amendment C150 to the knox planning scheme...January 2017. Post exhibition version of the amendment...

amendment C150 to the knox planning schemeplanning report by david barneson behalf of the jenkins family in relation to the orchards site, high street road, wantirna south

21st february 2017

urban planning I urban design I landscape architecture I www.hansenpartnership.com.au

knox amc150 | planning evidence - david barnes 1

urban planning | urban design | landscape architecture

contents 1 introduction ....................................................................................................... 2

2 post exhibition changes to the amendment ....................................................... 4

3 ‘the orchards’ .................................................................................................... 6

4 implications of the amendment on ‘the orchards’ .............................................. 13

5 designation as a strategic investigation site ...................................................... 14

6 designation as ‘knox neighbourhood area’ inappropriate .................................. 17

7 inconsistency in the way the dandenong creek valley and dandenong foothills areas are shown................................................................................... 22

8 recommended changes to the mss maps .......................................................... 23

9 buffers around former landfill sites .................................................................... 24

10 gaming .............................................................................................................. 27

11 conclusion ......................................................................................................... 28

attachments attachment 1 - cv



1 introduction 1. My name is David Barnes. I am the Managing Director of Hansen Partnership Pty Ltd, Urban Planning,

Urban Design, Landscape Architecture, Level 4, 136 Exhibition Street, Melbourne.

2. I hold the following qualifications:

Bachelor of Town and Regional Planning (Hons), University of Melbourne, 1980.

Master of Business Administration, Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, 1993.

3. I have practiced as a town planner for over 35 years, working in the public as well as the private sectors. I have also worked overseas in Vietnam on a variety of statutory planning, strategic planning, institutional strengthening and tourism projects.

4. I am both a statutory and a strategic planner. My planning experience covers many aspects of the planning approvals process on a range of projects including residential, industrial, retail, mixed use and rural developments. I regularly appear before VCAT and Planning Panels Victoria. I have been involved in a broad range of strategic planning projects including the preparation of industrial land use strategies, residential development strategies, integrated municipal strategies, township strategies, town centre strategies, structure plans and urban design frameworks for activity centres and transit cities, neighbourhood character studies, and rural land use strategies.

5. I have been engaged by Kellehers Australia on behalf of the Jenkins family to review the planning merits of Amendment C150 to the Knox Planning Scheme, in relation to land at 1201-1211 High Street Road and Lot 12 Pumps Road, Wantirna South. That land has recently been rezoned by Amendment C74 and is proposed to be developed for an integrated neighbourhood activity centre and diverse residential development. The site is referred to as The Orchards.

6. In particular I have been asked to comment on the following aspects of the amendment:

The designation of the site as a Strategic Investigation Site and the way the site is identified on various maps contained in the amendment.

Issues relating to policies regarding buffers to the closed Cathies Lane landfill.

Proposed controls on gaming machines on the activity centre proposed on the High Street Road frontage of the site.

7. My office has been involved with the planning of the site since 2004. I have been involved with the project since about 2012. I was involved in all planning aspects of Amendment C74, including preparing the amendment request and accompanying planning report, and appearing as an expert witness at the Panel Hearing for the amendment.

8. Key documents I have reviewed in preparing this statement include the following:

AmC150 documentation, as exhibited.

Knox Planning Scheme.

Submissions made to the amendment by Kellehers Australia, on behalf of the Jenkins family.

Council’s revised draft of Clauses 21.04 and 21.07, dated 12th January 2017.

Post exhibition version of the amendment documentation, dated 17th February, 2017.

EPA Siting, Design, Operation and Rehabilitation of Landfills, August 2015

Panel Report for Amendment C74 to the Knox Planning Scheme.



Environmental Auditors Report Risk to Environment from Landfill Gas, 1201 – 1211 High Street Road, Wantirna South, Douglas Partners, 23 January 2014.

9. Being an expert witness for a submitter to the amendment, I assume that all relevant background to Amendment C150 will have been provided to the Panel by Council, prior to presenting my evidence. Accordingly, for the convenience of the Panel, my report focuses on what I consider to be the key planning issues relevant to the amendment, rather than providing a repetition of background information.

10. This statement has been prepared in accordance with the Panel’s Guide to Expert Evidence document.

11. I have made all the inquiries that I believe are desirable and appropriate and no matters of significance which I regard as relevant have to my knowledge been withheld from the Panel.

12. A summary of my opinions are provided in the following section of this report.



2 post exhibition changes to the amendment 13. I completed a draft of my report on Thursday the 16th of February and concluded that the amendment, as

exhibited, failed to appropriately recognise the current planning status of The Orchards site and the approval of Amendment C74, for the following reasons:

Nowhere in the amendment was The Orchards identified as part of the existing zoned, urban area of Knox.

Maps included in various clauses of the MSS identified the site as a Special Investigation Site (Residential). That classification suggests that further strategic work is required to determine the future zoning and development potential of the site, which is not the case.

The only ‘designation’ given to The Orchards in many of the maps contained within the MSS, was ‘Dandenong Creek Valley’. That designation did not in any way recognise the current zoning of the land or it’s approved planning status.

The only notation included in the amendment that partly reflected the current planning status of The Orchards was a ‘dot’ on a number of plans that identify a ‘neighbourhood activity centre’ on the site.

By failing to correctly reflect the current planning status of The Orchards, there were significant inaccuracies and contradictions within the planning policy framework and the planning scheme. This could lead to uncertainty, confusion, ambiguity, and inconsistency in making future planning decisions in relation to the site.

Any amendment to the planning scheme should properly reflect the current planning status of land and should seek to minimise uncertainty, inconsistencies and ambiguities. Amendment C150 as exhibited did not.

14. In response to the exhibited amendment, I formed the view that the following changes should be made to the amendment:

The designation of the site as a Special Investigation Site, should be removed from all maps included within the proposed amendment.

The urban zonings that now apply to the land should be recognised on all relevant maps contained in the MSS.

The Dandenong Creek Valley designation on the MSS maps, should be shown as a transparent overlay, and along with the Dandenong Foothills area should only be shown on those maps consistent with an ‘environmental’ theme.

The Orchards should be shown on relevant maps as a ‘residential area’ and a ‘mixed use area’, which are the designations applied to other similarly zoned areas in the municipality.

On maps where it is necessary to include the residential zoned part of The Orchards site within a ‘residential area category’, it should be classified as ‘Local Living Areas’.

The commercial zoned part of The Orchards should be shown on relevant maps in the MSS as “mixed use area (retail / commercial / residential), in addition to the ‘dot’ which is already shown on relevant maps, denoting a neighbourhood activity centre.

It is appropriate to include a policy into the planning scheme regarding development close to closed landfills and addressing potential gas migration. However, the wording of the policy should ensure that additional obligations are not imposed on sites such as The Orchards, that have already addressed all necessary environmental concerns.



15. On Friday the 17th of February I was provided with a copy of ‘post exhibition’ changes to the amendment documentation proposed by Council. I note that those changes addressed a number of matters that I identified above. A summary of the changes relevant to The Orchards shown in the following table.

Table 1 - Summary of post exhibition changes

Clause Number Changes made in post exhibition version

My response

Clause 21.02 – Vision

Continues to show the site as a Special Investigation Site. Changes the way the Dandenong Creek Valley area is shown on the map, to show it as an overlay, with zonings visible beneath it. Now shows The Orchards as “Knox Neighbourhood” as a “Mixed Use area”.

Remains an issue. Support.

An improvement in that the residential and commercial zoning of the land is now acknowledged on key maps in the MSS. However the residential zoned part of the land should be designated as ‘Local Living Area’ rather than as ‘Knox Neighbourhood Area’.

Clause 21.04 – Environmental Risks

No change to what was proposed in the 12th January draft.

Remains an issue.

Clause 21.05 – Built environment and heritage

Inserts a new clause that relates to development adjacent to East Link, in response to submission from Connect East (see below). Require new development with an immediate proximity to the EastLink freeway corridor to be designed to respond to the freeway interface, having regard to site layout, setbacks, urban design, lighting, fencing, landscaping, drainage, advertising signs, access arrangements and acoustic attenuation, as required.

Reflects the intent of the DPO and of the Design Guidelines that will be required to be approved as part of the Development Plan for the site. Not an issue.

Clause 21.06 Housing

The Housing map in this clause is changed to show The Orchards as both ‘Knox Neighbourhood” and “Retail/Commercial/Residential”.

An improvement in that the residential and commercial zoning of the land is now acknowledged on key maps in the MSS. However the residential zoned part of the land should be designated as ‘Local Living Area’ rather than as ‘Knox Neighbourhood Area’.

Clause 21.07 – Economic development

No change in relation to The Orchards site.

The Orchards site could be shown as a “mixed use area” on this map. However this would be inconsistent with the way other neighbourhood centres are show on the map i.e. with a dot only.

16. As far as relevant to The Orchards site, the post exhibition version of the amendment is an improvement compared to the exhibited version. However there remain a number of issues that I address in the balance of my report, as follows:

Designation of the site as a Special Investigation Site.

Designation of the site as Knox Neighbourhood Area.

Inconsistencies in the way the Dandenong Creek Valley and the Dandenong Foothills areas are shown on the maps.

Buffers to former landfill sites.

The way amendments to gaming controls affect the site.



3 ‘the orchards’ 17. The Jenkins family owns and operates an orchard at the intersection of High Street Road and East Link,

Wantirna South. After a planning process that began in 2004, the site was rezoned in February 2015 by Amendment C74, to facilitate a model, integrated development comprising a neighbourhood activity centre along the High Street Road frontage, with a diverse residential development at the rear.

18. As described in the purpose statement of the development plan overlay that now applies to the property, the amendment provides for:

“a high quality and sustainable urban form in a landscape setting that complements its setting within the Dandenong Creek Valley and adjoining Dandenong Valley Regional Parklands.” (DPO10)

19. Details of the site referred to as The Orchards are as follows: Location - 1201-1211 High Street Road and Lot 12 Pumps Road, Wantirna South. Land area – 14.9ha. Existing zoning – General Residential 1 and Commercial 1. Existing overlays – Development Plan Overlay 10, Environmental Audit Overlay, and Environment

Significance Overlay 2 (Pumps Road part of site only). Current use - An orchard with a retail sales element (fruit and vegetables sales).

20. Key aspects of the proposed development, as set out in the development plan overlay, include the following: A high level of landscaping which complements and integrates with the location of the site within the

Dandenong Creek Valley and abutting the Dandenong Valley Regional Parklands. A diversity of housing across the site, with the potential for up to around 375 dwellings. A well designed and landscaped neighbourhood activity centre at the front of the site, comprising a

single supermarket and speciality commercial, food, beverage and retail tenancies (approx. 5,000 sqm of floor space in total)

A central access road off High Street Road. A landscaped setback to High Street Road and the Dandenong Valley Parklands. Principles of quality landscaping, architectural excellence, sustainability and connectivity embedded

into the concept.

21. The site has a long planning history prior to the approval of Amendment C74, dating back to 2004. It involved exhaustive liaison between the Jenkins family and its representatives, the City of Knox and State government departments. The process has seen the ‘strategic thinking’ regarding the future use and development of the land evolve from: Its acquisition for parkland, as part of the Dandenong Valley Parklands. To a proposal to rezone the land to a Comprehensive Development Zone to provide for a major retail

and restricted retail development, with a residential component. To the current proposal for an integrated mixed use development comprising a neighbourhood centre

and a diversity of housing options.

22. The process included a series of workshops convened by the Department of Planning and Community Development (as it was then known) throughout 2010 / 2011. Those workshops were instrumental in directing strategic thinking towards the current proposal. Considerable ongoing discussions have occurred with Council and other relevant government departments since that time, to arrive at the proposal that has now been approved by Amendment C74.

23. A series of figures follow, which illustrate the site and its context, and the nature of development envisaged to occur on the property, consistent with the approval of Amendment C74.



Figure 1 - Existing Zoning

The Orchards



Figure 2 - Existing overlays

The Orchards



Figure 3 - Aerial photograph of the site

The Orchards



Figure 4 - Aerial photograph of the surrounds

The Orchards



Figure 5 - Precinct plan



Figure 6 - Indicative subdivision plan - not yet approved or submitted to Council



4 implications of the amendment on ‘the orchards’ 24. The planning scheme requires that all future planning decisions yet to be made in relation to The Orchards

site, must have regard to State and local planning policies. This requirement is embedded in the Development Plan Overlay (refer to the ‘notes’ to Clause 43.04) and in the decision guidelines contained in the Commercial 1 Zone (Clause 34.01-8) and the General Residential Zone (Clause 32.08-10) that apply to the site.

25. Future planning decisions required to be made in relation to The Orchards include:

Approval of a development plan.

Planning permits for the subdivision of the land.

Planning permits for development within the Commercial 1 Zone and for certain developments within the General Residential Zone i.e. multi-dwelling developments etc.

Hypothetically, an amendment to the planning scheme to change the existing zoning of the land, or the provisions of DPO10.

26. By failing to correctly reflect the current planning status of The Orchards, there will be inaccuracies and contradictions within the planning policy framework and the planning scheme. This can lead to uncertainty confusion and ambiguity, and inconsistency in making future planning decisions in relation to the site.

27. The practical implications of the amendment on future planning decisions regarding The Orchards have been substantially improved with the post exhibition draft of the documents. However a number of issues remain, which should be addressed prior to the amendment being approved.



5 designation as a strategic investigation site 28. The post exhibition amendment documentation still proposes to designate The Orchards as a Strategic

Investigation Site on a number of maps in the MSS. I note that this designation is contained in the existing MSS (see Housing Framework Plan, Clause 21.05 of existing planning scheme).

29. In my opinion, this designation gives a connotation that the future zoning and development of the site has not yet been resolved, and that further strategic work is required to justify the future zoning and development of the land.

30. This is not the case with The Orchards. All necessary strategic work has been done to justify the existing zoning of the land, and to justify a site specific development plan overlay (DPO10) being included in the planning scheme.

31. The fact that a development plan and a planning permit have not yet been approved for the site, and that development has not yet commenced, is not in my opinion justification for continuing to designate the land as a Special Investigation Site. All strategic issues regarding the future use and development of the land have been resolved in rezoning the land and applying DPO10 to the site. The remaining issues to be resolved in approving a development plan and issuing planning permits are ‘development approval’ related matters (i.e. statutory planning matters) and not strategic issues.

32. Clause 21.02-1 identifies as a key strategic direction:

Identifying Strategic Investigation Sites as opportunities to accommodate a range of future residential, commercial and employment uses.

33. A Strategic Investigation Site is described in Clause 21.06 (Housing) of the amendment as follows:

“Strategic Investigation Sites are generally sites that are not currently used for residential purposes, such as quarries, schools and golf courses. They are sites where the current land use is likely to change in a short to mid-term timeframe, and could be suitable for future residential development (either entirely or in part), including a component of social housing. Strategic Investigation Sites are indicated in Figure 1 to this clause and Figure 1 to Clause 21.07 (Economic Development). Strategic guidance for these sites is provided in the Knox Housing Strategy 2015 and the Knox Affordable Housing Action Plan 2015-2020.”

34. I note that Amendment C150 identifies fourteen Strategic Investigation Sites, of which 10 are identified as “residential” (See Figure 7). Table 2 below summarises the planning context of each of the 10 ‘residential’ Special Investigation Sites. The Orchards can be distinguished from the other nine ‘residential’ sites. In my opinion it is appropriate that it is treated differently in the MSS compared to those other sites:

It is the only site that has been subject to a detailed planning scheme amendment, that has already been rezoned for residential and commercial purposes, and which has a detailed site specific overlay applied to it which facilitates its future development (DPO10).

Of the other 9 ‘residential’ sites, all but two are not presently zoned residential and need a planning scheme amendment to rezone them to enable residential development to occur.

The two sites that are currently zoned residential have a different context to The Orchards:

No. 9 - Knox Village Retirement Village – This site is an existing older style, low density retirement village on Burwood Highway, opposite Knox City. This site is likely to have considerable redevelopment potential that may not be reflected by its existing zoning and planning controls.

No. 14 - Corner of Burwood Highway and Mountain Highway. This site has already been subdivided for residential purposes and is awaiting development with dwellings. I would suggest that the Special Investigation Site designation applying to this site, is no longer relevant and could also be deleted.



Table 2 – Planning Context of Strategic Investigation Sites (Residential)

reference no. description existing zoning site specific development focussed overlay

3 Wantirna Heights School Public Use 2 No

5 Boronia Heights College Public Use 2 No

6 Norvel Road, Quarry, Ferntree Gully Special Use Zone No

7 DPI site, 609-621 Burwood Highway Public Use Zone 7 No

9 Knox Village Retirement Village (Burwood Heights)

Residential Growth Zone 1 No

10 Jenkins Orchard, High Street Road, Wantirna South

General Residential 1 Zone, Commercial 1 Zone

Yes – DPO10

11 191 George Street, Wantirna South - Boral Quarry

Special Use Zone 2 No

12 Kingston Links Golf Course Special Use 1 No

13 Waverley Golf Course and adjoining sites

Special Use Zone 1 No

14 Part 25 Burwood Highway; 55 Burwood Highway; 56 Mountain Highway and Crown land Wantirna

General Residential 2 Zone No

35. In my opinion the designation of the site as a Special Investigation Site, should be removed for all maps included within the proposed amendment (i.e. maps in Clauses 21.02 and 21.06).

36. I note that State planning policy refers to the term Strategic Redevelopment Site (Clause 16.01-3), but that term is not continued into the local section of the Knox Planning Scheme. In my opinion a Strategic Redevelopment Site is different to a Strategic Investigation Site. It is a broader term that relates to the development potential of a site, rather than to the need for further strategic investigation to be undertaken to determine and to facilitate its development potential.

37. I also note that Clause 21.06-6, under the heading ‘Further strategic work’, includes the action:

Investigate the application of Development Contributions Plan Overlays for Activity Centres, Strategic Investigation Sites and other areas to contribute towards the cost of service and infrastructure improvements needed to support the additional population resulting from a development.

38. I do not consider that any further opportunity should exist to apply a development contribution overlay to The Orchards site. All strategic issues, including the potential for development contributions, were addressed as part of the rezoning of the land. Clause 1.0 of Schedule 10 to the DPO requires a Section 173 Agreement to be entered into that requires: The provision of not less than 3% of social housing. The provision of bus shelters and upgrading of the bus stops and footpaths, on both sides of High

Street Road. All road works and intersection upgrading and mitigation works, and reinstatement of existing assets, to

be funded by the land owner.

39. Other requirements built into Schedule 10 to the DPO that place obligations on the land owner include:

A generous provision of open space and landscaping throughout the site, above the minimum requirement.

The requirement for all noise attenuation measures associated with the abuttal to East Link, to be met by the land owner / developer.



Figure 7 - Strategic Framework Plan Clause 21.02 - post exhibition version



6 designation as ‘knox neighbourhood area’ inappropriate 40. The MSS maps contained in the post exhibition documentation for Amendment C150, designate the

residential zoned part of The Orchards as ‘Knox Neighbourhood’. This designation has potentially significant planning policy and statutory planning implications on the type and intensity of residential development that is envisaged on the land in the future.

41. I do not believe that a ‘Knox Neighbourhood’ designation is an appropriate designation for the residential zoned part of The Orchards site. Such a designation is inconsistent with the type and diversity of housing envisaged on the site and endorsed by the approval of Amendment C74.

the type of housing envisaged on ‘the orchards’ site

42. The Orchards is envisaged as an integrated activity centre and residential area, with the potential for a diversity of medium density housing to occur across the site, both within the residential zoned parts of the property, as well as within the commercial zoned areas at the front of the site.

43. Relevant requirements of Schedule 10 to the DPO that apply to the site includes the following:

Provision for a diverse range of dwellings in terms of number of bedrooms, size, design, type and affordability.

The location of any buildings above three storeys and no more than five storeys within the Commercial Zone and within the transition area of the General Residential Zone (Refer Figure 1 at 4.0 of this Clause). These buildings must be designed to ensure a comfortable visual relationship with the parkland character to the west and complement the quality of the public spaces.

The provision of lower, less intensive scale development in the northern section of the site.

44. A Precinct Plan is contained in DPO10 (see Figure 5). That plan shows maximum potential building heights in different precincts throughout the site (both residential and commercial zoned). By allowing for a building height of 3 storeys, and potentially up to 5 storeys, the opportunity for apartment style dwelling is clearly anticipated on the site.

45. Whilst the precise mix of housing types has not yet been determined, the background information submitted with the amendment request indicated the following possible development outcomes within each precinct (Amendment C74 Panel Report, p 23):

Precincts A and B – A mix of housing types within the commercially zoned portion of the site, potentially comprising shop-top housing and / or apartments of up to 3 storeys and possibly 5 storeys.

Precinct C – A mix of apartments and townhouses ranging in height generally up to 3 storeys, but with the potential for development up to a maximum of 5 storeys.

Precinct D - Attached and semi attached townhouse and row house style development of 2 to 3 storeys in height.

Precinct E - Small lot housing, detached and semi-detached housing, generally to 2 storeys.

46. The diverse mix of housing envisaged on the site is very different to that envisaged by a ‘Knox Neighbourhood Area’ classification.



description of different residential areas

47. The Knox Planning Scheme includes four different categories for residential zoned land in the municipality. The ‘residential area’ categories are derived from the Knox Housing Study. The four areas are summarised in Clause 21.06-3 of the planning scheme as follows:

48. The Knox Neighbourhood Area is described as applying to the majority of suburban residential areas in Knox. Key descriptors used in describing the category include:

Sense of spaciousness within the public and private realm.

Low scale neighbourhoods, characterised by detached dwellings, with large backyards.

49. This description does not in any way describe the diverse mix of housing envisaged to occur on The Orchards site.

50. Both the Local Living Areas description and the Activity Areas description have elements that better fit the vision for The Orchards. The Activity Areas description would seem especially relevant to those parts of the residential zone area, close to the boundary of the proposed activity centre. Although I note that it seems to refer to land within an activity centre boundary and that the intended zoning for those areas is Residential Growth Zone, rather than General Residential Zone.

residential strategies

51. Clause 21.06 of the amendment sets out objectives and strategies for each of the ‘residential areas’. The following strategies are relevant to considerations concerning The Orchards site (Clause 21.06-1 Scale approach to residential development - Objective 1):

1.2 Direct growth away from Bush Suburban and Knox Neighbourhood areas.

1.3 Direct housing growth toward Local Living and Activity Areas.

1.4 Support residential development, where appropriate, on Strategic Investigation Sites (in whole or in part).

52. The following additional strategy is contained in Clause 21.06-2 - Diversity of housing choice – Objective 2:

2.2 Support developments of three or more dwellings in Activity Areas and Local Living areas that include a mix of dwelling sizes (including 1 and 2 bedroom dwellings).



53. The strategy of “directing growth away” from the Knox Neighbourhood Areas, is clearly inconsistent with the approved vision for The Orchards, which is a large greenfield residential area with considerable potential for residential development.

54. The strategy to “direct growth away” from Knox Neighbourhood areas, is also inconsistent with Council’s suggestion to designate the site as a Strategic Investigation Site.

55. The policy of “directing housing growth towards Local Living and Activity Areas”, is consistent with the recent rezoning of The Orchards as a major residential redevelopment opportunity.

56. These strategies highlight a clear contradiction in the classification of The Orchards, as Knox Neighbourhood Area in the post exhibition version of the amendment.

application of zones and overlays

57. As far as relevant to The Orchards site, Clause 21.06-6 Application of zones and overlays suggests the following:

Apply the General Residential Zone – Schedule 2 to Knox Neighbourhood Areas.

Apply the General Residential Zone – Schedule 3 to Local Living Areas.

Apply the Residential Growth Zone – Schedule 1 to Activity Areas, where no other guidance applies.

58. At the Panel Hearing for Amendment C74, a key discussion centred around whether the residential part of The Orchards should be zoned Residential Growth Zone or General Residential Zone. It was my view that either zone would be appropriate, but that due to concerns raised by Council about the implications of a Residential Growth Zone, I accepted that the land be zoned General Residential.

59. I note that there is no reference in the “application of zones and overlays” clause of the amendment, about the use of the General Residential 1 Zone.

60. I also note that Schedule 1 to the General Residential Zone is headed “Strategic Sites (Wantirna Health Precinct) and Residential Development Sites Affected by a Design and Development Overlay or a Development Plan Overlay”.

61. In response to these matters, I believe it is appropriate to insert the following additional clause under the heading “application of zones and overlays” in Clause 21.06-6:

Apply the General Residential 1 Zone or other appropriate zones to Strategic Investigation Sites (Residential) and other larger residential development sites covered by a DDO or a DPO.

local residential development policy – clause 22.07

62. The planning scheme includes a local residential development policy at Clause 22.07.

63. As the post exhibition version of Amendment C150 now proposes to include the residential zoned part of The Orchards in a ‘residential area’ described in that local policy, this policy will now apply to the land. This will be relevant in considering planning permit applications for future residential subdivision and multi-dwelling development on the site.

64. For each ‘residential area’ the policy sets out:

Preferred future character.

Preferred dwelling typologies.

Design Objectives and Guidelines.



65. Reference to the specific wording of each residential area in Clause 22.07, clearly indicates the inappropriateness of the Knox Neighbourhood Area classification of the site, and the better fit provided by either the Local Living Area classification or the Activity Area classification.

66. The following table from the Housing Strategy, summarises the type of dwellings envisaged to occur in each housing type area.

67. A Knox Neighbourhood Area designation is clearly inappropriate and is inconsistent with the housing mix envisaged on The Orchards site. Townhouses and apartments are not indicated as a ‘preferred’ housing format in a Knox Neighbourhood Area. Such housing forms are clearly provided for in the DPO that applies to the site.

68. None of the residential area classifications accurately describe the mix of development proposed on The Orchards. Having regard to the preferred housing types listed in the above table, either the Local Living or the Activity Area classifications appear most appropriate. However the description of the Activity Area classification seems to relate to residential areas within activity centre, which are to be rezoned Residential Growth Zone. Accordingly the best fit classification seems to be Local Living.

69. If Council’s aim is to include all residential zoned land into four standard residential categories, I believe that it is necessary to include the following additional wording into Clause 21.06 and Clause 22.07. This is needed to respond to individual development outcomes envisaged by site specific amendments, that do not comfortably fit into the four standard classifications derived from the Housing Strategy:

Insert the following additional strategy into Clause 21.06-1, under the strategies for Objective 2.

Support residential development on large development sites covered by a DDO or a DPO, consistent with the provisions of those overlays and the underlying zoning that applies to the land.

Insert the following additional objective into Clause 22.07-2.

Support residential development on large development sites covered by a DDO or a DPO, consistent with the provisions of those overlays and the underlying zoning that applies to the land.



summary

70. I summarise my recommending in relation to the residential classification that should be given to The Orchards, as follows:

Show the residential zoned part of The Orchards site as Local Living Area, on all relevant maps in the MSS.

Modify the wording of the description of Local Living Areas in Clause 21.06-3 Design and character, to include reference to “… The Orchards Neighbourhood Centre”.

Insert the following additional strategy into Clause 21.06-1, under the strategies for Objective 2: Support residential development on large development sites covered by a DDO or a DPO, consistent with the provisions of those overlays and the underlying zoning that applies.

Insert the following additional dot point under the heading “Application of zones and overlays” in Clause 21.06-6: Apply the General Residential 1 Zone or other appropriate zones to Strategic Investigation Sites (Residential) and other larger residential development sites covered by a DDO or a DPO.

Insert the following additional objective into Clause 22.07-2: Support residential development on large development sites covered by a DDO or a DPO, consistent with the provisions of those overlays and the underlying zoning that applies.



7 inconsistency in the way the dandenong creek valley and dandenong foothills areas are shown 71. In considering how The Orchards should be shown on the MSS plans, I reviewed the way the MSS shows

other policies areas, such as the Dandenong Foothills area.

72. Both areas are significant environmental and landscape areas that are strategically important to the overall character and amenity of Knox. Importantly they are policy areas, not zones.

73. I note that the post-exhibition version of the amendment now shows the Dandenong Creek Valley as an overlay, with (some) zonings beneath it (see Figure 7). I agree with this approach.

74. Table 3 summarises each of the key framework maps proposed to be included in the MSS and how the Dandenong Creek Valley and the Dandenong Foothills areas are shown on each. There is considerable inconsistency in how these two designations are shown on the MSS maps: On the Strategic Framework Plan in Clause 21.02, the Dandenong Foothills area is shown as an

overlay, with land use zonings shown beneath it. The Dandenong Creek Valley designation is shown as a solid colour, with no underlying land use zonings shown.

On some of the MSS maps, both areas are shown, whereas on others only the Dandenong Foothills area is shown, with no logical reason for the difference in approach.

On some of the MSS maps that do not have an ‘environmental theme’, neither policy area is shown, whereas on other maps that do not have an environmental theme, one or both overlays is shown.

Table 3 - How the Dandenong Creek Valley and the Dandenong Foothills areas are shown on the mss maps

Clause No. Figure No. and name Way Dandenong Creek Valley and Dandenong Foot Hills areas are shown

21.02 Figure 1 – Framework Plan Dandenong Foot Hills is shown as a stipple with land uses underneath. Dandenong Creek Valley is shown as a stipple with ‘some’ land uses underneath.

21.03 Figure 1 – Environmental and Landscape Features Map

Shows both Dandenong Valley and Dandenong Foothills as coloured area. Areas of biodiversity are shown underneath.

21.04 Figure 1 – Environmental Risks Map (12Jan17draft)

The Dandenong Creek Valley is not shown, but the Dandenong Foothills is shown.

21.05 Figure 1 – Bush Boulevards and Gateways Map

Shows both the Dandenong Creek Valley and Dandenong Foothills as coloured areas.

21.06 Figure 1: Housing Does not show either Dandenong Creek Valley or Dandenong Foothills areas.

21.07 Figure 1: Economic Map (12Jan17 draft)

Shows both Dandenong Creek Valley and Dandenong Foot Hills as coloured areas.

21.09 Figure 1: Integrated Transport Map

Does not show either Dandenong Creek Valley or Dandenong Hills.

75. I note that there are differences in the policy weight given to the two designations. There is a specific policy for the Dandenong Foothills included in Clause 21.10 – Local Areas. No such local policy exists for the Dandenong Creek Valley. Policies for the Dandenong Creek Valley are embedded throughout other clauses of the MSS.

76. I believe that it is appropriate to deal with the two policies areas in a consistent manner through the MSS. In the following section I make a number of recommendations regarding changes the proposed MSS maps that address this issue, and well as the other issues I have raised earlier in my report.



8 recommended changes to the mss maps 77. In summary, I recommended the following changes be made to each map contained in various clauses to

the MSS.

Table 4 - Summary of Recommended changes to the maps contained in the MSS

mss clause / map reference recommended changes to maps Clause 21.01 – Municipal profile No map included in this clause. No change.

Clause 21.02 – Vision Delete reference to Special Investigation Site.

Clause 21.03 – Environmental and Landscape Values

No change. Show as The Orchards as ‘local living’ area.

Clause 21.04 – Environmental Risks Delete the Dandenong Foothills designation, as is not relevant to this theme. Option - Show a buffer around the closed landfill sites. The buffer for the Cathies Lane site should reflect the recommendations of the Environmental Audit undertaken for The Orchards site.

Clause 21.05 – Built Environment and Heritage No change.

Clause 21.06 – Housing Delete reference to Special Investigation Site. Show as The Orchards as ‘local living’ area.

Clause 21.07 – Economic Development Delete Dandenong Foothills and Dandenong Creek Valley designations, as are not relevant to this theme.

Clause 21.08 – Community Development No map included in this clause. No change.

Clause 21.09 – Transport and Infrastructure No change.

Clause 21.10 – Local Areas No change.

Clause 21.11 – Monitoring No map included in this clause. No change.



9 buffers around former landfill sites 78. The amendment proposed to introduce a new policy regarding land use buffers around existing and former

quarries and landfill sites (Clause 21.04-2).

79. As far as relevant to The Orchards, this policy is proposed to be introduced in response to EPA guidelines regarding the use and development of land near former land fill sites, having regard to potential adverse impacts, including gas migration.

80. I support the need for a policy in relation to these matters to be included into the planning scheme. However, the policy needs to be worded to ensure that additional obligations are not imposed on sites that have already had all environmental concerns addressed by way of necessary environmental audits.

81. The Orchards is located north of the former Cathies Lane quarry and landfill, which is now used as a waste transfer station. The Orchards is partly within the ‘standard’ 500 metre buffer referred to in the EPA guidelines for a Type 2 landfill sites (EPA Siting, design, operation and rehabilitation of landfills, August 2015 p56).

82. The existence of this former landfill site and its potential impact on the rezoning of The Orchards due to concerns regarding possible gas emissions, became a major issue prior to the rezoning of the land.

83. To resolve the issue the Jenkins family was required to commission an environmental audit to ensure that there were no potential adverse impacts. The auditor’s report confirmed there would be no adverse impacts and recommended a reduced buffer distance for the former landfill, aligning with the north side of High Street Road.

84. I note that the exhibited version of the amendment included a diagram that showed a 500 metre buffer around two former landfills in Knox (see Figure 9 below). The buffer around the Cathies Lane site in that diagram, significantly impacted on The Orchards. I am instructed that following a submission to the amendment, and discussions between representatives of the Jenkins family and Council, a revised draft of Clause 21.04-2 was prepared (dated 12th January draft), which deleted buffers from the diagram and made some changes to the wording of the clause.

85. The relevant objective and strategies from Clause 21.04-2 are as follows (post exhibition version):

Objective 4

To manage the potential for adverse impacts associated with closed landfills, including gas migration.

Strategies

4.1 Implement the Environment Protection Authority recommended buffer distances under EPA Publication 788.3 Siting, design, operation and rehabilitation of landfills, August, 2015 (or as amended) for the closed landfills at Cathies Lane and Llewellyn Park Wantirna South.

4.2 Where proposed use and / or development encroaches into the EPA recommended buffer distances, assess the risk of harm to proposed use and / or development posed by the potential offsite migration of landfill gas or, where appropriate, rely on existing relevant and sufficient information, including previous audits, to consider the risk of harm.

86. The Environmental Audit prepared for the Jenkins family recommended that the buffer from the Cathies Lane site be reduced and that the north side of High Street Road be the northern extent of the buffer.

“On the basis of the Audit findings the Auditor concluded that, whilst methane is being produced at Cathies Land Landfill, the potential for methane to migrate from the Landfill to Jenkins Orchard does not present an unacceptable risk of harm to (current and future) site users. On this basis, the Auditor



further concluded that the buffer zone from Cathies Land Landfill could be reduced, to cover the area to the south of the northern boundary of High Street Rd.”

“The Auditor also recommends that the northern boundary of High Street Road be taken to be the northern limit of the buffer zone around Cathies Land Landfill. (Environmental Audit – executive summary)”

87. I am concerned that the wording of Clause 4.1 does not reflect this situation and that the wording of Clause 4.2 provides the opportunity for Council to determine that further work, or a further audit, may be required in response to further planning approvals required for the site.

88. I believe that the clause should be modified to either:

show a buffer on the map attached to the clause, that excludes The Orchards site from the buffer around the Cathies Lane site; or

modify the wording of the clause to clarify that no further Environmental Audits will be required in relation to the issue of gas migration, for The Orchards site.



Figure 8 - Environmental Risks Map - as exhibited (buffers proposed to be deleted in post exhibition version)



10 gaming 89. In relation to gaming, the amendment proposes to:

introduce a new local planning policy regarding gaming (Clause 22.05); and

update the provisions of Clause 52.28, to prohibit gaming machines in shopping complexes not currently referred to in that clause.

90. As far as relevant to The Orchards site, the amendment proposes to include reference to The Orchards neighbourhood centre in the schedule to Clause 52.28-3. This will have the effect of prohibiting gaming machines in the centre. The suggested wording is as follows:

Name of shopping complex and locality Land description

‘The Orchards’, Wantirna South Land on the north side of High Street Road, Wantirna South, immediately west of Eastlink (known as 1201-1211 High Street Road, Wantirna South)

91. It is common practice for local planning schemes to prohibit gaming machines in shopping complexes and strip shopping centres, and the amendment updates the provisions in Knox to reflect this approach.

92. However the description of the land proposed to be inserted into the Table to Clause 52.28-3 could be interpreted to apply to the whole of The Orchards site, rather than the Commercial 1 zoned land at the front of the site, where a ‘shopping complex’ will be established in the future.

93. I believe that for the purpose of technical consistency with the intent of Clause 52.28, the land description adjacent to ‘The Orchards’ should be modified to read:

Commercial 1 zoned land on the north side of High Street Road, Wantirna South, immediately west of Eastlink (known as 1201-1211 High Street Road, Wantirna South).



11 conclusion 94. As far as relevant to The Orchards site, Amendment C150 is largely an update of the MSS contained in the

Knox Planning Scheme. Accordingly, it deals with planning policies rather than planning controls.

95. The implications of changes to planning policy on the future planning and development of The Orchards, is potentially less significant than changes to planning controls. Nevertheless, all planning decisions likely to be required to be made in relation to the future planning and development of site, must have regard to the State and to the local planning policy framework.

96. Whilst the post exhibition version of Amendment C150 makes a number of positive changes to the amendment in relation The Orchards, I believe that the following additional changes are required to appropriately reflect the existing approved planning situation in relation to the site:

Delete reference to the site as a Strategic Investigation Site, on all relevant maps.

Classify the residential zoned part of the site as a Local Living Area, rather than a Knox Neighbourhood Area, on all relevant maps.

Modify the wording of the description of Local Living Areas in Clause 21.06-3 Design and character, to include reference to “… The Orchards Neighbourhood Centre”.

Insert the following additional strategy into Clause 21.06-1, under the heading ‘Objective 2’. Support residential development on large development sites covered by a DDO or a DPO, consistent with the provisions of those overlays and the underlying zoning that applies.

Insert the following additional dot point under the heading “Application of zones and overlays” in Clause 21.06-6:

Apply the General Residential 1 Zone or other appropriate zones to Strategic Investigation Sites (Residential) and other larger residential development sites covered by a DDO or a DPO.

Insert the following additional objective into Clause 22.07-2. Support residential development on large development sites covered by a DDO or a DPO, consistent with the provisions of those overlays and the underlying zoning that applies.

In relation to buffers to the Cathies Lane former landfill, either:

show a buffer on the map attached to that Clause, that excludes The Orchards from the buffer shown around the Cathies Lane site (i.e. buffer to extend to the north side of High Street Road; or

modify the wording of the clause to clarify that no further Environmental Audits will be required in relation to the issue of gas migration, for The Orchards site.

Modify the land description adjacent to ‘The Orchards’ in the schedule to Clause 52.28-3, to read:

Commercial 1 zoned land on the north side of High Street Road, Wantirna South, immediately west of Eastlink (known as 1201-1211 High Street Road, Wantirna South).

Other incidental changes to maps contained in the MSS, as summarised in Table 4 in Section 8 of this report (see Paragraph 77).

david barnes btrp(hons); mba; fpia managing director hansen partnership

knox amc150 | planning evidence - david barnes


attachment 1 - cv

david barnesmanaging director

email [email protected] I phone +61 3 9664 9818 I mobile + 61 419 327 556

summary of experienceDavid has been a town planner since 1980. With an MBA to supplement his planning qualifications, David is both a strategic planning specialist and an experienced statutory planner. As a statutory planner, David has been involved in obtaining planning approvals for a wide range of projects includ-ing residential, retail, commercial, industrial, rural, tourism, entertainment, sports, recreation and community development projects.He has extensive experience representing clients at planning appeals and panel hearings as both an advocate and as an expert witness.

As a strategic planner, David’s experience encompasses policy formulation and implementation; preparation of strategy plans, structure plans, urban design frameworks, development plans, planning schemes and amendments; community consultation; preparation of infrastructure funding strategies and development contributions plans; and preparation of commercial, industrial and residential market assessments.

In addition, David has experience in Asia, preparing urban management plans, strategy plans, structure plans, master plans and detailed plans, plan-ning and development controls, and in relation to institutional strengthening programs and professional training programs.

currentManaging Directorhansen partnership January 2012 – present

experiencehansen partnershipDirector (september 1997 – december 2011)

Henshall Hansen Associates Director (july 1995 – aug 1997)Associate director (1992 – july 1995)Senior planner (april 1988 – november 1989) Associate (1989-1992)

wbcm Consultants Limited Senior urban planner (july 1985 – april 1988)

Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works Statutory planner (february – june 1985)Planning officer (april 1982 – february 1984)

Estate Office, Victorian Railways Town planner (november 1980 – april 1982)

qualifications ■ Master of Business Administration,

RMIT University (1993) ■ Bachelor of Town and Regional Planning (hons),

University of Melbourne (1980)

affiliations ■ Property Council of Australia, Victoria Division (2012 – present; 2009-

2010) - member planning committee ■ Planning Institute of Australia (PIA) (2007 – present) - fellow ■ Victoria Planning and Environmental Law Association (2009 – present)-

member ■ planning institute of australia (PIA) (1996-2007) - member ■ vice president and treasurer royal australian planning institute (1996-1997)

specialisations ■ strategic planner ■ statutory planner ■ town planning advocate ■ town planning expert witness ■ infrastructure funding and development contributions ■ international planning – urban management, institutional strengthening,

training


key project experience Boroondara City Council (2008)

■ Dandenong Neighbourhood Character Study, for the City of Greater Dandenong

(2007-2008)

■ Queenscliffe Urban Character Study, for the Borough of Queenscliffe (2000) strategy planning and studies

■ La Trobe University Bendigo Campus Vision, for La Trobe University (2014)

■ La Trobe University Boroondara Campus Vision, La Trobe University (2012)

■ Mildura Settlement Strategy, Mildura Rural City Council (2013)

■ New Gisborne Development Plan, Macedon Ranges Shire Council, (2011)

■ Wyndeham Open Space and Recreation Strategy, with @leisure, for the

Wyndeham Shire Council (2011)

■ Strengthening Victoria’s Food Bowl, with PSI Delta, for Moira Campaspe, Swan

Hill and Mildura councils (2011)

■ Sweetwater Creek, Strategic Justification for Development / Environmental

Overlays, for Frankston City Council (2010)

■ Utilising Victoria’s Planning Framework to Support Sustainability, Municipal

Association of Victoria (2009-2010)

■ Shepparton East Outline Development Plan, for the City of Greater Shepparton

(2009)

■ Melbourne Industrial Land Supply and Demand Study, with Charter Keck

Cramer, for Melbourne City Council (2009)

■ LaTrobe University Strategy Planning Review, for LaTrobe University (2008/2009)

■ Review of Referral Requirements under the Victoria Planning Provisions, for the

Department of Planning and Community Development (2008)

■ Whitehorse Student Accommodation – Strategic Review and Planning Scheme

Amendment, for Whitehorse City Council (2007)

■ Sustainability in the Planning Process, for the municipalities of Moreland, Port Phillip

and Darebin (2007-2008)

■ Geelong Region Strategy Plan, for the G21 Geelong Regional Alliance (2005-2006)

■ Bell Street Strategy Plan and Urban Design Framework, Darebin City Council (2005)

■ Kingston Retail and Commercial Development Strategy, with Charter keck Cramer,

for the City of Kingston (2004)

■ Willoughby Industrial Strategy, Willoughby City Council (2003)

■ Yarra Industrial Strategy, for Yarra City Council (2003)

■ Moorabool Rural Housing Study, for Moorabool Shire Council (2003)

structure planning

■ Review of Bayswater / Bayswater North Industrial Precinct, with the AEC

Group, State Development Business and Innovation (2014)

■ Bendigo Hospital Surrounds Structure Plan, the City of Greater Bendigo (2013)

■ Birregurra Structure Plan Review, Otway Shire Council (2013)

■ Chapel Vision Structure Plan Review, Stonnington City Council (2013

■ Warrnambool – North Dennington Structure Plan and Development Control

Plan, Warrnambool City Council (2012)

■ Hamilton Structure Plan and Town Centre Urban Design Framework, for South

Grampians Shire (2010)

■ Traralgon Town Centre Structure Plan and Urban Design Framework, for

Latrobe Valley Shire (2010)

■ Ringwood Transit City Development Contributions Plan, for Maroondah City

Council (2009)

■ Frankston Safe Boat Harbour Planning Scheme Amendment, for Frankston City

Council (2008)

■ Clifton Springs Town Centre Structure Plan, for the City of Greater Geelong

(2008)

■ Warrnambool and Moyne Development Program, for Warrnambool City Council

and Moyne Shire Council (2008)

■ Spring Creek Urban Growth Framework Plan and Precinct Structure Plan, for

the Surf Coast Shire (2008)

■ Newhaven, Cape Woolamai and San Remo Structure Plan, for Bass Coast

Shire Council (2007)

■ Ocean Grove Structure Plan, for the City of Greater Geelong (2006)

■ Jackass Flat Structure Plan, Greater Bendigo City Council (2006)

■ Burwood Heights Activity Centre Structure Plan, Whitehorse City Council,

(2004)

■ Torquay / Jan Juc Population and Residential Development Review, (2004)

■ West Melbourne Structure Plan, for the City of Melbourne (2003)

■ Highett Structure Plan, for the Cities of Bayside and Kingston (2002-2003) character studies

■ Birregurra Neighbourhood Character Study, Otway Shire Council, (2011)

■ Romsey Neighbourhood Character Study, for Macedon Ranges Shire, (2010)

■ Boroondara My Neighbourhood – Prized Residential Character Areas, for


urban design framework

■ Ringwood Town Centre Urban Design Framework, for the City of Maroondah

(2002-2003)

■ Knox Central Urban Design Framework, for the City of Knox (2002-2003)

design guidelines

■ Knox Residential Capacity and Design Guidelines Project, Knox City Council

(2010)

■ Aireys Inlet Activity Centre Urban Design Guidelines, for Surf Coast Shire,

(2008-2009)

■ Kingston Residential Design Guidelines, for the city of Kingston (2000)

■ Kingston Residential Design Guidelines, for the city of Kingston (2000)

■ Miller Street and Gilbert Street Preston Design Guidelines, for Darebin City

Council (2009)

■ Station Street Fairfield Design Guidelines, for Darebin City Council (2008)

■ Victoria Street Urban Design Framework and Streetscape Plan, for the City of

Yarra (2002)

■ Hastings Foreshore Urban Design Framework, for Mornington Peninsula Shire

(2000)

■ Carrum Urban Design Framework, for the City of Kingston (2000) international planning

■ Ben Dam Detailed Master Plan and Urban Management System, for the Ba Ria Vung Tao People’s Committee, Vietnam, 2013.

■ Long Thanh International Airport Master Plan – Vietnam, with the Vietnamese Institute of Architecture Urban and Rural Planning, for the Dong Nai People’s Committee (2009-2012)

■ Three Delta Towns Water Supply and Sanitation Project – Vietnam, with Gutteridge Haskins and Davey, for AusAide, (2002-2003)

■ Capacity 21 Project – Environment Issues in Investment Planning in Vietnam – Quang Ninh Provincial Pilot Project, Ha Long Bay Vietnam, UNDP Project VIE 97/007, prepared for Colenco~Holinger (2000)

■ HCMC UNDP Public Administration Reform Project, preparation of Proposal for Consultancy Team, (1999)

■ Hanoi Planning and Development Controls, Hanoi, Vietnam, as part of Hanoi Planning and Development Control Project (1995-1997)

■ Ballan Township Strategy Plan, for Moorabool Shire Council (2003)

■ Blackrock Shopping Centre Study, for the Cities of Bayside and Kingston,

(2002-2003)

■ Bayside Industrial Areas Study, for the City of Bayside (2002)

■ Moreland Industrial Areas Review, for the City of Moreland (2002)

■ Geelong Industrial Land Use Study, for the City of Greater Geelong, with

MacroPlan (2001)

■ Anglesea Population Review and Review of Township Boundaries, for Surf

Coast Shire Council (2000)

■ Torquay Population and Residential Strategy Review, for Surf Coast Shire

Council (2000)

■ Torquay Industrial Area Review, for Surf Coast Shire Council (2000)

■ Bayside Height Control Study, for the City of Bayside (1999)

■ Development Contributions Plan for Plenty and Yarrambat, for the Nillumbik

Shire Council (1998-1999)

■ Geelong CAA Revitalisation Program, for the Greater City of Geelong (1998)

■ Sydenham Activity Area Policy Review, for the City of Brimbank (1998) management plans

■ Melton North Green Wedge Management Plan, Melton Shire Council (2014)

infrastructure reviews

■ Traralgon Growth Areas Review, for LaTrobe City Council (2011)

■ Fishermans Bend Industrial Land Review, with Charter Keck Cramer, for Port

Phillip City Council (2009)

■ Doncaster Hill Energy Plan, for Manningham City Council and Sustainability

Victoria (2008)

■ Car Parking Rate Review, for the Department of Infrastructure (1999)

master planning

■ Geelong Western Wedge Strategic Framework Plan and Railway Station

Master Plan, for the Department of Infrastructure (2002)


amendment C150 to the knox planning scheme...January 2017. Post exhibition version of the amendment...

Documents

Transcript of amendment C150 to the knox planning scheme...January 2017. Post exhibition version of the amendment...