PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C160 - … › sites › default › files › c160...2. I have been...

PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C160 - HIGHETT STRUCTURE PLAN Evidence Report Prepared by Sarah Horsfield

Prepared for

NORTON ROSE FULLBRIGHT 28 February 2020

URBIS STAFF RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS REPORT WERE:

Director Sarah Horsfield Associate Director Siân Morgan Project Code P0020868 Report Number Evidence – Amendment C160

All information supplied to Urbis in order to conduct this research has been treated in the strictest confidence. It shall only be used in this context and shall not be made available to third parties without client authorisation. Confidential information has been stored securely and data provided by respondents, as well as their identity, has been treated in the strictest confidence and all assurance given to respondents have been and shall be fulfilled. © Urbis Pty Ltd 50 105 256 228 All Rights Reserved. No material may be reproduced without prior permission. You must read the important disclaimer appearing within the body of this report. urbis.com.au

URBIS FINAL EVIDENCE REPORT - HIGHETT STRUCTURE PLAN

CONTENTS

Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................... 1

Subject Site ....................................................................................................................................................... 3

Current Planning Controls ............................................................................................................................... 5

Evolution of Planning Controls for CSIRO Land - Key Chronology ........................................................... 6 Proposed Amendment C135 (2011 – 2014) ....................................................................................... 6 Resolution of Public Open Space Contribution (2011- 2014) ............................................................. 7 Amendment C145 (June 2015 – 2019) ............................................................................................... 7 DELWP Assessment of C145 (2016) .................................................................................................. 8 Amendment C162 (2018-20) ............................................................................................................... 8 Comment ............................................................................................................................................. 8

Proposed Planning Controls - CSIRO Site (Am C162) .................................................................................. 9 Proposed Zoning ................................................................................................................................. 9 Proposed Development Plan Overlay – Schedule 2 ........................................................................... 9 Timing of Amendment C162 .............................................................................................................11

Background to Highett Structure Plan .........................................................................................................12

Highett Structure Plan 2018 ...........................................................................................................................13

Proposed Amendment c160 ..........................................................................................................................17

Policy Context .................................................................................................................................................20 Plan Melbourne 2017-2050 ...............................................................................................................20 Bayside Housing Strategy 2019 ........................................................................................................20

Planning Considerations ...............................................................................................................................21 Built Form ..........................................................................................................................................21 Landscaping and Open Space ..........................................................................................................22 Circulation .........................................................................................................................................23 Place-Making Study/Urban Design Framework ................................................................................23 Appropriate Content for Local Policy .................................................................................................24 Recommended Changes ..................................................................................................................24

Conclusion ......................................................................................................................................................25

Disclaimer ........................................................................................................................................................26

Appendix A Qualifications and Experience Appendix B Amendment C162 Planning Controls Appendix C Letter from DELWP to CSIRO 31 January 2019 Appendix D DELWP Conditional Authorisation Letter 28 August 2019 Appendix E Amendment Advertising Brochure 9 October 2019 FIGURES Figure 1 - CSIRO site location plan ................................................................................................................... 4 Figure 2 - Highett Structure Plan Land Use Plan (Bayside City Council, September 2018) ........................... 13 Figure 3 - Highett Structure Plan Built Form Plan (Bayside City Council, September 2018) .......................... 15 Figure 4 - Highett Structure Plan Access and Movement Plan (Bayside City Council, September 2018) ...... 16 Figure 5 - Highett Structure Plan Area, C160 Public Exhibition Brochure (Bayside City Council, 9 October 2019) .................................................................................................................................................. 19 Figure 6 - Aerial photograph (source: Nearmap, dated 28 January 2020) ...................................................... 23

URBIS FINAL EVIDENCE REPORT - HIGHETT STRUCTURE PLAN INTRODUCTION 1

INTRODUCTION 1. My name is Sarah Kate Horsfield and I am a Director of Urbis Pty Ltd which conducts its business

at Level 12, 120 Collins Street, Melbourne. My qualifications and experience are described in Appendix A.

2. I have been engaged by Norton Rose Fulbright, on behalf of Wolf International Group as the purchaser of the former CSIRO site, to prepare town planning evidence in relation to Bayside Planning Scheme Amendment C160 and its impact on land known as the former CSIRO site at 37 Graham Road and 32 Middleton Street, Highett (the subject site).

3. I have specifically been instructed to consider:

a) The merits of the Highett Structure Plan having particular regard to the CSIRO site; and

b) Whether there are any changes to the Highett Structure Plan and proposed Amendment that are necessary in light of the potential future development outcomes at the CSIRO site.

4. In the course of preparing this evidence I have inspected the subject site and its environs, and have reviewed the proposed Amendment C160 Bayside exhibition documents, background documents and documents insofar as they apply to the former CSIRO site. I have also reviewed the submission lodged by Wolf Group International, and the Council Officer’s reports relating to the Amendment.

5. A summary of my opinions with respect to the proposed Amendment is as follows:

It is not possible for any planning controls to be applied to the CSIRO site by way of the proposed Amendment C160, given that:

‒ The site is currently in Commonwealth ownership and as such no local or state planning controls can be applied to the land.

‒ The planning controls proposed by the Amendment are inconsistent with the proposed planning controls that have been agreed by CSIRO and the state government in consultation with Council, which are to be gazetted by the Minister upon the disposal of the site by the Commonwealth government in the coming months.

‒ Any discrepancies between the planning controls proposed by the current Amendment and those proposed for the CSIRO site would lead to future uncertainty in decision-making.

‒ The application of planning controls to the CSIRO site that differ from the previously agreed controls would be inconsistent with orderly and proper planning.

The CSIRO site should be “greyed-out” in the Highett Structure Plan maps, consistent with the plan distributed by Council during public exhibition in October 2019;

Specific references to development standards and strategies relating to Council advocacy for the CSIRO site proposed in local policy amendments should be removed, in accordance with DELWP’s conditional authorisation of the amendment; and

Reference to the CSIRO site being suitable for ‘medium density’ residential use in local policy (including Objective 3 at Clause 21.11-6) should be amended to stipulate ‘medium to high density’ residential use, consistent with the definitions in Council’s Housing Strategy 2019 and because sites such as this which are capable of doing more heavy lifting in relation to housing supply and diversity of housing supply, with limited or no off site impacts, ought not be artificially constrained in their development capacity by overly conservative structure plan policy.

Revisions to the Structure Plan should be made to remove prescriptive directions for the CSIRO site. The concurrent advancement of Amendments C160 and C162 gives rise to an unusual situation where a large part of the Structure Plan area is the subject of separate controls that are seriously entertained and about to be introduced. It is not the role of the Structure Plan to be prescriptive with respect to the detailed development outcomes on the

2 INTRODUCTION URBIS

FINAL EVIDENCE REPORT - HIGHETT STRUCTURE PLAN

CSIRO site, and in my opinion it should not include any policy direction that contradicts the proposed planning controls.

6. I declare that I have made all the enquiries that I believe are desirable and that no matters of significance which I regard as relevant have, to my knowledge, been withheld from the Panel.

URBIS FINAL EVIDENCE REPORT - HIGHETT STRUCTURE PLAN SUBJECT SITE 3

SUBJECT SITE 7. The ‘former CSIRO site’ comprises two land parcels with a total site area of 9.3 hectares, being 37

Graham Road (main parcel) and 32 Middleton Street (smaller access parcel), Highett (refer to Figure 1). It was formerly occupied by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), however CSIRO has since ceased all operations at the site.

8. The site is located at the edge of the Highett Activity Centre and within approximately 800 metres of the Southland Activity Centre. A variety of bus routes directly link the site to Highett rail station and the future rail station at the Southland Activity Centre.

9. The northern boundary of the site is located within approximately 200 metres of the Highett Train Station and coincides with the edge of the Highett Activity Centre (HAC). The HAC is focused around Highett Road and has the status of a neighbourhood centre, complementing the higher order retail and commercial facilities found at the nearby Southland Activity Centre.

10. The subject site has been substantially cleared of all built form and contains only natural vegetation and infrastructure including an internal road network. Final demolition and decontamination works were completed in 2019.

11. There are currently three vehicular points of access to the site: two from Graham Road and one from Middleton Street. Of the three, the primary point of access to the site is from the southern-most access from Graham Road.

12. The site contains a mixture of introduced and indigenous vegetation, with the majority of the native vegetation located in the southern half the site, and predominantly comprising River Red Gum and Yellow Box trees. Also located within the southern portion of the site is a small patch of remnant Grassy Woodland.

13. With the exception of the area at the south, the site has largely been cleared as part of site decontamination works.

14. The site is located within the area the subject of the current Bayside C160 planning scheme amendment application, within the Highett Structure Plan area.

4 SUBJECT SITE URBIS


Figure 1 - CSIRO site location plan

URBIS FINAL EVIDENCE REPORT - HIGHETT STRUCTURE PLAN CURRENT PLANNING CONTROLS 5

CURRENT PLANNING CONTROLS 15. The site is owned by the Commonwealth Government (CSIRO) and is exempt from state and local

planning controls and the Victorian Planning Provisions. Accordingly, the site currently has no zoning or overlay controls.

6 EVOLUTION OF PLANNING CONTROLS FOR CSIRO LAND - KEY CHRONOLOGY


EVOLUTION OF PLANNING CONTROLS FOR CSIRO LAND - KEY CHRONOLOGY 16. In 2010 CSIRO commenced discussions with Bayside Council and the then Department of

Planning, Communities and Development (DPCD) regarding its intention to vacate and dispose of the Highett site. Extensive discussions and negotiations ensued between CSIRO, Council and the Federal Government over the following years, in relation to the planning control framework for the site and in particular the provision of public open space on the land. I have acted for CSIRO since this time.

17. A comprehensive summary of the key events over this period and process of engagement between Council and CSIRO in the drafting of the planning controls is set out below.

18. This background sets important context for the Panel’s consideration of the current proposed Amendment C160, and specifically its potential conflict with Amendment C162, which will introduce a planning control framework for the CSIRO site, and is currently awaiting final approval and gazettal by the Minister for Planning.

PROPOSED AMENDMENT C135 (2011 – 2014) 19. In 2010 Urbis was engaged by CSIRO to assist them in the preparation of planning controls for the

Highett site, on the basis that it had been deemed surplus to CSIRO’s long term requirements and was intended for disposal sometime in 2011/12. To support the disposal of the land, appropriate VPP controls were required to be prepared for introduction once the site passed into private ownership

20. To inform the preparation of VPP provisions, CSIRO commissioned a number of technical studies to ascertain the physical and environmental constraints of the site and potential Masterplan opportunities. These included traffic analysis, flora and fauna assessment, arborist assessment, geotechnical and contamination assessments.

21. Through late 2010 and early 2011 CSIRO were in discussions with Council to confirm their intentions to dispose of the land and explore Council’s expectations for the future planning control framework. The results of CSIRO’s site investigations were shared with Council as they were completed, to support CSIRO’s intention to work towards an agreed set of planning provisions with Council.

22. DPCD officers were also briefed in March 2011 on the forthcoming disposal of the site and the need for an Amendment to be prepared and approved by the Minister under Section 20(4) of the Act at the time of disposal, to ensure the site was brought under Victorian planning scheme provisions once the land passed out of Commonwealth ownership.

23. On 16 June 2011, Urbis wrote to Council to seek Council’s views on a proposed set of planning controls, comprising a Residential 1 Zone and Development Plan Overlay. The DPO included a requirement for 15% of the site to be provided as public open space, and provided direction in relation to building heights, native vegetation, pedestrian and cycle connectivity, traffic and other matters.

24. Various meetings were held between CSIRO and Council in the ensuing months to work through the proposed controls and in particular the points of difference between the CSIRO’s proposed DPO provisions and Council’s expectations for the proposed zoning/overlay controls.

25. In 2012 Council engaged a peer review expert, Alison Glynn of Civic Ways, to provide an independent assessment of CSIRO’s proposed planning controls. The recommendations of this report generally supported CSIRO’s proposed controls, but also recommended the application of a VPO and SBO, and made various changes to the DPO schedule to lower the maximum built form height to 5 storeys rather than CSIRO’s proposed 6 storeys.

26. At the ordinary Council meeting of 12 June 2012, Council resolved to (among other things):

“write to the CSIRO and Urbis Pty Ltd providing a response to the draft Planning Scheme Provision provided to Council in June 2011, reaffirming Council’s previous resolutions for the provision of in


EVOLUTION OF PLANNING CONTROLS FOR CSIRO LAND - KEY CHRONOLOGY 7

the order of 3 to 4 hectares of open space and informed by the report provided at Attachment 2 of this report, including the recommended changes to the Development Plan Overlay schedule in addition to ensuring that a planting theme also compliments indigenous vegetation on site and discourages the planting of environmental weeds.”

27. In a subsequent letter from Council to CSIRO dated 25 June 2012, Council noted that:

“the report and resolution demonstrates that Council has adopted a position that generally supports the suite of controls proposed by the CSIRO. Further, the resolution also reaffirms Council’s position for the protection of the Grassy Woodlands and the provision of in the order of three to four hectares of open space on the site” (underlining added).

28. A Planning Scheme Amendment request (C135) was subsequently lodged by CSIRO with the Minister for Planning in January 2013, seeking support for the rezoning of the CSIRO site and the adjoining land to the south at 329 Bay Road, which had been acquired by Places Victoria. Amendment C135 proposed to introduce a Residential 1 Zone to the CSIRO site, with a Development Plan Overlay requiring a 15% contribution of public open space.

RESOLUTION OF PUBLIC OPEN SPACE CONTRIBUTION (2011- 2014) 29. In parallel with the preparation and negotiation of planning controls for the CSIRO site between

2011 – 2014, Council embarked upon a targeted advocacy process with various State and Federal Ministers for 3-4h hectares of the CSIRO land to be gifted to the Council for conservation and public open space purposes.

30. This process began in earnest in early 2011, when Council resolved at the Ordinary Meetings of 29 March 2011 and 3rd May 2011 to advocate urgently for the provision of a 3-4 hectare public open space contribution on the site.

31. These resolutions, which sought the equivalent of between 32 - 43% of the site, were advanced without any clear strategic basis or prior discussion with CSIRO.

32. In October 2012 a whole of Government meeting was held on the site involving the then Federal Special Minister for State, Gary Grey, the then Federal Member for Goldstein, Andrew Robb, the then Minister for Planning Matthew Guy, senior representatives of Council and CSIRO, to discuss the future open space provision on the site.

33. In late 2012 the Special Minister for State agreed that the Federal Government would gift 3ha of open space on the site to Council as part of the sale of the land, to provide for the long term conservation of the grassy woodland area in the south of the site, and a further 1.0ha of open space in a central location on the site for passive open space.

AMENDMENT C145 (JUNE 2015 – 2019) 34. By 2015, CSIRO’s original lodged amendment request (C135) had lapsed given the delays in

finalising the site for disposal. The amendment also needed to be updated given the new residential zones had been introduced and open space contribution had significantly increased.

35. In June 2015, CSIRO lodged a revised amendment request (C145), proposing the introduction of a Residential Growth Zone and Development Plan Overlay, reflecting the new agreed open space contribution.

36. Council considered its position on the revised planning control framework at a meeting in May 2015, at which it resolved:

That Council:

1. Confirms its position of the following package of Planning Provisions to be applied to the site, which includes the:

a) Public Conservation and Resource Zone (PCRZ) to the area of conservation value; b) Public Park and Recreation Zone (PPRZ) to the 1ha of open space for active and passive

recreation; c) Residential Growth Zone (RGZ) as per Attachment 4;

8 EVOLUTION OF PLANNING CONTROLS FOR CSIRO LAND - KEY CHRONOLOGY


d) Development Plan Overlay (DPO) which includes design guidelines for development form and height, including prescriptive recommendations to manage the adjoining residential interface as per Attachment 5; and

e) Vegetation Protection Overlay (VPO) to the entire site as per Attachment 6;

2. advises the CSIRO, the Commonwealth Minister for Finance and the Commonwealth Special Minister of State of its adopted position on the package of Planning Scheme Provisions for the site;

3. requests the CSIRO and the Commonwealth include Council’s adopted package of Planning Scheme Provisions as part of the Contract of Sale documentation to clearly articulate Council’s position to any prospective purchasers of the site;

4. seeks the support of the Victorian Minister for Planning to apply Council’s adopted package of Planning Scheme Provisions to the site; and

5. advises the Local Members for Parliament of Council’s position.

37. CSIRO had worked closely with Council in the preceding months to work towards an agreed set of planning provisions for the site. A number of modifications were made to the DPO schedule in specific response to Council’s feedback.

DELWP ASSESSMENT OF C145 (2016) 38. In August 2016 DELWP wrote to CSIRO and Council confirming that Amendment C145 would be

prepared and approved by the Minister for Planning under 20(4) of the Planning and Environment Act. The letter further confirmed that the amendment could be approved under delegation, which would enable the land to be zoned immediately following settlement.

39. The letter also confirmed that the amendment would be approved based on the controls proposed by Urbis in the Amendment C145 request (RGZ and DPO).

AMENDMENT C162 (2018-20) 40. In preparing for the site’s disposal, CSIRO encountered delays in completing the environmental

remediation of the site, which again delayed the timing of disposal. In 2018 DELWP advised that Amendment C145 had lapsed.

41. A new Amendment request was made by CSIRO in October 2018, with the same provisions contemplated under the preceding Amendment C145.

42. In January 2019 DELWP wrote to Council and CSIRO to advise that the new Amendment C162 would be approved by the Minister using his powers under Section 20(4) of the Act, and would be based on CSIRO’s proposed planning provisions as submitted under Amendment C145.

COMMENT 43. There has clearly been a lengthy and well considered process underpinning the preparation of

planning controls for the CSIRO site. The proposed zoning and overlay framework has been the subject of exhaustive review and discussion between Council and CSIRO between 2012 and 2016, with various iterations made to reflect Council’s desired open space and conservation outcomes, and broader design objectives.

44. While there remain some aspects of the proposed planning framework on which agreement was not reached (in particular the prescriptive directions around built form and height), I consider that the final planning controls proposed under Amendment C162 reflect a well considered, strategically sound framework for the site’s future development.

URBIS FINAL EVIDENCE REPORT - HIGHETT STRUCTURE PLAN PROPOSED PLANNING CONTROLS - CSIRO SITE (AM C162) 9

Proposed Planning Controls - CSIRO Site (Am C162) 45. In October 2018, Amendment C162 was lodged with DELWP by Urbis on behalf of CSIRO. This

amendment seeks to apply appropriate Victorian Planning Provisions, zone and overlay controls in order to facilitate the site’s future integrated redevelopment.

46. The amendment proposes the following zones and overlay provisions:

Application of the Residential Growth Zone

Application of new Schedule 3 to the Residential Growth Zone.

Application of the Development Plan Overlay – Schedule 2.

Refer to Appendix B.

47. No other controls have been proposed by CSIRO as part of the Amendment.

48. DELWP has confirmed in writing to CSIRO (refer to Appendix C) that the Amendment that will be approved once the CSIRO site is sold, and will be based on the controls drafted by Urbis, as outlined below.

PROPOSED ZONING 49. The site is proposed to be rezoned to Residential Growth Zone.

50. The purpose of the Residential Growth Zone (RGZ) is:

To provide housing at increased densities in buildings up to and including four storey buildings.

To encourage a diversity of housing types in locations offering good access to services and transport including activities areas.

To encourage a scale of development that provides a transition between areas of more intensive use and development and areas of restricted housing growth.

To allow educational, recreational, religious, community and a limited range of other non-residential uses to serve local community needs in appropriate locations.

51. The Zoning sets out uses which are as of right and those which require a planning permit.

52. The new Schedule 3 to the RGZ outlines the design objectives for the CSIRO site, which are:

To facilitate the renewal of the CSIRO Highett site.

To redevelop the site in an integrated manner.

To provide for housing diversity and densities and contribute to local housing needs.

To provide areas for conservation and open space on the site.

To establish an integrated movement network across and through the site.

53. No specific requirements for the site are proposed to be included in the schedule to the RGZ, on the basis that the Development Plan Overlay Schedule establishes clear direction for the proposed discretionary building heights.

Proposed Development Plan Overlay – Schedule 2 54. A Development Plan Overlay (DPO) is proposed to be applied to the land, which will require an

integrated plan for the site to be prepared by the future purchaser prior to development commencing on site.

55. The DPO provides guidance around the nature of future development and open space provision on the land, and requires consideration of the contextual and physical constraints, issues and opportunities that have been identified on this site.

10 PROPOSED PLANNING CONTROLS - CSIRO SITE (AM C162) URBIS


56. Key requirements of the proposed DPO include:

A permit for subdivision or development of the land must include a requirement for a s173 agreement to be entered into between the owner of the land and Bayside City Council. This agreement must provide for:

‒ The transfer of 3ha of land for conservation purposes and 1ha of land for passive open space purposes to Bayside Council prior to the issue of a Statement of Compliance for the residential subdivision of the land. This transfer will be at no cost to Council and upon transfer of the land Bayside City Council will facilitate the rezoning of the conservation reserve to a Public Conservation and Resource Zone, and the rezoning of the passive open space to Public Park and Recreation Zone.

A Certificate or Statement of Environmental Audit being issued for the land prior to the commencement of any sensitive use (including residential uses);

A plan showing building envelopes which identify height and setbacks between buildings, conceptual general layout with a graduation of heights across the site from two to three storeys where the site abuts existing residential development up to 6 storeys at the northern end of the site.

A comprehensive traffic analysis and transport, traffic and management plan;

An assessment of the development against the Sustainable Design Scorecard and/or Sustainable Tools for Environmental Performance (STEPS);

A requirement for the Development Plan to be displayed to the community for 21 days prior to its approval.

57. The Development Plan should also respond to the following objectives:


To make a significant contribution to local housing needs, taking advantage of the site’s strong proximity to public transport networks and a wide range of urban infrastructure, retail amenity and community facilities found within the nearby Highett, Southland and Cheltenham activity centres.

To support a range of dwelling types and densities across the site.

To achieve a graduation of building heights across the site that respects the character and amenity of surrounding residential areas, that includes 2-3 storey built form where the site has an interface to existing low scale residential development, up to 4 storeys in the central area of the site and up to 6 storeys at the northern end of the site. Higher built form may only be considered where the achievement of a high quality design response, including acceptable visual amenity and shadow impacts can be demonstrated.

To demonstrate a high quality of architectural and landscape response that implements innovative ESD features.

To encourage the retention of significant native vegetation in accordance with the principles set out under Clause 52.17 (Native Vegetation) and in particular the establishment of a conservation reserve in the southern portion of the site to protect significant tree groupings in this part of the site.

To provide a high quality open space network that enhances the amenity of the precinct for residents, businesses and visitors. This includes:

‒ Provision of a Conservation reserve in the south of the site that may have some limited passive open space role.

‒ Provision of an open space reserve to support passive and active recreation within the centre of the site that supports an improved pedestrian / open space linkage to the Lyle Anderson Reserve to the east.

To establish a vehicle, cycle and pedestrian network within the site that connects to and integrates with the local road network.

URBIS FINAL EVIDENCE REPORT - HIGHETT STRUCTURE PLAN PROPOSED PLANNING CONTROLS - CSIRO SITE (AM C162) 11

To establish an integrated movement network that minimises adverse traffic impacts on the surrounding local road network.

To encourage the retention of any items or sites of cultural significance on the site.

58. A permit may be granted for the subdivision and/or development of the land before a development plan has been prepared to the satisfaction of the responsible authority provided the responsible authority is satisfied that the works are necessary to the ongoing management and preparation of the land for future redevelopment and will not prejudice the future use or development of the land in an integrated manner.

TIMING OF Amendment C162 59. Due to the land’s current Commonwealth ownership status, the Minister for Planning cannot

approve the proposed amendment until the land has been sold and the settlement period has concluded (ie the land is no longer under Commonwealth ownership).

60. Accordingly, a request has been made for the Minister to approve and gazette the proposed amendment via a Ministerial 20(4) process upon the sale of the land (day following the sale being transacted).

61. This process, as well as confirmation that the future planning controls for the site will be based on the CSIRO proposed planning controls, was confirmed by a letter from the Director of Planning Services and Impact Assessment dated 31 January 2019 (see Appendix C).

62. Settlement of the land is anticipated in the coming months and accordingly gazettal of Amendment C162 is imminent.

12 BACKGROUND TO HIGHETT STRUCTURE PLAN URBIS


Background to Highett Structure Plan 63. The CSIRO site has long been recognised in Council’s local planning policy framework as a site of

strategic importance to the Highett activity centre, dating back to the 2004 Highett Structure Plan, which was jointly prepared by the Cities of Bayside and Kingston.

64. The draft Highett Structure Plan (2004) contemplated two potential land use/development scenarios for the future redevelopment of the CSIRO site, comprising a medium density scenario and an integrated education/residential option. It described specific built form, height and open space outcomes for the site, including a requirement for 18% of the site to be set aside as public open space.

65. I am advised that CSIRO were not engaged in the preparation of the Structure Plan, nor were they involved in discussions with Council regarding the land use scenarios and open space expectations outlined in the plan at the time of its preparation.

66. The Structure Plan was adopted by Council on 27 June 2005 and implemented through Bayside Planning Scheme Amendment C46, which included MSS changes, the introduction of a new local planning policy at clause 22.08, and the rezoning of land within the activity centre.

67. The local planning policy at Clause 22.08 that was introduced as part of the amendment provided the following policy direction for the CSIRO land:

CSIRO Site

It is policy to:

Support the redevelopment of the CSIRO site (if and when it is vacated by the CSIRO) for medium density residential use, with the opportunity for compatible education campus related activities.

Create a conservation reserve to protect the Highett Grassy Woodland.

Retain existing significant vegetation on the site and other vegetation that makes a positive contribution to the character of the area and to the internal amenity of the site.

Provide a significant area of open space on the site and create an open space connection to the Lyle Anderson Reserve.

Establish an open road and pedestrian network within the site that connects to and integrates with the local street system both to the east and to the west of the site.

Achieve a site layout that responds to the existing layout of the site in terms of internal road pattern, configuration of buildings, pattern of significant vegetation and open spaces.

Achieve a built form that respects the character and amenity of surrounding one and two storey residential areas.

Consider the potential to reuse existing buildings.

Apply the principles of water sensitive urban design in the future redevelopment of the site.

Consider the potential to reconfigure Graham Road through the CSIRO site.

68. In 2006 Council adopted a final version of the Structure Plan, responding to changes made through the Panel process.

URBIS FINAL EVIDENCE REPORT - HIGHETT STRUCTURE PLAN HIGHETT STRUCTURE PLAN 2018 13

HIGHETT STRUCTURE PLAN 2018 69. In early 2018, Bayside City Council undertook a review and update to the 2006 Highett Structure

Plan.

70. The Structure Plan encompasses the land bounded by Dart Street in the north, the Frankston railway line in the east, Bay Road in the south and Middleton Street and Worthing Road in the in the west, excluding the commercial land directly abutting Bay Road.

71. The revised Highett Structure Plan (2018) specifies objectives and strategies for the CSIRO site and specific direction for future built form on the site. Many of these are not consistent with the DPO provisions for the site proposed by Amendment C162, and introduce more prescriptive requirements that seek to lock in various built form and landscaping outcomes across the site.

72. CSIRO was not party to the review of the Structure Plan and was not made aware that it was under preparation until after it was adopted by Council.

73. The following section provides a summary of the Structure Plan as it applies to the CSIRO site, only.

74. The Structure Plan specifies land uses, including the location of open space for recreation and conservation purposes on the CSIRO site, as per Figure 2, below.

Figure 2 - Highett Structure Plan Land Use Plan (Bayside City Council, September 2018)

75. Further, objectives and strategies are set out specifically for the CSIRO site, including:

Objective 03. Support the redevelopment of the CSIRO site for medium density residential use and a new public open space and conservation area for the community.

14 HIGHETT STRUCTURE PLAN 2018 URBIS


Strategies:

Advocate for Council’s adopted package of Planning Provisions for the CSIRO site to facilitate redevelopment as follows:

‒ Apply the Public Conservation and Resource Zone (PCRZ) to 3 hectares of land, the area of conservation value generally to the south of the site around the Highett Grassy Woodland. The exact boundary of the area should be determined following the sale of the CSIRO land. This zoning will protect the land for conservation purposes;

‒ Apply the Public Park and Recreation Zone (PPRZ) to the 1ha of open space for active and passive recreation. This should be provided within the centre of the site to link with the Lyle Anderson Reserve to the east of the site and broader Highett to the west;

‒ Apply the Residential Growth Zone to the remainder of the site;

‒ Apply a Development Plan Overlay (DPO) which includes design guidelines for development form and height, including prescriptive recommendations to manage the adjoining residential interface. It allows for buildings of up to 5 storeys in the northern portion of the site, up to four storeys towards the centre of the site with development immediately adjacent to the residential areas to the east and west to be 2 storeys; and

‒ Apply a Vegetation Protection Overlay (VPO) to the entire site. There are a large number of substantive, mostly native trees that provide an important landscape feature of the site. As these trees have been planted by the CSIRO they are not remnant indigenous vegetation and are not protected by the Native Vegetation Framework. The VPO will require a planning permit to remove any tree over 10 metres high where it also has a trunk diameter of over 300mm. This overlay will enable Council to consider landscape and arboriculture value of existing large trees through a planning permit process.

Undertake a Placemaking study/Urban Design Framework to ensure the CSIRO site is integrated with the existing Highett Road shopping strip, the train station and the Livingston Street Community Hub. As part of this, investigate ways to make Highett Road more pedestrian and cycling friendly and to improve the public transport experience for users.

76. The Structure Plan sets out specific built form requirements, including in relation to the CSIRO site, as per Figure 3, below.

URBIS FINAL EVIDENCE REPORT - HIGHETT STRUCTURE PLAN HIGHETT STRUCTURE PLAN 2018 15

Figure 3 - Highett Structure Plan Built Form Plan (Bayside City Council, September 2018)

77. Objectives and strategies relevant to the CSIRO site include:

Objective 05: To cultivate distinct precincts that reflect their unique contexts.

Strategies:

Implement specific built form requirements for each precinct:

Precinct 4: CSIRO development site

Typology: Apartments, townhouses, detached houses

Total height: Ranging from buildings of up to 5 storeys in the northern portion of the site, up to four storeys towards the centre of the site with development immediately adjacent to the residential areas to the east and west to be 2 storeys

Front setback to Graham Road: 3 metres to Thistle Grove, 6 metre minimum landscaped setback along remainder of Graham Road

Side and rear setbacks: Transitional setbacks to existing properties bordering the site.

For sites abutting the Highett Grassy Woodland:

Provide a 3 metre wide buffer zone along the perimeter of the Highett Grassy Woodland by requiring a 3 metre setback from the property boundary adjoining the Highett Grassy Woodland plus 0.6 metres for every metre of height over 3.6 metres up to 6.9 metres, plus 2 metres of height for every metre of height over 6.9 metres. Shading of the Highett Grassy Woodland should be minimised.

78. The Structure Plan identifies alignments for pedestrian, cycle and vehicle connections through the CSIRO site, as outlined in the following Access and Movement plan:

16 HIGHETT STRUCTURE PLAN 2018 URBIS


Figure 4 - Highett Structure Plan Access and Movement Plan (Bayside City Council, September 2018)

79. The above plan is generally reflected in the following strategy, under Objective 11:

Ensure any redevelopment of the CSIRO site provides public shared pedestrian and bicycle paths that connect Highett Road to Bay Road and Graham Road to Middleton Street.

URBIS FINAL EVIDENCE REPORT - HIGHETT STRUCTURE PLAN PROPOSED AMENDMENT C160 17

PROPOSED AMENDMENT C160 80. In September 2018, Council resolved to adopt the revised Highett Structure Plan and commence a

Planning Scheme Amendment (C160) to implement the plan. The Amendment proposes to include the Structure Plan as a reference document in the scheme. The Objectives and Strategies of the Structure Plan are also proposed to be implemented through the introduction of new planning controls and amendments to local policies in the Bayside Planning Scheme as part of this Amendment.

81. Proposed amendments to local policy relevant to the CSIRO are set out below.

82. In Clause 21.04 Environmental Landscape Values an obligation (at Objective 3) has been added to apply a 3 metre wide buffer around the perimeter of the Highett Grassy Woodland on adjoining properties. This strategy is repeated at Clause 21.11-6, Objective 17.

83. In Clause 21.11-6 Highett, the Vision (specific to the CSIRO site) has been amended to delete:

There are limited large scale vacant sites available for residential development in Bayside. The largest remaining site is the CSIRO land, currently in operation and located within the Highett Activity Centre. Should this land become available, it will present a significant development opportunity for Bayside.

And replaced with:

To ensure that development of the CSIRO site is sympathetic to neighbouring properties and provides open space for active and passive recreation and the conservation of biodiversity.

84. Further, Objective 3 of Clause 21.11-6 is inserted as follows:

Objective 3

To support the redevelopment of the CSIRO site for medium density residential use and a new public open space and conservation area for the community.

With the following Strategies:

Advocate for Council’s adopted package of Planning Provisions for the CSIRO site to facilitate redevelopment as follows:

‒ Apply the Public Conservation and Resource Zone (PCRZ) to 3 hectares of land, the area of conservation value generally to the south of the site around the Highett Grassy Woodland. The exact boundary of the area should be determined following the sale of the CSIRO land. This zoning will protect the land for conservation purposes;

‒ Apply the Public Park and Recreation Zone (PPRZ) to the 1ha of open space for active and passive recreation. This should be provided within the centre of the site to link with the Lyle Anderson Reserve to the east of the site and broader Highett to the west;

‒ Apply the Residential Growth Zone to the remainder of the site;

‒ Apply a Development Plan Overlay (DPO) which includes design guidelines for development form and height, including prescriptive recommendations to manage the adjoining residential interface. It allows for buildings of up to 5 storeys in the northern portion of the site, up to four storeys towards the centre of the site with development immediately adjacent to the residential areas to the east and west to be 2 storeys; and

‒ Apply a Vegetation Protection Overlay (VPO) to the entire site. There are a large number of substantive, mostly native trees that provide an important landscape feature of the site. As these trees have been planted by the CSIRO they are not remnant indigenous vegetation and are not protected by the Native Vegetation Framework.

85. Other objectives and strategies in Clause 21.11-6 have also been amended with requirements that impact the CSIRO site, including:

Under Objective 10, the following strategy is inserted:

18 PROPOSED AMENDMENT C160 URBIS


Ensure any redevelopment of the CSIRO site provides public shared pedestrian and bicycle paths that connect Highett Road to Bay Road and Graham Road to Middleton Street.

86. Finally Clause 21.11-6 includes a new requirement for further strategic work as follows:

Undertake a Place making study/Urban Design Framework to ensure that the housing, open space and community facilities provided on the CSIRO site are well connected and integrated with the existing Highett Road shopping strip, the train station and the Livingston Street Community Hub. As part of this, investigate ways to make Highett Road more pedestrian and cycling friendly and to improve the public transport experience for users.

DELWP AUTHORISATION 87. I note that DELWP’s authorisation of the Amendment (dated 28 August 2019) was conditional on a

number of modifications to the Amendment, some of which were not undertaken prior to public exhibition of the Amendment. DELWP’s conditions included requirements to:

Amend Clause 21.11 by removing strategies relating to council advocacy for the CSIRO site as these provisions do not meet the entry rules of A Practitioner’s Guide to Victorian Planning Schemes; and

… remove the application of any structure plan policy for the CSIRO site.

Refer to Appendix D.

I understand that Council intends to delete Objective 3 from Clause 21.11-6 and the Strategies relating to advocating for Council’s package of planning provisions for the site. However, it is unclear whether Council intends to comply with the second point above, given the other provisions relating to the CSIRO site throughout the amendment.

88. I do note that the brochure sent to residents by Bayside City Council (dated 9 October 2019, and as at 26 February 2020 is still available on Council’s website) expressly stated:

The CSIRO site is not included in this amendment as it is Commonwealth Land. The State Government will apply planning controls to the site when it is transferred out of public ownership.

Refer to Appendix E.

89. Further, the Structure Plan Area map on this brochure depicted the CSIRO site greyed out, with no planning controls identified in the document (refer to

90. Figure 5). However, it is unclear whether Council intends to amend the policy provisions and Structure Plan to remove all policy direction on the CSIRO site, and in my opinion this should have been clarified prior to exhibition of the Amendment.

URBIS FINAL EVIDENCE REPORT - HIGHETT STRUCTURE PLAN PROPOSED AMENDMENT C160 19

Figure 5 - Highett Structure Plan Area, C160 Public Exhibition Brochure (Bayside City Council, 9 October 2019)

20 POLICY CONTEXT URBIS


POLICY CONTEXT PLAN MELBOURNE 2017-2050 91. It is projected that Melbourne’s current population of around 6.5 million will increase to 11.2 million

by 2056 (Victoria in Future, 2019).

92. For population growth to be sustainable, housing needs to be provided in locations that capitalise on existing infrastructure, jobs, services and public transport.

93. Plan Melbourne broadly seeks to increase density and activity in established areas which are well serviced by public transport, employment opportunities and existing infrastructure. A network of Metropolitan, Major and Neighbourhood Activity Centres is central to achieving consolidation and housing choice outcomes. Highett is defined as a Neighbourhood Centre by both State and Local Planning Policy.

94. The planning controls drafted by Urbis for CSIRO and agreed with Council and DELWP were initially prepared prior to Plan Melbourne 2014 and the Plan Melbourne ‘refresh’ 2017-2050. As a result, the policy support for increasing density on the CSIRO site which benefits from close access to public transport and services has only increased with the introduction of Plan Melbourne.

BAYSIDE HOUSING STRATEGY 2019 95. The Bayside Housing Strategy 2019 represents a review of Council’s original 2012 Housing

Strategy.

96. The Strategy recognises:

the overarching spatial approach outlined in the Housing Strategy, 2012 and in this update to the Housing Strategy, is delivering increased housing in Bayside in locations that are well served by public transport, shops and services. This is the most sustainable approach to delivering increased housing density and is in line with State Government planning policy.

97. The Housing Strategy recommends that Bayside’s Major and Neighbourhood Activity Centres with existing infrastructure and transport connections should be the focus for future medium and high density residential development with minimal growth directed to low scale less accessible residential neighbourhoods.

98. The Strategy recognises that this approach does:

lead to a concentration of development in a number of defined locations which results in a greater impact on the existing character of that area. Yet it also enables the protection of neighbourhood character throughout the remainder of the municipality, in areas that are less well located in relation to public transport, shops and community services.

99. With regard to additional housing capacity in the pipeline, the Housing Strategy recognises the CSIRO site as a ‘strategic redevelopment site’ and notes that is it likely to be sold and redeveloped in the near future.

100. It is noteworthy that the Strategy defines the following terms:

High Density – development that is four or more storeys;

Medium Density – development that is three storeys;

Low Density – development that is no more than 2 storeys.

URBIS FINAL EVIDENCE REPORT - HIGHETT STRUCTURE PLAN PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS 21

PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS 101. I have been instructed to consider the Highett Structure Plan having particular regard to the CSIRO

site, and to make any recommendations for changes to the Highett Structure Plan that might be necessary in light of the potential future development outcomes at the CSIRO site.

102. In my opinion, there are four critical areas where the proposed Amendment C160 controls pose direct conflict with the provisions of Amendment C162 for the CSIRO site, being:

Built form

Landscaping

Circulation

Requirement for Place-making study/UDF

103. I am particularly concerned that the policy directions around built form, landscaping and circulation contained in Amendment C160 are more prescriptive and onerous than the provisions set out in C162. Indeed in some circumstances, the provisions are in direct conflict. This is problematic on several fronts:

a) It would result in clear inconsistencies between what the policy framework and overlay provisions of the scheme required for the CSIRO site, creating uncertainty for decision makers;

b) The Structure Plan and amendments to local policy effectively pre-empt the outcomes of the future Development Plan process, by imposing prescriptive controls that ultimately constrain the nature of masterplan response that is possible under the development plan process.

104. On the basis of my assessment below, I believe it is imperative that further changes are made to the Structure Plan and local policy provisions insofar as they affect the CSIRO land, to bring Amendment C160 into strategic alignment with the provisions for the CSIRO land that are awaiting gazettal under Amendment C162.

BUILT FORM 105. In terms of built form, the Structure Plan and local policy provisions contradict Amendment C160 in

the following ways:

Imposition of mandatory built form provisions across the site, where the proposed DPO schedule is predicated on discretionary height limitations, with the opportunity for increased height where specific performance/design quality outcomes can be demonstrated;

Stipulation of a maximum 5 storey height limit in the northern portion of the site, where the DPO schedule nominates a built form response in the order of 6 storeys, with potential to increase this height in specific circumstances;

Stipulation of a maximum 2 storey height limit along the eastern and western boundaries of the site, where the DPO nominates a 2-3 storey response.

Prescribed locations where each height range is permitted across the site on the plan at Figure 5 – Built Form Plan of the Structure Plan (refer to Figure 3 of this report), which is in contrast to the DPO which provides flexibility for built form height transitions to be resolved through the Development Plan process. The inclusion of the site within a Residential Growth Zone should also support some flexibility for the built form strategy to evolve through more sophisticated contextual analysis in the development plan process.

106. The inconsistencies highlighted above must be rectified before Amendment C160 is further progressed, as they will present an immediate conflict between the policy and overlay provisions of the scheme once C162 is approved in the coming months. In my opinion, the built form direction proposed by Council is not supported by a satisfactory strategic basis, given that:

The maximum heights proposed have not (to my knowledge) been the product of any rigorous assessment of the contextual setting and built form capacity of the site;

22 PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS URBIS


The 2 storey mandatory maximum height control is incongruous in a Residential Growth Zone;

The location and boundaries of the proposed built form precincts have not (to my knowledge) been informed by any urban design analysis. More particularly, the delineation of specific locations where various height limits apply pre-empts the forthcoming site analysis and design process to be undertaken as part of the Development Plan preparation.

107. This is consistent with DELWP’s conditional authorisation for the amendment, which required the amendment of “Map 1 to Clause 21.11-6 by removing any designation of built form requirements such as heights from the plan and remove any structure plan policy for the CSIRO site” (refer to Appendix D).

108. Notwithstanding that the Structure Plan is only proposed to be referenced in the planning scheme, where lines are indicated on a plan it is my experience that they become the default position of Council and where relevant, the Tribunal.

109. Finally, given the definitions of ‘medium density’ (three storeys) and ‘high density’ (four or more storeys) outlined in Council’s Housing Strategy, it should be recognised in the Amendment that the CSIRO site is to be developed for medium and high density development.

LANDSCAPING AND OPEN SPACE 110. CSIRO has negotiated with Council to transfer a total of 4 hectares of the site to Council at no cost

for public open space and conservation purposes, comprising 3 hectares for conservation purposes in the southern portion of the site and a further 1 hectare on the balance of the site for passive recreation purposes. This is reflected in the DPO Schedule requirement for a Section 173 Agreement to this effect to be entered into prior to a permit for subdivision or development of the land.

111. This equates to approximately 43% of the total site area – more than double the current 2004 Structure Plan requirement for 18% of the site to be provided as public open space.

112. The C160 controls introduce a further requirement for development to be set back from the Grassy Woodlands conservation area, as follows:

Provide a 3 metre wide buffer zone along the perimeter of the Highett Grassy Woodland by requiring a 3 metre setback from the property boundary adjoining the Highett Grassy Woodland plus 0.6 metres for every metre of height over 3.6 metres up to 6.9 metres, plus 2 metres of height for every metre of height over 6.9 metres. Shading of the Highett Grassy Woodland should be minimised.

113. Given the substantial proportion of the site agreed by CSIRO to be gifted to Council, in my opinion it is unreasonable for a further buffer area from the extent of Grassy Woodland area to be imposed by the current amendment.

114. The Structure Plan also designates a specific location (through delineation on the Structure Plan maps and the plan included in Clause 21.11-6) for the 1 hectare open space area. While CSIRO has committed to providing 1 hectare of open space in addition to the 3 hectare conservation area, the location and orientation of this space is yet to be determined. The Development Plan provides the appropriate process for site layout and design to be determined, including the location and arrangement of the open space area and as such it is not appropriate to stipulate the area of open space in the structure plan maps.

115. The amendments to local policy also propose that a Vegetation Protection Overlay (VPO) is applied to the entire site. This is considered to be an overly onerous requirement, given the substantial tree protection provided through 4.0 hectares of the site for conservation and open space purposes.

116. Further, with the exception of the area to be gifted to Council at the south of the site, the remainder of the site has largely been cleared of vegetation as part of the decontamination and remediation process (refer to Figure 6) and as such the application of a VPO to the site in my view is unnecessary.

URBIS FINAL EVIDENCE REPORT - HIGHETT STRUCTURE PLAN PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS 23

117. The Structure Plan also includes a requirement for a minimum 6 metre landscaped setback to Graham Road. This requirement is considered to be overly onerous and inconsistent with the RGZ designation. Further, such requirements pre-empt the Development Plan.

Figure 6 - Aerial photograph (source: Nearmap, dated 28 January 2020)

CIRCULATION 118. While the DPO Schedule includes a requirement for a ‘comprehensive transport analysis’ to be

prepared as part of the Development Plan process, the Structure Plan effectively prescribes the location for vehicle access points and shared path locations through their depiction on the Access and Movement Plan (refer to Figure 4, above).

119. The identification of alignments and access locations in the Structure Plan is premature, given the further detailed technical work to be undertaken as part of the Development Plan preparation.

Place-Making Study/Urban Design Framework 120. The proposed amendments to local policy stipulate the preparation of a Place Making Study /

Urban Design Framework as follows:

Undertake a Placemaking study/Urban Design Framework to ensure the CSIRO site is integrated with the existing Highett Road shopping strip, the train station and the Livingston Street Community Hub. As part of this, investigate ways to make Highett Road more pedestrian and cycling friendly and to improve the public transport experience for users.

121. This statement is included in a Strategy under Objective 3 of the Structure Plan and replicated under ‘further strategic work’ in Clause 21.11-6.

122. The intended scope of the proposed ‘Placemaking study/Urban Design Framework’ in unclear and has the potential to duplicate the Development Plan process. The preparation of the Development Plan is required to include an Urban Context and Site Analysis and Development Concept Plans

24 PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS URBIS


including Character and Built Form and Traffic and Access Plans, as outlined in the proposed Schedule 2 to the DPO. Given that the first objective of Schedule 2 is ‘To redevelop the site in an integrated manner’, the Development Plan will undoubtedly be required to provide for appropriate integration with the surrounding neighbourhood. It is therefore unclear what the purpose of the ‘Placemaking study/Urban Design Framework’ would be.

123. Further it is unclear the expectations regarding responsibility for the preparation of this document.

Appropriate Content for Local Policy 124. The proposed amendments to local policy at Clause 21.11-6 include Object 3, to “Advocate for

Council’s adopted package of Planning Provisions for the CSIRO site to facilitate redevelopment “ and goes on to set out Council’s preferred zone and overlay controls for the site.

125. In its authorisation for the preparation of Amendment C160, DELWP identified that the strategies relating to Council advocacy for the CSIRO site do not meet the entry rules of A Practitioners Guide to Victorian Planning Schemes.

126. DELWP’s authorisation of the amendment was conditional on the removal of these strategies from the Amendment. Further, the authorisation was also conditional on removal of the application of any structure plan policy for the CSIRO site.

127. As such these sections should not have been included in the exhibited version of the Amendment.

Recommended Changes 128. The development controls proposed by Amendment C160 will in my opinion have a substantial

impact on the development potential of the site, through a combination of reduced building heights, increased buffer/landscaping requirements and prescriptive requirements for shared path locations.

129. The reduction in potential residential dwelling yield on the site is inconsistent with state and local strategic planning, including Plan Melbourne 2017-2050 and the Bayside Housing Strategy 2019, which seeks to locate increased density and diversity of housing in proximity to transport infrastructure and activity centres. The CSIRO site is ideally located to deliver on these strategic policy intentions.

130. If C160 was to be adopted as currently proposed, this would create inconsistencies with the future planning framework for the CSIRO site once the C162 controls are adopted by the Minister at settlement, as described above.

131. Based on my assessment above, I make the following recommended changes to the Structure Plan and local policy framework proposed by Amendment C160:

‘Grey-out’ the CSIRO site on all Structure Plan maps.

Specific references to development standards (such as building heights and setbacks) for the site proposed in local policy amendments be removed.

Removal of strategies relating to Council advocacy for the CSIRO site in Clause 21.11-6, in accordance with the conditions of DELWP’s authorisation of the Amendment.

Reference to the CSIRO site being suitable for ‘medium density’ residential use in local policy (including Objective 3 at Clause 21.11-6) should be amended to stipulate ‘medium to high density’ residential use, consistent with the definitions in Council’s Housing Strategy 2019.

URBIS FINAL EVIDENCE REPORT - HIGHETT STRUCTURE PLAN CONCLUSION 25

CONCLUSION 132. On the basis of the above, I have reached the following conclusions:

It is not possible for any planning controls to be applied to the CSIRO site by way of the proposed Amendment C160, given that:

‒ The site is currently in Commonwealth ownership and as such no local or state planning controls can be applied to the land.

‒ The planning controls proposed by the Amendment are inconsistent with the proposed planning controls that have been agreed by CSIRO and the state government in consultation with Council, which are to be gazetted by the Minister upon the disposal of the site by the Commonwealth government in the coming months.

‒ Any discrepancies between the planning controls proposed by the current Amendment and those proposed for the CSIRO site would lead to future uncertainty in decision-making.

‒ The application of planning controls to the CSIRO site that differ from the previously agreed controls would be inconsistent with orderly and proper planning.

The CSIRO site should be “greyed-out” in the Highett Structure Plan maps, consistent with the plan distributed by Council during public exhibition in October 2019;

Specific references to development standards and strategies relating to Council advocacy for the CSIRO site proposed in local policy amendments should be removed, in accordance with DELWP’s conditional authorisation of the amendment; and

Reference to the CSIRO site being suitable for ‘medium density’ residential use in local policy (including Objective 3 at Clause 21.11-6) should be amended to stipulate ‘medium to high density’ residential use, consistent with the definitions in Council’s Housing Strategy 2019 and because sites such as this which are capable of doing more heavy lifting in relation to housing supply and diversity of housing supply, with limited or no off site impacts, ought not be artificially constrained in their development capacity by overly conservative structure plan policy.

Revisions to the Structure Plan should be made to remove prescriptive directions for the CSIRO site. The concurrent advancement of Amendments C160 and C162 gives rise to an unusual situation where a large part of the Structure Plan area is the subject of separate controls that are seriously entertained and about to be introduced. It is not the role of the Structure Plan to be prescriptive with respect to the detailed development outcomes on the CSIRO site, and in my opinion it should not include any policy direction that contradicts the proposed planning controls.

Sarah Horsfield Director

26 DISCLAIMER URBIS


DISCLAIMER This report is dated 28 February 2020 and incorporates information and events up to that date only and excludes any information arising, or event occurring, after that date which may affect the validity of Urbis Pty Ltd (Urbis) opinion in this report. Urbis prepared this report on the instructions, and for the benefit only, of Norton Rose Fullbright (Instructing Party) for the purpose of Evidence Report (Purpose) and not for any other purpose or use. To the extent permitted by applicable law, Urbis expressly disclaims all liability, whether direct or indirect, to the Instructing Party which relies or purports to rely on this report for any purpose other than the Purpose, and to any other person which relies or purports to rely on this report for any purpose whatsoever (including the Purpose).

In preparing this report, Urbis was required to make judgements which may be affected by unforeseen future events, the likelihood and effects of which are not capable of precise assessment.

All surveys, forecasts, projections and recommendations contained in or associated with this report are made in good faith and on the basis of information supplied to Urbis at the date of this report, and upon which Urbis relied. Achievement of the projections and budgets set out in this report will depend, among other things, on the actions of others over which Urbis has no control.

In preparing this report, Urbis may rely on or refer to documents in a language other than English, which Urbis may arrange to be translated. Urbis is not responsible for the accuracy or completeness of such translations and disclaims any liability for any statement or opinion made in this report being inaccurate or incomplete arising from such translations.

Whilst Urbis has made all reasonable inquiries it believes necessary in preparing this report, it is not responsible for determining the completeness or accuracy of information provided to it. Urbis (including its officers and personnel) is not liable for any errors or omissions, including in information provided by the Instructing Party or another person or upon which Urbis relies, provided that such errors or omissions are not made by Urbis recklessly or in bad faith.

This report has been prepared with due care and diligence by Urbis and the statements and opinions given by Urbis in this report are given in good faith and in the reasonable belief that they are correct and not misleading, subject to the limitations above.


QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE

APPENDIX A QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE

QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE URBIS


STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE Name and Address Sarah Horsfield Director Urbis Pty Ltd Level 12, 120 Collins Street MELBOURNE VIC 3000

Qualifications Bachelor of Applied Science (Planning) 1995

Masters of Business Administration (Melbourne Business School) 2006

Professional Experience Current Position: Director, Urbis Pty Ltd

2002 – 2018: Senior Planner, Associate Director and Director Urbis Pty Ltd

2000 – 2002: Manager Strategic Planning, City of Kingston

1998 – 2000: Town Planner, Tract Consultants

1995 – 1998: Town Planner, City of Kingston

Area of Expertise I advise on the development of cities, their principal activities and land uses and have extensive

experience in strategic and development planning. I have particular project experience involving major urban development projects across a range of localities and activities including:

‒ Large residential development in Melbourne’s growth areas;

‒ Policy advice and strategic planning to government;

‒ Major retail and mixed use developments.

Expertise to Prepare this Report Professional qualifications and expertise in town planning both in the public and private sectors.

Instructions which defined the Scope of the Report My instructions required me to undertake a town planning assessment and review the merits of the proposed Planning Scheme Amendment. I have specifically been instructed to consider:

a) The merits of the Highett Structure Plan having particular regard to the CSIRO site; and

b) Whether there are any changes to the Highett Structure Plan and proposed Amendment that are necessary in light of the potential future development outcomes at the CSIRO site.

In so doing, I have relied upon those matters set down below.

Facts, Matters and Assumptions Relied Upon I have relied upon the following in the preparation of this report:

Review of the Bayside Planning Scheme, Highett Structure Plan and other relevant strategic background documents

Proposed Amendment C162 Planning Controls

Correspondence between DELWP and both Bayside City Council and CSIRO


QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE

Amendment advertising collateral

Documents taken into Account Relevant documents are described above.

Identity of Persons undertaking the work Sarah Horsfield assisted by Siân Morgan, Associate Director.

Summary of Opinions A summary of my opinions in relation to this matter is included at paragraph no. 5 of my evidence.

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.

Sarah Horsfield Urbis Pty Ltd

AMENDMENT C162 PLANNING CONTROLS URBIS


APPENDIX B AMENDMENT C162 PLANNING CONTROLS

BAYSIDE PLANNING SCHEME

ZONES – CLAUSE 32.07 - SCHEDULE 3 PAGE 1 OF 2

SCHEDULE 3 TO CLAUSE 32.07 RESIDENTIAL GROWTH ZONE

Shown on the planning scheme map as RGZ3

FORMER CSIRO SITE, HIGHETT

1.0 Design objectives




To achieve a graduation of building heights across the site that respects the character and amenity of surrounding residential areas, that includes 2-3 storey built form where the site has an interface to existing low scale residential development, up to 4 storeys in the central area of the site and up to 6 storeys at the northern end of the site.



To provide a high quality open space network that enhances the amenity of the precinct for residents, businesses and visitors. This includes:-

- Provision of a Conservation reserve in the south of the site that may have some limited passive open space role.

- Provision of an open space reserve to support passive and active recreation within the centre of the site that supports an improved pedestrian / open space linkage to the Lyle Anderson Reserve to the east.




2.0 Requirements of Clause 54 and Clause 55

Standard Requirement

Minimum street setback

A3 and B6 None Specified

Site coverage A5 and B8 None Specified

Permeability A6 and B9 None Specified

Landscaping B13 None Specified

Side and rear setbacks


Walls on boundaries


--/--/20-- C--

--/--/20-- C162

--/--/20-- C162


ZONES – CLAUSE 32.07 - SCHEDULE 3 PAGE 2 OF 2

Standard Requirement

Private open space

A17 None Specified

B28 None Specified

Front fence height


3.0 Maximum building height requirement for a dwelling or residential building

None Specified

4.0 Application requirements

None Specified

5.0 Decision guidelines

The following decision guidelines apply to an application for a permit under Clause 32.07, in addition to those specified in Clause 32.07 and elsewhere in the scheme which must be considered, as appropriate, by the responsible authority: Whether the proposal meets the objectives of this Schedule. Whether the built form and land use response is consistent with the requirements of

Schedule 2 to the Development Plan Overlay within the Bayside Planning Scheme.

--/--/20-- C--

--/--/20-- C--

--/--/20-- C--


OVERLAYS – CLAUSE 43.04 – SCHEDULE 2 PAGE 1 OF 1

SCHEDULE 2 TO CLAUSE 43.04 DEVELOPMENT PLAN OVERLAY

Shown on the planning scheme map as DPO2.

FORMER CSIRO SITE, HIGHETT

1.0 Objectives




To achieve a graduation of building heights across the site that respects the character and amenity of surrounding residential areas, that includes 2-3 storey built form where the site has an interface to existing low scale residential development, up to 4 storeys in the central area of the site and up to 6 storeys at the northern end of the site.



To provide a high quality open space network that enhances the amenity of the precinct for residents, businesses and visitors. This includes:-

- Provision of a Conservation reserve in the south of the site that may have some limited passive open space role.

- Provision of an open space reserve to support passive and active recreation within the centre of the site that supports an improved pedestrian / open space linkage to the Lyle Anderson Reserve to the east.




2.0 Requirement before a permit is granted

A permit may be granted for the subdivision and/or development of the land before a development plan has been prepared to the satisfaction of the responsible authority provided the responsible authority is satisfied that the works are necessary to the ongoing management and preparation of the land for future redevelopment, and will not prejudice the future use or development of the land in an integrated manner.

3.0 Conditions and requirements for permits

Before a sensitive use (residential use, child care centre, pre-school centre or primary school) commences or before the construction or carrying out of buildings and works in association with a sensitive use commences, either: − A certificate of environmental audit must be issued for the land in accordance with

Part IXD of the Environment Protection Act 1970, or

--/--/20— C--

--/--/20— C--

--/--/20— C--

--/--/20— C--



− An environmental auditor appointed under the Environment Protection Act 1970 must make a statement in accordance with Part IXD of that Act that the environmental conditions of the land are suitable for the sensitive use.

A permit for subdivision or development of the land (excluding site preparation works) must include a requirement for a Section 173 Agreement to be entered into between the owner of the land, the Bayside City Council and CSIRO. The Agreement must provide for the following:- Prior to the issue of a Statement of Compliance for the residential subdivision of the land, the transfer of a total of 4.0ha of the land to Bayside City Council for public open space and conservation purposes. This must include:- − 3.0 ha of land for conservation purposes in the southern portion of the site; − 1.0 ha of land for passive open space purposes, distributed across the balance of the

site, in a manner that provides for equitable local access and good urban design outcomes.

− The land must be transferred at no cost to Council. − Upon transfer of the land, Bayside City Council will facilitate the rezoning of the

conservation reserve to a Public Conservation and Resource Zone, and the rezoning of the passive open space to a Public Park and Recreation Zone, to ensure the permanent use of these areas for public open space and conservation purposes.

4.0 Requirements for development plan

The development plan must include the following requirements:

Urban Context and Site Analysis

To include:

A response to the site’s regional and strategic context.

Existing urban character analysis including landscape features, topography and significant vegetation.

Details on how an integrated development will be achieved that improves and complements the desired urban character for the site and surrounding land uses.

Vehicle and pedestrian linkages to existing networks, where possible.

A Development Concept Plan:

To include:

Character and Built Form

The development plan must show or make provision for:

Building envelopes that identify heights, setbacks and minimum offsets between buildings to ensure internal amenity.

Conceptual general layout and height of proposed buildings showing the graduation of building heights across the site, from two to three storeys where development abuts existing residential development and storey built form, up to 4 storeys in the central area of the site and up to 6 storeys at the northern end of the site. Higher built form may only be considered where the achievement of a high quality design response, including acceptable visual amenity and shadow impacts can be demonstrated.

An explanation of how the development will interface with adjoining commercial and residential development.

A range of dwelling types to cater for a variety of housing needs.

A high quality of internal amenity for future residents.

Open Space, Landscape, and Significant Vegetation


--/--/20— C--



A maximum of 4.0 hectares of land for conservation and open space purposes, which is to include:-. − 3.0 ha of land for conservation purposes in the southern portion of the site; − 1.0 ha of land for passive open space purposes, distributed across the balance of the

site, in a manner that provides for equitable local access and good urban design outcomes.

A net gain assessment for any native vegetation proposed to be removed, in accordance with the principles set out under Victoria’s Native Vegetation Management – a Framework for Action (Department of Natural Resources and Environment, 2002).

The incorporation of significant native vegetation into the design of the development where possible.

The incorporation of any sites of cultural significance into the design of the development.

A Landscape Concept Plan and Tree Management Plan for the site that provides:-

− An assessment of existing vegetation on the land by a suitably qualified arborist. − Opportunities to retain mature trees with adequate setbacks to development. − A planting theme which complements neighbourhood character, surrounding street

trees and demonstrates water sensitive design objectives. − Delineation of which trees are to be removed and which trees are to be retained.

Safety for users through passive surveillance and site activation. Traffic and Access

A comprehensive transport analysis which identifies:

Expected traffic volumes associated with the proposed use and development of the site;

A transport, traffic and access management plan which includes measures to address the transport, traffic, pedestrian and bicycle needs of the development, in particular an indicative hierarchy proposed for the site that:

− Complements the form and structure of the surrounding network;

− Investigates the potential for an east-west vehicle connection that links into the surrounding road network; and

− Provides for functional, safe and efficient pedestrian and cyclist routes to, from and within the site.

The means proposed to address the impacts of traffic generated by the development on the surrounding road network including any required upgrades or modifications.

Drainage

A civil infrastructure and drainage report that includes:-

Assessment of the capacity of infrastructure to service the development in regard to the treatment and retardation of stormwater;

Inclusion of Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD) principles.

Environmentally Sustainable Development


An assessment of the development against the Sustainable Design Scorecard and/or Sustainable Tools for Environmental Performance (STEPS). The development must achieve compliance with the Sustainable Design Scorecard as expressed within the Sustainable Design Scorecard Tool or meet the STEPS targets (if for residential development). If a designer or developer wishes to go beyond compliance with the Sustainable Design Scorecard/STEPS, alternative industry methodologies, such as GreenStar for office buildings, would be considered by Council in lieu of the Sustainable Design Scorecard/STEPS.



How the orientation and layout of the development makes appropriate use of daylight and solar energy.

Water sensitive urban design solutions for managing storm water discharge throughout the site including public areas and roads and consider the potential for diverting storm water for reuse off-site.

Incorporation of rain water tanks into the design to capture and store rain water for use in private gardens within the development and public open space.

Provision of energy efficient public lighting.

The development plan for any part of the development area or for any stage of development may be amended from time to time to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

5.0 Procedure for approving or amending the development plan

A development plan may only be approved or amended after the following has occurred: Public notice of the new or amended development plan that satisfies the requirements of

this schedule has been given for a minimum of 21 days. The public notice must: − describe the land affected, where the development plan may be inspected and by when

and to whom submissions may be made; and

− be given by publishing a notice in a newspaper generally circulating in the area, by serving the notice on any relevant public authorities and servicing authorities and affected owners of land in or adjoining the area of the development plan area.

Following the 21-day notice period, the responsible authority will prepare a report considering all submissions received.

6.0 Decision Guidelines

In assessing a development plan or amendment to a development plan the responsible authority should consider: The purpose of the zone. How the proposal contributes to the objectives of the Clause 21.11-2 in relation to the

Highett Neighbourhood Activity Centre . Clause 56 of the Bayside Planning Scheme. The findings of the site analysis. Interfaces with adjacent uses. The character and appearance of any proposed buildings or works and their impact on the

character and amenity of surrounding uses and development. The operational requirements of surrounding residential and commercial uses. The layout of car parking and accessways. The views of VicRoads. Any submissions received in response to the public notice of the development plan.

--/--/20— C--

--/--/20— C--


LETTER FROM DELWP TO CSIRO 31 JANUARY 2019

APPENDIX C LETTER FROM DELWP TO CSIRO 31 JANUARY 2019

DELWP CONDITIONAL AUTHORISATION LETTER 28 AUGUST 2019


APPENDIX D DELWP CONDITIONAL AUTHORISATION LETTER 28 AUGUST 2019


AMENDMENT ADVERTISING BROCHURE 9 OCTOBER 2019

APPENDIX E AMENDMENT ADVERTISING BROCHURE 9 OCTOBER 2019

Bayside City Council 76 Royal Avenue Sandringham VIC 3191 Tel (03) 9599 4444 [email protected] www.bayside.vic.gov.au

1505

Printed on 100% recycled paper

Precinct 1A – Commercial CoreThe vision: the commercial core of the centre, with retail, offices, services and residential above ground floor.

Existing Proposed

Planning Zone

GRZ1 and C1Z C1Z

Overlay DDO4 DDO4 (1A)

Building Height

2–4 storeys (depending on the site)

4 storeys.

The 4th storey must be recessed back from the building facade by 5m.

Street Setback

9m for 481 Highett Rd

None specified for rest of precinct

None specified.

Buildings can be built up to the property boundary.

Site Coverage

50% for 481 Highett Rd

None specified for rest of precinct - buildings can cover the whole site.

None specified. Buildings can cover the whole site.

Landscaping None specified Guidelines to encourage green walls and screen planting

Precinct 1B – New Commercial CoreThe vision: an extension of Highett shopping strip to allow for additional retail and commercial floor space.

Existing Proposed

Planning Zone

GRZ5, NRZ3 and C1Z

C1Z

Overlay DDO3, DDO4 and DDO5

DDO4 (1B)

Building Height

2 storeys South of Highett Rd

3 storeys North of Highett Rd

4 storeys for 260-266 Highett Rd

3 storeys

Street Setback

9m

None specified for 260–266 Highett Rd

None specified

Buildings can be built up to the property boundary.

Site Coverage

50–60% None specified.

Buildings can cover the whole site.

Landscaping Guidelines to encourage garden setting

Guidelines to encourage green walls and screen planting

Precinct 2A – Station EnvironsThe vision: an area of increased density for apartments and townhouse developments close to public transport. Buildings will be up to 4 storeys high with the 4th storeys set back so buildings appear to be 3 storeys from the street to match the existing character.

Existing Proposed

Planning Zone

GRZ1 GRZ13

Building Height

3 storeys 4 storeys.

The 4th storey must be recessed back from the building facade by 5m.

Street Setback

9m 3m

Site Coverage

50% 50%

Landscaping None specified 15m3 minimum of deep soil

6m wide canopy tree

Front Fence 1.2m maximum preferred.

1.2m maximum preferred.

Precinct 2B – Station environsThe vision: an area of increased density for apartments and townhouse developments walking distance to the train station and shops. Building will be up to 3 storeys in height with the the 3rd level recessed back so the building appears as 2 storeys from the street.

Existing Proposed

Planning Zone

GRZ1 and GRZ5 GRZ12

Building Height

3 storeys 3 storeys

The 3rd storey must be recessed back from the building facade by 3m.

Street Setback

9m 6m

3m for Train Street

Site Coverage

50% 50%

Landscaping None specified Train St: 15m3 minimum of deep soil

6m wide canopy tree

All Other: 41m3 minimum of deep soil

10m wide canopy tree

Front Fence 1.2m 1.2m

Precinct 4 – CSIRO site

The former CSIRO site will be redeveloped in the future to provide a mix of residential development, a conservation area and public open space for the community. The site is not included in this amendment as it is Commonwealth Land. The State Government will apply planning controls to the site when it is transferred out of public ownership.

Precinct 3 – Residential hinterlandThe vision: a residential core with a mix of townhouses, units and detached houses with space for front gardens and trees. A new walk way will connect Graham Road to the Lyle Anderson Reserve as part of any new development at 36-40 Graham Road.

Existing Proposed Proposed

Planning Zone

GRZ1 GRZ14 GRZ16

Only applies to 36-40 Graham Road

Building Height

3 storeys 3 storeys 4 storeys

Additional height allowed on the condition of an access way being provided to Lyle Anderson Reserve

Street Setback

9m 6m 6m

Site Coverage

50% 50% 50%

Land-

scaping

None specified

41m3 minimum of deep soil


41m3 minimum of deep soil


Tables of Changes

Precinct 5 – CSIRO interfaceThe vision: a low-scale residential area abutting the CSIRO site to allow for seamless transition. With large front gardens and a two storey maximum height to be consistent with the existing character of the neighbourhood.

Existing Proposed

Planning Zone

NRZ3 NRZ1

Building Height

2 storeys 2 storeys

Street Setback

9m 9m

Site Coverage

50% 50%



Amendment C160: Highett Structure Plan

Precinct 6 – Bay RoadThe vision: an area of increased density with apartments on a main road with small, landscaped front yards with trees to soften buildings.

Existing Proposed

Planning Zone

GRZ1 GRZ15

Building Height

3 storeys 3 storeys

Street Setback

9m 6m

Site Coverage

50% 50%



Front Fence 1.2m maximum 1.2m maximum

25% minimum transparency

1505 Highett brochure V6.indd 1-8 25/9/19 1:57 pm

BackgroundHighett is identified in current State and Local Planning Policy as a Neighbourhood Activity Centre - a location for shopping, business, community services and housing.According to State Planning Policy medium density housing development is encouraged in Activity Centres, particularly in areas adjacent to the train station.

To guide how this development should occur, a joint Structure Plan was developed and adopted by Bayside and Kingston City Councils in 2006. As considerable amount of development, land use and demographic change has occurred since then, it is time to update the Structure Plan to ensure it remains relevant for the next 20 years.

The Revised Structure Plan has been developed by reviewing the 2006 Structure Plan, retaining actions from that plan that are still relevant today, and including updated actions and strategies to help achieve the vision for the Highett Activity Centre.

Council is now undertaking the formal process through Amendment C160 to implement the vision, objectives and strategies of the Highett Structure Plan into the Bayside Planning Scheme.

What does Amendment C160 do?Amendment C160 will include the Highett Structure Plan as a reference document within the Bayside Planning Scheme, and will introduce a range of planning tools to implement the objectives, guidelines, requirements and vision of the Highett Structure Plan.

New development within the Highett Activity Centre will need to comply with these requirements once they form part of the Bayside Planning Scheme. Amendment C160 proposes to:

Adjust the boundary of the activity centre to exclude land to the west of Worthing Road and Middleton Street where minimal change is anticipated. The amended boundary will be limited to commercial areas, public open spaces and land that is intended to accommodate increased densities.

Amend Clauses within the Municipal Strategic Statement of the Bayside Planning Scheme, which will set out strategic planning objectives and land-use and development provisions for the Highett Activity Centre.

Introduce new schedules under the General Residential Zone, as well as revising the existing Design and Development Overlay affecting the Centre, which will:

Create 6 precincts within the Activity Centre, each with their own built form, land use, and landscaping objectives as identified in the Highett Structure Plan.

Outline changes to building height, setback and landscaping requirements within the activity centre, including increased requirements for canopy tree planting.

What kind of changes will it bring?The growth and development of the Highett Activity Centre is expected to continue over the next 20 years, as driven by the market. Amendment C160 will allow for the following changes within the centre:

• A moderate increase in the local population and a larger mix of uses and development, which will boost the economic viability of the commercial area.

• Extension to the Highett shopping strip to allow for additional retail and commercial floor space.

• Controls to minimise negative impacts on the Highett Grassy Woodland by development on adjacent properties.

Process The Structure Plan Area

February 2017 – May 2018

September 2018

Late 2019 (Current Stage)

Late 2019

Early 2020

Early 2020

Mid 2020

Background research, community consultation and development of draft Structure Plan.

Final Structure Plan adopted by Council.

Public exhibition of the proposed amendment (C160).

Council to consider submissions made during the public exhibition period.

An independent Planning Panel may be appointed by the Minister for Planning to consider

all submissions followed by recommendations about the Amendment.

Panel recommendations to be considered by Council.

Amendment submitted to Minister for Planning for approval and gazetted into the Bayside

Planning Scheme.

Find out moreAmendment C160 will be available for public comment between 10 October 2019 and 11 November 2019. To view the Amendment documents, visit:

Online bayside.vic.gov.au/C160

Department of Land, Water, Environment and Planning www.delwp.vic.gov.au/public-inspection

In person at the Bayside Corporate Centre, Sandringham, Beaumaris, Brighton or Hampton Libraries.

Making a submissionAny person who may be affected by Amendment C160 can make a submission to Council. Submissions must be made in writing. Submissions must be received by 5pm 11 November 2019.

You can lodge a written submission in one of the following ways:

Online bayside.vic.gov.au/growth-in-Highett

Email send an electronic copy of your submission to [email protected]

Mail send a hardcopy of your submission to Bayside City Council

Attention: Strategic Planning - C160 PO Box 27 Sandringham VIC 3191

In Person lodge a hardcopy of your submission at Bayside Corporate Centre 76 Royal Avenue Sandringham VIC 3191

Please include Amendment C160 in the title of any submission made to Council.

Book a meetingResidents and building owners may book in one-on-one meetings to have any questions relating to the Amendment be answered by planning staff. Appointments can be made in the following ways:

Phone (03) 9599 4785Email [email protected]

Meetings will be held at Bayside Corporate Centre in Sandringham. Alternatively, a strategic planner can discuss any questions you have over the phone.

Further informationJulia Weyhe Senior Strategic Planner Tel 9599 4785

CSIRO site

1505 Highett brochure V6.indd 9-16 25/9/19 1:57 pm

AMENDMENT ADVERTISING BROCHURE 9 OCTOBER 2019


PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C160 - … › sites › default › files › c160...2. I have been...

Documents

Transcript of PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C160 - … › sites › default › files › c160...2. I have been...