Introduction - Nillumbik Web viewNillumbik Shire Planning Scheme. Amendment C85. Lot 1 Graysharps Road, Hurstbridge. Statement of Urban Design Evidence, by Craig Czarny. Hansen Partnership

Nillumbik Shire Planning Scheme - Amendment C85 expert evidence - Craig Czarny

Nillumbik Shire Planning Scheme

Amendment C85

Lot 1 Graysharps Road, HurstbridgeStatement of Urban Design Evidence, by Craig Czarny

Hansen Partnership for Nillumbik Shire Council

June 2015



IntroductionMy name is Craig Czarny and I am a director at Hansen Partnership. I have over 26 years’ experience in urban design and landscape projects in Australia and overseas. I hold a Bachelor degree in Planning and a Masters degree in Landscape Architecture and have provided urban design, streetscape and public domain advice on a number of development projects of varying scale. Projects that I have managed have received awards from the Planning Institute of Australia (PIA) and Australian Institute of Landscape Architects (AILA). I have an appreciation of the urban form, streetscape and landscape issues associated with residential, commercial, industrial and townscape settings, having provided advice on a number of Activity Centre and Neighbourhood Character Studies. I also have a sound appreciation of townscape and character issues in the Nillumbik Shire, having previously prepared urban design advice on behalf of both Council and private clients for a number of development proposals in the municipality.

On this occasion, I have been engaged by Nillumbik Shire Council to provide expert urban design commentary of the key urban design matters relating to proposed Amendment C85 to the Nillumbik Shire Planning Scheme. The Amendment seeks to rezone land at Lot 1 Graysharps Road, Hurtsbridge and apply development controls in the form of Development Plan Overlay (DPO7). The Amendment also seeks to retain existing controls including the Design and Development Overlay (DDO5), the Land Subject to Inundation Overlay (LSIO) and the Environmental Significant Overlay (ESO1).

I have inspected the site on a number of occasions, most recently on the 25th May 2015. I have reviewed relevant background to the proposal, including exhibited Amendment documentation, Council reports and corresponding submissions in association with relevant sections of existing State and Local Planning Policy. I also have an awareness of the site’s development context having contributed to the preparation of Council’s Hurstbridge Design Guidelines: Heidelberg – Kinglake Road (Main Road) Precinct (2013) and the Guidelines of November 2014.

In summary, I support proposed Amendment C85 to the Nillumbik Shire Planning Scheme as it demonstrates an appropriate township development opportunity and serves as a natural extension of the residential threshold within the existing Urban Growth Boundary. The proposed Amendment is grounded in a sound urban design rationale and presents a suitably flexible planning and design regime that allows for various forms of compatible intergenerational residential growth.

The site and contextProposed Amendment C85 to the Nillumbik Shire Planning Scheme applies to 1 particular land holding on the western side of Heidelberg – Kinglake Road, identified as a ‘strategic development site’ suitable for change within the Hurstbridge Concept Plan (adopted 2010). The site is located at Lot 1 Graysharps Road, approximately 330m from the Hurstbridge Town Centre. It is an irregularly shaped vacant lot with a total land area of 1.8ha. It has a narrow frontage to an existing at-grade car park to the east (accessible via Graysharps


Road), which serves Hurstbridge Family Centre and recreational uses. The site is generally flat and located on elevated ground overlooking Diamond Creek parklands to the west and wetlands to the south. The site has the following abuttals:

To the north, the site adjoins the Hurstbridge Memorial Park which encompasses Ben Frilay Oval and the Hurstbridge Bowling Club. Canopy vegetation frames this site from east to west, bordered by Diamond Creek.

To the west is the Diamond Creek reserve comprising dense bushland, native canopy vegetation and pedestrian trails. A pedestrian bridge across Diamond Creek connects the trail from Heidelberg- Kinglake Road (east) to Knowle Grove and elevated residential precincts to the west of Diamond Creek.

To the south, the site abuts the recently established wetlands and the Hurstbridge East Oval. Diamond Creek borders this site to the south and west. A continuous walking trail wraps around the northern, western and southern boundary of the site, winding between the community recreational facilities and public open spaces, terminating at the Hurstbridge East Oval.

To the east, the site has a direct interface to the rear of the Hurstbridge Community Hub comprising a public car park, detached gymnasium and landscaped gardens. Further to the east is a rail reserve which services the Hurstbridge line to Melbourne CBD and Heidelberg-Kinglake Road which is the main road to and from the Hurstbridge Town Centre.


In the broader context, the site is located within the Hurstbridge Township (Precinct 2: Former Hurstbridge Secondary College Precinct of the Hurstbridge Concept Plan, 2010). The precinct is located in proximity to the following facilities (within 500m radius):

Hurstbridge Town Centre and associated Hurstbridge Railway Station, Police Station, the Allwood house, the Bowls Club and Childcare Centres.

Community uses: the Hurstbridge Community Hub and Hurstbridge Gym, the Hurstbridge Primary School and the Hurstbridge Farmers Market site.

Open space and recreational uses: Ben Frilay Oval, Hurstbridge Memorial Park, Hurstbridge East Oval, recently established wetlands and Ferguson Park and Diamond Creek corridor.

Due to the constrained boundary of the Hurstbridge Township, main street format and typically low building scale, the area has a dominant ‘rural village’ character as espoused in Clause 22.12 – Neighbourhood Character Policy, the Township Zoned land within Hurstbridge is also nominated as SB4- Semi Bush precinct. This image is reinforced by historic buildings, informal street layout, significant native canopy vegetation and panoramic views towards the hills from the Town Centre. Residential streetscapes are wide with low, or no fencing and dense vegetation creating an enclosed effect within the varied front setbacks.

Built form characteristics of dwellings in the surrounds typically comprise traditional residential materials (brick, timber and corrugated iron), in earthy colours and muted tones. Roof forms vary with a mixture of pitched, gabled and angled presentations.


The site and the context are represented in the place values diagram overleaf.


Existing Planning RegimeThe site is currently located within Public use Zone – Education (PUZ2), the purpose of the zone is;

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

To recognise public land use for public utility and community services and facilities.

To provide for associated uses that are consistent with the intent of the public land reservation or purpose.

The site is also subject to a number of Overlay controls, including:

A Design and Development Overlay (DDO5) applies to the site which provides urban design guidelines for the Hurstbridge Township which reiterates the importance of its ‘rural village’ character.

A Land Subject for Inundation Overlay (LSIO) applies along the southern boundary of the site which relates to area affected by the 1 in 100 year flood.

An Environmental Significance Overlay (ESO1) also applies along the site’s western boundary which relates to protection and enhancement of the environmentally significance and strengthening of habitat links. It is currently under Council’s review (Stage 3) with recommendation for removal via a separate Planning Scheme Amendment process.

Relevant State and Local polices relating to urban design are as follows:

Clause 11.00 – Settlement

Clause 15.01 - Urban Environment


Clause 16.01 - Residential Development

Clause 21.02 – Municipal Overview & Regional Context

Clause 21.03 – Municipal Profile & Key Influences

Clause 21.04 – Vision – Strategic Framework

Clause 21.06 – Future Strategic Work & Education

Clause 22.12 – Neighbourhood Character Policy

In addition to State and Local Policy, the following reference and background documents are identified:

Plan Melbourne (MPA, 2014)

Hurstbridge Township Strategy (2000)

Hurstbridge Concept Plan (2010)

Hurstbridge Design Guidelines Heidelberg – Kinglake Road (Main Road) Precinct (March 2013)

Lot 1 Graysharps Road, Hurstbridge Neighbourhood and Site Description and Urban Design Guidelines (November 2014)

The Proposed Amendment C85The Proposed Amendment C85 to the Nillumbik Shire Planning Scheme seeks to:

Rezone the former Hurstbridge Secondary College site (Lot 1 on 44 Graysharps Road, Hurstbridge) from the Public Use Zone (PUZ2) to Township Zone (TZ) without particular Schedule, to facilitate the development of intergenerational housing.


Apply a new Development Plan Overlay (DPO) to the site with Schedule No.7, specifying particular Design Objectives, Conditions and Requirements for Permits, Requirements for Development Plan and Decision Guidelines.

The broad ambitions for the Township are set out in Council’s Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS) at Clause 21.03 - Municipal Profile & Key Influences. The principal instrument in managing future development within the Hurstbridge Town Centre is through the implementation of Heidelberg – Kinglake Road (Main Road) Precinct Character Guidelines (2013) through DDO5, which remains applicable to the subject site.

The proposed rezoning of the land into Township Zone (TZ), with a new Development Plan Overlay (DPO7) and associated design controls contained within the existing DDO5 represents a significant step in the redevelopment opportunity of this site. Importantly, the proposed planning controls have sought to ensure retention of the valued neighbourhood and landscape character, whilst accommodating for potential diverse residential offering.

Urban Design AssessmentIn reviewing proposed Amendment C85 to the Nillumbik Shire Planning Scheme, I have considered the key urban design and development plan ambitions spelt out in supporting background documents, strategies and the various design based issues raised in submissions following exhibition of the proposed Amendment. I note that a total of 68 submissions were received which outlined a range of concerns and supports. While some submissions expressed no objections, 28 submissions opposed the Amendment, either due to concerns about the prospect of medium density residential development of the land or the threat of eroding neighbourhood character due to possible overdevelopment. Based


on my review of this material and the particular instructions provided to me, I believe that the key urban design questions that require consideration relate to:

a. The site’s potential as a redevelopment parcel.

b. The kind of urban design tools available for implementation, and

c. The likely development outcome in terms of character and ‘fit’.

I have addressed these matters individually below:

The site’s potential as a redevelopment parcel

Proposed Amendment C85 to the Nillumbik Planning Scheme seeks to facilitate the future redevelopment of the former Hurstbridge Secondary College site into an integrated housing precinct that fits comfortably within the context of the site and within the construct of the broader Hurstbridge Township. While a review of Amendment documentation in isolation suggests that the proposed rezoning of the land is a freestanding initiative, it is very important to recognise that the project has been identified as a potential development site in support of housing diversity and 'ageing in place' for over a decade – as outlined in the earlier Hurstbridge Township Strategy (2000) and subsequent Hurstbridge Concept Plan (2010). Council’s proactive role in purchasing the site from the Victorian Department of Education and Early Childhood Development (VDEECD) means that it can carefully manage and monitor development outcomes so that they are generally compatible with the strategic ambitions for the Township. In relation to the potential of the site as a redevelopment parcel, I note;

The site is generous in area, comprising a 1.8ha parcel within the urban growth boundary of the Hurstbridge Township. The site can be recognised as a ‘strategic development parcel’ due to its size and location.

The site is particularly well- positioned with respect to community services and facilities and has excellent and direct physical links to the Hurstbridge Community Hub and associated gym and recreational precinct. It is also closely aligned to the Hurstbridge Railway Station and subsequently connected to local commercial services and facilities across the railway line.

A feature of the site is its relationship to the Diamond Creek corridor and a suite of passive and active recreational facilities that line its eastern bank, in particular the recently established wetlands to the south in tandem with recreational walking trails. The Ben Frilay Oval and Hurstbridge Bowling Club accord successfully with the recently opened Hurstbridge Community Hub. As a residential development parcel, I consider the site to be complimentary in terms of its potential aspect and attributes.

Importantly, the site is serviceable and readily available for development with relatively limited constraints (other than those imposed by the Nillumbik Planning Scheme in relation to design and character). The site is broadly flat and does not contain significant vegetation assets. It is viably accessible via Graysharps Road to the north, which is connected to Anzac Avenue across the railway line. It provides an excellent opportunity for a well-designed urban interface with the Creek corridor and associated


open spaces, noting the potential for surveillance and improved activation of these assets.

Subject to the successful management of flooding under the LSIO, bushfire and community safety parameters (as defined by the CFA) and associated interface management matters, I consider the former Secondary College site to be well placed to accommodate for moderate housing growth within the Hurstbridge Township.

Due to the location and nature of the site, there is a potential for a development format that is both distinct and grounded in what is traditionally found within the Hurstbridge Township. Whereas much of the surrounding Township Zone comprises standard suburban or large lot subdivision on undulating terrain with a strong native landscape overlay, the former College site on Graysharps Road presents quite different characteristics, which suggests an alternative design response (in terms of a site planning model). To this end, the proposed Amendment seeks to indicate that a 'village lifestyle' model of development is more compatible to a standard suburban subdivision or other more intense opportunities, such as medium or high rise apartment configurations. In relation to the residential development opportunities, I note;

The site is not one which warrants a singular building or development of a notable structure. It is in my opinion more appropriately placed for a medium density development model comprising a series of individual buildings or ‘parts’ framed around a street network with openings to allow for view sharing, permeability and through connections. This is consistent with Council's strategic objectives to support housing diversity and intergenerational living within the site.

Given the scarcity of urban land in Hurstbridge and the sensitivities of the site in terms of its exposure to Heidelberg – Kinglake Road and the Diamond Creek corridor, it is entirely appropriate in my view to set high standards with respect to the 'look and feel'


of proposed development. To this end, considerable care has been taken in ensuring a balance is struck between the ambitions for redevelopment of the site (including Council’s stated position of development ambition in the vicinity of 40 - 50 dwellings with a height limit of no more than 9m) and the highly valued urban design and landscape characteristics of the Township. This embodies the very challenge within the Planning Scheme Amendment is supporting the delivery of a best practice model – where it traditionally seeks the realisation of ‘appropriate or acceptable’ outcomes only.

It is difficult (under the non- specific provisions of Nillumbik Planning Scheme) to successfully manage or control the particular ‘format’ of residential development without clear design parameters that define the typology and pattern of housing to be delivered. I therefore support the strong regime of design control identified in proposed Amendment C85, as it paints an unambiguous picture of the type of housing that Council considers appropriate for its land – noting that it seeks to dispose of the land through a legitimate tender process under a Section 189 process.

The kind of urban design tools available for implementation

Proposed Amendment C85 to the Nillumbik Planning Scheme represents an intermediate step in the strategic pathway to the delivery of more diverse intergenerational housing within Hurstbridge. Upon review of the considerable strategic background, it is apparent that the Council has done its utmost in terms of preparing the groundwork for a successful integrated development response on the site. It has undertaken strategic planning work between 2000 and 2010 which has repeatedly identified the site for redevelopment. The site has furthermore been included in the recently introduced Design and Development Overlay (DDO5) for the Hurstbridge Heidelberg – Kinglake Road (Main Road) Precinct. The final step in the planning process requires the definition of 'site specific' parameters which can guide the nature and form of development. This has been articulated in the most recent design guideline work undertaken by my office in 2014. In this regard, there can be little doubt that the proposed Amendment is the culmination of a considerable body of strategic work and research. Furthermore, I note;

The Guidelines (November 2014) was prepared in response to the anticipated future sale of the land by Council through a formal tendering process. This documentation was prepared with an awareness of the design controls applicable to the broader Hurstbridge Township and generated with a cognizance of the existing overlay regime of the precinct in terms of defined objectives and guidelines.

The format of the Guidelines (November 2014) was framed so that it could easily be translated into an Overlay with a clear and unambiguous guidance for a potential tenderer to achieve integrated intergenerational housing. I note that design guideline subheadings are similar to those items defined within the existing DD05 for Hurstbridge. To this end, the proposed development guidelines reinforce the ambitions for modest consolidation within the precinct.


The Guidelines (November 2014) also offer a 'hypothetical' design response to the key design considerations (at figure 6). This is not a definitive design, rather a possible demonstration of 'how' 40-50 dwellings may be realised on the site within a street network – meeting the objectives and guidelines set out in the document. While it is one example of a design response, I accept that there may be other alternatives which can successfully meet the design objectives.

In terms of appropriate tools for statutory translation of the Guidelines (November 2014), I support the intended tools set out in proposed Amendment C85, realised through the extension of the Township Zone which applies to the remainder of Hurstbridge. In particular I note;


The Township Zone is an appropriate statutory tool in the context of the Hurstbridge Township. Its purpose allows for a flexible range of uses in small towns and it provides a basis (via permit) for different and more intensive forms of housing as intended on the land. I do not perceive any conflict between the purpose and intention of the Township Zone and the anticipated intergenerational housing model. Furthermore I note that there are no specific requirements in the Schedule to the Township Zone (at Clause 32.05) which conflict with the overarching directions of the Guidelines (November 2014). To this end, it is a more appropriate zone when compared to alternative 'residential' options (i.e. the Residential Growth Zone or General Residential Zone).

The proposed Township Zone also makes reference through permit requirements to Clauses 55 and 56, which are my opinion satisfactory amenity and character tests both within and at the interface of the site. Putting aside the hypothetical design response – it is entirely appropriate for other development propositions to be measured against key site planning and interface management parameters.

I consider the Development Plan Overlay (DPO) to be the right tool to use in realising Council’s ambition for future integrated intergenerational housing. While the existing DDO5 applies and might be considered a relevant guide – I believe that the sensitivities of the site warrant a more robust regime with clear direction. The DPO is an acceptable tool for a large site to guide planning outcomes which incorporate both individual development on lots, streets, spaces and future development cells. It also provides the basis for a logical arrangement of ‘fronts’ and ‘backs’ on an unusually configured site. In particular I note (overleaf);

It is widely acknowledged that the DPO is the appropriate tool to use when considering a large or significant development that incorporates a series of component parts.


Importantly, the DPO provides the basis to introduce questions of land use and activity which are normally excluded from the central questions of design found in the DDO.

Noting Council's ambition for a diverse format of integrated intergenerational housing on this site (and the particular land use connections with the adjoining Hurstbridge Community Hub), I am not convinced that DDO5 (or a new site specific DDO) would appropriately address the intended development outcome to an appropriate degree.

Given the particular nuance of the land, there are a number of features that set this site apart from the design directions found in the existing DDO. The proposed DPO therefore seeks to provide adequate specific detail pertaining to the position, profile and condition of the land.

The detail presented in the proposed DPO7 is considerable, in that it provides for Design Objectives, Conditions and Requirements for Permits and Specific Requirements for a Development Plan in keeping with the Guidelines (November 2014). The information found within the Guidelines (November 2014) have been directly translated (almost word for word) into Table 1 Design Requirements of the DPO Schedule 7. It has also been included as a reference document within DPO7, which should be rectified and referred to as ‘Section 6.0 References’. Generally, I support the overall structure of DPO7 with a minor correction to the section numbering sequence.

I note that requirements stipulated within the proposed Table 1 of DPO7 are largely performance based. While Section 4.0 notes that a Development Plan 'must' be consistent with the Guidelines (November 2014) – the associated wording within Table 1- Design Requirements commonly utilises the term 'should' in relation to key numerical parameters, such as building heights, road widths and setbacks. I believe this is the correct approach in this context.

While I accept that certain guidelines and directions within the proposed DPO7 (including its reference document) are duplicated with the existing DDO5, it is in my view appropriate to reinforce the ambitions and directions for site redevelopment – in particular in light of the diminishing of third party appeal rights (for development generally in accordance with the DPO and Development Plan).

The likely development outcome in terms of character and ‘fit’.

A majority of the 68 submissions to the exhibited proposed Amendment C85 to the Nillumbik Planning Scheme identified questions of 'urban character and fit' as a basis of critical concern. These range from important questions relating to density of development through to more detailed matters associated with landscape provision and building materiality. I accept that these are important matters to address and at a permit application stage and given the nature of the DPO (with the exclusion of third party appeal rights), it is entirely appropriate to examine these matters in detail. I note;

The question of development density has been identified within existing strategic documents with particular reference in background reports to a development yield of between 40-50 dwellings on the site. As a large parcel (1.8ha), this site represents an


opportunity within Hurstbridge to accommodate a medium density outcome of between 22-27 dwellings/ hectare. While this is significantly greater than that found in the broader subdivision of Hurstbridge, it is in my opinion a reasonable expectation on a ‘strategic development site’ with favourable attributes. Importantly, the proposed DPO7 and the Guidelines (November 2014) do not set any benchmarks relating to development density, or prescribe the number of dwellings to be achieved. To this end, I believe that the proposed DPO offers the flexibility to achieve the intended density or the possibility for an alternative yield, subject to particular design and development details.

Significant concern has been tabled in relation to the proposed development scale and potential building profile at or around 9m in height. This is set out in the proposed DPO Table 1 under Building Configuration (and Building Height and Form). My examination of the broader Hurstbridge Township indicates that there is evidence of higher buildings of 1 and 2 storeys with pitched roofs set on slope in a split- level format reaching heights of 9m or more. I note that Table 1 within the existing DDO5 indicates building heights of 7.5m to the street frontage, with the ability to achieve development of up to 3 storeys and 9m on larger sites (with concealed upper levels). The proposed outcome on the subject land offers a similar design response.

Given profile of the site on flat land adjacent to the Diamond Creek, I have no concerns with the prospect of potential buildings reaching the 9m height parameter. Importantly, the buildings will sit well within the canopy line of surrounding vegetation and will be diminutive in the context of the Hurstbridge Gym to the east. I consider a 3 storey form (broadly consistent with Clauses 55 or 56) to be one which reinforces the low scaled character of Hurstbridge Township.

The irregular configuration of the land and the provision of access from a single location on Graysharps Road to the north demands a circulatory street network or courtyard based development model to ensure outward facing development overlooking the Diamond Creek and recreational assets. Table 1 of the proposed DPO7 includes a series of site design parameters which seeks to ensure future development pcomprises a ‘series of parts’ as opposed to a dominating building form. I believe that this is an entirely appropriate response given the need for visual permeability, physical access and view sharing could be afforded on a site of this type.


As illustrated in the hypothetical design response, the notion of an ensemble of proportionate development cells that reflect the footprint of the Hurstbridge Community Hub demonstrates a capacity to accommodate potential terrace or townhouse forms with building breaks for pedestrian connections and view sharing.

Helpfully, an internal street configuration also provides the opportunity for a legitimate sense of address to individual dwellings within the site, as well as a frontage and outlook across the open space and recreational assets. The preferred configuration as set out in the Guidelines (November 2014) provides an orderly arrangement of ‘fronts’ and ‘backs’. It also suggests successful concealment of car parking with outward facing development arrangement within a commensurate fringe of landscape setting.

More detailed design requirements for future building as set out in the proposed DPO7 Table 1- Building Configuration takes cues from the existing DDO5 and associated Hurstbridge Design Guidelines: Heidelberg- Kinglake Road (Main Road) Precinct (2013).While these are by no means prescriptive, they reinforce the important Nillumbik design ethos, comprising natural or muted colour palette and an ‘earthy’ design language. I support this approach for its consistency with the established controls whilst also inviting contemporary interpretation. Together with Clause 15- Urban Design, there is a high likelihood of a successful architectural and urban design response to be achieved on this site.

I note a number of submissions have sought to identify the importance of a high quality design outcome, sustainable design, housing affordability and provision of accommodation for those with disabilities. Whilst these particular measures are not found within the Guidelines (November 2014) or the proposed DPO7, I consider such measures to be complimentary and support them in principle. In keeping with the identification of the site close to community facilities for intergenerational housing, I feel that such requests should be given due regard and may also be given weight during competitive tender process.

Amenity standards for future development within the site are broadly addressed through the Township Zone and Clauses 55 or 56. However, there are a series of important parameters contained within proposed DPO7 relating to the provision communal spaces and the orientation and arrangement of private open spaces with high amenity. As illustrated in the Hypothetical Design Response (November 2014), the provision of notable


boundary setbacks provide for potential front gardens with balconies above to enjoy an aspect and outlook across the Creek corridor and the Ben Frilay Oval to the northeast. Other communal spaces are indicated in conveniently located cells close to adjoining community facilities.

The provision for a 'communal environment' within the site is of particular importance given its potential to facilitate housing diversity. To this end, the provisions for street furniture, lighting, signage and an attractive public and communal realm are proposed to ensure that the site reads as an extension of Hurstbridge’s urban fabric. There is opportunity for both new canopy plantings and for retention of vegetation (however I note that none is identified as significant) on site for a successfully integrated built form and landscape response.

I do not believe that the proposed development anticipated in DPO7 will result in any serious offsite amenity impacts, or limiting of potential use of adjoining land (i.e. sporting clubs and associated community facilities). I have undertaken an inspection of the site from surrounding public spaces and also inspected view lines from the Main Road (south) and believe that visual bulk is managed through successful division of building mass and landscape provision. The presentation of building frontages to public spaces provides excellent surveillance in keeping with the requirements of the Safer Design Guidelines for Victoria referenced at Clause 15. Whilst future redevelopment on this site does represent a changed condition (to the presently vacant site) with additional lighting, activation and movement, I am confident that redevelopment in lieu with the DPO7 realise a similar degree of activation to the previously functioning secondary college (albeit with different operating hours).


Finally, I wish to comment on Council’s disposal methodology for the land via tendering process. By my understanding, this process represents a rare opportunity whereby Council has sought to be ‘proactive’ in ensuring sufficient controls are in place to guide future redevelopment of the land, prior to embarking upon an Expression of Interest process. Having participated in redevelopment of a number of formal school/institutional sites, I would observe that there is often little clarity, or direction to ensure a contextually integrated outcome (other than what exist in the State and Local Planning Schemes). The process sought by Council to date signifies a transparent, consultative and informative approach that is commendable. The Planning Scheme Amendment process is the second step in a series of 9 sequential steps to deliver a development outcome. It is therefore imperative that the planning and design directions and associated controls are sound enough to perform a role as a robust foundation for future delivery.

ConclusionIn summary, I am confident that the proposed Amendment C85 to the Nillumbik Planning Scheme represents a legitimate urban design outcome to facilitate future accessible intergenerational housing on the former Hurstbridge Secondary College site. While my office was involved in the preparation of the Design Guidelines (November 2014), I believe that it is widely acknowledge that the work is founded with strong strategic support to facilitate conversion of the land to residential use. Furthermore, I am confident that the proposed Planning Scheme Amendment composition includes the appropriate tools for the disposal of Council’s land in an orderly manner. In its totality, I commend Council’s process of land transfer, conceptual Urban Design management and Planning Scheme implementation as an appropriate delivery model to realise the future intergenerational housing in a setting where available land is scarcely. I consider the proposed ‘layered’ design directions to be appropriate for such ‘special’ initiative and therefore support the proposed Amendment C85 for approval.


I note that this statement has been prepared in accordance with Planning Panels Victoria Guideline No. 1- Expert Evidence and I have made all the inquiries that I believe are necessary and appropriate and that no matters of significance which I regard as relevant have to my knowledge been withheld from the Panel.

Craig CzarnyMLArch BTRP AAILA RLA FPIADirectorHansen Partnership Pty Ltd:16th June 2015


Appendix B: Craig Czarny: Curriculum Vitae

Craig Czarny: BTRP MLArch AILA RLA

Qualifications Master of Landscape Architecture, University of Melbourne 1991.Bachelor of Town & Regional Planning, University of Melbourne 1986.

Position Director, Urban Designer & Landscape Architect Hansen Pty Ltd, Melbourne

Professional Affiliations Associate, Institute of Landscape Architects, AAILAFellow, Planning Institute of Australian, FPIARegistered Landscape Architect, RLA

Awards Melbourne University, Postgraduate Scholarship 1990RAPI Award for Planning Excellence (NSW) 1996PIA Project Awards & Commendations (VIC) 03/4/5/6Victoria Medal for Landscape Architecture 2008

Special Competence Master planning, Design Development & Documentation of Public Domain projects.Townscape and Streetscape Design Assessment.Urban Design & Landscape Project Management.Urban Design Education and Training.Craig Czarny is a Director of Hansen and an Urban Designer and Landscape Architect with over 24 years experience in local and international practice. He has worked on a variety of urban planning and design projects, from broad urban character analysis to local area site planning, design and documentation. He has also served as a sessional lecturer in urban design and landscape planning at



the University of Melbourne.

Professional Experience 2002- present: Hansen Partnership Pty Ltd Sydney & Melbourne, Australia. Director: Urban Designer/ Landscape Architect1995-2002: Context Conybeare Morrison Pty Ltd Sydney & Melbourne, Australia.Ass Director: Urban Designer/ Landscape Architect1993-1995: James Cunning Young & Partners, Glasgow & Edinburgh, Scotland. Senior Urban Designer/ Landscape Architect1988-1993: Wilson Sayer Core, Melbourne, Australia Urban Designer & Planner.1989: Design Workshop, Colorado, USA Urban Design/ Landscape Intern

Project Experience Site Redevelopment ProjectsMordialloc Built Form ReviewBonbeach TAFE Site Redevelopment FrameworkQueenscliff High School Site Development StudyKnox Strategic Sites: Urban Design ReviewADI Development Footscray & Maribyrnong, Cape Cabarita Residential DevelopmentEssendon Airport Redevelopment StudyDandenong Treatment Plant Site developmentMarolt Ranch Community Village ProjectHorsham Tech Park: Urban Design GuidelinesVictoria Park Housing Urban Design MasterplanRetail & Commercial Town Centre Design



Rosebud Activity Centre Structure PlanMoonee Valley Activity Centres Structure PlansGeelong Western Wedge: Design FrameworkKnox Central Urban Design FrameworkForest Hill Retail Centre Planning & Design.Sydenham Town Centre Urban Design Plan.Ringwood Town Centre Design MasterplanMelton Regional Centre.Oakleigh Urban Design Framework.Carrum Urban Design Framework.Townscape & Streetscape ProjectsOcean Beach Road, SorrentoSaigon Riverfront Masterplan, VietnamMersey Bluff Masterplan, DevonportHastings Urban Design FrameworkVictoria St, Richmond Framework PlanBayside Height Control/ Urban Design StudyPunt Road Hoddle Street Urban Design VisionCBD Lanes Built Form Review.Manly Corso Streetscape Masterplan.St Kilda Foreshore Urban Design Study.Tunstall Square, Doncaster.Glasgow's Townhead Improvements.Ballarat Streetscape Study.Paddington Townscape Study.Liverpool Street Spanish Quarter.Petersham Streetscape Study.Queenscliffe Urban Character Study.Orchard Road Streetscape Upgrade, Singapore.Point Lonsdale Urban Design Framework



Community Planning & DesignViengxay Town Masterplan, Viengxay, LaosRedCliffs Residential Development PlanJackass Flat New Development AreaRiverwood Housing Improvement Masterplan.MacQuarie Fields Improvement Masterplan.Ferguslie Park Common.Sydney Olympics 'Look of the Games'.Niddrie Mains Urban Design & Housing Project.Urban/Landscape Design DocumentationWollongong Foreshore PlazaWestern Sydney Park Masterplan/ Entries.Rouse Hill Regional Park.Bass Hill Plaza Memorial Parkland.

Documents

Introduction - Nillumbik Web viewNillumbik Shire Planning Scheme. Amendment C85. Lot 1 Graysharps Road, Hurstbridge. Statement of Urban Design Evidence, by Craig Czarny. Hansen Partnership