the front setback.

12. Review the workability and necessity for the variations to Clause 55 Standard 18 in the relevant residential zone schedules once they have been in operation and their performance has been monitored.

5.3.6 Other Schedule provisions

(i) Front fence height

Some submissions opposed the proposed variations to the Clause 54 and 55 Standards A20 and B32 (Front fence height) in the exhibited NRZ1, NRZ2 and GRZ2 schedules. These variations have been carried over from the existing GRZ2 (the former R3Z) and the Panel was not presented with any compelling reasons why they should be deleted or changed.

(ii) Minimum street setback

Some submissions opposed the proposed variations to the Clause 54 and 55 Standards A3 and B6 (Minimum street setback) in the exhibited RGZ1, RGZ2 and GRZ4 (6m), GRZ2 (4.5m


Page 60 of 128

from the second street of a corner lot), GRZ3 (4m from the second street of a corner lot) and NRZ2 (5m from the second street of a corner lot).

These variations are consistent with the setbacks recommended in the RDG, and do not significantly vary the relevant Clause 54 and 55 standards. In the absence of any compelling reasons to delete or change them, the Panel supports their inclusion.

5.4 The zoning of specific sites

5.4.1 Tabulam and Templar Homes for the Aged

(i) The issue

The issue is what is the most appropriate policy area and zone for the site in Elizabeth Street, Bayswater.

(ii) Submissions

Tabulam and Templar Home for the Aged Inc. (Submission 212) supported the exemptions afforded to aged care developments under the proposed zones but submitted that their site in Elizabeth Street, Bayswater should be in the Activity Area? or Local Living Area in order to better support future development. They submitted that they would be commercially disadvantaged compared to other operators in the area that were in Activity Areas.

Council responded that the site did not meet the criteria to be included in a Local Living Area or Activity Area? and noted that, in any case, the GRZ zone schedules have been drafted to provide flexibility for aged care uses, particularly regarding building height.

(iii) Discussion

The Panel agrees with Council that the site is appropriately zoned GRZ and notes that the proposed GRZ schedules provide flexibility and exemptions for aged care facilities that facilitate future redevelopment.

(iv) Conclusion

The Panel concludes that no change should be made in response to the Tabulam and Templar Homes for the Aged submission.

5.4.2 Villa Maria

(i) The issue

The issue is what is the most appropriate zone to apply to the Villa Maria site at 355‐357 Stud Road, and 13 White Road, Wantirna South.

(ii) Submissions

Villa Maria (Submission 234) submitted that the proposed RGZ1 was not a suitable zone to apply to the site as it would unjustifiably restrict development. In particular, the 9m height limit proposed would not be consistent with the permit already granted to develop the site up to 7 storeys. Villa Maria proposed that the Mixed Use Zone (MUZ) is more appropriate in


Page 61 of 128

such instances where there is intent to provide for ‘a range of residential, commercial, industrial and other uses and provide for housing at higher densities that responds to the neighbourhood character’. Villa Maria initially submitted that the MUZ should extend to include 13 White Road which is used as a day care facility associated with Villa Maria. In the hearing, Ms Roennfeldt, on behalf of Villa Maria, acknowledged that the GRZ would be more appropriate to retain on 13 White Street.

Mr Milutin (Submission 391) objected to both the RGZ and the MUZ being applied to the site on the basis that the building heights and setbacks allowed would create an unreasonable amenity impact on his property, and others in White Road. Mr Milutin made a presentation to the Panel showing the impact of the development of the Villa Maria site (and adjoining sites on Stud Road) on his property in White Road, immediately to the east of the Villa Maria site. Mr Milutin showed the Panel a number of photos showing existing buildings in Stud Road from his back yard. He is concerned that the proposed MUZ will allow even bigger building bulk and more visual impact on his back yard.

In response to the submission from Villa Maria, Council determined, post‐exhibition, to change the zoning applying to 355‐357 Stud Road (and, for consistency, the adjoining site at 343 Stud Road), Wantirna South from RGZ to MUZ.

In response to Mr Milutin’s concerns, Council submitted that ResCode or the RDG would apply to any development and that the interface of any development with adjoining properties would need to be addressed in any permit application. Council submitted that Clause 22.04 (Knox Central Principal Activity Centre) and the reference document Knox Central Urban Design Framework also provides guidance to respecting the character and amenity of surrounding residential areas.

(iii) Discussion

The Panel accepts that the MUZ is a more appropriate zone to apply to the Villa Maria site (and, for consistency, the adjoining site at 343 Stud Road), given the permits that have already been issued. The Panel acknowledges Mr Milutin’s concerns but believes that the controls referred to by Council will provide sufficient protection for surrounding residential areas.

(iv) Conclusion

The Panel concludes that the MUZ should be applied to 343 and 355‐357 Stud Road Wantirna South.

(v) Recommendation

The Panel recommends the following change to the exhibited Amendment C131:

13. Apply the Mixed Use Zone to 343 and 355‐357 Stud Road Wantirna South.


Page 62 of 128

5.4.3 Knox Private Hospital

(i) The issue

The issue is whether 2‐8 Ainsdale Avenue, Wantirna should be zoned RGZ3 (as exhibited) or GRZ2 (as proposed by Council following its consideration of submissions.

2‐8 Ainsdale Avenue forms part of the Knox Private Hospital site, and is the subject of a recent planning permit issued by VCAT for an extension to the hospital.

(ii) Submissions

Submissions were received from two residents that the properties at 2‐8 Avenue, Wantirna should be Knox Neighbourhood (GRZ2), consistent with the remainder of the street.

In response, Council resolved that that the site should be zoned GRZ2 instead of RGZ3 because the future development of the hospital should take into account the low scale residential interface of Ainsdale Avenue.

Mr Bitmead, representing Healthscope Ltd (operator of Knox Private Hospital), (Submission 389) submitted that:

The hospital is a significant facility recognised in Plan Melbourne and planning should facilitate not jeopardise future expansion of the hospital;

The RGZ3 reflects the policy intent for the hospital, including directions of Plan Melbourne and in particular the proposed DPO11;

The hospital should not be placed in two different zones;

The now proposed GRZ2 does not reflect the building form in the recently approved planning permit; and

The GRZ2 is not necessary to ensure that future hospital development responds to the Ainsdale Avenue interface.

Mr Bitmead submitted that the RGZ3 is a more appropriate zone as it is tailored for use where a DPO or DDO applies, whereas the GRZ is intended to apply to residential areas. Mr Bitmead referred to the objectives of the RGZ3, which seek:

To encourage a scale of development that provides a transition between areas of more intensive use and development and areas of restricted housing growth.

He also referred to other planning controls targeted at managing the interface with residential properties including the DPO11, ‘which will include numerous application requirements to demonstrate the extent of impacts on surrounding residential properties and decision guidelines requiring consideration of whether the amenity of existing residential development in the area is sufficiently protected’.

(iii) Discussion

The Panel agrees with Mr Bitmead that the RGZ3 is more appropriate given the nature of the development already approved for the site. The permit confirms the use of the site for hospital rather than residential use. The Panel also agrees that the controls provided in the RGZ3 and the proposed DPO11 adequately protect the interface with residential properties.


Page 63 of 128

It is unclear to the Panel why Council view this site differently to the Villa Maria site, where Council is comfortable that the planning controls of the RGZ or MUZ (in combination with ResCode or the RDG) would provide appropriate protection.

(iv) Conclusions

The Panel concludes that land at 2‐8 Ainsdale Avenue, Wantirna should be in the RGZ3 as exhibited.

5.4.4 Glengollan Village

(i) The issue

The issue is whether the exhibited NRZ1 is suitable for this site.

The Glengollan Village is a private aged care/retirement living facility situated at 97 Underwood Road, Ferntree Gully.

The existing DDO2, ESO3 and SLO3 apply to the site.

Both the DDO2 and the SLO3 require a permit for buildings and works over 7.5m, and SLO3 lists as a Decision Guideline:

Whether buildings exceeding a height of 7.5 metres will have a detrimental impact on the key elements of the landscape and the landscape character objectives.

DDO2 includes mandatory site coverage requirements.

The Amendment proposes to apply the NRZ1 to the site which will, amongst other things, apply a mandatory height limit of 7.5m.

(ii) Submissions

Mr Bitmead, on behalf of Glengollan Village (Submission 166) submitted that the NRZ1, particularly the mandatory maximum height of 7.5m, would constrain the ongoing redevelopment of the site. He submitted that the importance of providing for aged care is well established in both local and State policy, and the planning scheme should cater for the different form required to deliver aged care facilities in terms of height, scale and mass. He submitted that VCAT decisions consistently recognise the specific design requirements of aged care facilities.

He proposed the GRZ be applied without mandatory height restrictions or site coverage requirements, and suggested that his client’s site should be a separate sub‐precinct with its own controls.

Council supported the exhibited NRZ1, including the application of a mandatory 7.5m height limit, on the basis that providing for the development of this facility was subservient to the need to protect the character of the foothills area.

(iii) Discussion

The Panel agrees with Mr Bitmead that there is a high level of policy support for facilitating the development of aged care facilities.


Page 64 of 128

As discussed in Section 5.1.5 of this report, the Panel does not agree with Council that facilitating aged care facilities is necessarily a lesser consideration than protecting character. For that reason the Panel has recommended that aged care facilities be exempted from the mandatory maximum height in the NRZ1. The Panel has also recommended that the maximum height be increased to 8m from 7.5m.

The Glengollan site is, in the Panel’s view, a site that is large enough to accommodate taller built form without compromising character and provides a clear example of where the exhibited NRZ1 would be unnecessarily burdensome.

The Panel also notes that the site is subject to existing overlays that provide a framework for addressing the impacts of built form, and that, in any case, a discretionary height limit would continue to apply through the DDO and SLO.

(iv) Conclusions

The Panels concludes that the NRZ1 should apply to this site, but subject to the exemption for residential aged care facilities from the 8m maximum building height discussed in earlier sections (Note that this would be subject to advice from DTPLI on the most appropriate way to implement the proposed exemption as discussed in Section 5.3.1).

5.4.5 Knoxbrooke Incorporated

(i) The issue


This site at 977‐987 Burwood Highway Ferntree Gully is owned by Knoxbrooke Incorporated Doc 24) and is used to provide supported employment services. The site is approximately 1.6ha and has a frontage to the Burwood Highway. It is developed with a number of buildings but has an undeveloped area at the rear of the site fronting Winwood Drive. It is currently zoned GRZ2 and proposed to be zoned NRZ1. 977 ‐ 985 is subject to the SLO2 and DDO1, while 987 is subject to the SLO3 and DDO2.

(ii) Submissions

Ms Horsfield, on behalf of Knoxbrooke Incorporated, (Submission 154) advised that Knoxbrooke is considering development options to partly fund the future development of the facility, possibly the subdivision of the rear section and the development of housing for people with disabilities.

Ms Horsfield submitted that these development options were unnecessarily constrained by the existing overlays and the proposed NRZ1 (particularly in relation to height and lot size). She submitted that the size and use of the site warranted it being treated differently to the adjacent residential areas and that it should be considered to be a ‘strategic site’. She submitted that the site was capable of supporting taller buildings and smaller lots and that it should be zoned GRZ and that the DDO2 should apply across the site, in lieu of the DDO1.

Council did not support the submission and argued that the NRZ1 was consistent with the KHS and RDG.


Page 65 of 128

(iii) Discussion

The Panel is satisfied that the NRZ1 should apply to this site as part of Amendment C131, but also believes that because of its size, location and use, it might be suitable for more intensive use and development than permissible under the NRZ1. For this reason, the Panel believes that Council should review the zoning of this site in the future and, if appropriate, support a further planning scheme amendment that addresses applies a more suitable zone.

In the interim, the Panel has recommended various changes to the NRZ1 including the application of an 8m maximum height (subject to some exemptions) that will partly address the submitter’s concerns.

The Panel has also recommended that the default NRZ limit of two dwellings per lot be retained in the NRZ1 rather than the 1 dwelling per lot proposed by Council following its consideration of submissions.

In relation to the DDO, the Panel agrees that there would be merit in applying a common schedule across the site and is satisfied that the DDO2 (and the 500sqm subdivision minima) would be appropriate given the site’s size, use and location. This issue should be reviewed as part of the zoning review discussed earlier and, if appropriate, be addressed in a future planning scheme amendment.

(iv) Conclusion

The Panel concludes that the revised NRZ1 should be applied to the Knoxbrooke Incorporated site, as exhibited, but that its zoning and the application of overlays be reviewed in the future.

5.4.6 48‐52 Kathryn Road, Knoxfield

(i) The issue


This site consists of two lots totalling approximately 8,000sqm. Number 48 is developed with a dwelling, while number 52 is vacant and has an extensive treed area described by the submitter as ‘revegetation’.

It is currently zoned GRZ2 (formerly R3Z), while number 48 is also subject to the VPO4 and number 52 is subject to the ESO2.

(ii) Submissions

Mr Joseph, on behalf of John Rundell, (Submission 232) submitted that the development potential of this property was unnecessarily constrained by the proposed NRZ2 and he supported the existing GRZ2. He also submitted that the existing VPO and ESO were the appropriate mechanisms to control development on the site and that there was no need to constrain the site with the 500sqm minimum lot size in the NRZ2.

Mr Joseph described and provided photographs of existing development in the immediate area, highlighting the extent of multi‐unit development, including recent development in Kathryn Road.


Page 66 of 128

Council submitted that the Bush Suburban designation and the NRZ2 were consistent with the Sites of Biological Significance in Knox report and that the NRZ2 was necessary in support of the existing overlays.

(iii) Discussion

As discussed in section 5.2, the Panel does not support the NRZ2 and has recommended that it be replaced with the GRZ2. This site is a clear example of where the NRZ would unnecessarily constrain development and be at odds with the existing built form and character of the area. While the Panel acknowledges Council’s broader ‘environmental’ vision for these areas, it agrees with Mr Joseph that this can be achieved through the existing VPO4 and ESO2.

(iv) Conclusion

The Panel concludes that all areas proposed to be zoned NRZ2, including these sites in Kathryn Road, should be zoned GRZ2.

5.4.7 26‐36 Scoresby Road and 1 Cullis Parade, Bayswater

(i) The issue

The issue is whether the exhibited GRZ2 is suitable for this site.

26‐28 Scoresby Road is currently zoned GRZ1 (formerly R1Z) and subject to DDO6. 30‐36 Scoresby Road and 1 Cullis Parade are currently zoned GRZ2 (formerly R3Z).

The Amendment proposes to apply the GRZ2 to 30‐36 Scoresby Road and 1 Cullis Parade, and the GRZ4 to 26‐28 Scoresby Road.

(ii) Submissions

Mr O’Leary, on behalf Black T Developments, (Submission 112) opposed the application of two zones to the site arguing that the zone boundary was arbitrary. He also argued that the site should be considered as a ‘strategic redevelopment site’.

Mr O’Leary advised that the zoning of this site was considered by the Panel for Amendment C54 which found merit in applying the R1Z across the site and including all of it in the Bayswater Activity Centre (BAC). The Panel recommended that the rezoning of the site and its inclusion in BAC be the subject of a further amendment to enable it to be publicly tested.

In relation to the GRZ2, he submitted that the detailed provisions in the schedule will undermine some of the purposes of the zone and be inappropriate for the site.

He advocated the application of one GRZ across the site (either with no schedule or with a revised schedule 4 that removed the additional standards relating to landscaping, height and side and rear setbacks).

Council did not support the submission, noting that the zoning boundaries and DDO6 reflect the existing boundaries and planning for the BAC. In relation to the Amendment C54 Panel report, Council advised that a draft amendment was considered by Council in September


Page 67 of 128

2012, but that Council resolved to maintain the exiting BAC boundaries and not to seek authorisation of an amendment.

(iii) Discussion

The Panel agrees with Mr O’Leary that the site has various characteristics that lend support for its inclusion in the BAC and the application of a single zone. However, the Panel also agrees with the C54 Panel that if these changes are to be made they should be progressed through a separate Amendment and be publicly tested. This is a matter for Council which has resolved not to prepare such an Amendment.

In relation to Mr O’Leary’s criticisms of the GRZ2 and GRZ4 schedules, the Panel has recommended various changes to the schedules, including:

Increasing the maximum building height in the exhibited GRZ2 from 8m to 9m, consistent with the current GRZ2.

Deleting the proposed variations to Standards A17 and B28 from the GRZ2 and GRZ4.

These changes will address some, but not all, of Mr O’Leary’s concerns.

(iv) Conclusion

The Panel concludes that while there would be merit in reviewing the zoning of these properties and their inclusion in the BAC, any changes would need to be progressed through a separate process and a separate amendment.

5.4.8 431 Scoresby Road, Ferntree Gully

(i) The issue

The issue is whether the proposed GRZ2 schedule is appropriate for this site.

This site is currently zoned GRZ2 (formerly R3Z) and is not subject to any overlays.

(ii) Submissions

Mr O’Leary, on behalf of Idrousa Constructions, (Submission 139) submitted that this site should be classified as a ‘strategic residential redevelopment site’ and that many of the provisions in the proposed GRZ2 were inappropriate.

Specifically, he sought the deletion of the 8m maximum building height and the deletion of the variations to the open space, landscaping and fencing standards.

He noted that the site has an area of approximately 6,400sqm and has various characteristics that would support more intensive redevelopment than anticipated under the proposed GRZ2.

Council did not support the submission and noted that the proposed zone was consistent with the KHS and RDG. Council also noted that the site did not qualify as a ‘strategic site’ (in the context of the KHS) because it is already zoned for residential purposes.


Page 68 of 128

(iii) Discussion

The Panel agrees with Mr O’Leary that this site has the potential to accommodate more intensive development than anticipated under the proposed GRZ2 and that such development, if appropriately designed, would not compromise Council’s vision for the Knox Neighbourhood areas. This site is another example of where mandatory and restrictive controls do not provide an appropriate degree of flexibility to accommodate ‘atypical’ situations.

As discussed earlier, the Panel supports the application of the GRZ2 to the Knox Neighbourhood areas and consequently to this site. However, it has recommended a number of changes to the schedule, including:

Increasing the maximum building height in the exhibited GRZ2 from 8m to 9m, consistent with the current GRZ2.

Deleting the proposed variations to Standards A17 and B28.

These changes will address some, but not all, of Mr O’Leary’s concerns.

(iv) Conclusion

The Panel concludes that the revised GRZ2 recommended by the Panel should be applied to this site.

5.4.9 Other site specific submissions

(i) 88‐100 Station Street, Ferntree Gully Village

Ms Bowker and Mr Quinn (Submissions 395 and 118) raised concerns about the building height limits that apply to 88‐100 Station Street that is in the Ferntree Gully Village. The Panel notes that the site is not included in the Amendment but is within the Ferntree Gully Village Structure Plan area that is being implemented through Amendment C129. Amendment C129 was the subject of a Panel report and has been referred to the Minister for approval.

For these reasons, the Panel has not formed any views about the issues raised by Ms Bowker and Mr Quinn.

(ii) 49 Albert Street, Upper Ferntree Gully

The Heinens (Submission 257) opposed the NRZ1 proposed for this property in the Amendment and submitted that it should be included in the Knox Neighbourhood area (GRZ2). The site is currently zoned GRZ2 (formerly the R3Z) and is subject to a number of environmental overlays. This site is within the Dandenong Foothills and, as discussed earlier, the Panel supports the application of the NRZ1 to this area. The Panel has also recommended that various revisions be made to the schedule that will address some, but not all of the concerns raised by the Heinens.


Page 69 of 128

(iii) Gertonia Avenue, Boronia

Mr A Grandinetti (Submission 163) opposed the designation of this area as ‘Bush Suburban’ and the proposed application of the NRZ2 in the Amendment. He noted that various properties in Gertonia Street had been redeveloped with units in recent years and that the opportunity to maintain the character sought in the Bush Suburban designation (and by the NRZ2) had been lost. Similar submissions were received in relation to other sites and areas proposed to be zoned NRZ2.

The Panel agrees with Mr Grandinetti and has recommended that the NRZ2 be deleted from the Amendment and replaced with a revised GRZ2. Gertonia Avenue provides useful examples of how well designed multi‐unit development (beyond what seems to have anticipated for NRZ2 areas) can provide housing diversity, meet consolidation objectives and still achieve Council’s vision for the area.

(iv) 5a Reservoir Crescent, Rowville

Hansen Partnership on behalf of Mr Nguyen (Submission 140) sought the opportunity to develop a retirement village on this site. Council advised that the site has several development constraints, is zoned Green Wedge Zone 2 and is outside the Urban Growth Boundary. A retirement village is prohibited under the current zoning. The Panel agrees with Council that there is no basis on which to change the zoning of this site as part of Amendment C131.

(v) Le John Street, Rowville

Mr Chessell on behalf of Mr and Mrs Harris (Submission 236) submitted that this area should be rezoned from LDRZ to NRZ or GRZ. Council advised that although there might be merit in applying a different residential zone to this ‘precinct’, this should be undertaken through a separate location specific process. The Panel agrees that the zoning of this area warrants further review and that this should be done as part of a separate process.


Page 70 of 128

5.5 Strategic sites

5.5.1 Background

The Knox Housing Strategy identifies fourteen sites as Strategic Sites which could be suitable for future residential development (either entirely or in part). Council advised that this list had been refined down from 33 sites reviewed in preparing the Strategy. The sites vary greatly in terms of their ‘readiness’ for development, and in some cases the Strategy identifies other commercial or mixed uses as likely in conjunction with residential as follows.

Site Possible future uses Submissions

1 and 2 – Wantirna Health Precinct

Health industry; some ancillary residential development such as aged or disability care.

Submissions in relation to the SCOPE site and caravan park site

3 – Wantirna Heights School Residential.

4 – Bayswater Triangle (bound by Scoresby Road, Mountain Highway and Station Street)

Variety of uses including hotel/convention centre, library/multipurpose community centre, commercial and residential.

5 – Boronia Heights College Residential and open space. Supporting and opposing submissions

6 – Norvel Road Quarry, Ferntree Gully

Residential, open space, environmental protection.

Requesting wording changes to KHS

7 – 51 Kleinert Road, Boronia – DPI site

Residential and commercial.

8 – Mountain Gate Triangle Mix of uses.

9 – Knox Retirement Village (Burwood Highway)

Residential (aged care).

10 – Jenkins Orchard, Wantirna South

Residential, small commercial centre.

Submission in relation to Amendment C74

11 – Boral Quarry, Wantirna South

Mix of commercial and residential.

12 – Kingston Links Golf Course Mix of commercial and residential. Supporting submission

13 – Waverley Golf Course (and adjoining sites of Stud Road)

Residential (subject to review and inclusion within Urban Growth Boundary).

Supporting and opposing submissions

14 – ‘Camel Corner’, Burwood and Mountain Highways, Wantirna

Residential

Table 7 Strategic Sites (adopted from Council submission to Panel Hearing)


Page 71 of 128

The Amendment adds the following references in relation to Strategic sites in Clauses 21.05 (Housing) and 21.07 (Economic Development):

Clause 21.05

Under ‘Strategic Sites’:

Strategic Sites are generally sites that are not currently used for residential purposes, such as quarries, schools and golf courses. They are sites where the current land use is likely to change in a short to mid‐term timeframe, and could be suitable for future residential development (either entirely or in part). Strategic sites are indicated in Map 1 to this Clause and Map 1 to Clause 21.07 Economic Development. Strategic guidance for these sites is provided in the Knox Housing Strategy 2013.

Under ‘Undertaking other actions’:

Work with land owners of Strategic Sites and the surrounding communities during future strategic planning process and any associated rezoning process to ensure that future residential (and non‐residential) development reflects the guidance provided in the Knox Housing Strategy 2013.

Ten of the fourteen sites are marked as ‘Strategic Sites’ on the Housing Framework Plan with a cross reference to the Economic Plan in Clause 21.07.

Clause 21.07

Under ‘Undertaking other actions’:

Work with land owners of Strategic Sites and the surrounding communities during future strategic planning processes and any associated rezoning process to ensure that future residential (and non‐residential) development reflects the Knox Housing Strategy 2013.

The remaining four sites are marked as ‘Strategic Sites’ on the Economic Plan with a cross reference to the Housing Plan in Clause 21.05. The four sites shown are the Wantirna Health precinct (2 sites), the Bayswater triangle and the Mountain Gate triangle.

The Amendment also includes the Knox Housing Strategy as a reference document in the Planning scheme, and as such the Strategy will provide some level of guidance for how the Strategic Sites will be further planned.

The Panel received supporting submissions or no submission for eight of the Strategic Sites and received objecting or more substantial submissions for the following six sites. These sites are discussed in more detail in the following sections:

Wantirna Health Precinct (2 sites)

Waverley Golf Course

Boronia Heights College

Norvel Road Quarry

Jenkins Orchard

Several other submitters requested that their sites be added to the list of Strategic Sites. These are discussed under each specific site in Section 5.4.


Page 72 of 128

5.5.2 Wantirna Health Precinct

(i) The issues

As exhibited, the Amendment does not show these sites on the Housing Framework Plan in Clause 21.05 but does show Strategic Sites 1 and 2 as part of the Wantirna Health Precinct in the Economic Framework Plan in Clause 21.07. The Knox Housing Strategy makes reference to the sites as follows:

There is evidence of an emerging health precinct in this part of Wantirna, focussed around the Knox Private Hospital. These two sites are considered suitable primarily for health industry uses, associated with the emerging precinct. Some ancillary residential development, such as aged or disability care facilities, will be considered. Private dwellings are not supported in this location.

The Amendment proposes that the sites are included in the GRZ2.

Submissions from Scope (Vic) Ltd (Submission 199) (750 and 750A Boronia Road) and the owners of the Wantirna Caravan Park (submission 152) (203 Mountain Highway) raised concerns about the inclusion of the sites in the Wantirna Health Precinct; the application of the GRZ2 to the sites; and the references to the sites in the MSS and in the Knox Housing Strategy.

(ii) Evidence and Submissions

Mr Pikusa, on behalf or Scope, submitted that it is premature to include the Scope site in the Wantirna Health Precinct as insufficient strategic planning or economic analysis has been done to justify the need for the precinct or the most appropriate boundaries for the precinct. Mr Pikusa called expert evidence from Mr Bastone and Mr Henshall, both of whom gave evidence that insufficient planning had been done to date to make determinations on the nature of land use or appropriate boundaries for a Wantirna Health Precinct. Mr Pikusa submitted that the Scope site should not be included in the Knox Neighbourhood Area or the GRZ2 as it is currently designated in the Knox Housing Strategic Framework Plan in Clause 21.05 as a ‘strategic redevelopment site: mix of medium & higher density (medium & high site capacity)’.

Mr Pikusa put the view that a policy neutral position should be taken with the current Amendment until such time as proper strategic planning had been done for the Wantirna Health Precinct, and due consideration given to the most appropriate use of his client’s land. He submitted that it is premature to identify the site only in the Economic Framework Plan and exclude it from the Housing Framework Plan, He submitted that the note ‘Private dwellings are not supported in this location’ proposed in the Economic Framework Plan is not appropriate. He submitted that such a dramatic change in direction, in the absence of detailed strategic work, is not fair or justified on his client’s land.

The Owners of the Wantirna Caravan Park site at 203 Mountain Highway made similar submissions, adding that they have no objection to feasibility work being done to determine if ‘a medical precinct at this location stacks up, however it is premature and inappropriate to preclude other uses...’.


Page 73 of 128

Council’s submission to the Panel Hearing noted that the emerging presence of the Wantirna Health Precinct is well defined in the MSS and, significantly, is identified as a ‘State significant health precinct’ in Plan Melbourne. Council submitted that preliminary work has commenced to investigate the future development of the Wantirna Health Precinct and that it is legitimate and appropriate to include both the Scope site and the caravan park site in the area to be investigated. Council indicated that it was mindful not to pre‐empt the outcome of future planning work and agreed that the text ‘Private dwellings are not supported in this location’ should be deleted from both the Knox Housing Strategy and the Economic Framework Plan. In closing submissions, Council further agreed that Strategic Sites 1 and 2 should be shown on both the Housing Framework Plan (Clause 21.05) and the Economic Framework Plan (Clause 21.07) so as not to pre‐empt the outcome of any strategic work.

Council submitted that no strategic sites are being rezoned or ‘up‐zoned’ as part of Amendment C131, and that the application of the GRZ2 to the Strategic Sites 1 and 2 is consistent with the application of this zone across Knox. Council submitted that a different zone is likely to be applied in the future to support the outcomes sought for the precinct.

VicRoads (Submission 373) noted that Strategic Sites 1 and 2 included an area of VicRoads owned land set aside for a possible future Healesville Freeway. They submitted that it was not appropriate to include this in the Wantirna Health precinct at this time. Subsequent advice from VicRoads7 indicated that further strategic work carried out by VicRoads has indicated that the VicRoads owned portion of the land may now be surplus, and that VicRoads now agree that further strategic work on the Wantirna Health Precinct could include consideration of this site.

(iii) Discussion

The Panel makes the observation that there does not seem to be any objection from submitters to further strategic investigation of the Wantirna Health Precinct and consideration of sites for inclusion. The parties seem to also agree that the outcome of any further investigation should not be pre‐empted in planning controls in the interim. The issues in dispute relate to the form of these ‘interim’ controls and retaining flexibility in the planning scheme to provide for a range of possible development options.

The Panel supports the Council’s proposal to show Strategic Sites 1 and 2 in both the Housing Framework Plan and the Economic Framework Plan, and the removal of the words ‘Private dwellings are not supported in this location’ from the Economic Framework Plan. (Council may also wish to remove these words from the Housing Strategy for consistency.) The Panel believes that this is consistent with not pre‐empting the outcomes of the feasibility work on the Wantirna Health Precinct.

The Panel notes Council’s intention not to ‘up‐zone’ any of the Strategic Sites as part of this Amendment. The Panel agrees with this approach but also believes that this Amendment equally should not introduce additional controls that may prevent development options in the future. The current MSS refers to the sites as ‘strategic redevelopment site: mix of

7 Letter to the Panel dated 27 August 2014 from VicRoads Team Leader Road Access Planning.


Page 74 of 128

medium & higher density’. The Panel agrees with the submissions of Scope that this is not consistent with the more restrictive GRZ2 proposed in Amendment C131, and the Panel believes that the GRZ1 (which does not apply any further requirements), would be a more appropriate policy neutral position to apply while further investigation of the Wantirna Health Precinct proceeds.

(iv) Conclusions

The Panel concludes that the following changes are appropriate in relation to the Wantirna Health precinct:

Make reference to Strategic Sites 1 and 2 in both the Housing Framework Plan and the Economic Framework Plan;

Remove the words ‘Private dwellings are not supported in this location’ from the Economic Framework Plan; and

Apply the GRZ1 to Strategic Sites 1 and 2.

(v) Recommendations

The Panel recommends the following changes to the Amendment in relation to the Wantirna Health Precinct:

14. Make reference to Strategic Sites 1 and 2 in both the Housing Framework Plan in Clause 21.05 and the Economic Framework Plan in Clause 21.07.

15. Remove the words ‘Private dwellings are not supported in this location’ in relation to Strategic Sites 1 and 2 from both the Knox Housing Strategy and the Economic Framework Plan in Clause 21.07.

16. Apply the General Residential Zone Schedule 1 to Strategic Sites 1 and 2.

5.5.3 Waverley Golf Course

(i) The issues

The Waverley Golf Course at Bergins Road, Rowville and abutting sites in Stud Road are proposed to be shown as a Strategic Site in the Housing Framework Plan in Clause 21.05.

Issues raised by submitters relate to whether the site should be shown as a Strategic Site, particularly given its location outside the Urban Growth Boundary, and if so how the site should be referred to?

(ii) Submissions

Council submitted that the Waverley Golf Course and adjoining sites are suitable for consideration for future residential development, subject to inclusion in the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB), including the necessary support from the State Government, and resolution of the numerous issues affecting development capability outlined in the draft Strategy. Council also identified that ‘Bushfire Risk’ and ‘Sites of Biological Significance’ should also be added to the matters to be considered in any future proposal for residential development of the land and suggested their inclusion in the Strategy.


Page 75 of 128

Ms Marshall, on behalf of the Waverley Golf Club (Submission 134), submitted that the Club supports the proposed Amendment and the designation of the Golf Club site as a Strategic Site in the Housing Framework Plan. She explained to the Panel that the Club faces challenges in terms of its on‐going viability and wishes to continue, as it has in the past, to investigate options to relocate from its current site. In this context, development of its current site would be seen as an obvious source of funds to develop a new golf course site.

Ms Marshall submitted that the development of the golf course site for residential use is consistent with the outcomes sought by the Knox Housing Strategy; is consistent with affordable housing objectives in the SPPF and Plan Melbourne; and is consistent with the Rowville Plan. Ms Marshall acknowledged that work to have the site included inside the UGB is not well advanced, although noted Council’s previous support for this proposition. She also acknowledged that there would be a significant body of work required to be completed in order to demonstrate the sites suitability for inclusion inside the UGB. Ms Marshall submitted that it is nevertheless appropriate that the site continue to be designated as a Strategic Site for investigation. She argued that the Housing Strategy adequately spelt out the challenges and qualifications attached to the site.

Other submissions were received supporting the inclusion of the Golf Club and adjoining land in the UGB, including a submission from Mr Garrubba (Submission 127), owner of 1331 Stud Road, Rowville. Some submitters indicated that their support was conditional on proper planning for traffic and landscape impacts.

Ms Porritt made a submission on behalf of Retirement Alliance Pty Ltd (Submission 149), owners of the Waverley Country Club Retirement Village which abuts the Golf Club site. Ms Porritt submitted that it is not appropriate to include a site outside the UGB as a Strategic Site for potential residential growth. She submitted that insufficient strategic justification has been provided to justify including the site in the Knox Housing Strategy or the proposed references in the Housing Framework at Clause 21.05. She noted that all other Strategic Sites are within the UGB. Ms Porritt acknowledged that there would be a significant body of work required to be completed before any site could be included in the UGB, but submitted that to even mention a site as a strategic residential site implies that it is a preferred outcome and gives the site a ‘leg up’ in future consideration. She argued that there are, in her view, many reasons why this site is not appropriate to be brought inside the UGB and that any future consideration should not be pre‐determined.

Other submissions were received opposing development of the Golf Club on the grounds of traffic or other impacts.

(iii) Discussion

The Panel agrees with Council that it is appropriate to identify sites for potential future development in the MSS. It is also clear to the Panel that the use of the Waverley Golf Course and adjoining sites is likely to change in the medium term and investigation of appropriate future use is appropriate. The Panel, however, notes that previous planning decisions have placed these sites outside the UGB, and the Panel therefore agrees with opposing submitters that flagging the sites for future residential development, without clear qualification, would be an anomaly. The Knox Housing Strategy (at page 27) makes it clear


Page 76 of 128

that the site’s suitability for residential development is conditional upon a review of the UGB. This clarity is not, however, carried through to the proposed Clause 21.05.

The site is the only Strategic Site that is outside the UGB and the Panel believes that, if the site is going to continue to be identified as a Strategic Site, it warrants a different notation in the MSS. Not pre‐empting the outcome of investigations is again an issue (as it is for the Wantirna Health Precinct and other sites), and the Panel believes that the MSS should reflect this and refer to the Strategic Sites as ‘Strategic Investigation Sites’ to assist in avoiding the perception of a pre‐determined outcome. Council indicated agreement with this suggestion in closing remarks to the Hearing.

In the case of the Waverley Golf Course and adjoining sites, the Panel believes that the Housing Framework should identify the site differently as follows: ‘Review UGB and future development options’. The Panel believes that this would avoid any perception that the outcome is pre‐determined or in any way should skip the step of first reviewing the UGB. The Panel does not believe that the Housing Strategy needs to be altered as it makes this qualification clear and, in any case, as a reference document, it is an appropriate place to flag possible and preferred future land uses.

(iv) Conclusions

The Panel concludes that:

All references to ‘Strategic Sites’ in the MSS should be changed to ‘Strategic Investigation Sites’; and

The Waverley Golf Course and adjoining sites should be identified as a Strategic Investigation Site in Clause 21.05 but with a different notation on the Housing Framework Plan to read: ‘Review UGB and future development options’.

(v) Recommendations The Panel makes the following recommendations:

17. Change all references to ‘Strategic Sites’ in the Municipal Strategic Statement to ‘Strategic Investigation Sites’.

18. Identify the Waverley Golf Course and adjoining sites as a Strategic Investigation Site in Clause 21.05 but with a different notation on the Housing Framework Plan to read: ‘Review UGB and future development options’.

19. Make changes to the Knox Housing Strategy and other reference documents as required to ensure consistency with the final form of the planning provisions.

5.5.4 Boronia Heights College

(i) The issue

The Boronia Heights College site is identified as a Strategic Site in the Housing Framework Plan at Clause 21.05, and in the Knox Housing Strategy. The Housing Strategy includes the note that ‘it is recommended that the existing school oval be retained for use as public open space and that integration with the surrounding area be achieved’. The site is within the Dandenong Foothills area.


Page 77 of 128

(ii) Submissions

A number of submissions were received from nearby residents either opposing the development of the site on the basis that the sporting facilities are still required or supporting the Amendment on the condition that the sporting facilities continue to be available for public use.

(iii) Discussion and conclusion

The Panel believes that the guidance provided in the Knox Housing Strategy in relation to retaining the sporting oval sufficiently addresses submissions.

5.5.5 Norvel Quarry site

(i) The issue

The Norvel Quarry site at Norvel Road, Ferntree Gully is identified in the Housing Framework Plan in Clause 21.05 as a Strategic Site. Submissions relate to the wording of the Knox Housing Strategy references to the site.

(ii) Submissions

Mr Dickson, on behalf of Robertson Industries Pty Ltd (Submission 158), made submissions to the Hearing that his client had requested a number of changes to the Knox Housing Strategy. Council has agreed to make some of those changes but a number of points in relation to pedestrian links, site interfaces and open space are still in dispute.

(iii) Discussion and Conclusion

The Panel notes that the unresolved matters do not relate to the substance of the Amendment but rather to some of the detail in the proposed reference document. As such, the Panel does not regard the matters as relevant to the Amendment and does not make any comment. In saying that, the Panel is of the view that the proposed agreed changes are consistent with the changes proposed to the MSS in the Amendment. The Panel notes that the Council and the landowner may continue to negotiate on the unresolved matters as further planning for the development continues.

5.5.6 Jenkins Orchard site

(i) The issue

The Jenkins Orchard site is shown as a Strategic Site in the Housing Framework Plan in Clause 21.05. The site is the most advanced in terms of its future planning and is the subject of Amendment C74 which has been exhibited and was due to go to a panel hearing shortly after the C131 Hearing.

Amendment C74 seeks to:

Rezone the land from Rural Living to GRZ6 and Commercial 1 Zone;

Apply a site specific Development Plan Overlay Schedule, DPO10;

Apply an Environmental Audit Overlay; and

Amend local policy relating to the land.


Page 78 of 128

The issues raised relate to ensuring consistency between the relevant amendments.

(ii) Submissions

Council accepted a late submission from Kellehers on behalf of the Jenkins Family (Submission 400). Mr Morris submitted on their behalf to the Hearing that the site should remain shown as a Strategic Site in the Housing Framework, but that a number of further amendments ought to be made to the policies proposed in Amendment C131.

Mr Morris proposed changes to Clauses 21.02, 21.05 and 22.12 that relate to the way in which Strategic Sites are referred to generally in the policy. The thrust of these proposed changes is to highlight that other controls are likely to be applied to these sites and that these controls (e.g. DPOs) take priority.

Mr Morris proposed changes to Clauses 21.03, 21.04, 21.06 and 21.07 that relate to site specific references to the Jenkins land in local policy.

Council submitted that there is no direct conflict between Amendments C131 and C74, however accepts that there are some timing and drafting consistency issues that arise due to the almost concurrent consideration of the matters.

(iii) Discussion

In relation to the proposed changes to Clauses 21.02, 21.05 and 22.12, the Panel believes that the requested changes are not necessary as it is self evident that any new controls will take precedence. The drafting of new controls relating to Strategic Sites should take care to make any necessary consequential changes to local policy to clarify any areas of uncertainty.

In relation to the proposed changes to Clauses 21.03, 21.04, 21.06 and 21.07, the Panel believes that any such changes ought to be the subject of the site specific Amendment C74 and not included in Amendment C131.

(iv) Conclusion

The Panel concludes that no changes are required to Amendment C131 as a result of the Jenkins submission, but notes that Council will need to take care in finalising the final form of Amendments C131 and C74 if and when they are adopted.

5.6 Rowville Plan issues

The Rowville Plan is intended to replace the Stud Park Structure Plan (Stages 1 and 2) which defined and guided development in the Stud Park, Rowville Major Activity Centre as defined in Melbourne 2030. It includes a ‘Proposed Land Use Map’ provided as Figure 3, which was used to inform: the proposed new local policy (Clause 22.13 Rowville Activity Centre); the proposed zones for each site; and DDO changes.

The Amendment includes the Rowville Plan as a reference document.

Council advised the Panel that 146 submissions were received in relation to properties within the study area for the Rowville Plan. Of these:

96 were from residents of Peppertree Retirement Home, mainly concerning the future use of 1060 Stud Road


Page 79 of 128

24 related generally to issues in the Local Living Area

20 related generally to Knox Neighbourhood Areas

3 related to the ‘opportunity sites’ at 1060 Stud Road, 1103 Stud Road and the Stud Park Shopping Centre.

5.6.1 Local Living Area Issues

(i) The issues

The main issues raised by submitters related to building height and amenity issues associated with housing density.

(ii) Submissions

Council summarised the submissions on the Local Living Area as follows:

Changes to the size of the Local Living areas and a reduction in maximum heights to provide greater distinction between the built form outcomes in this designation and those within the Activity Areas.

Local Living areas controls do not protect amenity and neighbourhood character from inappropriate development.

Local Living areas controls do not appropriately consider the issues associated with increased density including traffic and parking and existing single dwelling covenants.

Mrs Lancefield (Submission 248) submitted that the requirements of the Local Living Areas (GRZ3) allowed more intensive development than in Activity Areas? (RGZ1), particularly in terms of height limits (9m discretionary versus 9m mandatory). She submitted that an 8m mandatory height limit is more appropriate.

Mr Wood (Submission 195) also submitted that the Local Living Areas should be lower scale in nature so as to avoid visual bulk.

Mr Cameron (Submission 85) opposed the Rowville Structure Plan on the basis that it does not reflect the community’s views and will not stop ‘open slather’ development across the City.

In response to submissions, Council determined to reduce the height control in Local Living Areas from 9m to a mandatory 8m. Council also noted that covenants continue to apply to land and override planning requirements.

(iii) Discussion

As discussed in Section 5.3.3, the Panel is not supportive of the introduction of a mandatory height limit of 8m to the Local Living Areas. The Panel believes that the Local Living Areas in Rowville are illustrative of the type of locations where more intensive development is appropriate, and height restrictions below 9m are not necessary. In forming this view the Panel was not presented with any examples (or observed any examples in site visits) of developments completed under the current controls that are inappropriate or out of character with the location. The Panel is of the view that the controls as exhibited for the


Page 80 of 128

Local Living Area (i.e. including a 9m discretionary height) are an appropriate transition between the Activity Centre and the Knox Neighbourhood area.

(iv) Conclusion

The Panel concludes that the Local Living Area controls should be generally retained as exhibited, subject to the changes recommended elsewhere in this report.

5.6.2 1060 Stud Road

(i) The issue

The issue is what it the most appropriate zone and overlay to apply to this site?

The site is currently in the Commercial 2 Zone and is proposed to be zoned RGZ3 to allow for higher density residential uses consistent with the Rowville Plan. The Amendment also proposes that DDO9 be applied to the site.

The site was formerly used as a pool and spa display centre and currently has a planning permit application under consideration for use as a materials recycling facility.

The site is identified as an opportunity site for residential/community use in the Rowville Plan. The following statements are made in the Plan in relation to the site:

Higher density residential development that includes a range of dwelling sizes is encouraged.

A component of affordable housing (including low‐cost and/or social housing) is encouraged.

(ii) Submissions

The owners of the site have objected to the Amendment (Submission 177) on the basis that they have made long term financial and commercial decisions based on assumptions that the site would remain in the Business 3 (now Commercial 2) Zone. They further submitted that traffic noise and visual impact make the site unviable for quality residential development.

105 submissions were received in favour of the proposed rezoning, with 96 of these from the adjacent Peppertree Hill Retirement Village. Some of the supporting submissions supported aged care or residential housing on the site and some raised concerns about building heights over 8m.

A late submission was received from Recycal Pty Ltd, occupiers of 1060 Stud Road, Rowville. The Panel reconvened on 6 October 2014 to hear submissions from Recycal and a response from Council. Mr Morris, on behalf of Recycal, provided background to his client’s current planning application for a recycling facility on the site. Council has refused an application for a permit for the use and an appeal was due to go before VCAT for determination in late October 2014.

Mr Morris gave an account of the history of the site, and background on why the site was placed in its current zone. He submitted that the current zoning was largely a response to the need to establish business opportunities within the City of Knox.


Page 81 of 128

Mr Morris submitted that the land ought to remain in the Commercial 2 Zone (C2Z) (formerly Business 3 Zone) rather than be changed to RGZ for the following reasons:

Retention in the C2Z will provide much needed employment opportunities within the municipality;

It is more important for the land to be available for jobs than near where people live rather than housing;

Plan Melbourne, the Knox City Plan and the Rowville Plan all support creation of local jobs;

Higher density residential development is not commercially viable in Rowville and is therefore unlikely to occur on the site; and

If the application for a recycling facility is refused, other C2Z activity is appropriate for the site. He submitted that the good exposure to Stud Road and Emmeline Row provide an ideal location for commercial activities.

Mr Morris called expert evidence from Mr Milner of 10 Consulting. Mr Milner concluded that8:

70 The land has a strong a claim for a commercial role and zone by virtue of its:

Size;

Exposure to the primary arterial road network;

Adjacency to other commercial use and zoning;

Recent Identification in policy for such a role;

Former use;

Position.

71 It might also be a candidate for a residential and or mixed use role, if it was incapable of being used for commercial purposes; there was strategic justification for a new role; the owner supported the rezoning and proposals were not current to use it effectively in its current zone.

72 The strategic justification for the land to revert to a residential role relies upon studies from 2010 onwards that have not been tested through the planning scheme amendment process and which are not referenced in the planning scheme.

73 1060 Stud Road is identified by council as an ‘opportunity’ to consider a residential role. It is not identified as a strategic site for residential development.

74 Council’s residential and housing strategies will not be materially poorer if this site remains in its current zone.

75 According I recommend that the land should not be rezoned.

Mr Milner gave evidence that the proposed Amendment sets a new direction for the site that is not consistent with previous strategic directions and the Panel ought not rely on the ‘untested’ Rowville Plan to change that direction.

8 Mr Milner’s expert witness statement


Page 82 of 128

In response to the strategic justification for RGZ on the site, Council submitted that ‘the Opportunity Sites identified in the Rowville Plan play an important role in addressing future housing needs, in a way that minimises impact on existing residential areas’. Council submitted that this role is elevated in the Rowville Plan, when compared to its precursor the Stud Park Structure Plan.

Council submitted that higher density residential development on this site is supported by both state and local policy in that the site is located on a main road, is on the Principal Public Transport Network (PPTN) and is within an Activity Centre. Council noted that the employment created by the proposed commercial use of the site is estimated to be between 10 and 14 jobs, and submitted that this was not a significant addition to the employment opportunities in the City.

Council concluded that ‘in light of the existing housing stock in Rowville and projections for future housing needs, Council submits that the relative benefits of urban consolidation provided by a residential zoning would outweigh the value of the site’s contribution to local employment. In the context of the local area, the site has an important role to play in the provision of higher density housing and its rezoning would not significantly impact on the provision of employment generating land in Knox.’

In response to Mr Milner’s evidence that the land has a strong claim for a commercial role and zone, Council submitted that the site has an equally strong claim for a residential role and zoning by virtue of its:

Size;

Exposure to the primary arterial network;

Adjacency to other residential use and zoning;

Recent identification in policy for such a role; and

Position.

In response to Mr Milner’s evidence that the proposal is not orderly and proper planning, Council submitted that rezoning of 1060 Stud Road from B3Z to RGZ would remove any perceived policy conflict that could arise from the site being both part of the Rowville Activity Centre and subject to Clause 22.08 (Scoresby‐ Rowville Employment Precinct).

Council submitted that the site’s identification in the Stud Park Structure Plan and subsequently the Rowville Structure Plan for residential use is not an indication of ‘chopping and changing’ the strategic role of the site.

Council acknowledged that the site has been used commercially for a number of decades. However, they submitted that this does not preclude Council from identifying an alternative future for the site based on sound strategic planning, which has been undertaken through the development of the Rowville Plan and its precursor the Stud Park Structure Plan.

The Panel asked whether Mixed Use zoning had been considered for the site. Both Council and Mr Milner acknowledged that Mixed Use could be a possible zoning for the site but neither supported that as the preferred zone.


Page 83 of 128

(iii) Discussion

The Panel is of the view that the stronger strategic case is for residential use of the site. The Panel accepts that the strategic basis for the previous Stud Park Structure Plan and the Rowville Plan is sound and agrees that the site could play an important role in providing a diversity of housing in the City. The Panel acknowledges that the site could also play a role in providing employment opportunities but, particularly given its inclusion within the Activity Centre boundary, proximity to public transport and the adjoining higher density residential use, the Panel agrees with Council that the future direction for the site is more appropriately as a residential site. The Panel also acknowledges the arguments put by Mr Morris and Mr Milner regarding the historic use of the site for commercial uses, but does not accept the argument that to change the use now to residential is not orderly and proper planning. The proposed change has come about following a proper strategic planning process that, in the view of the Panel, has appropriately weighed the strategic policies applicable to the site.

(iv) Conclusion

The Panel concludes that the site at 1060 Stud Road, Rowville should be included in the RGZ3 as exhibited.

The Panel has not considered the content of the DDO9 proposed to be applied to the site.

5.6.3 Stud Park Shopping Centre

(i) The issue

The Amendment proposes a new Design and Development Overlay Schedule 12 (DDO12) to apply to the Stud Road Shopping Centre site. The issue is what it the most appropriate form and content for the DDO12.

(ii) Submissions

Lend Lease, the owner of the shopping centre, made a submission generally supporting the Rowville Plan but raising a number of issues regarding the wording of the DDO12.

Mr Touzeau of Urbis, representing Lend Lease, attended the Hearing briefly to report that Council and Lend Lease had undertaken further discussion on the DDO12, and had reached agreement on proposed revised wording. Council confirmed that it was in agreement with the revised form of the DDO12.


The Panel has reviewed the proposed revised DDO12 and accepts the changes as appropriate. The Panel recommends the revised DDO12 be adopted as amended and as shown in Appendix D to this report.

(iv) Recommendation

The Panel makes the following recommendation:

20. Adopt the revised Design and Development Overlay Schedule 12 as amended post‐exhibition and as shown in Appendix D to this report.


Page 84 of 128

5.7 Other issues raised in submissions

5.7.1 Clause 22.07 (Development in Residential Areas and Neighbourhood Character

(i) The issues

The issues are whether this LPP should discourage certain dwelling types in the residential areas and whether it should include additional text to better address various issues.

(ii) Submissions

Mr O’Leary submitted that the LPP was inconsistent with the SPPF and should not be prescriptive about the types of dwellings that are ‘discouraged’ in each of the residential areas. He submitted that:

Policy should be used to inform the decision maker in the exercise of discretion, it should not be used as de facto planning control to create a planning regime that replaces the exercise of discretion, particularly when there is evidence that the site context is foreign to the character description or there are sound strategic planning reasons to achieve higher dwelling yields.

He also submitted that the LPP should provide new ‘Design Objectives and Decision Guidelines for atypical, large and strategic redevelopment sites’.

Following the exhibition of the Amendment, Council proposed to revise the text relating to the mix of dwellings in developments of three or more dwellings. Council submitted that this was necessary ‘to make the language consistent with Clause 55.02‐3’.


The Panel agrees with Mr O’Leary that the LPP should not be prescriptive about the types of dwellings that are ‘discouraged’ in each of the residential areas. Submissions have raised numerous examples of sites and areas where the proposed zone schedules and preferred dwelling types would unnecessarily restrict options for alternative outcomes, particularly on what Mr O’Leary described as ‘atypical’ sites. The Panel believes that nominating preferred dwelling types is appropriate, but recommends that the references to ‘discouraging’ certain ‘dwelling typologies’ be deleted. This is consistent with the Panel’s overarching view that the Amendment needs to provide more flexibility.

The Panel notes that Clause 21.05 (Housing) includes similar references to discouraging specific dwelling types in the residential areas. For the same reasons, the Panel recommends that these references also be deleted.

The Panel does not agree that the LPP needs to include new Design Objectives and Decision Guidelines for atypical, large and strategic redevelopment sites as sought by Mr O’Leary. The Panel is not certain what this might entail and is not convinced that it is necessary or possible, given the range of different situations that they would need to address.

The Panel supports the revisions proposed by Council in relation to the ‘mix of dwellings’ on the basis that it will clarify the intent of the references.


Page 85 of 128

(iv) Recommendations




5.7.2 Application of DDOs

A number of submitters including Mr Dawson (Submission 242) submitted that the current application of DDO1 and DDO2 was not logical or fair. The main cause of concern is that DDO1 specifies a 1,000 sqm minimum lot size whereas the DDO2 specifies a 500 sqm minimum lot size. In some cases neighbouring houses in the one street (for example Reve Street, Boronia) can be in different DDOs, creating at least the perception of unfair application of the DDO boundaries.

The Panel notes the concerns of submitters who made submissions in relation to DDOs but comments that the general application of DDOs is outside the scope of the Amendment.

The submissions are referred to Council for consideration in any future review of DDO boundaries.

5.7.3 General residential Zone Schedule 5

The GRZ5 was intended to apply to ‘Other development sites affected by a Design and Development Overlay or Development Plan Overlay’ (Harcrest and Stamford Park). The exhibited schedule included variations to Clause 55 Standard B18 (Landscaping), references to DDOs and DPOs in relation to height, and various application requirements. Following its review of the Amendment, Council proposed to remove these variations and requirements, with the effect that the schedule is the same as the GRZ1. For this reason, there is no apparent reason to introduce and apply the GRZ5 and the Panel recommends that it be deleted from the Amendment.

(i) Recommendations


23. Delete the General Residential Zone Schedule 5 and retain the current General Residential Zone Schedule 1 that applies to the relevant sites.

5.7.4 Exemption from residential zone schedule provisions

Mr Stanojevic raised a number of issues relating to Dandenong Foothills area (that are discussed elsewhere in this report) but also proposed that the Amendment should distinguish between ‘families’ and ‘developers’ and make provision for families (or long term owners) to be exempt from restrictive subdivision controls. While the Panel acknowledges Mr Stanojevic’s concerns, his suggested approach is not one that the planning system can accommodate.


Page 86 of 128

5.8 The Mountain Gate Shopping Centre

The Mountain Gate Shopping Centre is identified in the current MSS as a ‘Major Activity Centre’ (consistent with Melbourne 2030) and Amendment C131 proposes to change its designation to a ‘Neighbourhood Activity Centre’. Plan Melbourne designates it as an ‘Activity Centre’ and not as a ‘Neighbourhood Centre’.

This change was not raised in submissions or discussed at the Hearing, and the rationale for the change is not clear from the background material supplied to the Panel. However, it appears that there is a potential conflict between the ‘Neighbourhood Activity Centre’ designation proposed by Council and the ‘Activity Centre’ designation in Plan Melbourne.

Given the lack of information available to it, the Panel has not formed any views about the merits of the change, but believes that Council should discuss this issue with DTPLI and confirm whether it is consistent with Plan Melbourne. If not, it may be necessary to retain the existing Major Activity Centre designation.

The Panel also notes that ‘Mountain Gate Triangle’ is nominated as a ‘strategic site’ in the KHS and Amendment; although it is not clear whether this is relevant to the proposed designation as a ‘Neighbourhood Activity Centre’.

(i) Recommendations

The Panel recommends that:

24. Council discuss the proposed redesignation of the Mountain Gate shopping centre as a Neighbourhood Activity Centre with the Department of Transport, Planning and Local Infrastructure to confirm whether this is consistent with Plan Melbourne.

5.9 Other components of Amendment C131

5.9.1 The Issues

Sections 5.1 to 5.7 of this report discuss issues generally raised in submissions relating to Amendment C131.

There are a number of other areas of the planning provisions that are proposed for change, and for completeness the Panel makes some brief comments in relation to each component.

A summary of the Panel’s response to post‐exhibition changes is included in Appendix C.

5.9.2 Discussion

The following table repeats each of the components of Amendment C131 with the Panel’s comments on each.

Component Panel comment

Amends the Municipal Strategic Statement by replacing Clause 21.01 (Municipal Profile), Clause 21.02 (Key Influences), Clause 21.05 (Housing), Clause 21.07 (Economic Development), Clause 21.09 (Reference Documents) and Clause 21.10 (Monitoring and Review).

The changes are generally supported subject to the Panel’s specific recommendations and any minor editing that may be required to make each Clause consistent with the final form of the Amendment.


Page 87 of 128

Removes all references within Clause 21.05 and 21.07 to Mountain Gate being a Major Activity Centre and reclassifies this Centre as a Neighbourhood Activity Centre.

No substantive submissions were received in relation to this issue and the Panel has not formed a view. The Panel recommends Council discuss further with DTPLI.

Replaces the Housing Strategic Framework Plan at Clause 21.05 of the Municipal Strategic Statement, with a new map which demonstrates the direction of the Knox Housing Strategy, 2013.

Supported subject to comments on Strategic Sites in Section 5.5 and other editing that may be required to make the Clause consistent with the final form of the Amendment.

Amends the remaining maps in the Municipal Strategic Statement (at Clauses 21.03, 21.04, 21.06, 21.07 and 21.08) to improve legibility. Most changes are policy neutral.

Policy neutral changes are supported.

Replaces Clause 22.07 (Neighbourhood Character) and Clause 22.10 (Housing) with a new policy (Development in Residential Areas and Neighbourhood Character) at Clause 22.07.

The changes are generally supported subject to the Panel’s specific recommendations and any minor editing that may be required to make each Clause consistent with the final form of the Amendment.

Inserts a new local planning policy, ‘Residential Land Use and Development within the Commercial 1 Zone’, at Clause 22.12.

No substantive submissions were received in relation to this issue and the Panel has not formed a view. The policy is not opposed.

Inserts a new local planning policy, ‘Rowville Activity Centre’, at Clause 22.13.

Supported subject to comments in Section 5.6 and other edits required to make the Clause consistent with the final form of Amendment.

Applies the Neighbourhood Residential Zone, General Residential Zone and Residential Growth Zone to areas zoned General Residential Zone.

This issue is covered in detail in Sections 5.1 to 5.4 of this report.

Rezones 1060 Stud Road, Rowville to a Residential Growth Zone.

Supported – see Section 5.6.2

Deletes Development Plan Overlay (DPO1) ‘Stud Park Shopping Centre’.

Supported – see Section 5.6.3

Applies a Development Plan Overlay (DPO12) to commercial land within the Rowville Activity Centre.

Supported – see Section 5.6.3 and Appendix D

Applies a Design and Development Overlay (DDO9) to residentially zoned “Opportunity Sites” within the Rowville Activity Centre.

No substantive submissions were received in relation to this issue and the Panel has not formed a view. The schedule is not opposed.

Amends various provisions of the Knox Planning Scheme (Clause 3 of DDO1, DDO2, DDO3, DDO5, DPO4 and the schedule to Clause 52.01) to correct references to the relevant residential zones.

The changes are generally supported subject to any minor editing that may be required to make each overlay schedule consistent with the final form of the Amendment.

Updates the planning scheme maps in accordance with the application of the new residential zones.

Changes will be required to bring the maps in to line with the final form of the Amendment.

Table 8 Summary of Panel response to exhibited components of Amendment C131


Page 88 of 128

5.9.3 Recommendation

The Panel makes the following recommendation in relation to further changes that may be required to the Planning Scheme in relation to Amendment C131:

25. Make other relevant necessary changes to the wording of Clauses 21 and 22, zone schedules, overlay schedules and maps as may be required to ensure consistency with the final form of the Amendment.


Page 89 of 128

6 Amendment C133 Issues

This section of the report discusses the issues raised in submissions specifically in relation to Amendment C133.

6.1 Background

The Boronia Structure Plan was initially implemented by Amendment C62 that was approved in February 2012. Amendment C62 introduced Clause 22.06 and the Design and Development Overlay Schedule 7 (DDO7) into the Knox Planning Scheme.

Council submitted that the implementation of these provisions identified some ‘policy conflicts’ relating to residential development. Consequently, Council requested that the Minister for Planning prepare and approve an ‘interim’ amendment under section 20(4) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 to address these concerns. The Minister agreed to the request and approved Amendment C95 in November 2013. Amendment C95 introduced changes to Clause 22.06 and DDO7 on an interim basis until 15 December 2015.

Amendment C133 seeks to implement these changes (with some minor amendments) on a permanent basis.

Amendment C131 proposes to apply GRZ4 to the Boronia Structure Plan area. This schedule applies additional setback and landscaping controls, but not height or lot size controls.

6.2 Strategic justification

(i) The issue

Does the Amendment have a sound strategic basis?

(ii) Submissions

The Boronia Structure Plan 2006 references three different residential areas for development within the structure plan area: Established Residential; Dispersed Infill Residential; and Increased Density Residential. These areas are referenced in the DDO7 and Clause 22.06. Council submitted that the differences between each area and the types of development to be encouraged are not well articulated in the form they were adopted through Amendment C62.

Council submitted:

The changes proposed through Amendment C133 better reflect the concept of three different residential areas to achieve different development type and built form outcomes within the centre and to protect and promote the landscape outcomes sought by the Dandenong Foothills Policy. The impact of these changes on Bambury, Elsie and Marie Streets (at the north‐eastern boundary of the centre) is that the landscape characteristics of the foothills will be prioritised above the need for urban consolidation and apartment built form will be discouraged in these areas.


Page 90 of 128

Council further submitted that Council and VCAT have found that policy conflicts have arisen, making the assessment of planning applications in some cases difficult and unclear. Council submitted that the Amendment is required to resolve these policy conflicts and provide increased clarity in the implementation of the Boronia Structure Plan 2006.

Several streets east of Dorset Road (Bambury, Marie and Elsie Streets) are located both within the structure plan area and within the Dandenong Foothills Policy area and affected by a Significant Landscape Overlay. Policy directions relating to the development potential of residential land which is also located within the Dandenong Foothills Policy area was not translated into the DDO7 and Clause 22.06 with Amendment C62, which has contributed to the policy conflict.

Nineteen submissions were received to Amendment C133. The majority of submissions raise broader concerns with the Boronia Structure Plan itself, rather than the changes proposed to the Planning Scheme through Amendment C133.

Ms Kaufmann, on behalf of Appropriate Development for Boronia Inc., (Submission 226) generally supported the Amendment, and in particular submitted that the current Clause 22.06 and DDO7 have led to inappropriate development. These sentiments were supported by other submitters including Ms Kruse (Submission 19) and Mr Searle (Submission 175).

(iii) Discussion

The Panel was not presented with clear evidence that the existing controls (Clause 22.06 and the DDO7) are failing. Submitters gave examples of higher density development being approved, and the Panel was able to view a number of examples of this in the activity centre area. While it is clear that there has been considerable change in some streets, the Panel does not agree that these are necessarily poor outcomes. Boronia is a major activity centre, and as such change, in a policy sense, is invited and higher density development should be expected.

Having said that, the Panel also acknowledges the need to manage the interface with lower density residential areas and more sensitive areas, particularly in this case, the Dandenong Foothills policy area. Council has endeavoured to achieve that by identifying ‘Established Residential’ as the designation for a relatively small proportion of residential properties in the Boronia Activity Centre and specify more stringent design standards for those areas.

The Panel accepts that there is considerable merit in providing some clarity on the competing objectives of higher density development in an activity centre on one hand, and the need to recognise the environmental and landscape significance of the interface and Foothills areas on the other hand. The proposed amended Clause 22.06 and DDO7 achieve this clarity.

The Panel notes that the structure plan was tested through the Amendment C62 process and accepts that the structure and overall content are still sound. Amendment C95 made changes to the controls aimed at resolving some of the policy conflicts that became apparent and these revised controls have been in place for almost 12 months.


Page 91 of 128

The Panel believes that Amendment C133 improves on the controls introduced by Amendment C62 and appropriately adds clarity to the Boronia Activity Centre planning controls.

(iv) Conclusion

The Panel concludes that Amendment C133 is strategically justified on the basis that it adds clarity on potentially conflicting controls in interface areas.

6.3 Clause 22.06

(i) Overview

The proposed wording changes provide more detailed direction for the three residential areas already mapped in Map 1 in Clause 22.06 ‘Land Use Framework Plan’. Specifically, the following revised wording is proposed in Clause 22.06:

It is policy to:

Ensure land use and development is consistent with the Land Use Framework Plan as shown on Figure 1 which forms part of this clause.

Ensure that residential development reflects the land use plan at Figure 1 of Clause 22.06 Boronia Major Activity Centre Local Policy:

Established Residential Environs ‐ new development within these areas must provide a positive contribution to the existing character of the local area. Within these areas, apartment built form is not encouraged.

Dispersed Infill Residential ‐ new residential development within these locations is to facilitate increased residential densities and a greater diversity of housing types, sizes and affordability.

Increased Residential Density ‐ new residential development within these locations is to facilitate increased residential densities within alternate housing types of outstanding architectural quality.

Ensure that new residential development provide for transitional built form between changes in building heights as shown at Map 1 of this clause.

The changes explicitly identify the connection with the Land Use Framework plan in the Clause; the need for a transitional built form, and the role and type of development envisaged for each of the three residential areas.

(ii) Submissions

Council noted that a number of submissions drew attention to Figure 1 contained within Clause 22.06, which designates residential sites as either: Established Residential; Dispersed Infill Residential; and Increased Density Residential. Council submitted that the content of this Figure 1 has greater impact in decision making about residential development now that greater distinction is proposed between these areas through the wording in the local policy and DDO schedule. In particular, the new wording proposed specifies that apartments are not encouraged in Established Residential Areas.


Page 92 of 128

A Council review of Figure 1 identified the designation of some sites that appeared to be anomalies, and resolved to amend Figure 1 through the progress of Amendment C133 as follows:

Change two sites in response to submissions, from Established Residential to Dispersed Infill Residential

Change other sites following internal review

Change ten sites from Established Residential to Dispersed Residential Infill

Change one site from Dispersed Infill Residential to Established Residential, in order to bring it in line with its surrounding context

The changes are as shown Appendix E of this report.

Council advised that three submitters requested that their sites be changed from ‘established residential’ to ‘dispersed infill’, in line with surrounding properties. Council submitted that these requests were based on a concern that the designation reduces development potential and that there appears to be no clear logic for the different designations within an area.

Apart from those submissions, there were no specific submissions in relation to the content of the proposed Clause 22.06, although a number of submissions called for a more comprehensive review of the Boronia Structure Plan as discussed in Section 6.5 of this report.


The Panel has reviewed the wording of the proposed Clause 22.06 and agrees that it reflects the intent to provide greater direction, particularly with respect to development in Established Residential Areas.

In this case, (unlike the Panel’s earlier reference to Clause 22.07 in Section 5.7.1) the Panel is prepared to support a local planning provision reference to ‘apartment built form is not encouraged’ as the reference is to a much more defined area and has, in the Panel’s view, a sound strategic basis.

The Panel has not reviewed other aspects of the Clause as this is seen as outside the scope of the current Amendment.

The Panel endorses the proposed changes to Clause 22.06 and recommends its adoption subject to the following changes:

The Panel accepts that the changes to the mapped areas as proposed by Council (and shown in Appendix E of this report) are appropriate and recommends that the revised form of Figure 1 be adopted.

The reference to ‘Map 1’ in the dot points in Clause 22.06.2 (Policies) is erroneous and should be removed. It is assumed that this is intended to be a reference to Map 1 of the DDO7. In any case, it is a statement of policy and does not need to be so specific. It is recommended that the dot point end after the words ‘building heights’ and the words ‘as shown at Map 1 of this clause’ be deleted as follows:

Ensure that new residential development provide for transitional built form between changes in building heights. as shown at Map 1 of this clause.


Page 93 of 128

6.4 DDO7

(i) Overview

The most substantive changes to the DDO7 relate to the Design Standards in Clause 2.0. Specific standards are provided for each of the three residential areas as follows:

Consideration will be given to how new development addresses the following:

Within Established Residential Environs:

Apartments are not encouraged in these areas.

For properties which are also located within the Dandenong Foothills Policy area, development opportunities are limited in order to achieve the broader landscape objectives of the Dandenong Foothills Policy and provide for a transition in built form from the activity centre to the foothills.

New development within the Dandenong Foothills Policy area should consider and contribute to the characteristics of the foothills.

New development within these areas must provide a positive contribution to and respect the existing character of the local area.

Development should maintain the perception from the street of a single dwelling per lot.

Within Dispersed Infill Residential:

Development should maintain the perception from the street of a single dwelling per lot, particularly in areas proposed for 2 storeys or less.

Within Increased Residential Density:

Townhouse and apartment style built form is encouraged within these areas where an outstanding level of architectural quality and incorporation of ecologically sustainable design principles can be demonstrated.

Views to the foothills should be capitalised.

In addition, a number of changes to design objectives and landscape design requirements are proposed, generally consistent with reinforcing the relationship to the Foothills area.

(ii) Discussion and Conclusion

Although a number of submissions called for a more comprehensive review of the Boronia Structure Plan, there was general support for the proposed changes, at least in lieu of a more detailed review.

The Panel has reviewed the wording of the DDO7 and agrees that it reflects the intent to provide greater direction, particularly with respect to development in Established Residential Areas. The Panel has not reviewed other aspects of the DDO7 as this is seen as outside the scope of the current Amendment.

The Panel endorses the DDO7 and recommends its adoption subject to one minor correction. The last (newly added) dot point under Clause 1 Design Objectives should refer to ‘…building heights as shown at Map 1 of this schedule.’


Page 94 of 128

6.5 Review of the Boronia Structure Plan

(i) The Issue

The issue is the most appropriate timeframe for a review of the Boronia Structure Plan.

(ii) Submissions

A number of submitters, including Mr Aitken (Submission 12) and Appropriate Development for Boronia Inc (Submission 224), seek a review of the Boronia Structure Plan.

Mr Aitken submitted that the existing Boronia Structure Plan has many shortcomings and needed a comprehensive review of matters including dwelling density, building height and setbacks.

Ms Kaufmann submitted that Council has made a commitment to a review of the Structure Plan within a short time frame and a review is urgently needed to tighten up planning controls to provide outcomes more appropriate to the Dandenong foothills location. In her written submission, Ms Kaufmann supported lower mandatory height limits and increased setbacks.

Other submitters who argued for a review of the Boronia Structure Plan questioned the boundaries of the Activity Centre; Heritage protection; and infrastructure needs.

In response, Council submitted that a review was proposed for the 2016/17 financial year for the following reasons:

In September 2011, when adopting Amendment C62, Council resolved to commence a review of the Boronia Structure Plan ‐ Amendment C62 following completion of the Knox Housing Policy Review Project, to assess whether the Scheme provisions have been effective in achieving the objectives.

The Housing Policy Review Project, as it was known at the time, is the work currently underway to develop and implement the draft Housing Strategy and Residential Design Guidelines. This work is likely to be completed by late 2014/early 2015, with the anticipated approval of Amendment C131.

While the Structure Plan was adopted by Council in 2006, the planning controls which implement the Plan were only introduced into the Knox Planning Scheme in early 2012. Council is of the view that the Boronia‐specific planning controls (and the proposed Housing Strategy) should be allowed to operate for longer, prior to reviewing the Plan, to allow for a genuine assessment of how these controls have been operating. On this basis, at its 24 June 2014 Council meeting, Council resolved that a review of the Boronia Structure Plan be deferred until the 2016‐17 calendar year.


The timing of any review of the Boronia Structure Plan is not part of the scope of the current Amendment, and a review is a matter for Council. That said, the Panel makes the observation that the amended controls implemented through Amendment C131, the Housing Strategy and Amendment C133 will provide a different permit assessment regime


Page 95 of 128

and will likely create different planning outcomes to those achieved over the past few years. This may warrant some deferral of any review.

6.6 Recommendations

It is recommended that Amendment C133 to the Knox Planning Scheme be adopted subject to the following changes:

26. Amend Figure 1 of Clause 22.06 as shown in Appendix E of this panel report.

27. Delete reference to ‘Map 1’ in the relevant dot point in Clause 22.06.2 by deleting the words ‘as shown at Map 1 of this clause’ from the end of the dot point.

28. Amend the last (newly added) dot point under Clause 1 Design Objectives of DDO7 to read ‘…building heights as shown at Map 1 of this schedule.’


Page 96 of 128

Appendix A List of Submitters


Page 97 of 128

List of Submitters ‐ Amendment C131

No. Submitter Organisation

1 Greg Lamana Kingston Links Golf Course and Function Centre

2 George Atmatzidis

3 Brigid Minas

4 Pawel Langowki

5 Maureen Jean

6 Denglei Tang

7 Ken Oaten

8 Glenn Holmes

9 Iulian Goldstein

10 Eunice Walker & Cheryl Duncan

11 Shirley Healey

12 Graeme McCarthy & Evon McCarthy

13 Robert Coller

14 Sunil Mahipala

15 Garry Johnson

16 Robert Yin

17 M. Reid & P. Edwards

18 Masoud Afshar

19 Leili Shaeri

20 Judith Blacklock

21 Frank Arter

22 Marilyn Bushell

23 Mary Feeney

24 Joe Black

25 Aline Lucy Mackieson

26 Teena Kuffer

27 Geoff Budge

28 Andre Lavoipierre

29 Ken Burns

30 Frank Cetrola


Page 98 of 128


31 Kamil Ercan

32 B Cartright

33 Wendy and Henk Westerveld

34 Rick Lavale

35 Suzanne Bogos

36 Kim Pauline

37 Theo Niakolas

38 Ian D Crampton

39 Carol Syer

40 Wendy Deuchar

41 Judy Clarke

42 Kathy Winters

43 Lance Beech

44 Carol and Ian Archer

45 Brian Flanagan

46 Ingrid Wilhelmsen

47 Matthew Syer

48 Nas Foscarini

49 Serap Ercan

50 Osman Ercan

51 Sebahat Ercan

52 Steve and Leora Robertson

53 Anthony Dileo

54 M Kokab

55 Trina Seow

56 Kim Robinson

57 Cameron Sayce

58 Miriam Ullrich

59 Judy and Alan Gillett

60 Corey Cornell

61 Wendy Belli

62 Robert Cozens


Page 99 of 128


63 Colin and Rhonda Newberry

64 Wei Cheng and Chaing Liu

65 Andrew Appiah

66 M Hill

67 Emma Zeng

68 Bernard Naylor

69 Brendan Lynch

70 Jane Kuchins

71 Mirvac Pty Ltd

c/‐ Collie Pty Ltd

72 John Seagrave

73 Wolfgang & Monika Waffler

74 Donald & Alice Bullen

75 Andrew & Marine Parker

76 Chris Massin

77 Fred Hendriks

78 Wanda Lee

79 Jennifer Hannam

80 Doug Stevens

81 Rob Blakeney

82 Patricia Davies

83 John & Wendy Sargeant

84 Gerard Bateson

85 Ian J. Cameron

86 Judith & Ric Voce

87 Bill and Tina Johnston

88 Elaine Lai

89 James Keleher

90 Ada Yuen Fun Lee

91 Steven & Edith Szauer

92 David Ringelblum

93 Mark Williams


Page 100 of 128


94 Mrs Norma Horkings

95 Paul Hendriks

96 Judith Green

97 Steven Bogos

98 Karl Bogos

99 Adrian Pearce

100 Luke O'Grady Stockland

101 Jennifer Corker & Marcia Huxley

102 Joy Lawson

103 Gustavo Lugo

104 Cherie Shaw

105 Karina Bodourian

106 Kathleen Tchen

107 Betty Giouris

108 Denise Massuger

109 Jen & Richard Wiersema

110 Janine Truter

111 Noel & Annette Morgan

112 Land owners

c/‐ Polplan Pty Ltd

113 John Walker

114 Mrs Melanie Lord

115 Andrea Szymanski

116 Reid Family

117 C P Toland

118 Niall Quinn

119 Global Vision Management Pty Ltd

c/‐ City Consulting Pty Ltd

120 Kee Kuok Wong

121 Anne & Mick Kercheval

122 Wendy Twaddle

123 Darren Wallace


Page 101 of 128


124 Neil Cocks

125 Robert & Margaret Stace

126 Lend Lease Property Management (Australia) Pty Ltd

c/‐ Urbis

127 Frank Garrubba M F & D Investments Pty Ltd

128 Natalie Lawrence

129 Richard & Susan Thomas

130 John & Penny Hartney

131 S. Ganesh

132 Geoff Monaghan

133 Brent Thompson

134 Matthew Taylor Waverley Golf Club

135 Anne Emslie

136 Michelle & Mark Edwards

137 Sarah Wallace

138 Jon & Beverley Alexander

139 Idrousa Constructions Pty Ltd

c/‐ Polplan Pty Ltd

140 Giang Nguyen

c/‐ Hansen Partnership

141 Colin Bowers

142 Patricia Bowers

143 Geoff Larkin

144 Keith & Glenda Stone

145 Christine Ruff

146 Mrs. Beryl Brown

147 Lyn Lapthorne

148 J &I Ferguson

149 Retirement Alliance Pty Ltd

c/‐ Sophie Jordan Consulting

150 L Coppus

151 T. & D. Graham


Page 102 of 128


152 Wantirna Caravan Park

c/ Matrix Planning

153 Marie Jones

154 Knoxbrooke Incorporated

c/‐ Urbis

155 Patricia Henwood

156 Judy Line Women's Housing Ltd

157 Emile Kyriacou Port Phillip Region, DEPI

158 Robertson Industries Pty Ltd

c/‐ Graeme Dickson Partners Pty Ltd

159 Mr & Mrs Van Hees

160 Ron & Erica Schmidt

161 Janelle Wilcox

162 Susan & Stephen Hastings

163 Adrian Grandinetti

164 Zygmunt Bielinski Eastern District Polish Association Melbourne Inc

165 Ken & Loretta Tory

166 John Gerrard Glengolan Village

167 Margaret Neate

168 Mrs C. Ward

169 David Munro

170 Maria Munro

171 Sam Putrino

172 Mrs Heather Tanser

173 Mr & Mrs R Harvey

174 Hans Hahnemann

175 Anthony Searle

176 Rachel Maxwell

177 Kevin Bazley Kounia Pty Ltd

178 Nicholas Prentice

179 Tim Kirwan

180 Sharon Barker Knox Affordable Housing Reference Group


Page 103 of 128


181 Bruce W. Goodall

182 Pam Horlor

183 Tracey Ralph

184 Alan & Jacqueline Brecht Peppertree Hill Retirement Village

185 Julie & John Gilmour

186 Tim Ayliffe

187 Carol Smith

188 Brett Mollison

189 Ian Byles

190 Nick Fella

191 Ian Simpson

192 Mr R. Blair

193 Tang Sing‐Hua

194 Lee Harris

195 David Wood

196 David Genziuk

197 Daphne & Alex Ristic

198 Claudine Evans

199 Scope (Vic) Ltd

c/‐ Urbis

200 D Philp

201 Ross Petracci

202 J & C Quinn

203 Anthony H. Burgess

204 Lauren Haynes

205 Nicole Haynes

206 Karen Haynes

207 Ron Haynes

208 Joanne Ellis

209 Jennifer Donato

210 Terence Goh

211 Kojo Adjei Progress Planning Pty Ltd


Page 104 of 128


212 Natasha Wilkinson Tabulam and Templer Home for the Aged Inc

213 Teresa Donegan Knox Active Aging Advisory Committee

214 Larry Varley

215 D K Tuli Sant Nirankari Mandal Melbourne Inc.

216 Justin Schreuder

217 Boral

c/‐ APP

218 Jenny Nisi

219 Ray Boyle

220 Alasdair O'Brien

221 R Curren

222 Michael Partoglou & Sid Jager

223 Tristen O'Brien

224 Jiri Jancik

225 Cr Peter Lockwood

226 Karin Kaufmann Appropriate Development for Boronia Group Inc

227 Peter Smith

228 Peter Kavan

229 Marleen Mathias EPA Victoria

230 Wei Xiong Yang

c/‐ City Consulting Pty Ltd

231 Peter Vanstan St Joseph's School, Boronia

232 Russel Joseph The Construction Managers

233 Tony Aitken

234 Angela Roennfeldt Villa Maria

235 Sourin & Lucia Chakravorty

236 Landowners

c/‐ Contour Consultants Aust Pty Ltd

237 Irene M. Fullarton

238 Ranga & Srieka Parera

239 Raelene Stojan

240 Bruno & Giacomo Grandinetti


Page 105 of 128


241 Sandeep Chaudharg

242 D.C. & B. M. Dawson

243 Cr John Mortimore Knox City Council

244 Kevin W. Taig

245 Liz & Ken Wieland

246 Ron Ward

247 Christian & Mary Salathe

248 Mrs. Margaret Lancefield

249 Susan Pollerd

250 Ciaran Doherty

251 Rob & Connie Madden

252 Claire Oaten

253 Mark Gooding

254 Carmel Feeney

255 John Maddock Temple Society Australia

256 Joan & Owen Waite

257 H & A Heinen

258 Brenton Coombs

259 Lisa Hughan & Gareth Davies

260 Ian Kelly

261 Anne & Phillip Windsor

262 P Baburamani

263 Catherine Christopher

264 Mike and Robyn Fitzgerald

265 J M Skinner

266 W E (Bill) Lewis

267 K Grzankowski

268 Geoffrey R & Elizabeth E Rodwell

269 G W & M A Bonella

270 R Hinsch

271 Alex Winters The Basin Football Club


Page 106 of 128


272 Graham & Debbie Smit

273 Ian & Margaret Haley

274 Lynda & Garry Durbin

275 R W & P J Vernon

276 Yu chun LI

277 Stephen Coles

278 Ken Fraser

279 Pat Sharpe Peppertree Village

280 B K Dowling Peppertree Village

281 H & S Christensen Peppertree Village

282 A Barr Peppertree Village

283 Ronald & Beryl McKeown Peppertree Village

284 Karen & Gary Winch Peppertree Village

285 Ron & Shirley Cook Peppertree Village

286 Yvonne McDonald Peppertree Village

287 John Garzoli Peppertree Village

288 Mrs S C Burgess Peppertree Village

289 R W & H T Clarke Peppertree Village

290 Graham & Beryl Ladner Peppertree Village

291 Marjorie Davies Peppertree Village

292 M & B Chamberlain Peppertree Village

293 R & H Welsford Peppertree Village

294 C Fender Peppertree Village

295 L Josephs Peppertree Village

296 M Hyams Peppertree Village

297 H Hepenstall Peppertree Village

298 J Felce Peppertree Village

299 J Chapman Peppertree Village

300 D Goble Peppertree Village

301 L Westwood Peppertree Village

302 O Drummy Peppertree Village

303 J & I Jackson Peppertree Village


Page 107 of 128


304 M Fontana Peppertree Village

305 R Filarski Peppertree Village

306 R Jenkins Peppertree Village

307 B & F Dannock Peppertree Village

308 D & K Briggs Peppertree Village

309 T Frazer Peppertree Village

310 B & C Myers Peppertree Village

311 K Turnbull Peppertree Village

312 J O'Reilly Peppertree Village

313 R & P Mayo Peppertree Village

314 M & G Little Peppertree Village

315 Y Hallam Peppertree Village

316 R & B Evans Peppertree Village

317 T Chambers Peppertree Village

318 L Gordon‐Brown Peppertree Village

319 A Finlayson Peppertree Village

320 B Richardson Peppertree Village

321 R Elderidge Peppertree Village

322 M Wentworth Peppertree Village

323 M & V Whitelaw Peppertree Village

324 J Fisher Peppertree Village

325 E Neill Peppertree Village

326 J Clay Peppertree Village

327 W & B Fordham Peppertree Village

328 B & J Betts Peppertree Village

329 J & R Teague Peppertree Village

330 R & F Wagon Peppertree Village

331 R Williams Peppertree Village

332 N & M Silverwood Peppertree Village

333 P & J Saunders Peppertree Village

334 N Allen Peppertree Village

335 P Pudney Peppertree Village


Page 108 of 128


336 L & M Nelson Peppertree Village

337 E Harlock Peppertree Village

338 M Taylor Peppertree Village

339 H Norling Peppertree Village

340 P Claridge Peppertree Village

341 D Jones Peppertree Village

342 E Waller Peppertree Village

343 A Winkler Peppertree Village

344 J Down Peppertree Village

345 R Hill Peppertree Village

346 A & O Wingrave Peppertree Village

347 E & P Steele Peppertree Village

348 A Loibl Peppertree Village

349 I Spencer Peppertree Village

350 B & B Sleep Peppertree Village

351 M Smith Peppertree Village

352 P & M Smith Peppertree Village

353 S & C Leigh Peppertree Village

354 L & M Croxford Peppertree Village

355 R Kimpton Peppertree Village

356 A J Naughton Peppertree Village

357 C Graham Peppertree Village

358 B & G Box Peppertree Village

359 T Boersma Peppertree Village

360 R & M Standing Peppertree Village

361 L Zorman Peppertree Village

362 B & N Reeves Peppertree Village

363 V Hogarth Peppertree Village

364 A Viney Peppertree Village

365 L Gardner Peppertree Village

366 E Gannon Peppertree Village

367 B & I Bruce Peppertree Village


Page 109 of 128


368 H Calderbank

369 A Calderbank

370 Merrilyn Whitecross

371 Vivienne O'Brien

372 Rob O'Brien

373 Michael Freeman VicRoads

374 Denise Burnicle

375 Jaya Manchikanti Knox Multicultural Advisory Committee

376 Richard Faragher Knox Environment Society

377 Peter Johnston Knox Disability Advisory Committee

378 Mukesh Bhatia

379 Xiangyi Mo and Jingwen Wang

380 Anurag Tehlan and Pinki Rani

381 D K & T Sinnan

382 Maria Fini

383 Val Bottomley

384 M & G Laurence

385 Anthony and Petra Cassai

386 Gwenyth McMahon and Kathryn Adams

387 Antonia Pitas

388 A and E Motta

389 Healthscope Limited

c/‐Fastnet Consulting

390 Nenad and Branislav Stanojevic

391 Tommy Milutin

392 Marie Pearson

393 Teresa De Biase

394 Kirsten and Trevor Filmer

395 Maree Bowker c/‐ Quinn Family Trust

396 Anthony Bayley

397 Richard McAliece Public Transport Victoria

398 Anthony Raso & Associates


Page 110 of 128


399 Siew Leng Lee

400 Jenkins Family

c/‐ Kellehers Australia

401 Recycal Pty Ltd

c/‐ Madgwicks Lawyers


Page 111 of 128

List of Submitters ‐ Amendment C133


1 Geoff Budge

2 Emile Kyriacou DEPI

3 Bethany Bucci South East Water

4 Jenny Luk Public Transport Victoria

5 C Toland

6 Maurice & Rhonda Burton

7 Hester Calderbank

8 Alison Calderbank

9 Jenni & Frans Hauwert‐Swistak

10 Dorothy Stephens

11 Roderick & Anne Octigan

12 Tony Aitken

13 Tony Aitken

14 Ian Johnson

15 Marleen Mathias EPA

16 Rob & Connie Madden

17 Claire Oaten

18 Liz & Ken Wieland

19 J M Skinner


Page 112 of 128

Appendix B Document List


Page 113 of 128

No. Date Description Presented by

1 26/8/2014 Submission City of Knox

2 26/8/2014 Knox Housing Policy Monitoring and Review Program, Annual Report, April 2014

City of Knox

3 26/8/2014 Knox Housing Statement, November 2007 City of Knox

4 26/8/2014 Knox@50 Final Report, March 2013 City of Knox

5 26/8/2014 Neighbourhood Character Policy Review, February 2013

City of Knox

6 26/8/2014 Residential Design Guidelines and Housing Capacity Analysis Project, October 2011

City of Knox

7 26/8/2014 Residential Design Guidelines and Housing Capacity Analysis, February 2010

City of Knox

8 26/8/2014 MPA letter to Council re Wantirna Health Precinct, 20 August 2014

City of Knox

9 26/8/2014 Table of C74 and C131 provisions City of Knox

10 26/8/2014 Revised DPO12 City of Knox

11 26/8/2014 C131 Private Open Space Case Studies City of Knox

12 26/8/2014 C131 Private Open Space Road‐testing Scenarios City of Knox

13 26/8/2014 Wantirna Health Precinct Technical Paper and Strategic Directions report

City of Knox

14 27/8/2014 Submission Mr Jager and Mr Partoglou Mr Partoglou

15 27/8/2014 List of recommended changes City of Knox

16 27/8/2014 Glengollan Village Submission Mr Bitmead

17 27/8/2014 Plan Mr Bitmead

18 27/8/2014 Healthscope Submission Mr Bitmead

19 27/8/2014 VCAT decision 818 (8 July 2014) Healthscope Ltd v Knox City Council

Mr Bitmead

20 28/8/2014 Letter to Panel 27/8/2014 VicRoads

21 28/8/2014 Retirement Alliance Submission Ms Porritt

22 28/8/2014 Submission on behalf of Ms Lee Tuk Tin Mr Patterson

23 28/8/2014 Table of proposed mandatory and discretionary provisions

City of Knox

24 28/8/2014 Knoxbrooke Submission Ms Horsfield

25 28/8/2014 PowerPoint presentation Mr Joseph

26 28/8/2014 Submission on behalf of Mr Rundell Mr Joseph

27 29/8/2014 PowerPoint presentation Mr O’Leary


Page 114 of 128


28 29/8/2014 Black T Submission Mr O’Leary

29 29/8/2014 Photographs Mr O’Leary

30 29/8/2014 Extract from Knox C54 Panel report Mr O’Leary

31 29/8/2014 Extract from Knox Council report (24/7/2012) re C112 Mr O’Leary

32 29/8/2014 Letter from Council re 30‐36 Scoresby Road and 1 Cullis Parade, Bayswater (7/6/2013

Mr O’Leary

33 29/8/2014 Letter from DTPLI re Knox C112 Mr O’Leary

34 29/8/2014 Extract from Knox C46 Panel report Mr O’Leary

35 29/8/2014 Extract from VCAT decision 246 (13/3/2014) Mr O’Leary

36 29/8/2014 Table of provisions Mr O’Leary

37 2/9/2014 Submission and attachments on behalf of Robertson Industries

Mr Dickson

38 2/9/2014 Submission on behalf of the Jenkins Family Mr Morris

39 2/9/2014 Submission and attachments on behalf of the Waverley Golf Club

Ms Marshall

40 2/9/2014 Plan Melbourne extract and property report Mr Pikusa

41 2/9/2014 Plan Melbourne extract City of Knox

42 3/9/2014 Google map Mr Wood

43 3/9/2014 Lancefield Submission Mrs Lancefield

44 3/9/2014 Submission on behalf of MF and D Investments Mr Garrubba

45 4/9/2014 Aitken Submission Mr Aitken

46 4/9/2014 Submission on behalf of Appropriate Development for Boronia

Ms Kaufmann

47 4/9/2014 Reid Submission Ms Reid

48 4/9/2014 Dawson Submission Mr Dawson

49 4/9/2014 Bowker and Quinn Family Submission Ms Bowker

50 4/9/2014 Stanojevic Submission Mr Stanojevic

51 4/9/2014 Milutin Submission Mr Milutin

52 5/9/2014 Heinen Submission Mr Heinen

53 5/9/2014 Submission and PowerPoint presentation on behalf of Idrousa Constructions Pty Ltd

Mr O’Leary

54 5/9/2014 A3 landscape plans Mr O’Leary

55 5/9/2014 Proposed changes to Clause 22.07‐4 Mr O’Leary

56 5/9/2014 Submission on behalf of Scope Victoria Mr Pikusa


Page 115 of 128


57 5/9/2014 Henshall evidence addendum Mr Pikusa

58 5/9/2014 Extracts of the Knox Planning Scheme City of Knox

59 19/09/2014 Response to Panel Questions City of Knox

60 6/10/2014 Presentation on behalf of Recycal Pty Ltd Mr Morris

61 6/10/2014 Aerial photograph showing 1060 Stud Road Mr Morris

62 6/10/2014 Aerial photograph showing 1060 Stud Road Mr Morris

63 6/10/2014 Landscape Concept Plan 1060 Stud Road Mr Morris

64 6/10/2014 Scoresby – Rowville Employment Precinct Structure Plan

Mr Morris

65 6/10/2014 Community Profile extract for City of Knox Mr Morris

66 6/10/2014 Employment location of Knox residents by SLA Mr Morris

67 6/10/2014 Milner evidence report Mr Milner

68 6/10/2014 Attachments 1 to 4 to Mr Milner’s expert report Mr Milner

69 8/10/2014 Council response to submissions on 1060 Stud Road Council


Page 116 of 128

Appendix C Amendment C131 Council’s proposed post exhibition changes


Page 117 of 128

Council’s submission listed the following proposed post exhibition changes to the Amendment. The Panel provides its response to each post‐exhibition change in order to add clarity or respond to minor matters not otherwise mentioned.

Council proposed change Panel response

Local Living height limit reduced to mandatory 2 storeys (8m) to provide greater clarity between Activity Areas and Local Living.

Not supported

9m recommended

Apply Bush Suburban designation and Neighbourhood Residential Zone Schedule 2 to additional sites which are affected by an ESO or VPO4 as specified in Appendix D (as these sites were erroneously omitted at exhibition).

Not supported

GRZ2 recommended

Change proposed zoning of 343 and 355‐357 Stud Road, Wantirna South from Residential Growth Zone to Mixed Use Zone (Villa Maria).

Supported

Retain current Public Park and Recreation Zone (PPRZ) for two parcels of Egan Lee Reserve (Incorrectly mapped in original).

Supported

Apply Local Living designation (instead of Knox Neighbourhood) and General Residential Zone Schedule 3 to 3 Moonah Road, Wantirna South.

Supported

Apply Knox Neighbourhood designation and General Residential Zone 2 to 2, 4, 6 & 8 Ainsdale Avenue, Wantirna, in place of Activity Area as these sites do not meet Activity Area criteria.

Not supported

RGZ3 recommended , as exhibited

Remove additional requirements for sites affected by a Design and Development Overlay or Development Plan Overlay (Harcrest and Stamford Park sites).

Not considered

Strategic Site 11 Boral Quarry ‐ revise language regarding access to the site to allow for possibility of access via George Street

Supported

Strategic Sites 1 & 2 ‐ revise language to allow for possibility of private dwellings on these sites.

Supported

Clarify the exemption on maximum height for buildings used for Residential Aged Care Facilities or Nursing Homes.

Supported, subject to the Panel’s other recommendations in relation to this issue.

Strengthen language around 'housing for older people' to place more emphasis on ageing in place in the broader community, not simply aged care facilities.

Supported

Specific changes to DPO12 as follows:

Clarify 10% for development allowed prior to permit or development plan at Stud Park Shopping Centre of total maximum leasable floor area.

Other considerations for DPO12, providing clarification on queries from owner.

Supported

See Appendix D

Clarify language regarding public consultation process for Rowville Plan to better represent that views collected represent those of participants and not necessarily the entire community.

Supported


Page 118 of 128

Specify Council's definition of 'canopy tree’. Supported

Amend map to show all non‐residentially zoned land as 'white', e.g. Knox Community Garden.

Supported

Note that covenants continue to apply to land and override planning requirements.

Supported

Add note in 'Residential Area Types' matrix referring to subdivision restrictions in the Dandenong Foothills.

Supported

Remove reference to preference for carports over garages. Supported

Require that the rear dwelling is single storey in developments of three or more dwellings in Knox Neighbourhood areas.

Supported

In addition, Council also advised of the following proposed changes to the ‘application of zones, policy wording and the strategies’:


Rezone additional parcel of land comprising 55 Burwood Highway (adjacent to Eastlink) from Residential 3 Zone to General Residential Zone (Schedule 2) due to a mapping error.

Supported

Retain all existing non‐residential zones that have inadvertently been mapped for a new residential zone.

Supported

Strategic Site 13 Waverley Golf Club and adjoining sites – include additional considerations relating to the Strategic Site (Sites of Biological Significance and Bushfire Risk)

Supported

Amend address for Strategic Site 10: Jenkins Orchard, to reflect the accurate address.

Supported

Amend address for Strategic Site 7: DPI Site, to reflect the accurate address.

Supported

Update references to Stamford Park and Stamford Park Historic Homestead in line with updated master plan to ensure consistency across documents.

Supported

Edit language relating to Stormwater Management in the Rowville Plan, providing greater clarification on current approach.

Supported

Include Private Open Space requirements for Activity Areas in all relevant zone schedules, in accordance with the requirements in the Residential Design Guidelines (in order to provide more clarity for permit applicants.

Supported

Remove reference to balconies and rooftop private open space for Bush Suburban and Knox Neighbourhood areas, as these types of open space should not be provided in place of 100sq.m at ground floor.

Not supported

See Section 5.3.4

Allow for architectural features to exceed maximum building height in all areas except the Dandenong Foothills (in order to provide consistency across residential areas).

Supported, subject to the Panel’s other recommendations in relation to this issue.


Page 119 of 128

Allow buildings to exceed maximum building heights where there is a slope to the land (in order to provide consistency across residential areas).

Supported

Provide more direction for accessible dwellings in developments of 3 or more dwellings, to provide consistent language with other parts of the Planning Scheme.

Supported

Width of the site to exclude the width of one driveway, for the purpose of calculating number of canopy trees within the front setback, to reflect advice from Council's Landscape Assessment Officers.

Supported

Specify that a maximum of one dwelling on a lot is permitted in the Neighbourhood Residential Zone, in order to minimise confusion relating minimum lot sizes and development potential.

Not supported

See Section 5.3.2

Amend the Economic Framework Plan at Clause 21.07 (this plan was redrawn with no changes as part of this amendment and one error has been identified).

Supported

Include the definition of 'Sites of Biological Significance', as this term is used in the Housing Strategy.

Supported

Replace the plan view image of 'apartment' with a pitched roof image to match perspective view (rectifying layout error).

Supported

Change heading from 'Front Setbacks' to 'Setbacks' to reflect front and rear, to provide greater clarity.

Supported

Add action that Council is preparing 'Access and Movement for All' Guidelines for new development of 5+ dwellings (work recently commenced since drafting of the Housing Strategy).

Supported

Updates relating to State Government's release of the final Plan Melbourne strategy and new Planning Policy Framework (released since drafting of the Housing Strategy).

Supported

Replace existing population forecast data with latest Victoria in Future population projections (released in June 2014).

Supported

Following the June Council meeting, further changes were adopted under delegation, including:


Applying the NRZ1 to the Peregrine Heights area rather than the exhibited NRZ2.

Supported

Minor changes to the wording of zone schedules relating to private open space and landscaping.

Supported subject to the Panel’s other recommendations in relation to this issue

Minor wording changes to the draft Housing Strategy as it relates to Norvell Road Quarry (Strategic Site 6), at the request of the landowner.

Supported


Page 120 of 128

Appendix D Panel preferred DDO12


Page 121 of 128


Page 122 of 128


Page 123 of 128


Page 124 of 128


Page 125 of 128


Page 126 of 128


Page 127 of 128

Appendix E Proposed amendments to Figure 1 of Clause 22.06


Page 128 of 128