bdtps.files.wordpress.com file · Web viewDEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, LAND, WATER AND PLANNING. Reforming the Victoria Planning Provisions. Have your say on the new look VPP framework

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, LAND, WATER AND PLANNINGReforming the Victoria Planning ProvisionsHave your say on the new look VPP framework - submissions close 5pm Friday 24 November 2017

First Name Required: David

Last Name Required Berry

Email Address Required [email protected]

Organisation Blackburn and District Tree Preservation Society Inc.

You have 255 characters left.Are you submitting on behalf of an organisation? Required Yes

Yes (please list organisation above)

NoPlease click on the link below to read the Privacy Collection Notice.Privacy Collection Notice

I agree to the privacy statement Required

Do you wish for your submission to remain confidential?Submissions may be published with personal details retracted. If you do not wish for us to publish any part of your submission, please select this box.

Proposal 1: A simpler VPP structure with VicSmart assessment built inRead about 'Proposal 1' from page 10 of the discussion paper.Please indicate below whether you/your organisation agree, disagree or are unsure about each section of Proposal 1.1.1 Restructure and reform the particular provisionsI agreeI agree subject to the below commentsI disagreeUnsure

Further commentsGeneral Comments: The Blackburn & District Tree Preservation Society Inc. (BDTPS) agrees that the VPP is lengthy, unwieldy and not user friendly in its current iteration. However any structural review that streamlines and simplifies the assessment pathways must not dilute the powers of councils to preserve and enhance the unique neighbourhood and natural landscape character within their domains for the benefit of their residents.

Specific Comments about Particular Provisions: In relation to the natural environment and landscape character in urban municipalities generally (and specifically in the City of Whitehorse), the BDTPS is adamant that the VPP restructure and reform process must not weaken the following particular provisions: Sections 52.01, 52.06, 52.16, 52.17, 52.34, 54 (in toto), 55 (in toto), 56 (in toto) and 58 (in toto).

1.2 Integrate VicSmart into appropriate particular provisions and overlay schedulesI agreeI agree subject to the below commentsI disagreeUnsureFurther commentsOverlays in planning schemes provide protection for areas that are special in terms of their vegetation or heritage characteristics. Permit exemptions and VicSmart should have no application in overlays

1.3 Consolidate all administrative provisionsI agreeI agree subject to the below commentsI disagreeUnsure

Further commentsConsolidating the LPPF into the VPP would involve adopting “a one size fits all” approach that ignores subtleties and differences between areas within municipalities. For example in the Whitehorse Planning Scheme there are five schedules encompassing the Neighbourhood Residential Zone to reflect the neighbourhood character differences between, for example, the heritage values of Mont Albert and the natural landscape and native/indigenous treescape in Blackburn.

What other changes to the VPP structure do you think should be considered?In terms of potential dilution of the VPP, the BDTPS is particularly concerned with the third dot point statement under ‘Considerations’ (Page 14):To strengthen the role of zones as a single point of entry in relation to the particular provisions, there may be a need to review some permit triggers in zones to achieve a consistent approach.The VPP is too development and construction-driven with scant regard for the preservation and enhancement of the natural landscape that form the interstices between built structures. We are losing our trees and canopy cover, vegetation and open spaces to the human-dominated built-form. This is already compromising quality of life issues for people living in urban areas and shows no signs of abatement. Any major review of the VPP must include tree and vegetation planning, preservation and enhancement provisions including a meaningful requirement for the provision of adequate open spaces for passive recreational pursuits on private property and the provision of low-stress, high connectivity links for walkers and cyclists on land in the public domain. The tree society committee fears that the

VPP reform initiative has a barely concealed objective of providing open slather to all types of inappropriate development in urban precincts. Proposal 2: An integrated planning policy frameworkRead about 'Proposal 2' from page 15 of the discussion paper.Please indicate below whether you/your organisation agree, disagree or are unsure about each section of Proposal 2.2.1 Integrate state, regional and local planning policy

I agreeI agree subject to the below commentsI disagreeUnsure

Further commentsIt is apparent, from the comments on page 15 (i.e. the list of issues that characterize the current policy framework and discussion of the inadequate policy review and upkeep) that emphasis in any VPP reform must be given to: Creating, managing and continuously reviewing a quality management/document

control system to ensure the integrity and relevance of the VPP at all times Fostering a mutually-beneficial collaboration between State and Local Government

Planning staff in the administration of the VPP with regular community collaboration and review

Providing adequate training and ongoing professional development for Planning staff at both State and Local levels of government

There is also a concern with the statement (page 17, third-last para):To implement the new PPF, existing regional and local planning policies would need to be reviewed and appropriately redistributed under the relevant planning policy themes;Of particular concern is the potential for dilution of the regional and local planning policy themes under ‘the weight’ of state policy planning policy themes.

2.2 Simplify the Municipal Strategic Statement


Further commentsIt is important to make sure that, by striving for a ‘concise format’ and ‘a more focused and direct message’ in simplifying the MSS, the resulting reform does not dumb down or dilute the MSS to the detriment of residents (and benefit developers).

2.3 Expand policy themes

I agreeI agree subject to the below comments

I disagreeUnsure

Further commentsThe BDTPS contends that Active Transport and associated infrastructure be incorporated as a stand-alone policy theme in the proposed PPF thematic framework. Viable local and regional transport alternatives to the motorized vehicle and public transport need to be given the highest priority in any meaningful reform to the VPP.In addition it is crucial that adequate open space provision with the incorporation of treed and otherwise vegetated landscapes, people-friendly linkages, low-stress walking and cycling infrastructure and human-scaled built forms be incorporated thematically within the VPP.

2.4 Create a clearer and simpler structure for policy making

I agree

I agree subject to the below comments

I disagree

Unsure

Further commentsGreat care must be taken not to dilute or dumb down the planning policy structure in so doing – simple and elegant rather than merely simplistic!

2.5 Set new rules and guidelines for writing policy


Further CommentsIt very much depends on the definition, nature and extent of the so-called ‘new policy rules of entry’ and ‘new drafting rules’ and whether they are forced on local government or established in a collaborative context.

Are there any themes that should be added to the proposed PPF thematic framework - shown in Appendix 1 - to ensure that it covers all required policies?See response to 2.3

What else could be done to make planning policy easier to apply and understand?There must be a transparent and well-defined local emphasis within the planning policy to make it easier to apply by local government and easier to understand by all parties including the layperson. Defined and quantifiable objectives and decision guidelines must be included in the PPF in addition to clear details of sanctions for non compliance.

What will be needed to support a transition to a new PPF format?See ‘Further Comments’ under 2.1

Proposal 3: Assessment pathways for simple proposalsRead about 'Proposal 3' from page 23 of the discussion paper.Please indicate below whether you/your organisation agree, disagree or are unsure about each section of Proposal 3.3.1 Embed a VicSmart assessment pathway in appropriate particular provisions and overlay schedules

I agree


I disagree

Unsure

Further comments‘Proportionality in decision-making’ is emphasized under ‘The Issue’ heading on page 23 for Proposal 3. One definition of proportionality in decision-making is ‘... the amount of time spent making a decision should be directly proportional to potential outcomes …’This is fine as far as it goes but the detail has been omitted (or worse not yet considered!). The BDTPS committee questions include: Who decides what is proportional and defines the hierarchy of potential outcomes? How much input does local government and individuals or community groups have in

the decision-making process? How are ‘potential outcomes’ defined hierarchically and do they include such factors as

negative impacts on individuals and/or communities; loss of landscape character; loss of trees and vegetation; loss of usable open space on public and private land due to higher density developments; project costs and schedules; the variable lobbying power of individuals, community groups and developers etc.?

‘Simplification’ and a ‘stream-lined assessment process’ must not mean any relaxation of planning provisions in favour of developers or to save time or money to the detriment of local communities.

3.2 Introduce new code-based assessment provisions for simple proposals to support small business, industry and homeowners

I agree


I disagree

UnsureFurther commentsThe tree society is particularly concerned with the development and application of secondary dwelling and small lot standards and how they will impact on residential amenity and local landscape character. Tree canopy maintenance and enhancement is a crucial consideration here – trees need sufficient space to thrive.

What other matters do you think are suitable for code-based assessment?

Proposal 4: Smarter planning scheme draftingRead about 'Proposal 4' from page 30 of the discussion paper.Please indicate below whether you/your organisation agree, disagree or are unsure about each section of Proposal 4.4.1 Create a new VPP user manual

I agree


I disagree

UnsureFurther comments

4.2 Establish a business unit dedicated to VPP and planning scheme amendment drafting

I agree


I disagree

Unsure

Further commentsThe BDTPS is opposed to any centralization of planning scheme amendment drafting that precludes local government and community input to vouchsafe the local planning context, natural and landscape character, community values and aspirations for the local environment. Local planning provisions and their amendment must remain the responsibility of council planning departments

4.3 Create an online Victorian planning library

I agree


I disagree


The danger is that the reformed VPP will be more centralised than now to the detriment of local government and community input and influence regarding planning outcomes.

‘There may be some loss of flexibility in the drafting of local provisions, however more concise and precisely expressed planning controls can only improve their effectiveness.’This last sentence in the ‘Discussion’ section for Proposal 4 sounds a warning bell (a death knell?) for the future of a viable local government planning role in the reformed VPP. The BDTPS has grave concerns that the new, reformed ‘one size fits all’ VPP will confer an unfair advantage to developers and accelerate inappropriate developments to the detriment of local government authorities, the community and the local natural amenity.

What are the key matters you think a VPP user manual should include?Nothing to add

What planning documents or information do you think should be included in a Victorian planning library?A top-notch search tool is mandatory for the proper functioning of an on-line planning library.

Are there other ways the drafting and consistency of planning scheme provisions could be improved?Local policy provisions, overlay schedules, natural amenity and neighbourhood character must be emphasised in the planning schemes and within the proposed PPF format.

Proposal 5: Improve specific provisionsRead about 'Proposal 5' from page 36 of the discussion paper.Please indicate below whether you/your organisation agree, disagree or are unsure about each section of Proposal 5.

5.1 Improvements to specific provisionsPlease scroll to Appendix 2 below to answer these questions.

5.2 Update the definitions section of the VPP

I agree


I disagree

UnsureFurther comments5.3 Regularly review and monitor the VPP

I agree


I disagree

UnsureFurther commentsAppendix 2: Improvements to specific provisions

The following is a list of possible reforms to specific provisions that potentially deliver the improvements set out in section 5.1 of the discussion paper.Please refer to Appendix 2 (page 45) in the discussion paper for more detail on each specific provision.1. All zone schedulesReview all zone schedules having regard to the details outlined in the discussion paper

I agree


I disagree

Unsure

Further commentsEmphasis must be given to the statement in the ‘discussion’ column (and amend ‘should’ to ‘must’):‘Local variations should occur within strong parameters to ensure consistency withthe purpose and powers of the VPP parent provision, and reduce structural inconsistency between schedules across the state.’It is also imperative that this review process include collaboration with and input from local government and community groups with a specific interest in the liveability and landscape character of their neighbourhood, suburb and/or municipality.

2. All zones

Review zones having regard to the details outlined in the discussion paper

I agree


I disagree


3. All Residential ZonesReview residential zones having regard to the details outlined in the discussion paper

I agree


I disagree

Unsure

Further commentsDisagree specifically with Modification points a) and b). Modification a) dilutes the current permit requirements for lot size permit triggers for the Schedules for NRZ1, NRZ2, NRZ3 and NRZ4 in the current Whitehorse Planning Scheme and as such are not supported. Please note that a number of the above-mentioned Zones do not have specific overlay provisions.b) The location of commercial use childcare centres within Residential Growth Zones must be subjected to conditions that would include limiting impacts on neighbourhood amenity particularly traffic, parking, noise and local landscape character.

4. Mixed Use ZoneReview the Mixed Use Zone having regard to the details outlined in the discussion paper

I agree


I disagree


5. Industrial 1 ZoneReview the Industrial 1 Zone having regard to the details outlined in the discussion paper

I agree


I disagree


6. Industrial 3 ZoneReview the Industrial 3 Zone having regard to the details outlined in the discussion paper

I agree


I disagree


7. Commercial 2 ZoneReview the Commercial 2 Zone having regard to the details outlined in the discussion paper

I agree


I disagree


8. All rural zonesReview the rural zones having regard to the details outlined in the discussion paper

I agree


I disagree

UnsureFurther commentsProvision must be made to minimize loss of trees and vegetation as a consequence of any

buildings and works in rural zones.

9. Farming ZoneReview the Farming Zone farming having regard to the details outlined in the discussion paper

I agree


I disagree


10. Urban Floodway ZoneReview the Urban Floodway Zone having regard to the details outlined in the discussion paper

I agree


I disagree


11. Urban Growth ZoneReview the Urban Growth Zone having regard to the details outlined in the discussion paper

I agree


I disagree

UnsureFurther commentsMandate for the adequate provision of open space, trees, vegetation and active transport links for Urban Growth Zones

12. All overlaysReview all overlays having regard to the details outlined in the discussion paper

I agree


I disagree

UnsureFurther commentsAny review must not result in the dilution of the intent and function of the specific overlay provisions and Schedules with particular reference to Significant Landscape Overlays, Environmental Significance Overlays, Vegetation Protection Overlays and Heritage & Built Form Overlays.

13. Environmental and landscape overlaysReview all environmental and landscape overlays having regard to the details outlined in the discussion paper

I agree


I disagree

UnsureFurther commentsThe Tree Society contends that the ‘Table of exemptions’ must be retained as listed within the specific Overlay provisions for ease of reference (specifically by local government planning staff and residents). The society however has no objection to the duplication of the Overlay ‘Table of exemptions’ in Clause 62.02-3

Concerning the specific exemption for the removal, destroying or lopping trees associated with the exemptions listed in the Table to Clause 62.02-3, the BDTPS contends that the generalist phrase ‘minimum extent’ needs to be more closely defined. The society views this phrase as inexact and open to interpretation and as such will be subject to dispute.

With specific reference to Modification point b);‘Increase opportunities for permit exemptions (such as associated with a single dwelling) by ensuring permit triggers are linked to the purpose of the control’; the tree society is opposed to any review that results in the dilution of the intent and function of the specific overlay provisions and Schedules.

14. Heritage overlayReview the heritage overlay having regard to the details outlined in the discussion paper

I agree


I disagree

UnsureFurther commentsAny review must not result in the dilution of the intent and function of the specific overlay provisions and Schedules for Heritage Overlays.

15. Development plan overlayReview the development plan overlay having regard to the details outlined in the discussion paper

I agree


I disagree


16. Neighbourhood character overlayReview the neighbourhood character overlay having regard to the details outlined in the discussion paper

I agree


I disagree

Unsure

Further commentsThe tree society contends that any planning review and modification must not dilute the role and function provided by Overlays within the VPP including Neighbourhood Character Overlays.The recently introduced Neighbourhood Residential Zone doesn’t necessarily mean that Neighbourhood Character Overlays have become redundant, particularly with recent state planning reforms resulting in a dilution of councils’ power in controlling neighbourhood character outcomes. In fact the removal of the dwelling limit can result in serious negative impacts on neighbourhood character outcomes

17. Land management overlaysReview all land management overlays having regard to the details outlined in the discussion

paper

I agree


I disagree


18. Erosion management overlayReview the erosion management overlay having regard to the details outlined in the discussion paper

I agree


I disagree


19. Salinity management overlayReview the salinity management overlay having regard to the details outlined in the discussion paper

I agree


I disagree


20. Floodway overlayReview the floodway overlay having regard to the details outlined in the discussion paper

I agree


I disagree


21. Land subject to inundation overlayReview the land subject to inundation overlay having regard to the details outlined in the discussion paper

I agree


I disagree


22. Special building overlayReview the special building overlay having regard to the details outlined in the discussion paper

I agree


I disagree


23. Airport environs overlayReview the airport environs overlay having regard to the details outlined in the discussion paper

I agree


I disagree


24. City Link Project overlayReview the City Link Project overlay having regard to the details outlined in the discussion paper

I agree


I disagree


25. Specific sites and exclusionsReview specific sites and exclusions having regard to the details outlined in the discussion paper

I agree


I disagree


26. Car parkingReview car parking having regard to the details outlined in the discussion paper

I agree


I disagree

UnsureFurther commentsThe tree society agrees to the review of car parking provisions with a view to the provision of exemptions but this needs to be done within the context of current (and future) access to quality public transport and low stress high connectivity active transport modes within the specific precinct under consideration.

27. Earth and energy resources industryReview earth and energy resources industry having regard to the details outlined in the discussion paper

I agree


I disagree


28. Uses with adverse amenity potentialReview uses with adverse amenity potential having regard to the details outlined in the discussion paper

I agree


I disagree


29. Service stationsReview service stations having regard to the details outlined in the discussion paper

I agree


I disagree


30. Car washReview car wash having regard to the details outlined in the discussion paper

I agree


I disagree

UnsureFurther commentsAdequate controls must be placed on the need for minimising water use, maximizing water recycling and prevention of water run-off into local waterways.

31. Motor vehicle, boat or caravan salesReview motor vehicle, boat or caravan sales having regard to the details outlined in the discussion paper

I agree


I disagree


32. Telecommunications facilityReview telecommunications facility having regard to the details outlined in the discussion paper

I agree


I disagree


33. Licensed premisesReview licensed premises having regard to the details outlined in the discussion paper

I agree


I disagree


34. GamingReview gaming having regard to the details outlined in the discussion paper

I agree


I disagree

UnsureFurther comments35. Land adjacent to a road zone category 1 or a public acquisition overlay for a category 1 roadReview land adjacent to a road zone category 1 or a public acquisition overlay for a category 1 road having regard to the details outlined in the discussion paper

I agree


I disagree


36. Bicycle facilitiesReview bicycle facilities having regard to the details outlined in the discussion paper

I agree


I disagree


37. Post boxes and dry stone wallsReview post boxes and dry stone walls having regard to the details outlined in the discussion paper

I agree


I disagree


38. Residential development and subdivisionReview residential development and subdivision (Clause 54, 55, 56 and 58) having regard to the details outlined in the discussion paper

I agree


I disagree


Clauses 54 through 58 comprise a total of 111 pages of content within the Whitehorse Planning Scheme.The tree society does not object to a review of these clauses however to be asked to provide a viewpoint and comments based on ‘the details outlined in the discussion paper’ is a curious request. It’s almost as if the authors of the discussion paper were tiring of their task so included just one general modification and one sentence in the discussion paper (see page 62) to invite comments for over 100 pages of content in the local planning scheme.Unless more detailed information is provided the tree society disagrees with this proposed modification in its current form.

39. Metropolitan green wedge landReview metropolitan green wedge land having regard to the details outlined in the discussion paper

I agree


I disagree


40. General provisionsReview general provisions having regard to the details outlined in the discussion paper

I agree


I disagree


41. Decision guidelinesReview decision guidelines having regard to the details outlined in the discussion paper

I agree


I disagree


42. Referral and notice provisionsReview referral and notice provisions having regard to the details outlined in the discussion paper

I agree


I disagree


43. General termsReview general terms having regard to the details outlined in the discussion paper

I agree


I disagree


44. Land use termsReview all land use terms having regard to the details outlined in the discussion paper

I agree


I disagree

UnsureFurther commentsDefinitions are necessary to narrowly clarify the use of particular words or terms. The BDTPS is wary that ‘reducing the number of terms’, ‘remove obsolete uses’, ‘be less prescriptive by removing overly specific terms’ and ‘broaden terms and definitions to account for rapidly shifting industries and lifestyles’ may all be ‘bureaucratese’ for diluting and dumbing down the VPP. The result will invariably be an increase in the level of planning disputes.Any amendment to the definitions requires full consultation with, and agreement by, local government, community groups and the broader community.

45. Land use terms (regarding commerical battery storage facilities)

Review land use terms having regard to the details outlined in the discussion paper

I agree


I disagree


46. Nesting diagramsReview nesting diagrams having regard to the details outlined in the discussion paper

I agree


I disagree


47. Incorporated documentsReview incorporated documents having regard to the details outlined in the discussion paper

I agree


I disagree


48. Practice notesReview planning practice notes having regard to the details outlined in the discussion paper

I agree


I disagree


49. Technology and the availability of documentsReview planning systems having regard to the details outlined in the discussion paper

I agree


I disagree

Unsure

Further comments

50. Section 173 agreementsReview section 173 agreements having regard to the details outlined in the discussion paper

I agree


I disagree

Unsure

Further comments

Supporting documents

If you would like to upload any documents to support to your submission, please attach them here

The attached supporting documents provide a background to achieve city-wide tree and vegetation controls in the City of Whitehorse, best read in the following order:1. Whitehorse Tree Study Options Report (May 2016)2. Tree Society submission re Whitehorse Tree Study Options report (May 2016)3. City of Whitehorse Tree Study. webarchive (July 2016)4. MAV State Council Resolutions from Membership (May 2017) - see page 8 regarding increased penalties for tree removals. Note that the City of Whitehorse Mayor, Denise Massoud, put this Motion and it was carried by the vast majority of municipal, rural and regional local government authorities in Victoria.

http://202020vision.com.au/media/7141/final-report_140930.pdf is the link to the 2014 Institute of Sustainable Futures Benchmarking Australia’s Urban Tree Canopy: An i-Tree Assessment, Final Report. It should/could/must be used as a benchmark measurement for tree canopy loss/gain over time. Page 18 and 19 provide canopy cover figures for Victorian municipalities

Also there was an interesting program on ABC Radio National 'Money' program aired on Thursday 31 August 2017 on the economic value of trees. The following link provides a podcast of the program: www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/themoneyIt's specifically about street trees but has many valid points re their economic value.

Also attached is the Melbourne City Council Amenity Tree Valuation tool (Whitehorse has one as well) that the tree society advocates must be used to provide a dollar value for all trees in the local urban landscape on both public and private property.

Documents

bdtps.files.wordpress.com file · Web viewDEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, LAND, WATER AND PLANNING. Reforming the Victoria Planning Provisions. Have your say on the new look VPP framework