Ordinary Council Meeting - 22 February 2016 - Minutes ... · Red Flags Presentation Nil _ _ 0HHWLQJ0LQXWHV &LW\RI%RURRQGDUD 3DJH RI Attachment 1. Record of Assemblies of Councillors

$Page 1: Ordinary Council Meeting - 22 February 2016 - Minutes ... · Red Flags Presentation Nil _____ _____ 0HHWLQJ0LQXWHV &LW\RI%RURRQGDUD 3DJH RI Attachment 1. Record of Assemblies of Councillors$
MINUTES ATTACHMENTS

Ordinary Council Monday 22 February 2016 Attachments annexed to the minutes for the following items:

Assemblies of councillors

4 Rear 20, 28 and 30 First Avenue and 34, 36 and 4/40 Maitland Avenue, Kew - Proposed discontinuance and sale of right of way (road)

5 Rear 8 to 16 Baker Parade; 1 and 9 to 17 Eleanor Street and adjoining 21 Welfare Parade, Ashburton - Proposed discontinuance and sale of right of way (road)

6 Adjoining 145 to 151 High Street, 159 Summerhill Road and 2 and 2A Johnston Street, Glen Iris - Proposed discontinuance and sale of right of way (road)

7 Adjoining 26 Orange Grove, Camberwell - Proposed discontinuance and sale of drainage reserve

11 Junction Skate and BMX Park Advisory Committee Membership

12 Instrument of Appointment and Authorisation

13 Amendment C255 - Minister's proposed introduction of discretionary height limits in three commercial corridors

Record of Assemblies of Councillors

Assembly details Councillorattendees

Officer attendees Matters discussed Conflict of Interest disclosures

Early Years Advisory Committee

13 August 2015

Cr Jane Addis Cr Coral Ross

Kylie Mussared (MFYR) Jacinta Barnes (SCFCS) Amie Ying (AO) Clara Yip (FYSRO) Ansela Johnston (MCHN)

1. Children and Young People Strategy 2. Membership of Early Years Advisory Committee 3. Funding to Kindergarten service providers 4. Victorian Early Years Development Framework 5. Kindergarten Census 6. Kindergarten resources

Nil

Statutory Planning Advisory Committee

30 November 2015

Cr Jim Parke Cr Jane Addis Cr Judith Voce

Lachlan McGowan (SP) Stephanie Ng (FTP) Kristian Cook (SSPO) Christine Daly (PLO) Simon Mitchell (MSP)

108 Strabane Avenue, Balwyn 349 Barkers Road, Kew 19 Davis Avenue, Camberwell 89 Burrows Road, Balwyn

Nil

Councillor Briefing & Discussion 30 November 2015

Cr Jim Parke Cr Jane Addis Cr Kevin Chow Cr Phillip Healey Cr Steve Hurd Cr Heinz Kreutz Cr Philip Mallis Cr Coral Ross Cr Jack Wegman Cr Judith Voce

Phillip Storer (CEO) Carolyn McClean (DCD) Marilyn Kearney (DCS) John Luppino (DEI) Bruce Dobson (DEI) Deb Ganderton (EMCE) David Thompson (MG) Andrew Dowling (COG) Greg Hall (CFO) Jenny Ruffy (MLS) Kylie Mussared (MFYR) Nick Lund (MHS) Janet Shortal (MCHC) Aileen Carter (CSL)

Item-1 September 2015 Quarterly Performance Report Item-2 Legislative Rate Capping Update Item-3 Draft Boroondara Library Services Plan Item-4 Presentation by VLGA Item-5 Canterbury Neighbourhood Hub Item-6 Review of the Local Government Act Discussion Paper - Suggested Council Submission OU1 Temporary signage on Council-owned property GD1 Potential Interim Heritage overlay for 9-11 Edward Street, Kew

Nil

Community Disability Advisory Committee

1 December 2015

Cr Steve Hurd Theresa Rajah (aCDO) David Williams (MAO) Tom Scanlon (RP) Simon Wong (CEDL) Kate Delbridge (ACPD) Vanessa Lau (FC) Olivea Sutton (SAO) Rosie Guardiani (OCRO)

1. Sport and Recreation Strategy - update Nil

Early Years Advisory Committee

3 December 2015

Cr Jane Addis Cr Coral Ross

Kylie Mussared (MFYR) Jacinta Barnes (SCFCS) Janet Shortal (MCHC) Dee Capovilla (EYAO) Andrew McHugh (SCRW) Tom Scanlon (RP)

1. Draft Sport & Recreation Strategy 2. Membership of Early Years Advisory Committee 3. Red Flags Presentation

Nil

______________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________

Council Meeting Minutes 22/02/16

City of Boroondara Assemblies Page 1 of 4

kadams

Text Box

Attachment 1




Councillor Briefing & Discussion

7 December 2015

Cr Jim Parke Cr Jane Addis Cr Kevin Chow Cr Phillip Healey Cr Steve Hurd Cr Heinz Kreutz Cr Philip Mallis Cr Coral Ross Cr Jack Wegman

Phillip Storer (CEO) Marilyn Kearney (DCS) Bruce Dobson (DEI) Deb Ganderton (EMCE) David Thompson (MG) Andrew Dowling (COG) Jim Hondrakis (MTT) Chris Hurley (MCPS) Rowena Morrow (MIBT) Greg Hall (CFO) Sasha Allan (TLRM) Clare Davey (CTM) Mathew Dixon (PSO) Chris Pham (CT) Michaela Skett (TLEP) Hywel Rowlands (STP) Simon Wong (CEDL)

1. Item-1 Traffic Management Policy Review 2. Item-2 Energy Performance Contracting (EPC) 3. Item-3 Options for Council's Insurance Arrangements 4. Item-4 Pop up Boroondara Report 5. Item-5 Councillor Budget BidsOU1 Willsmere Shared Path GD1 Acknowledgement of Traditional Land Owners GD2 Control of subdivisions

Nil


7 December 2015

Cr Philip Mallis Cr Jim Parke

Joe Sevillano (SSP) Simon Mitchell (MSP)

40 Albion Road, Glen Iris Nil

Councillor Briefing & Discussion

10 December 2015

Cr Jim Parke Cr Jane Addis Cr Kevin Chow Cr Phillip Healey Cr Steve Hurd Cr Heinz Kreutz Cr Philip Mallis Cr Coral Ross Cr Jack Wegman Cr Judith Voce

Phillip Storer (CEO) Carolyn McClean (DCD) Marilyn Kearney (DCS) John Luppino (DEI) Bruce Dobson (DEI) Deb Ganderton (EMCE) David Thompson (MG) Andrew Dowling (COG) Jim Hondrakis (MTT) Chris Hurley (MCPS) John Lorkin (CRPS) Hywel Rowlands (STP)

Item-1 Anniversary Trail at Camberwell High School Item-2 Telecommunications Towers on Council owned and controlled land Item-3 Honour Board OU1 Discussions with VicRoads GD1 Meeting with Minister for Housing, Disability and Ageing GD2 Citizenship Ceremonies GD3 Confidentiality of CB&D GD4 44 Grandview Avenue, Glen Iris - Proposed discontinuance and sale of part of the road reserve in Bertram Street adjoining 44 Grandview Avenue, Glen Iris

Nil


14 December 2015

Cr Philip Mallis Cr Jim Parke Cr Judith Voce

Alex Wade (SSP) Fiona Troise (CSP) Simon Mitchell (MSP)

14 Glenthorn Avenue, Balwyn North 39 Bath Road, Glen Iris 5 Bowyer Avenue, Kew

Nil


21 December 2015

Cr Jane Addis Cr Jim Parke Cr Judith Voce

Lachlan McGowan (SP) Fidel Freijah (STPO) Simon Mitchell (MSP)

36 Balwyn Road, Canterbury 8 Sylvan Street, Balwyn North 29 High Street, Glen Iris

Nil

______________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________







25 January 2016

Cr Jim Parke Cr Judith Voce Cr Coral Ross

Alex Wade (SSP) Jack Poulson (SP) Lucy Johnson (SP) Simon Mitchell (MSP)

30 Cornell Street, Camberwell 5 Hillside Parade, Glen Iris 17 Nicholas Street, Ashburton 7 Surrey Avenue, Surrey Hills 11 Meaden Street, Ashburton 36 Nevis Street, Camberwell

Nil


1 February 2016

Cr Jim Parke Cr Jane Addis Cr Philip Mallis Cr Judith Voce

Christopher Mullan (SSP) Tammy Laughren (SPO) Alex Wade (SSP) Fiona Troise (aMSP)

16 Meaden St 1-3 Liberator St 37 Hopetoun Ave 74 Prospect Hill Rd

Nil

See over for an index of officer titles

______________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________




Index of officer titles

ACPD Assessment & Care Planner Disability ADO Access & Diversity Officer AO Administrative Officer CAC Curator, Arts & Culture CBA Coordinator Building Assets CDO Community Development Officer CEDL Customer Experience Digital Lead CEO Chief Executive Officer CFO Chief Financial Officer COG Coordinator Governance CSP Coordinator Statutory Planning CSS Coordinator Sport Services CTM Coordinator Transport Management CYS Coordinator Youth Services DCD Director Community Development DCP Director City Planning DCS Director Corporate Services DEI Director Environment and Infrastructure EMCE Executive Manager Communications & Engagement EYAO Early Years Administration Officer FC Flight Controller FYSRO Family and Youth Support and Resource Officer GPO Governance Projects Officer LFCO Leisure Facilities Contract Officer MAO Metro Access Officer MCHC Maternal Child Health Coordinator MCPD Manager Community Planning & Development MCPS Manager Commercial & Property Services MESL Manager Environment & Sustainable Living MFYR Manager Family Youth & Recreation

MG Manager Governance MHS Manager Health Ageing & Disability Services MLS Manager Library Arts and Cultural Services MPS Manager Projects & Strategy MSP Manager Statutory Planning MSTP Manager Strategic Planning MTT Manager Traffic and Transport OCRO Online Community Relations Officer PP Principal Planner PRA Project Architect RP Recreation Planner SAO Senior Administration Officer SCA Senior Communications Adviser SCADS Senior Coordinator Ageing and Disability Services SCFCS Senior Coordinator Family and Children’s Services SCRW Senior Coordinator Recreation and Wellbeing SEP Senior Environmental Planner SP Statutory Planner SPPO Senior Policy and Project Officer SPO Senior Planning Officer

SSP Senior Statutory/Strategic Planner STPO Statutory Planning Officer TLEP Team Leader Environmental Planning TLSP Team Leader Strategic Planning

aXXX 'a' designates acting

______________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________



MINUTES ATTACHMENTS

Ordinary Council Monday 22 February 2016 Attachments as annexed to the resolution: 4 Rear 20, 28 and 30 First Avenue and 34, 36 and 4/40

Maitland Avenue, Kew - Proposed discontinuance and sale of right of way (road)

Sections of road proposedto be discontinued

______________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________


City of Boroondara Item4 Page 1 of 1

MINUTES ATTACHMENTS

Ordinary Council Monday 22 February 2016 Attachments as annexed to the resolution: 5 Rear 8 to 16 Baker Parade; 1 and 9 to 17 Eleanor Street

and adjoining 21 Welfare Parade, Ashburton - Proposed discontinuance and sale of right of way (road)

______________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________



MINUTES ATTACHMENTS

Ordinary Council Monday 22 February 2016 Attachments as annexed to the resolution: 6 Adjoining 145 to 151 High Street, 159 Summerhill Road

and 2 and 2A Johnston Street, Glen Iris - Proposed discontinuance and sale of right of way (road)

Road proposed tobe discontinued

______________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________



MINUTES ATTACHMENTS

Ordinary Council Monday 22 February 2016 Attachments as annexed to the resolution: 7 Adjoining 26 Orange Grove, Camberwell - Proposed

discontinuance and sale of drainage reserve

Section of drainage reserveproposed to be discontinued

______________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________



MINUTES ATTACHMENTS

Ordinary Council Monday 22 February 2016 Attachments as annexed to the resolution: 11 Junction Skate and BMX Park Advisory Committee

Membership

______________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________

MINUTES ATTACHMENTS

Ordinary Council Monday 22 February 2016 Attachments as annexed to the resolution: 12 Instrument of Appointment and Authorisation

Instrument of Appointment and Authorisation (Planning and Environment Act 1987)

In this instrument "officer" means -

Adam Haines

Alexandra Wade

Andrea Sparkes

Andrew Kerr

Angela DiLallo

Blake Clancy

Brendan Rea

Cameron Ryder

Cassandra Rea

Chris Fraser

Chris Liew

Christine Daly

Christopher Robert Mullan

Damian Laird

Damien Navaud

Daniela Splitgerber

Emily Blyth

Erin McCarthy

Fidel Freijah

Fiona Troise

Greg Pocock

Greg Stewart

Henry Johnstone

Ida LaRocca

Jacob (Jake) Matthews Jack Poulson

Jennifer Estrada

Jennifer Vincent

Joe Sevillano

John Luppino

Jon Harper

Kathy Fletcher

Kristian Cook

Lachlan McGowan

Lucy Johnson

Mark Reynolds

Mikaela Carter

Pauline Maltzis

Rebecca Sinclair

Roberts Birze

Roxanne Kavanagh

Seuna Byrne

Simon Mitchell

Sofia Skliris

Stephanie Ng

Stephanie Wilson

Sylvia Georges

Tammy Laughren

Toni Johnson

Trevor Saunders

Yim Yuen

By this instrument of appointment and authorisation Boroondara City Council -

1. under section 147(4) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 - appoints the officers to be authorised officers for the purposes of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 and the regulations made under that Act; and

2. under section 232 of the Local Government Act 1989 authorises the officers generally to institute proceedings for offences against the Acts and regulations described in this instrument.

It is declared that -

(a) this instrument comes into force immediately upon its execution and remains in force until varied or revoked;

(b) this instrument must not be exercised in a manner which is inconsistent with Council’s corporate position.

(c) on the coming into force of this instrument, any previous Instruments of Appointment and Authorisation issued by resolution of Council to the members of Council staff named above are revoked.

This instrument is authorised by a resolution of the Boroondara City Council on 22 February 2016. The Common Seal of the Boroondara City Council was hereunto affixed in the presence of: ................................................... Chief Executive Officer ................................................... Councillor ................................................... Date

Attachment 1

______________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________Council Meeting Minutes 22/02/16


MINUTES ATTACHMENTS

Ordinary Council Monday 22 February 2016 Attachments as annexed to the resolution: 13 Amendment C255 - Minister's proposed introduction of

discretionary height limits in three commercial corridors

1

Amendment C255 to the Boroondara Planning Scheme

Introduction of discretionary height controls for three commercial corridors

Submission by Boroondara City CouncilAdopted by Council on 22 February 2016


City of Boroondara Item13 Page 1 of 11______________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________

Attachment 1

2

1. Introduction

The Minister’s letter presents the following three arguments as justification for replacing mandatory with discretionary overall building height controls:

1. That the delegate decision to approve Amendment C108 was based on incomplete information provided by officers from the Department of Environment, Land Water and Planning regarding the Panel’s concerns with mandatory building heights.

2. That the increased application of mandatory height controls through the Neighbourhood Residential Zone has created a “greater onus on activity centres to accommodate mixed uses including an increasing share of future housing needs”.

3. That the introduction of discretionary heights will create certainty to Council, residents and commercial land owners about where a larger scale of development can be supported.

Overall the proposed amendment lacks strategic rigour, is ill-conceived and will not achieve the intended strategic outcomes it purports to. Council is also concerned that if approved, the amendment will result in policy confusion and lead to poor development outcomes.

This submission is structured around the three key arguments presented in the Minister’s letter with a response to each provided in Sections 2, 3 and 4 below. Following this, the submission raises three other issues of concern to Council (Sections 5, 6 and 7).

2. The decision to approve C108 was based on incomplete information

Amendment C108 introduced the existing planning controls following a five-year process that involved extensive consultation with directly affected and abutting property owners/occupiers, the development industry and the broader Boroondara community.

While the Panel did not support the application of mandatory building height controls in the commercial corridors, the Panel is not a decision-making body. Council and the Minister are not bound by the Panel’s recommendations and can reach different conclusions. This is exactly what occurred in the case of Amendment C108.

The Amendment C255 explanatory report states that ‘the decision did not give effect to the Panel’s recommendations in relation to height controls’. Technically, it does not have to. It is not unusual for a Council or Minister to make a decision that is not entirely consistent with a Panel’s recommendation. In itself this is not a sufficient reason for reviewing or changing the existing controls so soon after they were introduced. Council has duly considered all submissions whether they were in support or opposition of mandatory building height controls. Council has also had due regard to the Panel’s arguments against mandatory building heights. Yet, on balance, Council did not agree with the Panel and made a request for mandatory height controls. Council still considers mandatory maximum height controls to be the most appropriate policy outcome.



______________________________________________________________________________________

3

Council considers it entirely inappropriate to review the decision with regards to planning controls that are not of any broader regional or state significance. Council is unsure why these controls are being reviewed? The reasons provided in the Minister’s letter or amendment documentation do not offer clear justification for this review.

As will be discussed in Section 2.2 below, the mandatory nature of the controls will have negligible impact on Boroondara’s or metropolitan Melbourne’s ability to meet future housing needs. Surely, there are much broader and more important decisions that need to be made to ensure Melbourne can maintain its liveability while accommodating increasing housing demand than what is being proposed by Amendment C255? The proposed changes will not result in the development outcomes the amendment purports to seek and are therefore completely unnecessary and unjustified (Further explored at Section 2.4).

Of far greater concern to Council is the allegation that officers from the Department provided incomplete information (intentionally or otherwise) to the Minister’s delegate.If it were true that DELWP officers withheld information, this raises serious concerns regarding their ability to objectively prepare Amendment C255 and assess its strategic justification. Council is concerned that DELWP officers may now be acting to ‘correct’ a perceived error and in doing so are neither approaching this amendment objectively nor undertaking the strategic analysis required to justify the changes proposed. The justification provided in the Minister’s letter in support of the proposed change leaves the impression that the amendment has not been properly considered and lacks the strategic rigour that would normally be considered necessary. The amendment therefore should not be supported.

The Minister’s letter and the preparation of Amendment C255 imply that the decision to approve Amendment C108 with mandatory building height controls was flawed, as DELWP officers provided incomplete information to the Minister’s delegate. It also assumes that the Minister’s delegate would have reached a different decision had he been properly informed of the Panel’s reservations regarding mandatory building heights. Yet, a careful analysis of the Panel report shows that the Panel did not present a unique or even new view on this well-discussed issue. The Panel’s reasoning for supporting discretionary overall building height controls rather than mandatory controls is based predominantly on an ideological argument of providing site-responsive designs that optimise development outcomes and provide interface management i.e. leave it to the market to decide what is appropriate. This is hardly an innovative line of thinking, and should have been something that the Minister’s delegate was aware of at the time of making a decision. It is unclear how this could have been misrepresented by Department officers. Council officers sought clarification on this issue, but an insufficient response was received.

Is it now the Minister’s intention to review every single decision ever made by its delegates and to check whether all relevant pieces of information were provided to the final decision-maker? This would be a waste of resources at both State and local government, with little or no benefit to the public, particularly the local community. If these controls are the only controls the Minister is intending to review, then the question needs to be asked why Boroondara is singled out? There does not appear to be any clear or sufficient reason to review and change these controls after they have been in operation since April 2015.



______________________________________________________________________________________

4

3. There is greater onus on activity centres to accommodate mixed uses including an increasing share of future housing needs

The Minister’s states that there should be ‘greater onus on activity centres to accommodate mixed uses including an increasing share of future housing needs’. Council does not dispute this sound strategic principle. However, Council does not consider that this principle applies in this instance. Specifically, there are a number of flaws in the Minister’s argument including that:

According to Plan Melbourne, commercial corridors are not ‘activity centres’ but should be classified as neighbourhood centres.

The additional development potential of these corridors under discretionary controls presents a negligible contribution to the broader metropolitan context of future housing needs. Council’s activity centres, commercial corridors and neighbourhood centres already provide for significant capacity to meet future housing needs.

The prohibition of residential uses in two of three corridors means that the land use outcomes sought through the introduction of discretionary height controls cannot be achieved.

It is inconsistent with the decision by the Minister for Planning to introduce interim building height controls for the Melbourne Central Business District (CBD), parts of Southbank and the Shrine of Remembrance, under Amendment C262 to the Melbourne Planning Scheme.

Each of these is discussed in more detail below.

3.1. Classification of commercial corridors as activity centres

Council strongly disputes that the three commercial corridors are ‘activity centres’ and therefore need to accommodate mixed use development.

Activity centres have been clearly identified in Melbourne 2030 (October 2002), Melbourne @ 5 Million (December 2008) and most recently Plan Melbourne (May 2014). However, none of these metropolitan strategies identify the 3 commercial corridors as ‘activity centres’. Plan Melbourne only identifies Camberwell Junction, Glenferrie and Kew Junction as ‘activity centres’ on Maps 8 (p.27) and 33 (p.180). Even the recently released Plan Melbourne Refresh Discussion Paper does not foreshadow an intention to re-classify these corridors as ‘activity centres’.

Given that they are clearly not identified as ‘activity centres’ in relevant strategies, the claim that they should be considered as ‘activity centres’ and their policy direction should be identical to that of ‘activity centres’ is flawed. Given the hierarchy set out in successive Victorian State Government planning strategies, they can only be classified as being of local significance. In the metropolitan hierarchy set out in Table 1 (p.32) in Plan Melbourne, they therefore sit on the same level as a ‘neighbourhood centre’. The designation, planning and coordination of ‘neighbourhood centres’ is the responsibility of local government as set out in Table 1 (p.32).

Council therefore sees no strategic justification for the Minister’s intervention in planning for these centres, when Plan Melbourne clearly identifies these areas as Council’s responsibility. Irrespective of their title of ‘commercial corridors’, they sit at the same level in the metropolitan hierarchy as ‘neighbourhood centres’. They should



______________________________________________________________________________________

5

not be treated differently or in the same way as metropolitan activity centres are. As stated in the Minister’s letter, mandatory heights are appropriate for neighbourhood centres in accordance with Initiative 4.2.2 in Plan Melbourne.

Council has prepared structure plans for the three activity centres identified in PlanMelbourne. These structure plans provide for extensive development opportunities consistent with the Minister’s direction that they take greater onus in accommodating mixed uses including an increasing share of future housing needs.

While Council is currently in the process of reviewing the Camberwell Junction Structure Plan, the Minister would be aware of Council’s request to approve Amendment C230 which seeks to implement the recommendations of the Glenferrie and Kew Junction Structure Plans. In this context, the Minister should approve Amendment C230 which in turn will provide a much clearer signal to relevant stakeholders of where development is expected to occur and in what form.

3.2. The commercial corridors in the context of future metropolitan housing needs

The proposed introduction of discretionary building heights will have negligible impact on Melbourne’s overall ability to meet forecast housing demand. This is one of the key arguments presented in the Minister’s letter and is fundamentally flawed. As discussed in more detail in Section 2.4, two of the three commercial corridors have extensive areas of Commercial 2 Zone (C2Z). This zone prohibits residential uses. The proposed changes therefore will not facilitate a significant increase in housing activity.

The greatest potential for additional housing to be provided is within the Burwood/Camberwell Road Commercial Corridor which already allows for substantial areas to be developed to a maximum height ranging from 19 to 30 metres.

In contrast, Canterbury Road is largely within the C2Z, and the few Commercial 1 Zone (C1Z) properties on the southern side of the corridor directly abut low-rise residential properties within the Neighbourhood Residential Zone 3. The Tooronga Road Corridor only contains a small number of properties within the Mixed Use Zone along Toorak Road. Importantly, the larger sites in this short section of Toorak Road have already been developed while the few remaining sites are small residential lots that can already be developed up to a height of 19 metres. Realistically, their size would not allow for any substantially greater building heights to significantly increase housing supply (unless these sites were consolidated which is a rare occurrence).

Based on this, the removal of mandatory height limits will not allow for additional new housing that would significantly improve metropolitan Melbourne’s ability to meet future housing demand.

Council considers that the provision of housing and the need for new housing need to be balanced with other considerations. The Minister should not ignore other considerations such as neighbourhood character and amenity impacts. Yet, it appears that Amendment C255 only aims to facilitate increased housing in a small area without due consideration of other equally important aspects. It also means that, Amendment C255 will not achieve the outcomes it seeks to achieve and can only be considered an onerous, disruptive and ineffective exercise for government and the local community.



______________________________________________________________________________________

6

This then raises the question why the Minister is singling out these existing controls for review? Is the Minister proposing to review controls of other municipalities ‘to enable development to optimise opportunities, particularly on larger redevelopment sites’ as stated in his letter? If the answer is ‘no’, the motivation for the proposed changes is highly questionable and there appears to be no basis for Amendment C255.

If the Minister is really concerned with increasing the capacity of activity centres to accommodate mixed uses including an increasing share of future housing needs, Council suggests that the Minister act upon the extensive areas of brownfield sites throughout metropolitan Melbourne that remain undeveloped. As recently submitted as part of Council’s response to the Plan Melbourne Refresh Discussion Paper, there are significant areas that have planning frameworks in place that would be able to make a substantial contribution to meeting metropolitan housing needs. Yet a substantial number of these areas remain vacant and undeveloped, and have so for years. The Minister’s efforts and those of his Department should be aimed at facilitating development to occur in these areas rather than wasting time and resources on an amendment that will have very little impact on Melbourne’s capacity to accommodate projected population growth and the bigger picture of meeting housing needs.

Since commencing in his role, the Minister for Planning has shown a clear reluctance to intervene in planning matters. In this context, the Minister’s decision to change planning controls that were introduced following due process in accordance with the requirements of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 seems even more peculiar. What is the importance of these changes in the larger context that require the Minister’s specific intervention? Council is unclear as to why this amendment is being proposed and Minister’s letter does not provide any new evidence to suggest that the previous decision on Amendment C108 was flawed or strategically unjustified.

3.3. Existing development capacity

The Q&A prepared for Amendment C255 states that ‘it has become more apparent since this approval (referring to Amendment C108), that some growth is needed in these commercial corridors to accommodate some of Boroondara’s future development needs given the mandatory height controls which apply across the municipality’s neighbourhood centres and residential areas’. However, it is unclear what has changed or has become more ‘apparent’ since the approval in April 2015 to necessitate the proposed changes proposed by Amendment C255. More importantly and disappointingly, no evidence of such need is presented in any of the exhibited information. This is of great concern to Council and raises serious questions regarding the validity and strategic rigour of Amendment C255.

Councils are expected to provide extensive documentation in support of proposed amendments. If additional information relating to Amendment C255 exists, it should have been made public to allow proper review and analysis of that information. If it doesn’t exist, then C255 has no strategic justification and should not be supported.

In contrast to the lack of supporting analysis in Amendment C255, the EdgResearch analysis commissioned by Council in support of Amendment C108 as well as further capacity analysis by SGS Economics and Planning have demonstrated that the existing built form guidelines provide for substantial development opportunities to



______________________________________________________________________________________

7

meet expected housing demand. Both analyses have been prepared with mandatory building height controls as their basis.

Council’s capacity analysis prepared by EdgResearch as part of Amendment C108clearly demonstrates that there is sufficient capacity to accommodate new development within the limits of the mandatory building heights.

In total, EdgResearch established that there is capacity for an additional 3002 dwellings within the three commercial corridors. The 31 Neighbourhood Centres have capacity to accommodate an additional 5378 dwellings. Overall, EdgResearch estimated an additional capacity of 19,328 dwellings within the three activity centres, three commercial corridors and 31 neighbourhood centres.

In addition to the EdgResearch analysis, SGS Economics and Planning also prepared a dwelling capacity analysis for all residential and commercial zones in Boroondara. This work was finalised in July 2015. SGS concluded that within the C1Z (which includes the three activity centres, 31 neighbourhood shopping centres, three commercial corridors and 18 local centres) there is capacity for an additional 21,170 dwellings. This analysis therefore confirmed the estimates prepared by EdgResearch as part of Amendment C108.

SGS are a highly reputable consultancy with extensive experience in this type of analysis. This analysis therefore cannot be ignored as it demonstrates that Council’s commercial areas are able to accommodate more intensive redevelopment without the need for discretionary building heights.

3.4. Land use limitations of the Commercial 2 Zone

As already noted above, the Canterbury Road and Tooronga Road Commercial Corridors both contain extensive C2Z. As officers from the Department would be aware, the C2Z prohibits residential uses. These areas will not be able to ‘accommodate mixed uses including an increasing share of future housing needs’ as the Minister states in his letter. Therefore the proposed changes lack any strategic basis and will not achieve the outcomes sought.

Council is of the view that the introduction of discretionary heights in the C2Z to accommodate ‘an increasing share of future housing needs’ will result in policy confusion rather than certainty. The mandatory heights in these areas are reflective of their development potential given the land use limitations. Greater heights will generally only be achievable as part of larger scale, mixed use developments that contain a substantial residential component. There would therefore be a disconnect between the land use provisions of the zone and the built form guidelines contained in the relevant Design and Development Overlay (DDO16).

It should also be noted that Council has no intention to reduce the amount of C2Z given that there are very few areas left that allow for larger scale commercial and employment-generating uses to establish.

Again, the fact that this issue does not appear to have been considered in developing Amendment C255 illustrates the lack of analysis and strategic rigour, and calls into doubt the validity of the amendment.



______________________________________________________________________________________

8

3.5. Inconsistency in the application of mandatory height controls

The proposal to remove mandatory overall building heights from Boroondara’s three commercial corridors is peculiar given the Minister’s decision to introduce mandatory building heights in the Melbourne Central Business District (CBD), parts of Southbank and the Shrine of Remembrance. These mandatory controls were introduced in September 2015 under Amendment C262 to the Melbourne Planning Scheme on an interim basis for 12 months.

The CBD has the greatest built form density and height in metropolitan Melbourne. As the dominant activity centre in metropolitan Melbourne and the State, it arguably should play the strongest role in accommodating increased housing demand. It is Council’s view that the imposition of mandatory height controls in the CBD is less justified than the imposition of mandatory height controls in a suburban location such as Boroondara. Mandatory height controls in Boroondara’s commercial corridors serve a purpose to ensure that new development does not occur in a way which undermines the established and preferred neighbourhood character; it ensures a balance of development potential whilst considering local amenity. This is because development in Boroondara is of a density far less than the CBD and with far more sensitive interfaces.

This is supported through Planning Practice Note 59: The role of mandatory provisions in planning schemes. The use of mandatory height controls in a suburban setting such as Boroondara is far more critical because these controls ensure that development can be appropriately managed to suit lower suburban densities and valued character. This is compared with the application of mandatory height controls in the CBD which is already characterised by tall buildings and high density development.

Again, this raises questions regarding the validity and justification for Amendment C255 and whether it has been appropriately considered in the broader metropolitan context.

4. The introduction of discretionary height controls will create certainty

In his letter, the Minister states that discretionary building heights “will provide certainty to Council, residents and commercial land owners about where a larger scale of development can be supported”.

Council fundamentally disagrees with the Minister’s proposition and considers that the opposite in fact holds true. There are two reasons.

Firstly (and as previously noted above already), residential uses are prohibited in substantial areas in two of the three commercial corridors due to the extensive presence of the C2Z (Canterbury Road and Tooronga Road). The justification that discretionary controls will clearly identify these areas as areas for greater development intensity lacks any logic or basis. These areas will not be able to accommodate more intensive development given that residential uses are prohibited.

The mandatory building heights as they currently exist in DDO16 are appropriate given the type of uses that are able to establish in the. As noted, Council has no intention to review the zoning of these areas given their economic importance to the City of Boroondara.



______________________________________________________________________________________

9

Secondly, within the Burwood/Camberwell Road Commercial Corridor the existing mandatory provisions already allow for substantial building heights with some areas allowing for up to 30 metres in height. Other areas in this corridor allow for developments between 17 and 22 metres.

Overall, the building heights in the three commercial corridors already clearly identify these areas as areas for greater levels of development and intensity - particularly in the context of the lower building heights in the surrounding residential areas. There is therefore no need for discretionary controls to demarcate these corridors as areas of change. Council’s current policy framework already clearly identifies the commercial areas as those areas that can absorb greater development activity as part of a balanced strategic framework. This balanced framework provides for more intensive development within activity centres, commercial corridors and neighbourhood centres while protecting the character and amenity of established residential areas. Discretionary controls are not needed to provide planning certainty.

On the contrary, the removal of mandatory building heights would result in far less certainty than is currently the case. History has shown that developers routinely use discretionary building heights as a loose guide in scoping their project and often seek developments far in excess of any such limits. This results in greater levels of opposition from residents, slower decision making-processes and increased costs to all parties as a result of VCAT appeals. What Amendment C255 seek to do will directly result in a less efficient planning process and lead to worse outcomes for all parties involved.

5. The proposed consultation process

Council is particularly disappointed with the timing of the Minister’s letter and his intention to consult with submitters to Amendment C108 during the Christmas, New Year and school holiday period.

The process the Minister is intending to follow lacks transparency and appears to be designed to limit public debate about a significant policy change. This is not acceptable given that the proposed changes have the potential to detrimentally impact on the character of our municipality and the amenity of many of our residents.

In addition, Council is concerned about the extent of consultation the Minister is proposing. In his letter, the Minister states that he will be consulting with parties who made a submission in respect of Amendment C108 although he fails to provide any details for this consultation process. In Council’s view, limiting consultation to submitters is inappropriate and raises concerns of procedural fairness and natural justice. Instead, the Minister should notify and seek the views of all directly affected and abutting owners and occupiers.

Given that Council exhibited and adopted mandatory building height controls, there may be a large number of directly affected and abutting owners/occupiers that did not lodge supporting submissions. Those residents would be severely disadvantaged should they not be provided with an opportunity to comment on the changes proposed by Amendment C255.

Council has carried out extensive community consultation as part of a large number of strategic planning projects over the last decade. The community has consistently



______________________________________________________________________________________

10

expressed their strong desire and preference for mandatory building heights to protect local character and amenity. This desire cannot be ignored. To not properly engage with the local community would present a significant failing on the Minister’s and the Department’s behalf and is something that Council cannot support.

6. Panel’s recommendations for additional guidelines

While the Panel recommended the application of discretionary building heights, it is important to note that it offered qualified support for the introduction of discretionary controls. Specifically, the Panel stated that development that seeks to exceed the building heights needs to demonstrate that the proposal provides an exemplary response to the site, its context, the stated policy objectives and other policy in the Boroondara Planning Scheme. There are important issues that need to be considered with regards to the Panel’s recommendations.

It is unclear how Amendment C255 responds to this recommendation, as the Minister’s letter only refers to changing the mandatory controls and does not mention any other changes to DDO16 as recommended by the Panel. This therefore raises the question whether DELWP officers have considered Panel’s recommendations for additional guidelines in preparing Amendment C255? If it has not been considered, then Council urges the Minister to develop appropriate guidelines to safeguard against inappropriate development within the three commercial corridors if he is of the mind of progressing Amendment C255. It is critical that Council be provided with an opportunity to have a meaningful role in drafting such guidelines.

Irrespective of its contribution, ultimately Council has reservations that such guidelines for developments that seek to exceed the preferred building heights will be adequate. Specifically, the use of the term ‘exemplary’ by the Panel is of concern as it is not defined and can be interpreted in many different ways. The Panel does not offer much guidance with regards to the detailed wording of such guidelines demonstrating that the development of guidelines is far more complex than the Panel was prepared to admit. Council is concerned that the use of this term will lead to further uncertainty and policy confusion - particularly if guidelines are not developed carefully and without consultation of Council. Given the lack of strategic thought or analysis that has gone into Amendment C255, Council has little faith in the Department’s ability to develop guidelines for such development that are clear and will lead to appropriate development outcomes.

7. Amendment documentation

Council notes that Amendment C255 proposes to introduce a new Schedule 17 to the Design and Development Overlay (DDO17) specifically for the three commercial corridors. Currently built form guidelines for the three commercial corridors are included in Schedule 16 (DDO16). Council assumes that this also means changes to DDO16 to remove the relevant tables and policy guidelines specific to the three commercial corridors. Yet, the exhibited documentation does not include a revised DDO16. This is a serious procedural error and Council requests that a revised DDO16 be circulated to all relevant stakeholders and the submission deadline extended to allow proper scrutiny of the amendment and what it proposes to do.

Council would like to express its disappointment with the lack of information and documentation provided as part of Amendment C255. The absence of key documentation and supporting information does not instill much confidence in



______________________________________________________________________________________

11

Amendment C255 and in particular the DELWP’s ability to objectively consider the proposed changes. Too many errors have been made which leave the impression that the amendment has been prepared hastily and without following a transparent process and time for consideration. This alone should be reasons to take a step back and have an open conversation about Amendment C255, the motivation for it and how a balanced policy outcome can be achieved through an open dialogue rather than the unilateral approach currently being followed.

- END -



______________________________________________________________________________________

Documents

Ordinary Council Meeting - 22 February 2016 - Minutes ... · Red Flags Presentation Nil _____ _____ 0HHWLQJ0LQXWHV &LW\RI%RURRQGDUD 3DJH RI Attachment 1. Record of Assemblies of Councillors

Ordinary Council Meeting - 22 February 2016 - Minutes ... · Red Flags Presentation Nil _ _ 0HHWLQJ0LQXWHV &LW\RI%RURRQGDUD 3DJH RI Attachment 1. Record of Assemblies of Councillors