report to the future melbourne (planning) committee · 2016-02-11 · 8. a directions hearing is...

1

Report to the Future Melbourne (Planning) Committee Agenda item 6.3

Flemington Life Planning Scheme Amendment C290 and GC40 16 February 2016 Presenter: Kate Vinot, Director City Strategy and Place

Purpose and background

1. The purpose of this report is to seek Council endorsement of the City of Melbourne’s draft submission (Attachments 2 and 3) to the Ministerial Advisory Committee (MAC) process regarding the Flemington Life Planning Scheme Amendments C290 and GC 40. The Victorian Racing Club (VRC) and Greenland Developers have lodged a request with the Minister for Planning to consider a planning scheme amendment (PSA) to the Moonee Valley and Melbourne Planning Schemes. The draft PSA proposes to rezone two precincts of land to a Comprehensive Development Zone (CDZ) that will allow for their development to high density residential.

2. The two precincts of land (Attachment 4) and associated developments are: 2.1. The ‘Flemington Green’ site on the northern boundary of Flemington Racecourse straddles the

boundary between the Cities of Melbourne and Moonee Valley (GC40). The proposed CDZ provides for development in this precinct of three (3) residential towers, varying in height from 14, 20 and 25 storeys, and a low rise commercial precinct of up to six (6) storeys.

2.2. The ‘Epsom Road’ site that is wholly within the City of Melbourne (C290). The proposed CDZ provides for development in this precinct of a single residential tower up to 31 storeys, with ground level commercial activity.

3. The MAC has been appointed to provide advice to the Minister. The terms of reference for the MAC

include consideration of whether the proposed PSAs should be approved (subject to any recommended changes); an assessment of the responsible authority status for the precincts and advice on whether a realignment of the municipal boundary is required for the ‘Flemington Green’ precinct.

Key issues

4. The City of Melbourne draft submission identifies the following key issues in response to the draft PSA and CDZ: 4.1. The proposed development density is inconsistent with the Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS)

growth strategy.

4.2. There is a lack of urban design justification or appropriate analysis that underpins the proposed form of the buildings and overall building height.

4.3. The proposed flexibility in the draft controls does not provide the community with certainty in regard

to the ultimate form of the development and does not ensure an appropriate design response.

4.4. There is currently no proposal for the funding and provision of local infrastructure and community facilities to accommodate the additional demand for services.

4.5. No affordable housing is proposed.

4.6. Sustainability measures such as waste, water or energy management systems have not been

adequately considered. 5. In response to the potential for a municipal boundary realignment, the submission (Attachment 3)

proposes that, should the Flemington Green proposal proceed, the municipal boundary should be realigned to include the entirety of Flemington Green into the City of Melbourne.

of 12

Attachments: 1. Supporting Attachment 2. City of Melbourne Submission to the Proposed ‘Flemington Life’ Ministerial Planning Scheme

Amendment C290 & GC40 3. City of Melbourne Submission to the potential Municipal boundary change 4. Flemington Life Planning Scheme Amendment - Precinct Plan 2

Recommendation from management

6. That the Future Melbourne Committee resolves to:

6.1. Endorse the draft City of Melbourne Submission on the Proposed ‘Flemington Life’ Ministerial Planning Scheme Amendment C290 and GC40, as set out in Attachment 2, for presentation to the Ministerial Advisory Committee.

6.2. Endorse the draft City of Melbourne Submission on the potential Municipal boundary change, as set out in Attachment 3, for presentation to the Ministerial Advisory Committee.

of 12

1

Supporting Attachment

Legal

1. Legal advice has been provided in respect to the preparation of the submission.

Finance

2. The cost associated with the recommendation will include the engagement of legal representation of the MAC hearing.

Conflict of interest

3. No member of Council staff, or other person engaged under a contract, involved in advising on or preparing this report has declared a direct or indirect interest in relation to the matter of the report.

Stakeholder consultation

VRC and Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP)

4. Public consultation on the amendments commenced for a period of 6 weeks on 11 January until 19 February 2016. DELWP exhibited the amendment on behalf of the Minister for Planning.

5. DELWP sent letters to relevant stakeholders and approximately 2000 City of Melbourne owners and occupiers in the vicinity of the Epsom Road site.

6. Public information sessions are being conducted by the VRC on 2nd and 7th February 2016.

7. Information about the draft amendments, how to make submissions and the public hearing process is available on the DELWP and VRC websites.

8. A Directions Hearing is scheduled for 1 March 2016 with public hearings commencing the week of 14 March 2016.

City of Melbourne

9. Council’s submission is due on 19 February, with submissions from the community being accepted by the MAC until 1 March 2016.

10. Following the endorsement of submission by Council the City of Melbourne will make the submission available via the CoM website.

Relation to Council policy

11. The primary policy to which the proposed amendments have effect is the Melbourne Planning Scheme.

12. The draft submission seeks to influence the proposed amendments to be more consistent with the local policies of the Melbourne Planning Scheme, and other existing Councils policies.

Environmental sustainability

13. The submission outlines that the proposed draft amendments are currently not consistent with Councils current objectives for environmental sustainability.

Attachment 1Agenda item 6.3

Future Melbourne Committee 16 February 2016

of 12

FLEMINGTON LIFE MINISTERIAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE

CITY OF MELBOURNE SUBMISSION

Without limitation:

The City of Melbourne Submission to the Proposed ‘Flemington Life’ Ministerial Planning Scheme Amendment C290 & GC40: Flemington Green Development Site and Epsom Road Site

Attachment 2 Agenda item 6.3


of 12



THE PROPOSAL

The Flemington Green site is currently located in Schedule 1 to the Special Use Zone in the Melbourne Planning Scheme and the General Residential Zone in the Moonee Valley Planning Scheme. The Epsom Road site is located in Schedule 1 to the Special Use Zone in the Melbourne Planning Scheme. The Special Use Zone prohibits use of the land for residential purposes while the General Residential Zone does not support higher density residential development.

It is proposed that both sites be rezoned to the Comprehensive Development Zone to facilitate the use of the land for the development of the sites for high density residential uses.

Both Comprehensive Development Zones are accompanied by Comprehensive Development Plans that are to be Incorporated Documents.

The Flemington Green proposal is for five buildings ranging from five and six storeys abutting residential development along Fisher Parade, to 20 and 25 storeys, with six storey podiums abutting the rail line and the racecourse away from the residential areas. The proposal will provide in the order of 700 dwellings with a population of 1400, 830 car spaces, 1500 square metres of retail services and 5% as public open space.

The Epsom Road site comprises one tower of 31 storeys with a four storey podium, realizing 398 dwellings, a population of 750, 323 car spaces and limited retail and services. It includes the retention of the heritage listed Former Jockey Convalescent Lodge for community use. Public open space is not specified.

The subject land is freehold.

of 12



KEY ISSUES

Strategic Justification

Lack of strategic justification for the proposed density

To accommodate the municipality’s growth over the next 20 to 30 years, the footprint of intensive growth areas within the City of Melbourne will need to expand beyond the Central City (Hoddle Grid, Docklands and Southbank) into designated urban renewal areas. The focus of Council’s Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS) is to promote urban growth within identified targeted areas. Figure 1 Growth Area Framework Plan in the MSS identifies these areas.

The Flemington Green site is located within the Racecourse Rail Corridor which is identified as a ‘Potential Urban Renewal Area’ in Clauses 21.04 and 21.15-2 of the Planning Scheme. Potential Urban Renewal Areas have been specifically identified as long term options for future urban renewal that are dependent on the resolution of related infrastructure planning before they can be considered for urban renewal. The Racecourse Rail Corridor’s potential for urban renewal is dependent on a regular rail service to the area.

In regard to transport, this development will generate a further demand and exacerbate an existing problem for which there is no transport solution proposed. Public Transport Victoria have no known plans for the Flemington racecourse rail line beyond its current use for special events. Given the advice from Public Transport Victoria, a sustainable multi-modal solution is required to address the current and additional demand placed on this area by the proposed development.

The Epsom Road site is located outside any urban renewal area and is therefore considered to be an area of ongoing and incremental growth. Current planning policy does not contemplate a major increase in the population density within the vicinity of the Epsom Road site.

Building Height

No urban design justification for overall building height, scale and built form

Overall, it is considered that the proposal fails to respond to its larger context being the adjoining Flemington Racecourse and the surrounding residential as opposed to just giving consideration to only the immediate site. There is a reliance on the opportunity for an economic benefit rather than an appropriate design and planning response to be the justification that underpins the overall built form.

The Melbourne Planning Scheme does not contemplate heights such as proposed by the VRC, outside the Central City (Southbank, Docklands and the Hoddle Grid). In planned urban renewal areas such as City North and Arden Macaulay, their respective panels have supported far lower heights than the current proposal. In the City North DDO which is now part of the Melbourne Planning Scheme, the preferred maximum height is 60m with most of the area 40m. In Arden Macaulay the maximum height recommended by the panel is 12 storeys.

Flemington Green

The proposed development typology and the scale of development are not supported.

The tower forms are at odds with the neighborhood character and will have an overwhelming impact on the surrounding area.

The podium-tower typology will also have a significant negative impact. It will result in large blocks lacking permeability for pedestrians. These large blocks have deep floor plates which limit the range of possible uses due to lack of daylight.

of 12



The proposed podium heights are similar to the heights of surrounding low-rise development. These are supported subject to specific interfaces being addressed such as variation in the height and design of long podium forms, particularly those fronting Leonard Crescent.

Epsom Road

The case for an apartment tower to provide a landmark to mark the end of Racecourse Road or the

roundabout is questionable in terms of its need, nature, placement and scale.

Given that the approved development at 1 Epsom Road is already under construction, the effect of the proposed tower would be more to establish a pattern of towers clustering around the intersection – a pattern which could have significant negative impact on Newmarket Reserve and the surrounding area. A building of modest scale and exemplary design could make a positive contribution within this landscape. The 31 storey tower which the amendment proposes is considered overwhelming, totally dominant and out of context with the area.

The off-axis placement of the site limits its potential to provide a destinational marker visible down the length of Racecourse Road. Only a small fraction of the site – its north corner - encroaches into the Racecourse Road alignment, and the tower would not be within that. It is therefore only in the vicinity of Smithfield Road, where Newmarket Reserve opens up the view, that the proposed landmark tower would become fully effective. However at such proximity human-scaled development is warranted.

The analysis fails to recognise the value of the trees in the northern part of the site, and the proposal would remove these.

More generally, the amendment would permit a significant reduction in the permeability of the site. It is

recommended that the amendment include a requirement to remediate the landscape both within and adjacent to the site to result in no net loss of soil permeability or green infrastructure.

of 12



Planning Scheme Provisions

Proposed planning framework will not deliver an appropriate design response

The Comprehensive Development Zone provides for a range of uses and the development of land in accordance with a comprehensive development plan incorporated into the planning scheme. Generally large or complex developments warrant the use of this zone. The use of the zone and the incorporation of the plan is supported.

The purpose of the comprehensive development plan is to ensure that future use and development of the land is carried out in accordance with that plan. The plan details the form and conditions that must be met by future use and development of the land.

The Advisory Committee recommended that building heights in both schedules to the Comprehensive Zone be mandatory, This is supported as it will provide certainty.

Specific concerns with the Schedules to the Comprehensive Development Zone

Consideration doesn’t go beyond the development sites and particular for the Epsom Road site doesn’t consider a broad enough character and context. It only considers whether development is appropriate in the racecourse.

The Schedules do not provide certainty about the nature of the proposed uses and exempts third party notice and appeal rights for section 2 (permit required) uses without a land use plan being included as part of the incorporated document.

The Schedules do not provide certainty about the nature of the development given the limited information shown on the on the building enveloped plan. All heights and setbacks should be specified as should pedestrian and vehicle access points and movement paths.

Where discretion is allowed, there is no guidance as to how discretion should be exercised.

Need to include Section 173 agreements for the provision of physical infrastructure, and development contributions and affordable housing

Specific concerns with the Comprehensive Development Plans

The principles are too general and do not specifically address the site. There is a need for specific design criteria.

The Guidelines are not adequate to ensure a quality development. They need to be stronger and include requirements and performance measures.

Developer Contributions

For a large development such as being proposed, there must be a commitment to mitigating the impact on local infrastructure and community facilities.

The developer should be required to construct all physical infrastructures, including the proposed park, the intersection upgrades, and the pedestrian crossing at Epsom Road at their own cost and to the satisfaction of the Council. A sum per dwelling to contribute to the upgrade of community infrastructure in the area should be provided.

of 12



Housing Affordability

Clause 21.07 (Housing) in the MSS provides broad policy support for the provision of affordable housing including encouraging a range of housing tenures, types and options to meet the diversity of housing needs and the provision of well-designed and managed affordable housing and social housing (Strategy 4.3).

More specifically, the City of Melbourne Homes for People Housing Strategy, adopted by Council on 9 December 2014, includes a goal (Goal 1) to help provide at least 1721 affordable homes (subsidised) for low and moderate income earners by 2024. In this context affordable housing is defined as housing outside the main housing market which is subsidised below the market rate and provided to eligible low and moderate income households whose needs are not met by the market. The affordable housing should be owned and/or managed by a registered housing association. This target is based on 15 per cent of new dwellings estimated to be built between 2016 and 2021 which do not currently have a planning permit or are at an advanced stage of the development process. A target of 15 per cent is comparable with other Australian state capitals and international cities, including London and Vancouver.

We request, therefore, that the Advisory Committee consider an affordable housing requirement for this development, in accordance with our Housing Strategy and the emerging recognition of the challenges of housing affordability identified through the Victorian Government’s refresh of Plan Melbourne.

Sustainability

The development will be required to comply with clause 22.19 – Energy, Water and Waste – of the Melbourne Planning. For residential buildings over 5,000 square metres, in addition to the specified energy, water and waste standards a 5 star rating under a current version of Green Star – Multi Unit rating tool or equivalent, will be required.

Despite the above, the size of the development provides the opportunity to introduce other options to improve sustainability. For example, there has been no attempt to consider development wide sustainability measures such as waste collection, water supply or energy supply systems.

Consideration should also be given to applying the Green Star Communities tool, which addresses social as well as environmental criteria. The VRC should be required to show how these developments could be designed to be iconic sustainable communities.

Staging

There is no indication on staging or the timing and delivery of infrastructure. As a minimum, it should be ensured that the Flemington Life public park is delivered and constructed as part of the first stage of the Flemington Green development and that the Epsom Road site pedestrian crossing be constructed at the developer’s expense prior to commencing construction.

Open space

As a potential urban renewal area the open space contribution for the Flemington Green site must be 7.06%. This should be provided as land.

of 12



Without limitation:

The City of Melbourne Submission to the potential Municipal boundary change.



of 12



Subject to the Ministerial Advisory Committee recommendation regarding Amendments C290 and GC40, the City of Melbourne’s submission in relation to any proposed municipal boundary realignment is:

Potential Boundary Realignment

The Flemington Green site on the northern boundary of the Flemington Racecourse straddles the municipal boundary between the Cities of Melbourne and Moonee Valley. The indicative proposal includes 736 dwellings, with 494 dwellings within the City of Melbourne and 242 dwellings in the City of Moonee Valley.

The City of Melbourne proposes that the municipal boundary be realigned so that the Flemington Green site is located wholly within the City of Melbourne. This position is proposed by the City of Melbourne for the following reasons:

It would enable the long term planning of the Flemington Racecourse and Showgrounds, including the amendment area, to be strategically considered in the context of its Capital City function.

This would align with and support future planning with regard to Council’s long term vision for the area as expressed in the Municipal Strategic Statement.

Should the boundary realignment be retained, there is a risk that residents within the same development (ie: Flemington Green) will receive a different standard of services, parks, roads and civil infrastructure. A realignment of the boundary will deliver a high quality and consistent level of service to all residents within the proposed development precinct.

Any recommendation of the Ministerial Advisory Committee to the Minster should be the subject of extensive community consultation, including with the elected representatives of the Melbourne City Council and Moonee Valley City Council, prior to a decision of the relevant Minister.

of 12

Flemington Life Planning Scheme Amendment

Precinct Plan



of 12